At what point did I say/write/infer that? Because I didn't. You're probably referring to: by which I meant that when a law enforcement agency uncovers a plot to assassinate American civilians, that if said law enforcement agency fails to stop that plot from occurring then they are at least partially responsible (although not legally, hence "borderline"). Awaiting your retraction. I'm honestly embarrassed to call you a fellow Democrat, you're not nearly open-minded enough to write so dismissively. Although I may have at one point in my life welcomed your blind partisanship (with selfish intentions), I hope you too one day see the light. Obama=Bush III. Although the FBI is just called the Bureau of Investigation, their obvious purpose is to not just identify threats but also to deal with them (hence the FBI arresting terrorist suspects as opposed to just identifying them). In this case, the FBI declined to do anything (as indicated in the documents) because, as one may infer and the other surveillance documents reveal, the FBI perceived OWS as a threat. The point is that these documents at least partially reveal that the Federal Government is less willing to fight for your rights (or life) as an American Citizen when they think/know/believe that you disagree with them in some way. And, given the fact that this unofficial lifting of the writ of habeas corpus began as an offshoot of the War on Terrorism, it's absurd (and scary) that the United States now treats (as though the NDAA '11 didn't confirm it already) political enemies like terrorists.
U cannot equate 2013 with 1993 anymore. What did a gallon of gas cost? What did ur property taxes cost? How much was a gallon of milk? What was ur health insurance premium? U see bb - I have heard this argument many times and for the reasons I listed above, bringing folks to Clinton era taxes tightens the noose even more on the good ole hard working folks. IMO the economy will meander in the 1-2 percent under the current fiscal plan and without spending cuts we will flat line at some point in 2014.
Bd I respectfully disagree. 400k is not rich in and around the big city regions. I have several friends in and around that bracket here on Long Island and, contrary to popular opinion, live in 3000sqft houses, drive Hondas, and have a hefty tax bill come April. Granted the same folks dont live paycheck to paycheck and can afford to go out to eat and give their kids a lot of goodies like iPods and such. It's this segment of the population that I believe is being unfairly packaged with those hoidy toidy rich folks that earn north of 7 figures. Now that's rich even in the big cities. And btw - I am not selling anyone the class warfare thing. It's reality. I see examples everyday about lesser fortunate folks questioning those with higher salaries, juicy pensions, and cushy positions. Now sometimes that's deserved, hell I even do it from time to time. But I see families and good friends getting ripped apart by this negative tone which is being festered by portions of our govt.
Cap I disagree with the last statement. I do believe there is an agenda in Washington to take from Peter and give to Paul.
If you are seriously suggesting that the FBI contemplated allowing assassinations to occur in order to somehow contain a largely peaceful protest I think the thing I infer from that suggestion is that you are either losing your grip on reality or you have a particular partisan agenda that requires the FBI to be evil or at least amoral in this case. Aside from the fact that assassinations occurring at random would have de-stabilized the federal government, as opposed to shoring it up as you seem to think would have been the case, there is the fact that those assassinations would have de-stabilized the Democratic Party causing consternation on the Left and further eroding President Obama's standing at a time when it was at its lowest ebb. If you are somehow suggesting that the FBI was contemplating looking weak and ineffective while a bunch of looney right-wing conspiracies wreaked havoc on Wall Street and in other financial centers around the country, well for that I have no answer because the proposition is absurd on the face of it and does not lend itself to rational refutation.
They labeled them "domestic terrorists", so how should I expect them to treat them? I'm inferring that we live in, to some extent, an American police state where it's legal to detain Americans indefinitely. Also, clarification: the documents were from before the beginning of the OWS protests. But yes, the FBI was paranoid about the potential effect of OWS; that's why they cooperated with DHS, local police, Wall Street, and the military. It would be treated the same as Operation Fast and Furious, killing Americans with drones, and NDAA 2011.
The FBI does not let domestic terrorists get assassinated by other domestic terrorists if they have the wherewithal to prevent that. The suggestion that the FBI would use a domestic terrorist group as a defacto assassination squad enabled by FBI tolerance is ludicrous. Operation Fast and Furious was not an attempt to use criminals as assassins. It was a bad idea, started during the Bush administration and countenanced by the Obama administration after the fact. It had obvious flaws, in that the guns were not directly tracked, and was just a piss-poor idea that was then badly managed after the fact. Killing Americans with drones had nothing to do with using non-official force in a deniable manner. Quite the opposite in fact, with the chain of command leading to the deployment of the drones in Yemen clearly documented and the authority given directly by the President to carry out the assassination. NDAA 2011, specifically the signing statement about the use of funds for anti-terrorism activities in the United States, is no different than any other defense authorization bill over the years. Every President since Abraham Lincoln has contemplated the use of extra-legal authority in extreme circumstances. Some of them have actually put their name to the prospect in the form of signing statements. I'm opposed to all three of the cases above. None of them however represent the kind of scenario, that of a government agency countenancing violence in America for sinister purposes, that you are suggesting happened here. The government of the United States doesn't skulk about in the shadows when it decides to make a mistake of the magnitude you are describing. The right-wing just loves to see shadowy conspiracies against liberty everywhere there days. In fact, most of the damage that has been done during the Obama administration has been aboveboard and easy to label and criticize. The days of rendition and covert prisons weren't the result of some over-arching liberal conspiracy against America after all now, right?
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm arguing that the FBI doesn't GAF about the welfare of OWS protesters. I am not suggesting that happened. Quote me on it or continue on. Secret Kill List? Virtual surveillance on basically every American citizen? Buehler? Nobody (including myself) is suggesting this please stop with the over-the-top red herrings.
This is a ludicrous position to take. If the FBI really didn't care about the welfare of anybody, including OWS protesters, then this country would be a shooting gallery right now in which large public gatherings were repeatedly sniped at as a method of expressing displeasure with the message involved.
Actually I thought his backpedal sucked. But you know that. Complaints about illegal behavior by the federal government were really what? Failing to stop some group from breaking the law??? That is not the federal government breaking the law. What a fundamental misunderstanding. Not to mention the story did not say that the feds failed to stop that group from doing anything. Ftr I don't recall any stories about snipers killing Occupy leaders. Must have missed those. Aside from Vanderbilt's cred being nothing but a smoking crater here, not much else to cover. Moving along...
It is not necessary to see 1993 as equivalent to 2013 to say that in 1993 the federal government raised taxes and the economy flourished. So, since it happened then, obviously it can happen in some circumstances. Meanwhile it is an article of faith in right wing circles that raising income taxes on the rich prevents economic growth. Now since we know that is not always true, what is it about the circumstances you refer to that will prevent growth now? Ftr I am not predicting that the tax increase will bring us the land of milk and honey. But neither do I think it will have the adverse consequences predicted by right wingers.
How do you finance the ongoing operations of our government if you don't tax people who actually have money? This isn't rocket science. People who make enough money to finance their expenditures and have enough left over to save and invest get to pay for those who can't or won't. You can't finance our government on the backs of people who don't have money.
You can finance our economy on a mixture of taxation, mandatory structured retirement savings (Social Security and Medicare) and a consumption tax that encourages people to live within their means. That type of mix can be both progressive and fair, requiring contributions from everybody at some point. The big lie in Washington right now is that taxing the rich is a big part of fixing the overall problem. The reason it's a big lie is that we're very much over-spending any contribution that the rich alone can make to the revenue stream. Taxing the rich *is* important but only in the context that we either raise a lot more revenue elsewhere or cut spending to the point that the contribution that the top 2% makes is actually meaningful. If we just tax the rich at higher levels and don't fix the problem we're essentially punishing people for making money. The increase in revenues that they provide has to be relevant in terms of a fix or it's just an immoral grab at other people's wealth.
I don't think anyone in Washington is actually pretending that taxing the rich a little more is meaningful in the context of our budget. That was simply an argument about fairness. Nobody on either side of the aisle is actually talking about fixing the budget problems. Once we have established fairness and that doesn't do the trick we can start spreading pain around.
So if the Republicans split the vote between Boehner and Cantor or Ryan then Pelosi would win the Speaker? That doesn't make much sense for the Republicans to split the vote.
She would not be Speaker unless she can win an absolute majority of the votes which will not happen unless Republicans vote for her.
backpedal=retract. You seem to have confused retract with clarify. I'll clarify that for you (or would you consider this a backpedal?) retract - Withdraw (a statement or accusation) as untrue or unjustified. clarify - Make (a statement or situation) less confused and more clearly comprehensible. You didn't reply so you clearly don't have much to say about it. If I were to write a definitive statement that turned out to be correct I'd want to move on from that too as opposed to analyzing or even looking back at it. Well-played, BB. Who said that? Quote it or don't claim it. You clearly didn't read my response. Way to engage in the discussion as opposed to just being a dismissive dick. I commend you. Not to mention the story did not say that the feds failed to stop that group from doing anything. Ftr how is this applicable?
That's not so much a backpedal as a misdirection. Backpedal doesn't have to mean completely retract. Backpedal can also mean, "I made a stupid mistake, looked like an idiot, but don't want to admit it, so now I'm going to back away from what I said and try to convince everyone that I was really saying something completely different that wasn't completely idiotic, but that every reasonable person knows is not an reasonable interpretation of the original post." Just man up and admit it. You misread it and posted based on that misunderstanding. Shit happens.
Please explain, analyze, or show how I backpedaled. I assume it's very simple for you to point-out and/or quote, given your short original post about it. I will, but if you prove it (and I don't mean prove, I just mean use the "Quote" button and comment/explain I'm not trying to hold you to an unreasonable criteria). And, Ftr, I don't expect anyone who misread "Classified FBI Documents Reveal Plans to Identify and Assassinate Key Members of Occupy Wall Street" as "Classified FBI Documents Reveal the FBI's Secret Plans to Identify and Assassinate Key Members of Occupy Wall Street" to man up and admit it (which clearly started this whole debacle).
