impaler: Right-wing strawman: "OWS hate all rich people because they are jealous of all their money."
Right-winger observes high income around DC, a Democratic stronghold.
Conclusion: liberals are hypocrites.

My conclusion? This right-winger has very poor critical thinking skills.

And the Tea Party are all racists. Or are the stereotypes only ok when it is you making them against the other guy?

karnal: ordinarysteve

karnal: ordinarysteve

karnal: ordinarysteve

Nope....it's the insincerity.

Well, I can only speak for myself but as a liberal I don't mind paying higher taxes. The most important thing to me is that my taxes are spent efficiently and honestly as I want to see a tangible return on my investment. I loathe corruption and waste as much as anyone but I don't automatically begrudge paying taxes


Good God....Laughing my arse off here. Come on now....quit it. My sides are killing me. One thing I do agree with is this: You Dims are funnier than hell.

So you don't enjoy having any public services? Do you assume that cops work pro bono, roads build and maintain themselves, kids teach themselves, and brown people's countries invade themselves? I'm rolling my eyes at your condescension towards your civic duty. If you and your ilk don't want to contribute to the nation state that provides you with peace and security than maybe you should move to some third world country where you can live out your Ryndian fantasy.

Why sure, of course, paying taxes to educate other people's children is a civic duty.
While we are at it let my taxes pay for their cell phones, houses, food, medical, schooling and anything else that they need paid to secure their vote.

Viva La Change!

And this is why we don't understand how Republicans somehow claim that they understand "patriotism," when it fact the motto seems to be "fark you, I got mine."

karnal: SisterMaryElephant


karnal:

Good God....Laughing my arse off here. Come on now....quit it. My sides are killing me. One thing I do agree with is this: You Dims are funnier than hell.

Now see here, THIS^^^^^ is a true TEABAGGER. I can picture the fingers in the ears, the "neener, neener, I can't hear you" so it' must be a lie. Their total conviction that the "other side" is pure evil and simply cannot be right. NO MATTER WHAT.



/not sure the OWLs are any better, but I've heard they have a goal other than ensuring a one-term blah in the white house.


Leave it to a true blue Dim to try to say the Tea Party Movement is worse than the violent, lacking of personal hygiene, hateful Occupiers.

I will gladly take stinky, violent, hateful people (reality: mostly harmless) milling around in parks and whatnot over a group that is actively trying to turn our country's clock back to the good ol' days...for rich white men.

ordinarysteve: I'd be cool with this if these same folks weren't so quick to freak out when anyone criticizes the tea party. Occupy may have some retards but to discredit a whole movement because of some bad apples, when tea parties are basically clan rallies and have little to do with actual fiscal conservationism, is a bit silly.

That was beautiful, did you do that on purpose?

karnal: On average, the home education students score above the national norm in all subject areas on standardized achievement tests. Students score, on average, at the 72nd percentile in terms of a combination of their reading, language, and math performance. This is well above the national average.

I'm sure you have citations from this and didn't just pull it straight from your ass right?

Bloody William: You're also wrong for responding to him.

Yeah... I figured that out about three seconds too late...

Starving Zimbabwe Trillionaire: Who knew this little graph you fark libs love to post would eventually come back and bite you in the ass?
[i.imgur.com image 640x470]

Are people still using this stupid graph? The Red/Blue is stupid. It's based on who won the 2004 presidential race. If they used the 2008 results, half the states on the right would be Blue.

You know who laughs at the top 1%?

Those who are in the top 1% of the top 1%. Like Mitt Romney.

I agree. Instead of going after the obscenely wealthy who play you like puppets you should set your sights on those slightly better off (or worse off) than you, and those of different race or religion. Those guys are the real problem. Trust me.

EWreckedSean: Starving Zimbabwe Trillionaire: Who knew this little graph you fark libs love to post would eventually come back and bite you in the ass?
[i.imgur.com image 640x470]

Are people still using this stupid graph? The Red/Blue is stupid. It's based on who won the 2004 presidential race. If they used the 2008 results, half the states on the right would be Blue.

Half? More like 4 or 5 more states. It would still be quite red on the right.

Mike Chewbacca: TNel: Let me get this out of the way....Your blog sucks.

"Loudoun County, Va., has a median household income of $119,540, making it the nation's richest county" Ok let me get this right the median household income is less than $250,000 a year and a household making $119k a year is FAR FAR FAR from being a 1% so that means vote republican?

What kind of crack is this guy smoking? Just because median income is high does not mean everyone there is a 1% 120k a year is a decent wage for a family to make but it does not make them super weathy.

I lived in eastern Loudoun County for 18 months. It's very nice, but it's not the lap of luxury. We rented a three story townhouse for $1900 a month. It was very nice, but it was still a townhouse and not a single family dwelling. We loved living there, but it certainly wasn't a resort town or anything like that. It's upper middle class, not the 1%. Our combined income was about $110,000 that first year, and even less the second year after first my SO got laid off and then I did. (Which is why we're now in WA-we followed the jobs.) It's also within commuting distance of DC, so you get a lot of federal employees living there. Of course, if you drive west for about 20 minutes then it's all horse ranches and wineries and rich retired military personnel and senators and NSA directors and whatnot. But for the most part, it's just regular people living regular lives, in a nice neighborhood that's a bit more pricey than elsewhere in NOVA.

This.

I've lived in Loudoun for the past decade. 119k is pretty easy to hit in this area because most households are double income. My wife is a teacher, and I work for a defense contractor doing IT work. If you have the education/skills, there is no shortage of well paying Jobs in NOVA / DC. And you need to make that much, because the cost of living is high.

Also, if local elections are any indicator, liberals are not the majority in this area. What you have are college educated middle class folks, most of whom are well aware of all the bullshiat that goes on in Washington.

A Terrible Human: TNel: Let me get this out of the way....Your blog sucks.

"What kind of crack is this guy smoking? Just because median income is high does not mean everyone there is a 1% 120k a year is a decent wage for a family to make but it does not make them super wealthy.

I'll go one further and say 120k doesn't make them wealthy at all. Seriously, you are talking about two adults living together, each earning 60k a year? That could be two young engineers less than 5 years out of school; they're not wealthy, heck, they can't begin to afford a house in that county. Do they have kids? Student loans? College fund to contribute to? In many areas of the country, 120 is plenty to get by on, maybe save a little money, get a retirement fund going, etc., but you're certainly not "wealthy." And to me, this misperception is one of the biggest obstacles to real political discussion in this country - the idea that there is just as much of a difference between people making a few hundred thousand a year and people making less than 100 as there is between the 0.1 percenters who make something like 7-8 million a year on average and everyone else.

Mrtraveler01: EWreckedSean: Starving Zimbabwe Trillionaire: Who knew this little graph you fark libs love to post would eventually come back and bite you in the ass?
[i.imgur.com image 640x470]

Are people still using this stupid graph? The Red/Blue is stupid. It's based on who won the 2004 presidential race. If they used the 2008 results, half the states on the right would be Blue.

Half? More like 4 or 5 more states. It would still be quite red on the right.

6 more actually. Still more red, but still much more even. And even then you are comparing apples and oranges. Ohio and Penn would both be blue now, and they have more population that every southern red state on the right combined. Plus the data is 7 years old. With the current nature of the country and deficit spending, almost every state in the union would be on the right side now.

EWreckedSean: Are people still using this stupid graph? The Red/Blue is stupid. It's based on who won the 2004 presidential race. If they used the 2008 results, half the states on the right would be Blue.

No. On the right side, only these would change:
New Mexico
Virginia
Iowa
North Carolina
Indiana
Ohio

(Also, on the left side, all but Texas would turn blue as well.)

You are wrong.

NateGrey: TownHall? Is it Freeper Thursday already?

/to be followed by Freeper Friday
//fair and balanced for trolls

Fark is moderated by hillbillies. The only people left around here are people too old to "get" the internet so they hide here. That naturally breeds poor content.

EWreckedSean: 6 more actually. Still more red, but still much more even.

Left Side Red:Blue = 1:17

Right Side Red:Blue = 21:11

EWreckedSean: ordinarysteve: I'd be cool with this if these same folks weren't so quick to freak out when anyone criticizes the tea party. Occupy may have some retards but to discredit a whole movement because of some bad apples, when tea parties are basically clan rallies and have little to do with actual fiscal conservationism, is a bit silly.

That was beautiful, did you do that on purpose?

Yup, after seeing articles on here all week about how the OWS protestors are violent marxists, I've decided that sweeping generalizations are now my thing. I now call all tea partiers fascist brown shirts with a collective IQ of 9. Yay, this is fun!

Babwa Wawa: His point. I fail to see it.

Just wait til he takes off his hat.

EWreckedSean: Mrtraveler01: EWreckedSean: Starving Zimbabwe Trillionaire: Who knew this little graph you fark libs love to post would eventually come back and bite you in the ass?
[i.imgur.com image 640x470]

Are people still using this stupid graph? The Red/Blue is stupid. It's based on who won the 2004 presidential race. If they used the 2008 results, half the states on the right would be Blue.

Half? More like 4 or 5 more states. It would still be quite red on the right.

6 more actually. Still more red, but still much more even. And even then you are comparing apples and oranges. Ohio and Penn would both be blue now, and they have more population that every southern red state on the right combined. Plus the data is 7 years old. With the current nature of the country and deficit spending, almost every state in the union would be on the right side now.

Source: some rightwingers's ass

torr5962: Why is wanting to pay more taxes when your nation needs more revenue mockable?

Its mockable because, while being noble, its being naive. I dont trust the government to spend my money wisely because they have a shiatty track record. My state of NJ is ground zero of how to create revenue and piss it away, and I'd rather think decreasing spending and closing tax loopholes work much better. I dont buy into the ideaology that I should be taxed more. I am overtaxed as it is. The reality is I aspire to be in the 1% tax bracket eventually, or at least in the 250k household bracket. My household already donates over 10k per year to multiple charities (strangely, more than Joe Biden) and our business employs 35 young adults. I think I pay my fair share, and this is the central argument that will be decided in NOV.

Im not saying you're wrong or unpatriotic. Im a product of my observations. Liberal policies have been disastrous in Philadelphia and surrounding areas of S jersey, and more taxes and a larger welfare state havent slowed poverty--they have increased it. My post isnt to convince you--just to let you know why others may not agree with your logic.

Even at that level, you still won't make enough to benefit from the GOP tax plans, you'll end up about the same and the 35 young men you employ will see a tax hike. $250k is a laughably small household income relative to who these policies are being designed for.

Most of the nation's SES employees live in the DC metropolitan area.

Shock of all shocks.

Every Department consists of some agencies, the vast majority of these agencies require by law at least one SES. These are the federal employees making top pay; the remainder make on average 50k or so.

Civil service has never been so affronted as it is today. Most of that is due to the awful and unprovable stories floated by the MSM. Civil service is not the problem. Jealousy, rage, hatred, and spite are the only emotions leading the MSM to color the public opinion against it. Don't believe me? Come work with me. Join the civil service. Prove me wrong. I swear I will bust your ass so hard that you would wish you were working for McDonald's.

Yeah there's dumbshiats doing nothing and collecting pay. Guess what, though: at my grocery store, I know whose line to avoid. One cashier does her job as quickly as possible so she can serve the next customer; the cashier in the next lane is so slow and so lazy and so stupid that he just doesn't care. They don't fire him because private sector can't fill that position.

You visit any business, any corporation, any government agency and you're going to find two groups: people who bust their asses to get the job done because they care about the job, and people who do nothing because they don't care.

The problem is not civil service. We have good people. We also have bad people.

The problem is humanity. I have met more scum in the private sector than I ever have working in civil service. It's easier to be lazy and unfruitful in the private sector. If you don't believe it - once again, come join me. Work with me. Once you've hammered out a very rough day with me (and I will make it rough), go to the grocery store. Go to Target. Go to Wal-Mart. You compare that against my Government. If you still hate us, then I will recommend you to the nearest Psychiatrist.

There are plenty of so called 1 percenters who would throw in with OWS if the more inflammatory rhetoric were toned down a bit.

Just walking around one of the protests I found the amount of ill-informed douchebaggery extraordinary.

According to this blogger i'm in the 1%.

Who should I smite first?

Serious question, not trolling, exactly what does it take to be in the 1%? Is it net worth, net income or a combination of both? Is a person with a million dollars in their IRA a 1% guy?

T.M.S.: There are plenty of so called 1 percenters who would throw in with OWS if the more inflammatory rhetoric were toned down a bit.

You don't know any 1%ers. You are speaking out of your ass.

1. Loudoun County, Va., has a median household income of $119,540

$119,540 is nowhere near the 1%.

2. OWS has no problem with the 1%ers who support them. There's the difference. The wealthy liberals are all for the government taking more of their money and helping poor people. It's the wealthy conservatives who fight progressive causes and taxation tooth and nail.

Dancin_In_Anson: You know how I know that YOU have never heard of the guy either?

He seems to have A LOT of degrees. But I was told by other Republicans that makes you elitist and out of touch with America and not all that bright. So who am I to believe? I'm so confused ;-(

cig-mkr: Serious question, not trolling, exactly what does it take to be in the 1%? Is it net worth, net income or a combination of both? Is a person with a million dollars in their IRA a 1% guy?

The metric by which "1%" vs "99%" is measured seems to vary based on what point is being made. Sometimes it's annual income, sometimes net worth, sometimes capacity for political influence, and so forth.

Some would say that inconsistency is okay because dividing the world into 'us' and 'them' isn't the point of the movement. It's not as if the household making $250,001/year is evil and the household making $249,999/year is good. The problem is that when too much power is held by too few people, the democratic principles of our society are subverted.

NobleHam: $119,540 is nowhere near the 1%.

It is within the top 10%, but that observation is meaningless because statistical measures like 'median income' is a useless metric for examining the statistical anomalies that are the 1% most richest wealthiest.

impaler: Right-wing strawman: "OWS hate all rich people because they are jealous of all their money."
Right-winger observes high income around DC, a Democratic stronghold.
Conclusion: liberals are hypocrites.

My conclusion? This right-winger has very poor critical thinking skills.

If he had good critical thinking skills he wouldn't be a bagger.

NobleHam: 1. Loudoun County, Va., has a median household income of $119,540

$119,540 is nowhere near the 1%.

2. OWS has no problem with the 1%ers who support them. There's the difference. The wealthy liberals are all for the government taking more of their money and helping poor people. It's the wealthy conservatives who fight progressive causes and taxation tooth and nail.

Exactly. OWS is not about hating rich people, or hating wealth.

OWS is about hating the fact that the system has been rigged to ensure that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class gets destroyed.

OWS is about restoring the system so that people 'can' improve their situation and give their kids a better chance than they had.

But, by all means, don't let that reality get in the way of the strawman arguments that infest this cesspool of a thread.

Lemme guess...this is another example of the idiotically pedantic argument that the 1% technically includes some middle class Americans?

Newsflash retards: we only say "The 1%" because it's catchier than "The .015%" or whatever.

X-boxershorts: Define "too old" junior

The modern equivalent of the flannel wearing uncle with every clock in the house blinking 12:00 and the video camera in the hutch that hasn't been touched since it was purchased. The confused and angry in search of someone to blame for it.

Dancin_In_Anson: Rain-Monkey: I'm going to email the guy with a rebuttal and see if he actually responds. Should be fun.

thomps: a random blogger


Indeed. I would love to see the exchange. "The guy" (or random blogger if you will) has an interesting background.

(Please tell me that you've heard of him before)

I didn't before. I looked at that wiki article you linked to. He is apparently a follower of the Austrian School of economics. Some of the criticisms levied against the Austrian School are:

There's an aversion to math within the school, which is surprising shiat-dicking retarded given the very nature of economics and its reliance on numbers.
Failure to understand recent advances in basic economic theory.
A lack of "explicit models" (from Paul Krugman, no less)
A lack of scientific rigor, up to and including the outright rejection of scientific method and empirical evidence, and to the point of being called a priori.
An overreliance on individualism (not what you think, IIRC).
Relying on an incorrect business cycle theory, which:
requires bankers to act irrationally
requires bankers to make unprofitable investments. repeatedly
cannot explain changes in unemployment within itself
And also relies on other assumtions either criticized or flat-out unproven

Why the hell are you listening to him?

Dancin_In_Anson: Babwa Wawa: Had I handed in a paper with this thesis (OWS activists are actually the 1%)

You know how I know you're full of shiat ( and didn't read the article)?

You're a dumb f*cking redneck

jst3p: T.M.S.: There are plenty of so called 1 percenters who would throw in with OWS if the more inflammatory rhetoric were toned down a bit.

You don't know any 1%ers. You are speaking out of your ass.


He's a Tony-winning Broadway stage designer with his own company and also does the sets and stages for concerts, touring kid shows like Dora the Explorer, and apparently now Ringling Bros... He probably knows a few.

However, I would just say... if you're not an a-hole well-to-do guy, then don't take it personally when people complain about the wealthy. It's like when gays are complaining about Christians. They're clearly complaining about the Christians who are anti-gay and NOT the Christians who are supportive of gay rights.

Rather than taking offense, and saying "I might support you if you weren't so critical of Christians!" just lead by example and stand up for gay rights and say "as a Christian, I object to the homophobic attacks carried out in the name of my religion."

Same deal with the "1 percenters who would throw in with OWS."

Lead by example as a 1%-er and stand up and say "this country has to work for all of its citizens up and down the economic ladder and as a 1%er, I believe it's my duty to give back and I object to the unfair bought and paid for policies that tilt this country's fortunes towards those who are already quite comfortable, and leave the rest out in the cold"

(Unless of course you support those policies... in which case you're an a-hole well-to-do guy and well-deserving of the scorn.)

If you have common cause, focus on the common cause... not on comments that aren't really directed at you.

TFA Cliff Notes:

Because some of the richest counties in America went for Obama in the last election, the Occupy Wall Street thingy was really a bunch of rich kids.

And someone pooped on a cop car.

the end

I thought it was the bottom 47% lucky duckies who were the true enemies?

Has that changed?

Bullshiat article. A $100,000 income does not make you a 1%-er.

friday13: Dancin_In_Anson: Rain-Monkey: I'm going to email the guy with a rebuttal and see if he actually responds. Should be fun.

thomps: a random blogger


Indeed. I would love to see the exchange. "The guy" (or random blogger if you will) has an interesting background.

(Please tell me that you've heard of him before)

I didn't before. I looked at that wiki article you linked to. He is apparently a follower of the Austrian School of economics. Some of the criticisms levied against the Austrian School are:

There's an aversion to math within the school, which is surprising shiat-dicking retarded given the very nature of economics and its reliance on numbers.
Failure to understand recent advances in basic economic theory.
A lack of "explicit models" (from Paul Krugman, no less)
A lack of scientific rigor, up to and including the outright rejection of scientific method and empirical evidence, and to the point of being called a priori.
An overreliance on individualism (not what you think, IIRC).
Relying on an incorrect business cycle theory, which:
requires bankers to act irrationally
requires bankers to make unprofitable investments. repeatedly
cannot explain changes in unemployment within itself
And also relies on other assumtions either criticized or flat-out unproven

Why the hell are you listening to him?

From what I've seen, the Austrian School of economics is popular with politicitans because it allows them to "make shiat up" with a false grounding in an accepted theory.

jst3p: T.M.S.: There are plenty of so called 1 percenters who would throw in with OWS if the more inflammatory rhetoric were toned down a bit.

You don't know any 1%ers. You are speaking out of your ass.

According to that Forbes calculator I am well into the 1 percent.

Your comment is exactly the sort of douchbaggery I am referring to.

I think its people such as yourself that are doing damage to the movement.

It would be a big help if you stopped talking.

OgreMagi: From what I've seen, the Austrian School of economics is popular with politicitans because it allows them to "make shiat up" with a false grounding in an accepted theory.

Pretty much this, yeah...
It's why RON PAUL is so popular with young people: They either didn't have their first econ course, or couldn't pass it.