Mixed Race?

[Guest]

I think it is already co-opted. One of the orginizers os Van Jones, Obama's "Green" Czar. It's a good way to deflect blame away from the administration and blame it on something else.

Its still to early to be saying thats it has been co-opted - as reflected by the MSM (both left and right) pontificating about how pointless the protests are because they have no leadership or concrete demands. Even squeaky voiced douchebag Sean Hannity said that the message being sent out is too 'incoherent'. If it had descended into astro-turf faux-social movement it would resemble more the Tea Party, which has a very clear top-down organised structure, whereas instead the 'occupy...' protests have come about in a spontaneous manner, its started with a hashtag on twitter, with the people taking to the street for the sake of expressing their frustration with the way things are going, this doesnt automatically mean that they have a clear idea of what and how they wanna bring about change. That is gonna be the key to how the protests develops in the coming weeks

This doesnt rule out that certain groups and people are currently trying to direct it - as the analysis I posted before stated the support of people like Soros, and the politicians you pointed out, are trying to make sure that they dont become a threat to capitalism, instead directing the energy and frustrations of the people into more established (i.e stale) avenues of mainstream politics, which is what the Tea Party was about.

Of course if the problem was rife in 2007 it could only be those in charge. Even GWB admitted he left the economy in a poor state after such a huge surplus.

[wutang]

Of course if the problem was rife in 2007 it could only be those in charge. Even GWB admitted he left the economy in a poor state after such a huge surplus.

The flaw with that arguement is that it overlooks the systematic nature of the problem. The idea that had there been a Democrat President instead of Bush it would have prevented the problem is as misguided as those that think we could have avoided it if only the Tories had been in power instead of Labour. All the parties have agreed on the same ideology for the past 20-30years - neo-liberalism - so I fail to see how they would have done anything differently.

David Harvey, amongst others, makes a good case that the current crisis is merely the remergence of capital problems of the 70's, all that happened during the past 30 years is a postponement. As Marx pointed out, capital never resolves its crises, it just moves them around; we are seeing an example of that at the minute. A financial collpase in 2008 was partially resolved by transfering the problem onto the public books, which in turn has created a soverign debt crisis, which is now transfering the problem back into the private sector (austerity killing growth).

[Guest]

Of course if the problem was rife in 2007 it could only be those in charge. Even GWB admitted he left the economy in a poor state after such a huge surplus.

The flaw with that arguement is that it overlooks the systematic nature of the problem. The idea that had there been a Democrat President instead of Bush it would have prevented the problem is as misguided as those that think we could have avoided it if only the Tories had been in power instead of Labour. All the parties have agreed on the same ideology for the past 20-30years - neo-liberalism - so I fail to see how they would have done anything differently.

David Harvey, amongst others, makes a good case that the current crisis is merely the remergence of capital problems of the 70's, all that happened during the past 30 years is a postponement. As Marx pointed out, capital never resolves its crises, it just moves them around; we are seeing an example of that at the minute. A financial collpase in 2008 was partially resolved by transfering the problem onto the public books, which in turn has created a soverign debt crisis, which is now transfering the problem back into the private sector (austerity killing growth).

shame maddog only blames the democrats for the banking disaster

his signature said it all until someone pulled him up on it and he had to admit that many Republicans were for the way it went. There are none so blind

Same with here and France you can hardly fit a rizla between the policies of the main two parties

[wutang]

shame maddog only blames the democrats for the banking disaster

Well Maddog is a denial-ican - a Republican who pretends he isnt a Republican

http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2011 ... arian1.jpg


But yeah the same flawed analysis is what fuels the 'its the dems fault'. The stance generally goes; 'the dems gave unemployed black people mortgages out of some fuzzy-wuzzy liberal idealism, and it made them feel all good inside, but then this cause the crash'. Ironically the people who spout this mantra are usually the ones who tell us that the beauty of capitalism is that it based on naked material self-interest... i.e profit not fuzzy-wuzzy hippy shyte

In reality the increased dominance of speculative capital over the last 30 years is what has fueled the growth enjoyed within America (and UK), and the property bubble played a big part of this. The problem with relying on selling property to fuel growth is that sooner or later you are gonna run out of people to sell property to, especially as wages have decreased as a % of GDP during this same period, so what do you do when all the people with good credit ratings have been sold mortgages? you target those with less than good credit ratings, and eventually you go after those with shyte credit rating - the added bonus of lending to these people is that you can ramp up the interest repayments (profits).

The people making money out of all this knew that they could rely on the state to bail them out once the inevitable occured because the role of the state is to protect capital's interests - they fund the major parties anyway. Right now we have a Tory Government funded by the Financial industry, and should it ever because too unpopular they will start funding Labour (given the scale of the party's debts I dont see them turning down free money ).

But again once should be careful with trying to blame it on financial capital because its the issue is a more systematic one in general.

[Maddog]

Of course if the problem was rife in 2007 it could only be those in charge. Even GWB admitted he left the economy in a poor state after such a huge surplus.

The flaw with that arguement is that it overlooks the systematic nature of the problem. The idea that had there been a Democrat President instead of Bush it would have prevented the problem is as misguided as those that think we could have avoided it if only the Tories had been in power instead of Labour. All the parties have agreed on the same ideology for the past 20-30years - neo-liberalism - so I fail to see how they would have done anything differently.

David Harvey, amongst others, makes a good case that the current crisis is merely the remergence of capital problems of the 70's, all that happened during the past 30 years is a postponement. As Marx pointed out, capital never resolves its crises, it just moves them around; we are seeing an example of that at the minute. A financial collpase in 2008 was partially resolved by transfering the problem onto the public books, which in turn has created a soverign debt crisis, which is now transfering the problem back into the private sector (austerity killing growth).

shame maddog only blames the democrats for the banking disaster

his signature said it all until someone pulled him up on it and he had to admit that many Republicans were for the way it went. There are none so blind

Same with here and France you can hardly fit a rizla between the policies of the main two parties

Re read your comment. First I only blame democrats, then I blame some republicans.

Could you tell me how I feel about Maoists?

[Guest]

Of course if the problem was rife in 2007 it could only be those in charge. Even GWB admitted he left the economy in a poor state after such a huge surplus.

The flaw with that arguement is that it overlooks the systematic nature of the problem. The idea that had there been a Democrat President instead of Bush it would have prevented the problem is as misguided as those that think we could have avoided it if only the Tories had been in power instead of Labour. All the parties have agreed on the same ideology for the past 20-30years - neo-liberalism - so I fail to see how they would have done anything differently.

David Harvey, amongst others, makes a good case that the current crisis is merely the remergence of capital problems of the 70's, all that happened during the past 30 years is a postponement. As Marx pointed out, capital never resolves its crises, it just moves them around; we are seeing an example of that at the minute. A financial collpase in 2008 was partially resolved by transfering the problem onto the public books, which in turn has created a soverign debt crisis, which is now transfering the problem back into the private sector (austerity killing growth).

shame maddog only blames the democrats for the banking disaster

his signature said it all until someone pulled him up on it and he had to admit that many Republicans were for the way it went. There are none so blind

Same with here and France you can hardly fit a rizla between the policies of the main two parties

Re read your comment. First I only blame democrats, then I blame some republicans.

Could you tell me how I feel about Maoists?

That was the case

You did only blame Democrats according to your signature

Then when extensively questioned about who made up the committee concern we found out that Republicans were also not entirely blameless but you failed to put that on your sig, showing you be biased.

Way to go

[Maddog]

Of course if the problem was rife in 2007 it could only be those in charge. Even GWB admitted he left the economy in a poor state after such a huge surplus.

The flaw with that arguement is that it overlooks the systematic nature of the problem. The idea that had there been a Democrat President instead of Bush it would have prevented the problem is as misguided as those that think we could have avoided it if only the Tories had been in power instead of Labour. All the parties have agreed on the same ideology for the past 20-30years - neo-liberalism - so I fail to see how they would have done anything differently.

David Harvey, amongst others, makes a good case that the current crisis is merely the remergence of capital problems of the 70's, all that happened during the past 30 years is a postponement. As Marx pointed out, capital never resolves its crises, it just moves them around; we are seeing an example of that at the minute. A financial collpase in 2008 was partially resolved by transfering the problem onto the public books, which in turn has created a soverign debt crisis, which is now transfering the problem back into the private sector (austerity killing growth).

shame maddog only blames the democrats for the banking disaster

his signature said it all until someone pulled him up on it and he had to admit that many Republicans were for the way it went. There are none so blind

Same with here and France you can hardly fit a rizla between the policies of the main two parties

Re read your comment. First I only blame democrats, then I blame some republicans.

Could you tell me how I feel about Maoists?

That was the case

You did only blame Democrats according to your signature

Then when extensively questioned about who made up the committee concern we found out that Republicans were also not entirely blameless but you failed to put that on your sig, showing you be biased.

Way to go

It's a quote you dumbass, made in response to Bush trying to modify Fannie. I blame Frank for a lot of this mess, and he is still there dispersing his "wisdom" in the House. I don't blame Democrats entirely, nor do give idiotic Republicans a pass.

[Guest]

The flaw with that arguement is that it overlooks the systematic nature of the problem. The idea that had there been a Democrat President instead of Bush it would have prevented the problem is as misguided as those that think we could have avoided it if only the Tories had been in power instead of Labour. All the parties have agreed on the same ideology for the past 20-30years - neo-liberalism - so I fail to see how they would have done anything differently.

David Harvey, amongst others, makes a good case that the current crisis is merely the remergence of capital problems of the 70's, all that happened during the past 30 years is a postponement. As Marx pointed out, capital never resolves its crises, it just moves them around; we are seeing an example of that at the minute. A financial collpase in 2008 was partially resolved by transfering the problem onto the public books, which in turn has created a soverign debt crisis, which is now transfering the problem back into the private sector (austerity killing growth).

shame maddog only blames the democrats for the banking disaster

his signature said it all until someone pulled him up on it and he had to admit that many Republicans were for the way it went. There are none so blind

Same with here and France you can hardly fit a rizla between the policies of the main two parties

Re read your comment. First I only blame democrats, then I blame some republicans.

Could you tell me how I feel about Maoists?

That was the case

You did only blame Democrats according to your signature

Then when extensively questioned about who made up the committee concern we found out that Republicans were also not entirely blameless but you failed to put that on your sig, showing you be biased.

Way to go

It's a quote you dumbass, made in response to Bush trying to modify Fannie. I blame Frank for a lot of this mess, and he is still there dispersing his "wisdom" in the House. I don't blame Democrats entirely, nor do give idiotic Republicans a pass.

I knew it was a quote the first day you put it up. Thanks for your concern.

How much did the Neo-Cons waste on those wars again? How many trillion?

[Cactus Jack]

Of course if the problem was rife in 2007 it could only be those in charge. Even GWB admitted he left the economy in a poor state after such a huge surplus.

The flaw with that arguement is that it overlooks the systematic nature of the problem. The idea that had there been a Democrat President instead of Bush it would have prevented the problem is as misguided as those that think we could have avoided it if only the Tories had been in power instead of Labour. All the parties have agreed on the same ideology for the past 20-30years - neo-liberalism - so I fail to see how they would have done anything differently.

David Harvey, amongst others, makes a good case that the current crisis is merely the remergence of capital problems of the 70's, all that happened during the past 30 years is a postponement. As Marx pointed out, capital never resolves its crises, it just moves them around; we are seeing an example of that at the minute. A financial collpase in 2008 was partially resolved by transfering the problem onto the public books, which in turn has created a soverign debt crisis, which is now transfering the problem back into the private sector (austerity killing growth).

Oddly I made the same point on the DM board this today. Your analysis is spot on.

[Guest]

Of course if the problem was rife in 2007 it could only be those in charge. Even GWB admitted he left the economy in a poor state after such a huge surplus.

The flaw with that arguement is that it overlooks the systematic nature of the problem. The idea that had there been a Democrat President instead of Bush it would have prevented the problem is as misguided as those that think we could have avoided it if only the Tories had been in power instead of Labour. All the parties have agreed on the same ideology for the past 20-30years - neo-liberalism - so I fail to see how they would have done anything differently.

David Harvey, amongst others, makes a good case that the current crisis is merely the remergence of capital problems of the 70's, all that happened during the past 30 years is a postponement. As Marx pointed out, capital never resolves its crises, it just moves them around; we are seeing an example of that at the minute. A financial collpase in 2008 was partially resolved by transfering the problem onto the public books, which in turn has created a soverign debt crisis, which is now transfering the problem back into the private sector (austerity killing growth).

Oddly I made the same point on the DM board this today. Your analysis is spot on.

Apart from the incorrect political tag. Neo-Conservatives are the ones who fucked it. That includes Blair

[Maddog]

I knew it was a quote the first day you put it up. Thanks for your concern.

How much did the Neo-Cons waste on those wars again? How many trillion?

What does that have to do with banks being forced to make loans to people that they shouldn't have, and the corruption and poor management at Fannie and Freddie.

The banking and real estate crisis would have happened regardless of the overseas wars.

[Guest]

I knew it was a quote the first day you put it up. Thanks for your concern.

How much did the Neo-Cons waste on those wars again? How many trillion?

What does that have to do with banks being forced to make loans to people that they shouldn't have, and the corruption and poor management at Fannie and Freddie.

The banking and real estate crisis would have happened regardless of the overseas wars.

Care to show a link of where US lenders were FORCED to lend to people who couldn't possibly pay it back.

[Guest]

It dates back even further Stoo.

Evidence suggest that when the Romans left the population of England and Wales may have been around 15% African.

Not only that but because The Plague was a minor extinction event that affected Europeans far more than it did Africans it's even possible that only those with African ancestors survived it.

Try not to tell Nick Griffin he's part African, it upsets him.

15% African? Have you got a link for that Jack?

Interracial breeding is the best thing for the gene pool as immunity against any and all diseases will be spread amongst more of the population. However,and equally,congenital problems can get passed on to but the benefits of the former will always surpass the latter.

And I am a great believer that we are all of African descent,as per evidence from mitochondrial dna,which makes a mockery of all white supremacists and equally of despots like Mugabe because if we were able to trace things back I am sure many whites could lay greater claim to Zim then he himself. Fascinating stuff.

Forget the link Jack as I have just found this http://www.africaresource.com/rasta/ses ... ck-romans/

Fascinating.

about 5% of Roman Centurians after 3rd Century AD were African and about 12-15 of soldiers were African. Most were Germanic.

Higham, Nicholas (1992), Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons, London: B. A. Seaby, ISBN 1-85264-022-7

A good read

[Maddog]

I knew it was a quote the first day you put it up. Thanks for your concern.

How much did the Neo-Cons waste on those wars again? How many trillion?

What does that have to do with banks being forced to make loans to people that they shouldn't have, and the corruption and poor management at Fannie and Freddie.

The banking and real estate crisis would have happened regardless of the overseas wars.

Care to show a link of where US lenders were FORCED to lend to people who couldn't possibly pay it back.

A link? Are you fucking kidding me? I don't need a link. Meet me for lunch some day and you cam talk to me and the lenders that were involved. We called them foreclosures waiting to happen. If you could qualify for a loan (can fog a mirror), the lender had a legal responsibility to give it to you.

Why do you think the lending guidelines are so much different now, if they were not part of the problem in the past?

[trini]

howdy fella

whats going on over there ref the brooklyn bridge protestors? i haven't seen anything on the mainstream news over here about it, but did read that over 700 were arrested?
are the protestors genuine, real people, or are they the professional unwashed ones that we produce over here?

Mark I rarely delve into politics, but the protester kinda remind me of a scene from the Marlon Brando movie "the Wild Ones"



Mildred: Hey Johnny, what are you rebelling against?
Johnny: Whadda you got?