To be fair an unacceptable portion of the violence at these summits are instigated by the police force at the summits.

Pending the percentage of the "unacceptable portion" you assign to the police, I'm in agreement with you. Here's a trip down memory lane. Photos of the 1999 WTO in Seattle.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/photogalleries/localne ws2010163790/1.html

Woo Hoo!  I'm rabble!

Mike, I showed you where Obama raised taxes.  Oh, now you've changed it to income taxes, no matter that Obama had said that he wouldn't raise any taxes on anyone making under 250K per year.

"The Corporate Power Structure in America doesn't give two shits if any of our fat fucks live or die - thanks to the global economy and the rising financial power of former third world nations, they've left us to wither and die."
I was joking before, but maybe someone needs to keep O'Brien away from General Avaiation for a while.

Mike,

A lot of people had very high expectations for Obama, that now suddenly, finally, thankfully, things were going to CHANGE!

"Change"... A beautiful bit of value-neutral advertising, that. Honestly, I admire it greatly. Much like "Coke is it." What is "it"? "It" is whatever "it" means to you. You bring the "it" to the equation, the personification of value, a self-defined slogan. Because, after all, "Coke -- It's the real thing." More value-neutral wordsmithing. More self-definement realized.

So, "Change". To some people, a change in national policy. To others, change in national priorities. To still others, a change in approach, perhaps a change in style and substance. A change from the old to the new. A change from the bad to the better. Whatever the case, "change" was nothing more than a self-defined expectation that differed from person to person to person. An effective way to campaign to get elected but an impossible way to govern.

Why? Because there is a dark side to "change", the unexpected and unplanned part of "change". Katrina, after all, brought "change" to New Orleans. "Change" isn't always what you expect it to be or hope it to be. And, frankly, how could it EVER be when there were likely 100 million different expectations, desires and expressions of "change" that lived to be realized in the hearts of Americans?

The sad truth is no one gets to be president without being in debt to someone with very deep pockets. Doesn't matter whether it's big business or big labour or big oil, whether it's Wall Street or Silicon Valley or the Bible Belt, you arrive at the White House bought and paid for. Doesn't matter if you're a Republican or a Democrat -- Goldman Sachs is going to be running your economic program. The titans of business and the powers behind SEIU may seem to have little in common at first glance, but both share a vast distance from the concerns of the common man.

The sadder truth is we want "change" but don't want to suffer any of the difficulties of change ourselves. We want government to tax less and spend less and get the budget under control, but we don't want to close the military base next to town or to lose that favourite government program. We want high paying industrial jobs here in America, but we'll buy a Japanese import because it's cheaper and better made than anything in Detroit, and we'll shop at Wal-Mart because the prices are better. We don't want banks that are too big to fail, but we'll sign up for that big bank credit card because of a great teaser rate. We don't want to fight wars for oil and we don't want drilling off-shore and we don't want to give up on oil and gas and we don't want to stop driving pick-up trucks and SUVs.

We are the embodiment of cognitive dissonance.

The only way we'll ever get change in this country is if we start that change first. Change begins at home. Rather than sending our money to Wall Street and the stock market, we need to invest in our neighbors and build stronger communities. We need to shop locally, bank locally and invest locally so we remain in contact with our money and its impact. We need to be good stewards of our immediate environment. We need to elect people to office -- local, state and federal -- who hold true to those values, regardless of their political party. And we need to stop focusing on the wedge issues that divide us and instead affirm those issues that bind us together and build on them.

...Speech over. It's safe to come out now...

Who here has said they approve of the tactics the WTO use and where is the network encouraging that bad behavior?

Not meaning to be dim, but I just want to ensure I understand your question: Do you mean who here approves of the tactics the WTO (World Trade Organization) uses to advance free trade and decrease tariffs globally, or do you mean who here approves of the tactics used by the various protest groups that assemble (such as the groups in Seattle shown above) to protest the WTO meetings?

In the case of the former, we really haven't really touched on global trade, but it certainly is connected to the discussion. The WTO has made it easier for multi-national corporations to ship jobs overseas, weaken the American manufacturing base and escape their tax liabilities from operating in this country. While it hasn't been explicitly stated, I expect there would be a number of people here not too fond of the WTO and who feel that corporations should pay their fair share to the health and welfare of the nation.

As for the protest groups assembled against the WTO, such as the ones shown in those pictures from Seattle, I would hope no one here could look at those photos and be in favour that kind of mayhem. Regardless of what one might think of the WTO and its policies, there is no place for that type of violence and wholesale destruction.

For all the slights thrown at the Tea Party Movement -- the dangerous signs they hold, all their alleged seething rage roiling within that is in danger of bubbling over in violence, the threat they pose -- I think it's always useful to have a reminder of what an angry mob really looks like.

My tax point still stands - when we talk about the President raising or lowering taxes, we're talking about Federal Income Tax.

The other is talking point minutia that's being spread to justify a lie.

Look - it was a well-intentioned lie that was based in prediction - you guys PREDICTED that he would "raise taxes" and when he didn't then we suddenly start hearing about taxes all over the place that weren't previously called "tax".  Cap and Trade becomes Cap and Tax because the assumption, according to Hannity and his ilk, is that if business has to pay extra, they take it out on consumers and we're helpless and powerless to stop it and thus, it's some sort of trickle down tax.

Which seems to forget what the Free Market is all about - yes, corporations don't give a shit about us and only care about the bottom line, but if Company A raises their prices and consumer doesn't buy Product A due to the higher prices, Company B is free to not raise their prices and sell Product B at a lower rate to consumers.

This is what I mean about rabble - I could waste all day going back and forth and spot-checking people on their bullshit - which is especially appalling in that Jeff isn't a Captain of Industry - he's some peon fighting for his master's right to rape him. 

But coming back to the home point - I specified Federal Income not to be tricky, but as noted a number of pages ago in this very thread - using myself as an example - I paid LESS Federal Income tax this year.  THANKS OBAMA!  I paid MORE state tax this year!  FUCK YOU SCHWARTZEGGER AND THE EVIL CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE - DEM AND REPUB ALIKE!  There's my difference - I didn't want some bright spark to go "Waaah, I ended up paying more net because of my local municipality" when my point was about Obama and his supposed tax-hikes.

Next - I find it ironic that the party of Reagan is talking about sending money to main street instead of Wall Street.  Does this mean that you guys are finally acknowledging that Trickle-Down-Economics was a failed system, or is this talking point, like the Tea-Parties as a whole, just poorly thought out negative reactive knee-jerk actions?

And more to the point - is Obama even engaging in Trickle-Down?  Maybe that's the problem!  Maybe that's why Republicans are mad - in Real REAGAN-APPROVED Voodoo economics, the wealthy get more money and the poor can get fucked, the harder and more rapey the better.

In Obama's version - it was about making sure the credit market didn't collapse by giving financial institutions loans, meant to be repaid, and coming with regulations that the money had to be spent on keeping the credit market alfoat and not on luxury bonuses for those who helped destroy the American Economy with risky financial moves.

Waaaaaiiiitt... that DOES sound like CHANGE!  GOOD CHANGE.

But considering the Republican Media, if Obama cured Cancer tomorrow it would be bad because he put Cancer Research Doctors out of work. 

WHICH BRINGS US BACK TO THE HORSESHIT AND LIES THAT THIS WHOLE THING IS BASED ON.

Hell yes I'm disgusted.

Joe,

Nobody -- repeat, nobody -- who crashes a plane into a building in this country with the intent to kill and injure should ever be looked upon as a hero. (I make my "intent" qualification only in the event I should ever need to praise a Marine pilot who stays with his failed jet and crashes into a vacant warehouse to avoid a school playground filled with children. Some fact checker 20 years from now would find my unqualified post and accuse me of being inconsistent...)

I may not agree with many people here in this thread, and they know who they are. But, as much as I do believe that the Teabaggers are politically motivated and not necessarily the champions of lowering government spending they make themselves out to be, Stack was a fucking nut job. I don't believe for a second any particular party could rile someone up enough, who wasn't already certifiable, to kill innocent people. Not the left or the right.

Sometimes a demented motherfucker is just a demented motherfucker. We'd do well to remember that.

Stack probably wasn't politically aligned, but it's only a matter of time before Teabaggers look to him as hero. And then the downward spiral continues.

--------------

That is a different kettle of tea - er, fish.  And that did indeed happen, almost immediately.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/19/crimesider/entry6223 132.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

It sickens me that Facebook took the page down.  These ideas thrive on feelings of persecution.  It's high-octane fuel for their paranoia.

You defeat ideas with ideas, not memory holes.