Jon Stewart Rips Right-Wingers A New One

    When Unarmed Blacks Are Killed By Cops

    No Wrongdoing With Benghazi

    Right-Wingers Fuel Racism And Paranoia

Sunday, December 18, 2011

We Need MORE Crazy!

NOTE: Updated with new information!

Thomas Lindaman writes:


So, why should we replace one failed leader with someone with the same traits as that failed leader?

1) Ending of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
2) Health care reform (including pre-existing conditions)
3) Cut spending
4) Lowered taxes for 95% of Americans, including PAYROLL taxes
5) Changing tactics on hunt for Osama Bin Laden, thus killing him. No American casualties.
6) Ending torture as an intelligence method.
7) Helped our NATO allies protect Libyan citizens, resulting in overthrow of Qaddafi. No American casualties.
8) Ended the war in Iraq
9) Created stimulus that helped add 2.4 million jobs. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created.
10) Stopping the settlements on the West Bank
11) Not playing into Iran's hands during the Green Revolution

Obama is the ONLY one who has done anything for the American people within the last 10 years. And of course, the Right fought him at every turn.

The only thing you know about leaders, is how to fail at recognizing them. But then, Conservatives aren't known for their intellect. Only their hatred and fear.

But yeah, what's up with Republicans not being batshit crazy enough? Why don't we hand power over to the Republicans? You know, the party that utterly destroyed the world's economy in the first place! They clearly have learned their lessons now that they are advocating more of the same, but doubly so. We just weren't Conservative enough last time!

But you're right. Obama's going to be reelected thanks to these guys. But not in the way that your deluded mind is thinking.

Monday, November 14, 2011

"I WANT it to be real, dammit!"

Thomas Lindaman writes:

In my continuing "coverage" of Astroturf Wall Street, I did a bit of digging


and found the following. (My responses are in bold.)


That "draft" was a suggestion from one person from AdBusters. According to you, it's not AdBusters running the movement, because then it would be grassroots.

Which is it, Lindaman? Is the manifesto draft representative of OWS (making you a fool for responding to it, since it wouldn't be from the dark shadowy organization behind it), or is the movement grassroots (making you a fool for lying about it being astroturfed)? ROFL!

Sorry, Lindaman. It's the worst of both worlds for you. The manifesto draft isn't an official OWS set of demands, and AdBusters started the idea for OWS, but they aren't in control of OWS. Nobody is. That's what pisses you guys off so much. And now you look like a fool both ways. lol

Yet again, Lindaman has to resort to desperation like this. Aren't strawmen fun?

Ah, well... let's humor him:


Dear fellow Americans,

We are assembled in Zucotti Park which we've renamed Liberty Plaza in the financial district of New York, because we believe that the American economy is heading in the wrong direction and we have a few ideas for what to do about it.
Yeah, like taking a crap on police cars.

Jealous because he shit on a police car instead of in your mouth? And you think they are the pervs?

But seriously, all we've got is a picture of some unidentified random nut with his ass pressed against a police car. No eyewitnesses are named. No other photographs to even confirm he took the dump (how can you take a dump when your ass is pressed against something?). No streaks on the car or other evidence that he's had a bowel movement against it. There isn't even a pile of it on the ground. Also, the article itself says the police ignored the ones that tried to report him. Where's the police report? The Daily Mail and even Blaze says the man is unidentified. The guy that claims he took the photo even tweeted that he couldn't identify him as a protester. The squad car was from Brooklyn, according to the precinct number on it. Was the picture taken in Brooklyn or in Manhattan? It makes a difference, buddy. So, where's the evidence that he's a protester and not a random drunk?

There is a feeling shared by a growing number of people on the streets of the world that the global economy has become a kind of Ponzi scheme, a global casino, run by and for the benefit of the 1 percent. You mean like Michael Moore?

Yep, like Michael Moore. He benefits from it, too. Moore himself says so, and Moore himself wants economic reform even if he has to pay more taxes to get it. Got a problem with that?

We believe that it is possible to inject justice into the global economy. We have come up with the following list of things that can be done right now to rejuvenate democracy and economic justice in our country:

" Halt foreclosures for the unemployed, sick and elderly
Why? A mortgage is an agreement, and the terms of the mortgage allow for the foreclosure on people regardless of their personal circumstances. There is no exception to paying your mortgage if you get sick, lose your job, or are old.

Then why aren't you decrying the bailouts? If a corporation can be bailed out, why can't there be a temporary halt on mortgages?

" Increase funding to public services by taxing the richest 1 percent Which will result in the rich paying more, unless they find loopholes, and resulting in nothing positive happening. What happens if those taxes don't solve the problem? What will your solution be? MORE taxes?

Public service funding won't solve anything? What you basing this on?

And if they find loopholes, close them.

" Forgive all student loan debt See above regarding mortgages.

Yes, see above regarding mortgages.

" Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act in order to control speculation Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the current situation because it comes from the same entity that allowed the banks to do what they did. Furthermore, what about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two government or quasi-government agencies who back the majority of the loans out there?

Don't forget Gingrich's involvement! lol

But seriously, what you're saying is untrue. It's been explained time and time again, but you keep repeating it. Why?

According to Republicans: In 2003, with a Republican President, Republican House, and Republican Senate, Democrat Barney Frank single-handedly stopped proposed regulations supported by both Republicans and the institution that was the target of said regulations. Truly, Barney Frank is the most powerful man in the United States.

Please tell us how Fannie Mae caused Lehman Bros. etc. to fail? The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission says you're wrong. And they're smarter than you.

Fannie/Freddie did NOT knowingly bundle bad mortgages. In fact they weren't bad, until the sub-prime bubble caused ALL real-estate to lose value, causing all mortgages, even otherwise good ones, to become more risky.

The problem was not that a bunch of people defaulted on their mortgage. That would have sucked for those individual people.

The problem, which had been explained thoroughly to you before, is that these crappy mortgages were bundled together and sold to investors as GOOD mortgages, so when they defaulted it wasn't just one guy who lost his house and one bank who had to eat the loss, it was multiplied over and over again, because a lot of other people bet on that guy NOT losing his house.

It's incredible how the Republicans can blatantly lie and the idiots simply believe them! Fannie and Freddie cannot back subprime loans. They got in trouble when they started buying those loans to maintain their market share. The problem isn't Fannie and Freddie, but private companies.

Shit, the only reason some right-wing retards were against that particular bailout, is because they believe poor people caused it, and poor people should be on the hook for the tab. If they genuinely grasped that it was pure greed and malfeasance on the part of the financial sector, they wouldn't have said squat. They would've just sat back and enjoyed the sight of working folks with slightly less financial stability than themselves losing their homes.

The SEC allowed the big 5 banks (of which only 2 exist) to up their leverage at their own discretion. Causing them to have more control of the secondary mortgage market, taking some of Fannie/Freddie's market share. Those were where all the bad loans were too.

It's been proven a million times over, that the banks involved in the subprime gamble were not compelled to lend by the government, but spreading lies is what right-wingers love to do.

Now listen, you mortage lender: Banks were desperately trying to find ways to lend to people they normally wouldn't lend to, because they could sell the risk of those loans to Wall Street for a profit, because Wall Street was committing fraud on a global scale.

Understanding yet?

The problem wasn't that Fannie/Freddie's share was too big, it's that it wasn't big enough!

Fannie's delinquency rate today is 4.08% and Freddie's was 3.51%. The overall market is 7.72%. That means private loans suffer much greater delinquency than GSE loans.

I know Fannie/Freddie pisses you off because they helped those shiftless minorities. And I know you hate them even more because they are governmental and to rightards anything to do with government is bad by default (even when they do much better than the "free market"). And I know you hate Barney Frank because he's a Democrat and gay...

But the facts show that your are clearly, demonstrably wrong, without question.

" Work with the other G20 nations to implement a 1% Robin Hood tax on all financial transactions and currency trades You DO realize a) it wouldn't work unless you have an overbearing bureaucracy overseeing it, and b) it would have to include every financial transaction, including donations to charity, right?

"It may not work, so don't do it!"

" Ban high-frequency 'flash' trading and bring sanity to the markets In other words, deny the Internet even exists.

So they can't make it illegal, right? Hey, Lindaman: I hear you can distribute child pornography over the internet, too. So we will be waiting patiently for your posting endorsing the legalization of kiddy porn.

" Break up the too big to fail banks that threaten our future How will this help anything? You're actually advocating weakening the banking industry to try to "save" it. If you break up a big bank into smaller banks, you are ultimately making it easier for banks TO fail, thus worsening the problem.

"Monopolies rule!" (Literally!)

There's good reasons to support local banking.

Let's just say I'm glad you're not doctors.

Republicans talking about health care, even just mentioning doctors in passing, is funny just because of the irony.

" Arrest the financial fraudsters responsible for the 2008 meltdown and bring them to justice If you were serious about this, you'd be trying to arrest Barney Frank.

Nice try. See above regarding Fannie/Freddie.

And even if in some alternate universe, Fannie/Freddie was bad:

Barney Frank was in charge for barely five months before the finacial meltdown, from as far back as 1991 he was voting to reform regulating of Fannie & Freddie. From 1995-2007 Frank was in the House Minority and even then voted to reform Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie were ordered by HUD to get into the subprime loan business. It was the private sector, investment banks, that led the subprime financing boom.

But we know, Barney Frank is just a sodomite piece of shit, according to right-wingers.

" Ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence corporate money has on our elected representatives in Washington A Presidential Commission started up by the current Administration, with a lot of former Goldman Sachs folks on the federal payroll?

Yep. Got a problem with that? If they go down too, so be it. By the way, you are aware that George W. Bush's administration had many Goldman Sachs alumni, right? The difference is that this Administration is actually cracking down. It's already happening. lol

Apparently many folks believe that "The Government" controls the Fed and its band of Banksters, and not the other way around.

This widespread belief is convenient... for the Banksters.

If you agree with any of these demands, then join us! We will stay here in our encampment in Liberty Plaza until President Obama responds to each of these demands. This is just the beginning, there is more to come as we work together to reshape America.

The People's Assembly of New York City

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/17/occupy-wall-street-the-draft-manifesto/#ixzz1dUU6vuPe

When looking over this manifesto, it's clear there are two motivations at work: greed and envy. Their slogan could easily be "You have what I want. I want what you have."

A right-winger. Accusing others of selfishness. That-is-hilarious.

And while we're here, is it any coincidence their "solutions" to the problems serve to make the problems worse?

Because you say so?

CEO's running their companies into the ground with risky, over-leveraged commitments, taking the economy into the shitter, all the while expecting (and receiving) millions and millions in bonuses. This is the result of social isolation, ideological masturbation, and the misguided concept that they are the only people with anything important to say.

You must be really pissed that after Wall Street got bailed out, the corporations just pocketed the profits and didn't turn around and invest in America. Oh, wait... you right-wingers don't give a shit about that. That's totally not greedy.

Yeah...it's totally greedy to tell companies that it's wrong to game the system to rob the poor and desperate and favor the already wealthy. Questioning the right of a corporation to loot and pillage its customers and shareholders is Communism!

After all, we all know that it's the lazy people that are willing to get up off of their asses and go set up camps in cities across the U.S. to demonstrate their unhappiness with the current system and state of affairs. And they must be exceedingly entitled to represent people that didn't inherit large amounts of capital. That's sooo astroturf, too.

Sorry, Astroturf Wall Street. Go back to the drawing board and come back when you have a serious proposal on the table.

I think it is funny that you think anyone from the Right has real fixes to any of those problems this country is facing. The rightards just derp right along with calling protesters (voters) dirty hippies, call for more tax cuts for the rich, try to disband the EPA, show no understanding of foreign policy, joke about sexual harassment, joke about suicide of a vet because he happened to be a protester, put up tax plans that will nail the middle class something fierce, etc. You can't even call the President a "weak leader" when it comes to defense, so now you guys have become pro-terrorist and pro-dictator.

You know the right-wingers are doing very poorly when they're losing to the Socialist Party and the American Indian Movement in state/local elections.

What's your serious proposal, Lindaman? Besides pulling up an old draft manifesto email made by someone from a group of people who aren't even in control of OWS?

We know people take what you say "seriously". Weeks after his post:

They aren't astroturfed, no matter how many times you repeat it. It just sets off people's butthurt detectors.

Sorry the Teabagger rallies were such a letdown. Boy, talk about envy. "You have what I want. I want what you have" indeed.

"This old email that's not an official list of demands, has stuff I don't agree with. Therefore Wall Street corruption is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Cain... done? Sadly, yes.

NOTE: Updated with new information!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Still Want to Say Herman Cain Is Done?


The Left has been trying to portray Herman Cain as a sexual predator, but it's backfired in a big way. Cain hasn't lost much support, has seen a spike in contributions since the initial allegations of his sexual activities went public, and we keep finding inconsistencies in the accounts of the accusers.

So far, Cain is having the last laugh. Having said that, we have not heard all of the allegations from all of the women. There may be more substantive charges in the wings, but the problem the accusers face now is the environment created by those who have already come forward and been scrutinized. Even possibly legitimate claims will be cast through the prism of the claims that have been found less than honest, which means they may not be believed at first, if at all.

And the Leftists in the media will be left with a henhouse full of egg on their faces.

Why are you endorsing a Republican? I showed you website links with "rap sheets" that show Republicans molest children and are planning insurrection. According to you, showing a website with "rap sheet" links pasted into them is good enough for reality. So why are you endorsing a Republican, Mr. Independent (tm)?

Weiner tweets dirty pictures (with no harrassment whatsoever), the media (including The Daily Show) plays the so-called "scandal" all over the place, and Lindaman says "The media's not digging deep enough wahrgarble!"

Meanwhile, Cain's had two accusers paid off, one witnessed by others, one complained to friends contemporaneously with the incident. And Cain's hired gun has yet to challenge anyone! Meanwhile, Cain accuses the Perry campaign of smearing him, and the media is treating Cain very gently... and what does Lindaman say? Why, of course! He predictably says the "leftist media" is being mean to Cain. lol

Lindaman's link is from CBS. CBS? But what about Dan Rather, Lindaman? Remember, you claimed "CBS" made a false estimate about Beck's rally numbers (when it was actually AirPhotosLive and the only professional crowd estimator that was hired by anybody). So now you think CBS is legit? lol

All kidding aside, the poll was never representative:


There's far better reasons why Cain would be a disastrous president. He stated wouldn't allow any Muslims to serve at high levels of government. He wants a tax plan that comes from a computer game (SimCity). He didn't know that China has had nukes for 40+ years. He didn't know the difference between defined benefits vs. a defined contribution plan. Cain's obvious ignorance on those issues had nothing to do with anybody other than Herman Cain's own statements.

But regardless of all this, I had hoped Lindaman was correct in this case! Cain... done? I sure hoped not! None of the people on "teh left" hoped he was through. I would've put a Cain bumper sticker on my car, if it would mean Cain would win the nomination!

Because if Cain wins the nomination, it's absolutely guaranteed that Obama will win reelection. You can bank on that.


The fact that Lindaman thinks the Dems were trying to get rid of him, just further proves how out of touch with politics he actually is. lol

But, sadly... Cain has suspended his bid. So much for who has the last laugh, and egg on their face. lol

Wednesday, November 9, 2011

5,4,3,2,1... ZZzzzzzz...

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Cue the Pointing and Laughing in 5...4...3...2...1...


Astroturf Wall Street wants everyone to bank at credit unions...except for them?

First, the bank "attacks" were from anarchists, not the OWS protest movement.

Second, here's what the attorney that deposited the funds had to say:

An Open Letter to Occupy Oakland : November 10, 2011

There has been a lot of discussion about the deposit of funds into my Wells Fargo client trust account. In the interests of transparency, I submit this open letter. When I volunteered the use of the account I was balancing the possibility of bad PR, with the possibility of forestalling serious physical harm to people in the jail. It was possible that there would have been mass arrests on the day of the general strike. If I have to choose between bad PR and human lives, then I will choose bad PR every time. I was informed that people had already faced seriously dangerous conditions in the jail. The night before the general strike I had no way to know that the day would not end in mass arrests at the port, or a hail of rubber bullets and wooden dowels like the anti-war port protest in 2003.

A few points of clarification:

1. Why did Occupy Oakland open an account at Wells Fargo?

We didn’t. My client trust account existed previously– I did not open it recently. I was in process of moving all my accounts for 5 November when I got sick.

2. So you control the money?

No. The money is technically still the property of Occupy Oakland, that’s why it’s called a trust account. Occupy Oakland has ownership of the money, and dictates how it is spent. That is why the solidarity committee brought a proposal to the GA the other night– to get approval for the money to go into the client-trust account. Had the GA rejected the proposal that would have been 100% fine with me, which is what I said at the GA. Had someone else stepped up that night, that would have been 100% fine with me as well. But no one did.

3. Why didn’t Occupy Oakland just open an account in its own name?

We were in the process of doing that. However, we had to file paperwork with the state of California. I, personally drove to Sacramento to file it and get it done in an expedited way. Nonetheless, we still had not received the paperwork back, and are still waiting for it. We are still in process of setting up an independent Occupy Oakland financial account. Neither a bank nor a credit union will open a bank account for an organization without showing the relevant state paperwork.

4. Well what about Long Haul? Aren’t they handling some donations on our behalf?

Long Haul could not accept the money from OWS. The terms of the agreement with Long Haul forbid Occupy Oakland to use any of the deposited money for bail. Period.

5. Why didn’t you just send someone down to a credit union to open an account?

Because if we sent some random person down to a CU or any institution, and they opened an account, they would take legal possession of the money. If that person had wanted to run off to Tahiti with the money, they would have been well within their legal rights to do so.

6. Why didn’t you personally just open a trust account at a credit union, it’s so simple?

Actually it’s not simple. First, there was nothing I could do the night before the general strike. Second, adding steps to a process always adds uncertainty and more variables increases delay. Last week, we knew that at least one person had languished for almost 24 hours without medical care, despite a ruptured spleen. Those are not, by any stretch of the imagination, good conditions.

7. Where the hell is the money now?

The money reached the client trust account today, November 9th, around noon. I have been told that another attorney has stepped forward who has a client trust account with a non-major financial institution. If this is the case and Occupy Oakland authorizes it, I will happily transfer the money to him.

8. Well fine, but you didn’t receive the money until November 9th, why not open a new account before then?

I had passed the client trust account information to OWS (via people inside Occupy Oakland) on the afternoon of 3 November. I was advised that the transfer would take place immediately, so made no preparations for another account. Over the next week, I heard a variety of things from “the money is being transferred today” to “NPR has reported that the money was transferred over the weekend.” I can understand that OWS was concerned who I was, and so I offered my bar (law license) number as well as volunteering to give personal references in the Bay Area progressive community.

Commentary: Had I known it would take a week, I would have simply put the word out for another attorney with a trust account in a community bank or other institution. But there was no way to know that going in. I understand that this entire event has been bad PR for Occupy Oakland and the Occupy movement generally. What I also know is that I will always choose to risk bad PR over risking people’s lives and personal safety. The mentality that Occupy is protesting is a mentality that applauds the opposite. It applauds good PR over risking people’s lives. That is the mentality of people who stand aside for corporate misbehavior, even when it costs lives. It is exactly the mentality of politicians who choose to go to bat for oligarchs and try to cut food stamp programs, rather than risk being called a socialist. It is exactly the mentality of judges who allow foreclosures even when the bank foreclosing has no case. People like that don’t want the bad PR, and they’re willing to risk other people’s lives to avoid bad PR. And that is exactly what we are fighting against. Isn’t it?

But none of that matters. Right, Lindaman? You just pray that they'll get pointed at and laughed at, eh? Well, you would know how that feels. Weeks after your post:

They aren't astroturfed, sorry. Try some Preparation H for that butthurt.

"A lawyer used a bank, therefore the banks responsible for the financial crisis are a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

"Anarchists, Protesters... What's The Difference?"

Thomas Lindaman writes:

It Depends on What Your Definition of "Peaceful" Is...

Bill Clinton is still better than anything you Republicans created since Eisenhower. lol


Glenn who?

After weeks of the media portraying Occupy Wall Street as a peaceful group, with the advent of thefts, sexual assaults, and now rioting, that line may not be as easy to buy anymore.

And it's showing in public opinion. Recently, polling data showed 37% of Americans surveyed supported OWS. Within the past couple of days, that number has dropped to 30%.

Depends on the poll, doesn't it? Here's a more recent poll that has different numbers.

"This poll of OWS is different than that poll, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Might that have something to do with the Guy Fawkes mask being ripped off OWS to expose a group who is not above violence to make their points known? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

How did you know they were Guy Fawkes masks? Wow, you actually watched "V for Vendetta"? Usually you recommend shitty movies like "The Goods".

(Want to bet he didn't know what the masks were until he read about it on a right-wing website?)

If they were wearing masks, they were not OWS, they were Black Bloc Anarchists. When Occupy Oakland closed the port, they did so peacefully and then peacefully went home. Then the anarchists came out at 2am and did their violence, and of course the media conflated them with Occupy Oakland.

You may have been able to figure that out, but that would've required you to actually watch "V for Vendetta".

But you didn't, so you claim it was the protesters themselves. After all, Glenn Beck said so. Since Beck personally checked their OWS memberships cards. lol

"Anarchists did violence after the fact, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Even so, the media will be out front acting like Kevin Bacon from "Animal House."


Ah, yes. Pretend the media blackout didn't happen.

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

"Oh, it's a PROTEST?"

Thomas Lindaman writes:


There are two words to describe Astroturf Wall Street's attempts to appear to be peaceful citizens just upset with business and government.

Epic Fail.

Epic Fail, eh? Well, you would know. Weeks after your post:

They ain't astroturfed, sorry. I know that won't soothe your butthurt, but you'll have to live with it.

Ah, Breitbart. Gotta love him. Dragging links into a list is such hard-hitting journalism!

Let's pick the top ten on that list, just as a sampler:

1. Oh noes! They didn't use the walkway after being told they could use the bridge! No violent action. So?
2. A lie. They never applied for a permit, so how can they be denied one? No verifiable sources for anything else in that report. Report was later pulled from the site because of that new information.
3. Article was updated when it was discovered that the flyer was from a Teabagger. lol
4. Where's the police reports?
5. No evidence he was a protester.
6. Uh-oh, got a little too close! Definitely baton time!
7. "Alleges" - Where's the evidence?
8. BODY PAINT? SEX?!? No wonder right-wingers are pissed!
9. The flasher stated he was GOING to attend on his Facebook (left out of that article). That's how they caught him. It's a crowded public event, that's why he went there. Flashers like that kind of environment. So?
10. Ayatollah Khamenei likes the protest. So? Osama Bin Laden endorsed John McCain. Does that mean Bin Laden was a Republican?

Guess I'm sold!

Hey, I can copy/paste list links, too!



So now you're not going to endorse Republicans ever again, right? I'll make sure to point this out, the next time you endorse one.

Now, back to reality:

This is a protest, not a Teabagger rally. A protest is not a rally. Get it? That time you went to that Teabagger day camp and sat around for an hour, and patted yourself on the back afterward, isn't what's going on here.

You right-wingers are pathetic. The Teabaggers helped to entrench money in politics by creating a sponsored rally where civil unrest was effectively co-opted by big money and corporations. But they're the heroes, because they were supposedly neat and tidy and didn't step over any lines or upset any schedules. That's because the Teabagger rallies were mostly like corporate picnics, planned events at public parks inhabited by confused old folks. And all it did was downgrade America's credit rating. "Don't actually rock the boat, whatever you do!"

The Teabaggers are made up of old white guys standing up for the status quo. Let's ignore the attempts to use ricin on American civilians, or the attempts to cut a Congressman's power lines, or the vandalism when bricks were thrown through offices. Teabaggers are just cowardly and half-assed in their attempts.

On top of that, when you constantly raid the peaceful protests of OWS with hundreds of cops in full riot gear with tear gas, and pepper spraying people that are just sitting, and having entire buses ready to haul people off to jail, etc, you are going to escalate the situation.

If people actually break the law, those people should be arrested. Using anecdotal application is the oldest play in the book to shut protests down. Look at the civil rights movement, most people just wanted to make a statement, of course some people are going to be angry and disruptive. The same thing happened there, the local governments used the few that bit back as a catalyst to undermine things. If this kind of thing is supported, then every single attempt at peaceful revolution will escalate into violent revolution because the government is not honoring the first and most basic constitutional right to assemble, giving those trying to be heard no other option.

The Teabaggers screwed around with the debt ceiling, lowering the nation's credit rating and threatening a default that would have crashed the global economy. OWS has had some anarchists and asses commit crimes at camps. The Teabaggers have pushed for killing worker benefits and protections, killing living wages, killing regulations that save lives, and have pushed for deep cuts in programs that feed the hungry, keep poor people in cold climates from freezing in their homes, and provide medical care that saves lives.

Yeah, I know which one is trashing a park, and which one is trashing the country.

You're such a closet authoritarian that it's gone beyond pathetic.

Which is why only 11% of people support the Teabaggers.

Right-wing retards aren't just defending Mother Corporation for the sake of their jobs. They are actually angry at OWS people for having the audacity to speak out against corporate influence on government. Right-wingers in the 99% took their assigned beating by the 1%, watched their purchasing power slip away, had their pensions stolen and their lives ruined, all because they figured that was simply the way it was. They frame it in their own minds as "paying their dues" - they've been beaten, broken, and reset, and they're proud of the damage they've managed to endure.

Now these young punks are speaking out about how wrong that all is, and it makes them look like suckers for having gone along with it. Suddenly they find themselves in a position where they either have to admit they've been duped this entire time, or they have to double down and ferociously defend the system that's been stealing from them. In a way, OWS threatens their position by re-framing their "bootstrappy success" as corporate serfdom. And guess what? They're doing the latter, because they're still idiots.

"Some people at OWS rocked the boat, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

And Nobody Cares (About You)

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Recently, I got to thinking about Occupy Wall Street and, after a little digging,


I found out just how many members of the wealthiest 1% are bankrolling and/or supporting it. I mean, when one of your biggest supporters is Yoko Ono (net worth $500 million), it's hard to reconcile that with the image of OWS being "average Americans fed up with Wall Street" they're trying to portray.

Instead, I feel OWS is the very definition of what former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said was "Astroturf." Thus, the group isn't occupying Wall Street; they're Astroturfing Wall Street.

Nice try! Too bad supporting something doesn't mean "pumping money into it." What exactly are they "bankrolling", Lindaman?

Anyways, they're not astroturfed.

So, in that vein, I will be using AWS instead of OWS going forward. And let me tell you, they've earned that name.

Because Lindaman says so! Because he's butthurt and bitter. lol I love it!

We'll see how many people care about your little stolen lying "rebranding." I'm giving your readers a few weeks to show their support of it before I post again. Maybe this will take on the internets by storm, just like OWS did! Let's hope it doesn't crash and burn like your "faux liberal" and "crap and spayed" soundbites did.

Well, weeks have passed. Now, weeks after his post:

"Yoko Ono likes OWS, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

Moore Lies! (Dot Com?)

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Michael Moore calling someone else a liar...


Wait. Didn't Moore recently say he was one of the 1% after denying it? Why, yes he did!

And apparently Moore's estimated net worth is $50 million.


Moore freely admits that he does very well financially. Moore said "I don't have fifty million dollars!" Just because a link says he "apparently" has fifty million dollars, doesn't mean he has fifty million dollars. That doesn't mean he's hiding the fact that he's wealthy.

Mikey, let me suggest you follow your own advice and stop lying.

Moore has already dealt with this issue. Since right-wingers can't read links, I'll just post the whole damn thing here:

Life Among The 1%


Twenty-two years ago this coming Tuesday, I stood with a group of factory workers, students and the unemployed in the middle of the downtown of my birthplace, Flint, Michigan, to announce that the Hollywood studio, Warner Bros., had purchased the world rights to distribute my first movie, 'Roger & Me.' A reporter asked me, "How much did you sell it for?"

"Three million dollars!" I proudly exclaimed. A cheer went up from the union guys surrounding me. It was absolutely unheard of for one of us in the working class of Flint (or anywhere) to receive such a sum of money unless one of us had either robbed a bank or, by luck, won the Michigan lottery. On that sunny November day in 1989, it was like I had won the lottery -- and the people I had lived and struggled with in Michigan were thrilled with my success. It was like, one of us had made it, one of us finally had good fortune smile upon us. The day was filled with high-fives and "Way-ta-go Mike!"s. When you are from the working class you root for each other, and when one of you does well, the others are beaming with pride -- not just for that one person's success, but for the fact that the team had somehow won, beating the system that was brutal and unforgiving and which ran a game that was rigged against us. We knew the rules, and those rules said that we factory town rats do not get to make movies or be on TV talk shows or have our voice heard on any national stage. We were to shut up, keep our heads down, and get back to work. If by some miracle one of us escaped and commandeered a mass audience and some loot to boot -- well, holy mother of God, watch out! A bully pulpit and enough cash to raise a ruckus -- that was an incendiary combination, and it only spelled trouble for those at the top.

Until that point I had been barely getting by on unemployment, collecting $98 a week. Welfare. The dole. My car had died back in April so I had gone seven months with no vehicle. Friends would take me out to dinner, always coming up with an excuse to celebrate or commemorate something and then picking up the check so I would not have to feel the shame of not being able to afford it.

And now, all of a sudden, I had three million bucks! What would I do with it? There were men in suits making many suggestions to me, and I could see how those without a strong moral sense of social responsibility could be easily lead down the "ME" path and quickly forget about the "WE."

So I made some easy decisions back in 1989:

1. I would first pay all my taxes. I told the guy who did my 1040 not to declare any deductions other than the mortgage and to pay the full federal, state and city tax rate. I proudly contributed nearly 1 million dollars for the privilege of being a citizen of this great country.

2. Of the remaining $2 million, I decided to divide it up the way I once heard the folksinger/activist Harry Chapin tell me how he lived: "One for me, one for the other guy." So I took half the money -- $1 million -- and established a foundation to give it all away.

3. The remaining million went like this: I paid off all my debts, paid off the debts of some friends and family members, bought my parents a new refrigerator, set up college funds for our nieces and nephews, helped rebuild a black church that had been burned down in Flint, gave out a thousand turkeys at Thanksgiving, bought filmmaking equipment to send to the Vietnamese (my own personal reparations for a country we had ravaged), annually bought 10,000 toys to give to Toys for Tots at Christmas, got myself a new American-made Honda, and took out a mortgage on an apartment above a Baby Gap in New York City.

4. What remained went into a simple, low-interest savings account. I made the decision that I would never buy a share of stock (I didn't understand the casino known as the New York Stock Exchange and I did not believe in investing in a system I did not agree with).

5. Finally, I believed the concept of making money off your money had created a greedy, lazy class who didn't produce any product, just misery and fear among the populace. They invented ways to buy out companies and then shut them down. They dreamed up schemes to play with people's pension funds as if it were their own money. They demanded companies keep posting record profits (which was accomplished by firing thousands and eliminating health benefits for those who remained). I made the decision that if I was going to earn a living, it would be done from my own sweat and ideas and creativity. I would produce something tangible, something others could own or be entertained by or learn from. My work would create employment for others, good employment with middle class wages and full health benefits.

I went on to make more movies, produce TV series and write books. I never started a project with the thought, "I wonder how much money I can make at this?" And by never letting money be the motivating force for anything, I simply did exactly what I wanted to do. That attitude kept the work honest and unflinching -- and that, in turn I believe, resulted in millions of people buying tickets to these films, tuning in to my TV shows, and buying my books.

Which is exactly what has driven the Right crazy when it comes to me. How did someone from the left get such a wide mainstream audience?! This just isn't supposed to happen (Noam Chomsky, sadly, will not be booked on The View today, and Howard Zinn, shockingly, didn't make the New York Times bestseller list until after he died). That's how the media machine is rigged -- you are not supposed to hear from those who would completely change the system to something much better. Only wimpy liberals who urge caution and compromise and mild reforms get to have their say on the op-ed pages or Sunday morning chat shows.

Somehow, I found a crack through the wall and made it through. I feel very blessed that I have this life -- and I take none of it for granted. I believe in the lessons I was taught back in Catholic school -- that if you end up doing well, you have an even greater responsibility to those who don't fare the same. "The last shall be first and the first shall be last." Kinda commie, I know, but the idea was that the human family was supposed to divide up the earth's riches in a fair manner so that all of God's children would have a life with less suffering.

I do very well -- and for a documentary filmmaker, I do extremely well. That, too, drives conservatives bonkers. "You're rich because of capitalism!" they scream at me. Um, no. Didn't you take Econ 101? Capitalism is a system, a pyramid scheme of sorts, that exploits the vast majority so that the few at the top can enrich themselves more. I make my money the old school, honest way by making things. Some years I earn a boatload of cash. Other years, like last year, I don't have a job (no movie, no book) and so I make a lot less. "How can you claim to be for the poor when you are the opposite of poor?!" It's like asking: "You've never had sex with another man -- how can you be for gay marriage?!" I guess the same way that an all-male Congress voted to give women the vote, or scores of white people marched with Martin Luther Ling, Jr. (I can hear these righties yelling back through history: "Hey! You're not black! You're not being lynched! Why are you with the blacks?!"). It is precisely this disconnect that prevents Republicans from understanding why anyone would give of their time or money to help out those less fortunate. It is simply something their brain cannot process. "Kanye West makes millions! What's he doing at Occupy Wall Street?!" Exactly -- he's down there demanding that his taxes be raised. That, to a right-winger, is the definition of insanity. To everyone else, we are grateful that people like him stand up, even if and especially because it is against his own personal financial interest. It is specifically what that Bible those conservatives wave around demands of those who are well off.

Back on that November day in 1989 when I sold my first film, a good friend of mine said this to me: "They have made a huge mistake giving someone like you a big check. This will make you a very dangerous man. And it proves that old saying right: 'The capitalist will sell you the rope to hang himself with if he thinks he can make a buck off it.'"


Michael Moore

That's one posting we'll never see rebutted.

Lindaman's digging up Moore because OWS doesn't have a leader. Since he can't find a leader, he has to arbitrarily assign them in his own deluded mind.

Moore wants people of his own financial standing to contribute more to tax revenues, just like the others.

If you actually listen to what the OWS movement is saying you would hear the vast majority of its supporters essentially protesting economic injustice. People will say a lot of things when they're angry, but the topic of greed on wall street is as intrinsic to the OWS movement as chromosomes are to gender. That's why it's called OCCUPY WALL STREET! It's just bloody obvious the implications being made. And only do I hear OWS dissenters infer such shallow assertions as "OWC protests against the 1%". Which I can only guess is a misinterpretation of the "we are the 99%" slogan.

But anyway, you can agree with what the OWS is saying without selling off all your worldly possessions. OWS isn't just complaining about the rich. If you think that, you miss the point entirely (and are likely Republican). It's about actions.

Remember, folks, right-winger mental illness: You can't support OWS unless you give up all your money, but you can't give money to OWS because then it's astroturfed. You can't support OWS if you are rich, because then you're the 1% and thus a hypocrite. But you can't support OWS if you are poor, because you're a socialist hippie facist nazi anarchist that doesn't have a job and won't fill out fake applications. But you also can't support OWS if you're working, because then you're part of capitalism or something.

You're trying to imply Moore hides the fact that he's rich. He doesn't. He never has. The fact that Moore told a reporter that the reporter was lying about Moore having fifty million dollars is irrelevant. You're just mad that he sticks up for the working class in spite of his wealth.

"Moore makes money, and he spoke at OWS, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

Thursday, November 3, 2011

"You can go home now. Please?"

Thomas Lindaman writes:


They complain about the lack of jobs...but don't act on actual job applications?

The majority of them DO have jobs.

"They introduced themselves as 'headhunters' and when I asked them what jobs other than the ones on the table they had to offer, they blew me off and couldn’t answer any basic questions. It was obvious to everyone in the square that they were phony."

They knew they were phonies. They aren't gullible like you right-wingers (that believe in ghosts). When a protest like this is going on, and some anonymous people set up a table offering job applications, you really think people are going to fall for it? Even if the applications were real, would you trust those guys?

"Some protesters didn't fall for a phony table, therefore America having a third world income disparity is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

Project Much?

Thomas Lindaman desperately tries (via repetition) to label Occupy Wall Street as being "astroturfed."

How OWS started is not in any way a secret - here's it straight from the original website for the movement:


Someone had to start it, and yeah, it's good to know who did and why. There is a world of difference, however, between merely providing the initial spark, and actually leading the thing, which they very much do not. They aren't "organizing" it, but yes, it was their idea. Others just picked up and ran with it. More power to Adbusters, for being part of spurring an actual movement that's taken off.

But no, according to Lindaman, it's a shadowy organization, led by George Soros, and unions, and Michael Moore, and... Yoko Ono.

Soros constructed a master plan... to camp out in public parks. Brilliant!

Sorry, there is absolutely NO evidence of Soros's intervening, other than a minimally supportive statement. People aren't being bused in (remember the "Tea Party Express" buses?), the signs are homemade (the Teabaggers are just pissed because the majority of the OWS signs are spelled correctly). Sure, union members will be there. OWS cares about workers, unions care about workers. Common goals. Less than 14% of the American work force is unionized, but for some reason, this minority is the cause of ALL of America's problems according to the insane right-wingers.

Does it even make any sense? These people are simply walking around with homemade signs. What exactly could be funded? There is no food provided, stages, bathrooms... There don't even appear to be flyers. All it took was the internet and the will to stand up. Are they saying rich leftists funded the Facebook and YouTube videos?

Here's more on OWS's actual origins:


If the OWS protests had a small set of easily identified leaders, then they'd be vulnerable. Various corporate research teams could dig up their backgrounds, they could examine their finances, look for skeletons in their closet. they could tag, track and number the opposition and then shelve them away in a neatly labeled niche on a wall somewhere. But this movement doesn't have that sort of weakness. It's peer to peer... no single leader, but a bunch of nodes all moving in more or less the same direction.

This is exactly what's driving the GOP and corporate controlled news folks nuts. They can't find a target.

Right-wingers like Lindaman are driven to find 'the leader' and destroy him/her. When they can't find a leader, and instead find several hundred peer to peer protest nodes...well, their entire strategy falls apart.

First thing the authoritarians and fascists will do is look for the leaders to take out, one way or another. No leaders, no targets. This drives the financial-government complex just nuts. And the corporate media, well, they are left chasing their tails. Thus, the media blackout.

So while the corporate press and people like Lindaman are running around trying to find 'the leader', the movement goes on to build contacts, teach people what's going on in this country, and generally rile people up against the wall street and it's allies.

Lindaman and other right-wingers are livid at what OWS is accomplishing, and are trying valiantly to deny any of the claims they're making about how our society is organized. The simple fact that they're responding to claims about how power is filtering upward, along with money, is evidence that they're losing.

The leadership is clearly pretty diffuse; from the start, this was the central point of criticism toward OWS! Now it's orchestrated by a shadow council of OWS Elders? Gimme a break.

Lindaman, since you just keep flailing around, yelling at every supposed "leftist" boogeyman that dares to give vocal support to OWS, it's a little hard to take anything you've written seriously.

Why was it only a few weeks ago the OWS was a fractured group of various protest movements (which it is, at a very basic level) to being a unified arm of leftist millionaires and union thuggery and other such accusations?

Have you participated in the Occupy protests around you? If there were some sort of union control, or Soros control, or any other sort of centralized control the the OWS movement, why are the cultures so different from city to city? The unions and "the rich" aren't controlling the protests, and are barely even making a dent in the funding stream.

The Republicans do not care about reality, and they are all about controlling the narrative. They already hate the unions, so if they can link the unions to the Occupy movement as one and the same, then they hope naturally people will hate the Occupy movement. The unions are not thugs. And it is not a failure to attain an ally with political and workplace influence.

And even if, in some alternate reality,bazillionaires are contributing more to other parts of the movement, I fail to see how this is even remotely close to the degree of involvement that Fox News had with fomenting the Tea Party. Remember the FNC Tax Day Tea Parties, and again, the Express Buses?

So which major television network is pumping money into the occupations, organizing busloads of people to come join us, advertising OWS direct action times on TV, paying for big names to come and speak, etc etc? No answer? Didn't think so.

In the Tea Party protests, there were tons of people who get Medicare and SS who were saying that they wanted the government out of their lives (the same people that want the government in our bedrooms and in women's reproductive lives). They were complaining about high taxes, when taxes are at generational lows! And on the other hand, the OWS protests actually are reasonable. Teabaggers were protesting people getting healthcare and were suddenly concerned about spending (after Bush's term was up). Fox made the Teabaggers into a story. Without Fox they were nothing but confused old white racists, lining up to vote, once again, for Republicans, just to save millionaires some tax money. The Occupy movement has a point, whereas the Teabaggers never did. What's really funny about the Teabaggers, is that they were never like the Boston Tea Party... they are like the Loyalists, who want the power to stay with the elite.

It must really cheese off the right-wingers that the Teabaggers, who are a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, is losing relevance to a real populist movement. Jealous much, Lindaman?

If you are looking for origin stories, buy some old comic books. Your projection of astroturfing just makes you laughable. So it's fortunate for you, that nobody's listening to you.

"Yoko Ono likes OWS, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

OWS Has Time Machines!

Thomas Lindaman comments on the Milk Street Cafe having to temporarily lay off employees, blaming the barricades that had to be set up due to the OWS protests. The barricades have since been moved.

There's a little more backstory to that Cafe, by the way. Hehe:


Regardless, yes, sometimes people are going to be interrupted. That's what happens at actual protests. Short term vs. Big Picture. Not that you would know anything about a real protest.

"These protesters cause barricades, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

"How dare they kick out a perv!"

Thomas Lindaman writes:





Because as we all know, Leftists chanting at sexual predators makes them change their ways...

Glenn who? Wasn't he that morning DJ that got his show canceled? Isn't that cute, trying to keep Beck relevant. lol

So, Glenn, how's Goldline doing? Hehe

Cops are directing the dregs they'd normally be rounding up and throwing in jail, to head down to the park and hang out with the protesters­. These dregs are committing crimes against the protesters­. The cops are letting it happen. So, if the cops aren't going to do anything about it, the protestors will.

What do you expect? For a moment consider that you've become sociopath enough that rape sounds like an idea you want to pursue. Where do you go? I think the choice here is pretty clear. The police designed a perfect situation for these types of criminals to have a better hunting ground with less repercussi­ons than they normally would face... why wouldn't they head on over to give their luck a try?

When you remove deterrence for an action in one location, you'll get more of that action in that location. It's like seeing all the smokers in the "smoking areas" because that's the one place they don't get in trouble; you've made a "rape area"... what did you think would happen?

There's only one goal as far as these stories go: Right-wingers repeat these stories in the hopes that their base of stupid people will have foggy memories and think it's the protesters themselves that are rapists.

At least they did something through actions. Unlike Teabaggers that only make half-assed vague threats about carrying guns. All talk, no action with the conviction of a wet noodle.

"OWS protesters kicked out a perv, therefore corporate influence on government is a-okay!"

Hey, Lindaman: They're still protesting.

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

He's Rich AND He Cares?? WTF?

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Michael Moore once again shows his hypocrisy for being a capitalist while bashing the system.

A few days ago, Moore said this on CNN.


And then a few days later, Moore talked about Republicans...during a book signing where he was benefiting from the very system he bashed on CNN.


Apparently Moore wants to replace capitalism with...Moore capitalism.

Yet again, Lindaman: Why is someone who has issues with the modern day perversion of capitalism, not allowed to make money?  Does a person complaining about a broken toilet seat, only have the right to shit his pants?

Moore stated:

"This movement -- this movement in the next year or two or few years is going to create a democratic economic system. That's the most important thing. Whatever we come up with, it has to have at its core the American people are going to be the ones controlling this economy.

We're going to have a say, a big say, the say, in how this economy is run. That say cannot happen by the people in the penthouse offices on Wall Street. That is over. That is over. We have declared it over. Now it's just a matter of time until we actually make this happen, when we bring democracy, true democracy to this country."

Moore wants everyone to benefit with a truly democratic economy.  Not just himself.  This flabbergasts you, because Republicans only think about themselves.  They can't even conceive of a rich person actually giving a shit.

He wants a system where the top 1% isn't in control of politics and the economy.  A democratic system.  A system that can benefit others besides himself.  That's the point you keep missing.

Guess what, Lindaman: There are people out there who make money, and have enough common sense to see the flaws in our modern capitalist system.

"I Am The Three Percent!" *CHOKE*

Thomas Lindaman writes:

Remember when the Leftist doppelganger of yours truly got on my case for denying global warming because I didn't use "climate scientists" to back up my claims?


And the headline?

Choke on it.

Okay, this is going to be fun!  Let's break this into categories for my response.  Point by point.


First: In reference to Lindaman saying "Choke on it."  Hey, Lindaman, remember the last time you said that?  It was just a few hours after I said "Bite it" to you.  Thus further showing your originality.  But what's funniest, is that your "Choke on it" comment was in reference to a source that you were hoping would prove your claim that Media Matters isn't legit: Because Andy Martin, a proven Anti-Semite, tried and failed to sue Media Matters because they posted Anti-Semitic comments that Andy Martin clearly stated. I just find it amusing that you're using the term "Choke on it" again, after failing so HARD the last time you tried it.  lol

But let's have some fun with the word "Choke."  Do you know what a synonym of "Choke" is?  Well, one of them is "Shut up."  For the rest of this post, when I use the term "Choke," that synonym is what I will mean.  So, keep that in mind.  Just wanted to make that clear before you start dragging in dictionary links of "Choke" like you did for "Debunk" while having no idea what you were talking about.

Lindaman apparently has the memory of a deadhead and forgot why I took him to task so hard regarding climatologists.  It's because he posted this on December 9th, 2009:

Lindaman blatantly lies here.  Every single link he provided in the previous post he's referring to, didn't have a single goddamn climatologist as a source. Since I, as usual, have to do the research for Lindaman, I provided a list of every single source that Lindaman used.  Not just in that previous post, but in every post he made regarding global climate change.  Then I asked him point blank where the climatologists were that he claimed he was using.

Do you know what Lindaman said in response when this lie was pointed out to him?  Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.  Zero.

Lindaman... choked.

And he will continue to choke on that fact.  Lindaman will never admit that he blatantly lied (as usual).

2. Finding The Holy Grail

And since that time until just now, Lindaman still never provided a climatologist.  Now, nearly two years later, Lindaman finally provides a climatologist after reading the link's headline on a freeper site.  He clicked the link, then dragged it into his blog without even reading it.  He put the headline in big capital letters, too.  He must have peed his pants with joy, thinking he found the Holy Grail.

Lindaman, I have stated over and over again that 97% of working climatologists worldwide know manmade global climate change is a fact.  That means... guess what?  That 3% are skeptical.  People with common sense and knowledge of math must know some skeptical climatologists exist.  If you have been frantically searching for two years to find a real climatologist that's also a skeptic, all you had to do was ask me, and I would've been happy to provide a few to you.  I know you hate doing research, and climatologist skeptics are as rare as black people at a Teabagger rally.  That's why Republicans break out the champagne when they stumble across one. lol

Now, onto the article itself...

3. The Article

The headline in the article says "Global Warming Is Over, Says Expert." 

But guess what?  That's not what was actually said.  The person the article is referring to, is Judith Curry. 

Curry is referring to the review done by skeptic/physicist Richard Muller, who after creating BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) review, and partially funded by the right-wing Koch Brothers in an attempt to prove global warming is a sham... Muller almost exactly duplicated the consensus on climate change. In the process, Muller’s gone from a self-proclaimed climate skeptic... to a believer.  He clearly stated, with no waffling, that "Global warming is real".  More on the research can be found here.

So, did Judith Curry, who (very minimally) was a part of the review, actually say "Global Warming Is Over"?


(I can use big fonts, too!)

What she actually said was: “There is no scientific basis for saying that global warming hasn’t stopped."

There's a big difference there, Lindaman.  She's merely saying that Muller's study isn't good enough evidence.  Which is fine!  Do you know why it's fine, Lindaman?  Because we don't need Muller's study.  It merely confirms what we already know.

So, how does Curry herself feel about the link you provided?  Well, she stated right there on her own blog that she was misrepresented on several quotes by the article's writer, David Rose.

This is no big surprise to the scientific community, as David Rose has a history of misquoting scientists.

I don't blame Curry one bit for asking people to be wary.  The research is only for land temperature, and it's only for a ten year span.  That's not enough to state something is a fact.  As far as her personal feelings on the warming trend, she doesn't provide any scientific evidence to support her statements.  Fortunately, others have.  When Curry was provided with questions regarding this scientific evidence, she... choked.  I guess the simple conspiracy got to her!

But don't despair, Lindaman.  Maybe two years from now, you can provide another bombshell. Make it in an even bigger font, because maybe that will somehow overwrite the rest of the scientific community.  hehe

Oh, by the way, if providing a climatologist is so important to you now, why don't you believe the other 97%?  Could it just maybe be because the cranks fit your preconceived narrative, regardless of the actual science? lol

Note: Lindaman will still pretend he didn't lie in his post about providing climatologists as sources... he will continue to choke.   Wait and (not) see.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Again? Really?

Thomas Lindaman links to an article on a right-wing site, Newsbusters, concerning Michael Moore giving a pep talk at Occupy Portland.

The Newsbusters site lies and says Michael Moore said the person's suggestion was "a good idea." He didn't.  He just repeated the person's question.

Oh noes!  Moore is a hypocrite because he doesn't respond to a troller!  Especially since he already responded to the same idiotic question a couple of days earlier:

"How can you claim to be for the poor when you are the opposite of poor?!" It's like asking: "You've never had sex with another man -- how can you be for gay marriage?!" I guess the same way that an all-male Congress voted to give women the vote, or scores of white people marched with Martin Luther Ling, Jr. (I can hear these righties yelling back through history: "Hey! You're not black! You're not being lynched! Why are you with the blacks?!"). It is precisely this disconnect that prevents Republicans from understanding why anyone would give of their time or money to help out those less fortunate. It is simply something their brain cannot process. "Kanye West makes millions! What's he doing at Occupy Wall Street?!" Exactly -- he's down there demanding that his taxes be raised. That, to a right-winger, is the definition of insanity. To everyone else, we are grateful that people like him stand up, even if and especially because it is against his own personal financial interest. It is specifically what that Bible those conservatives wave around demands of those who are well off.

Lindaman gives his post this headline: "This Is What A Hypocrite Looks Like!"

Hmmm... wait just a sec... here's a comment on the YouTube link (highlight is mine):

I knew it was too clever to be his own idea. Lindaman changed it a little to help disguise it.  What Lindaman doesn't understand, though, is that "hypocrisy" works and "hypocrite" doesn't.  Because "hypocrisy" rhymes with "democracy."  Thus, by Lindaman's disguising of the copying, he ruined the humor. lol

Also, this isn't the first time Lindaman's tried this weak tactic concerning Moore.  See here.  He has to do it again?

For the full raw footage of the pep talk, you can see it here and here.

Lindaman, I know you're mad because the protesters didn't fold up after the first weekend and because the movement is global now.  But really, this is the best you can do?

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Some Have iPods, Too!

...So they should all STFU!

Sunday, October 23, 2011

Here's Some Towelies!

According to Lindaman, the OWS protesters are dirty hippies!  Let's take a look at some of them:

Fuck you, dirty hippie!

Worthless, pot-smoking hippie!

Go to hell, you fucking dope-smoking traitor!

Communist filthy Towelie!

What the fuck have these guys ever done for this country?

Hippies!  Hippies!  HIP-PIES!

What the fuck do THEY know?

OWS has NO IDEA what's going on!


Worthless, dirty, jobless little shits, all of them!  Including that 81 year old holocaust survivor!

Pssst... they tried that "dirty hippie" crap during Vietnam, and it didn't work then, either.

"No, YOU'RE a towel!"

Finally, in his three part OWS special, Lindaman posts this picture.

Basically, after ranting about the rich elite being behind OWS... Lindaman is now saying that OWS are pot-smoking hippies that have no idea what's going on.

So, to sum up the right-wingers' claims: The protesters are trivial hippie peaceniks...that are dangerously violent.  And they are anti-capitalist... backed by the rich elite.  And they don't know what's going on... while being expertly coordinated by shadow organizations.  Got it.

I thought Libertarians supported legalizing pot, Lindaman.  You were a Libertarian once.  Is that why you became an Independent (tm)?

OWS is not lacking a coherent message; instead, its message is multi-issued, politically complex, and systemic: economic inequality, layoffs, house foreclosures, bank bailouts, million dollar bonuses, overpriced health insurance, cuts to social welfare, the student loan industry, tax breaks for the rich, underfunded schools, etc. are all interconnected. None of these occur in a vacuum; instead, each contributes to and affects the others. One of the root causes of this system is the near total corporate dominance of the political system, media, education, prisons, you name it. Corporate dominance is not the only root cause of these interrelated issues, but it is a good place to start. Protesters are occupying Wall Street because it is the epicenter of corporate dominance and condenses all of these issues into one symbolic force.

A right-winger had to create a fake representative of OWS from scratch in order to make a strawman: Towelie.

The right-wingers created their own genuine representative of the Teabaggers: Joe The Plumber.  The "leftists" didn't create Joe The Plumber.

Yet, Towelie still knows more about "what's going on" than Joe The Plumber.

I am amazed at the right-wingers that have no problem defending banks and corporations using federal money (AKA the money you pay in taxes) to make even more money off of you and the ridiculous excuse for right-wing public servants who allow it to happen.

Let's all laugh at the banks' white-knighters like Lindaman. Keep on kissing those asses, they'll still give you nothing.

This is why you, and the rest of the right-wing crowd will always lose. The only way to "beat" a mass protest is to open a dialogue with them. You have no interest in this, or you wouldn't be diverting to discussion about how some of them look like hippies.

We know exactly what's "going on."  The fact that you don't, speaks volumes.   You're the last person on planet earth to be talking about knowing what's going on in the world.

The plutocrats and oligarchs are FREAKING THE fuck OUT.  And why?  Because they're frightened.

OWS is about the 99% protesting against the prevalence of corporate influence over our country and our government and our legislation. It's about the 99% standing up and saying that those with the most money shouldn't have more of a say over government and legislation than the rest of us.   Basically, it's a response to the redistribution of wealth from the middle and upper middle classes to the pockets of super elite class. Occupy Wall Street protesters are targeting financial institutions which are to blame for damaging the economy

The problem we have in this country now are the excesses of corporations sucking the value out of the economy, for their own gain.  The OWS supporters see this.  Corporate interests supported and easily subverted the Teabagger movement, through Koch Bros. money and Fox News propaganda. They now are trying to smear OWS as "Dirty Hippies" when in fact the majority of OWS supporters are clearly in the Middle Class.

I love the right-wing attitude of "I have everything I have only because of me and no one else." Right. Your ability to make money has nothing to do with the infrastructure of the nation around you. Nothing to do with public education. Nothing to do with the national transportation system you, your business, or your customers use (either making you money directly or allowing them to make money to give to you). Nothing to do with public investments in R&D over the decades.  Nothing to do with having a secure nation, secure nations to trade with, and secure global shipping lanes ensured by a military paid for with tax dollars. I could go on.  Right-wingers, as usual, are ignorant beyond comprehension.

Unlike the teahadists, the OWS crowd have a legitimate gripe. They're not complaining about being "overtaxed" at a time when tax revenues are at 50 year lows; nor will they contradict themselves later by then claiming that "not enough" people are paying taxes.  Most of the country is pissed at the Wall Street bankers. That's the difference between a true populist movement, and a fake one like the tea party, which was nothing more than a bunch of useful idiots that were backed by billionaires at the very start (ie astroturfed).

Its the Republicans who racked up most of that debt and gutted a great many programs and safeguards in favor of greedy and unscrupulous millionaires, and now they act like its everyone else's fault but theirs that things are the way they are.

They're angry at the assholes that busted the economy. If these banks were paragons of virtue, they'd have looked at their books and said to themselves "We should stop lending to people who can't afford these mortgages, they aren't paying", but they didn't. And they didn't because they had gamed the system.

What OWS stands for is taking corporate money out of politics, enacting strict regulations on the banks who crashed our economy and making their executives face trial for their crimes, and altering tax policy so that economic growth no longer accrues solely to the upper class. A solid viewpoint which most Americans could get behind - heck, it's already more popular than pretty much any national politician in this country.

It will still be difficult for OWS, as it doesn't have a PAC thanks to the lack of astroturf.  If OWS has an impact, it will be in a positive one. Unlike the teabaggers, whose ideas were just to fuck the whole country in the eye socket and be a GOP mouthpiece.

The teabaggers are rallying against government spending for the needs of the people, especially disadvantaged people. OWS is protesting government spending for the rich profiteers.

The GOP types are shitting their pants in panic.  They have all of their PAC sponsored trope seeders out on the internets trying to spawn negative memes and tropes about the OWS stuff.  But the simple fact is, it's not working for them. Some 70% of American's view the OWS group favorably. And that scares the shit out of the authoritarian fascists.

And when you have people like Mark Cuban saying the same thing as a lot of the OWS people, that doesn't exactly make for an environment where Wall Street could just sit and wait.  This isn't just some random guy, it's a guy who knows about being a CEO firsthand and no one can accuse him of being envious of someone else's money given he's a billionaire several times over himself.

Why do teatards like Lindaman oppose OWS?  Because it won't get Republicans elected, that's why. That's *all* the Tea party types truly care about.

Banks gambled with money that was NOT theirs, and lost, and went down in flames and nearly took the economy, and country, with it. And when the government was nice enough to bail their asses out, they have the GALL to howl bloody murder at the very idea of being regulated? No, fuck you guys. You drove drunk and you need your keys taken away. For good.

No one from the banking crisis of 2008 was held responsible or saw any jail time.

The poor are getting poorer. Unemployment continues to be sky-high. But the major corporations are still reporting massive gains. The CEOs continue to be overpaid. In the meantime, people have to work several jobs to support their families. If they can find several jobs to work. Some people can't even find one job.  Government bails out these corporations but they're not 'bailing out' the people who are poor and suffering? The homeless? The people who get trapped under mountains of debt because they couldn't afford health insurance but got gravely ill and had to go to the hospital?  It's not supposed to work like this. People are willing to work if you give them a decent job for decent pay and benefits. I'm not talking a cushy job, but just something dependable. But corporations across the board are decreasing benefits unless you're with a union.

Both unemployment and corporate profits being unreasonably high at the same time. The USA has a third-world income disparity rating.  And right-wingers have no problem with that at all.

And finally, this is what REALLY pisses Lindaman off: The fact that the OWS and satellite protests have already gone on longer than any single Tea Party rally... and are much larger by a very, very long shot.  Bwahahahaa!

The Republicans have nothing left but their messages that are designed to appeal to hicks.  Don't worry, Conservatives. I'm sure one of your attempts at making OWS seem illegitimate will work, some day. Whatever you do, keep talking about it.

And we're laughing at you for having no real response to the points presented.  You may want to live in a feudal hell hole, but the vast majority DO NOT.

We're witnessing history here.  History for the better.  And it delights me that you won't be a part of it.

But at least Lindaman didn't try to do a sloppy demotivational poster this time.

These Are RICH Dirty Hippies!

Thomas Lindaman writes:

When I'm Right... I'm right.


So, Occupy Wall Street claims to be the 99%, but allows members of the 1% in their ranks without question?

And let's not forget there's another member of the 1% who has his fingerprints all over OWS: George Soros.


That's right, folks! George Soros's influence goes WORLDWIDE!

Here's what a billionaire funded protest looks like, folks:

All kidding aside, Soros ain't funding OWS.  Nice try.

And how did each of these 1% members make their money? By being capitalists. But we can't pay attention to that little detail, can we?

Okay, Lindaman... what is the maximum dollar amount that they are allowed to make per year for them to care about this country, and their fellow people, and to think that the recipients of the bank bailouts engaged in criminal behavior and did massive damage to our country?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with ambitious people becoming very successful (ethically). There is nothing wrong with companies putting out a good product or service and becoming even more successful than they already are. Our country depends on excellence and should reward it whenever possible. The problem is that a tiny percentage of our population control nearly everything, and in doing so, artificially control access to government and to success itself.

According to right-wingers like Lindaman, these wealthy individuals that are contributing to OWS are hypocrites for supporting a more equitable tax burden on their income class, with a separation of power between the business class and government authority.

Conservatives have made an art out of convincing people to support causes that go against their own interests, and now they're pissed about this? Who's the hypocrites again?

I thought these were dirty, unemployed, pot-smoking hippies, Lindaman. Guess you guys had to change tactics when that didn't work.

On the one hand the right-wing media claims OWS is class warfare and demonizes the rich. Now they're saying there are rich folk involved as well, which would indicate it's a broad-based coalition of interests. So, which is it?

And all the complaints basically boil down to "these people are rich so the only reason they can possibly be supporting OWS is because they're hypocrites".

Which is a good summation to the mindset of the right. It just never even occurs to these idiots that some people may think that there are more important things in this world than a bank account.

Kinda like Teabaggers complaining about "big gubment" while decrying cuts in military spending, and supporting the government telling women what to do with their bodies, and supporting the government executing its own citizens, and supporting the government to shut down an islamic community center. In those cases, intrusive government works beautifully.

No, wait, the Teabagger hypocrisy actually is hypocrisy. Never mind.

Lindaman is just upset because in spite of supporters like the ones he listed, OWS actually IS a grass roots organization, unlike the Teabaggers.

Seriously, the Teabagger movement was literally created, run, and funded by guys like Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers and Fox News. And all we got out of your little day camps was a downgrade of our credit rating. And now you're going to argue that OWS isn't a "real" protest movement, because a month after it started, and a week after it began spreading all over the globe, more famous people got involved? Too little, too late. You Cons ought to have started your smear campaign on these guys weeks ago.

The Teabaggers are openly hostile to the working class and the poor. Thus, they aren't populists like OWS.

And now the Teabaggers have stepped up to defend the banks, Wall Street, and Government from the outrage of their fellow citizens. Honestly, was this any surprise?