and people who suggested it wasn't are either ignorant or bonkers.

It was done badly, though, and far too much was wasted on executive bonuses, something that should never have been allowed.

Another bailout after the next disaster (which is inevitable, by the way) will be a much tougher sell and will need much tougher regulations and strings attached the size of suspension bridge cables.

Even with less craven players on the scene, the speed that was needed meant that it would be less than ideal no matter what, but it certainly didn't need to be as bad as it turned out.

however my preference would have been nationalization of all big business, specially the banks, trading companies and insurance giants.

knew that the money would go straight to bail out bankers themselves and would never be used for people who were actually hurting, nor would it be used to reform the financial system's disastrous structure that got us to that point in the first place. That's why people were in the 'burn it all down' mood, and I was right there with them.

As we stand now, with the enormous bailouts behind us, we are in exactly the same place we were in when the first crisis hit. So, forgive me for thinking that maybe, just maybe, a bit of 'burn it all down' might have helped us 5 years ago.

If we had actually burned down the way the financial system works and reinstituted Glass-Steagall out of hair-on-fire fear that things were burning down, why, we'd be better off today. As it is, we are teetering on another, steeper brink because we weren't scared enough to do the right things 5 years ago.

There should have been huge strings and the head honchos should have been kicked out of their fancy offices as a warning to the next tier of executives to clean up their damned acts.

When it happens the next time, maybe we the people will be ready to nationalize the bastards and clean out the fraudsters.

but can you honestly imagine that Stupid would have signed those bills?

'Course, they weren't, being vampire squids themselves. I wonder what would have happened if the House had demanded that as the price for a bailout (not analogous to the current House causing a crisis and making demands).

Even without nationalization we could have fired the banksters, levied heavy fines on them personally; separated commercial functions from investment once again; broken up the banks and required that they lend / re-finance /etc at very favorable terms to Main Street.

Fuck Wall Street.

The main problem is really that all the brakes are off and nothing has been fixed. That the longer you put it off the deeper the fall into the chasm will be. We live in a financial house of cards, it's not a matter of if; it's a matter of when.

When they chose " target="_blank">not to bail out the banks.

Nationalize the banks, jail the banksters, reject austerity, impose common sense regulations, and move on. Unfortunately, this country has moved so far toward fascism that was simply not possible.

Can you honestly imagine Stupid signing the bills that would have done any of that?

Come on.

I blame him for plenty, but the reckless bailout was less an example of his own incompetence and more of an example of the rampant corruption of our representatives.

Those of us who fight for what's best about the Democratic Party are quite frustrated by the efforts of those who want Democrats to win but don't give a damn about what government policy will do to the people of the United States. I will leave it at that.

-Laelth

I'd like to see a Democratic Party that looked a whole lot more like Elizabeth Warren, one that Bernie Sanders would happily join instead of remaining an Independent.

Nevertheless, a bad bailout that favored the wealthy way too much was still much, much better than the catastrophe of no bailout at all.

I have a lot of trouble with people who would either deny the terrible price of their (in)actions (be it no bailout, or failing to raise the debt ceiling), or think that such a price is worth paying for their own ideological purity, to satisfy their anger, or to "burn it all down!" in futile hope of getting something that better suits their desires out of the ashes.

Now, if you would, do me the favor of reading what I have said on this subject. After you have done so, I'd be happy to engage you further.

http://laelth.blogspot.com/2011/01/turning-american-ship-of-state.html

-Laelth

were quite embarrassed by her opposition to bailing out Wall St and her support for rooting out the criminals who crashed the economy. See her battles with the Dem Treasury Dept. eg. Thank the Gods for the Crazy Left or she would have been history.



Totally disagree with your OP but we're getting used to the attacks on the "left" here on DU. Especially the ones that try to 'tread carefully' when they use that old 'moral equivalency' meme here.

But carry on, it's amusing if nothing else to see the continued feeble attempts to connect the crazy right with Democrats who support Democratic issues and principles.

Signed:

Proud Member of the Crazy Left

...only what seems mildly crazy in the context of a Democratic Party I consider too conservative and/or too scared to embrace progressive, liberal values that are quite sane and very far from nihilistic.

post. Warren was elected by what you described as the Crazy Left, period.

If you meant something else by your 'both sides do it' OP, then you didn't do a very good job of explaining it.

...was filling my OP with hundreds of careful disclaimers and qualifications (which are often futile even if you take that sort of time and trouble) for the benefit of people who react in knee-jerk fashion to their own automatic straw men, their imagined hidden meanings and suspected agendas that they see are hiding in anything that doesn't stroke them the right way.

You likened people who disagreed with a BANK bail out to a bunch of assholes who want to ruin the entire system of democracy.

Quite a stretch.

...(or pretty much the equivalent) to those who were willing to let everything go to hell by blowing through the debt ceiling.

There's nothing in what I wrote that likened all disagreement with the bank bailout to, say, trying to repeal Obamacare (or any shifting reason du jour during the shutdown when Republicans were flailing for an excuse other than petulance).

What is similar for those for whom the description fits, (BEGIN STUPID DISCLAIMERS THAT SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY) who are not equal in political power or in number to similarly cavalier, nihilistic, or in-denial people on the right (END DISCLAIMERS, PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH OF THEM FOR PEOPLE DETERMINED TO TAKE OFFENSE), is that there are some people who get so wrapped up in wanting things the way they want them that they get stupid or cruel or thoughtless about it, either denying the possible damage their recommended courses of action (or inaction) would lead to, or just not giving a damn about collateral damage.

which I don't think is quite accurate, it is not the same thing at all.

People who argued against the bail out didn't want to ruin the country, didn't have a lack of concern for the world's economy. We absolutely do not have people here on DU that are crazy like the Tea Party is crazy.

Using your logic I can argue that people who defend Obama are crazy when they defend him offering up SS cuts, putting Wall Street in the WH, spying on Americans, killing innocent people with drone strikes because, in your words, they are "either denying the possible damage their recommended courses of action (or inaction) would lead to, or just not giving a damn about collateral damage".

Now, you can either keep calling those you disagree with crazy and be a divisive force in the party and on DU or you can discuss policy as it comes up in threads. Your thread is not constructive in the least and simply offers that tired and worn out false equivalency that we see in the media. Their purpose for it is to keep us fighting each other so they can get away with passing bad legislation that favors TPTB. Not sure what your purpose is, but as you can see from the responses your result is divisive and leaving people feeling insulted. So why not just post a thread about policy, rather than calling part of DU crazy for their policy opinions - which again, I do not believe at all came from a desire to ruin democracy as we know it or our govt or the world's economy, which is what you are in effect claiming.

...made during 2008 on the specific subject of the bailout, I would, and I'd dig up some examples of what I remember from back then.

Some people were actually flat out saying that they'd rather have a Great Depression scale crash than bailout the banks. Any attempt to dissuade these people from what a bad idea that would be, and the tremendous suffering that would follow was met by (1) hand-waving dismissal of how bad it would really be, (2) ignoring any talk of such suffering while accusing the person bringing up the potential suffering of having some sort of pro-bank, pro-elite, anti-the-common-man agenda, and/or (3) self-righteous certainty that their cause was so noble and just, and the current world so evil and corrupt, that "burning it all down" and hoping for something better to rise from the ashes was the best we could hope for.

Do you believe simply because I can't find links to old posts like that that I'm simply suffering from a faulty memory of, or lying about, what a small but noisy part of DU was like back then?

So a handful of people posting on DU posted things on an internet message board, most likely out of anger, that they couldn't possibly actually do in real life.

Do you think that is really the equivalent of the Tea Partiers who are actually in Congress, shutting down the government unless they get their way and have an actual law defunded, PLUS all the RW media who are upset about not defaulting, PLUS all the idiots who showed up at the WH pretending to protest the shutdown they caused, PLUS the elected officials at that same faux protest, PLUS Faux News, PLUS the fact that they are seriously stupid and hold signs that say things like "keep your govt out of my medicare", I mean these are not people who are coming up with policy based on good analysis.... I'm sure there's plenty more.

You see, it doesn't add up to equal. Not even close.

Also, I would bet 90% of said posts were out of anger and if those people were given the power to actually stop the bail outs they would not do so. Perhaps they would have modified them and shifted them to Main Street rather than Wall Street, but I would be willing to bet that if in a position of power, they would not do anything reckless.

On the other hand, we've seen what the RW crazies do when they are in power. They were ecstatic when they cuased the shutdown. They would have gone into default if they could have.

It's absolutely not the same and all you are doing is potentially hurting Dems when you put forth this false equivalency. Especially if you alienate the left, without whom this country would surely be doomed.

...and thus a big difference in what there would be to fear from the two different crazy extremes.

Does that difference in risk or power or numbers turn the subject of similarities in personality and attitudes into a subject of total disinterest, or a taboo subject best left unmentioned for propaganda reasons, because somehow merely taking note of any such similarities must be taken as an unjustified full assertion of equivalence of the Left and the Right in all ways, means, shapes, and forms?

If less than 1% - probably more like .01% - on one side, and that 1% is in no position to actually do anything and for all we know isn't even trying to get into power and surely would never be elected into power, is crazy, and 23% of the other side is crazy AND they are in a position of power AND the less crazy people in their party who are in power ALLOW them to be crazy and go along with their craziness and ACTUALLY shut down the govt, costing us $24bn, then there is no equivalency. None.

And also, that .01-1% would NEVER be allowed to run the party and cause something like the govt shutdown. So there is no equivalency. None.

The only people on the left who would be considered the true equivalent of the crazies on the right are ostracized immediately, where as on the right they are touted as the next best leader. So again, there is no equivalency. None.

And at this point I'm fucking tired of trying to talk people out of their great need to find persecution and insult where there is none. So go ahead and feel like the victim of a false equivalency if you need to so badly.

Sure thing boss.

...is the part where you think you're cleverly reading in between the lines and pulling out what isn't there.

as you did when you proclaimed that I felt like a victim among other things.

And now you make another claim of knowing what I'm thinking beyond what I'm posting.

Why don't you respond to what I say instead of attacking me personally? Or just let it go. But telling me I feel like a victim, when I don't, and that I think I'm cleverly reading in between the lines, when I'm not, isn't going to get you very far in a discussion. In fact, you've effectively ended this one.

...to explain where you extract meanings in what I wrote that I didn't put there. Whether you are consciously aware of having done so cleverly or not, what you've said about my posts clearly shows meanings inserted that aren't there in my original words. But I can generously allow you have done so stupidly and without conscious awareness rather than being clever about it.

Last edited Sun Oct 20, 2013, 02:41 PM - Edit history (1)

you said I think I'm so clever... and now you are saying I attacked you personally? Where? I refuted your ideas. You may have taken it personally, but that's entirely different.

Now you're not even trying to have an honest discussion in the least.


I reread this subthread and I would love to know how you could think I made any sort of personal attack at all. Seriously, please show me.

...what I've said based on an interpretation of my words that I strongly disagree with as an odious characterization, I call that a personal attack.

As for acting like a victim, that doesn't necessary mean a "victim" specifically of me or my post, or that you're throwing a whoa-is-me pity party, but that you are defensively reacting to something that I'm not (some sort of Centrist false equivalencer, like a newscaster who says "neither side will budge" when talking about the shutdown, instead of taking the Republicans specifically to task for it) because you've got to protect yourself and others from that evil Centrist force, one you're so eager to head off at the pass that you see it where it doesn't exist.

I have seen throughout this thread that you simply can't take any criticism of your OP. Your standard reply is everyone who disagrees with what you say is reading between the lines and inferring something you didn't say. Well, when so many people do it that you actually have to edit your OP with disclaimers that - as pointed out by Jeff in Milwaukee - are longer than your original OP, then you really have to step back and try to be objective.

As to your second paragraph. I really don't know what the fuck you are trying to say. I refuted what you said in your OP. I continued to refute what you said in your OP. I even allowed for a starting off point that you didn't bother to take the time to source. I'm not defensively reacting, I'm refuting what you said. (You clearly don't think you said what you said but Jeff quoted you several times, so you need to reread your own OP.) If you can't be bothered to bring facts to the table and if you want to dismiss all major criticism of your OP as people being defensive, reading between the lines or inferring something that isn't there, well then you need to look at why so many are getting the same thing out of your OP. Perhaps it's not all of us being defensive after all. Perhaps you didn't articulate what you believe you were trying to say very well.

And with that I am done. Good luck with your future OPs.

...most people even knew such things existed.

I still screw up now and then, however, forgetting to fully account and prepare for how people can twist things, skim quickly and see only their favorite bogeymen instead of what you have actually written, insert and overlay their own interpretations, etc. etc -- and sometimes it's simply either beyond any skill in self-expression to head off this effect, or it leaves certain topics untouchable because, even if you take the time to carefully predict and counter how you might be misread, the number of people who fire off quick angry retorts to their own inner demons based on mere word-association level reaction is too numerous.

I think this post to another subthread applies here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3890132

Please show me where I said "it adds up to equal". Please. I'll wait.

Oh, I didn't say it? You simply decided that I wouldn't even bring up this topic without intending to assert an equivalency that *you* imply is there by second guessing my motivations?

what are they burning down today? What did they say about the debt ceiling? There are probably some rapid lefties, but to imply that they are somehow equivalent to the crazy left is both absurd and damaging to the Party.

Bottom line is there arent enough rabid lefties to equal the TeaBagger Party.

It's only because someone thinks, "Well, he's bringing this topic up. The only possible reason to even mention this is to equate the two things, otherwise no one would say it!".

...wherever they can find it.

If I wanted to attack "the left", all of it, every last bit of it, do I seem like I'm so fucking shy that I'd hold back, that I'd bother being "clever" and indirect? You're just playing the "I've got you pegged!" game, you're the one who thinks he's so "clever". No one's going to pull the wool over your eyes, nosiree! You can proudly announce how you've cleverly seen through my dastardly ploy!

day after day to mock and disparage the left. I ask, to what end?

A big part of what turned this thread into a clusterfuck can be found in your question, "to want end", which, in and of itself, isn't a bad question.

When someone decides, however, that they just KNOW why someone would bring up a particular topic or observation, and then their mere guesswork at another poster's possible motivation turns into "I've got you pregged!" certainty, it then colors everything they see, and the simple literal meaning of the other person's words hardly matters after that point.

that may get a little hyperbolic now and then, but there is no faction here. I see this OP as just another, "both sides are equally at fault." Trying to taint the left with the so-called crazies.

There are a number of TeaBagger Representatives in the HoR. Can you name one Representative that you consider a "burn it down" lefty?

...were comparable in number (which I did not) you might have a valid point of dispute. You're leaping to an unjustified conclusion that someone wouldn't even bother to make a comparison unless it was about something of equal magnitude.

"Trying to taint" is also your insertion of a motive which isn't there.

As for asking me to name a Representative, the VERY FIRST LINE of my OP talked about how WE DON'T ELECT OUR CRAZIES INTO OFFICE the same way the Republicans do, so I BEGAN THE WHOLE DAMNED THING expressing that important difference!

SO sad.

It's critically important to swiftly judge WHY someone would post something, divine their motivation, act like you KNOW WHAT THEY'RE UP TO!!!, never even question for a moment your oh-so keen abilities to spot a nefarious attack, and then make sure your clever uncovering of the poster's dastardly intentions colors your reading of everything they've said.

Because if you don't, THEY'LL SNEAK UP ON YOU AND GET YOU!

surprised if the DNC helped her any more than their Blue Dog favorites.

was the party of the working class and the party of minorities, the party that recognized that capitalism's purpose was to serve the people, not the other way around.

nt

nt.

We should have bailed out the homeowners, not the banks.

...only that it was better than no bailout at all.

I felt the bail out should have went to all Americans, not banks and wallstreet. And I still feel this way about the stimulis, that the only way to properly stimulate the economy is dole out a thousand to each citizen with a script that must be spent in America on US made products. within 12 months or lose it That is ground-up stimulis that rewards those most hurt by the crisis, and rewards those American corporations who patriotically did not abandon America for foreign shores.

Might be my bias, but I see no equivalent on the left to the extremism of Tea Party. Shutting down the government hurt everyone. Threatening to do it again is scary.

I expected something like FDR's New Deal within the first two years of the Obama administration. We got a conservative stimulus plan and foreclosure protection was handled in a clumsy half way fashion. Even with division in the Democratic Party, we could have done more when we controlled all three chambers.

I will always be grateful to progressives on the far left for pushing issues to support working families and those most in need. Occupy Wall Street did a great job shining of shining light on rich corporate types like Romney who use government to get richer while the middle class vanishes. I think the Tea Party leaders hurt working families and the poor with their shut down and burn strategies.

That said, I am happy we got health insurance, some stimulus and limited foreclosure protection from those first two years and I am sure the conservative, targeted bailouts, especially towards the auto industry were effective in the recovery and Obama's reelection.

The only bailouts that the people on top should have gotten would have been from their friends and relatives, in order to get them out of jail for a while before their trials.

Even in this forum, the nihilist fraction you speak of on the left could not dominate the discussion. This faction has no influence on governing policy, let alone any capacity to set terms for governing policy. I can think off-hand of no more than two or three members of Congress who could have been ranked as congenial to that faction here, and these not only are no longer in Congress, and that as result of primary defeats, but were powerless, and widely excoriated, while they were there.

You are comparing a pound of feathers to a ton of lead....

...by stating up front the big difference between who gets elected from each side?

It is best to halt, rather than press on with standard-issue 'both sides do it' boiler-plate....

...typeof commentary, it's more for about a bit of introspection for people who are, shocked!, shocked! at how many on the right have been acting.

We are saved from our own lefty brand of insanity much less by numbers of crazies in our ranks (though I'd guess the numbers are smaller) than by electoral and cultural dynamics.

And your piece is accurately described as "standard-issue 'both sides do it' boiler-plate".

"How many legs has a dog, if you call a tail a leg?"

...and pretend they don't exist, so long as we feel safe that they're just mumbling to themselves?

What you are trying here is analogous to urging me to call the police to report an assault if a six year old smacks my leg after being denied a Slurpee at the corner store, and urging it on the grounds that recently, nearby, a pair of grown men laid some unfortunate out with a base-ball bat....

...unless you equate merely acknowledging the existence of our own crazies (especially when explicitly calling out their lack of political power) somehow turns them into fearful giants.

After a ritual cough and bit of pious disclaimer, you piled straight in to present these themes.

First: There are left equivalents of the extreme right elements in the driver's seat of the Republican party today --- which is merely a set-up for 'don't criticize the enemy for something we do too' ( a line a left audience will often fall for hard ), and for the extension of that into the usual punditocracy 'both sides are to blame, fault is equally divided' line.

Second: If we do not reign in, isolate, disparage, take stern steps against, etc., the 'crazies' in our own ranks on the left, we will be in the same position the Republicans are, with an extreme tail wagging a centerist dog. So let us not waste time attacking and exposing right-wing Republican outrages, let us concentrate our fire where it is most vital, on those to our left here, the real problem.

I have, as anyone who has been here for any length of time will know, my own quarrels on occasion with the 'lefter than thou', and certainly a number of them have their quarrels with me. But this is a time for unity, for a 'Popular Front' policy, and put bluntly, we are going to need our more extreme voices as budget negotiations get under way during the Holiday season. I do not trust our center and center-left Party leadership not to give away the store....

...for those "themes" that aren't there, certainly not explicitly, and only implicitly via a degree of paranoia and desire to find persecution and insult where none is intended or implied.

I usually like most of your posts too, so that makes me especially surprised to have to deal with this stupid bullshit from you.

This makes your meaning available to others who are fluent in the language, and it comes across very, very clearly.

...were a part of the English language.

So, these things you're saying I said, that I'm denying I said -- what are proposing is happening here? I'm lying to you about what I think I said? "Oh, no! I got caught! Deny it!"

Or you caught me in a terrible error, saying things I didn't mean to say, as if all that you've tacked on to my meaning could tumble out by mistake?

So, if the nihilist viewpoint can't overtake the conversation here...

I've had liberal bloggers express surprise that I'm DU as opposed to Kos, etc. Whatever, it's the first forum I stumbled upon in the dark days of November 2004 and I grew to like to format and the viewpoints.

They're talking about "factions."

In that event the OP is correct.

OWS shit on John Lewis for crying out loud. The far left is leaderless. I actually like this aspect of the far left (and would fit in that category). I'm just saying that the OP has a marginal point.

I am glad most people here exposed the OP for exactly what it is.

No one really exposed the OP except to maybe put their heads in the sand about the marginal point being made (that there are people who want to burn it down on the left but they don't get elected).

There are some exceptions, however. Cynthia McKinney comes to mind.

First of all our crazies have almost no power. This is a bit like comparing the influence of white people who hate black people in the Republican Party with black people who hate white people in the Democratic Party - there's no real comparison, and bringing it up just creates a false equivalency narrative.

Secondly even if you want to limit it to DU, than it's still weak. DU is a discussion board - and should be open to all to discuss within the guidlines that Skinner has set. That ranges all the way from far left wing revolutionary ideas to moderate right wing Corporate Liberals, so long as they support the Democratic Party and don't post outside the rules.

Discussion is good - differences are good - help us strengthen our arguments.

Bryant

I think that you've conjured your own straw man of false equivalency, ignoring my clear opening remark about who Democrats elect, and who Republicans elect, a remark which goes straight toward addressing your "our crazies have almost no power" comment.

If anyone can point to an example where the people were better off in the aftermath of a 'burn it all down' occurrence, I'd be interested to hear about it.

Did you misread me, and issue your question as a challenge to me, or was your question aimed only at the kind of people I was discussing in my post?

but I still maintain that 'burn it down' has never worked out well for the downtrodden, who merely exchange one malevolent overlord for another.

Anarchy = Chaos

Nor would it necessarily require getting rid of our democratic institutions. I'm over simplifying, and you have no interest in dialog, but anarchists have built anarchist societies, albeit briefly, within the framework of a democratic republic, for example in Spain before and during the civil war.

for the love of Pete...denial runs deep

Anarchists are the Libertarians of the Left.....

Oh and libertarians outside of the United States are left anarchists, our inbred right anarchists are almost unique to the USA.. I suppose you meant that as an insult, but it isn't.

Anarchy is Chaos.....

You are just saying here that Libertarians are just Rightwing Anarchists......which is exactly what I just said!

it's beyond me why some people seem obsessed with comparing the TP to the left.
Personally, I find it sickening.

Have you ever met and spoken to a TPer?

..nuff said?

She's somehow managed to avoid birtherism and thinking Obama is a secret Muslim, but other than that, she's full out crazy, and I suspect a closet Dominionist.

Why would knowing someone like my sister dissuade me from posting my OP? My OP hardly constitutes being "obsessed with comparing the TP to the left".

there is very little comparison in my opinion. The TP types I have met are worlds apart from liberals who may differ on opinions about certain policies, but do not at all share the core values of the xenophobic, flat earth Tea Parters.

Maybe you aren't obsessed with digging for comparisons, but many are. It reminds me of the determination of the media to always state that "both sides" do something.

The TP can trace it's philosophical roots to the John Birch Society and the Klan.
This is why I find comparisons offensive.
Being perhaps wrong on a policy does not make the two comparable.

Our system, even if we do't like it, requires a functioning banking system.

...but not enough of a problem to tip the balance in favor of no bailout at all, even with a crappy bailout being the only one on the table.

The Banksters were allowed to get off, and even rewarded for it. The money should have had many strings attached, including vigorous prosecution. And now we are headed for a repeat.

tend to circle around and meet in the middle of chaos and totalitarianism.

...big time.

The bailout should have gone something like:

OK, We're going to bail you out but these new laws will also be made.
We don't like that!!
OK, we'll add these laws to the ones we already have.
NO..NO...we REALLY don't want that.
OK, ...ah...You want to try for some MORE laws or are you truly that stupid ? This IS the way it's going to be. Period.


Instead, we allowed so many loop-holes, you could have driven a train through them.

Interestingly, many of the people that advocate that point of view also advocate limiting bullet capacity of guns. I will expand on the analogy that I made. A person using a high bullet capacity gun can injure or kill more people before having to reload or being taken down, a rich bastard will suffer long, long, long after poor and middle-class people have been demolished. Any caring person that advocates a "let the rich bastards suffer" policy also must accept that they are advocating a "demolish the poor and middle-class" policy, there is no escaping that truth. Policy initiatives should be focused on holding financiers and finance people responsible for their actions, crate laws and policy and enforce those changes, make it clear what penalties will be handed out for financial malfeasance and make those penalties substantial - that is how the poor and middle-class aren't made victims.

moral equivalency posts on DU. No wonder so many progressives are moving on from these forums.

Maybe you could understand CRIME being PUNISHED at the top 1% level the same way it is punished in the rest of society??

I know, I know, that is a Crazy Left idea. Just think, if we held War Criminals and Wall St Criminals accountable for the crimes they committed, there would be NO 'America' as we know it!!

Wait! Would that be a bad thing?? Criminals being prosecuted rather than rewarded with billions of tax dollars?

Sorry, I slipped into a Crazy Left mode there. Of course it would be a bad thing!!

You 100% distorted my post with an emotional, wishful rant. I didn't say rich people who victimize society with they financial crimes and manipulations should get away without stiff punishment. By all means, there should be laws and stiff punishment for them, including forfeiture of all assets that are even remotely related to their crimes, that is before penalties kick in. And those laws must be enforced. But blindly striking out at rich people who are responsible for financial crimes in a way that sacrifices poor and middleclass people is fucking stupid, sorry, but is it. I prefer having laws on the books to deal with financial criminals so that the nation doesn't get into a situation where saving the poor and middleclass from financial ruin by going soft on rich criminals isn't a choice that the country has to make.

I prefer to stick to issues btw, rather than personally attacking people especially with so much inaccuracy as I see in your comment.

So I'll be brief. Democrats like me and I can't remember any other Dem not agreeing with this, simply asked and expected since we are told so often that we live in a country where the Rule of Law applies equally across the board ...

1) That the Criminals who got us into war, who engaged in War Crimes, be prosecuted.

2) That the Criminals who crashed, knowingly, the World's Economies, be brought to justice.


As for this:

You can't go a day on DU anymore without assaults on liberals by the Third Way.

And the sad thing is that this is not just DU. This kind of garbage is now relentless on every major discussion board across the internet. When the distribution of wealth in this country looks like this...:

You're railing against a straw man of your own creation, not anything I wrote.

the only threat there is to their criminal enterprises.

And we KNOW they actually PAY for these kinds of smears against what they call 'the left', which really means 'anyone who tries to hold us accountable for our crimes'.

What IS revealing though is WHO latches on to the 'left' label as 'negative'. I find that extremely worthwhile information for the future.

Same kind of bullshit narrative to give cover to the DINOs driving the Democratic Party constantly to the right, so that now, it isn't even recognizable as the same party of FDR.

Nonsense. Neo-liberal. Propaganda.