« | »

The Hive – Please Talk Among Yourselves

Here is our usual weekend discussion thread, where comments on the general topics of the day are welcome.

But please remember to post and comment on specific news items in the ‘News Selected By Our Correspondents’ thread below or via the link found in the sidebar.


This article was posted by Steve on Friday, November 4th, 2011. Comments are currently closed.

33 Responses to “The Hive – Please Talk Among Yourselves”

  1. tranquil.night says:

    Latest exploits from the occupiers:

    This is the most fired up I’ve seen AllahPundit: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/05/good-news-ows-sets-up-women-only-tent-to-help-cut-down-on-rapes/ Some of his finest work.

    Occupy DC turns violent at AFP event: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/05/chaos-video/

    “Some info on the AFP member who was pushed down the stairs by the protestors… she is the second woman the police are helping up in the Daily Caller video. Her name is Dolores Broderson, age 78. She rode on a bus for 11 hours from Detroit to get there. She went to the emergency room with a bloody nose and bruises on her hand and leg.” (via Insty)

    “I GUESS THEY REALLY ARE TAKING TAHRIR SQUARE AS THEIR MODEL” Stacy McCain: http://theothermccain.com/2011/11/05/f-michelle-fields-interview-with-reporter-harassed-at-occupy-dc-protest/

    Jazz Shaw: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/05/down-twinkles-occupier-now-occupying-jail-cell-for-10m-arson/

    • proreason says:

      I’m having a real hard time understanding how the marxists can possibly think OWS helps them.

      I believe they are so overwhelmingly arrogant that they actually think the country supports them.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Well, as Steyn (correction: not Stein, lol) says, they’re anarchists for statism, and the establishment Left were so desperate for a movement they could spin into popular momentum for class warfare that they had to go all in.

      But you’re right, they’re fumbling their narratives worse than my hometown QB Philip Rivers 4th quarter drive at Kansas City on Monday Night Football. It remains to be seen whether they’ll completely disavow themselves from what they created. They already got a lot of high profile, normally milder on the partisan level personalities out there saying the regime owns this movement.

    • beautyofreason says:

      Marxists are dim revolutionaries. Every old protest I saw in NYC reminded me of Occupy Wall Street. The liberals have fond memories of their 60s counter cultural roots and their method of organization is the mob. Usually they have brainwashed young people, a few on loud speakers with the usual slogans – “Bush lied, kids died!” Violence and disorder are inevitable because they believe civil disobedience is a good thing, not a last resort. Fortunately for us the protesters don’t hide what they believe; the filth just oozes out given enough time and microphones.

      It’s not about Wall Street; these guys support Obama and redistribution and the whole nine yards. They openly vent their hate for the U.S. and that’s a good thing because the mainstream media can’t play it down forever; sooner or later the American public will “get” what these washed-up radicals stand for. One rock band at an OWS protest played **ck America. Another had a bunch of kids stomp on an American flag defaced with red Arabic letters.

      The protesters are losers expressing their distance from the “system” by damaging it. Nobody will elect members to Congress based on their affiliation with OWS. Nobody wants to be associated with the kids who break windows, spray paint ATMS, dump on cars or leave enormous piles of trash on private property. You could almost find a coherent message among them if not for the acrid smell of pot wafting down the tents.

      The Tea Party is a class act and no matter how many times the media tried to paint them as extreme, they are a million times better than the left’s answer.

  2. tranquil.night says:

    Cain-Gingrich debate on Entitlement Reform: http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/

    Very, very, good so far.

    • proreason says:

      This could be the ticket. If not, then Romney and one of them could be, assuming Rubio is really serious about not accepting VP in 2012.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Yep, they each would bring plenty of strength to the final ticket. I’d be happy if Romney would listen to the reasoning behind the ideas and arguments coming out of the debate even if he didn’t pick them to be his vp.

      It’s just great that they’re breaking the primary conversation outside of the soundbite format into some very good substantive points. They’re both hitting on the core themes of choice and personal ownership in this debate very well from the philosophical/ideological level, the political level, and the fiscal reality level.

      Newt is doing really well, predictably. He’s really captured this skill lately of paying his competitor’s compliments while at the same time demonstrating his own enhanced understanding of what effective leadership is.

      Welcome back Pro!

    • Mithrandir says:

      It’s about time Republicans got out of the ‘debates’ or as I call it, “The-media-feeding-the-questions-to-the-democrats-so-they-can-look-poised-and-prepared”-debates. The ones right now are just the media trying to make them all look shallow and petty.

      Also, if I was the Republican candidate, I WOULDN’T EVEN HAVE a debate with Obama next year! What’s the point? If you made the sale, STOP SELLING! The only thing a Republican has to gain by debating a loser, is……nothing. Just because the media will want to desperately feed questions and answers to Obama, and then shriek from the mountain-tops that he overwhelmingly won the debate…..why fall for that? –Just keep on the campaign trail, and pound away at your message without a rebuttal.

  3. tranquil.night says:

    In defense of the reverse racism card:

    1. We aren’t the ones constantly out balkanizing America along racial/class lines. There’s no one to whom hyphenating America means more than a Liberal, because the Left is racist.

    2. We aren’t the ones engaging in the disgusting slurs and stereotypes. If you listened or watched Sean basically at any point this week, you heard the montage of all the poison being flung at Cain leading up to the release of the hit piece. We remember double standards, because the Left is racist.

    3. Because mainly they insist on accusing us of it without any evidence. They won’t let it go. They can’t. So if they are going to make this a mainstay of public discourse, then we’re ready to talk about it with them, because we know the facts: the Left is racist.

    Herman Cain did not achieve popularity because of Right Wing guilt. It is a premise that is beneath us to even accept. He did it on his own merits. That model of success is anathema to the central lies of the modern Leftist narrative, therefore any poorly investigated political hit job from a propoganda rag, while it would’ve been perpetrated on any Republican in the same situation, comes with the added stigma that this particular man must be destroyed especially because of the inherent threat he poses just for being him.

    Because the way the Left has fundamentally structured itself.. is racist!

    • proreason says:

      One of the things about Cain that I don’t like is that he played the race card on Perry before he knew anything about that situation. He hasn’t apologized for it either.

      But Cain is right when he says that his candidacy makes the libwits’ heads explode. If he gets the nomination they will go down to the slave quarters and have the Black Caucus do their dirty work for them.

      This early salvo was by establishment Republicans. View it as toddlers throwing food at each other. The real attacks are being saved for October 2012, and it won’t matter who the Republican is. It will be Waterloo for the marxists. They won’t be playing for funsies.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Did he play the card on Perry’s camp? I might’ve missed it if so, and I agree that he and Block jumped the gun on Anderson (although I think Anderson is suspicious and possibly one of the sources), but I’m fairly positive Cain asserted that he felt the racism was strictly on the Left.

      Dittos to the rest of your post.

    • proreason says:

      In his first interview with abc after wapro broke the story of the rock at the Perry’s hunting camp, Cain said that Perry was insensitive. As I recall, the interview was only a day or so after the first report about the rock. Seems to me that less was known about that situation than is known about Cain’s interactions with the women.


      But the main thing that turned me against Cain is that his 9 9 9 plan, while obviously appealing to many conservatives, makes him unelectable. You simply can’t go slapping 18% in new taxes on 47% of Americans who currently pay no taxes and expect to win a national election. Doesn’t matter if it’s the right thing to do or not, it’s dumb. On top of that, the plan dramatically lowers taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Soon as I saw that, I knew he cannot beat Obama. It only took 15 minutes reviewing his plan. And it doesn’t matter how much he revises it, it’s clear what his intention was. The marxists will make sure nobody forgets. He can’t win the general election. I don’t think he could get 40% of the vote head-to-head with Obama.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Yep, he clearly fell for the template, and that is a trend.

      The rest of your analysis is a mix of I think valid criticisms and some conclusions we can’t draw for sure.

      The next debate between Herman and Newt is supposed to be on Tax Reform, so it’ll be interesting to see how he handles some of these specific disagreements we have with 9-9-9. Newt’s shrewd enough to debate it in a way that I think is constructive both for Cain and for Newt’s 21st Century Contract with America, which I’m having trouble deciding if I like better than Perry’s Cut, Balance and Grow. Perry sure hasn’t convinced me of his electability though, even given the fact that he has a magnificent plan. Whereas I have no doubt now that Newt would be a monumentally incredible threat to Obama if given a chance. If Cain weren’t so wedded to his proposal, I’d strongly recommend he consider Newt’s or Perry’s ideas, which are much more polished.

    • proreason says:

      I think it’s a mistake to center an economic plan around taxes in the first place. I’ve been saying that for at least a year now. All of the candidates should emphasize little lenin’s disastrous spending and say that tax reform is a minor second to stopping the spending.

      The problems result from government overspending, and specifically the $5 trillion in new spending that the Moron has piled on and is now fighting to the death to continue, and amazingly, expand. Talking about taxes doesn’t help the core message, it dimishes it, while at the same time, it gives wet dreams to some rabid elements of the conservative base that would rather lose gloriously than win ingloriously.

      The marxists must be rubbing their hands in glee over this tax debate…the debate over the exact topic they want it to be about. At the moment, it is about pro-growth tax strategies. In the next round it will be transformed into class warfare on steroids. And many of the listeners will be voters who are extremely concerned about their personal financial plights and who will be very sensitive to the slightest hints of tax increases. What do you thing the Moron will be promising?. Cain didn’t just stick his toe into the deep side of a roiling ocean, he jumped in without a life preserver.

      Romney, Newt, and Perry have avoided that pratfall. Their plans have tax components, but the centerpieces aren’t taxes. Of course, Perry fell into the other nest of army ants…calling Social Security a ponzi scheme, and then doubling and tripling down. SS does have elements of a ponzi scheme, but why stick your thumb in the eye of 50 million senior citizens? Everyone attributes his fall to his clumsy debate performances, but he has made a lot of unforced extra-dumb errors.

      It’s not a good idea to scare the voters. You would think it would be obvious.

    • JohnMG says:

      tn and pro;

      I’ve been following your discussion(s) for some time now and find the give-and-take well reasoned. Let me only add this. It is impossible to discuss any of the topics as a stand-alone item. Without a doubt, the economy needs to grow in order for us (US) to climb out of this pit. And yes, it is the spending that needs to be addressed foremost. But there is no way to rebuild the economy without discussing taxes as well, which any of the candidates will be driven to doing by a hostile media. Reagan said it best when he asked who should be making the decisions concerning how to spend a person’s earnings? The earner, or the government? Put another way, if you let me keep more of what I’ve earned, I’ll spend it on what I want to spend it on…..and in the process help another do the same. I’m speaking from a small businessman’s perspective, as you are aware. Also, from the perspective of someone who is trying to get retired, and can’t afford to do so……even though I’m beyond the necessary minimum age.

      It would seem to me a bit evasive not to address all the issues, even though it is one un-holy “stew”, and subject to the demogogues and their 15-second sound bytes. While I agree with your assessment that “….. it is about pro-growth tax strategies. In the next round it will be transformed into class warfare on steroids…..” This seems to be unavoidable if the candidates are to be square with the electorate as to their individual positions. And if they don’t play it straight, we risk letting the other side define the strategies for them…..and us, too. We know how they play the game.

      I know this doesn’t bring much to the conversation, but please carry on with your analysis. I’m struggling with this whole dilemma and really don’t know what to think. This much is certain, though. We dare not fumble this election because, in the gambler’s parlance “we’re all in”, and this one will determine if we even have a country when it’s over.

    • tranquil.night says:

      JMG – your contributions are greatly valued and most appreciated.

      You both make excellent points and this discussion echoes the broader debate going on in the party and the movement right now.

      I agree with John when he says that this mess is all interconnected. We’re not going to be able to grow our way out of the debt crisis, and even the types of ‘radical’ reforms proposed in the Ryan Plan are not going to get us to fiscal balance in this decade. Whoever our nominee is, the regime will be out to win at any cost. It’s as important to me as anything that our candidate can effectively refute and turn the table on the lies and false premises of Obama, the establishment and MBM.

      I agree with Pro that Perry, Newt, and Mittoast (eh..) have more politically and substantively solid plans in how they address taxes but especially spending.

      I don’t think any policy debate should be out of bounds. Taking on the tax code is going after the belly of the beast. If the effort is going to be made, it has to be dead serious, and it has to be lead by someone who understands and can command every muddy angle. My guiding star is that the situation is dire enough for good guys like John that we can’t be afraid to try and change the paradigm by challenging long-held conventional political wisdom and try and combat the demogoguery (also because I really believe in the strength of our ideas) – but also that the situation is dire enough that we have to think and act pragmatically if we aren’t successful in every battle.

    • proreason says:

      jmg, agreed. No question the knee bone is connected to the thigh bone, and it will always be hard to avoid discussion of any topic.

      The choice comes down to how the candidates want to handle it. I prefer the Romney, Gingrich approach which wraps the more controversial topics in the larger context of big government overspending. Cain’s approach is much different, which is to go head-on after taxes, a major mistake in my opinion, even though no pundit to my knowledge has said so. Perry initially made a similar mistake with his ponzi scheme remark without first laying the groundwork by reassuring seniors that nothing will change for them

      I’m all for honestly, but brutal honesty isn’t, shall we say, political.

      There is another approach, btw, which is Ron Paul’s…cut $1 trillion NOW. Setting aside the other issues with Ron Paul, that is the approach I would personally favor, because ALL of the one trillion has been ladled on by the Moron, and it is ALL waste. This is the Bill O’Reilly and others’ suggestion that the Repubs should just say, we need to return to the 2007 budget, adjust for natural growth in SS and Medicare, and use that as the baseline. The fact that only Ron Paul has said it makes me suspicious that even Romney and Gingrich will be weak tea. If anything is really going to get done, it will be Congress that does it. Even if Cain is elected, Congress will ignore his 9 9 9 plan. There are simply to many serious problems with it for it to be given serious consideration.

      But back to my main point, every candidate should memorize a couple of sentences that they start every discussion with: “President Obama has increased annual government spending by $1 trillion, added $5 trillion to the national deficit, and put the country on the fast track to inevitable insolvency. In four more years we will be the Weimer Republic. Everything we do has to first address that problem, or it is simply spitting in the ocean.”

  4. GetBackJack says:

    Pro, JMG, and company – I have close friendship with upper level Thin Blue Line of one of our biggest cities, where this Occupy nonsense is going on. He tells me that their Intelligence Division is of the firm belief that the purpose and goal of these clowns is to actually go full 1968 Chicago in multiple cities simultaneously, in combination with pre-planned terrorist actions. Think al-Queda in league with the Sinaloa cartel aided and abetted by Venezuela and other Marxist regimes acting as cutouts for the real puppet masters. As with all confidential whisperings from someone in the loop, I can neither share bona fides, nor name names, but his crew is busy busy busy working on stopping strikes planned against major infrastructures just ahead of the elections. As he put it “Reichstag (x) 20.

    • JohnMG says:

      GBJ; None of that surprises me….in fact I’ve had my own suspicions all along. What does trouble me is that, just like in most banana republics, the rank and file don’t really know whether to trust their own higher-ups. We see this played out at these OWS locations–especially in the land of fruits-n-nuts, aka San Francisco. At least the ‘authorities’ are pretty blatant in their support. But what about in other places where the bosses are traveling under the radar. In whom do the loyalists confide? And will they be betrayed for their loyalties vis-a-vis the Border Patrol agents and the ATF people and the like?

      Would you feel comfortable remaining staunchly and openly true to your oath of office if you have to report to a boss whose allegiance may be held second to his/her own career interests? In this respect the progs have succeeded, if for no other reason than to cause dissention and paranoia within the ranks. I fear we’ve become little better than a a thinly-disguised third world nation.

    • proreason says:

      If it wasn’t for the fact that a lot of people would be hurt, I would beg for them to do so.

      Many of us have said for years…take off the masks and let’s hear what you really mean.

  5. tranquil.night says:

    Morrissey; Taxing Christmas Trees.. to Promote Christmas Trees

    The petulant regime seems to be feeling a bit Grinchy lately.

    Instead of a gift, here’s some hopenchange in a box. What, you say it looks and stinks like a tax? Merry Oba-mas!

    • Petronius says:

      The regime’s Christmas tree tax is aimed at all of us, of course, but in particular at North Carolina’s heavily Republican 5th Congressional district, which is the Christmas tree farm capital of the East Coast.

      Hopefully the grinches will soon be hearing from Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) and Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC).

  6. tranquil.night says:

    In light of the info from Rand Paul that the Democrats are supposedly walking away from super committee negotiations, the Republicans might’ve offered that 300bil revenue as a painstaking show that they were willing to deal in good faith and not be rigid.

    It’s a defesible strategy; my issue is that whenever we accept their premise, even in a theoretical deal, they only come back and capitalize on our concession some other way without having to budge. The Left is in it to win it.

    Even if they are just waiting for the defense cuts to go into effect, they aren’t going to let themselves be blamed for it.

  7. proreason says:

    Watching the CNBC debate.

    The moderators (should be called extremerators) are highly contentious…basically adopting the marxist position on everything and challenging all of the candidates.

    Gotta say…ALL of the candidates are doing great. Throwing it right back at the extremerators. I would be happy if the the candidates were this agressive all the time.

    Social Security is up next. That could change my mind.

    Oh no, Perry just flamed out, while he was on a roll, too. Back to Texas Rick.

    • tranquil.night says:

      It’s such a high pressure situation. Anything less than flawless at this point and the pundits are going to try and flame you out unless you’re Mittens. I feel bad for Perry and how much he’s struggling in these debates. I really want to see everybody do well.

      But my feelings are irrelevant. This is to lead us in the Super Bowl.

    • tranquil.night says:

      Piggy backing on that, it’s hilariously outrageous to me that they’re actually monitoring presidential candidates’ stock: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/moment-rick-perrys-presidential-chances-flash-crashed

      And yes, it’s existence is as outrageous as Allah giving us constant ticker quotes from it. lmao

      But it’s true actually. If you understand regular market trends, you have a leg up at managing political market trends. Similar fundamentals at work. Probably part of what makes Mittens a natural up there. He’s trading on the trends.

  8. chainsaw says:

    I may be in the stone age, but anyone who has the cajones to call the leftist princess a princess in a public debate means something. Reagan did it, perhaps not as bluntly, and it’s an attribute I would like to see more of. It gets the media’s attention and they may report on it.

    “ROCHESTER, Mich. — Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain is apologizing for calling the House minority leader “Princess Nancy.”

    Oh drat, here come’s the apology. No matter, damage done.

    Side bar: this morning the media is really touting Mitt as the clear front runner. Please help me to see that that’s a good thing.

    Flamed out? Yep, the Rick Perry flame out is all over the morning news. Forget about substance, it’s all about image.

  9. proreason says:

    from Tim Pawlenty’s diary. Final entry for November 9, 2011:

    “note to self: Stop being so impetuous”

  10. tranquil.night says:

    “‘There is a feeling among several European leaders that all the E.C.B. buying [European Central Bank quantitative easing] so far has only allowed Italy to stall its fiscal and political reforms, and perhaps the market pressure on Italy is needed to make its government react as it should,’ the officials said.”


    Good thing that’s not the case here. Erhm..

  11. DW says:

    Taking a momentary pause from all the political mayhem of the day, I’d just like to wish a happy 236th birthday to the USMC.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »