45,000 Verizon jobs open up in Northeast?

[grandpa]

First, there is no government or industry considering the "extended
long term".
For politicians, it's the next election...

That will be problem, yes. Also, your average politician will be in Wall Street's hip pocket. But everyone knows that.

Grandpa h.

[barts]

That will be problem, yes. Also, your average politician will be in Wall Street's hip pocket. But everyone knows that.

Grandpa h.

Indeed. The political campaign finance system in the US is criminal in most democratic countries. It always surprises me that ordinary Americans tolerate their politicians' open corruption.

[Trojan_Ripper]

As for a nation-wide strike, with great confidence I suggest that until ordinary people shut their countries down or burn their cities so that the rich suffer and live in fear there will be no change for the better. Such is history's lesson. Would it were not so. But it is. There would be no civil rights for blacks in America if Watts didn't burn.

I also suggest that this will be proven out, once again, in Britain this time. When the young--jobless and without hope--burn buildings the politicians and their rich masters will implement the necessary changes to insure more young and poor can find meaningful jobs and have meaningful futures. It's too sad and too true but until the powerful become fearful they do not give up the benefits they've acquired by plundering ordinary people, workers, and the poor--namely most of us.

Someone can be screwed for only so long before they turn on their rapist, even if the rapist is feeding them the very morsels of dreck that keep them alive.

What a bunch of hate speech, fear mongering, and boisterous bullshit.

“There would be no civil rights for blacks in America if Watts didn't burn”. How in the hell did you come up with this? Do you even take the time to “wonder” what you’re talking about before drumming a key stroke? Explain to us the correlation between civil rights and the reason of Watts burning?

As for a nation-wide strike, with great confidence I suggest that until ordinary people shut their countries down or burn their cities so that the rich suffer and live in fear there will be no change for the better.

I also suggest that this will be proven out, once again, in Britain this time. When the young--jobless and without hope--burn buildings the politicians and their rich masters will implement the necessary changes to insure more young and poor can find meaningful jobs and have meaningful futures. It's too sad and too true but until the powerful become fearful they do not give up the benefits they've acquired by plundering ordinary people, workers, and the poor--namely most of us.

Are you a union organizer? Have you started an Anders Breivik type manifesto yet? Are you trying to use words that can get people killed instead of bullets? Do you believe your own words?

You blame the riots and deaths in London on politicians and their rich masters? What provoked the riots? You blame the riots and deaths in Watts on civil rights? What provoked the deaths and riots? Why do they burn their “own” damn neighborhoods, steal from their "own" neighbors, kill their “own”? Why is it someone else’s fault that warrants such violence and destruction? Is this the type of “plundering” you speak of about the rich and powerful, or is there some other type of “plundering” that is okay in your book?

Powerful people should “fear” your written words while you’re inhaling the smoke from your own burning house that you started “because that’s the way to show them”? I don’t think so! There will be curfews and military on the streets before then, and then the “play station punks” of your army will be back at home asking mum why dinner isn’t on the table.

Ohhh....And when it comes to “unions” what did you think of that little smack down in Wisconsin yesterday? No riots, no buildings burning, no deaths, just people getting out and “voting” their PREFERENCE…. I say “well done Wisconsin”!

Good luck with your Nation Wide bonfire strike barts...did you ever say what nation you're from?

[barts]

What a bunch of hate speech, fear mongering, and boisterous bullshit.

“There would be no civil rights for blacks in America if Watts didn't burn”. How in the hell did you come up with this? Do you even take the time to “wonder” what you’re talking about before drumming a key stroke? Explain to us the correlation between civil rights and the reason of Watts burning?



Are you a union organizer? Have you started an Anders Breivik type manifesto yet? Are you trying to use words that can get people killed instead of bullets? Do you believe your own words?

You blame the riots and deaths in London on politicians and their rich masters? What provoked the riots? You blame the riots and deaths in Watts on civil rights? What provoked the deaths and riots? Why do they burn their “own” damn neighborhoods, steal from their "own" neighbors, kill their “own”? Why is it someone else’s fault that warrants such violence and destruction? Is this the type of “plundering” you speak of about the rich and powerful, or is there some other type of “plundering” that is okay in your book?

Powerful people should “fear” your written words while you’re inhaling the smoke from your own burning house that you started “because that’s the way to show them”? I don’t think so! There will be curfews and military on the streets before then, and then the “play station punks” of your army will be back at home asking mum why dinner isn’t on the table.

Ohhh....And when it comes to “unions” what did you think of that little smack down in Wisconsin yesterday? No riots, no buildings burning, no deaths, just people getting out and “voting” their PREFERENCE…. I say “well done Wisconsin”!

Good luck with your Nation Wide bonfire strike barts...did you ever say what nation you're from?

Hmmm. This from a citizen of country that was founded with a revolution.

Voting in America? How quaint. Do you really think choosing between politicians or political parties owned by corporate donors is democracy?

[Trojan_Ripper]

Hmmm. This from a citizen of country that was founded with a revolution.

Voting in America? How quaint. Do you really think choosing between politicians or political parties owned by corporate donors is democracy?

Hmmmm….and “how”, and “what way” does that answer the questions presented you? Try again, unless you have “no” answers barts and then just say so. Do you have an answer or were you just “wondering” and curious as to how your rant of a post would be taken? Why would a person expect to be taken serious unless they can answer a few questions instead of coming back with questions?

Just scroll up and try again, or I’ll just give you my first couple for now to make it easy.

“There would be no civil rights for blacks in America if Watts didn't burn”.

How in the hell did you come up with this? Do you even take the time to “wonder” what you’re talking about before drumming a key stroke? Explain to us the correlation between civil rights and the reason of Watts burning

[barts]

Hmmmm….and “how”, and “what way” does that answer the questions presented you? Try again, unless you have “no” answers barts and then just say so. Do you have an answer or were you just “wondering” and curious as to how your rant of a post would be taken? Why would a person expect to be taken serious unless they can answer a few questions instead of coming back with questions?

Just scroll up and try again, or I’ll just give you my first couple for now to make it easy.



How in the hell did you come up with this? Do you even take the time to “wonder” what you’re talking about before drumming a key stroke? Explain to us the correlation between civil rights and the reason of Watts burning

Seemed to me you weren't asking questions but using them rhetorically. Perhaps you'll appreciate that it is difficult to take someone seriously who writes, "What a bunch of hate speech, fear mongering, and boisterous bullshit."

Do you know what hate speech, in fact, is, I wonder?

At any rate, which question, in particular, did you want me to address? They all seemed so thoughtless. Did you really want me to answer, "Are you a union organizer? Have you started an Anders Breivik type manifesto yet?" Do seriously believe such questions deserve an answer?

Perhaps you should rethink your diatribe and ask a proper question. I wonder, too, do you disagree with the lesson of history that "It's too sad and too true but until the powerful become fearful they do not give up the benefits they've acquired by plundering ordinary people, workers, and the poor--namely most of us"?

[Trojan_Ripper]

Seemed to me you weren't asking questions but using them rhetorically. Perhaps you'll appreciate that it is difficult to take someone seriously who writes, "What a bunch of hate speech, fear mongering, and boisterous bullshit."

Do you know what hate speech, in fact, is, I wonder?

At any rate, which question, in particular, did you want me to address? They all seemed so thoughtless. Did you really want me to answer, "Are you a union organizer? Have you started an Anders Breivik type manifesto yet?" Do seriously believe such questions deserve an answer?

Again a question for an answer. But after reading your post with you asking "which question, in particular, did you want me to address?' I figured out that you must be chewing gum and don't read posts before you start answering them, or you would have seen the question. Lets try one more time.

You stated:

There would be no civil rights for blacks in America if Watts didn't burn”.

I asked:

How in the hell did you come up with this? Do you even take the time to “wonder” what you’re talking about before drumming a key stroke? Explain to us the correlation between civil rights and the reason of Watts burning

So try again barts, I have lots of patience,k?


Then what the hell is this?

Seemed to me you weren't asking questions but using them rhetorically. Perhaps you'll appreciate that it is difficult to take someone seriously who writes, "What a bunch of hate speech, fear mongering, and boisterous bullshit."

Did you write this? Did you post this? Did you quote this? Sounds like hate speech to me. Burning cities, people suffering, hell, sounds like armageddon for them there powerful folk barts.

with great confidence I suggest that until ordinary people shut their countries down or burn their cities so that the rich suffer and live in fear there will be no change for the better

I also suggest that this will be proven out, once again, in Britain this time. When the young--jobless and without hope--burn buildings the politicians and their rich masters will implement the necessary changes to insure more young and poor can find meaningful jobs and have meaningful futures.

Maybe you're just suggesting a weenie roast eh barts? ....phfittt

Gonna answer that question up there or have you fogotten it already?

[barts]

Maybe you're just suggesting a weenie roast eh barts? ....phfittt

Gonna answer that question up there or have you fogotten it already?

As I say, these are not legitimate questions but rather mindless rhetorical flailings.

If you disagree with my views, perhaps you have some means of putting forward your objections with something more thoughtful than bile. Just a thought.

What exactly, I wonder, do you consider wrong about what I wrote? Is it your view that the riots in Watts had nothing to do with civil rights and vicious oppression of black Americans? Of course, it wasn't just Watts that burned. I would hope you were aware of that.

At any rate, if you have a question or concern phrase it well, and I'd be delighted to respond. Continue with the vitriol and you'll merely solicit the patronizing and condescension that your responses warrant.

Insightful comments like "Maybe you're just suggesting a weenie roast eh barts? ....phfittt" lead me to doubt the intellectual integrity of the person who makes them. Perhaps, you agree.

[barts]

While deploring the riots and their use of violence, [Dr. Martin Luther] King was quick to point out that the problems that led to the violence were ‘‘environmental and not racial. The economic deprivation, social isolation, inadequate housing, and general despair of thousands of Negroes teeming in Northern and Western ghettos are the ready seeds which give birth to tragic expressions of violence’’

King told reporters that the Watts riots were ‘‘the beginning of a stirring of those people in our society who have been by passed by the progress of the past decade’’.

During his discussions with local people, King met black residents who argued for armed insurrection, and others who claimed that ‘‘the only way we can ever get anybody to listen to us is to start a riot’’. These expressions concerned King, and before he left Los Angeles he spoke on the phone with President Lyndon B. Johnson about what could be done to ease the situation. King recommended that Johnson roll out a federal anti-poverty program in Los Angeles immediately. Johnson agreed with the suggestion, telling King: ‘‘You did a good job going out there’’.

Later that fall, King wrote an article for the Saturday Review in which he argued that Los Angeles could have anticipated rioting ‘‘when its officials tied up federal aid in political manipulation; when the rate of Negro unemployment soared above the depression levels of the 1930s; when the population density of Watts became the worst in the nation,’’ and when the state of California repealed a law that prevented discrimination in housing.[Source]

As I wrote earlier, "Someone can be screwed for only so long before they turn on their rapist, even if the rapist is feeding them the very morsels of dreck that keep them alive."

It's foolish to rail at me, TJ, for simply showing you lessons of history.

[Trojan_Ripper]

As I say, these are not legitimate questions but rather mindless rhetorical flailings.

If you disagree with my views, perhaps you have some means of putting forward your objections with something more thoughtful than bile. Just a thought.

What exactly, I wonder, do you consider wrong about what I wrote? Is it your view that the riots in Watts had nothing to do with civil rights and vicious oppression of black Americans? Of course, it wasn't just Watts that burned. I would hope you were aware of that.

At any rate, if you have a question or concern phrase it well, and I'd be delighted to respond. Continue with the vitriol and you'll merely solicit the patronizing and condescension that your responses warrant.

Wow! Politician/Media Effects 101

Okay barts, some bile free legitimate questions.

#1. Please explain in detail what you meant by your statement: “There would be no civil rights for blacks in America if Watts didn't burn”?

#2. Do you blame the riots and deaths in London on politicians and their rich masters, and if so, why?

#3. What provoked the riots in London and Watts?

#4. Why do these people burn down their own neighborhoods?

#5. Does a person’s hardship/lack of money warrant violence?

#6. Did you compose or just quote these following statements, and do you believe their stance?

with great confidence I suggest that until ordinary people shut their countries down or burn their cities so that the rich suffer and live in fear there will be no change for the better

I also suggest that this will be proven out, once again, in Britain this time. When the young--jobless and without hope--burn buildings the politicians and their rich masters will implement the necessary changes to insure more young and poor can find meaningful jobs and have meaningful futures.

NOTE: While writing my post you posted an answer to #1, thanks. I understand your veiw better on the Watts riots. Not the cause and effect but I understand. The riots did not gain them civil rights but only MORE hardship spoken by King himself.

Watts Riots News Reel - YouTube

Watts Riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[barts]

Wow! Politician/Media Effects 101

Okay barts, some bile free legitimate questions.

Now that didn't hurt, did it?

#1. Please explain in detail what you meant by your statement: “There would be no civil rights for blacks in America if Watts didn't burn”?

In detail would require volumes, but put briefly, politicians in the US did not take the civil rights of blacks seriously until the black community turned violent. Bear in mind, black Americans suffered (and still do) vicious repression from after the Civil War until the late 1960s--a century. Moreover, once the violence began, those who advocated peaceful means, like Dr. King, used the violence as a negotiating chip. The fact is that usually the powerful do not give up power nor share the wealth until forced to do so. I wish that were not the case, but it is.

#2. Do you blame the riots and deaths in London on politicians and their rich masters, and if so, why?

The shape of a modern society and the distribution of resources is determined not by the middle class and poor but rather the rich and the politicians who tend to serve them and who control the legislature. If the UK is a society populated by "yobs, hooligans, and criminals" who will loot and burn buildings for days on end it is because it was made that way by those in power. If the young people who are now rioting and looting had genuinely good schools and good future prospects such that they had a stake in the society, there is very little likelihood of the kind of rioting we're seeing now.

#3. What provoked the riots in London and Watts?

In both cases the fuse was police actions-the final straws. In London a young man was killed by the police. In Watts, a motorcycle policeman pulled over a black driver.

#4. Why do these people burn down their own neighborhoods?

In Watts, mainly white businesses were targeted. In London, high end stores are targets. People burn down their neighborhoods because that's where they are and it's the neighborhoods that are seen as ghettos and pseudo-prisons.

#5. Does a person’s hardship/lack of money warrant violence?

It depends on the reason for the "hardship/lack of money". If the reason is due to societal conditions where one privileged group is getting richer and richer while others--due to the increasing privileges of the powerful--are living more and more precarious lives and descending deeper and deeper into poverty, fear, and despair, unless violence is used it is unlikely the decline will be reversed. It is for each individual to assess their conditions and determine if violence is warranted. Generally, this question about violence is posed by the privileged and powerful who wish to elevate their fortunes into sacrosanct ethical rights. Ironically, what usually maintains their power and privilege is violence in the form of the police and the military.

Ironically, it was likely FDR who spared the burning of US cities during the Depression. FDR is considered a "lefty" by current right wing proponents, it was his New Deal policy that likely saved capitalism. See How FDR Saved Capitalism.

#6. Did you compose or just quote these statements, and do you believe their stance?

When I quote, I always give the source. I believe in reality and facts. The fact is that with rare exceptions (none come to mind) any social movement that requires reducing the privileges of the powerful and more equitable distribution of a nation's wealth and opportunity will only succeed after the movement turns violent. We see this happening now in Arab countries. We saw it in the US civil war. We saw it in South Africa, in Cuba, in Northern Ireland, in the great revolutions in America, France, and China. In my view, only good will come from the British riots, as the now fearful rich realize that if they are to have the stable, peaceful society they need to do business, they'll need to share the wealth more equitably so that everyone has a vested interest in the community.

We may not want to admit this historical and human societal fact, but all the same, the tragic reality is that when it comes to social movements and improving the lot of ordinary people and the poor, violence often, but not always, works. What rarely, if ever, works is peaceful protest and engagement. Indeed, as the union movement in America, Britain, and elsewhere has shown being peaceful and politely asking for a fair share can get you killed.

[lsbskins1]

Trojan Ripper -

As an addendum to barts post above, I would just like to add that the other sad truth is that where non-violent movements are successful, it is because the non-violent protesters endured the violence directed against them by those in positions of power and generated sympathy from average citizens. The images of the dogs and the fire hoses, of churches burning, and the mental images of dead elementary school children pulled from rubble of bomb blasts and dead voter registration drive workers pulled for earthen dams are what made the difference in the US and like images of violence and death were what made the difference in India.

It isn't that violence is desired. It is that, often, it is the only thing that truly opens eyes. And I find it very interesting that someone who seems to advocate for an individual's absolute right to self protection and absolute responsibility for self empowerment would be so opposed to strikes and so "shocked and appalled" by the idea that, when pushed to the limit, some people would cease to simply quietly endure what feels like a hopeless existence. Can you explain that?