I seriously like your suggestion. It seems like something “out of the box” is definitely required. I’m not sure how to implement a solar flare, though.

“Occupy” is more tractable, maybe.

Those guys still need a LOT OF SIGNATURES, as of this moment.

Members of Congress are concerned with the good of the country, as they see it, and the election and re-election of themselves and members of their parties.

More pointedly, the members see their re-election as being for “the good of the country”. Also they know their re-election depends on massive monetary contributions from lobbyists and PACs.

Therefore, Diamond is really implying that we need campaign-finance reform. He’s subtle, like that. (/s)

Hedges. Thanks for the link.

Referring to rebellion, whether it be the Arab Spring or the Occupy movement, he says the following:

The establishment asks: What are their demands? Why do they hate us? What do they want? The oppressor can never hear the answer, for the answer is always the same—we seek to destroy your power.

Yes, that’s it in a nutshell. All of the detractors who whine that “Occupy is stupid; they don’t have a single message” need to understand this concise message. The purpose is to destroy the political power of the elite.

The only problem is, “destruction” is not a positive act, in and of itself. The message is anarchist in nature. The message needs to contain an outcome which is not simply destructive.

We seek to wrest power from big money and to give it back to we the people.

a massive and permanent idealogical shift

That’s what pundits were proclaiming in 2008. It lasted exactly two years.

Actually, by my appraisal, it lasted exactly as long as it took to appoint Geithner and Summers.

Paul Ryan will see that you are given a voucher for a can opener.

TBogg, I recommend you back away from Mark E. Smith slowly, and don’t mention the words “cleaning woman“.

Even if you lived in a Romney state, you could vote for Jill Stein, and it would not alter the outcome. It would not be a “spoiler vote”. The state would still go to Romney.

If you live in an Obama state, the same condition applies. No spoiler possible there, thanks to mathematics.

I am in a Romney state, and I do plan to vote for Stein.

What do you…imagine that Obama might think about the incident?

Oooh, oooh! I know this one! I’m *NOT* answering for TBogg, just my own answer:

Obama: “Where the heck are the drone bombers when you need one?”

To paraphrase Jon Stewart: “Because, at this time before an election, there’s no other place in the world besides Ohio.”

P.S. Ohio.

That would be as if we took the Senate, compressed it into a single person, and then made it President. Damn, who knew we had such high technology!

So, in 2008 we got “fake left, go right”. Now, in 2012, you speculate that we could get “fake right, go left”? That would be funny. (I mean, like “tragi-funny”.)

I don’t think it will happen. He’s got too many patrons on Wall Street. I think we are due for another “fake left, go right” event.

Romney interrupting POTUS, totally denigrated the office.

…if he later apologized and pointed out the NO ONE interrupts POTUS.

Why the heck not? He’s not a god. Whoever is POTUS is a civil servant, and deserves no more or less obsequiousness than any reasonable human.

Even if you disagree with that, consider the situation: they were there to debate, and a debate only works when the conditions for all participants are equal. That debate was Obama versus Romney, not POTUS versus Romney. So it is biased to treat Obama as POTUS in that venue.

Finally, to really confuse this posting, let me say that I also dislike interruptions and discourtesy by ANY participant in a debate, and I would have preferred that it had not transpired in that last debate. That being said, I would overlook it in a heartbeat if they would hold a real debate with so-called “third-party candidates” included.