Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[California Girl]

Occupy Wall Street is a Mushroom?

Yep. Kept in the dark and fed on bullshit. That's apt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I posted Rasmussen, Obama is in the shitter.

Obama is doing better than any of his opponents with the possible exception of Romney, and anyway Rasmussen only becomes reliable a couple of weeks before the election; before that he deliberately skews polls to the right.

In any case, your original statement wasn't "Obama's approval ratings are low," it was "Obama isn't supported by anyone except unions." Even Rasmussen's poll proves that's not true, since there aren't enough union members to make up 40+% of the population.

No you don't - you work against my interests.

That's true if you're a big bankster or make over a million dollars a year. Otherwise, it's not true. You may think it is, but if so, you have been deceived.

Yes, I'm deceived by the millions paid to Derek Jeter.

On brain power alone, Liberals should be lucky to count as 3/5 of a person

 

[Dragon]

You and I both know that the US Constitution is the highest law in the USA.

You didn't answer my question. If California were to abolish its legislature and make all laws by initiative, would that threaten the Constitution?

I know, and history supports it, that pure/true democracies have a bad record of success. They facilitate the oppression of minorities.

No, they don't particularly, compared to other sorts of government. There have been very few pure democracies in history, always small scale and without much in the way of minorities to suppress. That was so in ancient Athens for example.

The U.S. until recently was pretty bad about oppressing minorities, and was not governed by a pure democracy. Nazi Germany was incredibly bad about oppressing minorities, and was not governed by any sort of democracy. Tsarist Russia was very nasty towards the Jews and other minorities, and was a monarchy. And so on.

What protects minorities is restraints on government prohibiting oppression of minorities, not pure as opposed to representative democracy, or any other form of government as such. Our representative-not-pure democracy didn't prevent the existence of slavery, or the cruel treatment of Native Americans, for example.

When the government allows mobs to fraudulently obtain others' property and forces the owners to surrender their property to the thieves, it sure as hell does.

This has never happened to my knowledge. Nor is anyone calling for it.

YOU cannot say with any certainty that the amorphous and ever-moving and ever-shifting 'views' of the OWS add up to much of anything.

Yes, I can, because it is neither amorphous nor ever-shifting.

I, however, CAN say that the TP stands for smaller and efficient government, less government intrusion, less authoritarian government, more personal accountability, protection of individual liberties and freedoms because those views have been explicitly and repeated stated at the protests.

The TP stands for government that provides less assistance for the middle class and poor and governs the nation as if it were still pre-industrial. It calls for unrealistic and unworkable elimination of functions of government necessary to a modern society, as well as of other things such as corporate subsidies and misguided foreign wars. (On these latter points, it shares beliefs with OWS.) It calls for elimination of government regulation of business, and confuses this with "protection of individual liberties and freedoms," because those involved in it don't understand that in these areas it is private power not government power that is the main threat to the liberty of the ordinary person, and that the freedom of the powerful to oppress is not compatible with the freedom of ordinary people not to be oppressed.

This is of course another way of saying what you said above, translated from the code-speak. But we aren't discussing whether you are prepared to support OWS or not. We are discussing whether it is a threat to the Constitution. I am not asking you to support the movement. I am asking you to refrain from paranoid counterfactual hyperbole.

 

[Dragon]

Occupy Wall Street is a Mushroom?

Yep. Kept in the dark and fed on bullshit. That's apt.

That's the position we're all in. OWS is an attempt at a cure.

 

[Si modo]

Occupy Wall Street is a Mushroom?

Yep. Kept in the dark and fed on bullshit. That's apt.

OMG! TS really did call it a mushroom - as you said, commonly known to be kept in the dark and fed bullshit. *snort*

But, I know that TS is much more aware of what this OWS is really all about. He's no dummy and has been very patient to realize his inherent desires.

That doesn't mean I don't like him. Not at all. Hell, I used to be engaged to a Communist (well, an ex-Communist).

 

[Skull Pilot]

Occupy Wall Street is a Mushroom?

Yep. Kept in the dark and fed on bullshit. That's apt.

That's the position we're all in. OWS is an attempt at a cure.

An attempt that cannot be articulated by the OWS sheep other than

 

[Si modo]

You and I both know that the US Constitution is the highest law in the USA.

You didn't answer my question. If California were to abolish its legislature and make all laws by initiative, would that threaten the Constitution?

I know, and history supports it, that pure/true democracies have a bad record of success. They facilitate the oppression of minorities.

No, they don't particularly, compared to other sorts of government. There have been very few pure democracies in history, always small scale and without much in the way of minorities to suppress. That was so in ancient Athens for example.

The U.S. until recently was pretty bad about oppressing minorities, and was not governed by a pure democracy. Nazi Germany was incredibly bad about oppressing minorities, and was not governed by any sort of democracy. Tsarist Russia was very nasty towards the Jews and other minorities, and was a monarchy. And so on.

What protects minorities is restraints on government prohibiting oppression of minorities, not pure as opposed to representative democracy, or any other form of government as such. Our representative-not-pure democracy didn't prevent the existence of slavery, or the cruel treatment of Native Americans, for example.

Constitutional republics do no facilitate oppression of minorities as do pure democracies. To say the contrary is a willful suspension of rational thought.

When the government allows mobs to fraudulently obtain others' property and forces the owners to surrender their property to the thieves, it sure as hell does.

.... This has never happened to my knowledge. Nor is anyone calling for it.

....

Not true (read: bullshit). The OWS wants the government to forgive their student loans and mortgages.

I, however, CAN say that the TP stands for smaller and efficient government, less government intrusion, less authoritarian government, more personal accountability, protection of individual liberties and freedoms because those views have been explicitly and repeated stated at the protests.

The TP stands for government that provides less assistance for the middle class and poor and governs the nation as if it were still pre-industrial. It calls for unrealistic and unworkable elimination of functions of government necessary to a modern society, as well as of other things such as corporate subsidies and misguided foreign wars. (On these latter points, it shares beliefs with OWS.) It calls for elimination of government regulation of business, and confuses this with "protection of individual liberties and freedoms," because those involved in it don't understand that in these areas it is private power not government power that is the main threat to the liberty of the ordinary person, and that the freedom of the powerful to oppress is not compatible with the freedom of ordinary people not to be oppressed.

This is of course another way of saying what you said above, translated from the code-speak. But we aren't discussing whether you are prepared to support OWS or not. We are discussing whether it is a threat to the Constitution. I am not asking you to support the movement. I am asking you to refrain from paranoid counterfactual hyperbole.

So, cutting through your verbosity, the US Constitution (the tenets I described) no longer applies in the 21st century.

Quelle surprise.

 

[Dragon]

OMG! TS really did call it a mushroom - as you said, commonly known to be kept in the dark and fed bullshit. *snort*

I thought it was a catchy title. Go read the article, if you would. Or at least click the link. I get paid for that.

But, I know that TS is much more aware of what this OWS is really all about. He's no dummy and has been very patient to realize his inherent desires.

That doesn't mean I don't like him. Not at all. Hell, I used to be engaged to a Communist (well, an ex-Communist).

Ex-Communists are the best people. They have enough perception and compassion to be attracted to Marx based on what the old boy got right, and enough intelligence to also realize what the old boy got wrong and move on.

However, OWS has no hidden agenda. It's really about what it says its about: excessive corporate influence on government, the raw deal most Americans have gotten over the past 30 years while the very rich have gotten richer, and the decline of the middle class.

I remember during the Reagan years, his opponents had a slogan, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." These days, what we should be saying instead of that is, "The rich get richer and damned near everyone else gets poorer."

And THAT is what OWS is about.

 

[Si modo]

OMG! TS really did call it a mushroom - as you said, commonly known to be kept in the dark and fed bullshit. *snort*

I thought it was a catchy title. Go read the article, if you would. Or at least click the link. I get paid for that.

But, I know that TS is much more aware of what this OWS is really all about. He's no dummy and has been very patient to realize his inherent desires.

That doesn't mean I don't like him. Not at all. Hell, I used to be engaged to a Communist (well, an ex-Communist).

Ex-Communists are the best people. They have enough perception and compassion to be attracted to Marx based on what the old boy got right, and enough intelligence to also realize what the old boy got wrong and move on.

However, OWS has no hidden agenda. It's really about what it says its about: excessive corporate influence on government, the raw deal most Americans have gotten over the past 30 years while the very rich have gotten richer, and the decline of the middle class.

I remember during the Reagan years, his opponents had a slogan, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." These days, what we should be saying instead of that is, "The rich get richer and damned near everyone else gets poorer."

And THAT is what OWS is about.

Funny, my ex-ex-Communist is a Tea Partier. He has seen freedom to do what he wants (within few boundaries) and be who he is without oppression and he likes it.

I read your piece and it is nicely done. Nice metaphor. But, expect the dark and BS to be taken to town. As it should.

 

[Oldstyle]

OMG! TS really did call it a mushroom - as you said, commonly known to be kept in the dark and fed bullshit. *snort*

I thought it was a catchy title. Go read the article, if you would. Or at least click the link. I get paid for that.

But, I know that TS is much more aware of what this OWS is really all about. He's no dummy and has been very patient to realize his inherent desires.

That doesn't mean I don't like him. Not at all. Hell, I used to be engaged to a Communist (well, an ex-Communist).

Ex-Communists are the best people. They have enough perception and compassion to be attracted to Marx based on what the old boy got right, and enough intelligence to also realize what the old boy got wrong and move on.

However, OWS has no hidden agenda. It's really about what it says its about: excessive corporate influence on government, the raw deal most Americans have gotten over the past 30 years while the very rich have gotten richer, and the decline of the middle class.

I remember during the Reagan years, his opponents had a slogan, "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer." These days, what we should be saying instead of that is, "The rich get richer and damned near everyone else gets poorer."

And THAT is what OWS is about.

If they were intelligent they never would have been attracted to Communism in the first place.

The truth is OWS has NO agenda because in order to have one of those they'd actually have had to THINK about things and come up with solutions. These kids are too busy getting stoned and filming each other getting "brutalized" by the police (eye-roll) to ever come up with solutions to solve the problems our country faces.

They do think free stuff for themselves would be a great idea! Gee, what a surprise!!!

 

[Dragon]

Constitutional republics do no facilitate oppression of minorities as do pure democracies. To say the contrary is a willful suspension of rational thought.

No, it's a proper reading of history.

Can you name any actual historical pure democracies? I named one: ancient Athens. A couple of other Greek cities from the same period may also qualify. What oppression of minorities was carried on by those cities that compares with what the U.S. did to the Native Americans, let alone what Nazi Germany did to the Jews?

Not true (read: bullshit). The OWS wants the government to forgive their student loans and mortgages.

That does not fit the description that you gave it and would not in any way violate the Constitution. The proof is that it's been done before.

So, cutting through your verbosity, the US Constitution (the tenets I described) no longer applies in the 21st century.

That is neither what I said nor a legitimate interpretation of what I said.

 

[Dragon]

If they were intelligent they never would have been attracted to Communism in the first place.

Nonsense. Have you ever read any Marx? His critique of the capitalist system is spot-on. Anyone who cares about social justice or economic fairness, who opposes the oppression of working people by the owner class, is going to be attracted to Marxist thinking at some point or other.

The truth is OWS has NO agenda because in order to have one of those they'd actually have had to THINK about things and come up with solutions.

This isn't truth, and your posting it is evidence that YOU aren't thinking. The solution is to bring these issues to light, and make it impossible for the politicians to ignore them. Actual legislative solutions have already been proposed, but are getting no attention because the corporate donors don't want them to.

 

[Si modo]

Constitutional republics do no facilitate oppression of minorities as do pure democracies. To say the contrary is a willful suspension of rational thought.

No, it's a proper reading of history.

Can you name any actual historical pure democracies? I named one: ancient Athens. A couple of other Greek cities from the same period may also qualify. What oppression of minorities was carried on by those cities that compares with what the U.S. did to the Native Americans, let alone what Nazi Germany did to the Jews?
....

Let's see. I can go with the analysis of the Founding Fathers that pure democracies are more oppressive of minorities than are constitutional republics, or I can go with your analysis.

*ponders for a sec*

Yep, pure democracies are more oppressive of minorities than are constitutional republics.

Not true (read: bullshit). The OWS wants the government to forgive their student loans and mortgages.

That does not fit the description that you gave it and would not in any way violate the Constitution. The proof is that it's been done before.

....

It sure as hell does. The money loaned to them was not theirs, nor was it ever theirs. Government forcing others to surrender their property to those who have no legal right to it.

Spin it all you want, it still comes out as a seizure of assets.

So, cutting through your verbosity, the US Constitution (the tenets I described) no longer applies in the 21st century.

That is neither what I said nor a legitimate interpretation of what I said.

You said that the tenets I described are outdated. Those are tenets of the US Constitution. I'm sure you can connect the dots, but I will wait with baited breath for your next spin.

 

[Synthaholic]

The greedy one percent that bankrupted the nation, morally and fiscally, is now facing its greatest fear: a public uprising against their accumulation of wealth and power, and with that, the best chance at change in the post-War era.

It started in New York City, as hundreds of activists literally occupied Wall Street, setting up a tent city in a nearby park and organizing daily protests. For two weeks, the movement squeaked by on minimal coverage. The national media ignored the protests, even as the protesters dug in and redoubled their efforts.

Source: Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows | Benzinga

Are they mad at Obama too for giving billions to these banks and wall street?

Just curious.

Yes. Actually, for being too cozy with Wall Street.

 

[Dragon]

Let's see. I can go with the analysis of the Founding Fathers that pure democracies are more oppressive of minorities than are constitutional republics, or I can go with your analysis.

Another way of saying that: You can go with theoretical statements presented by people without any actual evidence to back them up, or you can go with evidence from actual pure democracies in actual history.

Argumentum ad autoritandem is a logical fallacy. Can you show from historical evidence that real, historical pure democracies are IN FACT more oppressive of minorities than other forms of government?

If not, then the Founding Fathers were wrong on this point.

In any case, getting back to the argument you initially made and resisting going off on tangents, OWS has not called for replacing our system of representative democracy with a pure democracy on a national scale, so the issue doesn't even arise.

It sure as hell does. The money loaned to them was not theirs, nor was it ever theirs. Government forcing others to surrender their property to those who have no legal right to it.

You may disapprove of this, but it is still not a violation of the Constitution.

You said that the tenets I described are outdated. Those are tenets of the US Constitution. I'm sure you can connect the dots, but I will wait with baited breath for your next spin.

I don't recall using the word "outdated" at all, so you are going to have to be more specific.

Remedies for the grievances outlined by OWS would not require violation of the Constitution. That is a fact.

 

[Si modo]

Let's see. I can go with the analysis of the Founding Fathers that pure democracies are more oppressive of minorities than are constitutional republics, or I can go with your analysis.

Another way of saying that: You can go with theoretical statements presented by people without any actual evidence to back them up, or you can go with evidence from actual pure democracies in actual history.

Argumentum ad autoritandem is a logical fallacy. Can you show from historical evidence that real, historical pure democracies are IN FACT more oppressive of minorities than other forms of government?

If not, then the Founding Fathers were wrong on this point.

In any case, getting back to the argument you initially made and resisting going off on tangents, OWS has not called for replacing our system of representative democracy with a pure democracy on a national scale, so the issue doesn't even arise.

....

Argumentum ad verecundiam is NOT a logical fallacy when the authorities are experts in the area.

The Founding Fathers certainly ARE experts in our Constitution and what type of government they designed for us. And, as I would venture to say that the USA is one of the least, if not the least, oppressive governments in the world to their citizens, I am on solid foundation in considering their authority over yours, an ex-Communist.

It sure as hell does. The money loaned to them was not theirs, nor was it ever theirs. Government forcing others to surrender their property to those who have no legal right to it.

You may disapprove of this, but it is still not a violation of the Constitution.

....

Unlawful seizure of property by the government sure as hell is a violation of the Constitution.

You said that the tenets I described are outdated. Those are tenets of the US Constitution. I'm sure you can connect the dots, but I will wait with baited breath for your next spin.

I don't recall using the word "outdated" at all, so you are going to have to be more specific.

Doesn't work in this day.

And, imagine that - you don't like constitutional republics as much as direct democracies, you approve of government seizure of assets, and you don't think the tenets of the US Constitution apply in modern day.




I have to thank you for your transparency.

 

[Dragon]

Argumentum ad verecundiam is NOT a logical fallacy when the authorities are experts in the area.

The Founding Fathers certainly ARE experts in our Constitution and what type of government they designed for us.

On that, yes; on pure democracy, no. Again: can you point to actual, historical true democracies that were worse in treating minorities than the U.S. was to blacks and Native Americans?

And, as I would venture to say that the USA is one of the least, if not the least, oppressive governments in the world to their citizens

Assertion contrary to fact. The U.S. has in fact one of the worst records in terms of the treatment of minorities. The U.S. literally enslaved most members of an entire minority race for most of a century (three centuries total but a lot of that occurred before independence), and kept most members of that same minority race in second-class citizen status for a century after that. The U.S. committed ethnic cleansing against Native Americans that ranks with what was done in the Balkans in the 1990s or by Russia against the Jews in the late 19th and early 20th century, and is exceeded in brutality only by the Holocaust as far as oppression of minorities is concerned. The U.S. has a history of nativist oppression of immigrants from foreign countries stretching from the prejudice against European immigrants in the 19th century, to the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, to today's bigotry against Hispanics.

There is no basis in fact for your assertions whatsoever.

Unlawful seizure of property by the government sure as hell is a violation of the Constitution.

We are not discussing unlawful seizure of property by the government. That is your false description of loan forgiveness.

Doesn't work in this day.

What specifically was that phrase used in reference to?

And, imagine that - you don't like constitutional republics as much as direct democracies, you approve of government seizure of assets, and you don't think the tenets of the US Constitution apply in modern day.

If you're going to ignore my actual views and start just making shit up and attributing it to me, this conversation is going to end pretty damned fast, and you will go onto my ignore list. I have a very low tolerance for that kind of bullshit.

 

[Si modo]

Argumentum ad verecundiam is NOT a logical fallacy when the authorities are experts in the area.

The Founding Fathers certainly ARE experts in our Constitution and what type of government they designed for us.

On that, yes; on pure democracy, no. Again: can you point to actual, historical true democracies that were worse in treating minorities than the U.S. was to blacks and Native Americans?

And, as I would venture to say that the USA is one of the least, if not the least, oppressive governments in the world to their citizens

Assertion contrary to fact. The U.S. has in fact one of the worst records in terms of the treatment of minorities. The U.S. literally enslaved most members of an entire minority race for most of a century (three centuries total but a lot of that occurred before independence), and kept most members of that same minority race in second-class citizen status for a century after that. The U.S. committed ethnic cleansing against Native Americans that ranks with what was done in the Balkans in the 1990s or by Russia against the Jews in the late 19th and early 20th century, and is exceeded in brutality only by the Holocaust as far as oppression of minorities is concerned. The U.S. has a history of nativist oppression of immigrants from foreign countries stretching from the prejudice against European immigrants in the 19th century, to the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, to today's bigotry against Hispanics.

There is no basis in fact for your assertions whatsoever.



We are not discussing unlawful seizure of property by the government. That is your false description of loan forgiveness.

Doesn't work in this day.

What specifically was that phrase used in reference to?

And, imagine that - you don't like constitutional republics as much as direct democracies, you approve of government seizure of assets, and you don't think the tenets of the US Constitution apply in modern day.

If you're going to ignore my actual views and start just making shit up and attributing it to me, this conversation is going to end pretty damned fast, and you will go onto my ignore list. I have a very low tolerance for that kind of bullshit.

Aren't we talking modern day here, Dragon?

What does slavery have to do with that?

Pfffft.

As to the TP conversation, the tenets I referred to, which you called 'code' by the right wing and which you said were outdated (or, more accurately, not applicable to modern day) are some of the tenets of the US Constitution.

The OWS doesn't like the Constitution. No surprise. Many who support the OWS don't either. (Well, Bill Ayers may because he got away with murder because of the rules of evidence.)

If that is not true, then the OWS better get in gear and be crystal clear what they want and how they want it.

Until then, what they do and what the posters who claim to be a part of it say, are not in line with the US Constitution.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If California were to abolish its legislature and do everything by initiative, would that threaten the U.S. Constitution?

It would openly violate the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution stipulates that all states must have a republican form of government. Does openly violating the constitution threaten it? Most assuredly.

The Constitution doesn't describe a true democracy, but it has become more and more democratic over the years. Initially, only the House was directly elected, and only white male property owners could vote.

Deliberate falsehoods on your part.

There was no stipulation of white, black land holders could and did vote. Nor was there a stipulation of male, female head of household could and did vote.

Democracy is one of the values that Americans cherish,

Hardly. Jefferson and Paine describe democracy as mob rule. Washington warned of the tyranny of the majority. Mason spent vast amounts of ink intoning the importance of safeguarding the rights of the minority.

and to go from people saying that they wish to promote the attainment of "true democracy" to saying they want to overthrow the Constitution is, as I said above, paranoid.

What you want cannot be under the constitution. How do you rectify your desires with reality, if not by overthrowing the constitution?

Dragon, you have no doubt heard the term "Soviet Union," but do you know what a Soviet is? Do you know the structure and purpose of the Soviets?

A "Soviet" is a peoples board. In the early days of communist rule, true democracy was established. Lenin targeted St. Petersberg (Petrograd) as the hub of the grand experiment. You would have loved it, it wasn't the way people think of communism. Lenin placed all power in the hands of the people. Neighborhood Soviets were established which answered to community Soviets, which answered to regional Soviets which answered to the Supreme Soviet. The people were in charge. The neighborhood Soviets decided how to distribute assets, such as food and housing. Where a family lived was the decision of the Soviet and enforced by the Uparvdoms. How much food was "needed" and what work would be performed. All very democratic. Of course, it was common for the Soviets to decide that certain people, such as Jews and Bourgeoisie (Middle Class) didn't need to have indoor housing. Oddly, a few -70° Petrograd nights seemed to have an ill effect on these. They also found that food wasn't needed. Petty squabbles left the 49% starving to death as the 51% ruled that they had no need to eat.

It was exactly what you seek. By the time the NEP was established, 3.5 million were dead.

Nonsense. The government has engaged in income redistributive measures many times in the past (in both directions), and they do not violagte the Fourth Amendment. Again, you're being paranoid.

Seizure laws say otherwise.

Good, then I don't have to accuse you of being an irrational conspiracy-theorist as well as paranoid.

The good thing about you of the left is that you have no real thinkers among you, failure is generally a given for any undertaking of the left.

Fine, in the code-speak sense that I know you are using those phrases. You are saying that this is a left-wing movement and not a right-wing one. That is true. But there is a difference between "I don't support this movement," and "this movement threatens to overthrow the Constitution." The first is a statement I would expect from you. The second is balderdash.

The OWS is primarily a Union movement intended to shovel more tax payer money into the greedy maw of SEIU and other unions. The few "true believers," those like you, indeed do seek the subversion of the constitution for a socialist authoritarian state.

No, I don't have to admit that. First of all, there have been no "leaks." Are you perhaps referring to the list of "demands" that were circulated all over the place SOLELY by right-wing opponents of OWS? If so, that was not a "leak," that was one person's opinion posted on an open forum. (That the forum was open is evidence that the movement supports freedom of speech. This is another basic American value. You may perhaps be familiar with the concept.)

The movement has been definitive about quite a few things. There is a manifesto of the movement that lists grievances most participants in it agree with. You've probably seen it. That is the reason why the movement even exists. That it has not come out with a full-fledged legislative program is not a reasonable complaint; this is not a political party, nor is it a fascist movement organized from the top down.

Of course it is, don't be so naive. The union bosses gave the orders and the drones marched. End of story.

OWS is already attracting TP members. Attracting a majority of the TP is probably not possible nor desirable.

Nope, the Union protests are the antithesis of the Tea Parties.

The insurgency on the left, most of which is not visible to anyone who isn't a participant in the left-wing Internet scene, is several times the size of the TP anyway -- it doesn't really need the TP, although anyone in agreement with the movement's basic principles (I mean its real principles, not your own paranoid demonized version) is certainly welcome.

By the way, you and others here might be interested in an article I recently published on OWS, called "Occupy Wall Street Is a Mushroom." You can find it here: Occupy Wall Street is a Mushroom | Socyberty

The leftists are a fraction of the size of the Tea Party.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obama is doing better than any of his opponents with the possible exception of Romney,

You know that to be false, why do you post such idiocy?

{Herman Cain beating Barack Obama in a head-to-head matchup.

Yes, that Herman Cain, the widely-liked former pizza executive who most folks didn’t take seriously because he had never been elected to any public office before.

They find Cain with 43.3 percent and Obama with 41.3 percent. In their results, Cain takes 24 percent of the African-American vote.

Interestingly, 18.2 percent of whites remain undecided in this match-up, with only 4 percent of African-Americans undecided. Also interestingly, 12.5 percent of Republicans vote for Obama in their sample, while 18.9 percent of Democrats cross over to Cain.}

New Poll Puts Cain Ahead of Obama - By Jim Geraghty - The Campaign Spot - National Review Online

Obama continues to drop; and due to his incompetence with the economy, has literally no chance at reelection.

and anyway Rasmussen only becomes reliable a couple of weeks before the election; before that he deliberately skews polls to the right.

Obama is not going to rise in popularity, the economy continues to fall and Obama makes all the wrong moves at the wrong time. His one chance to improve the situation was the Republican plan for deficit reduction, instead he played radical left politics and caused the credit rating of the nation to be downgraded.

In any case, your original statement wasn't "Obama's approval ratings are low," it was "Obama isn't supported by anyone except unions." Even Rasmussen's poll proves that's not true, since there aren't enough union members to make up 40+% of the population.

The little support Obama has is fading fast.

That's true if you're a big bankster or make over a million dollars a year. Otherwise, it's not true. You may think it is, but if so, you have been deceived.

You work against the interests of anyone who holds a job or pays the mortgage on their house.