# Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows



## Twalbert

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


----------



## California Girl

Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?


----------



## Big Fitz

I'd rather have this one question answered:

If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?

I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

California Girl said:


> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... *just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?*



Greece


----------



## Baruch Menachem

It is the same lamers as always.  The first weekend of protests was lamer and smaller than usual.  So when we get a normal protest, it is like four times the size of the first protest.   So the movement grows from lame to pathetic they feel as if they are on a roll.


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?



The answer you keep getting from the protest supporters, and will go on getting until you stop using this fraud, is that there are no eleven demands. That's bogus, a hoax, fake, bullshit, nonsense, not affiliated with OWS, garbage -- at very best, one person's individual opinion and not representative of the movement as a whole, and at worst, a right-wing disinformation job, but in either case nothing to even bother about.

You want to know what the protesters want, ask them, and please note that "them" is a plural pronoun not a singular one.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer you keep getting from the protest supporters, and will go on getting until you stop using this fraud, is that there are no eleven demands. That's bogus, a hoax, fake, bullshit, nonsense, not affiliated with OWS, garbage, nonsense -- at very best, one person's individual opinion and not representative of the movement as a whole.
> 
> You want to know what the protesters want, ask them, and please note that "them" is a plural pronoun not a singular one.
Click to expand...


But there is a list - from the protesters - or are you saying that that list is so fucking ridiculous that you're trying to disassociate yourselves from it now?


----------



## Big Fitz

iamwhatiseem said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... *just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greece
Click to expand...

it's the word
it's the word
it's the word

it's got a mood
it's got a feeling.

OPA!


----------



## Big Fitz

California Girl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer you keep getting from the protest supporters, and will go on getting until you stop using this fraud, is that there are no eleven demands. That's bogus, a hoax, fake, bullshit, nonsense, not affiliated with OWS, garbage, nonsense -- at very best, one person's individual opinion and not representative of the movement as a whole.
> 
> You want to know what the protesters want, ask them, and please note that "them" is a plural pronoun not a singular one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But there is a list - from the protesters - or are you saying that that list is so fucking ridiculous that you're trying to disassociate yourselves from it now?
Click to expand...

yes.  He is.


----------



## Fedupp

Occupy Wall street! Yep its a movement alright...Just like someone taking a shit on the side walk! Bunch of hippie loser Obama-crats! They are all for spreading the wealth until it comes time to spread theirs!!! Those evil rich people have in one way or another earned their money! So get over it!!! I mean how old are most of these losers!? they all look like college pukes that probably still live with Mommy and Daddy! And even if it was through loop holes and tax breaks OUR Govt. (both) sides have made it possible!!! Their own f***ing President is one of those rich! but they do not seem to see that!!! Communist bastards!!!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Twalbert said:


> 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.


----------



## Big Fitz

Baruch Menachem said:


> It is the same lamers as always.  The first weekend of protests was lamer and smaller than usual.  So when we get a normal protest, it is like four times the size of the first protest.   So the movement grows from lame to pathetic they feel as if they are on a roll.


I bet you can find many of these protesters with a pedigree that goes back to protesting in Selma, Alabama with the Freedom Riders, not quite sure that it isn't even 1970 anymore.


----------



## signelect

I think Dragon gets his meds from Michael Jackson's doctor, he is crazy.  The protester seem a  lot like what we got by in Chicago about 40 years ago.  Lots of noise no solutions, just like congress.


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> But there is a list - from the protesters - or are you saying that that list is so fucking ridiculous that you're trying to disassociate yourselves from it now?



I am saying that the list you are talking about IS NOT from "the protesters." It is from one single person posting somewhere or other under a banner that is also used by a semi-official site (there is no real-true official site). I have gone to that semi-official site and not found that page with the list of demands anywhere. If it's there at all, it's on the forum somewhere buried deep down. That could be. Or it could be that someone ripped off the masthead and is using it to create a hoax.

Either way, it is NOT a list of demands by the movement.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

There has been a VERY - VERY - VERY successful protest movement against Wall Street interest for well over a year now.
It is called - The Tea Party.


----------



## signelect

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there is a list - from the protesters - or are you saying that that list is so fucking ridiculous that you're trying to disassociate yourselves from it now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that the list you are talking about IS NOT from "the protesters." It is from one single person posting somewhere or other under a banner that is also used by a semi-official site (there is no real-true official site). I have gone to that semi-official site and not found that page with the list of demands anywhere. If it's there at all, it's on the forum somewhere buried deep down. That could be. Or it could be that someone ripped off the masthead and is using it to create a hoax.
> 
> Either way, it is NOT a list of demands by the movement.
Click to expand...


so you say got any proof?


----------



## Fedupp

Baruch Menachem said:


> It is the same lamers as always.  The first weekend of protests was lamer and smaller than usual.  So when we get a normal protest, it is like four times the size of the first protest.   So the movement grows from lame to pathetic they feel as if they are on a roll.



Why do they think they "deserve" anything other than what they work for? Thats my question! Hell I bet half of them arent even out of Mommy and daddy's nest yet! Bunch of cry babies!


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there is a list - from the protesters - or are you saying that that list is so fucking ridiculous that you're trying to disassociate yourselves from it now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that the list you are talking about IS NOT from "the protesters." It is from one single person posting somewhere or other under a banner that is also used by a semi-official site (there is no real-true official site). I have gone to that semi-official site and not found that page with the list of demands anywhere. If it's there at all, it's on the forum somewhere buried deep down. That could be. Or it could be that someone ripped off the masthead and is using it to create a hoax.
> 
> Either way, it is NOT a list of demands by the movement.
Click to expand...


So, let me get this straight. When some idiot TEA Partier says something dumb, it's acceptable to consider that statement as representative of TEA Partiers. BUT.... and it is a Big BUTT.... the same standard does not apply to a left wing group. 

Is that right?


----------



## Dragon

signelect said:


> so you say got any proof?



Burden of proof is on the one making the allegation. The allegation has been made that these eleven demands were made by "the movement." So far, all I've seen is a list of demands made by one person under a masthead used by a semi-official web site.

Where is the evidence that most of the protesters are making these demands or believe in them?


----------



## California Girl

iamwhatiseem said:


> There has been a VERY - VERY - VERY successful protest movement against Wall Street interest for well over a year now.
> It is called - The Tea Party.



Yep. Just imagine the message if this bunch of fools had worked that out and joined the TEA Parties? We could have had a real message to DC.... but the fucking morons aren't smart enough to work that out. 

Damn, these people are embarrassingly stupid.


----------



## Sallow

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Twalbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Yeah..I think they are..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yrT-0Xbrn4&feature=player_embedded]New York Observer: Exclusive "Occupy Wall Street" Unaired Fox Footage - YouTube[/ame]

But the alternative party would do the same exact thing. Without Frank/Dodd.


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> So, let me get this straight. When some idiot TEA Partier says something dumb, it's acceptable to consider that statement as representative of TEA Partiers.



I don't recall saying anything about the Tea Party on this thread, or even on this website. How about we stick to the subject at hand and not go off on tangents, shall we?


----------



## Big Fitz

Sallow said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twalbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah..I think they are..
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yrT-0Xbrn4&feature=player_embedded]New York Observer: Exclusive "Occupy Wall Street" Unaired Fox Footage - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> But the alternative party would do the same exact thing. Without Frank/Dodd.
Click to expand...

Beck called this one months ago.  They're demanding ideological purity to anarchocommusociafascism.  

P-BO just ain't pure enough for them.


----------



## Katzndogz

The occupiers falsely believe that they are supported in a populist movement when it's not true.  If the majority of Americans who know that the policies of weath redistribution cause the current economic mess stood up and marched on the protesters it would be the best thing to happen.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

It is a shame.
There needs to be protests and plenty of them on Wall Street.
But alas - they have allowed themselves to be completely taken over by the fringe groups and now they are a joke. 
Perhaps the Tea Party could have an "alternate" protest on Wall Street...now that would be beautiful. Haha...just how would the left media deal with that?


----------



## signelect

These kids don't have anything to do or contribute but it sure looks like fun to get out on the street and take a mob mentality of screaming and shouting.  Right now it seems that everyone knows what is wrong but NO ONE knows what to do about it except to protect their seat in congress.  If you think wall street is corrupt check out our congressmen and president.  They have voted themselves one sweet deal.  I am retiring on SS mostly because I didn't save when I should have and I am not complaining but these congressmen are raping us and they haven't lost one nights sleep over it.


----------



## Dragon

IAm, like it or not, the leftist insurgency is much closer to the mainstream of America than the Tea Party. Take a look at this, which, unlike the "eleven demands," really is close to an "official" declaration. (There is no such thing, but most OWS participants would agree with most of this.)



> As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
> 
> As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
> 
> They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
> They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
> They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of ones skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
> They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
> They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
> They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
> They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
> They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers healthcare and pay.
> They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
> They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
> They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
> They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
> They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
> They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
> They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
> They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save peoples lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
> They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
> They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
> They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
> They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
> They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.
> 
> To the people of the world,
> 
> We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.
> 
> Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
> 
> To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
> 
> Join us and make your voices heard!



Source: Declaration of the Occupation of New York City | NYC General Assembly

While there are a few points on the list of grievances that probably don't have majority support, most of them do. This is a left-leaning movement, but very much a mainstream one; it is even attracting support from self-described Tea Party people, because some of those grievances are shared by populists all the way across the political spectrum.


----------



## martybegan

Actually the whole thing should be called "Occupy a small park somewhere near wall street".

No actual occupation of any wall street businesses has occured. no disruption of business has occured. 

What happened to actual protests? Ones that would get you 30 days in the lockup and at least make you look like you cared about whatever cause you support?


----------



## WillowTree

Big Fitz said:


> I'd rather have this one question answered:
> 
> If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?
> 
> I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.



I've been asking that question for months and cannot get an answer.


----------



## LOki

"_The thousands of indefatigable Wall Street protestors, risking their eyes and recording equipment against Wall Streets personal jack-booted thugs in the NYPD, recently garnered even more support the US Marines. Thats the type of support that may make an NYPD cop think twice before he decides to go all Tiananmen Square on a group of teenage girls, armed with chalk and cardboard signs._"



			
				Ward Reilly said:
			
		

> Im heading up there tonight in my dress blues. So far, 15 of my fellow marine buddies are meeting me there, also in Uniform. I want to send the following message to Wall St and Congress: I didnt fight for Wall St. I fought for America. Now its Congress turn.
> 
> My true hope, though, is that we Veterans can act as first line of defense between the police and the protester. If they want to get to some protesters so they can mace them, they will have to get through the Fucking Marine Corps first. Lets see a cop mace a bunch of decorated war vets."



Sweet!


----------



## WillowTree

the morons are marching the dow is down there goes your hopes of retirement when you see a liberal unwashed and shitty say thank you..


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Q. Where can you find Life Biggest Losers?

A. ...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.


----------



## Katzndogz

The protesters can't imagine that anyone would oppose them.  There should be a citizen march on the protests.  Wade in with baseball bats and tire irons.  Give the protesters the spanking their parents should have given them.

No marines are going to come.  

I wish they would.   If the military would split, the way the general population has split, we'd get somewhere.


----------



## Dragon

WillowTree said:


> I've been asking that question for months and cannot get an answer.



That's because it always was, still is, and always will be a straw man. Nobody is advocating doing away with capitalism. Therefore, asking what to replace it with is a non-question.

Tipsy, I assure you that if you try any of that crap you will a) end up in jail, and b) provide the movement with still more support.


----------



## WillowTree

Dragon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been asking that question for months and cannot get an answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it always was, still is, and always will be a straw man. Nobody is advocating doing away with capitalism. Therefore, asking what to replace it with is a non-question.
> 
> Tipsy, I assure you that if you try any of that crap you will a) end up in jail, and b) provide the movement with still more support.
Click to expand...


hey asswipe,, those people down there are ANTI fucking capitalism.. or didn't you know that?


----------



## Dragon

WillowTree said:


> those people down there are ANTI fucking capitalism.. or didn't you know that?



No, and neither do you. Because it's not true. Being opposed to the excesses of capitalism, to unregulated capitalism, or to capitalist corruption of the government, is not the same as being anti-capitalist.


----------



## WillowTree

Dragon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> those people down there are ANTI fucking capitalism.. or didn't you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, and neither do you. Because it's not true. Being opposed to the excesses of capitalism, to unregulated capitalism, or to capitalist corruption of the government, is not the same as being anti-capitalist.
Click to expand...


funny ain't it.. cause that's exactly what they're saying..you iz a bigger moron than originally thought, get your headd outta yer assss so you can hear the people down der.


----------



## WillowTree

Anti-capitalist protesters clashed with police in New York yesterday after beginning an impromptu march up one of the city's most famous streets.

Read more: Police arrest '50' at Occupy Wall Street protests amid claims of aggressive tactics | Mail Online








even the brits call them anit capitalists... the only person who don't think they izzzzz anti capitalists is the dummiedragon


----------



## Sallow

martybegan said:


> Actually the whole thing should be called "Occupy a small park somewhere near wall street".
> 
> No actual occupation of any wall street businesses has occured. no disruption of business has occured.
> 
> What happened to actual protests? Ones that would get you 30 days in the lockup and at least make you look like you cared about whatever cause you support?



That won't work in NYC.

Cops are very well versed in how to deal with those sorts of protests..and very quickly.


----------



## Dragon

WillowTree said:


> funny ain't it.. cause that's exactly what they're saying.



That they are against the excesses of capitalism, and want to get corporate influence out of government, and regulate capitalism, yes.

That they want to destroy it or obliterate it, no.


----------



## WillowTree

Dragon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny ain't it.. cause that's exactly what they're saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That they are against the excesses of capitalism, and want to get corporate influence out of government, and regulate capitalism, yes.
> 
> That they want to destroy it or obliterate it, no.
Click to expand...


wrong again.. ding ding ding.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, let me get this straight. When some idiot TEA Partier says something dumb, it's acceptable to consider that statement as representative of TEA Partiers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall saying anything about the Tea Party on this thread, or even on this website. How about we stick to the subject at hand and not go off on tangents, shall we?
Click to expand...


See, that's gonna be your problem. You seem to think that because you did not mention the TEA parties in this thread - or even on this website - that somehow makes the point irrelevant. But it is not. The question remains. How is it ok for one side but not for the other? Moreover, why is it when the TEA parties protested the same issues, that was bad, and now that the left have finally smelled the coffee (albeit they have, in their usual overly emotional way, blamed the wrong people)..... how is it now right?


----------



## Dragon

WillowTree said:


> wrong



Prove it.


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> How is it ok for one side but not for the other?



If you really want an answer to that, it's not. It's equally wrong for both sides. Nor have I ever said that all Tea Party members, or most of them, believed the same way that one Tea Party member did, unless there was substantial evidence that that was the case. And anyone who did, was wrong.

Of course, that's assuming the person who wrote those demands even WAS an OWS participant as opposed to a right-wing hoaxter.


----------



## WillowTree

Dragon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...


Just watch and listen get yer head outta yer ass.


----------



## Dragon

WillowTree said:


> Just watch and listen



Is that all it takes? Done, then. You're full of shit.


----------



## LOki

The Truth Behind The Occupy Wall Street Marines


> "In this case, what started as a muddled post by a friend of another friends post on Facebook ended up as a statement of fact in a major speech made by former White House green collar jobs czar Van Jones at the Take Back The American Dream Conference conference on Monday. "


No Marines putting the boot to cop jerk-faces? :frownyface:


----------



## Big Fitz

iamwhatiseem said:


> It is a shame.
> There needs to be protests and plenty of them on Wall Street.
> But alas - they have allowed themselves to be completely taken over by the fringe groups and now they are a joke.
> Perhaps the Tea Party could have an "alternate" protest on Wall Street...now that would be beautiful. Haha...just how would the left media deal with that?


Actually the protests aren't as necessary as investigations and prosecutions.

I think another point Beck made is very salient here.  Where is the justice department an this administration on the supposed wrong doings?

The housing bubble was caused by something, why is there no criminal investigation into Freddie and Fannie or any of these 'criminal' banker?  Why are there just more bailouts for the same "criminals" that caused the crisis in the first place by their reckoning?  Why is not legislation being drafted to stop this from EVER happening again?

Capitalism is not the problem here.  Corruption and cronyism is.  Prosecute the bad guys, you don't dynamite the whole damn system.


----------



## Big Fitz

WillowTree said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just watch and listen get yer head outta yer ass.
Click to expand...

Ah! I see he's "Debating" you.  His next move is to call you a liar regardless of what you say, tell you he's won and put you on ignore.  Faster if you call him out on being not worth talking to anymore.


----------



## initforme

Anyone can see the need for investigations into wall street since the early 80's.   But it wont happen because it might benefit the working middle class who has now been deemed the scapegoat.


----------



## Mr. Jones

California Girl said:


> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?


There is no official list of demands.
The corporate media proves once again why they cant be trusted, this time putting out a bullshit list of supposed Official Demands then attacking the fake demands as being Marxist.
Corporate Media Reports Some Bullshit List As The Demands Of #OccupyWallStreet Then Attacks Them

Numerous reporters, commentators and analysts have pointed to the Wall Street protesters List of Demands and criticized it for including demands they dislike or failing to demands which they think are essential.

But one of the main organizers for the protests just told me that  at this point  all such lists are just the suggestions of various individuals and not the official demands of the protesters as a whole.

I can announce with 100% confidence that  at this point  there is no official list of demands... 

everyone knows what Were the 99% means, and that the failure of the richest 1% to follow the rule of law or the wishes of the American people, and their corruption and manipulation of the economic and political system are some of the core structural problems which must be changed.
No, There Is NOT a List of Official Demands from the Protesters - Washington's Blog

An economic system that is dependent on debt to function is a failed ponzi scheme, and until the fed is killed and the right to coin the nations currency is restored to its rightful place, the economic slavery will continue. The fed reserve must be destroyed.


----------



## Barb

Twalbert said:


> 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



I haven't been so happy about what I've seen on the news since the writer's strike. It's about time the 99% of the American public stood up and railed against the theft of our democracy.


----------



## Dragon

At this point, the right seems to be in transition from ridiculing the protest to demonizing it. This is a sign that it has grown in power to the point of scaring them.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> At this point, the right seems to be in transition from ridiculing the protest to demonizing it. This is a sign that it has grown in power to the point of scaring them.


----------



## California Girl

Mr. Jones said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no official list of demands.
> The corporate media proves once again why they cant be trusted, this time putting out a bullshit list of supposed Official Demands then attacking the fake demands as being Marxist.
> Corporate Media Reports Some Bullshit List As The Demands Of #OccupyWallStreet Then Attacks Them
> 
> Numerous reporters, commentators and analysts have pointed to the Wall Street protesters List of Demands and criticized it for including demands they dislike or failing to demands which they think are essential.
> 
> But one of the main organizers for the protests just told me that  at this point  all such lists are just the suggestions of various individuals and not the official demands of the protesters as a whole.
> 
> I can announce with 100% confidence that  at this point  there is no official list of demands...
> 
> everyone knows what Were the 99% means, and that the failure of the richest 1% to follow the rule of law or the wishes of the American people, and their corruption and manipulation of the economic and political system are some of the core structural problems which must be changed.
> No, There Is NOT a List of Official Demands from the Protesters - Washington's Blog
> 
> An economic system that is dependent on debt to function is a failed ponzi scheme, and until the fed is killed and the right to coin the nations currency is restored to its rightful place, the economic slavery will continue. The fed reserve must be destroyed.
Click to expand...


I find it quite entertaining that the same people who used these tactics against the original protesters (ie the TEA Parties) are the ones whining about these tactics being used now. 

Hypocrites.


----------



## WillowTree

Dragon said:


> At this point, the right seems to be in transition from ridiculing the protest to demonizing it. This is a sign that it has grown in power to the point of scaring them.



Why? did Wall Street and Capitalism fall? Did you throw your blackberry away.. rid yourself of all things capital?


----------



## Barb

Big Fitz said:


> I'd rather have this one question answered:
> 
> If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?
> 
> I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.



Who said do away with capitalism? There MUST be regulation (those regulations used to support capitalists from catching their tails and eating them), and these capitalists who make full use of other regulations that favor and safeguard them, who use our commons, and make full use (often greater use) of every other amenity of our government should pay their fair share of up keeping and holding the systems they take advantage of.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

California Girl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, the right seems to be in transition from ridiculing the protest to demonizing it. This is a sign that it has grown in power to the point of scaring them.
Click to expand...


Why am I TOTALLY reminded of my own posts about the teaparty right now?


This is what the media does to the teaparties and is now doing to the wallstreet protestors, lie about them then demonized based on the lies.


----------



## Barb

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Twalbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


fuck yes.


----------



## martybegan

Sallow said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the whole thing should be called "Occupy a small park somewhere near wall street".
> 
> No actual occupation of any wall street businesses has occured. no disruption of business has occured.
> 
> What happened to actual protests? Ones that would get you 30 days in the lockup and at least make you look like you cared about whatever cause you support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That won't work in NYC.
> 
> Cops are very well versed in how to deal with those sorts of protests..and very quickly.
Click to expand...


But thats what you want as a protester. You want to try to go to point X, and force the authorites to stop you. Make them arrest you and incarcerate you, and show everyone else why you are doing this, and why the authorities are wrong for trying to stop you. 

I think there are two reasons why this isn't happening. One is a lack of direction. When people got hosed and had dogs sic'ed on them in the deep south they were fighting for removal of segregation laws, a direct, feasible goal. When Gandhi forced the british authorities to remove his followers by force during multiple protests they were demanding full independence, again a tangible goal.

These protesters are too disorganzied to do anything but basically squat in some private park, block traffic from time to time, and whine alot about how the cops are preventing them from doing whatever they want to do. There is no real message, and until there is one I refuse to take this seriously, or give the protesters the due consideration they are asking for.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Mr. Jones said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?
> 
> 
> 
> There is no official list of demands.
> The corporate media proves once again why they cant be trusted, this time putting out a bullshit list of supposed Official Demands then attacking the fake demands as being Marxist.
> Corporate Media Reports Some Bullshit List As The Demands Of #OccupyWallStreet Then Attacks Them
> 
> Numerous reporters, commentators and analysts have pointed to the Wall Street protesters List of Demands and criticized it for including demands they dislike or failing to demands which they think are essential.
> 
> But one of the main organizers for the protests just told me that  at this point  all such lists are just the suggestions of various individuals and not the official demands of the protesters as a whole.
> 
> I can announce with 100% confidence that  at this point  there is no official list of demands...
> 
> everyone knows what Were the 99% means, and that the failure of the richest 1% to follow the rule of law or the wishes of the American people, and their corruption and manipulation of the economic and political system are some of the core structural problems which must be changed.
> No, There Is NOT a List of Official Demands from the Protesters - Washington's Blog
> 
> An economic system that is dependent on debt to function is a failed ponzi scheme, and until the fed is killed and the right to coin the nations currency is restored to its rightful place, the economic slavery will continue. The fed reserve must be destroyed.
Click to expand...


Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Wall Street protesters produce demands, call for open borders - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com


----------



## Truthmatters

They only care about the American people who agree with letting the 1% own our entire economy


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, the right seems to be in transition from ridiculing the protest to demonizing it. This is a sign that it has grown in power to the point of scaring them.
Click to expand...


And of course you have to be in denial about that, but it's true. The fear comes from unpredictability, from this being a popular movement that's out of control, and having no way to know where it will go from here.

A few weeks ago, you would have laughed at the idea that a major left-wing protest movement could even happen in this country. You thought the left was dead, or you used the words "the left" to refer to Democrats, not to a movement like this. You thought that, and you were wrong, and that's a scary feeling in itself.

When it first started, there were only a few hundred participants, and you laughed at it then. The idea that it could grow to thousands of protesters gathering day after day, resulting in hundreds of arrests and major media coverage, spawning similar movements in other cities across the country, and now in foreign countries, too -- no way did you predict that. You were sure it couldn't happen. And again, you were wrong.

Having been wrong twice, you must face the fact that you cannot predict where things will go now, and from irrational overconfidence the mind naturally spins to the other extreme, irrational paranoia. Will the movement grow until (as Willow Tree put it) Wall Street and all of capitalism are totally destroyed, the government overthrown, and a communist or fascist authoritarian state put in place, or anarchic chaos?

I can tell you that won't happen, that the movement has no desire for it to happen, but your understanding of the left in this country is so dismally bad that you can't have any confidence in what I say. And so the fear continues to grow.


----------



## Barb

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point, the right seems to be in transition from ridiculing the protest to demonizing it. This is a sign that it has grown in power to the point of scaring them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I TOTALLY reminded of my own posts about the teaparty right now?
> 
> 
> This is what the media does to the teaparties and is now doing to the wallstreet protestors, lie about them then demonized based on the lies.
Click to expand...


The media IS owned by rich corporate bosses, and of course they will marginalize the protestors by comparing them to the tea partiers. Meanwhile, one is grass roots, and the first was astro turf. I'm sorry, but I don't see the two as equivalent. The media is trying its damndest to tie them together, as "fringe," but is isn't so. The 99% IS 99%, and we're ALL collectively paying the freight on those who have been and would continue to be free riders at every one else's expense.


----------



## Truthmatters

there is no Koch brothers funding this movement


----------



## martybegan

Barb said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I TOTALLY reminded of my own posts about the teaparty right now?
> 
> 
> This is what the media does to the teaparties and is now doing to the wallstreet protestors, lie about them then demonized based on the lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The media IS owned by rich corporate bosses, and of course they will marginalize the protestors by comparing them to the tea partiers. Meanwhile, one is grass roots, and the first was astro turf. I'm sorry, but I don't see the two as equivalent. The media is trying its damndest to tie them together, as "fringe," but is isn't so. The 99% IS 99%, and we're ALL collectively paying the freight on those who have been and would continue to be free riders at every one else's expense.
Click to expand...


The Tea party movement is a populist movement, whether you agree with them or not.  

The people out in that park by wall street are mostly the fringe of your side of the political aisle, just like most of the tea party is the fringe of ours.   

Taking the position that the only reasons someone opposes your ideas is that they are a "schill" or "sheeple" shows an inability to consider than someone of an opposite opinion has them for genuine reasons. This is typical of the hard left viewpoint, where in thier opinion, THIER viewpoint is the ONLY viewpoint.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Occupy Wall Street is a movement of clowns, lunatics, fringe extremists and anarchists


----------



## Truthmatters

There is no Koch brothers funing this one


----------



## CrusaderFrank

SEIU and Obama are behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement


----------



## Barb

martybegan said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the whole thing should be called "Occupy a small park somewhere near wall street".
> 
> No actual occupation of any wall street businesses has occured. no disruption of business has occured.
> 
> What happened to actual protests? Ones that would get you 30 days in the lockup and at least make you look like you cared about whatever cause you support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That won't work in NYC.
> 
> Cops are very well versed in how to deal with those sorts of protests..and very quickly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But thats what you want as a protester. You want to try to go to point X, and force the authorites to stop you. Make them arrest you and incarcerate you, and show everyone else why you are doing this, and why the authorities are wrong for trying to stop you.
> 
> I think there are two reasons why this isn't happening. One is a lack of direction. When people got hosed and had dogs sic'ed on them in the deep south they were fighting for removal of segregation laws, a direct, feasible goal. When Gandhi forced the british authorities to remove his followers by force during multiple protests they were demanding full independence, again a tangible goal.
> 
> These protesters are too disorganzied to do anything but basically squat in some private park, block traffic from time to time, and whine alot about how the cops are preventing them from doing whatever they want to do. There is no real message, and until there is one I refuse to take this seriously, or give the protesters the due consideration they are asking for.
Click to expand...


700 of them were arrested, that's what made it national news, and the national news led to subsequent demonstrations ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. 

They were disorganized (read: little publicized) but its gaining momentum. People want opportunity. The top 1-5%, with the overwhelming support of the upper 60-85%. and some appalling support of the (upper?) 20--59% who have been deluded into thinking (bless their hearts) that they might, someday, have a snowballs chance in America today of REACHING the top 40% even, have sold out their fellows in the hope that they don't have to outrun the beast, merely each other. 

Reality has been sinking in, however slowly, and people are beginning to understand that the whole system is rigged to feed the top 1% at the expense (because the bills will come due, and they must be paid) at the expense of the rest. 

There has been an epiphany, and what is following is the reckoning. 

If I had a tail I would wag it.


----------



## Truthmatters

CrusaderFrank said:


> SEIU and Obama are behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement



Your proof?


----------



## Barb

martybegan said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I TOTALLY reminded of my own posts about the teaparty right now?
> 
> 
> This is what the media does to the teaparties and is now doing to the wallstreet protestors, lie about them then demonized based on the lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The media IS owned by rich corporate bosses, and of course they will marginalize the protestors by comparing them to the tea partiers. Meanwhile, one is grass roots, and the first was astro turf. I'm sorry, but I don't see the two as equivalent. The media is trying its damndest to tie them together, as "fringe," but is isn't so. The 99% IS 99%, and we're ALL collectively paying the freight on those who have been and would continue to be free riders at every one else's expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Tea party movement is a populist movement, whether you agree with them or not.
> 
> The people out in that park by wall street are mostly the fringe of your side of the political aisle, just like most of the tea party is the fringe of ours.
> 
> Taking the position that the only reasons someone opposes your ideas is that they are a "schill" or "sheeple" shows an inability to consider than someone of an opposite opinion has them for genuine reasons. This is typical of the hard left viewpoint, where in thier opinion, THIER viewpoint is the ONLY viewpoint.
Click to expand...


Sweetness, I didn't say that all the tea party people were anything you suggested I said. I stated that the whole movement had its genesis in politically corporate interests, and it did.


----------



## California Girl

Truthmatters said:


> There is no Koch brothers funing this one



No. It's Soros funded.


----------



## California Girl

Barb said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> The media IS owned by rich corporate bosses, and of course they will marginalize the protestors by comparing them to the tea partiers. Meanwhile, one is grass roots, and the first was astro turf. I'm sorry, but I don't see the two as equivalent. The media is trying its damndest to tie them together, as "fringe," but is isn't so. The 99% IS 99%, and we're ALL collectively paying the freight on those who have been and would continue to be free riders at every one else's expense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea party movement is a populist movement, whether you agree with them or not.
> 
> The people out in that park by wall street are mostly the fringe of your side of the political aisle, just like most of the tea party is the fringe of ours.
> 
> Taking the position that the only reasons someone opposes your ideas is that they are a "schill" or "sheeple" shows an inability to consider than someone of an opposite opinion has them for genuine reasons. This is typical of the hard left viewpoint, where in thier opinion, THIER viewpoint is the ONLY viewpoint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweetness, I didn't say that all the tea party people were anything you suggested I said. I stated that the whole movement had its genesis in politically corporate interests, and it did.
Click to expand...


No, it didn't. That's just what you've been told by the media. That does not make it true. The TEA Parties started under Bush and had jack shit to do with 'politically corporate interests'. This one, however, has Van Jones and the Tides Foundation pulling its strings. It's left wing astro-turf.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Yes, hate and envy are clearly the way to better yourself.

If you can pull everyone above you down to your level, you might not feel like a fucking loser your whole life, but then again, you probably will because the problem is in your head and not in someone elses bank account


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> That's because it always was, still is, and always will be a straw man. Nobody is advocating doing away with capitalism. Therefore, asking what to replace it with is a non-question.



What the fuck?

You use a LOT of drugs, don't you?

The communist manifesto you posted as the 'demands' of the Bolshevik morons indeed DOES advocate doing away with capitalism and rationality.

What does your claim that "foreclosures of our homes" mean? It isn't your home if you don't pay for it, sparky.



> Tipsy, I assure you that if you try any of that crap you will a) end up in jail, and b) provide the movement with still more support.



The Bolsheviks are a joke.  They have support from their fellow drug addicts, no  one else.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> The communist manifesto you posted as the 'demands' of the Bolshevik morons indeed DOES advocate doing away with capitalism and rationality.



I posted no demands. Neither has OWS. If you're referring to the list of grievances, all of them could be rectified without doing away with capitalism.

As for how much support the movement has, keep watching. This is only the beginning. The Tea Party was a tempest in a (no pun intended) teapot by comparison. THIS is the real storm.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Truthmatters said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> SEIU and Obama are behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your proof?
Click to expand...


Uninformed sources told me and when I tired to reach Obama to deny it, he confirmed the rumor by not speaking to me.

See how that works?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> That they are against the excesses of capitalism,



"Excesses" such as property rights  and private ownership.



> and want to get corporate influence out of government, and regulate capitalism, yes.



They demand that the state control the means of production.



> That they want to destroy it or obliterate it, no.



Bullshit, that is precisely what they and you want.


----------



## Barb

CrusaderFrank said:


> SEIU and Obama are behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement



Oh, for fuck sake. Obama is a corporate apologist (or we would have had government health care, instead of the GIFT to HMOs we have now), as are many if not most of our democrats at the highest levels of state governance (GHASP! We can't raise taxes on the RICH!). Clinton was too. I seriously thing the whole impeachment thing was a ploy to take progressive pressure AWAY from Clinton for the dumb assed things he agreed to. 

We haven't had a TRUE progressive running for president since Bobby Kennedy was shot.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> [snip mouth-foaming rant]



You have just proven that you have absolutely no clue what this movement is about, which is not surprising. I think that none of you on the right have a clue about it.

This movement is happening because people are suffering, and they have identified the ability of big business to pull the strings of government as the cause of their suffering. What they want to do is to cut those strings so that government can then act in the interests of the people, not the corporate interests, and reverse the transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1% that's been going on for thirty years.

None of that requires a full-on socialist economy, although it most certainly does require government policies that are labor-friendly rather than capital-friendly, and a willingness on the part of government to regulate the banking industry, protect the environment, and support the rights of working people. If you consider that "socialism," well, there's just no talking to you I suppose until you regain some perspective and coherence.


----------



## Dragon

Barb said:


> We haven't had a TRUE progressive running for president since Bobby Kennedy was shot.



True that, although Obama played one on TV and that's how he got elected.


----------



## Barb

California Girl said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea party movement is a populist movement, whether you agree with them or not.
> 
> The people out in that park by wall street are mostly the fringe of your side of the political aisle, just like most of the tea party is the fringe of ours.
> 
> Taking the position that the only reasons someone opposes your ideas is that they are a "schill" or "sheeple" shows an inability to consider than someone of an opposite opinion has them for genuine reasons. This is typical of the hard left viewpoint, where in thier opinion, THIER viewpoint is the ONLY viewpoint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetness, I didn't say that all the tea party people were anything you suggested I said. I stated that the whole movement had its genesis in politically corporate interests, and it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it didn't. That's just what you've been told by the media. That does not make it true. The TEA Parties started under Bush and had jack shit to do with 'politically corporate interests'. This one, however, has Van Jones and the Tides Foundation pulling its strings. It's left wing astro-turf.
Click to expand...


The only thing the media told me is some bullshit that this protest is the left bookend to the tea party. The CORPORATE led media claim they BOTH are "EXTREMIST fringe."


----------



## Uncensored2008

Truthmatters said:


> there is no Koch brothers funding this movement



Soros is no doubt shoveling plenty of cash, though.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Barb said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> SEIU and Obama are behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, for fuck sake. Obama is a corporate apologist (or we would have had government health care, instead of the GIFT to HMOs we have now), as are many if not most of our democrats at the highest levels of state governance (GHASP! We can't raise taxes on the RICH!). Clinton was too. I seriously thing the whole impeachment thing was a ploy to take progressive pressure AWAY from Clinton for the dumb assed things he agreed to.
> 
> We haven't had a TRUE progressive running for president since Bobby Kennedy was shot.
Click to expand...


I said it before, Progressive ideology is so dangerous to civilization that the only place it should exist is in a Level IV Biocontainment facility next to the other slate-cleaners


----------



## California Girl

Barb said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetness, I didn't say that all the tea party people were anything you suggested I said. I stated that the whole movement had its genesis in politically corporate interests, and it did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it didn't. That's just what you've been told by the media. That does not make it true. The TEA Parties started under Bush and had jack shit to do with 'politically corporate interests'. This one, however, has Van Jones and the Tides Foundation pulling its strings. It's left wing astro-turf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only thing the media told me is some bullshit that this protest is the left bookend to the tea party. The CORPORATE led media claim they BOTH are "EXTREMIST fringe."
Click to expand...


The media are bullshitting you. They were about the TEAs and they are about this one. I support the right of both to protest. I do not support the right of the current protest to attempt to hold the country to ransom. Their 'issues' are ridiculous. They are protesting one side of a corrupt coin and letting the other side off the hook. If people want to protest, they should protest the government, not business.


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> They are protesting one side of a corrupt coin and letting the other side off the hook. If people want to protest, they should protest the government, not business.



http://occupydc.org/

Is that better?


----------



## Barb

Dragon said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> We haven't had a TRUE progressive running for president since Bobby Kennedy was shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True that, although Obama played one on TV and that's how he got elected.
Click to expand...


I must spread some rep around before giving it to you again. That said, I do believe that holding our party's collective feet to the flames over this type of shit would go a LONG way towards making them live up to the brand (instead of running away from the libel) of liberal social progress and fiduciary responsibility TRUE liberalism used to be known for.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Barb said:


> Sweetness, I didn't say that all the tea party people were anything you suggested I said. I stated that the whole movement had its genesis in politically corporate interests, and it did.



Why are you Marxists such fucking liars?

Seriously?

The TEA party movement started as opposition to the Bush-McCain amnesty plan in 2006. It gained traction when trillions were stolen to bail out crooks at Goldman Sachs  and other well connected looters in 2008 and through the term of Dear Leader.







The Tea party is OPPOSED to the merger of corporations like Kaiser and Blue Cross with the federal government via Obama's fascist care law.

Fucking Marxists, stupid and dishonest to the bone...


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> Why are you Marxists such fucking liars?



You know, you might get a little more respect if you stopped hyperventilating. Just a suggestion.

I agree that there are misconceptions (not "lies") on the left (not among "Marxists" -- you really need to learn to use words to mean what they mean) about the origins of the Tea Party. The extent to which it is a real grass-roots movement, however much it has been co-opted by the powers that be since its inception, are seldom understood or recognized.

Now, I suggest that you take a quick look at your own attitudes towards OWS and see how they parallel those you are so angry about.

Self-awareness can be a good thing.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you Marxists such fucking liars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you might get a little more respect if you stopped hyperventilating. Just a suggestion.
> 
> I agree that there are misconceptions (not "lies") on the left (not among "Marxists" -- you really need to learn to use words to mean what they mean) about the origins of the Tea Party. The extent to which it is a real grass-roots movement, however much it has been co-opted by the powers that be since its inception, are seldom understood or recognized.
> 
> Now, I suggest that you take a quick look at your own attitudes towards OWS and see how they parallel those you are so angry about.
> 
> Self-awareness can be a good thing.
Click to expand...


The issue that some of us have with OWS is that it is the brain burp of Watermelon Man. I dislike the manipulation of decent people who have genuine, if misguided, issues.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> I posted no demands. Neither has OWS.



You're such a fucking liar.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/stock...-street-the-movement-grows-2.html#post4225689



> If you're referring to the list of grievances, all of them could be rectified without doing away with capitalism.



Right, because giving houses and property to people who have no claim to them, do not pay for them, did not build them and have no title to them - IE your first demand, is purely capitalist in that whole VI Lenin capitalism school way.

ROFL

DUDE, you're a fucking Marxist promoting a Bolshevik protest. Do you REALLY think you're fooling anyone?



> As for how much support the movement has, keep watching. This is only the beginning. The Tea Party was a tempest in a (no pun intended) teapot by comparison. THIS is the real storm.



Yeah, 99% of the country are Marxists...

Sure.


----------



## Barb

California Girl said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it didn't. That's just what you've been told by the media. That does not make it true. The TEA Parties started under Bush and had jack shit to do with 'politically corporate interests'. This one, however, has Van Jones and the Tides Foundation pulling its strings. It's left wing astro-turf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing the media told me is some bullshit that this protest is the left bookend to the tea party. The CORPORATE led media claim they BOTH are "EXTREMIST fringe."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The media are bullshitting you. They were about the TEAs and they are about this one. I support the right of both to protest. I do not support the right of the current protest to attempt to hold the country to ransom. Their 'issues' are ridiculous. They are protesting one side of a corrupt coin and letting the other side off the hook. If people want to protest, they should protest the government, not business.
Click to expand...



Sweetheart, business bought government some time ago. The finance industries held us ALL for ransom right before the last election. We paid, under Bush, with the full support of Obama and the Democrats (although to be fair, our side wanted stipulations we didn't get). The "issues" are FAR from ridiculous. They want corporations to pay their fair share of use of our commons. They benefit more than most, they should pay proportionately. As it is, they pay precious little, and each and every one of us make up the difference FOR them. Unless you are one of the top 1%, that means YOU are picking up their tab as well. Its bad enough to be a sucker, its a damned sight more pathetic to be a WILLING sucker. At least with a sorority the degradation is paid off with full membership. Unless you are already as rich and powerful as the 1%, you're punking yourself. Good luck with that. Maybe they'll throw you a bone.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

People as bitter and resentful as the OWS supporters should be discouraged from ever having children or pets


----------



## Katzndogz

The protesters are mostly anarchists who think everything should be free and no one needs to work.


----------



## Oldstyle

Barb said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I TOTALLY reminded of my own posts about the teaparty right now?
> 
> 
> This is what the media does to the teaparties and is now doing to the wallstreet protestors, lie about them then demonized based on the lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The media IS owned by rich corporate bosses, and of course they will marginalize the protestors by comparing them to the tea partiers. Meanwhile, one is grass roots, and the first was astro turf. I'm sorry, but I don't see the two as equivalent. The media is trying its damndest to tie them together, as "fringe," but is isn't so. The 99% IS 99%, and we're ALL collectively paying the freight on those who have been and would continue to be free riders at every one else's expense.
Click to expand...


How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you declare that you are the "99%"?  I'm sorry but you're NOT.  If you'd like to give an accurate accounting of how many people Occupy Wall Street represents then I might pay attention.  I guess saying "We are the 18%!" just didn't have a great ring to it...huh?


----------



## Mad Scientist

I'm glad to see the OWS movement growing and that people are waking up to the fact that Bankers, not "We the People" run the country.

The problem I have is that apparently some of them want Obama installed as Dictator (Which I'd argue, Obama is *already* one) That's like wanting to kill Caesar then install Hitler. How would that change anything?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Barb said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I TOTALLY reminded of my own posts about the teaparty right now?
> 
> 
> This is what the media does to the teaparties and is now doing to the wallstreet protestors, lie about them then demonized based on the lies.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The media IS owned by rich corporate bosses, and of course they will marginalize the protestors by comparing them to the tea partiers. Meanwhile, one is grass roots, and the first was astro turf. I'm sorry, but I don't see the two as equivalent. The media is trying its damndest to tie them together, as "fringe," but is isn't so. The 99% IS 99%, and we're ALL collectively paying the freight on those who have been and would continue to be free riders at every one else's expense.
Click to expand...


LOL who funded the teapartiers?  LOL  where is my check!

See your repeating the lie that the teaparties are astroturf.

I guess then wall street is astroturf too since big orgs are paying for food for these guys and other items so they can stay and protest


----------



## Truthmatters

Mad Scientist said:


> I'm glad to see the OWS movement growing and that people are waking up to the fact that Bankers, not "We the People" run the country.
> 
> The problem I have is that apparently some of them want Obama installed as Dictator (Which I'd argue, Obama is *already* one) That's like wanting to kill Caesar then install Hitler. How would that change anything?



drop off the rest of your shackles.

they are pitting you and me against each other on purpose.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Truthmatters said:


> There is no Koch brothers funing this one



How come our local boston tea party chapter has never received a check?

Hollywood elites are funding the wall-streeters, those rich elite's and their little sheeple protestors.  <----it feels dirty to do that, i'm surprised you don't feel dirty repeating the lies about the teaparty as you always do.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

CrusaderFrank said:


> SEIU and Obama are behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement



and the Uber Rich hollywood elite.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Changing back quotes in violation of the Terms of Service, how clever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have just proven that you have absolutely no clue what this movement is about, which is not surprising. I think that none of you on the right have a clue about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I just didn't smoke enough pot....
> 
> The key to "understanding" it being so fucked up that you can't quite decipher your own name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This movement is happening because people are suffering, and they have identified the ability of big business to pull the strings of government as the cause of their suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you moron. This astroturf outing is happening because Soros and SUEI are funding it. It's a power bid by the usual suspects of the extreme left.
> 
> You and these dopers on the streets are drones, doing the bidding of your masters with no real grasp of the issue at play or the power struggles you are attempting to tilt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What they want to do is to cut those strings so that government can then act in the interests of the people, not the corporate interests, and reverse the transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1% that's been going on for thirty years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing acts in the interest of the people quite like government, especially leftists and socialists.
> 
> USSR - 35 to 70 million citizens murdered by government
> NSDAP - 9 to 14 million citizens murdered by government
> PRC - 65 to 128 million citizens murdered by government
> SRV (Vietnam) - 2 to 7 million citizens murdered by government
> Khmer Rouge - 6 to 11 million citizens murdered by government
> 
> BUT hey, YOU HATE CAPITALISTS, as well you should because;
> 
> Microsoft - zero million citizens murdered by the corporation
> Hewlett-Packard - zero million citizens murdered by the corporation
> Standard Oil - zero million citizens murdered by the corporation
> 
> Yeah, you have it all figured out, trust government, give all power to government, government will care for you, Dear Leader loves you..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of that requires a full-on socialist economy, although it most certainly does require government policies that are labor-friendly rather than capital-friendly,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because labor has value, right?
> 
> I mean, a man in the desert digging a hole and filling it in is just as important as a researcher finding a cure for cancer. Digging a hole is hard work, it certainly is labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and a willingness on the part of government to regulate the banking industry, protect the environment, and support the rights of working people. If you consider that "socialism," well, there's just no talking to you I suppose until you regain some perspective and coherence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My perspective is this, you are poorly educated with zero grasp of economics. You are driven by a desire of "Gimmeee Gimmeee Gimmeee," where you think that your needs and wants are sufficient to compel others to give you what you value, despite you offering nothing in return.
Click to expand...


----------



## Big Fitz

Barb said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have this one question answered:
> 
> If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?
> 
> I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said do away with capitalism? There MUST be regulation (those regulations used to support capitalists from catching their tails and eating them), and these capitalists who make full use of other regulations that favor and safeguard them, who use our commons, and make full use (often greater use) of every other amenity of our government should pay their fair share of up keeping and holding the systems they take advantage of.
Click to expand...




> Who said do away with capitalism?


  The useful idiots at Occupy Wall Street inbetween chanting blithering nonsense "It's good to see you all here!"



> There MUST be regulation


I've never made the claim there shouldn't be SOME regulation.  The question is WHERE and how MUCH  regulation it should be.  I err on the side of the most individual freedom and least government involvement save that which is based in non-partisan regulation of consumer and labor protection as well as preventing anti-competition tactics from any party and truth in advertising and manufacture.  After that, the government needs to get the fuck out of the way and let the market take care of itself.  Not only that, A regulation unenforced EQUALLY on ALL members of the market is worse than useless.  It's dangerous.



> and these capitalists who make full use of other regulations that favor  and safeguard them



I'm all for eliminating every tax break and subsidy for businesses of all sorts.  I think that the tax rate for corporations should be 10% or less of their pre-loss income from all sources with no offsets.  After that, it's their money, for them to do with as they please.  No more GE tax credits or Solyndra subsidies and loans.



> who use our commons


  Commons?  The idea of the town common or even a 'national common' died in the 1700's with feudalism.  If it is not owned by someone, the rights do not default to the federal government, but rather the state government if you are going to be constitutional about it.  We have too much population to bother with this antiquated notion that the government is the rightful owner of all land and we as private citizens only 'borrow' or pay rent on it.



> and make full use (often greater use) of every other amenity of our  government should pay their fair share of up keeping and holding the  systems they take advantage of.



Like?

You should beware of such obviously over-broad statements that technically have no meaning save that subjective concept you choose to put in it.

What "Amenities or government systems" do businesses overuse and abuse that are also available to private citizens?

Define fair share, and when are the poor going to pay their OWN fair share?

Who created these poor abused systems and why do we need them?  Would we not be better off eliminating them, the tax burden and bureaucracy to maintain them and return that money and savings to individual citizens?

You want hope and change, right?

Hope FOR what?
Change TO what?

Please be SPECIFIC on the goals you wish to attain and the logistics on HOW you're going to attain them.  A passing reference in the expected cost/benefit analysis would be nice too.  Not asking much, just to know specifically what I'm getting for acquiescence.


----------



## Barb

Oldstyle said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I TOTALLY reminded of my own posts about the teaparty right now?
> 
> 
> This is what the media does to the teaparties and is now doing to the wallstreet protestors, lie about them then demonized based on the lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The media IS owned by rich corporate bosses, and of course they will marginalize the protestors by comparing them to the tea partiers. Meanwhile, one is grass roots, and the first was astro turf. I'm sorry, but I don't see the two as equivalent. The media is trying its damndest to tie them together, as "fringe," but is isn't so. The 99% IS 99%, and we're ALL collectively paying the freight on those who have been and would continue to be free riders at every one else's expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you declare that you are the "99%"?  I'm sorry but you're NOT.  If you'd like to give an accurate accounting of how many people Occupy Wall Street represents then I might pay attention.  I guess saying "We are the 18%!" just didn't have a great ring to it...huh?
Click to expand...


You think all BUT 18% have money in Wall Street? 

I'm sorry if I misconstrue your thought in any small way, but it wasn't presented in a very clear manner. 

The top 1% is most represented (above all others) by our government tax code. They are also most likely to be Wall Street players. 
Kind of like the wales at the Casinos, except our society is not supposed to BE a casino, it is SUPPOSED to be a representative republic.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> You're such a fucking liar.



Still hyperventilating, I see.

OWS has not presented any official list of demands. There is a semi-official list of grievances. That's what you linked to. A grievance is not a demand.



> Right, because giving houses and property to people who have no claim to them, do not pay for them, did not build them and have no title to them - IE your first demand



As I said, there were no demands. Those are YOUR words, not those of anyone involved with OWS.



> DUDE, you're a fucking Marxist promoting a Bolshevik protest. Do you REALLY think you're fooling anyone?



I am not a Marxist, probably no one alive today is a Bolshevik, and you are not going to find thousands and thousands of people in this country who believe in Marxism. If you think that the thousands of people involved in OWS are all Marxists, I'm not the one who's smoking something here.



> Yeah, 99% of the country are Marxists...
> 
> Sure.



Precisely my point. With the kind of massive support that OWS has, it's quite impossible for it to be a Marxist movement. There are a few Marxists in the U.S., to be sure, but only a few. This movement is MUCH larger than that.


----------



## Truthmatters

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no Koch brothers funing this one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How come our local boston tea party chapter has never received a check?
> 
> Hollywood elites are funding the wall-streeters, those rich elite's and their little sheeple protestors.  <----it feels dirty to do that, i'm surprised you don't feel dirty repeating the lies about the teaparty as you always do.
Click to expand...


Their checks are not for you.

their checks are for Fox and commercials to promote their agenda.

Its why people were so uninformed that they carried "keep your Government hands off my medicare".

It why 70 % of the people thought Sadam did 911 in early 2003


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> The issue that some of us have with OWS is that it is the brain burp of Watermelon Man. I dislike the manipulation of decent people who have genuine, if misguided, issues.



Again, cluelessness on display. This movement is not the brain child (let alone the brain burp) of any one single person. It's huge. It's impossible for anyone to control, it has no clear leaders, and while Van Jones is certainly involved in it, as are many other prominent figures on the left, it is much larger than he is or than all of them are put together.


----------



## California Girl

Mad Scientist said:


> I'm glad to see the OWS movement growing and that people are waking up to the fact that Bankers, not "We the People" run the country.
> 
> The problem I have is that apparently some of them want Obama installed as Dictator (Which I'd argue, Obama is *already* one) That's like wanting to kill Caesar then install Hitler. How would that change anything?





Of course that's what they want. The movement was created by the far left. It has jack shit to do with 'we, the People' and everything to do with 'we, the Socialists'. This is Van Jones 'October Offensive'. 

You might approve of Watermelon Man and his cronies manipulating people, but I disagree.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> This astroturf outing is happening because Soros and SUEI are funding it. It's a power bid by the usual suspects of the extreme left.



More cluelessness on display. You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't even know if George Soros has contributed a penny to OWS; if he has, it gives him no control. This is a genuine, bottom-up, grass-roots movement that was built on the Internet, initially without much funding at all. In this, it's like what the Tea Party was in the beginning, only bigger and left-leaning rather than right-leaning (although it does share some goals with the TP despite that).

Mouth-breathing, hyperventilating, and obviously-spurious comparisons of an essentially democratic movement to totalitarian states of the past are signs of nothing except, again, your own cluelessness.

If you really want something historical to compare the agenda of the OWS protesters to -- although this isn't a perfect match -- try the U.S. in the Eisenhower-Kennedy-LBJ-Nixon years. Not a totalitarian state, not a socialist economy, but one in which the government was labor-friendly rather than capital-friendly, when the financial industry was regulated, and in which income gaps were much narrower and most Americans belonged to the middle class.

As for my having "zero grasp of economics," you need to stop confusing right-wing ideology with economic knowledge. I am not ignorant of economics; on the contrary, I probably know more about it than any other poster here, certainly than most of them. I disagree with you, not because I don't know things, but because I do.


----------



## Big Fitz

California Girl said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad to see the OWS movement growing and that people are waking up to the fact that Bankers, not "We the People" run the country.
> 
> The problem I have is that apparently some of them want Obama installed as Dictator (Which I'd argue, Obama is *already* one) That's like wanting to kill Caesar then install Hitler. How would that change anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's what they want. The movement was created by the far left. It has jack shit to do with 'we, the People' and everything to do with 'we, the Socialists'. This is Van Jones 'October Offensive'.
> 
> You might approve of Watermelon Man and his cronies manipulating people, but I disagree.
Click to expand...

If this is their 'offensive' I'm offended it's so offensively bad and not surprised at it's failure.


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> The movement was created by the far left.



I'm getting the idea that you would not know the real "far left" if it bit you.


----------



## Barb

Big Fitz said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have this one question answered:
> 
> If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?
> 
> I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said do away with capitalism? There MUST be regulation (those regulations used to support capitalists from catching their tails and eating them), and these capitalists who make full use of other regulations that favor and safeguard them, who use our commons, and make full use (often greater use) of every other amenity of our government should pay their fair share of up keeping and holding the systems they take advantage of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The useful idiots at Occupy Wall Street inbetween chanting blithering nonsense "It's good to see you all here!"
> 
> 
> I've never made the claim there shouldn't be SOME regulation.  The question is WHERE and how MUCH  regulation it should be.  I err on the side of the most individual freedom and least government involvement save that which is based in non-partisan regulation of consumer and labor protection as well as preventing anti-competition tactics from any party and truth in advertising and manufacture.  After that, the government needs to get the fuck out of the way and let the market take care of itself.  Not only that, A regulation unenforced EQUALLY on ALL members of the market is worse than useless.  It's dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely! There is no "free market" where the pharmaceutical industry, the textile industry, and the oil industry does not have to compete freely with cannabis and hemp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm all for eliminating every tax break and subsidy for businesses of all sorts.  I think that the tax rate for corporations should be 10% or less of their pre-loss income from all sources with no offsets.  After that, it's their money, for them to do with as they please.  No more GE tax credits or Solyndra subsidies and loans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you and I pay much more. Why should they get MORE of a break then we do now, and that they already do before the loopholes that reduce it, in many cases, to zero (or us paying them)?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who use our commons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Commons?  The idea of the town common or even a 'national common' died in the 1700's with feudalism.  If it is not owned by someone, the rights do not default to the federal government, but rather the state government if you are going to be constitutional about it.  We have too much population to bother with this antiquated notion that the government is the rightful owner of all land and we as private citizens only 'borrow' or pay rent on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The commons isn't an "idea," it is a physical fact. At this point I must give you the benefit of the doubt. You cannot be a functional moron, so you must be a political ideologue, and hoping I am.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and make full use (often greater use) of every other amenity of our  government should pay their fair share of up keeping and holding the  systems they take advantage of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like our court system, that upholds the contracts they make and wish to hold others to, and use to avoid them being held to. The treasury system, that promises that the currency they trade in is respected worldwide, etc, ad nauseum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should beware of such obviously over-broad statements that technically have no meaning save that subjective concept you choose to put in it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "Amenities or government systems" do businesses overuse and abuse that are also available to private citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself. But, the private citizens who comprise a corporation take advantage of all or most of them at some point in their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Define fair share, and when are the poor going to pay their OWN fair share?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as soon as there is full employment,at a living wage, asswipe. Until then, the un and underemployed are working their asses off at poverty wages to reduce the labor overhead the companies your 401-k or other retirement plan is counting on to uphold your stock portfolio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who created these poor abused systems and why do we need them?  Would we not be better off eliminating them, the tax burden and bureaucracy to maintain them and return that money and savings to individual citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Let them eat cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want hope and change, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing so vague as any of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hope FOR what?
> Change TO what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The principles our founding fathers fought a bloody war for. The same principles that a bloody war was fought against the robber barons for. The same principles the UNIONS fought a bloody war for. The SAME principles FDR put in place to end the great depression, and offer a chance for the American Dream to a MUCH wider segment of society than the elite (in the TRUE sense of the term as it was historically used, time and again, to SUPPRESS upward mobility) would wish, because it isn't a country club if EVERYDAMNEDBODY can afford to join.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please be SPECIFIC on the goals you wish to attain and the logistics on HOW you're going to attain them.  A passing reference in the expected cost/benefit analysis would be nice too.  Not asking much, just to know specifically what I'm getting for acquiescence.
Click to expand...




> You know, you aren't my college professor. I'm pretty damned sure you're simply a shill for the status quo. When I'm done with my thesis, and if you're really interested, I'll send it to you. If not, more balls than what seems to be supported, but no harm, no foul. Have a very nice and subservient life.



 eh


----------



## Truthmatters

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The movement was created by the far left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting the idea that you would not know the real "far left" if it bit you.
Click to expand...


She knows next to nothing about this country and its pulse


----------



## Big Fitz

Barb said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said do away with capitalism? There MUST be regulation (those regulations used to support capitalists from catching their tails and eating them), and these capitalists who make full use of other regulations that favor and safeguard them, who use our commons, and make full use (often greater use) of every other amenity of our government should pay their fair share of up keeping and holding the systems they take advantage of.
> 
> 
> 
> The useful idiots at Occupy Wall Street inbetween chanting blithering nonsense "It's good to see you all here!"
> 
> 
> I've never made the claim there shouldn't be SOME regulation.  The question is WHERE and how MUCH  regulation it should be.  I err on the side of the most individual freedom and least government involvement save that which is based in non-partisan regulation of consumer and labor protection as well as preventing anti-competition tactics from any party and truth in advertising and manufacture.  After that, the government needs to get the fuck out of the way and let the market take care of itself.  Not only that, A regulation unenforced EQUALLY on ALL members of the market is worse than useless.  It's dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for eliminating every tax break and subsidy for businesses of all sorts.  I think that the tax rate for corporations should be 10% or less of their pre-loss income from all sources with no offsets.  After that, it's their money, for them to do with as they please.  No more GE tax credits or Solyndra subsidies and loans.
> 
> 
> 
> Commons?  The idea of the town common or even a 'national common' died in the 1700's with feudalism.  If it is not owned by someone, the rights do not default to the federal government, but rather the state government if you are going to be constitutional about it.  We have too much population to bother with this antiquated notion that the government is the rightful owner of all land and we as private citizens only 'borrow' or pay rent on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like?
> 
> 
> 
> You should beware of such obviously over-broad statements that technically have no meaning save that subjective concept you choose to put in it.
> 
> 
> 
> What "Amenities or government systems" do businesses overuse and abuse that are also available to private citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> Define fair share, and when are the poor going to pay their OWN fair share?
> 
> 
> 
> Who created these poor abused systems and why do we need them?  Would we not be better off eliminating them, the tax burden and bureaucracy to maintain them and return that money and savings to individual citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> You want hope and change, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Hope FOR what?
> Change TO what?
> 
> 
> 
> Please be SPECIFIC on the goals you wish to attain and the logistics on HOW you're going to attain them.  A passing reference in the expected cost/benefit analysis would be nice too.  Not asking much, just to know specifically what I'm getting for acquiescence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you aren't my college professor. I'm pretty damned sure you're simply a shill for the status quo. When I'm done with my thesis, and if you're really interested, I'll send it to you. If not, more balls than what seems to be supported, but no harm, no foul. Have a very nice and subservient life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> eh
Click to expand...




> Quote:
> You know,  you aren't my college professor. I'm pretty damned sure you're simply a  shill for the status quo. When I'm done with my thesis, and if you're  really interested, I'll send it to you. If not, more balls than what  seems to be supported, but no harm, no foul. Have a very nice and  subservient life.
> 
> 
> eh



Who, pray tell are you quoting.  It's not me.  Secondly, did you understand my fisking of your post or was it above your pay grade?  If you're quoting Dragon, boy you are desperate for something to bail you out.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The movement was created by the far left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting the idea that you would not know the real "far left" if it bit you.
Click to expand...


I know how they are. And I know what they want. You choose to ignore them. I won't. It's my country too. I'll share it with ya, but I will not allow you to trash the Constitution that founded it.


----------



## Barb

Big Fitz said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The useful idiots at Occupy Wall Street inbetween chanting blithering nonsense "It's good to see you all here!"
> 
> 
> I've never made the claim there shouldn't be SOME regulation.  The question is WHERE and how MUCH  regulation it should be.  I err on the side of the most individual freedom and least government involvement save that which is based in non-partisan regulation of consumer and labor protection as well as preventing anti-competition tactics from any party and truth in advertising and manufacture.  After that, the government needs to get the fuck out of the way and let the market take care of itself.  Not only that, A regulation unenforced EQUALLY on ALL members of the market is worse than useless.  It's dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for eliminating every tax break and subsidy for businesses of all sorts.  I think that the tax rate for corporations should be 10% or less of their pre-loss income from all sources with no offsets.  After that, it's their money, for them to do with as they please.  No more GE tax credits or Solyndra subsidies and loans.
> 
> 
> 
> Commons?  The idea of the town common or even a 'national common' died in the 1700's with feudalism.  If it is not owned by someone, the rights do not default to the federal government, but rather the state government if you are going to be constitutional about it.  We have too much population to bother with this antiquated notion that the government is the rightful owner of all land and we as private citizens only 'borrow' or pay rent on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like?
> 
> 
> 
> You should beware of such obviously over-broad statements that technically have no meaning save that subjective concept you choose to put in it.
> 
> 
> 
> What "Amenities or government systems" do businesses overuse and abuse that are also available to private citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> Define fair share, and when are the poor going to pay their OWN fair share?
> 
> 
> 
> Who created these poor abused systems and why do we need them?  Would we not be better off eliminating them, the tax burden and bureaucracy to maintain them and return that money and savings to individual citizens?
> 
> 
> 
> You want hope and change, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Hope FOR what?
> Change TO what?
> 
> 
> 
> Please be SPECIFIC on the goals you wish to attain and the logistics on HOW you're going to attain them.  A passing reference in the expected cost/benefit analysis would be nice too.  Not asking much, just to know specifically what I'm getting for acquiescence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> You know,  you aren't my college professor. I'm pretty damned sure you're simply a  shill for the status quo. When I'm done with my thesis, and if you're  really interested, I'll send it to you. If not, more balls than what  seems to be supported, but no harm, no foul. Have a very nice and  subservient life.
> 
> 
> eh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who, pray tell are you quoting.  It's not me.  Secondly, did you understand my fisking of your post or was it above your pay grade?  If you're quoting Dragon, boy you are desperate for something to bail you out.
Click to expand...


Chica, I may not be expert re the format here, but every point I answered in my reply to you was yours. If you're too simple to figure out what you asked and what I answered, we're done here, as it is a simple matter of what you already said (you should remember those parts) and my reply.


----------



## Dragon

Truthmatters said:


> She knows next to nothing about this country and its pulse



I find that a lot of people participating in boards like this one who consider themselves conservatives, and when they use labels like "far left," are talking about the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Bernie Sanders, or even in some cases Barack Obama. Pelosi and Sanders are not "far left" of course, let alone Obama.

I've known some real far lefties. The Revolutionary Communist Party is far left. The Unabomber was far left. The Socialist Workers Party is kind of semi-far left. The Wobblies have a far-left tick to them sometimes.

I expect all of these, except the Unabomber of course, to hitch a ride with OWS and try to promote their agendas; that happens in every center-left protest. But the movement itself is populist, center-left, mainstream. You will find that a clear majority of the people will agree with most of the grievances listed.


----------



## Big Fitz

California Girl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The movement was created by the far left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting the idea that you would not know the real "far left" if it bit you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know how they are. And I know what they want. You choose to ignore them. I won't. It's my country too. I'll share it with ya, but I will not allow you to trash the Constitution that founded it.
Click to expand...

Ignore?  No.  A member of?  Yes.  This boy's crazier than a clown car pulling a steam calliope with Dumbo flying air cover.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> She knows next to nothing about this country and its pulse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find that a lot of people participating in boards like this one who consider themselves conservatives, and when they use labels like "far left," are talking about the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Bernie Sanders, or even in some cases Barack Obama. Pelosi and Sanders are not "far left" of course, let alone Obama.
> 
> I've known some real far lefties. The Revolutionary Communist Party is far left. The Unabomber was far left. The Socialist Workers Party is kind of semi-far left. The Wobblies have a far-left tick to them sometimes.
> 
> I expect all of these, except the Unabomber of course, to hitch a ride with OWS and try to promote their agendas; that happens in every center-left protest. But the movement itself is populist, center-left, mainstream. You will find that a clear majority of the people will agree with most of the grievances listed.
Click to expand...


Yea, cuz Truthdon'tmatter is the epitome of rational thought. 

Van Jones is behind your precious 'uprising'. It's the 'October Offensive' that we weren't supposed to find out about. Now, you might not be concerned about who the puppetmasters are in this scenario. But I am.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OWS is another Downgraded Obama Astroturf Idea doomed to fail


----------



## Big Fitz

Barb said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> eh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> You know,  you aren't my college professor. I'm pretty damned sure you're simply a  shill for the status quo. When I'm done with my thesis, and if you're  really interested, I'll send it to you. If not, more balls than what  seems to be supported, but no harm, no foul. Have a very nice and  subservient life.
> 
> 
> eh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who, pray tell are you quoting.  It's not me.  Secondly, did you understand my fisking of your post or was it above your pay grade?  If you're quoting Dragon, boy you are desperate for something to bail you out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chica, I may not be expert re the format here, but every point I answered in my reply to you was yours. If you're too simple to figure out what you asked and what I answered, we're done here, as it is a simple matter of what you already said (you should remember those parts) and my reply.
Click to expand...

So Babsie... why didn't you just admit you've no fucking clue what you're talking about, what the plan is, or even how to get there rather than pretending to quote something halfwitty in response which neither addressed the question or was even part of the conversation.  At least when I pulll a lolcat out for irrelevant mockery of the stupid, lame or ironic, there's a purpose for it.

"It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Mark Twain

Do you comprehend that?


----------



## FuelRod

Here are some hilarious excerpts from a local article on the movement in my city insipired by the Wall Street protests:




> Jarett Young works in a liquor store where people tell him every day that they hate their jobs and they're always broke and they have too many bills to pay.





> "People work 30, 40 years of their life and have nothing to show for it, and people wonder why we have people who drink and do drugs," Young said. "There's gotta be a change."



Not too long ago these people were simply referred to as hobo's.  Now they are thought to be some sort of pseudo-revolutionaries?


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> Van Jones is behind your precious 'uprising'. It's the 'October Offensive' that we weren't supposed to find out about.



That is so silly. If you "weren't supposed to find out about it," why did he give a public speech on the subject and put it on the Internet and all like that?

And no, OWS is not Jones' "October Offensive." Jones has been trying to get things like this going for some time, but OWS grew spontaneously from Internet activity by a great many individuals, entirely bottom-up.

Besides which, Jones isn't "far left" either. He's sort of in the same category as Sanders.

But this attempt to mischaracterize the movement is perfectly predictable. It's the natural response of fear to something that you failed to predict, and don't know where it's going. Since you have no understanding of it at all, you can't know, as I know, that there is zero chance of this movement spawning a totalitarian takeover. As that is your nightmare, and this movement for you is a big indecipherable black box, it feeds your nightmare.


----------



## Barb

Big Fitz said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who, pray tell are you quoting.  It's not me.  Secondly, did you understand my fisking of your post or was it above your pay grade?  If you're quoting Dragon, boy you are desperate for something to bail you out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, I may not be expert re the format here, but every point I answered in my reply to you was yours. If you're too simple to figure out what you asked and what I answered, we're done here, as it is a simple matter of what you already said (you should remember those parts) and my reply.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Babsie... why didn't you just admit you've no fucking clue what you're talking about, what the plan is, or even how to get there rather than pretending to quote something halfwitty in response which neither addressed the question or was even part of the conversation.  At least when I pulll a lolcat out for irrelevant mockery of the stupid, lame or ironic, there's a purpose for it.
> 
> "It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Mark Twain
> 
> Do you comprehend that?
Click to expand...


WTF did I quote beyond your own incoherent rambling? At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.


----------



## Big Fitz

California Girl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> She knows next to nothing about this country and its pulse
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find that a lot of people participating in boards like this one who consider themselves conservatives, and when they use labels like "far left," are talking about the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Bernie Sanders, or even in some cases Barack Obama. Pelosi and Sanders are not "far left" of course, let alone Obama.
> 
> I've known some real far lefties. The Revolutionary Communist Party is far left. The Unabomber was far left. The Socialist Workers Party is kind of semi-far left. The Wobblies have a far-left tick to them sometimes.
> 
> I expect all of these, except the Unabomber of course, to hitch a ride with OWS and try to promote their agendas; that happens in every center-left protest. But the movement itself is populist, center-left, mainstream. You will find that a clear majority of the people will agree with most of the grievances listed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, cuz Truthdon'tmatter is the epitome of rational thought.
> 
> Van Jones is behind your precious 'uprising'. It's the 'October Offensive' that we weren't supposed to find out about. Now, you might not be concerned about who the puppetmasters are in this scenario. But I am.
Click to expand...

The leaders of these protests know who cut their checks and from what cutouts they received their money through.  The rest are faithful, useful idiots.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_D3vRWX0mqE]06 We Got Paid By Cash - YouTube[/ame]

In context of this discussion the song gets funnier still.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Van Jones is behind your precious 'uprising'. It's the 'October Offensive' that we weren't supposed to find out about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is so silly. If you "weren't supposed to find out about it," why did he give a public speech on the subject and put it on the Internet and all like that?
> 
> And no, OWS is not Jones' "October Offensive." Jones has been trying to get things like this going for some time, but OWS grew spontaneously from Internet activity by a great many individuals, entirely bottom-up.
> 
> Besides which, Jones isn't "far left" either. He's sort of in the same category as Sanders.
> 
> But this attempt to mischaracterize the movement is perfectly predictable. It's the natural response of fear to something that you failed to predict, and don't know where it's going. Since you have no understanding of it at all, you can't know, as I know, that there is zero chance of this movement spawning a totalitarian takeover. As that is your nightmare, and this movement for you is a big indecipherable black box, it feeds your nightmare.
Click to expand...


Sanders is a Socialist and he's not far enough Left in your book?


----------



## Big Fitz

Barb said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chica, I may not be expert re the format here, but every point I answered in my reply to you was yours. If you're too simple to figure out what you asked and what I answered, we're done here, as it is a simple matter of what you already said (you should remember those parts) and my reply.
> 
> 
> 
> So Babsie... why didn't you just admit you've no fucking clue what you're talking about, what the plan is, or even how to get there rather than pretending to quote something halfwitty in response which neither addressed the question or was even part of the conversation.  At least when I pulll a lolcat out for irrelevant mockery of the stupid, lame or ironic, there's a purpose for it.
> 
> "It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Mark Twain
> 
> Do you comprehend that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF did I quote beyond your own incoherent rambling? At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
Click to expand...

LOL... yes sir, Babsie.  If you can't keep up with the conversation, I suggest you sit down and let the adults continue on.


----------



## Dragon

CrusaderFrank said:


> Sanders is a Socialist and he's not far enough Left in your book?



Sanders is not "far left" because the real far left is considerably to the left of him. Whether he is left enough for me to agree with him is irrelevant; I generally DON'T agree with the far left (i.e., they're to the left of me, too).


----------



## geauxtohell

Unwashed masses descend on Wall Street and scare suits.  Corporate media machine reacts.  Use of term "socialism" and "communism" skyrockets among right wing "useful idiots".  

End of message.


----------



## Barb

FuelRod said:


> Here are some hilarious excerpts from a local article on the movement in my city insipired by the Wall Street protests:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarett Young works in a liquor store where people tell him every day that they hate their jobs and they're always broke and they have too many bills to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "People work 30, 40 years of their life and have nothing to show for it, and people wonder why we have people who drink and do drugs," Young said. "There's gotta be a change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not too long ago these people were simply referred to as hobo's.  Now they are thought to be some sort of pseudo-revolutionaries?
Click to expand...


People with full time jobs, no matter how humble, were once considered "hobo's?" 
really? 
I can guess when this happened politically, but when did it happen locally, where you are?


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Van Jones is behind your precious 'uprising'. It's the 'October Offensive' that we weren't supposed to find out about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is so silly. If you "weren't supposed to find out about it," why did he give a public speech on the subject and put it on the Internet and all like that?
> 
> And no, OWS is not Jones' "October Offensive." Jones has been trying to get things like this going for some time, but OWS grew spontaneously from Internet activity by a great many individuals, entirely bottom-up.
> 
> Besides which, Jones isn't "far left" either. He's sort of in the same category as Sanders.
> 
> But this attempt to mischaracterize the movement is perfectly predictable. It's the natural response of fear to something that you failed to predict, and don't know where it's going. Since you have no understanding of it at all, you can't know, as I know, that there is zero chance of this movement spawning a totalitarian takeover. As that is your nightmare, and this movement for you is a big indecipherable black box, it feeds your nightmare.
Click to expand...


The sad thing is that you actually believe that it wasn't co-ordinated. IT was. Planned and executed by Watermelon Man & Co. 

You can pretend it wasn't - or maybe you really believe it wasn't - either way, is of no consequence.


----------



## geauxtohell

geauxtohell said:


> Unwashed masses descend on Wall Street and scare suits.  Corporate media machine reacts.  Use of term "socialism" and "communism" skyrockets among right wing "useful idiots".
> 
> End of message.



And they told you that CNN was a "liberal" station.

Quote and Comment

Silly useful idiots!


----------



## Trajan

geauxtohell said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unwashed masses descend on Wall Street and scare suits.  Corporate media machine reacts.  Use of term "socialism" and "communism" skyrockets among right wing "useful idiots".
> 
> End of message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they told you that CNN was a "liberal" station.
> 
> Quote and Comment
> 
> Silly useful idiots!
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you are trying to covey here


----------



## Barb

Big Fitz said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Babsie... why didn't you just admit you've no fucking clue what you're talking about, what the plan is, or even how to get there rather than pretending to quote something halfwitty in response which neither addressed the question or was even part of the conversation.  At least when I pulll a lolcat out for irrelevant mockery of the stupid, lame or ironic, there's a purpose for it.
> 
> "It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Mark Twain
> 
> Do you comprehend that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF did I quote beyond your own incoherent rambling? At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL... yes sir, Babsie.  If you can't keep up with the conversation, I suggest you sit down and let the adults continue on.
Click to expand...


Listen up,little man, if you can't produce better than you have, and it's no big shame that you can't, given your obvious limitations, it might be best to let it go. Nobody will think any less of you than they already do, and most will forget all about it after a day or two, if that.


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> The sad thing is that you actually believe that it wasn't co-ordinated. IT was. Planned and executed by Watermelon Man & Co.



Prove it.


----------



## Big Fitz

Wow... sad when Bernie Sanders isn't "That Leftist" as compared to "Real Leftists".

I'm wondering what the "Real Left" looks like to Dragon.


----------



## The Gadfly

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Van Jones is behind your precious 'uprising'. It's the 'October Offensive' that we weren't supposed to find out about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is so silly. If you "weren't supposed to find out about it," why did he give a public speech on the subject and put it on the Internet and all like that?
> 
> And no, OWS is not Jones' "October Offensive." Jones has been trying to get things like this going for some time, but OWS grew spontaneously from Internet activity by a great many individuals, entirely bottom-up.
> 
> Besides which, Jones isn't "far left" either. He's sort of in the same category as Sanders.
> 
> But this attempt to mischaracterize the movement is perfectly predictable. It's the natural response of fear to something that you failed to predict, and don't know where it's going. Since you have no understanding of it at all, you can't know, as I know, that there is zero chance of this movement spawning a totalitarian takeover. As that is your nightmare, and this movement for you is a big indecipherable black box, it feeds your nightmare.
Click to expand...


"Movement"? What movement? All I see, is a rabble of spoiled brat college kids (Lord, I wish we could bring back the draft, and give them a REAL reality check!), and a bunch of assorted losers and pseudo-intellectual radicals, all controlled by their puppetmasters in the Obama camp. As I said, they couldn't stage a coup in a two-bit, banana republic. Let them squeal; if they get violent, crack their skulls. I got a job for them though; let  'em walk point in the Sandbox, with a damn cowbell around their pencil necks! At least then, they'd actually be good for *something*, however briefly.


----------



## Big Fitz

California Girl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Van Jones is behind your precious 'uprising'. It's the 'October Offensive' that we weren't supposed to find out about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is so silly. If you "weren't supposed to find out about it," why did he give a public speech on the subject and put it on the Internet and all like that?
> 
> And no, OWS is not Jones' "October Offensive." Jones has been trying to get things like this going for some time, but OWS grew spontaneously from Internet activity by a great many individuals, entirely bottom-up.
> 
> Besides which, Jones isn't "far left" either. He's sort of in the same category as Sanders.
> 
> But this attempt to mischaracterize the movement is perfectly predictable. It's the natural response of fear to something that you failed to predict, and don't know where it's going. Since you have no understanding of it at all, you can't know, as I know, that there is zero chance of this movement spawning a totalitarian takeover. As that is your nightmare, and this movement for you is a big indecipherable black box, it feeds your nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sad thing is that you actually believe that it wasn't co-ordinated. IT was. Planned and executed by Watermelon Man & Co.
> 
> You can pretend it wasn't - or maybe you really believe it wasn't - either way, is of no consequence.
Click to expand...

It's been planned since May as an attempt to collapse the market and the US economy so the radicals can seem rational in a time of crisis..


----------



## Oldstyle

Dragon said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanders is a Socialist and he's not far enough Left in your book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanders is not "far left" because the real far left is considerably to the left of him. Whether he is left enough for me to agree with him is irrelevant; I generally DON'T agree with the far left (i.e., they're to the left of me, too).
Click to expand...


Who is farther to the left then Bernie Sanders, Dragon?  I honestly can't think of one politician that I would put further to the left than the Senator from Vermont.  I'm curious to hear from you who would fit that bill.


----------



## Dragon

The Gadfly said:


> "Movement"? What movement?



Why, this one, of course:

Labor Unions Join Occupy Wall Street for New York Rally - ABC News



> All I see, is a rabble of spoiled brat college kids (Lord, I wish we could bring back the draft, and give them a REAL reality check!), and a bunch of assorted losers and pseudo-intellectual radicals, all controlled by their puppetmasters in the Obama camp.



Like I said, the right has no clue whatsoever about this movement, and no understanding of where it's coming from or where it's going. None. A more complete failure to comprehend would be hard to imagine.

No wonder you're all so scared of it.


----------



## geauxtohell

California Girl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Van Jones is behind your precious 'uprising'. It's the 'October Offensive' that we weren't supposed to find out about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is so silly. If you "weren't supposed to find out about it," why did he give a public speech on the subject and put it on the Internet and all like that?
> 
> And no, OWS is not Jones' "October Offensive." Jones has been trying to get things like this going for some time, but OWS grew spontaneously from Internet activity by a great many individuals, entirely bottom-up.
> 
> Besides which, Jones isn't "far left" either. He's sort of in the same category as Sanders.
> 
> But this attempt to mischaracterize the movement is perfectly predictable. It's the natural response of fear to something that you failed to predict, and don't know where it's going. Since you have no understanding of it at all, you can't know, as I know, that there is zero chance of this movement spawning a totalitarian takeover. As that is your nightmare, and this movement for you is a big indecipherable black box, it feeds your nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sad thing is that you actually believe that it wasn't co-ordinated. IT was. Planned and executed by Watermelon Man & Co.
> 
> You can pretend it wasn't - or maybe you really believe it wasn't - either way, is of no consequence.
Click to expand...


So was the "Tea Party Movement". 

Thermodynamics:  Nothing in nature happens spontaneously.

So what?


----------



## Dragon

Oldstyle said:


> Who is farther to the left then Bernie Sanders, Dragon?  I honestly can't think of one politician that I would put further to the left than the Senator from Vermont.  I'm curious to hear from you who would fit that bill.



The real far left is not in Congress. I mentioned several members of it above.

Anyone electable to Congress does not fit the description.


----------



## geauxtohell

Dragon said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Movement"? What movement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why, this one, of course:
> 
> Labor Unions Join Occupy Wall Street for New York Rally - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I see, is a rabble of spoiled brat college kids (Lord, I wish we could bring back the draft, and give them a REAL reality check!), and a bunch of assorted losers and pseudo-intellectual radicals, all controlled by their puppetmasters in the Obama camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, the right has no clue whatsoever about this movement, and no understanding of where it's coming from or where it's going. None. A more complete failure to comprehend would be hard to imagine.
> 
> No wonder you're all so scared of it.
Click to expand...


They are scared because they have been told to be scared by the voices that come out of their TVs and radios.

The voices they have come to trust.


----------



## kiwiman127

Well, this "movement" certainly has generated quite a few threads and posts.


----------



## Big Fitz

Barb said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF did I quote beyond your own incoherent rambling? At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... yes sir, Babsie.  If you can't keep up with the conversation, I suggest you sit down and let the adults continue on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Listen up,little man, if you can't produce better than you have, and it's no big shame that you can't, given your obvious limitations, it might be best to let it go. Nobody will think any less of you than they already do, and most will forget all about it after a day or two, if that.
Click to expand...

awww po' widdle Babsie getting her kyoot widdle nose outta joint becauwse teh big bad conservative isn't wetting her get away wif pumping pabwum?

awwwww pauvre pauvre petite bebe.  Desole, ma petite chou.  L'homme mauvais il voyager matinent... shhh sh sh sh sh.... Je chante pour vous... 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpoudLoc8sY]Have You Forgotten? - YouTube[/ame]

I see I asked too much of you to come up with specifics and goals on how you're we're going to change and what the goal is.

pauvre pauvre petite bebe...  Voila!  Votre mama est la pour vous. shhh sh sh sh sh shhhhhhh....


----------



## geauxtohell

Big Fitz said:


> It's been planned since May as an attempt to collapse the market and the US economy so the radicals can seem rational in a time of crisis..



My goodness.  People exercising their right to peaceful assemply can collapse the market and US economy?

Silly, useful idiot.  Make sure you keep your TV on.  The counter-revolution WILL be televised.  

"And please be sure to buy something from our sponsors."


----------



## Barb

The Gadfly said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Van Jones is behind your precious 'uprising'. It's the 'October Offensive' that we weren't supposed to find out about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is so silly. If you "weren't supposed to find out about it," why did he give a public speech on the subject and put it on the Internet and all like that?
> 
> And no, OWS is not Jones' "October Offensive." Jones has been trying to get things like this going for some time, but OWS grew spontaneously from Internet activity by a great many individuals, entirely bottom-up.
> 
> Besides which, Jones isn't "far left" either. He's sort of in the same category as Sanders.
> 
> But this attempt to mischaracterize the movement is perfectly predictable. It's the natural response of fear to something that you failed to predict, and don't know where it's going. Since you have no understanding of it at all, you can't know, as I know, that there is zero chance of this movement spawning a totalitarian takeover. As that is your nightmare, and this movement for you is a big indecipherable black box, it feeds your nightmare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Movement"? What movement? All I see, is a rabble of spoiled brat college kids (Lord, I wish we could bring back the draft, and give them a REAL reality check!), and a bunch of assorted losers and pseudo-intellectual radicals, all controlled by their puppetmasters in the Obama camp. As I said, they couldn't stage a coup in a two-bit, banana republic. Let them squeal; if they get violent, crack their skulls. I got a job for them though; let  'em walk point in the Sandbox, with a damn cowbell around their pencil necks! At least then, they'd actually be good for *something*, however briefly.
Click to expand...


Okay, so they've done all this in opposition to to the government of a sitting DEMOCRAT, but they're puppets OF that democrat. JESUSHCHRISTONAPOPSICLESTICK. 
These "spoiled college kids" are looking at a future that includes eating ram-en noodles (if they're lucky enough to live with mom and dad) for the entire repayment of their student loans, because there are NO JOBS that would allow them to live independently and pay them off. 

An hey, WHYTHEFUCKNOT revisit OHIO STATE. It worked out so well the first time.

you're a functioning moron.


----------



## Big Fitz

geauxtohell said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is so silly. If you "weren't supposed to find out about it," why did he give a public speech on the subject and put it on the Internet and all like that?
> 
> And no, OWS is not Jones' "October Offensive." Jones has been trying to get things like this going for some time, but OWS grew spontaneously from Internet activity by a great many individuals, entirely bottom-up.
> 
> Besides which, Jones isn't "far left" either. He's sort of in the same category as Sanders.
> 
> But this attempt to mischaracterize the movement is perfectly predictable. It's the natural response of fear to something that you failed to predict, and don't know where it's going. Since you have no understanding of it at all, you can't know, as I know, that there is zero chance of this movement spawning a totalitarian takeover. As that is your nightmare, and this movement for you is a big indecipherable black box, it feeds your nightmare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sad thing is that you actually believe that it wasn't co-ordinated. IT was. Planned and executed by Watermelon Man & Co.
> 
> You can pretend it wasn't - or maybe you really believe it wasn't - either way, is of no consequence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So was the "Tea Party Movement".
> 
> Thermodynamics:  Nothing in nature happens spontaneously.
> 
> So what?
Click to expand...

Absolute true, but that is correlation to this astroturfed OWS bullshit.  The tea party is actually grass roots, much like it was in the civil rights movement of the 1960's.  The heat and pressure of society caused the conditions to spontaneously create the movement the same way you increase heat under a pot, soon it will boil.  You can't predict where the first bubble will arise other than to say the bottom of the pan.  But the OWS bullshit is as close to boiling as a stupid chef blowing bubbles in the pan with a straw and expecting pasta to cook.


----------



## Big Fitz

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been planned since May as an attempt to collapse the market and the US economy so the radicals can seem rational in a time of crisis..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness.  People exercising their right to peaceful assemply can collapse the market and US economy?
> 
> Silly, useful idiot.  Make sure you keep your TV on.  The counter-revolution WILL be televised.
> 
> "And please be sure to buy something from our sponsors."
Click to expand...

I never claimed it was going to work... just that it was planned and that was their stated goal back then.


----------



## geauxtohell

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unwashed masses descend on Wall Street and scare suits.  Corporate media machine reacts.  Use of term "socialism" and "communism" skyrockets among right wing "useful idiots".
> 
> End of message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they told you that CNN was a "liberal" station.
> 
> Quote and Comment
> 
> Silly useful idiots!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are trying to covey here
Click to expand...


Click link for enlightenment......


----------



## Big Fitz

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> And they told you that CNN was a "liberal" station.
> 
> Quote and Comment
> 
> Silly useful idiots!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are trying to covey here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Click link for enlightenment......
Click to expand...

It's a blog.  Who reads blogs anymore?  Oh that's right, leftwing echochamber idiots.


----------



## geauxtohell

Big Fitz said:


> I see I asked too much of you to come up with specifics and goals on how you're we're going to change and what the goal is.



I have an idea.  

How about we amend our Constitution so that "money" is no longer considered free political speech, so that candidates can't be bought and paid for by the corporate shills whose vast deep pockets make your piddling collections of $20 donations look like pennies laying on a laundary room floor so valueless that nobody even bothers to kneel over to pick them up anymore.

I say amend the constitution, because our high court has already been bought and paid for and that is the only legal means of reddress we have.  

Until then, enjoy the oligarchy.


----------



## Trajan

Dragon said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Movement"? What movement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why, this one, of course:
> 
> Labor Unions Join Occupy Wall Street for New York Rally - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I see, is a rabble of spoiled brat college kids (Lord, I wish we could bring back the draft, and give them a REAL reality check!), and a bunch of assorted losers and pseudo-intellectual radicals, all controlled by their puppetmasters in the Obama camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, the right has no clue whatsoever about this movement, and no understanding of where it's coming from or where it's going. None. A more complete failure to comprehend would be hard to imagine.
> 
> No wonder you're all so scared of it.
Click to expand...


scared?

 pick another adjective or set of them, how about wry amusement?


----------



## geauxtohell

Big Fitz said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what you are trying to covey here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click link for enlightenment......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a blog.  Who reads blogs anymore?  Oh that's right, leftwing echochamber idiots.
Click to expand...


It's a blog about a tweet.  You obviously don't read blogs anymore.


----------



## Barb

Big Fitz said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... yes sir, Babsie.  If you can't keep up with the conversation, I suggest you sit down and let the adults continue on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listen up,little man, if you can't produce better than you have, and it's no big shame that you can't, given your obvious limitations, it might be best to let it go. Nobody will think any less of you than they already do, and most will forget all about it after a day or two, if that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> awww po' widdle Babsie getting her kyoot widdle nose outta joint becauwse teh big bad conservative isn't wetting her get away wif pumping pabwum?
> 
> awwwww pauvre pauvre petite bebe.  Desole, ma petite chou.  L'homme mauvais il voyager matinent... shhh sh sh sh sh.... Je chante pour vous...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpoudLoc8sY]Have You Forgotten? - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> I see I asked too much of you to come up with specifics and goals on how you're we're going to change and what the goal is.
> 
> pauvre pauvre petite bebe...  Voila!  Votre mama est la pour vous. shhh sh sh sh sh shhhhhhh....
Click to expand...


holy fuck! not only are you beyond any rational thought, but you're pulling out 9/11 as...what? way to go, not. Not in ANY way, shape, or rational segue. 

But you GO, girl. You're special. 

In a really weird and inappropriate way, but special nevertheless.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Barb said:


> You think all BUT 18% have money in Wall Street?



No, about 95% of Americans have money in Wall Street. Everyone with a 401K, a Union pension, a government pension or a defined benefits plan.



> I'm sorry if I misconstrue your thought in any small way, but it wasn't presented in a very clear manner.
> 
> The top 1% is most represented (above all others) by our government tax code. They are also most likely to be Wall Street players.



You DO realize that the money you complain of has already been taxed, generally twice, before it is used for investments, don't you?



> Kind of like the wales at the Casinos, except our society is not supposed to BE a casino, it is SUPPOSED to be a representative republic.



You just want to make sure that those who build and produce things aren't represented.


----------



## geauxtohell

Big Fitz said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been planned since May as an attempt to collapse the market and the US economy so the radicals can seem rational in a time of crisis..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My goodness.  People exercising their right to peaceful assemply can collapse the market and US economy?
> 
> Silly, useful idiot.  Make sure you keep your TV on.  The counter-revolution WILL be televised.
> 
> "And please be sure to buy something from our sponsors."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never claimed it was going to work... just that it was planned and that was their stated goal back then.
Click to expand...


And that is there stated goal now?  

I am confused....  Are these a bunch of pot smoking kids playing grabass or is it an organized and malicious group of radicals who want to collapse the market and incite anarchy?  

Your wires seem to be crossed.


----------



## Dragon

Trajan said:


> scared?
> 
> pick another adjective or set of them, how about wry amusement?



Nope, scared is exactly what it is. The wry amusement is merely a bold face put on fear.


----------



## Big Fitz

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see I asked too much of you to come up with specifics and goals on how you're we're going to change and what the goal is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have an idea.
> 
> How about we amend our Constitution so that "money" is no longer considered free political speech, so that candidates can't be bought and paid for by the corporate shills whose vast deep pockets make your piddling collections of $20 donations look like pennies laying on a laundary room floor so valueless that nobody even bothers to kneel over to pick them up anymore.
> 
> I say amend the constitution, because our high court has already been bought and paid for and that is the only legal means of reddress we have.
> 
> Until then, enjoy the oligarchy.
Click to expand...

Your tinfoil is showing under your toupee.  

You know what the difference is between American and Japanese corrupt politicians?

Japanese politicians STAY bought.

Please, return to the comfortable confines of the Conspiracy Cloakroom.  The US may not be perfect, but it isn't this phantom government 'gnomes of zurich/tri-lateral commission' bullshit.

Here's a better solution but it demands both accountability and a smarter populace.  Force all giving to be transparent for everyone to see.  No soft or bundled cash.  No group, union or business money.  No PACs or committees to hide intent.  Give all you want, your name and address will be taken down as an individual.  If you don't want bought politicians, find the ones who haven't been given millions if not billions of dollars by special interest.


----------



## Trajan

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see I asked too much of you to come up with specifics and goals on how you're we're going to change and what the goal is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have an idea.
> 
> How about we amend our Constitution so that "money" is no longer considered free political speech, so that candidates can't be bought and paid for by the corporate shills whose vast deep pockets make your piddling collections of $20 donations look like pennies laying on a laundary room floor so valueless that nobody even bothers to kneel over to pick them up anymore.
> 
> I say amend the constitution, because our high court has already been bought and paid for and that is the only legal means of reddress we have.
> 
> Until then, enjoy the oligarchy.
Click to expand...



has something changed recently? 

........"war is a racket", Smedley Butler 1935. *shrugs*


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> No, about 95% of Americans have money in Wall Street.



That's an exaggeration, but let's say that most Americans do have a few dollars invested in stocks. That changes nothing, of course. Investment in the stock market is not a binary function, and either-or, it's a more-less.



> You just want to make sure that those who build and produce things aren't represented.



On the contrary, the desire is to make sure that those who build and produce things -- the working class -- ARE represented fairly.

The problem here is that the ones you are calling "those who build and produce things" aren't. They're the ones who OWN things, which is not the same.


----------



## Trajan

Dragon said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> scared?
> 
> pick another adjective or set of them, how about wry amusement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, scared is exactly what it is. The wry amusement is merely a bold face put on fear.
Click to expand...


sure, ok then. 

do you wear a pirate hat too? get a plastic sword?


----------



## Big Fitz

Barb said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Listen up,little man, if you can't produce better than you have, and it's no big shame that you can't, given your obvious limitations, it might be best to let it go. Nobody will think any less of you than they already do, and most will forget all about it after a day or two, if that.
> 
> 
> 
> awww po' widdle Babsie getting her kyoot widdle nose outta joint becauwse teh big bad conservative isn't wetting her get away wif pumping pabwum?
> 
> awwwww pauvre pauvre petite bebe.  Desole, ma petite chou.  L'homme mauvais il voyager matinent... shhh sh sh sh sh.... Je chante pour vous...
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpoudLoc8sY]Have You Forgotten? - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> I see I asked too much of you to come up with specifics and goals on how you're we're going to change and what the goal is.
> 
> pauvre pauvre petite bebe...  Voila!  Votre mama est la pour vous. shhh sh sh sh sh shhhhhhh....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> holy fuck! not only are you beyond any rational thought, but you're pulling out 9/11 as...what? way to go, not. Not in ANY way, shape, or rational segue.
> 
> But you GO, girl. You're special.
> 
> In a really weird and inappropriate way, but special nevertheless.
Click to expand...

I just picked a song you'd find most offensive Babsie.

And Voila, Pauvre Bebe... you freak out.

Dance monkey!  Dance!  Dodge that question.  Ignore that logic!  Dance Dance Revolution for me little monkey girl!  Dance!

here, you can have one too.


----------



## geauxtohell

Big Fitz said:


> Absolute true, but that is correlation to this astroturfed OWS bullshit.  The tea party is actually grass roots, much like it was in the civil rights movement of the 1960's.  The heat and pressure of society caused the conditions to spontaneously create the movement the same way you increase heat under a pot, soon it will boil.  You can't predict where the first bubble will arise other than to say the bottom of the pan.  But the OWS bullshit is as close to boiling as a stupid chef blowing bubbles in the pan with a straw and expecting pasta to cook.



Yes.  When it is your cause it is "grass roots" and honest.  When it is someone elses it is "astro-turf" and insidious.

Excellent............


----------



## Dragon

Trajan said:


> sure, ok then.
> 
> do you wear a pirate hat too? get a plastic sword?



You're not fooling anyone, you know. Probably not even yourself.


----------



## Barb

Uncensored2008 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think all BUT 18% have money in Wall Street?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, about 95% of Americans have money in Wall Street. Everyone with a 401K, a Union pension, a government pension or a defined benefits plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry if I misconstrue your thought in any small way, but it wasn't presented in a very clear manner.
> 
> The top 1% is most represented (above all others) by our government tax code. They are also most likely to be Wall Street players.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You DO realize that the money you complain of has already been taxed, generally twice, before it is used for investments, don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like the wales at the Casinos, except our society is not supposed to BE a casino, it is SUPPOSED to be a representative republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just want to make sure that those who build and produce things aren't represented.
Click to expand...


I would LOVE to see those who actually build and produce represented. it hasn't happened since two years before I graduated high school.


----------



## Big Fitz

Trajan said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> scared?
> 
> pick another adjective or set of them, how about wry amusement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, scared is exactly what it is. The wry amusement is merely a bold face put on fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sure, ok then.
> 
> do you wear a pirate hat too? get a plastic sword?
Click to expand...

He's a complex little pirate, isn't he?


----------



## Big Fitz

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute true, but that is correlation to this astroturfed OWS bullshit.  The tea party is actually grass roots, much like it was in the civil rights movement of the 1960's.  The heat and pressure of society caused the conditions to spontaneously create the movement the same way you increase heat under a pot, soon it will boil.  You can't predict where the first bubble will arise other than to say the bottom of the pan.  But the OWS bullshit is as close to boiling as a stupid chef blowing bubbles in the pan with a straw and expecting pasta to cook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  When it is your cause it is "grass roots" and honest.  When it is someone elses it is "astro-turf" and insidious.
> 
> Excellent............
Click to expand...

Rrrriiiiiight.....






When you guys can actually answer the Logistics and end goals of "Hope and Change", it'll be a red letter day for the 'honesty in the leftists camp' file.  Perhaps the ONLY red letter day.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Still hyperventilating, I see.
> 
> OWS has not presented any official list of demands.



Then why did you post a fraud?



> There is a semi-official list of grievances.



A distinction without a difference.



> That's what you linked to. A grievance is not a demand.



Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee  - I should get a free house because I want it and I should get it.



> As I said, there were no demands.



Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee  - THEY are foreclosing on OUR houses. How the fuck are they YOUR houses? You didn't pay for them, you didn't build them, you don't pay the mortgage. They are YOUR (the Marxist dumbfucks) houses by merit that you want them and are squatting after breaching the contract to pay for them?



> Those are YOUR words, not those of anyone involved with OWS.



How did my words get on a Marxist website? Why did you represent my words as those of the OWS?



> I am not a Marxist,



ROFL



> probably no one alive today is a Bolshevik, and you are not going to find thousands and thousands of people in this country who believe in Marxism.



Thousands and thousands, huh? You have delusions of relevance. The hundreds of utter morons out there are indeed Marxists, or just along for the party. 



> If you think that the thousands of people involved in OWS are all Marxists, I'm not the one who's smoking something here.



Yawn...



> Precisely my point. With the kind of massive support that OWS has,



Massive support?

Bwahahahahahah

You really are on drugs.

Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee  - these are a tiny group of fools. You claim 99%, when in fact you have .0000000000000099%



> it's quite impossible for it to be a Marxist movement. There are a few Marxists in the U.S., to be sure, but only a few. This movement is MUCH larger than that.



The "movement" is a farce. A Soros driven idiocy that will soon be nothing more than yet another SUIE *Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee  * fest.


----------



## Barb

Big Fitz said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> awww po' widdle Babsie getting her kyoot widdle nose outta joint becauwse teh big bad conservative isn't wetting her get away wif pumping pabwum?
> 
> awwwww pauvre pauvre petite bebe.  Desole, ma petite chou.  L'homme mauvais il voyager matinent... shhh sh sh sh sh.... Je chante pour vous...
> 
> Have You Forgotten? - YouTube
> 
> I see I asked too much of you to come up with specifics and goals on how you're we're going to change and what the goal is.
> 
> pauvre pauvre petite bebe...  Voila!  Votre mama est la pour vous. shhh sh sh sh sh shhhhhhh....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> holy fuck! not only are you beyond any rational thought, but you're pulling out 9/11 as...what? way to go, not. Not in ANY way, shape, or rational segue.
> 
> But you GO, girl. You're special.
> 
> In a really weird and inappropriate way, but special nevertheless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just picked a song you'd find most offensive Babsie.
> 
> And Voila, Pauvre Bebe... you freak out.
> 
> Dance monkey!  Dance!  Dodge that question.  Ignore that logic!  Dance Dance Revolution for me little monkey girl!  Dance!
> 
> here, you can have one too.
Click to expand...


I work the night shift

Didn't want you to think I was ignoring you, as inconsequential as I find you to be, but it is time for bed.

Not for nothing though, you are the useful idiot in your own case. I do hope they treat you well.



> If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.Samuel Adams



May your chains rest lightly upon you | Turbosmith 

sweet dreams


----------



## Big Fitz

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still hyperventilating, I see.
> 
> OWS has not presented any official list of demands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why did you post a fraud?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a semi-official list of grievances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A distinction without a difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee  - I should get a free house because I want it and I should get it.
> 
> 
> 
> Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee  - THEY are foreclosing on OUR houses. How the fuck are they YOUR houses? You didn't pay for them, you didn't build them, you don't pay the mortgage. They are YOUR (the Marxist dumbfucks) houses by merit that you want them and are squatting after breaching the contract to pay for them?
> 
> 
> 
> How did my words get on a Marxist website? Why did you represent my words as those of the OWS?
> 
> 
> 
> ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> Thousands and thousands, huh? You have delusions of relevance. The hundreds of utter morons out there are indeed Marxists, or just along for the party.
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely my point. With the kind of massive support that OWS has,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Massive support?
> 
> Bwahahahahahah
> 
> You really are on drugs.
> 
> Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee  - these are a tiny group of fools. You claim 99%, when in fact you have .0000000000000099%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's quite impossible for it to be a Marxist movement. There are a few Marxists in the U.S., to be sure, but only a few. This movement is MUCH larger than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "movement" is a farce. A Soros driven idiocy that will soon be nothing more than yet another SUIE *Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee  * fest.
Click to expand...

If the ATU does a sympathy strike... I'll be walking across that strike line in a fucking heartbeat.  And I can probably name 40 others who will too.

We don't have time for this bullshit pumped by progressopimps and their stable of useful idiot protest sluts screaming 'gimme gimme'.

That shit didn't work when you were 6, it's not gonna work when you are 36 either.  Grow the fuck up and get a job you pachouli scented slobs and irrele-hippies.


----------



## Uncensored2008

CrusaderFrank said:


> OWS is another Downgraded Obama Astroturf Idea doomed to fail



Oh come on Frank, THIS IS THE REVOLUTION, Dragon is just sure of it - 99% of the country supports it - Hugo Chavez forever!


----------



## Trajan

Dragon said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> sure, ok then.
> 
> do you wear a pirate hat too? get a plastic sword?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not fooling anyone, you know. Probably not even yourself.
Click to expand...


you know what, I have to do it...I have to rep, that was funny, seriously. 

I imagined you saying that with a Snidely Whiplash sneer too...thx man.


----------



## Big Fitz

Barb said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> holy fuck! not only are you beyond any rational thought, but you're pulling out 9/11 as...what? way to go, not. Not in ANY way, shape, or rational segue.
> 
> But you GO, girl. You're special.
> 
> In a really weird and inappropriate way, but special nevertheless.
> 
> 
> 
> I just picked a song you'd find most offensive Babsie.
> 
> And Voila, Pauvre Bebe... you freak out.
> 
> Dance monkey!  Dance!  Dodge that question.  Ignore that logic!  Dance Dance Revolution for me little monkey girl!  Dance!
> 
> here, you can have one too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I work the night shift
> 
> Didn't want you to think I was ignoring you, as inconsequential as I find you to be, but it is time for bed.
> 
> Not for nothing though, you are the useful idiot in your own case. I do hope they treat you well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.Samuel Adams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May your chains rest lightly upon you | Turbosmith
> 
> sweet dreams
Click to expand...

Well, at least if I'm a useful idiot, it's against tyrants and fascists who wish to enslave you too.  Individual freedom is a harsh mistress it seems.  Too harsh for the left's sheeple, which explains their constant desire to be penned up and sheared.


----------



## Big Fitz

Uncensored2008 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> OWS is another Downgraded Obama Astroturf Idea doomed to fail
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on Frank, THIS IS THE REVOLUTION, Dragon is just sure of it - 99% of the country supports it - Hugo Chavez forever!
Click to expand...

before or after he dies of the cancer he doesn't have?


----------



## Skull Pilot

OWS idiot who doesn't realize one can acquire knowledge somewhere other than a college.






Capitalism doesn't work and neither does this guy.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The local library is free knowledge


----------



## Big Fitz

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see I asked too much of you to come up with specifics and goals on how you're we're going to change and what the goal is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have an idea.
> 
> How about we amend our Constitution so that "money" is no longer considered free political speech, so that candidates can't be bought and paid for by the corporate shills whose vast deep pockets make your piddling collections of $20 donations look like pennies laying on a laundary room floor so valueless that nobody even bothers to kneel over to pick them up anymore.
> 
> I say amend the constitution, because our high court has already been bought and paid for and that is the only legal means of reddress we have.
> 
> Until then, enjoy the oligarchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> has something changed recently?
> 
> ........"war is a racket", Smedley Butler 1935. *shrugs*
Click to expand...

Maybe we learned it from Randolph Hearst in 1899 when told by his reporters there was no fighting in Cuba.  

"You provide the pictures, I'll provide the war!"

In this instance I think it's more.  "You provide the protest, I'll provide the crisis" in this e-dog and pony show.


----------



## Big Fitz

CrusaderFrank said:


> The local library is free knowledge


Shouldn't be.  It interferes with private enterprise.  That plus streaming videos and netflix ended the video store.


----------



## Big Fitz

Skull Pilot said:


> OWS idiot who doesn't realize one can acquire knowledge somewhere other than a college.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't work and neither does this guy.


Two pictures of the ends of the spectrums that make up the OWS crowd.

The Know-Nothing 
and
The Learned-Nothing

His sign should read instead of "Capitalism doesn't work", "*I* don't work"


----------



## geauxtohell

Big Fitz said:


> Your tinfoil is showing under your toupee.
> 
> You know what the difference is between American and Japanese corrupt politicians?
> 
> Japanese politicians STAY bought.
> 
> Please, return to the comfortable confines of the Conspiracy Cloakroom.  The US may not be perfect, but it isn't this phantom government 'gnomes of zurich/tri-lateral commission' bullshit.
> 
> Here's a better solution but it demands both accountability and a smarter populace.  Force all giving to be transparent for everyone to see.  No soft or bundled cash.  No group, union or business money.  No PACs or committees to hide intent.  Give all you want, your name and address will be taken down as an individual.  If you don't want bought politicians, find the ones who haven't been given millions if not billions of dollars by special interest.



Yes.  Insult me.  I am the real problem here.  And keep chiping your $20 to your candidate of choice.  McCain-Fiengold was just over ruled on.  We haven't even begun to see the end of the wormhole.  

Why would the right wing so vigourously defend the right of corporations to "be people" and buy and sell politicans and how did ordinary people get duped into thinking it was a good idea?

At any rate, I thought the problem here was people were bitching without offering any ideas?  I am not opposed ot your idea.  It's a good start.


----------



## Big Fitz

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your tinfoil is showing under your toupee.
> 
> You know what the difference is between American and Japanese corrupt politicians?
> 
> Japanese politicians STAY bought.
> 
> Please, return to the comfortable confines of the Conspiracy Cloakroom.  The US may not be perfect, but it isn't this phantom government 'gnomes of zurich/tri-lateral commission' bullshit.
> 
> Here's a better solution but it demands both accountability and a smarter populace.  Force all giving to be transparent for everyone to see.  No soft or bundled cash.  No group, union or business money.  No PACs or committees to hide intent.  Give all you want, your name and address will be taken down as an individual.  If you don't want bought politicians, find the ones who haven't been given millions if not billions of dollars by special interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Insult me.  I am the real problem here.  And keep chiping your $20 to your candidate of choice.  McCain-Fiengold was just over ruled on.  We haven't even begun to see the end of the wormhole.
> 
> Why would the right wing so vigourously defend the right of corporations to "be people" and buy and sell politicans and how did ordinary people get duped into thinking it was a good idea?
> 
> At any rate, I thought the problem here was people were bitching without offering any ideas?  I am not opposed ot your idea.  It's a good start.
Click to expand...

You should be used to it from the good ole days back on another forum.  You're still a problem child.  The white cat may be gone, but the same brain keeps knocking you around like a badminton birdy.

At least Citizens United fixed a major problem with campaign financing by allowing ALL corporations to support candidates fully, not just leftwing supporting unions.

All or none.  That is my standard.  Either everyone gets to play or nobody gets to play.  the catch is, that money is still free speech and cannot be separated from money.  

Of course, I will concede the right to ban corps from doing this if ALL soft and non personal monies are banned too.  No unions, PACs, 927s, fund raising events bundling, group donations... nothing.  Name, home address for everyone as individuals.  You willing to accept those terms?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Big Fitz said:


> It's been planned since May as an attempt to collapse the market and the US economy so the radicals can seem rational in a time of crisis..



HEY

Collapsing the market and the US Economy is Barack Obama's job. The ONE job he is actually doing well...


----------



## Big Fitz

Here...  Just in case you forgot who you were talking to.


----------



## Big Fitz

Uncensored2008 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been planned since May as an attempt to collapse the market and the US economy so the radicals can seem rational in a time of crisis..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HEY
> 
> Collapsing the market and the US Economy is Barack Obama's job. The ONE job he is actually doing well...
Click to expand...

Sorry, it's not a closed market.  They've outsourced his position.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Why, this one, of course:
> 
> Labor Unions Join Occupy Wall Street for New York Rally - ABC News




Imagine that, SUEI moving in - who would have EVER guessed....




> Like I said, the right has no clue whatsoever about this movement, and no understanding of where it's coming from or where it's going. None. A more complete failure to comprehend would be hard to imagine.
> 
> No wonder you're all so scared of it.



We know exactly what this is...

Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Nope, scared is exactly what it is. The wry amusement is merely a bold face put on fear.



Why would anyone be "scared" of a few doped out morons spewing incoherent demands that they get free houses?

The only thing to fear is ending up downwind from them.


----------



## Trajan

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your tinfoil is showing under your toupee.
> 
> You know what the difference is between American and Japanese corrupt politicians?
> 
> Japanese politicians STAY bought.
> 
> Please, return to the comfortable confines of the Conspiracy Cloakroom.  The US may not be perfect, but it isn't this phantom government 'gnomes of zurich/tri-lateral commission' bullshit.
> 
> Here's a better solution but it demands both accountability and a smarter populace.  Force all giving to be transparent for everyone to see.  No soft or bundled cash.  No group, union or business money.  No PACs or committees to hide intent.  Give all you want, your name and address will be taken down as an individual.  If you don't want bought politicians, find the ones who haven't been given millions if not billions of dollars by special interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Insult me.  I am the real problem here.  And keep chiping your $20 to your candidate of choice.  McCain-Fiengold was just over ruled on.  We haven't even begun to see the end of the wormhole.
> 
> Why would the right wing so vigourously defend the right of corporations to "be people" and buy and sell politicans and how did ordinary people get duped into thinking it was a good idea?
> 
> At any rate, I thought the problem here was people were bitching without offering any ideas?  I am not opposed ot your idea.  It's a good start.
Click to expand...


you appear to have a handle on what the problem is from their perspective, or 'problems' at large...(?)

 if you were their spokesman, what would you say if asked to explain the platform?


----------



## Katzndogz

So far the occupiers have been allowed to have their little tantrum without opposition.  No one has pushed back.   When the grownups decide to take charge it might be different.


----------



## geauxtohell

Trajan said:


> has something changed recently?
> 
> ........"war is a racket", Smedley Butler 1935. *shrugs*



A good speech.  We are a capitalist system, so to some extent it's inevitable.  However, the rise of the mega corporation has changed recently.  It's akin to the tycoons the monopolies Teddy Roosevelt took down.  

Who knows what would have happened had he no done that.


----------



## Trajan

Big Fitz said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your tinfoil is showing under your toupee.
> 
> You know what the difference is between American and Japanese corrupt politicians?
> 
> Japanese politicians STAY bought.
> 
> Please, return to the comfortable confines of the Conspiracy Cloakroom.  The US may not be perfect, but it isn't this phantom government 'gnomes of zurich/tri-lateral commission' bullshit.
> 
> Here's a better solution but it demands both accountability and a smarter populace.  Force all giving to be transparent for everyone to see.  No soft or bundled cash.  No group, union or business money.  No PACs or committees to hide intent.  Give all you want, your name and address will be taken down as an individual.  If you don't want bought politicians, find the ones who haven't been given millions if not billions of dollars by special interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Insult me.  I am the real problem here.  And keep chiping your $20 to your candidate of choice.  McCain-Fiengold was just over ruled on.  We haven't even begun to see the end of the wormhole.
> 
> Why would the right wing so vigourously defend the right of corporations to "be people" and buy and sell politicans and how did ordinary people get duped into thinking it was a good idea?
> 
> At any rate, I thought the problem here was people were bitching without offering any ideas?  I am not opposed ot your idea.  It's a good start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be used to it from the good ole days back on another forum.  You're still a problem child.  The white cat may be gone, but the same brain keeps knocking you around like a badminton birdy.
> 
> At least Citizens United fixed a major problem with campaign financing by allowing ALL corporations to support candidates fully, not just leftwing supporting unions.
> 
> All or none.  That is my standard.  Either everyone gets to play or nobody gets to play.  the catch is, that money is still free speech and cannot be separated from money.
> 
> Of course, I will concede the right to ban corps from doing this if ALL soft and non personal monies are banned too.  No unions, PACs, 927s, fund raising events bundling, group donations... nothing.  Name, home address for everyone as individuals.  *You willing to accept those terms?*
Click to expand...



I would.

 I also think obama being the first to bail on the campaign financing was one irony overload and  one of those early harbingers that people will say years later, 'we should have known right then and there Gertrude'...thats why the unions coming alive right now to exploit this should surprise no one. 

these kids,  waifs and  older semi wastrels can do as they please, it makes me  kind of wistful, my first election was ford/carter, so I clearly remember the 60's...*shrugs*


whats funny is, they sorta had a point, fantastic riches, but a huge war, 3 major assassinations...a president resigns in disgrace....it was a crazy time. 

Now? with a man of the left as president on the receiving end of the greatest amount of cash ponied up by wall st. evah and deals with major Pharma, maybe they are really just dumbstruck.


----------



## geauxtohell

Skull Pilot said:


> OWS idiot who doesn't realize one can acquire knowledge somewhere other than a college.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't work and neither does this guy.



Neither did any of the tea party crowd when they were holding their "wholesome and virtuous grass roots protests".

In fact, everyone should get back to work.  Ignore the man behind the curtain.  Work your menial jobs to secure a spot in the rapidly diminishing middle class so at 18 years you can get laid off with jack and shit as your job is outsourced. 

Don't dare question the Princes of Capitalism about what's going on.  They have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> That's an exaggeration, but let's say that most Americans do have a few dollars invested in stocks. That changes nothing, of course. Investment in the stock market is not a binary function, and either-or, it's a more-less.



Most people don't want to burn down the house where they have their own stuff.

It's a funny thing.



> On the contrary, the desire is to make sure that those who build and produce things -- the working class -- ARE represented fairly.



Ah yes, the nobility of labor, the Marxist staple. Digging a hole and filling it in is noble, for it is labor.

See if you can follow this;

Jose and Moonchild both get jobs as punch operators. Jose and Moonchild both show up the first day at 8:00 AM sharp. Jose gets out all of his tools and lays them neatly on the workbench so that they are ready when he needs them. Moonchild has his tools in the trunk of his Scion that his mom bought him. Jose starts to put a bit in the chuck and takes a key wrench from the bench to secure it. Moonchild looks at the bit an scratches his head, puts it in the chuck, where it promptly falls out and cracks both the bit and the dye below it. Moonchild decides to go look for tools in his trunk. Jose makes 500 parts before lunch. Moonchild finally finds the key wrenches, but forgot what size he needs, he goes back in and looks at the chuck again, then back to the car trunk to get the right size wrench. Time for lunch, the two take lunch and come back. Jose changes the bit to start the next job, using the tools beside him. Moonchild tightens the bit in the chuck and starts his first run, the bit and the dye break along the crack from being dropped and 40 parts are scrapped. Jose makes another 500 parts. 

Now BOTH men have worked - so in your alleged mind, both should be paid the same. The fact that one man PRODUCED goods is irrelevant, it is the WORK that matters, not the value of that work.



> The problem here is that the ones you are calling "those who build and produce things" aren't. They're the ones who OWN things, which is not the same.



Then why don't the ones who produce, just do it without the owners?


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> Why would anyone be "scared" of a few doped out morons spewing incoherent demands that they get free houses?
> 
> The only thing to fear is ending up downwind from them.



They're not a few, they're in the thousands; they're not "drugged out morons," they're not demanding free houses.

The fact that you feel a need to mischaracterize them so blatantly is a sign that you are, indeed, afraid.


----------



## FuelRod

Barb said:


> FuelRod said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here are some hilarious excerpts from a local article on the movement in my city insipired by the Wall Street protests:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarett Young works in a liquor store where people tell him every day that they hate their jobs and they're always broke and they have too many bills to pay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "People work 30, 40 years of their life and have nothing to show for it, and people wonder why we have people who drink and do drugs," Young said. "There's gotta be a change."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not too long ago these people were simply referred to as hobo's.  Now they are thought to be some sort of pseudo-revolutionaries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People with full time jobs, no matter how humble, were once considered "hobo's?"
> really?
> I can guess when this happened politically, but when did it happen locally, where you are?
Click to expand...


To clarify I was referring to those in the Wall Street and local "occupy" encampments as hobo's.
I think it's funny that the examples used of those victimized by corporate America apparently have money for booze and drugs.


----------



## geauxtohell

Big Fitz said:


> Rrrriiiiiight.....



Painting your opponents as "crazed conspiracists" is unbecoming of you, and it does nothing to make a point.  

Meanwhile, why are the tomatoes rotting in the fields of Georgia?

http://www2.dothaneagle.com/news/20...ing-fields-result-immigration-law-ar-2506936/

Can you connect the dots?


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> Most people don't want to burn down the house where they have their own stuff.



Nobody involved in OWS wants to "burn down" Wall Street (or they'd have done it by now -- plenty of opportunity). They want to rein in its excesses and make it obey reasonable laws and rules.

Again, the fact that you feel a need to blatantly lie about what the movement is about is a sign of fear.



> Jose and Moonchild both get jobs as punch operators



May as well stop there. You're drawing a picture of a conflict or competition between Jose and Moonchild, when the reality is that they're on the same side and the conflict is between them and the company they work for.



> Then why don't the ones who produce, just do it without the owners?



Because our system is set up not to permit that.


----------



## sitarro

Can you imagine how many incredibly stupid names will be thought up for the kids that will no doubt be conceived at these "protest" parties?


----------



## The Gadfly

Dragon said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Movement"? What movement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why, this one, of course:
> 
> Labor Unions Join Occupy Wall Street for New York Rally - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I see, is a rabble of spoiled brat college kids (Lord, I wish we could bring back the draft, and give them a REAL reality check!), and a bunch of assorted losers and pseudo-intellectual radicals, all controlled by their puppetmasters in the Obama camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, the right has no clue whatsoever about this movement, and no understanding of where it's coming from or where it's going. None. A more complete failure to comprehend would be hard to imagine.
> 
> No wonder you're all so scared of it.
Click to expand...


Scared of it? I'm laughing at it! The "movement" is nothing but a joke in bad taste, with the usual cast of reflexive-deomcrat-voting losers being manipulated by the Obama campaign. Transparent? To a fault! Shows the desperation of the Left; fearing loss of power at the polls, they are trying to incite riot. I know their sorry species from the sixties, which is where and how I learned to hate and despise what they are, and what they stand for. I have a long memory, and believe me, I know which side "welcomed" me and everyone else back from Vietnam with spit, curses, and jeers. I'll give you a hint: they WEREN'T conservatives! I'll forgive the Left, when the Jews forgive Hitler. Any and all of them, as far as I am concerned, were and are as much my enemy, as the VC and the NVA were. The Left spat on me then, and want to steal what I have lawfully earned now. To me, people who do that are not one's friends. Do excuse me, if I show my enemies the same tender concern and "compassion" they have shown to me. I will never aid any of them, or anyone who supports them! I do not give a rat's rear end what happens to them. And if they ever pick a REAL fight, I hope I am still able to pick up my weapon, and shout, "NO QUARTER!" before opening fire.


----------



## FuelRod

sitarro said:


> Can you imagine how many incredibly stupid names will be thought up for the kids that will no doubt be conceived at these "protest" parties?



Names like

Stock
Bond
Gold
T-Bill

as well as places frequented during the stay like

Happy Meal
Portapotty


----------



## WillowTree

anti capitalism,, anti corporation,, anti is not reformi.. but dragon breath he don't know the difference.. 







what a fucking moron..


----------



## Dragon

The Gadfly said:


> Scared of it? I'm laughing at it!



No, you're scared. Any laughter is just a mask over the fear.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> They're not a few, they're in the thousands;



No, they certainly are not. Even with Soros SUEI troops now on site, they are a few hundred.



> they're not "drugged out morons,"



Yes, they certainly are.



> they're not demanding free houses.



Yes, they certainly are, along with free tuition and free medical care.

Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee  



> The fact that you feel a need to mischaracterize them so blatantly is a sign that you are, indeed, afraid.



What I state are the facts.

Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee


----------



## geauxtohell

Big Fitz said:


> You should be used to it from the good ole days back on another forum.  You're still a problem child.  The white cat may be gone, but the same brain keeps knocking you around like a badminton birdy.



Wow.  Referencing the old country, using the term "problem child", and bragging about your internet cock size is like the triple crown of lameness.  

You should be proud.  



> At least Citizens United fixed a major problem with campaign financing by allowing ALL corporations to support candidates fully, not just leftwing supporting unions.
> 
> All or none.  That is my standard.  Either everyone gets to play or nobody gets to play.  the catch is, that money is still free speech and cannot be separated from money.
> 
> Of course, I will concede the right to ban corps from doing this if ALL soft and non personal monies are banned too.  No unions, PACs, 927s, fund raising events bundling, group donations... nothing.  Name, home address for everyone as individuals.  You willing to accept those terms?



No.  I don't think money is "free speech".  If I aske a cop to let me off a ticket, it's speech.  But if I ask him to let me off a ticket while handing him a 20, it's a bribe.

Funny that.


----------



## geauxtohell

Big Fitz said:


> Here...  Just in case you forgot who you were talking to.



Are you fucking serious?  Go drink a beer man.

If I were to list the posters on here who actually could nail down a poster, you name would be so far removed from the list that it wouldn't even be funny.

Now, that's just my opinion, but since you seem to think you make some sort of insignificant impact on my life, it's relevant and should be introduced.


----------



## The Gadfly

sitarro said:


> Can you imagine how many incredibly stupid names will be thought up for the kids that will no doubt be conceived at these "protest" parties?



You mean like "Moon Unit", "Dweezil" , "Peaceflower"?....oh, wait.....stupid hippies!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Nobody involved in OWS wants to "burn down" Wall Street (or they'd have done it by now -- plenty of opportunity).



Yeah, metaphor is within the domain of higher thought...



> They want to rein in its excesses and make it obey reasonable laws and rules.



Excesses such as private property?



> Again, the fact that you feel a need to blatantly lie about what the movement is about is a sign of fear.



No one has lied, sparky.



> May as well stop there. You're drawing a picture of a conflict or competition between Jose and Moonchild, when the reality is that they're on the same side and the conflict is between them and the company they work for.



Does it hurt to be that stupid?

I mean, actual, physical pain?



> Because our system is set up not to permit that.



Smoke another joint, sparky.


----------



## geauxtohell

Trajan said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your tinfoil is showing under your toupee.
> 
> You know what the difference is between American and Japanese corrupt politicians?
> 
> Japanese politicians STAY bought.
> 
> Please, return to the comfortable confines of the Conspiracy Cloakroom.  The US may not be perfect, but it isn't this phantom government 'gnomes of zurich/tri-lateral commission' bullshit.
> 
> Here's a better solution but it demands both accountability and a smarter populace.  Force all giving to be transparent for everyone to see.  No soft or bundled cash.  No group, union or business money.  No PACs or committees to hide intent.  Give all you want, your name and address will be taken down as an individual.  If you don't want bought politicians, find the ones who haven't been given millions if not billions of dollars by special interest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Insult me.  I am the real problem here.  And keep chiping your $20 to your candidate of choice.  McCain-Fiengold was just over ruled on.  We haven't even begun to see the end of the wormhole.
> 
> Why would the right wing so vigourously defend the right of corporations to "be people" and buy and sell politicans and how did ordinary people get duped into thinking it was a good idea?
> 
> At any rate, I thought the problem here was people were bitching without offering any ideas?  I am not opposed ot your idea.  It's a good start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you appear to have a handle on what the problem is from their perspective, or 'problems' at large...(?)
> 
> if you were their spokesman, what would you say if asked to explain the platform?
Click to expand...


I don't know.  I was on the job until midnight last night and, needless to say, I am not on Wall Street today.  Nor do I really pay attention to the particular groups that comprise these events.  

However, I think a nice and rational start is to address the money in politics.  Like I said, why did the right wing talking heads expend an absurd amount of time railing against McCain -Fiengold?  Do you think they are really concerned with the constitutionality of the issue?  Laughable.


----------



## geauxtohell

sitarro said:


> Can you imagine how many incredibly stupid names will be thought up for the kids that will no doubt be conceived at these "protest" parties?



Nobody could be more stupid then the Tea Party Geriatrics who called themselves "teabaggers" before they knew it had sexual innuendo attached to it.


----------



## Katzndogz

The distinctions between far left, middle left and left are meaningless.  What they all are is the parasitic left.  They exist not because of their own earnings or worth, they exist because of what they are able to suck off someone else.

They will continue to exist until the host shakes them off.  Which isn't far off now.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> No, they certainly are not. Even with Soros SUEI troops now on site, they are a few hundred.



No, on the days of biggest participation they've been in the thousands. I remind you that 600-700 were arrested trying to cross the Brooklyn Bridge. That's more than you are crediting the whole movement with having.

About them being "drugged out morons," please check out this video:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJgWdfZqDj0]Occupy Fox! #OccupyWallStreet talks to Fox News and CRUSHES THEM #GlobalRevolution - YouTube[/ame]

Does this man looked drugged out? No. Are his responses coherent, quick, and signs of high intelligence and being able to think on his feet? Yes.

You're also totally wrong about what's being asked for or demanded.

Again, the need to blatantly lie about it is a sign of fear.


----------



## Sallow

Dragon said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people don't want to burn down the house where they have their own stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody involved in OWS wants to "burn down" Wall Street (or they'd have done it by now -- plenty of opportunity). They want to rein in its excesses and make it obey reasonable laws and rules.
> 
> Again, the fact that you feel a need to blatantly lie about what the movement is about is a sign of fear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jose and Moonchild both get jobs as punch operators
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> May as well stop there. You're drawing a picture of a conflict or competition between Jose and Moonchild, when the reality is that they're on the same side and the conflict is between them and the company they work for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why don't the ones who produce, just do it without the owners?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Because our system is set up not to permit that*.
Click to expand...


This CANNOT be emphasized more. 

It is extremely difficult in many cases to start a business. Some of that is good..some of that not so much.


----------



## Sallow

Dragon said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they certainly are not. Even with Soros SUEI troops now on site, they are a few hundred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, on the days of biggest participation they've been in the thousands. I remind you that 600-700 were arrested trying to cross the Brooklyn Bridge. That's more than you are crediting the whole movement with having.
> 
> About them being "drugged out morons," please check out this video:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJgWdfZqDj0]Occupy Fox! #OccupyWallStreet talks to Fox News and CRUSHES THEM #GlobalRevolution - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Does this man looked drugged out? No. Are his responses coherent, quick, and signs of high intelligence and being able to think on his feet? Yes.
> 
> You're also totally wrong about what's being asked for or demanded.
> 
> Again, the need to blatantly lie about it is a sign of fear.
Click to expand...


One of the greatest interviews never to be shown on FOX.

It's great that people are carrying their own cameras!


----------



## EriktheRed

Not only have Unions been joining, but now a couple of politicians. Kinda small potatoes at the moment, but it's still significant.


At the same time, GOP candidates are starting to weigh in on the protests, too. They'd likely keep mum about it if this weren't becoming a big deal.


----------



## geauxtohell

Dragon said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they certainly are not. Even with Soros SUEI troops now on site, they are a few hundred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, on the days of biggest participation they've been in the thousands. I remind you that 600-700 were arrested trying to cross the Brooklyn Bridge. That's more than you are crediting the whole movement with having.
> 
> About them being "drugged out morons," please check out this video:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJgWdfZqDj0]Occupy Fox! #OccupyWallStreet talks to Fox News and CRUSHES THEM #GlobalRevolution - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Does this man looked drugged out? No. Are his responses coherent, quick, and signs of high intelligence and being able to think on his feet? Yes.
> 
> You're also totally wrong about what's being asked for or demanded.
> 
> Again, the need to blatantly lie about it is a sign of fear.
Click to expand...


My, God....

He wants DIALOGUE!  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Excellent interview that will never see the light of day on Fox, CNN, or any of the other corporate media interests.


----------



## Skull Pilot

geauxtohell said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OWS idiot who doesn't realize one can acquire knowledge somewhere other than a college.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism doesn't work and neither does this guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither did any of the tea party crowd when they were holding their "wholesome and virtuous grass roots protests".
> 
> In fact, everyone should get back to work.  Ignore the man behind the curtain.  Work your menial jobs to secure a spot in the rapidly diminishing middle class so at 18 years you can get laid off with jack and shit as your job is outsourced.
> 
> Don't dare question the Princes of Capitalism about what's going on.  They have nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...


listen to you whining like a little bitch.

These idiots need to learn to stop blaming everyone else for their pathetic lives.

No one owes these fuck ups anything I certainly don't and they;ll get no sympathy from me.


----------



## EriktheRed

geauxtohell said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they certainly are not. Even with Soros SUEI troops now on site, they are a few hundred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, on the days of biggest participation they've been in the thousands. I remind you that 600-700 were arrested trying to cross the Brooklyn Bridge. That's more than you are crediting the whole movement with having.
> 
> About them being "drugged out morons," please check out this video:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJgWdfZqDj0]Occupy Fox! #OccupyWallStreet talks to Fox News and CRUSHES THEM #GlobalRevolution - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Does this man looked drugged out? No. Are his responses coherent, quick, and signs of high intelligence and being able to think on his feet? Yes.
> 
> You're also totally wrong about what's being asked for or demanded.
> 
> Again, the need to blatantly lie about it is a sign of fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My, God....
> 
> He wants DIALOGUE!  NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Excellent interview that will never see the light of day on Fox, CNN, or any of the other corporate media interests.
Click to expand...


It just so happens it DIDN'T see the light of day on Faux.


----------



## Dragon

Skull Pilot, let me give you a hypothetical.

Let's say you're a marathon runner. One year, you run your race along with 99 other people, and 85 of them make it to the finish. The other 15 poop out along the way.

The next year, 100 people also run the race, but this time it's held in Colorado on a road that goes up a mountainside, so that it's uphill the whole 26-plus miles. Also, all of the runners have to wear boots that have lead weights sewn into them. This time, only ten people make it to the end, and you're not one of them.

Do you think it would be appropriate for someone to say to you, "stop blaming everyone else for your pathetic life"?

Why or why not?


----------



## Katzndogz

Everything should be free!  In fact, why bother going to college at all?  Is it a place to meet guys and get laid?  If everything is free, college is a way to pass the time.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> Skull Pilot, let me give you a hypothetical.
> 
> Let's say you're a marathon runner. One year, you run your race along with 99 other people, and 85 of them make it to the finish. The other 15 poop out along the way.
> 
> The next year, 100 people also run the race, but this time it's held in Colorado on a road that goes up a mountainside, so that it's uphill the whole 26-plus miles. Also, all of the runners have to wear boots that have lead weights sewn into them. This time, only ten people make it to the end, and you're not one of them.
> 
> Do you think it would be appropriate for someone to say to you, "stop blaming everyone else for your pathetic life"?
> 
> Why or why not?



Let me give you one. Suppose you were running that race, believing you were heading the right way.... but, for your own good, and without your knowledge, someone decided that you should run the your own race - and add a few miles for some other guy cuz he can't run quite as far as you. 

Honesty. It's important. Stop pretending this is a grassroots protest. It isn't. Acknowledge your puppetmaster - the Watermelon Man... don't be ashamed of it.


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> Honesty. It's important.



Coming from you, that has to take the forum prize for irony.


----------



## Wry Catcher

California Girl said:


> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?



Why do you always default to stupid?  Perhaps you might answer that question.  

Anyone who has observed and considered what has happened to our economy since January 2001 gets it - the rich have gotten much much richer and the rest of our citizens have been left behind.  As an example on today's SF Chronical's front page is a graph showing the cost of living between 2008 and 2011 has risen an average in the Bay Area for a family of four 18.4%, while wages have remained stagnant.

No CG,  wealth doesn't trickle down, it purchases gold or is stored in off-shore banks.


----------



## WillowTree

Wry Catcher said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you always default to stupid?  Perhaps you might answer that question.
> 
> Anyone who has observed and considered what has happened to our economy since January 2001 gets it - the rich have gotten much much richer and the rest of our citizens have been left behind.  As an example on today's SF Chronical's front page is a graph showing the cost of living between 2008 and 2011 has risen an average in the Bay Area for a family of four 18.4%, while wages have remained stagnant.
> 
> No CG,  wealth doesn't trickle down, it purchases gold or is stored in off-shore banks.
Click to expand...


what do you intend to replace capitalism with? do you know? and how's it gonna work out when the takers outnumber the givers.. I'm interested in knowing.


----------



## Katzndogz

Dragon said:


> Skull Pilot, let me give you a hypothetical.
> 
> Let's say you're a marathon runner. One year, you run your race along with 99 other people, and 85 of them make it to the finish. The other 15 poop out along the way.
> 
> The next year, 100 people also run the race, but this time it's held in Colorado on a road that goes up a mountainside, so that it's uphill the whole 26-plus miles. Also, all of the runners have to wear boots that have lead weights sewn into them. This time, only ten people make it to the end, and you're not one of them.
> 
> Do you think it would be appropriate for someone to say to you, "stop blaming everyone else for your pathetic life"?
> 
> Why or why not?



This presupposes that someone is actively preventing these protesters from achieving anything through their own efforts.   Right now as the parasitic left is protesting in the streets because no one is giving them enough, tens of thousands of students are in class quietly plugging through course work.  They spend long hours in the library studying.   They will graduate, get good jobs and achieve great things and amass great wealth.  It is appropriate that they say to the parasitic left "stop blaming everyone else for your pathetic life."   No one is stopping these parasites from achieving anything they want.  

Most of them will graduate college and not find a job.  They will have majored in Basket Weaving with course study in "White privilege and its effect on black slavery."   They have chosen these subjects because it was much easier than Architecture or Business Administration.  Of course they have lead weights in their boots, who do you think put them there?  The parasites did themselves.  When the recruiters come to college in the senior year who do you think they're looking for?  Comparative religion majors?   The History of Lesbianism specialists?

These kids at the crossroads making these ASININE and stupid decisions because it cuts into playtime DESERVE everything they get.


----------



## EriktheRed

Does anybody know if any Teahadists have shown up to show support for the guys looking down on the protest sipping champagne?  


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PiXDTK_CBY&feature=player_embedded]Wall Street Mocks Protesters By Drinking Champagne 2011 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dragon

Tipsycatlover said:


> This presupposes that someone is actively preventing these protesters from achieving anything through their own efforts.



And in fact that's the case.



> Right now . . . tens of thousands of students are in class quietly plugging through course work.  They spend long hours in the library studying.   They will graduate, get good jobs and achieve great things and amass great wealth.



No, most of them won't, because a college degree is no longer a ticket to success, and because good jobs are becoming more and more scarce. Most of them will be unable to find decent jobs at all, and will be burdened with student loan debt that they have no prospect of being able to repay. And that is true of just about all of the degrees one can find at a four-year college, not just the caricatures you trotted out.

Over the past thirty years, the richest 1% of the nation have gained more and more of the income of the nation, while real wages have stagnated or declined and the middle class has shrunk. That is not the fault of individuals; one individual may indeed be at fault for his own misfortune, but when misfortune falls on almost everyone there is an outside cause. The uphill marathon with leg weights is a very good analogy. And it's getting worse and worse.

Until you understand this, you will never understand what this protest movement is about, and will seek some specious explanation. The real explanation is all around you in the suffering of the 99%, if you will just open your eyes and see it.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dragon said:


> Skull Pilot, let me give you a hypothetical.
> 
> Let's say you're a marathon runner. One year, you run your race along with 99 other people, and 85 of them make it to the finish. The other 15 poop out along the way.
> 
> The next year, 100 people also run the race, but this time it's held in Colorado on a road that goes up a mountainside, so that it's uphill the whole 26-plus miles. Also, all of the runners have to wear boots that have lead weights sewn into them. This time, only ten people make it to the end, and you're not one of them.
> 
> Do you think it would be appropriate for someone to say to you, "stop blaming everyone else for your pathetic life"?
> 
> Why or why not?



If they knew the race was going to be in Colorado then they should have trained on hills.

In fact the people who succeed always assume there are going to be hills and will train for them anyway.  Then guess what happens; the ones who are prepared for the harder race and take nothing for granted and don't feel entitled to an easy race win.


----------



## Dragon

Skull Pilot said:


> If they knew the race was going to be in Colorado then they should have trained on hills.



Let's stipulate that they did not know, just as few people recognized what was being done to the economy over the past thirty years.



> In fact the people who succeed always assume there are going to be hills and will train for them anyway.  Then guess what happens; the ones who are prepared for the harder race and take nothing for granted and don't feel entitled to an easy race win.



It will always be the case that those who are most capable and best prepared and have the best work habits will do the best, all else being equal. That doesn't answer the question, though. In the first race, 85% of the runners finished. In the second, only 10% did. Is that because the runners in the second race were more out of shape, or is it because the conditions of the race changed?


----------



## WillowTree

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SKw2j3XOY0]Occupy Wall Street (FULL) Interview with Chris Hedges Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Trajan

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> has something changed recently?
> 
> ........"war is a racket", Smedley Butler 1935. *shrugs*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A good speech.  We are a capitalist system, so to some extent it's inevitable.  However, the rise of the mega corporation has changed recently.  It's akin to the tycoons the monopolies Teddy Roosevelt took down.
> 
> Who knows what would have happened had he no done that.
Click to expand...


teddy not withstanding nothing has changed except they have gone multi-national. Insull, Mellon, Whitney, Morgan.....were there at the beginning and were there after both Roosevelt's and will be there forever.


----------



## Trajan

geauxtohell said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Insult me.  I am the real problem here.  And keep chiping your $20 to your candidate of choice.  McCain-Fiengold was just over ruled on.  We haven't even begun to see the end of the wormhole.
> 
> Why would the right wing so vigourously defend the right of corporations to "be people" and buy and sell politicans and how did ordinary people get duped into thinking it was a good idea?
> 
> At any rate, I thought the problem here was people were bitching without offering any ideas?  I am not opposed ot your idea.  It's a good start.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you appear to have a handle on what the problem is from their perspective, or 'problems' at large...(?)
> 
> if you were their spokesman, what would you say if asked to explain the platform?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I was on the job until midnight last night and, needless to say, I am not on Wall Street today.  Nor do I really pay attention to the particular groups that comprise these events.
> 
> However, I think a nice and rational start is to address the money in politics.  Like I said, why did the right wing talking heads expend an absurd amount of time railing against McCain -Fiengold?  Do you think they are really concerned with the constitutionality of the issue?  Laughable.
Click to expand...


I already spoke to that, as to what Fitz posted.


----------



## Oldstyle

Dragon said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is farther to the left then Bernie Sanders, Dragon?  I honestly can't think of one politician that I would put further to the left than the Senator from Vermont.  I'm curious to hear from you who would fit that bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real far left is not in Congress. I mentioned several members of it above.
> 
> Anyone electable to Congress does not fit the description.
Click to expand...


Is that because the "real far left" are such moonbats they couldn't get elected?


----------



## Katzndogz

Dragon said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> This presupposes that someone is actively preventing these protesters from achieving anything through their own efforts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And in fact that's the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right now . . . tens of thousands of students are in class quietly plugging through course work.  They spend long hours in the library studying.   They will graduate, get good jobs and achieve great things and amass great wealth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, most of them won't, because a college degree is no longer a ticket to success, and because good jobs are becoming more and more scarce. Most of them will be unable to find decent jobs at all, and will be burdened with student loan debt that they have no prospect of being able to repay. And that is true of just about all of the degrees one can find at a four-year college, not just the caricatures you trotted out.
> 
> Over the past thirty years, the richest 1% of the nation have gained more and more of the income of the nation, while real wages have stagnated or declined and the middle class has shrunk. That is not the fault of individuals; one individual may indeed be at fault for his own misfortune, but when misfortune falls on almost everyone there is an outside cause. The uphill marathon with leg weights is a very good analogy. And it's getting worse and worse.
> 
> Until you understand this, you will never understand what this protest movement is about, and will seek some specious explanation. The real explanation is all around you in the suffering of the 99%, if you will just open your eyes and see it.
Click to expand...


That's because you are just foolish.  The economic problems we have are the result of confiscatory taxation to support a parasitic class.  This has forced companies and jobs out of the country.   Your answer is to further support the parasitic class and increase the numbers of parasites.   The real 99% are the people who go about their business.  They own the dry cleaners, the Subway franchise and work there.  They are on assembly lines just hoping that their company won't be taxed until it moves overseas.   These protesters aren't 99%, if they are, if in fact 99% of the nation are parasites, we might as well invite the Chinese in to clean our house right now because we can't satisfy the demands of a population that is composed of 99% parasites and leeches.   Let someone else deal with it.  Let the Chinese come in with warehouse factories, they have experience in dealing wiht parasites such as we have. 

Oh I see it all right.  All around me.  I see in the specious complaints of those who don't want to do anything but get laid and get high, yet smugly complain they don't have enough.   I know those students who skate through college.  When the recruiters come, and yes they still come to every senior class every year.  They want the Asian kids that they KNOW have been busting their asses.  The architects, the science majors, they get the signing bonuses and new cars for a year's contract.  The parasites sit in the quad drinking beer.


----------



## Dragon

Oldstyle said:


> Is that because the "real far left" are such moonbats they couldn't get elected?



Not sure "moonbat" is the right term, but it's because they're too extreme, certainly. What else would "far" mean?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Let's stipulate that they did not know, just as few people recognized what was being done to the economy over the past thirty years.



Just WHAT was done to the economy over the past thirty years?



> It will always be the case that those who are most capable and best prepared and have the best work habits will do the best, all else being equal. That doesn't answer the question, though. In the first race, 85% of the runners finished. In the second, only 10% did. Is that because the runners in the second race were more out of shape, or is it because the conditions of the race changed?



You dodged my earlier example, should equal work get equal pay, or does actually producing something have a bearing?


----------



## Dragon

Tipsycatlover said:


> The economic problems we have are the result of confiscatory taxation to support a parasitic class.  This has forced companies and jobs out of the country.



Considering that corporate profits are at record highs, and U.S. taxes are low compared to most other advanced democracies, that statement has no foundation in fact.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> Just WHAT was done to the economy over the past thirty years?



The tax system was flattened, so that more of the tax burden falls on the middle class and less on the rich; government policy became less labor-friendly so that obstacles to union formation increased and the power of organized labor declined; the financial industry was deregulated, encouraging investments to go into complicated financial shell games instead of into real production of wealth.

All of this encouraged the accumulation of private wealth while working to suppress real wages, thus driving the increase of income gaps over those thirty years.



> should equal work get equal pay, or does actually producing something have a bearing?



This question has no relevance to the discussion. The income gap that is of concern is not between one worker and another but between workers in general and the owner class.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just WHAT was done to the economy over the past thirty years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tax system was flattened, so that more of the tax burden falls on the middle class and less on the rich; government policy became less labor-friendly so that obstacles to union formation increased and the power of organized labor declined; the financial industry was deregulated, encouraging investments to go into complicated financial shell games instead of into real production of wealth.
> 
> All of this encouraged the accumulation of private wealth while working to suppress real wages, thus driving the increase of income gaps over those thirty years.
Click to expand...


 Your understanding of economics needs a little work.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic problems we have are the result of confiscatory taxation to support a parasitic class.  This has forced companies and jobs out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that corporate profits are at record highs, and U.S. taxes are low compared to most other advanced democracies, that statement has no foundation in fact.
Click to expand...


While Tipsy is not exactly right.... it is a tad more complicated than s/he has stated....that assessment is closer to accurate than your moronic crap. 

And.... we are not a democracy... we are a Republic.

And.... if you do not wish to live by the Constitution that created our Republic, move to a country that suits you. Do not seek to take this one.... it's already taken... and we have guns.


----------



## Oldstyle

Dragon said:


> Skull Pilot, let me give you a hypothetical.
> 
> Let's say you're a marathon runner. One year, you run your race along with 99 other people, and 85 of them make it to the finish. The other 15 poop out along the way.
> 
> The next year, 100 people also run the race, but this time it's held in Colorado on a road that goes up a mountainside, so that it's uphill the whole 26-plus miles. Also, all of the runners have to wear boots that have lead weights sewn into them. This time, only ten people make it to the end, and you're not one of them.
> 
> Do you think it would be appropriate for someone to say to you, "stop blaming everyone else for your pathetic life"?
> 
> Why or why not?




For the life of me, Dragon...I don't understand your analogy here.  Are you saying that the Occupy Wall Street protesters have had to run uphill with lead weights sewn into their boots?  Sorry, but judging from what I've seen and heard from the people at this event most of them haven't gotten into the "jobs race" at all.  They've been hanging out playing video games waiting for someone to hand them something for free that comes out of the pocket of someone else.

I get annoyed by these activists attitude towards America.  We as a country didn't become great because of income redistribution...we became great because we rewarded those who worked hard and made themselves successful.  That wasn't accomplished through a $20 minimum wage or a guaranteed "living wage".  It was accomplished by average Americans risking capital and investing sweat equity to build thriving businesses.  Now people like you think it's acceptable to seize money from those successful people and hand it over to people who haven't risked ANYTHING whether capital or sweat equity, just because you see it as "fair".


----------



## Oldstyle

Dragon said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic problems we have are the result of confiscatory taxation to support a parasitic class.  This has forced companies and jobs out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that corporate profits are at record highs, and U.S. taxes are low compared to most other advanced democracies, that statement has no foundation in fact.
Click to expand...


I believe we currently have the third highest corporate tax rate in the world, Dragon.


----------



## Trajan

Dragon said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic problems we have are the result of confiscatory taxation to support a parasitic class.  This has forced companies and jobs out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that corporate profits are at record highs, and U.S. taxes are low compared to most other advanced democracies, that statement has no foundation in fact.
Click to expand...


no, I am not sure of that and why make the comparison at all?what does that prove? 








and;

Highest corporate tax rate | America | Japan | The Daily Caller

and;

the corp. tax issue create their own problems;

High Corporate Tax Rate Is Misleading - SmartMoney.com

and we are somewhere in the upper tier btw so "most" is not an adequate description;


12 Countries With The Highest & Lowest Tax Rates | Business Pundit


----------



## Oldstyle

Dragon said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that because the "real far left" are such moonbats they couldn't get elected?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure "moonbat" is the right term, but it's because they're too extreme, certainly. What else would "far" mean?
Click to expand...


And would you admit that the majority of the activists that have been protesting in NYC fit that "too extreme" definition?  Because if they're too extreme to get elected to Congress then they are probably too extreme to work at most private sector jobs as well.  So you've got people out on the "far" fringes of society calling themselves the 99%?  Don't you find that rather disingenuous?


----------



## Dragon

Oldstyle said:


> I believe we currently have the third highest corporate tax rate in the world, Dragon.



As stated, that's untrue, and as intended (that our corporations are taxed highly), it is way off:

High Corporate Tax Rate Is Misleading - SmartMoney.com

"You may have heard: U.S. corporations face one of the highest income tax rates in the world, though the mention of "rate" is often enough excised, so that what comes through is the assertion that corporations pay too much in taxes. This is simply untrue if your basis for comparison is the developed world. The truth is that while the 35% corporate income tax rate is high indeed, the creativity and global reach of U.S. corporations make them among the most lightly levied.

"Between 2000 and 2005, U.S. corporate taxes amounted to 2.2% of the GDP. The average for the 30 mostly rich member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 3.4%."



			
				Trajan said:
			
		

> no, I am not sure of that and why make the comparison at all?what does that prove?



It proves that TCL's assertion that high taxes and declining profits were to blame for the decline of the middle class has no basis in fact.


----------



## Dragon

Oldstyle said:


> And would you admit that the majority of the activists that have been protesting in NYC fit that "too extreme" definition?



No, absolutely not. The positions of most of the protesters are moderate center-left. This is NOT a far-left movement at all, although a few of the participants probably warrant that label.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> The tax system was flattened, so that more of the tax burden falls on the middle class and less on the rich;



So, if Bob makes $10 and Joe makes $1,000

Taking 30% of what Joe makes and 15% of what Bob makes is fair in the Marxists view.

BUT; taking 15% from Joe and 15% from Bob is "unfair" because we shifted the tax burden to Bob.

Using Marxist math, this is obvious. 15% of $10 is $1.50 - 15% of $1,000 is $150. Obviously $1.50 is a lot more than $150 - so Bob has more of a tax burden. Why is this so? Because Marxism looks at Bob being left with $8.50 while Joe is left with $850

NO FAIR!

So Comrade Obama takes everything from both Joe and Bob, gives them each $1.50 and calls it fair!



> government policy became less labor-friendly so that obstacles to union formation increased and the power of organized labor declined;



That's odd, considering that government is the only place in the nation that unions are thriving. In any business that needs to turn a profit, Unions are a pariah, as well they should be.

Big-O tires is evil, horrible and wicked. Big-O is non-union and carefully places plants in states that respect constitutional rights. Big-O operates on a system where production employees are paid a base rate plus up to 120% of the base rate depending on capacity of the infrastructure employed. If an extruder can produce 150 feet of rubber an hour, and Raul makes $10 an hour, should he keep it flowing aat 150 feet, he is paid $22 an hour.

Big-O employees average about 35% more pay than do their unionized General Tire counterparts and are on average, 730% more efficient, resulting in lower costs to consumers and more growth for the company and the employees.

Evil company, isn't it? 

So do you thin Big-O should be shut down, or should it be shut down and the management put in prison?



> the financial industry was deregulated, encouraging investments to go into complicated financial shell games instead of into real production of wealth.



So, no wealth has been created in the last 30 years?



> All of this encouraged the accumulation of private wealth while working to suppress real wages, thus driving the increase of income gaps over those thirty years.



So your claim is that a worker, at minimum wage had better wages 30 years ago, in 1981 that he does today?

Pretty cool

So to support this, all you need to do is show;

Number of hours at minimum wage needed to buy;

A TV
An Economy car
A Stereo
Rent a 1 bedroom apartment
Buy a gallon of milk
Buy a gallon of gas

For both 1981 and 2011

I await your analysis eagerly!


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> Taking 30% of what Joe makes and 15% of what Bob makes is fair



I said nothing about fair. I said that the tax system was flattened and that this contributed to the demise of the middle class.

But in answer to your question, yes, it's fair for the rich to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the non-rich.



> That's odd, considering that government is the only place in the nation that unions are thriving.



It's not in the least odd, considering that the main change has been to lower enforcement of labor law so that the penalties for illegal firings and other illegal union suppression have become insufficient to deter the practices. Government agencies, unlike private for-profit companies, tend not to engage in these practices, and so public employees unions have become the only ones still strong, still un-suppressed.



> In any business that needs to turn a profit, Unions are a pariah, as well they should be.



Quite shortsighted. Strong unions help keep wages high, and so keep the consumer market strong, which boosts sales, which boosts profits. A unionized workforce resulted in a stronger, more prosperous economy.

In fact, running the economy in service to the corporate bottom line is a bad idea, because what benefits one company in competition with others is not necessarily what is going to benefit the economy as a whole.

Your hypothetical example has no real-world counterparts, and is indeed the exact opposite of what normally obtains, and so I am snipping it.



> So, no wealth has been created in the last 30 years?



Not nearly as much real wealth as would have been if the system of the 40s-60s had continued.



> So your claim is that a worker, at minimum wage had better wages 30 years ago, in 1981 that he does today?



No, I'm not talking about minimum wage workers at all. I'm saying that real wages on the average have declined over the past thirty years:

File:US Real Wages 1964-2004.gif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although there was something of an uptick in the 1990s, over the past 30 years the trend is for real wages to decline. What's more, this makes the picture look better than it really is, because certain important expenses to a middle-class lifestyle, especially medical insurance and a college education, have soared, as have housing costs. The end result is that most Americans are poorer today than they should be, so that the very rich can maximize their gains.

That is what this protest is all about. The rules need to be rewritten so as to reverse that redistribution of wealth from the non-rich to the rich.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon, you dodged my question.

Number of hours at minimum wage needed to buy;

A TV
An Economy car
A Stereo
Rent a 1 bedroom apartment
Buy a gallon of milk
Buy a gallon of gas

For both 1981 and 2011

I await your analysis eagerly!

Standard Disclaimer: You socialists ALWAYS run from this - for obvious reasons.


----------



## The Gadfly

California Girl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The economic problems we have are the result of confiscatory taxation to support a parasitic class.  This has forced companies and jobs out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering that corporate profits are at record highs, and U.S. taxes are low compared to most other advanced democracies, that statement has no foundation in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While Tipsy is not exactly right.... it is a tad more complicated than s/he has stated....that assessment is closer to accurate than your moronic crap.
> 
> And.... we are not a democracy... we are a Republic.
> 
> And.... if you do not wish to live by the Constitution that created our Republic, move to a country that suits you. Do not seek to take this one.... it's already taken... and we have guns.
Click to expand...


Yes we do, and some of us know how to use them and are quite willing to do so; it's our country, and we intend to keep it....over as many dead bodies as that requires. Remember that, because in the end, it really IS that simple!


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dragon, you dodged my question



As I said, I wasn't talking about minimum-wage workers. Therefore, your question was irrelevant and need not be answered.


----------



## Sallow

This is the country with the most millionaires and billionaires..

We don't have a shortage.

Just sayin'.


----------



## WillowTree

Dragon said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon, you dodged my question
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I wasn't talking about minimum-wage workers. Therefore, your question was irrelevant and need not be answered.
Click to expand...


What an asswipe. you need to back out of the conversation.. you deciding what is irrelevant is a bit old. stand your ground or back the hell out.. slowly..


----------



## Sallow

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dragon, you dodged my question.
> 
> Number of hours at minimum wage needed to buy;
> 
> A TV
> An Economy car
> A Stereo
> Rent a 1 bedroom apartment
> Buy a gallon of milk
> Buy a gallon of gas
> 
> For both 1981 and 2011
> 
> I await your analysis eagerly!
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: You socialists ALWAYS run from this - for obvious reasons.



In what state? City? Borough? Which Store? Discount? Electronics? What sort of TV? Color? Black and White? Solid State? Tubes?
What sort of car? What make? What model? Foreign? Domestic? Diesel? 
What sort of Stereo? What make? What model? Foreign? Domestic?
In what state? Borough? Neighborhood?
In what state? Low Fat? Skim?
In what state? Regular? Unleaded?

Standard Disclaimer: Fascists have a way of using "Gotchas" to make a point - For obvious reasons. Especially racist ones.


----------



## Dragon

WillowTree said:


> [snip]



I make it a point, in responding to a post, to snip and not reply to any empty rhetoric, pointless insults, and non-thinking, meaningless crap. What's left -- actual thoughts -- I respond to.

You will note the result above with your post, WT. When I cut all the garbage out, there was literally nothing left. Not one word.


----------



## WillowTree

Dragon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I make it a point, in responding to a post, to snip and not reply to any empty rhetoric, pointless insults, and non-thinking, meaningless crap. What's left -- actual thoughts -- I respond to.
> 
> You will note the result above with your post, WT. When I cut all the garbage out, there was literally nothing left. Not one word.
Click to expand...


snip away moron.


----------



## The Gadfly

Sallow said:


> This is the country with the most millionaires and billionaires..
> 
> We don't have a shortage.
> 
> Just sayin'.



We aren't short of lowlife, commie scum either; fortunately, that can be rectified....


----------



## Big Fitz

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rrrriiiiiight.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Painting your opponents as "crazed conspiracists" is unbecoming of you, and it does nothing to make a point.
> 
> Meanwhile, why are the tomatoes rotting in the fields of Georgia?
> 
> Tomatoes rotting in fields as result of immigration law | Dothan Eagle
> 
> Can you connect the dots?
Click to expand...

But accurate in this case.


----------



## Big Fitz

geauxtohell said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should be used to it from the good ole days back on another forum.  You're still a problem child.  The white cat may be gone, but the same brain keeps knocking you around like a badminton birdy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Referencing the old country, using the term "problem child", and bragging about your internet cock size is like the triple crown of lameness.
> 
> You should be proud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least Citizens United fixed a major problem with campaign financing by allowing ALL corporations to support candidates fully, not just leftwing supporting unions.
> 
> All or none.  That is my standard.  Either everyone gets to play or nobody gets to play.  the catch is, that money is still free speech and cannot be separated from money.
> 
> Of course, I will concede the right to ban corps from doing this if ALL soft and non personal monies are banned too.  No unions, PACs, 927s, fund raising events bundling, group donations... nothing.  Name, home address for everyone as individuals.  You willing to accept those terms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I don't think money is "free speech".  If I aske a cop to let me off a ticket, it's speech.  But if I ask him to let me off a ticket while handing him a 20, it's a bribe.
> 
> Funny that.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't help the fact that you're still the same little dick today as you always were.  Just seeing you pop off as an authority makes me laugh.

Everyone else save commie wastoids has figured out that money equals free speech and freedom of association.  But that must come from an intrinsic and normal understanding of property rights.


----------



## Luissa

The Gadfly said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the country with the most millionaires and billionaires..
> 
> We don't have a shortage.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't short of lowlife, commie scum either; fortunately, that can be rectified....
Click to expand...


You are an idiot.


----------



## Dr Grump

Big Fitz said:


> Everyone else save commie wastoids has figured out that money equals free speech and freedom of association.  But that must come from an intrinsic and normal understanding of property rights.



You have a warped sense of freedom is...


----------



## Luissa

Dr Grump said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone else save commie wastoids has figured out that money equals free speech and freedom of association.  But that must come from an intrinsic and normal understanding of property rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a warped sense of freedom is...
Click to expand...


The fact he and few others see these protesters as commies proves he has a warped point of view period.


----------



## Big Fitz

Dr Grump said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone else save commie wastoids has figured out that money equals free speech and freedom of association.  But that must come from an intrinsic and normal understanding of property rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a warped sense of freedom is...
Click to expand...

At least it's the same as our founding fathers, not Big Brothers, Mr. Orwell.


----------



## Luissa

Big Fitz said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone else save commie wastoids has figured out that money equals free speech and freedom of association.  But that must come from an intrinsic and normal understanding of property rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a warped sense of freedom is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least it's the same as our founding fathers, not Big Brothers, Mr. Orwell.
Click to expand...


----------



## Big Fitz

Luissa said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone else save commie wastoids has figured out that money equals free speech and freedom of association.  But that must come from an intrinsic and normal understanding of property rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a warped sense of freedom is...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact he and few others see these protesters as commies proves he has a warped point of view period.
Click to expand...

Riiiiight.  Care to look at their list of demand, an statements of "Capitalism doesn't work" again?

I go back to my question.

What is your goal for CHANGE?
How do you propose to meet your hoped goal!


----------



## HenryBHough

Good on those "students" cutting classes!

Of course they should not be excused; just required to take all the standard tests at the end of the semester.  Alone in a room with no external communication; stripped naked and examined closely for crib notes.  

Then, should they fail, they can come up with the money to repeat the course.

But, of course, their liberal mommies and daddies will rush to their rescue.

No matter where the money comes from - it's money that won't be going to Our Kenyan President's bid to succeed himself.  Provided, of course, Democraps are stupid enough to re-nominate him.


----------



## EriktheRed

The Gadfly said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the country with the most millionaires and billionaires..
> 
> We don't have a shortage.
> 
> Just sayin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We aren't short of lowlife, commie scum either; fortunately, that can be rectified....
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm......


----------



## Dr Grump

Big Fitz said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a warped sense of freedom is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact he and few others see these protesters as commies proves he has a warped point of view period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Riiiiight.  Care to look at their list of demand, an statements of "Capitalism doesn't work" again?
> 
> I go back to my question.
> 
> What is your goal for CHANGE?
> How do you propose to meet your hoped goal!
Click to expand...


Pure capitalism doesn't work. The Great Depression and 2008 and this year has proven it...


----------



## Luissa

Big Fitz said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a warped sense of freedom is...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact he and few others see these protesters as commies proves he has a warped point of view period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Riiiiight.  Care to look at their list of demand, an statements of "Capitalism doesn't work" again?
> 
> I go back to my question.
> 
> What is your goal for CHANGE?
> How do you propose to meet your hoped goal!
Click to expand...

When they want to turn all private business, private property, and all the banks over to the government let me know.


----------



## Oldstyle

Dragon said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And would you admit that the majority of the activists that have been protesting in NYC fit that "too extreme" definition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, absolutely not. The positions of most of the protesters are moderate center-left. This is NOT a far-left movement at all, although a few of the participants probably warrant that label.
Click to expand...


You know what I "love" about you guys, Dragon?  You all espouse far left views but none of you will ever admit that you ARE on the far left...no, you all describe yourselves as "moderate center-left".  Why are you so afraid to admit what you are?  Admit it, Dragon...you're no more moderate center-left than the Occupy Wall Street activists are the 99%.  When you say this isn't a far-left movement you're being as disingenuous as the people that are making the 99% claim.


----------



## Luissa

So do you agree with the way the police have been treating the protesters? They make it clear they want to stay non violent.


----------



## Dr Grump

Oldstyle said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And would you admit that the majority of the activists that have been protesting in NYC fit that "too extreme" definition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, absolutely not. The positions of most of the protesters are moderate center-left. This is NOT a far-left movement at all, although a few of the participants probably warrant that label.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what I "love" about you guys, Dragon?  You all espouse far left views but none of you will ever admit that you ARE on the far left...no, you all describe yourselves as "moderate center-left".  Why are you so afraid to admit what you are?  Admit it, Dragon...you're no more moderate center-left than the Occupy Wall Street activists are the 99%.  When you say this isn't a far-left movement you're being as disingenuous as the people that are making the 99% claim.
Click to expand...


That is because only in right-wing, neocon, whackjob land are they extreme left views. To lefties and middle of the road US citizens, and the rest of the western world, they are centrists - maybe slightly leaning to the left - ideals.

Oh my, how dare people ask that Wall St be brought into line and be accountable.


----------



## mudwhistle

These people are misguided, foolish, stupid, ignorant, etc.

They hate capitalism but they whine about no jobs, too many bills, not enough money, etc. 

I think they're idiots, not communists. 

The people that organized this BS are the same communists, progressive, twisted assholes that helped ruin Europe.


----------



## Dr Grump

mudwhistle said:


> These people are misguided, foolish, stupid, ignorant, etc.
> 
> They hate capitalism but they whine about no jobs, too many bills, not enough money, etc.
> 
> I think they're idiots, *not communists.*
> 
> The people that organized this BS are the *same communists*, progressive, twisted assholes that helped ruin Europe.



Speaking of idiots....


----------



## mudwhistle

Dr Grump said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, absolutely not. The positions of most of the protesters are moderate center-left. This is NOT a far-left movement at all, although a few of the participants probably warrant that label.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what I "love" about you guys, Dragon?  You all espouse far left views but none of you will ever admit that you ARE on the far left...no, you all describe yourselves as "moderate center-left".  Why are you so afraid to admit what you are?  Admit it, Dragon...you're no more moderate center-left than the Occupy Wall Street activists are the 99%.  When you say this isn't a far-left movement you're being as disingenuous as the people that are making the 99% claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because only in right-wing, neocon, whackjob land are they extreme left views. To lefties and middle of the road US citizens, and the rest of the western world, they are centrists - maybe slightly leaning to the left - ideals.
> 
> Oh my, how dare people ask that Wall St be brought into line and be accountable.
Click to expand...


I've got news for you. I'm not falling for this Marxist crapola. 

These people are parking their asses in the wrong place. 

They need to park their asses in front of the White House...because that is were it started.


----------



## Luissa

The fact you think he has far left views is hilarious. 





Oldstyle said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And would you admit that the majority of the activists that have been protesting in NYC fit that "too extreme" definition?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, absolutely not. The positions of most of the protesters are moderate center-left. This is NOT a far-left movement at all, although a few of the participants probably warrant that label.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what I "love" about you guys, Dragon?  You all espouse far left views but none of you will ever admit that you ARE on the far left...no, you all describe yourselves as "moderate center-left".  Why are you so afraid to admit what you are?  Admit it, Dragon...you're no more moderate center-left than the Occupy Wall Street activists are the 99%.  When you say this isn't a far-left movement you're being as disingenuous as the people that are making the 99% claim.
Click to expand...


----------



## Luissa

And you should start by learning what marxism is. 





mudwhistle said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what I "love" about you guys, Dragon?  You all espouse far left views but none of you will ever admit that you ARE on the far left...no, you all describe yourselves as "moderate center-left".  Why are you so afraid to admit what you are?  Admit it, Dragon...you're no more moderate center-left than the Occupy Wall Street activists are the 99%.  When you say this isn't a far-left movement you're being as disingenuous as the people that are making the 99% claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only in right-wing, neocon, whackjob land are they extreme left views. To lefties and middle of the road US citizens, and the rest of the western world, they are centrists - maybe slightly leaning to the left - ideals.
> 
> Oh my, how dare people ask that Wall St be brought into line and be accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got news for you. I'm not falling for this Marxist crapola.
> 
> These people are parking their asses in the wrong place.
> 
> They need to park their asses in front of the White House...because that is were it started.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dr Grump

mudwhistle said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what I "love" about you guys, Dragon?  You all espouse far left views but none of you will ever admit that you ARE on the far left...no, you all describe yourselves as "moderate center-left".  Why are you so afraid to admit what you are?  Admit it, Dragon...you're no more moderate center-left than the Occupy Wall Street activists are the 99%.  When you say this isn't a far-left movement you're being as disingenuous as the people that are making the 99% claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only in right-wing, neocon, whackjob land are they extreme left views. To lefties and middle of the road US citizens, and the rest of the western world, they are centrists - maybe slightly leaning to the left - ideals.
> 
> Oh my, how dare people ask that Wall St be brought into line and be accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got news for you. I'm not falling for this Marxist crapola.
> 
> These people are parking their asses in the wrong place.
> 
> They need to park their asses in front of the White House...because that is were it started.
Click to expand...


Total crap. It came about due to unfettered greed, which was brought about by not enough regulation and weak politicians too scared to upset the apple cart (and the political donations these carts impart to political parties)

If you are going to park yourself in front of the WH to protest, the protests would be that the govt didn't do enough....


----------



## Big Fitz

Dr Grump said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact he and few others see these protesters as commies proves he has a warped point of view period.
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiight.  Care to look at their list of demand, an statements of "Capitalism doesn't work" again?
> 
> I go back to my question.
> 
> What is your goal for CHANGE?
> How do you propose to meet your hoped goal!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pure capitalism doesn't work. The Great Depression and 2008 and this year has proven it...
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about "pure" capitalism.  That was proven to be an issue during the Gilded Age and lead to many positive reforms that should have stopped in the 1960's.

The Great Depression prove that government spending cannot get a nation's economy started again.  The Great Resession we are currently in STILL but are lying to ourselves we're out of, is reconfirming that same historical fact.

To claim otherwise is delusional.


----------



## Big Fitz

Luissa said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact he and few others see these protesters as commies proves he has a warped point of view period.
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiight.  Care to look at their list of demand, an statements of "Capitalism doesn't work" again?
> 
> I go back to my question.
> 
> What is your goal for CHANGE?
> How do you propose to meet your hoped goal!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When they want to turn all private business, private property, and all the banks over to the government let me know.
Click to expand...

Ahhh... so only when they claim the obvious final goal will you say it's communism, but ignore the baby steps that get them there.  I getcha.

About as cogent as this jackass.






Very Alinsky.  This isn't a game of "Red Light Green Light".


----------



## mudwhistle

Luissa said:


> And you should start by learning what marxism is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only in right-wing, neocon, whackjob land are they extreme left views. To lefties and middle of the road US citizens, and the rest of the western world, they are centrists - maybe slightly leaning to the left - ideals.
> 
> Oh my, how dare people ask that Wall St be brought into line and be accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got news for you. I'm not falling for this Marxist crapola.
> 
> These people are parking their asses in the wrong place.
> 
> They need to park their asses in front of the White House...because that is were it started.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


And you should start by not being a snooty stuck up asswipe.

I know what Marxism is. I've been getting a dose of it for about 3 years now.

Marxism has a stigma surrounding it and it is well deserved....but it still doesn't change the fact that the prick in the White House practices it.....maybe not in it's purest form.....but he still does.



> The Marxian analysis begins with an analysis of material conditions, taking at its starting point the necessary economic activities required by human society to provide for its material needs. The form of economic organization, or mode of production, is understood to be the basis from which the majority of other social phenomena &#8212; including social relations, political and legal systems, morality and ideology &#8212; arise (or at the least by which they are greatly influenced). These social relations form the superstructure, of which the economic system forms the base. As the forces of production, most notably technology, improve, existing forms of social organization become inefficient and stifle further progress.
> 
> These inefficiencies manifest themselves as social contradictions in society in the form of class struggle. Under the capitalist mode of production, this struggle materializes between the minority who own the means of production; the bourgeoisie, and the vast majority of the population who produce goods and services; the proletariat. Taking the idea that social change occurs because of the struggle between different classes within society who are under contradiction against each other, the Marxist analysis leads to the conclusion that capitalism oppresses the proletariat, the inevitable result being a proletarian revolution.
> 
> Marxism views the socialist system as being prepared by the historical development of capitalism. According to Marxism, Socialism is a historical necessity (but not however, an inevitability [1]). In a socialist society private property in the means of production would be superseded by co-operative ownership. The socialist system would succeed capitalism as humanity's mode of production through worker's revolution. Capitalism according to Marxist theory can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military aggression. A socialist economy would not base production on the accumulation of capital, but would instead base production and economic activity on the criteria of satisfying human needs - that is, production would be carried out directly for use.
> 
> Eventually, socialism would give way to a communist stage of history: a classless, stateless system based on common ownership and free-access, superabundance and maximum freedom for individuals to develop their own capacities and talents. As a political movement, Marxism advocates for the creation of such a society.


----------



## Big Fitz

mudwhistle said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you should start by learning what marxism is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got news for you. I'm not falling for this Marxist crapola.
> 
> These people are parking their asses in the wrong place.
> 
> They need to park their asses in front of the White House...because that is were it started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you should start by not being a snooty stuck up asswipe.
> 
> I know what Marxism is. I've been getting a dose of it for about 3 years now.
> 
> Marxism has a stigma surrounding it and it is well deserved....but it still doesn't change the fact that the prick in the White House practices it.....maybe not in it's purest form.....but he still does.
Click to expand...

Ah!  Either just got into a union or still in University?


----------



## mudwhistle

Big Fitz said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiight.  Care to look at their list of demand, an statements of "Capitalism doesn't work" again?
> 
> I go back to my question.
> 
> What is your goal for CHANGE?
> How do you propose to meet your hoped goal!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pure capitalism doesn't work. The Great Depression and 2008 and this year has proven it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say anything about "pure" capitalism.  That was proven to be an issue during the Gilded Age and lead to many positive reforms that should have stopped in the 1960's.
> 
> The Great Depression prove that government spending cannot get a nation's economy started again.  The Great Resession we are currently in STILL but are lying to ourselves we're out of, is reconfirming that same historical fact.
> 
> To claim otherwise is delusional.
Click to expand...


Deny-ers feel they can parse words to win this argument. 

Pure capitalism does not exist in this country. Pure Marxism is a theory, but we're not talking about purity here. We're talking about a fucked up cluster-fuck of a Socio-Marxist system with Progressive and Liberal influences. 

In other words....a fucken abortion of an economic policy.


----------



## mudwhistle

Big Fitz said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you should start by learning what marxism is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you should start by not being a snooty stuck up asswipe.
> 
> I know what Marxism is. I've been getting a dose of it for about 3 years now.
> 
> Marxism has a stigma surrounding it and it is well deserved....but it still doesn't change the fact that the prick in the White House practices it.....maybe not in it's purest form.....but he still does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah!  Either just got into a union or still in University?
Click to expand...


4 years of college and 8 years in a union. 

Both are past-tense.


----------



## Luissa

You wouldn't know what Marxism was if it you in the face. If you think Obama is a Marxist, well it proves you are an idiot. 





mudwhistle said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you should start by learning what marxism is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got news for you. I'm not falling for this Marxist crapola.
> 
> These people are parking their asses in the wrong place.
> 
> They need to park their asses in front of the White House...because that is were it started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you should start by not being a snooty stuck up asswipe.
> 
> I know what Marxism is. I've been getting a dose of it for about 3 years now.
> 
> Marxism has a stigma surrounding it and it is well deserved....but it still doesn't change the fact that the prick in the White House practices it.....maybe not in it's purest form.....but he still does.
Click to expand...


----------



## The Gadfly

Dr Grump said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, absolutely not. The positions of most of the protesters are moderate center-left. This is NOT a far-left movement at all, although a few of the participants probably warrant that label.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what I "love" about you guys, Dragon?  You all espouse far left views but none of you will ever admit that you ARE on the far left...no, you all describe yourselves as "moderate center-left".  Why are you so afraid to admit what you are?  Admit it, Dragon...you're no more moderate center-left than the Occupy Wall Street activists are the 99%.  When you say this isn't a far-left movement you're being as disingenuous as the people that are making the 99% claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because only in right-wing, neocon, whackjob land are they extreme left views. To lefties and middle of the road US citizens, and the rest of the western world, they are centrists - maybe slightly leaning to the left - ideals.
> 
> Oh my, how dare people ask that Wall St be brought into line and be accountable.
Click to expand...


Excuse me, but didn't you say you're in New Zealand? I haven't seen anyone here telling you how to run that country, so what the hell are you doing here, telling us how to run ours?


----------



## The Gadfly

Luissa said:


> You wouldn't know what Marxism was if it you in the face. If you think Obama is a Marxist, well it proves you are an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you should start by learning what marxism is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you should start by not being a snooty stuck up asswipe.
> 
> I know what Marxism is. I've been getting a dose of it for about 3 years now.
> 
> Marxism has a stigma surrounding it and it is well deserved....but it still doesn't change the fact that the prick in the White House practices it.....maybe not in it's purest form.....but he still does.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I know what communists are, Lulu; I spent a year in Vietnam hunting and killing them, and a lot more years being cussed at by the ones here at home for doing that. I have no problem with enemy identification.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dragon said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they knew the race was going to be in Colorado then they should have trained on hills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stipulate that they did not know, just as few people recognized what was being done to the economy over the past thirty years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact the people who succeed always assume there are going to be hills and will train for them anyway.  Then guess what happens; the ones who are prepared for the harder race and take nothing for granted and don't feel entitled to an easy race win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It will always be the case that those who are most capable and best prepared and have the best work habits will do the best, all else being equal. That doesn't answer the question, though. In the first race, 85% of the runners finished. In the second, only 10% did. Is that because the runners in the second race were more out of shape, or is it because the conditions of the race changed?
Click to expand...


It's because the runners weren't prepared.


----------



## mudwhistle

The Gadfly said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know what Marxism was if it you in the face. If you think Obama is a Marxist, well it proves you are an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you should start by not being a snooty stuck up asswipe.
> 
> I know what Marxism is. I've been getting a dose of it for about 3 years now.
> 
> Marxism has a stigma surrounding it and it is well deserved....but it still doesn't change the fact that the prick in the White House practices it.....maybe not in it's purest form.....but he still does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what communists are, Lulu; I spent a year in Vietnam hunting and killing them, and a lot more years being cussed at by the ones here at home for doing that. I have no problem with enemy identification.
Click to expand...


Yes, but have you ever sat down and talked to them? Gotten to know them? Listened to their wants and desires?

Just because they hate you with a passion, hate this country with a passion, doesn't mean you have to be such a hater. Just because they're free to enjoy our freedoms, our gifts, the rights that our ancestors fought and died for, that millions of other Americans spilled their blood for, just because they wanna trash all of that and flush it, that's no reason to despise them, is it?


----------



## mudwhistle

Luissa said:


> You wouldn't know what Marxism was if it you in the face. If you think Obama is a Marxist, well it proves you are an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you should start by learning what marxism is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you should start by not being a snooty stuck up asswipe.
> 
> I know what Marxism is. I've been getting a dose of it for about 3 years now.
> 
> Marxism has a stigma surrounding it and it is well deserved....but it still doesn't change the fact that the prick in the White House practices it.....maybe not in it's purest form.....but he still does.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Calling him a Marxist is just an easy way to describe him.

But in truth he practices Marxism when he chooses but he is actually many things. The definition of a person who is a Marxist is someone who believes in the teachings of Marx and Engels or follows it, not someone who practices it or alines himself within it's ideology exclusively. You've been taught to argue that unless someone is a pure Marxist you can avoid the label, but the fact is just believing in some of the teachings of the inventors of Marxism is enough to classify you as a Marxist. 

It's amazing the way you call me an idiot when you don't know this or can't even follow simple protocols in posting......i.e. putting your response above the post your quoting rather then after which confuses it's meaning. I guess you're just a rebel.


----------



## editec

Its a drop dead cinche that millions and millions of Americans blame wall street for the state of the economy.

As well they should since WALL STREET COMMERCIAL BANSTERS are largely responsible for this mess.

But as a sot to our chums who loath government?

WALL STREET COMMERCIAL BANSTERS could ONLY screw things up this badly, with the help of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

And believe me, those bastards got plenty of help from BOTH parties in the last 20 years.


----------



## mudwhistle

editec said:


> Its a drop dead cinche that millions and millions of Americans blame wall street for the state of the economy.
> 
> As well they should since WALL STREET COMMERCIAL BANSTERS are largely responsible for this mess.
> 
> But as a sot to our chums who loath government?
> 
> WALL STREET COMMERCIAL BANSTERS could ONLY screw things up this badly, with the help of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
> 
> And believe me, those bastards got plenty of help from BOTH parties in the last 20 years.



Most assuredly from Obama with all of that Stimulus money,,,,,,,that the GOP didn't vote for. 

The protesters have no ideas that are any better then the people they're protesting.

That much is clear.

A prime example of your ideas and ours is the U.S. Postal Service.

All of the private companies are doing fine, but for some reason the USPS is going under. 

You walk into UPS and you never have to wait. Walk into a post office and the lines are terrible. 

Your ideas are failing miserably yet you have the nerve to criticize ours.


----------



## editec

> Your ideas are failing miserably yet you have the nerve to criticize ours.


 
Ideas?

What ideas?


----------



## Dr Grump

The Gadfly said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what I "love" about you guys, Dragon?  You all espouse far left views but none of you will ever admit that you ARE on the far left...no, you all describe yourselves as "moderate center-left".  Why are you so afraid to admit what you are?  Admit it, Dragon...you're no more moderate center-left than the Occupy Wall Street activists are the 99%.  When you say this isn't a far-left movement you're being as disingenuous as the people that are making the 99% claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only in right-wing, neocon, whackjob land are they extreme left views. To lefties and middle of the road US citizens, and the rest of the western world, they are centrists - maybe slightly leaning to the left - ideals.
> 
> Oh my, how dare people ask that Wall St be brought into line and be accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excuse me, but didn't you say you're in New Zealand? I haven't seen anyone here telling you how to run that country, so what the hell are you doing here, telling us how to run ours?
Click to expand...


The day the US butts out of everybody else's business is the day I butt out. Deal..


----------



## Dr Grump

The Gadfly said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You wouldn't know what Marxism was if it you in the face. If you think Obama is a Marxist, well it proves you are an idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you should start by not being a snooty stuck up asswipe.
> 
> I know what Marxism is. I've been getting a dose of it for about 3 years now.
> 
> Marxism has a stigma surrounding it and it is well deserved....but it still doesn't change the fact that the prick in the White House practices it.....maybe not in it's purest form.....but he still does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know what communists are, Lulu; I spent a year in Vietnam hunting and killing them, and a lot more years being cussed at by the ones here at home for doing that. I have no problem with enemy identification.:
Click to expand...


explains a lot...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

This is Obama's end game for the USA.

He's tanked our credit, he's going to get the world to move away from the US Dollar as the world's currency and he'll blame "Wall Street".... and the Tea Party

It's going to get very, very ugly


----------



## Dr Grump

mudwhistle said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its a drop dead cinche that millions and millions of Americans blame wall street for the state of the economy.
> 
> As well they should since WALL STREET COMMERCIAL BANSTERS are largely responsible for this mess.
> 
> But as a sot to our chums who loath government?
> 
> WALL STREET COMMERCIAL BANSTERS could ONLY screw things up this badly, with the help of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
> 
> And believe me, those bastards got plenty of help from BOTH parties in the last 20 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most assuredly from Obama with all of that Stimulus money,,,,,,,that the GOP didn't vote for.
> 
> The protesters have no ideas that are any better then the people they're protesting.
> 
> That much is clear.
> 
> A prime example of your ideas and ours is the U.S. Postal Service.
> 
> All of the private companies are doing fine, but for some reason the USPS is going under.
> 
> You walk into UPS and you never have to wait. Walk into a post office and the lines are terrible.
> 
> Your ideas are failing miserably yet you have the nerve to criticize ours.
Click to expand...


what exactly are your ideas?

I'm talking reasonable, can-actually-happen ideas. Not those in cuckoo land. Mind you, even one simple idea would be good. A neocon whackjob with an idea is rarer than a four leaf clover..


----------



## California Girl

editec said:


> Its a drop dead cinche that millions and millions of Americans blame wall street for the state of the economy.
> 
> As well they should since WALL STREET COMMERCIAL BANSTERS are largely responsible for this mess.
> 
> But as a sot to our chums who loath government?
> 
> WALL STREET COMMERCIAL BANSTERS could ONLY screw things up this badly, with the help of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
> 
> And believe me, those bastards got plenty of help from BOTH parties in the last 20 years.



A constant drip feed from the MSM, and from the current Administration, blaming Wall Street is bound to impact on how people think. They may 'blame' Wall Street.... but that doesn't mean they're right. 

Wall Street is not 'largely' responsible. It is our government that is holds the majority of the responsibility for this clusterfuck. That is the truth of it. No matter how much you want it to be different, the Democrats and the Republicans dragged us here. And it is about time voters from both sides recognized that. You fucked up our country by voting for these corrupt bastards - year after year, despite the overwhelming evidence against both sides... you carried on with your stupid fucking partisan politics. 

There are times when I think that each and every Democrat and each and every Republican should have their voting privilege removed until they can prove they can act like responsible Americans instead of fucking cannon fodder. 

Disclamer: I have no doubt that some idiot is going to insist that I 'want' to stop Americans voting. I don't. Y'all just seriously piss off the independents with your stupid fucking ideologies.


----------



## Dr Grump

CrusaderFrank said:


> This is Obama's end game for the USA.
> 
> He's tanked our credit, he's going to get the world to move away from the US Dollar as the world's currency and he'll blame "Wall Street".... and the Tea Party
> 
> It's going to get very, very ugly



Put the blame where it's due I say:

http://www.angryblacklady.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/george-bush-blame-it-on-the-black-guy.jpg


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dr Grump said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Obama's end game for the USA.
> 
> He's tanked our credit, he's going to get the world to move away from the US Dollar as the world's currency and he'll blame "Wall Street".... and the Tea Party
> 
> It's going to get very, very ugly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put the blame where it's due I say:
> 
> http://www.angryblacklady.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/george-bush-blame-it-on-the-black-guy.jpg
Click to expand...


Moron


----------



## mudwhistle

editec said:


> Your ideas are failing miserably yet you have the nerve to criticize ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ideas?
> 
> What ideas?
Click to expand...


Exactly. 

You made my point idiot.


----------



## Dr Grump

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Obama's end game for the USA.
> 
> He's tanked our credit, he's going to get the world to move away from the US Dollar as the world's currency and he'll blame "Wall Street".... and the Tea Party
> 
> It's going to get very, very ugly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put the blame where it's due I say:
> 
> http://www.angryblacklady.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/george-bush-blame-it-on-the-black-guy.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Moron
Click to expand...


Fuckwit


----------



## jillian

Ther eis an irony to frank calling anyone else a moron, isn't there?

s'okay, i was feeling irony deficient today.


----------



## Katzndogz

mudwhistle said:


> These people are misguided, foolish, stupid, ignorant, etc.
> 
> They hate capitalism but they whine about no jobs, too many bills, not enough money, etc.
> 
> I think they're idiots, not communists.
> 
> The people that organized this BS are the same communists, progressive, twisted assholes that helped ruin Europe.



Aren't you assuming that the parasitic class now protesting wants a job.  The only reason they say they are protesting for jobs is because no one will pay attention to them at all.  This is their way of saying "See, we want the same things you do."  It's not true.  They don't want a job, or any bills, and would be quite happy with no money as long as everything was free.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> SEIU and Obama are behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the Uber Rich hollywood elite.
Click to expand...


You guys see all the astro-turf unions at the protests...getting paid to protest, yeah thats real grassroots right there


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Twalbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


If these unions and soros funded, rich hollywood elite backed, protestors were protesting the govt who gave the billions to these banks without conditions that guaranteed the money would help PEOPLE and not banks then I would totally be on board with the protestors.

However, they aren't targeting the true cause of the problem, the govt's policies toward the banks, so I find this to be a disingenuous protest since it only concentrates on part of the problem that will not change without changes in the rules which must come from outside the banks.


----------



## jillian

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> SEIU and Obama are behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the Uber Rich hollywood elite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys see all the astro-turf unions at the protests...getting paid to protest, yeah thats real grassroots right there
Click to expand...


suddenly that offends you?

i'd suggest telling that to the koch brothers.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

jillian said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the Uber Rich hollywood elite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys see all the astro-turf unions at the protests...getting paid to protest, yeah thats real grassroots right there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> suddenly that offends you?
> 
> i'd suggest telling that to the koch brothers.
Click to expand...


Where  is my check or the local branches of the teaparty in boston's checks?  

Hmmmmmm?  Where are they?   

Where are the PAID ORGANIZED PROTESTORS from the unions at the tea parties?  where?


The koch thing is such B.S. and to repeat it is pretty, well, obvious in its dishonesty.


But lets say it was true....that doesn't change the fact that this wall street thing is being funded by rich elites and unions (who get tax money)


----------



## Oldstyle

Dr Grump said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, absolutely not. The positions of most of the protesters are moderate center-left. This is NOT a far-left movement at all, although a few of the participants probably warrant that label.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what I "love" about you guys, Dragon?  You all espouse far left views but none of you will ever admit that you ARE on the far left...no, you all describe yourselves as "moderate center-left".  Why are you so afraid to admit what you are?  Admit it, Dragon...you're no more moderate center-left than the Occupy Wall Street activists are the 99%.  When you say this isn't a far-left movement you're being as disingenuous as the people that are making the 99% claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is because only in right-wing, neocon, whackjob land are they extreme left views. To lefties and middle of the road US citizens, and the rest of the western world, they are centrists - maybe slightly leaning to the left - ideals.
> 
> Oh my, how dare people ask that Wall St be brought into line and be accountable.
Click to expand...


Really, "Dr. Grump"?  Then explain the OWS organizers frantic efforts to keep their people's views from being made public.  The truth is...a $20 an hour minimum wage...a guaranteed "living wage"...and wiping out all debts...those goals are about as far left as you can get.  What those "children" are asking for is laughable and simply proves that the activists down on Wall Street don't have a clue how to fix the economic situation we're in.  They blame bankers for the nations problems but they don't demand reform to the banking system...they demand free stuff for themselves.


----------



## FuelRod

Deep Thoughts on "Occupy Wall Street" by Jack Handy:
"I hope if I ever get rich I'm not real mean to poor people, like I am now."


----------



## Oldstyle

jillian said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the Uber Rich hollywood elite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys see all the astro-turf unions at the protests...getting paid to protest, yeah thats real grassroots right there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> suddenly that offends you?
> 
> i'd suggest telling that to the koch brothers.
Click to expand...


Are the Koch brothers paying people to protest, Jillian?  I wasn't aware that paid protesters were a part of the Tea Party make up.  They are however a big part of the liberal protests that have been taking place over the past year.  Why is that?


----------



## California Girl

jillian said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the Uber Rich hollywood elite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys see all the astro-turf unions at the protests...getting paid to protest, yeah thats real grassroots right there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> suddenly that offends you?
> 
> i'd suggest telling that to the koch brothers.
Click to expand...




Why don't y'all get Soros to give him a call.... since he's the one funding your 'grass roots' OWS bullcrap.

The moral of this post: People who live in glass houses, shouldn't throw stones.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Oldstyle said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys see all the astro-turf unions at the protests...getting paid to protest, yeah thats real grassroots right there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> suddenly that offends you?
> 
> i'd suggest telling that to the koch brothers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are the Koch brothers paying people to protest, Jillian?  I wasn't aware that paid protesters were a part of the Tea Party make up.  They are however a big part of the liberal protests that have been taking place over the past year.  Why is that?
Click to expand...


Thats my question too.  

And even if the teapartiers were being paid that doesn't change the fact that these wall street protestors are being funded by rich elites such as hollywood people, george sorros, and now union bosses.


----------



## Oldstyle

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> suddenly that offends you?
> 
> i'd suggest telling that to the koch brothers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Koch brothers paying people to protest, Jillian?  I wasn't aware that paid protesters were a part of the Tea Party make up.  They are however a big part of the liberal protests that have been taking place over the past year.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats my question too.
> 
> And even if the teapartiers were being paid that doesn't change the fact that these wall street protestors are being funded by rich elites such as hollywood people, george sorros, and now union bosses.
Click to expand...


This "protest" is being pushed by those people because they know liberals can't run on they've done since taking power in 2008.  They desperately need to change the narrative to something other than an economy sliding back into a double dip recession, rampant unemployment and runaway deficits.  This class warfare thing is all that Soros, the union bosses and the progressive left HAVE so they'll push it as hard as they possibly can.


----------



## California Girl

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> suddenly that offends you?
> 
> i'd suggest telling that to the koch brothers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Koch brothers paying people to protest, Jillian?  I wasn't aware that paid protesters were a part of the Tea Party make up.  They are however a big part of the liberal protests that have been taking place over the past year.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats my question too.
> 
> And even if the teapartiers were being paid that doesn't change the fact that these wall street protestors are being funded by rich elites such as hollywood people, george sorros, and now union bosses.
Click to expand...


What interests me, more than 'who's funding' is who organized this 'spontaneous' movement. It was no more 'spontaneous' than Christmas. It was planned by the Tides Foundation, under the leadership of Watermelon Man Van Jones. How the hell they think they can keep pretending it was 'spontaneous' is beyond laughable. 

It was planned... the Unions didn't suddenly decide to support it. They planned to bus their bodies in. 

They are bought and paid for by Soros. All part of the 'October Offensive'. Laughable that they still try to deny it.


----------



## EriktheRed

California Girl said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Koch brothers paying people to protest, Jillian?  I wasn't aware that paid protesters were a part of the Tea Party make up.  They are however a big part of the liberal protests that have been taking place over the past year.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my question too.
> 
> And even if the teapartiers were being paid that doesn't change the fact that these wall street protestors are being funded by rich elites such as hollywood people, george sorros, and now union bosses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What interests me, more than 'who's funding' is who organized this 'spontaneous' movement. It was no more 'spontaneous' than Christmas. It was planned by the Tides Foundation, under the leadership of Watermelon Man Van Jones. How the hell they think they can keep pretending it was 'spontaneous' is beyond laughable.
> 
> It was planned... the Unions didn't suddenly decide to support it. They planned to bus their bodies in.
> 
> They are bought and paid for by Soros. All part of the 'October Offensive'. Laughable that they still try to deny it.
Click to expand...


You Cons are behind the times. The new liberal billionaire boogeyman is Warren Buffett, not Soros.


----------



## Valerie

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> suddenly that offends you?
> 
> i'd suggest telling that to the koch brothers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Koch brothers paying people to protest, Jillian?  I wasn't aware that paid protesters were a part of the Tea Party make up.  They are however a big part of the liberal protests that have been taking place over the past year.  Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats my question too.
> 
> And even if the teapartiers were being paid that doesn't change the fact that these wall street protestors are being funded by rich elites such as hollywood people, george sorros, and now union bosses.
Click to expand...




I understand the media is portraying this as counter to the Tea Party movement, but I was wondering isn't there really a cross-over of many of the same concerned citizens who were drawn to the Tea Party cause who are now also drawn to the Occupy Wall Street cause...???  




*The pieces are all there: ordinary citizens banding together for a cause; signs and protests announcing their grievances.


The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations started last month in New York and have since spread across the country, born out of anger toward the financial communitys success during a time of prolonged economic hardship. 


The hundreds of activists who have flocked to the Occupy Wall Street rallies are encouraging supporters to march under the flag of a grassroots campaign aimed at political and corporate reform.*

Wall Street rallies could be left


----------



## Oldstyle

EriktheRed said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my question too.
> 
> And even if the teapartiers were being paid that doesn't change the fact that these wall street protestors are being funded by rich elites such as hollywood people, george sorros, and now union bosses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What interests me, more than 'who's funding' is who organized this 'spontaneous' movement. It was no more 'spontaneous' than Christmas. It was planned by the Tides Foundation, under the leadership of Watermelon Man Van Jones. How the hell they think they can keep pretending it was 'spontaneous' is beyond laughable.
> 
> It was planned... the Unions didn't suddenly decide to support it. They planned to bus their bodies in.
> 
> They are bought and paid for by Soros. All part of the 'October Offensive'. Laughable that they still try to deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Cons are behind the times. The new liberal billionaire boogeyman is Warren Buffett, not Soros.
Click to expand...


Warren's not a boogeyman...he's a liberal poster boy.  People like you ignore the fact that Buffett makes obscene profits by manipulating the stock market and you do so because he supports Barack Obama.  If he were a conservative doing the exact same think you'd be calling for him to be tarred, feathered and carried through the streets on a rail.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

EriktheRed said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my question too.
> 
> And even if the teapartiers were being paid that doesn't change the fact that these wall street protestors are being funded by rich elites such as hollywood people, george sorros, and now union bosses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What interests me, more than 'who's funding' is who organized this 'spontaneous' movement. It was no more 'spontaneous' than Christmas. It was planned by the Tides Foundation, under the leadership of Watermelon Man Van Jones. How the hell they think they can keep pretending it was 'spontaneous' is beyond laughable.
> 
> It was planned... the Unions didn't suddenly decide to support it. They planned to bus their bodies in.
> 
> They are bought and paid for by Soros. All part of the 'October Offensive'. Laughable that they still try to deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Cons are behind the times. The new liberal billionaire boogeyman is Warren Buffett, not Soros.
Click to expand...


Buffet isn't actually funding them though while the Soros funded tides foundation is.

Thats why we said sorros and not buffet, unlike the left with the teaparties the right doesn't have to lie


----------



## California Girl

Oldstyle said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What interests me, more than 'who's funding' is who organized this 'spontaneous' movement. It was no more 'spontaneous' than Christmas. It was planned by the Tides Foundation, under the leadership of Watermelon Man Van Jones. How the hell they think they can keep pretending it was 'spontaneous' is beyond laughable.
> 
> It was planned... the Unions didn't suddenly decide to support it. They planned to bus their bodies in.
> 
> They are bought and paid for by Soros. All part of the 'October Offensive'. Laughable that they still try to deny it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Cons are behind the times. The new liberal billionaire boogeyman is Warren Buffett, not Soros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Warren's not a boogeyman...he's a liberal poster boy.  People like you ignore the fact that Buffett makes obscene profits by manipulating the stock market and you do so because he supports Barack Obama.  If he were a conservative doing the exact same think you'd be calling for him to be tarred, feathered and carried through the streets on a rail.
Click to expand...


So did Soros. He made his billions by collapsing the economies of whole countries, wiping out the jobs and pensions of millions of ordinary people in 5 countries.... for profit. And the left adore him.

This 'spontaneous' protest was planned and organized by Van Jones with the Tides Foundation. It is funded by wealthy liberals.... the same people who screamed like banshees about the TEA Parties. Hypocrites.


----------



## Valerie

CrusaderFrank said:


> This is Obama's end game for the USA.
> 
> He's tanked our credit, *he's going to get the world to move away from the US Dollar *as the world's currency and he'll blame "Wall Street".... and the Tea Party
> 
> It's going to get very, very ugly







I hate to break it to you but the US Dollar is ON THE RISE again.  


U.S. Dollar Index: Ready to Rise Like a Phoenix? | Elliott Wave International


----------



## Katzndogz

Valerie said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Koch brothers paying people to protest, Jillian?  I wasn't aware that paid protesters were a part of the Tea Party make up.  They are however a big part of the liberal protests that have been taking place over the past year.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my question too.
> 
> And even if the teapartiers were being paid that doesn't change the fact that these wall street protestors are being funded by rich elites such as hollywood people, george sorros, and now union bosses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the media is portraying this as counter to the Tea Party movement, but I was wondering isn't there really a cross-over of many of the same concerned citizens who were drawn to the Tea Party cause who are now also drawn to the Occupy Wall Street cause...???
Click to expand...


Highly doubtful.  The tea party wants smaller government and less government interference and far less taxation.

The protesting parasitic class wants a massive government as major provider who has the ability to remove property from one person and give it to someone else.

They are exact opposites.


----------



## mudwhistle

Valerie said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are the Koch brothers paying people to protest, Jillian?  I wasn't aware that paid protesters were a part of the Tea Party make up.  They are however a big part of the liberal protests that have been taking place over the past year.  Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my question too.
> 
> And even if the teapartiers were being paid that doesn't change the fact that these wall street protestors are being funded by rich elites such as hollywood people, george sorros, and now union bosses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the media is portraying this as counter to the Tea Party movement, but I was wondering isn't there really a cross-over of many of the same concerned citizens who were drawn to the Tea Party cause who are now also drawn to the Occupy Wall Street cause...???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The pieces are all there: ordinary citizens banding together for a cause; signs and protests announcing their grievances.
> 
> 
> The &#8220;Occupy Wall Street&#8221; demonstrations started last month in New York and have since spread across the country, born out of anger toward the financial community&#8217;s success during a time of prolonged economic hardship.
> 
> 
> The hundreds of activists who have flocked to the &#8220;Occupy Wall Street&#8221; rallies are encouraging supporters to march under the flag of a grassroots campaign aimed at political and corporate reform.*
> 
> Wall Street rallies could be left
Click to expand...


The Wall Street protests are an example of large groups of misinformed people protesting a falsehood put forth by the left. The white house and their cabal have stirred the pot and this is what surfaced. Soon they will be committing terrorist acts. Breaking into banks and businesses, protesting CEOs at their homes, burning cars. 

You watch. It's coming.


----------



## mudwhistle

Valerie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Obama's end game for the USA.
> 
> He's tanked our credit, *he's going to get the world to move away from the US Dollar *as the world's currency and he'll blame "Wall Street".... and the Tea Party
> 
> It's going to get very, very ugly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you but the US Dollar is ON THE RISE again.
> 
> 
> U.S. Dollar Index: Ready to Rise Like a Phoenix? | Elliott Wave International
Click to expand...


The title says "Ready to rise" which is simply a positive spin. 

It's worthless commentary passed off as fact.


----------



## Valerie

mudwhistle said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Obama's end game for the USA.
> 
> He's tanked our credit, *he's going to get the world to move away from the US Dollar *as the world's currency and he'll blame "Wall Street".... and the Tea Party
> 
> It's going to get very, very ugly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you but the US Dollar is ON THE RISE again.
> 
> 
> U.S. Dollar Index: Ready to Rise Like a Phoenix? | Elliott Wave International
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The title says "Ready to rise" which is simply a positive spin.
> 
> It's worthless commentary passed off as fact.
Click to expand...




No it's detailed technical analysis by proven methods, and it is already happening...  You'll see by this time next year.  Mark this thread.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> As I said, I wasn't talking about minimum-wage workers. Therefore, your question was irrelevant and need not be answered.



So then, you know your claims to be false; you know full well that the purchasing power of the American consumer has risen dramatically at every economic strata, yet dishonestly claim the opposite to promote your socialist agenda. 

Whether you, Shallow or Truthinessmatters, Marxists spew the same lies every time. Da rich getz richer and the da po getz po-er.  Pressed with fact, you retreat. Over the last 30 years, the rich got richer and the poor got richer, with the middle getting a LOT richer.

In 1960, the average middle income family bought a home that was 1400 square feet, three bedrooms and one bath. By 1990 that had ballooned to 3200 square feet and three baths. In 1960, an average middle income family had one car. Now, most families have three or more cars. When I was young, eating steak was reserved for the rich - now food stamp recipients can afford to eat steak 5 nights a week. The truth is that the middle class lives a lifestyle that was reserved for the very rich 30 years ago.

You Marxists seek to sew envy, because you are driven purely by greed. You care not what you have, you only see that others have more. Envy rules the Marxist, they would gladly have less, just for the privilege of ensuring that no one had more than they. A Marxist with a hamburger will trade it for gruel, for the chance to take the lobster away for the rich man that he burns with jealousy toward, and feed him only gruel as well.

Leftist, socialism, Marxism - whatever mask you wish to put on, is ultimately driven by hatred, greed and envy.  The leftist cannot be satisfied, no matter how much he has, should someone else have but one grain of rice more, the leftist will seethe with hatred and envy, as you and Shallow do here.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sallow said:


> This is the country with the most millionaires and billionaires..
> 
> We don't have a shortage.
> 
> Just sayin'.



And you see that as a bad thing, as you seethe in the pool of your jealousy and rage...


----------



## California Girl

Valerie said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Obama's end game for the USA.
> 
> He's tanked our credit, *he's going to get the world to move away from the US Dollar *as the world's currency and he'll blame "Wall Street".... and the Tea Party
> 
> It's going to get very, very ugly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you but the US Dollar is ON THE RISE again.
> 
> 
> U.S. Dollar Index: Ready to Rise Like a Phoenix? | Elliott Wave International
Click to expand...


I hate to break it to you but opinion is not fact.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sallow said:


> In what state? City? Borough? Which Store? Discount? Electronics? What sort of TV? Color? Black and White? Solid State? Tubes?



Take your pick.



> What sort of car? What make? What model? Foreign? Domestic? Diesel?



How about the lowest priced model on the market?



> What sort of Stereo? What make? What model? Foreign? Domestic?



Take your pick



> In what state? Borough? Neighborhood?
> In what state? Low Fat? Skim?
> In what state? Regular? Unleaded?
> 
> Standard Disclaimer: Fascists have a way of using "Gotchas" to make a point - For obvious reasons. Especially racist ones.



It's not a "gotcha," dumbass - it's fact.

The fact is that people live a HELL of a lot better lifestyles than any time in the past. This peaked in 2006, but once dumbfuck Barack is gone, it will start to rise again.

The complaint of you Marxist morons boils down to "NO FAIR - they got more." You have it better than any group in history. Our poor live lives of luxury only dreamed of by Kings such as Henry the VIII - but some have it even better than you - so hatred and envy consume you.

Such is the left, spoiled children consumed in their own greed.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Watch what happens once Obama tells the A-rabs stop accepting dollars for oil


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Pure capitalism doesn't work. The Great Depression and 2008 and this year has proven it...



You have zero grasp on economics - ergo you are a leftist.

Pure capitalism, indeed....

Whatamaroon.


----------



## Valerie

mudwhistle said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my question too.
> 
> And even if the teapartiers were being paid that doesn't change the fact that these wall street protestors are being funded by rich elites such as hollywood people, george sorros, and now union bosses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the media is portraying this as counter to the Tea Party movement, but I was wondering isn't there really a cross-over of many of the same concerned citizens who were drawn to the Tea Party cause who are now also drawn to the Occupy Wall Street cause...???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The pieces are all there: ordinary citizens banding together for a cause; signs and protests announcing their grievances.
> 
> 
> The &#8220;Occupy Wall Street&#8221; demonstrations started last month in New York and have since spread across the country, born out of anger toward the financial community&#8217;s success during a time of prolonged economic hardship.
> 
> 
> The hundreds of activists who have flocked to the &#8220;Occupy Wall Street&#8221; rallies are encouraging supporters to march under the flag of a grassroots campaign aimed at political and corporate reform.*
> 
> Wall Street rallies could be left
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Wall Street protests are an example of large groups of misinformed people protesting a falsehood put forth by the left. The white house and their cabal have stirred the pot and this what surfaced. *Soon they will be committing terrorist acts. *Breaking into banks and businesses, protesting CEOs at their homes, burning cars.
> 
> You watch. It's coming.
Click to expand...





No doubt it's sad the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum use these occasions to rouse the passionate concerns of the rabble while the respective powers-that-be try to co-opt the message in order to spread their propaganda.  

Just as the Tea Party cause had to repudiate any violence, so too shall the Occupy cause, if they really want to resonate with rational American voters...


----------



## Valerie

California Girl said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is Obama's end game for the USA.
> 
> He's tanked our credit, *he's going to get the world to move away from the US Dollar *as the world's currency and he'll blame "Wall Street".... and the Tea Party
> 
> It's going to get very, very ugly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you but the US Dollar is ON THE RISE again.
> 
> 
> U.S. Dollar Index: Ready to Rise Like a Phoenix? | Elliott Wave International
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to break it to you but opinion is not fact.
Click to expand...




No kidding!


----------



## JWBooth

Twalbert said:


> 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







​


----------



## Uncensored2008

Luissa said:


> When they want to turn all private business, private property, and all the banks over to the government let me know.



There is a type of socialism which is VERY popular with the hard left of this nation. It is the form that Barack the dumbfuck forged into his government health care. In this form of socialism, government controls the means of production by forming an alliance with corporations who act as front-end facilitators of government party. These corporation are backed by government troops, the way that under Obamacare, Kaiser and Blue Cross have the IRS as enforcers. This is the socialism promoted by today's left, government control of the means of production facilitated by a few, well connected corporations who are given license to loot - see AIG and Goldman Sachs as examples in action.

Today's leftist is yesterdays fascist....


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I think most Democrats will be in for a very rude awakening on the true cost of the radical ideology that's taken over their Party.  They keep talking and acting like they live in a foreign nation but they will be the ones to suffer when Obama pulls American down


----------



## Uncensored2008

mudwhistle said:


> Calling him a Marxist is just an easy way to describe him.
> 
> But in truth he practices Marxism when he chooses but he is actually many things.



Dragon, like most leftists, doesn't have the knowledge or political acumen to understand the concepts behind the slogans he chants. You and I recognize instantly that they are Marxist, but when Dragon demands they aren't, he's telling the truth as he knows it. Since he doesn't comprehend the political systems and simply chants slogans derived from websites and talking points, he thinks he's just being a good leftist.

Lenin called them "useful idiots."



> The definition of a person who is a Marxist is someone who believes in the teachings of Marx and Engels or follows it, not someone who practices it or alines himself within it's ideology exclusively. You've been taught to argue that unless someone is a pure Marxist you can avoid the label, but the fact is just believing in some of the teachings of the inventors of Marxism is enough to classify you as a Marxist.
> 
> It's amazing the way you call me an idiot when you don't know this or can't even follow simple protocols in posting......i.e. putting your response above the post your quoting rather then after which confuses it's meaning. I guess you're just a rebel.



...


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> Ther eis an irony to frank calling anyone else a moron, isn't there?
> 
> s'okay, i was feeling irony deficient today.



There is an irony to you spouting off about morons. You demonstrably have one of the lowest IQ's of any poster on this board.


----------



## Big Fitz

EriktheRed said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my question too.
> 
> And even if the teapartiers were being paid that doesn't change the fact that these wall street protestors are being funded by rich elites such as hollywood people, george sorros, and now union bosses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What interests me, more than 'who's funding' is who organized this 'spontaneous' movement. It was no more 'spontaneous' than Christmas. It was planned by the Tides Foundation, under the leadership of Watermelon Man Van Jones. How the hell they think they can keep pretending it was 'spontaneous' is beyond laughable.
> 
> It was planned... the Unions didn't suddenly decide to support it. They planned to bus their bodies in.
> 
> They are bought and paid for by Soros. All part of the 'October Offensive'. Laughable that they still try to deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You Cons are behind the times. The new liberal billionaire boogeyman is Warren Buffett, not Soros.
Click to expand...

No.  he's just the poster child for "Useful Idiocy".


----------



## Katzndogz

Maybe the parasitic left will take the bait obama threw out in his speech today and get more violent.   It's like watching 1992 all over again when Tom Bradley gave his televised speech about supporting the opponents of the King verdict.


----------



## Uncensored2008

EriktheRed said:


> You Cons are behind the times. The new liberal billionaire boogeyman is Warren Buffett, not Soros.



Buffet is a clown, a leftist hypocrite who says really stupid shit.

Soros is pure evil, funding the destruction of Western Civilization and seeking to spread as much misery as possible.


----------



## mudwhistle

Sallow said:


> This is the country with the most millionaires and billionaires..
> 
> We don't have a shortage.
> 
> Just sayin'.



Damn......that sucks!!!

I think we need Somalia's economy. 

They only have a few.


----------



## EriktheRed

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What interests me, more than 'who's funding' is who organized this 'spontaneous' movement. It was no more 'spontaneous' than Christmas. It was planned by the Tides Foundation, under the leadership of Watermelon Man Van Jones. How the hell they think they can keep pretending it was 'spontaneous' is beyond laughable.
> 
> It was planned... the Unions didn't suddenly decide to support it. They planned to bus their bodies in.
> 
> They are bought and paid for by Soros. All part of the 'October Offensive'. Laughable that they still try to deny it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You Cons are behind the times. The new liberal billionaire boogeyman is Warren Buffett, not Soros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Buffet isn't actually funding them though while the Soros funded tides foundation is.
> 
> Thats why we said sorros and not buffet, unlike the left with the teaparties the right doesn't have to lie
Click to expand...


Got actual proof of people being PAID to be there?

And btw...



> And even if the teapartiers were being paid that doesn't change the fact that these wall street protestors are being funded by rich elites such as hollywood people, george sorros, and now union bosses.



What do you mean "even if"? You have some inside knowledge onthis?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

EriktheRed said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> You Cons are behind the times. The new liberal billionaire boogeyman is Warren Buffett, not Soros.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Buffet isn't actually funding them though while the Soros funded tides foundation is.
> 
> Thats why we said sorros and not buffet, unlike the left with the teaparties the right doesn't have to lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got actual proof of people being PAID to be there?
> 
> And btw...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even if the teapartiers were being paid that doesn't change the fact that these wall street protestors are being funded by rich elites such as hollywood people, george sorros, and now union bosses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean "even if"? You have some inside knowledge onthis?
Click to expand...


Tides Foundation Connected to Day of Rage Against Wall Street - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com   <----tides foundation receives a ton of money from Sorros.


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Buffet isn't actually funding them though while the Soros funded tides foundation is.
> 
> Thats why we said sorros and not buffet, unlike the left with the teaparties the right doesn't have to lie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got actual proof of people being PAID to be there?
> 
> And btw...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And even if the teapartiers were being paid that doesn't change the fact that these wall street protestors are being funded by rich elites such as hollywood people, george sorros, and now union bosses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean "even if"? You have some inside knowledge onthis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation Connected to Day of Rage Against Wall Street - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com   <----tides foundation receives a ton of money from Sorros.
Click to expand...


So that more than $170,000 since 1996 is paying all those people to be there?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got actual proof of people being PAID to be there?
> 
> And btw...
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "even if"? You have some inside knowledge onthis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation Connected to Day of Rage Against Wall Street - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com   <----tides foundation receives a ton of money from Sorros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So that more than $170,000 since 1996 is paying all those people to be there?
Click to expand...


Tides Foundation and Tides Center


^^^ your number is a bit off


Oh yeah carnegie...sorry here you need to follow the money around to find sorros 

Carnegie Corporation - Judgepedia


----------



## Big Fitz

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation Connected to Day of Rage Against Wall Street - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com   <----tides foundation receives a ton of money from Sorros.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that more than $170,000 since 1996 is paying all those people to be there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation and Tides Center
> 
> 
> ^^^ your number is a bit off
> 
> 
> Oh yeah carnegie...sorry here you need to follow the money around to find sorros
> 
> Carnegie Corporation - Judgepedia
Click to expand...

Nothing like a little economic "hydraulics".  

Oh but he didn't give directly to them.  He gave to THIS organization which then had the money to give to THIS organization who then gave the same amount to those fuckers....

See?  He didn't give anything to them.  You are expected and ordered to be too dumb to notice such things.  This is a privilege only for the elites among us.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Big Fitz said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that more than $170,000 since 1996 is paying all those people to be there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation and Tides Center
> 
> 
> ^^^ your number is a bit off
> 
> 
> Oh yeah carnegie...sorry here you need to follow the money around to find sorros
> 
> Carnegie Corporation - Judgepedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing like a little economic "hydraulics".
> 
> Oh but he didn't give directly to them.  He gave to THIS organization which then had the money to give to THIS organization who then gave the same amount to those fuckers....
> 
> See?  He didn't give anything to them.  You are expected and ordered to be too dumb to notice such things.  This is a privilege only for the elites among us.
Click to expand...


LOL My mom made me play "connect the dots" a lot as a child, it paid off


----------



## Big Fitz

I was going to go to that site and do what you did.  LOL

He leaves tracks like a centipede if you're willing to look.


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation Connected to Day of Rage Against Wall Street - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com   <----tides foundation receives a ton of money from Sorros.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that more than $170,000 since 1996 is paying all those people to be there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation and Tides Center
> 
> 
> ^^^ your number is a bit off
> 
> 
> Oh yeah carnegie...sorry here you need to follow the money around to find sorros
> 
> Carnegie Corporation - Judgepedia
Click to expand...

From the link you posted. 



> Adbusters is a group that would like to put an end to our society's materialism, even to the point of getting rid of television, automobiles, corporations, and refrigerators. Their organization receives money from their bi-monthly, $7.95 magazine, a book, and even a line of tennis shoes. They also have received more than $170,000 from the Tides Foundation since 1996.


 The Adjusters is the only group the article links the Tide Foundation to that has large involvement in Occupy Wall Street. 

Do you want to compare what the Tea Party movement got from private donors?


----------



## mudwhistle

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation and Tides Center
> 
> 
> ^^^ your number is a bit off
> 
> 
> Oh yeah carnegie...sorry here you need to follow the money around to find sorros
> 
> Carnegie Corporation - Judgepedia
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing like a little economic "hydraulics".
> 
> Oh but he didn't give directly to them.  He gave to THIS organization which then had the money to give to THIS organization who then gave the same amount to those fuckers....
> 
> See?  He didn't give anything to them.  You are expected and ordered to be too dumb to notice such things.  This is a privilege only for the elites among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL My mom made me play "connect the dots" a lot as a child, it paid off
Click to expand...


Ignore the dots. They point nowhere. 

Focus on how great our front-man's words sound. 

They're delivered with just the right amount of emotion. 

The words sound so edgumacated. 

Who cares that it's all useless drivel.


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation and Tides Center
> 
> 
> ^^^ your number is a bit off
> 
> 
> Oh yeah carnegie...sorry here you need to follow the money around to find sorros
> 
> Carnegie Corporation - Judgepedia
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing like a little economic "hydraulics".
> 
> Oh but he didn't give directly to them.  He gave to THIS organization which then had the money to give to THIS organization who then gave the same amount to those fuckers....
> 
> See?  He didn't give anything to them.  You are expected and ordered to be too dumb to notice such things.  This is a privilege only for the elites among us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL My mom made me play "connect the dots" a lot as a child, it paid off
Click to expand...


You know what I think is funny? You guys will go after George all day long, but never say one word about the Koch brothers.


----------



## California Girl

Valerie said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the media is portraying this as counter to the Tea Party movement, but I was wondering isn't there really a cross-over of many of the same concerned citizens who were drawn to the Tea Party cause who are now also drawn to the Occupy Wall Street cause...???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The pieces are all there: ordinary citizens banding together for a cause; signs and protests announcing their grievances.
> 
> 
> The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations started last month in New York and have since spread across the country, born out of anger toward the financial communitys success during a time of prolonged economic hardship.
> 
> 
> The hundreds of activists who have flocked to the Occupy Wall Street rallies are encouraging supporters to march under the flag of a grassroots campaign aimed at political and corporate reform.*
> 
> Wall Street rallies could be left
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Wall Street protests are an example of large groups of misinformed people protesting a falsehood put forth by the left. The white house and their cabal have stirred the pot and this what surfaced. *Soon they will be committing terrorist acts. *Breaking into banks and businesses, protesting CEOs at their homes, burning cars.
> 
> You watch. It's coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt it's sad the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum use these occasions to rouse the passionate concerns of the rabble while the respective powers-that-be try to co-opt the message in order to spread their propaganda.
> 
> Just as the Tea Party cause had to repudiate any violence, so too shall the Occupy cause, if they really want to resonate with rational American voters...
Click to expand...


The 'extremists' are at the center of OWS. There is an agenda at work here - and it is not the one that real Democrats support. 

There was never any violence from the TEA Parties. There was media fueled bullshit and speculation about 'violence' but it never happened. Same with the racism bullcrap.


----------



## Luissa

If you think most of those kids are down there because of George Soros, well you should be checked for stupidity.


----------



## Luissa

California Girl said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Wall Street protests are an example of large groups of misinformed people protesting a falsehood put forth by the left. The white house and their cabal have stirred the pot and this what surfaced. *Soon they will be committing terrorist acts. *Breaking into banks and businesses, protesting CEOs at their homes, burning cars.
> 
> You watch. It's coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt it's sad the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum use these occasions to rouse the passionate concerns of the rabble while the respective powers-that-be try to co-opt the message in order to spread their propaganda.
> 
> Just as the Tea Party cause had to repudiate any violence, so too shall the Occupy cause, if they really want to resonate with rational American voters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 'extremists' are at the center of OWS. There is an agenda at work here - and it is not the one that real Democrats support.
> 
> There was never any violence from the TEA Parties. There was media fueled bullshit and speculation about 'violence' but it never happened. Same with the racism bullcrap.
Click to expand...


You see a lot of violence from these protesters? 

I do know they say all over their web page and Facebook page they want to stay non violent. The only violence I have seen is from the Police, but I could be wrong.


----------



## California Girl

Luissa said:


> If you think most of those kids are down there because of George Soros, well you should be checked for stupidity.



They may not know that's why they're there.... but he's the guy behind it. Through his Watermelon Man, Van Jones.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> If you think most of those kids are down there because of George Soros, well you should be checked for stupidity.



I didn't say they went there because of sorros, I said sorros money has helped get them there and allowed them to stay there.

Huge difference.   Sorry that the protests are astro-turf, I know that bothers you.


----------



## Big Fitz

Big Fitz said:


> I was going to go to that site and do what you did.  LOL
> 
> He leaves tracks like a centipede if you're willing to look.


Here... Try THIS on for size?

Tides Foundation
Open Society Institute
Center for International Policy

These three are very tightly tied together and look who also shows up for the fun?

Tides Foundation large relationship map - Muckety


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think most of those kids are down there because of George Soros, well you should be checked for stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they went there because of sorros, I said sorros money has helped get them there and allowed them to stay there.
> 
> Huge difference.   Sorry that the protests are astro-turf, I know that bothers you.
Click to expand...


What bothers me, is that you are acting so brainless on this issue? You are making a big deal about the Tide Foundation donating "more than 170,000" since 1996 to one group that is involved in this, but I bet you gave a pass to the millions probably billions pumped into the Tea Party movement.
The only reason why you and Fitz have a problem with this, is because you don't agree with them.

And before you say you have a smoking gun post some bigger numbers.


----------



## mudwhistle

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that more than $170,000 since 1996 is paying all those people to be there?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation and Tides Center
> 
> 
> ^^^ your number is a bit off
> 
> 
> Oh yeah carnegie...sorry here you need to follow the money around to find sorros
> 
> Carnegie Corporation - Judgepedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the link you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adbusters is a group that would like to put an end to our society's materialism, even to the point of getting rid of television, automobiles, corporations, and refrigerators. Their organization receives money from their bi-monthly, $7.95 magazine, a book, and even a line of tennis shoes. They also have received more than $170,000 from the Tides Foundation since 1996.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Adjusters is the only group the article links the Tide Foundation to that has large involvement in Occupy Wall Street.
> 
> Do you want to compare what the Tea Party movement got from private donors?
Click to expand...


Go ahead...and list what country the donors are from.


----------



## Luissa

Big Fitz said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was going to go to that site and do what you did.  LOL
> 
> He leaves tracks like a centipede if you're willing to look.
> 
> 
> 
> Here... Try THIS on for size?
> 
> Tides Foundation
> Open Society Institute
> Center for International Policy
> 
> These three are very tightly tied together and look who also shows up for the fun?
> 
> Tides Foundation large relationship map - Muckety
Click to expand...

Did you have a problem with this?

The Billionaires Bankrolling the Tea Party - NYTimes.com



> The other major sponsor of the Tea Party movement is Dick Armeys FreedomWorks, which, like Americans for Prosperity, is promoting events in Washington this weekend. Under its original name, Citizens for a Sound Economy, FreedomWorks received $12 million of its own from Koch family foundations.




Sorros has less control over these kids, than the Koch brothers had over the Tea party movement. If you think differently, well you are an idiot.


----------



## Luissa

mudwhistle said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation and Tides Center
> 
> 
> ^^^ your number is a bit off
> 
> 
> Oh yeah carnegie...sorry here you need to follow the money around to find sorros
> 
> Carnegie Corporation - Judgepedia
> 
> 
> 
> From the link you posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adbusters is a group that would like to put an end to our society's materialism, even to the point of getting rid of television, automobiles, corporations, and refrigerators. Their organization receives money from their bi-monthly, $7.95 magazine, a book, and even a line of tennis shoes. They also have received more than $170,000 from the Tides Foundation since 1996.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Adjusters is the only group the article links the Tide Foundation to that has large involvement in Occupy Wall Street.
> 
> Do you want to compare what the Tea Party movement got from private donors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go ahead...and list what country the donors are from.
Click to expand...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Presented with facts and you just point to OTHER people's behavior and call people idiots.

If that is all you have is other people's behavior to detract from the obvious non-grassrootsness (new word) of these wall street protestors and insults then you really haven't countered the proof provided have you .


I'll give you your Koch brothers whatever because it doesn't matter.  Why?  Because it doesn't change a thing about what I said about these wall street protestors nor does calling people "idiots"


----------



## CMike

It's sounds like the Obama mantra.

They are against successful people because they exist.


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Presented with facts and you just point to OTHER people's behavior and call people idiots.
> 
> If that is all you have is other people's behavior to detract from the obvious non-grassrootsness (new word) of these wall street protestors and insults then you really haven't countered the proof provided have you .
> 
> 
> I'll give you your Koch brothers whatever because it doesn't matter.  Why?  Because it doesn't change a thing about what I said about these wall street protestors nor does calling people "idiots"



What have your proven? That one group has gotten money from The Tide Foundation over the last 15 years.

The original group only has $40,000 in bank, and has just recently set it up so they can receive larger donations. 
Occupy Wall Street Has $40K In The Bank And 'The Money Is Going To Start Rolling In Now'




> The youth behind the original movement are organized into factions or committees, including legal, medical, and finance, and they are pulling away from association with the union protest movement now. The people behind the original movement recognize that their strength is in their youth, and we found little evidence to confirm reports that they're not organized.
> They now have $40,000 in the bank, in an account at Amalgamated Bank.
> 
> 
> Read more: Occupy Wall Street Has $40K In The Bank And 'The Money Is Going To Start Rolling In Now'


----------



## Luissa

From the same article
"Until the credit union account was established, it wasn't possible to accept big donations."

Read more: Occupy Wall Street Has $40K In The Bank And 'The Money Is Going To Start Rolling In Now'


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

That this "movement" aka wall-street protests is not grass-roots but astroturf.

Thats what I claimed and backed up with facts.


----------



## Luissa

I also notice you didn't bring up the $4.6 million JP Morgan donated to the NYPD.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OWS is Obama's


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> That this "movement" aka wall-street protests is not grass-roots but astroturf.
> 
> Thats what I claimed and backed up with facts.



You proved the Adbusters received money from the Tide foundation, Occupy Wall Street is a completely different group.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> That this "movement" aka wall-street protests is not grass-roots but astroturf.
> 
> Thats what I claimed and backed up with facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You proved the Adjusters received money from the Tide foundation, Occupy Wall Street is a completely different group.
Click to expand...


Sure it is


----------



## Luissa

I guess you guys missed the part from my link where it stated the organization that just opened up a bank account called Occupy Wall Street wants to distance itself from the Unions. 
Go look at their Facebook page, all PP proved is the Adbusters got money from the Tide Foundation, not Occupy Wall Street.


----------



## Luissa

CrusaderFrank said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> That this "movement" aka wall-street protests is not grass-roots but astroturf.
> 
> Thats what I claimed and backed up with facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You proved the Adjusters received money from the Tide foundation, Occupy Wall Street is a completely different group.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is
Click to expand...


So by your logic, I can say that Fox donating money to the Republican Governors is the same to donating it to The Tea Party movement.


----------



## California Girl

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Presented with facts and you just point to OTHER people's behavior and call people idiots.
> 
> If that is all you have is other people's behavior to detract from the obvious non-grassrootsness (new word) of these wall street protestors and insults then you really haven't countered the proof provided have you .
> 
> 
> I'll give you your Koch brothers whatever because it doesn't matter.  Why?  Because it doesn't change a thing about what I said about these wall street protestors nor does calling people "idiots"



Apparently, we are supposed to believe that Watermelon Man's announcement about an 'October Offensive' and his conference (funded and attended by the Tides Foundation) just happened to coincide with this 'spontaneous' outburst of 'outrage' against Wall St. 

$20 bucks an hour.... I wouldn't pay stupid people $20 a week. Cannon fodder in a war for America... that's what these dupes are.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Luissa said:


> I guess you guys missed the part from my link where it stated the organization that just opened up a bank account called Occupy Wall Street wants to distance itself from the Unions.
> Go look at their Facebook page, all PP proved is the Adjusters got money from the Tide Foundation, not Occupy Wall Street.



Uh huh.

Sure they did.

They never even heard of Obama or SEIU!


----------



## Big Fitz

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> That this "movement" aka wall-street protests is not grass-roots but astroturf.
> 
> Thats what I claimed and backed up with facts.


The Occupados only 'grass roots' are the useful idiots down there looking to get laid.

"You're hot.  What're you protesting?"
"Corruption on Wall street!  Isn't changing the world hot?"
"Yeah baby.  Tell me about it.  So... you into free love too?"


----------



## CrusaderFrank

California Girl said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presented with facts and you just point to OTHER people's behavior and call people idiots.
> 
> If that is all you have is other people's behavior to detract from the obvious non-grassrootsness (new word) of these wall street protestors and insults then you really haven't countered the proof provided have you .
> 
> 
> I'll give you your Koch brothers whatever because it doesn't matter.  Why?  Because it doesn't change a thing about what I said about these wall street protestors nor does calling people "idiots"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, we are supposed to believe that Watermelon Man's announcement about an 'October Offensive' and his conference (funded and attended by the Tides Foundation) just happened to coincide with this 'spontaneous' outburst of 'outrage' against Wall St.
> 
> $20 bucks an hour.... I wouldn't pay stupid people $20 a week. Cannon fodder in a war for America... that's what these dupes are.
Click to expand...


Well, er, um, it's coincidence that Watermelon Man called for the offensives and the OWS had the exact same thought at the exact same time!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Luissa said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You proved the Adjusters received money from the Tide foundation, Occupy Wall Street is a completely different group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So by your logic, I can say that Fox donating money to the Republican Governors is the same to donating it to The Tea Party movement.
Click to expand...


You can say whatever you want, I won't be listening


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> I also notice you didn't bring up the $4.6 million JP Morgan donated to the NYPD.



because that doesn't relate to the wall street protests receiving funding from uber rich politically left leaning individuals and organizations.  

I try not to point to bad behavior in an effort to justify other bad behavior


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presented with facts and you just point to OTHER people's behavior and call people idiots.
> 
> If that is all you have is other people's behavior to detract from the obvious non-grassrootsness (new word) of these wall street protestors and insults then you really haven't countered the proof provided have you .
> 
> 
> I'll give you your Koch brothers whatever because it doesn't matter.  Why?  Because it doesn't change a thing about what I said about these wall street protestors nor does calling people "idiots"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What have your proven? That one group has gotten money from The Tide Foundation over the last 15 years.
> 
> The original group only has $40,000 in bank, and has just recently set it up so they can receive larger donations.
> Occupy Wall Street Has $40K In The Bank And 'The Money Is Going To Start Rolling In Now'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The youth behind the original movement are organized into factions or committees, including legal, medical, and finance, and they are pulling away from association with the union protest movement now. The people behind the original movement recognize that their strength is in their youth, and we found little evidence to confirm reports that they're not organized.
> They now have $40,000 in the bank, in an account at Amalgamated Bank.
> 
> 
> Read more: Occupy Wall Street Has $40K In The Bank And 'The Money Is Going To Start Rolling In Now'
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Tides Foundation Connected to Day of Rage Against Wall Street - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com



PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation Connected to Day of Rage Against Wall Street - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com   <----tides foundation receives a ton of money from Sorros.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that more than $170,000 since 1996 is paying all those people to be there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation and Tides Center
> 
> 
> ^^^ your number is a bit off
> 
> 
> Oh yeah carnegie...sorry here you need to follow the money around to find sorros
> 
> Carnegie Corporation - Judgepedia
Click to expand...


----------



## Luissa

I also want proof any of that $170,000 went to this movement. All it says is they have gotten that much since 1996.


----------



## Luissa

Big Fitz said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> That this "movement" aka wall-street protests is not grass-roots but astroturf.
> 
> Thats what I claimed and backed up with facts.
> 
> 
> 
> The Occupados only 'grass roots' are the useful idiots down there looking to get laid.
> 
> "You're hot.  What're you protesting?"
> "Corruption on Wall street!  Isn't changing the world hot?"
> "Yeah baby.  Tell me about it.  So... you into free love too?"
Click to expand...


Do either one of you even know the definition of grassroots? 


And do you consider the Tea Party movement to be grassroots?


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Presented with facts and you just point to OTHER people's behavior and call people idiots.
> 
> If that is all you have is other people's behavior to detract from the obvious non-grassrootsness (new word) of these wall street protestors and insults then you really haven't countered the proof provided have you .
> 
> 
> I'll give you your Koch brothers whatever because it doesn't matter.  Why?  Because it doesn't change a thing about what I said about these wall street protestors nor does calling people "idiots"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What have your proven? That one group has gotten money from The Tide Foundation over the last 15 years.
> 
> The original group only has $40,000 in bank, and has just recently set it up so they can receive larger donations.
> Occupy Wall Street Has $40K In The Bank And 'The Money Is Going To Start Rolling In Now'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation Connected to Day of Rage Against Wall Street - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that more than $170,000 since 1996 is paying all those people to be there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tides Foundation and Tides Center
> 
> 
> ^^^ your number is a bit off
> 
> 
> Oh yeah carnegie...sorry here you need to follow the money around to find sorros
> 
> Carnegie Corporation - Judgepedia
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I am still waiting for proof that the $170,000 they have donated over the last 15 years went to this event.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Luissa said:


> Do either one of you even know the definition of grassroots?



Pssssttttt....

SUEI and the AFL/CIO ain't "grass roots." Neither are the MoveOn.org funded dopers that were there the first couple days.




> And do you consider the Tea Party movement to be grassroots?



It was. It got co-opted once the Republicans figured out the popularity.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> That this "movement" aka wall-street protests is not grass-roots but astroturf.
> 
> Thats what I claimed and backed up with facts.
> 
> 
> 
> The Occupados only 'grass roots' are the useful idiots down there looking to get laid.
> 
> "You're hot.  What're you protesting?"
> "Corruption on Wall street!  Isn't changing the world hot?"
> "Yeah baby.  Tell me about it.  So... you into free love too?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do either one of you even know the definition of grassroots?
> 
> 
> And do you consider the Tea Party movement to be grassroots?
Click to expand...


go after the message not the messanger  

Unions getting bailouts supporting the events are not grassroots.
Organizing groups funded by billionairs like Sorros are not grassroots.


Parts of the teaparty are still grassroots just like when the teaparties started.  Some  others have been coopted by politicians and politically motivated people with money because they want to use the teaparties for their agenda.  This wall-street thing was funded with rich elite liberal money from the start unlike the teaparties, thats the difference.


----------



## Luissa

Uncensored2008 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do either one of you even know the definition of grassroots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pssssttttt....
> 
> SUEI and the AFL/CIO ain't "grass roots." Neither are the MoveOn.org funded dopers that were there the first couple days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And do you consider the Tea Party movement to be grassroots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was. It got co-opted once the Republicans figured out the popularity.
Click to expand...


You consider the Tea Party movement grassroots, but not Adbusters or Occupy Wall Street?
Okay, got it.


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Occupados only 'grass roots' are the useful idiots down there looking to get laid.
> 
> "You're hot.  What're you protesting?"
> "Corruption on Wall street!  Isn't changing the world hot?"
> "Yeah baby.  Tell me about it.  So... you into free love too?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do either one of you even know the definition of grassroots?
> 
> 
> And do you consider the Tea Party movement to be grassroots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> go after the message not the messanger
> 
> Unions getting bailouts supporting the events are not grassroots.
> Organizing groups funded by billionairs like Sorros are not grassroots.
Click to expand...

But organizing groups by the Koch brothers is? Well according Censored they are. 

But that still doesn't prove what the Adbusters and Occupy Wall Street have organized is not grass roots. 
I am still waiting for you to prove that $170,000 went to this event.


----------



## Luissa

All that has proven in this thread, is some you are partisan, and only have a problem with this because you dont agree with their politics.


----------



## California Girl

Luissa said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do either one of you even know the definition of grassroots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pssssttttt....
> 
> SUEI and the AFL/CIO ain't "grass roots." Neither are the MoveOn.org funded dopers that were there the first couple days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And do you consider the Tea Party movement to be grassroots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was. It got co-opted once the Republicans figured out the popularity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You consider the Tea Party movement grassroots, but not Adbusters or Occupy Wall Street?
> Okay, got it.
Click to expand...


On the day you can connect the founding of the TEA Parties - and I mean the real founding of the movement - not your 'it's because of Obama' bullshit... then you can compare the two.

Because we can link this 'spontaneous' movement directly to:

Watermelon Man Van Jones
George Soros
The Tides Foundation
SEIU

And that's just a few. 

This 'spontaneous' protest is part of Watermelon Man's 'October Offensive'. It just happened to coincide very nicely with their conference.

Do your research. Start with the now defunct 'STORM' movement.


----------



## Luissa

California Girl said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pssssttttt....
> 
> SUEI and the AFL/CIO ain't "grass roots." Neither are the MoveOn.org funded dopers that were there the first couple days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was. It got co-opted once the Republicans figured out the popularity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You consider the Tea Party movement grassroots, but not Adbusters or Occupy Wall Street?
> Okay, got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the day you can connect the founding of the TEA Parties - and I mean the real founding of the movement - not your 'it's because of Obama' bullshit... then you can compare the two.
> 
> Because we can link this 'spontaneous' movement directly to:
> 
> Watermelon Man Van Jones
> George Soros
> The Tides Foundation
> SEIU
> 
> And that's just a few.
> 
> This 'spontaneous' protest is part of Watermelon Man's 'October Offensive'. It just happened to coincide very nicely with their conference.
> 
> Do your research. Start with the now defunct 'STORM' movement.
Click to expand...


I did, I think you need to yours, and come up with more proof than $170,000. 

All you have proven is George Sorros has given money to the Tide Foundation, which has given 170,000 to Adbusters over the last 15 years. 
Still haven't seen proof Van Jones has had much to do with the initial planning or the SEIU.


And now we have another group, Occupy Wall Street that just set up a bank account, prove who is behind them.


----------



## GHook93

California Girl said:


> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?



A blissful Utopia where there is no crime, the air is clean, cars run on our waste products, dogs live in peace with cats, schools are filled with students, no kid gets picked last on the kickball field, drugs are free and plentiful, no famines, no evil corporations, no millionaires or billionaires and of course no Jews (the left ain't have them)! 

It would be just as Lenin predicted it would be for the USSR! Wait, what country are we talking about again?


----------



## Luissa

If you compare the two, both started out pretty much the same way, but I guess I can do the partisan thing and list all the groups they used in the beginning to get their message out there.

Like I said, do you guys know the definition of a grassroots movement?


----------



## Trajan

you know, if there is a 'whomever'..........whomever IS  behind it , better call in an order for some color....diversity whatever, they lookin' awfully pale to me.

 Jesse Hijackson or Al Sharkskin can fill that order quickly,  they have protesters standing by on speed dial.............pre-made signs etc...chants. 


It may be to late though, I am sure the media is all ovah dat...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do either one of you even know the definition of grassroots?
> 
> 
> And do you consider the Tea Party movement to be grassroots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> go after the message not the messanger
> 
> Unions getting bailouts supporting the events are not grassroots.
> Organizing groups funded by billionairs like Sorros are not grassroots.
> 
> Parts of the teaparty are still grassroots just like when the teaparties started. Some others have been coopted by politicians and politically motivated people with money because they want to use the teaparties for their agenda. This wall-street thing was funded with rich elite liberal money from the start unlike the teaparties, thats the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But organizing groups by the Koch brothers is? Well according Censored they are.
> 
> But that still doesn't prove what the Adbusters and Occupy Wall Street have organized is not grass roots.
> I am still waiting for you to prove that $170,000 went to this event.
Click to expand...


Since i've been kind enough to provide links for my claims would you mind linking this Koch brothers business for me.  I'll be honest I've never heard much about them other than when people want to give the tea party a hard time and I haven't put in an effort to look into them.  

And the money went to groups that helped organize the event...without the rich liberal elite fat-cat's money those groups would not have had the ability to organize this protest.


----------



## California Girl

Luissa said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You consider the Tea Party movement grassroots, but not Adbusters or Occupy Wall Street?
> Okay, got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the day you can connect the founding of the TEA Parties - and I mean the real founding of the movement - not your 'it's because of Obama' bullshit... then you can compare the two.
> 
> Because we can link this 'spontaneous' movement directly to:
> 
> Watermelon Man Van Jones
> George Soros
> The Tides Foundation
> SEIU
> 
> And that's just a few.
> 
> This 'spontaneous' protest is part of Watermelon Man's 'October Offensive'. It just happened to coincide very nicely with their conference.
> 
> Do your research. Start with the now defunct 'STORM' movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did, I think you need to yours, and come up with more proof than $170,000.
> 
> All you have proven is George Sorros has given money to the Tide Foundation, which has given 170,000 to Adbusters over the last 15 years.
> Still haven't seen proof Van Jones has had much to do with the initial planning or the SEIU.
> 
> 
> And now we have another group, Occupy Wall Street that just set up a bank account, prove who is behind them.
Click to expand...


Oh, Luissa. It is about more than tracing the money. It is about who is behind the whole ridiculous 'movement'. Now, you might find it fine and dandy to have these people running this country.... but some of us - a lot of us - do not. They don't want a Constitutional Republic. They want to destroy that and replace it... not with a huge bloodbath revolution - but with a step by step toppling of our system. These people are not Democrats, they are socialists. And they want a socialist republic to replace our Constitutional Republic. 

Read the damned list of demands. Where does that crap come from? It's ridiculous.... and I don't mean the $20 bucks an hour shit... I mean the real list. Read it and tell me that's logical.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Why do they have $40K in the bank when people are starving in Korea?

Why don't they redistribute their wealth?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> If you compare the two, both started out pretty much the same way, but I guess I can do the partisan thing and list all the groups they used in the beginning to get their message out there.
> 
> Like I said, do you guys know the definition of a grassroots movement?



They did not start the same way at all.

We never got any money to set up our tax day protests, later called the tea party, in april of 2009.  Nor did we have any well funded groups to help us that first day.   Money did not come into the tea party movement until well after the random protests all sprung up that april.

This wall street thing was organized from the beginning by groups, as evidenced in the links i already gave you, who receive money from billionaires and millionaires.   

Thats the difference.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Luissa said:


> If you compare the two, both started out pretty much the same way, but I guess I can do the partisan thing and list all the groups they used in the beginning to get their message out there.
> 
> Like I said, do you guys know the definition of a grassroots movement?



Van Jones started the Tea Party in response to Bush & Juan McCain Immigration push? Yeah?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Luissa said:


> You consider the Tea Party movement grassroots,



I consider you illiterate, given that I clearly wrote that it WAS grassroots prior to being co-opted. 



> but not Adbusters or Occupy Wall Street?



OWS openly state they are spun out of MoveOn. They're little Soros monkeys.




> Okay, got it.



I suppose you think dishonest is clever, as most leftists do?


----------



## Trajan

oops. anti semetic slurs!! nooo way!

]Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest [CLEAN VERSION] - YouTube



 I am sure we'll see replays of this moment on nbc abc cbs cnn mslsd etc....that darn wall st movement, bunch of rednecks..


----------



## California Girl

Trajan said:


> oops. anti semetic slurs!! nooo way!
> 
> ]Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest [CLEAN VERSION] - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure we'll see replays of this moment on nbc abc cbs cnn mslsd etc....that darn wall st movement, bunch of rednecks..



My gast.... it's totally flabbered.


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you compare the two, both started out pretty much the same way, but I guess I can do the partisan thing and list all the groups they used in the beginning to get their message out there.
> 
> Like I said, do you guys know the definition of a grassroots movement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did not start the same way at all.
> 
> We never got any money to set up our tax day protests, later called the tea party, in april of 2009.  Nor did we have any well funded groups to help us that first day.   Money did not come into the tea party movement until well after the random protests all sprung up that april.
> 
> This wall street thing was organized from the beginning by groups, as evidenced in the links i already gave you, who receive money from billionaires and millionaires.
> 
> Thats the difference.
Click to expand...


Really? Freedomworks was traced to the Tea Party in April 2009.

"FreedomWorks and dontGO seem to have taken ownership of the bulk of this coordination. The homepage of FreedomWorks' website now offers visitors a Google map of protests taking place across the country. They say they know of 600 Tax Day protests for which they are providing resources. The group has used its e-mail list to augment the work of dontGO, which created the website Patriot Action Network | We are united by our passion for re-establishing Constitution based liberty & limited government through dialogue,debate,legislation & elections. in February. dontGO, which was formed as an online rapid response team during the House of Representatives oil drilling debate last year, says it is "tracking" 700 events under its aegis. Americans for Prosperity says it has 24 state chapters that are organizing events. Overlap between all those numbers is quite likely: FreedomWorks told me a lot of its activity has been clueing its members to other protests in the area, so protesters can cooperate and conglomerate their events."
The Tea Party Movement: Who's In Charge? - Chris Good - Politics - The Atlantic


I already provided a link where it stated the Koch Brothers have donated 12 million to Freedom Works. 


"FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity both originated from a campaign called Citizens for a Sound Economy, which split in two in 2004. CSE was set up by businessman David Koch (Koch Industries).[3] Citizens for a Sound Economy merged with Empower America in 2004 and was renamed FreedomWorks, with Dick Armey, Jack Kemp and C. Boyden Gray serving as co-chairmen, Bill Bennett focusing on school choice as a Senior Fellow, and Matt Kibbe as President and CEO.[4][5][contradiction] Empower America was founded in 1993 by William Bennett, former Secretary of HUD Jack Kemp, former Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and former Representative Vin Weber.[6] In December 2006, Steve Forbes joined the board of directors.[7]
The Freedomworks name was derived from a common Armey saying: Freedom works. Freedom is good policy and good politics.

FreedomWorks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Luissa

California Girl said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> oops. anti semetic slurs!! nooo way!
> 
> ]Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest [CLEAN VERSION] - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure we'll see replays of this moment on nbc abc cbs cnn mslsd etc....that darn wall st movement, bunch of rednecks..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My gast.... it's totally flabbered.
Click to expand...


----------



## California Girl

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you compare the two, both started out pretty much the same way, but I guess I can do the partisan thing and list all the groups they used in the beginning to get their message out there.
> 
> Like I said, do you guys know the definition of a grassroots movement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did not start the same way at all.
> 
> We never got any money to set up our tax day protests, later called the tea party, in april of 2009.  Nor did we have any well funded groups to help us that first day.   Money did not come into the tea party movement until well after the random protests all sprung up that april.
> 
> This wall street thing was organized from the beginning by groups, as evidenced in the links i already gave you, who receive money from billionaires and millionaires.
> 
> Thats the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Freedomworks was traced to the Tea Party in April 2009.
> 
> "FreedomWorks and dontGO seem to have taken ownership of the bulk of this coordination. The homepage of FreedomWorks' website now offers visitors a Google map of protests taking place across the country. They say they know of 600 Tax Day protests for which they are providing resources. The group has used its e-mail list to augment the work of dontGO, which created the website Patriot Action Network*|*We are united by our passion for re-establishing Constitution based liberty & limited government through dialogue,debate,legislation & elections. in February. dontGO, which was formed as an online rapid response team during the House of Representatives oil drilling debate last year, says it is "tracking" 700 events under its aegis. Americans for Prosperity says it has 24 state chapters that are organizing events. Overlap between all those numbers is quite likely: FreedomWorks told me a lot of its activity has been clueing its members to other protests in the area, so protesters can cooperate and conglomerate their events."
> The Tea Party Movement: Who's In Charge? - Chris Good - Politics - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> I already provided a link where it stated the Koch Brothers have donated 12 million to Freedom Works.
> 
> 
> "FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity both originated from a campaign called Citizens for a Sound Economy, which split in two in 2004. CSE was set up by businessman David Koch (Koch Industries).[3] Citizens for a Sound Economy merged with Empower America in 2004 and was renamed FreedomWorks, with Dick Armey, Jack Kemp and C. Boyden Gray serving as co-chairmen, Bill Bennett focusing on school choice as a Senior Fellow, and Matt Kibbe as President and CEO.[4][5][contradiction] Empower America was founded in 1993 by William Bennett, former Secretary of HUD Jack Kemp, former Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and former Representative Vin Weber.[6] In December 2006, Steve Forbes joined the board of directors.[7]
> The Freedomworks name was derived from a common Armey saying: Freedom works. Freedom is good policy and good politics.
> 
> FreedomWorks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


But that's a couple of years after the orginal TEA Parties started.


----------



## Dragon

If you want to know where OWS is really coming from, read this article by Ezra Klein:

Who are the 99 percent? - The Washington Post



			
				Ezra Klein said:
			
		

> I did everything I was supposed to and I have nothing to show for it.
> 
> Its not the arrests that convinced me that Occupy Wall Street was worth covering seriously. Nor was it their press strategy, which largely consisted of tweeting journalists to cover a small protest that couldnt say what, exactly, it hoped to achieve. It was a Tumblr called, We Are The 99 Percent, and all its doing is posting grainy pictures of people holding handwritten signs telling their stories, one after the other.
> 
> I am 20K in debt and am paying out of pocket for my current tuition while I start paying back loans with two part time jobs.
> 
> These are not rants against the system. Theyre not anarchist manifestos. Theyre not calls for a revolution. Theyre small stories of people who played by the rules, did what they were told, and now have nothing to show for it. Or, worse, they have tens of thousands in debt to show for it.
> 
> I am a 28 year old female with debt that had to give up her apartment + pet because I have no money and I owe over $30,000.
> 
> College debt shows up a lot in these stories, actually. Its more insistently present than housing debt, or even unemployment. That might speak to the fact that the protests tilt towards the young. But it also speaks, I think, to the fact that college debt represents a special sort of betrayal. We told you that the way to get ahead in America was to get educated. You did it. And now you find yourself in the same place, but buried under debt. You were lied to.
> 
> Married mother of 3. Lost my job in 2009. My family lost our health insurance, our savings, our home, and our good credit. After 16 months, I found a job -- with a 90 mile commute and a 25 percent pay cut. After gas, tolls, daycare, and the cost of health insurance, i was paying so my kids had access to health care.
> 
> Lets be clear. This isnt really the 99 percent. If youre in the 85th percentile, for instance, your household is making more than $100,000, and youre probably doing okay. If youre in the 95th percentile, your household is making more than $150,000. But then, these protests really arent about Wall Street, either. Theres not a lot of evidence that these people want a class war, or even particularly punitive measures on the rich. The only thing thats clear from their missives is that they want the economy to start working for them, too.
> 
> I am young. I am educated and hard working. I am not able to pay my bills. I am afraid of what the future holds.
> 
> I dont imagine that too many members of, say, the 97th percentile are writing in to this Web site. But imagine yourself as a young person who took out loans to go to college, got good grades, and has graduated into an economy that doesnt seem to want you. You did everything you were told to do, and it didnt work out. That hurts, of course, but its a bad economy, and everybody is suffering. At least, thats what they say.
> 
> i am a 19 year old student with 18 credit hours and 2 part time jobs. i am over 4000 dollars in debt but my paychecks are just enough to get me to school and back. next year my plan was to attend a 4 year college and get my bfa, but now i am afraid that without a co-signer i will have no shot at a loan and even if i can get a loan i am afraid that i will leave college with no future and a crippling debt.
> 
> But you look around and the reality is not everyone is suffering. Wall Street caused this mess, and the government paid off their debts and helped them rake in record profits in recent years. The top 1 percent account for 24 percent of the nations income and 40 percent of its wealth. There are a lot of people who dont seem to be doing everything theyre supposed to do, and it seems to be working out just fine for them.
> 
> I went to graduate school believing that there might be some financial security afforded by a higher degree, and that with that security I could finally buy my mom her own house and take care of her. Instead, I have wasted six years of my life.
> 
> Perhaps thats part of the reason that the movement doesnt have clear demands. Its easy to explain how to punish the rich. You can tax them, or regulate their activities. Its a bit hard to say how to make the economy work better for average people. Theres an intuition out there that part of the reason its not working better is that the rich hold too much political power, and so theres a clear desire to reduce that political power, but its not clear how far that actually gets you in terms of bringing wages up.
> 
> I am a 27 year old with a bachelor degree. I ran out of my student loans while trying to find a job. I am living with my mother again to get back on my feet. So far, the best I can do is a part time retail job paying $8 an hour. I am hearing impaired with cochlear implant. My cochlear implant warranty expired. I do not have the money to renew it. How can I work at my new minimum wage job when my implant is broken? I need it to HEAR.
> 
> But this is why Im taking Occupy Wall Street -- or, perhaps more specifically, the We Are The 99 Percent movement -- seriously. There are a lot of people who are getting an unusually raw deal right now. There is a small group of people who are getting an unusually good deal right now. That doesnt sound to me like a stable equilibrium.
> 
> The organizers of Occupy Wall Street are fighting to upend the system. But what gives their movement the potential for power and potency is the masses who just want the system to work the way they were promised it would work. Its not that 99 percent of Americans are really struggling. Its not that 99 percent of Americans want a revolution. Its that 99 percent of Americans sense that the fundamental bargain of our economy -- work hard, play by the rules, get ahead -- has been broken, and they want to see it restored.



There is the real source of OWS: the widespread perception, based in solid truth, that the fundamental bargain of our economy is broken, and that working hard and playing by the rules are not sufficient to get ahead, and that the government works for the 1%, not the 99%. There is really no need to look for any other explanation.

Those of you who do seem to be making incredible leaps of logic in pointing to Obama or Van Jones or George Soros or whoever (you don't seem able to agree on the real power behind it all, which itself is indicative that you don't know what you're talking about) as the sinister mastermind behind all of these thousands of people emerging into the streets. For you, it seems enough that someone has voiced support for the movement, or contributed money to it, or expressed a desire that something like this happen, to conclude that here is the driving force. The complete irrationality of that thinking escapes you, because this is something you very much want to believe. The alternative -- that a grass-roots left-leaning movement of this size and persistence has actually arisen -- is simply too frightening.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Luissa said:


>



Leftism, Antisemitism - Siamese Twins.....


----------



## Luissa

California Girl said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did not start the same way at all.
> 
> We never got any money to set up our tax day protests, later called the tea party, in april of 2009.  Nor did we have any well funded groups to help us that first day.   Money did not come into the tea party movement until well after the random protests all sprung up that april.
> 
> This wall street thing was organized from the beginning by groups, as evidenced in the links i already gave you, who receive money from billionaires and millionaires.
> 
> Thats the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Freedomworks was traced to the Tea Party in April 2009.
> 
> "FreedomWorks and dontGO seem to have taken ownership of the bulk of this coordination. The homepage of FreedomWorks' website now offers visitors a Google map of protests taking place across the country. They say they know of 600 Tax Day protests for which they are providing resources. The group has used its e-mail list to augment the work of dontGO, which created the website Patriot Action Network*|*We are united by our passion for re-establishing Constitution based liberty & limited government through dialogue,debate,legislation & elections. in February. dontGO, which was formed as an online rapid response team during the House of Representatives oil drilling debate last year, says it is "tracking" 700 events under its aegis. Americans for Prosperity says it has 24 state chapters that are organizing events. Overlap between all those numbers is quite likely: FreedomWorks told me a lot of its activity has been clueing its members to other protests in the area, so protesters can cooperate and conglomerate their events."
> The Tea Party Movement: Who's In Charge? - Chris Good - Politics - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> I already provided a link where it stated the Koch Brothers have donated 12 million to Freedom Works.
> 
> 
> "FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity both originated from a campaign called Citizens for a Sound Economy, which split in two in 2004. CSE was set up by businessman David Koch (Koch Industries).[3] Citizens for a Sound Economy merged with Empower America in 2004 and was renamed FreedomWorks, with Dick Armey, Jack Kemp and C. Boyden Gray serving as co-chairmen, Bill Bennett focusing on school choice as a Senior Fellow, and Matt Kibbe as President and CEO.[4][5][contradiction] Empower America was founded in 1993 by William Bennett, former Secretary of HUD Jack Kemp, former Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and former Representative Vin Weber.[6] In December 2006, Steve Forbes joined the board of directors.[7]
> The Freedomworks name was derived from a common Armey saying: Freedom works. Freedom is good policy and good politics.
> 
> FreedomWorks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's a couple of years after the orginal TEA Parties started.
Click to expand...

I was responding to this statement by him 





> We never got any money to set up our tax day protests, later called the tea party, in april of 2009. Nor did we have any well funded groups to help us that first day. Money did not come into the tea party movement until well after the random protests all sprung up that april.


 

I think PP should do a little research about the Tea Party movement.


----------



## Luissa

It would seem in 2009, the tea party movement had more money than OWS.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> If you want to know where OWS is really coming from, read this article by Ezra Klein:
> 
> Who are the 99 percent? - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ezra Klein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did everything I was supposed to and I have nothing to show for it.
> 
> Its not the arrests that convinced me that Occupy Wall Street was worth covering seriously. Nor was it their press strategy, which largely consisted of tweeting journalists to cover a small protest that couldnt say what, exactly, it hoped to achieve. It was a Tumblr called, We Are The 99 Percent, and all its doing is posting grainy pictures of people holding handwritten signs telling their stories, one after the other.
> 
> I am 20K in debt and am paying out of pocket for my current tuition while I start paying back loans with two part time jobs.
> 
> These are not rants against the system. Theyre not anarchist manifestos. Theyre not calls for a revolution. Theyre small stories of people who played by the rules, did what they were told, and now have nothing to show for it. Or, worse, they have tens of thousands in debt to show for it.
> 
> I am a 28 year old female with debt that had to give up her apartment + pet because I have no money and I owe over $30,000.
> 
> College debt shows up a lot in these stories, actually. Its more insistently present than housing debt, or even unemployment. That might speak to the fact that the protests tilt towards the young. But it also speaks, I think, to the fact that college debt represents a special sort of betrayal. We told you that the way to get ahead in America was to get educated. You did it. And now you find yourself in the same place, but buried under debt. You were lied to.
> 
> Married mother of 3. Lost my job in 2009. My family lost our health insurance, our savings, our home, and our good credit. After 16 months, I found a job -- with a 90 mile commute and a 25 percent pay cut. After gas, tolls, daycare, and the cost of health insurance, i was paying so my kids had access to health care.
> 
> Lets be clear. This isnt really the 99 percent. If youre in the 85th percentile, for instance, your household is making more than $100,000, and youre probably doing okay. If youre in the 95th percentile, your household is making more than $150,000. But then, these protests really arent about Wall Street, either. Theres not a lot of evidence that these people want a class war, or even particularly punitive measures on the rich. The only thing thats clear from their missives is that they want the economy to start working for them, too.
> 
> I am young. I am educated and hard working. I am not able to pay my bills. I am afraid of what the future holds.
> 
> I dont imagine that too many members of, say, the 97th percentile are writing in to this Web site. But imagine yourself as a young person who took out loans to go to college, got good grades, and has graduated into an economy that doesnt seem to want you. You did everything you were told to do, and it didnt work out. That hurts, of course, but its a bad economy, and everybody is suffering. At least, thats what they say.
> 
> i am a 19 year old student with 18 credit hours and 2 part time jobs. i am over 4000 dollars in debt but my paychecks are just enough to get me to school and back. next year my plan was to attend a 4 year college and get my bfa, but now i am afraid that without a co-signer i will have no shot at a loan and even if i can get a loan i am afraid that i will leave college with no future and a crippling debt.
> 
> But you look around and the reality is not everyone is suffering. Wall Street caused this mess, and the government paid off their debts and helped them rake in record profits in recent years. The top 1 percent account for 24 percent of the nations income and 40 percent of its wealth. There are a lot of people who dont seem to be doing everything theyre supposed to do, and it seems to be working out just fine for them.
> 
> I went to graduate school believing that there might be some financial security afforded by a higher degree, and that with that security I could finally buy my mom her own house and take care of her. Instead, I have wasted six years of my life.
> 
> Perhaps thats part of the reason that the movement doesnt have clear demands. Its easy to explain how to punish the rich. You can tax them, or regulate their activities. Its a bit hard to say how to make the economy work better for average people. Theres an intuition out there that part of the reason its not working better is that the rich hold too much political power, and so theres a clear desire to reduce that political power, but its not clear how far that actually gets you in terms of bringing wages up.
> 
> I am a 27 year old with a bachelor degree. I ran out of my student loans while trying to find a job. I am living with my mother again to get back on my feet. So far, the best I can do is a part time retail job paying $8 an hour. I am hearing impaired with cochlear implant. My cochlear implant warranty expired. I do not have the money to renew it. How can I work at my new minimum wage job when my implant is broken? I need it to HEAR.
> 
> But this is why Im taking Occupy Wall Street -- or, perhaps more specifically, the We Are The 99 Percent movement -- seriously. There are a lot of people who are getting an unusually raw deal right now. There is a small group of people who are getting an unusually good deal right now. That doesnt sound to me like a stable equilibrium.
> 
> The organizers of Occupy Wall Street are fighting to upend the system. But what gives their movement the potential for power and potency is the masses who just want the system to work the way they were promised it would work. Its not that 99 percent of Americans are really struggling. Its not that 99 percent of Americans want a revolution. Its that 99 percent of Americans sense that the fundamental bargain of our economy -- work hard, play by the rules, get ahead -- has been broken, and they want to see it restored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is the real source of OWS: the widespread perception, based in solid truth, that the fundamental bargain of our economy is broken, and that working hard and playing by the rules are not sufficient to get ahead, and that the government works for the 1%, not the 99%. There is really no need to look for any other explanation.
> 
> Those of you who do seem to be making incredible leaps of logic in pointing to Obama or Van Jones or George Soros or whoever (you don't seem able to agree on the real power behind it all, which itself is indicative that you don't know what you're talking about) as the sinister mastermind behind all of these thousands of people emerging into the streets. For you, it seems enough that someone has voiced support for the movement, or contributed money to it, or expressed a desire that something like this happen, to conclude that here is the driving force. The complete irrationality of that thinking escapes you, because this is something you very much want to believe. The alternative -- that a grass-roots left-leaning movement of this size and persistence has actually arisen -- is simply too frightening.
Click to expand...


  Ezra Klein.... you sure you want to use him as your source? You might want to check his links to Soros, Watermelon Man, et al, before you hold him up as an independent source.


----------



## Luissa

So it seems the Tea Party movement, and according to PP the Adbusters and OWS have a lot in common.

They started out as grass roots, and both started going after the big guns to get national attention.


----------



## mudwhistle

Luissa said:


> If you compare the two, both started out pretty much the same way, but I guess I can do the partisan thing and list all the groups they used in the beginning to get their message out there.
> 
> Like I said, do you guys know the definition of a grassroots movement?



I know what astroturf is. 

Yes, you're the smartest fucker here. 

The rest of us knuckle-draggers and mouth-breathers are too distracted by shiny objects to know what you know. 

It must be tough having all that knowledge and nobody else able to speak to on your level. 

It's like Einstein trying to relate to the retarded.


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> Ezra Klein.... you sure you want to use him as your source? You might want to check his links to Soros, Watermelon Man, et al, before you hold him up as an independent source.



I do not present anyone as an authority, because I am not an authoritarian thinker. To do so would be _argumentum ad autoritandem_, a logical fallacy. What you have presented in this post is _argumentum ad hominem_, another logical fallacy.

Everyone's statements must be evaluated for what they are saying and whether it is true or false, without regard for who they are or what their connections may be. Neither Ezra Klein nor anyone else should be believed without question -- or dismissed without consideration.

Do you have any criticism if what he said, as opposed to who he is? That is, do you have anything to say that is not a logical fallacy?


----------



## mudwhistle

L...your act is getting boring.


----------



## Luissa

mudwhistle said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you compare the two, both started out pretty much the same way, but I guess I can do the partisan thing and list all the groups they used in the beginning to get their message out there.
> 
> Like I said, do you guys know the definition of a grassroots movement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what astroturf is.
> 
> Yes, you're the smartest fucker here.
> 
> The rest of us knuckle-draggers and mouth-breathers are too distracted by shiny objects to know what you know.
> 
> It must be tough having all that knowledge and nobody else able to speak to on your level.
> 
> It's like Einstein trying to relate to the retarded.
Click to expand...

They also used astroturfing when referring to the Tea Party. 

Both sides are always going to try to knock down the others "movement".


----------



## Luissa

mudwhistle said:


> L...your act is getting boring.



Pointing out the hypocrisy of some is boring to you? good to know


----------



## Uncensored2008

California Girl said:


> Ezra Klein.... you sure you want to use him as your source? You might want to check his links to Soros, Watermelon Man, et al, before you hold him up as an independent source.



Abby Hoffman ain't around and Charlie Manson is tied up, so Ezra will have to do...


----------



## Si modo

So, now this 'movement' is a grassroots one?

No.  Really?

That's some funny shit.


----------



## Luissa

Si modo said:


> So, now this 'movement' is a grassroots one?
> 
> No.  Really?
> 
> That's some funny shit.



It is just as grass roots as the Tea Party 2009 Tax Day protests.


----------



## Si modo

This 'movement' seems to tolerate racists, homophobes, and anti-semites.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aqv7TYSM0]Danny Cline is Lotion Man - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## WillowTree

So the marcher asswipes want the taxpayers to put them through college so they can graduate and make $20 an hour for being unemployed. Am I hearing this right?


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ezra Klein.... you sure you want to use him as your source? You might want to check his links to Soros, Watermelon Man, et al, before you hold him up as an independent source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not present anyone as an authority, because I am not an authoritarian thinker. To do so would be _argumentum ad autoritandem_, a logical fallacy. What you have presented in this post is _argumentum ad hominem_, another logical fallacy.
> 
> Everyone's statements must be evaluated for what they are saying and whether it is true or false, without regard for who they are or what their connections may be. Neither Ezra Klein nor anyone else should be believed without question -- or dismissed without consideration.
> 
> Do you have any criticism if what he said, as opposed to who he is? That is, do you have anything to say that is not a logical fallacy?
Click to expand...


The validity of what he says depends on who he is and his reputation. 

Like Obama, if he has a reputation for being dishonest then what he says is Bullshit.


----------



## WillowTree

Si modo said:


> This 'movement' seems to tolerate racists, homophobes, and anti-semites.
> 
> Danny Cline is Lotion Man - YouTube



They say the N word in sophisticated New Yawk? does them? 








must be South New Yawk.. huh?


----------



## Si modo

WillowTree said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This 'movement' seems to tolerate racists, homophobes, and anti-semites.
> 
> Danny Cline is Lotion Man - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They say the N word in sophisticated New Yawk? does them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> must be South New Yawk.. huh?
Click to expand...

The word is racist only when they feel like making it racist, now.

That's tragic, IMO.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ezra Klein.... you sure you want to use him as your source? You might want to check his links to Soros, Watermelon Man, et al, before you hold him up as an independent source.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not present anyone as an authority, because I am not an authoritarian thinker. To do so would be _argumentum ad autoritandem_, a logical fallacy. What you have presented in this post is _argumentum ad hominem_, another logical fallacy.
> 
> Everyone's statements must be evaluated for what they are saying and whether it is true or false, without regard for who they are or what their connections may be. Neither Ezra Klein nor anyone else should be believed without question -- or dismissed without consideration.
> 
> Do you have any criticism if what he said, as opposed to who he is? That is, do you have anything to say that is not a logical fallacy?
Click to expand...


It's sweet of you to explain the Latin.... but there is no need. I know my Latin too. Unlike you, I feel no need to make myself look intelligent. I rely on the fact that I am intelligent without having try. 

I have neither the time nor the inclination to read the 'wisdom' of a left wing 'thinker' on a demonstrably leftist 'spontaneous' movement. I have no interest.

What interests me is the bullshit about the nature of the protests, the comparison between these protests and the genuine Arab uprisings, the 'demands' that reach beyond our shores to making global demands, who's behind the protests and what is their agenda.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> This 'movement' seems to tolerate racists, homophobes, and anti-semites.
> 
> Danny Cline is Lotion Man - YouTube



Tolerates them as opposed to what, taking them out and shooting them? How exactly would you suggest that this individual not be "tolerated"?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Luissa said:


> Pointing out the hypocrisy of some is boring to you? good to know



HYPOCRISY???  


When the Tea Party protests bail out of Obama's owners over at Goldman Sachs,  why they are RACIST and ONLY for the rich... Vilified by the party media of MSNBC, CNN and A-N-B-CBS as hate filled white people..

But when Moveon dopers are joined by Union goons and protest the same bail out - WHY THEY ARE WONDERFUL and the party media fawns about how brave they are to take a stand...


Fucking hypocrisy alright;

There is NO hypocrisy like demopocrisy.

WILL the extreme left be able to successfully steal the ideas and momentum from the Tea Party? The Union goons and the party media are doing their best to make it that way.


----------



## WillowTree

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This 'movement' seems to tolerate racists, homophobes, and anti-semites.
> 
> Danny Cline is Lotion Man - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerates them as opposed to what, taking them out and shooting them? How exactly would you suggest that this individual not be "tolerated"?
Click to expand...


It's just so damn good to see that the New Yawk Yankees tolerate racism and bigotry.. 


I expect Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson to get in there and put a stop to this bullshit. Think they will?


----------



## Luissa

Si modo said:


> This 'movement' seems to tolerate racists, homophobes, and anti-semites.
> 
> Danny Cline is Lotion Man - YouTube



Why do you guys keep posting the same guy? is he all you have?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

"CrusaderFrank,

Occupy Wall Street is spreading like wildfire. There are now supportive groups for the protests in over 250 communities in the United States and Canada.

Almost wherever you live, there is an Occupy Wall Street group near you. Many of these groups have already started their own local protests, while the others are planning upcoming events.

Daily Kos is joining with SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, to help grow this new movement of the 99%. We need to let the 1% know that we will no longer be silent in the face of the economic pain they continue to inflict on everyone else."

Yeah, SEIU and Kos are "Grass roots"

Uh huh


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This 'movement' seems to tolerate racists, homophobes, and anti-semites.
> 
> Danny Cline is Lotion Man - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerates them as opposed to what, taking them out and shooting them? How exactly would you suggest that this individual not be "tolerated"?
Click to expand...

Hmmm.  I've been to many protests, many.  Every time anyone said anything off-color about a group of persons, the crowd immediately admonished them, shunned them, drowned them out, etc.

Are you really that helpless?  What sort of activist are you?

So far, this guy has several vids on Youtube and not a single one of his brethern have done anything at all.


----------



## Luissa

Uncensored2008 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out the hypocrisy of some is boring to you? good to know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HYPOCRISY???
> 
> 
> When the Tea Party protests bail out of Obama's owners over at Goldman Sachs,  why they are RACIST and ONLY for the rich... Vilified by the party media of MSNBC, CNN and A-N-B-CBS as hate filled white people..
> 
> But when Moveon dopers are joined by Union goons and protest the same bail out - WHY THEY ARE WONDERFUL and the party media fawns about how brave they are to take a stand...
> 
> 
> Fucking hypocrisy alright;
> 
> There is NO hypocrisy like demopocrisy.
> 
> WILL the extreme left be able to successfully steal the ideas and momentum from the Tea Party? The Union goons and the party media are doing their best to make it that way.
Click to expand...

You do realize the Bank Bailout bill was passed before Obama was even elected, right?


----------



## Luissa

CrusaderFrank said:


> "CrusaderFrank,
> 
> Occupy Wall Street is spreading like wildfire. There are now supportive groups for the protests in over 250 communities in the United States and Canada.
> 
> Almost wherever you live, there is an Occupy Wall Street group near you. Many of these groups have already started their own local protests, while the others are planning upcoming events.
> 
> Daily Kos is joining with SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, to help grow this new movement of the 99%. We need to let the 1% know that we will no longer be silent in the face of the economic pain they continue to inflict on everyone else."
> 
> Yeah, SEIU and Kos are "Grass roots"
> 
> Uh huh



Most of the organizing is on Facebook.


----------



## WillowTree

CrusaderFrank said:


> "CrusaderFrank,
> 
> Occupy Wall Street is spreading like wildfire. There are now supportive groups for the protests in over 250 communities in the United States and Canada.
> 
> Almost wherever you live, there is an Occupy Wall Street group near you. Many of these groups have already started their own local protests, while the others are planning upcoming events.
> 
> Daily Kos is joining with SEIU, the Service Employees International Union, to help grow this new movement of the 99%. We need to let the 1% know that we will no longer be silent in the face of the economic pain they continue to inflict on everyone else."
> 
> Yeah, SEIU and Kos are "Grass roots"
> 
> Uh huh










well Frank have they told us yet what they intend to replace capitalism and corporations with? Who will pay for their gargantuan sugar tits?


----------



## Si modo

Luissa said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This 'movement' seems to tolerate racists, homophobes, and anti-semites.
> 
> Danny Cline is Lotion Man - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you guys keep posting the same guy? is he all you have?
Click to expand...

He is a great example of the absolute lack of any activism by the 'activists' toward what he represents.

Embarassed?  I am.


----------



## WillowTree

Luissa said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out the hypocrisy of some is boring to you? good to know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HYPOCRISY???
> 
> 
> When the Tea Party protests bail out of Obama's owners over at Goldman Sachs,  why they are RACIST and ONLY for the rich... Vilified by the party media of MSNBC, CNN and A-N-B-CBS as hate filled white people..
> 
> But when Moveon dopers are joined by Union goons and protest the same bail out - WHY THEY ARE WONDERFUL and the party media fawns about how brave they are to take a stand...
> 
> 
> Fucking hypocrisy alright;
> 
> There is NO hypocrisy like demopocrisy.
> 
> WILL the extreme left be able to successfully steal the ideas and momentum from the Tea Party? The Union goons and the party media are doing their best to make it that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do realize the Bank Bailout bill was passed before Obama was even elected, right?
Click to expand...


so it is your dumbass position now to state that obie doodle didn't bail out any banks?


----------



## Oldstyle

Dragon said:


> If you want to know where OWS is really coming from, read this article by Ezra Klein:
> 
> Who are the 99 percent? - The Washington Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ezra Klein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> &#8220;I did everything I was supposed to and I have nothing to show for it.&#8221;
> 
> It&#8217;s not the arrests that convinced me that &#8220;Occupy Wall Street&#8221; was worth covering seriously. Nor was it their press strategy, which largely consisted of tweeting journalists to cover a small protest that couldn&#8217;t say what, exactly, it hoped to achieve. It was a Tumblr called, &#8220;We Are The 99 Percent,&#8221; and all it&#8217;s doing is posting grainy pictures of people holding handwritten signs telling their stories, one after the other.
> 
> &#8220;I am 20K in debt and am paying out of pocket for my current tuition while I start paying back loans with two part time jobs.&#8221;
> 
> These are not rants against the system. They&#8217;re not anarchist manifestos. They&#8217;re not calls for a revolution. They&#8217;re small stories of people who played by the rules, did what they were told, and now have nothing to show for it. Or, worse, they have tens of thousands in debt to show for it.
> 
> &#8220;I am a 28 year old female with debt that had to give up her apartment + pet because I have no money and I owe over $30,000.&#8221;
> 
> College debt shows up a lot in these stories, actually. It&#8217;s more insistently present than housing debt, or even unemployment. That might speak to the fact that the protests tilt towards the young. But it also speaks, I think, to the fact that college debt represents a special sort of betrayal. We told you that the way to get ahead in America was to get educated. You did it. And now you find yourself in the same place, but buried under debt. You were lied to.
> 
> &#8220;Married mother of 3. Lost my job in 2009. My family lost our health insurance, our savings, our home, and our good credit. After 16 months, I found a job -- with a 90 mile commute and a 25 percent pay cut. After gas, tolls, daycare, and the cost of health insurance, i was paying so my kids had access to health care.&#8221;
> 
> Let&#8217;s be clear. This isn&#8217;t really the 99 percent. If you&#8217;re in the 85th percentile, for instance, your household is making more than $100,000, and you&#8217;re probably doing okay. If you&#8217;re in the 95th percentile, your household is making more than $150,000. But then, these protests really aren&#8217;t about Wall Street, either. There&#8217;s not a lot of evidence that these people want a class war, or even particularly punitive measures on the rich. The only thing that&#8217;s clear from their missives is that they want the economy to start working for them, too.
> 
> &#8220;I am young. I am educated and hard working. I am not able to pay my bills. I am afraid of what the future holds.&#8221;
> 
> I don&#8217;t imagine that too many members of, say, the 97th percentile are writing in to this Web site. But imagine yourself as a young person who took out loans to go to college, got good grades, and has graduated into an economy that doesn&#8217;t seem to want you. You did everything you were told to do, and it didn&#8217;t work out. That hurts, of course, but it&#8217;s a bad economy, and everybody is suffering. At least, that&#8217;s what they say.
> 
> &#8220;i am a 19 year old student with 18 credit hours and 2 part time jobs. i am over 4000 dollars in debt but my paychecks are just enough to get me to school and back. next year my plan was to attend a 4 year college and get my bfa, but now i am afraid that without a co-signer i will have no shot at a loan and even if i can get a loan i am afraid that i will leave college with no future and a crippling debt.&#8221;
> 
> But you look around and the reality is not everyone is suffering. Wall Street caused this mess, and the government paid off their debts and helped them rake in record profits in recent years. The top 1 percent account for 24 percent of the nation&#8217;s income and 40 percent of its wealth. There are a lot of people who don&#8217;t seem to be doing everything they&#8217;re supposed to do, and it seems to be working out just fine for them.
> 
> &#8220;I went to graduate school believing that there might be some financial security afforded by a higher degree, and that with that security I could finally buy my mom her own house and take care of her. Instead, I have wasted six years of my life.&#8221;
> 
> Perhaps that&#8217;s part of the reason that the movement doesn&#8217;t have clear demands. It&#8217;s easy to explain how to punish the rich. You can tax them, or regulate their activities. It&#8217;s a bit hard to say how to make the economy work better for average people. There&#8217;s an intuition out there that part of the reason it&#8217;s not working better is that the rich hold too much political power, and so there&#8217;s a clear desire to reduce that political power, but it&#8217;s not clear how far that actually gets you in terms of bringing wages up.
> 
> &#8220;I am a 27 year old with a bachelor degree. I ran out of my student loans while trying to find a job. I am &#8216;living&#8217; with my mother again to get back on my feet. So far, the best I can do is a part time retail job paying $8 an hour. I am hearing impaired with cochlear implant. My cochlear implant warranty expired. I do not have the money to renew it. How can I work at my new minimum wage job when my implant is broken? I need it to HEAR.&#8221;
> 
> But this is why I&#8217;m taking Occupy Wall Street -- or, perhaps more specifically, the &#8216;We Are The 99 Percent&#8217; movement -- seriously. There are a lot of people who are getting an unusually raw deal right now. There is a small group of people who are getting an unusually good deal right now. That doesn&#8217;t sound to me like a stable equilibrium.
> 
> The organizers of Occupy Wall Street are fighting to upend the system. But what gives their movement the potential for power and potency is the masses who just want the system to work the way they were promised it would work. It&#8217;s not that 99 percent of Americans are really struggling. It&#8217;s not that 99 percent of Americans want a revolution. It&#8217;s that 99 percent of Americans sense that the fundamental bargain of our economy -- work hard, play by the rules, get ahead -- has been broken, and they want to see it restored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is the real source of OWS: the widespread perception, based in solid truth, that the fundamental bargain of our economy is broken, and that working hard and playing by the rules are not sufficient to get ahead, and that the government works for the 1%, not the 99%. There is really no need to look for any other explanation.
> 
> Those of you who do seem to be making incredible leaps of logic in pointing to Obama or Van Jones or George Soros or whoever (you don't seem able to agree on the real power behind it all, which itself is indicative that you don't know what you're talking about) as the sinister mastermind behind all of these thousands of people emerging into the streets. For you, it seems enough that someone has voiced support for the movement, or contributed money to it, or expressed a desire that something like this happen, to conclude that here is the driving force. The complete irrationality of that thinking escapes you, because this is something you very much want to believe. The alternative -- that a grass-roots left-leaning movement of this size and persistence has actually arisen -- is simply too frightening.
Click to expand...


The problem, Dragon...is that this Administration doesn't work for the 1% or the 99%.  They are trying to pass or have passed legislation that is killing the economy and putting people out of work.

What is it that the OWS activists are calling for that you think will improve the economy?  I'm not asking you for pie in the sky generalities here...I'm asking you for specifics.  I don't think these protesters have a single idea that will solve any of our problems.  Instead they're asking for handouts for themselves because they perceive that someone else made money while they didn't.  Well I'm sorry but that doesn't fix the economy it simply makes things worse.

There is a reason why the organizers of OWS pulled those demands down off their website.  They know EXACTLY how petty they look when instead of suggesting fixes to our problems, their activists demanded a Christmas list of entitlements for themselves.


----------



## Mr. Jones

_While I fully endorse the efforts and actions of the Occupy Wall Street protests, now emerging internationally, there are concerns which need to be addressed and kept in mind as the movement moves forward.

While I fully endorse the efforts and actions of the Occupy Wall Street protests, now emerging internationally, there are concerns which need to be addressed and kept in mind as the movement moves forward.

The process through which a potentially powerful movement may be co-opted and controlled is slight and subtle. If Occupy Wall Street hopes to strive for the 99%, it must not submit to the 1%, in any capacity.

The Occupy movement must prevent what happened to the Tea Party movement to happen to it.
Whatever ideological stance you may have, the Tea Party movement started as a grass roots movement, largely a result of anti-Federal Reserve protests. They were quickly co-opted with philanthropic money and political party endorsements.

For the Occupy Movement to build up and become a true force for change, it must avoid and reject the organizational and financial contributions of institutions: be they political parties, non-profits, or philanthropic foundations.

The efforts are subtle, but effective: they seek to organize, professionalize, and institutionalize a movement, push forward the issues they desire, which render the movement useless for true liberation, as these are among the very institutions the movement should be geared against.
This is not simply about Wall Street, this is about POWER. Those who have power, and those who dont.

When those who have power offer a hand in your struggle, their other hand holds a dagger. Remain grassroots, remain decentralized, remain outside and away from party politics, remain away from financial dependence. Freedom is not merely in the aim, its in the action.

The true struggle is not left versus right, democrat versus republican, liberal versus conservative, or libertarian versus socialist.

The true struggle is that of people against the institution: the State, the banks, the central banking system, the corporation, the international financial institutions, the military, the political parties, the mainstream media, philanthropic foundations, think tanks, university, education, psychiatry, the legal system, the church, et. al.

The transfer of power from one institution to another does not solve the crisis of our institutional society, whereby a few have come to dominate so much, to concentrate so much power at the expense of everyone else having so little. True liberation will result only from opposition to the institution as an entity. Placating power from one institution to another renders resistance ineffective._

This article first appeared on Andrew Gavin Marshalls blog. 
And it is spot on. You people that are arguing over who is "behind" OWS, have been caught in the net of deception cast to advance the divide and conquer strategy. Get your heads out of your asses, and deal with the issues at hand and at the root of the OWS movement and protests.
Against the Institution: A Warning for Occupy Wall Street « Andrew Gavin Marshall

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8o3peQq79Q&feature=player_embedded]Keith Olbermann Reads The Statement Released By The Wall Street Protesters - 2011-10-05 - YouTube[/ame]

Demonstrators and sympathizers oppose corporate greed and corrupt politics, the gangsterism of Wall Street, and the disproportionate effect the global economic downturn has had on the other 99 percent.


----------



## WillowTree

Mr. Jones said:


> _While I fully endorse the efforts and actions of the Occupy Wall Street protests, now emerging internationally, there are concerns which need to be addressed and kept in mind as the movement moves forward.
> 
> While I fully endorse the efforts and actions of the Occupy Wall Street protests, now emerging internationally, there are concerns which need to be addressed and kept in mind as the movement moves forward.
> 
> The process through which a potentially powerful movement may be co-opted and controlled is slight and subtle. If Occupy Wall Street hopes to strive for the 99%, it must not submit to the 1%, in any capacity.
> 
> The Occupy movement must prevent what happened to the Tea Party movement to happen to it.
> Whatever ideological stance you may have, the Tea Party movement started as a grass roots movement, largely a result of anti-Federal Reserve protests. They were quickly co-opted with philanthropic money and political party endorsements.
> 
> For the Occupy Movement to build up and become a true force for change, it must avoid and reject the organizational and financial contributions of institutions: be they political parties, non-profits, or philanthropic foundations.
> 
> The efforts are subtle, but effective: they seek to organize, professionalize, and institutionalize a movement, push forward the issues they desire, which render the movement useless for true liberation, as these are among the very institutions the movement should be geared against.
> This is not simply about Wall Street, this is about POWER. Those who have power, and those who dont.
> 
> When those who have power offer a hand in your struggle, their other hand holds a dagger. Remain grassroots, remain decentralized, remain outside and away from party politics, remain away from financial dependence. Freedom is not merely in the aim, its in the action.
> 
> The true struggle is not left versus right, democrat versus republican, liberal versus conservative, or libertarian versus socialist.
> 
> The true struggle is that of people against the institution: the State, the banks, the central banking system, the corporation, the international financial institutions, the military, the political parties, the mainstream media, philanthropic foundations, think tanks, university, education, psychiatry, the legal system, the church, et. al.
> 
> The transfer of power from one institution to another does not solve the crisis of our institutional society, whereby a few have come to dominate so much, to concentrate so much power at the expense of everyone else having so little. True liberation will result only from opposition to the institution as an entity. Placating power from one institution to another renders resistance ineffective._
> 
> This article first appeared on Andrew Gavin Marshalls blog.
> And it is spot on. You people that are arguing over who is "behind" OWS, have been caught in the net of deception cast to advance the divide and conquer strategy. Get your heads out of your asses, and deal with the issues at hand and at the root of the OWS movement and protests.
> Against the Institution: A Warning for Occupy Wall Street « Andrew Gavin Marshall
> 
> Keith Olbermann Reads The Statement Released By The Wall Street Protesters - 2011-10-05 - YouTube
> 
> Demonstrators and sympathizers oppose corporate greed and corrupt politics, the gangsterism of Wall Street, and the disproportionate effect the global economic downturn has had on the other 99 percent.



So please tell us,, what do you plan to replace capitalism and corporations with?


----------



## Luissa

Mr. Jones said:


> _While I fully endorse the efforts and actions of the Occupy Wall Street protests, now emerging internationally, there are concerns which need to be addressed and kept in mind as the movement moves forward.
> 
> While I fully endorse the efforts and actions of the Occupy Wall Street protests, now emerging internationally, there are concerns which need to be addressed and kept in mind as the movement moves forward.
> 
> The process through which a potentially powerful movement may be co-opted and controlled is slight and subtle. If Occupy Wall Street hopes to strive for the 99%, it must not submit to the 1%, in any capacity.
> 
> The Occupy movement must prevent what happened to the Tea Party movement to happen to it.
> Whatever ideological stance you may have, the Tea Party movement started as a grass roots movement, largely a result of anti-Federal Reserve protests. They were quickly co-opted with philanthropic money and political party endorsements.
> 
> For the Occupy Movement to build up and become a true force for change, it must avoid and reject the organizational and financial contributions of institutions: be they political parties, non-profits, or philanthropic foundations.
> 
> The efforts are subtle, but effective: they seek to organize, professionalize, and institutionalize a movement, push forward the issues they desire, which render the movement useless for true liberation, as these are among the very institutions the movement should be geared against.
> This is not simply about Wall Street, this is about POWER. Those who have power, and those who dont.
> 
> When those who have power offer a hand in your struggle, their other hand holds a dagger. Remain grassroots, remain decentralized, remain outside and away from party politics, remain away from financial dependence. Freedom is not merely in the aim, its in the action.
> 
> The true struggle is not left versus right, democrat versus republican, liberal versus conservative, or libertarian versus socialist.
> 
> The true struggle is that of people against the institution: the State, the banks, the central banking system, the corporation, the international financial institutions, the military, the political parties, the mainstream media, philanthropic foundations, think tanks, university, education, psychiatry, the legal system, the church, et. al.
> 
> The transfer of power from one institution to another does not solve the crisis of our institutional society, whereby a few have come to dominate so much, to concentrate so much power at the expense of everyone else having so little. True liberation will result only from opposition to the institution as an entity. Placating power from one institution to another renders resistance ineffective._
> 
> This article first appeared on Andrew Gavin Marshalls blog.
> And it is spot on. You people that are arguing over who is "behind" OWS, have been caught in the net of deception cast to advance the divide and conquer strategy. Get your heads out of your asses, and deal with the issues at hand and at the root of the OWS movement and protests.
> Against the Institution: A Warning for Occupy Wall Street « Andrew Gavin Marshall
> 
> Keith Olbermann Reads The Statement Released By The Wall Street Protesters - 2011-10-05 - YouTube
> 
> Demonstrators and sympathizers oppose corporate greed and corrupt politics, the gangsterism of Wall Street, and the disproportionate effect the global economic downturn has had on the other 99 percent.



From the Occupy Wall Street facebook page.



> Do not let the Democrats and Republicans steal the show.


Occupy Wall Street - Wall | Facebook


----------



## Luissa

WillowTree said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> HYPOCRISY???
> 
> 
> When the Tea Party protests bail out of Obama's owners over at Goldman Sachs,  why they are RACIST and ONLY for the rich... Vilified by the party media of MSNBC, CNN and A-N-B-CBS as hate filled white people..
> 
> But when Moveon dopers are joined by Union goons and protest the same bail out - WHY THEY ARE WONDERFUL and the party media fawns about how brave they are to take a stand...
> 
> 
> Fucking hypocrisy alright;
> 
> There is NO hypocrisy like demopocrisy.
> 
> WILL the extreme left be able to successfully steal the ideas and momentum from the Tea Party? The Union goons and the party media are doing their best to make it that way.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize the Bank Bailout bill was passed before Obama was even elected, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so it is your dumbass position now to state that obie doodle didn't bail out any banks?
Click to expand...


----------



## Luissa

> This page is not affiliated with any organization. It serves as one of several Facebook forums for operations on Wall Street. It was created in solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protest and MOVEMENT in Liberty Plaza. We promote peaceful protesting and an ongoing occupation. Take back the podium for the people!



From the same Facebook page.


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> It's sweet of you to explain the Latin.... but there is no need. I know my Latin too. Unlike you, I feel no need to make myself look intelligent. I rely on the fact that I am intelligent without having try.



Empty rhetoric, devoid of cognitive content, unworthy of a reply. Non-answer, very much typical of you. (By the way, I didn't explain the Latin if by this you mean translate it. Just in case the above is meant to hide the fact that you don't know what it means, _argumentum ad autoritandem_ means "argument by authority" -- which is the fallacy I was not using but that you implied I did -- while _argumentum ad hominem_ means "argument towards the man," which is the fallacy you WERE using.)



> I have neither the time nor the inclination to read the 'wisdom' of a left wing 'thinker' on a demonstrably leftist 'spontaneous' movement. I have no interest.



In that case, say nothing. It's the only honest thing to do, insofar as you know nothing and are not interested in learning anything.



> What interests me is the bullshit about the nature of the protests, the comparison between these protests and the genuine Arab uprisings, the 'demands' that reach beyond our shores to making global demands, who's behind the protests and what is their agenda.



About which you have still not offered one scrap of evidence supporting your views. We are still waiting.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Hmmm.  I've been to many protests, many.  Every time anyone said anything off-color about a group of persons, the crowd immediately admonished them, shunned them, drowned them out, etc.



And you know that this has not happened -- how? Were you there? Did you see this happen with your own eyes? Footage on YouTube inherently does not show anything that occurred outside the time and place that it covers.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that views like these are endorsed by most of the participants in OWS?


----------



## Dragon

WillowTree said:


> So please tell us,, what do you plan to replace capitalism and corporations with?



So please tell us,deleted-no family?


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's sweet of you to explain the Latin.... but there is no need. I know my Latin too. Unlike you, I feel no need to make myself look intelligent. I rely on the fact that I am intelligent without having try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Empty rhetoric, devoid of cognitive content, unworthy of a reply. Non-answer, very much typical of you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have neither the time nor the inclination to read the 'wisdom' of a left wing 'thinker' on a demonstrably leftist 'spontaneous' movement. I have no interest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In that case, say nothing. It's the only honest thing to do, insofar as you know nothing and are not interested in learning anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What interests me is the bullshit about the nature of the protests, the comparison between these protests and the genuine Arab uprisings, the 'demands' that reach beyond our shores to making global demands, who's behind the protests and what is their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About which you have still not offered one scrap of evidence supporting your views. We are still waiting.
Click to expand...


Odd that you accuse me of 'empty rhetoric' that is 'unworthy' of a reply... and by replying show your own desperate need to be seen as my intellectual equal. Clue: You aren't. 

I'm interested in learning.... which is why I dismiss partisan sources. They won't teach me anything honest.... they will give me spin.... I can spin for myself.

There is no 'we', little man. There is 'you'. 'You' are not a 'we'. You're an individual. You do not speak on behalf of others. I have provided reasons for my opinion. It is for others to research those reasons for themselves. This crap about 'evidence' is laughable. You provide a partisan article and call that 'evidence'... and you want me to think you are intelligent. That's funny. 

Again, I've given my reasons for my opinions. Hard facts. Your 'spontaneous' protest is no more 'spontaneous' than Christmas. It's a joke. The demands produced from the leaders of this 'leaderless' 'spontaneous' planned protest tell me all I need to know about the who, what and why of OWS. 

It's a crock.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> So please tell us,, what do you plan to replace capitalism and corporations with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So please tell us, no family
Click to expand...

And you think her question is similar in type to yours?


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.  I've been to many protests, many.  Every time anyone said anything off-color about a group of persons, the crowd immediately admonished them, shunned them, drowned them out, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you know that this has not happened -- how? Were you there? Did you see this happen with your own eyes? Footage on YouTube inherently does not show anything that occurred outside the time and place that it covers.
> 
> Do you have any evidence whatsoever that views like these are endorsed by most of the participants in OWS?
Click to expand...

Ummm, show me on the video where it did happen.

Go ahead.  You can do it, can't you?


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> So please tell us,, what do you plan to replace capitalism and corporations with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So please tell us, deleted?
Click to expand...


There is a 'no family' rule on this site. Leave Willow's family out of your bile, asshole. Or does that rule not apply to you either?


----------



## WillowTree

Dragon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> So please tell us,, what do you plan to replace capitalism and corporations with?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So please tell us,deleted?
Click to expand...


Still clueless..


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> There is a 'no family' rule on this site. Leave Willow's family out of your bile, asshole. Or does that rule not apply to you either?



LOL well, that rule, unlike the one you pretended to assert earlier, actually does exist. (I read the rules recently so I know.)

However, I wasn't seriously asking a question about her husband, I was merely pointing out that her question was of the "are you still beating your wife" category: based on a non-factual premise.

Absent evidence that she is beating her husband I assume that she isn't and acknowledge that the question was bogus. But so was her question, for the same reason.

EDIT: Well, actually, I'm afraid you misrepresented the rules once more. There ISN'T a "no-family" rule here. The rule says: "*Attacks *on family members will not be tolerated."

Even if I had been seriously asking that question, which of course I wasn't, it still wouldn't have been an attack on a family member.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a 'no family' rule on this site. Leave Willow's family out of your bile, asshole. Or does that rule not apply to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL well, that rule, unlike the one you pretended to assert earlier, actually does exist. (I read the rules recently so I know.)
> 
> However, I wasn't seriously asking a question about her husband, I was merely pointing out that her question was of the "are you still beating your wife" category: based on a non-factual premise.
> 
> Absent evidence that she is beating her husband I assume that she isn't and acknowledge that the question was bogus. But so was her question, for the same reason.
Click to expand...

But it's not of the same category.

A moron would think it was, but that doesn't make it true.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> [And you think her question is similar in type to yours?



It is IDENTICAL in type to hers.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a 'no family' rule on this site. Leave Willow's family out of your bile, asshole. Or does that rule not apply to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL well, that rule, unlike the one you pretended to assert earlier, actually does exist. (I read the rules recently so I know.)
> 
> However, I wasn't seriously asking a question about her husband, I was merely pointing out that her question was of the "are you still beating your wife" category: based on a non-factual premise.
> 
> Absent evidence that she is beating her husband I assume that she isn't and acknowledge that the question was bogus. But so was her question, for the same reason.
Click to expand...


You dodged a legitimate question and dragged her family into the discussion to do so. And now you defend that instead of apologizing. That says a lot about you. 

Let me ask you one hypothetical question. If there was evidence that OWS was part of a planned attack on our society - and our Constitutional Republic... with the aim of destroying that Republic in order to replace it with a more socialist based government, would you still support it?


----------



## WillowTree

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a 'no family' rule on this site. Leave Willow's family out of your bile, asshole. Or does that rule not apply to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL well, that rule, unlike the one you pretended to assert earlier, actually does exist. (I read the rules recently so I know.)
> 
> However, I wasn't seriously asking a question about her husband, I was merely pointing out that her question was of the "are you still beating your wife" category: based on a non-factual premise.
> 
> Absent evidence that she is beating her husband I assume that she isn't and acknowledge that the question was bogus. But so was her question, for the same reason.
> 
> EDIT: Well, actually, I'm afraid you misrepresented the rules once more. There ISN'T a "no-family" rule here. The rule says: "*Attacks *on family members will not be tolerated."
> 
> Even if I had been seriously asking that question, which of course I wasn't, it still wouldn't have been an attack on a family member.
Click to expand...





So your sorry ass broke the rules even though you already knew that action was against the rules?


----------



## Mr Natural

These people need to get serious.

Put down the goofy signs and start smashng windows and burning cars.


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> Odd that you accuse me of 'empty rhetoric' that is 'unworthy' of a reply... and by replying show your own desperate need to be seen as my intellectual equal. Clue: You aren't.



I'm quite confident that I am MUCH more intelligent than you are -- so I would agree. We are not intellectual equals.



> I'm interested in learning.... which is why I dismiss partisan sources. They won't teach me anything honest.... they will give me spin.... I can spin for myself.



If you were really interested in learning, you would not dismiss ANY sources, although you might treat partisan ones with a grain of salt.



> Again, I've given my reasons for my opinions. Hard facts.



The only hard facts you have presented are that Van Jones made a speech calling for a left-leaning populist uprising before OWS began. That proves nothing whatsoever.


----------



## WillowTree

Mr Clean said:


> These people need to get serious.
> 
> Put down the goofy signs and start smashng windows and burning cars.



a cry for anarchy.. that is typical of left wing lunatics..


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> [And you think her question is similar in type to yours?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is IDENTICAL in type to hers.
Click to expand...

For your review, here is her question:  "What do you plan to replace capitalism and corporations with?"

You claim her premiss is untrue.  It would only be untrue if capitalism and corporations do not exist.

If that is the case, then there would be no need to protest against something that doesn't exist, now would there?














Idiot.


----------



## EriktheRed

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> ]
> 
> Tides Foundation Connected to Day of Rage Against Wall Street - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com   <----tides foundation receives a ton of money from Sorros.



And this proves that people are PAID to be at OWS?


----------



## Dragon

WillowTree said:


> So your sorry ass broke the rules even though you already knew that action was against the rules?



It's not against the rules.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> You claim her premiss is untrue.  It would only be untrue if capitalism and corporations do not exist.



Wrong. It would only be untrue if we do NOT propose MAKING them nonexistent. Which we don't.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a 'no family' rule on this site. Leave Willow's family out of your bile, asshole. Or does that rule not apply to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL well, that rule, unlike the one you pretended to assert earlier, actually does exist. (I read the rules recently so I know.)
> 
> However, I wasn't seriously asking a question about her husband, I was merely pointing out that her question was of the "are you still beating your wife" category: based on a non-factual premise.
> 
> Absent evidence that she is beating her husband I assume that she isn't and acknowledge that the question was bogus. But so was her question, for the same reason.
> 
> EDIT: Well, actually, I'm afraid you misrepresented the rules once more. There ISN'T a "no-family" rule here. The rule says: "*Attacks *on family members will not be tolerated."
> 
> Even if I had been seriously asking that question, which of course I wasn't, it still wouldn't have been an attack on a family member.
Click to expand...


We all know what the rules says. We refer to it as the 'no family' rule. Can you function in society with this level of stupidity?


----------



## Skull Pilot

I look at all these protesters of OWS and I see an opportunity to make some money.

Think of something these whiny entitled pukes will buy and sell it to them.

That's how you don't end up holding a stupid sign and blaming everyone else for your failings.


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> We all know what the rules says. We refer to it as the 'no family' rule.



If you know what it says, then you also know that what I posted didn't break it.


----------



## Mr Natural

WillowTree said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> These people need to get serious.
> 
> Put down the goofy signs and start smashng windows and burning cars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a cry for anarchy.. that is typical of left wing lunatics..
Click to expand...


Damn right!

When I turn on the news at night, I want to be entertained.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim her premiss is untrue.  It would only be untrue if capitalism and corporations do not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It would only be untrue if we do NOT propose MAKING them nonexistent. Which we don't.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry that you cannot figure it out.  It's quite simple:  Your demands lol are non-conducive to the existence of either.

Moron.


----------



## WillowTree

Dragon said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your sorry ass broke the rules even though you already knew that action was against the rules?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not against the rules.
Click to expand...


well then stop beating your wife.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd that you accuse me of 'empty rhetoric' that is 'unworthy' of a reply... and by replying show your own desperate need to be seen as my intellectual equal. Clue: You aren't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident that I am MUCH more intelligent than you are -- so I would agree. We are not intellectual equals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm interested in learning.... which is why I dismiss partisan sources. They won't teach me anything honest.... they will give me spin.... I can spin for myself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were really interested in learning, you would not dismiss ANY sources, although you might treat partisan ones with a grain of salt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I've given my reasons for my opinions. Hard facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only hard facts you have presented are that Van Jones made a speech calling for a left-leaning populist uprising before OWS began. That proves nothing whatsoever.
Click to expand...


I have a wealth of information about Watermelon Man and his buddies. I make it my business to know as much as possible about anyone who is interfering with the Constitutional Republic that I call home. It is a pity that you do not. 

Are you gonna answer my hypothetical question or not?


----------



## Si modo

Is Dragon having a meltdown?


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Your demands lol are non-conducive to the existence of either.



What demands, and how so?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Tolerates them as opposed to what, taking them out and shooting them? How exactly would you suggest that this individual not be "tolerated"?



The Tea Party asks racists to leave.

It appears that you Marxists ask racists to lead......


----------



## WillowTree

Si modo said:


> Is Dragon having a meltdown?



Yes, it's time for a diaper change and a drool mop up


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your demands lol are non-conducive to the existence of either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What demands, and how so?
Click to expand...

So, the OWS has no demands?


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> I have a wealth of information about Watermelon Man and his buddies. I make it my business to know as much as possible about anyone who is interfering with the Constitutional Republic that I call home.



So what information do you have about Mr. Jones that shows him to be in charge of OWS, and that shows OWS to be his creation rather than a grass-roots movement? Note that this would have to be information about OWS itself, not just about Jones.



> Are you gonna answer my hypothetical question or not?



Oh, that. Yes, I'll answer it; for what it's worth, if there was convincing evidence that OWS was bent on the forcible overthrow of the government I would not support it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Luissa said:


> You do realize the Bank Bailout bill was passed before Obama was even elected, right?



I realize that Obama suspended his campaign so that he could go promote it and vote for it.

Didn't you? Do you pay any attention at all, or are the KOS talking points really all the knowledge you need?


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> So, the OWS has no demands?



I've seen a semi-official list of grievances, but so far no demands, no. Were you thinking of that bogus list of 11 demands that someone or other posted on the OWS web site forum?


----------



## Luissa

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerates them as opposed to what, taking them out and shooting them? How exactly would you suggest that this individual not be "tolerated"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party asks racists to leave.
> 
> It appears that you Marxists ask racists to lead......
Click to expand...


We asked the one guy you guys have video to lead?


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the OWS has no demands?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen a semi-official list of grievances, but so far no demands, no. Were you thinking of that bogus list of 11 demands that someone or other posted on the OWS web site forum?
Click to expand...

Sooooooo, no demands.

Ummm, and the point of the 'occupation' is what if you don't want anything?






(Getting funnier and funnier, here.)


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Sooooooo, no demands.
> 
> Ummm, and the point of the 'occupation' is what if you don't want anything?



Before I answer that question, I'm going to ask if you're ready now to acknowledge that Willow's question WAS like "are you still beating your wife." Because in the absence of demands that would destroy capitalism, her premise WAS false.

Now, to answer your question, the goal is to present a set of grievances and to start a dialog about how to solve these problems; to bring the excessive influence of corporate greed over the government, and the lopsided nature of our economy, and the decline of the middle class, and the end of the American Dream, into the open and show politicians that there is a big constituency that cares about these things.

Demands will come in time.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have a wealth of information about Watermelon Man and his buddies. I make it my business to know as much as possible about anyone who is interfering with the Constitutional Republic that I call home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what information do you have about Mr. Jones that shows him to be in charge of OWS, and that shows OWS to be his creation rather than a grass-roots movement? Note that this would have to be information about OWS itself, not just about Jones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you gonna answer my hypothetical question or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, that. Yes, I'll answer it; for what it's worth, if there was convincing evidence that OWS was bent on the forcible overthrow of the government I would not support it.
Click to expand...


I did not say 'forcibly overthrow'. I laid out a hypothetical. I'd like you to answer it as I laid out. It is a straightforward response....

Either:

a. I would not support the destruction of our Constitutional Republic

b. I would support the destruction of our Constitutional Republic in order to replace it with one based on a more socialist agenda.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Oh I walk away to make some money and there are 10 new pages...you bastards!!!!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Skull Pilot said:


> I look at all these protesters of OWS and I see an opportunity to make some money.
> 
> Think of something these whiny entitled pukes will buy and sell it to them.
> 
> That's how you don't end up holding a stupid sign and blaming everyone else for your failings.



Yeah, it's a great idea - BUT, selling weed, meth and X is illegal and could get you busted....


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> I did not say 'forcibly overthrow'. I laid out a hypothetical. I'd like you to answer it as I laid out. It is a straightforward response....
> 
> Either:
> 
> a. I would not support the destruction of our Constitutional Republic
> 
> b. I would support the destruction of our Constitutional Republic in order to replace it with one based on a more socialist agenda.



Please define "our Constitutional Republic."


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you compare the two, both started out pretty much the same way, but I guess I can do the partisan thing and list all the groups they used in the beginning to get their message out there.
> 
> Like I said, do you guys know the definition of a grassroots movement?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They did not start the same way at all.
> 
> We never got any money to set up our tax day protests, later called the tea party, in april of 2009.  Nor did we have any well funded groups to help us that first day.   Money did not come into the tea party movement until well after the random protests all sprung up that april.
> 
> This wall street thing was organized from the beginning by groups, as evidenced in the links i already gave you, who receive money from billionaires and millionaires.
> 
> Thats the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? Freedomworks was traced to the Tea Party in April 2009.
> 
> "FreedomWorks and dontGO seem to have taken ownership of the bulk of this coordination. The homepage of FreedomWorks' website now offers visitors a Google map of protests taking place across the country. They say they know of 600 Tax Day protests for which they are providing resources. The group has used its e-mail list to augment the work of dontGO, which created the website Patriot Action Network*|*We are united by our passion for re-establishing Constitution based liberty & limited government through dialogue,debate,legislation & elections. in February. dontGO, which was formed as an online rapid response team during the House of Representatives oil drilling debate last year, says it is "tracking" 700 events under its aegis. Americans for Prosperity says it has 24 state chapters that are organizing events. Overlap between all those numbers is quite likely: FreedomWorks told me a lot of its activity has been clueing its members to other protests in the area, so protesters can cooperate and conglomerate their events."
> The Tea Party Movement: Who's In Charge? - Chris Good - Politics - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> I already provided a link where it stated the Koch Brothers have donated 12 million to Freedom Works.
> 
> 
> "FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity both originated from a campaign called Citizens for a Sound Economy, which split in two in 2004. CSE was set up by businessman David Koch (Koch Industries).[3] Citizens for a Sound Economy merged with Empower America in 2004 and was renamed FreedomWorks, with Dick Armey, Jack Kemp and C. Boyden Gray serving as co-chairmen, Bill Bennett focusing on school choice as a Senior Fellow, and Matt Kibbe as President and CEO.[4][5][contradiction] Empower America was founded in 1993 by William Bennett, former Secretary of HUD Jack Kemp, former Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and former Representative Vin Weber.[6] In December 2006, Steve Forbes joined the board of directors.[7]
> The &#8216;Freedomworks&#8217; name was derived from a common Armey saying: &#8220;Freedom works. Freedom is good policy and good politics.&#8221;
> 
> FreedomWorks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


That publication has been a bit left of center and dishonest about the teaparties.

HOWEVER, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say what you say about the tea partys and Koch brothers is 100% accurate.   Ok....you hear that right I'm saying the following comment is assuming you are 100% right about the tea parties.

That does ZERO to change the fact that these wall street protests are being funded by big money from the left, uber rich hollywood fat-cats, international investment billionare George Sorros, and a pletheora of other rich, elitist, liberal interest groups.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

California Girl said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did not start the same way at all.
> 
> We never got any money to set up our tax day protests, later called the tea party, in april of 2009.  Nor did we have any well funded groups to help us that first day.   Money did not come into the tea party movement until well after the random protests all sprung up that april.
> 
> This wall street thing was organized from the beginning by groups, as evidenced in the links i already gave you, who receive money from billionaires and millionaires.
> 
> Thats the difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Freedomworks was traced to the Tea Party in April 2009.
> 
> "FreedomWorks and dontGO seem to have taken ownership of the bulk of this coordination. The homepage of FreedomWorks' website now offers visitors a Google map of protests taking place across the country. They say they know of 600 Tax Day protests for which they are providing resources. The group has used its e-mail list to augment the work of dontGO, which created the website Patriot Action Network*|*We are united by our passion for re-establishing Constitution based liberty & limited government through dialogue,debate,legislation & elections. in February. dontGO, which was formed as an online rapid response team during the House of Representatives oil drilling debate last year, says it is "tracking" 700 events under its aegis. Americans for Prosperity says it has 24 state chapters that are organizing events. Overlap between all those numbers is quite likely: FreedomWorks told me a lot of its activity has been clueing its members to other protests in the area, so protesters can cooperate and conglomerate their events."
> The Tea Party Movement: Who's In Charge? - Chris Good - Politics - The Atlantic
> 
> 
> I already provided a link where it stated the Koch Brothers have donated 12 million to Freedom Works.
> 
> 
> "FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity both originated from a campaign called Citizens for a Sound Economy, which split in two in 2004. CSE was set up by businessman David Koch (Koch Industries).[3] Citizens for a Sound Economy merged with Empower America in 2004 and was renamed FreedomWorks, with Dick Armey, Jack Kemp and C. Boyden Gray serving as co-chairmen, Bill Bennett focusing on school choice as a Senior Fellow, and Matt Kibbe as President and CEO.[4][5][contradiction] Empower America was founded in 1993 by William Bennett, former Secretary of HUD Jack Kemp, former Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, and former Representative Vin Weber.[6] In December 2006, Steve Forbes joined the board of directors.[7]
> The Freedomworks name was derived from a common Armey saying: Freedom works. Freedom is good policy and good politics.
> 
> FreedomWorks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that's a couple of years after the orginal TEA Parties started.
Click to expand...


   That doesn't matter, even if she is right it doesn't change any of the facts about this wall street thing being staged by the people with the money and power.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say 'forcibly overthrow'. I laid out a hypothetical. I'd like you to answer it as I laid out. It is a straightforward response....
> 
> Either:
> 
> a. I would not support the destruction of our Constitutional Republic
> 
> b. I would support the destruction of our Constitutional Republic in order to replace it with one based on a more socialist agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please define "our Constitutional Republic."
Click to expand...

You don't know what a constitutional republic is?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, now this 'movement' is a grassroots one?
> 
> No.  Really?
> 
> That's some funny shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is just as grass roots as the Tea Party 2009 Tax Day protests.
Click to expand...


So Luissa, who believes the tea parties are part of some big republican/right wing uber rich agenda also believes that the wall street protests are part of some big democrat/left wing uber rich agenda.

Good to know


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say 'forcibly overthrow'. I laid out a hypothetical. I'd like you to answer it as I laid out. It is a straightforward response....
> 
> Either:
> 
> a. I would not support the destruction of our Constitutional Republic
> 
> b. I would support the destruction of our Constitutional Republic in order to replace it with one based on a more socialist agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please define "our Constitutional Republic."
Click to expand...


Our: The United States of America

Constitutional Republic: a state where the head of state and elected leaders are representatives of the People,, governing by the existing Constitutional laws which limit the government's power over the People.

Standard definition of a Constitutional Republic - I find it slightly disconcerting that you need it to be defined for you.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooooo, no demands.
> 
> Ummm, and the point of the 'occupation' is what if you don't want anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I answer that question, I'm going to ask if you're ready now to acknowledge that Willow's question WAS like "are you still beating your wife." Because in the absence of demands that would destroy capitalism, her premise WAS false.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

Ok.  

You have no demands.

That is odd.



> Now, to answer your question, the goal is to present a set of grievances and to start a dialog about how to solve these problems; to bring the excessive influence of corporate greed over the government, and the lopsided nature of our economy, and the decline of the middle class, and the end of the American Dream, into the open and show politicians that there is a big constituency that cares about these things.
> 
> Demands will come in time.


No demands - just want to open dialog.

OK.

I have to wonder with whom you (general you) want this dialog.  Bums?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

EriktheRed said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]
> 
> Tides Foundation Connected to Day of Rage Against Wall Street - Associated Content from Yahoo! - associatedcontent.com   <----tides foundation receives a ton of money from Sorros.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this proves that people are PAID to be at OWS?
Click to expand...


I said the organization of mobilizing the people and feeding them was being paid for by such groups.


----------



## Si modo

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, now this 'movement' is a grassroots one?
> 
> No.  Really?
> 
> That's some funny shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is just as grass roots as the Tea Party 2009 Tax Day protests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Luissa, who believes the tea parties are part of some big republican/right wing uber rich agenda also believes that the wall street protests are part of some big democrat/left wing uber rich agenda.
> 
> Good to know
Click to expand...


Yeah, I saw that.


----------



## California Girl

Si modo said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooooo, no demands.
> 
> Ummm, and the point of the 'occupation' is what if you don't want anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before I answer that question, I'm going to ask if you're ready now to acknowledge that Willow's question WAS like "are you still beating your wife." Because in the absence of demands that would destroy capitalism, her premise WAS false.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok.
> 
> You have no demands.
> 
> That is odd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, to answer your question, the goal is to present a set of grievances and to start a dialog about how to solve these problems; to bring the excessive influence of corporate greed over the government, and the lopsided nature of our economy, and the decline of the middle class, and the end of the American Dream, into the open and show politicians that there is a big constituency that cares about these things.
> 
> Demands will come in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No demands - just want to open dialog.
> 
> OK.
> 
> I have to wonder with whom you (general you) want this dialog.  Bums?
Click to expand...


There is a list of demands. real ones... not the embarrassing ones they accidentally issued.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Skull Pilot said:


> I look at all these protesters of OWS and I see an opportunity to make some money.
> 
> Think of something these whiny entitled pukes will buy and sell it to them.
> 
> That's how you don't end up holding a stupid sign and blaming everyone else for your failings.



Its funny you say that.

 I was going to go to boston with 100 "Fuck Wall Street" T-shirts (red shirts, yellow lettering) and sell them for 10 bucks a pop up in boston saturday/sunday.  

I can get em for $5/each so  could make about $500 fast off these guys (by being a capitalist )


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OWS: It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!


----------



## Si modo

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before I answer that question, I'm going to ask if you're ready now to acknowledge that Willow's question WAS like "are you still beating your wife." Because in the absence of demands that would destroy capitalism, her premise WAS false.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.
> 
> You have no demands.
> 
> That is odd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, to answer your question, the goal is to present a set of grievances and to start a dialog about how to solve these problems; to bring the excessive influence of corporate greed over the government, and the lopsided nature of our economy, and the decline of the middle class, and the end of the American Dream, into the open and show politicians that there is a big constituency that cares about these things.
> 
> Demands will come in time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No demands - just want to open dialog.
> 
> OK.
> 
> I have to wonder with whom you (general you) want this dialog.  Bums?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a list of demands. real ones... not the embarrassing ones they accidentally issued.
Click to expand...

This guy says there are not.

Hmmmmmm.

If they don't know what the fuck they are doing, saying, or what they even want, how should anyone else?

Which makes them utterly pointless.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tolerates them as opposed to what, taking them out and shooting them? How exactly would you suggest that this individual not be "tolerated"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party asks racists to leave.
> 
> It appears that you Marxists ask racists to lead......
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYfmShJe5MA]Proof That The TEA Party IS NOT Racist! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## WillowTree

CrusaderFrank said:


> OWS: It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!



GodFather what can I do"


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the OWS has no demands?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen a semi-official list of grievances, but so far no demands, no. Were you thinking of that bogus list of 11 demands that someone or other posted on the OWS web site forum?
Click to expand...


PICKET: Occupy Wall Street protesters post manifesto of &#39;demands&#39; - Washington Times

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy

Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! | OccupyWallSt.org Forum


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say 'forcibly overthrow'. I laid out a hypothetical. I'd like you to answer it as I laid out. It is a straightforward response....
> 
> Either:
> 
> a. I would not support the destruction of our Constitutional Republic
> 
> b. I would support the destruction of our Constitutional Republic in order to replace it with one based on a more socialist agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please define "our Constitutional Republic."
Click to expand...


A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy.

In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches.[1]

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic.

Constitutional republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Si modo said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is just as grass roots as the Tea Party 2009 Tax Day protests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Luissa, who believes the tea parties are part of some big republican/right wing uber rich agenda also believes that the wall street protests are part of some big democrat/left wing uber rich agenda.
> 
> Good to know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, I saw that.
Click to expand...


I was just playing along with her game


----------



## California Girl

Si modo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok.
> 
> You have no demands.
> 
> That is odd.
> 
> No demands - just want to open dialog.
> 
> OK.
> 
> I have to wonder with whom you (general you) want this dialog.  Bums?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a list of demands. real ones... not the embarrassing ones they accidentally issued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This guy says there are not.
> 
> Hmmmmmm.
> 
> If they don't know what the fuck they are doing, saying, or what they even want, how should anyone else?
> 
> Which makes them utterly pointless.
Click to expand...


Well, there is a list. It's quite entertaining reading. You need to take a look at it. You'll laugh.


----------



## WillowTree

How many people have access to the OWS page if just "someone or other" can jump in there and post bullshit the OWS doesn't believe in? She wondered..


----------



## CrusaderFrank

WillowTree said:


> How many people have access to the OWS page if just "someone or other" can jump in there and post bullshit the OWS doesn't believe in? She wondered..



The Koch Brothers hacked the OWS sight and put up that list of phony demands....had to be


----------



## Si modo

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a list of demands. real ones... not the embarrassing ones they accidentally issued.
> 
> 
> 
> This guy says there are not.
> 
> Hmmmmmm.
> 
> If they don't know what the fuck they are doing, saying, or what they even want, how should anyone else?
> 
> Which makes them utterly pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, there is a list. It's quite entertaining reading. You need to take a look at it. You'll laugh.
Click to expand...

Oh, I've seen it.  That's why I mentioned them and told Dragon that they were non-conducive to the existence of capitalism and/or corporations.

Then he told me they have no demands and denied that those are the demands.

Then he said he just 'wants dialog' about some nondescript issues.

I said, okie doke.  But I am wondering with whom they want this dialog - looks like bums.


----------



## California Girl

Si modo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy says there are not.
> 
> Hmmmmmm.
> 
> If they don't know what the fuck they are doing, saying, or what they even want, how should anyone else?
> 
> Which makes them utterly pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is a list. It's quite entertaining reading. You need to take a look at it. You'll laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I've seen it.  That's why I mentioned them and told Dragon that they were non-conducive to the existence of capitalism and/or corporations.
> 
> Then he told me they have no demands and denied that those are the demands.
> 
> Then he said he just 'wants dialog' about some nondescript issues.
> 
> I said, okie doke.  But I am wondering with whom they want this dialog - looks like bums.
Click to expand...


Maybe the leaders of the 'leaderless' OWS forgot to tell the protesters what they are protesting about. 

A fool and their liberty - are soon parted.


----------



## California Girl

Si modo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy says there are not.
> 
> Hmmmmmm.
> 
> If they don't know what the fuck they are doing, saying, or what they even want, how should anyone else?
> 
> Which makes them utterly pointless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is a list. It's quite entertaining reading. You need to take a look at it. You'll laugh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I've seen it.  That's why I mentioned them and told Dragon that they were non-conducive to the existence of capitalism and/or corporations.
> 
> Then he told me they have no demands and denied that those are the demands.
> 
> Then he said he just 'wants dialog' about some nondescript issues.
> 
> I said, okie doke.  But I am wondering with whom they want this dialog - looks like bums.
Click to expand...


Maybe the leaders of the 'leaderless' OWS forgot to tell the protesters what they are protesting about. 

A fool and their liberty - are soon parted.


----------



## Disenchanted61

I believe the impact would be to stimulate the economy with purchasing power, and Wall Street
investors will have to get a job, or settle for being a billionaire instead of multi-billionaires.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Disenchanted61 said:


> I believe the impact would be to stimulate the economy with purchasing power, and Wall Street
> investors will have to get a job, or settle for being a billionaire instead of multi-billionaires.



Says the guy who can't even read a post before responding


----------



## Dot Com

This is about welfare for the rich who can afford lobbyists and their all too eager politicians ready to take their bribes to the detriment of their own constituents.


----------



## Mr. Jones

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the OWS has no demands?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen a semi-official list of grievances, but so far no demands, no. Were you thinking of that bogus list of 11 demands that someone or other posted on the OWS web site forum?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PICKET: Occupy Wall Street protesters post manifesto of 'demands' - Washington Times
> 
> Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
> 
> Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
> 
> Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
> 
> Demand four: Free college education.
> 
> Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
> 
> Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
> 
> Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
> 
> Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
> 
> Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
> 
> Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
> 
> Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
> 
> Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
> 
> Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
> 
> These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy
> 
> Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! | OccupyWallSt.org Forum
Click to expand...


You left out the complete titile-
Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! (User Submitted) 
Clicking the link you submitted will reveal your attempt to mislead.

*Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.*

Nice try at spreading disinformation...fucking hack.


----------



## California Girl

Mr. Jones said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen a semi-official list of grievances, but so far no demands, no. Were you thinking of that bogus list of 11 demands that someone or other posted on the OWS web site forum?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PICKET: Occupy Wall Street protesters post manifesto of 'demands' - Washington Times
> 
> Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
> 
> Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
> 
> Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
> 
> Demand four: Free college education.
> 
> Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
> 
> Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
> 
> Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
> 
> Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
> 
> Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
> 
> Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
> 
> Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
> 
> Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
> 
> Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
> 
> These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy
> 
> Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! | OccupyWallSt.org Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You left out the complete titile-
> Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! (User Submitted)
> 
> *Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.*
> 
> Nice try at spreading disinformation...fucking hack.
Click to expand...


So.... let me get this straight.... they have a list of demands and say 'oops, no that's not our official list' as soon as others point out the absolute ludicrous nature of said demands. Then they release another list and say the same thing. 

Incompetent bunch.


----------



## del

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a 'no family' rule on this site. Leave Willow's family out of your bile, asshole. Or does that rule not apply to you either?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL well, that rule, unlike the one you pretended to assert earlier, actually does exist. (I read the rules recently so I know.)
> 
> However, I wasn't seriously asking a question about her husband, I was merely pointing out that her question was of the "are you still beating your wife" category: based on a non-factual premise.
> 
> Absent evidence that she is beating her husband I assume that she isn't and acknowledge that the question was bogus. But so was her question, for the same reason.
> 
> EDIT: Well, actually, I'm afraid you misrepresented the rules once more. There ISN'T a "no-family" rule here. The rule says: "*Attacks *on family members will not be tolerated."
> 
> Even if I had been seriously asking that question, which of course I wasn't, it still wouldn't have been an attack on a family member.
Click to expand...


*staff gets to interpret the rules, not posters. it becomes much simpler if you leave family out entirely, rhetorical device or not.

okay? 

good.*


----------



## Dot Com

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeROnVUADj0]CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY - TRAILER - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dot Com said:


> CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY - TRAILER - YouTube​



And how does that fat fuck Michael Moore get his "movies" produced and distributed?  Where does the money come from?


----------



## California Girl

California Girl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say 'forcibly overthrow'. I laid out a hypothetical. I'd like you to answer it as I laid out. It is a straightforward response....
> 
> Either:
> 
> a. I would not support the destruction of our Constitutional Republic
> 
> b. I would support the destruction of our Constitutional Republic in order to replace it with one based on a more socialist agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please define "our Constitutional Republic."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our: The United States of America
> 
> Constitutional Republic: a state where the head of state and elected leaders are representatives of the People,, governing by the existing Constitutional laws which limit the government's power over the People.
> 
> Standard definition of a Constitutional Republic - I find it slightly disconcerting that you need it to be defined for you.
Click to expand...


I'm wondering why Dragon finds this straightforward question so hard to answer.... Or maybe he's embarrassed by asking for a definition of 'our Constitutional Republic'. Hmmm.


----------



## Dot Com

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY - TRAILER - YouTube​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how does that fat fuck Michael Moore get his "movies" produced and distributed?  Where does the money come from?
Click to expand...


He writes books/scripts and runs them by producers like everyone else.

 Documentaries don't cost that much to make anyway. It isn't like he hires Brad Pitt and films using IMax cameras


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY - TRAILER - YouTube​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how does that fat fuck Michael Moore get his "movies" produced and distributed?  Where does the money come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He writes books/scripts and runs them by producers like everyone else.
> 
> Documentaries don't cost that much to make anyway. It isn't like he hires Brad Pitt and films using IMax cameras
Click to expand...


So people invest in his projects?


----------



## percysunshine

I am going to occupy wall street.

Cardboard box...check

Bottle of Maddog44 ...check

Doobie ... check

Other stuff ... check.


----------



## Mr. Jones

California Girl said:


> Mr. Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> PICKET: Occupy Wall Street protesters post manifesto of 'demands' - Washington Times
> 
> Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
> 
> Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
> 
> Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
> 
> Demand four: Free college education.
> 
> Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
> 
> Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
> 
> Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
> 
> Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
> 
> Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
> 
> Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
> 
> Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
> 
> Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
> 
> Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
> 
> These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy
> 
> Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! | OccupyWallSt.org Forum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You left out the complete titile-
> Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! (User Submitted)
> 
> *Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.*
> 
> Nice try at spreading disinformation...fucking hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So.... let me get this straight.... they have a list of demands and say 'oops, no that's not our official list' as soon as others point out the absolute ludicrous nature of said demands. Then they release another list and say the same thing.
> 
> Incompetent bunch.
Click to expand...


Could you link to the list of demands that you are speaking about, that has been taken down from the official OWS website? Or are you just talking about what the MSM has been telling are their so called "demands"
BTW.... have you no clue as to how the MSM would try to manipulate the OWS movement, and for what reasons...?
It seems you have been one of their "good citizens" (useful idiot) for quite some time now...honestly we all have, isn't it time we put all the BS aside and go after and speak out in one unified voice?
Surely you can't be happy with the obvious abuses and the current situation in your country?


----------



## Si modo

California Girl said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please define "our Constitutional Republic."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our: The United States of America
> 
> Constitutional Republic: a state where the head of state and elected leaders are representatives of the People,, governing by the existing Constitutional laws which limit the government's power over the People.
> 
> Standard definition of a Constitutional Republic - I find it slightly disconcerting that you need it to be defined for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm wondering why Dragon finds this straightforward question so hard to answer.... Or maybe he's embarrassed by asking for a definition of 'our Constitutional Republic'. Hmmm.
Click to expand...

He is trying to figure out the point of OWS.  I think he thought they had a point, but now knows they don't.

I found it pretty funny that he didn't know what a CR is, too, in a sad-type of funny.


----------



## California Girl

Si modo said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our: The United States of America
> 
> Constitutional Republic: a state where the head of state and elected leaders are representatives of the People,, governing by the existing Constitutional laws which limit the government's power over the People.
> 
> Standard definition of a Constitutional Republic - I find it slightly disconcerting that you need it to be defined for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wondering why Dragon finds this straightforward question so hard to answer.... Or maybe he's embarrassed by asking for a definition of 'our Constitutional Republic'. Hmmm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is trying to figure out the point of OWS.  I think he thought they had a point, but now knows they don't.
> 
> I found it pretty funny that he didn't know what a CR is, too, in a sad-type of funny.
Click to expand...


I'm actually horrified that anyone (particularly one that claims an intellect above that of a house plant) could ask such a ridiculous question. 

Or maybe he thinks the US is a democracy?


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pure capitalism doesn't work. The Great Depression and 2008 and this year has proven it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have zero grasp on economics - ergo you are a leftist.
> 
> Pure capitalism, indeed....
> 
> Whatamaroon.
Click to expand...


Then what's your beef, loser?


----------



## mudwhistle

Dot Com said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY - TRAILER - YouTube​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how does that fat fuck Michael Moore get his "movies" produced and distributed?  Where does the money come from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He writes books/scripts and runs them by producers like everyone else.
> 
> Documentaries don't cost that much to make anyway. It isn't like he hires Brad Pitt and films using IMax cameras
Click to expand...


His documentaries still cost millions to write, direct, film, and produce. 

The purpose of his films is to separate you from your money. 


That's Capitalism. 

Government separates you from your money but they do it through laws and regulations. Figuring your money is theirs and they only let you have a percentage of it is Socialism. 

Capitalism offers goods and services for the money they take.

Socialism offers nothing to the majority of those they take it from.


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Luissa, who believes the tea parties are part of some big republican/right wing uber rich agenda also believes that the wall street protests are part of some big democrat/left wing uber rich agenda.
> 
> Good to know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I saw that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was just playing along with her game
Click to expand...


While I was playing your's.  lol


----------



## Dr Grump

Oldstyle said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what I "love" about you guys, Dragon?  You all espouse far left views but none of you will ever admit that you ARE on the far left...no, you all describe yourselves as "moderate center-left".  Why are you so afraid to admit what you are?  Admit it, Dragon...you're no more moderate center-left than the Occupy Wall Street activists are the 99%.  When you say this isn't a far-left movement you're being as disingenuous as the people that are making the 99% claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only in right-wing, neocon, whackjob land are they extreme left views. To lefties and middle of the road US citizens, and the rest of the western world, they are centrists - maybe slightly leaning to the left - ideals.
> 
> Oh my, how dare people ask that Wall St be brought into line and be accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, "Dr. Grump"?  Then explain the OWS organizers frantic efforts to keep their people's views from being made public.  The truth is...a $20 an hour minimum wage...a guaranteed "living wage"...and wiping out all debts...those goals are about as far left as you can get.  What those "children" are asking for is laughable and simply proves that the activists down on Wall Street don't have a clue how to fix the economic situation we're in.  They blame bankers for the nations problems but they don't demand reform to the banking system...they demand free stuff for themselves.
Click to expand...


Who knows what they ALL think. You are a neocon, so therefore live in a sound bite world. You think there are not extremists there (just like the tea party) who get all the attention?

As for not having a clue, the OWS absolutely want reform...
As for free stuff for themselves ....pfffftttt..

At the end of the day, they find the idea of the govt bailing these doyens of capitalism out, then stuffing multi million dollar bonuses in their own pockets, as repugnant. As they should. As you should, too.

And to add insult to the injury, when people demand reform, and politicians demand reform, these meglomanical modern-day Gordon Gecko's threaten the system and the markets, and spend millions lobbying against these reforms.

While there are some unsavoury elements in this OWS, their grass roots, overall ambition is to say to Wall St, "Sure, make some money, but not at our expense; greed is not good; and trying to make yourself megarich because the almighty dollar is god, is not cool or in the best interests of the country"....


----------



## California Girl

Dr Grump said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only in right-wing, neocon, whackjob land are they extreme left views. To lefties and middle of the road US citizens, and the rest of the western world, they are centrists - maybe slightly leaning to the left - ideals.
> 
> Oh my, how dare people ask that Wall St be brought into line and be accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, "Dr. Grump"?  Then explain the OWS organizers frantic efforts to keep their people's views from being made public.  The truth is...a $20 an hour minimum wage...a guaranteed "living wage"...and wiping out all debts...those goals are about as far left as you can get.  What those "children" are asking for is laughable and simply proves that the activists down on Wall Street don't have a clue how to fix the economic situation we're in.  They blame bankers for the nations problems but they don't demand reform to the banking system...they demand free stuff for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who knows what they ALL think. You are a neocon, so therefore live in a sound bite world. You think there are not extremists there (just like the tea party) who get all the attention?
> 
> As for not having a clue, the OWS absolutely want reform...
> As for free stuff for themselves ....pfffftttt..
> 
> At the end of the day, they find the idea of the govt bailing these doyens of capitalism out, then stuffing multi million dollar bonuses in their own pockets, as repugnant. As they should. As you should, too.
> 
> And to add insult to the injury, when people demand reform, and politicians demand reform, these meglomanical modern-day Gordon Gecko's threaten the system and the markets, and spend millions lobbying against these reforms.
> 
> While there are some unsavoury elements in this OWS, their grass roots, overall ambition is to say to Wall St, "Sure, make some money, but not at our expense; greed is not good; and trying to make yourself megarich because the almighty dollar is god, is not cool or in the best interests of the country"....
Click to expand...


OWS has no 'grass roots'. They are a bunch of kids being manipulated by a bunch of left wing whackjobs to further their global agenda. 

You want these people telling your businesses in NZ what they can and can not do? Because that's what they want.


----------



## Si modo

Dr Grump said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is because only in right-wing, neocon, whackjob land are they extreme left views. To lefties and middle of the road US citizens, and the rest of the western world, they are centrists - maybe slightly leaning to the left - ideals.
> 
> Oh my, how dare people ask that Wall St be brought into line and be accountable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, "Dr. Grump"?  Then explain the OWS organizers frantic efforts to keep their people's views from being made public.  The truth is...a $20 an hour minimum wage...a guaranteed "living wage"...and wiping out all debts...those goals are about as far left as you can get.  What those "children" are asking for is laughable and simply proves that the activists down on Wall Street don't have a clue how to fix the economic situation we're in.  They blame bankers for the nations problems but they don't demand reform to the banking system...they demand free stuff for themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who knows what they ALL think. You are a neocon, so therefore live in a sound bite world. You think there are not extremists there (just like the tea party) who get all the attention?
> 
> As for not having a clue, the OWS absolutely want reform...
> As for free stuff for themselves ....pfffftttt..
> 
> At the end of the day, they find the idea of the govt bailing these doyens of capitalism out, then stuffing multi million dollar bonuses in their own pockets, as repugnant. As they should. As you should, too.
> 
> And to add insult to the injury, when people demand reform, and politicians demand reform, these meglomanical modern-day Gordon Gecko's threaten the system and the markets, and spend millions lobbying against these reforms.
> 
> While there are some unsavoury elements in this OWS, their grass roots, overall ambition is to say to Wall St, "Sure, make some money, but not at our expense; greed is not good; and trying to make yourself megarich because the almighty dollar is god, is not cool or in the best interests of the country"....
Click to expand...

He's not a neocon.  I am, but he isn't.


----------



## Luissa

And if you watched the film, you know he is against unregulated capitalism. Along with integrating socialism and capitalism. I think the mentioning of his dad being a union worker and providing for his family on just that income is an example of that. But hey, I just bothered to watch the movie. 





mudwhistle said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how does that fat fuck Michael Moore get his "movies" produced and distributed?  Where does the money come from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He writes books/scripts and runs them by producers like everyone else.
> 
> Documentaries don't cost that much to make anyway. It isn't like he hires Brad Pitt and films using IMax cameras
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His documentaries still cost millions to write, direct, film, and produce.
> 
> The purpose of his films is to separate you from your money.
> 
> 
> That's Capitalism.
> 
> Government separates you from your money but they do it through laws and regulations. Figuring your money is theirs and they only let you have a percentage of it is Socialism.
> 
> Capitalism offers goods and services for the money they take.
> 
> Socialism offers nothing to the majority of those they take it from.
Click to expand...


----------



## mudwhistle

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing like a little economic "hydraulics".
> 
> Oh but he didn't give directly to them.  He gave to THIS organization which then had the money to give to THIS organization who then gave the same amount to those fuckers....
> 
> See?  He didn't give anything to them.  You are expected and ordered to be too dumb to notice such things.  This is a privilege only for the elites among us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL My mom made me play "connect the dots" a lot as a child, it paid off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what I think is funny? You guys will go after George all day long, but never say one word about the Koch brothers.
Click to expand...


How many economies have the Koch Brothers destroyed????


----------



## Dr Grump

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, "Dr. Grump"?  Then explain the OWS organizers frantic efforts to keep their people's views from being made public.  The truth is...a $20 an hour minimum wage...a guaranteed "living wage"...and wiping out all debts...those goals are about as far left as you can get.  What those "children" are asking for is laughable and simply proves that the activists down on Wall Street don't have a clue how to fix the economic situation we're in.  They blame bankers for the nations problems but they don't demand reform to the banking system...they demand free stuff for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows what they ALL think. You are a neocon, so therefore live in a sound bite world. You think there are not extremists there (just like the tea party) who get all the attention?
> 
> As for not having a clue, the OWS absolutely want reform...
> As for free stuff for themselves ....pfffftttt..
> 
> At the end of the day, they find the idea of the govt bailing these doyens of capitalism out, then stuffing multi million dollar bonuses in their own pockets, as repugnant. As they should. As you should, too.
> 
> And to add insult to the injury, when people demand reform, and politicians demand reform, these meglomanical modern-day Gordon Gecko's threaten the system and the markets, and spend millions lobbying against these reforms.
> 
> While there are some unsavoury elements in this OWS, their grass roots, overall ambition is to say to Wall St, "Sure, make some money, but not at our expense; greed is not good; and trying to make yourself megarich because the almighty dollar is god, is not cool or in the best interests of the country"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OWS has no 'grass roots'. They are a bunch of kids being manipulated by a bunch of left wing whackjobs to further their global agenda.
> 
> You want these people telling your businesses in NZ what they can and can not do? Because that's what they want.
Click to expand...


In your opinion....

From what I've seen on both Fox and CNN, these people want reform on Wall St. I have not seen one of the reasonable interviewees say that they want to control jack...


----------



## Mr. Jones

California Girl said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is a list. It's quite entertaining reading. You need to take a look at it. You'll laugh.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I've seen it.  That's why I mentioned them and told Dragon that they were non-conducive to the existence of capitalism and/or corporations.
> 
> Then he told me they have no demands and denied that those are the demands.
> 
> Then he said he just 'wants dialog' about some nondescript issues.
> 
> I said, okie doke.  But I am wondering with whom they want this dialog - looks like bums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe the leaders of the 'leaderless' OWS forgot to tell the protesters what they are protesting about.
> 
> A fool and their liberty - are soon parted.
Click to expand...


The actual organizing principle of the demonstrations is to speak with moral clarity of the economic inequality of our current system. The purpose is not to attack capitalism but rather an industry whose wealth was guarded to the hilt by government intervention  backed up by trillons of dollars of taxpayer money through programs like the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and near-zero interest Federal Reserve lending  a form of government intervention that the banking industry received but millions of foreclosed on homeowners and debt-laden students did not get.

One of the most popular demands at Occupy Wall Street is to get Big Money out of politics.
The occupation of Wall Street has now entered its third week and protests are spreading like wildfire throughout the country.

As the protests continue to grow, the media is increasingly taking notice. Yet many of these media outlets are insisting on referring to the protests as anti-capitalist. Here are just a few examples:

     The Washington Post: The leading paper wrote today that New Yorks budding anti-capitalism protest movement began last month with a vague sense of grievance over the widening gap between the rich and poor in America. [10/3/11]

     Fox News: Anti-Capitalist Protests Spread Across America [10/3/11]

     The New York Daily News: In a photo slideshow published last week, the paper referred to the demonstrators as anti-capitalist protesters who were targeting corporate greed. [9/30/11]

     Mediaite: Mediaite referred to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations as vaguely left-wing, anti-capitalist protesters. [10/01/11]

Even progressive outlets are referring to the protests as anti-capitalist.

This morning, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) advanced this meme. During an appearance on C-SPAN, West was asked about the protests. The congressman responded that it was wrong for the protesters to be saying they hate capitalism and that the United States would be lost without faith in the free market. Watch it:

There are indeed some anti-capitalist protesters among the people at Occupy Wall Street, just as there are protesters who are against the death penalty, or want to combat climate change, or any number of other causes, which is the norm at most mass protests. Some of the protesters are even supporters of the ultra-capitalist Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).


During a teach-in at Zucotti Park, the site of the occupation, Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz explained that what Wall Street is practicing is not capitalism. 

We are bearing the costs of their [bankers'] misdeeds, he said. Theres a system where we socialize losses and privatize gains. Thats not capitalism. Thats not a market economy. Thats a distorted economy, (THAT IS FASCISM) 
and if we continue with that, we wont succeed in growing. Watch the video of Stiglitzs teach-in: 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TF8L2DWhpw&feature=player_embedded]Joseph Stiglitz and Jeff Madrick @ #occupywallstreet Open Economic Forum - YouTube[/ame]


One of the popular viral offshoots of the Occupy Wall Street movement has been the slogan We Are The 99 Percent  referring to an economic struggle between 99 percent of Americans and the super-rich 1 percent. Hundreds of Americans have contributed to the We Are The 99 Percent Tumblr. These Americans arent Marxist radicals nor are they anti-capitalist ideologues. They, like most Americans,
( UNLIKE THE MAJORITY OF POSTERS IN THIS THREAD, OR SO IT SEEMS)
 are angry about being squeezed by an unjust economy wrecked in part by Wall Streets misdeeds.
(AND OUR ELECTED POLITICAL LEADERS ALLOWED IT)

COMMENTS-
_NPR interviewed one of the OWS people yesterday who summed up the purpose of the movement, "We are not against wealth," he said, "and we are not against capitalism. But we are against greed and we want democracy." At its heart OWS is achingly mainstream... if people would just listen to what they are saying they would see that these people demonstrating in Zucotti Park are saying what the majority of Americans (left, right and center) are thinking: business is screwed up and it is time for an intervention to save American business from itself before it destroys itself completely._

_I heard the interview with two of the protesters, 1 in Boston and the other in Chicago I believe. Both young men were articulate and very well informed - a stark contrast to the viral videos shot a Tea Party rallies. It is infuriating that so much of the corporate press is going out of its way to marginalize these people. There message is very clear and the Tumblr - We Are the 99 Percent is very poignant and filled with testimonies of everyday people desperately struggling. Apparently the messages are much to poignant and accessible for any corporate infotainer to take the time to review and do some actual journalism. _

_At least they have their 'anti-capitalist' talking points in sync. I refer to them as Pro-American demonstrations. These demonstrations are the essence of what it is to be American. I'm all for capitalism. Capitalism with rules, Capitalism of the people, Capitalism with Social programs. All countries are Socialist. All Countries are Capitalist. It is getting the right mix of the two which leads to a just society for all of us. Too far one way and all power rests in the hands of Corporations, too far the other way and all power rests in the hands of the government. Now the pendulum is on the side of Corporations._

Memo To The Media: Its Not Anti-Capitalist To Protest An Industry That Was Saved By Trillions Of Taxpayer Dollars | ThinkProgress


----------



## California Girl

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows what they ALL think. You are a neocon, so therefore live in a sound bite world. You think there are not extremists there (just like the tea party) who get all the attention?
> 
> As for not having a clue, the OWS absolutely want reform...
> As for free stuff for themselves ....pfffftttt..
> 
> At the end of the day, they find the idea of the govt bailing these doyens of capitalism out, then stuffing multi million dollar bonuses in their own pockets, as repugnant. As they should. As you should, too.
> 
> And to add insult to the injury, when people demand reform, and politicians demand reform, these meglomanical modern-day Gordon Gecko's threaten the system and the markets, and spend millions lobbying against these reforms.
> 
> While there are some unsavoury elements in this OWS, their grass roots, overall ambition is to say to Wall St, "Sure, make some money, but not at our expense; greed is not good; and trying to make yourself megarich because the almighty dollar is god, is not cool or in the best interests of the country"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OWS has no 'grass roots'. They are a bunch of kids being manipulated by a bunch of left wing whackjobs to further their global agenda.
> 
> You want these people telling your businesses in NZ what they can and can not do? Because that's what they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In your opinion....
> 
> From what I've seen on both Fox and CNN, these people want reform on Wall St. I have not seen one of the reasonable interviewees say that they want to control jack...
Click to expand...



Then read their website.... that's where I'm getting my information.... not from the media, from OWS themselves. 

Oops.


----------



## Dr Grump

Si modo said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, "Dr. Grump"?  Then explain the OWS organizers frantic efforts to keep their people's views from being made public.  The truth is...a $20 an hour minimum wage...a guaranteed "living wage"...and wiping out all debts...those goals are about as far left as you can get.  What those "children" are asking for is laughable and simply proves that the activists down on Wall Street don't have a clue how to fix the economic situation we're in.  They blame bankers for the nations problems but they don't demand reform to the banking system...they demand free stuff for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows what they ALL think. You are a neocon, so therefore live in a sound bite world. You think there are not extremists there (just like the tea party) who get all the attention?
> 
> As for not having a clue, the OWS absolutely want reform...
> As for free stuff for themselves ....pfffftttt..
> 
> At the end of the day, they find the idea of the govt bailing these doyens of capitalism out, then stuffing multi million dollar bonuses in their own pockets, as repugnant. As they should. As you should, too.
> 
> And to add insult to the injury, when people demand reform, and politicians demand reform, these meglomanical modern-day Gordon Gecko's threaten the system and the markets, and spend millions lobbying against these reforms.
> 
> While there are some unsavoury elements in this OWS, their grass roots, overall ambition is to say to Wall St, "Sure, make some money, but not at our expense; greed is not good; and trying to make yourself megarich because the almighty dollar is god, is not cool or in the best interests of the country"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's not a neocon.  I am, but he isn't.
Click to expand...


Anybody who says _"You all* espouse far left views* but none of you will ever admit that you *ARE on the far left*...no, you all describe yourselves as "moderate center-left". Why are you so afraid to admit what you are? Admit it, Dragon...you're no more moderate center-left than the Occupy Wall Street activists are the 99%. When *you say this isn't a far-left *movement you're being as disingenuous as the people that are making the 99% claim."_ when these people clearly aren't (in the normal world)...is a neocon whackjob....


----------



## Si modo

Dr Grump said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows what they ALL think. You are a neocon, so therefore live in a sound bite world. You think there are not extremists there (just like the tea party) who get all the attention?
> 
> As for not having a clue, the OWS absolutely want reform...
> As for free stuff for themselves ....pfffftttt..
> 
> At the end of the day, they find the idea of the govt bailing these doyens of capitalism out, then stuffing multi million dollar bonuses in their own pockets, as repugnant. As they should. As you should, too.
> 
> And to add insult to the injury, when people demand reform, and politicians demand reform, these meglomanical modern-day Gordon Gecko's threaten the system and the markets, and spend millions lobbying against these reforms.
> 
> While there are some unsavoury elements in this OWS, their grass roots, overall ambition is to say to Wall St, "Sure, make some money, but not at our expense; greed is not good; and trying to make yourself megarich because the almighty dollar is god, is not cool or in the best interests of the country"....
> 
> 
> 
> He's not a neocon.  I am, but he isn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anybody who says _"You all* espouse far left views* but none of you will ever admit that you *ARE on the far left*...no, you all describe yourselves as "moderate center-left". Why are you so afraid to admit what you are? *Admit it, Dragon*...you're no more moderate center-left than the Occupy Wall Street activists are the 99%. When *you say this isn't a far-left *movement you're being as disingenuous as the people that are making the 99% claim."_ when these people clearly aren't (in the normal world)...is a neocon whackjob....
Click to expand...

I'm not Dragon.

But, I am a neocon.  So, I have a pretty good grasp of what I am and who is not.


----------



## Dr Grump

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> OWS has no 'grass roots'. They are a bunch of kids being manipulated by a bunch of left wing whackjobs to further their global agenda.
> 
> You want these people telling your businesses in NZ what they can and can not do? Because that's what they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion....
> 
> From what I've seen on both Fox and CNN, these people want reform on Wall St. I have not seen one of the reasonable interviewees say that they want to control jack...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then read their website.... that's where I'm getting my information.... not from the media, from OWS themselves.
> 
> Oops.
Click to expand...


I have. What parts are you talking about? Links?

Oops....


----------



## Dr Grump

Si modo said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not a neocon.  I am, but he isn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who says _"You all* espouse far left views* but none of you will ever admit that you *ARE on the far left*...no, you all describe yourselves as "moderate center-left". Why are you so afraid to admit what you are? *Admit it, Dragon*...you're no more moderate center-left than the Occupy Wall Street activists are the 99%. When *you say this isn't a far-left *movement you're being as disingenuous as the people that are making the 99% claim."_ when these people clearly aren't (in the normal world)...is a neocon whackjob....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not Dragon.
> 
> But, I am a neocon.  So, I have a pretty good grasp of what I am and who is not.
Click to expand...


I know. You were saying he wasn't a neocon. I was giving you an example of why he clearly is....


----------



## mudwhistle

Luissa said:


> And if you watched the film, you know he is against unregulated capitalism. Along with integrating socialism and capitalism. I think the mentioning of his dad being a union worker and providing for his family on just that income is an example of that. But hey, I just bothered to watch the movie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> He writes books/scripts and runs them by producers like everyone else.
> 
> Documentaries don't cost that much to make anyway. It isn't like he hires Brad Pitt and films using IMax cameras
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His documentaries still cost millions to write, direct, film, and produce.
> 
> The purpose of his films is to separate you from your money.
> 
> 
> That's Capitalism.
> 
> Government separates you from your money but they do it through laws and regulations. Figuring your money is theirs and they only let you have a percentage of it is Socialism.
> 
> Capitalism offers goods and services for the money they take.
> 
> Socialism offers nothing to the majority of those they take it from.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Michael Moore is full of shit.

You think you're so smart but you're too stupid to figure out he's a fake. 

He's made himself into a millionaire by using the very system he criticizes. 

*"The Democratic Party is Stupid, and So Are Americans"* - Michael Moore


----------



## Si modo

Dr Grump said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody who says _"You all* espouse far left views* but none of you will ever admit that you *ARE on the far left*...no, you all describe yourselves as "moderate center-left". Why are you so afraid to admit what you are? *Admit it, Dragon*...you're no more moderate center-left than the Occupy Wall Street activists are the 99%. When *you say this isn't a far-left *movement you're being as disingenuous as the people that are making the 99% claim."_ when these people clearly aren't (in the normal world)...is a neocon whackjob....
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Dragon.
> 
> But, I am a neocon.  So, I have a pretty good grasp of what I am and who is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know. You were saying he wasn't a neocon. I was giving you an example of why he clearly is....
Click to expand...

Well, whatever you were trying to say is unrecognizable as anything even approaching the neoconservative philosophy.


----------



## California Girl

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your opinion....
> 
> From what I've seen on both Fox and CNN, these people want reform on Wall St. I have not seen one of the reasonable interviewees say that they want to control jack...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then read their website.... that's where I'm getting my information.... not from the media, from OWS themselves.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have. What parts are you talking about? Links?
> 
> Oops....
Click to expand...


Oh, for God's sake.... it's been linked at least twice in this thread alone. And it's been pasted verbatum at least once. What the hell is the matter with you? Are you still in a high chair? 

I work on the theory that, if I am going to participate in a discussion about a topic.... I fucking read up on it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

percysunshine said:


> I am going to occupy wall street.
> 
> Cardboard box...check
> 
> Bottle of Maddog44 ...check
> 
> Doobie ... check
> 
> Other stuff ... check.



Maddog 44?

Is that stronger than the old MD 20/20?

Where the hell is Aleister Crowley? He's going to want some of that!


----------



## mudwhistle

percysunshine said:


> I am going to occupy wall street.
> 
> Cardboard box...check
> 
> Bottle of Maddog44 ...check
> 
> Doobie ... check
> 
> Other stuff ... check.



Don't forget your pickle-jars.


----------



## mudwhistle

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, "Dr. Grump"?  Then explain the OWS organizers frantic efforts to keep their people's views from being made public.  The truth is...a $20 an hour minimum wage...a guaranteed "living wage"...and wiping out all debts...those goals are about as far left as you can get.  What those "children" are asking for is laughable and simply proves that the activists down on Wall Street don't have a clue how to fix the economic situation we're in.  They blame bankers for the nations problems but they don't demand reform to the banking system...they demand free stuff for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows what they ALL think. You are a neocon, so therefore live in a sound bite world. You think there are not extremists there (just like the tea party) who get all the attention?
> 
> As for not having a clue, the OWS absolutely want reform...
> As for free stuff for themselves ....pfffftttt..
> 
> At the end of the day, they find the idea of the govt bailing these doyens of capitalism out, then stuffing multi million dollar bonuses in their own pockets, as repugnant. As they should. As you should, too.
> 
> And to add insult to the injury, when people demand reform, and politicians demand reform, these meglomanical modern-day Gordon Gecko's threaten the system and the markets, and spend millions lobbying against these reforms.
> 
> While there are some unsavoury elements in this OWS, their grass roots, overall ambition is to say to Wall St, "Sure, make some money, but not at our expense; greed is not good; and trying to make yourself megarich because the almighty dollar is god, is not cool or in the best interests of the country"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OWS has no 'grass roots'. They are a bunch of kids being manipulated by a bunch of left wing whackjobs to further their global agenda.
> 
> You want these people telling your businesses in NZ what they can and can not do? Because that's what they want.
Click to expand...


It's a bunch of kids trying to act like the Tea Party and failing miserably.


----------



## Dr Grump

Si modo said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not Dragon.
> 
> But, I am a neocon.  So, I have a pretty good grasp of what I am and who is not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know. You were saying he wasn't a neocon. I was giving you an example of why he clearly is....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, whatever you were trying to say is unrecognizable as anything even approaching the neoconservative philosophy.
Click to expand...


No, I knew you were referring to the traditional definition, but like many words (communism and socialism being but two) they have been bastardised over the years and now have a different meaning...


----------



## Si modo

Dr Grump said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know. You were saying he wasn't a neocon. I was giving you an example of why he clearly is....
> 
> 
> 
> Well, whatever you were trying to say is unrecognizable as anything even approaching the neoconservative philosophy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I knew you were referring to the traditional definition, but like many words (communism and socialism being but two) they have been bastardised over the years and now have a different meaning...
Click to expand...

True.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Then what's your beef, loser?



The USA has never had anything approaching "pure capitalism," and certainly not in the years of the CRA/LMI ponzi scheme that brought about the 2008 meltdown.

Like most, if not all leftists, you are an ignorant fool. (Ergo, you are a leftist.)


----------



## Dr Grump

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then read their website.... that's where I'm getting my information.... not from the media, from OWS themselves.
> 
> Oops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have. What parts are you talking about? Links?
> 
> Oops....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, for God's sake.... it's been linked at least twice in this thread alone. And it's been pasted verbatum at least once. What the hell is the matter with you? Are you still in a high chair?
> 
> I work on the theory that, if I am going to participate in a discussion about a topic.... I fucking read up on it.
Click to expand...


1) There are over 540 posts - sorry I haven't met you high standards and read every single post. I'm sure you have read every single one, right?
2) I have looked at the site. There are many different views. In fact, some have posted that some of the posts do not represent the views of the OWS folk, which is why I want you to be more specific. If you can't, no big deal.
3) I'm out of my high chair, but it appears you are still throwing toys out of your cot....


----------



## Dot Com




----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what's your beef, loser?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The USA has never had anything approaching "pure capitalism," and certainly not in the years of the CRA/LMI ponzi scheme that brought about the 2008 meltdown.
> 
> Like most, if not all leftists, you are an ignorant fool. (Ergo, you are a leftist.)
Click to expand...


Funnily enough I agree with regard to the ponzi scheme, to a point

Everything else has gone over your head. Being a right-wing loon, that is no surprise. Any indepth discussion that goes past two sentences has you floundering...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Mr. Jones said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen a semi-official list of grievances, but so far no demands, no. Were you thinking of that bogus list of 11 demands that someone or other posted on the OWS web site forum?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PICKET: Occupy Wall Street protesters post manifesto of 'demands' - Washington Times
> 
> Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
> 
> Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
> 
> Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
> 
> Demand four: Free college education.
> 
> Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
> 
> Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
> 
> Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
> 
> Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
> 
> Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
> 
> Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
> 
> Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
> 
> Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
> 
> Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
> 
> These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy
> 
> Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! | OccupyWallSt.org Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You left out the complete titile-
> Proposed List Of Demands For Occupy Wall St Movement! (User Submitted)
> Clicking the link you submitted will reveal your attempt to mislead.
> 
> *Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.*
> 
> Nice try at spreading disinformation...fucking hack.
Click to expand...


i actually provided 2 links.  Before jumping off that bridge maybe you should try looking 

And I provided the links, if I was trying to deceive I would have used the blog that had only the demands instead of the link from a newspaper and the occupy website.   Idiot.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

CrusaderFrank said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY - TRAILER - YouTube​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how does that fat fuck Michael Moore get his "movies" produced and distributed?  Where does the money come from?
Click to expand...


Does Micheal Moore Keep his profits or donate all of it exept for a living wage?   

Evil capitalist making money off the fools who think he is against capitalism...much like i'm doing saturday with my 100 "fuck wall street" t-shirts


----------



## California Girl

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have. What parts are you talking about? Links?
> 
> Oops....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, for God's sake.... it's been linked at least twice in this thread alone. And it's been pasted verbatum at least once. What the hell is the matter with you? Are you still in a high chair?
> 
> I work on the theory that, if I am going to participate in a discussion about a topic.... I fucking read up on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) There are over 540 posts - sorry I haven't met you high standards and read every single post. I'm sure you have read every single one, right?
> 2) I have looked at the site. There are many different views. In fact, some have posted that some of the posts do not represent the views of the OWS folk, which is why I want you to be more specific. If you can't, no big deal.
> 3) I'm out of my high chair, but it appears you are still throwing toys out of your cot....
Click to expand...


Your laziness is not my problem. The list is there. I'm not spoon feeding people who can't be bothered to find information for themselves. 

But one of those 'demands' is a global 'drop all debt'. Nice that a bunch of whiners in Wall Street can demand how your country behaves, huh?

Just in case going up a couple of posts is too hard for ya, here:



> Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Dr Grump said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pure capitalism doesn't work. The Great Depression and 2008 and this year has proven it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have zero grasp on economics - ergo you are a leftist.
> 
> Pure capitalism, indeed....
> 
> Whatamaroon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what's your beef, loser?
Click to expand...


I think his beef is that the USA hasn't operated under pure capitalism for a LONG LONG TIME.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I saw that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was just playing along with her game
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I was playing your's.  lol
Click to expand...


I notice we were both civil, unlike some posts


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

mudwhistle said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL My mom made me play "connect the dots" a lot as a child, it paid off
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what I think is funny? You guys will go after George all day long, but never say one word about the Koch brothers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many economies have the Koch Brothers destroyed????
Click to expand...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVuoQa3r-vc]George Soros NEW WORLD ORDER! China must be brought in! Orderly Decline of Dollar! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Wry Catcher

mudwhistle said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows what they ALL think. You are a neocon, so therefore live in a sound bite world. You think there are not extremists there (just like the tea party) who get all the attention?
> 
> As for not having a clue, the OWS absolutely want reform...
> As for free stuff for themselves ....pfffftttt..
> 
> At the end of the day, they find the idea of the govt bailing these doyens of capitalism out, then stuffing multi million dollar bonuses in their own pockets, as repugnant. As they should. As you should, too.
> 
> And to add insult to the injury, when people demand reform, and politicians demand reform, these meglomanical modern-day Gordon Gecko's threaten the system and the markets, and spend millions lobbying against these reforms.
> 
> While there are some unsavoury elements in this OWS, their grass roots, overall ambition is to say to Wall St, "Sure, make some money, but not at our expense; greed is not good; and trying to make yourself megarich because the almighty dollar is god, is not cool or in the best interests of the country"....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OWS has no 'grass roots'. They are a bunch of kids being manipulated by a bunch of left wing whackjobs to further their global agenda.
> 
> You want these people telling your businesses in NZ what they can and can not do? Because that's what they want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a bunch of kids trying to act like the Tea Party and failing miserably.
Click to expand...


Liar.


----------



## MikeK

Big Fitz said:


> I'd rather have this one question answered:
> 
> If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?
> 
> I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.


In spite of the deceptive nonsense being spewed by the corporatist propaganda machine there is absolutely no intention at any level of this movement to "do away with capitalism."  This Nation's economy was doing just fine with its regulated capitalist base until 1980, when the emerging corporatocracy installed the puppet from General Electric who initiated Milton Friedman's so called "trickle down" which turned out to be _siphon up_ economics.  What we are seeing now is incremental disassembly of the middle class and the purpose of this movement is to put a stop to it.    

If you belong to the middle class you would do well to realize it's a matter of time until the neo-Robber Barons of Wall Street get around to doing to you and yours what they've already done to millions of formerly secure working class Americans.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Why would anyone defend 'Wall Street'?


----------



## California Girl

MikeK said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have this one question answered:
> 
> If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?
> 
> I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.
> 
> 
> 
> In spite of the deceptive nonsense being spewed by the corporatist propaganda machine there is absolutely no intention at any level of this movement to "do away with capitalism."  This Nation's economy was doing just fine with its regulated capitalist base until 1980, when the emerging corporatocracy installed the puppet from General Electric who initiated Milton Friedman's so called "trickle down" which turned out to be _siphon up_ economics.  What we are seeing now is incremental disassembly of the middle class and the purpose of this movement is to put a stop to it.
> 
> If you belong to the middle class you would do well to realize it's a matter of time until the neo-Robber Barons of Wall Street get around to doing to you and yours what they've already done to millions of formerly secure working class Americans.
Click to expand...


Liar.


----------



## California Girl

Wry Catcher said:


> Why would anyone defend 'Wall Street'?



Who's 'defending' Wall Street?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Funnily enough I agree with regard to the ponzi scheme, to a point
> 
> Everything else has gone over your head. Being a right-wing loon, that is no surprise. Any indepth discussion that goes past two sentences has you floundering...



Bravado won't hide the fact that you are an uneducated buffoon with no grasp at all of economic theory. You have no clue what Laissez Faire capitalism is, and really should be slapped by the invisible hand.

You are of the envy and greed driven left who holds an economic philosophy espoused simply in "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee."

The OWS fools are drooling slobs with Union goons co-opting their idiotic temper tantrum. Not one of you dolts can elucidate a coherent message from the OWS crowd. You try to chant Tea Party slogans but you don't have the requisite intellect to grasp the meaning behind it all.

Irrelevant now as this has devolved into nothing more than another SUEI greed fest where unions demand that everyone else sacrifice to feed their piggy snouts in the trough.


----------



## Wry Catcher

California Girl said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone defend 'Wall Street'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's 'defending' Wall Street?
Click to expand...


Liar.


----------



## Dr Grump

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, for God's sake.... it's been linked at least twice in this thread alone. And it's been pasted verbatum at least once. What the hell is the matter with you? Are you still in a high chair?
> 
> I work on the theory that, if I am going to participate in a discussion about a topic.... I fucking read up on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) There are over 540 posts - sorry I haven't met you high standards and read every single post. I'm sure you have read every single one, right?
> 2) I have looked at the site. There are many different views. In fact, some have posted that some of the posts do not represent the views of the OWS folk, which is why I want you to be more specific. If you can't, no big deal.
> 3) I'm out of my high chair, but it appears you are still throwing toys out of your cot....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your laziness is not my problem. The list is there. I'm not spoon feeding people who can't be bothered to find information for themselves.
> 
> But one of those 'demands' is a global 'drop all debt'. Nice that a bunch of whiners in Wall Street can demand how your country behaves, huh?
> 
> Just in case going up a couple of posts is too hard for ya, here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You know, I knew your snippiness/self-righteousness would come back and bite you in the arse.

I know of this list of demands. You obviously missed this part, in bold, right at the top by the site's admin:

Admin note: *This is not an official list of demands*. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. *This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective*, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.


----------



## California Girl

Wry Catcher said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would anyone defend 'Wall Street'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's 'defending' Wall Street?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
Click to expand...


How odd. Asking a question is now deemed a 'lie' by the left. The lack of logic is impressive.


----------



## Uncensored2008

MikeK said:


> In spite of the deceptive nonsense being spewed by the corporatist propaganda machine there is absolutely no intention at any level of this movement to "do away with capitalism."  This Nation's economy was doing just fine with its regulated capitalist base until 1980, when the emerging corporatocracy installed the puppet from *General Electric who initiated Milton Friedman's so called "trickle down"* which turned out to be _siphon up_ economics.  What we are seeing now is incremental disassembly of the middle class and the purpose of this movement is to put a stop to it.
> 
> If you belong to the middle class you would do well to realize it's a matter of time until the neo-Robber Barons of Wall Street get around to doing to you and yours what they've already done to millions of formerly secure working class Americans.



Snicker...

Gufaw..

BWAHAHAHAHA

What a fucking retard.

Milton Feidman's "Trickle Down," funniest thing I've ever heard...


----------



## California Girl

Dr Grump said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) There are over 540 posts - sorry I haven't met you high standards and read every single post. I'm sure you have read every single one, right?
> 2) I have looked at the site. There are many different views. In fact, some have posted that some of the posts do not represent the views of the OWS folk, which is why I want you to be more specific. If you can't, no big deal.
> 3) I'm out of my high chair, but it appears you are still throwing toys out of your cot....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your laziness is not my problem. The list is there. I'm not spoon feeding people who can't be bothered to find information for themselves.
> 
> But one of those 'demands' is a global 'drop all debt'. Nice that a bunch of whiners in Wall Street can demand how your country behaves, huh?
> 
> Just in case going up a couple of posts is too hard for ya, here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, I knew your snippiness/self-righteousness would come back and bite you in the arse.
> 
> I know of this list of demands. You obviously missed this part, in bold, right at the top by the site's admin:
> 
> Admin note: *This is not an official list of demands*. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. *This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective*, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.
Click to expand...


No, I didn't miss it. I find it very amusing. Their 'get out of jail free' card.  

Disclaimer: We can say anything we want and then pretend it wasn't our idea. Classic shit.


----------



## Dr Grump

California Girl said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your laziness is not my problem. The list is there. I'm not spoon feeding people who can't be bothered to find information for themselves.
> 
> But one of those 'demands' is a global 'drop all debt'. Nice that a bunch of whiners in Wall Street can demand how your country behaves, huh?
> 
> Just in case going up a couple of posts is too hard for ya, here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I knew your snippiness/self-righteousness would come back and bite you in the arse.
> 
> I know of this list of demands. You obviously missed this part, in bold, right at the top by the site's admin:
> 
> Admin note: *This is not an official list of demands*. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. *This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective*, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I didn't miss it. I find it very amusing. Their 'get out of jail free' card.
> 
> Disclaimer: We can say anything we want and then pretend it wasn't our idea. Classic shit.
Click to expand...


Why would they bother....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Interesting  I was listening to an OWS person express the movements tenets and he sounded just like a member of the TPM.


----------



## Dr Grump

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funnily enough I agree with regard to the ponzi scheme, to a point
> 
> Everything else has gone over your head. Being a right-wing loon, that is no surprise. Any indepth discussion that goes past two sentences has you floundering...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bravado won't hide the fact that you are an uneducated buffoon with no grasp at all of economic theory. You have no clue what Laissez Faire capitalism is, and really should be slapped by the invisible hand.
> 
> You are of the envy and greed driven left who holds an economic philosophy espoused simply in "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee."
> 
> The OWS fools are drooling slobs with Union goons co-opting their idiotic temper tantrum. Not one of you dolts can elucidate a coherent message from the OWS crowd. You try to chant Tea Party slogans but you don't have the requisite intellect to grasp the meaning behind it all.
> 
> Irrelevant now as this has devolved into nothing more than another SUEI greed fest where unions demand that everyone else sacrifice to feed their piggy snouts in the trough.
Click to expand...


I am amazed so much drivel can be packed into one post....


----------



## mudwhistle

Wry Catcher said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> OWS has no 'grass roots'. They are a bunch of kids being manipulated by a bunch of left wing whackjobs to further their global agenda.
> 
> You want these people telling your businesses in NZ what they can and can not do? Because that's what they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a bunch of kids trying to act like the Tea Party and failing miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
Click to expand...


I know you are.

Van Jones put out the word. 



> *WASHINGTON *-- Former White House environmental adviser Van Jones is calling on progressive activists *to be more like the Tea Party* in order to take back the momentum conservatives have built over the past two years.
> 
> In a speech at the Take Back The American Dream Conference in Washington, D.C. on Monday, Jones said that after studying everything he could about the Tea Party, he determined that progressives should move away from relying on a single leader to accomplish their goals.
> 
> "We have been on a one-sided offensive in this country where the worst people in America with the worst ideas have dominated the discussion," Jones said in a high-energy speech. "And I'm not mad at them. I'm not mad at the Tea Party. I'm not mad at them for being so loud. I'm mad at us for being so quiet."
> 
> Jones told the receptive crowd that the reason President Obama's campaign was so successful in 2008 was that it had progressive groups join together under a "meta-brand." After Obama's election, however, Jones said progressive groups became lazy and sat back.
> 
> Citing the "Occupy Wall Street" protests spreading around the country and progressives who protested at congressional town halls in August, Jones said they were already recapturing momentum.
> 
> Van Jones Calls On Progressives To Be More Like The Tea Party



You were saying?????


----------



## Uncensored2008

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Interesting  I was listening to an OWS person express the movements tenets and he sounded just like a member of the TPM.



Except slightly retarded!

That is exactly what the OWS dopers initially did, rehash Tea Party slogans (which suddenly Olbermann and Stewart demand are BRILLIANT) except they don't grasp the meaning of the words they say.

But that was BEFORE this became a SUEI greed outing, "Divert YOUR 401K to MY Union Pension - I WANT!"


----------



## Wry Catcher

California Girl said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's 'defending' Wall Street?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How odd. Asking a question is now deemed a 'lie' by the left. The lack of logic is impressive.
Click to expand...


LOL, you attended Oxford?  How successful were you given your obvious reading comprehension difficulty?  

My question was, "Why would anyone defend 'Wall Street'?"  A question you decided was a statement that some were defending Wall Street.  Clearly my question was based on the egregious nature of wall street, i.e. abject greed, and how no one would defend such behavior.


----------



## WillowTree

A TV pundit pointed out today that obama chastizes the banks for taking risks with other people's money and then he  the solyndra debacle as just the sort of risk we should be taking with other people's money. I'm just ashamed I didn't think of that first. but oh the reality bites.


----------



## Peevishnky

It amazes me the stupidity that walks this planet. Mobs abound protesting the very thing they want to become...successful & rich. The problem is...they don't want to work for it. Instead the want to be lifetime students, text each other all day instead of having a conversation, or play video games until they have no more sense of reality. Here's an idea...get a job, get a life, and get a clue...then you will have plenty of meaningful things to protest about.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Peevishnky said:


> It amazes me the stupidity that walks this planet. Mobs abound protesting the very thing they want to become...successful & rich. The problem is...they don't want to work for it. Instead the want to be lifetime students, text each other all day instead of having a conversation, or play video games until they have no more sense of reality. Here's an idea...get a job, get a life, and get a clue...then you will have plenty of meaningful things to protest about.



How do you know that all of the people in the streets want to be rich and successful but don't want to work?

Did you interview all of them?  Or, did you listen to a few kooks - or are you repeating the comments of a few kooks?

I think you're full of shit, and a pile of shit is of the same value as your opinion.


----------



## Peevishnky

That's your opinion and that's fine, but you don't know me and you don't know anything about me, you haven't interviewed me therefore you can't make any statement about what I am or am not full of. 

Obviously, you must be one of those leftwing kooks with their head up their ass. How's the view from there? Pretty shitty huh! That's why you have a shitty attitude.

Just remember...

Opinions are like assholes...everybody has one...some just stink more than others and I suspect yours is pretty rank.


----------



## Dr Grump

Peevishnky said:


> That's your opinion and that's fine, but you don't know me and you don't know anything about me, you haven't interviewed me therefore you can't make any statement about what I am or am not full of. .



And yet you can make claims about the OWS based on soundbites on a television station..

As mentioned already in this thread...those in glass houses...


----------



## Intense

geauxtohell said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how many incredibly stupid names will be thought up for the kids that will no doubt be conceived at these "protest" parties?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody could be more stupid then the Tea Party Geriatrics who called themselves "teabaggers" before they knew it had sexual innuendo attached to it.
Click to expand...


Except maybe ..... Someone who see's Himself getting Flipped off every time He sees His Avatar.   

Not all Tea Party Members cruise the Village or Soho, bathrooms like you I guess, so the term was alien to them. Anderson Cooper and Others picked right up on it though, huh.


----------



## Si modo

So, what is it that the OWS wants?

They deny what was on their site and their site now says they are not an official site.

The posters here who claim to be part of them say they only want dialog.

But, they don't articulate what that means.

They claim they have no demands.

So, seriously....WTF?


----------



## Peevishnky

I don't base "my opinions" upon TV or radio sound bytes, because for the most part...the media sucks. The issue is not about the OWS protesting...it's what they are protesting about that is the issue...economic equality. So tell me, how do you achieve economic equality in a world that isn't equal in the first place. The protests are displays of class evny. OWS is mad because someone has more money than they do. So I guess they want Peter Pan Obama to swoop in and pilage others riches and distribute it to them...we already do that...It's called TAXES. So what else is it? 

Remember what the Bible says...Thou shall not covet!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OWS are life's biggest losers


----------



## Big Fitz

California Girl said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> oops. anti semetic slurs!! nooo way!
> 
> ]Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest [CLEAN VERSION] - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure we'll see replays of this moment on nbc abc cbs cnn mslsd etc....that darn wall st movement, bunch of rednecks..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My gast.... it's totally flabbered.
Click to expand...

Saw that coming.  It's a protest... all the protesters want to join in the fun.

I am speechless with flabbergastness too.

and so is kitteh.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OWS: Feeling better about your Loser self by attacking successful people, it's a mental disorder


----------



## Big Fitz

CrusaderFrank said:


> OWS: Feeling better about your Loser self by attacking successful people, it's a mental disorder


OWS sounds like IBS to me.

I prefer the term Occupados.  

Sounds like a well used public toilet.  Stinky, dirty and full of shit with lots of stupid grafitti on the walls.


----------



## whitehall

The socialist leaders like Van Jones have their people out demonstrating here and there but it seems more like a bunch of morons milling around and waiting for their next latte. The liberal media doesn't even interview the fools because they can't seem to put two words together without using the "F" word. I hate to give the left any advice but the mob sure doesn't make Barry look good. It just tends to point out how far to the left the administration stands on important issues.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Can any Lib tell us how pulling successful people down will help?


----------



## HenryBHough

Luissa said:


> So do you agree with the way the police have been treating the protesters? They make it clear they want to stay non violent.



By that theory a bank robber who says "please" and "thank you" without hurting anyone must not be prosecuted.  I'd go along with that if he/she stole only YOUR money.


----------



## Dr Grump

HenryBHough said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you agree with the way the police have been treating the protesters? They make it clear they want to stay non violent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that theory a bank robber who says "please" and "thank you" without hurting anyone must not be prosecuted.  I'd go along with that if he/she stole only YOUR money.
Click to expand...


So people should not be allowed to protest peacefully?


----------



## Dr Grump

CrusaderFrank said:


> Can any Lib tell us how pulling successful people down will help?



I don't see anybody wanting to pull successful people down..


----------



## Intense

Dr Grump said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can any Lib tell us how pulling successful people down will help?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anybody wanting to pull successful people down..
Click to expand...


You couldn't if you tried.


----------



## Ropey

Intense said:


> Except maybe ..... Someone who see's Himself getting Flipped off every time He sees His Avatar.





Edit:

That's what I see when I look at it.


----------



## Intense

Ropey said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except maybe ..... Someone who see's Himself getting Flipped off every time He sees His Avatar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:
> 
> That's what I see when I look at it.
Click to expand...


I don't waste my time.


----------



## Trajan

what I really love and always get a kick out of, is the selectivity applied  by the media, of late;

Networks Again Trumpet What NBC's Williams Celebrates as 'the Protest of This Current Era'
By: Brent Baker
Thursday, October 06, 2011 9:09 AM EDT 

_CBS and NBC led Wednesday night with glowing stories about the growth and diversity of the far-left &#8220;Occupy Wall Street&#8221; protests, though without any ideological label applied nor any critics allowed, a promotional approach the networks never provided in Tea Party coverage.

&#8220;We begin tonight with what has become by any measure a pretty massive protest movement,&#8221; NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams announced. &#8220;While it goes by the official name &#8216;Occupy Wall Street,&#8217; it has spread steadily and far beyond Wall Street, and it could well turn out to be the protest of this current era.&#8221;

ABC&#8217;s Cecilia Vega touted how &#8220;it is a crowd that grows daily in size and diversity,&#8221; CBS&#8217;s Michelle Miller heralded &#8220;they&#8217;re gaining momentum and new recruits&#8221; and NBC&#8217;s Mara Schiavocampo trumpeted &#8220;the largest crowd yet, and more varied in age and background.&#8221;

She assured viewers that &#8220;experts say though still largely undefined, the movement has a lot of potential.&#8221;
_


snip-

and not to be out done;

_After highlighting, without regard to their size, how &#8220;the protests are spreading from  cyberspace to streets all around the country -- 50 cities now -- from Salt Lake City to Topeka to Knoxville,&#8221; Vega considered it newsworthy that a left-wing Democrat is in favor of the left-wing protests: &#8220;The movement now garnering attention from politicians running for office, like Elizabeth Warren, who's vying for a Democratic Senate nomination in Massachusetts.&#8221;

Vega proceeded to hail how &#8220;observers of social history say the protesters' growing presence could be a major issue in the coming presidential election year.&#8221; A white female professor celebrated: &#8220;If you can influence the conversation in the 2012 election, then you've done something pretty amazing.&#8221;
_
more at-

Networks Again Trumpet What NBC's Williams Celebrates as 'the Protest of This Current Era'

no dimiwt, whats amazing is your complete lack of objectivity....


----------



## MikeK

Peevishnky said:


> I don't base "my opinions" upon TV or radio sound bytes, because for the most part...the media sucks. The issue is not about the OWS protesting...it's what they are protesting about that is the issue...economic equality. So tell me, how do you achieve economic equality in a world that isn't equal in the first place. The protests are displays of class evny. OWS is mad because someone has more money than they do. So I guess they want Peter Pan Obama to swoop in and pilage others riches and distribute it to them...we already do that...It's called TAXES. So what else is it?
> 
> Remember what the Bible says...Thou shall not covet!


It is obvious that you've been brainwashed and I don't say that to offend you.  

Everything you've said is a composite of the propaganda spewed by the unholy trinity of Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity.  All three are multi-millionaires and they make that kind of money by convincing impressionable people like you to oppose your own interests, which is what you're doing here.

The first thing you need to understand is the objective of the Wall Street protest is not to achieve economic equality but rather to restore the same level of equitable (not equal) distribution of this Nation's wealth resources as existed before Ronald Reagan initiated what he called "trickle down" economics, which we now know is _siphon up_ economics.  The idea you have that protesters are envious and covetous of the super rich is right out of the right-wing playbook.  Please consider that there always has been a wealth disparity in America but this is the first time we've been hearing the "envy" and "covet" nonsense.  

People aren't envious and coveteous.  They are pissed off and have good reason to be.  Their jobs are being exported to China, Mexico and India.  Millions have been tricked into dumping their savings into untenable mortgages and are living now in cars and on the streets.  Millions more have been cheated out of their pensions.  All of this while one percent of the population has accumulated the kind of wealth that equates to nobility.  

And unless you are in some exceptionally secure financial situation these Wall Street schemers and manipulators will get around to you.  They're just getting warmed up now.


----------



## theliq

That is not a clever oneliner Cal.,because $20 an hour is a pittance from where I'm from...your wages are a disgrace,no wonder everyone lived on CREDIT,CREDIT and more CREDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!shit thats only $800 for a 40 hour week,our average is $1468.just saying


California Girl said:


> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?


----------



## theliq

The only RANK(BIAS) Media you have is that Criminal Murdoch..enough said


MikeK said:


> Peevishnky said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't base "my opinions" upon TV or radio sound bytes, because for the most part...the media sucks. The issue is not about the OWS protesting...it's what they are protesting about that is the issue...economic equality. So tell me, how do you achieve economic equality in a world that isn't equal in the first place. The protests are displays of class evny. OWS is mad because someone has more money than they do. So I guess they want Peter Pan Obama to swoop in and pilage others riches and distribute it to them...we already do that...It's called TAXES. So what else is it?
> 
> Remember what the Bible says...Thou shall not covet!
> 
> 
> 
> It is obvious that you've been brainwashed and I don't say that to offend you.
> 
> Everything you've said is a composite of the propaganda spewed by the unholy trinity of Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity.  All three are multi-millionaires and they make that kind of money by convincing impressionable people like you to oppose your own interests, which is what you're doing here.
> 
> The first thing you need to understand is the objective of the Wall Street protest is not to achieve economic equality but rather to restore the same level of equitable (not equal) distribution of this Nation's wealth resources as existed before Ronald Reagan initiated what he called "trickle down" economics, which we now know is _siphon up_ economics.  The idea you have that protesters are envious and covetous of the super rich is right out of the right-wing playbook.  Please consider that there always has been a wealth disparity in America but this is the first time we've been hearing the "envy" and "covet" nonsense.
> 
> People aren't envious and coveteous.  They are pissed off and have good reason to be.  Their jobs are being exported to China, Mexico and India.  Millions have been tricked into dumping their savings into untenable mortgages and are living now in cars and on the streets.  Millions more have been cheated out of their pensions.  All of this while one percent of the population has accumulated the kind of wealth that equates to nobility.
> 
> And unless you are in some exceptionally secure financial situation these Wall Street schemers and manipulators will get around to you.  They're just getting warmed up now.
Click to expand...


----------



## California Girl

Wry Catcher said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How odd. Asking a question is now deemed a 'lie' by the left. The lack of logic is impressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, you attended Oxford?  How successful were you given your obvious reading comprehension difficulty?
> 
> My question was, "Why would anyone defend 'Wall Street'?"  A question you decided was a statement that some were defending Wall Street.  Clearly my question was based on the egregious nature of wall street, i.e. abject greed, and how no one would defend such behavior.
Click to expand...


My educational achievements are your business... how exactly? Jealous? No need to be. At the end of the day, it's just a University - albeit one of the best in the world - and, sure, it has absolutely helped me careerwise.... but it's no big deal. 

I asked a perfectly reasonable question in response to yours. Who is defending Wall St. If the question was too hard for you, I apologize. Is that better? 

Silly child.


----------



## California Girl

theliq said:


> That is not a clever oneliner Cal.,because $20 an hour is a pittance from where I'm from...your wages are a disgrace,no wonder everyone lived on CREDIT,CREDIT and more CREDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!shit thats only $800 for a 40 hour week,our average is $1468.just saying
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?
Click to expand...


Idiot.


----------



## Luissa

HenryBHough said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you agree with the way the police have been treating the protesters? They make it clear they want to stay non violent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that theory a bank robber who says "please" and "thank you" without hurting anyone must not be prosecuted.  I'd go along with that if he/she stole only YOUR money.
Click to expand...


You didn't just say that?


 Did he just say that?


----------



## Stephanie

> Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.



You all can deny deny deny all you want..The cats out of the bag already...
The majority of the people see this so called movement just for what it is..The desperation of the DEMOCRAT PARTY.


----------



## Luissa




----------



## California Girl

California Girl said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please define "our Constitutional Republic."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our: The United States of America
> 
> Constitutional Republic: a state where the head of state and elected leaders are representatives of the People,, governing by the existing Constitutional laws which limit the government's power over the People.
> 
> Standard definition of a Constitutional Republic - I find it slightly disconcerting that you need it to be defined for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm wondering why Dragon finds this straightforward question so hard to answer.... Or maybe he's embarrassed by asking for a definition of 'our Constitutional Republic'. Hmmm.
Click to expand...


I guess the question was too hard for Dragon... or maybe he really doesn't want to answer - at least, not honestly. 

Which begs the question. Do the left really want to tear up the Constitution and create a new America?


----------



## Full-Auto

Dr Grump said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you agree with the way the police have been treating the protesters? They make it clear they want to stay non violent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By that theory a bank robber who says "please" and "thank you" without hurting anyone must not be prosecuted.  I'd go along with that if he/she stole only YOUR money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So people should not be allowed to protest peacefully?
Click to expand...


Yes, without question.

However blocking traffic takes it beyond peaceful and into the realm of insurrection. As blocking traffic interferes with commerce.


----------



## Si modo

So, these folks are 'protesting' with no reason.

Some posters seem to understand what the 'protest' is about, but they can't seem to articulate that.

And, when someone does articulate what this is all about, others say they aren't speaking for the 'protesters'.

Does anyone know what the demands and/or grievances are and what they want done to mitigate those grievances?  This is an honest question.


----------



## Stephanie

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Interesting &#8211; I was listening to an &#8216;OWS&#8217; person express the movement&#8217;s tenets and he sounded just like a member of the TPM.



Bull
The TP is NOT CALLING on the Government to STEP in and TAKE CARE OF THINGS as this group is.
Also the Tea party don't OCCUPY places as these leftist idiots..this isn't A PROTEST.
It's an outright DISTURBANCE which will more than likely end in VIOLENCE.

If there is blood in the streets, it will be on the hands of ALL YOU who is ENCOURAGING and standing with this..

live with that.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Interesting  I was listening to an OWS person express the movements tenets and he sounded just like a member of the TPM.



What were the tenets?

Please list them so I can decide for myself if your observation is accurate.



BTW whats up with the letters from SEIU sent to union members several months ago telling them to prepare for fall protests on wall street and all the prep done for this by various groups.....its like it was a pre-planned outrage?    SEIU plans days of rage against Wall Street


----------



## Intense

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting  I was listening to an OWS person express the movements tenets and he sounded just like a member of the TPM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What were the tenets?
> 
> Please list them so I can decide for myself if your observation is accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW whats up with the letters from SEIU sent to union members several months ago telling them to prepare for fall protests on wall street and all the prep done for this by various groups.....its like it was a pre-planned outrage?    SEIU plans days of rage against Wall Street
Click to expand...




> On March 25 ACORN founder Wade Rathke, a one-time president of an SEIU local in New Orleans, announced what he described as days of rage in ten cities around JP Morgan Chase. Rathke said the forthcoming campaign of demonstrations, strikes and disruption will mark the beginning of the anti-banking jihad.
> 
> This kind of inflammatory language hasnt been in the news since the days of Patty Hearst, the Weathermen, and the Black Panthers. But it has always characterized the rhetoric of left-wing activists. Now, as the labor movement lurches increasingly to port in frustration at the stalemated politics of Washington, D.C., you can expect to hear more fighting words from the activist Left. SEIU plans days of rage against Wall Street


  From Your Link.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> You don't know what a constitutional republic is?



What I don't know is what California Girl means by that phrase, which is something non-standard.

Normally, "our Constitutional Republic" would mean the U.S. government as established by the United States Constitution. However the only way to overthrow THAT constitutional republic would be by force, and she says that's not what she's talking about. Also, she speaks of replacing it with something "more socialistic," but the Constitution does not mention the economic system at all. In theory, we could have any degree of socialism without changing the Constitution at all.

So I need her to clarify what SHE means by "our Constitutional Republic." Not what it normally means.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Si modo said:


> So, what is it that the OWS wants?
> 
> They deny what was on their site and their site now says they are not an official site.
> 
> The posters here who claim to be part of them say they only want dialog.
> 
> But, they don't articulate what that means.
> 
> They claim they have no demands.
> 
> So, seriously....WTF?



Whatever they may have been, now it's just the greedy union goons shrieking "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee."


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> So, these folks are 'protesting' with no reason.
> 
> Some posters seem to understand what the 'protest' is about, but they can't seem to articulate that.
> 
> And, when someone does articulate what this is all about, others say they aren't speaking for the 'protesters'.
> 
> Does anyone know what the demands and/or grievances are and what they want done to mitigate those grievances?  This is an honest question.



It's been published before, but here you are again:

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of ones skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save peoples lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> So people should not be allowed to protest peacefully?



they have the right to protest and rational people have the right to recognize them a petulant morons.

Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> I don't see anybody wanting to pull successful people down..



ROFL

That's because your head is so far up your ass that you only see your small intestine.


----------



## Uncensored2008

California Girl said:


> I guess the question was too hard for Dragon... or maybe he really doesn't want to answer - at least, not honestly.
> 
> Which begs the question. Do the left really want to tear up the Constitution and create a new America?



You know full well that's what they want.

Dragon ducked the question instead of lying, he deserves some credit for that shred of integrity.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know what a constitutional republic is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I don't know is what California Girl means by that phrase, which is something non-standard.
> 
> Normally, "our Constitutional Republic" would mean the U.S. government as established by the United States Constitution. However the only way to overthrow THAT constitutional republic would be by force, and she says that's not what she's talking about. Also, she speaks of replacing it with something "more socialistic," but the Constitution does not mention the economic system at all. In theory, we could have any degree of socialism without changing the Constitution at all.
> 
> So I need her to clarify what SHE means by "our Constitutional Republic." Not what it normally means.
Click to expand...

She clarified.  When she says CR, she means CR, and the "our" means the USA.

Seems pretty clear.


----------



## Uncensored2008

According to Dragon, the End the Constitution protestors have these demands;
_
They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage._

How is it THEIR houses if they haven't paid for out, built it or have title? The End the Constitution protestors are simply demanding that they be given free houses, because they want them - Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee

_
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization._

Obviously the End the Constitution protestors are morons, but if "they" have poisoned the food supply, why are people living longer than any time in human history?

_They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil._

So the End the Constitution morons view Solyndra and the other fiascoes perpetrated in the name of the "Green" religion to be "blocking?"

How fucking stupid ARE these End the Constitution protestors anyway?


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, these folks are 'protesting' with no reason.
> 
> Some posters seem to understand what the 'protest' is about, but they can't seem to articulate that.
> 
> And, when someone does articulate what this is all about, others say they aren't speaking for the 'protesters'.
> 
> Does anyone know what the demands and/or grievances are and what they want done to mitigate those grievances?  This is an honest question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been published before, but here you are again:
> 
> Declaration of the Occupation of New York City
> 
> As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
> 
> As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
> 
> They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
> They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
> They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of ones skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
> They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
> They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
> They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
> They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
> They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers healthcare and pay.
> They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
> They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
> They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
> They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
> They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
> They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
> They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
> They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save peoples lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
> They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
> They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
> They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
> They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
> They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.
> 
> To the people of the world,
> 
> We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.
> 
> Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
> 
> To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
> 
> Join us and make your voices heard!
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Can you cite the source of this?

I mean, I don't know who you are.  Maybe another poster will come here and say THEY are part of OWS and claim that you don't know shit.

Not saying you don't, just you have done just that about other sources of what the OWS is about and I just want some sort of consistency and legitimacy of source.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dr Grump said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can any Lib tell us how pulling successful people down will help?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anybody wanting to pull successful people down..
Click to expand...


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> She clarified.  When she says CR, she means CR, and the "our" means the USA.
> 
> Seems pretty clear.



Then I already answered the question. The only way to pull down the constitution and overthrow the government is forcibly. I would not be in favor of doing that, as I said.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Then I already answered the question. The only way to pull down the constitution and overthrow the government is forcibly. I would not be in favor of doing that, as I said.



But you strongly support the goals of the End the Constitution protests, whatever those goals may be, right?


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> She clarified.  When she says CR, she means CR, and the "our" means the USA.
> 
> Seems pretty clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I already answered the question. The only way to pull down the constitution and overthrow the government is forcibly. I would not be in favor of doing that, as I said.
Click to expand...

Good to know.

Do you think your complaints are in line with conserving the Constitution?


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Good to know.
> 
> Do you think your complaints are in line with conserving the Constitution?



If you mean the list of complaints I posted above from OWS, yes, certainly. There is no need to overthrow the government in order to remedy those grievances.

EDIT: In my personal opinion (speaking only my own thoughts), the core problem is corporate influence on the government. The voters aren't offered progressive reforms at the ballot box (or when they are offered, as in 2008, it turns out to be empty campaign rhetoric). We are presented a choice between corporate-owned social moderates (the Democrats) and corporate-owned social right-wingers (the Republicans). So we can vote to screw ourselves over while promoting gay rights and legal abortion, or we can vote to screw ourselves over while retarding gay rights and making abortion more difficult. Not much of a choice.

The reason for OWS is to rock the boat enough that policies not in service to the greed of the very rich, and serving the public interest instead, can be offered for a vote. The politicians will not do this unless they are made to understand, in no uncertain terms, that the people DEMAND it.


----------



## peach174

Si modo said:


> So, these folks are 'protesting' with no reason.
> 
> Some posters seem to understand what the 'protest' is about, but they can't seem to articulate that.
> 
> And, when someone does articulate what this is all about, others say they aren't speaking for the 'protesters'.
> 
> Does anyone know what the demands and/or grievances are and what they want done to mitigate those grievances?  This is an honest question.




It's about big government,anti -capitalism and redistribution of wealth. By the leaders of these groups.
A mixture of Communism, Socialism and Marxism.
It's always the same when they start this crap (application), if it's done right it works. 
No mater how it is implemented it always leads to hording and not to handout.

It always leads everyone into slavery from the government, those who work to give to those who don't.
Redistribution of wealth always leads to ;
No hope
No Future
No Dreams
No pride in yourself and
No accomplishments.

They want more of the American people on drugs, alcohol and in gangs which is what happens when you give someone something without them working for it.

These poor protesters are being duped and used.

Why do you think so many people all around the world want to come to America?
To escape Communism, Socialism and Marxism.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

peach174 said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, these folks are 'protesting' with no reason.
> 
> Some posters seem to understand what the 'protest' is about, but they can't seem to articulate that.
> 
> And, when someone does articulate what this is all about, others say they aren't speaking for the 'protesters'.
> 
> Does anyone know what the demands and/or grievances are and what they want done to mitigate those grievances?  This is an honest question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's about big government,anti -capitalism and redistribution of wealth. By the leaders of these groups.
> A mixture of Communism, Socialism and Marxism.
> It's always the same when they start this crap (application), if it's done right it works.
> No mater how it is implemented it always leads to hording and not to handout.
> 
> It always leads everyone into slavery from the government, those who work to give to those who don't.
> Redistribution of wealth always leads to ;
> No hope
> No Future
> No Dreams
> No pride in yourself and
> No accomplishments.
> 
> They want more of the American people on drugs, alcohol and in gangs which is what happens when you give someone something without them working for it.
> 
> These poor protesters are being duped and used.
> 
> Why do you think so many people all around the world want to come to America?
> To escape Communism, Socialism and Marxism.
Click to expand...


The amazing part is how stupid the American Left is that they think this will work out for their benefit


----------



## Big Fitz

theliq said:


> That is not a clever oneliner Cal.,because $20 an hour is a pittance from where I'm from...your wages are a disgrace,no wonder everyone lived on CREDIT,CREDIT and more CREDIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!shit thats only $800 for a 40 hour week,our average is $1468.just saying
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?
Click to expand...

Namibian Dollars are worth more than a little bit less than US Dollars you know.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> Do you think your complaints are in line with conserving the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean the list of complaints I posted above from OWS, yes, certainly. There is no need to overthrow the government in order to remedy those grievances.
> 
> EDIT: In my personal opinion (speaking only my own thoughts), the core problem is corporate influence on the government. The voters aren't offered progressive reforms at the ballot box (or when they are offered, as in 2008, it turns out to be empty campaign rhetoric). We are presented a choice between corporate-owned social moderates (the Democrats) and corporate-owned social right-wingers (the Republicans). So we can vote to screw ourselves over while promoting gay rights and legal abortion, or we can vote to screw ourselves over while retarding gay rights and making abortion more difficult. Not much of a choice.
> 
> The reason for OWS is to rock the boat enough that policies not in service to the greed of the very rich, and serving the public interest instead, can be offered for a vote. The politicians will not do this unless they are made to understand, in no uncertain terms, that the people DEMAND it.
Click to expand...

You may find that we agree on a few things.

As far as corporate influence on government is concerned, corporations have a right to access to government as the rest of us, so I do not think that right should be stripped from them.  However, they can operate in a gray area of the laws regulating influence as they are both organizations AND persons.  The nice thing about them being persons is that they can be held accountable for torts.

Anyway, I digress.  I do not agree with restricting their access to government because that is not in line with our founding principles.  I do agree that there needs to be better campaign finance reform and the atrocity of McCain-Feingold needs to be shitcanned.

So, getting back to the authenticity of your claims about what the OWS is about, can you understand why I would like to know the source and legitimacy of that claim?  

So, if you could verify that authenticity and/or legitimacy for me, that would be great.


----------



## Truthmatters

So you are fine with citizens united?


----------



## Dragon

The movement is decentralized and there is no truly "official" site. However, this is not too far off. It was put out by the General Assembly, an elected quasi-government of OWS that has certain defined functions:

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City | NYC General Assembly

I posted the entire text of this above.

There is a certain amount of crossover between OWS issues and those of the original libertarian Tea Party, even though OWS leans left and the Tea Party leans right. This video spells it out well:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjdpKmr7yRc&feature=share]Wall Street Occupier vs. Tea Partier (IMPORTANT-Watch Before You Rate) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> The movement is decentralized and there is no truly "official" site. However, this is not too far off. It was put out by the General Assembly, an elected quasi-government of OWS that has certain defined functions:
> 
> Declaration of the Occupation of New York City | NYC General Assembly
> 
> I posted the entire text of this above.
> 
> There is a certain amount of crossover between OWS issues and those of the original libertarian Tea Party, even though OWS leans left and the Tea Party leans right. This video spells it out well:
> 
> Wall Street Occupier vs. Tea Partier (IMPORTANT-Watch Before You Rate) - YouTube


Thank you.

Really.

I do agree with you that there is some (maybe even more than some) overlap with the Tea Party.

I would like to hear more.  I think one thing that may be in your interest is to get rid of the idiotic bozos like that 'lotion man'.  Make a public point of jettisoning those types from your ranks.  The Tea Party does that as much as they can, too.

Let's see how this pans out and if you actually can get your voice heard.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> The movement is decentralized and there is no truly "official" site. However, this is not too far off. It was put out by the General Assembly, an elected quasi-government of OWS that has certain defined functions:
> 
> Declaration of the Occupation of New York City | NYC General Assembly
> 
> I posted the entire text of this above.
> 
> There is a certain amount of crossover between OWS issues and those of the original libertarian Tea Party, even though OWS leans left and the Tea Party leans right. This video spells it out well:
> 
> Wall Street Occupier vs. Tea Partier (IMPORTANT-Watch Before You Rate) - YouTube





One big difference is that the End the Constitution crowd has to communicate with the flock through cartoons.

You know, in a form they will understand.......


----------



## mudwhistle

It appears that the Family Workers Party, or Workers Family Party, or whatever ACORN calls themselves these days is organizing this spontainious grass-roots occupation of Wall Street and in 18 other cities, which are totally spontainious and had been adertised for a couple of months online, totally spontainious, young, nothing to do with Obama or Soros event.


----------



## Big Fitz

Truthmatters said:


> So you are fine with citizens united?


Fine, no.  Ecstatic, Yes.  Finally, Corporations can compete equally with unions, PACs and 527's.  Of course, I will be just as happy taking the ability to spend on politics away from ALL of these groups, but it must be all or none.


----------



## peach174

CrusaderFrank said:


> peach174 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, these folks are 'protesting' with no reason.
> 
> Some posters seem to understand what the 'protest' is about, but they can't seem to articulate that.
> 
> And, when someone does articulate what this is all about, others say they aren't speaking for the 'protesters'.
> 
> Does anyone know what the demands and/or grievances are and what they want done to mitigate those grievances?  This is an honest question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's about big government,anti -capitalism and redistribution of wealth. By the leaders of these groups.
> A mixture of Communism, Socialism and Marxism.
> It's always the same when they start this crap (application), if it's done right it works.
> No mater how it is implemented it always leads to hording and not to handout.
> 
> It always leads everyone into slavery from the government, those who work to give to those who don't.
> Redistribution of wealth always leads to ;
> No hope
> No Future
> No Dreams
> No pride in yourself and
> No accomplishments.
> 
> They want more of the American people on drugs, alcohol and in gangs which is what happens when you give someone something without them working for it.
> 
> These poor protesters are being duped and used.
> 
> Why do you think so many people all around the world want to come to America?
> To escape Communism, Socialism and Marxism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The amazing part is how stupid the American Left is that they think this will work out for their benefit
Click to expand...


Not really. They are being taught the pro's for this movement without the con's, in some of our Universities. It started in the 70's and has gotten more powerful.
The U of A in Tucson is a very liberal college and I was there in the 70's. The professors was teaching this crap way back then.
They don't teach you the full history about communism, socialism and Marxism. They never teach why they have always failed.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

listen I don't disagree with the protestors wanting banks, who got billions of our money, to be held accountable for what they did and what they aren't doing with that money, I truly agree with them on that.

My issue is that people are calling it grassroots when big unions like SEIU have been planning this for months, groups funded by liberal millionaires and billionaires have also been preparing for it, and then people are calling it grassroots.....thats my true issue.

Its not so much their message as the lies about where the movement started that has me bothered.


----------



## mudwhistle

Si modo said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The movement is decentralized and there is no truly "official" site. However, this is not too far off. It was put out by the General Assembly, an elected quasi-government of OWS that has certain defined functions:
> 
> Declaration of the Occupation of New York City | NYC General Assembly
> 
> I posted the entire text of this above.
> 
> There is a certain amount of crossover between OWS issues and those of the original libertarian Tea Party, even though OWS leans left and the Tea Party leans right. This video spells it out well:
> 
> Wall Street Occupier vs. Tea Partier (IMPORTANT-Watch Before You Rate) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Really.
> 
> I do agree with you that there is some (maybe even more than some) overlap with the Tea Party.
> 
> I would like to hear more.  I think one thing that may be in your interest is to get rid of the idiotic bozos like that 'lotion man'.  Make a public point of jettisoning those types from your ranks.  The Tea Party does that as much as they can, too.
> 
> Let's see how this pans out and if you actually can get your voice heard.
Click to expand...


There is some overlap, but not enough to scare Pelosi. 

We're talking a spontainious herd like mentality rather then a well thought well informed Tea Party position. 

Now that's scary.


----------



## Dragon

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> My issue is that people are calling it grassroots when big unions like SEIU have been planning this for months, groups funded by liberal millionaires and billionaires have also been preparing for it, and then people are calling it grassroots.....thats my true issue



You are mistaken about this. SEIU got involved only recently, and while many people on the left have been calling for, and trying to promote, some kind of popular dissent for a long time, it's a mistake to think they made it all happen.

I think a lot of conservatives don't understand this because (naturally enough) they don't participate in or monitor left-wing blog and on-line networking activity. (I mean, why would you?) I do, and I saw this building for a long time. There has been a growing desire for progressive reform ever since roughly the turn of the century, as the Millennial generation started coming of age.

It was there, on-line, in 2008, but it got diverted into electoral politics. The energy that is now going into the protests went instead into getting Obama elected. Naively, young activists thought that would be enough. But Obama has proved a disappointment: he campaigned as a progressive, but he's governed as a corporate Democrat. So, after a certain amount of fuming and venting at being betrayed, the energy now is going into protests, because it's clear that the Democrats will not do what they're supposed to do unless pushed.

Organizations like the SEIU and professional activists like Van Jones are quick to jump on the bandwagon, but they didn't start this. It grew from on-line discussions and networking, mostly among young people, that have been going on for years.

This isn't going away, either. It will continue to grow as long as this generation continues to come of age, which means roughly for another 15-20 years.


----------



## Si modo

mudwhistle said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The movement is decentralized and there is no truly "official" site. However, this is not too far off. It was put out by the General Assembly, an elected quasi-government of OWS that has certain defined functions:
> 
> Declaration of the Occupation of New York City | NYC General Assembly
> 
> I posted the entire text of this above.
> 
> There is a certain amount of crossover between OWS issues and those of the original libertarian Tea Party, even though OWS leans left and the Tea Party leans right. This video spells it out well:
> 
> Wall Street Occupier vs. Tea Partier (IMPORTANT-Watch Before You Rate) - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Really.
> 
> I do agree with you that there is some (maybe even more than some) overlap with the Tea Party.
> 
> I would like to hear more.  I think one thing that may be in your interest is to get rid of the idiotic bozos like that 'lotion man'.  Make a public point of jettisoning those types from your ranks.  The Tea Party does that as much as they can, too.
> 
> Let's see how this pans out and if you actually can get your voice heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is some overlap, but not enough to scare Pelosi.
> 
> We're talking a spontainious herd like mentality rather then a well thought well informed Tea Party position.
> 
> Now that's scary.
Click to expand...

Scary?  I don't know.  It's hard to be afraid of a bunch of stoners camping out on a city sidewalk.

But, if Dragon is among them, I would like to hear more.  And, Dragon and those like him should be concerned with their image.  Their current image is getting them nowhere real fast.

I'm going to keep an eye on and listen to the rational ones.


----------



## mudwhistle

Si modo said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> Really.
> 
> I do agree with you that there is some (maybe even more than some) overlap with the Tea Party.
> 
> I would like to hear more.  I think one thing that may be in your interest is to get rid of the idiotic bozos like that 'lotion man'.  Make a public point of jettisoning those types from your ranks.  The Tea Party does that as much as they can, too.
> 
> Let's see how this pans out and if you actually can get your voice heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is some overlap, but not enough to scare Pelosi.
> 
> We're talking a spontainious herd like mentality rather then a well thought well informed Tea Party position.
> 
> Now that's scary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Scary?  I don't know.  It's hard to be afraid of a bunch of stoners camping out on a city sidewalk.
> 
> But, if Dragon is among them, I would like to hear more.  And, Dragon and those like him should be concerned with their image.  Their current image is getting them nowhere real fast.
> 
> I'm going to keep an eye on and listen to the rational ones.
Click to expand...


You forget. 

Nancy Pelosi was so afraid when she saw all those Tea Party rallies. 

All of the pot-bellied men and those soccer-moms just scared the bejesus out of her.


----------



## Si modo

mudwhistle said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is some overlap, but not enough to scare Pelosi.
> 
> We're talking a spontainious herd like mentality rather then a well thought well informed Tea Party position.
> 
> Now that's scary.
> 
> 
> 
> Scary?  I don't know.  It's hard to be afraid of a bunch of stoners camping out on a city sidewalk.
> 
> But, if Dragon is among them, I would like to hear more.  And, Dragon and those like him should be concerned with their image.  Their current image is getting them nowhere real fast.
> 
> I'm going to keep an eye on and listen to the rational ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forget.
> 
> Nancy Pelosi was so afraid when she saw all those Tea Party rallies.
> 
> All of the pot-bellied men and those soccer-moms just scared the bejesus out of her.
Click to expand...

Ohhhhh!  I thought it was just her latest botox injections that did that.


My bad.


----------



## peach174

mudwhistle said:


> It appears that the Family Workers Party, or Workers Family Party, or whatever ACORN calls themselves these days is organizing this spontainious grass-roots occupation of Wall Street and in 18 other cities, which are totally spontainious and had been adertised for a couple of months online, totally spontainious, young, nothing to do with Obama or Soros event.



It started with Steven Lerner former executive union leader of SEIU (you know,the union members that beat up tea party people,purple tee shirts)
May 2011;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQQiFW2YDLM]SEIU Planned Destruction of Capitalism - YouTube[/ame]

This has been very well organized for months.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> My issue is that people are calling it grassroots when big unions like SEIU have been planning this for months, groups funded by liberal millionaires and billionaires have also been preparing for it, and then people are calling it grassroots.....thats my true issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are mistaken about this. SEIU got involved only recently, and while many people on the left have been calling for, and trying to promote, some kind of popular dissent for a long time, it's a mistake to think they made it all happen.
> 
> I think a lot of conservatives don't understand this because (naturally enough) they don't participate in or monitor left-wing blog and on-line networking activity. (I mean, why would you?) I do, and I saw this building for a long time. There has been a growing desire for progressive reform ever since roughly the turn of the century, as the Millennial generation started coming of age.
> 
> It was there, on-line, in 2008, but it got diverted into electoral politics. The energy that is now going into the protests went instead into getting Obama elected. Naively, young activists thought that would be enough. But Obama has proved a disappointment: he campaigned as a progressive, but he's governed as a corporate Democrat. So, after a certain amount of fuming and venting at being betrayed, the energy now is going into protests, because it's clear that the Democrats will not do what they're supposed to do unless pushed.
> 
> Organizations like the SEIU and professional activists like Van Jones are quick to jump on the bandwagon, but they didn't start this. It grew from on-line discussions and networking, mostly among young people, that have been going on for years.
> 
> This isn't going away, either. It will continue to grow as long as this generation continues to come of age, which means roughly for another 15-20 years.
Click to expand...


SEIU just recently got involved?

That explains why it turned violent. 

SEIU is Obama's crew. What the fuck is he doing trying to destroy private property on Wall Street????

Huh???

Think about what you just said hack!!!


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> SEIU just recently got involved?
> 
> That explains why it turned violent.



What do you mean, turned violent? Do you have any evidence to back this up?



> SEIU is Obama's crew. What the fuck is he doing trying to destroy privat property on Wall Street????



SEIU is a labor union, it is not "Obama's crew," and Obama himself has not yet embraced the movement (nor vice-versa). I think you are confused as to where the connections are actually drawn.

A few of the more progressive Democrats in Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, have come out in support of OWS; Obama, not yet.


----------



## The Gadfly

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> Do you think your complaints are in line with conserving the Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean the list of complaints I posted above from OWS, yes, certainly. There is no need to overthrow the government in order to remedy those grievances.
> 
> EDIT: In my personal opinion (speaking only my own thoughts), the core problem is corporate influence on the government. The voters aren't offered progressive reforms at the ballot box (or when they are offered, as in 2008, it turns out to be empty campaign rhetoric). We are presented a choice between corporate-owned social moderates (the Democrats) and corporate-owned social right-wingers (the Republicans). So we can vote to screw ourselves over while promoting gay rights and legal abortion, or we can vote to screw ourselves over while retarding gay rights and making abortion more difficult. Not much of a choice.
> 
> The reason for OWS is to rock the boat enough that policies not in service to the greed of the very rich, and serving the public interest instead, can be offered for a vote. The politicians will not do this unless they are made to understand, in no uncertain terms, that the people DEMAND it.
Click to expand...


You know perfectly well that those "grievances",  cannot be rectified within the framework of the constitution. To grant their demands would in fact require the abolition of the constitution, something you and they are quite well aware of. Oh, you may not be directly calling for that, but since that's the necessary means to your desired end, that is exactly what you and they are advocating. I don't care what semantic devices you use to dodge the issue, that's exactly the implied goal. As for the violence, with the union goons of the SEIU involved, that's only a matter of time. You and that little hippie movement are in way over your heads, and you are about to start something you cannot finish.  You are not down in the meadow in the itty bitty poo anymore, and you little minnows are now swimming with the sharks.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Dragon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> My issue is that people are calling it grassroots when big unions like SEIU have been planning this for months, groups funded by liberal millionaires and billionaires have also been preparing for it, and then people are calling it grassroots.....thats my true issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are mistaken about this. SEIU got involved only recently, and while many people on the left have been calling for, and trying to promote, some kind of popular dissent for a long time, it's a mistake to think they made it all happen.
> 
> I think a lot of conservatives don't understand this because (naturally enough) they don't participate in or monitor left-wing blog and on-line networking activity. (I mean, why would you?) I do, and I saw this building for a long time. There has been a growing desire for progressive reform ever since roughly the turn of the century, as the Millennial generation started coming of age.
> 
> It was there, on-line, in 2008, but it got diverted into electoral politics. The energy that is now going into the protests went instead into getting Obama elected. Naively, young activists thought that would be enough. But Obama has proved a disappointment: he campaigned as a progressive, but he's governed as a corporate Democrat. So, after a certain amount of fuming and venting at being betrayed, the energy now is going into protests, because it's clear that the Democrats will not do what they're supposed to do unless pushed.
> 
> Organizations like the SEIU and professional activists like Van Jones are quick to jump on the bandwagon, but they didn't start this. It grew from on-line discussions and networking, mostly among young people, that have been going on for years.
> 
> This isn't going away, either. It will continue to grow as long as this generation continues to come of age, which means roughly for another 15-20 years.
Click to expand...


SEIU plans days of rage against Wall Street

Exposed: Globalist Illuminati New World Order Agenda: George Soros, ACORN, SEIU Are Behind Occupy Wall Street


----------



## Dragon

The Gadfly said:


> You know perfectly well that those "grievances",  cannot be rectified within the framework of the constitution.



I know nothing of the sort, and neither do you. Let's look once more at the listed grievances, and I'll suggest some solutions.

"They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage."

Solution: debt relief for mortgagees, and regulations on the mortgage industry to make foreclosure more difficult.

"They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses."

Solution: regulations on the banking industry such as Glass-Steagal provided, which would prevent a recurrence.

"They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of ones skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation."

Solution: enforcement of anti-discrimination laws already on the books.

"They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization."

Solution: increased food inspection, and vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws w/r/t agriculture.

"They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices."

Solution: legislation requiring humane treatment of farm animals.

"They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions."

Solution: strict enforcement of labor law and protection of employees' right to organize and bargain collectively.

"They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right."

Solution: increased public funding of higher education to reduce the cost to students and their families.

"They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers healthcare and pay."

I actually think enforcement of labor law would suffice for this, but others might call for selective tariffs to discourage outsourcing.

"They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility."

Solution: appoint new Supreme Court and lower court judges who will reverse these abominable rulings.

"They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance."

Best solution: a single-payer health system that will cut aclross all of that bullshit once and for all.

"They have sold our privacy as a commodity."

Solution: laws and enforcement of laws protecting privacy more aggressively.

"They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press."

[Hmm. Okay, I actually don't know what this means. But if it's happening, the solution is simply for the government to stop doing that.]

"They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit."

Solution: enforcement of laws protecting the rights of consumers.

"They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce. They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them. They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil. They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save peoples lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit."

Solution: campaign-finance reform to remove the corruption from politics.

"They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit."

Solution: strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations designed to prevent such things, and amending of laws and regulations where needed.

"They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media."

Solution: growth and development of alternative new media to supplant the dinosaurs. (We're already doing that one.)

"They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt."

Solution: abandon capital punishment.

"They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas. They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts."

Solution: end the American empire and bring our troops home.

Now, you may or may not agree that these are problems, and even if you do you may or may not agree with the solutions I've suggested, but the fact remains that NONE of them are unconstitutional.


----------



## Dragon

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> SEIU plans days of rage against Wall Street
> 
> Exposed: Globalist Illuminati New World Order Agenda: George Soros, ACORN, SEIU Are Behind Occupy Wall Street



In your own words, what do you think this proves?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Dragon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> SEIU plans days of rage against Wall Street
> 
> Exposed: Globalist Illuminati New World Order Agenda: George Soros, ACORN, SEIU Are Behind Occupy Wall Street
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In your own words, what do you think this proves?
Click to expand...


That this movement wasn't spontanious and has had support from large organizations, which is fine and I dont have a problem with that.   My problem is people claiming otherwise.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> SEIU just recently got involved?
> 
> That explains why it turned violent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean, turned violent? Do you have any evidence to back this up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SEIU is Obama's crew. What the fuck is he doing trying to destroy privat property on Wall Street????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SEIU is a labor union, it is not "Obama's crew," and Obama himself has not yet embraced the movement (nor vice-versa). I think you are confused as to where the connections are actually drawn.
> 
> A few of the more progressive Democrats in Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, have come out in support of OWS; Obama, not yet.
Click to expand...


Ha ha ha police had to beat back union thugs that tried to storm the barracades a couple of days ago. 

Obama came out in support of the occupation yesterday and Biden followed suit. 

Where the fuck have you been???

SEIU is ACORN. Andy Stern, Obama's labor czar was the President of SEIU until he took the job at the White House.


----------



## Dragon

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> That this movement wasn't spontanious and has had support from large organizations, which is fine and I dont have a problem with that.   My problem is people claiming otherwise.



So how is it that you think those links proves this? And what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that all of the thousands of protesters involved with OWS take their marching orders from SEIU? Or from George Soros, or whoever?

Do you think that it's possible for a movement arising elsewhere, from grass-roots sources, to obtain support from like-minded organizations after it has arisen? Do you think that it's possible for one or more of those like-minded organizations to express a desire for something like this to happen before it does, and for the movement itself nonetheless to have originated independently of the organization?

What I'm getting at is this. You are not going to find it difficult to find liberal groups and individuals who expressed a desire for some kind of public protest or demonstration going back years and years. By itself, though, that proves nothing. What you need to show -- and I don't think you can, because it isn't true -- is that OWS would not exist except for this support, or that the planning and organization for OWS are coming from SEIU or Soros or whoever.

Are you aware of the internal organization of OWS? Do you know about the New York City General Assembly? Here's their web site: NYC General Assembly | The Official Website of the GA at #OccupyWallStreet

You are making very strong claims for which there is really no evidence at all.


----------



## Mr. Jones

mudwhistle said:


> Ha ha ha
> 
> Obama came out in support of the occupation yesterday.
> 
> Where the fuck have you been???
> 
> SEIU is ACORN. Andy Stern, Obama's labor czar was the President of SEIU until he took the job at the White House.



Dear President Pussy

You campaigned on that same platform of banking reform, Wall Street Regulation, and populist anger at the economy.

You also promised to end the wars.

In three years you have not kept any of those promises. The wars have expanded, Wall Street still loots the public with impunity, you have personally increased government debt by more than all your predecessors put together, and manufacturing is still fleeing the nation due to government tax incentives.

So now you have the chutzpah to stand up there and act like all of a sudden after three years you suddenly noticed the American people are frustrated?

Don't be such a moron! We are frustrated with you and every DC money-junkie like you who views the capitol building as a giant whorehouse where they can sell out to the biggest pimps on the land!

Please do not insult our intelligence by acting like you give a damn. If you did, you would have slapped Israel up side of the head and started shredding checks after they murdered an American in international waters last year!

Get out of OUR White House. You are a total failure and we are not going to buy your bullshit a second time.-M Rivero


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> Obama came out in support of the occupation yesterday.



No, he didn't. I saw that press conference. He was carefully neutral about it, and spoke in support only of his own policies, and did not acknowledge that OWS wants a good deal more from him than that, which it does. The movement is considerably more progressive than he is. He will have come out in support of it when he adopts more progressive positions himself. Right now, he's just trying to capitalize on it politically, which is hardly the same thing as supporting it.

Edit: Thank you, Mr. Jones. That is exactly the attitude of OWS towards President Obama at this point in time.



> SEIU is ACORN.



LOL. SEIU is the Service Employees International Union. Here: SEIU - Service Employees International Union

It has nothing to do with ACORN.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Dragon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> That this movement wasn't spontanious and has had support from large organizations, which is fine and I dont have a problem with that.   My problem is people claiming otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So how is it that you think those links proves this? And what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that all of the thousands of protesters involved with OWS take their marching orders from SEIU? Or from George Soros, or whoever?
> 
> Do you think that it's possible for a movement arising elsewhere, from grass-roots sources, to obtain support from like-minded organizations after it has arisen? Do you think that it's possible for one or more of those like-minded organizations to express a desire for something like this to happen before it does, and for the movement itself nonetheless to have originated independently of the organization?
> 
> What I'm getting at is this. You are not going to find it difficult to find liberal groups and individuals who expressed a desire for some kind of public protest or demonstration going back years and years. By itself, though, that proves nothing. What you need to show -- and I don't think you can, because it isn't true -- is that OWS would not exist except for this support, or that the planning and organization for OWS are coming from SEIU or Soros or whoever.
> 
> Are you aware of the internal organization of OWS? Do you know about the New York City General Assembly? Here's their web site: NYC General Assembly | The Official Website of the GA at #OccupyWallStreet
> 
> You are making very strong claims for which there is really no evidence at all.
Click to expand...


No I mean that those groups had planned to do this all along and used facebook/twitter to get the word out.   

The people went, on their own, as a result of learning about it from the organizations setting it up.


----------



## Dragon

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> No I mean that those groups had planned to do this all along and used facebook/twitter to get the word out.
> 
> The people went, on their own, as a result of learning about it from the organizations setting it up.



No, that isn't true, either. It's true that Facebook and Twitter were used to generate the protests and are still being used to coordinate them, but most of that activity was done by people unaffiliated with the groups you are talking about.

The Millennial generation (currently age 6-29) is strongly left-leaning compared to older generations. It is also highly organized and more Internet and new-media savvy than older generations. Put those features together and you have all the explanation you need. Young people have spontaneously created a huge, broad-reaching network of liberal activism of one kind or another on social media and on blog and discussion sites.

There is really nothing top-down about any of this. It's very much bottom-up. Now that the unions are becoming involved and some of the more progressive Democratic politicians, there will surely be attempts made to co-opt it, but co-option is exactly what it is. These groups and individuals did not start it.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Dragon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I mean that those groups had planned to do this all along and used facebook/twitter to get the word out.
> 
> The people went, on their own, as a result of learning about it from the organizations setting it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that isn't true, either. It's true that Facebook and Twitter were used to generate the protests and are still being used to coordinate them, but most of that activity was done by people unaffiliated with the groups you are talking about.
> 
> The Millennial generation (currently age 6-29) is strongly left-leaning compared to older generations. It is also highly organized and more Internet and new-media savvy than older generations. Put those features together and you have all the explanation you need. Young people have spontaneously created a huge, broad-reaching network of liberal activism of one kind or another on social media and on blog and discussion sites.
> 
> There is really nothing top-down about any of this. It's very much bottom-up. Now that the unions are becoming involved and some of the more progressive Democratic politicians, there will surely be attempts made to co-opt it, but co-option is exactly what it is. These groups and individuals did not start it.
Click to expand...


I disagree.  I think it was the plethora of left leaning groups that did get the word out on facebook/twitter and that others liked the idea and followed along.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know perfectly well that those "grievances",  cannot be rectified within the framework of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing of the sort, and neither do you. Let's look once more at the listed grievances, and I'll suggest some solutions.
> 
> "They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage."
> 
> Solution: debt relief for mortgagees, and regulations on the mortgage industry to make foreclosure more difficult.
> 
> "They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses."
> 
> Solution: regulations on the banking industry such as Glass-Steagal provided, which would prevent a recurrence.
> 
> "They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one&#8217;s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation."
> 
> Solution: enforcement of anti-discrimination laws already on the books.
> 
> "They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization."
> 
> Solution: increased food inspection, and vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws w/r/t agriculture.
> 
> "They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices."
> 
> Solution: legislation requiring humane treatment of farm animals.
> 
> "They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions."
> 
> Solution: strict enforcement of labor law and protection of employees' right to organize and bargain collectively.
> 
> "They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right."
> 
> Solution: increased public funding of higher education to reduce the cost to students and their families.
> 
> "They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers&#8217; healthcare and pay."
> 
> I actually think enforcement of labor law would suffice for this, but others might call for selective tariffs to discourage outsourcing.
> 
> "They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility."
> 
> Solution: appoint new Supreme Court and lower court judges who will reverse these abominable rulings.
> 
> "They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance."
> 
> Best solution: a single-payer health system that will cut aclross all of that bullshit once and for all.
> 
> "They have sold our privacy as a commodity."
> 
> Solution: laws and enforcement of laws protecting privacy more aggressively.
> 
> "They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press."
> 
> [Hmm. Okay, I actually don't know what this means. But if it's happening, the solution is simply for the government to stop doing that.]
> 
> "They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit."
> 
> Solution: enforcement of laws protecting the rights of consumers.
> 
> "They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce. They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them. They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil. They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people&#8217;s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit."
> 
> Solution: campaign-finance reform to remove the corruption from politics.
> 
> "They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit."
> 
> Solution: strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations designed to prevent such things, and amending of laws and regulations where needed.
> 
> "They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media."
> 
> Solution: growth and development of alternative new media to supplant the dinosaurs. (We're already doing that one.)
> 
> "They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt."
> 
> Solution: abandon capital punishment.
> 
> "They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas. They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts."
> 
> Solution: end the American empire and bring our troops home.
> 
> Now, you may or may not agree that these are problems, and even if you do you may or may not agree with the solutions I've suggested, but the fact remains that NONE of them are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


You are one long-winded fucker. 

Every one of these issues originated with a media blitz. 

Some were real, some made up. 

The stories were only intended to allow Democrats to impose tighter regulations with the expressed purpose of asserting control and raising operating overheads which are always passed onto the consumer.  This causes anger and frustration. Under this climate class-warfare becomes extremely effective. 

Fancy that. 

My how convenient for Obama.


----------



## Dragon

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> I disagree.  I think it was the plethora of left leaning groups that did get the word out on facebook/twitter and that others liked the idea and followed along.



Well, all I can tell you is that I was there and you were not. I'm telling you, as an eyewitness, that you are wrong.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> Every one of these issues originated with a media blitz.
> 
> Some were real, some made up.
> 
> The stories were only intended to allow Democrats to impose tighter regulations with the expressed purpose of asserting control and raising operating overheads which are always passed onto the consumer.  This causes anger and frustration. Under this climate class-warfare becomes extremely effective.
> 
> Fancy that.
> 
> My how convenient for Obama.



What the hell are you talking about?

Look, the question isn't whether you agree with any of this; I imagine most right-wingers won't. The original assertion, though, is that solutions to these problems would destroy the Constitution. I've pointed out, in detail, that that is nonsense.

Are you going to acknowledge that this isn't a campaign to destroy the Constitution? Or are you going to insist that it is, and try to present some evidence in favor of that cockeyed idea? Or are you going to just spout silliness? The choice is yours.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know perfectly well that those "grievances",  cannot be rectified within the framework of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing of the sort, and neither do you. Let's look once more at the listed grievances, and I'll suggest some solutions.
> 
> "They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage."
> 
> Solution: debt relief for mortgagees, and regulations on the mortgage industry to make foreclosure more difficult.
Click to expand...


Result, buying a house becomes impossible for anyone who doesn't have $300,000 cash.

Why would anyone lend you money that you don't have to pay back?



> "They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses."
> 
> Solution: regulations on the banking industry such as Glass-Steagal provided, which would prevent a recurrence.
> 
> "They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of ones skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation."
> 
> Solution: enforcement of anti-discrimination laws already on the books.



No comment



> "They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization."
> 
> Solution: increased food inspection, and vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws w/r/t agriculture.



Monopolies have been created by government. Do you treat cuts by gouging yourself with a knife?



> "They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices."
> 
> Solution: legislation requiring humane treatment of farm animals.



Fuck PETA. You got a problem, become a vegan.



> "They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions."
> 
> Solution: strict enforcement of labor law and protection of employees' right to organize and bargain collectively.



Fuck the unions, they are the biggest part of the problem.



> "They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right."
> 
> Solution: increased public funding of higher education to reduce the cost to students and their families.



GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE

Why shouldn't YOU have to work for free so that I can have free hamburgers and fries?



> "They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers healthcare and pay."



Gee, why would they do that? You Marxists are so fucking reasonable....



> I actually think enforcement of labor law would suffice for this, but others might call for selective tariffs to discourage outsourcing.



Or better yet, repeal the bullshit EPA regulations and enforce anti-trust laws against SUIE, the AFL/CIO and the Teamsters.

You Marxists LOVE monopolies, as long as they are YOUR monopolies.



> "They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility."
> 
> Solution: appoint new Supreme Court and lower court judges who will reverse these abominable rulings.



Don't you have to end the constitution to do that...

OOPS, you are the End the Constitution group, sorry...



> "They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance."
> 
> Best solution: a single-payer health system that will cut aclross all of that bullshit once and for all.



Communism, the one size fits all or we send you to a gulag answer of the "End the Constitution" protestors!  



> "They have sold our privacy as a commodity."
> 
> Solution: laws and enforcement of laws protecting privacy more aggressively.



So you want to outlaw the income tax and the 1040 form? (No greater invasion of privacy exists in this nation.)



> "They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press."
> 
> [Hmm. Okay, I actually don't know what this means. But if it's happening, the solution is simply for the government to stop doing that.]



I think it means that Fox News hasn't been shut down and the reporters for it haven't been put to death as the "End the Constitution" protest wants.



> "They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit."
> 
> Solution: enforcement of laws protecting the rights of consumers.



Who has deliberately declined what?

Why are Marxists such pathological liars?



> "They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce. They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them. They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil. They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save peoples lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit."
> 
> Solution: campaign-finance reform to remove the corruption from politics.
> 
> "They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit."
> 
> Solution: strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations designed to prevent such things, and amending of laws and regulations where needed.
> 
> "They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media."
> 
> Solution: growth and development of alternative new media to supplant the dinosaurs. (We're already doing that one.)
> 
> "They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt."
> 
> Solution: abandon capital punishment.
> 
> "They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas. They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts."
> 
> Solution: end the American empire and bring our troops home.
> 
> Now, you may or may not agree that these are problems, and even if you do you may or may not agree with the solutions I've suggested, but the fact remains that NONE of them are unconstitutional.



Got bored with the idiocy...


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> She clarified.  When she says CR, she means CR, and the "our" means the USA.
> 
> Seems pretty clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then I already answered the question. The only way to pull down the constitution and overthrow the government is forcibly. I would not be in favor of doing that, as I said.
Click to expand...


No, it isn't. One could use subversion to undermine the Republic.... as in the Cloward/Piven strategy. 

So, again.... would you defend the Republic or not? 

This is not a hard question... at least, it shouldn't be.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored:

As I said, the question isn't whether right-wing nut jobs like yourself agree with any of this. The question is whether it would be unconstitutional. That was the original assertion: that OWS is out to destroy the Constitution.

If you still think that this is so, as you've said, then go through that list of proposed solutions and pick out any of them you believe to require abolition of the Constitution. You don't have to talk about all of them. Just one. And it's meaningless to give any reason for not liking it, other than that it violates the Constitution, because that is what you originally said.


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> No, it isn't. One could use subversion to undermine the Republic.... as in the Cloward/Piven strategy.



The Cloward/Piven plan would not have undermined the Republic nor was that their intention. They wanted to undermine welfare as it existed in 1966, with a view towards pushing the government to replace it with a guaranteed income. Had they accomplished this, the U.S. would have remained a republic and the Constitution would have remained in force. If you regard the creation of a guaranteed income as "undermining the republic," then you are using the word "republic" to mean something it doesn't ordinarily mean. I would add that their plan was not only non-forcible but in fact perfectly legal. (And of course, it also didn't work.)

As I said: the only way to overthrow what is _normally meant_ by the phrase "our constitutional republic," i.e. the U.S. government as established by the Constitution, is by force, either a coup d'etat or a popular revolution. I would not support either of those. And that is the only answer I can give you, until you clarify exactly what YOU mean by the phrase.


----------



## Big Fitz

Dragon said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know perfectly well that those "grievances",  cannot be rectified within the framework of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing of the sort, and neither do you. Let's look once more at the listed grievances, and I'll suggest some solutions.
> 
> "They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage."
> 
> Solution: debt relief for mortgagees, and regulations on the mortgage industry to make foreclosure more difficult.
> 
> "They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses."
> 
> Solution: regulations on the banking industry such as Glass-Steagal provided, which would prevent a recurrence.
> 
> "They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of ones skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation."
> 
> Solution: enforcement of anti-discrimination laws already on the books.
> 
> "They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization."
> 
> Solution: increased food inspection, and vigorous enforcement of anti-trust laws w/r/t agriculture.
> 
> "They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices."
> 
> Solution: legislation requiring humane treatment of farm animals.
> 
> "They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions."
> 
> Solution: strict enforcement of labor law and protection of employees' right to organize and bargain collectively.
> 
> "They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right."
> 
> Solution: increased public funding of higher education to reduce the cost to students and their families.
> 
> "They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers healthcare and pay."
> 
> I actually think enforcement of labor law would suffice for this, but others might call for selective tariffs to discourage outsourcing.
> 
> "They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility."
> 
> Solution: appoint new Supreme Court and lower court judges who will reverse these abominable rulings.
> 
> "They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance."
> 
> Best solution: a single-payer health system that will cut aclross all of that bullshit once and for all.
> 
> "They have sold our privacy as a commodity."
> 
> Solution: laws and enforcement of laws protecting privacy more aggressively.
> 
> "They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press."
> 
> [Hmm. Okay, I actually don't know what this means. But if it's happening, the solution is simply for the government to stop doing that.]
> 
> "They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit."
> 
> Solution: enforcement of laws protecting the rights of consumers.
> 
> "They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce. They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them. They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil. They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save peoples lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit."
> 
> Solution: campaign-finance reform to remove the corruption from politics.
> 
> "They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit."
> 
> Solution: strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations designed to prevent such things, and amending of laws and regulations where needed.
> 
> "They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media."
> 
> Solution: growth and development of alternative new media to supplant the dinosaurs. (We're already doing that one.)
> 
> "They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt."
> 
> Solution: abandon capital punishment.
> 
> "They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas. They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts."
> 
> Solution: end the American empire and bring our troops home.
> 
> Now, you may or may not agree that these are problems, and even if you do you may or may not agree with the solutions I've suggested, but the fact remains that NONE of them are unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

But no matter what, let's not expect to have any personal responsibility from fuck ups we're all going to be forced to support.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Uncensored:
> 
> As I said, the question isn't whether right-wing nut jobs like yourself agree with any of this. The question is whether it would be unconstitutional. That was the original assertion: that OWS is out to destroy the Constitution.




No Dragon, that is not the question.

The Federal government invalidating a legally binding contract by interfering with the execution of collateral execution in a secured loan is unconstitutional - no question and no debate. 

But if we use the Constitution and Bill of Rights to wipe shit from our cracks as you and the OWS wants, the result will be that no one can every buy a house again.  You destroy the finance market that property sales are based upon. On the surface, one might think "these fools don't comprehend the consequence of their actions," but then, Marxists aren't big fans of private property rights so more likely the destruction of the ability to buy and sell property is the end game. 



> If you still think that this is so, as you've said, then go through that list of proposed solutions and pick out any of them you believe to require abolition of the Constitution.



I already did. The dissolution of property rights requires the end of the constitution Dissolving the seated SCOTUS so that a Marxist court can be established requires revoking the constitution. 



> You don't have to talk about all of them. Just one. And it's meaningless to give any reason for not liking it, other than that it violates the Constitution, because that is what you originally said.



There are two.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Dragon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  I think it was the plethora of left leaning groups that did get the word out on facebook/twitter and that others liked the idea and followed along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, all I can tell you is that I was there and you were not. I'm telling you, as an eyewitness, that you are wrong.
Click to expand...


As far as you personally are concerned I don't doubt that you are being honest.

However, the idea originated in the minds of these big, well funded, left leaning political thinktanks.

(BTW  I totally understand where you are coming from, i've been in those shoes)


----------



## Big Fitz

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know perfectly well that those "grievances",  cannot be rectified within the framework of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing of the sort, and neither do you. Let's look once more at the listed grievances, and I'll suggest some solutions.
> 
> "They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage."
> 
> Solution: debt relief for mortgagees, and regulations on the mortgage industry to make foreclosure more difficult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Result, buying a house becomes impossible for anyone who doesn't have $300,000 cash.
> 
> Why would anyone lend you money that you don't have to pay back?
> 
> 
> 
> No comment
> 
> 
> 
> Monopolies have been created by government. Do you treat cuts by gouging yourself with a knife?
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck PETA. You got a problem, become a vegan.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck the unions, they are the biggest part of the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE
> 
> Why shouldn't YOU have to work for free so that I can have free hamburgers and fries?
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, why would they do that? You Marxists are so fucking reasonable....
> 
> 
> 
> Or better yet, repeal the bullshit EPA regulations and enforce anti-trust laws against SUIE, the AFL/CIO and the Teamsters.
> 
> You Marxists LOVE monopolies, as long as they are YOUR monopolies.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you have to end the constitution to do that...
> 
> OOPS, you are the End the Constitution group, sorry...
> 
> 
> 
> Communism, the one size fits all or we send you to a gulag answer of the "End the Constitution" protestors!
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to outlaw the income tax and the 1040 form? (No greater invasion of privacy exists in this nation.)
> 
> 
> 
> I think it means that Fox News hasn't been shut down and the reporters for it haven't been put to death as the "End the Constitution" protest wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit."
> 
> Solution: enforcement of laws protecting the rights of consumers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has deliberately declined what?
> 
> Why are Marxists such pathological liars?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce. They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them. They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil. They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save peoples lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit."
> 
> Solution: campaign-finance reform to remove the corruption from politics.
> 
> "They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit."
> 
> Solution: strict enforcement of existing laws and regulations designed to prevent such things, and amending of laws and regulations where needed.
> 
> "They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media."
> 
> Solution: growth and development of alternative new media to supplant the dinosaurs. (We're already doing that one.)
> 
> "They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt."
> 
> Solution: abandon capital punishment.
> 
> "They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas. They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts."
> 
> Solution: end the American empire and bring our troops home.
> 
> Now, you may or may not agree that these are problems, and even if you do you may or may not agree with the solutions I've suggested, but the fact remains that NONE of them are unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got bored with the idiocy...
Click to expand...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Uncensored2008 again.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> No Dragon, that is not the question.



It's what you and one or two others have said or implied: that OWS is out to destroy the Constitution. Do you now retract that statement?



> The Federal government invalidating a legally binding contract by interfering with the execution of collateral execution in a secured loan is unconstitutional - no question and no debate.



Wrong. There are at least two clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that empower Congress to do this. One, most obviously, is the regulation of commerce clause. Congress is allowed to (and does) regulate the mortgage industry, and laws governing how mortgages in default may be collected are well within its powers. Second, the provision of relief in the form of financial aid to mortgagees is covered by the taxation clause, in that it is the spending of money to promote the general welfare. There is nothing unconstitutional about either of these actions.


----------



## Luissa

Full-Auto said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> By that theory a bank robber who says "please" and "thank you" without hurting anyone must not be prosecuted.  I'd go along with that if he/she stole only YOUR money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So people should not be allowed to protest peacefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, without question.
> 
> However blocking traffic takes it beyond peaceful and into the realm of insurrection. As blocking traffic interferes with commerce.
Click to expand...


TRL blocks traffic in New York, should they have arrested the teenie boppers?


----------



## WillowTree

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQQiFW2YDLM&feature=related]SEIU Planned Destruction of Capitalism - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> So people should not be allowed to protest peacefully?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, without question.
> 
> However blocking traffic takes it beyond peaceful and into the realm of insurrection. As blocking traffic interferes with commerce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> TRL blocks traffic in New York, should they have arrested the teenie boppers?
Click to expand...


YES!

TRL sucks


----------



## Luissa

Uncensored2008 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the question was too hard for Dragon... or maybe he really doesn't want to answer - at least, not honestly.
> 
> Which begs the question. Do the left really want to tear up the Constitution and create a new America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know full well that's what they want.
> 
> Dragon ducked the question instead of lying, he deserves some credit for that shred of integrity.
Click to expand...


Yep, that is what we want. And we want to put Castro in the White House.


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, without question.
> 
> However blocking traffic takes it beyond peaceful and into the realm of insurrection. As blocking traffic interferes with commerce.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TRL blocks traffic in New York, should they have arrested the teenie boppers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES!
> 
> TRL sucks
Click to expand...


Good thing they cancelled it.


----------



## California Girl

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. One could use subversion to undermine the Republic.... as in the Cloward/Piven strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Cloward/Piven plan would not have undermined the Republic nor was that their intention. They wanted to undermine welfare as it existed in 1966, with a view towards pushing the government to replace it with a guaranteed income. Had they accomplished this, the U.S. would have remained a republic and the Constitution would have remained in force. If you regard the creation of a guaranteed income as "undermining the republic," then you are using the word "republic" to mean something it doesn't ordinarily mean. I would add that their plan was not only non-forcible but in fact perfectly legal. (And of course, it also didn't work.)
> 
> As I said: the only way to overthrow what is _normally meant_ by the phrase "our constitutional republic," i.e. the U.S. government as established by the Constitution, is by force, either a coup d'etat or a popular revolution. I would not support either of those. And that is the only answer I can give you, until you clarify exactly what YOU mean by the phrase.
Click to expand...


I know what the phrase means, thanks. It is you who appears to need it spelled out for you. 

I know exactly what Cloward/Piven does. I've studied the strategy. You might think that dodging it by arguing the toss over words makes you clever but it does not. It was, and remains, a straightforward question. 

And you refuse to answer it with a straightforward response. I'll take that as your response... that the Constitutional Republic is not your priority to defend. I would have respected you if you had had the courage to say so outright. There really is no need to hide.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> TRL blocks traffic in New York, should they have arrested the teenie boppers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES!
> 
> TRL sucks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good thing they cancelled it.
Click to expand...


Wait for it.....wait for it.....


Capitalism at work!!!!


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES!
> 
> TRL sucks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing they cancelled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait for it.....wait for it.....
> 
> 
> Capitalism at work!!!!
Click to expand...


Cancelling TRL is Capitalism at work? 
ONe could say TRL is a form of democracy and maybe even socialism. People vote for videos, then  MTV shared the videos the people voted for(sharing the wealth). Is it still socialism if you don't want what they are sharing?

I wonder how many of those posters used to camp out at TRL when they were younger? Some how we can blame Carson Daily for this whole thing???


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing they cancelled it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait for it.....wait for it.....
> 
> 
> Capitalism at work!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cancelling TRL is Capitalism at work?
> ONe could say TRL is a form of democracy and maybe even socialism. People vote for videos, then  MTV shared the videos the people voted for(sharing the wealth). Is it still socialism if you don't want what they are sharing?
> 
> I wonder how many of those posters used to camp out at TRL when they were younger? Some how we can blame Carson Daily for this whole thing???
Click to expand...


Yes the show sucked bad so advertisers wouldn't pay good money to advertise on it.  

That made it not profitable enough for MTV so they cancelled it.

Capitalism at work  

I was talking about it being cancelled not the actual show itself


----------



## Dragon

California Girl said:


> It is you who appears to need it spelled out for you.



[Exasperation.] That's exactly what I've been saying, jackass! I need you to spell out what you mean by it. 



> I know exactly what Cloward/Piven does. I've studied the strategy.



Then why do you say that it was aimed at overthrow of the republic when it obviously wasn't? If Cloward/Piven had worked and we had a guaranteed income for everyone, how would the Constitution have been overthrown? Would we no longer have Congress passing laws? Would we no longer elect a president every four years? Would we no longer have an independent judiciary as defined by Article III? Would we have a monarchy? A dictatorship? Anarchy and chaos in the streets?

No, none of these things; we'd just have a guaranteed minimum income for everyone. Now you may not like that. You may disapprove of it. But to call it "the end of the republic" is sheer unjustified hyperbole.



> And you refuse to answer it with a straightforward response. I'll take that as your response... that the Constitutional Republic is not your priority to defend.



So in other words, you are dishonestly asking a trick question. You refuse to clarify what you mean -- a perfectly reasonable request -- and that by itself proves that you are being disingenuous here.

I will give you the best answer I can give. I am not in favor of abolishing the Constitution of the United States, nor of overthrowing the government established according to the Constitution. If that is what you mean by "our Constitutional Republic," then I am not against our constitutional republic.

If, as the example of Cloward/Piven suggests, you mean by "our Constitutional Republic" not merely the republic as established by the Constitution but a governing policy that adheres to conservative principles, then I am indeed in favor of overthrowing that, peacefully and by means that are within the limits imposed by the Constitution itself. But in that case, you are using the phrase "constitutional republic" dishonestly and with a deliberate attempt to deceive.


----------



## Big Fitz

Well, the Occupados have metastasized to Minneapolis, so the cannabis scented cancer has spread here now.  I have to drive by the Federal Courthouse twice today, so I'll mention what was going on come Sunday night when I get back.

I expect what I'll see is gonna fall somewhere between embarrassing, pathetic and fucking stupid.


----------



## Big Fitz

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing they cancelled it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait for it.....wait for it.....
> 
> 
> Capitalism at work!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cancelling TRL is Capitalism at work?
> ONe could say TRL is a form of democracy and maybe even socialism. People vote for videos, then  MTV shared the videos the people voted for(sharing the wealth). Is it still socialism if you don't want what they are sharing?
> 
> I wonder how many of those posters used to camp out at TRL when they were younger? Some how we can blame Carson Daily for this whole thing???
Click to expand...

Like Air America... if nobody watches it, it loses all revenue streams, because it can't sell advertising, and can't pay the bills, and as socialist as they may be, ideology doesn't feed the bulldog, money does..


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait for it.....wait for it.....
> 
> 
> Capitalism at work!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cancelling TRL is Capitalism at work?
> ONe could say TRL is a form of democracy and maybe even socialism. People vote for videos, then  MTV shared the videos the people voted for(sharing the wealth). Is it still socialism if you don't want what they are sharing?
> 
> I wonder how many of those posters used to camp out at TRL when they were younger? Some how we can blame Carson Daily for this whole thing???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes the show sucked bad so advertisers wouldn't pay good money to advertise on it.
> 
> That made it not profitable enough for MTV so they cancelled it.
> 
> Capitalism at work
> 
> I was talking about it being cancelled not the actual show itself
Click to expand...


I know, I was giving you shit. 

I have no problem with regulated capitalism.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cancelling TRL is Capitalism at work?
> ONe could say TRL is a form of democracy and maybe even socialism. People vote for videos, then  MTV shared the videos the people voted for(sharing the wealth). Is it still socialism if you don't want what they are sharing?
> 
> I wonder how many of those posters used to camp out at TRL when they were younger? Some how we can blame Carson Daily for this whole thing???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the show sucked bad so advertisers wouldn't pay good money to advertise on it.
> 
> That made it not profitable enough for MTV so they cancelled it.
> 
> Capitalism at work
> 
> I was talking about it being cancelled not the actual show itself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, I was giving you shit.
> 
> I have no problem with regulated capitalism.
Click to expand...




I just told bigfitz that you knew what I meant and were just messing with me because we like to play with each other like that (you can take that out of context anytime )


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> It's what you and one or two others have said or implied: that OWS is out to destroy the Constitution. Do you now retract that statement?



How disingenuous. I hope you don't think such an act is clever?



> Wrong. There are at least two clauses in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that empower Congress to do this. One, most obviously, is the regulation of commerce clause.



So you believe that the INTERSTATE commerce clause (take care with the wording) empowers congress to confiscate property from one and give it to another?

You think that in the State of Montana, Jerome takes a loan on a house for $150,000 from "Small Town Capital" in West Yellowstone. Jerome doesn't pay the mortgage, but in your mind congress has the authority to confiscate the home from Small Town Capital and give it to Jerome?

Not the case.  Even the outrage of Kelo v. New London doesn't foray into the direct theft of property for the purpose of enriching a private concern.

To impugn property rights violates section II and the 9th and 10th Amendments to the constitution. No case law has ever supported the theft by congress of real property for the benefit of a third party. 



> Congress is allowed to (and does) regulate the mortgage industry, and laws governing how mortgages in default may be collected are well within its powers.



ONLY in the instance that the mortgage company is involved in interstate loans, if a financial institution operates within the boundaries of a state, the US Congress has no authority at all. 



> Second, the provision of relief in the form of financial aid to mortgagees is
> covered by the taxation clause,



ROFL

Are you nuts?

First off, there is no such thing as the "taxation clause," this is a fabrication of your own imagination. The power to tax is derived from the Uniformity Clause of the constitution, Article 1, section 8.  The clause very clearly states the purpose for which congress may tax;

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



> in that it is the spending of money to promote the general welfare. There is nothing unconstitutional about either of these actions.



Sorry, violates the uniformity clause in that it is not applied in a uniform manner but involves theft of real property from one set of citizens on behalf of another.


----------



## Luissa

Big Fitz said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait for it.....wait for it.....
> 
> 
> Capitalism at work!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cancelling TRL is Capitalism at work?
> ONe could say TRL is a form of democracy and maybe even socialism. People vote for videos, then  MTV shared the videos the people voted for(sharing the wealth). Is it still socialism if you don't want what they are sharing?
> 
> I wonder how many of those posters used to camp out at TRL when they were younger? Some how we can blame Carson Daily for this whole thing???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like Air America... if nobody watches it, it loses all revenue streams, because it can't sell advertising, and can't pay the bills, and as socialist as they may be, ideology doesn't feed the bulldog, money does..
Click to expand...

Really?


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes the show sucked bad so advertisers wouldn't pay good money to advertise on it.
> 
> That made it not profitable enough for MTV so they cancelled it.
> 
> Capitalism at work
> 
> I was talking about it being cancelled not the actual show itself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know, I was giving you shit.
> 
> I have no problem with regulated capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told bigfitz that you knew what I meant and were just messing with me because we like to play with each other like that (you can take that out of context anytime )
Click to expand...


You just like to play with me while I watch tv.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, I was giving you shit.
> 
> I have no problem with regulated capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told bigfitz that you knew what I meant and were just messing with me because we like to play with each other like that (you can take that out of context anytime )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just like to play with me while I watch tv.
Click to expand...




Its better than just sitting there


----------



## Luissa

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told bigfitz that you knew what I meant and were just messing with me because we like to play with each other like that (you can take that out of context anytime )
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just like to play with me while I watch tv.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its better than just sitting there
Click to expand...


WHy do we only have a blow job smilie? that is sexism. 

And of course it is better than just sitting there, my "magic" is that good. 







We should stop derailing this serious thread, BigFits might have a fit.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> So you believe that the INTERSTATE commerce clause (take care with the wording) empowers congress to confiscate property from one and give it to another?



No, the taxation clause does that, but the interstate commerce clause does empower Congress to set rules for mortgage transactions. As for the interpretation of the words "between the states," I suggest you take it up with the Supreme Court, and will only mention in passing that banks nowadays are all interstate in their operations, bringing them under the jurisdiction of Congress.



> No case law has ever supported the theft by congress of real property for the benefit of a third party.



We are not talking about anything fitting that description, or at least, I am not, and if you are, then you are engaging a straw man.



> First off, there is no such thing as the "taxation clause," this is a fabrication of your own imagination. The power to tax is derived from the Uniformity Clause of the constitution, Article 1, section 8.  The clause very clearly states the purpose for which congress may tax;
> 
> Section. 8.
> 
> Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



That IS the taxation clause. Each clause of Article I, Section 8 is an enumerated power of Congress. This first one is the power to lay and collect taxes. That all duties etc. must be uniform throughout the U.S. is a condition on application of that power, just as that all taxes must be to pay the debts or provide for the common defense or general welfare is a condition on the power. It is just as wrong to call this the "uniformity clause" as it is to call it the "general welfare" clause. The power enumerated here is the power to tax, and by extension the power to spend.



> Sorry, violates the uniformity clause in that it is not applied in a uniform manner but involves theft of real property from one set of citizens on behalf of another.



Again, take it up with the Supreme Court. The ability of the federal government to levy taxes and provide relief of various kinds to the people is long established as a function of this clause, which, by the way, does not require uniformity in anything but the imposition of duties, imposts and excises -- that is to say, Congress cannot impose a duty on goods entering the port of New York and not apply the same duty to the same goods entering the port of Los Angeles.


----------



## Big Fitz

Luissa said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cancelling TRL is Capitalism at work?
> ONe could say TRL is a form of democracy and maybe even socialism. People vote for videos, then  MTV shared the videos the people voted for(sharing the wealth). Is it still socialism if you don't want what they are sharing?
> 
> I wonder how many of those posters used to camp out at TRL when they were younger? Some how we can blame Carson Daily for this whole thing???
> 
> 
> 
> Like Air America... if nobody watches it, it loses all revenue streams, because it can't sell advertising, and can't pay the bills, and as socialist as they may be, ideology doesn't feed the bulldog, money does..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...

Those Occupados didn't figure that out.  Wasn't sure if you got that too.  Best to clarify if unsure.


----------



## Luissa

Big Fitz said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like Air America... if nobody watches it, it loses all revenue streams, because it can't sell advertising, and can't pay the bills, and as socialist as they may be, ideology doesn't feed the bulldog, money does..
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those Occupados didn't figure that out.  Wasn't sure if you got that too.  Best to clarify if unsure.
Click to expand...


They couldn't figure out why TRL went off the air?


----------



## Big Fitz

Luissa said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> 
> 
> Those Occupados didn't figure that out.  Wasn't sure if you got that too.  Best to clarify if unsure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They couldn't figure out why TRL went off the air?
Click to expand...

You know... I bet that'd be true too.

I stopped watching when they pulled "Liquid Television" in 1994, which I did not need to be stoned to watch.  But they suckered me back for a short period with "Daria" which got pulled in 2006ish.

la la LA la laaaaa....


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Luissa said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just like to play with me while I watch tv.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its better than just sitting there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHy do we only have a blow job smilie? that is sexism.
> 
> And of course it is better than just sitting there, my "magic" is that good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We should stop derailing this serious thread, BigFits might have a fit.
Click to expand...



Plus we are probably confusing everyone 

lets find another thread


----------



## Luissa

Big Fitz said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those Occupados didn't figure that out.  Wasn't sure if you got that too.  Best to clarify if unsure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They couldn't figure out why TRL went off the air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know... I bet that'd be true too.
> 
> I stopped watching when they pulled "Liquid Television" in 1994, which I did not need to be stoned to watch.  But they suckered me back for a short period with "Daria" which got pulled in 2006ish.
> 
> la la LA la laaaaa....
Click to expand...


You like Daria?
You just scored a few points in my book. I was a big Beavis and Butthead fan, then a HUGE Daria fan. I remember watching Mtv all day long, now I don't even know what channel it is on. When we switched to Directv I have never bothered to look. 


You know what I also miss? Pop up video.


----------



## Big Fitz

Luissa said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> They couldn't figure out why TRL went off the air?
> 
> 
> 
> You know... I bet that'd be true too.
> 
> I stopped watching when they pulled "Liquid Television" in 1994, which I did not need to be stoned to watch.  But they suckered me back for a short period with "Daria" which got pulled in 2006ish.
> 
> la la LA la laaaaa....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You like Daria?
> You just scored a few points in my book. I was a big Beavis and Butthead fan, then a HUGE Daria fan. I remember watching Mtv all day long, now I don't even know what channel it is on. When we switched to Directv I have never bothered to look.
> 
> 
> You know what I also miss? Pop up video.
Click to expand...

For so long the only videos worth watching were those.

BTW, the entire Daria series is available on DVD now.  But I'm not buying it for that price... yet.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

My issue about it not being grassroots Occupy DC Organizer | Washington Hispanics | The Daily Caller


----------



## Luissa

Big Fitz said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know... I bet that'd be true too.
> 
> I stopped watching when they pulled "Liquid Television" in 1994, which I did not need to be stoned to watch.  But they suckered me back for a short period with "Daria" which got pulled in 2006ish.
> 
> la la LA la laaaaa....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You like Daria?
> You just scored a few points in my book. I was a big Beavis and Butthead fan, then a HUGE Daria fan. I remember watching Mtv all day long, now I don't even know what channel it is on. When we switched to Directv I have never bothered to look.
> 
> 
> You know what I also miss? Pop up video.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For so long the only videos worth watching were those.
> 
> BTW, the entire Daria series is available on DVD now.  But I'm not buying it for that price... yet.
Click to expand...


You can get it on Netflix. 
It was Mtv2 for awhile, but I don't think they run it anymore.


----------



## The Gadfly

Luissa said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess the question was too hard for Dragon... or maybe he really doesn't want to answer - at least, not honestly.
> 
> Which begs the question. Do the left really want to tear up the Constitution and create a new America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know full well that's what they want.
> 
> Dragon ducked the question instead of lying, he deserves some credit for that shred of integrity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, that is what we want. And we want to put Castro in the White House.
Click to expand...


I really believe you would, if you could.


----------



## The Gadfly

Dragon, you sound like a broken record with all this "Prove it!" nonsense. We don't have to prove anything (I doubt we could prove the sky is blue to your crazed little movement); no, all we have to do is hang the responsibility for this "movement" and whatever violence it eventually provokes, around the necks of the Obama campaign and the democrat party, like a great big, putrescent albatross, and to do that, all we have to do is show the people just who the preponderance of the evidence suggests was involved in ginning this up and funding it. In the court of public opinion, circumstantial evidence is a powerful thing, and we have plenty of it. We don't have to convict you in a court of law; only in the court of public opinion, and we've learned well from your side how to do that. When this turns disorderly, and then violent, we'll use that too! The Left is about to destroy itself, and we are going to give it all the help we can, toward that end. I frankly don't care what we have to do to accomplish that. Now, you go enjoy your little "peoples revolution". I think it's going to be short-lived. Not only are we going to defeat Obama and the democrats; you fools are going to help us do it!


----------



## Dragon

The Gadfly said:


> Dragon, you sound like a broken record with all this "Prove it!" nonsense. We don't have to prove anything



You do if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise you are just spouting unsupported paranoid nonsense -- and that is, in fact, exactly what you are doing.



> no, all we have to do is hang the responsibility for this "movement" and whatever violence it eventually provokes, around the necks of the Obama campaign and the democrat party



Poll: Occupy Wall Street Starts Off With Favorable Ratings

You sure you want to do that? Seems to me it's a tactic that could easily backfire.

Here is a statement I can't prove, but know to be true. This is not going to be short-lived. It has the support of a majority of a whole generation. This, or other activities like it -- protest from the center-left -- are going to be a dominant theme in politics for the next 15-20 years. Occupy Wall Street may conceivably itself die down (although at present it shows no sign of doing so), but if it does it will be because the energy is going elsewhere, into other venues of protest.


----------



## WillowTree

Dragon said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon, you sound like a broken record with all this "Prove it!" nonsense. We don't have to prove anything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do if you want to be taken seriously. Otherwise you are just spouting unsupported paranoid nonsense -- and that is, in fact, exactly what you are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, all we have to do is hang the responsibility for this "movement" and whatever violence it eventually provokes, around the necks of the Obama campaign and the democrat party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll: Occupy Wall Street Starts Off With Favorable Ratings
> 
> You sure you want to do that? Seems to me it's a tactic that could easily backfire.
> 
> Here is a statement I can't prove, but know to be true. This is not going to be short-lived. It has the support of a majority of a whole generation. This, or other activities like it -- protest from the center-left -- are going to be a dominant theme in politics for the next 15-20 years. Occupy Wall Street may conceivably itself die down (although at present it shows no sign of doing so), but if it does it will be because the energy is going elsewhere, into other venues of protest.
Click to expand...


I cannot name a single person on this board who gives a hairy rats ass whether you the moron take them seriously or knot! Can you?


----------



## California Girl

The Gadfly said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know full well that's what they want.
> 
> Dragon ducked the question instead of lying, he deserves some credit for that shred of integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that is what we want. And we want to put Castro in the White House.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really believe you would, if you could.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that. At least, not the liberals. The left....yea.... but liberals... nope. The problem is that the liberals seem to be accepting what they are told about OWS rather than digging around to find who's really behind it.


----------



## Valerie

The Gadfly said:


> Dragon, you sound like a broken record with all this "Prove it!" nonsense. We don't have to prove anything (I doubt we could prove the sky is blue to your crazed little movement); no, all we have to do is hang the responsibility for this "movement" and whatever violence it eventually provokes, around the necks of the Obama campaign and the democrat party, like a great big, putrescent albatross, and to do that, all we have to do is show the people just who the preponderance of the evidence suggests was involved in ginning this up and funding it. In the court of public opinion, circumstantial evidence is a powerful thing, and we have plenty of it. We don't have to convict you in a court of law; only in the court of public opinion, and we've learned well from your side how to do that. When this turns disorderly, and then violent, we'll use that too! The Left is about to destroy itself, and we are going to give it all the help we can, toward that end. I frankly don't care what we have to do to accomplish that. Now, you go enjoy your little "peoples revolution". I think it's going to be short-lived. Not only are we going to defeat Obama and the democrats; you fools are going to help us do it!









*Dragon, you sound like a broken record with all this "Prove it!" nonsense. We don't have to prove anything (I doubt we could prove the sky is blue to your crazed little movement); *




LIAR!


----------



## JWBooth

Dragon said:


> Here is a statement I can't prove, but know to be true. This is not going to be short-lived. It has the support of a majority of a whole generation. This, or other activities like it -- protest from the center-left -- are going to be a dominant theme in politics for the next 15-20 years. Occupy Wall Street may conceivably itself die down (although at present it shows no sign of doing so), but if it does it will be because the energy is going elsewhere, into other venues of protest.



The sum total of what you know could be put in a 55 gallon drum, and there would still be 55 gallons of capacity in that drum.


----------



## JWBooth




----------



## WillowTree

Valerie said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon, you sound like a broken record with all this "Prove it!" nonsense. We don't have to prove anything (I doubt we could prove the sky is blue to your crazed little movement); no, all we have to do is hang the responsibility for this "movement" and whatever violence it eventually provokes, around the necks of the Obama campaign and the democrat party, like a great big, putrescent albatross, and to do that, all we have to do is show the people just who the preponderance of the evidence suggests was involved in ginning this up and funding it. In the court of public opinion, circumstantial evidence is a powerful thing, and we have plenty of it. We don't have to convict you in a court of law; only in the court of public opinion, and we've learned well from your side how to do that. When this turns disorderly, and then violent, we'll use that too! The Left is about to destroy itself, and we are going to give it all the help we can, toward that end. I frankly don't care what we have to do to accomplish that. Now, you go enjoy your little "peoples revolution". I think it's going to be short-lived. Not only are we going to defeat Obama and the democrats; you fools are going to help us do it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Dragon, you sound like a broken record with all this "Prove it!" nonsense. We don't have to prove anything (I doubt we could prove the sky is blue to your crazed little movement); *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR!
Click to expand...


----------



## Big Fitz

So... Friday the Occupados descended on Minneapolis.  I drove past their infestation in front of the Government plaza and realized a few things rather quickly.

1.  This is a social event, not political for most of them.  I watched so much 'coffee clutch' activity in the time I had to watch, if you put it in a church basement with food, it'd be a Lenten pot luck.  

2.  Nobody not involved or with friends there was taking them seriously, and rolling their eyes as they walked past.

3.  The most obnoxious messages (which is equitable to stupid messages) were held by obvious professionals who actually WERE believers in the cause.

4.  They chose a VERY poor spot to protest.  They're protesting WALL STREET corruption, yet protesting in front of a government building and all their solutions were big government based.  SO protesting there made what cohesive point again?

Needless to say, this movement is short lived.  They can't keep up this halfassed fervor forever.  I mean, there's so much liberal 'pot luck' good feelings can sustain.


----------



## Dot Com

you know who's side Orrin Hatch (R) is on


----------



## Dot Com

If Goldmann wasn't so entrenched in our Treasury, Justice could go after the pukes

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI--LdhdIBg&feature=related]Lloyd Blankfein doesn&#39;t want to answer Senator Tom Coburn&#39;s question - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Intense

Dot Com said:


> If Goldmann wasn't so entrenched in our Treasury, Justice could go after the pukes
> 
> Lloyd Blankfein doesn't want to answer Senator Tom Coburn's question - YouTube



And how many of those Executives are DNC Supporters? How many play Golf with Barry?


----------



## Dot Com

Intense said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Goldmann wasn't so entrenched in our Treasury, Justice could go after the pukes
> 
> Lloyd Blankfein doesn't want to answer Senator Tom Coburn's question - YouTube
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how many of those Executives are DNC Supporters? How many play Golf with Barry?
Click to expand...


Yep. Its on both sides of the aisle but the Robert$ Court has raised the money pedaling for influence to the nth degree with their ruling.


----------



## Trajan

the only thing growing at these 'demonstrations' is fungus.


----------



## boedicca

OWS 'Splained!


----------



## Trajan

Dot Com said:


> If Goldmann wasn't so entrenched in our Treasury, Justice could go after the pukes
> 
> Lloyd Blankfein doesn't want to answer Senator Tom Coburn's question - YouTube



solyndra execs wouldn't answer questions other, they took the 5th, hello...


----------



## Intense

Google is known for innovation in technology -- but taxes?

It turns out the Silicon Valley giant also excels at exploiting tax loopholes. By employing tactics such as the "Double Irish" and the "Dutch Sandwich," Google has saved $1 billion in annual taxes and reduced its effective tax rate on foreign profits to just 2.4 percent.

The complex strategy that sends overseas income on a circuitous journey from the rainy shores of Ireland to the sunny island of Bermuda has cut Google's tax bill by $3.1 billion over the last three years, according to an analysis by Bloomberg News.

Although legal, Google's tax-saving strategy is raising eyebrows at a time when both the US government and many European nations are fighting furiously to close record deficits.

Such strategies -- also employed at Microsoft, IBM and soon Facebook -- reduce the amount companies pay to overseas countries and allow firms to lower their US tax rates by shifting expenses to countries with higher tax rates, experts said. Those expenses are used to cut their tax rates here.

But the process has been condoned by the Internal Revenue Service, which granted Google the right to license its offshore search engine and other intellectual property rights to an offshore subsidiary in 2006, according to Bloomberg.

The subsidiary, Google Ireland Holdings, employs about 2,000 people in Dublin and gets credit for almost 90 percent of Google's overseas sales. It then offsets that income with billions in royalty payments to an Irish entity, whose management is based in Bermuda.

Read more: Search: Tax breaks; Artful dodger Google saves $3.1B in 3 years - NYPOST.com

Let's Add this to our List of Grievances.


----------



## freedombecki

I guess sanitation has become a stinky problem for protesters.


----------



## Si modo

freedombecki said:


> I guess sanitation has become a stinky problem for protesters.


After just opening that link, I had to spray Febreeze in my office.  What pigs!

Pooping on NYC cop cars?  What sort of pig is that????????


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OWS: The movement grow disgusting


----------



## freedombecki

Didn't I hear them wailing the other day, "We're all in this together..."


----------



## boedicca

freedombecki said:


> Didn't I hear them wailing the other day, "We're all in this together..."




That big communal sleeping bag must be pretty danged skanky by now.


----------



## Trajan

Si modo said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess sanitation has become a stinky problem for protesters.
> 
> 
> 
> After just opening that link, I had to spray Febreeze in my office.  What pigs!
> 
> Pooping on NYC cop cars?  What sort of pig is that????????
Click to expand...


give him a break Si, he thought he was home....


----------



## freedombecki

boedicca said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't I hear them wailing the other day, "We're all in this together..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That big communal sleeping bag must be pretty danged skanky by now.
Click to expand...

One of the pictures showed trash piled on top of a queen-sized dirty mattress and reminded me of photos of the last garbage strike in the city. (70s - 80s?)


----------



## Trajan

did anyone post this yet?

_About 200 people attended the event. U.S. Congressman John Lewis even stopped by for about half an hour.

    Several demonstrators held signs showing their frustration with Washingtons relationship with big business. Many people voiced general frustration. One woman said she was there for changes for animals. Another attendee said he didnt think either party represented his feelings.

    Congressman Lewis (D, GA) was ready to talk to the group, but they didnt give him a chance to speak.

    I was going to say, I stand with you. I support you, what youre down, said Lewis to the media.



    Michelle Williams was excited to attend the event and no longer wanted to be associated with the movement, citing how Lewis was treated.

    I am angry because this is not what democracy is all about. This is Marxist more Stalin like. Your movement, youre just riff-raff. Youre an organized mob, said Williams._

Occupy Wall Street protests come to Atlanta - CBS Atlanta 46


Looks like the 'movement' is racist too


----------



## boedicca

Trajan said:


> did anyone post this yet?
> 
> _About 200 people attended the event. U.S. Congressman John Lewis even stopped by for about half an hour.
> 
> Several demonstrators held signs showing their frustration with Washingtons relationship with big business. Many people voiced general frustration. One woman said she was there for changes for animals. Another attendee said he didnt think either party represented his feelings.
> 
> Congressman Lewis (D, GA) was ready to talk to the group, but they didnt give him a chance to speak.
> 
> I was going to say, I stand with you. I support you, what youre down, said Lewis to the media.
> 
> 
> 
> Michelle Williams was excited to attend the event and no longer wanted to be associated with the movement, citing how Lewis was treated.
> 
> I am angry because this is not what democracy is all about. This is Marxist more Stalin like. Your movement, youre just riff-raff. Youre an organized mob, said Williams._
> 
> Occupy Wall Street protests come to Atlanta - CBS Atlanta 46
> 
> 
> Looks like the 'movement' is racist too





Clearly, the problem was that John Lewis was not escorted by Nancy Pelosi and her Giant Gavel.


----------



## boedicca

Has The Noodles Restaurant Revolutionary showed up yet?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBJY6djZ044]America is NOT now, nor will bow, to the evil that is Socialism - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## EriktheRed

This whole thing could fizzle out next week, but if it's so insignificant, why does a conservative magazine's assistant editor feel the need to engage in provocation himself?


----------



## Trajan

boedicca said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> did anyone post this yet?
> 
> _About 200 people attended the event. U.S. Congressman John Lewis even stopped by for about half an hour.
> 
> Several demonstrators held signs showing their frustration with Washingtons relationship with big business. Many people voiced general frustration. One woman said she was there for changes for animals. Another attendee said he didnt think either party represented his feelings.
> 
> Congressman Lewis (D, GA) was ready to talk to the group, but they didnt give him a chance to speak.
> 
> I was going to say, I stand with you. I support you, what youre down, said Lewis to the media.
> 
> 
> 
> Michelle Williams was excited to attend the event and no longer wanted to be associated with the movement, citing how Lewis was treated.
> 
> I am angry because this is not what democracy is all about. This is Marxist more Stalin like. Your movement, youre just riff-raff. Youre an organized mob, said Williams._
> 
> Occupy Wall Street protests come to Atlanta - CBS Atlanta 46
> 
> 
> Looks like the 'movement' is racist too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly, the problem was that John Lewis was not escorted by Nancy Pelosi and her Giant Gavel.
Click to expand...


yup, the biggest F U in this century. stupid hag.


----------



## EriktheRed

Trajan said:


> the only thing growing at these 'demonstrations' is fungus.



And yet more and more threads keep popping up about it and guys like you keep talking about it....


----------



## Intense

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20_NRdXTD4k&feature=related]Danny Panzella on Freedom Watch w/ Judge Napolitano : What&#39;s the Message from OccupyWallStreet? - YouTube[/ame]
Danny Panzella on Freedom Watch w/ Judge Napolitano : What's the Message from OccupyWallStreet?


----------



## Dot Com

EriktheRed said:


> This whole thing could fizzle out next week, but if it's so insignificant, why does a conservative magazine's assistant editor feel the need to engage in provocation himself?





EriktheRed said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing growing at these 'demonstrations' is fungus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet more and more threads keep popping up about it and guys like you keep talking about it....
Click to expand...


----------



## Si modo

Dot Com said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> This whole thing could fizzle out next week, but if it's so insignificant, why does a conservative magazine's assistant editor feel the need to engage in provocation himself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing growing at these 'demonstrations' is fungus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet more and more threads keep popping up about it and guys like you keep talking about it....
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yup.  We do.  Communist-backed stoners camped on NYC sidewalks and pooping on those sidewalks and cop cars, is rather newsworthy.


----------



## Dot Com

​


----------



## Dot Com

Si modo said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> This whole thing could fizzle out next week, but if it's so insignificant, why does a conservative magazine's assistant editor feel the need to engage in provocation himself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet more and more threads keep popping up about it and guys like you keep talking about it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.  We do.  *Communist-backed stoners* camped on NYC sidewalks and pooping on those sidewalks and cop cars, is rather newsworthy.
Click to expand...

Put down that "broad-brush", you're painting over everyone with it


----------



## RadiomanATL

Wait,

They were here in Atlanta? I didn't notice.


----------



## EriktheRed

Si modo said:


> Yup.  We do.  Communist-backed stoners camped on NYC sidewalks and pooping on those sidewalks and cop cars, is rather newsworthy.



That's ok, while Fox News-watching wingnuts like yourself focus on those things, others are seeing the bigger picture:


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/protesters-against-wall-street.html


----------



## Dot Com

Can anyone disagree w/ whats written on this woman's sign?


----------



## RadiomanATL

Dot Com said:


> Can anyone disagree w/ whats written on this woman's sign?



Tax breaks for bonuses?

My bonus is taxed somewhere around 45%, and now you're telling me thats a tax _break_?

GTFO.


----------



## boedicca

Dot Com said:


> Can anyone disagree w/ whats written on this woman's sign?




Yes, I can.   It's ignorant.

Let's take "Tax Breaks For Stock Options".   What does this mean?  When somebody exercises a stock option and holds the stock for more than a year (and the option was granted at least two years earlier), then he gets long term capital gains.  If not, then the option is treated as ordinary income.

What's the big problem with that?

Tax breaks for businesses?  What are these?   They are deductions of the legitimate expenses for running the business.  The big bogosity regarding "tax breaks for oil companies" is that they use the same accelerated depreciation for manufacturing equipment that EVERY OTHER MANUFACTURER can use.

These morons, who ostensibly are protesting because they lack jobs to pay back their huge student loan debts, are incoherent micro and macro economic illiterate spoiled entitlement brats.


----------



## Valerie

Dot Com said:


> Can anyone disagree w/ whats written on this woman's sign?







			
				her sign said:
			
		

> NO MORE:
> 
> 
> carried interest loopholes
> 
> tax breaks for bonuses
> 
> ceo pay inflation





  Did she really need to camp out in the park over these things?



Considering her top issue, she probably signed a loan document she didn't understand and wants to blame the big bad Government... Regardless, none of these issues couldn't otherwise be addressed without "encampment" which further drains State resources.


----------



## Trajan

EriktheRed said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing growing at these 'demonstrations' is fungus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet more and more threads keep popping up about it and guys like you keep talking about it....
Click to expand...


why yes, a nine word throw away derisive comment is certainly talking about it....


----------



## Trajan

RadiomanATL said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone disagree w/ whats written on this woman's sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax breaks for bonuses?
> 
> My bonus is taxed somewhere around 45%, and now you're telling me thats a tax _break_?
> 
> GTFO.
Click to expand...


tell me  about it, 48% here, stock options also fueled some of the greatest booms  here in the valley too.....

I'd like to hear what the dog has to say..


----------



## boedicca

Trajan said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone disagree w/ whats written on this woman's sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax breaks for bonuses?
> 
> My bonus is taxed somewhere around 45%, and now you're telling me thats a tax _break_?
> 
> GTFO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> tell me  about it, 48% here, stock options also fueled some of the greatest booms  here in the valley too.....
> 
> I'd like to hear what the dog has to say..
Click to expand...




The dog would say:  BACON!


----------



## Trajan

boedicca said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tax breaks for bonuses?
> 
> My bonus is taxed somewhere around 45%, and now you're telling me thats a tax _break_?
> 
> GTFO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tell me  about it, 48% here, stock options also fueled some of the greatest booms  here in the valley too.....
> 
> I'd like to hear what the dog has to say..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dog would say:  BACON!
Click to expand...




noooo, he'd say

Free bacon!!!!!!!! and wheres sallow?  I need someone to sniff my arse.........


----------



## Si modo

Dot Com said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  We do.  *Communist-backed stoners* camped on NYC sidewalks and pooping on those sidewalks and cop cars, is rather newsworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> Put down that "broad-brush", you're painting over everyone with it
Click to expand...

What broad brush?    There are a few backers who are definitely communist.

Backers does not mean all participants.  A PSA brought to you by Si modo. 

Just like the network says in its PSAs, 'The more you know'.


----------



## Liability

We Oppose Greed!

We Oppose the Greedy Wealthy Top 1%!

We Oppose Capitalism.

We Demand Jobs for all.

We Demand a $20.00 Per Hour Minimum Wage!

We Propose to Accomplish all of this by . . . .

*

*

*

*

. . . .


----------



## The Gadfly

boedicca said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can anyone disagree w/ whats written on this woman's sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I can.   It's ignorant.
> 
> Let's take "Tax Breaks For Stock Options".   What does this mean?  When somebody exercises a stock option and holds the stock for more than a year (and the option was granted at least two years earlier), then he gets long term capital gains.  If not, then the option is treated as ordinary income.
> 
> What's the big problem with that?
> 
> Tax breaks for businesses?  What are these?   They are deductions of the legitimate expenses for running the business.  The big bogosity regarding "tax breaks for oil companies" is that they use the same accelerated depreciation for manufacturing equipment that EVERY OTHER MANUFACTURER can use.
> 
> These morons, who ostensibly are protesting because they lack jobs to pay back their huge student loan debts, are incoherent micro and macro economic illiterate spoiled entitlement brats.
Click to expand...


Exactly, and while I'm willing to bet that many of these protestors, including the one who made that sign, are unaware of the facts you posted, I wonder if it would make any difference to them if they DID know. I suspect most of them would carry the same signs, make the same claims, and the same demands even then. This movement is not about facts (almost nothing the hard Left ever does is more than loosely based in anything close to real facts). It's all based on a concept, that Corporations are evil, corporate executives are evil, bankers are evil, Wall Street is evil, and your neighbor is evil if he has more than you. The little babies aren't interested in reality; all they want to do, is emote. The only difference between these people, and a four-year-old having a temper tantrum, is chronological age! Defecating on the street, or a cop car, is a case in point; disgusting, but utterly juvenile, when you think about it.


----------



## Preius

iamwhatiseem said:


> There has been a VERY - VERY - VERY successful protest movement against Wall Street interest for well over a year now.
> It is called - The Tea Party.



You make an interesting point.  It would appear that OWS (Occupy Wall Street), and the Tea Party are on the same wave link.  The Tea Party takes a similar message to the ultra right that OWS takes to the left, moderate Republicans, and hopefully more and more conservatives.  Real question is are both movements really 'grass roots?'  Some, (both parties), are already trying to drive a wedge between OWS and the Tea Party.  Regardless, I believe both will come together at some point.  I mean when it comes down to it who is *REALLY * gives a damn about the upper 1% besides the upper 1%?  What have the upper 1% done for you lately?  Outsourced some of our better jobs.

Americans want solutions, they don't care about party ideology.

Permit me to point out an example from history about Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson believed and campaigned for president based upon a weak Federal Government.  Then France offered to sell us the Louisiana purchase for peanuts.  Jefferson believed in manifest destiny, took the deal, and let his principles of small government go.  Had Jefferson not done this deal, we may never have had the States from Louisana to Minnesota to Montanna.  The United States was founded on compromise, all Americans want is the best solution we can get regardless of the source.  Most of us are content to have a secure job, a home, food on the table, some vacation, and the promise of a better tomorrow if we work hard.  We really don't give a damn what you call it - conservative, liberal, capitalist, socialist, communist or libertarian.  The question is who can deliver to the American working class, middle class, upper-middle class, and even some upper class.  Wall Street has made the mistake of ignoring us, the 99%.  Now you have the OWS and the Tea Party.  2012 will be an historic election, and we get to be here to watch and participate!  It could be good news for all of us 99%ers 
​


----------



## Si modo

Preius said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a VERY - VERY - VERY successful protest movement against Wall Street interest for well over a year now.
> It is called - The Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make an interesting point.  It would appear that OWS (Occupy Wall Street), and the Tea Party are on the same wave link.  The Tea Party takes a similar message to the ultra right that OWS takes to the left, moderate Republicans, and hopefully more and more conservatives.  Real question is are both movements really 'grass roots?'  Some, (both parties), are already trying to drive a wedge between OWS and the Tea Party.  Regardless, I believe both will come together at some point.  I mean when it comes down to it who is *REALLY * gives a damn about the upper 1% besides the upper 1%?  What have the upper 1% done for you lately?  Outsourced some of our better jobs.
> 
> Americans want solutions, they don't care about party ideology.
> 
> Permit me to point out an example from history about Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson believed and campaigned for president based upon a weak Federal Government.  Then France offered to sell us the Louisiana purchase for peanuts.  Jefferson believed in manifest destiny, took the deal, and let his principles of small government go.  Had Jefferson not done this deal, we may never have had the States from Louisana to Minnesota to Montanna.  The United States was founded on compromise, all Americans want is the best solution we can get regardless of the source.  Most of us are content to have a secure job, a home, food on the table, some vacation, and the promise of a better tomorrow if we work hard.  We really don't give a damn what you call it - conservative, liberal, capitalist, socialist, communist or libertarian.  The question is who can deliver to the American working class, middle class, upper-middle class, and even some upper class.  Wall Street has made the mistake of ignoring us, the 99%.  Now you have the OWS and the Tea Party.  2012 will be an historic election, and we get to be here to watch and participate!  It could be good news for all of us 99%ers
> ​
Click to expand...

A fundamental difference between the two movements is that the Tea Party is a proponent of personal accountability.  That doesn't seen like it would be easily reconcilable.


----------



## Stephanie

Preius said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a VERY - VERY - VERY successful protest movement against Wall Street interest for well over a year now.
> It is called - The Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make an interesting point.  It would appear that OWS (Occupy Wall Street), and the Tea Party are on the same wave link.  The Tea Party takes a similar message to the ultra right that OWS takes to the left, moderate Republicans, and hopefully more and more conservatives.  Real question is are both movements really 'grass roots?'  Some, (both parties), are already trying to drive a wedge between OWS and the Tea Party.  Regardless, I believe both will come together at some point.  I mean when it comes down to it who is *REALLY * gives a damn about the upper 1% besides the upper 1%?  What have the upper 1% done for you lately?  Outsourced some of our better jobs.
> 
> Americans want solutions, they don't care about party ideology.
> 
> Permit me to point out an example from history about Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson believed and campaigned for president based upon a weak Federal Government.  Then France offered to sell us the Louisiana purchase for peanuts.  Jefferson believed in manifest destiny, took the deal, and let his principles of small government go.  Had Jefferson not done this deal, we may never have had the States from Louisana to Minnesota to Montanna.  The United States was founded on compromise, all Americans want is the best solution we can get regardless of the source.  Most of us are content to have a secure job, a home, food on the table, some vacation, and the promise of a better tomorrow if we work hard.  We really don't give a damn what you call it - conservative, liberal, capitalist, socialist, communist or libertarian.  The question is who can deliver to the American working class, middle class, upper-middle class, and even some upper class.  Wall Street has made the mistake of ignoring us, the 99%.  Now you have the OWS and the Tea Party.  2012 will be an historic election, and we get to be here to watch and participate!  It could be good news for all of us 99%ers
> ​
Click to expand...


Dream on...The Tea Party is NOTHING like this movement and WILL NEVER come join hands them. good gawd..
Calling yourselves the 99%ers is enough to Turn people off and go, huh??? and just have a good damn laugh really


----------



## Dr Grump

Stephanie said:


> Dream on...The Tea Party is *NOTHING like this movement* and WILL NEVER come join hands them. good gawd..
> :



We know...the teabaggers aren't fit to wipe their butts....


----------



## Stephanie

Dr Grump said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dream on...The Tea Party is *NOTHING like this movement* and WILL NEVER come join hands them. good gawd..
> :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We know...the teabaggers aren't fit to wipe their butts....
Click to expand...


who would want too..from seeing them taking a shit on police cars and probably in their own camp sites....icky icky icky


----------



## Dragon

Stephanie said:


> Dream on...The Tea Party is NOTHING like this movement and WILL NEVER come join hands them. good gawd..



It's already happening.


----------



## Stephanie

Dragon said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dream on...The Tea Party is NOTHING like this movement and WILL NEVER come join hands them. good gawd..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already happening.
Click to expand...


yeah right, probably your alls MADE UP Tea Party because you certainly can't do anything RIGHT on your alls own. but the people I know from the Tea Party would never associate themselves with this idiotic movement (Occupying). The Tea Party believe in doing things in lawful manner..This movement is FAR FROM THAT.
so like I said, DREAM ON.


----------



## Dragon

Stephanie said:


> yeah right, probably your alls MADE UP Tea Party



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp-eapYpL8c]Occupy Wallstreet Update! The Marines are Coming to PROTECT the Protesters - YouTube[/ame]

"I'm a Tea Party patriot, and I do not agree with all of the politics of these young people, but I agree with and I support the fact that Wall Street has way too much influence on Washington DC and we all need to stand together against this corruption."

Quite a few of the protesters describe themselves as Tea Party people. My guess is that most of them are members of the original TP before it was co-opted by Koch money, Fox News, and the GOP.


----------



## Stephanie

Dragon said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah right, probably your alls MADE UP Tea Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp-eapYpL8c]Occupy Wallstreet Update! The Marines are Coming to PROTECT the Protesters - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> "I'm a Tea Party patriot, and I do not agree with all of the politics of these young people, but I agree with and I support the fact that Wall Street has way too much influence on Washington DC and we all need to stand together against this corruption."
> 
> Quite a few of the protesters describe themselves as Tea Party people. My guess is that most of them are members of the original TP before it was co-opted by Koch money, Fox News, and the GOP.
Click to expand...


well good for you...you have ONE video and ANYONE can say they are FROM the Tea Party..so play your alls games..you Progressive-Commies don't mind lying to achieve your agenda..that is a known fact..
and no one cares about your...guesses..


----------



## Dragon

All I can tell you is that I'm in contact with a number of people who are involved in these protests in several cities, and eyewitness accounts show a fair amount of crossover. The majority of participants aren't also TP, but many are.

The Tea Party was originally protesting the same essential issue as OWS, namely excessive corporate influence on the government. That's not a left-right issue, it's a top-bottom issue, the 1% vs. the 99% as the OWS people are putting it.


----------



## Preius

Si modo said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a VERY - VERY - VERY successful protest movement against Wall Street interest for well over a year now.
> It is called - The Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make an interesting point.  It would appear that OWS (Occupy Wall Street), and the Tea Party are on the same wave link.  The Tea Party takes a similar message to the ultra right that OWS takes to the left, moderate Republicans, and hopefully more and more conservatives.  Real question is are both movements really 'grass roots?'  Some, (both parties), are already trying to drive a wedge between OWS and the Tea Party.  Regardless, I believe both will come together at some point.  I mean when it comes down to it who is *REALLY * gives a damn about the upper 1% besides the upper 1%?  What have the upper 1% done for you lately?  Outsourced some of our better jobs.
> 
> Americans want solutions, they don't care about party ideology.
> 
> Permit me to point out an example from history about Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson believed and campaigned for president based upon a weak Federal Government.  Then France offered to sell us the Louisiana purchase for peanuts.  Jefferson believed in manifest destiny, took the deal, and let his principles of small government go.  Had Jefferson not done this deal, we may never have had the States from Louisana to Minnesota to Montanna.  The United States was founded on compromise, all Americans want is the best solution we can get regardless of the source.  Most of us are content to have a secure job, a home, food on the table, some vacation, and the promise of a better tomorrow if we work hard.  We really don't give a damn what you call it - conservative, liberal, capitalist, socialist, communist or libertarian.  The question is who can deliver to the American working class, middle class, upper-middle class, and even some upper class.  Wall Street has made the mistake of ignoring us, the 99%.  Now you have the OWS and the Tea Party.  2012 will be an historic election, and we get to be here to watch and participate!  It could be good news for all of us 99%ers
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A fundamental difference between the two movements is that the Tea Party is a proponent of personal accountability.  That doesn't seen like it would be easily reconcilable.
Click to expand...


I am a proponent of personal accountability and responsibility.  I have not seen one word from the OWS, (Occupy Wall Street) folks on this point.  Frankly, I can not think of any group who has ignored taking responsibility for their actions than Wall Street bankers.  They are morally corrupt, and many should be in prison.


----------



## Stephanie

Dragon said:


> All I can tell you is that I'm in contact with a number of people who are involved in these protests in several cities, and eyewitness accounts show a fair amount of crossover. The majority of participants aren't also TP, but many are.
> 
> *The Tea Party was originally protesting the same essential issue as OWS, namely excessive corporate influence on the government.* That's not a left-right issue, it's a top-bottom issue, the 1% vs. the 99% as the OWS people are putting it.



Lies..That was not and is not the Tea Party..


----------



## Dragon

Stephanie said:


> Lies..That was not and is not the Tea Party..



Of course it was. The original Tea Party was a libertarian movement protesting a government that served the fat cats instead of the people, specifically in regard to the TARP program, which OWS also talks about ("The banks got bailed out, we got sold out"). That original message is wholly in common with OWS.


----------



## Si modo

Preius said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make an interesting point.  It would appear that OWS (Occupy Wall Street), and the Tea Party are on the same wave link.  The Tea Party takes a similar message to the ultra right that OWS takes to the left, moderate Republicans, and hopefully more and more conservatives.  Real question is are both movements really 'grass roots?'  Some, (both parties), are already trying to drive a wedge between OWS and the Tea Party.  Regardless, I believe both will come together at some point.  I mean when it comes down to it who is *REALLY * gives a damn about the upper 1% besides the upper 1%?  What have the upper 1% done for you lately?  Outsourced some of our better jobs.
> 
> Americans want solutions, they don't care about party ideology.
> 
> Permit me to point out an example from history about Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson believed and campaigned for president based upon a weak Federal Government.  Then France offered to sell us the Louisiana purchase for peanuts.  Jefferson believed in manifest destiny, took the deal, and let his principles of small government go.  Had Jefferson not done this deal, we may never have had the States from Louisana to Minnesota to Montanna.  The United States was founded on compromise, all Americans want is the best solution we can get regardless of the source.  Most of us are content to have a secure job, a home, food on the table, some vacation, and the promise of a better tomorrow if we work hard.  We really don't give a damn what you call it - conservative, liberal, capitalist, socialist, communist or libertarian.  The question is who can deliver to the American working class, middle class, upper-middle class, and even some upper class.  Wall Street has made the mistake of ignoring us, the 99%.  Now you have the OWS and the Tea Party.  2012 will be an historic election, and we get to be here to watch and participate!  It could be good news for all of us 99%ers
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> A fundamental difference between the two movements is that the Tea Party is a proponent of personal accountability.  That doesn't seen like it would be easily reconcilable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a proponent of personal accountability and responsibility.  I have not seen one word from the OWS, (Occupy Wall Street) folks on this point.  Frankly, I can not think of any group who has ignored taking responsibility for their actions than Wall Street bankers.  They are morally corrupt, and many should be in prison.
Click to expand...

One here - 'FactFinder' - does not think those who have defaulted on their mortgages should have to lose 'their' homes.

Another agreed - that poster's name was 'LoneLaughter'.  Those were just the two posters I can recall who had that belief.  There were others.

They claimed to be part of OWS.

Thinking that people should not have to pay back something they borrowed does not reflect any appreciation for personal accountability.


----------



## boedicca

Stephanie said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can tell you is that I'm in contact with a number of people who are involved in these protests in several cities, and eyewitness accounts show a fair amount of crossover. The majority of participants aren't also TP, but many are.
> 
> *The Tea Party was originally protesting the same essential issue as OWS, namely excessive corporate influence on the government.* That's not a left-right issue, it's a top-bottom issue, the 1% vs. the 99% as the OWS people are putting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lies..That was not and is not the Tea Party..
Click to expand...



Correct.  The two issues which spurred the Tea Party were the Stimulus package (cf. Rick Santelli's "mortgage bailout" rant) and ObamaCare.   The Tea Party is against Big Government, which does by definition include funneling taxpayer money to corporate interests - but is not the a protest against business.


----------



## Dragon

boedicca said:


> Correct.  The two issues which spurred the Tea Party were the Stimulus package (cf. Rick Santelli's "mortgage bailout" rant) and ObamaCare.



No, because the Tea Party started before either of those existed, and even before Obama took office.


----------



## boedicca

Dragon said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.  The two issues which spurred the Tea Party were the Stimulus package (cf. Rick Santelli's "mortgage bailout" rant) and ObamaCare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because the Tea Party started before either of those existed, and even before Obama took office.
Click to expand...



No, it didn't.

It started in response to the Porkulus Bill in January 2009, unless you are referring the original Boston Tea Party.


----------



## Dragon

boedicca said:


> It started in response to the Porkulus Bill in January 2009, unless you are referring the original Boston Tea Party.



I'm referring to the original Tea Party movement that was heavy with Ron Paul supporters and began in December 2007.


----------



## boedicca

Dragon said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> It started in response to the Porkulus Bill in January 2009, unless you are referring the original Boston Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm referring to the original Tea Party movement that was heavy with Ron Paul supporters and began in December 2007.
Click to expand...



That's not the original Tea Party movement.  That a movement for Ron Paul supporters...some of whom now have participate in the Tea Party.

You pathetic Lefties only fool yourselves with your sad attempts to rewrite a history in which the Tea Party is not a response to Obamanomics.


----------



## Dragon

boedicca said:


> That's not the original Tea Party movement.  That a movement for Ron Paul supporters...some of whom now have participate in the Tea Party.



No, it's the original Tea Party movement, before it was moved in on by the Koch brothers, the GOP, and Fox News. It called itself the Tea Party movement, and the same movement continued into the one that protested against the stimulus bill. There were not two separate movements, although the influx of money and organization did change it.


----------



## Dr Grump

Dragon said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the original Tea Party movement.  That a movement for Ron Paul supporters...some of whom now have participate in the Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's the original Tea Party movement, before it was moved in on by the Koch brothers, the GOP, and Fox News. It called itself the Tea Party movement, and the same movement continued into the one that protested against the stimulus bill. There were not two separate movements, although the influx of money and organization did change it.
Click to expand...


You will have to forgive Bod...she is a neocon whackjob. Taking credit for others' deeds is all part of their MO...


----------



## Stephanie

Dr Grump said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the original Tea Party movement.  That a movement for Ron Paul supporters...some of whom now have participate in the Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's the original Tea Party movement, before it was moved in on by the Koch brothers, the GOP, and Fox News. It called itself the Tea Party movement, and the same movement continued into the one that protested against the stimulus bill. There were not two separate movements, although the influx of money and organization did change it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You will have to forgive Bod...she is a neocon whackjob. Taking credit for others' deeds is all part of their MO...
Click to expand...


really? is that why the Ows is trying to now OCCUPY the Tea party. they can't come up with anything, ORGINIAL..


----------



## Dr Grump

Stephanie said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's the original Tea Party movement, before it was moved in on by the Koch brothers, the GOP, and Fox News. It called itself the Tea Party movement, and the same movement continued into the one that protested against the stimulus bill. There were not two separate movements, although the influx of money and organization did change it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to forgive Bod...she is a neocon whackjob. Taking credit for others' deeds is all part of their MO...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really? is that why the Ows is trying to now OCCUPY the Tea party. they can't come up with anything, ORGINIAL..
Click to expand...


Any movement trying to make the money men more accountable is OK in my book....


----------



## Intense

History of the Tea Party Movement
New Political Movement Quickly Finds Loyal Following
by Beth Rowen

Read more: History of the Tea Party Movement &#8212; Infoplease.com History of the Tea Party Movement &mdash; Infoplease.com



Since its inception in February 2009, the Tea Party movement&#8212;with the help of viral videos and social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter&#8212;almost instantly found a large and loyal following that has gained traction and supporters.

In fact, Gallup poll in late March 2010 revealed that 28% of Americans have a positive perception of the Tea Party movement.
A Televised Birth of a Movement

CNBC's Rick Santelli is widely credited with launching the grassroots movement. While standing on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on February 19, 2009, he unleashed what can only be called a rant against the Obama Administration's proposal to help homeowners facing foreclosure refinance their mortgages.

"Do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages?" he asked. "This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" He went on to suggest that he would organize a Chicago Tea Party in July, where capitalists would dump "some derivative securities into Lake Michigan." The video of his tirade became a YouTube hit, and thus the movement was born. Within weeks, Tea Party protests were sprouting up all over the country. The Tea Party name, a clear reference to the American colonists' dumping of tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxes imposed by King George, stands as an acronym as well: Taxed Enough Already.

Santelli, however, can't claim credit as the sole mastermind of the movement. Prior to his appearance in Chicago, Keli Carender, a Seattle at-home mother also known as Liberty Belle, had been using her blog to get the word out about the populist "Porkulus Protest" she was organizing against President Barack Obama's proposed $750 billion stimulus package. About 100 people showed up for her event in mid-February. Similar events inspired by both Santelli and Carender, followed in quick succession in Denver; Mesa, Ariz.; Tampa, Fla.; and other cities. Tea Party organizers claim that the first nationwide Tea Party protest took place on February 27, 2009, with coordinated events occurring in more than 40 cities.

Read more: History of the Tea Party Movement &#8212; Infoplease.com History of the Tea Party Movement &mdash; Infoplease.com


----------



## RadiomanATL

Well, looks like it was formed in 2009.


----------



## Intense

Dr Grump said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You will have to forgive Bod...she is a neocon whackjob. Taking credit for others' deeds is all part of their MO...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? is that why the Ows is trying to now OCCUPY the Tea party. they can't come up with anything, ORGINIAL..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any movement trying to make the money men more accountable is OK in my book....
Click to expand...


We want Account, not shackles, not obstruction, unless you can show cause. You are killing the Economy, while our competitors are passing us by.


----------



## The Gadfly

Intense said:


> History of the Tea Party Movement
> New Political Movement Quickly Finds Loyal Following
> by Beth Rowen
> 
> Read more: History of the Tea Party Movement  Infoplease.com History of the Tea Party Movement &mdash; Infoplease.com
> 
> 
> 
> Since its inception in February 2009, the Tea Party movementwith the help of viral videos and social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitteralmost instantly found a large and loyal following that has gained traction and supporters.
> 
> In fact, Gallup poll in late March 2010 revealed that 28% of Americans have a positive perception of the Tea Party movement.
> A Televised Birth of a Movement
> 
> CNBC's Rick Santelli is widely credited with launching the grassroots movement. While standing on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on February 19, 2009, he unleashed what can only be called a rant against the Obama Administration's proposal to help homeowners facing foreclosure refinance their mortgages.
> 
> "Do we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages?" he asked. "This is America! How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" He went on to suggest that he would organize a Chicago Tea Party in July, where capitalists would dump "some derivative securities into Lake Michigan." The video of his tirade became a YouTube hit, and thus the movement was born. Within weeks, Tea Party protests were sprouting up all over the country. The Tea Party name, a clear reference to the American colonists' dumping of tea into Boston Harbor to protest taxes imposed by King George, stands as an acronym as well: Taxed Enough Already.
> 
> Santelli, however, can't claim credit as the sole mastermind of the movement. Prior to his appearance in Chicago, Keli Carender, a Seattle at-home mother also known as Liberty Belle, had been using her blog to get the word out about the populist "Porkulus Protest" she was organizing against President Barack Obama's proposed $750 billion stimulus package. About 100 people showed up for her event in mid-February. Similar events inspired by both Santelli and Carender, followed in quick succession in Denver; Mesa, Ariz.; Tampa, Fla.; and other cities. Tea Party organizers claim that the first nationwide Tea Party protest took place on February 27, 2009, with coordinated events occurring in more than 40 cities.
> 
> Read more: History of the Tea Party Movement  Infoplease.com History of the Tea Party Movement &mdash; Infoplease.com



Doesn't exactly square with the claims of Dragon and the resident Leftists here, now does it? Ah, caught you Leftists in yet another lie, I see; why am I not surprised? No, I'm afraid the little attempt to co-opt the Tea Party for your little children's crusade won't work. OWS has already been exposed for what it is; it has Van Jones' and Soros' fingerprints all over it, along with those of other players in the democrat Left, and of course, the SEIU!

Now, I'm going to sit back, and watch you twist slowly in the wind, while you try squirming and wiggling your way out of this one, you tapeworms! Yes, I said tapeworms-slimy, parasitic, and always wriggling; I think that suits you well!


----------



## Stephanie

well now...lookie what I found.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1qC8dnyDEc]Video AFL-CIO Promoting Anti-Corporate Wall Street Anarchy - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Maple

iamwhatiseem said:


> There has been a VERY - VERY - VERY successful protest movement against Wall Street interest for well over a year now.
> It is called - The Tea Party.



The tea party is not against Wall Street they are against big government spending us into bankruptsy, they are clear and concise about what they want and that is a smaller more efficient government that lives within it's means and gets off the backs of the American people. That's it. They are also free market capitalists, not the socialists these loons are. There is no comparison.

These morons can't even tell you or define to anyone why they are there, some are saying global warming others look like a deer caught in the headlights when asked. They just joined the crowd.

They complain about corporations, yet all have fancy cell phones, I pads and all are wearing clothes made by the very corporations that they profess to hate. They are a bunch of dummies caught up in a party and they don't know what the party is even about.


----------



## Maple

Stephanie said:


> well now...lookie what I found.
> 
> Video AFL-CIO Promoting Anti-Corporate Wall Street Anarchy - YouTube



And what corporation is funding his paycheck?? Because you can bet your buck wheat that a corporation is. What is he a union leader of? Where do his union members work?


----------



## earlycuyler

Twalbert said:


> 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



I have my own growing movement . Should be ready to go about 4AM after the first cup of coffee.


----------



## Dot Com

Intense said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? is that why the Ows is trying to now OCCUPY the Tea party. they can't come up with anything, ORGINIAL..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any movement trying to make the money men more accountable is OK in my book....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We want Account, not shackles, not obstruction, unless you can show cause. You are killing the Economy, while our competitors are passing us by.
Click to expand...


Our competitors have manufacturing bases. The exact opposite of what wall st represents. Manufacturers create wealth through labor. Wall street *cough* "creates" money through money.


----------



## Maple

Twalbert said:


> 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



As soon as the weather gets cold they will all hold hands and go home to mommy and daddy. It will be over. They are a bunch of dope smoking hippies that have not a clue why they are there only that they joined a party of which they can't define. They all hate corporations, yet all have computers, Tv's, cell phones, i pads, wear clothing and eat and drink and ALL of it is made by corporations and the people who work for those corporations. They are frauds, either that or soooooooooo stupid that they don't know the difference. I tend to think that they are just STUPID.


----------



## Stephanie

I noticed in the article it said they had set up a tent city..

I think they could make a bigger statement, if they slept out on the hard cold cement, no blankets, give up their cell phones, etc etc... and like others have done, make the decision they weren't going to eat until the people cried Uncle.

Now that would be a MOVEMENT.


----------



## Maple

Dot Com said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any movement trying to make the money men more accountable is OK in my book....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We want Account, not shackles, not obstruction, unless you can show cause. You are killing the Economy, while our competitors are passing us by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our competitors have manufacturing bases. The exact opposite of what wall st represents. Manufacturers create wealth through labor. Wall street *cough* "creates" money through money.
Click to expand...


Where do you think that manufactor's get their money to start, expand, and grow their business, therefore creating jobs?? From martians? It's Wall street that invests in these business's and it's also wall street where most of us who are lucky enough to have an IRA or 401k plan go to invest for our retirement, because without our money being invested there would be NO business and therefore no JOBS.


----------



## Maple

Stephanie said:


> I noticed in the article it said they had set up a tent city..
> 
> I think they could make a bigger statement, if they slept out on the hard cold cement, no blankets, give up their cell phones, etc etc... and like others have done, make the decision they weren't going to eat until the people cried Uncle.
> 
> Now that would be a MOVEMENT.



They will never give up their corporate made cell phones, tv's, clothing, microwave ovens, refrigerators that Wall street has invested in to make sure they have them, oooooooooooooh no. Not never, ever, but then again you are dealing with morons who think that a leprechan has provided them with all those services and products.


----------



## Oldstyle

Maple said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> well now...lookie what I found.
> 
> Video AFL-CIO Promoting Anti-Corporate Wall Street Anarchy - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what corporation is funding his paycheck?? Because you can bet your buck wheat that a corporation is. What is he a union leader of? Where do his union members work?
Click to expand...


Do you not know what the AFL-CIO is, Maple?


----------



## Oldstyle

Dot Com said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any movement trying to make the money men more accountable is OK in my book....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We want Account, not shackles, not obstruction, unless you can show cause. You are killing the Economy, while our competitors are passing us by.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our competitors have manufacturing bases. The exact opposite of what wall st represents. Manufacturers create wealth through labor. Wall street *cough* "creates" money through money.
Click to expand...


You don't really understand the function of Wall Street, do you Dot?  Manufacturers do use labor to help create wealth but they also use investor capital to buy the raw materials, build the plants, design the products and do the ad campaigns that are all a part of a successful company.  You seem to think that the whole process magically occurs when that first laborer punches into the time clock.


----------



## Dr Grump

Oldstyle said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> We want Account, not shackles, not obstruction, unless you can show cause. You are killing the Economy, while our competitors are passing us by.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our competitors have manufacturing bases. The exact opposite of what wall st represents. Manufacturers create wealth through labor. Wall street *cough* "creates" money through money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't really understand the function of Wall Street, do you Dot?  Manufacturers do use labor to help create wealth but they also use investor capital to buy the raw materials, build the plants, design the products and do the ad campaigns that are all a part of a successful company.  You seem to think that the whole process magically occurs when that first laborer punches into the time clock.
Click to expand...


Wall St has a tonne of functions. Not only raising capital, but in some instances trying to get something for nothing - just ask Bernie Madoff....


----------



## Stephanie

SNIP:
FIGHT TO HOLD WALLSTREET ACCOUNTABLE NOW! MAKE A DIFFERNENCE GET PAID!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 2011-09-26, 5:09PM EDT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



*The Working Families Party* (WFP) (Working Families) is New York's most energetic, independent and progressive political party. Formed in 1998 by a grassroots coalition of community organizations, neighborhood activists, and labor unions, we came together to build a society that works for all of us, not just Wall Street CEOs and the well-connected. WFP is independent from corporate and government funding and in-addition we are community based; community funded and equally uninfluenced by both major parties. Our agenda focuses on economic and social justice, corporate accountability, job creation, environmental protection, and investment in education and healthcare. 


For the past twelve years the WFP has been at the fore front of progressive politics, 


Leading the fight and helping to frame the debate. The WFP has a proud record of fighting for issues that matter and has been instrumental in implementing key pieces of legislation such as Raising New York's Minimum Wage, Enacting Living Wage Laws, Creating Thousands of Jobs In the Green Economy, Passing Healthcare Reforms on the Local Level, Fighting for Affordable Housing, Keeping Tuition Costs Low, A Progressive Tax Code, Reliable/Cost Effective Public Transit System, Public Financing Of Elections and Corporate Accountability . In addition, we have an unapologetic stance on supporting and pushing good candidates to enact progressive legislation 


*The WFP is seeking immediate hires. *

read it all here.
FIGHT TO HOLD WALLSTREET ACCOUNTABLE NOW! MAKE A DIFFERNENCE GET PAID!


----------



## Stephanie

dang...this videos just keep popping up..

Video Exposing Occupy Wall Street Was Organized From Day One by SEIU / ACORN Front - *The Working Family Party,* and How They All Tie To The Obama Administration, DNC, Democratic Socialists of America, Tides, and George Soros

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jOxERtkwN4]Occupy Wall Street Was Organized From Day One by SEIU / ACORN Front - The Working Family Party - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Stephanie

SNIP:
Here is the Axelrod/AstroTurf connection.


Longtime Democratic political consultant 
President Obama&#8217;s closest advisor 



In addition to scores of Democratic politicians and other organizations, Axelrod and his consultancy were hired by the Democratic National Campaign Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the Democratic Governors Association, the AFL-CIO, the AFSCME, the SEIU, and the *Working Families Party*. Axelrod also came to advise the top echelon of politicians in the Democratic Party. He worked on Hillary Clinton&#8217;s 2000 Senate Campaign, helped Rahm Emanuel win a House of Representatives seat in 2002, and directed John Edwards' 2004 presidential campaign.

all of it from..
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printindividualProfile.asp?indid=2466


----------



## The Gadfly

Stephanie said:


> dang...this videos just keep popping up..
> 
> Video Exposing Occupy Wall Street Was Organized From Day One by SEIU / ACORN Front - The Working Family Party, and How They All Tie To The Obama Administration, DNC, Democratic Socialists of America, Tides, and George Soros
> 
> Occupy Wall Street Was Organized From Day One by SEIU / ACORN Front - The Working Family Party - YouTube



Looks like a pretty clear pattern emerging here, with the usual Left wing groups working through a variety of front organizations. Looks like this is Van Jones' "October Offensive"-pretty transparent so far, and mostly ineffective to this point. This strikes me as either testing the waters to see how much traction they have, or a dress rehearsal for something else.


----------



## Gallagher

A classic case of misplaced anger. The protesters should be saying this...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pH9OborFYs]Economic Failure - The Voters Asked For It. - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obama is behind this, we knew this from the beginning


----------



## The Gadfly

CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama is behind this, we knew this from the beginning



Well, if not, his campaign organization is, which amounts to the same thing. This is going to be a very long and dirty year. The real question, is what his more extreme supporters may do, should they lose the election, or whether, if they believe they will lose, they will try to prevent the election from taking place. I do NOT trust the Left in this country, not at all!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The Gadfly said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is behind this, we knew this from the beginning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if not, his campaign organization is, which amounts to the same thing. This is going to be a very long and dirty year. The real question, is what his more extreme supporters may do, should they lose the election, or whether, if they believe they will lose, they will try to prevent the election from taking place. I do NOT trust the Left in this country, not at all!
Click to expand...


I said that Obama's parting "Gift" is going to be stop making the dollar the world currency. He downgraded our credit and there wasn't much of an immediate effect because the world still needs a place to park their money so its USTreasuries,  but it's gets real ugly when the dollar is no longer the world currency and Obama has his legions of mindless zombies prepositioned to wreck additional havoc


----------



## MikeK

Maple said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has been a VERY - VERY - VERY successful protest movement against Wall Street interest for well over a year now.
> It is called - The Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The tea party is not against Wall Street they are against big government spending us into bankruptsy, they are clear and concise about what they want and that is a smaller more efficient government that lives within it's means and gets off the backs of the American people. That's it. They are also free market capitalists, not the socialists these loons are. There is no comparison.
> 
> These morons can't even tell you or define to anyone why they are there, some are saying global warming others look like a deer caught in the headlights when asked. They just joined the crowd.
> 
> They complain about corporations, yet all have fancy cell phones, I pads and all are wearing clothes made by the very corporations that they profess to hate. They are a bunch of dummies caught up in a party and they don't know what the party is even about.
Click to expand...

What this protest movement proves is there is movement.  It is real, it is significant and it is increasing.  Not only in New York City but all over the U.S.  And because some of the participants cannot respond cogently and articulately to questions is not nearly as relevant as the fact that they are there in support of a massive anti-Wall Street protest.  And by Wall Street they mean an emerging plutocracy which is changing the very nature of America.  

It is 1:25 AM, Monday, 10/10.  My tv is tuned to Fox News.  Geraldo Rivera is interviewing protesters.  So far he's talked to five, each of whom has articulately explained why they are there, what their grievance is, and why they believe this movement to be the vanguard of an imminent political revolution.  And I agree.

Just the past half hour of taped television interviews is manifest evidence that what you are saying about "morons" who don't even know why they are there is parroted right wing propaganda.  As I recall from the Vietnam era protests, the media commonly estimated that every individual who shows up at a demonstration represents the thinking and the political position of at least a thousand more who for one reason or other do not show up.


----------



## editec

The anger of the OWS movement isn't focused enough on the real villians.

Their anger is justifed, just as the anger of the TPM wa justified.

But like the TPM they basically don't appear to really understand specifically who to blame.

Not untypical of populist movments, I note.


----------



## Intense

editec said:


> The anger of the OWS movement isn't focused enough on the real villians.
> 
> Their anger is justifed, just as the anger of the TPM wa justified.
> 
> But like the TPM they basically don't appear to really understand specifically who to blame.
> 
> Not untypical of populist movments, I note.



Go ahead, say it..... Clueless.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dot Com said:


> If Goldmann wasn't so entrenched in our Treasury, Justice could go after the pukes



Goldman Sachs owns Barack Obama - 100%


----------



## Uncensored2008

Oldstyle said:


> Do you not know what the AFL-CIO is, Maple?



The AFL-CIO is a monopoly.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Wall St has a tonne of functions. Not only raising capital, but in some instances trying to get something for nothing - just ask Bernie Madoff....



So you're saying Wall Street and SUEI have a LOT in common!


----------



## Si modo

CrusaderFrank said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is behind this, we knew this from the beginning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if not, his campaign organization is, which amounts to the same thing. This is going to be a very long and dirty year. The real question, is what his more extreme supporters may do, should they lose the election, or whether, if they believe they will lose, they will try to prevent the election from taking place. I do NOT trust the Left in this country, not at all!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that Obama's parting "Gift" is going to be stop making the dollar the world currency. He downgraded our credit and there wasn't much of an immediate effect because the world still needs a place to park their money so its USTreasuries,  but it's gets real ugly when the dollar is no longer the world currency and Obama has his legions of mindless zombies prepositioned to wreck additional havoc
Click to expand...


----------



## mudwhistle

Stephanie said:


> dang...this videos just keep popping up..
> 
> Video Exposing Occupy Wall Street Was Organized From Day One by SEIU / ACORN Front - *The Working Family Party,* and How They All Tie To The Obama Administration, DNC, Democratic Socialists of America, Tides, and George Soros
> 
> Occupy Wall Street Was Organized From Day One by SEIU / ACORN Front - The Working Family Party - YouTube



She said Labor is under attack from Corporate America......

A little dose of reality here.

The reason Labor is feeling attacked is because businesses are having to move to non-union *Right To Work** states because of the tremendous costs Big-labor has imposed on them. The fight is between taking care of unions or providing an affordable competitive product. The unions believe that the primary purpose of the rich is to provide jobs and to pay exorbitant  taxes. The reason the Dems support unions is because Big-labor donates exclusively to the *Democrat National Committee or the DNC.
*
So when you boil it all down, *this is all about money for the Democrats.*....not jobs nor a strong economy.

_**Right-to-work* laws are statutes enforced in twenty-two U.S. states, mostly in the southern or western U.S., allowed under provisions of the Taft-Hartley Act, which prohibit agreements between labor unions and employers that make membership, payment of union dues, or fees a condition of employment, either before or after hiring, which would require the workplace to be a closed shop._


----------



## Sky Dancer

CBSMoneywatch's Jill Schlesinger points out that, according to economists at Northeastern University, corporate profits represented 88 percent of the growth in real national income between the 2Q of 2009 and 4Q of 2010, during the same period aggregate wages and salaries accounted for just over 1 percent. "The money that companies have earned during the recovery has mostly stayed within corporate America," writes Schlesinger, "and has not trickled down into higher wages, nor has it created enough jobs to put some of the 14 million unemployed Americans back to work." 

Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder - CBS News


----------



## Liability

Sky Dancer said:


> CBSMoneywatch's Jill Schlesinger points out that, according to economists at Northeastern University, corporate profits represented 88 percent of the growth in real national income between the 2Q of 2009 and 4Q of 2010, during the same period aggregate wages and salaries accounted for just over 1 percent. "The money that companies have earned during the recovery has mostly stayed within corporate America," writes Schlesinger, "and has not trickled down into higher wages, nor has it created enough jobs to put some of the 14 million unemployed Americans back to work."
> 
> Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder - CBS News



Therefore, we must . . . .  ????


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> Goldman Sachs owns Barack Obama - 100%



Only a slight exaggeration, and that is why the idea that he is behind OWS is sheer nonsense.


----------



## Sky Dancer

99 percent of Americans continue to struggle daily since the recession began while the richest 1 percent of the country prospers.


----------



## Liability

Sky Dancer said:


> 99 percent of Americans continue to struggle daily since the recession began while the richest 1 percent of the country prospers.



Let's *say* that's true.  There are no real figures to support it, but let's dispense with asserting facts that are subject to verification.  Let's just assume for the sake of the discussion that that contention is true.

What follows?

Premise 1:  The 99% continue to struggle.

Premise 2:  the top 1% is the only group whose members are prospering.

THEREFORE, -----  [what follows?]


----------



## mudwhistle

Sky Dancer said:


> CBSMoneywatch's Jill Schlesinger points out that, according to economists at Northeastern University, corporate profits represented 88 percent of the growth in real national income between the *2Q of 2009 and 4Q of 2010, *during the same period aggregate wages and salaries accounted for just over 1 percent. "The money that companies have earned during the recovery has mostly stayed within corporate America," writes Schlesinger, "and has not trickled down into higher wages, nor has it created enough jobs to put some of the 14 million unemployed Americans back to work."
> 
> Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder - CBS News



What explains this????

You know......Democrats are the folks that seem to be the cause of the problems yet blame it on Republicans at the same time. It takes a slobbering press to make this possible.

Obama's policies have caused the increase. It's no mystery why the disparity started getting worse during his term in office. 

Had it ever occurred to you that this is what Obama wants. Like Fast & Furious Obama is intentionally creating a crisis just to impose tougher regulations. 

The only other explanation would be Obama doesn't know what in the hell he's doing and his policies are causing the exact opposite result he wanted.

Ether way, the guy is a Soup-Sandwich.


----------



## Skull Pilot

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Twalbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Are they mad at Obama for taking more contributions from Wall Street than any other candidate?


----------



## The Infidel

Occupy Wall Street: Nancy Pelosi comes out in support of protesters | Mail Online


----------



## Dragon

Liability said:


> Let's *say* that's true.  There are no real figures to support it, but let's dispense with asserting facts that are subject to verification.  Let's just assume for the sake of the discussion that that contention is true.



The real figures (which are available) show that the majority of the 99% have stagnated or declined. There has been some income growth in the upper-middle-class and more of it in the somewhat-rich. So the statement isn't precisely true, but it's true enough.



> THEREFORE, -----  [what follows?]



On the assumption that you want a serious answer to this question:

The reason that this has happened is because of government policies enacted at the behest of big business. The policies I'm referring to, in particular, are:

1) Flattening of the tax system in the mid-1980s to place more of the burden on the middle class and less on the rich.
2) A change in government policy with respect to enforcement of labor rights, that enabled employers to take more aggressive (and illegal) action to suppress union formation, resulting in a decline of union power.
3) Trade agreements, plus features in the tax code, that encourage manufacturers and some service providers to take advantage of dirt-cheap foreign labor in preference to employing people in the advanced economies.
4) Deregulation of the financial industry passed in the 1990s that encouraged investment in risky financial schemes like the one that triggered the recent collapse. When those schemes paid off instead of going bust, they acted as a transfer of wealth from middle and upper-middle-class investors to the very wealthy.
5) Reduction of government spending that benefits the middle class, the poor, and college students, while government spending that benefits the rich (military spending and government subsidies to industry) has increased.
6) Use of large-scale deficit spending when no national emergency requires it, thus allowing wealthy investors to lend money to the government at interest rather than paying it in taxes, and tying future revenues up in service to this debt, which amounts to a transfer of wealth through the tax system from the middle class to the rich.

The answer to "what then" is simply: reverse all of these. Make the tax system progressive again to discourage concentration of wealth. Aggressively enforce labor law and protect employees' rights to bargain collectively. Be more selective about our trade agreements, making free trade something we do with advanced economies that play by the rules, not with third-world dictatorships. Reestablish the Glass-Steagal act. Increase government spending for infrastructure, education, research, and other things beneficial to the non-rich, while cutting back on military spending and reducing our overseas commitments, and ending most corporate subsidies. And finally, use deficit spending only in emergency times (like the present), balancing the budget when the economy is strong and we are at peace.

This is what will restore the middle class and bring back prosperity.

It's not a simple program, granted. But it's the answer to your question.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Liability said:


> Therefore, we must . . . .  ????



Dissolve the constitution and declare Obama dictator.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Sky Dancer said:


> 99 percent of Americans continue to struggle daily since the recession began while the richest 1 percent of the country prospers.



I'm not in the richest 1% and I have done just fine the past 5 years.

So you see OWS does not never has and never will represent 99% it's more like 9%


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Only a slight exaggeration, and that is why the idea that he is behind OWS is sheer nonsense.



OWS is a union movement. Unions are Obama's only remaining constituency. (Other than the doped out hippy contingent.)


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> OWS is a union movement. Unions are Obama's only remaining constituency. (Other than the doped out hippy contingent.)



LOL the weird thing is that you actually believe that crap. I think, anyway. 

OWS isn't a union movement. Unions are not Obama's only remaining constituency; polls put his support in the upper 40s, and union membership is far less than that. Obama is, as you said, beholden to the big banks and very much in their pocket. And that means that OWS is protesting _against_ Obama.

If you think that Obama would spark a movement protesting against him as a way to get re-elected, you believe he is either too stupid to breathe, or a Machiavellian genius of cosmic proportions.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obama = OWS. He took down the country credit rating, now he takes the Dem Party down


----------



## Liability

Dragon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's *say* that's true.  There are no real figures to support it, but let's dispense with asserting facts that are subject to verification.  Let's just assume for the sake of the discussion that that contention is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The real figures (which are available) show that the majority of the 99% have stagnated or declined. There has been some income growth in the upper-middle-class and more of it in the somewhat-rich. So the statement isn't precisely true, but it's true enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THEREFORE, -----  [what follows?]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the assumption that you want a serious answer to this question:
> 
> The reason that this has happened is because of government policies enacted at the behest of big business. The policies I'm referring to, in particular, are:
> 
> 1) Flattening of the tax system in the mid-1980s to place more of the burden on the middle class and less on the rich.
> 2) A change in government policy with respect to enforcement of labor rights, that enabled employers to take more aggressive (and illegal) action to suppress union formation, resulting in a decline of union power.
> 3) Trade agreements, plus features in the tax code, that encourage manufacturers and some service providers to take advantage of dirt-cheap foreign labor in preference to employing people in the advanced economies.
> 4) Deregulation of the financial industry passed in the 1990s that encouraged investment in risky financial schemes like the one that triggered the recent collapse. When those schemes paid off instead of going bust, they acted as a transfer of wealth from middle and upper-middle-class investors to the very wealthy.
> 5) Reduction of government spending that benefits the middle class, the poor, and college students, while government spending that benefits the rich (military spending and government subsidies to industry) has increased.
> 6) Use of large-scale deficit spending when no national emergency requires it, thus allowing wealthy investors to lend money to the government at interest rather than paying it in taxes, and tying future revenues up in service to this debt, which amounts to a transfer of wealth through the tax system from the middle class to the rich.
> 
> The answer to "what then" is simply: reverse all of these. Make the tax system progressive again to discourage concentration of wealth. Aggressively enforce labor law and protect employees' rights to bargain collectively. Be more selective about our trade agreements, making free trade something we do with advanced economies that play by the rules, not with third-world dictatorships. Reestablish the Glass-Steagal act. Increase government spending for infrastructure, education, research, and other things beneficial to the non-rich, while cutting back on military spending and reducing our overseas commitments. And finally, use deficit spending only in emergency times (like the present), balancing the budget when the economy is strong and we are at peace.
> 
> This is what will restore the middle class and bring back prosperity.
> 
> It's not a simple program, granted. But it's the answer to your question.
Click to expand...


YOu are not articulating what the OWS crew is articulating.  SOME of them maybe. But by and large, you cannot generate any coherent statement of policy preference from a group consisting of marxists, socialists, communists, anarchists, 9/11 Twoofers and other assorted vaguely non-content rag-tag followers.  

But back to basics.  You asserting that a "claim" is true and that it supposedly "has" real figures to support it is quite clearly insufficient.  Let's say I'm from Missouri.  Show me.

Then, back up each of your contentions.  Just as one example, tell us, in WHAT way  is it that you imagine anyone should be persuaded that a so-called "progressive" income tax system is a proper or logical or desirable way to go?

Don't assert that the current economic mess(es) are traceable to deregulation.  Show us. 

Why would the economic mess of today not be traceable, instead, to economic laws that MADE banks issue mortgage loans to people who lacked sufficient income or equity to justify such loans -- and the contrivances banks then had to engage in to make these loans do-able?

Your notions offer no hope of returning America to its prior status as an engine of economic growth and productivity.  You guys persist in the already refuted notion that your social-engineering goals are workable in making a viable economy.  But you still can't support your rhetoric with even so much as basic common sense.


----------



## Sky Dancer

All Obama did was refuse to be GWB.  The system always favors corporations.  Bush catered to corporate America, Obama did not.


----------



## Liability

Sky Dancer said:


> All Obama did was refuse to be GWB.  The system always favors corporations.  Bush catered to corporate America, Obama did not.



Vapid rhetoric.

Not even all that well based in fact.


----------



## Sky Dancer

Liability said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Obama did was refuse to be GWB.  The system always favors corporations.  Bush catered to corporate America, Obama did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vapid rhetoric.
> 
> Not even all that well based in fact.
Click to expand...


It's my opinion, sir.  I'm entitled.  Corporate America has been whining about Obama since he was elected.


----------



## Liability

Sky Dancer said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Obama did was refuse to be GWB.  The system always favors corporations.  Bush catered to corporate America, Obama did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vapid rhetoric.
> 
> Not even all that well based in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my opinion, sir.  I'm entitled.  Corporate America has been whining about Obama since he was elected.
Click to expand...


You ARE indeed entitled to your opinion.  

It is your opinion that is not entitled, though, to much weight (if any) in a discussion such as this.

Besides, be honest.  You didn't STATE your opinion AS an opinion.  You stated what you NOW say is your mere opinion AS THOUGH it had been a "fact."


----------



## Si modo

Sky Dancer said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> All Obama did was refuse to be GWB.  The system always favors corporations.  Bush catered to corporate America, Obama did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vapid rhetoric.
> 
> Not even all that well based in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's my opinion, sir.  I'm entitled.
Click to expand...

Of course you are entitled to an opinion.  Just as others are entitled to tell you about your opinions lack of foundation.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> LOL the weird thing is that you actually believe that crap. I think, anyway.



OWS is a union movement - that is a matter of fact. Irrefutable.



> OWS isn't a union movement.



{The interview with Michael Kink, who is a director of an Strong Economy for All, an organization very much like the ACCE/SEIU coalition I wrote about before and that is coordinating the union support march tomorrow, had this bit:

    Some organizers and activists from our coalitions were part of support for the initial march and occupation on September 17}

Unions and Community Organizations May Not Be New Additions to Occupy Wall Street After All, Updated: Response from Michael Kink | Hyphenated-Republic

The unions, especially Obama's SEIU are the force behind this and have been from the start.

These are Union temper tantrums fueled by the greed of the unions who still demand a better life than the 96% of Americans who are not union.



> Unions are not Obama's only remaining constituency;



ROFL

Everyone loves Dear Leader...



> polls put his support in the upper 40s, and union membership is far less than that.



{The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 21% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 }

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports

21% isn't the "upper 40's" where I come from.



> Obama is, as you said, beholden to the big banks and very much in their pocket. And that means that OWS is protesting _against_ Obama.



The OWS is protesting for more taxpayer money to go into the pocket of union bosses and to bail out union pension funds that lost value due to bad WALL STREET investments made by the union bosses.

The message of OWS is clear; "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee."



> If you think that Obama would spark a movement protesting against him as a way to get re-elected, you believe he is either too stupid to breathe, or a Machiavellian genius of cosmic proportions.



OWS isn't protesting Obama - I've not seen one sign nor heard one word from them that was critical of the Messiah®. My guess is that the 21% approval Obama has with the public is at about 99% approval with the OWS morons.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Sky Dancer said:


> All Obama did was refuse to be GWB.  The system always favors corporations.  Bush catered to corporate America, Obama did not.








Obama Akbar, indeed.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> OWS is a union movement - that is a matter of fact. Irrefutable.



It is not a fact and you have presented not one scrap of evidence in support of your contention. You have presented evidence that unions, or some unions anyway, support it. That is not the same thing, and your claiming that it is the same thing is typical of the fuzzy non-thinking I've come to expect from you.



> The unions, especially Obama's SEIU are the force behind this and have been from the start.



There is no such thing as "the force behind this." That's the main flaw in your thinking: looking for something that doesn't exist, and latching onto the first plausible candidate.



> The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 21% of the nation's voters *Strongly Approve* of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president.



(Emphasis added.) His approval consists of those who "strongly approve"  and those who "approve" or "somewhat approve." It's in the 40s, as I said.

But even Rasmussen's "strongly approve" number is far more than the number of union members in the U.S. There is no support for your contention there.



> The OWS is protesting for more taxpayer money to go into the pocket of union bosses and to bail out union pension funds that lost value due to bad WALL STREET investments made by the union bosses.



Do you even have the first idea how to answer a question or respond to a statement straightforwardly and logically? I see no sign of it.

What you originally said is that Obama is beholden to the big banks. That's more or less true. The big banks are the target of Occupy Wall Street. Obama, being the banksters' spokesperson, is not going to generate a movement against them. And, Obama being the banksters' spokesperson, the movement is protesting against Obama and his policies in support of Wall Street.

What the hell does the above have to do with that? Nothing. It's a total non-sequitur squirted out into the Internet as if you'd vomited it.

EDIT: there was a sign at OWS apparently that read, "Obama let Wall Street f**k yo mama."


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Sky Dancer said:


> All Obama did was refuse to be GWB.  The system always favors corporations.  Bush catered to corporate America, Obama did not.



Sky.

The automotive company baiouts (the corporations GM and chrysler)
The economic stimulus and giant breaks given to GE (another corporation) or goldman sachs ect ect.
Bailing out the banks with tarp (all corporations)
Giant loan given to a failing company solindra (another corporation)


do you see what I'm getting at?


----------



## Dot Com

Someone put together a pretty good compilation of OWS:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_voNmBo56uE&feature=player_embedded]Occupy Wall Street - Police Riot - END THE FED - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## Stephanie

Dragon said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> OWS is a union movement. Unions are Obama's only remaining constituency. (Other than the doped out hippy contingent.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL the weird thing is that you actually believe that crap. I think, anyway.
> 
> OWS isn't a union movement. Unions are not Obama's only remaining constituency; polls put his support in the upper 40s, and union membership is far less than that. Obama is, as you said, beholden to the big banks and very much in their pocket. And that means that OWS is protesting _against_ Obama.
> 
> If you think that Obama would spark a movement protesting against him as a way to get re-elected, you believe he is either too stupid to breathe, or a Machiavellian genius of cosmic proportions.
Click to expand...


Obama's polls are in THE LOW 40's and I'm in the 99% and you all DON'T SPEAK for me or I'm sure the MAJORITY of the people in this country. So don't assume you do.


----------



## Dragon

Stephanie said:


> Obama's polls are in THE LOW 40's



Even if that's true, it still includes a lot more people than the combined membership of every union in the country.



> and I'm in the 99% and you all DON'T SPEAK for me or I'm sure the MAJORITY of the people in this country. So don't assume you do.



Perhaps we don't speak for your opinion. We certainly do, however, speak for your interests. Part of the effort is in getting you to see where your interest lie.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's polls are in THE LOW 40's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that's true, it still includes a lot more people than the combined membership of every union in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I'm in the 99% and you all DON'T SPEAK for me or I'm sure the MAJORITY of the people in this country. So don't assume you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps we don't speak for your opinion. We certainly do, however, speak for your interests. Part of the effort is in getting you to see where your interest lie.
Click to expand...

Woah!  Hold it right there, cowboy!  You, and OWS, do NOT speak for my interests at all.  

I am a proponent of the Constitution of the United States of America because THAT is in my best interests.  It is also in the best interests of my loved ones, my friends, my neighbors, my colleagues, etc.


----------



## Stephanie

Dragon said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's polls are in THE LOW 40's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if that's true, it still includes a lot more people than the combined membership of every union in the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I'm in the 99% and you all DON'T SPEAK for me or I'm sure the MAJORITY of the people in this country. So don't assume you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps we don't speak for your opinion. We certainly do, however, speak for your interests. Part of the effort is in getting you to see where your interest lie.
Click to expand...


Oh really..Like you have the fucking nerve to think I don't know what MY INTEREST should be.

I don't care for Socialist-commie or fascist.  You won't EVER speak for me or I'm sure for THE majority OR you piddle little gatherings would be HUGE by now..fool


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Woah!  Hold it right there, cowboy!  You, and OWS, do NOT speak for my interests at all.
> 
> I am a proponent of the Constitution of the United States of America because THAT is in my best interests.  It is also in the best interests of my loved ones, my friends, my neighbors, my colleagues, etc.



OWS is also in favor of the Constitution. Any claim to the contrary is a paranoid delusion.


----------



## Stephanie

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Woah!  Hold it right there, cowboy!  You, and OWS, do NOT speak for my interests at all.
> 
> I am a proponent of the Constitution of the United States of America because THAT is in my best interests.  It is also in the best interests of my loved ones, my friends, my neighbors, my colleagues, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OWS is also in favor of the Constitution. Any claim to the contrary is a paranoid delusion.
Click to expand...


LIAR.
Progressives see no problem with lying if it can FURTHER their agenda.


----------



## Dragon

Stephanie said:


> LIAR.
> Progressives see no problem with lying if it can FURTHER their agenda.



Progressive DO see a problem with overthrowing the Constitution, however. If you think otherwise, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.


----------



## Dot Com

Stephanie said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Woah!  Hold it right there, cowboy!  You, and OWS, do NOT speak for my interests at all.
> 
> I am a proponent of the Constitution of the United States of America because THAT is in my best interests.  It is also in the best interests of my loved ones, my friends, my neighbors, my colleagues, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OWS is also in favor of the Constitution. Any claim to the contrary is a paranoid delusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIAR.
> Progressives see no problem with lying if it can FURTHER their agenda.
Click to expand...


says the conservative sheeple. ZZZzzz


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Woah!  Hold it right there, cowboy!  You, and OWS, do NOT speak for my interests at all.
> 
> I am a proponent of the Constitution of the United States of America because THAT is in my best interests.  It is also in the best interests of my loved ones, my friends, my neighbors, my colleagues, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OWS is also in favor of the Constitution. Any claim to the contrary is a paranoid delusion.
Click to expand...

Now that is utter bullshit.  The latest manifesto promotes direct democracy, completely contrary to our Constitution and you have endorsed that latest manifesto as one that represents the OWS.

Or is that one ready for an "admin note", too?


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Now that is utter bullshit.  The latest manifesto promotes direct democracy, completely contrary to our Constitution and you have endorsed that latest manifesto as one that represents the OWS.



"Direct democracy" does not violate the Constitution. (For example, it exists here in California in the initiative system.) "Replacing the system of representative democracy the Constitution provides for with a nationwide system of direct democracy on the federal level" does. The latter is not anything advocated by OWS.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that is utter bullshit.  The latest manifesto promotes direct democracy, completely contrary to our Constitution and you have endorsed that latest manifesto as one that represents the OWS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Direct democracy" does not violate the Constitution.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

Of course it does!  

Our form of government as outlined in the Constitution is a constitutional republic.  Not a direct democracy.  And, it is very specific on that.



> (For example, it exists here in California in the initiative system.) "Replacing the system of representative democracy the Constitution provides for with a nationwide system of direct democracy on the federal level" does. The latter is not anything advocated by OWS.


The latest manifesto, one you claim represents the OWS, specifically promotes direct democracy.  A direct democracy for the USA is unconstitutional.

Facts are a bitch, but spin away.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> The latest manifesto, one you claim represents the OWS, specifically promotes direct democracy.  A direct democracy for the USA is unconstitutional.



It does not promote "a direct democracy for the USA." Actually, what it promotes is direct democracy for the protest movement.

That is no more against the Constitution than the direct democracy of the petition or initiative process which exists in many states, including mine.


----------



## Stephanie

People need to get a clue...and I do believe the MAJORITY of the people already know it.

But this MOVEMENT DOES NOT have your BEST INTEREST AT HEART.

and I object to them using 99%ers...they are 1/2%ers in my opinion.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The latest manifesto, one you claim represents the OWS, specifically promotes direct democracy.  A direct democracy for the USA is unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not promote "a direct democracy for the USA." Actually, what it promotes is direct democracy for the protest movement.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

Then you better get back to the drawing board on the manifesto, because that is certainly not what it says.  Give it an admin note, too (let Bill Ayers in on that admin note update while you're at it - it would be a shame to let him fall out of the loop at this point).


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Then you better get back to the drawing board on the manifesto, because that is certainly not what it says.



"To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal."

That is EXACTLY what it is saying. It is most emphatically NOT a call to replace the U.S. Constitution with a national government based on direct democracy.

Seems to me that you saw those two words, jumped to a false conclusion, and, as it were, had a cow.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you better get back to the drawing board on the manifesto, because that is certainly not what it says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal."
> 
> That is EXACTLY what it is saying. It is most emphatically NOT a call to replace the U.S. Constitution with a national government based on direct democracy.
> 
> Seems to me that you saw those two words, jumped to a false conclusion, and, as it were, had a cow.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have a cow when folks promote unconstitutional ideals, as does the OWS.  It's just the way I roll.


----------



## Stephanie

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you better get back to the drawing board on the manifesto, because that is certainly not what it says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal."
> 
> That is EXACTLY what it is saying. It is most emphatically NOT a call to replace the U.S. Constitution with a national government based on direct democracy.
> 
> Seems to me that you saw those two words, jumped to a false conclusion, and, as it were, had a cow.
Click to expand...


LOL, how clever...In the spirit of Direct Democracy... in other words.....MOBS RULES

so transparent.


----------



## Liability

Occupy Wall Street:  The Movement Blows.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Look at all the good Progressives have done in East Germany, Cambodia and North Korea, that's all they want to do here!  Make the USA the last Progressive Paradise!


----------



## EriktheRed

CrusaderFrank said:


> Obama is behind this, we knew this from the beginning



Yeah, he's behind everything bad happening.  Including the little men who paint the skid marks in your underwear.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

EriktheRed said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is behind this, we knew this from the beginning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, he's behind everything bad happening.  Including the little men who paint the skid marks in your underwear.
Click to expand...


How's that Summer of Recovery coming along?


----------



## Liability

CrusaderFrank said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is behind this, we knew this from the beginning
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, he's behind everything bad happening.  Including the little men who paint the skid marks in your underwear.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How's that Summer of Recovery coming along?
Click to expand...


Psst.  Mr. President.

It's Autumn.

The leaves are starting to fall.  Employment rates keep falling.  Your poll numbers.

Yep.

It's fall.

We'll all recover when you are out of work.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Even if that's true, it still includes a lot more people than the combined membership of every union in the country.



I posted Rasmussen, Obama is in the shitter.



> Perhaps we don't speak for your opinion. We certainly do, however, speak for your interests.



No you don't - you work against my interests. Your desire for free houses destroys the concept of private property and fucks under every legitimate home owner who has worked hard and paid their mortgage. You demand that the result be the same for those who scrimped and saved to pay for the house they bought and bought a house they could afford to pay for, and for those who partied it up while buying a McMansion they had no ability nor intention of paying for. You want to fuck under those who got an education and paid back student loans by handing out what we worked so hard for. 



> Part of the effort is in getting you to see where your interest lie.



You don't give a fuck about anyone's interests but your own. Selfish and greedy, the message of the OWS is simply "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee."


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> OWS is also in favor of the Constitution. Any claim to the contrary is a paranoid delusion.



She means the United States Constitution. Your support of the North Korean constitution isn't germane to the discussion.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Progressive DO see a problem with overthrowing the Constitution, however. If you think otherwise, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.



Dragon, I detailed several days ago where your demands and agenda violate the constitution, you ran rather than respond.

In other words, I already proved it. Yours is the "End the Constitution" movement.


----------



## Preius

It is my prediction that the Tea Party, and OWS (Occupy Wall Street) could come together before the 2012 election.  In Wisconsin we saw moderate Republicans who were union members wiping the dust off their collective bargaining rights.  These moderates were teachers, firemen, police, and other State employees.  I believe there is an easy overlap between the Tea Party and OWS, and they are moderate Republicans and Conservative Democrats.

If the OWS is truly the "99%," and we are hearing about groups like "Patriotic Millionaires"  who want the Bush tax cuts to expire,  [Go to "patriotic-millionaires-petition-obama-bush-era-tax-cuts" I am too new to post links yet]  Only the truly greedy value their money more than their country.  So, we have part of the 1% backing the 99%.  Amazing, only in America!  With the favorability rating of the U. S. Congress less than 12% I think a grass roots movement could grow.  If in 2012 we cleaned house in Congress TOTALLY in both parties, all the new guys would know that CITIZENS have a gun to their head.  No political ideology, just instruction to Washington to *make things work now. *

Let's face it other than the 1% who is going to stand up for the 1%?


----------



## percysunshine

My four year old brought me his Christmas wish list today. He wanted everything on it and said he was going to mail it to Santa Claus at the North Pole. He looked at me funny when I told him to mail it to Nancy Pelosi.


----------



## Stephanie

Preius said:


> It is my prediction that the Tea Party, and OWS (Occupy Wall Street) could come together before the 2012 election.  In Wisconsin we saw moderate Republicans who were union members wiping the dust off their collective bargaining rights.  These moderates were teachers, firemen, police, and other State employees.  I believe there is an easy overlap between the Tea Party and OWS, and they are moderate Republicans and Conservative Democrats.
> 
> If the OWS is truly the "99%," and we are hearing about groups like "Patriotic Millionaires"  who want the Bush tax cuts to expire,  [Go to "patriotic-millionaires-petition-obama-bush-era-tax-cuts" I am too new to post links yet]  Only the truly greedy value their money more than their country.  So, we have part of the 1% backing the 99%.  Amazing, only in America!  With the favorability rating of the U. S. Congress less than 12% I think a grass roots movement could grow.  If in 2012 we cleaned house in Congress TOTALLY in both parties, all the new guys would know that CITIZENS have a gun to their head.  No political ideology, just instruction to Washington to *make things work now. *
> 
> Let's face it other than the 1% who is going to stand up for the 1%?



you can predict all you want. I don't SEE the Tea Party will have ANYTHING to do with this rag tag bunch of idiots. The Tea Party sees and does things a little more rationally AND WITHIN THE LAW., this bunch are just whiny agitators being paid and USED by the Unions, Marxist, Commies, Progressives and THE DEMOCRATS.


----------



## EriktheRed

percysunshine said:


> My four year old brought me his Christmas wish list today. He wanted everything on it and said he was going to mail it to Santa Claus at the North Pole. He looked at me funny when I told him to mail it to Nancy Pelosi.



If you're this obsessed with political figures you hate you'd bring it into your relations with your own young kids, that's pretty sad.


----------



## Dot Com

EriktheRed said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> My four year old brought me his Christmas wish list today. He wanted everything on it and said he was going to mail it to Santa Claus at the North Pole. He looked at me funny when I told him to mail it to Nancy Pelosi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're this obsessed with political figures you hate you'd bring it into your relations with your own young kids, that's pretty sad.
Click to expand...


That is pretty sad to talk politics to a 4 yr old


----------



## Intense

Dot Com said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> 
> My four year old brought me his Christmas wish list today. He wanted everything on it and said he was going to mail it to Santa Claus at the North Pole. He looked at me funny when I told him to mail it to Nancy Pelosi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're this obsessed with political figures you hate you'd bring it into your relations with your own young kids, that's pretty sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is pretty sad to talk politics to a 4 yr old
Click to expand...


Yes. I feel the same way about the State Indoctrinating them.


----------



## mudwhistle

Skull Pilot said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 99 percent of Americans continue to struggle daily since the recession began while the richest 1 percent of the country prospers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not in the richest 1% and I have done just fine the past 5 years.
> 
> So you see OWS does not never has and never will represent 99% it's more like 9%
Click to expand...


My situation was looking up but took a dramatic downturn 2 1/2 years ago. We planned on selling some investment property in 5 years but now we can't. The value of property went into the shitter and people want you to give it to them. So I have to wait until the economy turns around, which most likely won't happen for several years....longer if Obama is re-elected.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dot Com said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> OWS is also in favor of the Constitution. Any claim to the contrary is a paranoid delusion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR.
> Progressives see no problem with lying if it can FURTHER their agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> says the conservative sheeple. ZZZzzz
Click to expand...


Those slackers in OWS are the sheep.

Most of them can't even articulate why they are there.  They are sheep just waiting to be led.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Yes, I have a cow when folks promote unconstitutional ideals, as does the OWS.  It's just the way I roll.



It's not an unconstitutional idea. I don't know why you're having so much trouble understanding this; you're intelligent enough to get it.

"To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support" -- the "direct democracy" that's being talked about here is OBVIOUSLY being engaged in by those "communities that take action and form groups." And there is nothing unconstitutional about that.

As I said above, we have "direct democracy" here in California, in that we have a process whereby the voters can directly pass laws, without going through the legislature. Does that threaten the U.S. Constitution? If not, why would you think a non-governmental protest group or action group organizing itself according to principles of direct democracy would threaten the Constitution?

The only way that the words "direct democracy" could ever be constituted as a threat to the Constitution is if they occurred in a sentence something like this: "We propose that the current government of the United States be overthrown and replaced with a direct democracy." If you can find OWS saying something like that, you'll have grounds for concern. Until then, you're just being paranoid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

OWS = Lunatic fringe


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> 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.


----------



## Oldstyle

Skull Pilot said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> LIAR.
> Progressives see no problem with lying if it can FURTHER their agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> says the conservative sheeple. ZZZzzz
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those slackers in OWS are the sheep.
> 
> Most of them can't even articulate why they are there.  They are sheep just waiting to be led.
Click to expand...


They actually "could" articulate it, Skull but it would be an embarrassing admission.  They're there for the party.  Free food, lots of drugs, internet hookup...what more could a twenty something unemployed slacker possibly desire?


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have a cow when folks promote unconstitutional ideals, as does the OWS.  It's just the way I roll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not an unconstitutional idea. I don't know why you're having so much trouble understanding this; you're intelligent enough to get it.
> 
> "To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support" -- the "direct democracy" that's being talked about here is OBVIOUSLY being engaged in by those "communities that take action and form groups." And there is nothing unconstitutional about that.
> 
> As I said above, we have "direct democracy" here in California, in that we have a process whereby the voters can directly pass laws, without going through the legislature. Does that threaten the U.S. Constitution? If not, why would you think a non-governmental protest group or action group organizing itself according to principles of direct democracy would threaten the Constitution?
> 
> The only way that the words "direct democracy" could ever be constituted as a threat to the Constitution is if they occurred in a sentence something like this: "We propose that the current government of the United States be overthrown and replaced with a direct democracy." If you can find OWS saying something like that, you'll have grounds for concern. Until then, you're just being paranoid.
Click to expand...


Of course states can adopt legislative processes that are taken from direct democracies, however that does not make a state a direct democracy.  So, no, CA is not a direct democracy.

Secondly, I'll accept your claim that the quoted is supposed to apply to the protestors.

However, in the second paragraph, they explicitly state that they are striving for a true democracy:  "... and that no true democracy is attainable. ...."  The Constitution does not describe a true democracy, we are a constitutional republic.  Period.

Finally, the complaints indicate a clear desire to unlawfully [search and] seize.  Nope, that is also unconstitutional.

And, I'm not even considering the other peripheral information about this group and those who back it (and pay for it).

If the OWS supports smaller and more efficient government, individual liberties and freedoms, less government intrusion, less authoritarian desires, more personal accountability, then I would be with them.  It's clear they don't.

And, you have to admit that the fact that the OWS vehemently guards and denies leaks of their wishes and has yet to be definitive about much of anything raises the needle on the stink-o-meter.

That's why I say they need to get back into that weed-filled room and come up with something of substance that doesn't look so unconstitutional on its face.  If they think attracting the TP is desirable, that is.  Unfortunately for the OWS, the TP has a good nose for political bullshit.

The OWS so far has epitomized political bullshit - leak, deny, leak, deny, make amorphous statements, and spin.

Nope, can't pass the stink-o-meter so far, at least with the TP.

So, liberate yourselves and tell all of us what you really want and how you really want to do it.  I look forward to it.  No need to stress any longer about the next spin; your slip is already showing.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Of course states can adopt legislative processes that are taken from direct democracies, however that does not make a state a direct democracy.  So, no, CA is not a direct democracy.



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



> However, in the second paragraph, they explicitly state that they are striving for a true democracy:  "... and that no true democracy is attainable. ...."  The Constitution does not describe a true democracy, we are a constitutional republic.  Period.



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. Democracy is one of the values that Americans cherish, 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.



> Finally, the complaints indicate a clear desire to unlawfully [search and] seize.



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.



> And, I'm not even considering the other peripheral information about this group and those who back it (and pay for it).



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



> If the OWS supports smaller and more efficient government, individual liberties and freedoms, less government intrusion, less authoritarian desires, more personal accountability, then I would be with them.  It's clear they don't.



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.



> And, you have to admit that the fact that the OWS vehemently guards and denies leaks of their wishes and has yet to be definitive about much of anything raises the needle on the stink-o-meter.



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.



> That's why I say they need to get back into that weed-filled room and come up with something of substance that doesn't look so unconstitutional on its face.  If they think attracting the TP is desirable, that is.  Unfortunately for the OWS, the TP has a good nose for political bullshit.



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


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course states can adopt legislative processes that are taken from direct democracies, however that does not make a state a direct democracy.  So, no, CA is not a direct democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If California were to abolish its legislature and do everything by initiative, would that threaten the U.S. Constitution? ....
Click to expand...

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



> However, in the second paragraph, they explicitly state that they are striving for a true democracy:  "... and that no true democracy is attainable. ...."  The Constitution does not describe a true democracy, we are a constitutional republic.  Period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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. Democracy is one of the values that Americans cherish, 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.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

Not paranoid at all.  I know, and history supports it, that pure/true democracies have a bad record of success.  They facilitate the oppression of minorities.  The Founding Fathers were wise enough to recognize this fact, thus our constitutional republic.





> .... 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.
> ....


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.



> If the OWS supports smaller and more efficient government, individual liberties and freedoms, less government intrusion, less authoritarian desires, more personal accountability, then I would be with them. It's clear they don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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.  I can tell you what my impression is of them, as can you.  But, the OWS has no substance as of yet.  At all.

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 repeatedly stated at the protests.

I like standing for something concrete.  I can't stand for a moving target because neither I nor you really do know what it is.  And, it's a moving target by design.  As I said, that epitomizes political bullshit.



> ....  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


Thank you.  I will look at it.


----------



## California Girl

Occupy Wall Street is a Mushroom? 

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


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Dragon said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Si modo said:


> 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

California Girl said:


> 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

California Girl said:


> 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

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

_Quelle surprise._


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> 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

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Si modo said:


> 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

Oldstyle said:


> 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

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> ....
Click to expand...

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.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Twalbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> 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

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

_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.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

Si modo said:


> _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

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Dragon said:


> 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

Dragon said:


> 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.


----------



## Intense

Dragon said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


 Social Justice is an Oxymoron. There is no fairness in redistribution. It is theft, plain and simple. Without consent it is Theft. Calling Theft what it is, That is Justice.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Nonsense. Have you ever read any Marx? His critique of the capitalist system is spot-on.



No it isn't, and that is an incredibly ignorant claim.

Marx didn't even identify correctly that which he opposed. Marx deemed the 19th century stew of Berlin to be "capitalist,' when in fact it was no such thing. The mixture of feudalism and corporatism that Marx critiqued bears no resemblance to a market economy. Industry right granted by the state cannot be influenced by the nuance of the invisible hand. Marx analyzed a society where caste played a greater role than did innovation or production.

Marx rightly criticized the state supported robber barons of the fledgling German Confederation, but these were not "capitalists" in that they were placed in protected industry by the stated with the protection of the Prussian state, which doled out land and privilege as it had since the dark ages. 



> 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.



Marxism attracts the weak of mind.  Those who lack the logical skills needed to grasp the concepts of market and the nobility of trade as a means of men dealing with each other free of force and violence.



> This isn't truth, and your posting it is evidence that YOU aren't thinking.



Then show us all the agenda and goals of the OWS?



> 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.



They are not getting attention because the American people are not interested in an authoritarian socialist state.


----------



## mudwhistle

Si modo said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is neither what I said nor a legitimate interpretation of what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Ewwwwwww

How do you bait breath? Sounds gross.


----------



## Si modo

Intense said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Social Justice is an Oxymoron. There is no fairness in redistribution. It is theft, plain and simple. Without consent it is Theft. Calling Theft what it is, That is Justice.
Click to expand...

Wait - that post doesn't contain enough spin.

Try this:  Blue is really green because the economics of the world have changed the value of the frequency of the color reflected by substances that reflect light.  So, although capitalism may lead to green being blue, in reality, it is the rich who have devalued so much in the world that now blue is green.  And, anyone who bought a green or blue house or car, now will get to keep both with their payments forgiven because of the devaluation of everything, thus frequencies, by the capitalist machine.

It's only fair and completely constitutional.


----------



## Intense

Si modo said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social Justice is an Oxymoron. There is no fairness in redistribution. It is theft, plain and simple. Without consent it is Theft. Calling Theft what it is, That is Justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait - that post doesn't contain enough spin.
> 
> Try this:  Blue is really green because the economics of the world have changed the value of the frequency of the color reflected by substances that reflect light.  So, although capitalism may lead to green being blue, in reality, it is the rich who have devalued so much in the world that now blue is green.  And, anyone who bought a green or blue house or car, now will get to keep both with their payments forgiven because of the devaluation of everything, thus frequencies, by the capitalist machine.
> 
> It's only fair and completely constitutional.
Click to expand...


Yes... I see... I would also like to buy a House and Keep it, and have the Bank pay me, instead of me paying it. Everyone that agrees with me..... Silently wave your hands and fingers in the air.... Yes We have consensus, the Banks will pay us to live in our new homes, the balance of the Universe is restored.


----------



## mudwhistle

Si modo said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social Justice is an Oxymoron. There is no fairness in redistribution. It is theft, plain and simple. Without consent it is Theft. Calling Theft what it is, That is Justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wait - that post doesn't contain enough spin.
> 
> Try this:  Blue is really green because the economics of the world have changed the value of the frequency of the color reflected by substances that reflect light.  So, although capitalism may lead to green being blue, in reality, it is the rich who have devalued so much in the world that now blue is green.  And, anyone who bought a green or blue house or car, now will get to keep both with their payments forgiven because of the devaluation of everything, thus frequencies, by the capitalist machine.
> 
> It's only fair and completely constitutional.
Click to expand...


Sounds like a load a Brown stuff.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Aren't we talking modern day here, Dragon?



As there are no modern-day pure democracies to the best of my knowledge, no, we are not.



> 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.



Ah, now I remember. No, they are not in the Constitution. Here is what you actually said:



> If the OWS supports smaller and more efficient government, individual liberties and freedoms, less government intrusion, less authoritarian desires, more personal accountability, then I would be with them. It's clear they don't.



And that is what I referred to as code-speak. But none of these things -- "smaller and more efficient government," "individual liberties and freedoms," "less government intrusion," "less authoritarian desires," "more personal accountability," can be found anywhere in the Constitution. They may perhaps be your personal interpretation of what the Constitution is FOR, but they are certainly not quotes of anything that is IN IT.

Here's what I mean by "code-speak":

"Smaller and more efficient government" = "government that provides less help to the poor and middle class"

"Individual liberties and freedoms" = "less restraints on the rapacious interests of the wealthy and corporations." (Except when it means repealing parts of the Patriot Act and legalizing drugs.) That's also what "Less government intrusion" means, and also "less authoritarian desires."

"More personal accountability" = less support for unions and less help for anyone who falls through the cracks of the economy

Again, you will not find any of this in the Constitution.



> The OWS doesn't like the Constitution.



You have yet to provide any evidence of this, and it's not remotely true.


----------



## Skull Pilot

OWS

Obnoxious Whining Sheep


----------



## Big Fitz

Skull Pilot said:


> OWS
> 
> Obnoxious Whining Sheep


No no.  "The Occupados".

Like a public toilet.  They smell bad, have lots of idiotic statements and profanity, plus they're full of shit.


----------



## mudwhistle

Big Fitz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OWS
> 
> Obnoxious Whining Sheep
> 
> 
> 
> No no.  "The Occupados".
> 
> Like a public toilet.  They smell bad, have lots of idiotic statements and profanity, plus they're full of shit.
Click to expand...


The "Obama Occupados" smell bad, are full of crap' and won't let you get a word in edgewise. 

Instead we're subjected to a unending string of socialist slogans and bumper-sticker facts. 

Btw, Obama paid $1.8 million in income taxes. 

Isn't he a 1 percenter now?

Why is it his pay went up by a factor of 4 when he became POTUS?  

Talk about evil Capitalists.


----------



## chanel

ACORN is involved now.  Surprise, surprise.



> The Philadelphia office of Action United, an activist group that's a successor to the former ACORN, says it's going to recruit protesters from the Occupy Philadelphia tent village that has grown up in Dilworth Plaza west of City Hall, for a march two blocks south to Wells Fargo's local office at 123 South Broad St. tomorrow afternoon to demand Wells Fargo return "its share" of more than $63 million the Philadelphia School District had to pay banks to settle interest-rate swap contracts last year.
> 
> Robins says his group will mobilize at least 40 members for the protest, which would be more than predecessor ACORN typically brought to its past Philadelphia events. Plus "we'll see how many of the Occupy folks join."
> 
> Read more: Activists recruit Occupy for Phila bank protest | PhillyDeals | 10/11/2011
> Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else


----------



## EriktheRed

chanel said:


> ACORN is involved now.  Surprise, surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Philadelphia office of Action United, an activist group that's a successor to the former ACORN, says it's going to recruit protesters from the Occupy Philadelphia tent village that has grown up in Dilworth Plaza west of City Hall, for a march two blocks south to Wells Fargo's local office at 123 South Broad St. tomorrow afternoon to demand Wells Fargo return "its share" of more than $63 million the Philadelphia School District had to pay banks to settle interest-rate swap contracts last year.
> 
> Robins says his group will mobilize at least 40 members for the protest, which would be more than predecessor ACORN typically brought to its past Philadelphia events. Plus "we'll see how many of the Occupy folks join."
> 
> Read more: Activists recruit Occupy for Phila bank protest | PhillyDeals | 10/11/2011
> Watch sports videos you won't find anywhere else
Click to expand...




Aaaw, ain't that a pisser? They're still around and still able to have an impact while golden-boy O' Keefe has to ask permission to go.


----------



## Uncensored2008

EriktheRed said:


> Aaaw, ain't that a pisser? They're still around and still able to have an impact while golden-boy O' Keefe has to ask permission to go.



So Obama's gang ACORN is there setting up a prostitution ring of under age central Americans?

OWS, salivating over Salvadorians...


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


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



Good point.

However, the existence of direct democracy operating somewhere in the country does not threaten the Constitution. Unless OWS is actually calling for eliminating the House and Senate and replacing them with direct voting, it's not doing what Si modo was accusing it of.



> 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.



Incorrect on both counts. The requirement of white property owners was enacted at the state level, but it prevailed in all states in the beginning. Women could not vote in any state or in any election at the time the Constitution was ratified. They could not vote in federal elections, although they could in some state elections, until the 19th Amendment was ratified.

That we have become more democratic over time is obvious. Not only have these voting barriers been removed, but we have gone to direct election of Senators, dropped the voting age to 18, and given DC a vote in presidential elections, all through Constitutional amendment. Also, although we still have the electoral college, we have moved to a system where it is determined in each state by the popular vote; only rarely do the electors exercise their own initiative as was originally intended.

Democracy is an American political value. As a system, we do not have a direct democracy at the federal level, that's true. But to draw, on this basis, a distinction between a republic and a democracy, assert that we cannot have both, and argue that there is something un-American about democracy, is sheer sophistry and had no connection with the truth.



> What you want cannot be under the constitution.



It not only can be but has been in the past.



> 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?



LOL so now you're arguing that democracy is Commie? That has to be the most far-fetched argument I've seen yet.



> The OWS is primarily a Union movement intended to shovel more tax payer money into the greedy maw of SEIU and other unions.



Every time you say something like this you prove you know nothing about the movement and are merely jerking your knees.



> Nope, the [Occupy Wall Street] protests are the antithesis of the Tea Parties.



[Text in brackets above mine, inserted for accuracy.] In some respects yes, in others no. Because there are points in common, some Tea Party members are supporting OWS and involved in the protests, even though they don't agree with everything the movement is about.



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



I wouldn't expect you to know what you're talking about w/r/t the size of the Leftist Insurgency, but normally when one doesn't know beans one does not embarrass oneself by speaking as if one did.


----------



## Preius

Stephanie said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is my prediction that the Tea Party, and OWS (Occupy Wall Street) could come together before the 2012 election.  In Wisconsin we saw moderate Republicans who were union members wiping the dust off their collective bargaining rights.  These moderates were teachers, firemen, police, and other State employees.  I believe there is an easy overlap between the Tea Party and OWS, and they are moderate Republicans and Conservative Democrats.
> 
> If the OWS is truly the "99%," and we are hearing about groups like "Patriotic Millionaires"  who want the Bush tax cuts to expire,  [Go to "patriotic-millionaires-petition-obama-bush-era-tax-cuts" I am too new to post links yet]  Only the truly greedy value their money more than their country.  So, we have part of the 1% backing the 99%.  Amazing, only in America!  With the favorability rating of the U. S. Congress less than 12% I think a grass roots movement could grow.  If in 2012 we cleaned house in Congress TOTALLY in both parties, all the new guys would know that CITIZENS have a gun to their head.  No political ideology, just instruction to Washington to *make things work now. *
> 
> Let's face it other than the 1% who is going to stand up for the 1%?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can predict all you want. I don't SEE the Tea Party will have ANYTHING to do with this rag tag bunch of idiots. The Tea Party sees and does things a little more rationally AND WITHIN THE LAW., this bunch are just whiny agitators being paid and USED by the Unions, Marxist, Commies, Progressives and THE DEMOCRATS.
Click to expand...


I wish you could have been more open about your feelings on this subject. 

Seriously, I saw a report on the _Ed Schultz Show_ leaning toward your point of view.  The point being that the left has been looking for a way to get the agenda back in the middle.  The president feels the Tea Party is pulling things way too far to the right.  An interesting consideration because I, and others see the president as too center-right.

Republicans and Teabaggers want the 99% or OWS (Occupy Wall Street) to go away.  The 99% is bogging down the Republican agenda.  Most of the demonstrators of the 99% are young who cannot get a job even with their college education, and seniors.  Two groups with lots of time available.  Now unions are quietly checking in, breaking their backs to not be seen as leaders.  The Unions are already stuck with Barry Obama for reelection, they have troubles of their own.

These demonstrators are teachers, firemen, police, and public servants.  Apparently, you think you can mud-sling the 99% as radicals.  Many used to be moderate Republicans until conservatives stupidly chased them out of their party, and they voted for Obama in 2008.  A lot are liberals, but most important are the ULTRA - LEFT, because they are going to do the dirty work on the Tea Party.  Not my idea, openly discussed on the political talk show circuit including Fox.

Now you can add to the 99% the "Millionaire Patriots" â&#8364;&#339;Patriotic Millionairesâ&#8364; | Dissident Voice who believe;

"Recently members of the group calling themselves &#8220;Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength&#8221; sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama, Harry Reid (Majority Leader in the U. S. Senate), and John Boehner (Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives). What made the letter notable was that it requested that &#8220;you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000&#8221;&#8212;the letter then being signed by a long list of millionaires."

You see, as in the American Revolution, the war against England was only declared because the wealthy colonists wanted it.  Now you have the 1% a greedy group of Teabaggers, and the Patriotic Millionaires who understand_ arm __twisting politics_ at the level of the Sons of Liberty.  This is a power struggle between two wealthy factions.  

The Sons of Liberty in the American Revolution headed by John Hancock and Sam Adams did not hesitate to burn the homes of tax collectors.  Perhaps some tax collectors may have even been murdered, (documentation is hazy, but there are strong implications - remember this is American history, we wrote our version for the record).  Such is war.  Now we have the 99% looking for answers, and the Patriotic Millionaires with answers to offer.  Best of all for everyone, the Democratic Party is on the sidelines.  You can figure it out from there.  It is going to be a very interesting election cycle.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> ....
> Here's what I mean by "code-speak":
> 
> "Smaller and more efficient government" = "government that provides less help to the poor and middle class"
> 
> "Individual liberties and freedoms" = "less restraints on the rapacious interests of the wealthy and corporations." (Except when it means repealing parts of the Patriot Act and legalizing drugs.) That's also what "Less government intrusion" means, and also "less authoritarian desires."
> 
> "More personal accountability" = less support for unions and less help for anyone who falls through the cracks of the economy
> 
> Again, you will not find any of this in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The OWS doesn't like the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to provide any evidence of this, and it's not remotely true.
Click to expand...

That's fucking funny!  Really, it is.  I guarantee you that I - that would be me - know what I mean when I type words.

But, guess what; when I say 'smaller and more efficient government', I MEAN "smaller and more efficient government".

When I say 'more personal accountability', I actually MEAN "more personal responsibility".

And when I say 'individual liberties and freedoms', I really do MEAN "individual liberties and freedoms".

And, somehow you think none of that is covered in the Constitution.  Amazing.  I am glad that you have no chance to be a justice of the SCOTUS, or of any other court, for that matter.  America is glad, too.

So, although your unsolicited edit of my words is interesting, even fascinating in what it reveals, I can handle my own speech without your assistance.

Trust me, TS, in your authoritarian utopia, I would be a big problem for you.  I know what I want, what I mean to say, and I value my freedom to do both.  I have never and will never accept any authority that believes that they know what I want, what I need, and what I want to say better than I.

But, if I ever DO need an edit, I will keep you in mind.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> But, guess what; when I say 'smaller and more efficient government', I MEAN 'smaller and more efficient government'.
> 
> When I say 'more personal accountability', I actually MEAN 'more personal responsibility'.
> 
> And when I say 'individual liberties and freedoms', I really do MEAN "individual liberties and freedoms'.



That's not only untrue but impossible, as there is more than one meaning to all of those rather vague phrases, and someone else could use the same phrase while meaning something completely different from what you mean. In fact, other people do, because every one of those could just as well be a left-wing talking point as a right-wing one, and at times actually are.

All of the phrases I used to explain the meaning of these things in right-wing code speak are possible legitimate interpretations of them, and I submit that all of them are what you mean. To object that no, you mean the original words you used, is in effect to say, "No, I don't mean cherries, I mean fruit."



> And, somehow you think none of that is covered in the Constitution.  Amazing.



Tell you what. Here's a link to the Constitution on line. (See how helpful I can be?)

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Show us where any of these phrases is found in that document anywhere:

"smaller and more efficient government"
"more personal accountability"
"individual liberties and freedoms"

I'll check back with you later and see how that goes.


----------



## chanel

Magical thinking. The movement may have begun with disenfranchised young people who shared many of the same ideals as the "99 percent" or even the Tea Party. But it is being hijacked by the far left (Marxists, Anarchists, ACORN, Anonymous, etc) and can end only one of three ways. And two of them will be very ugly (Socialism, violence, or recovery)


----------



## Dot Com




----------



## Dragon

chanel said:


> Magical thinking. The movement may have begun with disenfranchised young people who shared many of the same ideals as the "99 percent" or even the Tea Party. But it is being hijacked by the far left (Marxists, Anarchists, ACORN, Anonymous, etc) and can end only one of three ways. And two of them will be very ugly (Socialism, violence, or recovery)



It is most certainly not being hijacked by the "far left," which completely lacks the resources to do so, but there is definitely an attempt on by the Democratic Party and establishment liberal groups to hijack it. So far the movement is resisting that effort. We'll see if it succeeds down the road.

There is a possibility of violence emerging from this at some point, beyond the violence already exhibited by overzealous NYC police. Expect it to get much, much bigger over the coming years.

I doubt that full-fledged socialism is a likely outcome, but a move to the left on economic issues in national policy is definitely to be expected.


----------



## freedombecki

Dragon said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Magical thinking. The movement may have begun with disenfranchised young people who shared many of the same ideals as the "99 percent" or even the Tea Party. But it is being hijacked by the far left (Marxists, Anarchists, ACORN, Anonymous, etc) and can end only one of three ways. And two of them will be very ugly (Socialism, violence, or recovery)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is most certainly not being hijacked by the "far left," which completely lacks the resources to do so, but there is definitely an attempt on by the Democratic Party and establishment liberal groups to hijack it. So far the movement is resisting that effort. We'll see if it succeeds down the road.
> 
> There is a possibility of violence emerging from this at some point, beyond the violence already exhibited by overzealous NYC police. Expect it to get much, much bigger over the coming years.
> 
> I doubt that full-fledged socialism is a likely outcome, but a move to the left on economic issues in national policy is definitely to be expected.
Click to expand...

The Democrats do not want this since the protesters started shooting up drugs, sucking up each other, and pooping up squad cars.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, guess what; when I say 'smaller and more efficient government', I MEAN 'smaller and more efficient government'.
> 
> When I say 'more personal accountability', I actually MEAN 'more personal responsibility'.
> 
> And when I say 'individual liberties and freedoms', I really do MEAN "individual liberties and freedoms'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not only untrue but impossible, as there is more than one meaning to all of those rather vague phrases, and someone else could use the same phrase while meaning something completely different from what you mean. In fact, other people do, because every one of those could just as well be a left-wing talking point as a right-wing one, and at times actually are.
> 
> All of the phrases I used to explain the meaning of these things in right-wing code speak are possible legitimate interpretations of them, and I submit that all of them are what you mean. To object that no, you mean the original words you used, is in effect to say, "No, I don't mean cherries, I mean fruit."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, somehow you think none of that is covered in the Constitution.  Amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell you what. Here's a link to the Constitution on line. (See how helpful I can be?)
> 
> The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> Show us where any of these phrases is found in that document anywhere:
> 
> "smaller and more efficient government"
> "more personal accountability"
> "individual liberties and freedoms"
> 
> I'll check back with you later and see how that goes.
Click to expand...

Those phrases are concise.

And, I suggest you cease trying to speak for me.  You can't.

I know you believe you can, but I do not and will never accept your authoritarian ideals, nor will I accept your unsolicited edits of MY words.

I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

I've told you as politely as I can not to try to speak for me.  I won't keep that up.  You do not speak for me.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Good point.
> 
> However, the existence of direct democracy operating somewhere in the country does not threaten the Constitution. Unless OWS is actually calling for eliminating the House and Senate and replacing them with direct voting, it's not doing what Si modo was accusing it of.



You asked if California doing away with the assembly and senate threatened the constitution. Given that such an action would violate the constitution - well, as I said.

Further more, the California initiative has mostly been a failure. Every significant proposition that runs contrary to the desires of the state is simply crushed by the dictatorship of the judiciary. Prop 186. prop 209, prop 8, ad nasium; the last proposition that ran contrary to the state that was actually honored was prop. 13 - which the state is currently using every trick at their disposal to end.



> Incorrect on both counts.



False - deliberate distortion; either by you or by those who supplied your thoughts to you.



> The requirement of white property owners was enacted at the state level,



Perhaps in some antebellum states, but I can show actual cases of blacks in New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania casting votes in pre-civil war America.



> but it prevailed in all states in the beginning.



Utter bullshit, a complete fabrication on your part. 



> Women could not vote in any state or in any election at the time the Constitution was ratified.



Again, completely false.

You simply don't grasp the concept.  The idea of land holders voting was that of stake holders, those who have a stake in government got to vote, those who didn't - didn't. Oddly enough, I am NOT entitled to vote in elections at the local Methodist church. Because I am not a Methodist, nor even a Christian, they don't view me as a stake holder.  

The requirement to vote at the time of the revolution was; 

Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of land or property worth £40. Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at £40 or worth an annual rent of £2. Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of £2 or livestock worth £40. 

The fact was that few women owned property under their own name, if married, the man voted. Should the husband die, the widow could and did vote the estate.



> they could not vote in federal elections, although they could in some state elections, until the 19th Amendment was ratified.



In fact, it was the enfranchising of non-property owners which stripped women of the right to vote, where the requirement was altered from owning land to being a man.



> That we have become more democratic over time is obvious. Not only have these voting barriers been removed, but we have gone to direct election of Senators, dropped the voting age to 18, and given DC a vote in presidential elections, all through Constitutional amendment. Also, although we still have the electoral college, we have moved to a system where it is determined in each state by the popular vote; only rarely do the electors exercise their own initiative as was originally intended.



You seem to have some difficulty in grasping the meaning and concept of "democracy."



> Democracy is an American political value. As a system, we do not have a direct democracy at the federal level, that's true.



We don't have democracy at any level, such is unworkable and abhorrent.



> But to draw, on this basis, a distinction between a republic and a democracy, assert that we cannot have both, and argue that there is something un-American about democracy, is sheer sophistry and had no connection with the truth.



Our founding fathers deemed democracy to be grossly un-American.



> It not only can be but has been in the past.
> 
> LOL so now you're arguing that democracy is Commie? That has to be the most far-fetched argument I've seen yet.



I'm providing you with the results of direct democracy.

Lenin was a big advocate of democracy,



> Every time you say something like this you prove you know nothing about the movement and are merely jerking your knees.



Yawn, the Shitter Revolution is nothing and everything. There is no meaning to the movement.




> [Text in brackets above mine, inserted for accuracy.] In some respects yes, in others no. Because there are points in common, some Tea Party members are supporting OWS and involved in the protests, even though they don't agree with everything the movement is about.
> 
> I wouldn't expect you to know what you're talking about w/r/t the size of the Leftist Insurgency, but normally when one doesn't know beans one does not embarrass oneself by speaking as if one did.



The leftists are a fraction of the OWS - the Unions dominate the protests. You have been hijacked by the Unions.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Those phrases are concise.



No, they're not concise at all. For example, you could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that people should take complete responsibility for their own lives without blaming anyone else under any circumstances for things that go wrong, while I could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that the bankers who were individually responsible for the breakdown of the economy should face criminal charges. Both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words "personal responsibility" and fit definitions found in the dictionary.

Similarly, someone could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the freedom of a big business to operate any way it wants without regulation by the government. Someone else could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the right of a worker (who is an individual) not to be fired by his employer for engaging in attempts to form a union. Again, both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words. It is not clear just by using the words, without context, which version of them one means.



> And, I suggest you cease trying to speak for me.  You can't.



Very well. Let me rephrase what I said earlier. The interpretations I gave are common ways that right-wingers use those phrases. It is reasonable to give those interpretations as translation of right-wing code speak.

You may or may not have meant the phrases in those ways. You most certainly, however, meant them in SOME way. And the phrases themselves, as I said, have more than one meaning.

If I was incorrect in assuming that you meant the phrases in the common right-wing interpretations, then I apologize for the mistake, and ask that you explain what precisely you DO mean by them. Merely repeating the phrases themselves will not suffice for that.


----------



## Dr Grump

At the end of the day, when you take away all the smoke and mirrors from the righties, the vast majority of these OWS folks DON'T want a free ride, DON'T shit on cars, and ARE NOT hippies.

What they are saying - and even the most disingenuous of righties know this, but would never admit it - is that, unfettered capitalism (ie, we must make the most money possible by screwing over everybody else, and we don't care how we do it), doesn't work. 

The days of a Wall Streeter's bottom line of only making as much money as possible and the fallout be damned are over. The days where a CEO gets paid a multi-million dollar bonus even if the share price of his compnay crashes, or the company issues a profit warning, are over. The days where I can jump through loop holes while fucking over everybody else while I buy my new $500,000 porsche are over.

That is what they are talking about. Most of those folk just want the Wall St guys to behave. Don't think it is that much to ask.

You somehow think if you regulate Wall St, the whole system will come tumbling down. Well, I can tell you this for a fact, it almost came tumbling down when they had NO regulation.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> You asked if California doing away with the assembly and senate threatened the constitution. Given that such an action would violate the constitution - well, as I said.



Yes, I acknowledged that was a good point. However, the original assertion by Si modo was that the mere phrase "direct democracy" was all by itself an attempt to overthrow the Constitution. It is not.



> Perhaps in some antebellum states, but I can show actual cases of blacks in New York, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania casting votes in pre-civil war America.



Sure, it happened occasionally, by the time the Civil War was fought. Property requirements were generally gone by then, too. However, at the time the Constitution was ratified, the vote was restricted to white male property owners in every state. The fact that things became more democratic over time is exactly what I was saying.



> You simply don't grasp the concept.  The idea of land holders voting was that of stake holders, those who have a stake in government got to vote, those who didn't - didn't.



Of course I grasp the concept, but apparently you don't understand what's under discussion. We are not discussing whether it was a _good idea_ to restrict the vote to property owners. The point is that it was done at one time, _and now it's not_. This is an example of America becoming more democratic over time. Whether you think this was a good thing or a bad one is completely irrelevant; the fact remains that it happened.



> You seem to have some difficulty in grasping the meaning and concept of "democracy." We don't have democracy at any level, such is unworkable and abhorrent.



LOL I can certainly believe you would think that. It's quite revealing about your attitudes. 

The word "democracy" can mean more than one thing. In common usage today, we speak of a democratic republic or representative democracy such as the U.S. as a "democracy," even though it is not a "direct democracy." Moreover, it is a true statement that democracy is an American value, highly appreciated by most Americans, encompassing as it does public accountability and government (in Lincoln's phrase) of, by, and for the people.

To say "we have a republic, not a democracy," as if these two things were somehow mutually exclusive, is simply wrong.

Again, I wouldn't expect you to have a clue about either OWS or the Leftist Insurgency of which it is a part, and you are in speaking of such things merely talking out your ass.


----------



## EriktheRed

Dr Grump said:


> The days of a Wall Streeter's bottom line of only making as much money as possible and the fallout be damned are over. The days where a CEO gets paid a multi-million dollar bonus even if the share price of his compnay crashes, or the company issues a profit warning, are over. The days where I can jump through loop holes while fucking over everybody else while I buy my new $500,000 porsche are over.



That might be a bit optimistic. 

Thing is, though, this bullshit has gone way too far for too long and another correction is needed. At this point, it sure doesn't look like we can depend on Washington or even most state governments to do anything about it without some more pressure from the bottom.


----------



## Intense

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those phrases are concise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not concise at all. For example, you could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that people should take complete responsibility for their own lives without blaming anyone else under any circumstances for things that go wrong, while I could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that the bankers who were individually responsible for the breakdown of the economy should face criminal charges. Both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words "personal responsibility" and fit definitions found in the dictionary.
> 
> Similarly, someone could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the freedom of a big business to operate any way it wants without regulation by the government. Someone else could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the right of a worker (who is an individual) not to be fired by his employer for engaging in attempts to form a union. Again, both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words. It is not clear just by using the words, without context, which version of them one means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, I suggest you cease trying to speak for me.  You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very well. Let me rephrase what I said earlier. The interpretations I gave are common ways that right-wingers use those phrases. It is reasonable to give those interpretations as translation of right-wing code speak.
> 
> You may or may not have meant the phrases in those ways. You most certainly, however, meant them in SOME way. And the phrases themselves, as I said, have more than one meaning.
> 
> If I was incorrect in assuming that you meant the phrases in the common right-wing interpretations, then I apologize for the mistake, and ask that you explain what precisely you DO mean by them. Merely repeating the phrases themselves will not suffice for that.
Click to expand...


Could you possibly be more full of it? You are babbling on and on. 



> No, they're not concise at all. For example, you could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that people should take complete responsibility for their own lives without blaming anyone else under any circumstances for things that go wrong, while I could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that the bankers who were individually responsible for the breakdown of the economy should face criminal charges. Both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words "personal responsibility" and fit definitions found in the dictionary.



Personal Responsibility means taking Responsibility for both your Thoughts words, and actions, and the consequences of those thoughts, words, and actions. Grow up. You are comparing an Ideal to a specific act or circumstance or application. 



> Similarly, someone could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the freedom of a big business to operate any way it wants without regulation by the government. Someone else could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the right of a worker (who is an individual) not to be fired by his employer for engaging in attempts to form a union. Again, both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words. It is not clear just by using the words, without context, which version of them one means.



Individual Liberty protects Conscience, Property, Thought, word, action, provided it lies within the boundaries of accepted Law. You violate established law, there is consequence. Liberty does not give one the Right to Trespass on another or cause harm or damage. You confuse intentional misuse with an Ideal, again, a false argument. You call these code words, that's asinine. 



> Very well. Let me rephrase what I said earlier. The interpretations I gave are common ways that right-wingers use those phrases. It is reasonable to give those interpretations as translation of right-wing code speak.


You are projecting and profiling under a false or misguided premise at best. 



> You may or may not have meant the phrases in those ways. You most certainly, however, meant them in SOME way. And the phrases themselves, as I said, have more than one meaning.



Seriously? Lets play Association. You say  something, and I respond with the first thing that comes to mind. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_PZPpWTRTU]Mr. Ed - Intro (Opening Theme) - YouTube[/ame]
Mr. Ed - Intro (Opening Theme)


----------



## Dr Grump

EriktheRed said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> The days of a Wall Streeter's bottom line of only making as much money as possible and the fallout be damned are over. The days where a CEO gets paid a multi-million dollar bonus even if the share price of his compnay crashes, or the company issues a profit warning, are over. The days where I can jump through loop holes while fucking over everybody else while I buy my new $500,000 porsche are over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That might be a bit optimistic.
> 
> Thing is, though, this bullshit has gone way too far for too long and another correction is needed. At this point, it sure doesn't look like we can depend on Washington or even most state governments to do anything about it without some more pressure from the bottom.
Click to expand...


Unfettered capitalism is what drove South and Central American banana republics...


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those phrases are concise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not concise at all. For example, you could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that people should take complete responsibility for their own lives without blaming anyone else under any circumstances for things that go wrong, while I could speak of "personal responsibility" and mean that the bankers who were individually responsible for the breakdown of the economy should face criminal charges. Both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words "personal responsibility" and fit definitions found in the dictionary.
> 
> Similarly, someone could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the freedom of a big business to operate any way it wants without regulation by the government. Someone else could use the phrase "individual liberty" and mean the right of a worker (who is an individual) not to be fired by his employer for engaging in attempts to form a union. Again, both of those are legitimate interpretations of the words. It is not clear just by using the words, without context, which version of them one means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, I suggest you cease trying to speak for me.  You can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very well. Let me rephrase what I said earlier. The interpretations I gave are common ways that right-wingers use those phrases. It is reasonable to give those interpretations as translation of right-wing code speak.
> 
> You may or may not have meant the phrases in those ways. You most certainly, however, meant them in SOME way. And the phrases themselves, as I said, have more than one meaning.
> 
> If I was incorrect in assuming that you meant the phrases in the common right-wing interpretations, then I apologize for the mistake, and ask that you explain what precisely you DO mean by them. Merely repeating the phrases themselves will not suffice for that.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

When I say 'smaller and more efficient government', I MEAN 'smaller and more efficient government'.

I will try to complicate a simple and concise phrase with unnecessary verbosity.  When I say smaller, I mean smaller in size.  When I say size, I mean number of agencies, employees, and budgets.  There are entire agencies that should not even exist as they take on a role that the states have sole authority, per the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.").  There are employees in the government who spend their days filing their nails, and their jobs should be eliminated or combined with others who do the same.  The budget reductions will naturally follow.

And, that's just a start.

So, that takes care of 'smaller'.

That is efficiency in action.  And, there needs to be more accountability of these agencies to improve on efficiency operations.

And, that takes care of 'more efficient'.

To add to it, cost savings can be applied to debt.



When I say 'more personal accountability', I actually MEAN 'more personal responsibility'.

I will try to complicate a simple and concise phrase with unnecessary verbosity.  As I recognize the good to society as a whole with assistance to those who have come upon hard times, I fully endorse a welfare system, unemployment compensation, retirement safety net, some healthcare assistance, etc.  I DO NOT endorse a welfare system which entraps a person to remain on it, that penalizes a person for trying to get out of it.  They are programs that are run with so many loopholes that if one applies the first concise statement, they solve this one.

I support tort reform so that those who are so fucking stupid as to order hot coffee then to spill it on themselves then cash in because of their stupidity cannot do so so easily.  They also cannot clog up our civil court systems with such bullcrap that those who have real torts to have heard in the courts, don't have to wait six months to be heard.  I do not accept the fact that I must pay for stupid-ass safety labels in product prices on plastic bags telling me not to put it over my head because I won't be able to breathe if I do.

I do not support an authoritarian government passing laws and regulations disguised as doing what it thinks is best for me.  I outgrew the need for a nanny sometime during puberty.  If I want to eat potatoes fried in an artery-clogging fat, I want the right to do so, even though I know it is an artery-clogging fat.  I accept that responsibility and authority over my own body.  If I want to smoke, I will smoke, as long as I don't infringe on the rights of others.  If I want to eat junk food, I do not accept any penalty for doing so.  If I want salty processed food, I do not accept any limitation on that, especially if the market supports its availability to me.

If I choose to do a job that has a low demand and/or has a high supply of candidates, I accept the fact that is my choice and I accept the consequences of that low pay.


That's just the tip of the iceberg on nanny regs and laws.

That's personal accountability.





And when I say 'individual liberties and freedoms', I really do MEAN "individual liberties and freedoms'.

I will try to complicate a simple and concise phrase with unnecessary verbosity.  

I have the right to choose what I do with myself and how I do it, as long as I don't stomp on the rights of others to do the same.  

I have the right to succeed in doing so, as I also have the right to fail in doing so.  So, this is also corollary to personal accountability.  

I expect to do this with the least possible hindrance by my government in penalties (unfair taxation - meaning over-taxation to support a bloated and inefficient government) and nanny laws.  

I have the right to speech, both casual and offensive, and especially offensive.  

I have a right to practice whatever faith I choose to practice or choose not to practice, as long as I don't stomp on the rights of others (and there is no right not to be offended).  

I have a right to seek medical help, or not to seek it, and I recognize the right of a health care worker to self-realization of their chosen metier.  

I have a right to self-realization as I choose, as long as I don't stomp on the rights of others AND I accept the consequences of my choice in how I self-realize.

These are all guaranteed to me in the Constitution, so far, but they are being eroded.  And, that is just an amuse-bouche of the problems.

So, that covers that concise phrase with much verbosity, and obvious verbosity.






On a final note, if our Constitution is more diligently followed, most of these gripes would go away.


----------



## Dragon

Intense said:


> Personal Responsibility means taking Responsibility for both your Thoughts words, and actions, and the consequences of those thoughts, words, and actions.



Yes, that's the broad meaning, but the specific acts that one chooses to apply it to (or not) are not a constant. When it is used to say, "the individual is responsible for everything that happens to him even when we have a collusion between government and business to rewrite the rules of the economic game for the past thirty years to screw over most everyone so the rich can get richer, and every unemployed person is to blame for being unemployed in spite of this collusion, and neither business nor the government has any responsibility for THEIR actions," then that is an example of right-wing code-speak.

Someone calling on business and government to be held accountable for their actions in torpedoing the economy so that the rich can suck it dry like vampires is also talking about personal responsibility -- in a different, but still valid, sense of the same phrase.



> Individual Liberty protects Conscience, Property, Thought, word, action, provided it lies within the boundaries of accepted Law.



No, as used in right-wing code-speak it goes beyond that to assert something about what the law ought to be. In right-wing code-speak, any restriction on the ability of the very powerful to abuse their power, _sometimes_ with the exception of overt violence and fraud (although not always), is considered an infringement of individual liberty. It's an underlying assumption of this code-speak language that liberty can only be infringed by the government, so if an employer fires an employee for trying to form a union, or if a manufacturer or an agribusiness pollutes an area and people come down with cancer as a result, that is not an infringement on anyone's liberty. Strangely enough, when the government denies a woman the right to control her own fertility, or imprisons people without due process as an anti-terrorist measure, or puts people in prison for nonviolent drug use or commerce, many on the right don't consider that an infringement of individual liberty, either. 

Liberals also cherish individual liberty. Liberals recognize that the government is potentially a great danger to it. But in liberal code-speak (which also exists, of course), individual liberty is protected, not infringed, when the powerful are restrained from abusing their power to dominate others. Same phrase, different meaning, all because of the underlying assumptions.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo:

Would you include the military among government branches that is too big? Would you like to see us pare back some of our overseas commitments and shrink the size of the military?

Do you think that individual responsibility would be well served by making sure that the rules of the economic game give everyone a decent chance of making it in life?

Do you think that individual liberty can be infringed by anything other than the government, or do you believe that as long as the government doesn't directly infringe liberty it is well protected?


----------



## percysunshine

Let's don't pussyfoot around the issue. 

How many people have 'working for the US Post Office' as their ultimate goal in life?


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo:
> 
> Would you include the military among government branches that is too big? Would you like to see us pare back some of our overseas commitments and shrink the size of the military?
> 
> ....


  While I do think the DOD has ample room to increase efficiency and eliminate waste, if you recall, I have strong neocon leanings.  So, the DOD would be covered in needing to increase efficiency and eliminate waste, I still do want our defense budget to be a priority in funding.  We, the USA, cannot afford to lose defense supremacy, _especially_ now that our politicians have lost our supremacy in most other areas.



> ....  Do you think that individual responsibility would be well served by making sure that the rules of the economic game give everyone a decent chance of making it in life?
> 
> ....


Absolutely.  That's what a free market does.  I do not advocate for no regulations, but I do advocate for keeping it to just a few.  The bloated regulations we have now have made the playing field LESS fair.



> ....  Do you think that individual liberty can be infringed by anything other than the government, or do you believe that as long as the government doesn't directly infringe liberty it is well protected?


Of course.  For example, individuals can infringe on my rights and there are consequences when they do.  Just as I must accept the consequences of my actions.


----------



## Si modo

Intense said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Justice is an Oxymoron. There is no fairness in redistribution. It is theft, plain and simple. Without consent it is Theft. Calling Theft what it is, That is Justice.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait - that post doesn't contain enough spin.
> 
> Try this:  Blue is really green because the economics of the world have changed the value of the frequency of the color reflected by substances that reflect light.  So, although capitalism may lead to green being blue, in reality, it is the rich who have devalued so much in the world that now blue is green.  And, anyone who bought a green or blue house or car, now will get to keep both with their payments forgiven because of the devaluation of everything, thus frequencies, by the capitalist machine.
> 
> It's only fair and completely constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes... I see... I would also like to buy a House and Keep it, and have the Bank pay me, instead of me paying it. Everyone that agrees with me..... Silently wave your hands and fingers in the air.... Yes We have consensus, the Banks will pay us to live in our new homes, the balance of the Universe is restored.
Click to expand...

I just hope that if the OWS gets what they want that I get ample notice.  I want to have time to default on my mortgage, to buy a car on paper and default on that, and to enroll in some expensive school studying something cute, interesting to me, but of no value in the job market with a high tuition paid for by a loan and default on that, and to run up some credit card with a few trips to Nordstroms and Tiffany's.

Just a wee bit of notice, and I'm good.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> While I do think the DOD has ample room to increase efficiency and eliminate waste, if you recall, I have strong neocon leanings.  So, the DOD would be covered in needing to increase efficiency and eliminate waste, I still do want our defense budget to be a priority in funding.  We, the USA, cannot afford to lose defense supremacy, _especially_ now that our politicians have lost our supremacy in most other areas.



So is it fair to say that you believe in a smaller government only in certain areas of government functioning and not in others? (I leave aside "efficient" government because that's a mom-and-apple-pie phrase.) (I also note in passing that this is true for most people. Most everyone has parts of the government they think should be smaller or nonexistent, and other parts they think should be expanded. The difference usually lies in exactly which ones to do which to. The exception would be principled libertarians who want it all trimmed down.)



> Absolutely.  That's what a free market does.  I do not advocate for no regulations, but I do advocate for keeping it to just a few.  The bloated regulations we have now have made the playing field LESS fair.



All right. Do you believe that (leaving aside for the moment the question of exactly what policies will do this) a fair playing field will be manifested in any of the following:

High wages
Full employment
Easy opportunities to start small businesses and succeed at it
Access to higher education that is affordable for everyone
Access to medical care that is affordable for everyone

If only some of these would be included in your picture of a fair playing field, please indicate which ones are and which ones are not.



> Of course.  For example, individuals can infringe on my rights and there are consequences when they do.  Just as I must accept the consequences of my actions.



Very well. Then would you say that the ability of any individual to infringe your rights is equal, or do some people have more ability to do this than others, and hence present a greater danger?


----------



## Preius

The point being missed here is that just like the American Revolution, change only comes when the wealthy want it.  The 1% has two factions, the greedy Wall Street types, and the Patriotic Millionaires. 

*"Recently members of the group calling themselves &#8220;Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength&#8221; sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama, Harry Reid (Majority Leader in the U. S. Senate), and John Boehner (Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives). What made the letter notable was that it requested that &#8220;you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000&#8221;&#8212;the letter then being signed by a long list of millionaires."
​*​




Here is a link to Patriotic Millionaires a quiet group that knows how to twist arms in hardball politics.  â&#8364;&#339;Patriotic Millionairesâ&#8364; | Dissident Voice  The Republicans and the Tea Party are going to come out of this like Torries after the American Revolution - assimilate or leave.  The Democratic Party in my opinion will get slapped into the middle of next week.  The result will be an America that serves all legal CITIZENS.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I do think the DOD has ample room to increase efficiency and eliminate waste, if you recall, I have strong neocon leanings.  So, the DOD would be covered in needing to increase efficiency and eliminate waste, I still do want our defense budget to be a priority in funding.  We, the USA, cannot afford to lose defense supremacy, _especially_ now that our politicians have lost our supremacy in most other areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is it fair to say that you believe in a smaller government only in certain areas of government functioning and not in others? (I leave aside "efficient" government because that's a mom-and-apple-pie phrase.)
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

"Mom and apple pie"?  Damn.  You ask me to waste my fucking time explaining the obvious to you.  I do, and you still claim 'efficiency' has no meaning.

Bullshit.  And you are full of it.

You clearly had no intention nor any interest in reading what I fucking wasted my time typing for you at your insistence.

For me to do so again, would be inefficient.  So, when I say that I mean exactly what I say, and if you cannot understand plain English, then I can assume a few things about you:

1.  You are a moron.  Unfortunately, I know that you are not.  But, I have no doubt others do not know that.

2.  That you are playing games.  That's a possibility.  To what end, I have no idea.

3.  That you are dishonest.  Also a possibility.  Some are willing to sell out their personal integrity for what they believe is a higher cause - for you, that is socialism and an authoritarian utopia, which is a dangerous dream, if realized...to most.

With respect to my preference that the DOD has priority funding, that is true.  With respect to my desire that all government is smaller and more efficient, with the latter comes the former.  So, my priority assignment to the DOD is not inconsitent with my 'smaller and more efficient government' demand.  Not at all.



> Absolutely.  That's what a free market does.  I do not advocate for no regulations, but I do advocate for keeping it to just a few.  The bloated regulations we have now have made the playing field LESS fair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All right. Do you believe that (leaving aside for the moment the question of exactly what policies will do this) a fair playing field will be manifested in any of the following:
> 
> High wages
> Full employment
> Easy opportunities to start small businesses and succeed at it
> Access to higher education that is affordable for everyone
> Access to medical care that is affordable for everyone
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

Again, with an approach to a free market, the fair playing field is a given.  So, you have your cart before the horse - manufacturing a fair playing field is unnecessary.  Get to a freer market.

All of the above would be realized.



> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  For example, individuals can infringe on my rights and there are consequences when they do.  Just as I must accept the consequences of my actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very well. Then would you say that the ability of any individual to infringe your rights is equal, or do some people have more ability to do this than others, and hence present a greater danger?
Click to expand...

I would say the piece of shit ex-wife of my fiancee seems to get away with fucking murder in the fucking family courts and she doesn't even suffer a fucking contempt charge, so yes, in that instance a contemptible fucking moron (truly, a moron...she is more than dumb, and that is an objective evaluation) who hasn't contributed much to society at all, except nastiness, definitely does have the ability to do so more than her ex-husband, but I digress.

With our bloated regulations, some may.  We need to pare those regulations down so that we can approach that fair playing field described above.


----------



## Intense

Dragon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personal Responsibility means taking Responsibility for both your Thoughts words, and actions, and the consequences of those thoughts, words, and actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that's the broad meaning, but the specific acts that one chooses to apply it to (or not) are not a constant. When it is used to say, "the individual is responsible for everything that happens to him even when we have a collusion between government and business to rewrite the rules of the economic game for the past thirty years to screw over most everyone so the rich can get richer, and every unemployed person is to blame for being unemployed in spite of this collusion, and neither business nor the government has any responsibility for THEIR actions," then that is an example of right-wing code-speak.
> 
> Someone calling on business and government to be held accountable for their actions in torpedoing the economy so that the rich can suck it dry like vampires is also talking about personal responsibility -- in a different, but still valid, sense of the same phrase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Individual Liberty protects Conscience, Property, Thought, word, action, provided it lies within the boundaries of accepted Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, as used in right-wing code-speak it goes beyond that to assert something about what the law ought to be. In right-wing code-speak, any restriction on the ability of the very powerful to abuse their power, _sometimes_ with the exception of overt violence and fraud (although not always), is considered an infringement of individual liberty. It's an underlying assumption of this code-speak language that liberty can only be infringed by the government, so if an employer fires an employee for trying to form a union, or if a manufacturer or an agribusiness pollutes an area and people come down with cancer as a result, that is not an infringement on anyone's liberty. Strangely enough, when the government denies a woman the right to control her own fertility, or imprisons people without due process as an anti-terrorist measure, or puts people in prison for nonviolent drug use or commerce, many on the right don't consider that an infringement of individual liberty, either.
> 
> Liberals also cherish individual liberty. Liberals recognize that the government is potentially a great danger to it. But in liberal code-speak (which also exists, of course), individual liberty is protected, not infringed, when the powerful are restrained from abusing their power to dominate others. Same phrase, different meaning, all because of the underlying assumptions.
Click to expand...




> Yes, that's the broad meaning, but the specific acts that one chooses to apply it to (or not) are not a constant. When it is used to say, "the individual is responsible for everything that happens to him even when we have a collusion between government and business to rewrite the rules of the economic game for the past thirty years to screw over most everyone so the rich can get richer, and every unemployed person is to blame for being unemployed in spite of this collusion, and neither business nor the government has any responsibility for THEIR actions," then that is an example of right-wing code-speak.
> Someone calling on business and government to be held accountable for their actions in torpedoing the economy so that the rich can suck it dry like vampires is also talking about personal responsibility -- in a different, but still valid, sense of the same phrase.


You are responsible for your choices, how you play your hand, not how it's dealt. Why do you have expectations of the World of change being constant. Each circumstance is unique. The collusion between Government and Business is reflective of Progressivism not Federalism. The Referee should have no part in the game other than to Referee. It is possible to accumulate wealth without screwing people over. It's more common than you think. Achievement should always be rewarded, not punished. Everyone is accountable for thought, word and action, there are no exceptions. There are laws higher than Man's laws.

You are Scapegoating and labeling.



> No, as used in right-wing code-speak it goes beyond that to assert something about what the law ought to be. In right-wing code-speak, any restriction on the ability of the very powerful to abuse their power, _sometimes_ with the exception of overt violence and fraud (although not always), is considered an infringement of individual liberty. It's an underlying assumption of this code-speak language that liberty can only be infringed by the government, so if an employer fires an employee for trying to form a union, or if a manufacturer or an agribusiness pollutes an area and people come down with cancer as a result, that is not an infringement on anyone's liberty. Strangely enough, when the government denies a woman the right to control her own fertility, or imprisons people without due process as an anti-terrorist measure, or puts people in prison for nonviolent drug use or commerce, many on the right don't consider that an infringement of individual liberty, either.



It is a Principle of  the Rule of Law, to show cause, beyond a reasonable doubt, and convince the Court or Authority, before Conviction. You might want to reconsider that position. The Government is not entitled to your property or anyone's, without cause and due process. We abide by the Established Laws of the Land, like it or not. You do not get to choose what you are exempt from. 

A Classic Liberal Values Individual Liberty very highly, by denying it, the Society serves Injustice, Tyranny, it is a corruption of Principle, Spirit. Progressivism Values the Interest of the Collective above all else, and when it feels the need arises, demands Individual Sacrifice of Individual Liberty, willingly or unwillingly. Progressives cherish conformity to the Will of the Controlling Authority, not Liberty.

Those terms are not Code Words to me in any way. They imply the Establishment and Service of Justice.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> "Mom and apple pie"?  Damn.  You ask me to waste my fucking time explaining the obvious to you.  I do, and you still claim 'efficiency' has no meaning.



I didn't say it had no meaning. A "mom and apple pie" phrase is one nobody is going to disagree with. Ask anyone -- I don't care who -- if they approve of efficiency in government, and they're going to say yes. Who is going to say, "No, I think the government should waste the taxpayers' money?" That's not true however of "small government" or "big government."

You did not waste your time and I did read what you wrote. I pointed out that your preference for a small government doesn't extend to the military, after letting you confirm this yourself. Is that not a valid conclusion? Well, let's see, you do say a bit more.



> With respect to my preference that the DOD has priority funding, that is true.  With respect to my desire that all government is smaller and more efficient, with the latter comes the former.  So, my priority assignment to the DOD is not inconsitent with my 'smaller and more efficient government' demand.  Not at all.



Well, what I originally asked is if you would want to see our overseas commitments pared back and our military reduced in size. I took your answer for a "no," but come to think of it you didn't explicitly say that. So let me try again.

Given all of our military commitments at this time, not just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also all of the U.S. military bases in foreign countries around the world and our enormous navy, air force, and army, do you think we should cut any of this back, i.e. end the wars, close military bases, or change/reduce our current military missions, or do you think they should be kept as they are, or increased?



> Again, with an approach to a free market, the fair playing field is a given.
> 
> All of the above would be realized.



So what you're saying is that these things:

High wages
Full employment
Easy opportunities to start small businesses and succeed at it
Access to higher education that is affordable for everyone
Access to medical care that is affordable for everyone

will all arise as a result of a freer market? Can you explain how that works? Because historically, it doesn't look to me like it works that way at all. Generally speaking, a free market (if you mean one in which the government doesn't interfere with business) has led to slack employment, low wages, monopolies, and higher education that was affordable only for the wealthy. Not to mention our travesty of a health-care system.



> With our bloated regulations, some may.  We need to pare those regulations down so that we can approach that fair playing field described above.



So (setting aside your husband's ex -- I doubt she's any worse than MY ex, so I sympathize), it's your belief, again, that regulations give those who have more power to infringe people's rights their ability to do so.

Would you say that the railroad industry was more or less regulated by the government in the early 1900s than it is today?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Preius said:


> The point being missed here is that just like the American Revolution, change only comes when the wealthy want it.  The 1% has two factions, the greedy Wall Street types, and the Patriotic Millionaires.
> 
> *"Recently members of the group calling themselves Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama, Harry Reid (Majority Leader in the U. S. Senate), and John Boehner (Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives). What made the letter notable was that it requested that you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000the letter then being signed by a long list of millionaires."
> ​*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to Patriotic Millionaires a quiet group that knows how to twist arms in hardball politics.  âPatriotic Millionairesâ | Dissident Voice  The Republicans and the Tea Party are going to come out of this like Torries after the American Revolution - assimilate or leave.  The Democratic Party in my opinion will get slapped into the middle of next week.  The result will be an America that serves all legal CITIZENS.



Sure, Komrade, sure


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Mom and apple pie"?  Damn.  You ask me to waste my fucking time explaining the obvious to you.  I do, and you still claim 'efficiency' has no meaning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say it had no meaning. A "mom and apple pie" phrase is one nobody is going to disagree with. Ask anyone -- I don't care who -- if they approve of efficiency in government, and they're going to say yes. Who is going to say, "No, I think the government should waste the taxpayers' money?" That's not true however of "small government" or "big government."
> 
> You did not waste your time and I did read what you wrote. I pointed out that your preference for a small government doesn't extend to the military, after letting you confirm this yourself. Is that not a valid conclusion? Well, let's see, you do say a bit more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With respect to my preference that the DOD has priority funding, that is true.  With respect to my desire that all government is smaller and more efficient, with the latter comes the former.  So, my priority assignment to the DOD is not inconsitent with my 'smaller and more efficient government' demand.  Not at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, what I originally asked is if you would want to see our overseas commitments pared back and our military reduced in size. I took your answer for a "no," but come to think of it you didn't explicitly say that. So let me try again.
> 
> Given all of our military commitments at this time, not just the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also all of the U.S. military bases in foreign countries around the world and our enormous navy, air force, and army, do you think we should cut any of this back, i.e. end the wars, close military bases, or change/reduce our current military missions, or do you think they should be kept as they are, or increased?
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

Yes, I do think some can be cut back.



> Again, with an approach to a free market, the fair playing field is a given.
> 
> All of the above would be realized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you're saying is that these things:
> 
> High wages
> Full employment
> Easy opportunities to start small businesses and succeed at it
> Access to higher education that is affordable for everyone
> Access to medical care that is affordable for everyone
> 
> will all arise as a result of a freer market? Can you explain how that works? Because historically, it doesn't look to me like it works that way at all. Generally speaking, a free market (if you mean one in which the government doesn't interfere with business) has led to slack employment, low wages, monopolies, and higher education that was affordable only for the wealthy. Not to mention our travesty of a health-care system.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

As I said before, I realize the need for some regulations to prevent some of those problems you mentioned.

We have too many regulations and they make some of those problems much worse.

The best metaphor I can produce that would explain what I mean is Le Chatlier's principle: When a system in equilibrium is fucked with by an external influence, there is a new value for the equilibrium as the system adjusts to account for that influence.  That applies to the market.  Right now, it's a mess - thank you government.



> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With our bloated regulations, some may.  We need to pare those regulations down so that we can approach that fair playing field described above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So (setting aside your husband's ex -- I doubt she's any worse than MY ex, so I sympathize), it's your belief, again, that regulations give those who have more power to infringe people's rights their ability to do so.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

Not always, but generally, yes.  The more regs, the more some game it, and game it well.



> ....  Would you say that the railroad industry was more or less regulated by the government in the early 1900s than it is today?


Honestly, I know little abut the railroad, but what I do know is that in a country this size, it may be a rather dated service.  It's a good local service to have, though.  And, for the most part, they are government entities.


----------



## flacaltenn

CrusaderFrank said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point being missed here is that just like the American Revolution, change only comes when the wealthy want it.  The 1% has two factions, the greedy Wall Street types, and the Patriotic Millionaires.
> 
> *"Recently members of the group calling themselves Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama, Harry Reid (Majority Leader in the U. S. Senate), and John Boehner (Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives). What made the letter notable was that it requested that you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000the letter then being signed by a long list of millionaires."
> ​*​
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to Patriotic Millionaires a quiet group that knows how to twist arms in hardball politics.  âPatriotic Millionairesâ | Dissident Voice  The Republicans and the Tea Party are going to come out of this like Torries after the American Revolution - assimilate or leave.  The Democratic Party in my opinion will get slapped into the middle of next week.  The result will be an America that serves all legal CITIZENS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, Komrade, sure
Click to expand...


I see they already have those WWII type propaganda posters out. The "know your enemy" kindof deal.. Gee I wonder if Lebron James is the greedy Wall St type or a Patriotic type. 

Do you physically have to WORK on Wall Street? Or just own a lot of stuff? Just trying to figure out which side to join..


----------



## Synthaholic

The fact that this thread is growing fast shows the Right is terrified of #OWS!!!

Find your own at Occupy Together | Home


----------



## Big Fitz

Dot Com said:


>


Yeah... and today I drive by the infestation of occupados and what do I see?

A Shrine to FDR
"Bring the troops home" sign
"Revolution Evolution" Sign carried by a burnt out hippie looking doofus with hair down his back and ratty fatigues looking stoned and disoriented.

And then the dumbasses decided to bring public opinion on their side by blocking traffic causing mayhem for the little guy by making them miss connecting buses and trains and lots of taxis racking up extra fares stuck in traffic.

Good job!  Growing the movement by making the lives of little people harder while the jags and the Mercedes and Acuras just cleared downtown quickly and went on unaffected.

Once again, the idiot left hurts the ones they claim to help.

I couldn't help but hear the bastardized lyrics to Elenor Rigby:

Ahhhh look at all the stupid people
Aahhh look at all the stupid people

Elenor Rigby shouting and protesting 
wall street bankers who aren't even there
nobody cares

Look at her standing 
and shouting dumb slogans 
that make little sense to the rest
boy she is dense.

All the stupid people
Where do they all come from
All the stupid people
Where do they all belong?

Ahhhhh!  Look at all the stupid people!
Aahhhh!  Look at all the stupid people!


----------



## Dot Com

Here's another if that one went over yopur head


----------



## Big Fitz

Dot Com said:


> Here's another if that one went over yopur head


So can you answer the question no Occupado can?

You want to change from Capitalism, yes?

Change TO what, and what are the logistics are for you to achieve this goal?


----------



## Stephanie

> The fact that this thread is growing fast shows the Right is terrified of #OWS!!!



What are we suppose to be scared of? Dying of laughter?


----------



## frazzledgear

Synthaholic said:


> The fact that this thread is growing fast shows the Right is terrified of #OWS!!!
> 
> Find your own at Occupy Together*|*Home



These losers are scary but not for the reasons you think.  

First of all this is being organized, funded and paid for by several different leftwing organizations.  People involved in that have been interviewed on tv so let's not pretend this is any kind of "grass roots" bullshit.

This is mob mentality and nothing less.  For people claiming to be part of something larger, they are a REMARKABLY inarticulate group of people unable to give a coherent answer to a question.  Not just one or two people but SCORES of them with serious problems trying to string 5 words into a coherent sentence!   The reason is because many of them are being paid to be there.  If you are being paid to be there, then its pretty damn hard to come up with a different and valid sounding reason to explain why they would be parked outside, shitting in public, creating health hazards and wasting precious and scarce city resources.  And THAT is what they sound like.  "Uh well it seemed like it might be, well I know someone who thought it might be...it isn't fair about the housing, banks did that and those rich Wall Street bankers..uh.  You know." 

They clearly have NO intention of becoming part of the political process and have no intention of leaving even when the weather changes.  Instead the organizers of the "Parasites R Us" mobs who are paying so many of these people are actually seeking donations from leftwing extremist organizations and -oh this one is precious -CORPORATE donations to help the mob get through the winter by destroying New York City's budget and eventually forcing the shut down of vital services. 

Trying to compare these paid for mobs, HUNDREDS of whom have been arrested (compared to the ZERO at Tea Parties) -with Tea Parties is ludicrous on its face.  Sure the Tea Parties started as public demonstrations -not useless dunces who seek to become entrenched smelly mobs shitting in public and creating a health risk for others as well as exhibiting their own filthy hygiene -but they QUICKLY moved to become PART of the political process and JOIN the political process - and not remain OUTSIDE of it.  

These mobs want no part of becoming part of the process.  What little I can make out from their rambling gibberish is they essentially want everything the rich have -but without working for it of course.  In fact they don't want to work for ANYTHING -they demand it just be GIVEN to them.  These are people who not only exist as parasites on the rest of us -they WANT to be parasites.   They should check the polls on how these mobs are actually viewed by voters -of BOTH parties as well as independents.  Not much sympathy out there for them AT ALL -while the majority of Americans STILL say they trust the Tea Party more than politicians from EITHER party!  Most Democrats will NOT give verbal support to these mobs because they KNOW it is hazardous to their own careers to do so.  

Obama is proving to be true moron when it comes to political smarts after all - convinced his key to re-election is by proving he has no intention of getting off that far left radical extremist agenda of his.  Whoever told him that is a winning strategy for re-election should be fired.  The only other Democrats to give public support are those like Pelosi from some of the furthest leftwing extremist safe districts where they will pay no political price for giving public support to leftwing extremists mobs.  The rest will not touch these people with a ten foot pole -and wisely so.  These are extremists and radicals who want to destroy our entire system -not be a part of it.  These people are ANTI-AMERICAN and don't kid yourself otherwise.    I couldn't care less if they sit out there all winter except for the fact they enjoy wasting the precious resources of the city -which will result in harming real people, those who need those vital services the most.  Oh yeah, real "noble" of them there, isn't it?  Their belief they are actually accomplishing something positive is pure fantasy -except for ONE thing.  They are helping make sure Obama is a one term President.  

No one except other far leftwing radical extremists really identifies with these people and since they have made it pretty clear they do not intend nor want to become part of the political process, then they have shot their wad.  THIS is it.   Oh wow that will sure get candidates on the ballot they want, right?   ROFL  There is a reason these people are largely a homogeneous group.    And HEY has CNN and MSNBC run a hostile hit piece about how these mobs are all YOUNG WHITE PEOPLE and therefore it must mean they are all RACISTS and we can just ignore their RACIST demands?  I think it is highly significant racially that these are all  white people and young too!  No older people, no blacks to speak of, no Hispanics to speak of -just mobs of young white people.  If nothing else, it absolutely proves just how RACIST they really are because clearly blacks do NOT feel welcome there, do they?  And truthfully leftwing mobs ARE inherently scary because it is a FACT leftwingers are far more likely to resort to violence and then claim their.....PASSION excuses and even justifies resorting to violence!  Leftwing extremists are always on the edge of violence -UNLIKE the Tea Parties.

Bad news for the parasites -change doesn't come from squatting and shitting in public for weeks and months and turning NYC into a toilet.  After a while no one cares and eventually the apathy turns to animosity as they refuse to become part of the system and work for the changes they claim they want to see.  What, they expect it to happen by MAGIC?  No, NATURALLY they expect OTHER people to do it FOR them like everything else in life!  ROFL -of course they do.  Otherwise it just sounds like too much.....work, doesn't it?  These mobs have no problem squandering the limited resources of the city, no problem forcing the city to pay millions it doesn't have in overtime which WILL result in cutting back or possibly canceling vital services and they don't care that the people who will be hurt the worse for it won't be the rich they waste their lives envying -but those who rely on those services the most.  These people want to pretend they represent something important but without actually doing anything of any real substance or import.  It doesn't mean I have to join them in that dumb delusion.  These people are NOTHING like the Tea Party people who had very specific and well articulated complaints about government overreach and out of control spending.  Ooh, now that's scary, isn't it?  While these individuals cannot answer a simple question about why they are even there.  All they know is "rich-bad".  Imagine if the Tea Party had been holding signs with well known liberals and Democrats' heads on spiked with blood dripping down their faces.  Tea Parties were peaceful, ZERO arrests, cleaned up after themselves upon disbanding.  Oh but when leftwing extremists get arrested by the HUNDREDS, shit all over a city in public, waste scarce and precious resources protecting everyone else in the city from THEM -why that just shows how....PASSIONATE they are, right?  So its ok when THEY hold signs advocating violence against very real PRIVATE CITIZENS, right?  Its ok when THEY disrupt the lives of everyone else and prevent them from getting to work easily and its ok when they SHIT everywhere and lack any attempt at personal hygiene, creating a very real health hazard for everyone else.  Because whatever leftwing extremists do is FINE WITH OTHER EXTREMISTS who hold EVERYONE else to a different standard.  Like no one else has noticed the double standard, right?  ROFL

I don't care how long these people want to waste their lives doing nothing of substance and nothing of import while pretending they are being so "noble" and all.  What a joke.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Hating the rich makes everyone richer. Just look at...er, um.....well, name a Progressive Utopia where they're better off? Cuba? No Korea?


----------



## MikeK

frazzledgear said:


> These losers are scary but not for the reasons you think.
> 
> First of all this is being organized, funded and paid for by several different leftwing organizations.  People involved in that have been interviewed on tv so let's not pretend this is any kind of "grass roots" bullshit.
> 
> This is mob mentality and nothing less.[...]


(Excerpt)

_An inchoate, seemingly rudderless administration coupled with a sinking economy and civil unrest is a recipe for an anarchical response.  Weakness, vacillation and erosion of institutional authority are an invitation to anarchical thuggery, which looks like *welcome strength* when compared to feebleness and arbitrariness.

It should be no surprise, then, that the Occupy Wall Street uprisings are happening.  After all, such mob uprisings have historical precedent.  Anarchy followed by tyranny occurs whenever weakness and a power vacuum, perceived or real, exists._

(Close) 

Read more here:  Articles: The American Revolution of 2012

Basically the writer is saying this could have been prevented if Obama had done what he led us to believe he would do, beginning with investigations and prosecutions of those Wall Street elements which are responsible for the collapse of our economy (see the video, _Inside Job_).  The problem is Obama is a Wall Street puppet.  Wall Street sponsored him and Wall Street owns him.

But Wall Street does not own the Mob.


----------



## Stephanie

MikeK said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> 
> These losers are scary but not for the reasons you think.
> 
> First of all this is being organized, funded and paid for by several different leftwing organizations.  People involved in that have been interviewed on tv so let's not pretend this is any kind of "grass roots" bullshit.
> 
> This is mob mentality and nothing less.[...]
> 
> 
> 
> (Excerpt)
> 
> _An inchoate, seemingly rudderless administration coupled with a sinking economy and civil unrest is a recipe for an anarchical response.  Weakness, vacillation and erosion of institutional authority are an invitation to anarchical thuggery, which looks like *welcome strength* when compared to feebleness and arbitrariness.
> 
> It should be no surprise, then, that the Occupy Wall Street uprisings are happening.  After all, such mob uprisings have historical precedent.  Anarchy followed by tyranny occurs whenever weakness and a power vacuum, perceived or real, exists._
> 
> (Close)
> 
> Read more here:  Articles: The American Revolution of 2012
> 
> Basically the writer is saying this could have been prevented if Obama had done what he led us to believe he would do, beginning with investigations and prosecutions of those Wall Street elements which are responsible for the collapse of our economy (see the video, _Inside Job_).  The problem is Obama is a Wall Street puppet.  Wall Street sponsored him and Wall Street owns him.
> 
> But Wall Street does not own the Mob.
Click to expand...


 Then HOW COME the Ows aren't calling for the prosecution of the OBAMA if he is a puppet of wall street?
The only puppets I see are the dummies OCCUPYING some imaginary boogyman.


----------



## Katzndogz

The sad stories about college grads not finding work are UNPERSUASIVE.  If they got a degree what was it IN.  I know hundreds of college grads that can't find work.  They have degrees in niche social movements.  One woman who applied for a job with me had a degree in Indigenous Basket Weaving and Pottery.   My husband's daughter graduated with a degree Women's Studies and a minor in Comparative Religion.  She eventually took a low paying job as a secretary.   Two of her roommates, one with a degree in Building and Design and another in Nanotechnology, got recruited by major companies and got signing bonuses.   One grad I know with a degree in Architecture got recruited by a firm in China and left about two years ago.

If someone wants to skate through college with fluff classes and lots of partying, they can be assured of being resentful.  When they should be blaming themselves.


----------



## Si modo

Tipsycatlover said:


> The sad stories about college grads not finding work are UNPERSUASIVE.  If they got a degree what was it IN.  I know hundreds of college grads that can't find work.  They have degrees in niche social movements.  One woman who applied for a job with me had a degree in Indigenous Basket Weaving and Pottery.   My husband's daughter graduated with a degree Women's Studies and a minor in Comparative Religion.  She eventually took a low paying job as a secretary.   Two of her roommates, one with a degree in Building and Design and another in Nanotechnology, got recruited by major companies and got signing bonuses.   One grad I know with a degree in Architecture got recruited by a firm in China and left about two years ago.
> 
> If someone wants to skate through college with fluff classes and lots of partying, they can be assured of being resentful.  When they should be blaming themselves.


Exactly.  It takes both hard work AND smart work, because that is what the market supports.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> At the end of the day, when you take away all the smoke and mirrors from the righties, the vast majority of these OWS folks DON'T want a free ride, DON'T shit on cars, and ARE NOT hippies.



The vast majority are union goons who want government money to cover the amount THEY LOST investing in the same Wall Street firms they now protest.

The message of OWS is, and has always been, "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee"



















> What they are saying - and even the most disingenuous of righties know this, but would never admit it - is that, unfettered capitalism (ie, we must make the most money possible by screwing over everybody else, and we don't care how we do it), doesn't work.
> 
> The days of a Wall Streeter's bottom line of only making as much money as possible and the fallout be damned are over. The days where a CEO gets paid a multi-million dollar bonus even if the share price of his compnay crashes, or the company issues a profit warning, are over. The days where I can jump through loop holes while fucking over everybody else while I buy my new $500,000 porsche are over.
> 
> That is what they are talking about. Most of those folk just want the Wall St guys to behave. Don't think it is that much to ask.
> 
> You somehow think if you regulate Wall St, the whole system will come tumbling down. Well, I can tell you this for a fact, it almost came tumbling down when they had NO regulation.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dr Grump said:


> Unfettered capitalism is what drove South and Central American banana republics...



What an insanely stupid claim.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Si modo said:


> While I do think the DOD has ample room to increase efficiency and eliminate waste, if you recall, I have strong neocon leanings.  So, the DOD would be covered in needing to increase efficiency and eliminate waste, I still do want our defense budget to be a priority in funding.  We, the USA, cannot afford to lose defense supremacy, _especially_ now that our politicians have lost our supremacy in most other areas.



One of the things you and I have clashed on in the past, as a Libertarian and Neocon are BOUND to clash over, is my desire to reduce defense spending by 90%

HOWEVER, though I stand by my desire; I also view defense spending to be the priority. In fact, it is one of the very few legitimate functions of government.  I want all troops out of Iraq, Japan, Germany, Korea, etc. I thought Afghanistan was necessary and masterfully by Bush - UNTIL he failed to bring everyone home after three months. If the Taliban return, bomb them to rubble again. Nation building and occupation is for fools.  



> Absolutely.  That's what a free market does.  I do not advocate for no regulations, but I do advocate for keeping it to just a few.  The bloated regulations we have now have made the playing field LESS fair.



Well said.



> Of course.  For example, individuals can infringe on my rights and there are consequences when they do.  Just as I must accept the consequences of my actions.



Ditto.


----------



## Katzndogz

Preius said:


> The point being missed here is that just like the American Revolution, change only comes when the wealthy want it.  The 1% has two factions, the greedy Wall Street types, and the Patriotic Millionaires.
> 
> *"Recently members of the group calling themselves Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama, Harry Reid (Majority Leader in the U. S. Senate), and John Boehner (Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives). What made the letter notable was that it requested that you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000the letter then being signed by a long list of millionaires."
> ​*​
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to Patriotic Millionaires a quiet group that knows how to twist arms in hardball politics.  âPatriotic Millionairesâ | Dissident Voice  The Republicans and the Tea Party are going to come out of this like Torries after the American Revolution - assimilate or leave.  The Democratic Party in my opinion will get slapped into the middle of next week.  The result will be an America that serves all legal CITIZENS.



Is there anything more stupid or idiotic than this?  Really.  Isn't this the HEIGHT of manipulation.

IF these millionaires are so serious about increasing taxes on the wealthy, you just have to ask if they take advantage of every loophole themselves?  Do they claim every deduction they are entitlted to.  How much is the separate check they write the Treasury Department every year.  

They do none of that.  They are moved for some emotion that causes them to assuage their guilt at being wealthy by raising taxes on everyone else.  They will take advantage of every loophole, they will scour the accounting for deductions and no they won't write a separate check to the Treasury.


----------



## MikeK

Stephanie said:


> [ Then HOW COME the Ows aren't calling for the prosecution of the OBAMA if he is a puppet of wall street?


Because Obama has not engaged in any categorical and prosecutable criminal activity, such as banking fraud, insider trading, Fraudulent Reporting and many other crimes.  And if you'd like to know the specifics of some of the major criminal activites perpetrated by certain Wall Street entities you can obtain quite an education by simply watching the video, _Inside Job._  If you want more information about that video just Google up, _*Inside Job*_.  I promise you'll be impressed by what you'll learn from this video.  



> The only puppets I see are the dummies OCCUPYING some imaginary boogyman.


_"It often takes a great deal of intelligence to see that which is right before our eyes."_  (Edmond Duranty)

That's why.


----------



## MikeK

Tipsycatlover said:


> The sad stories about college grads not finding work are UNPERSUASIVE.  If they got a degree what was it IN.  I know hundreds of college grads that can't find work.  They have degrees in niche social movements.  One woman who applied for a job with me had a degree in Indigenous Basket Weaving and Pottery.   My husband's daughter graduated with a degree Women's Studies and a minor in Comparative Religion.  She eventually took a low paying job as a secretary.   Two of her roommates, one with a degree in Building and Design and another in Nanotechnology, got recruited by major companies and got signing bonuses.   One grad I know with a degree in Architecture got recruited by a firm in China and left about two years ago.
> 
> If someone wants to skate through college with fluff classes and lots of partying, they can be assured of being resentful.  When they should be blaming themselves.


Even if your biased theory were substantive the fact remains that someone with a college education who cannot find _some kind_ of job, even as secretary or retail sales associate, etc., is a clear indication of severe economic problems.  The simple fact is *there are no jobs* and anyone who says there are is blowing smoke.


----------



## earlycuyler

MikeK said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sad stories about college grads not finding work are UNPERSUASIVE.  If they got a degree what was it IN.  I know hundreds of college grads that can't find work.  They have degrees in niche social movements.  One woman who applied for a job with me had a degree in Indigenous Basket Weaving and Pottery.   My husband's daughter graduated with a degree Women's Studies and a minor in Comparative Religion.  She eventually took a low paying job as a secretary.   Two of her roommates, one with a degree in Building and Design and another in Nanotechnology, got recruited by major companies and got signing bonuses.   One grad I know with a degree in Architecture got recruited by a firm in China and left about two years ago.
> 
> If someone wants to skate through college with fluff classes and lots of partying, they can be assured of being resentful.  When they should be blaming themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if your biased theory were substantive the fact remains that someone with a college education who cannot find _some kind_ of job, even as secretary or retail sales associate, etc., is a clear indication of severe economic problems.  The simple fact is *there are no jobs* and anyone who says there are is blowing smoke.
Click to expand...


What do I get if I give you at least 100 listings in a random city ? There is always someone willing to pay someone to do something. Its just a lie to say otherwise. For instance, when the OWS crowed go's back to there capitalist parents house there will be lots of work cleaning up the mess they leave behind.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

flacaltenn said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point being missed here is that just like the American Revolution, change only comes when the wealthy want it.  The 1% has two factions, the greedy Wall Street types, and the Patriotic Millionaires.
> 
> *"Recently members of the group calling themselves Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama, Harry Reid (Majority Leader in the U. S. Senate), and John Boehner (Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives). What made the letter notable was that it requested that you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000the letter then being signed by a long list of millionaires."
> ​*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to Patriotic Millionaires a quiet group that knows how to twist arms in hardball politics.  âPatriotic Millionairesâ | Dissident Voice  The Republicans and the Tea Party are going to come out of this like Torries after the American Revolution - assimilate or leave.  The Democratic Party in my opinion will get slapped into the middle of next week.  The result will be an America that serves all legal CITIZENS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, Komrade, sure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see they already have those WWII type propaganda posters out. The "know your enemy" kindof deal.. Gee I wonder if Lebron James is the greedy Wall St type or a Patriotic type.
> 
> Do you physically have to WORK on Wall Street? Or just own a lot of stuff? Just trying to figure out which side to join..
Click to expand...


I started on "Wall Street" (One Battery Park) and I tell you this OWS is beyond asinine, its asiten!

If these "patriotic millionaires" Want to pay more...feel free to write a check and shut the fuck up

The biggest joke is Buffett who has made a total ass clown of himself by shilling for Obama and not just about the tax disputes BRK has with the IRS. Do you know why the vast majority of BRK's acquisitions are structure as stock swaps? Take a guess!


----------



## Big Fitz

Stephanie said:


> The fact that this thread is growing fast shows the Right is terrified of #OWS!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are we suppose to be scared of? Dying of laughter?
Click to expand...

I'm as terrified of the Occupados as I am terrified of running out of toilet paper.


----------



## Katzndogz

MikeK said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sad stories about college grads not finding work are UNPERSUASIVE.  If they got a degree what was it IN.  I know hundreds of college grads that can't find work.  They have degrees in niche social movements.  One woman who applied for a job with me had a degree in Indigenous Basket Weaving and Pottery.   My husband's daughter graduated with a degree Women's Studies and a minor in Comparative Religion.  She eventually took a low paying job as a secretary.   Two of her roommates, one with a degree in Building and Design and another in Nanotechnology, got recruited by major companies and got signing bonuses.   One grad I know with a degree in Architecture got recruited by a firm in China and left about two years ago.
> 
> If someone wants to skate through college with fluff classes and lots of partying, they can be assured of being resentful.  When they should be blaming themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if your biased theory were substantive the fact remains that someone with a college education who cannot find _some kind_ of job, even as secretary or retail sales associate, etc., is a clear indication of severe economic problems.  The simple fact is *there are no jobs* and anyone who says there are is blowing smoke.
Click to expand...


There are jobs for the very highly qualified.  Otherwise there are no jobs.   Democrats have chased too many companies out of the country.


----------



## Big Fitz

> Quote:
> ....   Would you say that the railroad industry was more or less regulated by  the government in the early 1900s than it is today?
> 
> 
> Honestly,  I know little abut the railroad, but what I do know is that in a  country this size, it may be a rather dated service.  It's a good local  service to have, though.  And, for the most part, they are government  entities.



As someone who DOES know a bit about the railroad industry...

The industry went through stages of regulation based on proven need for regulation.  The first 50 years of it's existence was free of accident fatalities and there was no reason to regulate it for safety.  Then the Ashtabula and Angola Horrors happened.  There was a public outcry for regulation for the safety of the passengers who now saw the railroads dangers as the threat they were to safety.  The industry was indecisive on how to deal with the situation, and so the government stepped in for a uniform safety code for their operation because there WAS a real threat.

Then came the expansion regulations because conflicts of interests between riverboat operators, farmers, cities and the railroads came about.  Again, regulations were needed to define who's rights to do what were supreme.  Much of this legislation was due in large part to the work of Abraham Lincoln who while a railroad lawyer in the 1840's ironed out agreements between the states, riverboat operators and the railroads for crossing rivers and regulations there in.

But the robber barons was not a railroad issue, it was a financial industry issue and defining issue of the Guilded age and industrial revolution.  Abuses of workers and consumers by everyone from J.P. Morgan to Commodore Vanderbilt, Jay Gould, Credit Mobilier's defrauding of the US govt during the building of the trans-continental railroad and J.J. Hill's geographic monopolization had it's roots in plutocracy that thankfully were broken starting in the 1880's through the 1910's.  It wasn't just the railroads though.  EVERY industry was doing these things because there were no laws.  The panic of 1893 was caused by lack of regulations in trading on the market allowing what today would be called nothing short of financial terrorism.  

All these regulations had to be done to provide guardrails for safer and more equitable as well as ethical capitalism.  They used to be very broad and loose but provided protections from abuses from the populace as well as the industrialists.  You got product safety, fair labor laws, unionization rights, better rules on trading for financial institutions.

This is the way regulations come about.  The problem comes in when you demand a 100% 'safe' society that ossifies behavior and action into one universal code and template that nobody can consistently live up to, and viciously punishes anyone who falls short even a single iota at any step.

As for the functionality of the railroads they are strictly a freight or intermediate high speed passenger hauler.  No other way is more efficient to haul freight overland than trains.  Passenger trains could... COULD carve out an intercity market again if they were able to maintain such high quality rail that they could compete more cheaply than smaller airlines.  The problem is, that deck is stacked against them because of the nature of the travel business and risks of high speed ground travel.

The only example of government entities doing the job they set out to do and then ending is the USRA.  They were organized to help with heavy traffic during WW1 and for a brief period of WW2.  They are best known for creating basic platforms for steam motive power that served the railroads VERY well  for the last half of steam's existence by limiting the 'standard' models to 6 different plans.  They didn't do well at managing motive power distribution as well during the war because they often shifted engines and trains to where they weren't needed as much as some believed necessary.

The upshot of all this is that there always MUST be a SMALL AMOUNT of regulation to protect the public consumer from fraud and abuse.  You must protect the worker from both unfair labor practices and hazards in the workplace that can instantly or chronically harm or kill them.  There must also be protections to competators from unfair business practices being done to protect monopolies or powerful businesses from stifling new competition.  But there are so many regulations that are completely unnecessary and intrusive they do more harm than good, hampering business from being bigger better faster cheaper as the standard SHOULD be.

Every crisis that occurs exposes needs for regulations.  Over time, the regulations should be reconsidered and subjected to cost analysis.  Those who do not help an economy or nation must be cut back.  To demand a 100% safe society should be considered a sign of insanity, not altruism or noble goals.  The world will never be 100% safe from risk, and those who demand it need to be refused power.


----------



## Valerie

Stephanie said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> 
> These losers are scary but not for the reasons you think.
> 
> First of all this is being organized, funded and paid for by several different leftwing organizations.  People involved in that have been interviewed on tv so let's not pretend this is any kind of "grass roots" bullshit.
> 
> This is mob mentality and nothing less.[...]
> 
> 
> 
> (Excerpt)
> 
> _An inchoate, seemingly rudderless administration coupled with a sinking economy and civil unrest is a recipe for an anarchical response.  Weakness, vacillation and erosion of institutional authority are an invitation to anarchical thuggery, which looks like *welcome strength* when compared to feebleness and arbitrariness.
> 
> It should be no surprise, then, that the Occupy Wall Street uprisings are happening.  After all, such mob uprisings have historical precedent.  Anarchy followed by tyranny occurs whenever weakness and a power vacuum, perceived or real, exists._
> 
> (Close)
> 
> Read more here:  Articles: The American Revolution of 2012
> 
> Basically the writer is saying this could have been prevented if Obama had done what he led us to believe he would do, beginning with investigations and prosecutions of those Wall Street elements which are responsible for the collapse of our economy (see the video, _Inside Job_).  The problem is Obama is a Wall Street puppet.  Wall Street sponsored him and Wall Street owns him.
> 
> But Wall Street does not own the Mob.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then HOW COME the Ows aren't calling for the prosecution of the OBAMA if he is a puppet of wall street?
> The only puppets I see are the dummies OCCUPYING some imaginary boogyman.
Click to expand...





Yep, while the OWS crowd does their Millionaire March to protest the expiration of an extra 2% tax on millionaires, I wonder who among them actually realizes that it was a Democrat who lead that decision to let the tax expire........  




> January 4, 2011
> 
> 
> Read my lips: No new taxes -- and that includes levies on wealthy New Yorkers, Gov. Cuomo vowed yesterday.
> 
> Cuomo said he was against extending a "temporary" income-tax surcharge imposed on high-income earners in 2009 and set to expire at the end of 2011, despite having to close a massive $10 billion budget gap.
> 
> Cuomo indicated that renewing the surcharge would amount to a tax hike, which would violate his campaign pledge not to boost taxes.
> 
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/let_millionaire_tax_die_out_cuomo_VEe6iLvafTp2hL2ZG9IFLP














> January 4, 2011
> 
> A coalition of union leaders and others dependent on government largesse are already running radio ads that say wealthy Wall Streeters must also pitch in to solve the budget crisis.
> 
> United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew said extending the tax surcharge on the wealthy has to be considered. Trying to solve the $10 billion budget gap solely through spending reductions would lead to a "catastrophic budget" akin to the city's 1975 fiscal crisis that fueled massive layoffs of teachers, cops and firefighters, and eliminated school programs and delayed crucial bridge maintenance, he said.
> 
> The tax surcharge increases the state income tax to 7.85 percent for a single taxpayer earning between $200,000 and $500,000. The tax rate jumps to 8.97 percent for taxpayers making more than $500,000.
> 
> If the surcharge lapses as scheduled, the top tax rate drops to 6.85 percent.




hmmm


----------



## Dragon

Valerie said:


> Yep, while the OWS crowd does their Millionaire March to protest the expiration of an extra 2% tax on millionaires, I wonder who among them actually realizes that it was a Democrat who lead that decision to let the tax expire........



The fact that you ask that question tells me you have no clue what the movement is about, since you don't understand that skepticism towards the Democratic Party is very much central to it. (The Republicans are regarded as a lost cause, the Democrats as a travesty.)

Here, this article may help.

Can OWS be turned into a Democratic Party movement? - Salon.com


----------



## Liability

Dragon said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, while the OWS crowd does their Millionaire March to protest the expiration of an extra 2% tax on millionaires, I wonder who among them actually realizes that it was a Democrat who lead that decision to let the tax expire........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you ask that question tells me you have no clue what the movement is about, since you don't understand that skepticism towards the Democratic Party is very much central to it. (The Republicans are regarded as a lost cause, the Democrats as a travesty.)
> 
> Here, this article may help.
> 
> Can OWS be turned into a Democratic Party movement? - Salon.com
Click to expand...


Horse shit.

NOBODY -- least of all the goobers participating IN the Occupy Wall Street charade -- has the first fucking clue as to what the movement is about.

A bunch of rag tag misty-eyed hippy wannabes aimlessly wander and mill about protesting corporate "greed."  

Ok.  Now we're on to something.  These ass clowns are against GREED!

And?  We know what they don't like.  We know the thing about which they take urgent exception.

What exactly are the SEEKING?

Could it be anything less amorphous than "let us eradicate 'greed?'"

Sadly, the answer appears to be "no."  It is bound to remain JUST that amorphous.

Let's paint a sign.  Let's march around in a circle.  And when we aren't making a mess and in dire need of a bath, we can chant "DOWN with GREED!"

What a wonderful movement.

Oh crap.  They musta misunderstood.  That idiot musta thought it was a *bowel movement* they were seeking.

Next up:  truthmangler can start a poll question thread:  "Greed!  For it or against it?"


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> The fact that you ask that question tells me you have no clue what the movement is about,



No one has a clue what the movement is about; not her, not you, not the Shitters in the streets.

That's because the "Great Shitter Revolution of 2011" is about nothing. A gathering of morons demanding "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee." 



> since you don't understand that skepticism towards the Democratic Party is very much central to it. (The Republicans are regarded as a lost cause, the Democrats as a travesty.)



You Marxists might feel that way, but the SEIU goons sure the hell don't; they are Obama's Brown Shirts and are 100% loyal to the party. 

IF you Marxists every had control over this, you lost it when the Unions marched in. 



> Here, this article may help.
> 
> Can OWS be turned into a Democratic Party movement? - Salon.com



The democrats would be wise to run from the Shitter Revolution as fast as they can - I hope they don't. 

Think of the campaign ads; shot of Obama; cut to Shitter squatting in the street, back to Obama - this just WORKS!


----------



## Si modo

"The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much."  ~ Gordon Gekko


----------



## Dragon

Liability said:


> NOBODY -- least of all the goobers participating IN the Occupy Wall Street charade -- has the first fucking clue as to what the movement is about.



I do. If you weren't so mystified by partisan claptrap, you might, too.

The problem is that you're looking for simple statements that will fill a sound bite or fit on a bumper sticker. Something that requires a little more thought seems to be outside your normal scope.

What they want is to get the influence of corporate money out of politics, get government to serve the public interest instead of private profit, and as a result restore the middle class, narrow income gaps, and give ordinary people a decent chance at success.

That's perfectly comprehensible. You may disagree with them about some of it, but that doesn't mean they don't stand for anything. It just means you disagree with what they do stand for.

This is outside the party system, too. The Democrats are just about as bad as the Republicans, or nearly so, in terms of being corrupt and in service to Wall Street. So this is definitely NOT about electing Democrats next year. Probably most OWS participants will vote Democratic, but that's not going to be their main focus, as it was in 2008.

Now you can put a little effort into actually understanding this movement, or you can go on screaming at it so the sound of your own voice drowns out all information and saves you from the danger of learning anything. I know which way I'd bet, but maybe you'll surprise me.


----------



## Valerie

Dragon said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, while the OWS crowd does their Millionaire March to protest the expiration of an extra 2% tax on millionaires, I wonder who among them actually realizes that it was a Democrat who lead that decision to let the tax expire........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you ask that question tells me you have no clue what the movement is about, since you don't understand that skepticism towards the Democratic Party is very much central to it. (The Republicans are regarded as a lost cause, the Democrats as a travesty.)
> 
> Here, this article may help.
> 
> Can OWS be turned into a Democratic Party movement? - Salon.com
Click to expand...




I ask the question rhetorically to get people to think about the _real_ dynamics behind this "movement"... Seems to me a generation of young, naive, idealistic voters who had yet to reach puberty by 9/11/01, are now being manipulated into demonizing white collar workers in the financial sector... And then those among them who are anti-authority, anti-America, anarchy loons think they really have a "movement" here and are demonizing the police for doing their blue collar jobs, etc... It's really a big clusterfuck of contradictions!  


I haven't read your article yet, but I will...


----------



## Liability

Dragon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY -- least of all the goobers participating IN the Occupy Wall Street charade -- has the first fucking clue as to what the movement is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do. If you weren't so mystified by partisan claptrap, you might, too.
> 
> The problem is that you're looking for simple statements that will fill a sound bite or fit on a bumper sticker. Something that requires a little more thought seems to be outside your normal scope.
> 
> What they want is to get the influence of corporate money out of politics, get government to serve the public interest instead of private profit, and as a result restore the middle class, narrow income gaps, and give ordinary people a decent chance at success.
> 
> That's perfectly comprehensible. You may disagree with them about some of it, but that doesn't mean they don't stand for anything. It just means you disagree with what they do stand for.
> 
> This is outside the party system, too. The Democrats are just about as bad as the Republicans, or nearly so, in terms of being corrupt and in service to Wall Street. So this is definitely NOT about electing Democrats next year. Probably most OWS participants will vote Democratic, but that's not going to be their main focus, as it was in 2008.
> 
> Now you can put a little effort into actually understanding this movement, or you can go on screaming at it so the sound of your own voice drowns out all information and saves you from the danger of learning anything. I know which way I'd bet, but maybe you'll surprise me.
Click to expand...


Nope.  The "problem" is that you settle for mindless meaningless tripe in lieu of thoughtful political discourse.

You need to put a whole LOT of effort into understanding this silly "movement."

If you could manage that, you'd realize they are anti-"greed."

Bravo.  Good for them.  Jolly good.  I am too.    Greed sucks.

And their proposal for a solution consists of ---

Ah fuck.  That's where they go all silent, squishy and silly.

Go shit on a car.


----------



## Stephanie

Dragon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOBODY -- least of all the goobers participating IN the Occupy Wall Street charade -- has the first fucking clue as to what the movement is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do. If you weren't so mystified by partisan claptrap, you might, too.
> 
> The problem is that you're looking for simple statements that will fill a sound bite or fit on a bumper sticker. Something that requires a little more thought seems to be outside your normal scope.
> 
> What they want is to get the influence of corporate money out of politics, get government to serve the public interest instead of private profit, and as a result restore the middle class, narrow income gaps, and give ordinary people a decent chance at success.
> 
> That's perfectly comprehensible. You may disagree with them about some of it, but that doesn't mean they don't stand for anything. It just means you disagree with what they do stand for.
> 
> This is outside the party system, too. The Democrats are just about as bad as the Republicans, or nearly so, in terms of being corrupt and in service to Wall Street. So this is definitely NOT about electing Democrats next year. Probably most OWS participants will vote Democratic, but that's not going to be their main focus, as it was in 2008.
> 
> Now you can put a little effort into actually understanding this movement, or you can go on screaming at it so the sound of your own voice drowns out all information and saves you from the danger of learning anything. I know which way I'd bet, but maybe you'll surprise me.
Click to expand...


You all want that lovely Socialism, MOVE to a country that has it...YOU people in this Occupying 1/2%ers are A MINORTIY. that is why you all need to ADVERTISE for rent a mobs and will more than likely soon turn to violence..The people see through you..must suck to be you.


----------



## Dragon

Valerie said:


> I ask the question rhetorically to get people to think about the _real_ dynamics behind this "movement"... Seems to me a generation of young, naive, idealistic voters who had yet to reach puberty by 9/11/01, are now being manipulated into demonizing white collar workers in the financial sector...



Like I said, clueless. Not a single point above is even remotely true. Well, except for the word "idealistic," but even that's misleading.

The protesters were mostly born in the early 1980s, although many are older (up to in their 80s). Someone born in 1982 was 19 in 2001 -- definitely well past puberty.

Naive? They were naive in 2008. At this point they are the antithesis of naive.

Idealistic? To a point, but the loss of naivety tempers that nicely.

Manipulated? Nonsense.

Demonizing white collar workers in the financial sector? You're not paying attention at all.



> I haven't read your article yet, but I will...



Please do. It's a good cure for seeing this as a Democratic Party shill or something in Obama's pocket, which it's definitely not.


----------



## Valerie

Dragon said:


> I haven't read your article yet, but I will...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please do. It's a good cure for seeing this as a Democratic Party shill or something in Obama's pocket, which it's definitely not.
Click to expand...





I never said it was.  And fuck off, telling me I have no clue...


----------



## Valerie

I have a better idea, why don't you, Dragon, go parse that article yourself and show us right here in this thread _exactly _which part is SO compelling to your repeated point that I supposedly have no clue.



I'll wait.


----------



## Dragon

Valerie said:


> And fuck off, telling me I have no clue...



Would it be politer to say you don't know what you're talking about? In that case, I rephrase.


----------



## Valerie

Dragon said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And fuck off, telling me I have no clue...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be politer to say* you don't know what you're talking about*? In that case, I rephrase.
Click to expand...






Bullshit.  Try to clue me in, big shot, I'm waiting...


----------



## Liability

Dragon said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> 
> And fuck off, telling me I have no clue...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be politer to say you don't know what you're talking about? In that case, I rephrase.
Click to expand...


It would be better if you knew what you were talking about.

But, clearly, you don't have the first fucking clue.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> I do. If you weren't so mystified by partisan claptrap, you might, too.



No you don't - you know what YOUR objectives are. BUT, you Marxists are a tiny faction in the Shitter Revolution. Your objectives have nothing to do with the objectives of SEIU or the AFL/CIO nor with the morons thinking they'll get free tuition and can spend their lives as professional students. 



> The problem is that you're looking for simple statements that will fill a sound bite or fit on a bumper sticker. Something that requires a little more thought seems to be outside your normal scope.



What we want is rationality, which there is none of. 




> What they want is to get the influence of corporate money out of politics,



But how to do that and keep Union influence and money in politics. SCOTUS ruled that if monopoly unions can buy politicians, so can corporations. You aren't opposed to buying politicians, you just want to make sure that only your side can do it. 



> get government to serve the public interest instead of private profit,



Most of the Shitters have iPhones. Do you think the corporate sold and Chinese sweatshop made iPhone serves the public interest? 

Who had more of a positive impact on the lives of most people, billionaire and corporate mogul, who closed plants to offshore, who was renowned as a tyrant, Steve Jobs, or Mother Theresa? 

I have to go with the greedy corporate pig, Jobs. Most of your fellow Shitters were all a-Twitter when Jobs died, too fucking stupid they were to comprehend that he was the epitome of Wall Street and everything they protest against. Ah but Shitters, stupid fucks they are.



> and as a result restore the middle class,



Middle class? You mean the Bourgeoisie? Yeah, you Marxists are true friend of the Bourgeoisie....



> narrow income gaps, and give ordinary people a decent chance at success.



And how do the Shitters propose to do that?



> That's perfectly comprehensible. You may disagree with them about some of it, but that doesn't mean they don't stand for anything. It just means you disagree with what they do stand for.



It's a fantasy with no substance, even in your flaccid nonsense here, you've proposed absolutely nothing. 

You hate those who have more - what is your proposal?

You want more? What is your means of getting it?



> This is outside the party system, too. The Democrats are just about as bad as the Republicans, or nearly so, in terms of being corrupt and in service to Wall Street. So this is definitely NOT about electing Democrats next year. Probably most OWS participants will vote Democratic, but that's not going to be their main focus, as it was in 2008.



The good news is that most of the Shitters won't bother to vote. The damage you have done to the fascist democrats with this is huge, so you've handed the Republicans all three branches. Oh you don't grasp it, you think you're winning like Charlie Sheen, and you'll claim conspiracy when the fruits of your idiocy are ripe, next November..



> Now you can put a little effort into actually understanding this movement, or you can go on screaming at it so the sound of your own voice drowns out all information and saves you from the danger of learning anything. I know which way I'd bet, but maybe you'll surprise me.



I understand the Shitter Revolution completely; "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee."

It's all it has ever been or ever will be.


----------



## MikeK

Si modo said:


> Exactly.  It takes both hard work AND smart work, because that is what the market supports.


Could you be more specific about what you mean by "hard work AND smart work?"  Are you suggesting that only those who obtain graduate degrees in some currently demanded  field, such as nanotechnology, medicine or business administration will survive while the rest, the less ambitious and less scholastic, are kicked to the curb?  If so your vision of society is rather Orwellian.  

The reason why American colleges offer non-technical, non-business oriented, degree-level CVs is our economy has until recently been sufficiently healthy as to offer appropriate employment to educated persons including those whose interests lie outside the fields of medicine, technology, business and industry.  America is not China or India and we should not be willing to allow those who wish to transform our society into a two-class plutocracy.


----------



## Mr Natural

There was once a time in this country not too long ago when a person without extensive education, training, or skills could work at a job that actually afforded him a piece of the "American Dream".

That, sadly, is no longer the case.


----------



## earlycuyler

Mr Clean said:


> There was once a time in this country not too long ago when a person without extensive education, training, or skills could work at a job that actually afforded him a piece of the "American Dream".
> 
> That, sadly, is no longer the case.



I thought those where the jobs that Americans wouldn't do .


----------



## MikeK

CrusaderFrank said:


> I started on "Wall Street" (One Battery Park) and I tell you this OWS is beyond asinine, its asiten!
> 
> If these "patriotic millionaires" Want to pay more...feel free to write a check and shut the fuck up
> 
> The biggest joke is Buffett who has made a total ass clown of himself by shilling for Obama and not just about the tax disputes BRK has with the IRS. Do you know why the vast majority of BRK's acquisitions are structure as stock swaps? Take a guess!


It is obvious you haven't watched the, _*Inside Job*_, video.  Because if you had you would know what you're talking about and you (probably) wouldn't have the audacity to pronounce such nonsense as above.  The simple fact of the matter is the Wall Street schemers, scam artists, manipulators and fraud specialists are directly responsible for looting our economy and disassembling the middle class.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mr Clean said:


> There was once a time in this country not too long ago when a person without extensive education, training, or skills could work at a job that actually afforded him a piece of the "American Dream".
> 
> That, sadly, is no longer the case.



Yep, no one without advanced college degrees could achieve what Steve Jobs did....


----------



## MikeK

earlycuyler said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was once a time in this country not too long ago when a person without extensive education, training, or skills could work at a job that actually afforded him a piece of the "American Dream".
> 
> That, sadly, is no longer the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought those where the jobs that Americans wouldn't do .
Click to expand...

My son-in-law started working for UPS sorting packages on the night shift.  He went from that to loading trucks, then route driving.  Now he drives a trailer on night airport runs.  He earns as much as I ever did and I have a university education.  That's the way America used to be and it's the way it should be and would be now were it not for the Wall Street scheming and government corruption which has sold America out, undermined our economy and disassembled the hard-won middle class that our parents and grandparents fought so hard to build.


----------



## Uncensored2008

MikeK said:


> My son-in-law started working for UPS sorting packages on the night shift.  He went from that to loading trucks, then route driving.  Now he drives a trailer on night airport runs.  He earns as much as I ever did and I have a university education.  That's the way America used to be and it's the way it should be and would be now were it not for the Wall Street scheming and government corruption which has sold America out, undermined our economy and disassembled the hard-won middle class that our parents and grandparents fought so hard to build.



Ayup, a job a trained squirrel could do should pay just as much as an advanced degree does.

Y'all leftists sure value education....


----------



## flacaltenn

MikeK said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  It takes both hard work AND smart work, because that is what the market supports.
> 
> 
> 
> Could you be more specific about what you mean by "hard work AND smart work?"  Are you suggesting that only those who obtain graduate degrees in some currently demanded  field, such as nanotechnology, medicine or business administration will survive while the rest, the less ambitious and less scholastic, are kicked to the curb?  If so your vision of society is rather Orwellian.
> 
> The reason why American colleges offer non-technical, non-business oriented, degree-level CVs is our economy has until recently been sufficiently healthy as to offer appropriate employment to educated persons including those whose interests lie outside the fields of medicine, technology, business and industry.  America is not China or India and we should not be willing to allow those who wish to transform our society into a two-class plutocracy.
Click to expand...


You don't have a clue do you?  Do you need to be a rocket scientist to build jet engines? No.. But it takes SEVERAL maybe HUNDREDS of people with those skills that you were demeaning as a "class" to START AND RUN a jet engine biz. In the same way -- the ONLY way this country maintains a standard of living is to PROMOTE exactly those skill sets that you mentioned. Nanotech, BioTech, Artificial Intelliengence, Robotics, Medical products, ect. The skill set of American workers DOES need to get a boost. But that doesn't mean a "2-class" system. Only a dedicated Marxist would think that way.


----------



## Trajan

Mr Clean said:


> There was once a time in this country not too long ago when a person without extensive education, training, or skills could work at a job that actually afforded him a piece of the "American Dream".
> 
> That, sadly, is no longer the case.



called a plumber lately? Or an electrician? please huh.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Trajan said:


> called a plumber lately? Or an electrician? please huh.



Plumbing takes knowledge and skill.

Driving a UPS truck takes, well, a pulse....


----------



## Preius

Tipsycatlover said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point being missed here is that just like the American Revolution, change only comes when the wealthy want it.  The 1% has two factions, the greedy Wall Street types, and the Patriotic Millionaires.
> 
> *"Recently members of the group calling themselves &#8220;Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength&#8221; sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama, Harry Reid (Majority Leader in the U. S. Senate), and John Boehner (Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives). What made the letter notable was that it requested that &#8220;you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000&#8221;&#8212;the letter then being signed by a long list of millionaires."
> ​*​
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to Patriotic Millionaires a quiet group that knows how to twist arms in hardball politics.  â&#8364;&#339;Patriotic Millionairesâ&#8364; | Dissident Voice  The Republicans and the Tea Party are going to come out of this like Torries after the American Revolution - assimilate or leave.  The Democratic Party in my opinion will get slapped into the middle of next week.  The result will be an America that serves all legal CITIZENS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anything more stupid or idiotic than this?  Really.  Isn't this the HEIGHT of manipulation.
> 
> IF these millionaires are so serious about increasing taxes on the wealthy, you just have to ask if they take advantage of every loophole themselves?  Do they claim every deduction they are entitlted to.  How much is the separate check they write the Treasury Department every year.
> 
> They do none of that.  They are moved for some emotion that causes them to assuage their guilt at being wealthy by raising taxes on everyone else.  They will take advantage of every loophole, they will scour the accounting for deductions and no they won't write a separate check to the Treasury.
Click to expand...


I am no millionaire, but my income is six digits.  My instructions to my highly paid tax accountant are the same every year.  Get me as many deductions as I am entitled to, but don't get me audited.  From time to time I have actually taken a pass on a deduction because my tax guy would say something like, "We believe this year they are looking more closely at xyz type deductions.  Let's not push the envelope in that area."

You know when I read a post like yours, if I was a millionaire I'd say, "Why am I even bothering to try and help these morons.  Fu*k them.  When I look at the money Americans waste on RV's, chrome accessories for pick up trucks, or sporting events it is clear these idiots can not manage the money they have, "let them eat cake."






In the 1770s when Marie Antoinette was Queen of France, and was told the bread box for most French was empty, she said "Let them eat cake."  She was so out-of-touch with reality she believed everyone was like her.  If the bread box was empty, go to the cake box.  This remark increased hatred ofsKing Louis XVI and Marie.  Eventually, both were guillotined for ignoring the needs of the French people.  This is a story Wall Street millionaires would do well to remember.​


----------



## Dot Com




----------



## Uncensored2008

Preius said:


> I am no millionaire, but my income is six digits.



Made it big in gay porn, huh?




> My instructions to my highly paid tax accountant are the same every year.  Get me as many deductions as I am entitled to, but don't get me audited.  From time to time I have actually taken a pass on a deduction because my tax guy would say something like, "We believe this year they are looking more closely at xyz type deductions.  Let's not push the envelope in that area."
> 
> You know when I read a post like yours, if I was a millionaire I'd say, "Why am I even bothering to try and help these morons.  Fu*k them.  When I look at the money Americans waste on RV's, chrome accessories for pick up trucks, or sporting events it is clear these idiots can not manage the money they have, let them eat cake."



You are so very magnanimous...


----------



## Preius

I think a large number of people here would be surprised how many athletes and celebrities they support are millionaires.  Let's start with lefty commedian Bill Maher.  Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore are getting a divorce they will divide $289,000,000 between them.  Here is a short list of the ten richest athletes.  Woods leads Top 100 list of athletes - UPI.com 

The funny thing to me is the very people complaining about millionaire celebs are the ones who made them millionaires and celebs!  

Maybe the 99% are broke because they are stupid.  And, this comes from a moderate to liberal Democrat.  I support the 99% across the board.  But, who are they to knock those who have the talent to earn a million dollars?  Sure, I hate the breaks a hedge fund manager gets, and basically CEOs are nothing but overpaid PR people, but most of the 8.9 MILLION American millionaires earned their money because they offer something the rest of us are willing to pay for.  

If the day ever comes when I am a millionaire, I will do every legal thing to hang on to it, but I will also continue to financially support to liberal social causes.  If posters want to be rude to patriotic millionaires who support the 99%, those posters are fools.


----------



## Si modo

Preius said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point being missed here is that just like the American Revolution, change only comes when the wealthy want it.  The 1% has two factions, the greedy Wall Street types, and the Patriotic Millionaires.
> 
> *"Recently members of the group calling themselves &#8220;Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength&#8221; sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama, Harry Reid (Majority Leader in the U. S. Senate), and John Boehner (Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives). What made the letter notable was that it requested that &#8220;you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000&#8221;&#8212;the letter then being signed by a long list of millionaires."
> ​*​
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a link to Patriotic Millionaires a quiet group that knows how to twist arms in hardball politics.  â&#8364;&#339;Patriotic Millionairesâ&#8364; | Dissident Voice  The Republicans and the Tea Party are going to come out of this like Torries after the American Revolution - assimilate or leave.  The Democratic Party in my opinion will get slapped into the middle of next week.  The result will be an America that serves all legal CITIZENS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anything more stupid or idiotic than this?  Really.  Isn't this the HEIGHT of manipulation.
> 
> IF these millionaires are so serious about increasing taxes on the wealthy, you just have to ask if they take advantage of every loophole themselves?  Do they claim every deduction they are entitlted to.  How much is the separate check they write the Treasury Department every year.
> 
> They do none of that.  They are moved for some emotion that causes them to assuage their guilt at being wealthy by raising taxes on everyone else.  They will take advantage of every loophole, they will scour the accounting for deductions and no they won't write a separate check to the Treasury.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am no millionaire, but my income is six digits.  My instructions to my highly paid tax accountant are the same every year.  Get me as many deductions as I am entitled to, but don't get me audited.  From time to time I have actually taken a pass on a deduction because my tax guy would say something like, "We believe this year they are looking more closely at xyz type deductions.  Let's not push the envelope in that area."
> 
> You know when I read a post like yours, if I was a millionaire I'd say, "Why am I even bothering to try and help these morons.  Fu*k them.  When I look at the money Americans waste on RV's, chrome accessories for pick up trucks, or sporting events it is clear these idiots can not manage the money they have, "let them eat cake."
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

Yet another example of the authoritarian mentality of the radical left.  Who are you to judge what constitutes a waste of money?  If they prefer chrome bling for a truck over a case of $300/bottle wine, that is their call, not yours. 

I've no doubt their response to you would be just as much a 'fuck you', and it's not because you aren't giving them money; it would be for your meatless arrogance.



> ....
> In the 1770s when Marie Antoinette was Queen of France, and was told the bread box for most French was empty, she said "Let them eat cake."  She was so out-of-touch with reality she believed everyone was like her.  If the bread box was empty, go to the cake box.  This remark increased hatred ofsKing Louis XVI and Marie.  Eventually, both were guillotined for ignoring the needs of the French people.  This is a story Wall Street millionaires would do well to remember.[/CENTER]


Yet more hateful and violent rhetoric of the radical left.  When someone gets hurt we will blame all of the intentional hateful and violent talk of beheadings and guillotines of the left.


----------



## flacaltenn

Preius said:


> I think a large number of people here would be surprised how many athletes and celebrities they support are millionaires.  Let's start with lefty commedian Bill Maher.  Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore are getting a divorce they will divide $289,000,000 between them.  Here is a short list of the ten richest athletes.  Woods leads Top 100 list of athletes - UPI.com
> 
> The funny thing to me is the very people complaining about millionaire celebs are the ones who made them millionaires and celebs!
> 
> Maybe the 99% are broke because they are stupid.  And, this comes from a moderate to liberal Democrat.  I support the 99% across the board.  But, who are they to knock those who have the talent to earn a million dollars?  Sure, I hate the breaks a hedge fund manager gets, and basically CEOs are nothing but overpaid PR people, but most of the 8.9 MILLION American millionaires earned their money because they offer something the rest of us are willing to pay for.
> 
> If the day ever comes when I am a millionaire, I will do every legal thing to hang on to it, but I will also continue to financially support to liberal social causes.  If posters want to be rude to patriotic millionaires who support the 99%, those posters are fools.



CEOs are nothing but "overpaid PR people"?? That's why you get to blame them when the company tanks eh? Maybe take a look at the thread I started today about CEO compensation and why they are EXACTLY like high performance athletes and performers. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4259925-post1.html


And why not be rude to them? They are being rude to the 53% that pay for the party..


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVQm8bd0w_g&feature=feedu]Occupy Wall Street Hijacked? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Employedmale

The man interfered with my internet connection and my eloquent post was lost. Too bad I got better things to do with my time than rewrite it.

It must be the DEVILS eots.


----------



## Barb

Preius said:


> I think a large number of people here would be surprised how many athletes and celebrities they support are millionaires.  Let's start with lefty commedian Bill Maher.  Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore are getting a divorce they will divide $289,000,000 between them.  Here is a short list of the ten richest athletes.  Woods leads Top 100 list of athletes - UPI.com
> 
> The funny thing to me is the very people complaining about millionaire celebs are the ones who made them millionaires and celebs!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe the 99% are broke because they are stupid.  And, this comes from a moderate to liberal Democrat.  I support the 99% across the board.  But, who are they to knock those who have the talent to earn a million dollars?  Sure, I hate the breaks a hedge fund manager gets, and basically CEOs are nothing but overpaid PR people, but most of the 8.9 MILLION American millionaires earned their money because they offer something the rest of us are willing to pay for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the day ever comes when I am a millionaire, I will do every legal thing to hang on to it, but I will also continue to financially support to liberal social causes.  If posters want to be rude to patriotic millionaires who support the 99%, those posters are fools.
Click to expand...


Read this book:  [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Legal-Campaign-Benefit-Everybody/dp/1591840198]Amazon.com: Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else (9781591840190): David Cay Johnston: Books[/ame] 
and this one: [ame=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_7/185-4635544-9507025?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=screwed+the+undeclared+war+against+the+middle+class&sprefix=screwed]Amazon.com: screwed the undeclared war against the middle class: Books[/ame] 

most of our millionaires didn't get there by hard work and sacrifice.


----------



## Katzndogz

Marie Antoinette never said Let Them Eat Cake.  It's just another lie promoted by the left to illustrate aristocratic arrogance.  

Who said, "Let them eat cake"?

We're not entirely sure who said "Let them eat cake," but we can tell you that it wasn't Marie Antoinette. This flippant phrase about consuming pastry is commonly attributed to the frivolous queen in the days leading up to the French Revolution. Supposedly, she spoke these words upon hearing how the peasantry had no bread to eat. But biographers and historians have found no evidence that Marie uttered these words or anything like them. 
Our old pal Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope explains the quotation was first written by French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Confessions. Actually, Rousseau wrote "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche," which essentially means "let them eat a type of egg-based bread" (not quite cake, but still a bit extravagant). Rousseau claimed that "a great princess" told the peasants to eat cake/brioche when she heard they had no bread. 

But Rousseau wrote this in early 1766, when Marie Antoinette was only 10 years old, still living in her native Austria and not yet married to King Louis XVI. So it's highly unlikely that Marie uttered the pompous phrase. Perhaps Rousseau invented them to illustrate the divide between royalty and the poor -- which is certainly how the phrase has been used ever since.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Barb said:


> Read this book:  Amazon.com: Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else (9781591840190): David Cay Johnston: Books
> and this one: Amazon.com: screwed the undeclared war against the middle class: Books
> 
> most of our millionaires didn't get there by hard work and sacrifice.



Why waste time on derivative works? Here is the original that book and everything you believe is based on!

Manifesto of the Communist Party


----------



## Barb

Uncensored2008 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read this book:  Amazon.com: Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else (9781591840190): David Cay Johnston: Books
> and this one: Amazon.com: screwed the undeclared war against the middle class: Books
> 
> most of our millionaires didn't get there by hard work and sacrifice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why waste time on derivative works? Here is the original that book and everything you believe is based on!
> 
> Manifesto of the Communist Party
Click to expand...


"everything" I "believe" can be summed up in a simple phrase: All around a pigs ass is pork. 

Everything else requires closer inspection. 

Faith based policy, party, science, economics, and history is your bag, sparky.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Barb said:


> "everything" I "believe" can be summed up in a simple phrase: All around a pigs ass is pork.



You believe what the party tells you to believe. The party though, does operate from the document listed.



> Everything else requires closer inspection.



You have party bosses to do the "inspecting."



> Faith based policy, party, science, economics, and history is your bag, sparky.




Science, economics and history are indeed areas I am well versed in. As an agnostic, faith doesn't play a big part.

No, I didn't accept Obama as my personal lord and savior. I guess I'll be denied entry into the North Korean Millennial Kingdom he is preparing for you...


----------



## Uncensored2008

Gabe said:


> The Wall Street protesters are a bunch of babies who should a) get a job and b) go clean up their room in their mom's basement.



The Shitters? Maybe we could start by getting them to clean up their own feces?


----------



## flacaltenn

Barb:

Why would I want to read the same books that you did if you spout such ignorant crap like... 



> most of our millionaires didn't get there by hard work and sacrifice.



MOST ALL of our Millionaires are AUTHORS, SPORTS FIGURES, ENTERTAINERS, INVENTORS, and hard working business people.. The tiniest MINORITY of the rich live off of 2nd generation wealth. 
Screw your books -- they didn't do you any good..


----------



## KissMy

Reuters: Who's behind the Wall St. protests?



> who is financing the disparate protest, which has spread to cities across America and lasted nearly four weeks. One name that keeps coming up is investor George Soros, who in September debuted in the top 10 list of wealthiest Americans...
> 
> Reuters did find indirect financial links between Soros and Adbusters, an anti-capitalist group in Canada which started the protests with an inventive marketing campaign aimed at sparking an Arab Spring type uprising against Wall Street. Moreover, Soros and the protesters share some ideological ground.


----------



## Barb

Uncensored2008 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> "everything" I "believe" can be summed up in a simple phrase: All around a pigs ass is pork.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You believe what the party tells you to believe. The party though, does operate from the document listed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything else requires closer inspection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have party bosses to do the "inspecting."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faith based policy, party, science, economics, and history is your bag, sparky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Science, economics and history are indeed areas I am well versed in. As an agnostic, faith doesn't play a big part.
> 
> No, I didn't accept Obama as my personal lord and savior. I guess I'll be denied entry into the North Korean Millennial Kingdom he is preparing for you...
Click to expand...


Oddly enough, I never mentioned religion. I'm a heathen, myself, a deist. 

As for the areas you're "well versed" in: go ahead, baffle us with your bull...er, brilliance.


----------



## Barb

flacaltenn said:


> Barb:
> 
> Why would I want to read the same books that you did if you spout such ignorant crap like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most of our millionaires didn't get there by hard work and sacrifice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOST ALL of our Millionaires are AUTHORS, SPORTS FIGURES, ENTERTAINERS, INVENTORS, and hard working business people.. The tiniest MINORITY of the rich live off of 2nd generation wealth.
> Screw your books -- they didn't do you any good..
Click to expand...


Link please, and be sure to include ONLY those who weren't rich to begin with. The greatest of those with the most money were trust fund babies from jump.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

All I can say is this "movement" is not what most think it is. Look who are supporting it in the back. It's not about injustice but it's a hidden troganhorse to slavery.


----------



## Liability

bigrebnc1775 said:


> All I can say is this "movement" is not what most think it is. Look who are supporting it in the back. It's not about injustice but it's a hidden troganhorse to slavery.



Mr. Soros is really pissed that you'd say such a thing -- out loud.

I wonder how long before he has one of his hench puppets propose some new law to limit your ability to say such seditious stuff on the interwebz.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Barb said:


> Oddly enough, I never mentioned religion.



I see, so faith is not related to religion? 

Fact is, your prejudice required that you cast me as a "religious right wacko" so that you  could use the script that KOS has prepared.



> I'm a heathen, myself, a deist.



And you think you deserve a cookie for that?



> As for the areas you're "well versed" in: go ahead, baffle us with your bull...er, brilliance.



Indeed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Barb said:


> Link please, and be sure to include ONLY those who weren't rich to begin with. The greatest of those with the most money were trust fund babies from jump.



Are you really stupid enough to believe the bullshit you spew?

Hey Barb, how much of his fortune did billionaire Corporate CEO Steve Jobs inherit? How about Bill Gates? Andrew Grove? 

ROFL, the shit you leftists spew...


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link please, and be sure to include ONLY those who weren't rich to begin with. The greatest of those with the most money were trust fund babies from jump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really stupid enough to believe the bullshit you spew?
> 
> Hey Barb, how much of his fortune did billionaire Corporate CEO Steve Jobs inherit? How about Bill Gates? Andrew Grove?
> 
> ROFL, the shit you leftists spew...
Click to expand...


Funny you don't mention the Rockefellers, Fords, Astors, etc.  Don't fit your agenda, Adolf?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is this "movement" is not what most think it is. Look who are supporting it in the back. It's not about injustice but it's a hidden troganhorse to slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Soros is really pissed that you'd say such a thing -- out loud.
> 
> I wonder how long before he has one of his hench puppets propose some new law to limit your ability to say such seditious stuff on the interwebz.
Click to expand...


You can shut the web down but it will never shut me up.


----------



## Liability

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I can say is this "movement" is not what most think it is. Look who are supporting it in the back. It's not about injustice but it's a hidden troganhorse to slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Soros is really pissed that you'd say such a thing -- out loud.
> 
> I wonder how long before he has one of his hench puppets propose some new law to limit your ability to say such seditious stuff on the interwebz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can shut the web down but it will never shut me up.
Click to expand...


That's what the SEIU type thugs are for.


----------



## Barb

Uncensored2008 said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly enough, I never mentioned religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so faith is not related to religion?
> 
> Fact is, your prejudice required that you cast me as a "religious right wacko" so that you  could use the script that KOS has prepared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a heathen, myself, a deist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think you deserve a cookie for that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for the areas you're "well versed" in: go ahead, baffle us with your bull...er, brilliance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed.
Click to expand...


You think "faith" is a thing ONLY invested in religion? You prove every day that it is not. People have or express "faith" in many false profits, hoping for a return on their faith from some hefty and prominent prophets. For all the clay feet involved, if you're a multinational corporation, that "faith" is pretty well placed. Graduated tithing seems to be a solid investment.
Democracy it aint, but you don't give a fuck anyways, do you?


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> Funny you don't mention the Rockefellers, Fords, Astors, etc.  Don't fit your agenda, Adolf?



There are a thousand who earned their fortune for every one of these - if you don't know this, you probably voted for Obama.

Standard Disclaimer: That means you're fucking stupid, the "voted for Obama" part. Figured I better explain that, for those who voted for Obama.....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Barb said:


> You think "faith" is a thing ONLY invested in religion?



Is that what I said?

You really think that a Straw Man will lead you to victory, huh?



> You prove every day that it is not. People have or express "faith" in many false profits, hoping for a return on their faith from some hefty and prominent prophets.



You mean like Barry the great tin Messiah®? That sort of "prophet?"



> For all the clay feet involved, if you're a multinational corporation, that "faith" is pretty well placed. Graduated tithing seems to be a solid investment.



The 60's were your golden age, weren't they?



> Democracy it aint, but you don't give a fuck anyways, do you?



Ah democracy, the dream of the left: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch....


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Members of The Forbes 400 who are entirely self-made: 274

Members of The Forbes 400 who inherited their entire fortune: 74


----------



## flacaltenn

Barb said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barb:
> 
> Why would I want to read the same books that you did if you spout such ignorant crap like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most of our millionaires didn't get there by hard work and sacrifice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MOST ALL of our Millionaires are AUTHORS, SPORTS FIGURES, ENTERTAINERS, INVENTORS, and hard working business people.. The tiniest MINORITY of the rich live off of 2nd generation wealth.
> Screw your books -- they didn't do you any good..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link please, and be sure to include ONLY those who weren't rich to begin with. The greatest of those with the most money were trust fund babies from jump.
Click to expand...


You're waffling here with a phrase like --"The GREATEST of those with the MOST MONEY... "

That's not what I corrected you on.. You said "MOST of our Millionaires didn't get their by hard work".. *That is BLATANTLY false and doesn't require a link.* 

There's a big diff between between the VOLUME of millionaires and the small elite percentile at the TOP of that bracket which neither You or I should spend our lives sweating about. There are 100s of Thousands of Millionaires. You're worried about 400 people who are 2nd/3rd generation wealth. And even THOSE have a high percentage who are STILL earning it..


----------



## Barb

flacaltenn said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Barb:
> 
> Why would I want to read the same books that you did if you spout such ignorant crap like...
> 
> 
> 
> MOST ALL of our Millionaires are AUTHORS, SPORTS FIGURES, ENTERTAINERS, INVENTORS, and hard working business people.. The tiniest MINORITY of the rich live off of 2nd generation wealth.
> Screw your books -- they didn't do you any good..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link please, and be sure to include ONLY those who weren't rich to begin with. The greatest of those with the most money were trust fund babies from jump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're waffling here with a phrase like --"The GREATEST of those with the MOST MONEY... "
> 
> That's not what I corrected you on.. You said "MOST of our Millionaires didn't get their by hard work".. *That is BLATANTLY false and doesn't require a link.*
> 
> There's a big diff between between the VOLUME of millionaires and the small elite percentile at the TOP of that bracket which neither You or I should spend our lives sweating about. There are 100s of Thousands of Millionaires. You're worried about 400 people who are 2nd/3rd generation wealth. And even THOSE have a high percentage who are STILL earning it..
Click to expand...


The top 1% are living tax free while the rest of us pay their freight. We ALL pay more taxes to support them, with less to invest to grow our own wealth because of the tax burden created by their special and untouchable status. 

Needs based welfare comprises the tiniest portion of our budget, and people scream about that as if the needy took their favorite blanket, and what any of it actually pays for would make  even the hardest of you cringe in shame. 

Assuming you had any shame.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Barb said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link please, and be sure to include ONLY those who weren't rich to begin with. The greatest of those with the most money were trust fund babies from jump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're waffling here with a phrase like --"The GREATEST of those with the MOST MONEY... "
> 
> That's not what I corrected you on.. You said "MOST of our Millionaires didn't get their by hard work".. *That is BLATANTLY false and doesn't require a link.*
> 
> There's a big diff between between the VOLUME of millionaires and the small elite percentile at the TOP of that bracket which neither You or I should spend our lives sweating about. There are 100s of Thousands of Millionaires. You're worried about 400 people who are 2nd/3rd generation wealth. And even THOSE have a high percentage who are STILL earning it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The top 1% are living tax free while the rest of us pay their freight. We ALL pay more taxes to support them, with less to invest to grow our own wealth because of the tax burden created by their special and untouchable status.
> 
> Needs based welfare comprises the tiniest portion of our budget, and people scream about that as if the needy took their favorite blanket, and what any of it actually pays for would make  even the hardest of you cringe in shame.
> 
> Assuming you had any shame.
Click to expand...


Can you be any stupider?

Is everyone on the Left: TM, Deany Barb, really THIS stupid?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Soros is really pissed that you'd say such a thing -- out loud.
> 
> I wonder how long before he has one of his hench puppets propose some new law to limit your ability to say such seditious stuff on the interwebz.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can shut the web down but it will never shut me up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what the SEIU type thugs are for.
Click to expand...


I butted heads with some of those pussies they ran like a scared rabbit.


----------



## Liability

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can shut the web down but it will never shut me up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the SEIU type thugs are for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I butted heads with some of those pussies they ran like a scared rabbit.
Click to expand...


Well, that's a good thing.


----------



## flacaltenn

Barb said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link please, and be sure to include ONLY those who weren't rich to begin with. The greatest of those with the most money were trust fund babies from jump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're waffling here with a phrase like --"The GREATEST of those with the MOST MONEY... "
> 
> That's not what I corrected you on.. You said "MOST of our Millionaires didn't get their by hard work".. *That is BLATANTLY false and doesn't require a link.*
> 
> There's a big diff between between the VOLUME of millionaires and the small elite percentile at the TOP of that bracket which neither You or I should spend our lives sweating about. There are 100s of Thousands of Millionaires. You're worried about 400 people who are 2nd/3rd generation wealth. And even THOSE have a high percentage who are STILL earning it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The top 1% are living tax free while the rest of us pay their freight. We ALL pay more taxes to support them, with less to invest to grow our own wealth because of the tax burden created by their special and untouchable status.
> 
> Needs based welfare comprises the tiniest portion of our budget, and people scream about that as if the needy took their favorite blanket, and what any of it actually pays for would make  even the hardest of you cringe in shame.
> 
> Assuming you had any shame.
Click to expand...


Uh barb: You're not goin' anywhere with those assertions. It defies common sense. 

Here's your problem. For the 53% who DO pay the freight, On April 15th, we see our money going to 3 wars, car companies we think stink, education programs that don't educate, energy programs that don't generate energy, stimuli that doesn't stimulate, an growing army of bureaucratic meddlers who meddle and politicians who can't write legislation. We DON'T see those US Treasury checks going to the 400 Billionaires that you are psychotically fixated on.. 

Now don't you think our time would be better spent AGREEING on ending corporate welfare, ending the abuse of the Soc Sec funding, reforming education, and getting capital to flow towards a 21st Century reconstruction of the American economy? 

Or would you rather continue to toss in with the ill-informed rabble on the streets demanding that we just divvy up what's left?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Liability said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the SEIU type thugs are for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I butted heads with some of those pussies they ran like a scared rabbit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that's a good thing.
Click to expand...


It was for me at least.In your signature cain is able? You do realize cain killed able?


----------



## flacaltenn

konradv said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link please, and be sure to include ONLY those who weren't rich to begin with. The greatest of those with the most money were trust fund babies from jump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really stupid enough to believe the bullshit you spew?
> 
> Hey Barb, how much of his fortune did billionaire Corporate CEO Steve Jobs inherit? How about Bill Gates? Andrew Grove?
> 
> ROFL, the shit you leftists spew...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny you don't mention the Rockefellers, Fords, Astors, etc.  Don't fit your agenda, Adolf?
Click to expand...


Back in the mid 90s there was a Progressive Socialist org that used to take the Forbes 400 list of the richest and break it down into those who started life at "1st base", 2nd base, or Home plate. Even then -- the results often contradicted their socialist claims of "entrenched multi-generational wealth".. They STOPPED doing that detailed analysis -- which is telling in itself -- and instead went back to anectodal horror stories of inherited wealth. 

I doubt the link is still good. But the analysis could be reconfirmed. 

http://www.ufenet.org/press/archive/forbes_400_study.html



> SUMMARY OF RESULTS
> We examined both 1995 and recently released information about the 1996
> Forbes list. The average of 1995 and 1996 results indicate that:
> 
> 30.1% Started in the Batters Box -- includes individuals and
> families whose parents did not have great wealth or own a business
> with more than a few employees.
> 
> 13.9% Born on First Base -- includes individuals whose
> biographies showed signs of a wealthy or upper class background,
> but did not apparently have assets of more than $1 million.
> 
> 5.75% Born on Second Base -- members inherited a small
> company or wealth worth more than $1 million, but less than $50
> million.
> 
> 6.85% Born on Third Base -- includes people who inherited
> substantial wealth, in excess of $50 million, but not enough to
> qualify for membership in the Forbes 400.
> 
> 43.35% Born on Home Plate -- includes those who inherited
> sufficient wealth to rank among Forbes 400.
> 
> 
> Between 1995 and 1996, the net worth of the Forbes 400 increased from
> just over $500 billion to just under $593 billion -- a gain in net worth of 18
> percent. There was a 38% increase in the number of billionaires.
> 
> EXAMPLES
> 
> Batters Box H. Ross Perot was son of a horse trader and born into a
> comfortable but by no means affluent family.
> Wayne Huizenga got his start by buying a garbage truck and starting a
> waste-hauling company. He took over the 19-store Blockbuster video-rental
> chain and built it into an industry leader.
> 
> First Base Bill Gates' parents were comfortable professionals and he went
> to Harvard University, but quit for better prospects. He got a head start in
> life, but the success of his venture did not depend on substantial family
> money or assets.
> Forest Mars, Sr. took over a small European candy business from his
> parents and invented the Milky Way bar.
> 
> Second Base Donald Tyson inherited a small company, Tyson Foods,
> from his father in 1967 but then built it up into a substantial business.
> Poultry magnate Frank Perdue inherited his father's egg farm and hatched
> millions in chickens.
> 
> Third Base Kenneth Feld inherited Ringling Brothers Circus in 1982 when
> it was worth tens of millions but took it to the big top.
> Edward Crosby Johnson III inherited Fidelity Investments from his father
> but was involved in growing it into the "pace car" of the mutual fund
> industry.
> 
> Home Plate J. Paul Getty, Jr. inherited the oil fortune from his father.
> David Rockefeller is the great grandson of Standard Oil founder John D.
> Rockefeller.



In other words -- out of the 400 or so people that all this fuss is about -- 44% of them started out in life with NO appreciable wealth or help. *A virtual tribute to the mobility of wealth in this country when almost half of the richest came by wealth by THEIR EFFORTS. *
And yet the left think that the 100 or 120 of these that didn't are the LARGEST economic  THREAT to the rest of Americans. That's BullShit.. So stuff it and start helping fix the REAL problems..


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> Here's your problem. For the 53% who DO pay the freight



This is a a lie.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's your problem. For the 53% who DO pay the freight
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a a lie.
Click to expand...


Look Dragon -- I was beefing about the unfair THEFT of FICA wages from the working poor for YEARS... It was incredibly cruel to turn what should have been "insurance premiums" into a regressive tax into the general fund. 

*BUT --- FICA taxes ARE insurance premiums. They are SUPPOSED to be UNIVERSAL. And local taxes go predominantly to PUBLIC UNIVERSAL education.* Go bitch and moan about the meaning of UNIVERSAL -- but as far as funding the Fed General Fund -- it IS ONLY about 1/2 of taxfilers that contribute anything.


----------



## Liability

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I butted heads with some of those pussies they ran like a scared rabbit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that's a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was for me at least.In your signature cain is able? You do realize cain killed able?
Click to expand...


Yeah.   I do realize that.  I don't care, though.  It's just a little pun.

Nothing to get worked up over.


----------



## Dragon

All of this discussion about whether the very rich inherited their money or worked for it, and whether they pay any taxes or not, is skewing off on tangents that aren't really relevant.

Most very rich people worked quite hard to get there; definitely NOT in proportion to how much people who make much less work so as to justify their wealth on that basis -- there aren't enough hours in a day for that -- but most did not inherit it all. But so what?

The point of this protest has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that:

1) Wall Street, corporate America, and the rich and powerful have excessive influence over the government that undermines democracy and makes the government serve private greed instead of the public interest.

2) Because of this, the rules of the economic game are set so as to concentrate wealth increasingly over time in a few hands, leaving everyone else with harder and harder circumstances.

The fact that you cannot become one of those few people who are the big winners in such a system by sitting around on your ass is not relevant to that in any way.


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> BUT --- FICA taxes ARE insurance premiums. They are SUPPOSED to be UNIVERSAL.



In reality, FICA taxes go to pay current Social Security benefits for current beneficiaries. They are not insurance premiums for one simple reason: you can cancel your insurance policy and avoid paying the premiums. You must, by law, pay Social Security taxes.

They are taxes. To discount them and claim on that basis that 53% of taxpayers pay the load for the other 47% who are lazy moochers is a lie.

EDIT: Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing FICA taxes abolished, income taxes raised to compensate, and Social Security be paid out of general funds with equal benefits for everyone. Then, if people who don't pay income taxes now still didn't pay them, you could bitch about that. As it is, stuff it.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> All of this discussion about whether the very rich inherited their money or worked for it, and whether they pay any taxes or not, is skewing off on tangents that aren't really relevant.
> 
> Most very rich people worked quite hard to get there; definitely NOT in proportion to how much people who make much less work so as to justify their wealth on that basis -- there aren't enough hours in a day for that -- but most did not inherit it all. But so what?
> 
> The point of this protest has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that:
> 
> 1) Wall Street, corporate America, and the rich and powerful have excessive influence over the government that undermines democracy and makes the government serve private greed instead of the public interest.
> 
> 2) Because of this, the rules of the economic game are set so as to concentrate wealth increasingly over time in a few hands, leaving everyone else with harder and harder circumstances.
> 
> The fact that you cannot become one of those few people who are the big winners in such a system by sitting around on your ass is not relevant to that in any way.



Some truth to #1 --- but you still have cause and effect bass-ackwards.. 

#2 is just plain wrong. Because their success is in no way affecting YOUR chances of success. The pie grows ever larger with the GDP. And because our GDP is STALLED, (possibly on purpose since that's a stated goal of the leftists who see growth as "unsustainable, and hurtful to the earth") -- the deflation of the economy is more apparent at the bottom. Nobody NEEDS to aspire to the FOrbes 400. I'll agree to that. Just like nobody really needs to fret all day and march in the streets about it..


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> BUT --- FICA taxes ARE insurance premiums. They are SUPPOSED to be UNIVERSAL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reality, FICA taxes go to pay current Social Security benefits for current beneficiaries. They are not insurance premiums for one simple reason: you can cancel your insurance policy and avoid paying the premiums. You must, by law, pay Social Security taxes.
> 
> They are taxes. To discount them and claim on that basis that 53% of taxpayers pay the load for the other 47% who are lazy moochers is a lie.
> 
> EDIT: Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing FICA taxes abolished, income taxes raised to compensate, and Social Security be paid out of general funds with equal benefits for everyone. Then, if people who don't pay income taxes now still didn't pay them, you could bitch about that. As it is, stuff it.
Click to expand...


There's an army of bureaucratics at the SSA who are cooking the Trust FUnd books that would disagree with you. And FDR would WHACK YOU Up the side of your head with his walker for that.  

I don't want to see Soc Sec turned into just another entitlement program to be plucked. I want the program to be as FDR conceived it. I'd rather end it then merge it's funding. 

And you do too -- because you don't realize the damage that does to crys for NEW UNIVERSAL programs that are for "EVERYONE". People won't buy the UNIVERSAL shit if you bury the accounting for SS and Medicare premiums..


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> Some truth to #1 --- but you still have cause and effect bass-ackwards..



I don't think so, although I'm not entirely sure what you're saying here. There's a libertarian argument that goes that we should stop giving the government power over the economy, because then there would be no motivation for the rich and powerful to corrupt it. But that's wrong. If the government didn't exercise power over the economy, the rich and powerful would want to corrupt it so that it would begin exercising that power on their behalf.

If you meant something else besides that standard libertarian argument, please explain.



> #2 is just plain wrong. Because their success is in no way affecting YOUR chances of success. The pie grows ever larger with the GDP



GDP grows faster with a more egalitarian division of wealth. So most of us end up with a smaller piece of a smaller pie, not a smaller piece of a bigger one.

It's not a case of their success affecting my chance of success, but of the same rules that make their success so overwhelming also making my chance of success less. The two go together. Government policies that make it harder to form a labor union, encourage outsourcing, and encourage investment in financial shell games rather than job-creating enterprises, all work to keep wages down, making it harder to achieve a decent living by working at a job. Those same policies reduce business costs and so increase business profit margins. The net effect is to tilt the board so that more of the income goes to the very rich, less to everyone else.

We produce wealth together, collectively, and then divide it up according to a set of rules which are largely set by the government. It's common among conservatives to depict the economic contest as a race, when it's more like a battle.


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> There's an army of bureaucratics at the SSA who are cooking the Trust FUnd books that would disagree with you. And FDR would WHACK YOU Up the side of your head with his walker for that.



Yeah, he would -- except he's dead. (Did he ever have a walker? I thought it was a wheelchair.)

Setting aside whether his political reasons for doing it that way are still sound, though, the point is that since it's an involuntary program, the funds taken from people to pay for it must be called taxes. And that means that those 47% of the people that this false right-wing meme says pay no taxes, DO pay taxes. They're not paying _their_ Social Security expenses -- they're paying my mother's.

And since they're paying my mother's Social Security benefits, it's totally wrong-headed to suggest that richer people are carrying them while they coast.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> This is a a lie.



Dragon, what contribution do you see the Shitters making to society?

Honestly? They don't work, they don't have a coherent message, they aren't effecting any change. What the hell are they good for? Their little "Woodstock" shit-in has no positive affect.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon, what contribution do you see [Occupy Wall Street] making to society?
> 
> Honestly? They don't work, they don't have a coherent message, they aren't effecting any change.
Click to expand...


Many of them do work, they do have a coherent message (I just restated it above), and they most certainly will effect change.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> All of this discussion about whether the very rich inherited their money or worked for it, and whether they pay any taxes or not, is skewing off on tangents that aren't really relevant.
> 
> Most very rich people worked quite hard to get there; definitely NOT in proportion to how much people who make much less work so as to justify their wealth on that basis -- there aren't enough hours in a day for that -- but most did not inherit it all. But so what?
> 
> The point of this protest has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that:
> 
> 1) Wall Street, corporate America, and the rich and powerful have excessive influence over the government that undermines democracy and makes the government serve private greed instead of the public interest.



Dragon;

Let's say that what you claim is 100% true and accurate.

What has the shit-in done to alter the influence that the rich and powerful have? Isn't Nancy Pelosi, one of the richest people in the nation, still the leader of the fascist democratic party in the house? What have the Shitters done or said to oppose the plutocracy represented by multi-millionaires Pelosi, Reid and Obama?

Show me anything from the Shitters demanding that the wealthy elite, like Barack Obama, recuse themselves from government?

Isn't it a fact that your statement is a hypocritical fraud, and that the left in general, the Shitters in particular, are more about partisanship and don't actually oppose plutocracy? 



> 2) Because of this, the rules of the economic game are set so as to concentrate wealth increasingly over time in a few hands, leaving everyone else with harder and harder circumstances.



I've challenged you repeatedly to substantiate your claim (lie) that people actually ARE in harder circumstances than 1980, or particularly 1960.

You have ducked and weaseled every time. 

Isn't a fact that you and the Shitter movement promote a deliberately dishonest message to further a radical left agenda?



> The fact that you cannot become one of those few people who are the big winners in such a system by sitting around on your ass is not relevant to that in any way.



Does the fact that you cannot shoot baskets like Kobe Bryant mean that Basketball should be outlawed?

Is your envy and jealousy sufficient to destroy a functional society?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Many of them do work,



You can't spend a month at a shit-in and hold a job. 



> they do have a coherent message



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA

No, the Shitters most certainly do not.



> (I just restated it above),



No, you stated YOUR views, not those of the Shitter movement.

BIG difference.



> and they most certainly will effect change.



Only the ensuring of Obama's defeat.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> Let's say that what you claim is 100% true and accurate.
> 
> What has [Occupy Wall Street] done to alter the influence that the rich and powerful have?



Made it part of the current public dialog, and prevented the subject from getting swept under the table.



> I've challenged you repeatedly to substantiate your claim (lie) that people actually ARE in harder circumstances than 1980, or particularly 1960.



No you haven't. This is the first time you've done that.

That real wage have dropped over the past thirty years is an established fact. When you also include the fact that health-care costs have risen dramatically, as has the cost of a college education, the situation looks even worse. This is not even seriously disputed, and I've presented links elsewhere showing that it is true.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post because it consists of empty-rhetoric cheap shots and general garbage.

EDIT: As was the entirety of your last post.

I generally don't bother with people who only want to spew bile and venom instead of thinking.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's an army of bureaucratics at the SSA who are cooking the Trust FUnd books that would disagree with you. And FDR would WHACK YOU Up the side of your head with his walker for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, he would -- except he's dead. (Did he ever have a walker? I thought it was a wheelchair.)
> 
> Setting aside whether his political reasons for doing it that way are still sound, though, the point is that since it's an involuntary program, the funds taken from people to pay for it must be called taxes. And that means that those 47% of the people that this false right-wing meme says pay no taxes, DO pay taxes. They're not paying _their_ Social Security expenses -- they're paying my mother's.
> 
> And since they're paying my mother's Social Security benefits, it's totally wrong-headed to suggest that richer people are carrying them while they coast.
Click to expand...


Everything you said applies to INSURANCE programs. You are paying other folks bills now, so that yours will covered in the future. In fact --- now that premiums are below payments in 2010 -- current workers are paying for TODAYS retirees PLUS repaying the interest and STOLEN FICA EXCESS that they PREVIOUSLY paid in. Not saying that ANYBODY is coasting here. That's the point of UNIVERSAL. It's supposed to be a worker funded program. *In reality the BENEFITS are truly progressive not regressive *because everytime the cap is raised, the benefit to the middle and upper workers is reduced.

You cannot adequately do fiducial management of these programs by untying their contributions from Payroll taxes. That's EXACTLY why the left WANTS to hide the accounting now. So that there is no appearance of a funding problem or crisis. Just bury it in the budget -- no more problem..


----------



## CrusaderFrank

George Will takes out the OWS movement with a single paragraph

"Still, OWS&#8217; defenders correctly say it represents progressivism&#8217;s spirit and intellect. Because it embraces spontaneity and deplores elitism, it eschews deliberation and leadership. Hence its agenda, beyond eliminating one of the seven deadly sins (avarice), is opaque. Its meta-theory is, however, clear: Washington is grotesquely corrupt and insufficiently powerful."

Read more: Occupy Wall Street a boon to right--George F. Will - NYPOST.com


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the point is that since it's an involuntary program, the funds taken from people to pay for it must be called taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you said applies to INSURANCE programs.
Click to expand...


No. See above.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

CrusaderFrank said:


> George Will takes out the OWS movement with a single paragraph
> 
> "Still, OWS defenders correctly say it represents progressivisms spirit and intellect. Because it embraces spontaneity and deplores elitism, it eschews deliberation and leadership. Hence its agenda, beyond eliminating one of the seven deadly sins (avarice), is opaque. Its meta-theory is, however, clear: Washington is grotesquely corrupt and insufficiently powerful."
> 
> Read more: Occupy Wall Street a boon to right--George F. Will - NYPOST.com



Damn is that is true those who are protesting do not know who is supporting them from the back. Man are they stupid.


----------



## Dragon

Will is an idiot. This is a great danger to the right, because it presents an alternate populist narrative besides that of the Tea Party, a different story about who's up/who's down and who's in/who's out and why ordinary people face such troubles.

If Bloomberg sends in the cops tomorrow to evict OWS from the park, as there's a rumor that he will, the result will be to increase the protest movements everywhere else. It will be setting a match to dry gunpowder. Remains to be seen whether the rumor is correct, of course.


----------



## Si modo

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can shut the web down but it will never shut me up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what the SEIU type thugs are for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I butted heads with some of those pussies they ran like a scared rabbit.
Click to expand...

  I butted heads with some of those pussies and it made the national news.  They really should watch their Ps and Qs whenever someone has a video camera.  Picking on a girl...not good.


----------



## Preius

Si modo said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there anything more stupid or idiotic than this?  Really.  Isn't this the HEIGHT of manipulation.
> 
> IF these millionaires are so serious about increasing taxes on the wealthy, you just have to ask if they take advantage of every loophole themselves?  Do they claim every deduction they are entitlted to.  How much is the separate check they write the Treasury Department every year.
> 
> They do none of that.  They are moved for some emotion that causes them to assuage their guilt at being wealthy by raising taxes on everyone else.  They will take advantage of every loophole, they will scour the accounting for deductions and no they won't write a separate check to the Treasury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am no millionaire, but my income is six digits.  My instructions to my highly paid tax accountant are the same every year.  Get me as many deductions as I am entitled to, but don't get me audited.  From time to time I have actually taken a pass on a deduction because my tax guy would say something like, "We believe this year they are looking more closely at xyz type deductions.  Let's not push the envelope in that area."
> 
> You know when I read a post like yours, if I was a millionaire I'd say, "Why am I even bothering to try and help these morons.  Fu*k them.  When I look at the money Americans waste on RV's, chrome accessories for pick up trucks, or sporting events it is clear these idiots can not manage the money they have, "let them eat cake."
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet another example of the authoritarian mentality of the radical left.  Who are you to judge what constitutes a waste of money?  If they prefer chrome bling for a truck over a case of $300/bottle wine, that is their call, not yours.
> 
> I've no doubt their response to you would be just as much a 'fuck you', and it's not because you aren't giving them money; it would be for your meatless arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> In the 1770s when Marie Antoinette was Queen of France, and was told the bread box for most French was empty, she said "Let them eat cake."  She was so out-of-touch with reality she believed everyone was like her.  If the bread box was empty, go to the cake box.  This remark increased hatred ofsKing Louis XVI and Marie.  Eventually, both were guillotined for ignoring the needs of the French people.  This is a story Wall Street millionaires would do well to remember.[/CENTER]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet more hateful and violent rhetoric of the radical left.  When someone gets hurt we will blame all of the intentional hateful and violent talk of beheadings and guillotines of the left.
Click to expand...


Simply stated when the wealthy see those of lesser financial strength waste money, the wealthy are not inclined to help.  If you don't have to worry about food and shelter, and can squander money on chrome accessories for your truck, don't come looking for a handout because of your poor financial planning.  

The world is a violent place.  The beheading of the King and Queen of France in the eighteenth century serve as a lesson to all.  Bury your head in the sand if you like, but don't come crying to me because you can not handle reality.  In an instant reality can crash into your life and things change immediately and  abruptly.  How about a routine visit to your doctor for a check up, only to find out you have six months to live without an operation?  If you spent all your money on chrome accessories for your truck and can not afford the operation due to poor financial planning, I could care less.  Your bed, you die in it.  

Let's get back to roots of our discourse on this thread, so I can show you how wrong you are.  I posted that it was encouraging that a group known as 'patriotic millionaires' had entered the discussion of the 99%.  You slammed them for not giving more money to the government.  Basically, I called you an idiot and said that patriotic millionaires supporting the 99% are a good thing.  You sound like a loser who hates millionaires just because you are not in their game.  As long as we have millionaires with politics like Bill Maher, I am grateful that they have not forgotten their roots.

You are a rudderless poster who has nothing to say and is really angry at themselves for being a personal financial failure.  You wrote yourself off, and you will get what you deserve - nothing.  You would do well to learn to respect your betters.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Made it part of the current public dialog, and prevented the subject from getting swept under the table.



The Tea Party already did that.

The Shitters contribution is, uh, well.

I know, "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee."



> No you haven't. This is the first time you've done that.



Bullshit.



> That real wage have dropped over the past thirty years is an established fact.



Really?

So the hours at minimum wage to buy a loaf of bread, a car, a TV, a computer, a house, et al; are greater today than 30 years ago? Shall we test this?

Fact are the enemy of Marxists.



> When you also include the fact that health-care costs have risen dramatically, as has the cost of a college education, the situation looks even worse. This is not even seriously disputed, and I've presented links elsewhere showing that it is true.



And I nailed you on it then.

Health care has risen because people simply didn't have the care options 30 years ago that they do now.  How much did it cost for an MRI in 1980? Stint surgery? Lapband? Lasik?



> I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post because it consists of empty-rhetoric cheap shots and general garbage.



You've got nothing but bullshit, and everyone here knows it.



> EDIT: As was the entirety of your last post.
> 
> I generally don't bother with people who only want to spew bile and venom instead of thinking.



Again you run, again you made a claim you cannot support so you throw a tantrum and run..


----------



## chanel

Shit has hit the fan at "Occupy Philadelphia".  Anarchists promoting violence are taking charge.



> Total chaos is breaking out over at Occupy Philadelphias Facebook page. Either the administration went berserk or someone elsesomeone identifying himself as Jayhas hijacked the keys to the movements digital kingdom.
> 
> Posts have been fast and furious, full of ALL CAPS and curses. Many address Cindy Milstein, an activist based in San Francisco who has spoken at the rally.
> 
> The first bizarre post came at 1:20 p.m.:
> 
> To the people of this fanpage, I(Jay) have removed all other admins for the time being. Truth is Philly theres a major issue happening at City Hall.* A national anarchist committee have integrated themselves and attempt to control the peaceful movement through violence*. Please educate yourselves on Cindy Milstein she isnt from Philadelphia she does not know the violence we endure everyday in our neighborhoods. *This group of anarchist commit themselves to prey upon movements like ours*. Please research. Again I willingly removed all other admins to preserve our movement in the purest form that it should remain.



All Hell Breaks Loose on Occupy Philadelphia Facebook Page | PhillyNow | A blog about Philadelphia news, politics and culture by Philadelphia Weekly

and it seems there's been some charges of racisim.



> That racist fight that occur at City Hall really did happen I apologize to the sisters for the behavior a few assholes.
> 
> please confirm the visual of tosh who called you the N word please notice the big A on his arm in this video


----------



## PredFan

Dragon said:


> All of this discussion about whether the very rich inherited their money or worked for it, and whether they pay any taxes or not, is skewing off on tangents that aren't really relevant.
> 
> Most very rich people worked quite hard to get there; definitely NOT in proportion to how much people who make much less work so as to justify their wealth on that basis -- there aren't enough hours in a day for that -- but most did not inherit it all. But so what?
> 
> The point of this protest has nothing to do with that. It has to do with the fact that:
> 
> 1) Wall Street, corporate America, and the rich and powerful have excessive influence over the government that undermines democracy and makes the government serve private greed instead of the public interest.
> 
> 2) Because of this, the rules of the economic game are set so as to concentrate wealth increasingly over time in a few hands, leaving everyone else with harder and harder circumstances.
> 
> The fact that you cannot become one of those few people who are the big winners in such a system by sitting around on your ass is not relevant to that in any way.



The part where your whole argument falls apart is the fact that you assume that there is a finite sum of wealth to be had. That is wrong. It us entirely possible to also earn wealth right along with the rich. There isn't some limited amount that if one person makes money, some others can't.


----------



## Dot Com




----------



## Uncensored2008

Which iPhone belongs to Dragon?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Uncensored2008 said:


> Which iPhone belongs to Dragon?



Yes and let's not forget about those evil Construction corporations who's roads they rode on and side walkes they  walked on to get there.

Prequalified Contractors - List A


----------



## bigrebnc1775

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXNEfdiYKvk&feature]Well Informed Occupy Wall Street Protester - Captnmidnite - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Preius

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Made it part of the current public dialog, and prevented the subject from getting swept under the table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party already did that.
> 
> The Shitters contribution is, uh, well.
> 
> I know, "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you haven't. This is the first time you've done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So the hours at minimum wage to buy a loaf of bread, a car, a TV, a computer, a house, et al; are greater today than 30 years ago? Shall we test this?
> 
> Fact are the enemy of Marxists.
> 
> 
> 
> And I nailed you on it then.
> 
> Health care has risen because people simply didn't have the care options 30 years ago that they do now.  How much did it cost for an MRI in 1980? Stint surgery? Lapband? Lasik?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post because it consists of empty-rhetoric cheap shots and general garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've got nothing but bullshit, and everyone here knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: As was the entirety of your last post.
> 
> I generally don't bother with people who only want to spew bile and venom instead of thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you run, again you made a claim you cannot support so you throw a tantrum and run..
Click to expand...


Sorry, the national spotlight has moved off of the Tea Party after they made fools of themselves in the debt ceiling debate.  The Teabaggers just did not know how to govern, and stay on their agenda.  As the Tea Party fades into history we should give them credit for waking up moderate Republicans, Conservative Democrats, and the left.  

Thanks, we can hand the rest of it from here, but you are welcome to sign up with us.  We hate Wall Street Millionaires, Republicans and Democrats.  In the end the only ones who will stand up for the 1% are the 1%.  Even some of them have joined the 99%, they are known as Patriotic Millionaires.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OPfe9CS-Ng"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OPfe9CS-Ng[/ame]


----------



## Si modo

Preius said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Made it part of the current public dialog, and prevented the subject from getting swept under the table.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party already did that.
> 
> The Shitters contribution is, uh, well.
> 
> I know, "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee."
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So the hours at minimum wage to buy a loaf of bread, a car, a TV, a computer, a house, et al; are greater today than 30 years ago? Shall we test this?
> 
> Fact are the enemy of Marxists.
> 
> 
> 
> And I nailed you on it then.
> 
> Health care has risen because people simply didn't have the care options 30 years ago that they do now.  How much did it cost for an MRI in 1980? Stint surgery? Lapband? Lasik?
> 
> 
> 
> You've got nothing but bullshit, and everyone here knows it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: As was the entirety of your last post.
> 
> I generally don't bother with people who only want to spew bile and venom instead of thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again you run, again you made a claim you cannot support so you throw a tantrum and run..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, the national spotlight has moved off of the Tea Party after they made fools of themselves in the debt ceiling debate.  The Teabaggers just did not know how to govern, and stay on their agenda.  As the Tea Party fades into history we should give them credit for waking up moderate Republicans, Conservative Democrats, and the left.
> 
> Thanks, we can hand the rest of it from here, but you are welcome to sign up with us.  We hate Wall Street Millionaires, Republicans and Democrats.  In the end the only ones who will stand up for the 1% are the 1%.  Even some of them have joined the 99%, they are known as Patriotic Millionaires.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OPfe9CS-Ng]The Agenda Project: Patriotic Millionaires - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...

Sorry, the Tea Party stands for personal liberties and freedoms and detests government intrusion.  OWS does not.

Good luck convincing America otherwise.


----------



## Liability

*Occupy Wall Street: The BOWEL Movement Grows *


----------



## flacaltenn

Preius::



> Thanks, we can hand the rest of it from here, but you are welcome to sign up with us. We hate Wall Street Millionaires, Republicans and Democrats. In the end the only ones who will stand up for the 1% are the 1%. Even some of them have joined the 99%, they are known as Patriotic Millionaires



Sorry I'm not impressed.. What do you want? A big ass thank-you for the grandstanding "patriotism"? How about they all wear Red,White, and Blue armbands so that we can bow at their feet? 

First off -- Very few of America's Millionaires are Wall Street. *The vast majority of the 100s of THOUSANDS of Millionaires in America are Entertainers, Sports Figures, Authors, Inventors, or are HARD-WORKING business people.* Those making a living STRICTLY as corporate execs or financial figures is a miniscule portion of the 1%. 

By villifying the Capitalist System and focusing the scapegoating on Wall Street -- the left has done the neccessary propagandizing to focus outrage on the MINORITY of "the rich" in order to plunder them all. There is no justification for plundering Hollywood --- or is there??? 

When the cast of Two and a Half Men have 4 stars that pull down over $200,000 per episode while the starving walk-ons mixing Jamba Juices in their real jobs make $200 per episode -- there's no outrage is there? 

When the uniform management crew of the Baltimore Ravens make $25,000 and the quarterback makes $25Mill -- there's no outrage is there? YET the MAJORITY of Millionaires in this country are protected from the mobs for THEIR skyrocketing wages and benefits. How damn convienient. 

You're fooling yourselves if you think that punishing Jay Leno, Phil Mickelson and Justin Bieber is akin to "patriotism". And your "Flea Party" is nothing other than a bunch of misinformed scavengers picking apart what's left of the carcass of an economy that NO ONE wants to fix..

I think I'll start a "Patriotic Have-Nots" Those 49% of American filers who currently pay NOTHING to the General Fund. THey are all gonna pledge 1% of their WAGES to patriotic subsidization of BIGGER more arrogant, more incompetent Government. Now THAT would deserve a standing ovation for MEANINGFUL sacrifice...  Wouldn't it?


----------



## flacaltenn

Let's get REAL.. 

*The top 1% earn 18% of the income in this country.. 

The top 1% pay 40% of the taxes... *

Are we done with PATRIOTISM and FAIRNESS now???  Yes we are.. Now let's fix what's broken..


----------



## Big Fitz

Well the Occupados in Mpls are down to under 50 professional protesters holding haggard signs looking like a european youth hostel spilled into the street.  I think there were more people looking at them like a freak show (as they are) than a political movement.  No surprise to me.  

The movement grows stale and people move their tarps and tents back to their parent's basement or communes.


----------



## georgephillip

*Let's give all the heroic capitalists a little competition.*

Dr. Michael Hudson, professor of economics at UM Kansas City, has details:

"[T]he demand isn't simply to make a public bank, but is to treat the banks generally as a public utility, just as you treat electric companies as a public utility.... Just as there was pressure for a public option in health care, *there should be a public option in banking.* 

"There should be a government bank that offers credit card rates without punitive 30% interest rates, without penalties, without raising the rate if you don't pay your electric bill. 

"This is how America got strong in the 19th and early 20th century, by essentially having public infrastructure, just like you'd have roads and bridges.... The idea of public infrastructure was to *lower the cost of living and to lower the cost of doing business*."

The Public Option in Banking: Another Look at the German Model | Truthout

For the last 500 years (at least) the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime was losing control of the money organized crime generates every year.

Bank of American, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citibank are criminal organizations served by Republican AND Democratic administrations alike. FLUSH them all from Wall Street and government and straight into prison starting in November 2012.


----------



## flacaltenn

georgephillip said:


> *Let's give all the heroic capitalists a little competition.*
> 
> Dr. Michael Hudson, professor of economics at UM Kansas City, has details:
> 
> "[T]he demand isn't simply to make a public bank, but is to treat the banks generally as a public utility, just as you treat electric companies as a public utility.... Just as there was pressure for a public option in health care, *there should be a public option in banking.*
> 
> "There should be a government bank that offers credit card rates without punitive 30% interest rates, without penalties, without raising the rate if you don't pay your electric bill.
> 
> "This is how America got strong in the 19th and early 20th century, by essentially having public infrastructure, just like you'd have roads and bridges.... The idea of public infrastructure was to *lower the cost of living and to lower the cost of doing business*."
> 
> The Public Option in Banking: Another Look at the German Model | Truthout
> 
> For the last 500 years (at least) the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime was losing control of the money organized crime generates every year.
> 
> Bank of American, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citibank are criminal organizations served by Republican AND Democratic administrations alike. FLUSH them all from Wall Street and government and straight into prison starting in November 2012.



Freakin' Brilliant pinhead.. The Congress stole their own Post Office blind and now you want the Clown College to manage a Public Banking System?? Yeah -- that'll work fine.. 

Maybe all the looted Soc Sec, Indian Lands, and Hiway Trust Fund money will reappear for the initial deposit.. 

Sheeeezzzzzzzzzz.


----------



## georgephillip

What's generating the regular interest payments on the SS Trust Fund, Einstein?
Hank Paulson's bail money?

"In the US, North Dakota is the only state to own its own bank. It is also the only state that has sported a budget surplus every year since the 2008 credit crisis. It has the lowest unemployment rate in the country and the lowest default rate on loans. It also has oil, but so do other states that are not doing so well. Still, the media tend to attribute North Dakota's success to its oil fields..."

Maybe you think Wall Street deserves bigger bonuses.


----------



## flacaltenn

georgephillip said:


> What's generating the regular interest payments on the SS Trust Fund, Einstein?
> Hank Paulson's bail money?
> 
> "In the US, North Dakota is the only state to own its own bank. It is also the only state that has sported a budget surplus every year since the 2008 credit crisis. It has the lowest unemployment rate in the country and the lowest default rate on loans. It also has oil, but so do other states that are not doing so well. Still, the media tend to attribute North Dakota's success to its oil fields..."
> 
> Maybe you think Wall Street deserves bigger bonuses.



There is NOTHING of value in the Trust Fund. All shortfalls are covered by issuance of NEW debt. The SSA and CBO says so.. Don't want to do this here. There were PLENTY of threads to beat this into submission.. 

Wall Street Bonuses are None of My Business and they really are NOYB too.. No more than our opinion on signing bonuses for the NFL players or a recording contract bonus..


----------



## georgephillip

flacaltenn said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's generating the regular interest payments on the SS Trust Fund, Einstein?
> Hank Paulson's bail money?
> 
> "In the US, North Dakota is the only state to own its own bank. It is also the only state that has sported a budget surplus every year since the 2008 credit crisis. It has the lowest unemployment rate in the country and the lowest default rate on loans. It also has oil, but so do other states that are not doing so well. Still, the media tend to attribute North Dakota's success to its oil fields..."
> 
> Maybe you think Wall Street deserves bigger bonuses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is NOTHING of value in the Trust Fund. All shortfalls are covered by issuance of NEW debt. The SSA and CBO says so.. Don't want to do this here. There were PLENTY of threads to beat this into submission..
> 
> Wall Street Bonuses are None of My Business and they really are NOYB too.. No more than our opinion on signing bonuses for the NFL players or a recording contract bonus..
Click to expand...

"The assets of the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds represent the the accumulation over time of the difference between income and outgo. The growth of the assets from the end of December 1986 through the end of December 2010 is shown below by calendar quarter...

"Assets grew from about $47 billion at the end of December 1986 to about $2,609 billion ($2.6 trillion) by the end of December 2010."

Social Security Trust Funds 

NFL signing bonuses didn't crash the global economy in 2008.
Wall Street did.
And they always want more.


----------



## percysunshine

Double ledger accounting is what cratered Enron.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Um, the government now writes 90%+ of the mortgages, how come it's not getting better?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Anti-Wall Street protesters say the rich are getting richer while average Americans suffer, but the group that started it all may have benefited indirectly from the largesse of one of the world's richest men.

Soros: not a funder of Wall Street protests | Reuters


----------



## georgephillip

CrusaderFrank said:


> Um, the government now writes 90%+ of the mortgages, how come it's not getting better?


I think part of the answer to your question about why it's not getting better has to do with voters, even those who pay daily attention to politics, continuing to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.

State banks like the one in North Dakota can write mortgages at 2% interest and cap their credit cards at a 6% interest rate. Republicans and Democrats in DC seem to prefer using the Federal Reserve to fund Wall Street banks at near-zero rates of interest with none of the savings passed on to consumers.

The Germans may have a model worth taking a long, hard look at:

"Germany emerged from World War II with a collapsed economy that had degenerated into barter. Today, it is the largest and most robust economy in the eurozone. Manufacturing in Germany contributes *25 percent of gross domestic product, more than twice that in the UK*. 

"Despite the recession, Germany's *unemployment rate, at 6.8 percent, is the lowest in 20 years*. 

*"Underlying the economy's strength is its Mittelstand *- small to medium sized enterprises - supported by a strong regional banking system that is willing to lend to fund research and development."

The Public Option in Banking: Another Look at the German Model | Truthout

North Dakota's current unemployment rate is about half that of Germany.

There are numerous economic models that could be tried here; however, elected Republicans AND Democrats will send their own children to Afghanistan (Mexico?) before giving options like public banking a chance in the USA.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Sorry, the Tea Party stands for personal liberties and freedoms and detests government intrusion.  OWS does not.
> 
> Good luck convincing America otherwise.



The public does not in fact stand with you on this, Si modo. It already supports OWS more than it supports the Tea Party. And that is going to increase, just as the movement will increase.

Here's a recent development in the moves by Bloomberg and the owners of the park to shut down the protest. This is a quote from a letter sent to Richard B. Clark, CEO of the company that owns the park:

BY FAX TO 212-417-7272
Richard B. Clark
Chief Executive Officer
Brookfield Office Properties
Brookfield Global Real Estate
Three World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281-1021
BY FAX TO 212-417-7272
Richard B. Clark
Chief Executive Officer
Brookfield Office Properties
Brookfield Global Real Estate
Three World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281-1021

Dear Mr. Clark:

Attorneys associated with the National Lawyers-Guild-New York City Chapter have been asked to represent the Sanitation Working Group. One of several autonomous working groups formed and operated by people who have been occupying Liberty Park. We are in receipt of a copy of your letter to New York City Police Department Commissioner Raymond Kelly requesting police intervention and outlining your concerns about cleaning and maintenance of Liberty Park.

The enforcement action you are requesting raises serious First Amendment and other legal concerns. Under the guise of cleaning the Park you are threatening fundamental constitutional rights. There is no basis in the law for your request for police intervention, nor have you cited any. Such police action without a prior court order would be unconstitutional and unlawful.

The Sanitation Working Group has been addressing the concerns in your letter all along. Beyond that, it has committed itself to carrying out a thorough and complete cleaning and to addressing all of the issues related to sanitation raised in your letter. The Working Group welcomes representatives of Brookfield to view the cleaning process and its results.

Our investigation has revealed that no permanent structures have been erected within the Park, nor have any actions been taken to damage the Park, its plantings or other amenities. Your letter raises concerns about potential water infiltration of the Parks underground lighting and electrical hazards. However, based on a visual inspection recently conducted by our clients, there has been no damage to the lenses covering the underground lighting and thus there is no risk of water infiltration. Additionally, it is our understanding that there has been no electricity running in said fixtures for weeks now. Therefore, there is no risk of electrical hazard.

The Working Group will continue to bag and haul trash on a tight schedule. Trash has consistently been bagged and hauled to established collection points and recycling rules have been bagged and hauled to established collection points and recycling rules have been strictly adhered to. The Working Group has been using primarily 50 gallon, 3 mil. thickness contractor bags. Additionally, the Working Group typically has had between one and fifteen people sweeping the Park with brooms at any given time.

The Sanitation Working Group has informed us that the following activities are being carried out to further address these issues.

    All hard surfaces within the Park are being scrubbed and/or polished
    Garbage removal will be stepped up
    Every item resting on the ground will be removed to allow for thorough cleaning; and
    Power washing will be employed where appropriate or possible.

Our clients are willing to sit down with you to resolve any of your concerns. They want to negotiate in good faith. Our clients agree to address any reasonable issues of sanitation safety and access and would like to prevent these issues from creating a pretext for police action in violation of our clients First Amendment rights to utilize the Park. If you nonetheless decide to proceed with your request for police action, prior court approval is required. . . .

Very truly yours,

Margaret Ratner Kunstler
Gideon Orion Oliver
Yetta G. Kurland
Sarah Kunstler
Martin R. Stolar
Bruce K. Bentley
Jano Marton
Michael Ratner


----------



## Dragon

Here's an interesting piece in yesterday's New York Times on the movement, coining a new phrase to describe it, "political disobedience."

Occupy Wall Street's &#039;Political Disobedience&#039; - NYTimes.com



			
				Bernard E. Harcourt said:
			
		

> Occupy Wall Street is best understood, I would suggest, as a new form of what could be called political disobedience, as opposed to civil disobedience, that fundamentally rejects the political and ideological landscape that we inherited from the Cold War.
> 
> Civil disobedience accepted the legitimacy of political institutions, but resisted the moral authority of resulting laws. Political disobedience, by contrast, resists the very way in which we are governed: it resists the structure of partisan politics, the demand for policy reforms, the call for party identification, and the very ideologies that dominated the post-War period. . . .
> 
> One way to understand the emerging disobedience is to see it as a refusal to engage these sorts of  worn-out ideologies rooted in the Cold War. The key point here is that the Cold Wars ideological divide  with the Chicago Boys at one end and the Maoists at the other  merely served as a weapon in this country for the financial and political elite: the ploy, in the United States, was to demonize the chimera of a controlled economy (that of the former Soviet Union or China, for example) in order to prop up the illusion of a free market and to legitimize the fantasy of less regulation  of what was euphemistically called deregulation. By reinvigorating the myth of free markets, the financial and political architects of our economy over the past three plus decades  both Republicans and Democrats  were able to disguise massive redistribution toward the richest by claiming they were simply deregulating when all along they were actually reregulating to the benefit of their largest campaign donors.
> 
> This ideological fog blinded the American people to the pervasive regulatory mechanisms that are necessary to organize a colossal late-modern economy and that necessarily distribute wealth throughout society  and in this country, that quietly redistributed massive amounts of wealth to the richest 1 percent. Many of the voices at Occupy Wall Street accuse political ideology on both sides, on the side of free markets but also on the side of big government, for serving the few at the expense of the other 99 percent  for paving the way to an entrenched permissive regulatory system that privatizes gains and socializes losses.
> 
> The central point, of course, is that it takes both a big government and the illusion of free markets to achieve such massive redistribution. If you take a look at the tattered posters at Zuccotti Park, youll see that many are intensely anti-government and just as many stridently oppose big government.
> 
> Occupy Wall Street is surely right in holding the old ideologies to account. The truth is, as Ive argued in a book, The Illusion of Free Markets, and recently in Harpers magazine, there never have been and never will be free markets. All markets are man-made, constructed, regulated and administered by often-complex mechanisms that necessarily distribute wealth  that inevitably distribute wealth  in large and small ways. Tax incentives for domestic oil production and lower capital gains rates are obvious illustrations. But there are all kinds of more minute rules and regulations surrounding our wheat pits, stock markets and economic exchanges that have significant wealth effects: limits on retail buyers flipping shares after an I.P.O., rulings allowing exchanges to cut communication to non-member dealers, fixed prices in extended after-hour trading, even the advent of options markets. The mere existence of a privately chartered organization like the Chicago Board of Trade, which required the state of Illinois to criminalize and forcibly shut down competing bucket shops, has huge redistributional wealth effects on farmers and consumers  and, of course, bankers, brokers and dealers.
> 
> The semantic games  the talk of deregulation rather than reregulation  would have been entertaining had it not been for their devastating effects. As the sociologist Douglas Massey minutely documents in Categorically Unequal, after decades of improvement, the income gap between the richest and poorest in this country has dramatically widened since the 1970s, resulting in what social scientists now refer to as U-curve of increasing inequality. Recent reports from the Census Bureau confirm this, with new evidence last month that the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it. Today, 27 percent of African-Americans and 26 percent of Hispanics in this country  more than 1 in 4  live in poverty; and 1 in 9 African-American men between the ages of 20 and 34 are incarcerated. . . .
> 
> On this account, the fundamental choice is no longer the ideological one we were indoctrinated to believe  between free markets and controlled economies  but rather a continuous choice between kinds of regulation and how they distribute wealth in society. There is, in the end, no realistic alternative, nor any utopian project that can avoid the pervasive regulatory mechanisms that are necessary to organize a complex late-modern economy  and thats the point. The vast and distributive regulatory framework will neither disappear with deregulation, nor with the withering of a socialist state. What is required is constant vigilance of all the micro and macro rules that permeate our markets, our contracts, our tax codes, our banking regulations, our property laws  in sum, all the ordinary, often mundane, but frequently invisible forms of laws and regulations that are required to organize and maintain a colossal economy in the 21st-century and that constantly distribute wealth and resources.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the Tea Party stands for personal liberties and freedoms and detests government intrusion.  OWS does not.
> 
> Good luck convincing America otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The public does not in fact stand with you on this, Si modo. It already supports OWS more than it supports the Tea Party. And that is going to increase, just as the movement will increase.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

Maybe.

It's too bad that Americans are against personal liberties and freedoms and are for government intrusion, for government oppression.

Or, just as bad, and more likely, it's too bad that the protestors are supporting the state-ist system that did not educate them enough and now they are just tools.  Useful Idiots.



And, that is exactly why those behind the OWS organization will not articulate what they want.  

Knowledge is Bad; Ignorance is Good.


----------



## flacaltenn

Wow.. What drama Dragon.. Historical events huh?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

georgephillip said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, the government now writes 90%+ of the mortgages, how come it's not getting better?
> 
> 
> 
> I think part of the answer to your question about why it's not getting better has to do with voters, even those who pay daily attention to politics, continuing to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.
> 
> State banks like the one in North Dakota can write mortgages at 2% interest and cap their credit cards at a 6% interest rate. Republicans and Democrats in DC seem to prefer using the Federal Reserve to fund Wall Street banks at near-zero rates of interest with none of the savings passed on to consumers.
> 
> The Germans may have a model worth taking a long, hard look at:
> 
> "Germany emerged from World War II with a collapsed economy that had degenerated into barter. Today, it is the largest and most robust economy in the eurozone. Manufacturing in Germany contributes *25 percent of gross domestic product, more than twice that in the UK*.
> 
> "Despite the recession, Germany's *unemployment rate, at 6.8 percent, is the lowest in 20 years*.
> 
> *"Underlying the economy's strength is its Mittelstand *- small to medium sized enterprises - supported by a strong regional banking system that is willing to lend to fund research and development."
> 
> The Public Option in Banking: Another Look at the German Model | Truthout
> 
> North Dakota's current unemployment rate is about half that of Germany.
> 
> There are numerous economic models that could be tried here; however, elected Republicans AND Democrats will send their own children to Afghanistan (Mexico?) before giving options like public banking a chance in the USA.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, did you not understand that our Federal government either through F/F or FHA now makes 90% of the mortgages in the USA.

Is there a grown up nearby? Show them the above sentence and explain it to you. We're at your Marxist Government Control Utopia.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

So, OWS has a right to invade private property to protest?  Really?  Maybe they should sit on Bloomberg's front stoop?


----------



## flacaltenn

My guess is that "the park" has some public access agreements added to the deed. So that the City has access to utilities, traffic control ect. I'll bet a bundle it's NOT "totally private" property. Maybe even serviced by the City in some regards.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bloomberg is one of the richest men in the country and his Bloomberg machines are in every financial company on the planet, OWS should visit his property and camp there


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> My guess is that "the park" has some public access agreements added to the deed. So that the City has access to utilities, traffic control ect. I'll bet a bundle it's NOT "totally private" property. Maybe even serviced by the City in some regards.



That's correct. It's a public park. Concerns have been raised about the impact of the protesters on the park's cleanliness and safety, and the letter addresses some of those concerns. They were being used as a pretext to request that the police forcibly clear out the protesters. The police can't simply move in and do that on, say, trespassing charges.


----------



## Si modo

OWS organizers' (nouveaux-elites) tenet:  Knowledge is Bad; Ignorance is Good.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> OWS organizers' (nouveaux-elites) tenet:  Knowledge is Bad; Ignorance is Good.



This is completely silly, of course. If you had any knowledge yourself of the way the protest area is set out and organized, and the importance placed on the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge, you'd see how silly it is.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that "the park" has some public access agreements added to the deed. So that the City has access to utilities, traffic control ect. I'll bet a bundle it's NOT "totally private" property. Maybe even serviced by the City in some regards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct. It's a public park. Concerns have been raised about the impact of the protesters on the park's cleanliness and safety, and the letter addresses some of those concerns. They were being used as a pretext to request that the police forcibly clear out the protesters. The police can't simply move in and do that on, say, trespassing charges.
Click to expand...

Not true.  The park is owned by Brookfield Office Properties.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> OWS organizers' (nouveaux-elites) tenet:  Knowledge is Bad; Ignorance is Good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is completely silly, of course. If you had any knowledge yourself of the way the protest area is set out and organized, and the importance placed on the acquisition and dissemination of knowledge, you'd see how silly it is.
Click to expand...

As you keep on insisting the OWS has no 'official' demand, no ideas for solutions; obviously the peons on the street cannot know what they want.  They are just expressing envy.

OK.

Now what?

Ignorance is Good...so far.


----------



## Unkotare

Twalbert said:


> 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.




Their "greatest fear" is a handful of unwashed nobodies who can't hold a job, are very unlikely to vote, don't know why they are there and for the most part don't care? Oh the horror.


----------



## Dot Com




----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> If you had any knowledge yourself of the way the protest area is set out and organized.






I guess we could ask Soros, he must know what he paid for.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dot Com said:


>



Are you doing better off now than you were during Reagan second term? I was. and that was 25 years ago.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> As you keep on insisting the OWS has no 'official' demand, no ideas for solutions; obviously the peons on the street cannot know what they want.  They are just expressing envy.



You are incorrect on several points. I have not said that OWS has no demands and no ideas for solutions. They do: get the corporate money out of politics. That's a demand. Doing that would be a solution; in fact, it is what would make all other solutions possible. If there are no demands being made that can simply and easily be done within the confines of our corrupt politics, that's because our corrupt politics is itself the problem and what needs to be changed.


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> I guess we could ask Soros, he must know what he paid for.



No, in this case he almost certainly doesn't. That's assuming he paid anything, of which I haven't seen any evidence so far.


----------



## Dragon

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Are you doing better now than you were during Reagan second term? I was. and that was 25 years ago.



I don't understand if you're saying here that you are or aren't doing better than you were in the late 1980s.

Most people aren't. Most people are a good deal worse off now than they were then. That's the point.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> get the corporate money out of politics. That's a demand..





That's not a demand, that's a slogan, and an empty one at that. You could show these ignorant potheads a copy of the Constitution but they'd probably just roll it up and smoke it while pooping on a polic car.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you keep on insisting the OWS has no 'official' demand, no ideas for solutions; obviously the peons on the street cannot know what they want.  They are just expressing envy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are incorrect on several points. I have not said that OWS has no demands and no ideas for solutions. They do: get the corporate money out of politics. That's a demand. Doing that would be a solution; in fact, it is what would make all other solutions possible. If there are no demands being made that can simply and easily be done within the confines of our corrupt politics, that's because our corrupt politics is itself the problem and what needs to be changed.
Click to expand...

OK.  They are not just expressing envy, but also dissatisfaction.

"I want it to go away or stop" is not any sort of idea for a solution.

So, no ideas for solutions.  

Now what?  What is the next step?  And why can't the OWS share it?

As I also said:  Ignorance is Good...so far.


----------



## georgephillip

Or we could ask Chris Hedges:

*"Even now, three weeks later, elites, and their mouthpieces in the press*, continue to puzzle over what people like Ketchup want. Where is the list of demands? Why don&#8217;t they present us with specific goals? *Why can&#8217;t they articulate an agenda?*

"... These protesters have not come to work within the system. They are not pleading with Congress for electoral reform. *They know electoral politics is a farce* and have found another way to be heard and exercise power. 

"They have no faith, nor should they, in the political system or the two major political parties. They know the press will not amplify their voices, and so they created a press of their own. They know *the economy serves the oligarchs*, so they formed their own communal system. 

"*This movement is an effort to take our country back*.

"This is a goal the power elite cannot comprehend..."

*Can you?*

Why the Elites Are in Trouble | Truthout


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess we could ask Soros, he must know what he paid for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, in this case he almost certainly doesn't. That's assuming he paid anything, of which I haven't seen any evidence so far.
Click to expand...



Head up to Canada and ask adbusters where they get their money.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Preius said:


> Sorry, the national spotlight has moved off of the Tea Party after they made fools of themselves in the debt ceiling debate.



Oh, but the Shitters do? With the strong and coherent message of um, well, uh, whatever it is they want...



> The Teabaggers just did not know how to govern, and stay on their agenda.



Oh, well the Shitters are the masters of agenda. The agenda of, um, well, uh, whatever it is they want is focused on with laser like precision.



> As the Tea Party fades into history we should give them credit for waking up moderate Republicans, Conservative Democrats, and the left.



LOL



> Thanks, we can hand the rest of it from here, but you are welcome to sign up with us.  We hate Wall Street Millionaires, Republicans and Democrats.



But you'll be casting a dozen votes each for the Messiah®, Barack Obama... Just more of the Shitter hypocrisy at work.



> In the end the only ones who will stand up for the 1% are the 1%.



The Shitters are less than 1%



> Even some of them have joined the 99%, they are known as Patriotic Millionaires.



Yeah, no one could be more patriotic than George Soros and Sean Penn - you Marxists have it all figured out....


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon::



> get the corporate money out of politics. That's a demand..




Not willing to take corporate money out of politics when corporations can be attacked and vilified by the GOVT. GOVT can favor them or their competition at the drop of a hat. GOVT can punish them without recourse. GOVT can support the most weak and unethical of their competition. 

Until they can compete on MERIT and not have to worry about GOVT meddling their markets and products, they SHOULD be able to politically defend themselves. 

*The corporate/govt collusion would STILL BE THERE without "corporate money". * I'm sure Bear-Stearns had corporate money in the game and STILL got screwed. But more importantly -- if corporate money WERE to be banned --- you'd STILL see favoritism and cronyism being doled out on the basis of corporations bringing jobs and money to THEIR DISTRICTS -- or to THEIR NEPHEWS. Or whether they are UNIONIZED or provide "adequate benefits" . Or that power would be doled out as punishment to CORPORATIONS that did not fit politicians preconceived agendas. 

"It's not the money stupid" -- It's the power to pick and choose winners/losers and dole out the crony favors. But being the HUGE Union guy that you are --- YOU know that.. You just want to hobble the enemy so you can finish the kill..

Besides, there is no correlation between "money" and who was bailed out. But there IS a correlation between who got bailed out and the make-up of the Govt Economic advising team... Which is another way that doling out crony favors would just proceed full speed ahead ---- EVEN IF -- money was removed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> *Let's give all the heroic capitalists a little competition.*
> 
> Dr. Michael Hudson, professor of economics at UM Kansas City, has details:
> 
> "[T]he demand isn't simply to make a public bank, but is to treat the banks generally as a public utility, just as you treat electric companies as a public utility.... Just as there was pressure for a public option in health care, *there should be a public option in banking.*
> 
> "There should be a government bank that offers credit card rates without punitive 30% interest rates, without penalties, without raising the rate if you don't pay your electric bill.
> 
> "This is how America got strong in the 19th and early 20th century, by essentially having public infrastructure, just like you'd have roads and bridges.... The idea of public infrastructure was to *lower the cost of living and to lower the cost of doing business*."
> 
> The Public Option in Banking: Another Look at the German Model | Truthout
> 
> For the last 500 years (at least) the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime was losing control of the money organized crime generates every year.
> 
> Bank of American, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citibank are criminal organizations served by Republican AND Democratic administrations alike. FLUSH them all from Wall Street and government and straight into prison starting in November 2012.




Item #6 of the communist manifesto.

Everything the democrats demand can be tied back to the communist manifesto.

Funny that...


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> "I want it to go away or stop" is not any sort of idea for a solution.
> 
> So, no ideas for solutions.



You still don't get it, and that's probably because you're invested in the existing political system.

A demand for the government to do something is not the point here; the protesters are themselves doing something and they're doing it quite effectively: providing a new narrative.

Never underestimate the power of a narrative. We're in this mess largely because one narrative, the conflict between free enterprise and Communism, has dominated our politics since the late 1940s. It's out of date, of course, the Cold War being over for the past twenty years, but it still dominates just the same. How many times have you seen Obama called a Communist, or for that matter the OWS protesters? That's ridiculous in both cases, but because of the power of that old narrative it still has power.

OWS is presenting a new narrative: that the real conflict is between the very rich and corporations and the people. And it's catching on. It's provoking a response from the right. It's given us a simple idea, the 1% versus the 99%, that has a lot of appeal and that anyone can understand. It's cutting through the Cold War fog and giving us a different way of thinking about our politics. It's also cutting through the partisan fog and letting us see possibilities beyond the current positions of the Democrats and Republicans. This act is itself revolutionary. There's no need to demand that government do anything specific right away; government is too corrupt to be able to do what needs to be done in any case.

You're failing to understand this movement because you're seeing it through the lenses of conventional politics, and don't understand that it is operating on a different, deeper, more revolutionary level than that. Specific changes will grow organically from the changes in our thinking.

This is the antithesis of ignorance. It's brilliant, and it's succeeding brilliantly. You don't see the success because you're looking in the wrong places.


----------



## Unkotare

Seriously, lay off the pot, kid.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I want it to go away or stop" is not any sort of idea for a solution.
> 
> So, no ideas for solutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it, and that's probably because you're invested in the existing political system.
> 
> A demand for the government to do something is not the point here; the protesters are themselves doing something and they're doing it quite effectively: providing a new narrative.
> 
> Never underestimate the power of a narrative. We're in this mess largely because one narrative, the conflict between free enterprise and Communism, has dominated our politics since the late 1940s. It's out of date, of course, the Cold War being over for the past twenty years, but it still dominates just the same. How many times have you seen Obama called a Communist, or for that matter the OWS protesters? That's ridiculous in both cases, but because of the power of that old narrative it still has power.
> 
> OWS is presenting a new narrative: that the real conflict is between the very rich and corporations and the people. And it's catching on. It's provoking a response from the right. It's given us a simple idea, the 1% versus the 99%, that has a lot of appeal and that anyone can understand. It's cutting through the Cold War fog and giving us a different way of thinking about our politics. It's also cutting through the partisan fog and letting us see possibilities beyond the current positions of the Democrats and Republicans. This act is itself revolutionary. There's no need to demand that government do anything specific right away; government is too corrupt to be able to do what needs to be done in any case.
> 
> You're failing to understand this movement because you're seeing it through the lenses of conventional politics, and don't understand that it is operating on a different, deeper, more revolutionary level than that. Specific changes will grow organically from the changes in our thinking.
> 
> This is the antithesis of ignorance. It's brilliant, and it's succeeding brilliantly. You don't see the success because you're looking in the wrong places.
Click to expand...

Ah.  They are bitching and they know that their bitching will get them nowhere except to revolution.

Yup, that's constitutional.  

But, OK.

Then what?

(I'm pretty sure I 'got it' from the start.  )


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's give all the heroic capitalists a little competition.*
> 
> Dr. Michael Hudson, professor of economics at UM Kansas City, has details:
> 
> "[T]he demand isn't simply to make a public bank, but is to treat the banks generally as a public utility, just as you treat electric companies as a public utility.... Just as there was pressure for a public option in health care, *there should be a public option in banking.*
> 
> "There should be a government bank that offers credit card rates without punitive 30% interest rates, without penalties, without raising the rate if you don't pay your electric bill.
> 
> "This is how America got strong in the 19th and early 20th century, by essentially having public infrastructure, just like you'd have roads and bridges.... The idea of public infrastructure was to *lower the cost of living and to lower the cost of doing business*."
> 
> The Public Option in Banking: Another Look at the German Model | Truthout
> 
> For the last 500 years (at least) the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime was losing control of the money organized crime generates every year.
> 
> Bank of American, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citibank are criminal organizations served by Republican AND Democratic administrations alike. FLUSH them all from Wall Street and government and straight into prison starting in November 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Item #6 of the communist manifesto.
> 
> Everything the democrats demand can be tied back to the communist manifesto.
> 
> Funny that...
Click to expand...


or The 25 Points of Hitler's Nazi Party


----------



## Dragon

If the protesters were to demand something that could be done immediately by the government, it would have to be something like this: "All Republicans in Congress except Rand Paul, and all Democrats except for the few on this short list, resign your offices immediately; you are corrupt and don't deserve to serve. Oh, and Joe Lieberman, you too -- beat it. All candidates to take your places, accept no corporate campaign donations, and disavow all 527 ads in your favor."

How likely is it that such a demand would be complied with? Not very, seems to me. But anything short of that is not going to cure our problems.

This isn't a short-term protest for short-term goals. It's about a transformation of our society on a radical level. It can't be done simply and it can't be done quickly. But it's being done.

Unkotare, the reason I keep repeating that you're an asshole is not only because you're an asshole but also because you hardly ever say anything beyond an eruption of your assholiness. So there's no response possible except to repeat that you're an asshole.

So again: you're an asshole.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> If the protesters were to demand something that could be done immediately by the government, it would have to be something like this: "All Republicans in Congress except Rand Paul, and all Democrats except for the few on this short list, resign your offices immediately; you are corrupt and don't deserve to serve. Oh, and Joe Lieberman, you too -- beat it. All candidates to take your places, accept no corporate campaign donations, and disavow all 527 ads in your favor."
> 
> How likely is it that such a demand would be complied with? Not very, seems to me. But anything short of that is not going to cure our problems.
> 
> This isn't a short-term protest for short-term goals. It's about a transformation of our society on a radical level. It can't be done simply and it can't be done quickly. But it's being done.
> 
> ....


As you said above, too - a revolution, a radical one.

And, most of us knew that from the start.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dragon said:


> If the protesters were to demand something that could be done immediately by the government, it would have to be something like this: "All Republicans in Congress except Rand Paul, and all Democrats except for the few on this short list, resign your offices immediately; you are corrupt and don't deserve to serve. Oh, and Joe Lieberman, you too -- beat it. All candidates to take your places, accept no corporate campaign donations, and disavow all 527 ads in your favor."
> 
> How likely is it that such a demand would be complied with? Not very, seems to me. But anything short of that is not going to cure our problems.
> 
> This isn't a short-term protest for short-term goals. It's about a transformation of our society on a radical level. It can't be done simply and it can't be done quickly. But it's being done.
> 
> Unkotare, the reason I keep repeating that you're an asshole is not only because you're an asshole but also because you hardly ever say anything beyond an eruption of your assholiness. So there's no response possible except to repeat that you're an asshole.
> 
> So again: you're an asshole.



I don't know of any democrat that isn't corrupt and that includes obama


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Ah.  They are bitching and they know that their bitching will get them nowhere except to revolution.
> 
> Yup, that's constitutional.



Depends on what kind of "revolution" you're talking about. By the way, I've done some more thinking recently and, although I remain sure that most of the OWS protesters aren't talking about replacing our representative republic with direct democracy, it may be a good idea -- that's my position, not theirs, or not theirs yet.

It could even be done constitutionally, without a "revolution" in the sense of a popular overthrow of the government:



			
				U.S. Constitution said:
			
		

> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress



Article V. A constitutional convention could rewrite the Constitution so as to provide for direct democracy, quite legally.



> (I'm pretty sure I 'got it' from the start.  )



I know you're pretty sure of that, but you're wrong.


----------



## Dragon

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I don't know of any democrat that isn't corrupt and that includes obama



Dennis Kucinich comes to mind as an exception. But you're right about most of them, definitely including Obama.


----------



## flacaltenn

Si modo said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> My guess is that "the park" has some public access agreements added to the deed. So that the City has access to utilities, traffic control ect. I'll bet a bundle it's NOT "totally private" property. Maybe even serviced by the City in some regards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct. It's a public park. Concerns have been raised about the impact of the protesters on the park's cleanliness and safety, and the letter addresses some of those concerns. They were being used as a pretext to request that the police forcibly clear out the protesters. The police can't simply move in and do that on, say, trespassing charges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not true.  The park is owned by Brookfield Office Properties.
Click to expand...


We don't know what covenants are in the deed. Obviously it's recognized as public access and a park.. Just look at a map and you can see that. This happens all the time when properties are zoned. In exchange for permission to build somewhere else, the Management team will sweeten the deal by putting aside "public access" land and facilities to bribe the counsel into permitting the deal.. 

Dragon --

Even if it's not trespassing, I'm sure that CAMPING or PROTESTING or OPERATING A BUSINESS without permits give plenty of justification for law enforcement. 

If the HOMELESS or that crazy Church Group attempted this -- you KNOW what the result would be..


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> Even if it's not trespassing, I'm sure that CAMPING or PROTESTING or OPERATING A BUSINESS without permits give plenty of justification for law enforcement.
> 
> If the HOMELESS or that crazy Church Group attempted this -- you KNOW what the result would be..



You may be right. I'm pretty sure there is some pretext that could be advanced or they wouldn't even be discussing the possibility. It will be very interesting to see what goes down in the near future. The problem for the city is not lack of a pretext for police action but rather the likely political fallout. It could come off like a replay of MacArthur's attack on the Bonus Army in 1932. The mayor wouldn't like that one bit.

One strategy that might make sense from Bloomberg's POV is to stand down for the moment and wait for winter weather, when the number of people in the park on a daily basis is likely to decline. Clearing them out would make less of a splash, and reduce the likelihood that a huge influx of people would happen to face off against the cops.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.  They are bitching and they know that their bitching will get them nowhere except to revolution.
> 
> Yup, that's constitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what kind of "revolution" you're talking about. By the way, I've done some more thinking recently and, although I remain sure that most of the OWS protesters aren't talking about replacing our representative republic with direct democracy, it may be a good idea -- that's my position, not theirs, or not theirs yet.
> 
> It could even be done constitutionally, without a "revolution" in the sense of a popular overthrow of the government:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Constitution said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article V. A constitutional convention could rewrite the Constitution so as to provide for direct democracy, quite legally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (I'm pretty sure I 'got it' from the start.  )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know you're pretty sure of that, but you're wrong.
Click to expand...

No, I'm pretty sure I knew from the start.

As did you.

A revolution and a radical change of our type of government.

Yup.   I knew, and so did many others.

So, why the revolution if you plan on following the Constitution?


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Let's give all the heroic capitalists a little competition.*
> 
> Dr. Michael Hudson, professor of economics at UM Kansas City, has details:
> 
> "[T]he demand isn't simply to make a public bank, but is to treat the banks generally as a public utility, just as you treat electric companies as a public utility.... Just as there was pressure for a public option in health care, *there should be a public option in banking.*
> 
> "There should be a government bank that offers credit card rates without punitive 30% interest rates, without penalties, without raising the rate if you don't pay your electric bill.
> 
> "This is how America got strong in the 19th and early 20th century, by essentially having public infrastructure, just like you'd have roads and bridges.... The idea of public infrastructure was to *lower the cost of living and to lower the cost of doing business*."
> 
> The Public Option in Banking: Another Look at the German Model | Truthout
> 
> For the last 500 years (at least) the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime was losing control of the money organized crime generates every year.
> 
> Bank of American, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Citibank are criminal organizations served by Republican AND Democratic administrations alike. FLUSH them all from Wall Street and government and straight into prison starting in November 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Item #6 of the communist manifesto.
> 
> Everything the democrats demand can be tied back to the communist manifesto.
> 
> Funny that...
Click to expand...

*Funnier how many communists live in North Dakota.* 

The only state in this union that's reported a budget surplus every year since 2008; with an unemployment rate between 3% and 4%, and with the lowest foreclosure rate in the USofA. 

Now tell us why you think all of those occupying Wall Street are stupid enough to believe there's a dime's worth of difference between Republican AND Democrat when it comes to prosecuting control accounting fraud?


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> A revolution and a radical change of our type of government.



Not in the sense you mean. Remember, what I said above is me, not them.



> So, why the revolution if you plan on following the Constitution?



A revolution may be had within the confines of the Constitution; we have already had several in our history.

Besides, as I pointed out the Constitution contains provisions for amending it that could be used, if the people want it enough.

One way or another, though, this situation in which a wealthy few control the government through campaign donations has to go. And lest we get too sentimental about the Constitution, I'm going to repeat some important words from the Crisis era that gave us that document, although these were penned fairly early on before the Constitution itself existed:



			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.



There is little doubt that our current form of government has become destructive to the ends it is supposed to serve, in that it actually serves the private greed of a privileged few, and tramples all over the people's rights.

Now, Jefferson does go on to say something else, and I agree with him here, too:



> Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.



So: let's not be hasty, and let's pursue if we can ways to correct the usurpation of our government by means short of an overthrow.

But if it comes down to that, let us remember that the government -- including the Constitution itself -- exists to serve the people, and not the other way around.

Occupy Wall Street is not -- yet -- revolutionary in the conventional sense. But it is most certainly revolutionary in that it aims a very deep transformation in our society and the way our society is governed. It may become revolutionary in the conventional sense if that is the only way to right the wrongs in the current system, but only once it's generally agreed that there is no other way. And if it does, then that, too, is a proper expression of the American spirit, which does not easily suffer tyranny.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A revolution and a radical change of our type of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the sense you mean. Remember, what I said above is me, not them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, why the revolution if you plan on following the Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A revolution may be had within the confines of the Constitution; we have already had several in our history.
> 
> Besides, as I pointed out the Constitution contains provisions for amending it that could be used, if the people want it enough.
> 
> One way or another, though, this situation in which a wealthy few control the government through campaign donations has to go. And lest we get too sentimental about the Constitution, I'm going to repeat some important words from the Crisis era that gave us that document, although these were penned fairly early on before the Constitution itself existed:
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

Yes.  Violence is part of revolution *cue redefinition of revolution*.

So, if you plan on using the Constitution to change our entire way of government (*snicker*), why the revolution?

It's a pretty clear question.


----------



## Synthaholic

Si modo said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, the Tea Party stands for personal liberties and freedoms and detests government intrusion.  OWS does not.
> 
> Good luck convincing America otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The public does not in fact stand with you on this, Si modo. It already supports OWS more than it supports the Tea Party. And that is going to increase, just as the movement will increase.
> 
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> It's too bad that Americans are against personal liberties and freedoms *and are for government intrusion, for government oppression.*
> 
> Or, just as bad, and more likely, it's too bad that the protestors are supporting the state-ist system that did not educate them enough and now they are just tools.  Useful Idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> And, that is exactly why those behind the OWS organization will not articulate what they want.
> 
> Knowledge is Bad; Ignorance is Good.
Click to expand...



Are those poor billionaires being oppressed?  

Good thing they have useful idiots like you to defend them!


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Yes.  Violence is part of revolution *cue redefinition of revolution*.



I disagree. Violence is not at all necessary to revolution. Even when there is violence accompanying a revolution, the overthrow of the government itself is always nonviolent. Look at what happened in the Soviet Union in 1991. There was hardly any bloodshed at all. The people withdrew their support from the system, and the system came tumbling down. The troops refused to fire on the protesters. Something similar happened in several Middle Eastern countries more recently, and years ago in the Philippines when Marcos fell.

The only time a revolutionary movement needs to engage in violence is when it does not yet command the support of enough of the people to succeed, and the government attempts to destroy it by force. In that case, as in China for many years, the movement arms itself in order to survive and continue working towards gaining the people's support. It's not to overthrow the government by force of arms. That is either impossible or unnecessary, depending on how much support the movement has. When Mao finally did overthrow the Kuomintang and take over the government in 1949, there was very little fighting, because there was hardly anyone left willing to support the other side.

In the U.S. at this time, it's not likely the government will attempt to wipe out this movement by force of arms, so no resort to violence is necessary for self-defense; in fact that would be counterproductive. The movement can go on making its case, and drawing in more and more supporters, and building to the point when the people overthrow the system, one way or another.

Assuming it's found necessary to radically change the Constitution, which I'm coming to believe but which, so far, I don't believe most of the OWS participants do, the reason to use the Constitution's own mechanism for accomplishing this is because it would put the new form of government on an unassailable legal basis. If the government is overthrown without recourse to such legal means, it endures a period of dubious legitimacy until the people become completely accustomed to it. Thus our current Constitution began as an attempt to amend the Articles of Confederation through a mechanism that was written into those articles.

I would prefer to do something similar if possible.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> If the protesters were to demand something that could be done immediately by the government, it would have to be something like this: "All Republicans in Congress except Rand Paul, and all Democrats except for the few on this short list, resign your offices immediately; you are corrupt and don't deserve to serve. Oh, and Joe Lieberman, you too -- beat it. All candidates to take your places, accept no corporate campaign donations, and disavow all 527 ads in your favor."
> 
> How likely is it that such a demand would be complied with? Not very, seems to me. But anything short of that is not going to cure our problems..




So these unwashed, mouth-breathing idiots (and of course YOU as a representative example) demand that we jettison our democratic republic and disregard our electoral process and the rule of law as well as the choices and interests of all other citizens in order to accomodate you mewling, unworthy children? Fat-fucking-chance Cheech. You and the rest of your self-obsessed, moronic public defecators can scoop that shit up off a police car and eat it. As soon as the "Weeeee! We're like Woodstock!" wears off and y'all start dropping from disease, stealing from and otherwise harming one another, and pissing off too many normal, employed citizens you'll get the terrorist PR you are hoping for, but you won't enjoy the process.


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> So [you] demand that we jettison our democratic republic



No, that's already happened. There's nothing to jettison. We no longer have a democratic republic. That's the point.

[The remainder of your post snipped because it was content-empty garbage posted by an asshole.]


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> So [you] demand that we jettison our democratic republic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's already happened. There's nothing to jettison. We no longer have a democratic republic. That's the point.
> 
> [The remainder of your post snipped because it was content-empty garbage posted by an asshole.]
Click to expand...



You're just another irrelevant, hysterical, hyperbolic moron wallowing in your emotions and hoping that will cover your stupidity.


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> You're just another irrelevant, hysterical, hyperbolic moron wallowing in your emotions and hoping that will cover your stupidity.



That was completely content-free, nonthinking garbage that you essentially vomited into the Internet, and you're still an asshole.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> That was completely content-free, nonthinking garbage that you essentially vomited into the Internet.



Oh really? Non-thinking, content free vomit like this?



Dragon said:


> No, that's already happened. There's nothing to jettison. We no longer have a democratic republic.




For the third time, lay off the pot you little turd.


----------



## percysunshine

Name calling is the lazy persons habit.

Ok...I like to be lazy every now and then, , but not all the time.


----------



## Dragon

percysunshine said:


> Name calling is the lazy persons habit.
> 
> Ok...I like to be lazy every now and then, , but not all the time.



That's because you're not an asshole, while Unkotare is. On the rare occasions when he actually says anything other than pointless invective, I'll respond in some other way than to call him an asshole.

Most of the time, though, he's just an asshole. So that's how I respond.


----------



## Unkotare

In the meantime you'll hit the bong and gorge on cookie-dough. You are irrelevant, you moronic shitter.


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> You are irrelevant, you moronic shitter.



If that were true, you wouldn't be responding to my posts.

You can't actually argue logically with anything I have to say, which is why you only respond to my posts by being an asshole. But you do respond. So obviously I'm not irrelevant.

You asshole.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Synthaholic said:


> Are those poor billionaires being oppressed?



Is that what she said, Retard?

Is logical fallacy the closest you ever get to logic, Retard?



> Good thing they have useful idiots like you to defend them!



Defending what, Retard? The straw man YOU constructed? 

Why not deal what what people actually write, once in awhile?

Oh but you can't, because what people actually write doesn't fit with the script you regurgitate, from DailyKOS.

You're seriously stupid, Retard. Are you a Jillian sock?


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> You can't actually argue logically with anything I have to say.





Try saying something logical and we'll find out.


----------



## Big Fitz

Synthaholic said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> The public does not in fact stand with you on this, Si modo. It already supports OWS more than it supports the Tea Party. And that is going to increase, just as the movement will increase.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> It's too bad that Americans are against personal liberties and freedoms *and are for government intrusion, for government oppression.*
> 
> Or, just as bad, and more likely, it's too bad that the protestors are supporting the state-ist system that did not educate them enough and now they are just tools.  Useful Idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> And, that is exactly why those behind the OWS organization will not articulate what they want.
> 
> Knowledge is Bad; Ignorance is Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are those poor billionaires being oppressed?
> 
> Good thing they have useful idiots like you to defend them!
Click to expand...

So Pee Wee Wanker, 

If you're rich, it's okay for people to hate you?

How about if you're black, or gay, or poor, or something else different?  Is it okay to hate them then?

Sooooooooo tolerant and loving.


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> Try saying something logical and we'll find out.



We already did, and you're still an asshole.


----------



## Si modo

Uncensored2008 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are those poor billionaires being oppressed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what she said, Retard?
> 
> Is logical fallacy the closest you ever get to logic, Retard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing they have useful idiots like you to defend them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending what, Retard? The straw man YOU constructed?
> 
> Why not deal what what people actually write, once in awhile?
> 
> Oh but you can't, because what people actually write doesn't fit with the script you regurgitate, from DailyKOS.
> 
> You're seriously stupid, Retard. Are you a Jillian sock?
Click to expand...

I negged Synthia for spamming and he's still in a meltdown about it.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're just another irrelevant, hysterical, hyperbolic moron wallowing in your emotions and hoping that will cover your stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was completely content-free, nonthinking garbage that you essentially vomited into the Internet, and you're still an asshole.
Click to expand...


Why, because what he posted was true or just for general purposes?

I thought what he posted was pretty honest and straight forward.....which to some means you're an asshole....cuz they're not used to that kind of thing.'

_'Lie to me......it's all I can handle!!!!" _

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yB7J7DYi6M]You Can&#39;t Handle the Truth - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## mudwhistle

Si modo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are those poor billionaires being oppressed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what she said, Retard?
> 
> Is logical fallacy the closest you ever get to logic, Retard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing they have useful idiots like you to defend them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending what, Retard? The straw man YOU constructed?
> 
> Why not deal what what people actually write, once in awhile?
> 
> Oh but you can't, because what people actually write doesn't fit with the script you regurgitate, from DailyKOS.
> 
> You're seriously stupid, Retard. Are you a Jillian sock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I negged Synthia for spamming and he's still in a meltdown about it.
Click to expand...


I should neg him too.


----------



## mudwhistle

I just negged him.



Bet he blows his top..........


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> Why, because what he posted was true or just for general purposes?



It was content-free, and therefore neither true nor false. There were no statements of fact made that could be judged as to truthfulness. It was simply a regurgitation of bile.


----------



## Katzndogz

The way to get corporate money out of politics is to take lots of drugs, drink beer, shit and pee on the ground, then have sex in the mud they made.  Oh yes, they need thousands of donated condoms.  This is a protest?   This is an out of control street party in San Francisco.  This is a bisexual Folsom Street Fair.   It is an insult to the people of New York who just want to get to work.  I'm surprised that the WORKERS who are supporting these walking abortions haven't taken matters into their own hands by now.   The new narrative and I don't doubt there is one, is between people with children and families and jobs to get to, and spoiled little miscreants whose total mind is blown on Party Party PARTY!   And send the bill to those who are struggling already.  Why are they struggling?  Because an indulgent government is taking more and more to hand out to those who do less and less. 

If this protest is doing nothing but inviting a Kent State Moment from the MAJORITY, maybe the real REAL Party will.
Busy Weekend Planned For Occupy Wall Street Protesters « CBS New York

According to the site, the function in Times Square will be a party in the festive sense of the word.

From our street carnival in Times Sq. we will take the protest party to the trains and head downtown, reads a statement on the site organizing the Times Square gathering.

The real conflict is between these wannabe communists and Americans with the government furtively taking the side of the communists.  For the moment, just for the moment.  The majority is trusting the police to not let things get out of hand.  When the majority has a snoot full of the smell, the danger is that they will do something about it themselves.   There might be a couple of hundred shitting partiers at the park, but there are 8 million people in New York.


----------



## Dragon

Tipsycatlover said:


> The way to get corporate money out of politics is to take lots of drugs, drink beer, shit and pee on the ground, then have sex in the mud they made.



Apparently, the way to discredit a popular movement is to lie about what the participants are doing.


----------



## Liability

Dragon said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The way to get corporate money out of politics is to take lots of drugs, drink beer, shit and pee on the ground, then have sex in the mud they made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the way to discredit a popular movement is to lie about what the participants are doing.
Click to expand...


LOL!

Or, in some cases, it's just telling the truth that will do the trick.


----------



## Dragon

Liability said:


> Or, in some cases, it's just telling the truth that will do the trick.



Yes, but that's not what's happening here. We have seen claims that:

1) OWS is demanding $20 minimum wage and a general cancellation of debts.
2) The protesters intend to invade the stock exchange and kill everybody.
3) The protesters are shitting all over the streets and leaving litter everywhere and destroying property.
4) The protesters are engaging in all-night orgies.
5) The protests are all organized by Van Jones/Barack Obama/George Soros/the labor unions/[insert liberal-of-the-moment]

All of these are lies. Not one of these claims has any foundation in fact or has been supported with any hard evidence whatsoever.

I think it's quite telling when people are so worried about a movement that they feel it's worth lying about it in order to discredit it.


----------



## Synthaholic

Big Fitz said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> It's too bad that Americans are against personal liberties and freedoms *and are for government intrusion, for government oppression.*
> 
> Or, just as bad, and more likely, it's too bad that the protestors are supporting the state-ist system that did not educate them enough and now they are just tools.  Useful Idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> And, that is exactly why those behind the OWS organization will not articulate what they want.
> 
> Knowledge is Bad; Ignorance is Good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are those poor billionaires being oppressed?
> 
> Good thing they have useful idiots like you to defend them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Pee Wee Wanker,
> 
> *If you're rich, it's okay for people to hate you?*
> 
> How about if you're black, or gay, or poor, or something else different?  Is it okay to hate them then?
> 
> Sooooooooo tolerant and loving.
Click to expand...



You don't have the first clue what #OWS is all about, so I'll give you one:  It's not about hating the rich.


----------



## Synthaholic

Si modo said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are those poor billionaires being oppressed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what she said, Retard?
> 
> Is logical fallacy the closest you ever get to logic, Retard?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good thing they have useful idiots like you to defend them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending what, Retard? The straw man YOU constructed?
> 
> Why not deal what what people actually write, once in awhile?
> 
> Oh but you can't, because what people actually write doesn't fit with the script you regurgitate, from DailyKOS.
> 
> You're seriously stupid, Retard. Are you a Jillian sock?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I negged Synthia for spamming and he's still in a meltdown about it.
Click to expand...

I could give a shit about your pathetic neg reps.

You obviously do not know what 'spam' is, if you are using it to describe me replying to posts.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, in some cases, it's just telling the truth that will do the trick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but that's not what's happening here. We have seen claims that:
> 
> 1) OWS is demanding $20 minimum wage and a general cancellation of debts.
> 2) The protesters intend to invade the stock exchange and kill everybody.
> 3) The protesters are shitting all over the streets and leaving litter everywhere and destroying property.
> 4) The protesters are engaging in all-night orgies.
> 5) The protests are all organized by Van Jones/Barack Obama/George Soros/the labor unions/[insert liberal-of-the-moment]
> 
> All of these are lies. Not one of these claims has any foundation in fact or has been supported with any hard evidence whatsoever.
> 
> I think it's quite telling when people are so worried about a movement that they feel it's worth lying about it in order to discredit it.
Click to expand...


Yeah -- it's an evil job making all that stuff up.. And the truth is --- the "right" sucks at it.

For real demonizing -- whether it's a Repub woman or black or a mere "non-approved" idea -- NOTHING beats the leftist smear machine..     

I just sit here and watch the bombardment go over my position..


----------



## Preius

flacaltenn said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, in some cases, it's just telling the truth that will do the trick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but that's not what's happening here. We have seen claims that:
> 
> 1) OWS is demanding $20 minimum wage and a general cancellation of debts.
> *2) The protesters intend to invade the stock exchange and kill everybody.*
> 3) The protesters are shitting all over the streets and leaving litter everywhere and destroying property.
> 4) The protesters are engaging in all-night orgies.
> 5) The protests are all organized by Van Jones/Barack Obama/George Soros/the labor unions/[insert liberal-of-the-moment]
> 
> All of these are lies. Not one of these claims has any foundation in fact or has been supported with any hard evidence whatsoever.
> 
> I think it's quite telling when people are so worried about a movement that they feel it's worth lying about it in order to discredit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah -- it's an evil job making all that stuff up.. And the truth is --- the "right" sucks at it.
> 
> For real demonizing -- whether it's a Repub woman or black or a mere "non-approved" idea -- NOTHING beats the leftist smear machine..
> 
> I just sit here and watch the bombardment go over my position..
Click to expand...


There are many ideas being thrown around by just ordinary people in the 99% Occupy movement.  The leaders are intentionally staying away from specific issues.  This country was founded on extreme violence such as burning the homes of British tax collectors, and perhaps even murder.





Your point #2 about entering the stock exchange and killing everyone would be a sad thing for the families of those who might die.  On the other hand, we are a violent people hiding behind a lot of great concepts.  Many see themselves out of work and losing their homes while Wall Streeters continue to make millions.  I would understand if violence occurred.  It would be a pity for the 1%.

I can see where the level of anger might be along the lines of patriots during the American revolution.  What if you had lost your home or your job through no fault of your own and your unemployment was running out.  Desperation can become violence easily.  Within our highly moral concepts of government are Second Amendment solutions.  If it were to happen I would be sad, and not helpful to the political end of things.  On the other hand, what goes around comes around.  Unfortunately, an eye for an eye is a consistently realistic concept for human beings.

Let me put it this way, if a few hedge fund manager, or CEOs experienced a fatal incident around the New York Stock Exchange,  I would not lose any sleep.  For the record as a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative, I would condemn any use of violence on Wall Street, at least publicly.  I believe this was also John Hancock's attitude during the Boston Tea Party.


----------



## flacaltenn

Preius said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but that's not what's happening here. We have seen claims that:
> 
> 1) OWS is demanding $20 minimum wage and a general cancellation of debts.
> *2) The protesters intend to invade the stock exchange and kill everybody.*
> 3) The protesters are shitting all over the streets and leaving litter everywhere and destroying property.
> 4) The protesters are engaging in all-night orgies.
> 5) The protests are all organized by Van Jones/Barack Obama/George Soros/the labor unions/[insert liberal-of-the-moment]
> 
> All of these are lies. Not one of these claims has any foundation in fact or has been supported with any hard evidence whatsoever.
> 
> I think it's quite telling when people are so worried about a movement that they feel it's worth lying about it in order to discredit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah -- it's an evil job making all that stuff up.. And the truth is --- the "right" sucks at it.
> 
> For real demonizing -- whether it's a Repub woman or black or a mere "non-approved" idea -- NOTHING beats the leftist smear machine..
> 
> I just sit here and watch the bombardment go over my position..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many ideas being thrown around by just ordinary people in the 99% Occupy movement.  The leaders are intentionally staying away from specific issues.  This country was founded on extreme violence such as burning the homes of British tax collectors, and perhaps even murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point #2 about entering the stock exchange and killing everyone would be a sad thing for the families of those who might die.  On the other hand, we are a violent people hiding behind a lot of great concepts.  Many see themselves out of work and losing their homes while Wall Streeters continue to make millions.  I would understand if violence occurred.  It would be a pity for the 1%.
> 
> I can see where the level of anger might be along the lines of patriots during the American revolution.  What if you had lost your home or your job through no fault of your own and your unemployment was running out.  Desperation can become violence easily.  Within our highly moral concepts of government are Second Amendment solutions.  If it were to happen I would be sad, and not helpful to the political end of things.  On the other hand, what goes around comes around.  Unfortunately, an eye for an eye is a consistently realistic concept for human beings.
> 
> Let me put it this way, if a few hedge fund manager, or CEOs experienced a fatal incident around the New York Stock Exchange,  I would not lose any sleep.  For the record as a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative, I would condemn any use of violence on Wall Street, at least publicly.  I believe this was also John Hancock's attitude during the Boston Tea Party.
Click to expand...


There you go Preius.. I suspected you'd endorse a KristalNacht like "message" to the scapegoats you've selected as an enemy.. Don't bother responding to RATIONAL debate -- like you dodged my response to you yesterday..  http://www.usmessageboard.com/4267291-post1040.html

 Just go for the punchline. Good Job.. Nancy Pelosi is REAL PROUD of your conviction..


----------



## Preius

flacaltenn said:


> Preius::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, we can hand the rest of it from here, but you are welcome to sign up with us. We hate Wall Street Millionaires, Republicans and Democrats. In the end the only ones who will stand up for the 1% are the 1%. Even some of them have joined the 99%, they are known as Patriotic Millionaires
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I'm not impressed.. What do you want? A big ass thank-you for the grandstanding "patriotism"? How about they all wear Red,White, and Blue armbands so that we can bow at their feet?
> 
> First off -- Very few of America's Millionaires are Wall Street. *The vast majority of the 100s of THOUSANDS of Millionaires in America are Entertainers, Sports Figures, Authors, Inventors, or are HARD-WORKING business people.* Those making a living STRICTLY as corporate execs or financial figures is a miniscule portion of the 1%.
> 
> By villifying the Capitalist System and focusing the scapegoating on Wall Street -- the left has done the neccessary propagandizing to focus outrage on the MINORITY of "the rich" in order to plunder them all. There is no justification for plundering Hollywood --- or is there???
> 
> When the cast of Two and a Half Men have 4 stars that pull down over $200,000 per episode while the starving walk-ons mixing Jamba Juices in their real jobs make $200 per episode -- there's no outrage is there?
> 
> When the uniform management crew of the Baltimore Ravens make $25,000 and the quarterback makes $25Mill -- there's no outrage is there? YET the MAJORITY of Millionaires in this country are protected from the mobs for THEIR skyrocketing wages and benefits. How damn convienient.
> 
> You're fooling yourselves if you think that punishing Jay Leno, Phil Mickelson and Justin Bieber is akin to "patriotism". And your "Flea Party" is nothing other than a bunch of misinformed scavengers picking apart what's left of the carcass of an economy that NO ONE wants to fix..
> 
> I think I'll start a "Patriotic Have-Nots" Those 49% of American filers who currently pay NOTHING to the General Fund. THey are all gonna pledge 1% of their WAGES to patriotic subsidization of BIGGER more arrogant, more incompetent Government. Now THAT would deserve a standing ovation for MEANINGFUL sacrifice...  Wouldn't it?
Click to expand...


First, I am sorry I missed your post.  I always go back to my previous posts looking for needed responses from me.  Apparently, I missed this one.  This is one fast thread!

*name calling.*. 

Next time you want to name-call, just put it in the upper left hand corner in large size bold red letters in your post.  I barely scan that stuff anyway, which may be why I missed your post.  This will save you time, and I will get the message about your attitude toward me or the subject.

I am not writing off millionaires as a group.  How can you not like people like David Letterman, Bill Maher, Meryl Streep, or Shirley MacLaine to name a few.  Actually, here in Southern California, Shirley MacLaine is better known for her activism in politics, successful business ventures, and as a published author.  Her extraordinary career in entertainment, and as the only female member of Frank Sinatra's former 'rat pack.' seem to be more a part of her past.


----------



## flacaltenn

Preius said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preius::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, we can hand the rest of it from here, but you are welcome to sign up with us. We hate Wall Street Millionaires, Republicans and Democrats. In the end the only ones who will stand up for the 1% are the 1%. Even some of them have joined the 99%, they are known as Patriotic Millionaires
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I'm not impressed.. What do you want? A big ass thank-you for the grandstanding "patriotism"? How about they all wear Red,White, and Blue armbands so that we can bow at their feet?
> 
> First off -- Very few of America's Millionaires are Wall Street. *The vast majority of the 100s of THOUSANDS of Millionaires in America are Entertainers, Sports Figures, Authors, Inventors, or are HARD-WORKING business people.* Those making a living STRICTLY as corporate execs or financial figures is a miniscule portion of the 1%.
> 
> By villifying the Capitalist System and focusing the scapegoating on Wall Street -- the left has done the neccessary propagandizing to focus outrage on the MINORITY of "the rich" in order to plunder them all. There is no justification for plundering Hollywood --- or is there???
> 
> When the cast of Two and a Half Men have 4 stars that pull down over $200,000 per episode while the starving walk-ons mixing Jamba Juices in their real jobs make $200 per episode -- there's no outrage is there?
> 
> When the uniform management crew of the Baltimore Ravens make $25,000 and the quarterback makes $25Mill -- there's no outrage is there? YET the MAJORITY of Millionaires in this country are protected from the mobs for THEIR skyrocketing wages and benefits. How damn convienient.
> 
> You're fooling yourselves if you think that punishing Jay Leno, Phil Mickelson and Justin Bieber is akin to "patriotism". And your "Flea Party" is nothing other than a bunch of misinformed scavengers picking apart what's left of the carcass of an economy that NO ONE wants to fix..
> 
> I think I'll start a "Patriotic Have-Nots" Those 49% of American filers who currently pay NOTHING to the General Fund. THey are all gonna pledge 1% of their WAGES to patriotic subsidization of BIGGER more arrogant, more incompetent Government. Now THAT would deserve a standing ovation for MEANINGFUL sacrifice...  Wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I am sorry I missed your post.  I always go back to my previous posts looking for needed responses from me.  Apparently, I missed this one.  This is one fast thread!
> 
> *name calling.*.
> 
> Next time you want to name-call, just put it in the upper left hand corner in large size bold red letters in your post.  I barely scan that stuff anyway, which may be why I missed your post.  This will save you time, and I will get the message about your attitude toward me or the subject.
> 
> I am not writing off millionaires as a group.  How can you not like people like David Letterman, Bill Maher, Meryl Streep, or Shirley MacLaine to name a few.  Actually, here in Southern California, Shirley MacLaine is better known for her activism in politics, successful business ventures, and as a published author.  Her extraordinary career in entertainment, and as the only female member of Frank Sinatra's former 'rat pack.' seem to be more a part of her past.
Click to expand...


That's all ya got? Where is the Name-Calling? U must mean the "Flea Party" reference. That allows you to excuse your elitist ass from debate? You're a chicken-shit looter.. Now THERE'S the name-calling you wanted. Can't debate. Can't contribute. All you can do is parrot propaganda and call for revolution..


----------



## Preius

flacaltenn said:


> Preius::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, we can hand the rest of it from here, but you are welcome to sign up with us. We hate Wall Street Millionaires, Republicans and Democrats. In the end the only ones who will stand up for the 1% are the 1%. Even some of them have joined the 99%, they are known as Patriotic Millionaires
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I'm not impressed.. What do you want? A big ass thank-you for the grandstanding "patriotism"? How about they all wear Red,White, and Blue armbands so that we can bow at their feet?
> 
> First off -- Very few of America's Millionaires are Wall Street. *The vast majority of the 100s of THOUSANDS of Millionaires in America are Entertainers, Sports Figures, Authors, Inventors, or are HARD-WORKING business people.* Those making a living STRICTLY as corporate execs or financial figures is a miniscule portion of the 1%.
> 
> By villifying the Capitalist System and focusing the scapegoating on Wall Street -- the left has done the neccessary propagandizing to focus outrage on the MINORITY of "the rich" in order to plunder them all. There is no justification for plundering Hollywood --- or is there???
> 
> When the cast of Two and a Half Men have 4 stars that pull down over $200,000 per episode while the starving walk-ons mixing Jamba Juices in their real jobs make $200 per episode -- there's no outrage is there?
> 
> When the uniform management crew of the Baltimore Ravens make $25,000 and the quarterback makes $25Mill -- there's no outrage is there? YET the MAJORITY of Millionaires in this country are protected from the mobs for THEIR skyrocketing wages and benefits. How damn convienient.
> 
> You're fooling yourselves if you think that punishing Jay Leno, Phil Mickelson and Justin Bieber is akin to "patriotism". And your "Flea Party" is nothing other than a bunch of misinformed scavengers picking apart what's left of the carcass of an economy that NO ONE wants to fix..
> 
> I think I'll start a "Patriotic Have-Nots" Those 49% of American filers who currently pay NOTHING to the General Fund. THey are all gonna pledge 1% of their WAGES to patriotic subsidization of BIGGER more arrogant, more incompetent Government. Now THAT would deserve a standing ovation for MEANINGFUL sacrifice...  Wouldn't it?
Click to expand...


First, I am sorry I missed your post.  I always go back to my previous posts looking for needed responses from me.  Apparently, I missed this one.  This is one fast thread!

*name calling.*.

Next time you want to name-call, just put the words in the upper left hand corner in large size bold red letters in your post.  I barely scan that stuff anyway, which may be why I missed your post.  This will save you time, and I will get the message about your attitude toward me or the subject at hand.

I am not writing off millionaires as a group.  How can you not like people like David Letterman, Scott Pelley, Meryl Streep, or Shirley MacLaine to name a few.  Actually, here in Southern California, Shirley MacLaine is better known for her activism in politics, successful business ventures, and as a published author.  Her extraordinary career in entertainment, and as the only female member of Frank Sinatra's former 'rat pack.' seems to be more a part of her colorful past.




I often post that I believe capitalism and socialism in America are merging into American Socialism.  In fact the only remnants of capitalism left in the United States seems to be the right of inheritance and financial rewards for new ideas.  Socialism is in effect, and it was the *REPUBLICANS *that made American taxpayers into shareholders.  A fact we will never let Republicans forget.  It was not the Democrats that jump-started socialism as part of American life!    

In answer to your Republican Party talking point of last week, (which was later dropped as just plain stupid), 49% of Americans pay no tax because they fall under the Federal poverty line and owe no tax.  Another circumstance we  can blame on Republicans for outsourcing jobs to the third world.  However, these 49% are still liable for property tax, and sales tax which are regressive taxes, (wealthy and poor pay the same amount for a pack of gum at CVS).

*Bottom line*, there are self-serving bastards at all financial levels, unfortunately, when the wealth are nasty, a lot more people get hurt.


----------



## Preius

flacaltenn said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah -- it's an evil job making all that stuff up.. And the truth is --- the "right" sucks at it.
> 
> For real demonizing -- whether it's a Repub woman or black or a mere "non-approved" idea -- NOTHING beats the leftist smear machine..
> 
> I just sit here and watch the bombardment go over my position..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are many ideas being thrown around by just ordinary people in the 99% Occupy movement.  The leaders are intentionally staying away from specific issues.  This country was founded on extreme violence such as burning the homes of British tax collectors, and perhaps even murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of this thread is "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"
> 
> Your point #2 about entering the stock exchange and killing everyone would be a sad thing for the families of those who might die.  On the other hand, we are a violent people hiding behind a lot of great concepts.  Many see themselves out of work and losing their homes while Wall Streeters continue to make millions.  I would understand if violence occurred.  It would be a pity for the 1%.
> 
> I can see where the level of anger might be along the lines of patriots during the American revolution.  What if you had lost your home or your job through no fault of your own and your unemployment was running out.  Desperation can become violence easily.  Within our highly moral concepts of government are Second Amendment solutions.  If it were to happen I would be sad, and not helpful to the political end of things.  On the other hand, what goes around comes around.  Unfortunately, an eye for an eye is a consistently realistic concept for human beings.
> 
> Let me put it this way, if a few hedge fund manager, or CEOs experienced a fatal incident around the New York Stock Exchange,  I would not lose any sleep.  For the record as a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative, I would condemn any use of violence on Wall Street, at least publicly.  I believe this was also John Hancock's attitude during the Boston Tea Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go Preius.. I suspected you'd endorse a KristalNacht like "message" to the scapegoats you've selected as an enemy.. Don't bother responding to RATIONAL debate -- like you dodged my response to you yesterday..  http://www.usmessageboard.com/4267291-post1040.html
> 
> Just go for the punchline. Good Job.. Nancy Pelosi is REAL PROUD of your conviction..
Click to expand...


Please, for the sake of those of us who actually read you, write for CLARITY first.  I have no idea who KristaNacht is, so now I have to Google.  Kristallnacht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  Apparently, you think I hate Hebrew People, I will tell you this as a WASP, if it were not for my close Hebrew ties, my career would not be as advanced as it is at my age.  I have had clients, (Jewish and others) request me specifically on their accounts because of my reputation.

I like Pelosi and Reid, but I do not get down on a rug and bow every morning like Repubs do to Austin, Texas for Rick Perry.  I am a disgruntled Dem who is unhappy that President Barry Obama would consider cutting Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.  This is totally unacceptable.  Pelosi and Reid have stuck to their guns.  While I respect that, it is REQUIRED OF DEMS as far as I am concerned.  

I have not dodged a single post of yours.  In fact I went back for a post you complained about because I missed it.  It would appear that the entire purpose of this post has to do with Jewish people, which I have responded to - even though it is off-topic.  Do you actually think about what you post, or do you just dump whatever pops into your mind at the moment?

*The subject of this thread is "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*


----------



## freedombecki

Preius said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preius::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, we can hand the rest of it from here, but you are welcome to sign up with us. We hate Wall Street Millionaires, Republicans and Democrats. In the end the only ones who will stand up for the 1% are the 1%. Even some of them have joined the 99%, they are known as Patriotic Millionaires
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I'm not impressed.. What do you want? A big ass thank-you for the grandstanding "patriotism"? How about they all wear Red,White, and Blue armbands so that we can bow at their feet?
> 
> First off -- Very few of America's Millionaires are Wall Street. *The vast majority of the 100s of THOUSANDS of Millionaires in America are Entertainers, Sports Figures, Authors, Inventors, or are HARD-WORKING business people.* Those making a living STRICTLY as corporate execs or financial figures is a miniscule portion of the 1%.
> 
> By villifying the Capitalist System and focusing the scapegoating on Wall Street -- the left has done the neccessary propagandizing to focus outrage on the MINORITY of "the rich" in order to plunder them all. There is no justification for plundering Hollywood --- or is there???
> 
> When the cast of Two and a Half Men have 4 stars that pull down over $200,000 per episode while the starving walk-ons mixing Jamba Juices in their real jobs make $200 per episode -- there's no outrage is there?
> 
> When the uniform management crew of the Baltimore Ravens make $25,000 and the quarterback makes $25Mill -- there's no outrage is there? YET the MAJORITY of Millionaires in this country are protected from the mobs for THEIR skyrocketing wages and benefits. How damn convienient.
> 
> You're fooling yourselves if you think that punishing Jay Leno, Phil Mickelson and Justin Bieber is akin to "patriotism". And your "Flea Party" is nothing other than a bunch of misinformed scavengers picking apart what's left of the carcass of an economy that NO ONE wants to fix..
> 
> I think I'll start a "Patriotic Have-Nots" Those 49% of American filers who currently pay NOTHING to the General Fund. THey are all gonna pledge 1% of their WAGES to patriotic subsidization of BIGGER more arrogant, more incompetent Government. Now THAT would deserve a standing ovation for MEANINGFUL sacrifice...  Wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I am sorry I missed your post.  I always go back to my previous posts looking for needed responses from me.  Apparently, I missed this one.  This is one fast thread!
> 
> *name calling.*.
> 
> Next time you want to name-call, just put the words in the upper left hand corner in large size bold red letters in your post.  I barely scan that stuff anyway, which may be why I missed your post.  This will save you time, and I will get the message about your attitude toward me or the subject at hand.
> 
> I am not writing off millionaires as a group.  How can you not like people like David Letterman, Scott Pelley, Meryl Streep, or Shirley MacLaine to name a few.  Actually, here in Southern California, Shirley MacLaine is better known for her activism in politics, successful business ventures, and as a published author.  Her extraordinary career in entertainment, and as the only female member of Frank Sinatra's former 'rat pack.' seems to be more a part of her colorful past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I often post that I believe capitalism and socialism in America are merging into American Socialism.  In fact the only remnants of capitalism left in the United States seems to be the right of inheritance and financial rewards for new ideas.  Socialism is in effect, and it was the *REPUBLICANS *that made American taxpayers into shareholders.  A fact we will never let Republicans forget.  It was not the Democrats that jump-started socialism as part of American life!
> 
> In answer to your Republican Party talking point of last week, (which was later dropped as just plain stupid), 49% of Americans pay no tax because they fall under the Federal poverty line and owe no tax. * Another circumstance we  can blame on Republicans for outsourcing jobs to the third world.*  However, these 49% are still liable for property tax, and sales tax which are regressive taxes, (wealthy and poor pay the same amount for a pack of gum at CVS).
> 
> *Bottom line*, there are self-serving bastards at all financial levels, unfortunately, when the wealth are nasty, a lot more people get hurt.
Click to expand...

Actually, the most recent job outsourcing goes to President Obama's appointed Job Czar, Jeffrey Immelt. He is also CEO of General electric, who just sent tens of thousands of American jobs to China, along with two billion in start-up costs in July, 6 months after his appointment as America's preserver of jobs in America.

I don't expect someone new to politics to digest this all at once, but what you hear someone say is not always what you really get. 

Obama's Head of Jobs Council outsources tens of thousands of American jobs to China.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try saying something logical and we'll find out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We already did, and you're still an asshole.
Click to expand...


"We"? Are you trying to hide in a crowd, loser?


----------



## flacaltenn

Preius said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preius::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, we can hand the rest of it from here, but you are welcome to sign up with us. We hate Wall Street Millionaires, Republicans and Democrats. In the end the only ones who will stand up for the 1% are the 1%. Even some of them have joined the 99%, they are known as Patriotic Millionaires
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I'm not impressed.. What do you want? A big ass thank-you for the grandstanding "patriotism"? How about they all wear Red,White, and Blue armbands so that we can bow at their feet?
> 
> First off -- Very few of America's Millionaires are Wall Street. *The vast majority of the 100s of THOUSANDS of Millionaires in America are Entertainers, Sports Figures, Authors, Inventors, or are HARD-WORKING business people.* Those making a living STRICTLY as corporate execs or financial figures is a miniscule portion of the 1%.
> 
> By villifying the Capitalist System and focusing the scapegoating on Wall Street -- the left has done the neccessary propagandizing to focus outrage on the MINORITY of "the rich" in order to plunder them all. There is no justification for plundering Hollywood --- or is there???
> 
> When the cast of Two and a Half Men have 4 stars that pull down over $200,000 per episode while the starving walk-ons mixing Jamba Juices in their real jobs make $200 per episode -- there's no outrage is there?
> 
> When the uniform management crew of the Baltimore Ravens make $25,000 and the quarterback makes $25Mill -- there's no outrage is there? YET the MAJORITY of Millionaires in this country are protected from the mobs for THEIR skyrocketing wages and benefits. How damn convienient.
> 
> You're fooling yourselves if you think that punishing Jay Leno, Phil Mickelson and Justin Bieber is akin to "patriotism". And your "Flea Party" is nothing other than a bunch of misinformed scavengers picking apart what's left of the carcass of an economy that NO ONE wants to fix..
> 
> I think I'll start a "Patriotic Have-Nots" Those 49% of American filers who currently pay NOTHING to the General Fund. THey are all gonna pledge 1% of their WAGES to patriotic subsidization of BIGGER more arrogant, more incompetent Government. Now THAT would deserve a standing ovation for MEANINGFUL sacrifice...  Wouldn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I am sorry I missed your post.  I always go back to my previous posts looking for needed responses from me.  Apparently, I missed this one.  This is one fast thread!
> 
> *name calling.*.
> 
> Next time you want to name-call, just put the words in the upper left hand corner in large size bold red letters in your post.  I barely scan that stuff anyway, which may be why I missed your post.  This will save you time, and I will get the message about your attitude toward me or the subject at hand.
> 
> I am not writing off millionaires as a group.  How can you not like people like David Letterman, Scott Pelley, Meryl Streep, or Shirley MacLaine to name a few.  Actually, here in Southern California, Shirley MacLaine is better known for her activism in politics, successful business ventures, and as a published author.  Her extraordinary career in entertainment, and as the only female member of Frank Sinatra's former 'rat pack.' seems to be more a part of her colorful past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I often post that I believe capitalism and socialism in America are merging into American Socialism.  In fact the only remnants of capitalism left in the United States seems to be the right of inheritance and financial rewards for new ideas.  Socialism is in effect, and it was the *REPUBLICANS *that made American taxpayers into shareholders.  A fact we will never let Republicans forget.  It was not the Democrats that jump-started socialism as part of American life!
> 
> In answer to your Republican Party talking point of last week, (which was later dropped as just plain stupid), 49% of Americans pay no tax because they fall under the Federal poverty line and owe no tax.  Another circumstance we  can blame on Republicans for outsourcing jobs to the third world.  However, these 49% are still liable for property tax, and sales tax which are regressive taxes, (wealthy and poor pay the same amount for a pack of gum at CVS).
> 
> *Bottom line*, there are self-serving bastards at all financial levels, unfortunately, when the wealth are nasty, a lot more people get hurt.
Click to expand...


Oh so now you're in a talking mood?? I'm under no delusion that the Repubs can trusted with the Power to dole out favors and pick winners/losers. I've been active in 3rd party politics for over 10 years. But I doubt there's enough idiots in the Repub camp that are willing to create a BIGGER teate for the parasites to suck on. The answer to GOVT/CORP collusion is to keep checks on the amount of power that can be controlled by a 2 party monopoly that we all know is crooked beyond belief. It's THOSE thieves and clowns that are problem. And REDUCED meddling in the market is the answer. 

There is no formal tie of tax liability to "Federal Poverty Level" as you assert. That's NOT a consideration in the formation of the tax brackets at all. In fact income has no correlation to wealth. Most of my Cali Buds lived in 800,000 homes with 2 luxury cars, a cabin in Tahoe and a kid at Stanford -- but their net worth was probably shy of 100,000. This class thing is a trickier deal than you assume. 

In fact, property tax and sales tax have NO bearing on the discussion of corporate influence on government or who pays into the Federal Gen Fund. There is a fact that about 46% of federal tax filers are EXEMPT from paying ANYTHING to the Feds except for FICA taxes which are premiums for socialist INSURANCE programs that are supposed to be UNIVERSAL. It's not a talking point. It's a reality. Other realities are:

1) The top 1% of income earners make 18% of all income.
2) The top 1% of income earners pay 38% of all Income Tax.

Sorry -- that's not debateable. Now local and state might be regressive, but property tax for instance usually goes 70% or more to UNIVERSAL PUBLIC education. Another program for which folks are ASSUMED to participate. 

I know why you nutcases have singled out FREE MARKET villians for your wrath -- rather than the MAJORITY of American Millionaires who have very little to do with Wall Street. And that's because YOU DO want to build a bigger GOVT ATM machine. And you can't stand the idea that the mechanism of Capitalism isn't at your beckon call for your service. 

Tough luck that...


----------



## Si modo

Preius said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but that's not what's happening here. We have seen claims that:
> 
> 1) OWS is demanding $20 minimum wage and a general cancellation of debts.
> *2) The protesters intend to invade the stock exchange and kill everybody.*
> 3) The protesters are shitting all over the streets and leaving litter everywhere and destroying property.
> 4) The protesters are engaging in all-night orgies.
> 5) The protests are all organized by Van Jones/Barack Obama/George Soros/the labor unions/[insert liberal-of-the-moment]
> 
> All of these are lies. Not one of these claims has any foundation in fact or has been supported with any hard evidence whatsoever.
> 
> I think it's quite telling when people are so worried about a movement that they feel it's worth lying about it in order to discredit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah -- it's an evil job making all that stuff up.. And the truth is --- the "right" sucks at it.
> 
> For real demonizing -- whether it's a Repub woman or black or a mere "non-approved" idea -- NOTHING beats the leftist smear machine..
> 
> I just sit here and watch the bombardment go over my position..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are many ideas being thrown around by just ordinary people in the 99% Occupy movement.  The leaders are intentionally staying away from specific issues.  This country was founded on extreme violence such as burning the homes of British tax collectors, and perhaps even murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your point #2 about entering the stock exchange and killing everyone would be a sad thing for the families of those who might die.  On the other hand, we are a violent people hiding behind a lot of great concepts.  Many see themselves out of work and losing their homes while Wall Streeters continue to make millions.  I would understand if violence occurred.  It would be a pity for the 1%.
> 
> I can see where the level of anger might be along the lines of patriots during the American revolution.  What if you had lost your home or your job through no fault of your own and your unemployment was running out.  Desperation can become violence easily.  Within our highly moral concepts of government are Second Amendment solutions.  If it were to happen I would be sad, and not helpful to the political end of things.  On the other hand, what goes around comes around.  Unfortunately, an eye for an eye is a consistently realistic concept for human beings.
> 
> Let me put it this way, if a few hedge fund manager, or CEOs experienced a fatal incident around the New York Stock Exchange,  I would not lose any sleep.  For the record as a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative, I would condemn any use of violence on Wall Street, at least publicly.  I believe this was also John Hancock's attitude during the Boston Tea Party.
Click to expand...

Intentional hateful rhetoric calling for violence, again, from you.

When folks get hurt, blood is on your hands.


----------



## flacaltenn

Preius said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many ideas being thrown around by just ordinary people in the 99% Occupy movement.  The leaders are intentionally staying away from specific issues.  This country was founded on extreme violence such as burning the homes of British tax collectors, and perhaps even murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of this thread is "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"
> 
> Your point #2 about entering the stock exchange and killing everyone would be a sad thing for the families of those who might die.  On the other hand, we are a violent people hiding behind a lot of great concepts.  Many see themselves out of work and losing their homes while Wall Streeters continue to make millions.  I would understand if violence occurred.  It would be a pity for the 1%.
> 
> I can see where the level of anger might be along the lines of patriots during the American revolution.  What if you had lost your home or your job through no fault of your own and your unemployment was running out.  Desperation can become violence easily.  Within our highly moral concepts of government are Second Amendment solutions.  If it were to happen I would be sad, and not helpful to the political end of things.  On the other hand, what goes around comes around.  Unfortunately, an eye for an eye is a consistently realistic concept for human beings.
> 
> Let me put it this way, if a few hedge fund manager, or CEOs experienced a fatal incident around the New York Stock Exchange,  I would not lose any sleep.  For the record as a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative, I would condemn any use of violence on Wall Street, at least publicly.  I believe this was also John Hancock's attitude during the Boston Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go Preius.. I suspected you'd endorse a KristalNacht like "message" to the scapegoats you've selected as an enemy.. Don't bother responding to RATIONAL debate -- like you dodged my response to you yesterday..  http://www.usmessageboard.com/4267291-post1040.html
> 
> Just go for the punchline. Good Job.. Nancy Pelosi is REAL PROUD of your conviction..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, for the sake of those of us who actually read you, write for CLARITY first.  I have no idea who KristaNacht is, so now I have to Google.  Kristallnacht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  Apparently, you think I hate Hebrew People, I will tell you this as a WASP, if it were not for my close Hebrew ties, my career would not be as advanced as it is at my age.  I have had clients, (Jewish and others) request me specifically on their accounts because of my reputation.
> 
> I like Pelosi and Reid, but I do not get down on a rug and bow every morning like Repubs do to Austin, Texas for Rick Perry.  I am a disgruntled Dem who is unhappy that President Barry Obama would consider cutting Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.  This is totally unacceptable.  Pelosi and Reid have stuck to their guns.  While I respect that, it is REQUIRED OF DEMS as far as I am concerned.
> 
> I have not dodged a single post of yours.  In fact I went back for a post you complained about because I missed it.  It would appear that the entire purpose of this post has to do with Jewish people, which I have responded to - even though it is off-topic.  Do you actually think about what you post, or do you just dump whatever pops into your mind at the moment?
> 
> *The subject of this thread is "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*
Click to expand...


Sorry -- I assume that since you're so opinionated, you'd also be historically literate. You missed the analogy. Not about the Jews in particular.* It's about scapegoating*. It was the ultimate brilliant propaganda move to deflect the Aryan German attention from the failings of the German GOvt to preserve economic stability. Find a convienient scapegoat. Blame them that a loaf of bread cost a wheelbarrow full of DeuscheMarks and light their world on fire. Separate them out. Accuse the convienient minority target of being greedy and corrupt. Reduce them to collateral damage in the battle to control the Reich.. Nice play. I've seen it before.

And you have dodged LOADS of my questions. Especially the ones concerning why you're not outraged at wage inequities in Hollywood or the Arts or Pro Sports biz.. Because that's where the MAJORITY of American Millionaires are. But we all know why that is.


----------



## Dragon

From The Onion:

Ifc Obama Seeks Approval Of 'Occupy Wall Street' Protestors By Punching Banker In The Face | The Onion - America's Finest News Source | Onion News Network

"NEW YORK, NY (October 12, 2011) - Apparently seeking to ride the wave of popular anger being expressed by the growing "Occupy Wall Street" movement, today President Obama punched an investment banker in the face.

"The punch occurred during a White House meet-and-greet around noon. After a brief speech on tax reform, President Obama called investment banker Ron Milner to the podium and then, without provocation or warning, delivered what witnesses describe as a "haymaker" punch to Mr. Milner's jaw. "That's for ruining the economy, asshole," Mr. Obama remarked, then spit at Mr. Milner's feet and walked away."


----------



## Katzndogz

Meanwhile, even as this evil regime moans about unemployment and personal losses, the administration takes concrete steps to exacerbate the losses.  Raise taxes, increase regulations, or, as in the case of Gibson Guitar manufacturers DEMAND that it move out of the country.

The democrats are arsonists, burning down the national house so it can complain about the ashes.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> From The Onion:
> 
> Ifc Obama Seeks Approval Of 'Occupy Wall Street' Protestors By Punching Banker In The Face | The Onion - America's Finest News Source | Onion News Network
> 
> "NEW YORK, NY (October 12, 2011) - Apparently seeking to ride the wave of popular anger being expressed by the growing "Occupy Wall Street" movement, today President Obama punched an investment banker in the face.
> 
> "The punch occurred during a White House meet-and-greet around noon. After a brief speech on tax reform, President Obama called investment banker Ron Milner to the podium and then, without provocation or warning, delivered what witnesses describe as a "haymaker" punch to Mr. Milner's jaw. "That's for ruining the economy, asshole," Mr. Obama remarked, then spit at Mr. Milner's feet and walked away."



Tee-hee! Did that make you and the other girls jump up and down giggling? What fun!  


Yeah, that's about the level you and the uwashed, empty-headed, emo-vagrants are at. Congratulations you punk ass, useless little bitch.


----------



## chanel

Yep. Vick gets 100 mil and his fans say he's worth every dime. And many of those fans are out of work.

I just had a very sobering conversation with a "banker friend" She said the new "Obama regs" are expected to cost the bank 500 mil by the end of the year. They are expecting mass layoffs. That should thrill the OWS crowd. Get those evil bankers! 

Do they have any fucking clue who these "evil doers" are?


----------



## Dragon

Unkotare said:


> Yeah, that's about the level you and the uwashed, empty-headed, emo-vagrants are at. Congratulations you punk ass, useless little bitch.



How old are you, Unkotare? Are you a pimply-faced teenager, or do you just have the maturity of one?


----------



## Dragon

Tipsycatlover said:


> Meanwhile, even as this evil regime moans about unemployment and personal losses, the administration takes concrete steps to exacerbate the losses.  Raise taxes, increase regulations, or, as in the case of Gibson Guitar manufacturers DEMAND that it move out of the country.



Raising taxes and increasing regulations do not cause loss of jobs. Companies hire because they have customers they can't serve with the staff hey have already. If the demand exists to justify it, they will hire, taxes or no taxes, regs or no regs. If it isn't, they won't -- taxes or no taxes, regs or no regs.

Right-wing economics is a lie.

As for Gibson, I remind you that treaties are incorporated into U.S. law and the government is responsible for enforcing the law.



> The democrats are arsonists, burning down the national house so it can complain about the ashes.



Isn't this thread supposed to be about Occupy Wall Street? Why are you talking about the Democrats?


----------



## Katzndogz

The democrats are behind the entire OWS movement.  The democrats intend to use this as a reelection ploy, which is a HUGE gamble.  It is the Hail Mary Pass of all Hail Mary Passes.

Why would anyone believe democrats?   Really.  On what basis?

The democrats want gun control and democrat voters are happy about that.  It will make us all safer (except the criminals will still have their guns).

The democrats want to confiscate the privately held wealth of the nation and democrat voters are happy about that.  It's fair, it needs to be done.

Democrat voters as opposed to democrat politicians really believe that once the government has taxed away all these riches, it really will redistribute that wealth to the "needy".  Do you honestly believe this will happen?  Really?  You trust them that much?  Why?  On what basis?   Of course, when the democrats in government have their totalitarianism, their control, that dictatorship, they won't redistribute anything.  It didn't happen in Cuba, in Russia, in China, or in any other communist country.  Even in the glorious French Revolution that the democrats prize so highly as a model, the Jacobins didn't part with the wealth once they took it from the aritstocrats.

So, now you have the government seizing financial institutions, businesses, factories, and refusing at the last minute to do what YOU thought it would do.   What are you going to do about it?   When the government renegs on all those golden promises and laughes at the shitty asses mooning the white house, do you think you are going to fight back?  After all you have already helped the government disarm the people.  You were happy about that.  

We have produced a population of magnificent ignorance.  Total baboonism.


----------



## Dragon

Tipsycatlover said:


> The democrats are behind the entire OWS movement.



Ah. And you say this based on what information exactly?

Which Democrat came up with the signs carried by protesters that accused Obama of selling out to Wall Street? Did they screw up, or is this some kind of clever ploy that nobody understands?


----------



## percysunshine

Dragon said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, even as this evil regime moans about unemployment and personal losses, the administration takes concrete steps to exacerbate the losses.  Raise taxes, increase regulations, or, as in the case of Gibson Guitar manufacturers DEMAND that it move out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raising taxes and increasing regulations do not cause loss of jobs. Companies hire because they have customers they can't serve with the staff hey have already. If the demand exists to justify it, they will hire, taxes or no taxes, regs or no regs. If it isn't, they won't -- taxes or no taxes, regs or no regs.
> 
> Right-wing economics is a lie.
> 
> As for Gibson, I remind you that treaties are incorporated into U.S. law and the government is responsible for enforcing the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats are arsonists, burning down the national house so it can complain about the ashes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't this thread supposed to be about Occupy Wall Street? Why are you talking about the Democrats?
Click to expand...


Michael Vick was a democrat with a pit bull.


----------



## Wry Catcher

On "Today" it was reported this morning that 800 "OWS" protests are planned for today WORLDWIDE!

If the Democrats are really behind this movement expect 2012 to be a D tsunami here in the US.

Notwithstanding the New Right propaganda most people do not trust banks or insurance companies, most Americans and citizens of the world understand the role played by the financial 'services' industry in creating and profitting from the economic crisis.


----------



## Katzndogz

Yes a tsunami that will bury the democrats perhaps for a generation.  The same way the anti war riots buried the democrats and gave Nixon a landslide in 1968 the democrats will be ended, in the senate, the congess and the presidency.


----------



## Dragon

Occupy Wall Street More Popular Than Tea Party? | Mediaite | Mediaite

"The poll asked people to identify which faction of government best represents their views. 30% identified with Democrats, while 17% said Republicans and 12% went with the Tea Party."

I disagree with the article's follow up conclusion lumping the TP in with the GOP and claiming on that basis that the two are evenly split 30-29. Tea Party believers are often highly critical of the GOP and their votes are not something Republicans can count on. Not that they're likely to vote Democratic, but they may well vote third party or stay home if dissatisfied with the GOP candidate in a given race.

"When asked for their view of the Tea Party, 27% of the respondents went with favorable, while 33% said it was unfavorable. When asked about the Occupy Wall Street movement, 54% looked at it as favorable, while 23% viewed it as unfavorable. In short, twice as many respondents viewed OWS as the favorable movement.

"Digging even deeper into the numbers, the Tea Party was more hated (24% very unfavorable to OWS 13% very unfavorable), while OWS was more readily embraced (25% very favorable against the Tea Partys 8% very favorable)."


----------



## Katzndogz

That has to be why the Tea Party swept the last congressional elections.  They aren't very popular.


----------



## Dragon

Tipsycatlover said:


> That has to be why the Tea Party swept the last congressional elections.  They aren't very popular.



Well, to begin with you're exaggerating; it was the Republicans who swept the elections. Most Republicans elected were not Tea Party candidates. In fact, there were at least three Senate races that the GOP lost with TP candidates that they would have won with someone more mainstream: Delaware, Colorado, and Nevada.

The main reason that the Republicans won last year is because many of the progressive voters who elected Obama in 2008 stayed home. That same critique of the GOP from the Tea Party has a mirror on the left.

Remember, voter turnout was only 41%. So the Republicans won the votes of only slightly more than 20% of the electorate. That's hardly a mandate, nor a reason to conclude that they're popular.


----------



## Katzndogz

I'm willing to go with a vote.  Democrats won't.  The democrats will claim that every election lost was because of fraud or illegality.  Every state will be a Florida.  The democrats have the black panthers who will enjoy manning polling sites.  Although, this time it might be different.

Yes, it's a shame that the republicans lost three elections.  Considering that they won so many, it hardly stung at all.  Next time, its Congress, the Senate and the Presidency!  It's time to clean house and fumigate.


----------



## Dragon

Tipsycatlover said:


> I'm willing to go with a vote.  Democrats won't.  The democrats will claim that every election lost was because of fraud or illegality.



I don't remember that being claimed about 1980, 1984, 1988, or 2004. Or 2010 for that matter.

It was claimed about 2000 because that was true.


----------



## Katzndogz

Why not include other elections as well?  How many elections have democrats tried to overturn.  Sometimes successfully.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Tipsycatlover said:


> That has to be why the Tea Party swept the last congressional elections.  They aren't very popular.



That was then.  That was before the do noting congress took office in January.


----------



## WillowTree

Wry Catcher said:


> On "Today" it was reported this morning that 800 "OWS" protests are planned for today WORLDWIDE!
> 
> If the Democrats are really behind this movement expect 2012 to be a D tsunami here in the US.
> 
> Notwithstanding the New Right propaganda most people do not trust banks or insurance companies, most Americans and citizens of the world understand the role played by the financial 'services' industry in creating and profitting from the economic crisis.



Never fear we get it. Democrats are 'joined at the hip" with the COWS.. and you will pay the piper.. the piper is a capitalist btw..


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, even as this evil regime moans about unemployment and personal losses, the administration takes concrete steps to exacerbate the losses.  Raise taxes, increase regulations, or, as in the case of Gibson Guitar manufacturers DEMAND that it move out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raising taxes and increasing regulations do not cause loss of jobs. Companies hire because they have customers they can't serve with the staff hey have already. If the demand exists to justify it, they will hire, taxes or no taxes, regs or no regs. If it isn't, they won't -- taxes or no taxes, regs or no regs.
> 
> Right-wing economics is a lie.
> 
> As for Gibson, I remind you that treaties are incorporated into U.S. law and the government is responsible for enforcing the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats are arsonists, burning down the national house so it can complain about the ashes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't this thread supposed to be about Occupy Wall Street? Why are you talking about the Democrats?
Click to expand...


You trying to tell us that OWS is validation of love for Pelosi/Reid/Schumer/Frank et al? 

That would be funnier than the Onion story.. And BTW -- the scorn for this "movement" is being earned every day that it goes on and this MOB can't articulate and publish any REAL detailed demands or suggestions.. 30 days and we know what exactly? Useless idiots..


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's about the level you and the uwashed, empty-headed, emo-vagrants are at. Congratulations you punk ass, useless little bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How old are you, Unkotare? Are you a pimply-faced teenager, or do you just have the maturity of one?
Click to expand...




How's your brilliant "I wanna! I wanna! I wanna!" movement coming along, punk?


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> It was claimed about 2000 because that was true.





You unthinking, emo-crats have just got to get over it. You lost Drag-on, let it go. Even that fat fraud Gore has moved on.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> The main reason that the Republicans won last year is because many of the progressive voters who elected Obama in 2008 stayed home..





Wrong again, Cheech. The democrats received their historic beat down because so many of the people who bought into the 'hopey-changey' thing were pissed when they realized how badly they'd been sold a bill of goods. When they saw just how corrupt, arrogant, and out of touch the gangsters they'd put into office really were, huge majorities of Americans (real ones, not the irrelevant emos on the far left) spoke up and said, "Oh hell no, fuck this shit."


----------



## Wry Catcher

WillowTree said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> On "Today" it was reported this morning that 800 "OWS" protests are planned for today WORLDWIDE!
> 
> If the Democrats are really behind this movement expect 2012 to be a D tsunami here in the US.
> 
> Notwithstanding the New Right propaganda most people do not trust banks or insurance companies, most Americans and citizens of the world understand the role played by the financial 'services' industry in creating and profitting from the economic crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Never fear we get it. Democrats are 'joined at the hip" with the COWS.. and you will pay the piper.. the piper is a capitalist btw.."
> 
> If the Democrats are "joined at the hip' with those protesting the nonfeasance and misfeasance of Wall Street bankers and brokers, Repulicans are "joined" at the wallet with the white collar criminals known as the masters of the universe.
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Occupy Wall Street: Watch Live | Truthout


----------



## Dragon

Tipsycatlover said:


> Why not include other elections as well?  How many elections have democrats tried to overturn.  Sometimes successfully.



Very rarely and never at the presidential level. In fact, if I'm not mistaken only two elections were ever settled by negotiation and/or recount at the presidential level, and in both cases the winner was a Republican.

Most elections just aren't close enough for fraud to be possible. Only two in my lifetime, 1960 and 2000. Since World War II, we can add 1952, 1956, 1968, and 1972 as Republican victories that were unchallenged, along with the ones I already listed.


----------



## WillowTree

Wry Catcher said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> On "Today" it was reported this morning that 800 "OWS" protests are planned for today WORLDWIDE!
> 
> If the Democrats are really behind this movement expect 2012 to be a D tsunami here in the US.
> 
> Notwithstanding the New Right propaganda most people do not trust banks or insurance companies, most Americans and citizens of the world understand the role played by the financial 'services' industry in creating and profitting from the economic crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Never fear we get it. Democrats are 'joined at the hip" with the COWS.. and you will pay the piper.. the piper is a capitalist btw.."
> 
> If the Democrats are "joined at the hip' with those protesting the nonfeasance and misfeasance of Wall Street bankers and brokers, Repulicans are "joined" at the wallet with the white collar criminals known as the masters of the universe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name the white collar criminals and list the crimes, punishment and arrest warrants.. we'll wait.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ropey

WillowTree said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Never fear we get it. Democrats are 'joined at the hip" with the COWS.. and you will pay the piper.. the piper is a capitalist btw.."
> 
> If the Democrats are "joined at the hip' with those protesting the nonfeasance and misfeasance of Wall Street bankers and brokers, Repulicans are "joined" at the wallet with the white collar criminals known as the masters of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name the white collar criminals and list the crimes, punishment and arrest warrants.. we'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd like to see the pure connections of both. So far all I see is words.
> 
> I see the logic but not applied.
> 
> If = "If the Democrats are "joined at the hip' with those protesting the nonfeasance and misfeasance of Wall Street bankers and brokers,"
> 
> Then = "Repulicans are "joined" at the wallet with the white collar criminals known as the masters of the universe."
> 
> But no logic or information to show it is anything more than unsubstantiated opinion with a premise and no posit of support.
> 
> Why did I read it then?  I didn't know it was that as I had thought there would be some support for the logic.
> 
> Not...
Click to expand...


----------



## SFC Ollie

I went to an Occupy rally today............

I went to see who was there..........

I noticed several of the local leading democrats and a leading Green party member.


There wasn't much of a crowd.





There were some protesting Fracking.






They had a table set up so if you forgot your sign or what you were protesting you could pick one.






They were protesting war........





They were unionized and patriotic.





They like the Tea Party.





Did I mention they were Unionized? (And I wonder what Corporation made those shirts?)





It was projected that there would be at least 300 people there. I don't think they made it.





Anyone notice what you don't see?


----------



## Preius

flacaltenn said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preius::
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry I'm not impressed.. What do you want? A big ass thank-you for the grandstanding "patriotism"? How about they all wear Red,White, and Blue armbands so that we can bow at their feet?
> 
> First off -- Very few of America's Millionaires are Wall Street. *The vast majority of the 100s of THOUSANDS of Millionaires in America are Entertainers, Sports Figures, Authors, Inventors, or are HARD-WORKING business people.* Those making a living STRICTLY as corporate execs or financial figures is a miniscule portion of the 1%.
> 
> By villifying the Capitalist System and focusing the scapegoating on Wall Street -- the left has done the neccessary propagandizing to focus outrage on the MINORITY of "the rich" in order to plunder them all. There is no justification for plundering Hollywood --- or is there???
> 
> When the cast of Two and a Half Men have 4 stars that pull down over $200,000 per episode while the starving walk-ons mixing Jamba Juices in their real jobs make $200 per episode -- there's no outrage is there?
> 
> When the uniform management crew of the Baltimore Ravens make $25,000 and the quarterback makes $25Mill -- there's no outrage is there? YET the MAJORITY of Millionaires in this country are protected from the mobs for THEIR skyrocketing wages and benefits. How damn convienient.
> 
> You're fooling yourselves if you think that punishing Jay Leno, Phil Mickelson and Justin Bieber is akin to "patriotism". And your "Flea Party" is nothing other than a bunch of misinformed scavengers picking apart what's left of the carcass of an economy that NO ONE wants to fix..
> 
> I think I'll start a "Patriotic Have-Nots" Those 49% of American filers who currently pay NOTHING to the General Fund. THey are all gonna pledge 1% of their WAGES to patriotic subsidization of BIGGER more arrogant, more incompetent Government. Now THAT would deserve a standing ovation for MEANINGFUL sacrifice...  Wouldn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, I am sorry I missed your post.  I always go back to my previous posts looking for needed responses from me.  Apparently, I missed this one.  This is one fast thread!
> 
> *name calling.*.
> 
> Next time you want to name-call, just put it in the upper left hand corner in large size bold red letters in your post.  I barely scan that stuff anyway, which may be why I missed your post.  This will save you time, and I will get the message about your attitude toward me or the subject.
> 
> I am not writing off millionaires as a group.  How can you not like people like David Letterman, Bill Maher, Meryl Streep, or Shirley MacLaine to name a few.  Actually, here in Southern California, Shirley MacLaine is better known for her activism in politics, successful business ventures, and as a published author.  Her extraordinary career in entertainment, and as the only female member of Frank Sinatra's former 'rat pack.' seem to be more a part of her past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's all ya got? Where is the Name-Calling? U must mean the "Flea Party" reference. That allows you to excuse your elitist ass from debate? You're a chicken-shit looter.. Now THERE'S the name-calling you wanted. Can't debate. Can't contribute. All you can do is parrot propaganda and call for revolution..
Click to expand...


Yep, that is all I got because that is all it WORTH.  Just put the words "name-calling" in the upper left hand corner of your post, don't waste your time on details, I don't read them any way.  But, at least I will know you did name call, and all will understand your attitude.

I am no millionaire, but I guess I will be when my old man dies.  I doubt there will be any kind of transformation.  Our family has been a non-profit corporation for over 50 years.  I'll just be CEO.  When someone in the family needs a house, car, or other major purchase, the corporation buys it for them, and they pay some small amount each month.  Beauty is if a family member gets sued or has a divorce, they have no assets! 

So, you say I am a "chicken shit looter," because I do not think all millionaires are ass holes?  Trust me, being an ass hole occurs at all income levels, as you have proven - even at yours.    You drop a term like 'chicken shit looter' and take a victory lap like you just pulled off a super one-liner.  You look like a......well......we will let viewers decide for themselves.    

What is sad is that you do not get the 99%ers.  These are your fellow citizens, basically middle class.  You just read some Teabagger talking point and posted it.  The Teabaggers pushed too hard to get in, and have accomplished nothing.  They were the flavor of the 2010 elections, and won on the JOB creation.  They got to Washington, and have done EVERYTHING EXCEPT JOBS.  

Teabaggers will fade as fast as they grew, and 99%ers will help push them out.  Both parties are in trouble, and a lot of us are loving every minute of heat.  MAKE THOSE POLITICIANS JUMP - HE, HAW!  Perhaps your problem is that you are afraid to think for yourself.  What a pity.


----------



## Liability

Preius said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I am sorry I missed your post.  I always go back to my previous posts looking for needed responses from me.  Apparently, I missed this one.  This is one fast thread!
> 
> *name calling.*.
> 
> Next time you want to name-call, just put it in the upper left hand corner in large size bold red letters in your post.  I barely scan that stuff anyway, which may be why I missed your post.  This will save you time, and I will get the message about your attitude toward me or the subject.
> 
> I am not writing off millionaires as a group.  How can you not like people like David Letterman, Bill Maher, Meryl Streep, or Shirley MacLaine to name a few.  Actually, here in Southern California, Shirley MacLaine is better known for her activism in politics, successful business ventures, and as a published author.  Her extraordinary career in entertainment, and as the only female member of Frank Sinatra's former 'rat pack.' seem to be more a part of her past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all ya got? Where is the Name-Calling? U must mean the "Flea Party" reference. That allows you to excuse your elitist ass from debate? You're a chicken-shit looter.. Now THERE'S the name-calling you wanted. Can't debate. Can't contribute. All you can do is parrot propaganda and call for revolution..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, that is all it is WORTH.  Just put the words "name-calling" in the upper left hand corner of your post, don't waste your time on details, I don't read them any way.  But, at least I will know you did name call, and all will understand your attitude.
> 
> I am a "chicken shit looter," because I do not think all millionaires are ass holes?  Trust me, being an ass hole occurs at all income levels.  You drop a term like 'chicken shit looter' and take a victory lap like you just pulled off a super one-liner.  You look like a......we will let viewers decide for themselves.
> 
> What is sad is that you do not get the 99%ers.  These are your fellow citizens, basically middle class.  You just read some Teabagger talking point and post it.  I guess you are afraid to think for yourself.  What a pity.
Click to expand...


The 99% crew is not us.  That's media bullshit.

They are trite, unsophisticated, pathetic, ineffectual losers who really regret  not having been an important part of the 1960's protest crowd.  

Who else would essentially march around in a circle with cheap signs collectively protesting "greed?"  And when pressed for whateverthefuck it is they SEEK, these nitwits cannot grunt out one simple coherent proposition.

This is kind of inevitable when you get professional agitators rousing the rabble which consists of stupid kids like this: communists, Marxists, socialists, "liberals," "progressives," and anarchists as well as a contingent of 9/11 Twoofer assholes.

Is there somewhere buried deep down in their incoherent complaint a kernel of a seed of a hint of a rational complaint?  Sure.  Probably.  But those butt rashes couldn't articulate it if their lives depended on it.  And they absolutely cannot craft a meaningful solution for "the" problem.


----------



## Preius

Liability said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all ya got? Where is the Name-Calling? U must mean the "Flea Party" reference. That allows you to excuse your elitist ass from debate? You're a chicken-shit looter.. Now THERE'S the name-calling you wanted. Can't debate. Can't contribute. All you can do is parrot propaganda and call for revolution..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that is all it is WORTH.  Just put the words "name-calling" in the upper left hand corner of your post, don't waste your time on details, I don't read them any way.  But, at least I will know you did name call, and all will understand your attitude.
> 
> I am a "chicken shit looter," because I do not think all millionaires are ass holes?  Trust me, being an ass hole occurs at all income levels.  You drop a term like 'chicken shit looter' and take a victory lap like you just pulled off a super one-liner.  You look like a......we will let viewers decide for themselves.
> 
> What is sad is that you do not get the 99%ers.  These are your fellow citizens, basically middle class.  You just read some Teabagger talking point and post it.  I guess you are afraid to think for yourself.  What a pity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 99% crew is not us.  That's media bullshit.
> 
> They are trite, unsophisticated, pathetic, ineffectual losers who really regret  not having been an important part of the 1960's protest crowd.
> 
> Who else would essentially march around in a circle with cheap signs collectively protesting "greed?"  And when pressed for whateverthefuck it is they SEEK, these nitwits cannot grunt out one simple coherent proposition.
> 
> This is kind of inevitable when you get professional agitators rousing the rabble which consists of stupid kids like this: communists, Marxists, socialists, "liberals," "progressives," and anarchists as well as a contingent of 9/11 Twoofer assholes.
> 
> Is there somewhere buried deep down in their incoherent complaint a kernel of a seed of a hint of a rational complaint?  Sure.  Probably.  But those butt rashes couldn't articulate it if their lives depended on it.  And they absolutely cannot craft a meaningful solution for "the" problem.
Click to expand...


I don't get it if you think the 99%ers is media bull shit then there is only one way for you to find out what the truth is about these people.  Today, I went to lunch in Westwood, home of UCLA, a known Republican oriented university.  There were a couple thousand 99%ers out there, predominently, white, and clean.  About half were students, perhaps a quarter were senior citizens, and the rest were a mixed group.  Will you accept what your own eyes see as proof?  Get off your ass, get in your car, and go see for yourself.  And, stop posting until you do.

You are just pissed because the era of the Teabagger is ending, and all you have is broken promises.  You do know that the Tea Party was a lobbyist ploy set up by former House member Dick Armey, and was never grass roots?  I thought not.  You don't trust real media with degreed journalists.  Let me guess you watch Fox news and trust talking points created for the RNC by Ruppert Murdoch.  You are too easy!


----------



## SFC Ollie

Preius said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that is all it is WORTH.  Just put the words "name-calling" in the upper left hand corner of your post, don't waste your time on details, I don't read them any way.  But, at least I will know you did name call, and all will understand your attitude.
> 
> I am a "chicken shit looter," because I do not think all millionaires are ass holes?  Trust me, being an ass hole occurs at all income levels.  You drop a term like 'chicken shit looter' and take a victory lap like you just pulled off a super one-liner.  You look like a......we will let viewers decide for themselves.
> 
> What is sad is that you do not get the 99%ers.  These are your fellow citizens, basically middle class.  You just read some Teabagger talking point and post it.  I guess you are afraid to think for yourself.  What a pity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 99% crew is not us.  That's media bullshit.
> 
> They are trite, unsophisticated, pathetic, ineffectual losers who really regret  not having been an important part of the 1960's protest crowd.
> 
> Who else would essentially march around in a circle with cheap signs collectively protesting "greed?"  And when pressed for whateverthefuck it is they SEEK, these nitwits cannot grunt out one simple coherent proposition.
> 
> This is kind of inevitable when you get professional agitators rousing the rabble which consists of stupid kids like this: communists, Marxists, socialists, "liberals," "progressives," and anarchists as well as a contingent of 9/11 Twoofer assholes.
> 
> Is there somewhere buried deep down in their incoherent complaint a kernel of a seed of a hint of a rational complaint?  Sure.  Probably.  But those butt rashes couldn't articulate it if their lives depended on it.  And they absolutely cannot craft a meaningful solution for "the" problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get it if you think the 99%ers is media bull shit then there is only one way for you to find out what the truth is about these people.  Today, I went to lunch in Westwood, home of UCLA, a known Republican oriented university.  There were a couple thousand 99%ers out there, predominently, white, and clean.  About half were students, perhaps a quarter were senior citizens, and the rest were a mixed group.  Will you accept what your own eyes see as proof?  Get off your ass, get in your car, and go see for yourself.  And, stop posting until you do.
> 
> You are just pissed because the era of the Teabagger is ending, and all you have is broken promises.  You do know that the Tea Party was a lobbyist ploy set up by former House member Dick Armey, and was never grass roots?  I thought not.  You don't trust real media with degreed journalists.  Let me guess you watch Fox news and trust talking points created for the RNC by Ruppert Murdoch.  You are too easy!
Click to expand...


Excuse me, I did exactly that. I went to see for myself. I posted pictures and everything right here in this thread. Just go back to post 1160 and have a look at the truth about OWS....... It still amazes me that there were more blacks at the Tea Party held at almost the exact same spot 3 years ago.............


----------



## Liability

Preius said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, that is all it is WORTH.  Just put the words "name-calling" in the upper left hand corner of your post, don't waste your time on details, I don't read them any way.  But, at least I will know you did name call, and all will understand your attitude.
> 
> I am a "chicken shit looter," because I do not think all millionaires are ass holes?  Trust me, being an ass hole occurs at all income levels.  You drop a term like 'chicken shit looter' and take a victory lap like you just pulled off a super one-liner.  You look like a......we will let viewers decide for themselves.
> 
> What is sad is that you do not get the 99%ers.  These are your fellow citizens, basically middle class.  You just read some Teabagger talking point and post it.  I guess you are afraid to think for yourself.  What a pity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 99% crew is not us.  That's media bullshit.
> 
> They are trite, unsophisticated, pathetic, ineffectual losers who really regret  not having been an important part of the 1960's protest crowd.
> 
> Who else would essentially march around in a circle with cheap signs collectively protesting "greed?"  And when pressed for whateverthefuck it is they SEEK, these nitwits cannot grunt out one simple coherent proposition.
> 
> This is kind of inevitable when you get professional agitators rousing the rabble which consists of stupid kids like this: communists, Marxists, socialists, "liberals," "progressives," and anarchists as well as a contingent of 9/11 Twoofer assholes.
> 
> Is there somewhere buried deep down in their incoherent complaint a kernel of a seed of a hint of a rational complaint?  Sure.  Probably.  But those butt rashes couldn't articulate it if their lives depended on it.  And they absolutely cannot craft a meaningful solution for "the" problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get it if you think the 99%ers is media bull shit then there is only one way for you to find out what the truth is about these people.  Today, I went to lunch in Westwood, home of UCLA, a known Republican oriented university.  There were a couple thousand 99%ers out there, predominently, white, and clean.  About half were students, perhaps a quarter were senior citizens, and the rest were a mixed group.  Will you accept what your own eyes see as proof?  Get off your ass, get in your car, and go see for yourself.  And, stop posting until you do.
> 
> You are just pissed because the era of the Teabagger is ending, and all you have is broken promises.  You do know that the Tea Party was a lobbyist ploy set up by former House member Dick Armey, and was never grass roots?  I thought not.  You don't trust real media with degreed journalists.  Let me guess you watch Fox news and trust talking points created for the RNC by Ruppert Murdoch.  You are too easy!
Click to expand...


Wrong and wrong.  One can, if one is capable of assessing such things with perception, get to know what the truth is in a whole variety of manners.  For example, one can look to what it is they espouse.  I have.  I can read.  It really isn't difficult.  Give it a try.

They are (in a boiled down nutshell) anit-greed.  BRILLIANT!

And?

There is no era of tea baggers.  That is a phony name applied by jack offs.  The correct term is Tea _Party_.  Try working with facts someday.

The Tea Party "era" is not even close to "over."

It is a movement with roots; and it will far outstrip the mindless crap on parade in city parks with the Soros' OWS nonsense.  

*What the fuck do they specifically propose to remedy the "wrongs" they identify?*

You cannot answer that coherently because THEY have proved to be incapable of answering it.  Denial won't help you.  You are left sputtering empty words.  Like them.


----------



## Preius

Liability said:


> Who else would essentially march around in a circle with cheap signs collectively protesting "greed?"  And when pressed for whateverthefuck it is they SEEK, these nitwits cannot grunt out one simple coherent proposition.



I wanted to address this particular line of yours separately.  In France when there is a political demonstration parents take off work, and pull their kids out of school to attend the demonstration.  It is considered a French nationalistic thing to do with your family.  Patriotism in action if you will.

In the United States we can not get half our people to the polls to vote in a national election.  I talked to a college aged waiter in a restaurant at lunch today as the 99%ers were demonstrating a few blocks away near UCLA.  I asked him what he thought of the demonstrations, and HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE 99%ERS WERE!  A smart little college shit working at an upscale restaurant?  Student at prestigous UCLA?   Give me a break, our education system is worse than we think.

All I can leave you with is your bubble of unreality is going to burst very soon.  When you GET IT, you will be out there with the 99%ers.  How do I know this?  Because it will be one of the next big talking points on Fox!


----------



## Preius

Liability said:


> Who else would essentially march around in a circle with cheap signs collectively protesting "greed?"  And when pressed for whateverthefuck it is they SEEK, these nitwits cannot grunt out one simple coherent proposition.



I wanted to address this particular line of yours separately.  In France when there is a political demonstration parents take off work, and pull their kids out of school to attend the demonstration.  It is considered a French nationalistic thing to do with your family.  Patriotism in action if you will.

In the United States we can not get half our people to the polls to vote in a national election.  I talked to a college aged waiter in a restaurant at lunch today as the 99%ers were demonstrating a few blocks away near UCLA.  I asked him what he thought of the demonstrations, and HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE 99%ERS WERE!  A smart little college shit working at an upscale restaurant?  Student at prestigious UCLA?   Give me a break, our education system is worse than we think!

All I can leave you with is your bubble of unreality is going to burst very soon.  When you GET IT, you will be out there with the 99%ers.  How do I know this?  Because it will be one of the next big talking points on Fox News!


----------



## freedombecki

SFC Ollie said:


> I went to an Occupy rally today............
> 
> I went to see who was there..........
> 
> I noticed several of the local leading democrats and a leading Green party member.
> 
> 
> There wasn't much of a crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were some protesting Fracking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had a table set up so if you forgot your sign or what you were protesting you could pick one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were protesting war........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were unionized and patriotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They like the Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I mention they were Unionized? (And I wonder what Corporation made those shirts?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was projected that there would be at least 300 people there. I don't think they made it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone notice what you don't see?


I don't see disrespect of public property.


----------



## Preius

freedombecki said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went to an Occupy rally today............
> 
> I went to see who was there..........
> 
> I noticed several of the local leading democrats and a leading Green party member.
> 
> 
> There wasn't much of a crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were some protesting Fracking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had a table set up so if you forgot your sign or what you were protesting you could pick one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were protesting war........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were unionized and patriotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They like the Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I mention they were Unionized? (And I wonder what Corporation made those shirts?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was projected that there would be at least 300 people there. I don't think they made it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone notice what you don't see?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see disrespect of public property.
Click to expand...


Very true.  Let's hope it lasts, these 99%ers are very pissed.  Each city is drawing different crowds.  From a political standpoint Washington, New York, Chicago, and L.A. seem to be the cites to watch.  Frankly I am surprised an please to see smaller cities getting out any demonstrators.  I mean this is not exactly an everyday event in a place like Cinti, Ohio if you know what I mean.  

According to last nights news there were demonstrations in 135 cities yesterday including Canada and the UK.  This puppy is going global!

All it takes is one maniac to spray the NYSE with bullets, and there will be a national problem.  I am sure government has considered this and has contingency plans.


----------



## SFC Ollie

freedombecki said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went to an Occupy rally today............
> 
> I went to see who was there..........
> 
> I noticed several of the local leading democrats and a leading Green party member.
> 
> 
> There wasn't much of a crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were some protesting Fracking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had a table set up so if you forgot your sign or what you were protesting you could pick one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were protesting war........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were unionized and patriotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They like the Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I mention they were Unionized? (And I wonder what Corporation made those shirts?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was projected that there would be at least 300 people there. I don't think they made it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone notice what you don't see?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see disrespect of public property.
Click to expand...


I should have hung around until it was over to see if they cleaned up after themselves or not. But I'll tell you it was the first time in a long time I actually saw 3 police cruisers in downtown at the same time that weren't parked at city hall or the police station.


----------



## Si modo

Preius said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went to an Occupy rally today............
> 
> I went to see who was there..........
> 
> I noticed several of the local leading democrats and a leading Green party member.
> 
> 
> There wasn't much of a crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were some protesting Fracking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They had a table set up so if you forgot your sign or what you were protesting you could pick one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were protesting war........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were unionized and patriotic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They like the Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I mention they were Unionized? (And I wonder what Corporation made those shirts?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was projected that there would be at least 300 people there. I don't think they made it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone notice what you don't see?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see disrespect of public property.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true.  Let's hope it lasts, these 99%ers are very pissed.  Each city is drawing different crowds.  From a political standpoint Washington, New York, Chicago, and L.A. seem to be the cites to watch.  Frankly I am surprised an please to see smaller cities getting out any demonstrators.  I mean this is not exactly an everyday event in a place like Cinti, Ohio if you know what I mean.
> 
> According to last nights news there were demonstrations in 135 cities yesterday including Canada and the UK.  This puppy is going global!
> 
> All it takes is one maniac to spray the NYSE with bullets, and there will be a national problem.  I am sure government has considered this and has contingency plans.
Click to expand...

And AGAIN with your violence!

You really are some sort of piece of shit.  When folks get hurt, YOU will have blood on your hands.

And, as you keep going on with the violent rhetoric, I have to assume that is exactly what you want - blood.

Piece of shit.


----------



## Katzndogz

These protesters really think they are 99% of the public!  That's surprising.  The REAL 99% are working for one of those big corporations.  I hope it comes to a head pretty soon.  Just to bring an end to libs.  OWS is sitting around waiting for its Kent State Moment.


----------



## SFC Ollie

I'm certainly not one of the 99%. You should have seen some of the looks I got while walking around wearing my US Army Retired hat and an Army wind breaker...........


----------



## Ropey

5:00 PM Clare Trapasso

It appears that dozens of protesters are being arrested and loaded into vans on 46th St.

Read more:

Occupy Wall Street: Live Coverage LIVE

***** OFFICIAL Occupy Everywhere BLOG - 2011.10.15 *****


----------



## Preius

SFC Ollie said:


> I'm certainly not one of the 99%. You should have seen some of the looks I got while walking around wearing my US Army Retired hat and an Army wind breaker...........



I am not sure if I am 99% or not, but I know I am not in the 1%.  Frankly, I do not think anyone outside the 1% gets or deserves any sympathy from the rest of us.  I am impressed and interested to know more about the Patriotic Millionaires who are supporting the 99%.  Patriotic Millionaires Echo Occupy Wall Street (PHOTOS, VIDEOS) 

I am known for using the word 'freeloader' a lot.  To me a hedge fund manager who makes millions speculating and shuffling papers is as much a freeloader as an illegal alien.  While the illegal alien is parasitic to our welfare, education, and health care system, the damage done by a hedge fund manager is more aggressively parasitic.  Simply look at the price of gasoline, speculators keep pushing up the price while feathering their own nests at the expense of the public.  This is greed, not Capitalism, or free enterprise.  The 99%ers are Capitalists.  I believe this is very important.

One thing that network news has made very clear is that the 99% is made up of people who are or used to be middle class/professionals.

I ask you Ollie, do you think you got looks from the 99% because they were glad to welcome a Commander of the American Legion to their ranks, and felt encouraged?  That would be my guess.  People like you were expected to show one day.

The Tea Party has served a purpose in this country.  Everyday Americans got off their butts and made a commitment to out nation.  The 99% are doing the same thing in their own way, just as veterans stood up for this nation when they were called for military service.

I for one think that since WWII, Americans have not really had to stand up and sacrifice for the survival of our country.  Damn, the bastards bombed Hawaii!  All the wars since have been for some political reason, often oil.  We have not had to fight for our own soil since WWII.

Just as in the French and American Revolutions, people put their lives on the line because they were losing everything or starving.  The parallels to today are similar.

The only thing we know for sure about the 99% is they are very ANGRY, (just like the Tea Party).  Taxpayers feel Wall Street ripped off Main Street - homes and jobs have been lost.  Taxpayers bailed out Wall Street in 2008, and we are hurting as Wall Street lines their pockets with million dollar bonuses.  Now, this thing is going global.  Canada and the UK Occupied this week.  It is way too soon to judge where this will go.  The Tea Party never got global.  And, a lot of Democrats, including me, are ready to throw Barry Obama under the bus, perhaps for Hillary Clinton.  Democrats and Republicans both are tearing their parties apart.

Things have changed, last year at this time wasn't America debating Barry's birth certificate?  Now we are in the big game, for all the chips, and everyone must pay a price.  The game could be called planetary survival, because experts agree another, larger economic crash is inevitable, and stupidly we are allowing the same players who caused the 2008 financial crash to continue running things.  

My STOCK BROKER told me yesterday to dump stocks and cash for precious metals!  A damn STOCK BROKER, I can't believe my ears!  The price of Gold yesterday was $1,681 an ounce from my new trader, and he says it has been dropping due to the fact that other metals may be more secure.  He told me that if he had said this a year ago, his boss would have thought him to be crazy.  I bought $15,000 in coins over the phone, and requested information on other metals. 

Not one person was put in prison for what happened in 2008, and my president, and my party have done NOTHING to prevent it from happening again. 

In the end, the American people and others MUST WIN because we are NOT too big to fail.  Democrats and Republicans be damned, this is for America. I will not be surprised to see American Armed Service people, such as yourself, evolve as leaders in the 99% movement.  99% can win where the Tea Party is limited by it's own battle scars, and being domestic only.  99% is a clean slate.  And now, I am easing into words that should probably be coming from you or your circle of experts.

We must remember that Egypt survived their revolution because their military handled events wisely, while striving for a civilian democracy.


----------



## flacaltenn

Preius:::



> My STOCK BROKER told me yesterday to dump stocks and cash for precious metals!, I can't believe my ears! The price of Gold yesterday was $1,681 an ounce from my new trader, and he says it has been dropping due to the fact that other metals may be more secure. He told me that if he had said this a year ago, his boss would have thought him to be crazy. I bought $15,000 in coins over the phone, and requested information on other metals.



That's really rich... *Knocking hedge fund managers in one sentence and bragging about going out and buying gold in another*. Being as how your family shelters a MILL or two in corporate cash as a non-profit, but accesses that money "when it's needed for the family" --- Perhaps what's required for you is some professional couch time.. Especially with that propensity for violence that you've displayed here multiple times in one thread..

I'm not a shrink -- but I'm just saying.... Do you even know why hedge funds exist? You should if your Daddy is gonna give you all that loot..


----------



## Preius

flacaltenn said:


> Preius:::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My STOCK BROKER told me yesterday to dump stocks and cash for precious metals!, I can't believe my ears! The price of Gold yesterday was $1,681 an ounce from my new trader, and he says it has been dropping due to the fact that other metals may be more secure. He told me that if he had said this a year ago, his boss would have thought him to be crazy. I bought $15,000 in coins over the phone, and requested information on other metals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's really rich... *Knocking hedge fund managers in one sentence and bragging about going out and buying gold in another*. Being as how your family shelters a MILL or two in corporate cash as a non-profit, but accesses that money "when it's needed for the family" --- Perhaps what's required for you is some professional couch time.. Especially with that propensity for violence that you've displayed here multiple times in one thread..
> 
> I'm not a shrink -- but I'm just saying.... Do you even know why hedge funds exist? You should if your Daddy is gonna give you all that loot..
Click to expand...


Your comments are a fair criticism.  I believe Hedge fund managers are thieves - making money while raping the country with pieces of paper.  Your ethics do not have to agree with mine, but you had damn well have a moral compas, or you will not be around me.

I view it this way.  I have a barber cut my hair.  I have a doctor advise me on health.  I have a tax professional to keep the IRS away, and to insure I get fairness under the tax code.  When I invest it is not to make money, it is to secure what we have from loss.  My stocks run from power companies to John Deere to Kroger (safe bets).  No gasoline companies or banks for my own moral/political reasons.  Our family financial structure, (I honestly did not think anyone would read me that closely, thank you), existed before I was born.  As the first born in a German family, tradition dictates that I am responsible to handle family finances.  The family financial set up is not that unusual. I have an uncle who is really good at this stuff, and I lean on him fequently.   I really do little.  If someone needs a house, I distribute the information, and count the votes.  Some have been told to buy a cheaper houses.

I went through a period where I too thought it was pretty strange to be social liberal and a fiscally moderate Democrat.  I was the first Democrat in five generations on that side of the family, now there are four of us  .  

I see it like this everyone needs a safety net from time to time - food stamps, unemployment comp, medical whatever.  I believe in TEMPORARY safety nets for all United States CITIZENS.  That is my personal political philosophy.  I also live in the real world, my wife comes first, then family.  Hurt my family - it's an eye for an eye.  That is good business, and I think most believe it.

I have only become a proponent of violence in the last year as I read American history from the American Revolution to 1929.  We are one of the most violent nations on earth.  I think it is important that we accept that, not bury it.  Face it our foreign policy depends on it.  From prime time television to video games we serve violence to our youth in massive doses, and we always have a war to offer them as adults.  

Republican Theodore Roosevelt said it very well, "Talk softly and carry a big stick."  Folks we have the biggest stick on the playground, and there are a lot of people who want to tear us down.  The great Democrat Barry Obama bragging for days that we KILLED Bin Laudin.  I agree and say it with pride.

Our family sends everyone to college.  It is not a choice, and I must tell you I was barely a "C" student in high school.  But, I graduated college and got an advanced degree.  This is why families like ours and hopefully yours live comfortably and perpetuate our line.  

In my wildest Utopian dreams, YES, I would like to see the minimum wage locked in at $50,000 a year, and send everyone to four years of college, but one has to live in the real world here.  We hope over time we are making progress.  I would like to see a level playing people for all U. S. CITIZENS entering in the job market.  

Remember 100 years ago women could not vote in this country, and an African American could not drink a soda at Woolworths in the south.  Our first air craft flew in 1903, and only 66 years later we put a man on the moon!  We have made much progress in may fields, and I hope I am contributing to it in my field.  As we used to say in the BSA, "I hope I can leave the campsite in better shape than when I found it."


----------



## flacaltenn

Preius said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preius:::
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My STOCK BROKER told me yesterday to dump stocks and cash for precious metals!, I can't believe my ears! The price of Gold yesterday was $1,681 an ounce from my new trader, and he says it has been dropping due to the fact that other metals may be more secure. He told me that if he had said this a year ago, his boss would have thought him to be crazy. I bought $15,000 in coins over the phone, and requested information on other metals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's really rich... *Knocking hedge fund managers in one sentence and bragging about going out and buying gold in another*. Being as how your family shelters a MILL or two in corporate cash as a non-profit, but accesses that money "when it's needed for the family" --- Perhaps what's required for you is some professional couch time.. Especially with that propensity for violence that you've displayed here multiple times in one thread..
> 
> I'm not a shrink -- but I'm just saying.... Do you even know why hedge funds exist? You should if your Daddy is gonna give you all that loot..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your comments are a fair criticism.  I believe Hedge fund managers are thieves - making money while raping the country with pieces of paper.  Your ethics do not have to agree with mine, but you had damn well have a moral compas, or you will not be around me.
> 
> I view it this way.  I have a barber cut my hair.  I have a doctor advise me on health.  I have a tax professional to keep the IRS away, and to insure I get fairness under the tax code.  When I invest it is not to make money, it is to secure what we have from loss.  My stocks run from power companies to John Deere to Kroger (safe bets).  No gasoline companies or banks for my own moral/political reasons.  Our family financial structure, (I honestly did not think anyone would read me that closely, thank you), existed before I was born.  As the first born in a German family, tradition dictates that I am responsible to handle family finances.  The family financial set up is not that unusual. I have an uncle who is really good at this stuff, and I lean on him fequently.   I really do little.  If someone needs a house, I distribute the information, and count the votes.  Some have been told to buy a cheaper houses..
Click to expand...


I appreciate all this sharing. But you must realize that your situation (and this is NOT a pun) is quite FOREIGN to most of us. ESPECIALLY the concept of being responsible to handle the family finances due SOLELY to the privilege of "being first born". I make no judgement on any of that. But I do find it odd that one who identifies SO INTENSELY with anti-Capitalist memes would feel comfortable being a prime example of "unearned wealth". So if I were to have to any advice and counsel it WOULD be try a psychiatrist couch and/or stop depending on the Uncle for guidance and EARN that responsibility. No evil intended there at all.. 

I myself have WAS a liberal Democrat until I found out that there was nothing Liberal in the classic sense about that party or philosophy. I am now COMMITTED to fairness in 3rd party access to the ballot and a member of the Libertarian Party (nominally). But I've worked with the Greens as well in acheiving that goal of breaking monopoly control of a corrupt 2 party system. You're not dealing with a party animal here. 

But to the more important point. Hedge Funds are NOT corrupt. They are not EVIL. THey are smart finance. It is the practice of balancing a portfolio against risk. Something you look into as you take on the family mantle. Hedge Fund mgrs generally don't hedge for themselves. They do it for others as a service. If they save someone or a corp. $1Bill during a market hiccup -- perhaps they deserve a couple $1MILL tip. You can't have a hedge fund -- if you have nothing to hedge to begin with. In practice, your airline fees are protected by Hedge Funds. Because when fuel prices go up -- the airlines have hedged by INVESTING in FUEL either as a commodity or in the companies that supply that commodity thus reducing the amount of loss they have to pass on to customers. These managers are targeted because they are the nerdly wonks who understand the numbers required to perform this "voodoo magic" on paper. And only leftists that are too stupid to understand the amazing amount of math, reasoning and experience it takes to do that -- would claim they are nothing but parasites..


----------



## Synthaholic

SFC Ollie said:


> Anyone notice what you don't see?



Intelligence in your posts?


----------



## frazzledgear

Twalbert said:


> 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



The "greedy one percent" bankrupted this nation?  REALLY?  Every single one of them did this?  Going to insist they all be tried as traitors?  Every last one of them?  Do you even KNOW who they all are and what their occupations are or are you assuming they all have the same kinds of jobs.  And exactly HOW did THEY bring this about when in reality the true instigator was our own government?  How did THEY manage to FORCE government to do all this -from forcing banks to make BILLIONS in loans to people they knew could not pay it back to going on an out of control spending spree using money the next five generations will never have?  How did they DO that?  Maybe you didn't notice but the NATION isn't bankrupt at all.  Our GOVERNMENT ran out of money because they CHOSE to quadruple the rate of spending after their PHONY complaining about the rate of spending under Bush.  Oh yeah, THAT rate of spending was "outrageous" so of course it only makes sense to quadruple it on an totally out of control massive Democrat wet dream spending spree, right?  You want to know the REAL players behind ALL of the financial crisis from housing to banking to the government budget "crisis"?  Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are not only major actors in what REALLY happened -they belong in PRISON for it!  You might want to try and find an unbiased source to REALLY understand exactly what happened and exactly WHO initiated it, how many years back it REALLY started, by WHOM -and WHY!  When the REAL history is finally written on this, the finger of blame for the origin of the entire thing will be pointed directly at our own government and very specific individuals in it!  

You sound like SUCH the typical leftwing demagogue and truly mindless parrot.  You say "greedy one percent" because you were told they were the new enemy.  And no other reason whatsoever.

One thing I truly DESPISE about the left is they CONSTANTLY insist the real enemies of this nation are fellow Americans.  In the course of just TWO years Democrats and liberals have deemed just about EVERYONE but themselves as the enemies of this country.  As if it belongs to them alone.  And now the newest on the hit list is that "evil" top 1% because hey, who doesn't envy the rich for being successful.  Oh wait -its only the LEFT that wastes their life and time envying others for doing what you didn't do.  So eaten alive with it they must be blamed for what the LEFT actually did when they got control of both Congress and the White House.  Got to divert attention from the REAL crooks here, pick yet another minority the left believes is largely unsympathetic and declare THEM to be the "real" enemy.  Along with the other MILLIONS of people they have previously declared to be the enemy too!  Oh except George Soros, right?  That billionaire socialist is fine and dandy so no demonstrating at HIS house -even though he is a convicted FELON and belongs in prison right now -for INSIDER TRADING!  But hey, the reason the flea baggers aren't showing HIS head on a spike is because for the HYPOCRITE left, Soros' POLITICS magically cleansed all that filthy money for morons like you, right?  Including all that money he earned illegally through insider trading.  No crime too great for a billionaire SOCIALIST, right?  Because Soros is actually what you CLAIM the others to be -a fucking crook!

I have bad news for you -the "greedy one percent" did no such thing.  Our GOVERNMENT did it, primarily DEMOCRATS with the assistance of some Republicans.  And as usual they needed to try and hide their fingerprints and find an easy scapegoat -one that morons like you wouldn't stop to question.  It is what these people ALWAYS do -pick some minority they believe others will have little sympathy for and claim THEY are to blame for what they actually did and say THEY ARE THE ENEMY.  Have you really never noticed how often they find one "enemy" after another in this country or the fact about the only people they haven't declared to be an enemy are just THEM?  As if they aren't Americans with the same rights as you and as if this isn't their country too.  Because to people like you they really aren't quite human are they?  Its why liberal thugs feel free to harass and stalk them, hold up pictures of private citizens with their heads on spikes and terrorize their children.  Because people like you NEED to pretend the reason you are such a loser at life is the fault of those who made other decisions.  What good do you REALLY think will come of it?  SERIOUSLY.

Before you go off the deep end and allow your irrational hate lead you to outright insanity -wise up already and get a REAL LIFE.  That one percent pays 38% of all federal income taxes all by themselves.  While nearly HALF of all income earners pay ZERO.  Clearly you don't want them to even EARN it, much less foot the bulk of the bills to keep our government afloat.  So who do you expect to tap for that lost money after eliminating them?   That 1% employs 1.3 MILLION people!  How many do YOU employ moron?  You ready to throw over another million MORE people out of work in the name of your STUPID, POINTLESS class warfare your handlers instructed you to start babbling about?  *Do you like your propaganda pre-chewed for easier digestion or what? *

People like you do nothing but waste time and lives wallowing in pointless envy.  If they were paying 50% of all income taxes by themselves -you'd still claim they were the enemy of this country and still not paying their "fair share" because that is what useless morons like you do.  In reality you and your ILK have rejected American values and want to inflict a KNOWN HISTORICAL FAILURE of a system on us all instead, insisting surely it will work if given just one more chance.  Take it somewhere else.

Get it through your STUPID, WASTED, POINTLESSLY ENVIOUS head -you didn't bust your ass to earn it.  That 1% work an average of a 70 hour work week.  It was NOT stolen from me or you.  It doesn't belong to me, you or government.  And you know it.  But the REAL problem here is YOUR greed and the greed of people like you -who want what the top 1% have but without putting in the work to get it.  

Its YOUR greed and the greed of people like YOU that is really driving the STINKING, SMELLY FLEA BAGGER MOBS.  It always is for the left -their GREED and THEIR never ending demand that government essentially wage war on the most successful in this country and confiscate the fruits of THEIR labor and hand it over to people who didn't do the work.  Its GREED behind all this alright -YOURS and that of people just like you.


----------



## Katzndogz

The left manufactured an enemy, that enemy is the engine of American prosperity.  The democrats have passed laws harming the financial health of the nation, and now blame the creators and innovators.  

Meanwhile, the relatively recent Chinese stock exchange, only 20 years old is SURGING.  China is vaulting into an economic powerhouse and we turn into Greece.  I can only hope that the real 99%, the workers, the small investors, the business owners, will put a foot down on the necks of these communists.


----------



## Big Fitz

Wry Catcher said:


> On "Today" it was reported this morning that 800 "OWS" protests are planned for today WORLDWIDE!
> 
> If the Democrats are really behind this movement expect 2012 to be a D tsunami here in the US.
> 
> Notwithstanding the New Right propaganda most people do not trust banks or insurance companies, most Americans and citizens of the world understand the role played by the financial 'services' industry in creating and profitting from the economic crisis.


Except it ISN'T the DNC behind this.  It is being funded by radical socialists and anarchist loving organizations hoping to gain Krushchev's prediction that a decadent capitalist society can be shaken loose from the tree and fall into their hands like over-ripe fruit.  Where is the money coming from to pay for these "gr-ass-root" uprisings?

Who pays for the porta-potties? the food?  the water?  the permits?  I drive by an encampment of these Occupados every damn day and see how they're organized.  It's costing them tens of thousands a day to maintain what they're doing, and that's just an eyeball estimate from how many porta-potties, commercial scale waterjugs and food refuse they have scattered about in big vending piles and near...ish trash bins.

I know the protesters aren't paying their way.  They're too greedy to pony up their fair share of living expenses as a general rule like all radical leftists... it's much better to get someone else to pay their freight.


----------



## chanel

Excellent questions. It's the "53%".



> Police overtime alone amounted to $1.9 million during three weeks of anti-Wall Street demonstrations in New York, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said last week. In Boston, the tab for police overtime is estimated to reach $2 million if the protest continues through the end of October, said the city council president this week. And that doesn't include other costs, such as extra trash pickup, portable toilets, and even electricity being supplied to the protesters' tent cities.
> 
> Boston has budgeted $30 million for police overtime for the fiscal year, he says, but a monthly tab of $2 million from Occupy Boston protests over and above usual crowd-control costs *will send the city straight into the red*.



Cities fret over democracy's costs as 'Occupy Wall Street' stretches on - CSMonitor.com

I usually visit NY and Philly several times a year.  Not with this nonsense going on.  How many other visitors are staying away?  Adds up...


----------



## Big Fitz

Dragon said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be why the Tea Party swept the last congressional elections.  They aren't very popular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to begin with you're exaggerating; it was the Republicans who swept the elections. Most Republicans elected were not Tea Party candidates. In fact, there were at least three Senate races that the GOP lost with TP candidates that they would have won with someone more mainstream: Delaware, Colorado, and Nevada.
> 
> The main reason that the Republicans won last year is because many of the progressive voters who elected Obama in 2008 stayed home. That same critique of the GOP from the Tea Party has a mirror on the left.
> 
> Remember, voter turnout was only 41%. So the Republicans won the votes of only slightly more than 20% of the electorate. That's hardly a mandate, nor a reason to conclude that they're popular.
Click to expand...

Well there's a delusional statement.

But, oh hey!  Look!  Some other groups have decided that what the Occupados are doing is a good thing!

(following links from Gatewaypundit.com)

WhiteHonor » The &#8216;Occupy Wall Street&#8217; Movement

Solidarity with ?Occupy Wall Street? ? Teleconference Oct 11 » cpusa

Well HELL!  If these groups align philosophically, my my my... doesn't it mean their goals are similar too?  Persecute wall street and bring down the system so they can install their socialist/fascist structure instead of freedom loving capitalism?

Good job, Occupados, and your psychopathic sycophants!  Job well done!


----------



## Big Fitz

chanel said:


> Excellent questions. It's the "53%".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police overtime alone amounted to $1.9 million during three weeks of anti-Wall Street demonstrations in New York, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said last week. In Boston, the tab for police overtime is estimated to reach $2 million if the protest continues through the end of October, said the city council president this week. And that doesn't include other costs, such as extra trash pickup, portable toilets, and even electricity being supplied to the protesters' tent cities.
> 
> Boston has budgeted $30 million for police overtime for the fiscal year, he says, but a monthly tab of $2 million from Occupy Boston protests over and above usual crowd-control costs *will send the city straight into the red*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cities fret over democracy's costs as 'Occupy Wall Street' stretches on - CSMonitor.com
> 
> I usually visit NY and Philly several times a year.  Not with this nonsense going on.  How many other visitors are staying away?  Adds up...
Click to expand...

Cloward and Piven in action.  Bankrupting cities who will then scream for financial help to the states and feddies who have no money either.  So the choices become simple and few and ugly.

1. Ignore the cities and say eat the costs forcing them to raise money locally.  Oh that'll go over well and really make em struggle to keep their phony baloney jobs.

2. Tell the workers to eat it and work for free... illegal but we're talking a government and 'need'.  

3. Shut down extra services and tell the law-abiding citizens to eat it, due to budget shortfalls and let the occupados become like Victorian Era Navvies... roving mobs doing what they please and enforcing their own ideas of 'justice'.  Won't that be nice?

4. Present the Occupados for a bill and force them to eat it, pay up or get out... as they ought to.  Call it a 'consumption' tax.  Those who use, must pay.

Ain't this gonna be fun, folks?


----------



## Big Fitz

Dragon said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has to be why the Tea Party swept the last congressional elections.  They aren't very popular.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, to begin with you're exaggerating; it was the Republicans who swept the elections. Most Republicans elected were not Tea Party candidates. In fact, there were at least three Senate races that the GOP lost with TP candidates that they would have won with someone more mainstream: Delaware, Colorado, and Nevada.
> 
> The main reason that the Republicans won last year is because many of the progressive voters who elected Obama in 2008 stayed home. That same critique of the GOP from the Tea Party has a mirror on the left.
> 
> Remember, voter turnout was only 41%. So the Republicans won the votes of only slightly more than 20% of the electorate. That's hardly a mandate, nor a reason to conclude that they're popular.
Click to expand...

Oh for those who continue to believe that the DNC didn't get their ding-dings kicked to the back of their throat in 2010, even Wikipedia can't modify the facts.  Here are the big congressional and state races.  You can follow links to see how badly the state legislatures and local races went conservative directions.  Many cities who never had anything but a democrat or socialist running them for 80 year or so lost their strongholds. This is probably not a fluke, but a scary trend for liberals who believe those positions and powers entitled to them forever.

United States elections, 2010 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

_*Republican gains
Republican holds
Democratic gains
Democratic holds
Independent win
not contested*_ 







Senate Election results.





Gubernatorial races





House of Representatives Election results.

Only an utter fool can deny this evidence.


----------



## georgephillip

Big Fitz said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent questions. It's the "53%".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Police overtime alone amounted to $1.9 million during three weeks of anti-Wall Street demonstrations in New York, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said last week. In Boston, the tab for police overtime is estimated to reach $2 million if the protest continues through the end of October, said the city council president this week. And that doesn't include other costs, such as extra trash pickup, portable toilets, and even electricity being supplied to the protesters' tent cities.
> 
> Boston has budgeted $30 million for police overtime for the fiscal year, he says, but a monthly tab of $2 million from Occupy Boston protests over and above usual crowd-control costs *will send the city straight into the red*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cities fret over democracy's costs as 'Occupy Wall Street' stretches on - CSMonitor.com
> 
> I usually visit NY and Philly several times a year.  Not with this nonsense going on.  How many other visitors are staying away?  Adds up...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cloward and Piven in action.  Bankrupting cities who will then scream for financial help to the states and feddies who have no money either.  So the choices become simple and few and ugly.
> 
> 1. Ignore the cities and say eat the costs forcing them to raise money locally.  Oh that'll go over well and really make em struggle to keep their phony baloney jobs.
> 
> 2. Tell the workers to eat it and work for free... illegal but we're talking a government and 'need'.
> 
> 3. Shut down extra services and tell the law-abiding citizens to eat it, due to budget shortfalls and let the occupados become like Victorian Era Navvies... roving mobs doing what they please and enforcing their own ideas of 'justice'.  Won't that be nice?
> 
> 4. Present the Occupados for a bill and force them to eat it, pay up or get out... as they ought to.  Call it a 'consumption' tax.  Those who use, must pay.
> 
> Ain't this gonna be fun, folks?
Click to expand...

Or we could tell the rich to eat it. 

Government could stop borrowing from the richest 1% of individuals and corporations and resume taxing them at the same levels they paid in the 1960s.


----------



## chanel

Should they bill them directly? Or should the cities just authorize the police to seize their property so they can pay themselves?

Bizarro.

I would love to see the biggest "occupier" organizations be sent a bill. That would be funny.


----------



## Katzndogz

It isn't global.  It isn't world wide.  These protests are in socialist countries that have finally run out of other people's money.


----------



## georgephillip

Tipsycatlover said:


> It isn't global.  It isn't world wide.  These protests are in socialist countries that have finally run out of other people's money.


In the same way Wall Street's 2008 looting of the world's economy wasn't global?

Trillions of dollars of private debt in Europe and the US was nationalized in 2008 due to Wall Street's control accounting fraud bubbles. Today the rich are using governments from Greece to Madison to inflict austerity measures on the victims of investor class greed.

The solution is to prosecute and fine those responsible for the fraud and raise taxes on the investor class to 1960s levels.


----------



## Big Fitz

chanel said:


> Should they bill them directly? Or should the cities just authorize the police to seize their property so they can pay themselves?
> 
> Bizarro.
> 
> I would love to see the biggest "occupier" organizations be sent a bill. That would be funny.


Get the meter maids to hand out tickets as bills for the daily cost of operations as laid out by estimates of their total numbers in wherever they happen to have passed out for the night.

Don't bill the 'organizers'.  That has no impact.  Bill the participants.  That they'll never forget... particularly when they don't pay and a bench warrant is issued for their arrest.  If that doesn't drive the point home that protesting has personal risk, nothing will.


----------



## editec

Tipsycatlover said:


> These protesters really think they are 99% of the public! That's surprising. The REAL 99% are working for one of those big corporations. I hope it comes to a head pretty soon. Just to bring an end to libs. OWS is sitting around waiting for its Kent State Moment.


 
I'm informed that about major corporations in the USA create about 8% of all jobs in the nation.

So assuming every worker in every major corporation loathes the OWS movement, the 99% is really only about 91%.

All nonsense of course.

The 99% number is largely bullshit, as is every other number derived from it.


----------



## flacaltenn

georgephillip said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't global.  It isn't world wide.  These protests are in socialist countries that have finally run out of other people's money.
> 
> 
> 
> In the same way Wall Street's 2008 looting of the world's economy wasn't global?
> 
> Trillions of dollars of private debt in Europe and the US was nationalized in 2008 due to Wall Street's control accounting fraud bubbles. Today the rich are using governments from Greece to Madison to inflict austerity measures on the victims of investor class greed.
> 
> The solution is to prosecute and fine those responsible for the fraud and raise taxes on the investor class to 1960s levels.
Click to expand...


I think you keep making outrageous assertions just to get responses. You really believe that the meltdown in Greece is from "the rich using govts ..... to inflict austerity measures on the victims of investor class greed"??? That problem is because the POLICIES there have crippled businesses and investors and the Golden Goose stopped laying falafel balls. 

That and the GREED of believing that govt provides benefits from an Oracle in the Hills that spouts money and is the only mitigator of risk in life.


----------



## georgephillip

flacaltenn said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't global.  It isn't world wide.  These protests are in socialist countries that have finally run out of other people's money.
> 
> 
> 
> In the same way Wall Street's 2008 looting of the world's economy wasn't global?
> 
> Trillions of dollars of private debt in Europe and the US was nationalized in 2008 due to Wall Street's control accounting fraud bubbles. Today the rich are using governments from Greece to Madison to inflict austerity measures on the victims of investor class greed.
> 
> The solution is to prosecute and fine those responsible for the fraud and raise taxes on the investor class to 1960s levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you keep making outrageous assertions just to get responses. You really believe that the meltdown in Greece is from "the rich using govts ..... to inflict austerity measures on the victims of investor class greed"??? That problem is because the POLICIES there have crippled businesses and investors and the Golden Goose stopped laying falafel balls.
> 
> That and the GREED of believing that govt provides benefits from an Oracle in the Hills that spouts money and is the only mitigator of risk in life.
Click to expand...

*Goldman Sachs played the same role in the Greek financial crisis they played in this country.*

"Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts..."

Governments in Europe and the US are responding exactly as all governments have throughout history; they are socializing losses (converting massive private market losses into public debt) while privatizing profits for a select few.

"As worries over Greece rattle world markets, records and interviews show that with *Wall Street&#8217;s help*, the nation engaged in a decade-long effort to skirt European debt limits. One deal created by* Goldman Sachs* helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels."

Wall St. Helped Greece to Mask Debt Fueling Europes Crisis - NYTimes.com 

Maybe you should pull your head out of the corporate falafel balls long enough to find out what reality you're living in.


----------



## flacaltenn

georgephillip said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the same way Wall Street's 2008 looting of the world's economy wasn't global?
> 
> Trillions of dollars of private debt in Europe and the US was nationalized in 2008 due to Wall Street's control accounting fraud bubbles. Today the rich are using governments from Greece to Madison to inflict austerity measures on the victims of investor class greed.
> 
> The solution is to prosecute and fine those responsible for the fraud and raise taxes on the investor class to 1960s levels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you keep making outrageous assertions just to get responses. You really believe that the meltdown in Greece is from "the rich using govts ..... to inflict austerity measures on the victims of investor class greed"??? That problem is because the POLICIES there have crippled businesses and investors and the Golden Goose stopped laying falafel balls.
> 
> That and the GREED of believing that govt provides benefits from an Oracle in the Hills that spouts money and is the only mitigator of risk in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Goldman Sachs played the same role in the Greek financial crisis they played in this country.*
> 
> "Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts..."
> 
> Governments in Europe and the US are responding exactly as all governments have throughout history; they are socializing losses (converting massive private market losses into public debt) while privatizing profits for a select few.
> 
> "As worries over Greece rattle world markets, records and interviews show that with *Wall Streets help*, the nation engaged in a decade-long effort to skirt European debt limits. One deal created by* Goldman Sachs* helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels."
> 
> Wall St. Helped Greece to Mask Debt Fueling Europes Crisis - NYTimes.com
> 
> Maybe you should pull your head out of the corporate falafel balls long enough to find out what reality you're living in.
Click to expand...


Nope --- Hiding an INTERNAL GOVT CAUSED DEBT PROBLEM for a decade has NOTHING to do with MBsecurities and the housing bubble. Unless you're an ignorant leftist that wants to conflate the 2 actions. Yeah -- so what? You'd rather the socialist policies in Greece had imploded 12 years ago without GS trying to counsel them as to how to manage it?


----------



## Katzndogz

Germany knows what happened in Greece.  It wasn't Goldman Sachs.

Germans tell Greeks to rise earlier and work harder to avoid financial crisis - Telegraph

But Germany's Bild tabloid had another suggestion, calling on Greek citizens to adopt a more Germanic work ethic in an open letter to Mr Papandreou. 

Dear Mr Prime Minister, 

If you read this print, you&#8217;ve entered a country completely different from yours. You&#8217;re in Germany. 

* Here, people work until they are 67. There is no longer a 14-month salary for civil servants. 

* Here, nobody needs to pay a &#8364;1,000 bribe to get a hospital bed in time. 

* And we don&#8217;t pay pensions for the General&#8217;s daughters who sadly can&#8217;t find husbands. 

* In this country, the petrol stations have cash registers, the taxi drivers give receipts and farmers don&#8217;t swindle EU subsidies with millions of olive trees that don&#8217;t exist. 

Germany also has high debts - but we can meet them. 

* That&#8217;s because we get up reasonably early and work all day. Becuase in good times we always spare a thought for the bad times. Becuase we have good firms whose products are in demand around the world. 

Dear Mr Prime Minister, today you are in the country that sends umpteen-thousand of tourists and money aplenty to Greece. 

We want to be friends with the Greeks. That&#8217;s why since joining the euro, Germany has given your country &#8364;50bn. 

For this reason, we are writing to you, 

Yours, 

Bild Editorial


----------



## georgephillip

flacaltenn said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you keep making outrageous assertions just to get responses. You really believe that the meltdown in Greece is from "the rich using govts ..... to inflict austerity measures on the victims of investor class greed"??? That problem is because the POLICIES there have crippled businesses and investors and the Golden Goose stopped laying falafel balls.
> 
> That and the GREED of believing that govt provides benefits from an Oracle in the Hills that spouts money and is the only mitigator of risk in life.
> 
> 
> 
> *Goldman Sachs played the same role in the Greek financial crisis they played in this country.*
> 
> "Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts..."
> 
> Governments in Europe and the US are responding exactly as all governments have throughout history; they are socializing losses (converting massive private market losses into public debt) while privatizing profits for a select few.
> 
> "As worries over Greece rattle world markets, records and interviews show that with *Wall Streets help*, the nation engaged in a decade-long effort to skirt European debt limits. One deal created by* Goldman Sachs* helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels."
> 
> Wall St. Helped Greece to Mask Debt Fueling Europes Crisis - NYTimes.com
> 
> Maybe you should pull your head out of the corporate falafel balls long enough to find out what reality you're living in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope --- Hiding an INTERNAL GOVT CAUSED DEBT PROBLEM for a decade has NOTHING to do with MBsecurities and the housing bubble. Unless you're an ignorant leftist that wants to conflate the 2 actions. Yeah -- so what? You'd rather the socialist policies in Greece had imploded 12 years ago without GS trying to counsel them as to how to manage it?
Click to expand...

You're even more ignorant of Wall Street history than most corporate tools.

"It had worked before. In 2001, just after Greece was admitted to Europe&#8217;s monetary union, Goldman helped the government quietly borrow billions, people familiar with the transaction said. That deal, hidden from public view because it was treated as a *currency trade rather than a loan*, helped Athens to meet Europe&#8217;s deficit rules while continuing to spend beyond its means."

If you don't see the connection between MB securities and the housing bubble's global consequences, think harder.

Wall St. Helped Greece to Mask Debt Fueling Europes Crisis - NYTimes.com


----------



## georgephillip

Tipsycatlover said:


> Germany knows what happened in Greece.  It wasn't Goldman Sachs.
> 
> Germans tell Greeks to rise earlier and work harder to avoid financial crisis - Telegraph
> 
> But Germany's Bild tabloid had another suggestion, calling on Greek citizens to adopt a more Germanic work ethic in an open letter to Mr Papandreou.
> 
> Dear Mr Prime Minister,
> 
> If you read this print, you&#8217;ve entered a country completely different from yours. You&#8217;re in Germany.
> 
> * Here, people work until they are 67. There is no longer a 14-month salary for civil servants.
> 
> * Here, nobody needs to pay a &#8364;1,000 bribe to get a hospital bed in time.
> 
> * And we don&#8217;t pay pensions for the General&#8217;s daughters who sadly can&#8217;t find husbands.
> 
> * In this country, the petrol stations have cash registers, the taxi drivers give receipts and farmers don&#8217;t swindle EU subsidies with millions of olive trees that don&#8217;t exist.
> 
> Germany also has high debts - but we can meet them.
> 
> * That&#8217;s because we get up reasonably early and work all day. Becuase in good times we always spare a thought for the bad times. Becuase we have good firms whose products are in demand around the world.
> 
> Dear Mr Prime Minister, today you are in the country that sends umpteen-thousand of tourists and money aplenty to Greece.
> 
> We want to be friends with the Greeks. That&#8217;s why since joining the euro, Germany has given your country &#8364;50bn.
> 
> For this reason, we are writing to you,
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Bild Editorial


From your link:

"On Thursday, two German politicians told their Greek counterparts that the country should sell off its assets &#8211; art, historic buildings and islands &#8211; before accepting international aid."

Your solution is to allow bankers to get their windfall by using debt to achieve what warfare accomplished in the past? 

Greece should privatize its public assets *on credit* with tax deductibility for interest so as to leave more cash flow to the bankers who caused much of the problem in the first place? 

Germans tell Greeks to rise earlier and work harder to avoid financial crisis - Telegraph


----------



## flacaltenn

georgephillip said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Goldman Sachs played the same role in the Greek financial crisis they played in this country.*
> 
> "Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts..."
> 
> Governments in Europe and the US are responding exactly as all governments have throughout history; they are socializing losses (converting massive private market losses into public debt) while privatizing profits for a select few.
> 
> "As worries over Greece rattle world markets, records and interviews show that with *Wall Streets help*, the nation engaged in a decade-long effort to skirt European debt limits. One deal created by* Goldman Sachs* helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels."
> 
> Wall St. Helped Greece to Mask Debt Fueling Europes Crisis - NYTimes.com
> 
> Maybe you should pull your head out of the corporate falafel balls long enough to find out what reality you're living in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope --- Hiding an INTERNAL GOVT CAUSED DEBT PROBLEM for a decade has NOTHING to do with MBsecurities and the housing bubble. Unless you're an ignorant leftist that wants to conflate the 2 actions. Yeah -- so what? You'd rather the socialist policies in Greece had imploded 12 years ago without GS trying to counsel them as to how to manage it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're even more ignorant of Wall Street history than most corporate tools.
> 
> "It had worked before. In 2001, just after Greece was admitted to Europes monetary union, Goldman helped the government quietly borrow billions, people familiar with the transaction said. That deal, hidden from public view because it was treated as a *currency trade rather than a loan*, helped Athens to meet Europes deficit rules while continuing to spend beyond its means."
> 
> If you don't see the connection between MB securities and the housing bubble's global consequences, think harder.
> 
> Wall St. Helped Greece to Mask Debt Fueling Europes Crisis - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...


Don't NEED to think harder for this conversation.. It's pretty much over because in your NYT article it SAYS ---



> *Athens did not pursue the latest Goldman proposal*, but with Greece groaning under the weight of its debts and with its richer neighbors vowing to come to its aid, the deals over the last decade are raising questions about Wall Streets role in the worlds latest financial drama.
> 
> *Wall Street did not create Europes debt problem. But bankers enabled Greece and others to borrow beyond their means, in deals that were perfectly legal.* Few rules govern how nations can borrow the money they need for expenses like the military and health care. The market for sovereign debt  the Wall Street term for loans to governments  is as unfettered as it is vast.
> 
> *If a government wants to cheat, it can cheat, *said Garry Schinasi, a veteran of the International Monetary Funds capital markets surveillance unit, which monitors vulnerability in global capital markets.



Score one for GOVT corruption and incompetence. The fact that 10 years ago GS brought them a practice that postponed their demise -- is inconsequential.. Unless you have proof that it was illegal or the EU chastized them for doing it..


----------



## georgephillip

flacaltenn said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope --- Hiding an INTERNAL GOVT CAUSED DEBT PROBLEM for a decade has NOTHING to do with MBsecurities and the housing bubble. Unless you're an ignorant leftist that wants to conflate the 2 actions. Yeah -- so what? You'd rather the socialist policies in Greece had imploded 12 years ago without GS trying to counsel them as to how to manage it?
> 
> 
> 
> You're even more ignorant of Wall Street history than most corporate tools.
> 
> "It had worked before. In 2001, just after Greece was admitted to Europes monetary union, Goldman helped the government quietly borrow billions, people familiar with the transaction said. That deal, hidden from public view because it was treated as a *currency trade rather than a loan*, helped Athens to meet Europes deficit rules while continuing to spend beyond its means."
> 
> If you don't see the connection between MB securities and the housing bubble's global consequences, think harder.
> 
> Wall St. Helped Greece to Mask Debt Fueling Europes Crisis - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't NEED to think harder for this conversation.. It's pretty much over because in your NYT article it SAYS ---
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Athens did not pursue the latest Goldman proposal*, but with Greece groaning under the weight of its debts and with its richer neighbors vowing to come to its aid, the deals over the last decade are raising questions about Wall Streets role in the worlds latest financial drama.
> 
> *Wall Street did not create Europes debt problem. But bankers enabled Greece and others to borrow beyond their means, in deals that were perfectly legal.* Few rules govern how nations can borrow the money they need for expenses like the military and health care. The market for sovereign debt  the Wall Street term for loans to governments  is as unfettered as it is vast.
> 
> *If a government wants to cheat, it can cheat, *said Garry Schinasi, a veteran of the International Monetary Funds capital markets surveillance unit, which monitors vulnerability in global capital markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Score one for GOVT corruption and incompetence. The fact that 10 years ago GS brought them a practice that postponed their demise -- is inconsequential.. Unless you have proof that it was illegal or the EU chastized them for doing it..
Click to expand...

You forgot this part:

"*As in the American subprime crisis and the implosion of the American International Group*, financial derivatives played a role in the run-up of Greek debt. Instruments developed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and a wide range of other banks enabled politicians to mask additional borrowing in Greece, Italy and possibly elsewhere.

"In dozens of deals across the Continent, banks provided cash upfront in return for government payments in the future, with those liabilities *then left off the books*. Greece, for example, traded away the rights to airport fees and lottery proceeds in years to come. 

"Critics say that such deals, because they are not recorded as loans, mislead investors and regulators about the depth of a country&#8217;s liabilities.

"Some of the Greek deals were named after figures in Greek mythology. One of them, for instance, was called Aeolos, after the god of the winds."

Think harder, Windy.

Wall St. Helped Greece to Mask Debt Fueling Europes Crisis - NYTimes.com


----------



## Preius

flacaltenn said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preius:::
> 
> 
> 
> That's really rich... *Knocking hedge fund managers in one sentence and bragging about going out and buying gold in another*. Being as how your family shelters a MILL or two in corporate cash as a non-profit, but accesses that money "when it's needed for the family" --- Perhaps what's required for you is some professional couch time.. Especially with that propensity for violence that you've displayed here multiple times in one thread..
> 
> I'm not a shrink -- but I'm just saying.... Do you even know why hedge funds exist? You should if your Daddy is gonna give you all that loot..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your comments are a fair criticism.  I believe Hedge fund managers are thieves - making money while raping the country with pieces of paper.  Your ethics do not have to agree with mine, but you had damn well have a moral compas, or you will not be around me.
> 
> I view it this way.  I have a barber cut my hair.  I have a doctor advise me on health.  I have a tax professional to keep the IRS away, and to insure I get fairness under the tax code.  When I invest it is not to make money, it is to secure what we have from loss.  My stocks run from power companies to John Deere to Kroger (safe bets).  No gasoline companies or banks for my own moral/political reasons.  Our family financial structure, (I honestly did not think anyone would read me that closely, thank you), existed before I was born.  As the first born in a German family, tradition dictates that I am responsible to handle family finances.  The family financial set up is not that unusual. I have an uncle who is really good at this stuff, and I lean on him fequently.   I really do little.  If someone needs a house, I distribute the information, and count the votes.  Some have been told to buy a cheaper houses..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I appreciate all this sharing. But you must realize that your situation (and this is NOT a pun) is quite FOREIGN to most of us. ESPECIALLY the concept of being responsible to handle the family finances due SOLELY to the privilege of "being first born". I make no judgement on any of that. But I do find it odd that one who identifies SO INTENSELY with anti-Capitalist memes would feel comfortable being a prime example of "unearned wealth". So if I were to have to any advice and counsel it WOULD be try a psychiatrist couch and/or stop depending on the Uncle for guidance and EARN that responsibility. No evil intended there at all..
> 
> I myself have WAS a liberal Democrat until I found out that there was nothing Liberal in the classic sense about that party or philosophy. I am now COMMITTED to fairness in 3rd party access to the ballot and a member of the Libertarian Party (nominally). But I've worked with the Greens as well in acheiving that goal of breaking monopoly control of a corrupt 2 party system. You're not dealing with a party animal here.
> 
> But to the more important point. Hedge Funds are NOT corrupt. They are not EVIL. THey are smart finance. It is the practice of balancing a portfolio against risk. Something you look into as you take on the family mantle. Hedge Fund mgrs generally don't hedge for themselves. They do it for others as a service. If they save someone or a corp. $1Bill during a market hiccup -- perhaps they deserve a couple $1MILL tip. You can't have a hedge fund -- if you have nothing to hedge to begin with. In practice, your airline fees are protected by Hedge Funds. Because when fuel prices go up -- the airlines have hedged by INVESTING in FUEL either as a commodity or in the companies that supply that commodity thus reducing the amount of loss they have to pass on to customers. These managers are targeted because they are the nerdly wonks who understand the numbers required to perform this "voodoo magic" on paper. And only leftists that are too stupid to understand the amazing amount of math, reasoning and experience it takes to do that -- would claim they are nothing but parasites..
Click to expand...


You are far too polite.  The old German concept of the first born male handling the family finances is antiquated and stupid.  My college experience is in marketing not finance.  I am not the best qualified for this responsibility.

My families resources are probably about 1/1000th the size of the Kennedys.  We have resources because of five generations of financial planning, and one family member who did very well between 1940 and 1960.  I consider myself middle class, and I think most families have some kind of estate due simply to inheritance.

As far as anti-capitalist attitudes, I have some, but endorse others.  Where I come from this is called "Thinking for yourself," not memorizing today's party talking points.  I believe the definition of American socialism has yet to be written.  My mother raised me with the concept that of those who have more, more is expected.  I have had a fortunate life, and probably more of it has been luck than planning.  Suffice it to say YOU are having a problem with my unearned wealth, (the extent of which for me was the down payment on my first house, and that is about it), and my socially liberal politics.  I live on what I earn.  I am quite comfortable with the way I handle my responsibilities and understand my concept of self.

I do not know why you keep pushing the idea of psychiatrists.  From my experience these are people who go into the field because they can not solve their own problems, let alone those of others.  I will give them credit on grief counseling, one did wonders for me when my mother died.

I think we have discussed my families resources enough, but I will tell you that every dime came from the sweat of the brow, not raping the American economy.  Not all wealthy people are greedy.  There are actually millionaires who have offered their lives for this country, such as TV Producer and creator of "All in the Family"  Norman Lear who was a WWII hero.  Norman Lear Official Website  After selling the rights to his successful television series he bought an original copy of the Declaration of Independence and displays it at school around our nation at his own cost.  Lear also created his own lobbying group, "People for the American Way" with nearly a thousand members now, including me.

Somehow you keep coming back to the idea that because my actions in life contradict my politics that I am a hypocrite and need a shrink.  I think of it as flexibility in knowing how to deal effectively depending on where you are.  I want the best for others, but understand my real world responsibilities.  You almost sound a little jealous.

I have covered the subject of violence, yet you bring it up again.  I think you need to do some reading about the Anglo-Saxons, and perhaps King Henry VIII to focus on the reality of America's eurocentric violence.  How quickly you seem to have forgotten the scandal of Abu Ghraib Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In conclusion, and stated simply.  Hedge fund managers are criminals and should be in jail.  If you have any questions I suggest you Google the price of gasoline in the last four years.  Again, thank you for your interest in a subject that interests me.


----------



## flacaltenn

Preius::

I am pushing psychiatry on you because I have little respect for that "science" and I wish you harm..   

We SHOULD be working on those anti-capitalistic tendencies tho -- so that you might become a better spokesperson for economic and social freedom. But time is up on our session for the week. See the nurse on the way out for your next appointment..


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dragon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you doing better now than you were during Reagan second term? I was. and that was 25 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand if you're saying here that you are or aren't doing better than you were in the late 1980s.
> 
> Most people aren't. Most people are a good deal worse off now than they were then. That's the point.
Click to expand...


It's a whether simple question no need to back it down word for word.

Are you doing better now than you were in the mid to late 80's
Better or worse.


----------



## Preius

flacaltenn said:


> Preius::
> 
> I am pushing psychiatry on you because I have little respect for that "science" and I wish you harm..
> 
> We SHOULD be working on those anti-capitalistic tendencies tho -- so that you might become a better spokesperson for economic and social freedom. But time is up on our session for the week. See the nurse on the way out for your next appointment..



Why do I get the feeling that when your invitation comes it will be from the Tea Party, not the 99%?  

Take a good look around, the Tea Party is fading because, like Obama, they forgot the words that brought them to Washington D. C.    The 99% is going global, keep a ticket in mind, it could be your last ride out of financial catastrophe!  

Capitalism, don't worry it will get a good cleaning, and will survive right along with the security of socialism and taxpayers replacing some shareholders.  (Hell, the Republicans already did the heavy lifting for us in 2008).  Get some of your money into precious metals.  Most traders take Mastercard for a fast transaction.   Slapping political parties, and Wall Street in one movement - priceless.


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCRnkamitVk&feature=feedf]An INTENSE moment of TRUTH with MAINSTREAM Media - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip

The money in politics will never disappear if voters continue limiting their "choice" to Republican OR Democrat. Any major party incumbent who strays from party consensus on this issue will vanish in her next primary campaign.

There are established third parties like Greens and Libertarians already appearing on millions of ballots across this country. In November of 2012 send Wall Street and the Pentagon a message they can't ignore by FLUSHING hundreds of Republicans AND Democrats from the DC toilet in a single news cycle.

Fire the next shot heard 'round the world.


----------



## Katzndogz

It will be interesting to see what the stock market does tomorrow.  obama came out all in for the protesters.  It is surely going to have an effect as investors race to get out of whatever they have in mind.


----------



## Liability

> The White House continued its embrace of the Occupy Wall Street protests on Sunday, using the strongest terms yet to identify President Barack Obama with the growing movement.
> 
> In a call previewing Obama's upcoming bus tour through North Carolina and Virginia, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama "will continue to acknowledge the frustration that he himself shares," about Washington's laggard response to the financial crisis.
> 
> Earnest added that while on the trip, *Obama will make it clear that he is fighting to make certain that the "interests of 99 percent of Americans are well represented"  the first time the White House has used the term* to differentiate the vast majority of Americans from the wealthy.
> 
> * * * *


 -- White House Draws Closer To Occupy Wall Street, Says Obama Is Fighting For The Interests Of The 99%

This raises the question:

Just exactly how fucking stupid is President Obama?

Is the depth of his stupidity even susceptible to measurement?


----------



## georgephillip

"Nouriel Roubini (born 29 March 1959) is an American economist. He is celebrated for having predicted both the collapse of the United States housing market and the worldwide recession which started in 2008. He teaches at New York University's Stern School of Business and is the chairman of Roubini Global Economics, an economic consultancy firm."

Nouriel Roubini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dr Doom has some thoughts on the global occupy movements that might be useful to both sides of this debate. For example...

"The problem is not new. Karl Marx oversold socialism, but he was right in claiming that globalization, unfettered financial capitalism, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct. 

"As he argued, unregulated capitalism *can lead to regular bouts of over-capacity, under-consumption, and the recurrence of destructive financial crises*, fueled by credit bubbles and asset-price booms and busts."

After the Storm: The Instability of Inequality | Truthout


----------



## Si modo

georgephillip said:


> "Nouriel Roubini (born 29 March 1959) is an American economist. He is celebrated for having predicted both the collapse of the United States housing market and the worldwide recession which started in 2008. He teaches at New York University's Stern School of Business and is the chairman of Roubini Global Economics, an economic consultancy firm."
> 
> Nouriel Roubini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Dr Doom has some thoughts on the global occupy movements that might be useful to both sides of this debate. For example...
> 
> "The problem is not new. Karl Marx oversold socialism, but he was right in claiming that globalization, unfettered financial capitalism, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct.
> 
> "As he argued, unregulated capitalism *can lead to regular bouts of over-capacity, under-consumption, and the recurrence of destructive financial crises*, fueled by credit bubbles and asset-price booms and busts."
> 
> After the Storm: The Instability of Inequality | Truthout



"The problem is not new. Karl Marx oversold socialism, but he was right in claiming that globalization, unfettered financial capitalism, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct". ​As we don't have unfettered financial capitalism, we have little to worry about concerning Marx's prediction.






"As he argued, unregulated capitalism *can lead to regular bouts of over-capacity, under-consumption, and the recurrence of destructive financial crises*, fueled by credit bubbles and asset-price booms and busts."​As we don't have unregulated capitalism, we have little to worry about concerning this prediction.






Got anything from Nostradamus?  Maybe that will be more applicable.

Truthout *snicker*


----------



## bigrebnc1775

georgephillip said:


> "Nouriel Roubini (born 29 March 1959) is an American economist. He is celebrated for having predicted both the collapse of the United States housing market and the worldwide recession which started in 2008. He teaches at New York University's Stern School of Business and is the chairman of Roubini Global Economics, an economic consultancy firm."
> 
> Nouriel Roubini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Dr Doom has some thoughts on the global occupy movements that might be useful to both sides of this debate. For example...
> 
> "The problem is not new. Karl Marx oversold socialism, but he was right in claiming that globalization, unfettered financial capitalism, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but he was right in claiming that globalization, unfettered financial capitalism, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As he argued, unregulated capitalism *can lead to regular bouts of over-capacity, under-consumption, and the recurrence of destructive financial crises*, fueled by credit bubbles and asset-price booms and busts."
> 
> After the Storm: The Instability of Inequality | Truthout
Click to expand...


How is working for the rich redistribution of income and wealth? A poor person that works for the rich never had wealth to begin with, it wasn't their's. The rich hire people who apply for a job. The only money that does not belong to the rich is the money the worker worked for and agreed at the set rate of pay. So tell me george how is that redistribution of income and wealth from labor to the the rich? I'll repeat the only thing that belongs to labor is the set rate that was agreed to at the date of hire.


----------



## SFC Ollie

I do believe a few of us have said this whole thing was carefully planned by the left.........


----------



## bigrebnc1775

SFC Ollie said:


> I do believe a few of us have said this whole thing was carefully planned by the left.........



I wouldn't say the left. The left just happens to be useful tools in this protest. It more global than just the left I would say it's the global elite pushing this protest. What better way to force the issue than the need to bring an iron fist to control the angry mob. Just my humbble opinion.


----------



## Katzndogz

Liability said:


> The White House continued its embrace of the Occupy Wall Street protests on Sunday, using the strongest terms yet to identify President Barack Obama with the growing movement.
> 
> In a call previewing Obama's upcoming bus tour through North Carolina and Virginia, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama "will continue to acknowledge the frustration that he himself shares," about Washington's laggard response to the financial crisis.
> 
> Earnest added that while on the trip, *Obama will make it clear that he is fighting to make certain that the "interests of 99 percent of Americans are well represented"  the first time the White House has used the term* to differentiate the vast majority of Americans from the wealthy.
> 
> * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> -- White House Draws Closer To Occupy Wall Street, Says Obama Is Fighting For The Interests Of The 99%
> 
> This raises the question:
> 
> Just exactly how fucking stupid is President Obama?
> 
> Is the depth of his stupidity even susceptible to measurement?
Click to expand...


It's like a black hole.  Even light cannot escape.  This isn't drinking kool aid.  This is a glass of C-4.   All it will take is ONE event and it will blow up right in his face with crap all over him.  The shitters now think they have presidential protection and no one can touch them.  Oh this isn't going to end well at all.  Not at all.   Will he off himself when it happens?


----------



## georgephillip

Si modo said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nouriel Roubini (born 29 March 1959) is an American economist. He is celebrated for having predicted both the collapse of the United States housing market and the worldwide recession which started in 2008. He teaches at New York University's Stern School of Business and is the chairman of Roubini Global Economics, an economic consultancy firm."
> 
> Nouriel Roubini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Dr Doom has some thoughts on the global occupy movements that might be useful to both sides of this debate. For example...
> 
> "The problem is not new. Karl Marx oversold socialism, but he was right in claiming that globalization, unfettered financial capitalism, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct.
> 
> "As he argued, unregulated capitalism *can lead to regular bouts of over-capacity, under-consumption, and the recurrence of destructive financial crises*, fueled by credit bubbles and asset-price booms and busts."
> 
> After the Storm: The Instability of Inequality | Truthout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The problem is not new. Karl Marx oversold socialism, but he was right in claiming that globalization, unfettered financial capitalism, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct". ​As we don't have unfettered financial capitalism, we have little to worry about concerning Marx's prediction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As he argued, unregulated capitalism *can lead to regular bouts of over-capacity, under-consumption, and the recurrence of destructive financial crises*, fueled by credit bubbles and asset-price booms and busts."​As we don't have unregulated capitalism, we have little to worry about concerning this prediction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got anything from Nostradamus?  Maybe that will be more applicable.
> 
> Truthout *snicker*
Click to expand...

Have you noticed any over-capacity or under-consumption lately?
How about a destructive financial crisis?
Credit bubbles?
Asset price booms and busts?

Roubini had this to say the failure of unregulated markets and Europe's deficit driven welfare states:

"Some of the lessons about the need for prudential regulation of the financial system were lost in the Reagan-Thatcher era, when the appetite for massive deregulation was created in part by the flaws in Europe&#8217;s social-welfare model. 

"Those flaws were reflected in yawning fiscal deficits, regulatory overkill, and a lack of economic dynamism that led to sclerotic growth then and the eurozone&#8217;s sovereign-debt crisis now.

"But the laissez-faire Anglo-Saxon model has also now failed miserably. 

"To stabilize market-oriented economies requires a return to the right balance between markets and provision of public goods. That means moving away from both the Anglo-Saxon model of unregulated markets and the continental European model of deficit-driven welfare states..."

After the Storm: The Instability of Inequality | Truthout


----------



## Si modo

georgephillip said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nouriel Roubini (born 29 March 1959) is an American economist. He is celebrated for having predicted both the collapse of the United States housing market and the worldwide recession which started in 2008. He teaches at New York University's Stern School of Business and is the chairman of Roubini Global Economics, an economic consultancy firm."
> 
> Nouriel Roubini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Dr Doom has some thoughts on the global occupy movements that might be useful to both sides of this debate. For example...
> 
> "The problem is not new. Karl Marx oversold socialism, but he was right in claiming that globalization, unfettered financial capitalism, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct.
> 
> "As he argued, unregulated capitalism *can lead to regular bouts of over-capacity, under-consumption, and the recurrence of destructive financial crises*, fueled by credit bubbles and asset-price booms and busts."
> 
> After the Storm: The Instability of Inequality | Truthout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The problem is not new. Karl Marx oversold socialism, but he was right in claiming that globalization, unfettered financial capitalism, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct". ​As we don't have unfettered financial capitalism, we have little to worry about concerning Marx's prediction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As he argued, unregulated capitalism *can lead to regular bouts of over-capacity, under-consumption, and the recurrence of destructive financial crises*, fueled by credit bubbles and asset-price booms and busts."​As we don't have unregulated capitalism, we have little to worry about concerning this prediction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got anything from Nostradamus?  Maybe that will be more applicable.
> 
> Truthout *snicker*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you noticed any over-capacity or under-consumption lately?
> How about a destructive financial crisis?
> Credit bubbles?
> Asset price booms and busts?
> 
> Roubini had this to say the failure of unregulated markets and Europe's deficit driven welfare states:
> 
> "Some of the lessons about the need for prudential regulation of the financial system were lost in the Reagan-Thatcher era, when the appetite for massive deregulation was created in part by the flaws in Europes social-welfare model.
> 
> "Those flaws were reflected in yawning fiscal deficits, regulatory overkill, and a lack of economic dynamism that led to sclerotic growth then and the eurozones sovereign-debt crisis now.
> 
> "But the laissez-faire Anglo-Saxon model has also now failed miserably.
> 
> "To stabilize market-oriented economies requires a return to the right balance between markets and provision of public goods. That means moving away from both the Anglo-Saxon model of unregulated markets and the continental European model of deficit-driven welfare states..."
> 
> After the Storm: The Instability of Inequality | Truthout
Click to expand...

First of all, linking to a blog/op-ed from a far left site really isn't proof of much of anything except the opinion of the far left site.

Their predictions fail, except for the unthinking.  We do not have unregulated or unfettered markets.

See if you can find something from Nostradumus; at least he seems to get some predictions right.


----------



## georgephillip

Tipsycatlover said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The White House continued its embrace of the Occupy Wall Street protests on Sunday, using the strongest terms yet to identify President Barack Obama with the growing movement.
> 
> In a call previewing Obama's upcoming bus tour through North Carolina and Virginia, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama "will continue to acknowledge the frustration that he himself shares," about Washington's laggard response to the financial crisis.
> 
> Earnest added that while on the trip, *Obama will make it clear that he is fighting to make certain that the "interests of 99 percent of Americans are well represented"  the first time the White House has used the term* to differentiate the vast majority of Americans from the wealthy.
> 
> * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> -- White House Draws Closer To Occupy Wall Street, Says Obama Is Fighting For The Interests Of The 99%
> 
> This raises the question:
> 
> Just exactly how fucking stupid is President Obama?
> 
> Is the depth of his stupidity even susceptible to measurement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's like a black hole.  Even light cannot escape.  This isn't drinking kool aid.  This is a glass of C-4.   All it will take is ONE event and it will blow up right in his face with crap all over him.  The shitters now think they have presidential protection and no one can touch them.  Oh this isn't going to end well at all.  Not at all.   Will he off himself when it happens?
Click to expand...

Depends on whether ol' Jeff is a shitter or a shifter.

"That absurdity was marked by Barack Obama's choice of Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric -- a company that has shifted to foreign countries *two-thirds of its workforce and 82 percent of its profits* -- to head the president's job creation council."

If a Republican Were President ... | Truthout

Obama is as corporate as Dubya or Bubba.
If this wasn't an election year, OWS would be a third rail in his administration.
Maybe it will turn him into "one and done"?


----------



## flacaltenn

What OWS doesn't understand is that social freedom and economic freedom are 2 sides of the same coin. That money comes from serving others. Having free speech is meaningless if the GOVT has a claim on your wallet and your ability to pursue new ideas and creations. The thousands of custom crafters who make kids toys (my banner below) are a great example of how MORE INTRUSIVE GOVT is as big a threat to freedom as censorship. Good luck designing a HALF free country. Where wealth and income can be stripped by a mob at will.. 

And when corporations are constantly threatened by the whims of Congress, they too have a right to lobby and defend themselves. Just like those small toy makers do..


----------



## georgephillip

Si modo said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The problem is not new. Karl Marx oversold socialism, but he was right in claiming that globalization, unfettered financial capitalism, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct". ​As we don't have unfettered financial capitalism, we have little to worry about concerning Marx's prediction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As he argued, unregulated capitalism *can lead to regular bouts of over-capacity, under-consumption, and the recurrence of destructive financial crises*, fueled by credit bubbles and asset-price booms and busts."​As we don't have unregulated capitalism, we have little to worry about concerning this prediction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got anything from Nostradamus?  Maybe that will be more applicable.
> 
> Truthout *snicker*
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed any over-capacity or under-consumption lately?
> How about a destructive financial crisis?
> Credit bubbles?
> Asset price booms and busts?
> 
> Roubini had this to say the failure of unregulated markets and Europe's deficit driven welfare states:
> 
> "Some of the lessons about the need for prudential regulation of the financial system were lost in the Reagan-Thatcher era, when the appetite for massive deregulation was created in part by the flaws in Europes social-welfare model.
> 
> "Those flaws were reflected in yawning fiscal deficits, regulatory overkill, and a lack of economic dynamism that led to sclerotic growth then and the eurozones sovereign-debt crisis now.
> 
> "But the laissez-faire Anglo-Saxon model has also now failed miserably.
> 
> "To stabilize market-oriented economies requires a return to the right balance between markets and provision of public goods. That means moving away from both the Anglo-Saxon model of unregulated markets and the continental European model of deficit-driven welfare states..."
> 
> After the Storm: The Instability of Inequality | Truthout
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all, linking to a blog/op-ed from a far left site really isn't proof of much of anything except the opinion of the far left site.
> 
> Their predictions fail, except for the unthinking.  We do not have unregulated or unfettered markets.
> 
> See if you can find something from Nostradumus; at least he seems to get some predictions right.
Click to expand...

Roubini has nailed a few predictions:

"Roubini's critical economic views have earned him the nicknames 'Dr. Doom' and 'permabear' in the media.[1] In 2008, Fortune magazine wrote, '*In 2005* Roubini said home prices were riding a speculative wave that would soon sink the economy... 

"The New York Times notes that he foresaw '*homeowners defaulting on mortgages, trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unraveling worldwide *and the global financial system shuddering to a halt'.[1] 

"*In September 2006*, he warned a skeptical IMF that 'the United States was likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence, and, ultimately, a deep recession'. 

"Nobel laureate Paul Krugman adds that his once 'seemingly outlandish' predictions have been matched 'or even exceeded by reality.'"

Nouriel Roubini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

bigrebnc1775 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Nouriel Roubini (born 29 March 1959) is an American economist. He is celebrated for having predicted both the collapse of the United States housing market and the worldwide recession which started in 2008. He teaches at New York University's Stern School of Business and is the chairman of Roubini Global Economics, an economic consultancy firm."
> 
> Nouriel Roubini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Dr Doom has some thoughts on the global occupy movements that might be useful to both sides of this debate. For example...
> 
> "The problem is not new. Karl Marx oversold socialism, but he was right in claiming that globalization, unfettered financial capitalism, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but he was right in claiming that globalization, unfettered financial capitalism, and redistribution of income and wealth from labor to capital could lead capitalism to self-destruct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "As he argued, unregulated capitalism *can lead to regular bouts of over-capacity, under-consumption, and the recurrence of destructive financial crises*, fueled by credit bubbles and asset-price booms and busts."
> 
> After the Storm: The Instability of Inequality | Truthout
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is working for the rich redistribution of income and wealth? A poor person that works for the rich never had wealth to begin with, it wasn't their's. The rich hire people who apply for a job. The only money that does not belong to the rich is the money the worker worked for and agreed at the set rate of pay. So tell me george how is that redistribution of income and wealth from labor to the the rich? I'll repeat the only thing that belongs to labor is the set rate that was agreed to at the date of hire.
Click to expand...

Forty years ago the richest 1% of Americans earned about 8% of the total annual income of all US workers. Today the figure is close to 25%. The richest 1% control about 40% of total US wealth. There have been more than a few hardworking billionaires arrive on the financial scene since 1970, but they have all benefited from Republicans AND Democrats shifting the tax burden off FIRE sector incomes (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) and onto wages and salaries.

Many of the strategies that boost investor incomes like outsourcing jobs to China, for example serve to diminish the living standards of US labor. The problem was critical before the credit/housing fraud of 2008, and since that time many of the richest 1% have increased their share of income and wealth.

How much more are they entitled to?
Everything they can steal?


----------



## Si modo

georgephillip said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you noticed any over-capacity or under-consumption lately?
> How about a destructive financial crisis?
> Credit bubbles?
> Asset price booms and busts?
> 
> Roubini had this to say the failure of unregulated markets and Europe's deficit driven welfare states:
> 
> "Some of the lessons about the need for prudential regulation of the financial system were lost in the Reagan-Thatcher era, when the appetite for massive deregulation was created in part by the flaws in Europes social-welfare model.
> 
> "Those flaws were reflected in yawning fiscal deficits, regulatory overkill, and a lack of economic dynamism that led to sclerotic growth then and the eurozones sovereign-debt crisis now.
> 
> "But the laissez-faire Anglo-Saxon model has also now failed miserably.
> 
> "To stabilize market-oriented economies requires a return to the right balance between markets and provision of public goods. That means moving away from both the Anglo-Saxon model of unregulated markets and the continental European model of deficit-driven welfare states..."
> 
> After the Storm: The Instability of Inequality | Truthout
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, linking to a blog/op-ed from a far left site really isn't proof of much of anything except the opinion of the far left site.
> 
> Their predictions fail, except for the unthinking.  We do not have unregulated or unfettered markets.
> 
> See if you can find something from Nostradumus; at least he seems to get some predictions right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roubini has nailed a few predictions:
> 
> "Roubini's critical economic views have earned him the nicknames 'Dr. Doom' and 'permabear' in the media.[1] In 2008, Fortune magazine wrote, '*In 2005* Roubini said home prices were riding a speculative wave that would soon sink the economy...
> 
> "The New York Times notes that he foresaw '*homeowners defaulting on mortgages, trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unraveling worldwide *and the global financial system shuddering to a halt'.[1]
> 
> "*In September 2006*, he warned a skeptical IMF that 'the United States was likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence, and, ultimately, a deep recession'.
> 
> "Nobel laureate Paul Krugman adds that his once 'seemingly outlandish' predictions have been matched 'or even exceeded by reality.'"
> 
> Nouriel Roubini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Well, he's not going to nail this one.  The condition that markets be unfettered and unregulated is not met.  And, even IF the USA fails (which no doubt you would like), he would not have predicted it because he was flat-wrong on his condition.

Third time explaining the obvious to you.

Good grief.


----------



## The Gadfly

Preius said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are many ideas being thrown around by just ordinary people in the 99% Occupy movement.  The leaders are intentionally staying away from specific issues.  This country was founded on extreme violence such as burning the homes of British tax collectors, and perhaps even murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The subject of this thread is "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"
> 
> Your point #2 about entering the stock exchange and killing everyone would be a sad thing for the families of those who might die.  On the other hand, we are a violent people hiding behind a lot of great concepts.  Many see themselves out of work and losing their homes while Wall Streeters continue to make millions.  I would understand if violence occurred.  It would be a pity for the 1%.
> 
> I can see where the level of anger might be along the lines of patriots during the American revolution.  What if you had lost your home or your job through no fault of your own and your unemployment was running out.  Desperation can become violence easily.  Within our highly moral concepts of government are Second Amendment solutions.  If it were to happen I would be sad, and not helpful to the political end of things.  On the other hand, what goes around comes around.  Unfortunately, an eye for an eye is a consistently realistic concept for human beings.
> 
> Let me put it this way, if a few hedge fund manager, or CEOs experienced a fatal incident around the New York Stock Exchange,  I would not lose any sleep.  For the record as a social liberal, and a fiscal conservative, I would condemn any use of violence on Wall Street, at least publicly.  I believe this was also John Hancock's attitude during the Boston Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go Preius.. I suspected you'd endorse a KristalNacht like "message" to the scapegoats you've selected as an enemy.. Don't bother responding to RATIONAL debate -- like you dodged my response to you yesterday..  http://www.usmessageboard.com/4267291-post1040.html
> 
> Just go for the punchline. Good Job.. Nancy Pelosi is REAL PROUD of your conviction..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please, for the sake of those of us who actually read you, write for CLARITY first.  I have no idea who KristaNacht is, so now I have to Google.  Kristallnacht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  Apparently, you think I hate Hebrew People, I will tell you this as a WASP, if it were not for my close Hebrew ties, my career would not be as advanced as it is at my age.  I have had clients, (Jewish and others) request me specifically on their accounts because of my reputation.
> 
> I like Pelosi and Reid, but I do not get down on a rug and bow every morning like Repubs do to Austin, Texas for Rick Perry.  I am a disgruntled Dem who is unhappy that President Barry Obama would consider cutting Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.  This is totally unacceptable.  Pelosi and Reid have stuck to their guns.  While I respect that, it is REQUIRED OF DEMS as far as I am concerned.
> 
> I have not dodged a single post of yours.  In fact I went back for a post you complained about because I missed it.  It would appear that the entire purpose of this post has to do with Jewish people, which I have responded to - even though it is off-topic.  Do you actually think about what you post, or do you just dump whatever pops into your mind at the moment?
> 
> *The subject of this thread is "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*
Click to expand...


Yes, Preius, you wouldn't mind violence, not if it serves your desired end. Of course, you'll denounce it publicly, while you relish it in private. So what if some "Wall Street types" are killed; better them than you, and they "deserve it" anyway, right? What happens when it goes to the next level? What happens if one of these loons bombs a CEO's house, and kills their family members-do they "deserve it" too? What happens, if violence breaks out in the streets? You think no innocents might be killed by stray bullets? Oh, but it can be "contained", right?

What happens, if you're wrong? What happens, if after the mob turns on the desired scapegoats, they start taking out their frustration on everyone else who happens to have more than they do? You see, there are some differences between this and Krystallnacht that go beyond scapegoating "the Jews" vs. scapegoating "the 1%". The Nazis were organized; this is a rabble. What happens, when they turn on whoever is handy? What happens, if they turn on YOU (I'm sure they'll be very moved to hear you're a "social liberal"-mobs are very amenable to reasoning, that way)?

You had better be careful what you wish for, because this is a very divided country, along a number of fronts, there are plenty of guns, and they are not all on the same side. Violence is an easy thing to start; stopping it can be another matter entirely. At best, you'll have one hell of a lot of bloodshed; at worst, you'll have neighbor against neighbor, with a lot of factions and shifting alliances. Think you can just hunker down and sit it out? Don't bet on it. Think you can buy safety for yourself and your family? Think again. If and when it all hits the fan, it will be a bloody, atrocity-filled mess. The best case scenario is that the active military can regain control, eventually, in which case the survivors will end up with a police state (and be grateful for that). If not, your only friend will be a weapon, and your only allies a defensible position, and enough combat experience to know what to do with both. Eventually, you will kill or be killed for a box of ammunition, a can of food, or a jug of water. I have been in combat, and I can tell you that you had better hope to whatever God you pray to that it never comes to that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Citibank Not Alone in Turning Away Account-Closing Customers

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7sV8EPpX4w&feature=feedu]Citibank Customers Arrested For Closing Their Accounts - YouTube[/ame]

Holy shit  have we just entered into the twilight zone?


----------



## newpolitics

California Girl said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great. Perhaps you could answer the question I keep asking of the protest supporters. What would be the economic impact of the 11 demands. If that's too hard.... just answer this one... what would be the economic impact of a $20 ph min wage?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer you keep getting from the protest supporters, and will go on getting until you stop using this fraud, is that there are no eleven demands. That's bogus, a hoax, fake, bullshit, nonsense, not affiliated with OWS, garbage, nonsense -- at very best, one person's individual opinion and not representative of the movement as a whole.
> 
> You want to know what the protesters want, ask them, and please note that "them" is a plural pronoun not a singular one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But there is a list - from the protesters - or are you saying that that list is so fucking ridiculous that you're trying to disassociate yourselves from it now?
Click to expand...


Its just what he said it is, not an official expression of the movement, only a few who are part of the movement. I would think this would be easy to understand, but apparently not.


----------



## newpolitics

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Citibank Not Alone in Turning Away Account-Closing Customers
> 
> Citibank Customers Arrested For Closing Their Accounts - YouTube
> 
> Holy shit  have we just entered into the twilight zone?



I've been trying to post this on my facebook and even created a thread here. This is bananas!!!! Everyone needs to know about this. Our democracy is being eaten alive from the inside, and finally the greedy monster shows its ugly face on the outside... the collusion between state and business is now blatantly visible. A threat to the bottom line of citibank is now seen as a threat to the state, evidence that they are one in the same, or getting extraordinarily close.


----------



## Synthaholic

SFC Ollie said:


> I do believe a few of us have said this whole thing was carefully planned by the left.........


You remain a fucking idiot.


----------



## chanel

> OCCUPY PHILLY shows no sign of leaving the tented encampment outside City Hall, so *look for taxpayer costs to mount *as the demonstration continues its second week.
> 
> For the first week of protests, the city shelled out $230,000, mostly in police overtime to man the protests that sprung up next to City Hall on Oct. 6, said Budget Director Rebecca Rhynhart. The other costs include setting up a police command center, as well as public-property and sanitation expenses. Those numbers don't include the use of straight police time, redeploying officers on regularly scheduled duty.
> 
> Rhynhart said that some of those expenses were one-time deals and that the overtime costs have been dropping, so the projected weekly expense going forward is $112,000. *Rhynhart said it wasn't yet clear if the costs would force the city to make further cuts to balance the budget*.



Occupy Philly continues, at a cost of 112G a week | Philadelphia Daily News | 10/17/2011


----------



## mudwhistle

flacaltenn said:


> What OWS doesn't understand is that social freedom and economic freedom are 2 sides of the same coin. That money comes from serving others. Having free speech is meaningless if the GOVT has a claim on your wallet and your ability to pursue new ideas and creations. The thousands of custom crafters who make kids toys (my banner below) are a great example of how MORE INTRUSIVE GOVT is as big a threat to freedom as censorship. Good luck designing a HALF free country. Where wealth and income can be stripped by a mob at will..
> 
> And when corporations are constantly threatened by the


----------



## editec

The movement grows because the people can plainly see that our leaders are berift of ideas.

The scam is over, boys.

Supply Side economic policies gave us this mess and more supply side solutions will only make things worse.


----------



## Stephanie

People died to come to this country to be FREE to make any life they chose.

Now we these who are fighting to BECOME SLAVES to a Federal Government.

And we not only have a political party (Democrats) backing it we have our very own President as their leader.

Hows that you people who voted for them.?


----------



## mudwhistle

Stephanie said:


> People died to come to this country to be FREE to make any life they chose.
> 
> Now we these who are fighting to BECOME SLAVES to a Federal Government.
> 
> And we not only have a political party (Democrats) backing it we have our very own President as their leader.
> 
> Hows that you people who voted for them.?



Obama wants America to become like Europe.

Millionaires in Europe have to inherit their riches. This is one of the reasons our forefathers left and came here. 

At least here you have a chance to become wealthy without being born into it. 



> Recently, PNC Wealth Management conducted a survey of people with more than $500,000 free to invest as they like, a fair definition of wealthy, and possibly millionaire once you begin including home equity and other assets. Only 6% of those surveyed earned their money from inheritance alone. 69% earned their wealth mostly by trading time and effort for money, or by working.
> 
> Here are some interesting statistics I pulled from an article discussing the survey results.
> 
> 36% of earners and 27% of heirs are concerned about an economic recession.
> 77% of earners and 67% of heirs believe they have a lot of control of their financial future.
> 39% of earners and 21% of heirs are moderate or risky investors.
> 75% of earners and 50% of heirs have less stress thanks to their wealth.
> 51% of earners and 33% of heirs believe their wealth has led to increases of happiness.
> * Heirs are twice as likely to believe that their wealth causes more problems that it solves.*
> 37% of earners and 25% of heirs believe that luck played a major role in their financial success.
> 
> For me, the choice is clear. There is only one option if I want to find myself with $500,000 of investible assets: earn rather than inherit.



Notice the highlighted sentence; _*Heirs are twice as likely to believe that their wealth causes more problems that it solves.*_

Those who inherited their wealth often consider it a curse rather then a blessing perhaps because they don't appreciate their good fortune as much as one who has lived in poverty and made good, something that is next to impossible to do anywhere else.


----------



## Katzndogz

The movement grows for the same reasons that uncollected trash attracts rats.  They are getting free food, thanks to leftist organizations, it's quite good food.  They have constructed a community where drug use is encouraged and the police will do nothing.  They plead for donated condoms so they can lay in their own filth and have anonymous indescriminate sex.   They are freed and unfettered by civilization to enjoy defecation and urination where they sit.  The protest camps are convenient places for criminals to hide.  They can enjoy all of these things and still feel noble about their actions.  

It should be natural that the movement will grow.


----------



## Dot Com

What is it w/ the Randites (Republicans) who condone this corporatism/plutocracy?  Rand's books were fiction!!!  

Storming the Capitalist Castle - Yahoo! Finance


> "We Are the 99 Percent" effectively publicizes a message consistent with research on the distribution of income and wealth: the top 1 percent of households in the United States represents an economic aristocracy.
> 
> Over the last 30 years, it has consolidated and amplified its privileged position, making strategic political investments in policies ranging from financial deregulation to cuts in top marginal tax rates.
> 
> It took home 21 percent of the nation's pretax income in 2008, up from 9 percent in 1976. It controlled 36 percent of the nation's private wealth in 2009.
> 
> Some economists argue that inequality has no downside -- a view critically dissected by Timothy Noah in a terrific essay, "The United States of Inequality."
> 
> As a poster I admired at the park last Wednesday succinctly put it: "We want democracy, not plutocracy."


----------



## editec

The natives are getting restless.

Ignore that at your peril, Masters.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dot Com said:


> What is it w/ the Randites (Republicans) who condone this corporatism/plutocracy?  Rand's books were fiction!!!
> 
> Storming the Capitalist Castle - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> 
> 
> "We Are the 99 Percent" effectively publicizes a message consistent with research on the distribution of income and wealth: the top 1 percent of households in the United States represents an economic aristocracy.
> 
> Over the last 30 years, it has consolidated and amplified its privileged position, making strategic political investments in policies ranging from financial deregulation to cuts in top marginal tax rates.
> 
> It took home 21 percent of the nation's pretax income in 2008, up from 9 percent in 1976. It controlled 36 percent of the nation's private wealth in 2009.
> 
> Some economists argue that inequality has no downside -- a view critically dissected by Timothy Noah in a terrific essay, "The United States of Inequality."
> 
> As a poster I admired at the park last Wednesday succinctly put it: "We want democracy, not plutocracy."
Click to expand...




> What is it w/ the Randites (Republicans) who condone this corporatism/plutocracy?  Rand's books were fiction!!!



What is it the marxist who think they should control a persons life? No one knows be better than me or knows what I want. Marxist like dumb commmunist aka dotcom needs to shut the fuck up with their marxist agenda.


----------



## Dot Com

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it w/ the Randites (Republicans) who condone this corporatism/plutocracy?  Rand's books were fiction!!!
> 
> Storming the Capitalist Castle - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> 
> 
> "We Are the 99 Percent" effectively publicizes a message consistent with research on the distribution of income and wealth: the top 1 percent of households in the United States represents an economic aristocracy.
> 
> Over the last 30 years, it has consolidated and amplified its privileged position, making strategic political investments in policies ranging from financial deregulation to cuts in top marginal tax rates.
> 
> It took home 21 percent of the nation's pretax income in 2008, up from 9 percent in 1976. It controlled 36 percent of the nation's private wealth in 2009.
> 
> Some economists argue that inequality has no downside -- a view critically dissected by Timothy Noah in a terrific essay, "The United States of Inequality."
> 
> As a poster I admired at the park last Wednesday succinctly put it: "We want democracy, not plutocracy."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it w/ the Randites (Republicans) who condone this corporatism/plutocracy?  Rand's books were fiction!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it the marxist who think they should control a persons life? No one knows be better than me or knows what I want. Marxist like dumb commmunist aka dotcom needs to shut the fuck up with their marxist agenda.
Click to expand...


lil'rebnc1775 never fails to underwhelm me w/ his melt-downs. Keep it up boy.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dot Com said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is it w/ the Randites (Republicans) who condone this corporatism/plutocracy?  Rand's books were fiction!!!
> 
> Storming the Capitalist Castle - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is it w/ the Randites (Republicans) who condone this corporatism/plutocracy?  Rand's books were fiction!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is it the marxist who think they should control a persons life? No one knows be better than me or knows what I want. Marxist like dumb commmunist aka dotcom needs to shut the fuck up with their marxist agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lil'rebnc1775 never fails to underwhelm me w/ his melt-downs. Keep it up boy.
Click to expand...

You're a marxist and didn't know it? Now that's just stupid on your part.


----------



## Dragon

bigrebnc1775 said:


> It's a whether simple question no need to back it down word for word.



Let me illustrate something for you with that sentence:

"It's a RATHER simple question . . ."

"WHETHER it's a simple question . . . "

I'm sure your question was simple when you thought  of it. The problem is that, upon transcribing it into written words on line, it suffered from the same mangling that your sentence above does. What you actually wrote above makes no sense at all. I think probably you meant the first correction I posted, but that isn't what you SAID.

I asked for a clarification because you screwed up with your typing or something, and what you posted made no sense. You have provided a clarification now. Thank you.



> Are you doing better now than you were in the mid to late 80's
> Better or worse.



For most people, the answer is "worse."


----------



## Dragon

Liability said:


> Just exactly how fucking stupid is President Obama?



Not stupid at all. He can see that this is a very popular movement (something you apparently can't see, so who's the stupid one here?) that he may be able to ride for political success. He's being very smart here. The stupid thing would be to continue alienating the very people who got him elected in 2008.


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> What OWS doesn't understand is that social freedom and economic freedom are 2 sides of the same coin.



No, it's not true that they don't understand that. The problem is that you don't understand that the economic freedom of the very wealthy is antithetical to the economic freedom of the ordinary person. We are not all in this together. Those at the top of the tree are deliberately restraining the economy's growth in order to have a bigger piece of a smaller pie, and their freedom to do this (abetted by the government) results in a loss of economic freedom (which is dependent, after all, on economic means) for everyone else.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Obama has tied the Dem Party to his Failed Presidency and OWS.

Me so happy!!


----------



## Katzndogz

As the parasitic class becomes more obnoxious, obama will become more obnoxious too.


----------



## mudwhistle

editec said:


> The natives are getting restless.
> 
> Ignore that at your peril, Masters.



Oh, I'm really scared.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> From The Onion:
> 
> Ifc Obama Seeks Approval Of 'Occupy Wall Street' Protestors By Punching Banker In The Face | The Onion - America's Finest News Source | Onion News Network
> 
> "NEW YORK, NY (October 12, 2011) - Apparently seeking to ride the wave of popular anger being expressed by the growing "Occupy Wall Street" movement, today President Obama punched an investment banker in the face.
> 
> "The punch occurred during a White House meet-and-greet around noon. After a brief speech on tax reform, President Obama called investment banker Ron Milner to the podium and then, without provocation or warning, delivered what witnesses describe as a "haymaker" punch to Mr. Milner's jaw. "That's for ruining the economy, asshole," Mr. Obama remarked, then spit at Mr. Milner's feet and walked away."




Obama?

Come on, it would be a overhand slap with Barry on tippy toes...


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Dragon said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a whether simple question no need to back it down word for word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me illustrate something for you with that sentence:
> 
> "It's a RATHER simple question . . ."
> 
> "WHETHER it's a simple question . . . "
> 
> I'm sure your question was simple when you thought  of it. The problem is that, upon transcribing it into written words on line, it suffered from the same mangling that your sentence above does. What you actually wrote above makes no sense at all. I think probably you meant the first correction I posted, but that isn't what you SAID.
> 
> I asked for a clarification because you screwed up with your typing or something, and what you posted made no sense. You have provided a clarification now. Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you doing better now than you were in the mid to late 80's
> Better or worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For most people, the answer is "worse."
Click to expand...


This is not a english class no one cares but a distracting spelling nazi rather the correct word is used and spelled the correct way. 
So are you saying that you were better off when Reagan was in his last term than you are now? Considering I did not ask you first nor have you been so partisan to the issue of constantly blaming the republicans and never blaming the democrats let's wait for the person I originally asked. But I doubt they will, because it will show how much of a liar and a hack theyreally are.


----------



## Liability

Dragon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just exactly how fucking stupid is President Obama?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not stupid at all. He can see that this is a very popular movement (something you apparently can't see, so who's the stupid one here?) that he may be able to ride for political success. He's being very smart here. The stupid thing would be to continue alienating the very people who got him elected in 2008.
Click to expand...


Wrong.

The correct answer is:  he is woefully, tragically, pathetically and unrelentingly stupid.

Of course he can "see" a popular movement.  His boss has so directed him.

But that "movement" is the movement of imbeciles.  It cannot grunt out even a coherent question.  It can barely grunt out a complaint.  And it has less than no ability to articulate a rational set of possible "solutions."  Yet the leader of the free world seeks to embrace those ass-hats?  

President Obama is seriously too stupid to be President.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just exactly how fucking stupid is President Obama?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not stupid at all. He can see that this is a very popular movement (something you apparently can't see, so who's the stupid one here?) that he may be able to ride for political success. He's being very smart here. The stupid thing would be to continue alienating the very people who got him elected in 2008.
Click to expand...


There is very little evidence that it is a popular movement. 

That would mean wide-angle shots of massive throngs of protesters. We're not seeing that here. 

Obama is smart in one respect; He knows his own strengths and weaknesses. 

He knows he has no answers but he sure as shit can count on SEIU to back up his 99% nonsense. 

The guy promises jobs and gives us protests and an accompanying stench. 

So all he's produces is human waste. 

Jobs can wait another 4 years or so.


----------



## Dragon

Liability said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The correct answer is:  he is woefully, tragically, pathetically and unrelentingly stupid.



LOL. Bet you thought that in 2008, too, right up until he won the election.

As for the movement, polls show it has the support of a majority of the people. One sign of intelligence is the ability to count. Another is the ability to reason logically. Obama, in moving to embrace OWS, is showing both.

Now, you want to say that he's a friggin' hypocrite, that he has been over the past three years a complete Wall Street shill and who does he think he's fooling at this point, that actions speak louder than words and his administration has exhibited damned little "hope and change" in reality, I'm with you.

But stupid? He is not stupid, and anyone who thinks to oppose him while believing him stupid is in for a very unpleasant surprise.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The correct answer is:  he is woefully, tragically, pathetically and unrelentingly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Bet you thought that in 2008, too, right up until he won the election.
> 
> As for the movement, polls show it has the support of a majority of the people. One sign of intelligence is the ability to count. Another is the ability to reason logically. Obama, in moving to embrace OWS, is showing both.
> 
> Now, you want to say that he's a friggin' hypocrite, that he has been over the past three years a complete Wall Street shill and who does he think he's fooling at this point, that actions speak louder than words and his administration has exhibited damned little "hope and change" in reality, I'm with you.
> 
> But stupid? He is not stupid, and anyone who thinks to oppose him while believing him stupid is in for a very unpleasant surprise.
Click to expand...

"Thirty-six percent (36%) of the nation&#8217;s Likely Voters have a favorable opinion of the Occupy Wall Street protesters while 41% offer an unfavorable opinion."


36% =/= majority.  In the real world, that is.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> There is very little evidence that it is a popular movement.





			
				Time said:
			
		

> One of the juicier nuggets in TIME&#8217;s wide-ranging new poll is that voters are embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement as they sour on the Tea Party. Twice as many respondents (54%) have a favorable impression of the eclectic band massing in lower Manhattan&#8217;s Zuccotti Park than of the conservative movement that has, after two years, become a staple of the American political scene.
> 
> A closer look at the poll&#8217;s cross-tabs provides a fuller picture of the movement&#8217;s diverse support. Occupy Wall Street enjoys majority backing among men (57%) and women (51%), young (60% of respondents 18 to 34) and old (51%). Self-identified Democrats, unsurprisingly, comprise the left-leaning movement&#8217;s largest bloc, with 66% professing support. But more than half of independents (55%) harbor favorable views of the protesters, as do a third of Republicans.



That's on the movement per se. On the issues that it represents, the same poll found:



> Of the respondents in TIME&#8217;s poll familiar with the protests, 86% &#8212; including 77% of Republicans &#8212; agree with the movement&#8217;s contention that Wall Street and its proxies in Washington exert too much influence over the political process. More than 70%, and 65% of Republicans, think the financial chieftains responsible for dragging the U.S. economy to the brink of implosion in the fall of 2008 should be prosecuted. Other questions reveal a sharper split along partisan lines but nonetheless reveal the strength of economic populism. Nearly 80% of respondents (96% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans) think the class chasm between rich and poor has grown too large, and 68%, including 40% of Republicans, say the affluent should pay more taxes.



You could not be more mistaken. There's much evidence that the movement is popular.

EDIT: Rasmussen polls should not be believed unless (1) they show something Rasmussen would rather weren't true, or (2) it is within two weeks of an election and the poll is about who will likely win. Rasmussen skews his polls primarily by using a "likely voter" screen, which pretty much allows him to select whose responses he will pay attention to versus whose he won't. He also uses different screens depending on the purpose of the poll.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The correct answer is:  he is woefully, tragically, pathetically and unrelentingly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Bet you thought that in 2008, too, right up until he won the election.
> 
> As for the movement, polls show it has the support of a majority of the people. One sign of intelligence is the ability to count. Another is the ability to reason logically. Obama, in moving to embrace OWS, is showing both.
> 
> Now, you want to say that he's a friggin' hypocrite, that he has been over the past three years a complete Wall Street shill and who does he think he's fooling at this point, that actions speak louder than words and his administration has exhibited damned little "hope and change" in reality, I'm with you.
> 
> But stupid? He is not stupid, and anyone who thinks to oppose him while believing him stupid is in for a very unpleasant surprise.
Click to expand...


He's stupid if he thinks he's gonna get away with this. 

Word has it Obama was behind TARP. He benefitted the most from the financial collapse in 08'. He thrives off of crisis to pass his fucked up proposals simplely because the entities he bailed out are "too big to fail" or everyone simply throws up their hands and says "doing something, anything is better then doing nothing". 

Actually doing nothing is proving to be the best option. 

Doing nothing would have reduced the debt. Course the Dems believe doing nothing is better because we haven't passed a budget in close to 900 days. 

Obama is smart but not where it counts. Not where we need him to be smart.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Raising taxes and increasing regulations do not cause loss of jobs.



Hitting your hand with the sharp side of an ax does not cause loss of fingers...

ROFL

You're a hoot.



> Companies hire because they have customers they can't serve with the staff hey have already.



Right, they don't really care whether they lose money or not, just whether they serve....



> If the demand exists to justify it, they will hire, taxes or no taxes, regs or no regs. If it isn't, they won't -- taxes or no taxes, regs or no regs.



Got it, because losing money is just fine. 



> Right-wing economics is a lie.



So is gravity. I suggest you find a tall building and debunk the gravity lie once and for all...



> As for Gibson, I remind you that treaties are incorporated into U.S. law and the government is responsible for enforcing the law.





> Isn't this thread supposed to be about Occupy Wall Street? Why are you talking about the Democrats?



The democrats are on the leash of the unions, the unions run the Shitter Revolution.


----------



## Liability

Dragon said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The correct answer is:  he is woefully, tragically, pathetically and unrelentingly stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. Bet you thought that in 2008, too, right up until he won the election.
> 
> As for the movement, polls show it has the support of a majority of the people. One sign of intelligence is the ability to count. Another is the ability to reason logically. Obama, in moving to embrace OWS, is showing both.
> 
> Now, you want to say that he's a friggin' hypocrite, that he has been over the past three years a complete Wall Street shill and who does he think he's fooling at this point, that actions speak louder than words and his administration has exhibited damned little "hope and change" in reality, I'm with you.
> 
> But stupid? He is not stupid, and anyone who thinks to oppose him while believing him stupid is in for a very unpleasant surprise.
Click to expand...


You'd lose that bet, drip.

I was very concerned that the nitwit could win.  I supported McCain, in the end, not because I particularly liked his positions.  But I saw through the Obama posturing quite early.

Put aside the Natural Born Citizenship (birther) show.  But get down to substance:  what kind of student was he REALLY?  Well, let's go to the transcripts.  Ooops.  No can do.  The guy conceals his own academic record.

Well, what about his sterling record as a STATE Senator?  Uhm.  "Present!"

In his fairly brief stint as a United States Senator, what significant accomplishments can we point to?  Uhm.  None.  Get real.

The man is and was a very lightweight lightweight.

Before getting elected, he tipped his hand.  He went on his World "America Sucks" Tour.  

The problem was never tht I thought he couldn't get elected.  I came to see the danger implicit in the prospect that he COULD get elected.  That doesn't make him smart, little boy.  It just made him a good campaigner.  The watchful eyes of the media were dutifully SHUT, too.  That helped.

Do I want to say he's a hypocrite?  In part.   Sure.  It's true.  But he's also dedicated to his agenda.  And his agenda sucks.

Cozying up to the nitwit OWS movement is absolutely nothing more or less than concrete proof that the man is a moron.  He is the President of the United States of America and those ass clown Soros' Bitches are trying (ineffectually though it might be) to undermine the very foundation and principles that made America a great country.  If the President were smart, he would denounce those ass clowns.  Instead, he embraces them and their mindless rhetoric.

Why?  Because he is tragically stupid.  That's why.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, even as this evil regime moans about unemployment and personal losses, the administration takes concrete steps to exacerbate the losses.  Raise taxes, increase regulations, or, as in the case of Gibson Guitar manufacturers DEMAND that it move out of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Raising taxes and increasing regulations do not cause loss of jobs. ....
Click to expand...

So true.  It creates jobs in China.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hitting your hand with the sharp side of an ax does not cause loss of fingers...



Ideology is not fact. Raising taxes and regulating business do not cause loss of jobs. When the U.S. economy was strongest in its entire history, the top marginal tax rate ranged between 70% and 92%, and regulation particularly on the financial industry was much greater than it is today.

That is a fact. It disproves your ideology. You are simply wrong.



> Right, they don't really care whether they lose money or not, just whether they serve....



It's obvious you've never run a business.

Where does the money come from for a business to "make money"? From its customers. Why does a customer give money to a business? Because the business can supply a product or service the customer wants. How does the business supply this product or service? By employing people to do the work necessary.

A company hires people when it cannot serve its customers (from whom all its money comes, and who are the be-all of any business) with the staff it has. Because serving its customers is HOW it makes money.



> The democrats are on the leash of the unions, the unions run [Occupy Wall Street].



The first statement is an exaggeration with some truth at the core. The second is flat-out wrong.


----------



## Dragon

Liability said:


> You lose that bet



Then why do you think he's stupid?



> But I saw through the Obama posturing quite early.



What does that have to do with your contention that he's stupid?

He doesn't have a huge record of accomplishments before becoming president. But what does that have to do with your contention that he's stupid?



> I came to see the danger implicit in the prospect that he COULD get elected.  That doesn't make him smart.  It just made him a good campaigner.



Do you really think a stupid person can be a good campaigner? Do you think a stupid person can be a good, effective politician?



> Do I want to say he's a hypocrite?  In part.   Sure.  It's true.  But he's also dedicated to his agenda.  And his agenda sucks.



So you believe; and in part, for different reasons, so do I. But that does not make him stupid.



> Cozying up to the OWS movement is absolutely nothing more or less than concrete proof that the man is a moron.



No, it's just the opposite. This is a good political move for him. You may disagree with where the movement wants to take the country, and so disapprove of Obama's embracing it, but that doesn't make him stupid.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is very little evidence that it is a popular movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the juicier nuggets in TIME&#8217;s wide-ranging new poll is that voters are embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement as they sour on the Tea Party. Twice as many respondents (54%) have a favorable impression of the eclectic band massing in lower Manhattan&#8217;s Zuccotti Park than of the conservative movement that has, after two years, become a staple of the American political scene.
> 
> A closer look at the poll&#8217;s cross-tabs provides a fuller picture of the movement&#8217;s diverse support. Occupy Wall Street enjoys majority backing among men (57%) and women (51%), young (60% of respondents 18 to 34) and old (51%). Self-identified Democrats, unsurprisingly, comprise the left-leaning movement&#8217;s largest bloc, with 66% professing support. But more than half of independents (55%) harbor favorable views of the protesters, as do a third of Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's on the movement per se. On the issues that it represents, the same poll found:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the respondents in TIME&#8217;s poll familiar with the protests, 86% &#8212; including 77% of Republicans &#8212; agree with the movement&#8217;s contention that Wall Street and its proxies in Washington exert too much influence over the political process. More than 70%, and 65% of Republicans, think the financial chieftains responsible for dragging the U.S. economy to the brink of implosion in the fall of 2008 should be prosecuted. Other questions reveal a sharper split along partisan lines but nonetheless reveal the strength of economic populism. Nearly 80% of respondents (96% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans) think the class chasm between rich and poor has grown too large, and 68%, including 40% of Republicans, say the affluent should pay more taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could not be more mistaken. There's much evidence that the movement is popular.
> 
> EDIT: Rasmussen polls should not be believed unless (1) they show something Rasmussen would rather weren't true, or (2) it is within two weeks of an election and the poll is about who will likely win. Rasmussen skews his polls primarily by using a "likely voter" screen, which pretty much allows him to select whose responses he will pay attention to versus whose he won't. He also uses different screens depending on the purpose of the poll.
Click to expand...


The questions you mentioned are what most would think were loaded questions. 

The problem is the protesters are not exactly protesting the same issues as the poll. 

Many of them are there because of high tuition costs. The fact that their over-priced education can't guarantee employment. 

Who should they be protesting really?


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is very little evidence that it is a popular movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Time said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the juicier nuggets in TIMEs wide-ranging new poll is that voters are embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement as they sour on the Tea Party. Twice as many respondents (54%) have a favorable impression of the eclectic band massing in lower Manhattans Zuccotti Park than of the conservative movement that has, after two years, become a staple of the American political scene.
> 
> A closer look at the polls cross-tabs provides a fuller picture of the movements diverse support. Occupy Wall Street enjoys majority backing among men (57%) and women (51%), young (60% of respondents 18 to 34) and old (51%). Self-identified Democrats, unsurprisingly, comprise the left-leaning movements largest bloc, with 66% professing support. But more than half of independents (55%) harbor favorable views of the protesters, as do a third of Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's on the movement per se. On the issues that it represents, the same poll found:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of the respondents in TIMEs poll familiar with the protests, 86%  including 77% of Republicans  agree with the movements contention that Wall Street and its proxies in Washington exert too much influence over the political process. More than 70%, and 65% of Republicans, think the financial chieftains responsible for dragging the U.S. economy to the brink of implosion in the fall of 2008 should be prosecuted. Other questions reveal a sharper split along partisan lines but nonetheless reveal the strength of economic populism. Nearly 80% of respondents (96% of Democrats and 56% of Republicans) think the class chasm between rich and poor has grown too large, and 68%, including 40% of Republicans, say the affluent should pay more taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You could not be more mistaken. There's much evidence that the movement is popular.
> 
> EDIT: Rasmussen polls should not be believed unless (1) they show something Rasmussen would rather weren't true, or (2) it is within two weeks of an election and the poll is about who will likely win. Rasmussen skews his polls primarily by using a "likely voter" screen, which pretty much allows him to select whose responses he will pay attention to versus whose he won't. He also uses different screens depending on the purpose of the poll.
Click to expand...

  Of course you don't want to pay attention to Rasmussen.  You don't like what the poll results are.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Preius said:


> I don't get it if you think the 99%ers is media bull shit then there is only one way for you to find out what the truth is about these people.  Today, I went to lunch in Westwood, home of UCLA, a known Republican oriented university.



BWAHAHAHAHAHA

UCLA, Republican oriented? ROFLMAO

Dude, when you lie, try not to make it so that people openly laugh at you..

UCLA, Republican oriented, but not quite as Republican as Berkley - close though!



> There were a couple thousand 99%ers out there, predominently, white, and clean.



The Shitters are pretty well exclusively white, that's true. Looks like 99% of non-Whites don't want anything to do with the Shitters....



> About half were students, perhaps a quarter were senior citizens, and the rest were a mixed group.  Will you accept what your own eyes see as proof?  Get off your ass, get in your car, and go see for yourself.  And, stop posting until you do.







> You are just pissed because the era of the Teabagger is ending,




The February 19, 2009 had over 110,000 people - more than all of the Shitter rallies combined. Nearly ten times the number of people of all the Shitter rallies put together.



> and all you have is broken promises.  You do know that the Tea Party was a lobbyist ploy set up by former House member Dick Armey, and was never grass roots?  I thought not.



Tea parties predate Armey by several years.

Have you ever posted anything truthful or accurate?



> You don't trust real media with degreed journalists.  Let me guess you watch Fox news and trust talking points created for the RNC by Ruppert Murdoch.  You are too easy!



All the news you need, you get from DailyKOS, right?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Si modo said:


> And AGAIN with your violence!
> 
> You really are some sort of piece of shit.  When folks get hurt, YOU will have blood on your hands.
> 
> And, as you keep going on with the violent rhetoric, I have to assume that is exactly what you want - blood.
> 
> Piece of shit.



He's a Marxist, Marxists love violence.


----------



## Uncensored2008

SFC Ollie said:


> I'm certainly not one of the 99%. You should have seen some of the looks I got while walking around wearing my US Army Retired hat and an Army wind breaker...........



99% of the population aren't part of the Shitter Revolution. The Shitters are the 1%


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> The problem is the protesters are not exactly protesting the same issues as the poll.



Yes, actually, they are. The biggest single issue is the influence of business on government. The number two issue is the yawning disparity of wealth in our economy.



> Many of them are there because of high tuition costs. The face that their over-priced education can't guarantee employment.



This is part and parcel of that yawning disparity in wealth. It all comes down to a shortage of jobs, a bigger shortage of well-paying jobs, declining real wages over time; on the other end, increasing education costs and increasing health-care costs, both making the decline in real wages even worse than it appears on first glance. All of this is a result of excessive corporate influence on government.



> Who should they be protesting really?



Both Wall Street and the government. But it's Wall Street that pulls the strings. The puppet master is always more important than the puppet.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> Of course you don't want to pay attention to Rasmussen.  You don't like what the poll results are.



I also know how he operates. This is nothing new. Rasmussen is consistently (except in election polls close to election day) an outlier, with poll results that are consistently well to the right of other polls. He uses likely voter screens on polls like this one where they serve no legitimate purpose, and uses different screens for different purposes.

Rasmussen demonstrably has two modes, which might be called "set a narrative" mode and "get it right" mode. He goes into "get it right" mode when election day comes close and he begins to take polls on who is likely to win elections. He's very reliable under those conditions. At all other times, especially when there is no objective way of checking his results, he tweaks his polls through creative adjustment of likely voter screens so as to generate a right-leaning result. It doesn't work perfectly (the only thing that would work perfectly is if he made stuff up, and he's not THAT dishonest), but it works most of the time.

When we have several polls showing higher support for OWS than disapproval, including some that show an outright majority of the people approve, and Rasmussen alone among all pollsters shows more disapproval than approval, it's obvious what's happening and obvious who not to believe.


----------



## flacaltenn

mudwhistle said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just exactly how fucking stupid is President Obama?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not stupid at all. He can see that this is a very popular movement (something you apparently can't see, so who's the stupid one here?) that he may be able to ride for political success. He's being very smart here. The stupid thing would be to continue alienating the very people who got him elected in 2008.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is very little evidence that it is a popular movement.
> 
> That would mean wide-angle shots of massive throngs of protesters. We're not seeing that here.
> 
> Obama is smart in one respect; He knows his own strengths and weaknesses.
> 
> He knows he has no answers but he sure as shit can count on SEIU to back up his 99% nonsense.
> 
> The guy promises jobs and gives us protests and an accompanying stench.
> 
> So all he's produces is human waste.
> 
> Jobs can wait another 4 years or so.
Click to expand...


Yep.. Nothing says "Lack of Leadership" like random, unfocused, ill-informed demonstrations breaking out in the streets and BEING PRAISED by the leadership..


----------



## Uncensored2008

mudwhistle said:


> Obama wants America to become like Europe.



The Shitters want America to be just like Greece.



> Millionaires in Europe have to inherit their riches. This is one of the reasons our forefathers left and came here.
> 
> At least here you have a chance to become wealthy without being born into it.



The Shitters are dedicated to ending this, to pulling the ladder up and keeping the peasantry at the bottom. That's why Soros funds them.



> Notice the highlighted sentence; _*Heirs are twice as likely to believe that their wealth causes more problems that it solves.*_
> 
> Those who inherited their wealth often consider it a curse rather then a blessing perhaps because they don't appreciate their good fortune as much as one who has lived in poverty and made good, something that is next to impossible to do anywhere else.



I think those who inherit great wealth are generally mentally screwed up.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Ideology is not fact.



Nor is stupidity. What your Marxist comrade posted was sheer stupidity.



> Raising taxes and regulating business do not cause loss of jobs.



What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Not stupid because you believe it, no one with an IQ about 10 would believe such idiocy, but stupid because you think that others might actually believe it.

Do you REALLY have such a low opinion of people here that you think anyone would believe that?



> When the U.S. economy was strongest in its entire history, the top marginal tax rate ranged between 70% and 92%,



And the infrastructure of the rest of the world was in rubble.  

All you need to do is reduce the commerce centers of Europe and Asia to dust and you can continue to engage in predatory acts, you just need to ensure that business has no where to go.



> and regulation particularly on the financial industry was much greater than it is today.



Utter bullshit, as you know.

Regulation is the primary reason that manufacturing has left the USA. Compliance cost in America is thousands of times greater than in China or India.



> That is a fact. It disproves your ideology. You are simply wrong.



You making up bullshit makes me wrong? 



> It's obvious you've never run a business.



ROFL



> Where does the money come from for a business to "make money"? From its customers.



Well, there you go. Investors and those who partake of an IPO have no impact on raising of capital, nor do lending institutions nor the floating of bonds.

You've got it all figured out.



> Why does a customer give money to a business? Because the business can supply a product or service the customer wants.



Not usually. While deposits and upfront funding occasionally are used, in the overwhelming majority of cases, money is exchanged for finished product or services.



> How does the business supply this product or service? By employing people to do the work necessary.



Most business, that which is not government funded, expects to make a profit on the venture.



> A company hires people when it cannot serve its customers (from whom all its money comes, and who are the be-all of any business)



You have no clue at all, do you? You've never had a business or economics class in your life, have you?

In business, we use the term "stake holders," this includes share holders, employees and customers. All have a stake in the business.

A business will expand or reduce a customer base in response to pressures from regulation, unions and other factors, a SWOT analysis will reveal the general conditions.



> with the staff it has. Because serving its customers is HOW it makes money.



True.

So if Joe makes baseballs, the materials cost $2 per ball, wages cost $3 and he runs a 300% overhead. He sells the balls for $12 each. What happens if he gets a 6% increase in taxes and a 30% increase in EPA regulation costs?

If he only loses $4 per ball sold, can he make it up with volume?



> The first statement is an exaggeration with some truth at the core. The second is flat-out wrong.



Both were entirely correct.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> And the infrastructure of the rest of the world was in rubble.



False. Except for Germany and Japan, most of the major industrial powers had their capacity survive the war almost intact. Most of Britain's industrial strength was in the north of the island, out of Luftwaffe range and so never bombed. France, Norway, Denmark, and the Low Countries fell so quickly to the Blitzkrieg that the Germans hardly damaged their industrial plant at all.

I realize that "the rest of the world was destroyed" is a common right-wing meme to explain the postwar prosperity, but it's based on a non-fact.



> A business will expand or reduce a customer base in response to pressures from regulation, unions and other factors, a SWOT analysis will reveal the general conditions.



This may be true (actually I think it's total nonsense), but it has no bearing on what we were talking about. A business hires people in order to satisfy its customer base. Even if a business will voluntarily shrink its customer base in response to pressure from regulations, unions, etc. (which, again, I think is total nonsense), it will still hire people in order to satisfy its customers.




> So if Joe makes baseballs, the materials cost $2 per ball, wages cost $3 and he runs a 300% overhead. He sells the balls for $12 each. What happens if he gets a 6% increase in taxes and a 30% increase in EPA regulation costs?



1) He raises prices; or

2) He accepts a lower profit margin; or

3) He splits the difference between those two, doing both to a lesser degree.



> Both were entirely correct.



Prove that OWS is union-run.

EDIT: Aside from the above, your entire post consisted of nothing but content-free rhetoric, which does not deserve a reply. You could have saved a lot of bandwidth if you were more interested in discussing issues than in pointlessly insulting people, but I guess that's your choice.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> False. Except for Germany and Japan, most of the major industrial powers had their capacity survive the war almost intact.



Coventry will be so pleased to hear this. 

So many there thought they will literally bombed into oblivion. Now that the Marxists have seen fit to rewrite history to fit their agenda, we find that Europe was in fact not at all harmed by WWII.

I take it that no one actually died in the conflict either?



> Most of Britain's industrial strength was in the north of the island, out of Luftwaffe range and so never bombed. France, Norway, Denmark, and the Low Countries fell so quickly to the Blitzkrieg that the Germans hardly damaged their industrial plant at all.



It's good that history is flexible and can be changed to fit the needs of the radical left.



> I realize that "the rest of the world was destroyed" is a common right-wing meme to explain the postwar prosperity, but it's based on a non-fact.



And by "fact" you mean that which serves your purpose. What actually occurred is clearly irrelevant to you.



> This may be true (actually I think it's total nonsense),



I'm not surprised, the depth of your ignorance is impressive. (and well guarded.)



> but it has no bearing on what we were talking about. A business hires people in order to satisfy its customer base.



I see, so if you want ice cream cones for ten cents a scoop, then Basken Robbins will hire people to give them to you for that price. You are a customer and all they care about is satisfying you.



> Even if a business will voluntarily shrink its customer base in response to pressure from regulations, unions, etc. (which, again, I think is total nonsense), it will still hire people in order to satisfy its customers.



I see. What boards of directors and share holders think is irrelevant.

You've got this all figured out.



> 1) He raises prices; or



Thus pricing himself out of the market.



> 2) He accepts a lower profit margin; or



Accounting is yet another discipline you have zero knowledge of, I see. Per the numbers I gave you, his gross margin goes about 35% negative. He looses about $5 per ball sold. But in your world, that isn't a concern.



> 3) He splits the difference between those two, doing both to a lesser degree.



Loose a little less per unit, but makes it up on volume...



> Prove that OWS is union-run.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> Coventry will be so pleased to hear this.



I didn't say no one in Britain was hurt or killed by the bombing, I said that British industrial capacity survived the war virtually intact. That's true. The same is also true for almost all other industrial powers. Even Germany and Japan had been restored to pre-war levels by the mid-1950s, but no one else was significantly hurt at all in terms of factories destroyed, etc.

You have no answer to this, apparently, except for empty rhetoric once again, which I'm snipping as pointless and undeserving of a reply.



> I see, so if you want ice cream cones for ten cents a scoop, then Basken Robbins will hire people to give them to you for that price. You are a customer and all they care about is satisfying you.



Are you really so stupid that you think that is a reasonable interpretation of what I said, or are you trying to be clever?

B-R's ice cream pricing and its hiring decisions are virtually distinct; about the only connection between them is that its labor costs are part of what sets a floor under its prices. As with most products, B-R sets its price so as to generate the most revenue, recognizing that higher prices reduce sales while lower prices reduce per-sale revenue. It hires people so that it will have enough staff in its stores that its customers won't wait in long lines and get aggravated and go elsewhere. If for some reason the number of people wanting to buy B-R ice cream increased by 50%, it would hire new people and probably open new stores to take advantage of this. If it can meet all the demand for its product with the staff it currently has, it won't hire anyone.

This isn't controversial nor is it rocket science.



> Thus pricing himself out of the market.



The factors you listed would affect all of his competitors equally, so they would be doing the same thing, so no. The "losses" you projected were based on the price you hypothesized; if the price of baseballs rose to match new conditions, there would be no loss per sale.

The image you presented shows that that union supports OWS. What you need to show is that OWS is controlled by the union. That image doesn't show anything of the kind.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is the protesters are not exactly protesting the same issues as the poll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, actually, they are. The biggest single issue is the influence of business on government. The number two issue is the yawning disparity of wealth in our economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of them are there because of high tuition costs. The face that their over-priced education can't guarantee employment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is part and parcel of that yawning disparity in wealth. It all comes down to a shortage of jobs, a bigger shortage of well-paying jobs, declining real wages over time; on the other end, increasing education costs and increasing health-care costs, both making the decline in real wages even worse than it appears on first glance. All of this is a result of excessive corporate influence on government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who should they be protesting really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Wall Street and the government. But it's Wall Street that pulls the strings. The puppet master is always more important than the puppet.
Click to expand...


Okay, that's the spin.....what's the real deal neal???

Even the protesters admitted early on that student loan debt and jobs was the primary issues that drew them to Wall Street.  

That is before the Worker's Family Party (ACORN. SEIU) handlers showed up.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> Okay, that's the spin.....what's the real deal neal???



That is the real deal. That's really what this is about: excessive corporate influence on the government and the resulting worsening of living standards for everyone except the very rich.



> Even the protesters admitted early on that student loan debt and jobs was the primary issues that drew them to Wall Street.



Student loan debt and jobs are specific manifestations of what I just said.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, that's the spin.....what's the real deal neal???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the real deal. That's really what this is about: excessive corporate influence on the government and the resulting worsening of living standards for everyone except the very rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the protesters admitted early on that student loan debt and jobs was the primary issues that drew them to Wall Street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Student loan debt and jobs are specific manifestations of what I just said.
Click to expand...


Nope Dragon -- all this bloviating about business being the puppet master and those poor clowns in the Congress being the puppet -- are not facts in evidence. 

There is NO evidence that Corporate influence created ideas like "1st time homebuyer tax credits" or even that "Subprime Loans" were invented because greedy bankers wanted to make riskier loans under the eyes of super competent regulators. THis is a battle of ideas. The ideas exist politically independent of the Cash flowing in both directions. The power to SEND THE REGULATORS home -like Barney did -- is just pure arrogance of power. "Too big to fail?" -- GM bailouts that screwed current investors and favored the Unions? 

Your "puppet" theory is STILL bass-ackwards.. You want to ignore the SOURCE of the POWER to grant favors and meddle. Can't fix the problem with that blinding influence.


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> There is NO evidence that Corporate influence created ideas like "1st time homebuyer tax credits"



There is also no evidence that first time homebuyer tax credits had much, if anything, to do with causing the economic meltdown.



> The ideas exist politically independent of the Cash flowing in both directions.



Are you actually naive enough to believe this?

There are records of Clinton administration internal discussions that reveal the repeal of Glass-Steagal as part of a deal demanded by Wall Street in exchange for certain concessions and favors.



> The power to SEND THE REGULATORS home -like Barney did -- is just pure arrogance of power. "Too big to fail?" -- GM bailouts that screwed current investors and favored the Unions?



No, it's not "pure arrogance of power," it's what the big contributors wanted. Wall Street gives massive amounts of money to both parties. Because of this, both parties kiss Wall Street's ass. That there was going to be some sort of deal pulling their patoots out of the fire at public expense was a given.

There might have been a bailout anyway ("too big to fail" wasn't entirely false), but without the corrupting influence of campaign cash it would have had a lot more strings attached to it and been much more in the public interest.



> You want to ignore the SOURCE of the POWER to grant favors and meddle.



It's impossible to fix that. If the government suddenly decided to keep its hands off the economy in all but the most basic ways, as libertarians want, corporate campaign donors would use their influence to make it butt back in. That's how the government got into the economy in the first place back in the late 19th century.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

I only have one word on this whole stupidity.



Metamucil.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, that's the spin.....what's the real deal neal???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the real deal. That's really what this is about: excessive corporate influence on the government and the resulting worsening of living standards for everyone except the very rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the protesters admitted early on that student loan debt and jobs was the primary issues that drew them to Wall Street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Student loan debt and jobs are specific manifestations of what I just said.
Click to expand...


Now wait a minute....just who do you think is running the government? (Democrats)

Explain why they can still be on the take but not be involved in the corruption you speak of?

That's the million dollar question.....no pun intended. 

Answer: They can't, but that never stopped them from attempting to cast blame on the GOP, the rich, or Whites in general.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> Now wait a minute....just who do you think is running the government? (Democrats)
> 
> Explain why they can still be on the take but not be involved in the corruption you speak of?



They can't. They are involved in it. They are only slightly less corrupt than the Republicans, if that.

Please don't confuse this movement with partisan politics as usual.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> I didn't say no one in Britain was hurt or killed by the bombing,



What you said was blatantly false, why you said it was to deceive.

When such chutzpah is employed, mocking in the only valid response.



> I said that British industrial capacity survived the war virtually intact. That's true.



It's not even on the same continent as "true," it is the "big lie" in action. England was devastated by German attacks. Because the facts don't serve your purpose, you have crafted a complete fabrication that bears no resemblance to the facts.



> The same is also true for almost all other industrial powers. Even Germany and Japan had been restored to pre-war levels by the mid-1950s, but no one else was significantly hurt at all in terms of factories destroyed, etc.



Imagine having a world war and not causing any significant damage....

In 2001, my company bought a company with operating plants in France and England. Even that late, the damage from WWII was still everywhere, in both countries. Bayeux had the shells of factories that never were rebuilt, Birmingham and Coventry obviously bore massive scars. 



> You have no answer to this, apparently, except for empty rhetoric once again, which I'm snipping as pointless and undeserving of a reply.



I understand why you run, you recite talking points and cannot engage in a rational debate.



> Are you really so stupid that you think that is a reasonable interpretation of what I said, or are you trying to be clever?



What you have said is utterly stupid. You are like a two year old holding your breath and demanding "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmeee."

You know literally nothing about business nor economics and posit absurdity as if it were relevant. 



> B-R's ice cream pricing and its hiring decisions are virtually distinct; about the only connection between them is that its labor costs are part of what sets a floor under its prices.



Really? 

So contribution is never considered in hiring by B-R?

Not that reality has any bearing on your bullshit, but Baskin-Robbins operates are a franchise. Most of the stores are privately owned and operated. The proprietors are mostly operating on razor thin margins. Nothing can be done about sunk costs, but inventory, labor and some overhead items can be controlled. 

Let's say you have a young Marxists meeting for your state every Saturday. After the meeting, all four of you got to B-R for an ice cream. The bourgeoisie make you wait so you think that they should hire more glorious peoples workers to serve you. Oddly though, they don't. Even though you, as a customer, desire more service, the greedy capitalist pigs fail to acquiesce. It is both troubling and confounding to you.



> As with most products, B-R sets its price so as to generate the most revenue,



Revenue? So you are aware that such a concept exists - good.



> recognizing that higher prices reduce sales while lower prices reduce per-sale revenue. It hires people so that it will have enough staff in its stores that its customers won't wait in long lines and get aggravated and go elsewhere.



Ah, so to meet a 20 minute rush, the owner is willing to add tremendous cost in labor and overhead?

In economics, one of the ratios that determine the health of an organization is "SPE," sales per employee. If the ratio is low, then the organization is headed for bankruptcy. Adding headcount ALWAYS lowers SPE. 



> If for some reason the number of people wanting to buy B-R ice cream increased by 50%, it would hire new people and probably open new stores to take advantage of this. If it can meet all the demand for its product with the staff it currently has, it won't hire anyone.



No, in real life it will add head count if this increases the profitability of the organization. Do the increased sales warrant the increase in labor and overhead?



> This isn't controversial nor is it rocket science.



You are simply clueless. You clearly show why Communist countries are miserable shit holes. You have no grasp of the concept of value.



> The factors you listed would affect all of his competitors equally,



I see...



> so they would be doing the same thing, so no.



What if they move the operation to Mexico or India to escape the predatory regulation costs?

A great many companies have done that. You know, labor is virtually NEVER the driver for offshoring.



> The "losses" you projected were based on the price you hypothesized; if the price of baseballs rose to match new conditions, there would be no loss per sale.



You have a fantasy that all will simply accept what the state does, that is false.



> The image you presented shows that that union supports OWS. What you need to show is that OWS is controlled by the union. That image doesn't show anything of the kind.



Most of the people at the Shit-in are Union goons.


----------



## Dragon

I'm going to start snipping anything you say that you fail to provide any evidence for. Your bluster is not a refutation of what I said about most of Europe's industrial capacity (except for Germany's of course) being undamaged by the war.

There may have been a factory or two in southern England bombed by the Germans during the Blitz, but the bulk of British industry was in the north, and the Luftwaffe could not reach it. England suffered only minimal damage to its industrial capacity. The same is true of all other combatants except for Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union (but the USSR wasn't a significant U.S. trade partner after the war so only Germany and Japan suffered significant industrial damage as that impacted U.S. trade).

The idea of a world in rubble is a myth. It did not happen that way.



Uncensored2008 said:


> So contribution is never considered in hiring by B-R?



Reread what I said, and try again. That is a non-response.



> No, in real life it will add head count if this increases the profitability of the organization.



You've come back twice now with general statements like that in no way conflict with what I said, then tack a "no" on in front of it as if that by itself made it actual response.

Workers added in order to meet unmet consumer demand DO increase profitability. Workers added when there is no consumer demand to justify them DON'T increase profitability. Workers will be added when need to meet unmet demand BECAUSE that will increase profitability, and won't be added otherwise because it would NOT do so.

Twist and squirm though you may, the bottom line is that hiring is done in response to consumer demand and for no other reason.



> What if they move the operation to Mexico or India to escape the predatory regulation costs?



Rather than to take advantage of the tenfold savings in labor costs? In other words, what if they do the same thing that a lot of other companies have done, but for a totally different and by comparison trivial reason?

Takes all kinds, I guess.



> Most of the people at [OWS] Union goons.



Prove it.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now wait a minute....just who do you think is running the government? (Democrats)
> 
> Explain why they can still be on the take but not be involved in the corruption you speak of?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't. They are involved in it. They are only slightly less corrupt than the Republicans, if that.
> 
> Please don't confuse this movement with partisan politics as usual.
Click to expand...

I'm not confused....they're joined at the hip. 

Who do you think made sure they had a park to protest in?

Guess how much the use of that park cost the tax-payer?

Would you believe a $100 million dollar loan guarantee by the Obama Administration?


Btw, supporters of OWS grows longer:

China
Iran
Barrack Obama
The PLO
SEIU
ACORN
Communist Party of America
The DNC.........

US Congressional member Bernie Sanders called today for a run on these evil rat-bastard banks. 

Now the left is calling on a financial meltdown. 

I wonder whom is behind all of this????

Hmmmmmmmmm???


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> I'm not confused....they're joined at the hip.



No, you are confused, and that's why you asked that question about Democratic corruption as if it were somehow contradictory of something else, when in fact the answer is obvious. The Democrats are part of the problem, part of what's being protested here. The Democratic Party is one thing. Occupy Wall Street is something else. Assertions to the contrary are lies.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not confused....they're joined at the hip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are confused, and that's why you asked that question about Democratic corruption as if it were somehow contradictory of something else, when in fact the answer is obvious. The Democrats are part of the problem, part of what's being protested here. The Democratic Party is one thing. Occupy Wall Street is something else. Assertions to the contrary are lies.
Click to expand...


We've got SEIU leaders on tape discussing this event and it's goal, to bring down the economy. SEIU is Obama's crew. 

The only kind of person that would support this agrees with that goal. 

It's why our enemies are throwing their support behind it.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> We've got SEIU leaders on tape discussing this event and it's goal, to bring down the economy. SEIU is Obama's crew.



First, SEIU is not in control of OWS any more than the Democratic Party is; secondly, the claim that SEIU has a goal to "bring down the economy" is ridiculous and the claim you have the union's leaders on tape saying this is a flat lie. And third, while SEIU does support President Obama, so do a lot of the Wall Street firms that the protest is targeting -- and they're targeting _him_, too.

It's a tribute to just how effective this protest is becoming that its opponents feel they have to lie about it in order to discredit it, as you are doing here.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> I'm going to start snipping anything you say that you fail to provide any evidence for.



Management frowns on that and you're not in the "in crowd" so proceed carefully.



> Your bluster is not a refutation of what I said about most of Europe's industrial capacity (except for Germany's of course) being undamaged by the war.



Son, stupid lies are not a valid argument, regardless of how badly you want socialism. 


> There may have been a factory or two in southern England bombed by the Germans during the Blitz, but the bulk of British industry was in the north, and the Luftwaffe could not reach it. England suffered only minimal damage to its industrial capacity. The same is true of all other combatants except for Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union (but the USSR wasn't a significant U.S. trade partner after the war so only Germany and Japan suffered significant industrial damage as that impacted U.S. trade).



You're making a fool of yourself.








> The idea of a world in rubble is a myth. It did not happen that way.










> Reread what I said, and try again. That is a non-response.



Dragon, you're an idiot, a liar, or both.



> You've come back twice now with general statements like that in no way conflict with what I said, then tack a "no" on in front of it as if that by itself made it actual response.
> 
> Workers added in order to meet unmet consumer demand DO increase profitability.



No Sparky, they don't.  There is huge, unmet demand for a $20 iPad - meeting that demand will not increase profitability for Apple.



> Workers added when there is no consumer demand to justify them DON'T increase profitability. Workers will be added when need to meet unmet demand BECAUSE that will increase profitability, and won't be added otherwise because it would NOT do so.



No sparky, headcount is increased when sales volume AND MARGIN warrant the increase.  A business that looses money will not be in business long.  



> Twist and squirm though you may, the bottom line is that hiring is done in response to consumer demand and for no other reason.



You are an idiot with zero knowledge of business or economics. Consumer demand is only one of the factors that drive hiring.


> Rather than to take advantage of the tenfold savings in labor costs?


 




> In other words, what if they do the same thing that a lot of other companies have done, but for a totally different and by comparison trivial reason?
> 
> Takes all kinds, I guess.



Escaping the cost of regulations is far from trivial.



> Most of the people at [OWS] Union goons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...


Don't change backquotes, son.

It's a violation of the TOS.

Unions dominate the Shitter Revolution, this is simply fact.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've got SEIU leaders on tape discussing this event and it's goal, to bring down the economy. SEIU is Obama's crew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, SEIU is not in control of OWS any more than the Democratic Party is; secondly, the claim that SEIU has a goal to "bring down the economy" is ridiculous and the claim you have the union's leaders on tape saying this is a flat lie. And third, while SEIU does support President Obama, so do a lot of the Wall Street firms that the protest is targeting -- and they're targeting _him_, too.
> 
> It's a tribute to just how effective this protest is becoming that its opponents feel they have to lie about it in order to discredit it, as you are doing here.
Click to expand...


I could say the same about the Tea Party. 

Course we don't have to make up phantom spitting incidents or call them racists to prove our point. The evidence is all over you tube.


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> Management frowns on that and you're not in the "in crowd" so proceed carefully.



I honestly couldn't care less. This board is not that important to me; it's just a way to pass the time while I search for new contracts in my business, which like a lot of businesses is slow for the moment. I will go on snipping anything from your posts that is unworthy of a response, which is usually most of it.

The claim is not that the Germans never bombed Britain. Therefore, photos of the results of German bombing are not responsive. The claim is that most British industrial capacity was in the north of the island and was not bombed. You have offered nothing to refute that at all.

Coventry is in the West Midlands, in the south-central part of the island.

Here's a nice general article on the Blitz. It's from Wikipedia, so grain-of-salt recommended as always but I found no inaccuracy in it.

"The bombing did not achieve its intended goals of demoralising the British into surrender or significantly damaging their war economy.[7] In fact, the eight months of bombing never seriously hampered British production and the war industries continued to operate and expand. . . . Several reasons have been suggested for the failure of the German air offensive. First, the Luftwaffe High Command (Oberkommando der Luftwaffe, or OKL) failed to develop a coherent long-term strategy for destroying Britain's war industries. It frequently switched from bombing one type of industry to another, and no sustained pressure was put on any one of them. Second, the Luftwaffe was not equipped to carry out a long-term strategic air campaign. It was not armed in depth, and its intelligence on British industry and capabilities was poor. All of these shortcomings denied the Luftwaffe the ability to make a strategic difference."

As I said, while the Germans obviously did bomb Britain, they did not significantly reduce British industrial capacity. Nor was industry significantly damaged in any of the early German conquests in the industrialized West, including Norway, Denmark, Holland, and France, because German victory was so quick that no sustained bombing or artillery campaign was undertaken. Southern France wasn't even occupied by the Germans. Add to this the fact that many European countries were neutral and never came under attack at all.

In all of Europe, only Germany and the Soviet Union suffered significant industrial damage from the war. German industry had rebuilt to pre-war levels by the mid 1950s. That explanation for American postwar prosperity is totally bogus.



> There is huge, unmet demand for a $20 iPad - meeting that demand will not increase profitability for Apple.



LOL there is of course always a demand for pie-in-the-sky fairy-tale products. Do you really think you're saying anything of significance here?



> Unions dominate [OWS], this is simply fact.



Prove it.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> I could say the same about the Tea Party.



Yes, you could. Claims that the TP is a Republican Party shill or some such are equally false.


----------



## Uncensored2008

mudwhistle said:


> I could say the same about the Tea Party.
> 
> Course we don't have to make up phantom spitting incidents or call them racists to prove our point. The evidence is all over you tube.



No, we have very real shitting incidents....


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored2008 said:


> No, we have very real shitting incidents....



No, actually those are lies.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same about the Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you could. Claims that the TP is a Republican Party shill or some such are equally false.
Click to expand...


Dems love to make false accusations. It keeps the GOP on the defensive. It makes the Dems look more honest and gives their target a presumption of guilt. 

But after the mud-slinging proves ineffective they break out the excuse "they all suck". 

In this case it doesn't fly. 

The Tea Party wants a responsive government that listens to the voter plus they want an end to massive deficit spending, and for their troubles they get call racist, terrorist, and Sons of Bitches. 

Democrats don't want to listen, so they dreamed up the OWS in an attempt to copy the TP and set their paid instigators at SEIU in charge of the operation to make sure it lasts. 

Did you know media focus has completely changed from Fast & Furious to OWS like F&F never happened. A Republican Prez would have heard no end to it.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> Dems love to make false accusations. It keeps the GOP on the defensive.



You keep trying to turn this into a Democrat/Republican thing when that's not what it's about at all.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO evidence that Corporate influence created ideas like "1st time homebuyer tax credits"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is also no evidence that first time homebuyer tax credits had much, if anything, to do with causing the economic meltdown.
> 
> Ahhh.. Just another artificial waste of taxpayer money then --- Right?  OF COURSE those credits had a LARGE effect. Created a FRENZY in fact everytime they threatened to end them.  Want me to quantify that for Ya? What about keeping interest rates low? What about the fact that Fanny/Freddy was FORCED to back higher amounts of the subprimes they engineered?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ideas exist politically independent of the Cash flowing in both directions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you actually naive enough to believe this?
> 
> Doesn't require naivety. A lot of people support domestic drilling for oil and gas. That lobby doesn't exist because of corporate cash. The opposition to UNIVERSAL health care doesn't stem from corporate cash. You want to set the appearance that ANY position lobbied for has no popular roots. Ethanol? Farm subsidies?
> 
> There are records of Clinton administration internal discussions that reveal the repeal of Glass-Steagal as part of a deal demanded by Wall Street in exchange for certain concessions and favors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power to SEND THE REGULATORS home -like Barney did -- is just pure arrogance of power. "Too big to fail?" -- GM bailouts that screwed current investors and favored the Unions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not "pure arrogance of power," it's what the big contributors wanted. Wall Street gives massive amounts of money to both parties. Because of this, both parties kiss Wall Street's ass. That there was going to be some sort of deal pulling their patoots out of the fire at public expense was a given.
> 
> There might have been a bailout anyway ("too big to fail" wasn't entirely false), but without the corrupting influence of campaign cash it would have had a lot more strings attached to it and been much more in the public interest.
> 
> Of course the bailouts were gonna happen. Do you want me to believe that contributions made to the 2008 campaign BEFORE the meltdown somehow were to influence a bailout? Even when the banks didn't WANT the money -- they were intimidated into taking it. It IS the power to CREATE a subsidy or a loan that is the problem. GOVT shouldn't be writing EITHER of those unless it's for R&D.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to ignore the SOURCE of the POWER to grant favors and meddle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's impossible to fix that. If the government suddenly decided to keep its hands off the economy in all but the most basic ways, as libertarians want, corporate campaign donors would use their influence to make it butt back in. That's how the government got into the economy in the first place back in the late 19th century.
Click to expand...


Why would corporations want to continue to waste time lobbying and donating if the power spigot got turned off? They'd have to earn a honest living.. Shut OFF the spigot and see if K Street is suddenly more bars and cupcake stores. We BOTH want that. Do the experiment. Let's see who's right....


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dems love to make false accusations. It keeps the GOP on the defensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to turn this into a Democrat/Republican thing when that's not what it's about at all.
Click to expand...






That is part of what it is about. But something else has taken the opportunity and moved in.

The OWS didn't know what they were protesting at first.

So SEIU is teaching them what it is they're protesting.

Obama is the front man, George Soros, the Tides Foundation, and the National Network of Fiscal Sponsors are the bankroll, William Ayers, Van Jones, George Soros, to name a few, are the inventors of this movement. 

The White House is part of the problem but the GOP will eventually get all of the blame.

That is only part of what this is about.

Btw, the owners of the park are Suncor Energy Inc. a Canadian energy company specializing in synthetic crudes and oil sands. 

Imagine that....an oil company sponsoring their event. 

Anyway....as to your claim that this event is just protest and not an attempt at economic revolution:



> Charlie Gasparino has a piece in the New York Post.  He went down, actually talked to some of these protesters down there, and like everybody else that has gone down there and done that, he came away with quite a stark reaction.  And his advice is tell the president, *you don't want to be anywhere near this*.  These people are, whether they know it or not, *a bunch of Marxists.*  This is not just about redistributing wealth. * This is about total revolution.*  That's what the people doing this thing think it's about.  And he made an interesting observation.
> 
> "Also absent was any notice of how the much-hated banks benefited not from free-market capitalism, which would have let them fail in 2008, but from crony capitalism that bailed them out." These people are down there hating the banks, hating capitalism, where if capitalism had been allowed to run its course, these banks would have failed, they would not have been bailed out, and these people would be poor and penniless and maybe in jail if the market had been allowed to rule.  And yet what happened?  Capitalism was superseded by the notion that they were too big to fail and big government stepped in and bailed them out.  *It was exactly the kind of government these people claim they want that led to the circumstances that tick them off.
> 
> It&#8217;s not an overstatement to describe Zuccotti Park as New York&#8217;s Marxist epicenter. Flags with the iconic face of the Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara are everywhere; the only American flag I saw was hanging upside down. The &#8220;occupiers&#8221; openly refer to each other as &#8220;comrade,&#8221; and just about every piece of literature on offer (free or for sale) advocated socialism in the Marxist tradition as a cure-all for the inequalities of the American economic system.
> 
> Don&#8217;t try to explain to any of these protesters how those who sought to create a Marxist utopian dream of revolution also gave us the Stalinist purges, Mao&#8217;s bloody Cultural Revolution and many other efforts to collectivize thought in the name of economic &#8220;justice.&#8221;
> 
> One woman was holding a &#8220;Nationalize the Federal Reserve&#8221; sign; I tried to explain that the Fed is already nationalized, because it&#8217;s part of government, and she told me to &#8220;go check my f--king facts -- it&#8217;s privately owned.&#8221;
> 
> That&#8217;s when I was handed a piece paper offering the following wisdom: &#8220;The Game of Capitalism Breeds Dishonest Men.&#8221; The author of such deep thinking was a dude named De La Vega, an artist convicted a few years back for painting graffiti on a warehouse in The Bronx.
> 
> That was pretty mild compared to the sentiments offered in the official &#8220;Statement of the League for the Revolutionary Party&#8221; on the protests. These guys view as the enemy not just Wall Street tycoons, but also liberal labor leaders like Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO.
> 
> The problem with Trumka, according to the Revolutionary Party and its Zuccotti Park contingent: He wants to work with wishy-washy Democratic Party politicians, where the true revolutionaries want to &#8220;defend and develop Marxist theory as a guide to action,&#8221; which is the protests&#8217; real purpose.
> 
> Occupy Wall Street&rsquo;s Marxists--Charles Gasparino - NYPOST.com*



The problem is this is a revolution that has been hijacked by the worst element in this country. The same happened in Egypt, Iran, just about every revolution in history save ours. 

The kind of company you keep matters.


----------



## freedombecki

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dems love to make false accusations. It keeps the GOP on the defensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to turn this into a Democrat/Republican thing when that's not what it's about at all.
Click to expand...

It is now.


----------



## Preius

flacaltenn said:


> Preius::
> 
> I am pushing psychiatry on you because I have little respect for that "science" and I wish you harm..
> 
> We SHOULD be working on those anti-capitalistic tendencies tho -- so that you might become a better spokesperson for economic and social freedom. But time is up on our session for the week. See the nurse on the way out for your next appointment..



I wish you had posted this nonsense before I wasted my time offering you serious consideration.


----------



## mudwhistle

A racist OWS protester lays it on the line:

Anti-Semitic Protester at Occupy Wall Street - LA - YouTube


----------



## mudwhistle

The age range of Tea Party members is between 35-80.

The age range of the Occupy Wall Street folks is 18-40.

Most suicide-bombers are between the age of 18-30.

Which group would you think is more likely to have a greater concentration of misinformed pinheads? The Tea Party or the OWS?


----------



## Preius

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you doing better now than you were during Reagan second term? I was. and that was 25 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand if you're saying here that you are or aren't doing better than you were in the late 1980s.
> 
> Most people aren't. Most people are a good deal worse off now than they were then. That's the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a whether simple question no need to back it down word for word.
> 
> Are you doing better now than you were in the mid to late 80's
> Better or worse.
Click to expand...


In the mid to late 80s I had it made.  We had a great club house, access to cigarettes, a couple of 'Playboy's,' free Mountain Dew because Eddie Bumpensaro's dad worked for Pepsi, a German Shepherd, and I discovered masturbation.  No, I am not better off now.


----------



## Preius

The Gadfly said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go Preius.. I suspected you'd endorse a KristalNacht like "message" to the scapegoats you've selected as an enemy.. Don't bother responding to RATIONAL debate -- like you dodged my response to you yesterday..  http://www.usmessageboard.com/4267291-post1040.html
> 
> Just go for the punchline. Good Job.. Nancy Pelosi is REAL PROUD of your conviction..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please, for the sake of those of us who actually read you, write for CLARITY first.  I have no idea who KristaNacht is, so now I have to Google.  Kristallnacht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  Apparently, you think I hate Hebrew People, I will tell you this as a WASP, if it were not for my close Hebrew ties, my career would not be as advanced as it is at my age.  I have had clients, (Jewish and others) request me specifically on their accounts because of my reputation.
> 
> I like Pelosi and Reid, but I do not get down on a rug and bow every morning like Repubs do to Austin, Texas for Rick Perry.  I am a disgruntled Dem who is unhappy that President Barry Obama would consider cutting Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.  This is totally unacceptable.  Pelosi and Reid have stuck to their guns.  While I respect that, it is REQUIRED OF DEMS as far as I am concerned.
> 
> I have not dodged a single post of yours.  In fact I went back for a post you complained about because I missed it.  It would appear that the entire purpose of this post has to do with Jewish people, which I have responded to - even though it is off-topic.  Do you actually think about what you post, or do you just dump whatever pops into your mind at the moment?
> 
> *The subject of this thread is "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, Preius, you wouldn't mind violence, not if it serves your desired end. Of course, you'll denounce it publicly, while you relish it in private. So what if some "Wall Street types" are killed; better them than you, and they "deserve it" anyway, right? What happens when it goes to the next level? What happens if one of these loons bombs a CEO's house, and kills their family members-do they "deserve it" too? What happens, if violence breaks out in the streets? You think no innocents might be killed by stray bullets? Oh, but it can be "contained", right?
> 
> What happens, if you're wrong? What happens, if after the mob turns on the desired scapegoats, they start taking out their frustration on everyone else who happens to have more than they do? You see, there are some differences between this and Krystallnacht that go beyond scapegoating "the Jews" vs. scapegoating "the 1%". The Nazis were organized; this is a rabble. What happens, when they turn on whoever is handy? What happens, if they turn on YOU (I'm sure they'll be very moved to hear you're a "social liberal"-mobs are very amenable to reasoning, that way)?
> 
> You had better be careful what you wish for, because this is a very divided country, along a number of fronts, there are plenty of guns, and they are not all on the same side. Violence is an easy thing to start; stopping it can be another matter entirely. At best, you'll have one hell of a lot of bloodshed; at worst, you'll have neighbor against neighbor, with a lot of factions and shifting alliances. Think you can just hunker down and sit it out? Don't bet on it. Think you can buy safety for yourself and your family? Think again. If and when it all hits the fan, it will be a bloody, atrocity-filled mess. The best case scenario is that the active military can regain control, eventually, in which case the survivors will end up with a police state (and be grateful for that). If not, your only friend will be a weapon, and your only allies a defensible position, and enough combat experience to know what to do with both. Eventually, you will kill or be killed for a box of ammunition, a can of food, or a jug of water. I have been in combat, and I can tell you that you had better hope to whatever God you pray to that it never comes to that.
Click to expand...


Clearly you are interested in hijacking this thread to share your views about folks of the Hebrew faith - go start a thread elsewhere on your own.

Disliking violence is like disliking emotion.  It is a part of life, get used to it, and stop trying to change human nature.  The real Tea Party, actually known as the Sons of Liberty involved John Hancock and Sam Adams with their cronies burning the homes of British tax collectors and perhaps murdering a few.  

Historians have turned this into "exciting stories of a brewer, and tea merchant."  America is as addicted to violence as it is to alcohol and tobacco.  You can gloss over it for the kids in history books, but don't be naive yourself.

Here is my prediction if unemployment gets worse and people continue losing their homes.  Some poor guy who is about to commit suicide is going to decide to take a few Wall Streeters with him or her.  There will be upset when executives are sprayed with bullets, but I doubt there will be any tears.

Our military, (as France's did in 1789) will have to consider how to handle things responsibly to preserve our republic.  As did the French soldiers who were told to fire on starving civilians at the Bastille, Americans will have to consider if they fire on their countrymen, or corporate executives and politicians.  Now these soldiers at all levels have been underpaid for years.  Many rely on food stamps, and few own their own homes.  So soldiers and their families will have a stake in the outcome personally.  People never seem to have a problem responding in their own self interest.

The American Revolution took place because the wealthy were unhappy with English law and taxes.  We already have the Patriotic Millionaires who feel they SHOULD pay more taxes.  Patriotic Millionaires Echo Occupy Wall Street (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)  So, all the players are there, and the Second Amendment assures weaponry.

Do I endorse violence, no.  Do I understand that violence is part of reality, and a political tool, yes.  When things get close to a boil, I will invite the people I usually have over for the Academy Awards to come over for cocktails and big screen TV.  I won't be at the scene of the violence, but I will write my second check to the 99%.  This is going to involve a lot of lawyers when it happens.  In the end, there are more working class and poor than wealthy 1%.


----------



## Si modo

Preius said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, for the sake of those of us who actually read you, write for CLARITY first.  I have no idea who KristaNacht is, so now I have to Google.  Kristallnacht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  Apparently, you think I hate Hebrew People, I will tell you this as a WASP, if it were not for my close Hebrew ties, my career would not be as advanced as it is at my age.  I have had clients, (Jewish and others) request me specifically on their accounts because of my reputation.
> 
> I like Pelosi and Reid, but I do not get down on a rug and bow every morning like Repubs do to Austin, Texas for Rick Perry.  I am a disgruntled Dem who is unhappy that President Barry Obama would consider cutting Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.  This is totally unacceptable.  Pelosi and Reid have stuck to their guns.  While I respect that, it is REQUIRED OF DEMS as far as I am concerned.
> 
> I have not dodged a single post of yours.  In fact I went back for a post you complained about because I missed it.  It would appear that the entire purpose of this post has to do with Jewish people, which I have responded to - even though it is off-topic.  Do you actually think about what you post, or do you just dump whatever pops into your mind at the moment?
> 
> *The subject of this thread is "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Preius, you wouldn't mind violence, not if it serves your desired end. Of course, you'll denounce it publicly, while you relish it in private. So what if some "Wall Street types" are killed; better them than you, and they "deserve it" anyway, right? What happens when it goes to the next level? What happens if one of these loons bombs a CEO's house, and kills their family members-do they "deserve it" too? What happens, if violence breaks out in the streets? You think no innocents might be killed by stray bullets? Oh, but it can be "contained", right?
> 
> What happens, if you're wrong? What happens, if after the mob turns on the desired scapegoats, they start taking out their frustration on everyone else who happens to have more than they do? You see, there are some differences between this and Krystallnacht that go beyond scapegoating "the Jews" vs. scapegoating "the 1%". The Nazis were organized; this is a rabble. What happens, when they turn on whoever is handy? What happens, if they turn on YOU (I'm sure they'll be very moved to hear you're a "social liberal"-mobs are very amenable to reasoning, that way)?
> 
> You had better be careful what you wish for, because this is a very divided country, along a number of fronts, there are plenty of guns, and they are not all on the same side. Violence is an easy thing to start; stopping it can be another matter entirely. At best, you'll have one hell of a lot of bloodshed; at worst, you'll have neighbor against neighbor, with a lot of factions and shifting alliances. Think you can just hunker down and sit it out? Don't bet on it. Think you can buy safety for yourself and your family? Think again. If and when it all hits the fan, it will be a bloody, atrocity-filled mess. The best case scenario is that the active military can regain control, eventually, in which case the survivors will end up with a police state (and be grateful for that). If not, your only friend will be a weapon, and your only allies a defensible position, and enough combat experience to know what to do with both. Eventually, you will kill or be killed for a box of ammunition, a can of food, or a jug of water. I have been in combat, and I can tell you that you had better hope to whatever God you pray to that it never comes to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are interested in hijacking this thread to share your views about folks of the Hebrew faith - go start a thread elsewhere on your own.
> 
> Disliking violence is like disliking emotion.  It is a part of life, get used to it, and stop trying to change human nature.  The real Tea Party, actually known as the Sons of Liberty involved John Hancock and Sam Adams with their cronies burning the homes of British tax collectors and perhaps murdering a few.
> 
> Historians have turned this into "exciting stories of a brewer, and tea merchant."  America is as addicted to violence as it is to alcohol and tobacco.  You can gloss over it for the kids in history books, but don't be naive yourself.
> 
> Here is my prediction if unemployment gets worse and people continue losing their homes.  Some poor guy who is about to commit suicide is going to decide to take a few Wall Streeters with him or her.  There will be upset when executives are sprayed with bullets, but I doubt there will be any tears.
> 
> Our military, (as France's did in 1789) will have to consider how to handle things responsibly to preserve our republic.  As did the French soldiers who were told to fire on starving civilians at the Bastille, Americans will have to consider if they fire on their countrymen, or corporate executives and politicians.  Now these soldiers at all levels have been underpaid for years.  Many rely on food stamps, and few own their own homes.  So soldiers and their families will have a stake in the outcome personally.  People never seem to have a problem responding in their own self interest.
> 
> The American Revolution took place because the wealthy were unhappy with English law and taxes.  We already have the Patriotic Millionaires who feel they SHOULD pay more taxes.  Patriotic Millionaires Echo Occupy Wall Street (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)  So, all the players are there, and the Second Amendment assures weaponry.
> 
> Do I endorse violence, no.  Do I understand that violence is part of reality, and a political tool, yes.  When things get close to a boil, I will invite the people I usually have over for the Academy Awards to come over for cocktails and big screen TV.  I won't be at the scene of the violence, but I will write my second check to the 99%.  This is going to involve a lot of lawyers when it happens.  In the end, there are more working class and poor than wealthy 1%.
Click to expand...


MORE of your hateful violent rhetoric!

What a pig!

When folks get hurt, you and others like you are responsible.


----------



## Preius

Si modo said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Preius, you wouldn't mind violence, not if it serves your desired end. Of course, you'll denounce it publicly, while you relish it in private. So what if some "Wall Street types" are killed; better them than you, and they "deserve it" anyway, right? What happens when it goes to the next level? What happens if one of these loons bombs a CEO's house, and kills their family members-do they "deserve it" too? What happens, if violence breaks out in the streets? You think no innocents might be killed by stray bullets? Oh, but it can be "contained", right?
> 
> What happens, if you're wrong? What happens, if after the mob turns on the desired scapegoats, they start taking out their frustration on everyone else who happens to have more than they do? You see, there are some differences between this and Krystallnacht that go beyond scapegoating "the Jews" vs. scapegoating "the 1%". The Nazis were organized; this is a rabble. What happens, when they turn on whoever is handy? What happens, if they turn on YOU (I'm sure they'll be very moved to hear you're a "social liberal"-mobs are very amenable to reasoning, that way)?
> 
> You had better be careful what you wish for, because this is a very divided country, along a number of fronts, there are plenty of guns, and they are not all on the same side. Violence is an easy thing to start; stopping it can be another matter entirely. At best, you'll have one hell of a lot of bloodshed; at worst, you'll have neighbor against neighbor, with a lot of factions and shifting alliances. Think you can just hunker down and sit it out? Don't bet on it. Think you can buy safety for yourself and your family? Think again. If and when it all hits the fan, it will be a bloody, atrocity-filled mess. The best case scenario is that the active military can regain control, eventually, in which case the survivors will end up with a police state (and be grateful for that). If not, your only friend will be a weapon, and your only allies a defensible position, and enough combat experience to know what to do with both. Eventually, you will kill or be killed for a box of ammunition, a can of food, or a jug of water. I have been in combat, and I can tell you that you had better hope to whatever God you pray to that it never comes to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are interested in hijacking this thread to share your views about folks of the Hebrew faith - go start a thread elsewhere on your own.
> 
> Disliking violence is like disliking emotion.  It is a part of life, get used to it, and stop trying to change human nature.  The real Tea Party, actually known as the Sons of Liberty involved John Hancock and Sam Adams with their cronies burning the homes of British tax collectors and perhaps murdering a few.
> 
> Historians have turned this into "exciting stories of a brewer, and tea merchant."  America is as addicted to violence as it is to alcohol and tobacco.  You can gloss over it for the kids in history books, but don't be naive yourself.
> 
> Here is my prediction if unemployment gets worse and people continue losing their homes.  Some poor guy who is about to commit suicide is going to decide to take a few Wall Streeters with him or her.  There will be upset when executives are sprayed with bullets, but I doubt there will be any tears.
> 
> Our military, (as France's did in 1789) will have to consider how to handle things responsibly to preserve our republic.  As did the French soldiers who were told to fire on starving civilians at the Bastille, Americans will have to consider if they fire on their countrymen, or corporate executives and politicians.  Now these soldiers at all levels have been underpaid for years.  Many rely on food stamps, and few own their own homes.  So soldiers and their families will have a stake in the outcome personally.  People never seem to have a problem responding in their own self interest.
> 
> The American Revolution took place because the wealthy were unhappy with English law and taxes.  We already have the Patriotic Millionaires who feel they SHOULD pay more taxes.  Patriotic Millionaires Echo Occupy Wall Street (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)  So, all the players are there, and the Second Amendment assures weaponry.
> 
> Do I endorse violence, no.  Do I understand that violence is part of reality, and a political tool, yes.  When things get close to a boil, I will invite the people I usually have over for the Academy Awards to come over for cocktails and big screen TV.  I won't be at the scene of the violence, but I will write my second check to the 99%.  This is going to involve a lot of lawyers when it happens.  In the end, there are more working class and poor than wealthy 1%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MORE of your hateful violent rhetoric!
> 
> What a pig!
> 
> When folks get hurt, you and others like you are responsible.
Click to expand...


I remember when I was just a liberal Democrat before I became a practical liberal Democrat.  It was so easy to post, just dump the party line into a post.  I felt good, I had taken a stand.

Then I read about illegal aliens absorbing $113 BILLION A YEAR in taxpayer dollars for education, health care, and welfare.  I thought, damn, we have been generous, and now we are getting ripped off!!!  $113 BILLION a year is about what we spend on the War in Afghanistan.

Why, I wondered aren't we spending that $113 BILLION A YEAR on our own American CITIZENS.   That was the first time I had the word 'bigot' used on me.  As a Dem, I was amazed until I realized that illegal propagandists like La Raza are all over these boards with two objectives.  1).  Keep the $113 BILLION a year flowing to illegals, and 2).  continue efforts to make U. S. border States into a province of Mexico known as Aztlan.  Then I learned that La Raza is a registered lobbyist openly trying to remove whites from border States.  National Council of La Raza | Take Action

What angered me most is the stupidity of these Utopian liberals who are supporting this, and if La Raza gets it's way, will be asked to leave Aztlan because they are white!

Folks there are organizations posting in these threads to sell an agenda.  I have been personally targeted.  The same is true of the 99%.  Like they say follow the money.  Who gains by discrediting the 99%?  Could it be the Republican Party or Teabaggers.  Decide for yourself, read some of the posts here.  There are foreign interests disguised as fellow citizens.  You do not need a four year degree to follow this.

Yes, I think some folks are going to get hurt, and it is regretable.  But, it will not be the first time an American has lost a life in an effort to preserve American freedom from an oppressor.  If you want to worry about America, worry about Mitt Romney getting into the White House without his magic underware!  The 99% is you.


----------



## The Gadfly

Preius said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, for the sake of those of us who actually read you, write for CLARITY first.  I have no idea who KristaNacht is, so now I have to Google.  Kristallnacht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  Apparently, you think I hate Hebrew People, I will tell you this as a WASP, if it were not for my close Hebrew ties, my career would not be as advanced as it is at my age.  I have had clients, (Jewish and others) request me specifically on their accounts because of my reputation.
> 
> I like Pelosi and Reid, but I do not get down on a rug and bow every morning like Repubs do to Austin, Texas for Rick Perry.  I am a disgruntled Dem who is unhappy that President Barry Obama would consider cutting Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.  This is totally unacceptable.  Pelosi and Reid have stuck to their guns.  While I respect that, it is REQUIRED OF DEMS as far as I am concerned.
> 
> I have not dodged a single post of yours.  In fact I went back for a post you complained about because I missed it.  It would appear that the entire purpose of this post has to do with Jewish people, which I have responded to - even though it is off-topic.  Do you actually think about what you post, or do you just dump whatever pops into your mind at the moment?
> 
> *The subject of this thread is "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Preius, you wouldn't mind violence, not if it serves your desired end. Of course, you'll denounce it publicly, while you relish it in private. So what if some "Wall Street types" are killed; better them than you, and they "deserve it" anyway, right? What happens when it goes to the next level? What happens if one of these loons bombs a CEO's house, and kills their family members-do they "deserve it" too? What happens, if violence breaks out in the streets? You think no innocents might be killed by stray bullets? Oh, but it can be "contained", right?
> 
> What happens, if you're wrong? What happens, if after the mob turns on the desired scapegoats, they start taking out their frustration on everyone else who happens to have more than they do? You see, there are some differences between this and Krystallnacht that go beyond scapegoating "the Jews" vs. scapegoating "the 1%". The Nazis were organized; this is a rabble. What happens, when they turn on whoever is handy? What happens, if they turn on YOU (I'm sure they'll be very moved to hear you're a "social liberal"-mobs are very amenable to reasoning, that way)?
> 
> You had better be careful what you wish for, because this is a very divided country, along a number of fronts, there are plenty of guns, and they are not all on the same side. Violence is an easy thing to start; stopping it can be another matter entirely. At best, you'll have one hell of a lot of bloodshed; at worst, you'll have neighbor against neighbor, with a lot of factions and shifting alliances. Think you can just hunker down and sit it out? Don't bet on it. Think you can buy safety for yourself and your family? Think again. If and when it all hits the fan, it will be a bloody, atrocity-filled mess. The best case scenario is that the active military can regain control, eventually, in which case the survivors will end up with a police state (and be grateful for that). If not, your only friend will be a weapon, and your only allies a defensible position, and enough combat experience to know what to do with both. Eventually, you will kill or be killed for a box of ammunition, a can of food, or a jug of water. I have been in combat, and I can tell you that you had better hope to whatever God you pray to that it never comes to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are interested in hijacking this thread to share your views about folks of the Hebrew faith - go start a thread elsewhere on your own.
> 
> Disliking violence is like disliking emotion.  It is a part of life, get used to it, and stop trying to change human nature.  The real Tea Party, actually known as the Sons of Liberty involved John Hancock and Sam Adams with their cronies burning the homes of British tax collectors and perhaps murdering a few.
> 
> Historians have turned this into "exciting stories of a brewer, and tea merchant."  America is as addicted to violence as it is to alcohol and tobacco.  You can gloss over it for the kids in history books, but don't be naive yourself.
> 
> Here is my prediction if unemployment gets worse and people continue losing their homes.  Some poor guy who is about to commit suicide is going to decide to take a few Wall Streeters with him or her.  There will be upset when executives are sprayed with bullets, but I doubt there will be any tears.
> 
> Our military, (as France's did in 1789) will have to consider how to handle things responsibly to preserve our republic.  As did the French soldiers who were told to fire on starving civilians at the Bastille, Americans will have to consider if they fire on their countrymen, or corporate executives and politicians.  Now these soldiers at all levels have been underpaid for years.  Many rely on food stamps, and few own their own homes.  So soldiers and their families will have a stake in the outcome personally.  People never seem to have a problem responding in their own self interest.
> 
> The American Revolution took place because the wealthy were unhappy with English law and taxes.  We already have the Patriotic Millionaires who feel they SHOULD pay more taxes.  Patriotic Millionaires Echo Occupy Wall Street (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)  So, all the players are there, and the Second Amendment assures weaponry.
> 
> Do I endorse violence, no.  Do I understand that violence is part of reality, and a political tool, yes.  When things get close to a boil, I will invite the people I usually have over for the Academy Awards to come over for cocktails and big screen TV.  I won't be at the scene of the violence, but I will write my second check to the 99%.  This is going to involve a lot of lawyers when it happens.  In the end, there are more working class and poor than wealthy 1%.
Click to expand...


My comments to you Preius, had NOTHING to do with my "views of folks of the Hebrew faith", and everything to do with the implications of civil disorder for this nation! I understand violence, and its uses, quite well; some years back I engaged in quite a bit of it myself, in a little place called Vietnam. I was not some unwilling conscript; I was an officer, and a professional soldier; as such, violence was my profession, and I was very, very good at it. From what I know of those who serve in uniform today, I think I can tell you with some confidence that they are not so different from the soldiers I served with, and that if ordered, they will open fire on whoever they are ordered to open fire on. They may do so reluctantly, but they will do it. There are also a number of American veterans, many of whom are battle-hardened, who will remember the oath they took, and will also fight against any group of "revolutionaries", if necessary. The "revolution", if and when it comes, is not something you are going to watch as a spectator on your big screen TV in the comfort of your living room (unless it is put down so fast you can watch the lack of drama unfold). No, if it comes anywhere near success, the violence attendant to the process will be coming to a neighborhood near you, and sooner, rather than later. This will not be "everyone against the rich", and there is a likelihood, in any event, that those you despise will hire some forces of their own to fight against the side you favor. What you are likely to get as a result, are a number of factions fighting for control, some of them employing mercenaries fighting strictly for money, ideology, or both. What you will have in that event, is something that will make Northern Ireland look like a walk in the park, by comparison.

You are apparently relying on the assumption that most of the people will either sit out the fight, or join in on your side. That assumption is badly flawed. The whole of the 99% does not support your agenda, not even close, politically; much less are they willing to fight on your behalf. As I told you earlier, this country has a copious supply of guns, and people who know how to use them, and they are not all on the same side. That is going to make for a messy, bloody affair. Your notion of revolution is as flawed as that of those on the far right who nourish the illusion that if it comes to a fight, those on the left will be doing all the dying. There will be plenty to go around on all sides, you may be certain of that. What you apparently hope for will not be easy, cheap, quick or pretty, and when it is over, you have as good a chance as anyone else to not be around to regret it. I suggest you, and anyone else inclined to foment violent revolution and/or civil unrest, whether openly or behind the scenes, think about that, long and hard.


----------



## flacaltenn

Preius said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preius::
> 
> I am pushing psychiatry on you because I have little respect for that "science" and I wish you harm..
> 
> We SHOULD be working on those anti-capitalistic tendencies tho -- so that you might become a better spokesperson for economic and social freedom. But time is up on our session for the week. See the nurse on the way out for your next appointment..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you had posted this nonsense before I wasted my time offering you serious consideration.
Click to expand...


I marked the sarcasm with a smiley face. Obviously you refuse to see the real threats to your freedom and liberty don't lie on Wall Street. I DO think I could help you with understanding why America's hope doesn't lie in politics. Societies have OTHER avenues of making life better for the struggling class. And NONE of that involves violence or finding convienient scapegoats..


----------



## mudwhistle

Preius said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please, for the sake of those of us who actually read you, write for CLARITY first.  I have no idea who KristaNacht is, so now I have to Google.  Kristallnacht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  Apparently, you think I hate Hebrew People, I will tell you this as a WASP, if it were not for my close Hebrew ties, my career would not be as advanced as it is at my age.  I have had clients, (Jewish and others) request me specifically on their accounts because of my reputation.
> 
> I like Pelosi and Reid, but I do not get down on a rug and bow every morning like Repubs do to Austin, Texas for Rick Perry.  I am a disgruntled Dem who is unhappy that President Barry Obama would consider cutting Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.  This is totally unacceptable.  Pelosi and Reid have stuck to their guns.  While I respect that, it is REQUIRED OF DEMS as far as I am concerned.
> 
> I have not dodged a single post of yours.  In fact I went back for a post you complained about because I missed it.  It would appear that the entire purpose of this post has to do with Jewish people, which I have responded to - even though it is off-topic.  Do you actually think about what you post, or do you just dump whatever pops into your mind at the moment?
> 
> *The subject of this thread is "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Preius, you wouldn't mind violence, not if it serves your desired end. Of course, you'll denounce it publicly, while you relish it in private. So what if some "Wall Street types" are killed; better them than you, and they "deserve it" anyway, right? What happens when it goes to the next level? What happens if one of these loons bombs a CEO's house, and kills their family members-do they "deserve it" too? What happens, if violence breaks out in the streets? You think no innocents might be killed by stray bullets? Oh, but it can be "contained", right?
> 
> What happens, if you're wrong? What happens, if after the mob turns on the desired scapegoats, they start taking out their frustration on everyone else who happens to have more than they do? You see, there are some differences between this and Krystallnacht that go beyond scapegoating "the Jews" vs. scapegoating "the 1%". The Nazis were organized; this is a rabble. What happens, when they turn on whoever is handy? What happens, if they turn on YOU (I'm sure they'll be very moved to hear you're a "social liberal"-mobs are very amenable to reasoning, that way)?
> 
> You had better be careful what you wish for, because this is a very divided country, along a number of fronts, there are plenty of guns, and they are not all on the same side. Violence is an easy thing to start; stopping it can be another matter entirely. At best, you'll have one hell of a lot of bloodshed; at worst, you'll have neighbor against neighbor, with a lot of factions and shifting alliances. Think you can just hunker down and sit it out? Don't bet on it. Think you can buy safety for yourself and your family? Think again. If and when it all hits the fan, it will be a bloody, atrocity-filled mess. The best case scenario is that the active military can regain control, eventually, in which case the survivors will end up with a police state (and be grateful for that). If not, your only friend will be a weapon, and your only allies a defensible position, and enough combat experience to know what to do with both. Eventually, you will kill or be killed for a box of ammunition, a can of food, or a jug of water. I have been in combat, and I can tell you that you had better hope to whatever God you pray to that it never comes to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly you are interested in hijacking this thread to share your views about folks of the Hebrew faith - go start a thread elsewhere on your own.
> 
> Disliking violence is like disliking emotion.  It is a part of life, get used to it, and stop trying to change human nature.  The real Tea Party, actually known as the Sons of Liberty involved John Hancock and Sam Adams with their cronies burning the homes of British tax collectors and perhaps murdering a few.
> 
> Historians have turned this into "exciting stories of a brewer, and tea merchant."  America is as addicted to violence as it is to alcohol and tobacco.  You can gloss over it for the kids in history books, but don't be naive yourself.
> 
> Here is my prediction if unemployment gets worse and people continue losing their homes.  Some poor guy who is about to commit suicide is going to decide to take a few Wall Streeters with him or her.  There will be upset when executives are sprayed with bullets, but I doubt there will be any tears.
> 
> Our military, (as France's did in 1789) will have to consider how to handle things responsibly to preserve our republic.  As did the French soldiers who were told to fire on starving civilians at the Bastille, Americans will have to consider if they fire on their countrymen, or corporate executives and politicians.  Now these soldiers at all levels have been underpaid for years.  Many rely on food stamps, and few own their own homes.  So soldiers and their families will have a stake in the outcome personally.  People never seem to have a problem responding in their own self interest.
> 
> The American Revolution took place because the wealthy were unhappy with English law and taxes.  We already have the Patriotic Millionaires who feel they SHOULD pay more taxes.  Patriotic Millionaires Echo Occupy Wall Street (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)  So, all the players are there, and the Second Amendment assures weaponry.
> 
> Do I endorse violence, no.  Do I understand that violence is part of reality, and a political tool, yes.  When things get close to a boil, I will invite the people I usually have over for the Academy Awards to come over for cocktails and big screen TV.  I won't be at the scene of the violence, but I will write my second check to the 99%.  This is going to involve a lot of lawyers when it happens.  In the end, there are more working class and poor than wealthy 1%.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should go back to jerking off.


----------



## mudwhistle

flacaltenn said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preius::
> 
> I am pushing psychiatry on you because I have little respect for that "science" and I wish you harm..
> 
> We SHOULD be working on those anti-capitalistic tendencies tho -- so that you might become a better spokesperson for economic and social freedom. But time is up on our session for the week. See the nurse on the way out for your next appointment..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wish you had posted this nonsense before I wasted my time offering you serious consideration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I marked the sarcasm with a smiley face. Obviously you refuse to see the real threats to your freedom and liberty don't lie on Wall Street. I DO think I could help you with understanding why America's hope doesn't lie in politics. Societies have OTHER avenues of making life better for the struggling class. And NONE of that involves violence or finding convienient scapegoats..
Click to expand...


Arguing with people like Preius is a total waste of time. 

Some people just like being agitators. Obama was Preius at one time before he cleaned up his act and made himself socially acceptable. He learned to play the game and say the right things, (he said as much in his book) but deep down inside he's a person that gets a thrill shooting up his leg from seeing violence and destruction. They have no peace in them. 

I've felt that before in my life, but I chose to control it. Hormones running wild. Some people never discover inner peace. If you wonder why people do terrible things to others this pretty much explains it. Reckless youth.

The dilemma is that these folks are able to vote. Whatever is the worst for government, and society, they support. These are the folks Obama focuses on. The angry youth in America. He remembers how he was. The kind of person he was back then. He understands them. He knows which buttons to push. It's why he supports the OWS.


----------



## georgephillip

*"Defend Wall Street'* is not likely to be a winning campaign slogan in 2012. 

"For Republicans, this is an obvious problem. 

"For President Obama and the Democrats, its a goldenif largely undeservedopportunity.

"The biggest impact of the Occupy Wall Street protests has been to provide a focal point for generalized economic and political discontent. 

"Frustrated voters on the left and the right may disagree on, say, immigration policy or health care reform. But they can agree on a critique of the financial sectorand, potentially, on specific measures to bring about necessary change.

"No, Wall Street shouldnt be made the scapegoat for all the nations woes. 

"But it was the financial *Masters of the Universe* whose shocking irresponsibility and unbounded greed triggered the 2008 crisis, which almost sent the global economy into the abyss.

"Were still dealing with the resulting devastationmassive unemployment, an epidemic of foreclosures, severe fiscal strain on governments at every level."

Eugene Robinson: The Occupy Windfall - Truthdig


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Breitbart.tv » Uniformed Coast Guard Member Spat On By #OccupyBoston Protesters


----------



## georgephillip

*Are you voting Wall Street in 2012?*

"It is also a fact that Wall Street is a major source of campaign financing for both parties. At present, Wall Street donors are giving heavily to Romney&#8212;a money man by trade who once headed Bain Capital. 

"In July, however, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that of the $35 million that had been collected this year by Obama&#8217;s top-tier fundraisers, one-third came from the financial industry. Apparently, animosity is no match for self-interest."

Eugene Robinson: The Occupy Windfall - Truthdig


----------



## editec

Pretending that some players on WALL STREET are NOT the problem makes about as much sense as PRETENDING that no DEMOCRATS were involved in the meltdown.

It may satisfy some primative tribal instinct, but it is an affront to truth.


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> Ahhh.. Just another artificial waste of taxpayer money then --- Right?



I'm not in a position to evaluate that, but I doubt their intent was to bring down the economy, so the fact that something else was really at fault doesn't indicate that they were a waste.



> OF COURSE those credits had a LARGE effect. Created a FRENZY in fact everytime they threatened to end them.



They may have had a lot of support, hence the frenzy, but nonetheless they were of minimal impact on the economy. Most of the mortgages that failed were not part of that program; in fact, most of them were loans on commercial property. Those are the ones that were bundled into the derivatives that failed along with them, and it was the failure of the derivatives, not of the mortgages themselves, that caused the financial meltdown.



> Doesn't require naivety. A lot of people support domestic drilling for oil and gas. That lobby doesn't exist because of corporate cash.



Actually, the fact that a lot of people support domestic drilling is itself a result of corporate cash, which is spent on public relations activities as well as on lobbying Congress.



> The opposition to UNIVERSAL health care doesn't stem from corporate cash.



Yes, actually, it does, because the insurance companies do the same thing. Oh, and by the way:

Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer

While opposition to universal health care is not nonexistent, a majority of the people support a single-payer system. Yet single payer was taken off the table at the beginning of negotiations about health-care reform in 2009, at a time when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Why do you suppose that happened?

Because most Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans, and the health-insurance industry is one of their biggest donor groups. No other reason at all.



> You want to set the appearance that ANY position lobbied for has no popular roots. Ethanol? Farm subsidies?



Let's put it this way. Anything that has the support of a majority of the people is something that business isn't going to spend a lot of money lobbying for, because it's likely to pass anyway. If they want it to happen, business will simply let it happen. If they don't, they'll lobby against it. What they put real effort into lobbying for, is something the people don't necessarily want. And yes, I would definitely include farm subsidies and ethanol subsidies into that category: pure corporate giveaways.



> Do you want me to believe that contributions made to the 2008 campaign BEFORE the meltdown somehow were to influence a bailout?



More general than that, but basically yes. The banks might not have foreseen the need for a bailout specifically before the meltdown, but they could certainly see the value in having bought-and-paid-for elected officials. As it happened, they did need a bailout, so they got their bribed pols to provide it for them. If they had not needed a bailout, they would still have found good uses for them. If nothing else, they could have continued to forestall re-regulation of the financial industry, as indeed they are doing now.



> Even when the banks didn't WANT the money -- they were intimidated into taking it.



Oh, please. You expect me to believe that there were banks that didn't want the money? Do you have any solid evidence of this? Or of pigs with wings, which is just about as likely?



> Why would corporations want to continue to waste time lobbying and donating if the power spigot got turned off?



To turn it back on, of course. That's why it was turned on in the first place.


----------



## Dragon

freedombecki said:


> It is now.



Not yet, although the Democratic Party would certainly like to make it one.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dragon said:


> Even when the banks didn't WANT the money -- they were intimidated into taking it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please. You expect me to believe that there were banks that didn't want the money? Do you have any solid evidence of this? Or of pigs with wings, which is just about as likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would corporations want to continue to waste time lobbying and donating if the power spigot got turned off?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To turn it back on, of course. That's why it was turned on in the first place.
Click to expand...


In fact some major banks were forced to accept TARP money

Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cash - Business Insider

And when some banks wanted to repay TARP money the fucking government aka Obama wouldn't allow it

Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com

So don't be so trusting of the government, little sheep.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> The age range of the Occupy Wall Street folks is 18-40.



Mudwhistle, why do you keep posting made-up shit when you don't have a clue what you're talking about and when you're easily proven wrong? What's the point?

I've seen a photo of an old man with a walker at OWS carrying a sign that said he was a World War II vet. The lower boundary may be roughly correct, but the older one is totally wrong.


----------



## Dragon

Skull Pilot said:


> In fact some major banks were forced to accept TARP money
> 
> Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cash - Business Insider
> 
> And when some banks wanted to repay TARP money the fucking government aka Obama wouldn't allow it
> 
> Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com



Neither of those articles supported either their headlines or your claims about them. The first led to a run-down of a persuasion session by government officials with the representatives of nine banks, but there was no coercion described. The second article actually said that the money WAS repaid by those small banks, but was making much of the fact that the administration didn't cheer the repayment. It did not say that repayment was refused.


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact some major banks were forced to accept TARP money
> 
> Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cash - Business Insider
> 
> And when some banks wanted to repay TARP money the fucking government aka Obama wouldn't allow it
> 
> Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of those articles supported either their headlines or your claims about them. The first led to a run-down of a persuasion session by government officials with the representatives of nine banks, but there was no coercion described. The second article actually said that the money WAS repaid by those small banks, but was making much of the fact that the administration didn't cheer the repayment. It did not say that repayment was refused.
Click to expand...

You're right.  The second didn't say the money was refused; it said that the administration told the bank there would be "adverse consequences" if they continued to insist on paying back the money.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Mudwhistle, why do you keep posting made-up shit when you don't have a clue what you're talking about and when you're easily proven wrong? What's the point?
> 
> I've seen a photo of an old man with a walker at OWS carrying a sign that said he was a World War II vet. The lower boundary may be roughly correct, but the older one is totally wrong.



So you're saying that Alzheimer's could be just as effective in causing one to join the Shitter Revolt as drug abuse?

Makes sense....


----------



## Dragon

Uncensored, that does it. You are an obnoxious troll with, as best I can see, nothing to say beyond invective and abuse. On ignore you go.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Uncensored, that does it. You are an obnoxious troll with, as best I can see, nothing to say beyond invective and abuse. On ignore you go.



Dragon, your cowardice will not stop me from ripping your tepid, Marxist posts to shreds.


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored, that does it. You are an obnoxious troll with, as best I can see, nothing to say beyond invective and abuse. On ignore you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon, your cowardice will not stop me from ripping your tepid, Marxist posts to shreds.
Click to expand...


Like anyone gives two hoots for the opinion of the board Nazi.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dragon said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fact some major banks were forced to accept TARP money
> 
> Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cash - Business Insider
> 
> And when some banks wanted to repay TARP money the fucking government aka Obama wouldn't allow it
> 
> Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of those articles supported either their headlines or your claims about them. The first led to a run-down of a persuasion session by government officials with the representatives of nine banks, but there was no coercion described. The second article actually said that the money WAS repaid by those small banks, but was making much of the fact that the administration didn't cheer the repayment. It did not say that repayment was refused.
Click to expand...


Poor little sheep just can't believe the government is underhanded and coercive

Business & Technology | Documents: Paulson forced 9 bank CEOs to take TARP | Seattle Times Newspaper



> *The chief executives of the country's nine largest banks had no choice but to accept capital infusions from the Treasury Department in October*, government documents released Wednesday have confirmed.
> 
> Obtained and released by Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation, the documents revealed "talking points" used by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the October 13 meeting between federal officials and the executives that stressed the investments would be required "in any circumstance," whether the banks found them appealing or not.
> 
> Paulson also told the bankers it would not be prudent to opt out of the program because doing so "would leave you vulnerable and exposed."
> 
> It's no secret that some of the banks had to be pressured to participate in the program, with several bank CEOs saying they had been strongly encouraged to take the funds. But the documents are the first proof of the government's insistence.



Don't be so naive to think that when bankers were called to the fucking white house that they had a choice to do anything but accept the so called offer of money.


----------



## Dragon

Skull Pilot said:


> Poor little sheep just can't believe the government is underhanded and coercive



Why do you say silly things like this? On a thread about the Occupy Wall Street protests, why do you misrepresent them as pro-government when it couldn't be more obvious that that isn't even remotely true? Why not present your arguments without the lies? Is it really that hard?

None of the material you presented shows any coercion on the part of the government to force banks to take the TARP money. That the investments "would be required" says nothing about exactly what is requiring them. The obvious candidate would be the financial circumstances of the bank in question. When the alternative is bankruptcy, it can reasonably be stated that the bank "has no choice," or anyway no good choice, without that implying that the government is _requiring_ the bank to take the money. That is what you need to show in order to support your contention, and you have not shown it.

The same argument applies with regard to repayment. What consequences, specifically, is the government threatening if the loans are repaid early? (I assume "early" since all loans are of course expected to be repaid.) A shortage of capital is one possibility, leading to possible consequences if other loans by the bank run into default. If that's what the government says, this is a prediction and not a demand.

All of the evidence you have presented is subject to interpretations that do not support your contentions, and as your contentions are frankly absurd, quite clear and unambiguous proof is required for them.


----------



## Dragon

konradv said:


> Like anyone gives two hoots for the opinion of the board Nazi.



Having him on ignore won't shut him up, but it will remove any temptation for me to respond. As responding to such a lying jerk is a waste of bandwidth, that is definitely a worthy thing to achieve.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh.. Just another artificial waste of taxpayer money then --- Right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not in a position to evaluate that, but I doubt their intent was to bring down the economy, so the fact that something else was really at fault doesn't indicate that they were a waste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OF COURSE those credits had a LARGE effect. Created a FRENZY in fact everytime they threatened to end them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They may have had a lot of support, hence the frenzy, but nonetheless they were of minimal impact on the economy. Most of the mortgages that failed were not part of that program; in fact, most of them were loans on commercial property. Those are the ones that were bundled into the derivatives that failed along with them, and it was the failure of the derivatives, not of the mortgages themselves, that caused the financial meltdown.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the fact that a lot of people support domestic drilling is itself a result of corporate cash, which is spent on public relations activities as well as on lobbying Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, actually, it does, because the insurance companies do the same thing. Oh, and by the way:
> 
> Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer
> 
> While opposition to universal health care is not nonexistent, a majority of the people support a single-payer system. Yet single payer was taken off the table at the beginning of negotiations about health-care reform in 2009, at a time when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Why do you suppose that happened?
> 
> Because most Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans, and the health-insurance industry is one of their biggest donor groups. No other reason at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's put it this way. Anything that has the support of a majority of the people is something that business isn't going to spend a lot of money lobbying for, because it's likely to pass anyway. If they want it to happen, business will simply let it happen. If they don't, they'll lobby against it. What they put real effort into lobbying for, is something the people don't necessarily want. And yes, I would definitely include farm subsidies and ethanol subsidies into that category: pure corporate giveaways.
> 
> 
> 
> More general than that, but basically yes. The banks might not have foreseen the need for a bailout specifically before the meltdown, but they could certainly see the value in having bought-and-paid-for elected officials. As it happened, they did need a bailout, so they got their bribed pols to provide it for them. If they had not needed a bailout, they would still have found good uses for them. If nothing else, they could have continued to forestall re-regulation of the financial industry, as indeed they are doing now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even when the banks didn't WANT the money -- they were intimidated into taking it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, please. You expect me to believe that there were banks that didn't want the money? Do you have any solid evidence of this? Or of pigs with wings, which is just about as likely?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would corporations want to continue to waste time lobbying and donating if the power spigot got turned off?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To turn it back on, of course. That's why it was turned on in the first place.
Click to expand...


There is so much spinning in your response -- that this doesn't even count as rational debate. When you BLATANTLY suggest that a LARGE fraction of the American people are BOUGHT by the oil companies to DEMAND more domestic oil and gas production -- you lose the debate right there. Along with credibility to insist that the collusion problem is also the result of campaign cash and not the unrestricted power that Congress has taken to meddle in the market. 

OF COURSE I can back up each and every one of my assertions. They are based on facts that the Left and OWS idiots either never heard or have simply filtered out because they don't fit their preconceived notions.  Let's take one.. I did an entire THREAD on this one. 

You'll find the thread at: http://www.usmessageboard.com/4094228-post1.html

Dragon Says:::



> Oh, please. You expect me to believe that there were banks that didn't want the money? Do you have any solid evidence of this? Or of pigs with wings, which is just about as likely?



Well -- you must have missed the actual meetings in which Paulson intimidated the banks into signing when they asserted that they (MOST of them) neither needed or wanted the money.. 

Banks forced to take bailout money they dont want or need | Scholars and Rogues



> *I was told that the regulators supposedly asked the bank to participate, but the bank wasnt given a choice to participate or not  the funds (equal to approximately 3% of the banks total assets) just showed up one day.* According to the American Banking Association (via the Wall Street Journal Deal Journal blog), my sources bank was hardly the only one. According to the WSJ, ABA president Edward Yingling wrote to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
> 
> *[M]any banks have been contacted by regulators, and urged, sometimes forcefully, to participate in the [Capital Purchase Program] (emphasis original).
> 
> And the International Herald Tribune ran an article on healthy banks who were being pressured to take bailout money that they didnt want for fear of being stigmatized.*
> 
> If we assume for just a moment that the $250 billion used for the Capital Purchase Program is going to all of the banks in the U.S., than a huge amount of money is being forced on businesses who dont want it. According to the ABA letter mentioned above, 95% of all banks were sufficiently capitalized and didnt need the extra cash. If we even assume that only 50% would have said no had they not been pressured, thats almost 120 billion that didnt need to be spent.



Then you must have missed the confrontation when just WEEKS later the banks tried to RETURN the bailout and we're shunned by the Treasury... 
Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com



> I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. *This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?*
> 
> My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.
> 
> It is not for nothing that rage has been turned on those wicked financiers. The banks are at the core of the administration's thrust: By managing the money, government can steer the whole economy even more firmly down the left fork in the road.
> 
> If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.
> 
> *Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.*



What Wall Street WAS asking for -- instead of being forced to sign for cash they didn't want -- was a change in the "mark to market" rules that would have REVALUED those MBS holdings that were temporarily worthless. They later GOT that -- but only after the Admin and Treasury took their bows and claimed success. 

Don't know how you missed all that. Perhaps you've been parroting stuff at OWS rallies that simply isn't true. The facts back up EACH of the assertions I made in previous posts. All you give me back in incredulous stares and spin...


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dragon said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor little sheep just can't believe the government is underhanded and coercive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you say silly things like this? On a thread about the Occupy Wall Street protests, why do you misrepresent them as pro-government when it couldn't be more obvious that that isn't even remotely true? Why not present your arguments without the lies? Is it really that hard?
> 
> None of the material you presented shows any coercion on the part of the government to force banks to take the TARP money. That the investments "would be required" says nothing about exactly what is requiring them. The obvious candidate would be the financial circumstances of the bank in question. When the alternative is bankruptcy, it can reasonably be stated that the bank "has no choice," or anyway no good choice, without that implying that the government is _requiring_ the bank to take the money. That is what you need to show in order to support your contention, and you have not shown it.
> 
> The same argument applies with regard to repayment. What consequences, specifically, is the government threatening if the loans are repaid early? (I assume "early" since all loans are of course expected to be repaid.) A shortage of capital is one possibility, leading to possible consequences if other loans by the bank run into default. If that's what the government says, this is a prediction and not a demand.
> 
> All of the evidence you have presented is subject to interpretations that do not support your contentions, and as your contentions are frankly absurd, quite clear and unambiguous proof is required for them.
Click to expand...


Where did I ever say the Obnoxious Whining Sheep are pro government?

Find that quote if you can.

And it's you who can't believe the fucking government uses strong arm tactics to get what it wants.

Tell me if you get called to a meeting at the fucking white house are locked in a room and "strongly urged" to do something would you not feel coerced?

Are you that ignorant of the ways of government?


----------



## flacaltenn

So Dragon: 

Now that you can't chant about Banks PLEADING for Bailouts and how they BOUGHT influence in order to GET that cash ---- 

What's the NEW OWS chant gonna be eh?? 

Hopefully something USEFUL for the Cause. Like Demanding Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's resignations.... LOL


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> When you BLATANTLY suggest that a LARGE fraction of the American people are BOUGHT by the oil companies to DEMAND more domestic oil and gas production -- you lose the debate right there.



That's not what I'm saying. The oil companies buy elected officials; they _persuade_ voters through propaganda. There's a huge disinformation campaign by the fossil-fuel industry to promote climate-change skepticism, for example, and to try to frame the debate as drill-or-do-without. It's not payola, it's just advertising.



> You'll find the thread at: http://www.usmessageboard.com/4094228-post1.html



I glanced at that and saw no evidence in your OP that was not also presented here in this thread. There is an inherent implausibility in the idea that the government made the banks take bailout money over their objections. This is basic tinfoil hat stuff and it requires unambiguous evidence in support of it, together with some sort of logical explanation of why the government would do that. So far I've seen neither.



> And the International Herald Tribune ran an article on healthy banks who were being pressured to take bailout money that they didnt want for fear of being stigmatized.



All right, but what exactly does "pressured" mean? "Look, schmuck, if you don't take this money, there's a real good chance you're going to go bankrupt within six months. Here are the figures to prove it. Stop being an ass." That's pressure; however, it is not government coercion.



> If we assume for just a moment that the $250 billion used for the Capital Purchase Program is going to all of the banks in the U.S.



Why would we assume something that is obviously counterfactual, especially if you mean non-trivial amounts of TARP money? I suppose it's not impossible that all U.S. banks have some nonzero amount of "troubled assets" that would qualify, but the main players are known and identified and don't come close to being "all of the banks in the U.S."



> My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler



But the government doesn't control GM or Chrysler. That's nonsense. And if the government really wanted to control the banks, why has it over the past couple of decades passed legislation reducing government's ability to regulate the banks?

As I said, tinfoil hat stuff.



> If the banks are forced to keep TARP cash -- which was often forced on them in the first place -- the Obama team can work its will on the financial system to unprecedented degree. That's what's happening right now.



I see no sign of the Obama administration's willingness to re-regulate the financial industry, unfortunately. You are hypothesizing a motive for which there is no direct evidence at all.


----------



## boedicca

The OWC people are DUMB and DUMBER and DUMBERER.

Breitbart.tv » Howard Stern Shows Idiocy Of #OccupyWallStreet Protesters


----------



## Dragon

Skull Pilot said:


> Where did I ever say the Obnoxious Whining Sheep are pro government?



"Poor little sheep just can't believe the government is underhanded and coercive"

The implication is obvious.



> And it's you who can't believe the fucking government uses strong arm tactics to get what it wants.



On the contrary, what I can't believe is tinfoil hat notions of what the government does want. Also, I am not missing the element of bribery that helps determine what the government wants.

Actually, the government wants just about nothing for itself except to go on existing and, for elected officials, to be reelected. Otherwise, everything the government wants, it wants on behalf of someone else. That "someone else" is theoretically supposed to be the voters. Too often, however, it's the campaign donors. That's the root of the sickness in our system.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon:::



> And the International Herald Tribune ran an article on healthy banks who were being pressured to take bailout money that they didn&#8217;t want for fear of being stigmatized.
> All right, but what exactly does "pressured" mean? "Look, schmuck, if you don't take this money, there's a real good chance you're going to go bankrupt within six months. Here are the figures to prove it. Stop being an ass." That's pressure; however, it is not government coercion.



Specifically the threat was --- You're gonna all have to pass stress tests and we guarantee that the public will be informed that any bank that refuses to participate in this re-cap bailout is less than stable. 

It's extortion -- to be exact. Take the money or we might make it look like you're weak when we write your test scores... It was all about hooking the banks to Govt control so that the Admin would be able to micro-manage their internal affairs. NONE of that was neccessary. It was a play for power and control by the ENTITY that CAUSES GOVT/CORP collusion..

The fact that banks largely didn't NEED or WANT the re-cap cash is evidenced by the rush to give the money back as soon as weeks after they were forced to sign..

Besides -- the ORIGINAL INTENT of the TARP funds was to buy up TOXIC ASSETS.. Not re-cap the banks and bail out car companies. When Obama did what WALL STREET wanted -- whiich was to change "mark to market" -- the toxic assets suddenly became a much smaller problem. He didn't want to let "a good crisis go to waste".........


----------



## Si modo

Dragon said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I ever say the Obnoxious Whining Sheep are pro government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Poor little sheep just can't believe the government is underhanded and coercive"
> 
> The implication is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's you who can't believe the fucking government uses strong arm tactics to get what it wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, what I can't believe is tinfoil hat notions of what the government does want. Also, I am not missing the element of bribery that helps determine what the government wants.
> 
> Actually, the government wants just about nothing for itself except to go on existing and, for elected officials, to be reelected. Otherwise, everything the government wants, it wants on behalf of someone else. That "someone else" is theoretically supposed to be the voters. Too often, however, it's the campaign donors. That's the root of the sickness in our system.
Click to expand...

You're naive then.  Dangerously so.

The government, and those elected to it, want power.  Period.

The founding fathers knew this fact and authored our Constitution to limit that power.

The OWS wants to give government more power, and especially oppressive power.


----------



## Ropey

Si modo said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I ever say the Obnoxious Whining Sheep are pro government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Poor little sheep just can't believe the government is underhanded and coercive"
> 
> The implication is obvious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's you who can't believe the fucking government uses strong arm tactics to get what it wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the contrary, what I can't believe is tinfoil hat notions of what the government does want. Also, I am not missing the element of bribery that helps determine what the government wants.
> 
> Actually, the government wants just about nothing for itself except to go on existing and, for elected officials, to be reelected. Otherwise, everything the government wants, it wants on behalf of someone else. That "someone else" is theoretically supposed to be the voters. Too often, however, it's the campaign donors. That's the root of the sickness in our system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're naive then.  Dangerously so.
> 
> The government, and those elected to it, want power.  Period.
> 
> The founding fathers knew this fact and authored our Constitution to limit that power.
> 
> *The OWS wants to give government more power, and especially oppressive power.*
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYpYs9GBXwY]Classic Movie Line #50 - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Katzndogz

OWS is pro government because the government is pro OWS!  One hand moisturizes the other.


----------



## Dragon

Si modo said:


> The government, and those elected to it, want power.  Period.



"The government" is not a sentient organism and therefore does not "want" anything.

Those elected to it may in some cases want power, but it seems to me that more often what they want is office. They have a nice, prestigious job and they want to keep it.

Even when they do want power, recall that a legislator is never a dictator, and so how much power the government has does not translate into how much power he or she has. Influence within Congress, however, does, and so the power-hungry individual is likely to seek that, and not the power of government _per se_.



> The founding fathers knew this fact and authored our Constitution to limit that power.
> 
> The OWS wants to give government more power, and especially oppressive power.



Both these statements are incorrect. The Constitution was created to _expand_ government power, not restrict it. In fact, most of the provisions in the Constitution that do limit government power were put in by amendment, on the insistence of a popular uprising not unlike OWS, against the original wishes of the framers.

As for OWS, you will find that the protesters do not want to expand government power overall but rather to redirect it to serve the people instead of the profits of big business. In some cases that requires the government to do things that it is not now doing, but in others it requires that the government stop doing things it is now doing. And in no case whatever is the expansion of "oppressive power" called for.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Dragon said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I ever say the Obnoxious Whining Sheep are pro government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Poor little sheep just can't believe the government is underhanded and coercive"
> 
> The implication is obvious.
Click to expand...


The poor little sheep I was referring to is you.  So the implication was not that obvious to you was it?



> And it's you who can't believe the fucking government uses strong arm tactics to get what it wants.





> On the contrary, what I can't believe is tinfoil hat notions of what the government does want. Also, I am not missing the element of bribery that helps determine what the government wants.
> 
> Actually, the government wants just about nothing for itself except to go on existing and, for elected officials, to be reelected. Otherwise, everything the government wants, it wants on behalf of someone else. That "someone else" is theoretically supposed to be the voters. Too often, however, it's the campaign donors. That's the root of the sickness in our system.



Yes the government forced those banks to take federal so as to be able to exert control over them.

You still deny that it happened?


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> Like anyone gives two hoots for the opinion of the board Nazi.



Hey stupid, I'm not Lahkota.

Show the class where I have EVER posted anything anti-Semitic.

Oh that's right, you're a leftist - IOW a fucking liar.


----------



## Katzndogz

There are very few proper roles of government.  One of those roles is to maintain a friendly business environment so that companies want to do business here so they will open and provide jobs for people who want to work.


----------



## Preius

The Gadfly said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Preius, you wouldn't mind violence, not if it serves your desired end. Of course, you'll denounce it publicly, while you relish it in private. So what if some "Wall Street types" are killed; better them than you, and they "deserve it" anyway, right? What happens when it goes to the next level? What happens if one of these loons bombs a CEO's house, and kills their family members-do they "deserve it" too? What happens, if violence breaks out in the streets? You think no innocents might be killed by stray bullets? Oh, but it can be "contained", right?
> 
> What happens, if you're wrong? What happens, if after the mob turns on the desired scapegoats, they start taking out their frustration on everyone else who happens to have more than they do? You see, there are some differences between this and Krystallnacht that go beyond scapegoating "the Jews" vs. scapegoating "the 1%". The Nazis were organized; this is a rabble. What happens, when they turn on whoever is handy? What happens, if they turn on YOU (I'm sure they'll be very moved to hear you're a "social liberal"-mobs are very amenable to reasoning, that way)?
> 
> You had better be careful what you wish for, because this is a very divided country, along a number of fronts, there are plenty of guns, and they are not all on the same side. Violence is an easy thing to start; stopping it can be another matter entirely. At best, you'll have one hell of a lot of bloodshed; at worst, you'll have neighbor against neighbor, with a lot of factions and shifting alliances. Think you can just hunker down and sit it out? Don't bet on it. Think you can buy safety for yourself and your family? Think again. If and when it all hits the fan, it will be a bloody, atrocity-filled mess. The best case scenario is that the active military can regain control, eventually, in which case the survivors will end up with a police state (and be grateful for that). If not, your only friend will be a weapon, and your only allies a defensible position, and enough combat experience to know what to do with both. Eventually, you will kill or be killed for a box of ammunition, a can of food, or a jug of water. I have been in combat, and I can tell you that you had better hope to whatever God you pray to that it never comes to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly you are interested in hijacking this thread to share your views about folks of the Hebrew faith - go start a thread elsewhere on your own.
> 
> Disliking violence is like disliking emotion.  It is a part of life, get used to it, and stop trying to change human nature.  The real Tea Party, actually known as the Sons of Liberty involved John Hancock and Sam Adams with their cronies burning the homes of British tax collectors and perhaps murdering a few.
> 
> Historians have turned this into "exciting stories of a brewer, and tea merchant."  America is as addicted to violence as it is to alcohol and tobacco.  You can gloss over it for the kids in history books, but don't be naive yourself.
> 
> Here is my prediction if unemployment gets worse and people continue losing their homes.  Some poor guy who is about to commit suicide is going to decide to take a few Wall Streeters with him or her.  There will be upset when executives are sprayed with bullets, but I doubt there will be any tears.
> 
> Our military, (as France's did in 1789) will have to consider how to handle things responsibly to preserve our republic.  As did the French soldiers who were told to fire on starving civilians at the Bastille, Americans will have to consider if they fire on their countrymen, or corporate executives and politicians.  Now these soldiers at all levels have been underpaid for years.  Many rely on food stamps, and few own their own homes.  So soldiers and their families will have a stake in the outcome personally.  People never seem to have a problem responding in their own self interest.
> 
> The American Revolution took place because the wealthy were unhappy with English law and taxes.  We already have the Patriotic Millionaires who feel they SHOULD pay more taxes.  Patriotic Millionaires Echo Occupy Wall Street (PHOTOS, VIDEOS)  So, all the players are there, and the Second Amendment assures weaponry.
> 
> Do I endorse violence, no.  Do I understand that violence is part of reality, and a political tool, yes.  When things get close to a boil, I will invite the people I usually have over for the Academy Awards to come over for cocktails and big screen TV.  I won't be at the scene of the violence, but I will write my second check to the 99%.  This is going to involve a lot of lawyers when it happens.  In the end, there are more working class and poor than wealthy 1%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My comments to you Preius, had NOTHING to do with my "views of folks of the Hebrew faith", and everything to do with the implications of civil disorder for this nation! I understand violence, and its uses, quite well; some years back I engaged in quite a bit of it myself, in a little place called Vietnam. I was not some unwilling conscript; I was an officer, and a professional soldier; as such, violence was my profession, and I was very, very good at it. From what I know of those who serve in uniform today, I think I can tell you with some confidence that they are not so different from the soldiers I served with, and that if ordered, they will open fire on whoever they are ordered to open fire on. They may do so reluctantly, but they will do it. There are also a number of American veterans, many of whom are battle-hardened, who will remember the oath they took, and will also fight against any group of "revolutionaries", if necessary. The "revolution", if and when it comes, is not something you are going to watch as a spectator on your big screen TV in the comfort of your living room (unless it is put down so fast you can watch the lack of drama unfold). No, if it comes anywhere near success, the violence attendant to the process will be coming to a neighborhood near you, and sooner, rather than later. This will not be "everyone against the rich", and there is a likelihood, in any event, that those you despise will hire some forces of their own to fight against the side you favor. What you are likely to get as a result, are a number of factions fighting for control, some of them employing mercenaries fighting strictly for money, ideology, or both. What you will have in that event, is something that will make Northern Ireland look like a walk in the park, by comparison.
> 
> You are apparently relying on the assumption that most of the people will either sit out the fight, or join in on your side. That assumption is badly flawed. The whole of the 99% does not support your agenda, not even close, politically; much less are they willing to fight on your behalf. As I told you earlier, this country has a copious supply of guns, and people who know how to use them, and they are not all on the same side. That is going to make for a messy, bloody affair. Your notion of revolution is as flawed as that of those on the far right who nourish the illusion that if it comes to a fight, those on the left will be doing all the dying. There will be plenty to go around on all sides, you may be certain of that. What you apparently hope for will not be easy, cheap, quick or pretty, and when it is over, you have as good a chance as anyone else to not be around to regret it. I suggest you, and anyone else inclined to foment violent revolution and/or civil unrest, whether openly or behind the scenes, think about that, long and hard.
Click to expand...


Thank you for your opinion.......  Your words speak for themselves........  You are still trying to put words in my mouth. but......... more importantly it is 71 degrees and sunny here in Los Angeles today.  

I dropped by Bubba Gumps on the Santa Monica pier, treated myself to a single black martini, and toasted the 99%.  

It was unusual...... the crosses they put on the beach commemorating the dead in Iraq and Aftghanistan are out today.  They usually only do that as a reminder on weekends.  

No violence to report out here today..........  

Wonder how many soldiers are enjoying a black martini by a beach today????????.....  Most certainly not enough..........  

By now the New York Wall Streeters have had their martini's and taking their helicopters home to their Connecticut mansions.........  Hope it was not a turbulent ride....


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> Both these statements are incorrect. The Constitution was created to _expand_ government power, not restrict it.





That is not true. That is a mere simplification by a mere simpleton.


----------



## Preius

Unkotare said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both these statements are incorrect. The Constitution was created to _expand_ government power, not restrict it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true. That is a mere simplification by a mere simpleton.
Click to expand...


This disruptive Unkotare disagrees with everyone on everything and has no links or facts to support his remarks.  Just an empty wagon making noise as he goes down the street.   I wrote him off........


----------



## Unkotare

Preius said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both these statements are incorrect. The Constitution was created to _expand_ government power, not restrict it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true. That is a mere simplification by a mere simpleton.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This disruptive Unkotare disagrees with everyone on everything and has no links or facts to support his remarks.  Just an empty wagon making noise as he goes down the street.   I wrote him off........
Click to expand...



Here we see the anti-American proudly displaying his ignorance yet again. Could it be that he skimmed a paragraph on the Articles of Confederation and then concluded that the Constitution we replaced it with was all about expanding government power without being aware of all the contentious debates and struggles over just such issues, issues that nearly derailed the project entirely? Hmmm...could be...he is, after all, an idiot.


----------



## Preius

Unkotare said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true. That is a mere simplification by a mere simpleton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This disruptive Unkotare disagrees with everyone on everything and has no links or facts to support his remarks.  Just an empty wagon making noise as he goes down the street.   I wrote him off........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see the anti-American proudly displaying his ignorance yet again. Could it be that he skimmed a paragraph on the Articles of Confederation and then concluded that the Constitution we replaced it with was all about expanding government power without being aware of all the contentious debates and struggles over just such issues, issues that nearly derailed the project entirely? Hmmm...could be...he is, after all, an idiot.
Click to expand...


No one is listening except me, (because I am fascinated with posting the infinite number of versions of "Do Wah Diddy.)"  This means I am laughing at your every post.  And why you ask? * Because you provide no facts, no links, no background and no logic to anything you say.*  You are just a bullsh*ter!


----------



## Preius

Unkotare said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not true. That is a mere simplification by a mere simpleton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This disruptive Unkotare disagrees with everyone on everything and has no links or facts to support his remarks.  Just an empty wagon making noise as he goes down the street.   I wrote him off........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see the anti-American proudly displaying his ignorance yet again. Could it be that he skimmed a paragraph on the Articles of Confederation and then concluded that the Constitution we replaced it with was all about expanding government power without being aware of all the contentious debates and struggles over just such issues, issues that nearly derailed the project entirely? Hmmm...could be...he is, after all, an idiot.
Click to expand...


No one is listening except me, (because I am fascinated with posting the infinite number of versions of "Do Wah Diddy.)"  This means I am laughing at your every post.  And why you ask? 

* Because you provide no facts, no links, no background and no logic to anything you say.  Name-calling is all you have.*   

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0WsFLEaZKc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0WsFLEaZKc[/ame]

This is my favorite, I like the female voices and dancing.

Rumor has it that all these woman have signed documents supporting the 99% Occupy Wall Street Movement!    ​







*The subject of this thread if anyone is interested is Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows​*


----------



## Preius

Tea Party Express co-founder supports 99% Occupy Wall Street movement.  Tea Party co-founder expresses support for Occupy Wall Street - thoughts.com conversation engine
*
&#8220;The problem with protests and the political process is that it is very easy, no matter how big the protest is, for the politicians to simply wait until the people go home,&#8221; financial blogger Karl Denninger observed. &#8220;And then they can ignore you.&#8221;

&#8220;Well, Occupy Wall Street was a little different,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;And back in 2008, I wrote that when we will actually see change is when the people come, they set up camp, and they refuse to go home. That appears to be happening now.&#8221;*


----------



## Liability

Here's a cold dash of water to snap some of you OWS delusional batshit crazy dipshits out of your coma:

The Tea Party (despite what some dopes claim) is NOT at all akin to the OWS Soros' Bitches.

Soros' Bitches are fundamentally anti-Capitalist.  They do not seek to REFORM the greed out of Capitalism.  They fool nobody who isn't already intent on being "fooled."  Those bitches want to eradicate Capitalism.

By contrast, the Tea Party Movement adherents approve of Capitalism.  The dislike of the bailouts is completely consistent with being in favor of Capitalism.  Sharing the OWS dislike of "greed" is not inconsistent with favoring Capitalism, either.  Tea Party adherents want an honest, level, legal playing field.

How many anarchists or Marxists identify with the Tea Party Movement?

That's right.  None.


----------



## percysunshine

Liability said:


> Here's a cold dash of water to snap some of you OWS delusional batshit crazy dipshits out of your coma:
> 
> The Tea Party (despite what some dopes claim) is NOT at all akin to the OWS Soros' Bitches.
> 
> Soros' Bitches are fundamentally anti-Capitalist.  They do not seek to REFORM the greed out of Capitalism.  They fool nobody who isn't already intent on being "fooled."  Those bitches want to eradicate Capitalism.
> 
> By contrast, the Tea Party Movement adherents approve of Capitalism.  The dislike of the bailouts is completely consistent with being in favor of Capitalism.  Sharing the OWS dislike of "greed" is not inconsistent with favoring Capitalism, either.  Tea Party adherents want ah honest, level, legal playing field.
> 
> How many anarchists or Marxists identify with the Tea Party Movement?
> 
> That's right.  None.



You forgot to include nazis.

Just helping out...


----------



## Big Fitz

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored, that does it. You are an obnoxious troll with, as best I can see, nothing to say beyond invective and abuse. On ignore you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon, your cowardice will not stop me from ripping your tepid, Marxist posts to shreds.
Click to expand...

He's quickly putting everyone on ignore who proves to be more intelligent and not interested in putting up with his cretinism.

He'll be stuck only talking to Hairnet, Tardtard, Synthia, Truthiepoo, Konnie and Ole Crocks before he's through


----------



## mudwhistle

Preius said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> This disruptive Unkotare disagrees with everyone on everything and has no links or facts to support his remarks.  Just an empty wagon making noise as he goes down the street.   I wrote him off........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we see the anti-American proudly displaying his ignorance yet again. Could it be that he skimmed a paragraph on the Articles of Confederation and then concluded that the Constitution we replaced it with was all about expanding government power without being aware of all the contentious debates and struggles over just such issues, issues that nearly derailed the project entirely? Hmmm...could be...he is, after all, an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is listening except me, (because I am fascinated with posting the infinite number of versions of "Do Wah Diddy.)"  This means I am laughing at your every post.  And why you ask? * Because you provide no facts, no links, no background and no logic to anything you say.*  You are just a bullsh*ter!
Click to expand...


As opposed to your habit of slinging shit from your cage......


----------



## mudwhistle

Liability said:


> Here's a cold dash of water to snap some of you OWS delusional batshit crazy dipshits out of your coma:
> 
> The Tea Party (despite what some dopes claim) is NOT at all akin to the OWS Soros' Bitches.
> 
> Soros' Bitches are fundamentally anti-Capitalist.  They do not seek to REFORM the greed out of Capitalism.  They fool nobody who isn't already intent on being "fooled."  Those bitches want to eradicate Capitalism.
> 
> By contrast, the Tea Party Movement adherents approve of Capitalism.  The dislike of the bailouts is completely consistent with being in favor of Capitalism.  Sharing the OWS dislike of "greed" is not inconsistent with favoring Capitalism, either.  Tea Party adherents want ah honest, level, legal playing field.
> 
> How many anarchists or Marxists identify with the Tea Party Movement?
> 
> That's right.  None.



Well to date we've got quite a list of supporters.....all of them seem to be the worst element.

*China
Iran
Communist Party of America
The American Nazi Party
The PLO
The DNC
The White House
The Open Society Institute
The Tides Foundation
SEIU
The Workers Family Party (ACORN)*

Just about every group that wants to bring down this country's economy has shown one kind of support or another. 

*Steven Lerner* formerly of *SEIU* discussed a plan to bring down Wall Street in March of this year which mirrors what the OWS is doing today. 

CBS reported yesterday morning about the protests in this manner: "The first month of the Occupy Wall Street protests comes to a close........."

What!!!! 

*First month??????*

How long is this supposed to go on????

Does the media know something about this????


----------



## Katzndogz

The ice water of reality hits the officials who support OWS.

OOPS.  

Officials' embrace of Occupy L.A. loosens a bit over fiscal issue - latimes.com
Last week, lawmakers asked city analysts to continue developing a plan to use the city's financial heft to punish misbehaving financial institutions. On Tuesday, City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana issued a dire warning: Such a move could cost the city at least $58 million.

Severing agreements with major lenders could trigger sizable termination fees and lead to higher interest rates, Santana said. That could in turn complicate financing for an array of city initiatives, from replacing deteriorating sewers to rebuilding part of the Convention Center to make way for an NFL football stadium, he said.

This is just as ill thought out as the Boycott Arizona bowel movement that lasted until Los Angeles realized its lights would go out!


----------



## mudwhistle

The White House is pressuring New York officials to give the OWS a free reign. 

I'm wondering how long these folks intend on continuing this nonsense. I feel they are in danger of over-playing their hand. Only 25% support the damned thing. The rest ether reject it or couldn't care less.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Tipsycatlover said:


> There are very few proper roles of government.  One of those roles is to maintain a friendly business environment so that companies want to do business here so they will open and provide jobs for people who want to work.



Wouldn't the most rational method of maintaining a friendly business environment be to stay out of business? The whole "Government governs best which governs least," idea?


----------



## Dragon

Here's the latest development and bit of news, sure to be greeted with concern by those hoping this movement will simply go away:

General Assembly - Blackboard



			
				Business Insider said:
			
		

> 1. The Occupy Wall Street movement, through the local general assembly, should elect an executive committee comprised of 11 people or some other odd number of people that is manageable for meetings. Ideally this committee should represent each city in the U.S. that is being occupied.
> 
> 2. The executive committee will then attend to local issues such as obtaining permits, paying for public sanitation and dealing with the media. More important, the executive committee shall plan and organize the election of the 870 delegates to a National General Assembly between now and July 4, 2012.
> 
> 3. As stated in the 99% declaration, each of the 435 congressional districts will form an election committee to prepare ballots and invite citizens in those districts to run as delegates to a National General Assembly in Philadelphia beginning on July 4, 2012 and convening until October 2012.
> 
> 4. Each of the 435 congressional districts will elect one man and one woman to attend the National General Assembly. The vote will be by direct democratic ballot regardless of voter registration status as long as the voter has reached the age of 18 and is a US citizen. This is not a sexist provision. Women are dramatically under-represented in politics even though they comprise more than 50% of the U.S. population.
> 
> 5. The executive committee will act as a central point to solve problems, raise money to pay for the expenses of the election of the National General Assembly and make sure all 870 delegates are elected prior to the meeting on July 4th.
> 
> 6. The executive committee would also arrange a venue in Philadelphia to accommodate the delegates attending the National General Assembly where the declaration of values, petition of grievances and platform would be proposed, debated, voted on and approved. The delegates would also elect a chair from their own ranks to run the meetings of the congress and break any tie votes. We will also need the expertise of a gifted parliamentarian to keep the meetings moving smoothly and efficiently.
> 
> 7. The final declaration, platform and petition of grievances, after being voted upon by the 870 delegates to the National General Assembly would be formally presented by the 870 delegates to all three branches of government and all candidates running for federal public office in November 2012. Thus, the delegates would meet from July 4, 2012 to sometime in early to late October 2012.
> 
> 8. The delegates to the National General Assembly would then vote on a time period, presently suggested as one year, to give the newly elected government in November an opportunity to redress the petition of grievances. This is our right as a People under the First Amendment.
> 
> 9. If the government fails to redress the petition of grievances and drastically change the path this country is on, the delegates will demand the resignation and recall of all members of congress, the president and even the Supreme Court and call for new elections by, of and for the PEOPLE with 99 days of the resignation demand.
> 
> 10. There will NEVER be any call for violence by the delegates even if the government refuses to redress the grievances and new elections are called for by the delegates. Nor will any delegate agree to take any money, job promise, or gifts from corporations, unions or any other private source. Any money donated or raised by the executive committee may only be used for publicizing the vote, the National General Assembly, and for travel expenses and accommodation at the National General Assembly ONLY. All books and records will be published openly online so that everyone may see how much money is raised and how the money is spent each month. There will be no money allowed to "purchase" delegate votes as we have in the current government. No corporate "sponsorship".



The movement continues to grow. Keep watching.

Meanwhile, here's the latest development in the Democratic Party's attempt to co-opt the movement:

Wall Street to Dems: you can't have it both ways - Robin Bravender and Anna Palmer - POLITICO.com



			
				Politico said:
			
		

> After the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a recent email urging supporters to sign a petition backing the wave of Occupy Wall Street protests, phones at the party committee started ringing.
> 
> Banking executives personally called the offices of DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and DCCC Finance Chairman Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) last week demanding answers, three financial services lobbyists told POLITICO.
> 
> They were livid, said one Democratic lobbyist with banking clients.
> 
> The execs asked the lawmakers: What are you doing? Do you even understand some of the things that theyve called for? said another lobbyist with financial services clients who is a former Democratic Senate aide.
> 
> Democrats friends on Wall Street have a message for them: you cant have it both ways.



So as I've been saying, and as the participants in the Occupy movement know very well, the Democratic Party is part of the problem and electing Democrats -- if that's all we do -- is no solution. The Democrats are trying to harness this movement to bolster their campaigns (predictably enough), but their corporate sponsors, who pull the strings of these puppets just as they do of the Republicans, are giving them warning that the campaign-cash flow is dependent on them NOT adopting the movement's agenda.

Occupy is not a Democratic movement. It is not a union movement. It is a nationwide movement of people who recognize that the nation is going down the tubes in service to corporate greed.


----------



## Katzndogz

Uncensored2008 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are very few proper roles of government.  One of those roles is to maintain a friendly business environment so that companies want to do business here so they will open and provide jobs for people who want to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the most rational method of maintaining a friendly business environment be to stay out of business? The whole "Government governs best which governs least," idea?
Click to expand...


Exactly.


----------



## Big Fitz

They finally grew something funny.  Couldn't take a picture though.

On the back of a bank of the portipotties was a sign that read "We are the 99%"

Yes... yes you are.  99% full of shit.


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like anyone gives two hoots for the opinion of the board Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, I'm not Lahkota.
> 
> Show the class where I have EVER posted anything anti-Semitic.
> 
> Oh that's right, you're a leftist - IOW a fucking liar.
Click to expand...


I didn't say you were anti-Semitic, I said you were a NAZI.  Much trouble reading?  You have all the NAZI earmarks, shouting down opponents with usually baseless charges and acting like they're enemies rather than a "loyal oposition".  It's all in the NAZI handbook, which apparently you have memoroized, Little Adoph.


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are very few proper roles of government.  One of those roles is to maintain a friendly business environment so that companies want to do business here so they will open and provide jobs for people who want to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the most rational method of maintaining a friendly business environment be to *stay out of business?* The whole "Government governs best which governs least," idea?
Click to expand...


Already tried that and it didn't work.  It just led to the rise of Marxism.  It's a delicate balancing act, but preferable to the situation in the late 1800s.  Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.


----------



## flacaltenn

konradv said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are very few proper roles of government.  One of those roles is to maintain a friendly business environment so that companies want to do business here so they will open and provide jobs for people who want to work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't the most rational method of maintaining a friendly business environment be to *stay out of business?* The whole "Government governs best which governs least," idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already tried that and it didn't work.  It just led to the rise of Marxism.  It's a delicate balancing act, but preferable to the situation in the late 1800s.  Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
Click to expand...


Make a deal with you Konradv::: As soon as you elect 535 PROFESSIONAL, KNOWLEDGEABLE, ETHICAL, AND HUMBLE experts to serve in Congress that understand ALL ASPECTS of what each one of us does everyday to make a living.. 

I'll consider giving them access to economic decisions that stabilize the free market system. It is LUDICROUS to expect that meddling by a College of Clowns as we have now -- produces ANYTHING valuable to the market.. Their power to treat tax money like their personal Vegas bankroll needs to be curtailed ..... No doubt about that.. Is there?

Obama Admin KNOWS SHIT about Solar Tech.. But YET --- they're experts on who is gonna win market share???? You're deranged if you believe that kind of wanton arrogant intervention is useful...


----------



## mudwhistle

konradv said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like anyone gives two hoots for the opinion of the board Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, I'm not Lahkota.
> 
> Show the class where I have EVER posted anything anti-Semitic.
> 
> Oh that's right, you're a leftist - IOW a fucking liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were anti-Semitic, I said you were a NAZI.  Much trouble reading?  You have all the NAZI earmarks, shouting down opponents with usually baseless charges and acting like they're enemies rather than a "loyal oposition".  It's all in the NAZI handbook, which apparently you have memoroized, Little Adoph.
Click to expand...


Earmarks, or just ears, teeth with gold fillings, ...

Make soap out of human fat.


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> I didn't say you were anti-Semitic, I said you were a NAZI.



You're kind of a retard, aren't you?



> Much trouble reading?  You have all the NAZI earmarks, shouting down opponents with usually baseless charges and acting like they're enemies rather than a "loyal oposition".



Is that what Nazis do, stupid fuck?

Gee, here I thought they were JOOOOO hating goons who liked a nice OWS Kristalnacht for the purpose of merging corporate and governmental power structures under a plutocracy - You know, basically the democratic party and Obamacare.



> It's all in the NAZI handbook, which apparently you have memoroized, Little Adoph.



You've got some drool on your chin, might want to call the attendant...


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> Already tried that and it didn't work.



When was that, retard?



> It just led to the rise of Marxism.



ROFL

Yeah  - um. sure,,,



> It's a delicate balancing act, but preferable to the situation in the late 1800s.  Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.



Those who fabricate history are doomed to be stupid fucks...


----------



## Synthaholic

Liability said:


> Here's a cold dash of water to snap some of you OWS delusional batshit crazy dipshits out of your coma:
> 
> The Tea Party (despite what some dopes claim) is NOT at all akin to the OWS Soros' Bitches.
> 
> Soros' Bitches are fundamentally anti-Capitalist.  They do not seek to REFORM the greed out of Capitalism.  They fool nobody who isn't already intent on being "fooled."  Those bitches want to eradicate Capitalism.
> 
> By contrast, the Tea Party Movement adherents approve of Capitalism.  The dislike of the bailouts is completely consistent with being in favor of Capitalism.  Sharing the OWS dislike of "greed" is not inconsistent with favoring Capitalism, either.  Tea Party adherents want ah honest, level, legal playing field.
> 
> How many anarchists or Marxists identify with the Tea Party Movement?
> 
> That's right.  None.


Sooooorrrrrroooooossssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

damn, you'll believe anything Limbaugh tells you.


----------



## Sunni Man

Extremely heavy and cold rain here in the city that I live.

 I wonder how many OWS "Flea Party" protesters are still on the central plaza.


----------



## Liability

Synthaholic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a cold dash of water to snap some of you OWS delusional batshit crazy dipshits out of your coma:
> 
> The Tea Party (despite what some dopes claim) is NOT at all akin to the OWS Soros' Bitches.
> 
> Soros' Bitches are fundamentally anti-Capitalist.  They do not seek to REFORM the greed out of Capitalism.  They fool nobody who isn't already intent on being "fooled."  Those bitches want to eradicate Capitalism.
> 
> By contrast, the Tea Party Movement adherents approve of Capitalism.  The dislike of the bailouts is completely consistent with being in favor of Capitalism.  Sharing the OWS dislike of "greed" is not inconsistent with favoring Capitalism, either.  Tea Party adherents want ah honest, level, legal playing field.
> 
> How many anarchists or Marxists identify with the Tea Party Movement?
> 
> That's right.  None.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooorrrrrroooooossssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> damn, you'll believe anything Limbaugh tells you.
Click to expand...


No no, silly goober.

Unlike you, I do not have to have my own conclusions spoon fed to me.

To whatever extent Limbaugh may have put voice to the notion, I'm sure he wasn't the first one to think it or say if.

But more importantly, it wasn't Limbaugh who offered research and evidence (since his assertion) to support it:

Is George Soros behind Occupy Wall Street? &mdash; RT

CNBC tried, dutifully, to throw cold water on the theory, but a closer look reveals only actual support:

News Headlines

TIDES, baby!

And, of course, there's more:  http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/reuters-soros-money-behind-occupy-wall-street-protests/

So, as usual, the deflection and denial efforts of the always unpersuasive SimplyAssholic fail again.


----------



## Preius

*What am I missing?*

I think like everyone when the 99% movement started a month ago, I was curious, and a little nervous but positively excited.

Republican Eric Canter came out very strong against the 99%, but never really gave a reason.

A co-founder of the Tea Party has come out in favor of the 99% Occupy Wall Street, OWS.  [url=http://occupywallstreet.thoughts.com/mnicholson2/tea-party-co-founder-expresses-support-for-occupy-wall-street]Tea Party co-founder expresses support for Occupy Wall Street - thoughts.com conversation engine[/URL]

A group called Patriotic Millionaires popped up and said repeal the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest 1% of American.  Patriotic Millionaires For Fiscal Strength

The 99% movement has gone international to Canada, the UK, and Italy, just for a start.  The Tea Party movement has not gone outside the United States.

The Republicans have softened their criticism of the 99% movement.

Opinion polls show a 53% approval of the 99%, while Tea Party popularity has stayed about the same at about a 27% popularity.

My question is why would ANYONE be against the 99% unless they are the 1%?  With all the ideas floating around, one concern remains the same -_* ending the relationship between money and influence in Washington.*_  How can anyone possibly be against that?  If you can please share your thoughts.

With Congress 12% popularity, I would be happy to see* ALL* of the members of the U. S. House and a third of the Senate thrown out of office in 2012.  But, who are the people that are against the 99%?  Is it the 1%?  Or are there stupid middle and upper middle class people who actually believe the Republican Party gives a damn about them?  What I do not understand is posters in USMB being down on the 99% who are trying to clean up the political mess.


----------



## freedombecki

I'll chip in a one-way ticket to Moscow for any OWS gimme-gimme whiner who still hates free enterprise after cashing in his George Soros' sponsored check for those engaged in shitting on the sidewalks of WS.


----------



## Uncensored2008

freedombecki said:


> I'll chip in a one-way ticket to Moscow for any OWS gimme-gimme whiner who still hates free enterprise after cashing in his George Soros' sponsored check for those engaged in shitting on the sidewalks of WS.



Maybe we can charter a "Shitter Express" to North Korea! Rent a ship on it's way back to China, let the Shitters have shipping crates for quarters and drop them off in the glorious people paradise!


----------



## Preius

freedombecki said:


> I'll chip in a one-way ticket to Moscow for any OWS gimme-gimme whiner who still hates free enterprise after cashing in his George Soros' sponsored check for those engaged in shitting on the sidewalks of WS.



You are not being very helpful.  The OWS are basically middle class teachers, firefighters, police etc, that are having their collective bargaining rights stolen by wannabe big shot politicians.  The rest are college students, and retirees.  Recently, some labor union folks have joined in, but have offered to help only if they not be asked to lead.

If you have anything but name-calling to offer, I would like to hear it.  Some how I get the feeling that you and others are making pre-emptive attacks despite Republicans flip flopping to support the 99%ers.  Maybe you see that spotlight of BLAME up ahead.  Like Joe Kennedy said, "It is not the facts, it is the perception that wins voters."  Democrats will catch some flack in all this, but the debt ceiling talks and The American Jobs Act look like what will swing the 2012 election to Obama.  Frankly, I wish we Dems could draft Hillary Clinton in 2012.

As a Dem I should be happy, but this nation can not stand 12 more months of gridlock, and 9+% unemployment.  I might actually feel sorry for Republicans, but they are the ones who made all the BIG PROMISES when the teabaggers went to Washington.  They will pay a price for over-selling just like Barry Obama is.


----------



## freedombecki

Preius said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll chip in a one-way ticket to Moscow for any OWS gimme-gimme whiner who still hates free enterprise after cashing in his George Soros' sponsored check for those engaged in shitting on the sidewalks of WS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not being very helpful.  The OWS are basically middle class teachers, firefighters, police etc, that are having their collective bargaining rights stolen by wannabe big shot politicians.  The rest are college students, and retirees.  Recently, some labor union folks have joined in, but have offered to help only if they not be asked to lead.
> 
> If you have anything but name-calling to offer, I would like to hear it.  Some how I get the feeling that you and others are making pre-emptive attacks despite Republicans flip flopping to support the 99%ers.  Maybe you see that spotlight of BLAME up ahead.  Like Joe Kennedy said, "It is not the facts, it is the perception that wins voters."  Democrats will catch some flack in all this, but the debt ceiling talks and The American Jobs Act look like what will swing the 2012 election to Obama.  Frankly, I wish we Dems could draft Hillary Clinton in 2012.
> 
> As a Dem I should be happy, but this nation can not stand 12 more months of gridlock, and 9+% unemployment.  I might actually feel sorry for Republicans, but they are the ones who made all the BIG PROMISES when the teabaggers went to Washington.  They will pay a price for over-selling just like Barry Obama is.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the OWS people are barking up the wrong tree.

In America, if you don't like the way your life is going, the way to go about changing it is to do something about your own life, not someone else's.

Attending a whinefest is genuinely not a positive step in gaining the good life. That comes from very hard work over a lot of years for those who earned it.


----------



## mudwhistle

Preius said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll chip in a one-way ticket to Moscow for any OWS gimme-gimme whiner who still hates free enterprise after cashing in his George Soros' sponsored check for those engaged in shitting on the sidewalks of WS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not being very helpful.  The OWS are basically middle class teachers, firefighters, police etc, that are having their collective bargaining rights stolen by wannabe big shot politicians.  The rest are college students, and retirees.  Recently, some labor union folks have joined in, but have offered to help only if they not be asked to lead.
> 
> If you have anything but name-calling to offer, I would like to hear it.  Some how I get the feeling that you and others are making pre-emptive attacks despite Republicans flip flopping to support the 99%ers.  Maybe you see that spotlight of BLAME up ahead.  Like Joe Kennedy said, "It is not the facts, it is the perception that wins voters."  Democrats will catch some flack in all this, but the debt ceiling talks and The American Jobs Act look like what will swing the 2012 election to Obama.  Frankly, I wish we Dems could draft Hillary Clinton in 2012.
> 
> As a Dem I should be happy, but this nation can not stand 12 more months of gridlock, and 9+% unemployment.  I might actually feel sorry for Republicans, but they are the ones who made all the BIG PROMISES when the teabaggers went to Washington.  They will pay a price for over-selling just like Barry Obama is.
Click to expand...


How bout 4 more years of gridlock and abusive government. How does that work for you???

Obama says he wants to bypass Congress and institute his brand of government by edict. 

I don't support authoritarian rule in America....regardless how much Firefighter unions and Teacher unions complain.


Oh, unemployment is in double-digits, not just 9%. They had to change the way they counted the unemployed to achieve 9%.


----------



## flacaltenn

Preius said:


> *What am I missing?*
> 
> I think like everyone when the 99% movement started a month ago, I was curious, and a little nervous but positively excited.
> 
> Republican Eric Canter came out very strong against the 99%, but never really gave a reason.
> 
> A co-founder of the Tea Party has come out in favor of the 99% Occupy Wall Street, OWS.  [url=http://occupywallstreet.thoughts.com/mnicholson2/tea-party-co-founder-expresses-support-for-occupy-wall-street]Tea Party co-founder expresses support for Occupy Wall Street - thoughts.com conversation engine[/URL]
> 
> *My question is why would ANYONE be against the 99% unless they are the 1%?  With all the ideas floating around, one concern remains the same - ending the relationship between money and influence in Washington.  How can anyone possibly be against that?  If you can please share your thoughts.*



That sounds pretty arrogant actually. There's 2 things that really piss me off. Folks who think they have a claim to my above average stuff -- and folks who claim to speak for me.
Especially coming from a movement that after 30 days of existence are better known for their toiletry habits than their ability to articulate any complicated political issues. 

There is NOT and NEVER will be a 99% consensus on politics in America. It's not because of money -- it's because of convictions. The OWS movement is NOT a consensus -- it's only an ANTI-1% happening. 

Specifically --- """ HOW can anyone possible be against that? (ending the relationship between money and politics in Washington)""" Because we DON'T agree on the CAUSE of that relationship. You don't speak for my deepest conviction that the 535 Clowns in Congress are INCAPABLE of contributing anything valuable to MICROMANAGING the marketplace. Right now today --- they are debating whether the World Series should BAN chewing tobacco... These are same clowns who (again ARROGANTLY) think they understand the details of EVERY business from potatoes to nuclear power plants. 

And the expectation that I'm sure YOU HAVE and share with OWS is if we just PUMMELED the 1% and took their stuff -- that America would heal and prosper. In reality, you'd have to pry that loot out of the hands of the same CLOWNS that have too much affection for spending Other People's Money. Dreams of socialist REDISTRIBUTION would NEVER come true. And then we'd STILL be facing an eroding standard of living in America because NO ONE --- especially the street actors of OWS is solving the REAL employment and wealth gap problems. 

It's pretty much over Preius. America wants ANSWERS -- not street theatre and slogans. I hope you haven't wasted too much of your wealth supporting this reality TV series.. 

Stop claiming to speak for the 99%. It's annoying...


----------



## Big Fitz

Synthaholic said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a cold dash of water to snap some of you OWS delusional batshit crazy dipshits out of your coma:
> 
> The Tea Party (despite what some dopes claim) is NOT at all akin to the OWS Soros' Bitches.
> 
> Soros' Bitches are fundamentally anti-Capitalist.  They do not seek to REFORM the greed out of Capitalism.  They fool nobody who isn't already intent on being "fooled."  Those bitches want to eradicate Capitalism.
> 
> By contrast, the Tea Party Movement adherents approve of Capitalism.  The dislike of the bailouts is completely consistent with being in favor of Capitalism.  Sharing the OWS dislike of "greed" is not inconsistent with favoring Capitalism, either.  Tea Party adherents want ah honest, level, legal playing field.
> 
> How many anarchists or Marxists identify with the Tea Party Movement?
> 
> That's right.  None.
> 
> 
> 
> Sooooorrrrrroooooossssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> damn, you'll believe anything Limbaugh tells you.
Click to expand...

And you obviously believe any bilge pumped by moveon.org, mediamatters, daily kos, huffpoo, or the NY Times.

I dunno.  If I believed them, I'd probably sound nutty too.


----------



## Stephanie

Preius said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll chip in a one-way ticket to Moscow for any OWS gimme-gimme whiner who still hates free enterprise after cashing in his George Soros' sponsored check for those engaged in shitting on the sidewalks of WS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not being very helpful.  The OWS are basically middle class teachers, firefighters, police etc, that are having their collective bargaining rights stolen by wannabe big shot politicians.  The rest are college students, and retirees.  Recently, some labor union folks have joined in, but have offered to help only if they not be asked to lead.
> 
> If you have anything but name-calling to offer, I would like to hear it.  Some how I get the feeling that you and others are making pre-emptive attacks despite Republicans flip flopping to support the 99%ers.  Maybe you see that spotlight of BLAME up ahead.  Like Joe Kennedy said, "It is not the facts, it is the perception that wins voters."  Democrats will catch some flack in all this, but the debt ceiling talks and The American Jobs Act look like what will swing the 2012 election to Obama.  Frankly, I wish we Dems could draft Hillary Clinton in 2012.
> 
> As a Dem I should be happy, but this nation can not stand 12 more months of gridlock, and 9+% unemployment.  I might actually feel sorry for Republicans, but they are the ones who made all the BIG PROMISES when the teabaggers went to Washington.  They will pay a price for over-selling just like Barry Obama is.
Click to expand...


ah yes, them TeaBaggers. Like none of them were teachers, firefighters, etc etc.
But hey, this OWS is HUGE.........HUGE they tell us. and they are going to stay put and hold their breaths and stomp their feet UNTIL..


----------



## Sunni Man

The need to take a shower OWS "Flea Party" protesters are a bunch of brain dead retards.


----------



## percysunshine

Preius said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll chip in a one-way ticket to Moscow for any OWS gimme-gimme whiner who still hates free enterprise after cashing in his George Soros' sponsored check for those engaged in shitting on the sidewalks of WS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not being very helpful.  The OWS are basically middle class teachers, firefighters, police etc, that are having their collective bargaining rights stolen by wannabe big shot politicians.  The rest are college students, and retirees.  Recently, some labor union folks have joined in, but have offered to help only if they not be asked to lead.
> 
> If you have anything but name-calling to offer, I would like to hear it.  Some how I get the feeling that you and others are making pre-emptive attacks despite Republicans flip flopping to support the 99%ers.  Maybe you see that spotlight of BLAME up ahead.  Like Joe Kennedy said, "It is not the facts, it is the perception that wins voters."  Democrats will catch some flack in all this, but the debt ceiling talks and The American Jobs Act look like what will swing the 2012 election to Obama.  Frankly, I wish we Dems could draft Hillary Clinton in 2012.
> 
> As a Dem I should be happy, but this nation can not stand 12 more months of gridlock, and 9+% unemployment.  I might actually feel sorry for Republicans, but they are the ones who made all the BIG PROMISES when the teabaggers went to Washington.  They will pay a price for over-selling just like Barry Obama is.
Click to expand...


Those fire fighters sure have nice tits.


----------



## The Gadfly

konradv said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like anyone gives two hoots for the opinion of the board Nazi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, I'm not Lahkota.
> 
> Show the class where I have EVER posted anything anti-Semitic.
> 
> Oh that's right, you're a leftist - IOW a fucking liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were anti-Semitic, I said you were a NAZI.  Much trouble reading?  You have all the NAZI earmarks, shouting down opponents with usually baseless charges and acting like they're enemies rather than a "loyal oposition".  It's all in the NAZI handbook, which apparently you have memoroized, Little Adoph.
Click to expand...


Well, well, well, there it is, the same old tired Leftist canard; call anyone who dares disagree with you Bolsheviks a "Nazi". That one is about fifty years old, now, and it's gotten stale; that tends to happen, when you use nasty labels just for "shock value"; after a while, those words lose their sting. Your sort have done the same with "racism" until that one doesn't mean anything either. No one, except the ideologues on your side, gives a damn anymore. Now go ahead, call ME a Nazi; hell, I got called that, along with "war criminal", murderer", and "baby killer", for serving my country. The people doing it were your dirty, unwashed, cowardly, Marxist, hippie predecessors. I did not care what they thought, and likewise, I do not care what YOU think either. Damn right, you people are my enemies!


----------



## The Gadfly

Preius said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll chip in a one-way ticket to Moscow for any OWS gimme-gimme whiner who still hates free enterprise after cashing in his George Soros' sponsored check for those engaged in shitting on the sidewalks of WS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not being very helpful.  The OWS are basically middle class teachers, firefighters, police etc, that are having their collective bargaining rights stolen by wannabe big shot politicians.  The rest are college students, and retirees.  Recently, some labor union folks have joined in, but have offered to help only if they not be asked to lead.
> 
> If you have anything but name-calling to offer, I would like to hear it.  Some how I get the feeling that you and others are making pre-emptive attacks despite Republicans flip flopping to support the 99%ers.  Maybe you see that spotlight of BLAME up ahead.  Like Joe Kennedy said, "It is not the facts, it is the perception that wins voters."  Democrats will catch some flack in all this, but the debt ceiling talks and The American Jobs Act look like what will swing the 2012 election to Obama.  Frankly, I wish we Dems could draft Hillary Clinton in 2012.
> 
> As a Dem I should be happy, but this nation can not stand 12 more months of gridlock, and 9+% unemployment.  I might actually feel sorry for Republicans, but they are the ones who made all the BIG PROMISES when the teabaggers went to Washington.  They will pay a price for over-selling just like Barry Obama is.
Click to expand...


This little "movement, such as it is, has NOTHING to offer America but empty slogans, meaningless demands, filthy habits, execrable street theater, and , most of all, inarticulate hatred and envy of those who have more than they do. They haven't even the courage of a common thief,the coward want government to do their thieving for them. What a load of empty, whining, pathetic losers. THIS is what you support? THIS is the "vanguard of the revolution"? This dirty, flea and louse infested rabble couldn't start a revolt in a two-bit banana republic if their lives depended on it! All sound and fury signifying nothing; if they weren't so filled with hate, they'd be comical, and there's nothing behind them, but idle talk and empty threats.


----------



## theliq

Trouble is WANKERS got most Americans in the trouble they are in.....YOU NEED A CHANGE OF CULTURE (GREED IS GOOD MENTALITY IS NEARLY OVER) which will be great..America LAND OF THE REPUBLICAN BULL SHITTERS(you know the scumbags)


freedombecki said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll chip in a one-way ticket to Moscow for any OWS gimme-gimme whiner who still hates free enterprise after cashing in his George Soros' sponsored check for those engaged in shitting on the sidewalks of WS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not being very helpful.  The OWS are basically middle class teachers, firefighters, police etc, that are having their collective bargaining rights stolen by wannabe big shot politicians.  The rest are college students, and retirees.  Recently, some labor union folks have joined in, but have offered to help only if they not be asked to lead.
> 
> If you have anything but name-calling to offer, I would like to hear it.  Some how I get the feeling that you and others are making pre-emptive attacks despite Republicans flip flopping to support the 99%ers.  Maybe you see that spotlight of BLAME up ahead.  Like Joe Kennedy said, "It is not the facts, it is the perception that wins voters."  Democrats will catch some flack in all this, but the debt ceiling talks and The American Jobs Act look like what will swing the 2012 election to Obama.  Frankly, I wish we Dems could draft Hillary Clinton in 2012.
> 
> As a Dem I should be happy, but this nation can not stand 12 more months of gridlock, and 9+% unemployment.  I might actually feel sorry for Republicans, but they are the ones who made all the BIG PROMISES when the teabaggers went to Washington.  They will pay a price for over-selling just like Barry Obama is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, the OWS people are barking up the wrong tree.
> 
> In America, if you don't like the way your life is going, the way to go about changing it is to do something about your own life, not someone else's.
> 
> Attending a whinefest is genuinely not a positive step in gaining the good life. That comes from very hard work over a lot of years for those who earned it.
Click to expand...


----------



## theliq

AND YOU ARE STILL SITTING YOUR BIG FAT ASS ON THE FENCE<DOING NOTHING AS USUAL............I'm theliq


flacaltenn said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What am I missing?*
> 
> I think like everyone when the 99% movement started a month ago, I was curious, and a little nervous but positively excited.
> 
> Republican Eric Canter came out very strong against the 99%, but never really gave a reason.
> 
> A co-founder of the Tea Party has come out in favor of the 99% Occupy Wall Street, OWS.  [url=http://occupywallstreet.thoughts.com/mnicholson2/tea-party-co-founder-expresses-support-for-occupy-wall-street]Tea Party co-founder expresses support for Occupy Wall Street - thoughts.com conversation engine[/URL]
> 
> *My question is why would ANYONE be against the 99% unless they are the 1%?  With all the ideas floating around, one concern remains the same - ending the relationship between money and influence in Washington.  How can anyone possibly be against that?  If you can please share your thoughts.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds pretty arrogant actually. There's 2 things that really piss me off. Folks who think they have a claim to my above average stuff -- and folks who claim to speak for me.
> Especially coming from a movement that after 30 days of existence are better known for their toiletry habits than their ability to articulate any complicated political issues.
> 
> There is NOT and NEVER will be a 99% consensus on politics in America. It's not because of money -- it's because of convictions. The OWS movement is NOT a consensus -- it's only an ANTI-1% happening.
> 
> Specifically --- """ HOW can anyone possible be against that? (ending the relationship between money and politics in Washington)""" Because we DON'T agree on the CAUSE of that relationship. You don't speak for my deepest conviction that the 535 Clowns in Congress are INCAPABLE of contributing anything valuable to MICROMANAGING the marketplace. Right now today --- they are debating whether the World Series should BAN chewing tobacco... These are same clowns who (again ARROGANTLY) think they understand the details of EVERY business from potatoes to nuclear power plants.
> 
> And the expectation that I'm sure YOU HAVE and share with OWS is if we just PUMMELED the 1% and took their stuff -- that America would heal and prosper. In reality, you'd have to pry that loot out of the hands of the same CLOWNS that have too much affection for spending Other People's Money. Dreams of socialist REDISTRIBUTION would NEVER come true. And then we'd STILL be facing an eroding standard of living in America because NO ONE --- especially the street actors of OWS is solving the REAL employment and wealth gap problems.
> 
> It's pretty much over Preius. America wants ANSWERS -- not street theatre and slogans. I hope you haven't wasted too much of your wealth supporting this reality TV series..
> 
> Stop claiming to speak for the 99%. It's annoying...
Click to expand...


----------



## theliq

THE PIC.....Good Americans Praying for a better America for ALL.......as for all you lemmings(conservatives) SUCK ON and SUCK OFF...theliq


Preius said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll chip in a one-way ticket to Moscow for any OWS gimme-gimme whiner who still hates free enterprise after cashing in his George Soros' sponsored check for those engaged in shitting on the sidewalks of WS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not being very helpful.  The OWS are basically middle class teachers, firefighters, police etc, that are having their collective bargaining rights stolen by wannabe big shot politicians.  The rest are college students, and retirees.  Recently, some labor union folks have joined in, but have offered to help only if they not be asked to lead.
> 
> If you have anything but name-calling to offer, I would like to hear it.  Some how I get the feeling that you and others are making pre-emptive attacks despite Republicans flip flopping to support the 99%ers.  Maybe you see that spotlight of BLAME up ahead.  Like Joe Kennedy said, "It is not the facts, it is the perception that wins voters."  Democrats will catch some flack in all this, but the debt ceiling talks and The American Jobs Act look like what will swing the 2012 election to Obama.  Frankly, I wish we Dems could draft Hillary Clinton in 2012.
> 
> As a Dem I should be happy, but this nation can not stand 12 more months of gridlock, and 9+% unemployment.  I might actually feel sorry for Republicans, but they are the ones who made all the BIG PROMISES when the teabaggers went to Washington.  They will pay a price for over-selling just like Barry Obama is.
Click to expand...


----------



## chanel

"SUCK ON and SUCK OFF"?  Nice.  Do you kiss your mommy with that mouth?




> A convicted felon believed to be part of the Occupy Seattle protest was arrested at the demonstration after he was found carrying an unloaded rifle in a bag, along with 16 rounds of ammunition, police said on Tuesday.



Man with rifle arrested at Occupy Seattle protest - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com


----------



## editec

> My question is why would ANYONE be against the 99% unless they are the 1%?


 
The LOYAL SERVANT syndrome.


----------



## Dragon

More data on the movement. This is a web poll from the OWS website, and normally web polls aren't terribly accurate, but in view of how wired the participants are this may be an exception. It's a poll of participants in the movement to determine demographic factors. You can find the details here: 70% of #OWS Supporters are Politically Independent | OccupyWallSt.org

Here are some of the results:

64.2% of respondents were younger than 34 years of age.

While the sample is relatively young, one in three respondents is older than 35 and one in five respondents is 45 and older.

7.9% of respondents have a high school degree or less.

92.1% of the sample has some college, a college degree, or a graduate degree.

27.4% have some college (but no degree), 35% have a college degree, 8.2% have some graduate school (but no degree), and close to 21.5% have a graduate school degree.

This is a highly educated sample.

26.7% of respondents were enrolled in school and 73.3% were not enrolled in school.

50.4% were employed full-time and an additional 20.4% were employed part-time.

13.1% of the sample are unemployed.

2.6% of respondents were retired, 1.3% disabled, 2.6% homemakers and 9.7% are full-time students.

47.5% of the sample earns less than $24,999 dollars a year and another quarter (24%) earn between $25,000 and $49,999 per year.

71.5% of the sample earns less than $50,000 per year.

15.4% of the sample earned between $50,000 and $74,999.

The remainder 13% of the sample earn over $75,000 with close to 2% earning over $150,000 per year.

27.3% of respondents considered themselves Democrats, another 2.4% said they were Republican.

Interestingly, a very large proportion of the sample, close to 70.3%, considered themselves Independents.

66.4% in the sample agree somewhat or strongly that they regularly use Facebook.

28.9% in the sample agree somewhat or strongly that they regularly use Twitter.

73.9% in the sample agree somewhat or strongly that they regularly use YouTube.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> More data on the movement. This is a web poll from the OWS website, and normally web polls aren't terribly accurate, but in view of how wired the participants are this may be an exception. It's a poll of participants in the movement to determine demographic factors. You can find the details here: 70% of #OWS Supporters are Politically Independent | OccupyWallSt.org
> 
> Here are some of the results:
> 
> 64.2% of respondents were younger than 34 years of age.
> 
> While the sample is relatively young, one in three respondents is older than 35 and one in five respondents is 45 and older.
> 
> 7.9% of respondents have a high school degree or less.
> 
> 92.1% of the sample has some college, a college degree, or a graduate degree.
> 
> 27.4% have some college (but no degree), 35% have a college degree, 8.2% have some graduate school (but no degree), and close to 21.5% have a graduate school degree.
> 
> This is a highly educated sample.
> 
> 26.7% of respondents were enrolled in school and 73.3% were not enrolled in school.
> 
> 50.4% were employed full-time and an additional 20.4% were employed part-time.
> 
> 13.1% of the sample are unemployed.
> 
> 2.6% of respondents were retired, 1.3% disabled, 2.6% homemakers and 9.7% are full-time students.
> 
> 47.5% of the sample earns less than $24,999 dollars a year and another quarter (24%) earn between $25,000 and $49,999 per year.
> 
> 71.5% of the sample earns less than $50,000 per year.
> 
> 15.4% of the sample earned between $50,000 and $74,999.
> 
> The remainder 13% of the sample earn over $75,000 with close to 2% earning over $150,000 per year.
> 
> 27.3% of respondents considered themselves Democrats, another 2.4% said they were Republican.
> 
> Interestingly, a very large proportion of the sample, close to 70.3%, considered themselves Independents.
> 
> 66.4% in the sample agree somewhat or strongly that they regularly use Facebook.
> 
> 28.9% in the sample agree somewhat or strongly that they regularly use Twitter.
> 
> 73.9% in the sample agree somewhat or strongly that they regularly use YouTube.



I figure that anyone who said he was a Republican had better not let it out. 

The almost 65% who said they were independent were mostly Dems that don't like Congress but will vote for Obama. Saying you're independant just sounds more cool. 

And if they're so educated why aren't they protesting at the real source of or economic woes? Obama and the Democratically controlled Senate?


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> I figure in that anyone who said he was a Republican had better not let it out.



You need to stop pulling your figuring out of your ass and start actually studying the thing you're "figuring" about. Trust me, it works much better.


----------



## flacaltenn

flacaltenn said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> *What am I missing?*
> 
> I think like everyone when the 99% movement started a month ago, I was curious, and a little nervous but positively excited.
> 
> Republican Eric Canter came out very strong against the 99%, but never really gave a reason.
> 
> A co-founder of the Tea Party has come out in favor of the 99% Occupy Wall Street, OWS.  [url=http://occupywallstreet.thoughts.com/mnicholson2/tea-party-co-founder-expresses-support-for-occupy-wall-street]Tea Party co-founder expresses support for Occupy Wall Street - thoughts.com conversation engine[/URL]
> 
> *My question is why would ANYONE be against the 99% unless they are the 1%?  With all the ideas floating around, one concern remains the same - ending the relationship between money and influence in Washington.  How can anyone possibly be against that?  If you can please share your thoughts.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds pretty arrogant actually. There's 2 things that really piss me off. Folks who think they have a claim to my above average stuff -- and folks who claim to speak for me.
> Especially coming from a movement that after 30 days of existence are better known for their toiletry habits than their ability to articulate any complicated political issues.
> 
> There is NOT and NEVER will be a 99% consensus on politics in America. It's not because of money -- it's because of convictions. The OWS movement is NOT a consensus -- it's only an ANTI-1% happening.
> 
> Specifically --- """ HOW can anyone possible be against that? (ending the relationship between money and politics in Washington)""" Because we DON'T agree on the CAUSE of that relationship. You don't speak for my deepest conviction that the 535 Clowns in Congress are INCAPABLE of contributing anything valuable to MICROMANAGING the marketplace. Right now today --- they are debating whether the World Series should BAN chewing tobacco... These are same clowns who (again ARROGANTLY) think they understand the details of EVERY business from potatoes to nuclear power plants.
> 
> And the expectation that I'm sure YOU HAVE and share with OWS is if we just PUMMELED the 1% and took their stuff -- that America would heal and prosper. In reality, you'd have to pry that loot out of the hands of the same CLOWNS that have too much affection for spending Other People's Money. Dreams of socialist REDISTRIBUTION would NEVER come true. And then we'd STILL be facing an eroding standard of living in America because NO ONE --- especially the street actors of OWS is solving the REAL employment and wealth gap problems.
> 
> It's pretty much over Preius. America wants ANSWERS -- not street theatre and slogans. I hope you haven't wasted too much of your wealth supporting this reality TV series..
> 
> Stop claiming to speak for the 99%. It's annoying...
Click to expand...




theliq said:


> AND YOU ARE STILL SITTING YOUR BIG FAT ASS ON THE FENCE<DOING NOTHING AS USUAL............I'm theliq



That's DOUBLY arrogant since you have NO idea of what I've been doing for a decade or so in politics.. What IS it with you guys? You think you've discovered the the Holy Grail or sumthin'. I've been spending LOADS of my time challenging bad ballot access laws in all 50 states so that shitters like you might have more choices at the ballot box.. 

STFU already... You're done..


----------



## Uncensored2008

Preius said:


> You are not being very helpful.  The OWS are basically middle class teachers, firefighters, police etc, that are having their collective bargaining rights stolen by wannabe big shot politicians.



So exactly as I have said all along, these are the Public Employee Unions demanding "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee."

They are the 7% that the rest of the nation exists to support and pamper.



> The rest are college students, and retirees.  Recently, some labor union folks have joined in, but have offered to help only if they not be asked to lead.
> 
> If you have anything but name-calling to offer, I would like to hear it.  Some how I get the feeling that you and others are making pre-emptive attacks despite Republicans flip flopping to support the 99%ers.  Maybe you see that spotlight of BLAME up ahead.  Like Joe Kennedy said, "It is not the facts, it is the perception that wins voters."  Democrats will catch some flack in all this, but the debt ceiling talks and The American Jobs Act look like what will swing the 2012 election to Obama.  Frankly, I wish we Dems could draft Hillary Clinton in 2012.
> 
> As a Dem I should be happy, but this nation can not stand 12 more months of gridlock, and 9+% unemployment.  I might actually feel sorry for Republicans, but they are the ones who made all the BIG PROMISES when the teabaggers went to Washington.  They will pay a price for over-selling just like Barry Obama is.


----------



## Uncensored2008

chanel said:


> "SUCK ON and SUCK OFF"?  Nice.  Do you kiss your mommy with that mouth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A convicted felon believed to be part of the Occupy Seattle protest was arrested at the demonstration after he was found carrying an unloaded rifle in a bag, along with 16 rounds of ammunition, police said on Tuesday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man with rifle arrested at Occupy Seattle protest - US news - Crime & courts - msnbc.com
Click to expand...


What grounds do they have to arrest him?

Do felons lose their rights in Washington? If not, he has a right to arms per the 2nd amendment.


----------



## konradv

The Gadfly said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid, I'm not Lahkota.
> 
> Show the class where I have EVER posted anything anti-Semitic.
> 
> Oh that's right, you're a leftist - IOW a fucking liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were anti-Semitic, I said you were a NAZI.  Much trouble reading?  You have all the NAZI earmarks, shouting down opponents with usually baseless charges and acting like they're enemies rather than a "loyal oposition".  It's all in the NAZI handbook, which apparently you have memoroized, Little Adoph.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, well, well, there it is, the same old tired Leftist canard; *call anyone who dares disagree with you Bolsheviks* a "Nazi". That one is about fifty years old, now, and it's gotten stale; that tends to happen, when you use nasty labels just for "shock value"; after a while, those words lose their sting. Your sort have done the same with "racism" until that one doesn't mean anything either. No one, except the ideologues on your side, gives a damn anymore. Now go ahead, call ME a Nazi; hell, I got called that, along with "war criminal", murderer", and "baby killer", for serving my country. The people doing it were your dirty, unwashed, cowardly, Marxist, hippie predecessors. I did not care what they thought, and likewise, I do not care what YOU think either. Damn right, you people are my enemies!
Click to expand...


Uncensored started the game.  Don't whine about it now.  Anyone that spouts the Marxist/ Commie crap is going to get Nazi crap right back.  You've been warned.  Perhaps you should have read the WHOLE thread before shooting your mouth off, Benito (Adolph's dumber country cousin)!!!


----------



## Dragon

konradv said:


> Uncensored started the game.  Don't whine about it now.  Anyone that spouts the Marxist/ Commie crap is going to get Nazi crap right back.



To be honest, I consider that a rather pointless debating tactic. It just reinforces the ongoing irrationality.


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> Uncensored started the game.  Don't whine about it now.  Anyone that spouts the Marxist/ Commie crap is going to get Nazi crap right back.  You've been warned.  Perhaps you should have read the WHOLE thread before shooting your mouth off, Benito (Adolph's dumber country cousin)!!!



Konrad;

Anyone ever let you in on the fact that you're quite stupid?


----------



## editec

It scares the bejsus outa the Manor born and their tools when the people take to the streets.

It scared them when the Tea Party folks stood up and bitched and it scares them even worse when the OWS folks showed up.

Now imagine what they're going to feel like when these two groups finally realize that they're on the SAME SIDE?

Oh that will happen when things go from bad to worse.

Eventually the house slaves will also be jettisoned from the manor, too.

When the POLICE are targeted, and the military are targeted, they too will realize that the lifeboat that th superrich have doesn't have any seats reserved for THEMN EITHER.

One thing history has taught me?

The ECONOMIC TRUTH_ will OUT._

Lies, however cleverly they are crafted, cannot sustain themselves when _REALITY keeps beating at the door._


----------



## Uncensored2008

editec said:


> It scares the bejsus outa the Manor born and their tools when the people take to the streets.



Doesn't appear that they care at all.

Of course, this is just the Public Employee Unions demanding that they be able to continue to rape the middle class without restraint.

No effect on Soros and the Plutocrats.



> It scared them when the Tea Party folks stood up and bitched and it scares them even worse when the OWS folks showed up.
> 
> Now imagine what they're going to feel like when these two groups finally realize that they're on the SAME SIDE?



They aren't on the same side.

The SEIU goons of the Shitter Revolution want to take from the Tea Party people to feather their own nests.



> Oh that will happen when things go from bad to worse.
> 
> Eventually the house slaves will also be jettisoned from the manor, too.
> 
> When the POLICE are targeted, and the military are targeted, they too will realize that the lifeboat that th superrich have doesn't have any seats reserved for THEMN EITHER.



Are you on drugs?



> One thing history has taught me?
> 
> The ECONOMIC TRUTH_ will OUT._



Then you know nothing of history.



> Lies, however cleverly they are crafted, cannot sustain themselves when _REALITY keeps beating at the door._



Go back to your XBox - you live in a fantasy.


----------



## Oldstyle

editec said:


> It scares the bejsus outa the Manor born and their tools when the people take to the streets.
> 
> It scared them when the Tea Party folks stood up and bitched and it scares them even worse when the OWS folks showed up.
> 
> Now imagine what they're going to feel like when these two groups finally realize that they're on the SAME SIDE?
> 
> Oh that will happen when things go from bad to worse.
> 
> Eventually the house slaves will also be jettisoned from the manor, too.
> 
> When the POLICE are targeted, and the military are targeted, they too will realize that the lifeboat that th superrich have doesn't have any seats reserved for THEMN EITHER.
> 
> One thing history has taught me?
> 
> The ECONOMIC TRUTH_ will OUT._
> 
> Lies, however cleverly they are crafted, cannot sustain themselves when _REALITY keeps beating at the door._



The reality that is beating at our door is what's happening in Greece right now.  The masses are in the streets over there screaming their outrage because entitlements they thought were a right can no longer be paid for and are being taken away.  Our system of entitlements are on the fast track to insolvency as well and if we continue down the path we are on the result will be the same as with Greece.  The OWS protesters aren't calling for anything that will FIX what's broken...they're simply ignoring what's really wrong with our economy while ranting about "the 1%".


----------



## Dragon

Oldstyle said:


> The reality that is beating at our door is what's happening in Greece right now.  The masses are in the streets over there screaming their outrage because entitlements they thought were a right can no longer be paid for and are being taken away.



Of course they can be paid for. The need for austerity in response to a temporary economic downturn and consequent temporary shortfall in tax revenues is a lie. And that goes for us, too; the more so, as it seems only those of limited means are expected to tighten their belts. Austerity for the middle class and poor, indulgence for the rich -- that ain't gonna fly, bub.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality that is beating at our door is what's happening in Greece right now.  The masses are in the streets over there screaming their outrage because entitlements they thought were a right can no longer be paid for and are being taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can be paid for. .
Click to expand...




You should really go and serve as Greek Economic Minister. You seem to have just the right mindset.


----------



## flacaltenn

Unkotare said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reality that is beating at our door is what's happening in Greece right now.  The masses are in the streets over there screaming their outrage because entitlements they thought were a right can no longer be paid for and are being taken away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they can be paid for. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should really go and serve as Greek Economic Minister. You seem to have just the right mindset.
Click to expand...


THAT's IT!!! Absolutely Brilliant!!! Greece is already 89% of the Socialist Nirvana that our Lefties want.  

 LET'S BUY IT FOR THEM !!!!

Send ALL of our Lefty Board Buddies over there to save it.. 

It's a virtual steal right now. Even pay for their relocation. They can go after those 26 Greek Billionaires and have a WONDERFUL time ignoring the debt crisis that Dragon says isn't a problem. If all these whiners can FIX Greece with their moronic ideas, I'll vote Obama in 2012..


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> THAT's IT!!! Absolutely Brilliant!!! Greece is already 89% of the Socialist Nirvana that our Lefties want.
> 
> LET'S BUY IT FOR THEM !!!!
> 
> Send ALL of our Lefty Board Buddies over there to save it..
> 
> It's a virtual steal right now. Even pay for their relocation. They can go after those 26 Greek Billionaires and have a WONDERFUL time ignoring the debt crisis that Dragon says isn't a problem. If all these whiners can FIX Greece with their moronic ideas, I'll vote Obama in 2012..



I have Unkotare on ignore because he's an asshole, and because almost always his obnoxious posts contain no arguments, facts, evidence or any redeeming value -- they're nothing BUT assholiness. Please don't encourage him. And especially, please don't imitate him. You're better than that.

The debt "crisis" is overblown. We don't have a debt crisis, we have a maldistribution crisis that has reset the economy at a lower level and reduced tax revenues, resulting in an increase of the deficit. Austerity measures will make the underlying problem worse. That's just as true in Europe as it is here, or almost.

To make fun of that argument instead of trying to refute it is just lazy. I would expect that kind of bullshit from Unkotare. I don't expect if from you.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> I have Unkotare on ignore because he's an asshole, and because almost always his obnoxious posts contain no arguments, facts, evidence or any redeeming value -- they're nothing BUT assholiness.



You have everyone who kicks your ass on ignore, which is to say that anyone you engage in debate will end up on ignore.

IOW, you're an intellectual lightweight and a coward.



> Please don't encourage him. And especially, please don't imitate him. You're better than that.
> 
> The debt "crisis" is overblown. We don't have a debt crisis, we have a maldistribution crisis that has reset the economy at a lower level and reduced tax revenues, resulting in an increase of the deficit. Austerity measures will make the underlying problem worse. That's just as true in Europe as it is here, or almost.



ROFL

This is why people mock you. You say the most ridiculous things, totally divorced from reality.



> To make fun of that argument instead of trying to refute it is just lazy. I would expect that kind of bullshit from Unkotare. I don't expect if from you.



When a moron like you demands that "water is dry," there is nothing to be gained by refuting your idiocy, better to mock you.

BTW, you ignoring the mocking really has no bearing, we still demonstrate what a fool you are.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> THAT's IT!!! Absolutely Brilliant!!! Greece is already 89% of the Socialist Nirvana that our Lefties want.
> 
> LET'S BUY IT FOR THEM !!!!
> 
> Send ALL of our Lefty Board Buddies over there to save it..
> 
> It's a virtual steal right now. Even pay for their relocation. They can go after those 26 Greek Billionaires and have a WONDERFUL time ignoring the debt crisis that Dragon says isn't a problem. If all these whiners can FIX Greece with their moronic ideas, I'll vote Obama in 2012..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have Unkotare on ignore because he's an asshole, and because almost always his obnoxious posts contain no arguments, facts, evidence or any redeeming value -- they're nothing BUT assholiness. Please don't encourage him. And especially, please don't imitate him. You're better than that.
> 
> The debt "crisis" is overblown. We don't have a debt crisis, we have a maldistribution crisis that has reset the economy at a lower level and reduced tax revenues, resulting in an increase of the deficit. Austerity measures will make the underlying problem worse. That's just as true in Europe as it is here, or almost.
> 
> To make fun of that argument instead of trying to refute it is just lazy. I would expect that kind of bullshit from Unkotare. I don't expect if from you.
Click to expand...


Well Unkotare generally has HIGH REGARD for you Dragon -- because he nominated you to be the next Greek Finance Minister.. 

This last post of yours is where you drive the car into the ditch.. There is nothing more naive than to believe that attacking the carcass of a stagnant economy is actually gonna result in prosperity and redistribution. You have NO evidence that the measly $100Bill or so in revenue that all this whining is about will end up in the pockets of the bottom 10%. Especially if your leadership continues to ignore the REAL changes to America that need to happen to STOP the decline in standard of living. Because you somehow have faith that the College of Clowns is not gonna just piss away the additional cash. That we have 535 of the brightness and most nimble minds in the country just itching to fix problems. It's that unhealthy bromance that you have with Political leadership that is clouding your reasoning..

You will never secure a better future for the lower 50% of America by simply moving EXISTING wealth around. THAT'S why you NEED A CONVINCING PLAN for your pirate booty. You don't get that. Your Union doesn't get that. And the ropeadopes in the streets don't get that either.


----------



## The Gadfly

konradv said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you were anti-Semitic, I said you were a NAZI.  Much trouble reading?  You have all the NAZI earmarks, shouting down opponents with usually baseless charges and acting like they're enemies rather than a "loyal oposition".  It's all in the NAZI handbook, which apparently you have memoroized, Little Adoph.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, well, well, there it is, the same old tired Leftist canard; *call anyone who dares disagree with you Bolsheviks* a "Nazi". That one is about fifty years old, now, and it's gotten stale; that tends to happen, when you use nasty labels just for "shock value"; after a while, those words lose their sting. Your sort have done the same with "racism" until that one doesn't mean anything either. No one, except the ideologues on your side, gives a damn anymore. Now go ahead, call ME a Nazi; hell, I got called that, along with "war criminal", murderer", and "baby killer", for serving my country. The people doing it were your dirty, unwashed, cowardly, Marxist, hippie predecessors. I did not care what they thought, and likewise, I do not care what YOU think either. Damn right, you people are my enemies!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncensored started the game.  Don't whine about it now.  Anyone that spouts the Marxist/ Commie crap is going to get Nazi crap right back.  You've been warned.  Perhaps you should have read the WHOLE thread before shooting your mouth off, Benito (Adolph's dumber country cousin)!!!
Click to expand...

In case you failed to notice, your friend Dragon already admitted that, while he does not necessarily subscribe to every single tenet of Marxist dogma, he DOES agree in principle with most of it. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and SAYS it's a duck......

Now that we have that out of the way, didn't anyone teach you not to address your superiors by their first name? That's "Don Benito" or "Il Duce" to you,_ Compagnolo_!


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCV4WSegGF0&feature=feedu]Satan Behind Occupy Wall Street? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Kooshdakhaa

Dragon said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> But there is a list - from the protesters - or are you saying that that list is so fucking ridiculous that you're trying to disassociate yourselves from it now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am saying that the list you are talking about IS NOT from "the protesters." It is from one single person posting somewhere or other under a banner that is also used by a semi-official site (there is no real-true official site). I have gone to that semi-official site and not found that page with the list of demands anywhere. If it's there at all, it's on the forum somewhere buried deep down. That could be. Or it could be that someone ripped off the masthead and is using it to create a hoax.
> 
> Either way, it is NOT a list of demands by the movement.
Click to expand...


Well, I wish they did have a list of demands, then maybe I'd know what the hell it is they want.

I find their message to be very foggy.  Why aren't they working? If I wasn't working I'd have to be aggressively seeking work, not fooling around at a protest.  Who supports them?  Welfare?  Unemployment?  Family members?  Are they spending all their savings so they can occupy Wallstreet instead of working?  Not too bright.  I HAVE TO work.

What exactly is it they want?  Sounds like they have issues with Capitalism.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Kooshdakhaa said:


> Well, I wish they did have a list of demands, then maybe I'd know what the hell it is they want.
> 
> I find their message to be very foggy.  Why aren't they working? If I wasn't working I'd have to be aggressively seeking work, not fooling around at a protest.  Who supports them?  Welfare?  Unemployment?  Family members?  Are they spending all their savings so they can occupy Wallstreet instead of working?  Not too bright.  I HAVE TO work.
> 
> What exactly is it they want?  Sounds like they have issues with Capitalism.



Their demands are simple;
"Gimmee gimmee gimmee."


----------



## Kooshdakhaa

Uncensored2008 said:


> Kooshdakhaa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I wish they did have a list of demands, then maybe I'd know what the hell it is they want.
> 
> I find their message to be very foggy.  Why aren't they working? If I wasn't working I'd have to be aggressively seeking work, not fooling around at a protest.  Who supports them?  Welfare?  Unemployment?  Family members?  Are they spending all their savings so they can occupy Wallstreet instead of working?  Not too bright.  I HAVE TO work.
> 
> What exactly is it they want?  Sounds like they have issues with Capitalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Their demands are simple;
> "Gimmee gimmee gimmee."
Click to expand...


That's kind of what I thought.


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> There is nothing more naive than to believe that attacking the carcass of a stagnant economy is actually gonna result in prosperity and redistribution. You have NO evidence that the measly $100Bill or so in revenue that all this whining is about will end up in the pockets of the bottom 10%.



Ah. Well, it's coming out of the Obama Administration, so indeed that's arguable. (Or even in the hands of the bottom 80%, which is what's really needed.)

However, please don't confuse me with an Obama supporter. Especially in the context of a thread like this one.



> Especially if your leadership continues to ignore the REAL changes to America that need to
> You will never secure a better future for the lower 50% of America by simply moving EXISTING wealth around.



There's where I disagree. The reason why the economy is underproducing (and underemploying) is because the existing wealth is severely maldistributed. A program that would drive up real wages, and in other wholesale ways redistribute wealth downward is exactly what's needed.

Agreed, however, that that's not what we're likely to see out of either party in government as they currently exist. And that's why these disproportionately-young people, who in 2008 worked within the electoral system to elect Obama and other Democrats, have turned outside it to protest in the streets.


----------



## Katzndogz

The reason why the economy is floundering has nothing to do with maldistribution of wealth.  That's SILLY. and really STUPID.  

The real reason is instability.  No one trusts this government.  They won't hire, expand, or spend.  Not in the US at any rate, they are happy to do everything in a more stable government.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Tipsycatlover said:


> The reason why the economy is floundering has nothing to do with maldistribution of wealth.  That's SILLY. and really STUPID.



With all due respect, Dragon is silly and really kind of stupid.



> The real reason is instability.  No one trusts this government.  They won't hire, expand, or spend.  Not in the US at any rate, they are happy to do everything in a more stable government.



Yep, that pretty much covers it.


----------



## Preius

As an aside.  This thread is extremely popular.  The Original Post was on October 4, 2011.  There have been 1405 posts, and 12,575 views.  This might be some kind of record.  Occupy Wall Street - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Any way you look at this it is good for USMB, America, and perhaps the world beyond.  Hey Tea Party, please take the 99% seriously, and consider joining up with OWS, Occupy Wall Street.  Official Website, http://occupywallst.org/


----------



## Unkotare

Preius said:


> As an aside.  This thread is extremely popular.  The Original Post was on October 4, 2011.  There have been 1405 posts, and 12,575 views.  This might be some kind of record breaker.




Who asked, shitstain?


----------



## Katzndogz

Logically, investment is like gambling.  You put your money down in a risk and hope you make a profit.   Really, only someone with money can lose in a bad investment.  The more you win at that poker table, the more you sit and play until you have a big pile of chips.  Every hand you play is another risk.  You could lose you could win.

However, if  the player is told "Even if you win, we won't let you keep your chips.  We won't tell you how many of the chips you won we're going to keep either."   No one is going to play in that game.   They just won't.  They'll go someplace else.  Which is exactly what business is doing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

eots said:


> Satan Behind Occupy Wall Street? - YouTube


----------



## Preius

Unkotare said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an aside.  This thread is extremely popular.  The Original Post was on October 4, 2011.  There have been 1405 posts, and 12,575 views.  This might be some kind of record breaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who asked, shitstain?
Click to expand...


Most posters would be embarrassed at the way I publicly nailed you for not understanding that La Raza has, among it's purposes, is for turning the U. S. Border States into province of Mexico known as Aztlan.  I am ready to nail you again anytime, but *not in this serious thread*.  No one wants your *unsubstantiated *malarkey here.  Start up off-topic and I will turn you into the moderators - next post.  These are real posters here, and I am not going to let you mess up this thread for them.  I am done messing with you.

*The subject of this thread is, "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows."​*


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing more naive than to believe that attacking the carcass of a stagnant economy is actually gonna result in prosperity and redistribution. You have NO evidence that the measly $100Bill or so in revenue that all this whining is about will end up in the pockets of the bottom 10%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. Well, it's coming out of the Obama Administration, so indeed that's arguable. (Or even in the hands of the bottom 80%, which is what's really needed.)
> 
> However, please don't confuse me with an Obama supporter. Especially in the context of a thread like this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Especially if your leadership continues to ignore the REAL changes to America that need to
> You will never secure a better future for the lower 50% of America by simply moving EXISTING wealth around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's where I disagree. The reason why the economy is underproducing (and underemploying) is because the existing wealth is severely maldistributed. A program that would drive up real wages, and in other wholesale ways redistribute wealth downward is exactly what's needed.
> 
> Agreed, however, that that's not what we're likely to see out of either party in government as they currently exist. And that's why these disproportionately-young people, who in 2008 worked within the electoral system to elect Obama and other Democrats, have turned outside it to protest in the streets.
Click to expand...


Wow.. You're political agility here leaves me speechless. Particularly that you get the part about the elite 537 elected officials that run the entire country. Pretty bleak when you consider that any one of us gets to choose just 5 of them. The other unaccountable mass of 10,000 Washington bureaucrats gets to perform mediocre level work and escape scrutiny for the most part. 

So --- then I'm actually working to your ends because my concern is getting ballot access. And when you're done arguing about whether to make or buy sleeping bags for your occupations, you might actually WANT some actual political ACCESS. Come talk to me. Which BTW is another example of why GOVT (not the corporate beggars) are the CAUSE of the collusion. Because in the case of ballot access barriers -- it's CLEAR that power has been usurped in order to maintain the cozy 2 party monopoly. Can't blame wealth, or corporations or Wall Street there --- can we??? 

Anyway -- the idea that "redistributing wealth downward" is all that is required is still not logical or rational. Simple math illustrates that. Take $100Bill/yr and split it amongst the roughly 100Mill households (as if Washington could even accomplish that) that represent the bottom 50% and that comes to a subsidy of $1000 per year. Just over what is being done now in FICA breaks and other temp stimuli. $80 per month for as long as it takes the economy to slip into the abyss whilst you burn the carcass.. Pitiful plan --- really dude... 

I SERIOUSLY DOUBT if better educated, business motivated masses are gonna rise out of that and create High Tech Jobs for the 21st Century. That alone is what's gonna keep American standard of living. NOT redistribution of cash thru political channels. Bet you don't even make a dent in drug abuse, HS dropouts, or creation of new Industries with that pitiful plan.. 

But at least you're not totally whacked with undue expectations about competence and excellence in government.


----------



## flacaltenn

Preius said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an aside.  This thread is extremely popular.  The Original Post was on October 4, 2011.  There have been 1405 posts, and 12,575 views.  This might be some kind of record breaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who asked, shitstain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most posters would be embarrassed at the way I publicly nailed you for not understanding that La Raza has, among it's purposes, is for turning the U. S. Border States into province of Mexico known as Aztlan.  I am ready to nail you again anytime, but *not in this serious thread*.  No one wants your *unsubstantiated *malarkey here.  Start up off-topic and I will turn you into the moderators - next post.  These are real posters here, and I am not going to let you mess up this thread for them.  I am done messing with you.
> 
> *The subject of this thread is, "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows."​*
Click to expand...


You really DON'T have a problem appropriating other people's stuff do ya Sheriff? As if YOU started the thread or were nominated to run it.. Again -- i'm stuck on the absolute arrogance (no other way to describe it) of your attitudes and the "movement" assuming the role of speaking for the rest of us...


----------



## georgephillip

*Or is Bank of America about to get nailed to the cross of (corporate) gold?*

"Bloomberg News to join Occupation Movement? 

"This is from the Columbia Journalism Review which quotes Bloomberg News regarding B of As moving the *derivates acquired in the Merrill Lynch deal* to the FDIC insured deposit company Bank of America.

At base, the question here is why is Bank of America only now moving these derivatives to its depositary institution and why the Fed is willing to help it do so, despite the fact that its own rules are designed to prevent it." 

Meet the Bankers: Ken Lewis | Occupy Los Angeles


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> Because in the case of ballot access barriers -- it's CLEAR that power has been usurped in order to maintain the cozy 2 party monopoly. Can't blame wealth, or corporations or Wall Street there --- can we???



No, but I don't think I would blame ballot access, either. Our Constitution mandates something that almost requires a two-party system, which is the single-winner, by-district election of Representatives. When there can be only one winner in your district, it becomes sensible to vote for the lesser of two evils. Otherwise, you just contribute to the chance of the greater evil winning the election.

If you look at countries with strong multi-party political cultures, you'll find that they also all have proportional representation rather than single-winner elections. With proportional rep, your vote for a minor party actually counts provided they reach a certain threshold.



> Anyway -- the idea that "redistributing wealth downward" is all that is required is still not logical or rational.



Yes it is, you're just not understanding the rationale behind it, and also I probably haven't made it clear exactly what I'm talking about.

It comes down, once again, to demand. All ideas that work at propping up any part of the supply side of the equation are wrong-headed, not because the supply side isn't important but because, in a market-driven economy, it takes care of itself. That's what a capitalist economy does well. The attention of government needs to go to where a capitalist economy doesn't do so well and tends to shoot itself in the foot. Or, to put it another way, government needs to do what the people can't do so well for themselves on an individual basis.

Where capitalism repeatedly screws the pooch is that it concentrates too much wealth into too few hands. It forms too much capital, leading to an imbalance between capital and consumption where they need to be balanced. Income gaps tend to become too high. Government needs to address this by adopting policies that promote full employment at high wages.

When that happens, people have more money to spend, and there is a better balance between capital and consumption so that more capital is invested in the production of goods and services and less in financial shell-games, rent-seeking, bubble-blowing, and economic strip-mining. All of that promotes economic health, as we can see from the four decades when such policies were actually in place.

We don't need to focus on HOW to "create high tech jobs for the 21st century." The ability exists to do so within a market economy. We just have to make sure the motivation is present, by keeping wages high and income gaps narrow.

By the way, if you want to consider a truly radical, cut-the-Gordian-knot solution to the corruption we find in today's politics, go to the link in my signature and check out that short e-book.


----------



## Unkotare

Preius said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> As an aside.  This thread is extremely popular.  The Original Post was on October 4, 2011.  There have been 1405 posts, and 12,575 views.  This might be some kind of record breaker.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who asked, shitstain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most posters would be embarrassed at the way I publicly nailed you for not understanding that La Raza has, among it's purposes, is for turning the U. S. Border States into province of Mexico known as Aztlan.  ]
Click to expand...




If your little imaginary world had anything to do with reality that comment might mean something. Instead, it is just more typical pointless and dishonest bullshit from one of the most deeply idiotic and morally hollow individuals ever to stain the internet. You are an absolute waste of humanity, you worthless piece of crap.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The laws only works for those who has government support

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2UV1T3cnYY&feature=feedu]Tea Partier Forced to Break Down Flag Pole! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## EriktheRed

Another example of how much rightwingnuts are freaking out over this:


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niQaw8Kq2qw&feature=player_embedded]Jacobs: OWS Protests Driven By "A Power Of Darkness" - YouTube[/ame]





​


----------



## mudwhistle

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=201pgTaEseQ&feature=related]Obama Bumper Sticker Removal Kit - Available at BSRemoval.com - feat. Brad Stine - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Dragon

You might better post that on a thread that has anything to do with President Obama, Muddie. Contrary to your persistent delusions, this one doesn't.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> You might better post that on a thread that has anything to do with President Obama, Muddie. Contrary to your persistent delusions, this one doesn't.



A little research on your part might stop you from making foolish statements like that.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> A little research on your part might stop you from making foolish statements like that.



I think it's probably safe to say I've done more research on OWS than any other poster on this forum. Most obviously more than you have.

This thread has nothing to do with President Obama.* That was not a foolish statement. Yours in response, however, was.


EDIT: * Except of course that he's a target of the protests, along with Wall Street, big business, most of the other Democrats, and almost all of the Republicans.


----------



## Ropey

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little research on your part might stop you from making foolish statements like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's probably safe to say I've done more research on OWS than any other poster on this forum. Most obviously more than you have.
> 
> This thread has nothing to do with President Obama.* That was not a foolish statement. Yours in response, however, was.
> 
> *EDIT: * Except of course that he's a target of the protests, along with Wall Street, big business, most of the other Democrats, and almost all of the Republicans.*
Click to expand...




Politics is the game...


----------



## Katzndogz

The movement isn't growing.  The number of parasites at protest sites is growing.  As the sites, with the promise of free everything and easy pickings for criminals, they are attracting larger numbers of parasites.   It's like leaving trash out for the rats.  Eventually you are going to have a lot of rats.


----------



## georgephillip

*The biggest parasites are on Wall Street.*

Just ask Bloomberg News:

*"Bloomberg News to join Occupation Movement?* 

"This is from the Columbia Journalism Review which quotes Bloomberg News regarding B of A&#8217;s moving the derivates acquired in the Merrill Lynch deal to the FDIC insured deposit company Bank of America.

&#8220;At base, the question here is why is Bank of America only now moving these derivatives to its depositary institution and why the Fed is willing to help it do so, despite the fact that its own rules are designed to prevent it."

Meet the Bankers: Ken Lewis | Occupy Los Angeles


----------



## Dragon

Ropey said:


> Politics is the game...



PARTISAN politics is not.


----------



## flacaltenn

Dragon said:


> Ropey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Politics is the game...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PARTISAN politics is not.
Click to expand...


Of course it is when your movement is whole-heartedly embraced by the current Admin in power. Even if the love is not reciprocated. We have a Prez that can't make it thru a single speech on domestic policy without using Millionaires and Billionaires 23 times. And a movement that is Anti-Millionaires and Billionaires despite their attempts to speak for everyone in the country. Birds of a feather --- Dodo, I think....


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> Of course it is when your movement is whole-heartedly embraced by the current Admin in power. Even if the love is not reciprocated.



That makes it HIS game, about which there was never any doubt. It does not make it THE game.



> We have a Prez that can't make it thru a single speech on domestic policy without using Millionaires and Billionaires 23 times. And a movement that is Anti-Millionaires and Billionaires despite their attempts to speak for everyone in the country. Birds of a feather --- Dodo, I think....



Yeah, but who the hell does he think he's fooling? All you have to do is look at how much Wall Street cash has found its way into his campaign chest once again to see through that crap. Fool me once . . .

Actually, there's one way he could show his sincerity: fire Timothy Geitner. I might halfway believe him if he did that.


----------



## Dragon

Here's something cool: by Lemony Snicket &#8211; OccupyWriters.com



			
				Lemony Snicket said:
			
		

> 1. If you work hard, and become successful, it does not necessarily mean you are successful because you worked hard, just as if you are tall with long hair it doesnt mean you would be a midget if you were bald.
> 
> 2. Fortune is a word for having a lot of money and for having a lot of luck, but that does not mean the word has two definitions.
> 
> 3. Money is like a childrarely unaccompanied. When it disappears, look to those who were supposed to be keeping an eye on it while you were at the grocery store. You might also look for someone who has a lot of extra children sitting around, with long, suspicious explanations for how they got there.
> 
> 4. People who say money doesnt matter are like people who say cake doesnt matterits probably because theyve already had a few slices.
> 
> 5. There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.
> 
> 6. Nobody wants to fall into a safety net, because it means the structure in which theyve been living is in a state of collapse and they have no choice but to tumble downwards. However, it beats the alternative.
> 
> 7. Someone feeling wronged is like someone feeling thirsty. Dont tell them they arent. Sit with them and have a drink.
> 
> 8. Dont ask yourself if something is fair. Ask someone elsea stranger in the street, for example.
> 
> 9. People gathering in the streets feeling wronged tend to be loud, as it is difficult to make oneself heard on the other side of an impressive edifice.
> 
> 10. It is not always the job of people shouting outside impressive buildings to solve problems. It is often the job of the people inside, who have paper, pens, desks, and an impressive view.
> 
> 11. Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.
> 
> 12. If you have a large crowd shouting outside your building, there might not be room for a safety net if youre the one tumbling down when it collapses.
> 
> 13. 99 percent is a very large percentage. For instance, easily 99 percent of people want a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and the occasional slice of cake for dessert. Surely an arrangement can be made with that niggling 1 percent who disagree.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Here's something cool: by Lemony Snicket  OccupyWriters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lemony Snicket said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If you work hard, and become successful, it does not necessarily mean you are successful because you worked hard, just as if you are tall with long hair it doesnt mean you would be a midget if you were bald.
> 
> 2. Fortune is a word for having a lot of money and for having a lot of luck, but that does not mean the word has two definitions.
> 
> 3. Money is like a childrarely unaccompanied. When it disappears, look to those who were supposed to be keeping an eye on it while you were at the grocery store. You might also look for someone who has a lot of extra children sitting around, with long, suspicious explanations for how they got there.
> 
> 4. People who say money doesnt matter are like people who say cake doesnt matterits probably because theyve already had a few slices.
> 
> 5. There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.
> 
> 6. Nobody wants to fall into a safety net, because it means the structure in which theyve been living is in a state of collapse and they have no choice but to tumble downwards. However, it beats the alternative.
> 
> 7. Someone feeling wronged is like someone feeling thirsty. Dont tell them they arent. Sit with them and have a drink.
> 
> 8. Dont ask yourself if something is fair. Ask someone elsea stranger in the street, for example.
> 
> 9. People gathering in the streets feeling wronged tend to be loud, as it is difficult to make oneself heard on the other side of an impressive edifice.
> 
> 10. It is not always the job of people shouting outside impressive buildings to solve problems. It is often the job of the people inside, who have paper, pens, desks, and an impressive view.
> 
> 11. Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.
> 
> 12. If you have a large crowd shouting outside your building, there might not be room for a safety net if youre the one tumbling down when it collapses.
> 
> 13. 99 percent is a very large percentage. For instance, easily 99 percent of people want a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and the occasional slice of cake for dessert. Surely an arrangement can be made with that niggling 1 percent who disagree.
Click to expand...


Translation:

GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE


----------



## flacaltenn

Real Cute Dragon.. Liberal Arts degrees are valuable aren't they? 



> 3. Money is like a child&#8212;rarely unaccompanied. When it disappears, look to those who were supposed to be keeping an eye on it while you were at the grocery store. You might also look for someone who has a lot of extra children sitting around, with long, suspicious explanations for how they got there.



Well then I suggest you bring in Oprah, J.K. Rowling, and the entire Boston Celtics team for questioning.


----------



## Dragon

flacaltenn said:


> Real Cute Dragon.. Liberal Arts degrees are valuable aren't they?



I wouldn't know, I never finished mine. I'm a writer without one, though.


----------



## flacaltenn

Speaking of which -- when is OWS gonna go chant outside the NBA Players Union and tell them that "enough is enough"? They are draining $20Mill+ salaries and benefits from the 99% at a horrendous rate and refusing to contribute to the economy... .


----------



## Big Fitz

Uncensored2008 said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's something cool: by Lemony Snicket  OccupyWriters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lemony Snicket said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If you work hard, and become successful, it does not necessarily mean you are successful because you worked hard, just as if you are tall with long hair it doesnt mean you would be a midget if you were bald.
> 
> 2. Fortune is a word for having a lot of money and for having a lot of luck, but that does not mean the word has two definitions.
> 
> 3. Money is like a childrarely unaccompanied. When it disappears, look to those who were supposed to be keeping an eye on it while you were at the grocery store. You might also look for someone who has a lot of extra children sitting around, with long, suspicious explanations for how they got there.
> 
> 4. People who say money doesnt matter are like people who say cake doesnt matterits probably because theyve already had a few slices.
> 
> 5. There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.
> 
> 6. Nobody wants to fall into a safety net, because it means the structure in which theyve been living is in a state of collapse and they have no choice but to tumble downwards. However, it beats the alternative.
> 
> 7. Someone feeling wronged is like someone feeling thirsty. Dont tell them they arent. Sit with them and have a drink.
> 
> 8. Dont ask yourself if something is fair. Ask someone elsea stranger in the street, for example.
> 
> 9. People gathering in the streets feeling wronged tend to be loud, as it is difficult to make oneself heard on the other side of an impressive edifice.
> 
> 10. It is not always the job of people shouting outside impressive buildings to solve problems. It is often the job of the people inside, who have paper, pens, desks, and an impressive view.
> 
> 11. Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.
> 
> 12. If you have a large crowd shouting outside your building, there might not be room for a safety net if youre the one tumbling down when it collapses.
> 
> 13. 99 percent is a very large percentage. For instance, easily 99 percent of people want a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and the occasional slice of cake for dessert. Surely an arrangement can be made with that niggling 1 percent who disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation:
> 
> GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE
Click to expand...

So it's the same demand since 1890.  Quelle suprise!


----------



## Preius

Big Fitz said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:
> 
> GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE
> 
> 
> 
> So it's the same demand since 1890.  Quelle suprise!
Click to expand...


I pulled out my _Almanac of American History_ by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to read about the Tories during the American Revolution.  You recall the Tories were the loyalists to England and supported the actions of British troops.  

Tory commentary sounds very much the same as the 1%.  There are always a few who place their own interests above the needs of those who are disadvantaged.  And, there is only one language they understand - violence of the many, trumps the greed of a few.  Just some food for thought.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Comrade Preius;

You got and iPhone, iMac and iPad?

Sure you do.......

Of course those were all grown by farmers on a collective making $90 and hour and in SEIU......


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> A little research on your part might stop you from making foolish statements like that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's probably safe to say I've done more research on OWS than any other poster on this forum. Most obviously more than you have.
> 
> This thread has nothing to do with President Obama.* That was not a foolish statement. Yours in response, however, was.
> 
> 
> EDIT: * Except of course that he's a target of the protests, along with Wall Street, big business, most of the other Democrats, and almost all of the Republicans.
Click to expand...


How does that explain your naivete'


Obama is in bed with Wall Street and with everyone organizing this very public goat-fuck.


----------



## Katzndogz

The real 1% are the parasites now protesting.


----------



## mudwhistle

Preius said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:
> 
> GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE
> 
> 
> 
> So it's the same demand since 1890.  Quelle suprise!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pulled out my _Almanac of American History_ by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to read about the Tories during the American Revolution.  You recall the Tories were the loyalists to England and supported the actions of British troops.
> 
> Tory commentary sounds very much the same as the 1%.  There are always a few who place their own interests above the needs of those who are disadvantaged.  And, there is only one language they understand - violence of the many, trumps the greed of a few.  Just some food for thought.
Click to expand...


I think you have it backwards. The loyalists were happy with being British subjects. The founding Fathers wanted freedom from tyranny. 

The OWS wants to install tyranny and take what they want much like the British did over 200 years ago. They want us to scrap our system and give away our property and our freedom.


----------



## Unkotare

Preius said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:
> 
> GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE
> 
> 
> 
> So it's the same demand since 1890.  Quelle suprise!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pulled out my _Almanac of American History_ by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to read about the Tories during the American Revolution.  ]
Click to expand...




What a surprise that a brain dead shitstain like you would need to look up basic information about American history. You're a fucking idiot.


----------



## flacaltenn

Preius::


> Tory commentary sounds very much the same as the 1%. There are always a few who place their own interests above the needs of those who are disadvantaged. And, there is only one language they understand - violence of the many, trumps the greed of a few. Just some food for thought.



How exactly is funding 40% of the General Fund of the US --- "placing their own interests above the needs of the of those who are disadvantaged"? Defies logic and reason....

 UNLESS-----

What you are proposing is that rather then using the loot you want to steal to pay EXISTING DEBT and costs incurred for PAST stimulus, wars and Green crap -- you imagine that money would go to ADDITIONAL spending to redistribute the loot. 

That's not gonna happen under the present staggering debt load and political climate.  Check your entire OWS premise..

And promise me that you WILL NEVER chastise your opponents for hinting at violence. Like the Left has so often done when shithitsthefan. Because YOU are now Exhibit #1 for next big blowout about which side has advocated violence repeatedly.


----------



## Preius

flacaltenn said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who asked, shitstain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most posters would be embarrassed at the way I publicly nailed you for not understanding that La Raza has, among it's purposes, is for turning the U. S. Border States into province of Mexico known as Aztlan.  I am ready to nail you again anytime, but *not in this serious thread*.  No one wants your *unsubstantiated *malarkey here.  Start up off-topic and I will turn you into the moderators - next post.  These are real posters here, and I am not going to let you mess up this thread for them.  I am done messing with you.
> 
> *The subject of this thread is, "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows."​*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really DON'T have a problem appropriating other people's stuff do ya Sheriff? As if YOU started the thread or were nominated to run it.. Again -- i'm stuck on the absolute arrogance (no other way to describe it) of your attitudes and the "movement" assuming the role of speaking for the rest of us...
Click to expand...


Look this guy Unkotare is a spammer and a troll.  He just wants to mess up the solid dialog you have going.  I saw him drive posters out of another thread, so I nailed him.  I am not laying down a gauntlet here.  I am trying to protect your discussion.  I too am very interested in the subject of the 99%, and want to learn the views of others.  Name-calling is all Unkotare has, and I for one have seen enough of it.


----------



## Preius

Uncensored2008 said:


> Comrade Preius;
> 
> You got and iPhone, iMac and iPad?
> 
> Sure you do.......
> 
> Of course those were all grown by farmers on a collective making $90 and hour and in SEIU......



So, you have decided to ruin this thread.  I don't even know who you are.  Out of the blue you are attacking me, and do not even offer a quote of mine to refute!  

Folks, I enjoy the spotlight, but this is not the thread for it.  Something very important is happening in global politics and money markets.

Yes, I am a social liberal, and a fiscal moderate looking for pragmatism.  I believe it is imperative that we maintain the best of capitalism while escorting in the era of "American Socialism.'  Permit me to remind one and all that it was the Republicans who gave socialism the biggest boost ever with the 7000,000,000,000 TARP which bears the signature of George W. Bush!  

This week my stock broker advised me to get out of stocks and into some metals - the metals guy said that was a first for him.  I am a conservative investor taking the current approach of hanging onto what I have.  My favorite stocks are John Deere and Kroger.  I will not purchase gasoline or bank stocks as I have a moral objection.  

The metals guy is watching the protests in Greece, (which is also having occupy Wall Street protests).  Apparently, Europeans are buying dollars, and Americans are buying metals, which means, (according to my metals trader) the shit is going to hit the fan bigger than in 2008.  This is pretty scary.  

You can joke all you want, (where you came up with Comrad, I do not know), but this 99%, Occupy Wall Street movement has a lot of people concerned.  My opinion is that it will come out ok.  Remember the United States only came into being because the wealthiest colonists wanted it.  Last survey I saw showed the Tea Party at 27% favorable rating which never changes much.  The Tea Party, (like it or not) has hung itself with the 'bigot ' label which killed any international chances.  53% of the U. S. population views the 99% movement in a positive way.  The potential for global political action is good.

So, while you guys are playing the same old USMB gotcha game.  I bought $17,000 worth of gold coins.  To me it is just about time for a financial crisis where we can all kiss our sweet asses goodbye.  

So, anyone want to talk about the critical issue of Barry Obama's birth certificate?  Or, would you like to hear some opinions from other posters about how the financial unrest of the world is going to effect your way of life?  Even television news can not keep up with what is going on.


----------



## Preius

Uncensored2008 said:


> Comrade Preius;
> 
> You got and iPhone, iMac and iPad?
> 
> Sure you do.......
> 
> Of course those were all grown by farmers on a collective making $90 and hour and in SEIU......



So, you have decided to ruin this thread.  I don't even know who you are.  Out of the blue you are attacking me, and do not even offer a quote of mine to refute!  

Folks, I enjoy the spotlight, but this is not the thread for it. * Something very important is happening in global politics and money markets.*

Yes, I am a social liberal, and a fiscal moderate looking for pragmatism.  I believe it is imperative that we maintain the best of capitalism while escorting in the era of "American Socialism.'  Permit me to remind one and all that it was the *Republicans who gave socialism the biggest boost ever* with the $7000,000,000,000 TARP which bears the signature of George W. Bush!  

This week my stock broker advised me to get out of stocks and into some metals????? - the metals guy said that was a first for him.  I am a conservative investor taking the current approach of hanging onto what I have.  My favorite stocks are John Deere and Kroger.  I will not purchase gasoline or bank stocks as I have a moral objection.  

The metals guy is watching the protests in Greece, (which is also having occupy Wall Street protests).  Apparently, Europeans are buying dollars, and Americans are buying metals, which means, (according to my metals trader) the shit is going to hit the fan bigger than in 2008.  This is pretty scary.  

You can joke all you want, (where you came up with Comrad, I do not know), but this 99%, Occupy Wall Street movement has a lot of people concerned.  My opinion is that it will come out ok.  The OWS could be the wild card that turns things around.  This is not a time for misinformation.  

Remember the United States only came into being because the wealthiest colonists wanted it.  Last survey I saw showed the Tea Party at 27% favorable rating which never changes much.  The Tea Party, (like it or not) has hung itself with the 'bigot ' label which killed any international chances.  53% of the U. S. population views the 99% movement in a positive way.  The potential for global political action is good.  Let's not throw OWS away with cheap one-liners.

So, while you guys are playing the same old message board gotcha game.  I bought $17,000 worth of gold coins.  Yep, 47 coins with the value of 1/10th of an ounce.  Gold at $1,680 an ounce could reasonably be over $2,000 by January, 2012.  To me it is just about time for a financial crisis where we can* ALL* kiss our sweet asses goodbye.

So, anyone want to waste some more time posting about the critical issue of Barry Obama's birth certificate?  Or, would you like to hear some opinions from other posters about how the financial unrest of the world could effect your way of life?  Anyone's thoughtful opinion could be helpful.  May I _suggest_, (I am no Sheriff), a more serious attitude toward the OWS.  Even television news can not keep up with the troubles in Greece and the OWS story.  This is breaking news, please be sure it does not break you.






Anyone up for a ride on the New York Stock Exchange?​


----------



## flacaltenn

Nope:: I want to talk about this.. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4302518-post1441.html

And a LOT less about your personal dealings. I bought metals in 2009.. What took you so long? Nevermind -- don't WANT an answer.. 

BTW: if you have a problem with ONE poster -- be careful if you value the thread. Because there's nothing that will get this "valuable" thread put into the Tantrum Forum quicker than a flame war..


----------



## Katzndogz

All the "movement" is doing at the moment is making a lot of people REALLY mad.


----------



## Preius

flacaltenn said:


> Preius::
> 
> 
> 
> Tory commentary sounds very much the same as the 1%. There are always a few who place their own interests above the needs of those who are disadvantaged. And, there is only one language they understand - violence of the many, trumps the greed of a few. Just some food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly is funding 40% of the General Fund of the US --- "placing their own interests above the needs of the of those who are disadvantaged"? Defies logic and reason....
> 
> UNLESS-----
> 
> What you are proposing is that rather then using the loot you want to steal to pay EXISTING DEBT and costs incurred for PAST stimulus, wars and Green crap -- you imagine that money would go to ADDITIONAL spending to redistribute the loot.
> 
> That's not gonna happen under the present staggering debt load and political climate.  Check your entire OWS premise..
> 
> And promise me that you WILL NEVER chastise your opponents for hinting at violence. Like the Left has so often done when shithitsthefan. Because YOU are now Exhibit #1 for next big blowout about which side has advocated violence repeatedly.
Click to expand...


You are putting words in my mouth.

Here is a link to Tory loyalists.  They represented 10%-15% of the colonial population of the thirteen colonies.  Loyalist (American Revolution) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looks to me like a lot of posters in USMB enjoy red herring.  Frankly, I do not see how your 40% General Fund relates to my posting.  But I do know this, The Sons of Liberty, (the real American Tea Party) was headed by Sam Adams and John Hancock.  They were not the wimps we see in the current Tea Party movement.  The Sons of Liberty burned down the homes of British tax collectors and perhaps murdered a few.  

The United States has a history of spilling A LOT of blood.  No one needs me to talk about violence the way we load prime time television with it, and pump our teens full of violence loaded video games.  Then we always provide a nice war to deliver violence to adults in a civilized manner.  Perhaps you should turn off USMB and Google the American Revolution?

Remember the French Revolution?  The merchant class backed the people, the aristocrats started losing their heads on Madam Guillotine.  The soldiers at the Bastille were ordered to shoot the civilians, and turned on the King's Bastille instead.  The French are very smart people and experts at revolution.  We should be glad to have them as an old ally!  

America's 1% is standing in the way of what the American people want, (excluding the Patriotic Millionaires).  The 1% is easily expendable.  They are useless parasites riding on the backs of all American workers.  Fortunately, while Americans will proceed slowly, Europeans will not.  Keep watching the Greek and Roman economies, they should go down first, then Europe and finally to the United States.  

    

*You don't really believe all this is going to crash because of a few numbers printed on pieces of paper do you? * 






It is just paper with ink.
How many here have ever investigated how you would refinance the planet?
It is easier than you think, and does NOT require violence, but it will mark the end of the 1%.
A new capitalism could evolve under American Socialism if we work at it carefully.​


----------



## Preius

Tipsycatlover said:


> All the "movement" is doing at the moment is making a lot of people REALLY mad.



I would ask you for a link on that, because it is not true.  But, I won't because we all know you don't know how to make one.  

67% of Americans view the Occupy Wall Street, 99% movement favorably,* higher than either political party. * http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/151958/occupy-wall-street-enjoys-higher-approval-ratings-than-either-political-party/


----------



## The Gadfly

Preius said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:
> 
> GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE
> 
> 
> 
> So it's the same demand since 1890.  Quelle suprise!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pulled out my _Almanac of American History_ by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to read about the Tories during the American Revolution.  You recall the Tories were the loyalists to England and supported the actions of British troops.
> 
> Tory commentary sounds very much the same as the 1%.  There are always a few who place their own interests above the needs of those who are disadvantaged. * And, there is only one language they understand - violence of the many, trumps the greed of a few. * Just some food for thought.
Click to expand...


There it is again-another implied threat of violence. You just can't resist that little revolutionary fantasy, can you?


----------



## flacaltenn

Preius::

Last chance for an INTELLIGIENT discussion.. You're so fixated on the VIOLENCE part -- you missed the important question (or ducked it).. 

Let's try again --- I asked.... 



> The 1% is current paying 40% of the taxes that go into the General Fund of the US. How is that --- "placing their own interests above the needs of the of those who are disadvantaged"? Defies logic and reason....
> 
> UNLESS-----
> 
> What you are proposing is that rather then using the loot you want to steal to pay EXISTING DEBT and costs incurred for PAST stimulus, wars and Green crap -- you imagine that money would go to ADDITIONAL spending to redistribute the loot.
> 
> That's not gonna happen under the present staggering debt load and political climate. Check your entire OWS premise..


----------



## flacaltenn

The Gadfly said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's the same demand since 1890.  Quelle suprise!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pulled out my _Almanac of American History_ by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to read about the Tories during the American Revolution.  You recall the Tories were the loyalists to England and supported the actions of British troops.
> 
> Tory commentary sounds very much the same as the 1%.  There are always a few who place their own interests above the needs of those who are disadvantaged. * And, there is only one language they understand - violence of the many, trumps the greed of a few. * Just some food for thought.
> 
> There it is again-another implied threat of violence. You just can't resist that little revolutionary fantasy, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Modern day Robin Hood complex with a heaping dose of Rambo and Prozac... Kinda reminiscent of Columbine..
Click to expand...


----------



## mudwhistle

Preius said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comrade Preius;
> 
> You got and iPhone, iMac and iPad?
> 
> Sure you do.......
> 
> Of course those were all grown by farmers on a collective making $90 and hour and in SEIU......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you have decided to ruin this thread.  I don't even know who you are.  Out of the blue you are attacking me, and do not even offer a quote of mine to refute!
> 
> Folks, I enjoy the spotlight, but this is not the thread for it.  Something very important is happening in global politics and money markets.
> 
> Yes, I am a social liberal, and a fiscal moderate looking for pragmatism.  I believe it is imperative that we maintain the best of capitalism while escorting in the era of "American Socialism.'  Permit me to remind one and all that it was the Republicans who gave socialism the biggest boost ever with the 7000,000,000,000 TARP which bears the signature of George W. Bush!
> 
> This week my stock broker advised me to get out of stocks and into some metals - the metals guy said that was a first for him.  I am a conservative investor taking the current approach of hanging onto what I have.  My favorite stocks are John Deere and Kroger.  I will not purchase gasoline or bank stocks as I have a moral objection.
> 
> The metals guy is watching the protests in Greece, (which is also having occupy Wall Street protests).  Apparently, Europeans are buying dollars, and Americans are buying metals, which means, (according to my metals trader) the shit is going to hit the fan bigger than in 2008.  This is pretty scary.
> 
> You can joke all you want, (where you came up with Comrad, I do not know), but this 99%, Occupy Wall Street movement has a lot of people concerned.  My opinion is that it will come out ok.  Remember the United States only came into being because the wealthiest colonists wanted it.  Last survey I saw showed the Tea Party at 27% favorable rating which never changes much.  The Tea Party, (like it or not) has hung itself with the 'bigot ' label which killed any international chances.  53% of the U. S. population views the 99% movement in a positive way.  The potential for global political action is good.
> 
> So, while you guys are playing the same old USMB gotcha game.  I bought $17,000 worth of gold coins.  To me it is just about time for a financial crisis where we can all kiss our sweet asses goodbye.
> 
> So, anyone want to talk about the critical issue of Barry Obama's birth certificate?  Or, would you like to hear some opinions from other posters about how the financial unrest of the world is going to effect your way of life?  Even television news can not keep up with what is going on.
Click to expand...


So you bet on and want America to fail.

So does Obama and his supporters in Congress and the organizers in the OWS. 

Thanks for being so open about your destructive intentions. 

I don't think it's treason but in some countries just thinking like that would land you in a Gulag. You can thank God you aren't in one of them.


----------



## Preius

The Gadfly said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's the same demand since 1890.  Quelle suprise!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pulled out my _Almanac of American History_ by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to read about the Tories during the American Revolution.  You recall the Tories were the loyalists to England and supported the actions of British troops.
> 
> Tory commentary sounds very much the same as the 1%.  There are always a few who place their own interests above the needs of those who are disadvantaged. * And, there is only one language they understand - violence of the many, trumps the greed of a few. * Just some food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There it is again-another implied threat of violence. You just can't resist that little revolutionary fantasy, can you?
Click to expand...


I review the thread.  67% of Americans view Occupy Wall Street favorably.  I think I am the only center left poster who sees violence as historically inevitable.  

The only ones talking about violence other than me, are those against the movement.  I don't get it.  I think they are  scared, and frankly not very bright people who are simply against OWS because guys like me are for it.


----------



## The Gadfly

Preius said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preius::
> 
> 
> 
> Tory commentary sounds very much the same as the 1%. There are always a few who place their own interests above the needs of those who are disadvantaged. And, there is only one language they understand - violence of the many, trumps the greed of a few. Just some food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How exactly is funding 40% of the General Fund of the US --- "placing their own interests above the needs of the of those who are disadvantaged"? Defies logic and reason....
> 
> UNLESS-----
> 
> What you are proposing is that rather then using the loot you want to steal to pay EXISTING DEBT and costs incurred for PAST stimulus, wars and Green crap -- you imagine that money would go to ADDITIONAL spending to redistribute the loot.
> 
> That's not gonna happen under the present staggering debt load and political climate.  Check your entire OWS premise..
> 
> And promise me that you WILL NEVER chastise your opponents for hinting at violence. Like the Left has so often done when shithitsthefan. Because YOU are now Exhibit #1 for next big blowout about which side has advocated violence repeatedly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are putting words in my mouth.
> 
> Here is a link to Tory loyalists.  They represented 10%-15% of the colonial population of the thirteen colonies.  Loyalist (American Revolution) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Looks to me like a lot of posters in USMB enjoy red herring.  Frankly, I do not see how your 40% General Fund relates to my posting.  But I do know this, The Sons of Liberty, (the real American Tea Party) was headed by Sam Adams and John Hancock.  They were not the wimps we see in the current Tea Party movement.  The Sons of Liberty burned down the homes of British tax collectors and perhaps murdered a few.
> 
> The United States has a history of spilling A LOT of blood.  No one needs me to talk about violence the way we load prime time television with it, and pump our teens full of violence loaded video games.  Then we always provide a nice war to deliver violence to adults in a civilized manner.  Perhaps you should turn off USMB and Google the American Revolution?
> 
> Remember the French Revolution?  The merchant class backed the people, the aristocrats started losing their heads on Madam Guillotine.  The soldiers at the Bastille were ordered to shoot the civilians, and turned on the King's Bastille instead.  The French are very smart people and experts at revolution.  We should be glad to have them as an old ally!
> 
> America's 1% is standing in the way of what the American people want, (excluding the Patriotic Millionaires).  The 1% is easily expendable.  They are useless parasites riding on the backs of all American workers.  Fortunately, while Americans will proceed slowly, Europeans will not.  Keep watching the Greek and Roman economies, they should go down first, then Europe and finally to the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> *You don't really believe all this is going to crash because of a few numbers printed on pieces of paper do you? *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is just paper with ink.
> How many here have ever investigated how you would refinance the planet?
> It is easier than you think, and does NOT require violence, but it will mark the end of the 1%.
> A new capitalism could evolve under American Socialism if we work at it carefully.​
Click to expand...


I'm going to ask you one more time-how much personal experience with real-world violence have YOU actually had? How many men have YOU, personally, killed? My guess is...NONE, and that likely goes for most of your little "movement". My guess is, most of you don't know if you can pull the trigger, with a human in your sights, in anything but some video game.  I know that, because no one does, until he has actually done it.

Threatening that which you cannot deliver is usually a bad idea. That's some REAL food for thought for any would-be "revolutionaries".


----------



## Big Fitz

Well, I'm at the point they better start growing something interesting to look at.  They smell bad, have nothing interesting or intelligent to say... and as a modern art installation, they kinda suck.


----------



## Preius

mudwhistle said:


> So you bet on and want America to fail.
> 
> So does Obama and his supporters in Congress and the organizers in the OWS.
> 
> Thanks for being so open about your destructive intentions.
> 
> I don't think it's treason but in some countries just thinking like that would land you in a Gulag. You can thank God you aren't in one of them.



I don't know where you got that.  As an Eagle Scout and am a member of the DNC, I want America to succeed, especially The American Jobs Act, and the Affordable Care Act.

You must have me confused with Unpatriotic Rush Limbaugh who wants President Barry Obama to fail.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgKCWt7jrrc]"I Want OBAMA to FAIL !" : RUSH LIMBAUGH | CPAC Convention 2009 - YouTube[/ame]​
I don't think it was until this post that I realized how really scared the right is.  Well if I thought I might have to walk the stairs to the guillotine, I might be a little nervous myself.






Some say this device is merciful to the victim in terms of pain.
Others say it can take a few minutes for the head to actually die, and the images are uncomfortable.
Can you imagine a dozen hydraulic guillotines set up on the Capitol steps and on Wall Street?  
Bet we could do one decapitation a minute.  ​


----------



## The Gadfly

Dragon said:


> Here's something cool: by Lemony Snicket  OccupyWriters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lemony Snicket said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If you work hard, and become successful, it does not necessarily mean you are successful because you worked hard, just as if you are tall with long hair it doesnt mean you would be a midget if you were bald.
> 
> 2. Fortune is a word for having a lot of money and for having a lot of luck, but that does not mean the word has two definitions.
> 
> 3. Money is like a childrarely unaccompanied. When it disappears, look to those who were supposed to be keeping an eye on it while you were at the grocery store. You might also look for someone who has a lot of extra children sitting around, with long, suspicious explanations for how they got there.
> 
> 4. People who say money doesnt matter are like people who say cake doesnt matterits probably because theyve already had a few slices.
> 
> 5. There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.
> 
> 6. Nobody wants to fall into a safety net, because it means the structure in which theyve been living is in a state of collapse and they have no choice but to tumble downwards. However, it beats the alternative.
> 
> 7. Someone feeling wronged is like someone feeling thirsty. Dont tell them they arent. Sit with them and have a drink.
> 
> 8. Dont ask yourself if something is fair. Ask someone elsea stranger in the street, for example.
> 
> 9. People gathering in the streets feeling wronged tend to be loud, as it is difficult to make oneself heard on the other side of an impressive edifice.
> 
> 10. It is not always the job of people shouting outside impressive buildings to solve problems. It is often the job of the people inside, who have paper, pens, desks, and an impressive view.
> 
> 11. *Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.*
> 
> 12. If you have a large crowd shouting outside your building, there might not be room for a safety net if youre the one tumbling down when it collapses.
> 
> 13. 99 percent is a very large percentage. For instance, easily 99 percent of people want a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and the occasional slice of cake for dessert. Surely an arrangement can be made with that niggling 1 percent who disagree.
Click to expand...


And look what we have here-another implied threat of violence! Do you people seriously think ANYONE is actually afraid of this rabble? You know, I don't care if any or all of you get yourselves killed or imprisoned; it's the innocent people who will inevitably be caught up in the crossfire of whatever you idiots start that concern me.


----------



## mudwhistle

Preius said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I pulled out my _Almanac of American History_ by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to read about the Tories during the American Revolution.  You recall the Tories were the loyalists to England and supported the actions of British troops.
> 
> Tory commentary sounds very much the same as the 1%.  There are always a few who place their own interests above the needs of those who are disadvantaged. * And, there is only one language they understand - violence of the many, trumps the greed of a few. * Just some food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There it is again-another implied threat of violence. You just can't resist that little revolutionary fantasy, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I review the thread.  67% of Americans view Occupy Wall Street favorably.  I think I am the only center left poster who sees violence as historically inevitable.
> 
> The only ones talking about violence other than me, are those against the movement.  I don't get it.  I think they are  scared, and frankly not very bright people who are simply against OWS because guys like me are for it.
Click to expand...





Only 33% say they like them, 27% say they don't.

The rest of us don't have an opinion, which is the same as "I don't give a shit".

Poll: The public kinda likes Occupy Wall Street protesters « Hot Air


----------



## The Gadfly

Preius said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you bet on and want America to fail.
> 
> So does Obama and his supporters in Congress and the organizers in the OWS.
> 
> Thanks for being so open about your destructive intentions.
> 
> I don't think it's treason but in some countries just thinking like that would land you in a Gulag. You can thank God you aren't in one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you got that.  As an Eagle Scout and am a member of the DNC, I want America to succeed, especially The American Jobs Act, and the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> You must have me confused with Unpatriotic Rush Limbaugh who wants President Barry Obama to fail.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgKCWt7jrrc]"I Want OBAMA to FAIL !" : RUSH LIMBAUGH | CPAC Convention 2009 - YouTube[/ame]​
> I don't think it was until this post that I realized how really scared the right is.  Well if I thought I might have to walk the stairs to the guillotine, I might be a little nervous myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some say this device is merciful to the victim in terms of pain.
> Others say it can take a few minutes for the head to actually die, and the images are uncomfortable.
> Can you imagine a dozen hydraulic guillotines set up on the Capitol steps and on Wall Street?
> Bet we could do one decapitation a minute.  ​
Click to expand...


Keep those French Revolution images coming, you shrieking maniac! You've gone past threatening, to outright comical, in a sick sort of way. Those are some seriously twisted dreams, junior, and I can only suggest that you get back on your meds, before you try acting on them.


----------



## Preius

The Gadfly said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's something cool: by Lemony Snicket  OccupyWriters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lemony Snicket said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. If you work hard, and become successful, it does not necessarily mean you are successful because you worked hard, just as if you are tall with long hair it doesnt mean you would be a midget if you were bald.
> 
> 2. Fortune is a word for having a lot of money and for having a lot of luck, but that does not mean the word has two definitions.
> 
> 3. Money is like a childrarely unaccompanied. When it disappears, look to those who were supposed to be keeping an eye on it while you were at the grocery store. You might also look for someone who has a lot of extra children sitting around, with long, suspicious explanations for how they got there.
> 
> 4. People who say money doesnt matter are like people who say cake doesnt matterits probably because theyve already had a few slices.
> 
> 5. There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.
> 
> 6. Nobody wants to fall into a safety net, because it means the structure in which theyve been living is in a state of collapse and they have no choice but to tumble downwards. However, it beats the alternative.
> 
> 7. Someone feeling wronged is like someone feeling thirsty. Dont tell them they arent. Sit with them and have a drink.
> 
> 8. Dont ask yourself if something is fair. Ask someone elsea stranger in the street, for example.
> 
> 9. People gathering in the streets feeling wronged tend to be loud, as it is difficult to make oneself heard on the other side of an impressive edifice.
> 
> 10. It is not always the job of people shouting outside impressive buildings to solve problems. It is often the job of the people inside, who have paper, pens, desks, and an impressive view.
> 
> 11. *Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.*
> 
> 12. If you have a large crowd shouting outside your building, there might not be room for a safety net if youre the one tumbling down when it collapses.
> 
> 13. 99 percent is a very large percentage. For instance, easily 99 percent of people want a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and the occasional slice of cake for dessert. Surely an arrangement can be made with that niggling 1 percent who disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And look what we have here-another implied threat of violence! Do you people seriously think ANYONE is actually afraid of this rabble? You know, I don't care if any or all of you get yourselves killed or imprisoned; it's the innocent people who will inevitably be caught up in the crossfire of whatever you idiots start that concern me.
Click to expand...


Oh, you are so delicate, (I wonder how many times you replayed the Gaddafi killing on your DVR?).  I thought Scott Pelley at CBS was going to jump out of his anchor chair in joy when he ran the clip TWICE.  I wonder if that was appropriate for younger viewers, it ran our here at 6:30pm?

I hope when the time comes that the police join the demonstrator and turn their guns on the New York Stock Exchange you jump onto USMB and share your feelings.    I of course will be appropriately shocked and dismayed.  

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0UE4m0b4b0"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0UE4m0b4b0[/ame]

Edited for reduced violence out of respect to USMB viewers.​


----------



## mudwhistle

Preius said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you bet on and want America to fail.
> 
> So does Obama and his supporters in Congress and the organizers in the OWS.
> 
> Thanks for being so open about your destructive intentions.
> 
> I don't think it's treason but in some countries just thinking like that would land you in a Gulag. You can thank God you aren't in one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you got that.  As an Eagle Scout and am a member of the DNC, I want America to succeed, especially The American Jobs Act, and the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> You must have me confused with Unpatriotic Rush Limbaugh who wants President Barry Obama to fail.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgKCWt7jrrc]"I Want OBAMA to FAIL !" : RUSH LIMBAUGH | CPAC Convention 2009 - YouTube[/ame]​
> I don't think it was until this post that I realized how really scared the right is.  Well if I thought I might have to walk the stairs to the guillotine, I might be a little nervous myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some say this device is merciful to the victim in terms of pain.
> Others say it can take a few minutes for the head to actually die, and the images are uncomfortable.
> Can you imagine a dozen hydraulic guillotines set up on the Capitol steps and on Wall Street?
> Bet we could do one decapitation a minute.  ​
Click to expand...


Why don't we set up hundreds of Waterboarding stations all over the US. 

Oh, no. That's cruel.


----------



## Preius

mudwhistle said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you bet on and want America to fail.
> 
> So does Obama and his supporters in Congress and the organizers in the OWS.
> 
> Thanks for being so open about your destructive intentions.
> 
> I don't think it's treason but in some countries just thinking like that would land you in a Gulag. You can thank God you aren't in one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you got that.  As an Eagle Scout and am a member of the DNC, I want America to succeed, especially The American Jobs Act, and the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> You must have me confused with Unpatriotic Rush Limbaugh who wants President Barry Obama to fail.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgKCWt7jrrc]"I Want OBAMA to FAIL !" : RUSH LIMBAUGH | CPAC Convention 2009 - YouTube[/ame]​
> I don't think it was until this post that I realized how really scared the right is.  Well if I thought I might have to walk the stairs to the guillotine, I might be a little nervous myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some say this device is merciful to the victim in terms of pain.
> Others say it can take a few minutes for the head to actually die, and the images are uncomfortable.
> Can you imagine a dozen hydraulic guillotines set up on the Capitol steps and on Wall Street?
> Bet we could do one decapitation a minute.  ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't we set up hundreds of Waterboarding stations all over the US.
> 
> Oh, no. That's cruel.
Click to expand...


Yes, that would be torture which is unacceptable to President Obama, and runs against a plank in the Democratic Party platform.  We must be very precise on the subject of violence.


----------



## mudwhistle

Preius said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's something cool: by Lemony Snicket  OccupyWriters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And look what we have here-another implied threat of violence! Do you people seriously think ANYONE is actually afraid of this rabble? You know, I don't care if any or all of you get yourselves killed or imprisoned; it's the innocent people who will inevitably be caught up in the crossfire of whatever you idiots start that concern me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you are so delicate, (I wonder how many times you replayed the Gaddafi killing on your DVR?).  I thought Scott Pelley at CBS was going to jump out of his anchor chair in joy when he ran the clip TWICE.  I wonder if that was appropriate for younger viewers, it ran our here at 6:30pm?
> 
> *I hope when the time comes that the police join the demonstrator and turn their guns on the New York Stock Exchange* you jump onto USMB and share your feelings.    I of course will be appropriately shocked and dismayed.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0UE4m0b4b0]Muammar Gaddafi&#39;s Last Moments - He is dragged to a truck and killed. - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Edited for reduced violence out of respect to USMB viewers.​
Click to expand...


And you call Rush unpatriotic......


----------



## mudwhistle

Preius said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you got that.  As an Eagle Scout and am a member of the DNC, I want America to succeed, especially The American Jobs Act, and the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> You must have me confused with Unpatriotic Rush Limbaugh who wants President Barry Obama to fail.
> 
> "I Want OBAMA to FAIL !" : RUSH LIMBAUGH | CPAC Convention 2009 - YouTube​
> I don't think it was until this post that I realized how really scared the right is.  Well if I thought I might have to walk the stairs to the guillotine, I might be a little nervous myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some say this device is merciful to the victim in terms of pain.
> Others say it can take a few minutes for the head to actually die, and the images are uncomfortable.
> Can you imagine a dozen hydraulic guillotines set up on the Capitol steps and on Wall Street?
> Bet we could do one decapitation a minute.  ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we set up hundreds of Waterboarding stations all over the US.
> 
> Oh, no. That's cruel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that would be torture which is unacceptable to President Obama, and runs against a plank in the Democratic Party platform.  We must be very precise on the subject of violence.
Click to expand...


Blowing them to bits, putting bullets in their heads, or dragging them bleeding through the streets and plugging them while everyone is dancing around their bodies shooting into the air is cool beans. 

There is something seriously wrong with you. You're not a total asshole, but you have a very warped sense of right and wrong.


----------



## The Gadfly

Preius said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's something cool: by Lemony Snicket &#8211; OccupyWriters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And look what we have here-another implied threat of violence! Do you people seriously think ANYONE is actually afraid of this rabble? You know, I don't care if any or all of you get yourselves killed or imprisoned; it's the innocent people who will inevitably be caught up in the crossfire of whatever you idiots start that concern me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, you are so delicate, (I wonder how many times you replayed the Gaddafi killing on your DVR?).  I thought Scott Pelley at CBS was going to jump out of his anchor chair in joy when he ran the clip TWICE.  I wonder if that was appropriate for younger viewers, it ran our here at 6:30pm?
> 
> I hope when the time comes that the police join the demonstrator and turn their guns on the New York Stock Exchange you jump onto USMB and share your feelings.    I of course will be appropriately shocked and dismayed.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0UE4m0b4b0]Muammar Gaddafi's Last Moments - He is dragged to a truck and killed. - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Edited for reduced violence out of respect to USMB viewers.​
Click to expand...

You are one sick puppy, Preius. I mean that sincerely. Have you ever seen a country in the midst of civil war? I have (because in part, that's what Vietnam was). I have seen atrocities that made battle-hardened soldiers puke. I have seen innocent people slaughtered, in ways I do not care to describe here. I have seen fellow soldiers and enemies alike killed, and blown to bits; I have shot enemies, bayonetted them, and slit their throats. I know what it is you would be willing to unleash on America's streets, because I have seen it, heard it, smelled it, and been a part of it; but there is one other big difference between me and you-I was a soldier, not some wannbe murdering sadist. I'm about as far from "delicate" as one can be; I have seen the absolute worst of human depravity; and from where I sit, I find your apparent willingness to revel in it, if not actually enjoy it, absolutely repulsive! I may be a hard ass, and a killer, but you are something far worse.


----------



## Big Fitz

Preius said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you bet on and want America to fail.
> 
> So does Obama and his supporters in Congress and the organizers in the OWS.
> 
> Thanks for being so open about your destructive intentions.
> 
> I don't think it's treason but in some countries just thinking like that would land you in a Gulag. You can thank God you aren't in one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you got that.  As an Eagle Scout and am a member of the DNC, I want America to succeed, especially The American Jobs Act, and the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> You must have me confused with Unpatriotic Rush Limbaugh who wants President Barry Obama to fail.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgKCWt7jrrc]"I Want OBAMA to FAIL !" : RUSH LIMBAUGH | CPAC Convention 2009 - YouTube[/ame]​
> I don't think it was until this post that I realized how really scared the right is.  Well if I thought I might have to walk the stairs to the guillotine, I might be a little nervous myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some say this device is merciful to the victim in terms of pain.
> Others say it can take a few minutes for the head to actually die, and the images are uncomfortable.
> Can you imagine a dozen hydraulic guillotines set up on the Capitol steps and on Wall Street?
> Bet we could do one decapitation a minute.  ​
Click to expand...

Don't forget.  To the end of the french Revolution, the leaders of the movement were put to the same punishment they ministered out with glee.  Their axeman?  Napoleon.  TO the cheers of the general populace.


----------



## mudwhistle

Big Fitz said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you bet on and want America to fail.
> 
> So does Obama and his supporters in Congress and the organizers in the OWS.
> 
> Thanks for being so open about your destructive intentions.
> 
> I don't think it's treason but in some countries just thinking like that would land you in a Gulag. You can thank God you aren't in one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you got that.  As an Eagle Scout and am a member of the DNC, I want America to succeed, especially The American Jobs Act, and the Affordable Care Act.
> 
> You must have me confused with Unpatriotic Rush Limbaugh who wants President Barry Obama to fail.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgKCWt7jrrc]"I Want OBAMA to FAIL !" : RUSH LIMBAUGH | CPAC Convention 2009 - YouTube[/ame]​
> I don't think it was until this post that I realized how really scared the right is.  Well if I thought I might have to walk the stairs to the guillotine, I might be a little nervous myself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some say this device is merciful to the victim in terms of pain.
> Others say it can take a few minutes for the head to actually die, and the images are uncomfortable.
> Can you imagine a dozen hydraulic guillotines set up on the Capitol steps and on Wall Street?
> Bet we could do one decapitation a minute.  ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't forget.  To the end of the french Revolution, the leaders of the movement were put to the same punishment they ministered out with glee.  Their axeman?  Napoleon.  TO the cheers of the general populace.
Click to expand...


When revolutionaries take over the first ones they go after is the folks that put them in power.

They can't have the same thing happening to them after all.


----------



## mudwhistle

From the "I think I'm gonna vomit" stack of stuff:



> Obama's pen pals: When you write to the president he might write you back
> 
> by Piper Weiss, Shine Staff, 4 hours 8 minutes ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Photo by AP)
> Every night before he goes to sleep, the president of the United States reads 10 letters from the pile of 20,000 sent to him by Americans every day. Sometimes, he writes back. He's even, on occasion, included a check.
> 
> "It's not something I should advertise, but it has happened," President Barack Obama told reporter Eli Saslow, author of the new book, "Ten Letters: The Stories Americans Tell Their President."
> 
> http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/life...he-president-he-might-write-you-back-2591815/



I think I'm gonna cry it's so touching....*sniff....sniff*


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real Cute Dragon.. Liberal Arts degrees are valuable aren't they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't know, I never finished mine.
Click to expand...



There's a big fucking surprise...


----------



## Unkotare

Preius said:


> I saw him drive posters out of another thread, so I nailed him. .




I doubt very much that YOU have ever nailed anything (in any sense of the term) in your short, miserable, worthless life.


----------



## The Gadfly

Oh, and by the way, Preius, I suggest you look up the applicable state and federal laws defining "acts of armed insurrection" and the prescribed remedies therefor. Any act such as "the police joining the demonstrators and opening fire on the New York Stock Exchange" crosses the legal line that defines "armed insurrection", and would result in the governor of any state affected calling out the National Guard, and/or possibly calling out "the militia" (a number of states still have militia statutes on the books) and/or calling for federal troops. Even if the last are temporarily withheld by a sympathetic administration (which couldn't get away with it for long; even most democrat politicians don't have the stomach for THAT), your "forces", such as they are, will be confronted by armed troops (as in real soldiers, not cops) with orders to put down the insurrection. If that is not enough, veterans who remember the oath they took will join in to "support and defend" the constitution, which your side will then be legally in rebellion against. In short, a lot of armed people will be ready and willing to put a stop to what you started, and then put the survivors on trial and march them off to long terms of imprisonment. That's the result of the very clear legal and constitutional line your side will have crossed when they started shooting. I imagine the search for the guilty will extend not just to the shooters in the street, but to those who advocated and backed the thing (that would include you). As for your "world socialist allies" in Europe and elsewhere, they won't get here in time to do you much good, and I expect if they attempt it, they will get a rather "hot" military reception, as well. After all, your rather transparent desire to bring them in also violates the constitution, and those on the other side (after your violence alienates most Americans) are not going to be too happy with what was attempted. Far from seeing your enemies "marched up the stairs to the guillotine", you are likely to be viewing the proceedings from the inside of a prison cell. You will learn by then that your constitutional rights do not extend to allowing you (or anyone else) to form what would essentially be a lynch mob, no matter how unpopular your intended targets. There are some very strict laws against that, which prescribe some very harsh punishments for doing so, and much to your dismay, I think you will find the courts are still very much functioning. So much for your sick, twisted little revolutionary fantasies of insurrection, lynching, and marching people to the guillotine. Don't fret too much, you would-be Robespierre; if you do get a death sentence, you won't be beheaded; you'll more likely get a firing squad instead. Most of us don't share your peculiar brand of sadistic psychopathology.


----------



## Unkotare

Don't worry, that unAmerican little moron is too much of a coward to do anything but shoot his mouth off about things he can't begin to understand.


----------



## chanel

> Filth-ridden Zuccotti Park is a breeding ground for bacterial infection loaded with potential health-code violations that pose a major risk to the public, an expert who inspected the area warned.
> 
> Its like Walmart for rats, Wayne Yon, an expert on city health regulations, said yesterday.
> 
> Theres a lack of sanitation, a lack of controls for hot and cold water, Yon said. He saw at least 15 violations of the citys health code -- the type that would easily shut down a food establishment.
> 
> He noted the lack of lavatory facilities, *as neighbors repeatedly complain about protesters defecating in the area and the stench of urine.
> *
> He said theres inadequate hand washing, the No. 1 culprit for food-borne illnesses in restaurants.



Read more: Zuccotti Park a health hazard: expert - NYPOST.com


----------



## Katzndogz

The left is convinced that the shitters in the park are supported by a majority of people.   Because they are convinced, that is a fact.  Everything to the contrary is just propaganda.   Bloomberg is now going to start enforcing the permit laws.  Good for him, too late and maybe too little.  It is very hard to convince these child-minds that even though they got away with it for a long time, the party is now over.

News from The Associated Press

The dream of the left is the French Revolution.  It has to happen here.  It has to happen because there is just noplace left for them to go.  They have taken the protests as far as they can.  They have ramped up the threats of violence as far as they can.  The lives of the majority go on around them.  There is nothing left but what they envision as the violent overthrow of the aristocrats.   The left sees itself dragging those unresisting CEOs out of their homes and murdering them.  Taking their property.  Eating their livers (as was done during the Reign of Terror).  The left is so ignorant of history, so bereft of education that they can't conceive that the French Revolution was an ultimate failure. 

If it's the French Revolution they want, by all means lets give it to them.


----------



## Dude111

Here is a LIVE FEED from wall street

www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

GIVE THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!


----------



## Katzndogz

The live feed doesn't cover the fury of New Yorkers who actually have to support these parasites.

News from The Associated Press


----------



## The Gadfly

Tipsycatlover said:


> The left is convinced that the shitters in the park are supported by a majority of people.   Because they are convinced, that is a fact.  Everything to the contrary is just propaganda.   Bloomberg is now going to start enforcing the permit laws.  Good for him, too late and maybe too little.  It is very hard to convince these child-minds that even though they got away with it for a long time, the party is now over.
> 
> News from The Associated Press
> 
> The dream of the left is the French Revolution.  It has to happen here.  It has to happen because there is just noplace left for them to go.  They have taken the protests as far as they can.  They have ramped up the threats of violence as far as they can.  The lives of the majority go on around them.  There is nothing left but what they envision as the violent overthrow of the aristocrats.   The left sees itself dragging those unresisting CEOs out of their homes and murdering them.  Taking their property.  Eating their livers (as was done during the Reign of Terror).  The left is so ignorant of history, so bereft of education that they can't conceive that the French Revolution was an ultimate failure.
> 
> If it's the French Revolution they want, by all means lets give it to them.



Amazing, the murderous fantasies that emanate from the "peace and love" Left. Why am I not surprised? Well, perhaps because I have experienced the "gentle compassion of the Left" before. The evil and violent fantasies that reside in their twisted psyches boggle the minds of sane people, which, one might suppose, is why they project the worst of intentions on their opponents-they simply cannot conceive of anyone being less vicious and ruthless than they are (or wish they were). You are right; after all the whining, shrieking, threatening, defecating and urinating have gotten them exactly nothing, violence is all they have to fall back on....except that they are not so willing to die or go to prison as they would have us believe; they are far too cowardly for that. No, I think they have painted themselves into a corner, where the laughter, ridicule and scorn they have earned will soon cascade down on them like Niagara Falls!


----------



## mudwhistle

chanel said:


> Filth-ridden Zuccotti Park is a breeding ground for bacterial infection loaded with potential health-code violations that pose a major risk to the public, an expert who inspected the area warned.
> 
> Its like Walmart for rats, Wayne Yon, an expert on city health regulations, said yesterday.
> 
> Theres a lack of sanitation, a lack of controls for hot and cold water, Yon said. He saw at least 15 violations of the citys health code -- the type that would easily shut down a food establishment.
> 
> He noted the lack of lavatory facilities, *as neighbors repeatedly complain about protesters defecating in the area and the stench of urine.
> *
> He said theres inadequate hand washing, the No. 1 culprit for food-borne illnesses in restaurants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Zuccotti Park a health hazard: expert - NYPOST.com
Click to expand...


Is there any surprise here???

The organizers wanted this event to be a cluster-fuck. It's supposed to be a visual abortion. They wanted something that would offend your typical average Manhattan socialite or office worker. It was intended to be a thumb in the eye. An abomination to the senses. The smell must burn the nostrils and induce an involuntary gag-reflex. 

Hard to believe some folks have reported to *quitting their jobs* to partake in this mess and even one mom left her 4 children to live in filth in the streets. It's Woodstock in the streets.

It makes one wonder what's wrong with these people.

The people that run these things aren't very good at anything other then offending us. All it proves is they're in worse disarray then those they protest. 


I wonder if the protesters can see this. 


Probably not. 

All they know is somebody stole their Iphone.


----------



## Katzndogz

I hope no one makes the shitters leave the park.  They should stay until disease ravages their numbers.


----------



## chanel

Yes and as the die hards get colder and hungrier, only chaos and violence will follow. The Lord of the Flies analogy is a perfect one.


----------



## Liability

Don't kick the Shitters out of the Park.

Fleas need to eat, too.

All We are Saying is Give Fleas a Chance.


----------



## newpolitics

chanel said:


> Filth-ridden Zuccotti Park is a breeding ground for bacterial infection loaded with potential health-code violations that pose a major risk to the public, an expert who inspected the area warned.
> 
> Its like Walmart for rats, Wayne Yon, an expert on city health regulations, said yesterday.
> 
> Theres a lack of sanitation, a lack of controls for hot and cold water, Yon said. He saw at least 15 violations of the citys health code -- the type that would easily shut down a food establishment.
> 
> He noted the lack of lavatory facilities, *as neighbors repeatedly complain about protesters defecating in the area and the stench of urine.
> *
> He said theres inadequate hand washing, the No. 1 culprit for food-borne illnesses in restaurants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Zuccotti Park a health hazard: expert - NYPOST.com
Click to expand...


The #1 culprit for food-borne illnesses are factory farms, which exist because of the needs to cut-cost and increase profits, allowing massive animal suffering and environmetal damage, and are products of the few giant corporations that produce the vast majority of American food products. They have no scruples, and are fast leading to the likely production of a super virus that we can not stop because of the amount of anti-biotics they use in their food and the extremely unhealthy conditions the animals live in, and you idiots support them. You are supporting the very thing that may very well kill us all, and I find it HILARIOUS!!! Oh, the IRONY! This is a fact and is not disputable, so don't try to make this a partisan or subjective thing. It isn't. Even in this small instance, it is easy to look at corporate activity as the culprit itself, not people who are actively protesting this ridiculous economic system we have right now, at least, its current manifestation. Get private money out of government. that is the only solution. lobbysim, campaign contibutions, corruption.....all must go.


----------



## Katzndogz

The protest sites are factory farms?   Oh BRUTHA.

That's why they need a little dose of reality.  Let them stay, let them be ravaged by disease.  I'm hoping for Typhoid myself, and then blame the factory farms.


----------



## newpolitics

Tipsycatlover said:


> The protest sites are factory farms?   Oh BRUTHA.
> 
> That's why they need a little dose of reality.  Let them stay, let them be ravaged by disease.  I'm hoping for Typhoid myself, and then blame the factory farms.



Your abilities at self-delusion are astounding, along with many other conservatives here and on this thread. Learn to read. I did not say the protest sites are factory farms, you nincompoop. I was responding to the false claim made earlier that a lack of washing hands are the #1 cause of food-bourne illness, which makes no sense. This is incorrect. Washing hands is a preventative measure, while the #1 cause of food-borne illness are... our food, and more specifically, the conditions in which our food is raised in corporate factory farms. This is a fact, and is a valid concern among the scientific community. Virtually all major epidemics throughout history have been the result of an  animal virus mutating and transferring to humans on a farm, and factory farms provide the perfect breeding ground for a super-virus, especially since they will evolve themselves to be immune to the incredible amount of anti-biotics we put in the animals, so that when these virus' do hit, we will be defenseless... try learning and stuff.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> How does that explain your naivete'



It "explains" that it is not naivete.  I know exactly what I'm talking about, and I know that you are completely full of shit.



> Obama is in bed with Wall Street and with everyone organizing this very public goat-fuck.



Obama is in bed with Wall Street, true. And that by itself means he is NOT in bed with OWS. He is trying to be -- but that's trying to eat his cake and have it, as long as he remains in bed with Wall Street. A man cannot serve two masters, I seem to recall someone saying a long time ago.


----------



## Dragon

I guess it was inevitable that the conversation here veered around to violence. There's always a potential of violence arising in connection with large-scale protest movement like this. In fact, there's already been violence, but it consisted of violent acts against the movement by the police (which is usually how it starts), and so far no one has been killed.

My own view is that it is impossible to overthrow the U.S. government by violence, but very possible that the end game of this movement will indeed be revolution. That may sound contradictory, but it's not. Revolution need not be violent. In fact, in its overthrow-the-government-and-win phase, it is never very violent. The violence, if there is to be any, comes before that, and sometimes after.

If you look at revolutionary movements in the past, all of them have succeeded not through violent attacks on the government but through campaigns to obtain popular support. Even movements that did engage in violence, such as the Chinese Communists in the 1930s and 1940s, ultimately won by gaining the support of the people. The Chinese Communists formed an army and engaged in military operations because they were under military attack by the Kuomintang (and also, during World War II, by the Japanese). At the same time, they engaged in land reform to take land from the landlords and give it to the peasants, in building schools and hospitals, helping the poor, providing justice, and generally demonstrating that they would serve the people's interests better than their opponents. Military operations gave them the opportunity to do this in the countryside, and protected them against attacks by government military forces. It was not the military forces that won them victory, but their campaigns of public service, which attracted the support of the Chinese people until they had a clear majority, at which point the government troops deserted. When the Communists finally won in 1949, there was very little fighting because there was hardly anything left on the government's side to fight against.

In the U.S., a popular uprising, as long as it remains nonviolent, cannot legally be suppressed by the government. There is therefore no need for the Occupy movement to arm itself. It would also be self-defeating to engage in violent as opposed to nonviolent civil disobedience. To do that would give the government legal cause to suppress the movement by force, and the government has overwhelming force on its side. If this ends in revolution, at that point it will be unnecessary to fight against the U.S. military because the military will desert the government. Until we reach that stage, it will remain impossible to defeat the military with any conceivable force raised by a popular uprising. We can't fight the Army, and in the end we won't have to.

The next step, and it is in planning and operation as I type this, will be to convene a popular convention in Philadelphia (chosen for obvious symbolic reasons) to present demands to the U.S. government. If those demands are rejected, the next step after that will be to organize further nonviolent civil disobedience, perhaps a general strike, perhaps other action. Laws will certainly be broken (they're already being broken), but the movement will not become violent. It won't have to.

If things reach a point where revolution becomes both necessary and possible, it will consist of an unarmed march on Washington by masses of people, the refusal of police and military to stop the march, and the seating of the movement's own democratically elected officials to replace the ones selected by the corrupt and rigged election process we have. There should be no more need for violence here than there was in the Soviet Union to overthrow that regime.


----------



## Katzndogz

newpolitics said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The protest sites are factory farms?   Oh BRUTHA.
> 
> That's why they need a little dose of reality.  Let them stay, let them be ravaged by disease.  I'm hoping for Typhoid myself, and then blame the factory farms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your abilities at self-delusion are astounding, along with many other conservatives here and on this thread. Learn to read. I did not say the protest sites are factory farms, you nincompoop. I was responding to the false claim made earlier that a lack of washing hands are the #1 cause of food-bourne illness, which makes no sense. This is incorrect. Washing hands is a preventative measure, while the #1 cause of food-borne illness are... our food, and more specifically, the conditions in which our food is raised in corporate factory farms. This is a fact, and is a valid concern among the scientific community. Virtually all major epidemics throughout history have been the result of an  animal virus mutating and transferring to humans on a farm, and factory farms provide the perfect breeding ground for a super-virus, especially since they will evolve themselves to be immune to the incredible amount of anti-biotics we put in the animals, so that when these virus' do hit, we will be defenseless... try learning and stuff.
Click to expand...


SEWERS and open sewage is the perfect breeding ground for a virus or a super virus, which is what the protest sites are.   They are just people living in what amounts to open latrines.   Don't get me wrong.  I'm on the side of the virus.


----------



## Big Fitz

Preius said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation:
> 
> GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE
> 
> 
> 
> So it's the same demand since 1890.  Quelle suprise!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pulled out my _Almanac of American History_ by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to read about the Tories during the American Revolution.  You recall the Tories were the loyalists to England and supported the actions of British troops.
> 
> Tory commentary sounds very much the same as the 1%.  There are always a few who place their own interests above the needs of those who are disadvantaged.  And, there is only one language they understand - violence of the many, trumps the greed of a few.  Just some food for thought.
Click to expand...

Wow, hadn't realized you responded to me you were so busy finding pseudo-intellectual reasons to justify your whining of gimme gimme gimme and eat the rich, with a half-witty image.

You do realize that many of our founding fathers were corporate interests in this nation.  From publishers to brewers, plantation owners and budding industrialists in a pre-industrial age, they are the ones who revolted against the force of an abusive big government which they had no ability to demand equitable treatment from.  The forces driving much of the revolutionary war were economic where the big imperialist government was demanding they surrender their hard earned money with no say in the process or how it was taxed.

This is your Occupados desire.  More government, more spending, more taxes, more oppression.  I go by one of your encampments every work day 2 times a day.  My customers who have to work down there and deal with you assholes are sick to the teeth with your infantile demands, inability to have even a coherent message from breath to breath and their insatiable desire to be heard, but lack even an iota of truth, rationality or equality for anyone.

The lice have revolted and are demanding more from the dog and don't give a shit how they get it.

BTW, if you really want to be taken seriously, you need to get the anti-war, ecofascist, socialists and anti-semites out of your protest group.  Their signs make it look, once again, as if it's a social event for fucktards.


----------



## newpolitics

Tipsycatlover said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> The protest sites are factory farms?   Oh BRUTHA.
> 
> That's why they need a little dose of reality.  Let them stay, let them be ravaged by disease.  I'm hoping for Typhoid myself, and then blame the factory farms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your abilities at self-delusion are astounding, along with many other conservatives here and on this thread. Learn to read. I did not say the protest sites are factory farms, you nincompoop. I was responding to the false claim made earlier that a lack of washing hands are the #1 cause of food-bourne illness, which makes no sense. This is incorrect. Washing hands is a preventative measure, while the #1 cause of food-borne illness are... our food, and more specifically, the conditions in which our food is raised in corporate factory farms. This is a fact, and is a valid concern among the scientific community. Virtually all major epidemics throughout history have been the result of an  animal virus mutating and transferring to humans on a farm, and factory farms provide the perfect breeding ground for a super-virus, especially since they will evolve themselves to be immune to the incredible amount of anti-biotics we put in the animals, so that when these virus' do hit, we will be defenseless... try learning and stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SEWERS and open sewage is the perfect breeding ground for a virus or a super virus, which is what the protest sites are.   They are just people living in what amounts to open latrines.   Don't get me wrong.  I'm on the side of the virus.
Click to expand...


Haha... I might be too, but I have to disagree with you. Sewers and open sewage are breeding grounds for bacteria, yes, but not necessarily a viral plague, which require a number of 'perfect' conditions to develop into something that could kill us all, one of which is  full living system to propagate to the full lethality that might represent a global plague, such as in a pig or chicken. The closest circumstances that might satisfy the many conditions for creating such a super-virus in todays world, is the factory farm.


----------



## Big Fitz

Big Fitz said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's the same demand since 1890.  Quelle suprise!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pulled out my _Almanac of American History_ by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to read about the Tories during the American Revolution.  You recall the Tories were the loyalists to England and supported the actions of British troops.
> 
> Tory commentary sounds very much the same as the 1%.  There are always a few who place their own interests above the needs of those who are disadvantaged.  And, there is only one language they understand - violence of the many, trumps the greed of a few.  Just some food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, hadn't realized you responded to me you were so busy finding pseudo-intellectual reasons to justify your whining of gimme gimme gimme and eat the rich, with a half-witty image.
> 
> You do realize that many of our founding fathers were corporate interests in this nation.  From publishers to brewers, plantation owners and budding industrialists in a pre-industrial age, they are the ones who revolted against the force of an abusive big government which they had no ability to demand equitable treatment from.  The forces driving much of the revolutionary war were economic where the big imperialist government was demanding they surrender their hard earned money with no say in the process or how it was taxed.
> 
> This is your Occupados desire.  More government, more spending, more taxes, more oppression.  I go by one of your encampments every work day 2 times a day.  My customers who have to work down there and deal with you assholes are sick to the teeth with your infantile demands, inability to have even a coherent message from breath to breath and their insatiable desire to be heard, but lack even an iota of truth, rationality or equality for anyone.
> 
> The lice have revolted and are demanding more from the dog and don't give a shit how they get it.
> 
> BTW, if you really want to be taken seriously, you need to get the anti-war, ecofascist, socialists and anti-semites out of your protest group.  Their signs make it look, once again, as if it's a social event for fucktards.
Click to expand...

Oh, Wiz Kid, Matthew Laborteaux.... another quick point.  You can Wiki, to see how few of your Founding Fathers would have been part of your false 99% and would have been the targets of them.



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#cite_note-Brown_1976-9
> 
> 
> At the time of the convention, 13 men were merchants:  Blount, Broom, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Shields, Gilman, Gorham,  Langdon, Robert Morris, Pierce, Sherman, and Wilson.
> Seven were major land speculators: Blount, Dayton, Fitzsimons,  Gorham, Robert Morris, Washington and Wilson.
> Eleven speculated in securities on a large scale: Bedford,  Blair, Clymer, Dayton, Fitzsimons, Franklin, King, Langdon, Robert  Morris, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Sherman.
> Twelve owned or managed slave-operated plantations  or large farms:  Bassett, Blair, Blount, Butler, Carroll, Jenifer, Jefferson, Mason,  Charles Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Rutledge, Spaight, and  Washington. Madison also owned slaves, as did Franklin, who later freed  his slaves and was a key founder of the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery  Society. Alexander Hamilton was opposed to slavery  and, with John Jay and other anti-slavery advocates, helped to found  the first African free school in New York City. Jay helped to found the  New York Manumission Society, Hamilton was an officer, and when Jay was  governor of New York in 1798 he signed into law the state statute ending  slavery as of 1821.
> Broom and Few were small farmers.
> Eight of the men received a substantial part of their income from  public office: Baldwin, Blair, Brearly, Gilman, Livingston, Madison, and  Rutledge.
> Three had retired from active economic endeavors: Franklin,  McHenry, and Mifflin.
> Franklin and Williamson were scientists,  in addition to their other activities.
> McClurg, McHenry, and Williamson were physicians,  and Johnson was a college president.



So let's see.  Who're the bad guys to the Occupados today?

Every founding father except... ummmm those who held public office?  

They would support the Occupados?  Would this be before or AFTER you stole all their wealth without even a thank you or by your leave.

Note something I don't see in that list.

None were professional Political Activists
None were Teachers or Professors
None were in Unions
None were on the Public Dole (aka welfare)
None were Students

If by this circumstantial evidence alone, your movement is distinctly against the founding principles of the founding fathers if not their personage themselves.

I dunno, I think that smacks of a whole lot of ingratitude in my book.  What else is new?  These punks probably never appreciated or were grateful for anything someone gave them out of charity... hence their total disdain for it in it's true form.


----------



## Katzndogz

Dragon said:


> I guess it was inevitable that the conversation here veered around to violence. There's always a potential of violence arising in connection with large-scale protest movement like this. In fact, there's already been violence, but it consisted of violent acts against the movement by the police (which is usually how it starts), and so far no one has been killed.
> 
> My own view is that it is impossible to overthrow the U.S. government by violence, but very possible that the end game of this movement will indeed be revolution. That may sound contradictory, but it's not. Revolution need not be violent. In fact, in its overthrow-the-government-and-win phase, it is never very violent. The violence, if there is to be any, comes before that, and sometimes after.
> 
> If you look at revolutionary movements in the past, all of them have succeeded not through violent attacks on the government but through campaigns to obtain popular support. Even movements that did engage in violence, such as the Chinese Communists in the 1930s and 1940s, ultimately won by gaining the support of the people. The Chinese Communists formed an army and engaged in military operations because they were under military attack by the Kuomintang (and also, during World War II, by the Japanese). At the same time, they engaged in land reform to take land from the landlords and give it to the peasants, in building schools and hospitals, helping the poor, providing justice, and generally demonstrating that they would serve the people's interests better than their opponents. Military operations gave them the opportunity to do this in the countryside, and protected them against attacks by government military forces. It was not the military forces that won them victory, but their campaigns of public service, which attracted the support of the Chinese people until they had a clear majority, at which point the government troops deserted. When the Communists finally won in 1949, there was very little fighting because there was hardly anything left on the government's side to fight against.
> 
> In the U.S., a popular uprising, as long as it remains nonviolent, cannot legally be suppressed by the government. There is therefore no need for the Occupy movement to arm itself. It would also be self-defeating to engage in violent as opposed to nonviolent civil disobedience. To do that would give the government legal cause to suppress the movement by force, and the government has overwhelming force on its side. If this ends in revolution, at that point it will be unnecessary to fight against the U.S. military because the military will desert the government. Until we reach that stage, it will remain impossible to defeat the military with any conceivable force raised by a popular uprising. We can't fight the Army, and in the end we won't have to.
> 
> The next step, and it is in planning and operation as I type this, will be to convene a popular convention in Philadelphia (chosen for obvious symbolic reasons) to present demands to the U.S. government. If those demands are rejected, the next step after that will be to organize further nonviolent civil disobedience, perhaps a general strike, perhaps other action. Laws will certainly be broken (they're already being broken), but the movement will not become violent. It won't have to.
> 
> If things reach a point where revolution becomes both necessary and possible, it will consist of an unarmed march on Washington by masses of people, the refusal of police and military to stop the march, and the seating of the movement's own democratically elected officials to replace the ones selected by the corrupt and rigged election process we have. There should be no more need for violence here than there was in the Soviet Union to overthrow that regime.



Do you really believe that the overthrow of Czarist Russia was obtained non violently?  If so, not much is going to help you.

Addressing the rest of your wishful thinking.  What is going to happen is not a populist revolution but a civil war as the left tries to assert itself against the majority and that majority fights back.  The governement will be merely bystanders trying to restore some kind of order.  
I welcome the Shitter convention and list of demands.  I welcome the slothful and lazy to go on strike since they aren't working anyway it won't make any difference.   These activites are being permitted to continue.  They will be permitted to continue until they aren't anymore.  Then the left will either have to fight in the streets or withdraw in whatever hole they came out of.

When the shiftless of Los Angeles decided to protest and burn the city down.  It continued, with halfhearted participation by the police until the people stood up.  When Korean shop owners took to the rooftops with rifles, the one thing people knew was it could be done.  They could do it.  That's  when neighborhoods barricaded themselves in with residents armed and ready.  

That's really what the left is going to be facing.


----------



## Katzndogz

The left imagines that a general strike, where people who don't have jobs refuse to go to work is going to hurt everyone.

It won't.

A general strike by the business class however, would be catastrophic.   Some Tea Party employers right now are vowing not to hire anyone until obama is out of office.  That's a strike that would really hurt.  You want to see pain?   Try a few employers closing for a week and laying everyone off without pay.  Employers don't do that because it's not worth it to them.  Make it worth it and there is a whole different end to that story.


----------



## Dragon

Tipsycatlover said:


> Do you really believe that the overthrow of Czarist Russia was obtained non violently?



The Tsar used force to try to wipe out the democratic and Marxist movements against him. Naturally, it was necessary that those movements defend themselves. If the U.S. government were to do the same (which it is forbidden by law to do), then the same would be true here. The final overthrow of the Tsar was obtained by the democratic movement with minimal violence.

I was talking about the overthrow of the Soviet Union rather than the Tsar, though. Gorbachev used rather than trying to fight the popular movements. By the time a coup overthrew him and tried to crack down, it was too late. The troops refused to fire on the protesters, and the government was overthrown with hardly a shot being fired.



> What is going to happen is not a populist revolution but a civil war as the left tries to assert itself against the majority and that majority fights back.  The governement will be merely bystanders trying to restore some kind of order.



Setting aside your mistake about what constitutes a majority, let me make sure I understand what you're saying here. You are saying that at some point, right-wing militia rather than police and military are going to try to destroy this movement by violence. Is that it?

I need you to clarify before I respond. All I'll say right now is that if you think that kind of vigilante move can succeed, you really need to see your doctor about your meds. They may need a change.

But I guess I will say something about "majorities."

The Tea Party has the support of about 25% of the people, maximum. That's the movement itself. Now let's take a look at the issues backed by the TP, other than the one issue it has in common with OWS (corporate corruption of the government).

The Tea Party wants to cut taxes on the rich (well, on everyone, but cutting taxes on lower-income people isn't so controversial). OWS favors raising taxes on the rich. According to a recent Gallup poll found here: Americans Favor Jobs Plan Proposals, Including Taxing Rich, Americans favor increasing taxes on corporations by 70-26, and increasing income taxes on those making over $200k by 66-32. On this issue, OWS is in the majority, the TP in the minority.

The Tea Party wants to eliminate or reduce certain areas of government spending, including education and the social safety net (other than Medicare and Social Security). OWS favors increasing this spending, especially on education. Again turning to Gallup, we find here Americans Oppose Cuts in Education, Social Security, Defense that Americans oppose cuts in education spending 67-32, and oppose cuts in anti-poverty programs 55-39. Again, the TP takes a minority position here.

In fact, I think it's probably safe to say that any issue where the TP enjoys majority support is likely to be one it shares with the Occupy movement.

Occupy is itself, as a movement, supported by a majority of the people. I don't think at this point that a majority of the people would actually support overthrowing the government and replacing it, however. So we're not ready for revolution at this time. Also, I think it's likely that if Occupy were to turn violent, it would be opposed by most people. (For that matter, such a move would be opposed by me.)

We may never reach a point where revolution becomes possible, but if so it will be because reform happens instead to take the corrupting influence of money out of politics and restore democracy. Either that way or by revolution, though, Occupy is going to win. It's only a matter of time.


----------



## flacaltenn

Tipsycatlover said:


> The left imagines that a general strike, where people who don't have jobs refuse to go to work is going to hurt everyone.
> 
> It won't.
> 
> A general strike by the business class however, would be catastrophic.   Some Tea Party employers right now are vowing not to hire anyone until obama is out of office.  That's a strike that would really hurt.  You want to see pain?   Try a few employers closing for a week and laying everyone off without pay.  Employers don't do that because it's not worth it to them.  Make it worth it and there is a whole different end to that story.



Oh boy!! Does this mean I get to see the last 2 installments of Atlas Shrugged BEFORE the producers get out of debt from the 1st one???


----------



## Katzndogz

Dragon said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really believe that the overthrow of Czarist Russia was obtained non violently?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tsar used force to try to wipe out the democratic and Marxist movements against him. Naturally, it was necessary that those movements defend themselves. If the U.S. government were to do the same (which it is forbidden by law to do), then the same would be true here. The final overthrow of the Tsar was obtained by the democratic movement with minimal violence.
> 
> I was talking about the overthrow of the Soviet Union rather than the Tsar, though. Gorbachev used rather than trying to fight the popular movements. By the time a coup overthrew him and tried to crack down, it was too late. The troops refused to fire on the protesters, and the government was overthrown with hardly a shot being fired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is going to happen is not a populist revolution but a civil war as the left tries to assert itself against the majority and that majority fights back.  The governement will be merely bystanders trying to restore some kind of order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Setting aside your mistake about what constitutes a majority, let me make sure I understand what you're saying here. You are saying that at some point, right-wing militia rather than police and military are going to try to destroy this movement by violence. Is that it?
> 
> I need you to clarify before I respond. All I'll say right now is that if you think that kind of vigilante move can succeed, you really need to see your doctor about your meds. They may need a change.
> 
> But I guess I will say something about "majorities."
> 
> The Tea Party has the support of about 25% of the people, maximum. That's the movement itself. Now let's take a look at the issues backed by the TP, other than the one issue it has in common with OWS (corporate corruption of the government).
> 
> The Tea Party wants to cut taxes on the rich (well, on everyone, but cutting taxes on lower-income people isn't so controversial). OWS favors raising taxes on the rich. According to a recent Gallup poll found here: Americans Favor Jobs Plan Proposals, Including Taxing Rich, Americans favor increasing taxes on corporations by 70-26, and increasing income taxes on those making over $200k by 66-32. On this issue, OWS is in the majority, the TP in the minority.
> 
> The Tea Party wants to eliminate or reduce certain areas of government spending, including education and the social safety net (other than Medicare and Social Security). OWS favors increasing this spending, especially on education. Again turning to Gallup, we find here Americans Oppose Cuts in Education, Social Security, Defense that Americans oppose cuts in education spending 67-32, and oppose cuts in anti-poverty programs 55-39. Again, the TP takes a minority position here.
> 
> In fact, I think it's probably safe to say that any issue where the TP enjoys majority support is likely to be one it shares with the Occupy movement.
> 
> Occupy is itself, as a movement, supported by a majority of the people. I don't think at this point that a majority of the people would actually support overthrowing the government and replacing it, however. So we're not ready for revolution at this time. Also, I think it's likely that if Occupy were to turn violent, it would be opposed by most people. (For that matter, such a move would be opposed by me.)
> 
> We may never reach a point where revolution becomes possible, but if so it will be because reform happens instead to take the corrupting influence of money out of politics and restore democracy. Either that way or by revolution, though, Occupy is going to win. It's only a matter of time.
Click to expand...


The Occupy (bowel) movement is not going to to win, because to win, we will have become Greece.   We won't have a revolution but we will have a civil war.  Which will be most appreciated and necessary.

Suppose the Occupy (bowel) movement starts to achieve its goals.  What would that really mean?  Wealth would leave the country, businesses would leave.  Unemployment would grow, major corporations will abandon the US and go to China or India.  This is already happening.  The wealth wouldn't be redistributed, it would just be gone.  OWS doesn't support education, just ineffective teachers.  Just unions and in reality most Americans today despise the unions.

I personally would welcome an intervention by the Chinese to protect their investment and their debt.  As more and more American companies flee to China this becomes a more realistic outcome.  At least the Chinese have experience in putting movements like the occupiers down.

The occupiers winning is not realistic under any circumstances.


----------



## Dragon

Tipsycatlover said:


> The Occupy movement is not going to to win, because to win, we will have become Greece.



That statement doesn't even make any sense. We will become a relatively poor European country that doesn't control its own currency? That's what Greece is.



> Suppose the Occupy movement starts to achieve its goals.  What would that really mean?  Wealth would leave the country, businesses would leave.



Is that what happened in the 1940s, '50s, and '60s? Because the policies being advocated are, for the most part, not new. They're ones we had in place during those decades.


----------



## Katzndogz

Are we not now suffering from the demands of those years?   The economic downfall today had the seeds sown way back when.  Especially the 60s!  The 60s saw an expansion of the welfare state that is so burdensome today.

The OWS (bowel) movement will present its list of demands, and every politician who accepts even one will be voted out of office next time people have a chance to do it.  That's what will happen.   Especially if this continues.  People are getting pretty fed up even now.   I hope the occupiers stay, stay for a long time but it's almost over now.


----------



## Katzndogz

Once New Yorkers started calling the site "the Big Stink", it's almost done.


----------



## Dragon

Tipsycatlover said:


> Are we not now suffering from the demands of those years?



No, we are suffering from the switch from those policies that began in the 1980s.


----------



## EriktheRed

Tipsycatlover said:


> Are we not now suffering from the demands of those years?   The economic downfall today had the seeds sown way back when.  Especially the 60s!  The 60s saw an expansion of the welfare state that is so burdensome today.
> 
> The OWS (bowel) movement will present its list of demands, and every politician who accepts even one will be voted out of office next time people have a chance to do it.  That's what will happen.   Especially if this continues.  People are getting pretty fed up even now.   I hope the occupiers stay, stay for a long time but it's almost over now.



The movement's already succeeded in turning the national conversation away from austerity and budget-cutting to income inequality. Republicans and even a good many   Dems are bitching about it because they're trapped on the wrong side of that conversation. 



> The OWS (bowel) movement will present its list of demands, and every politician who accepts even one will be voted out of office next time people have a chance to do it.




Considering how some issues - like higher taxes on the wealthy - are polling, that's a bit optimistic on your part.


----------



## Katzndogz

OH yes, the last election proved how optimistic I am.  The national conversation hasn't turned from budget cutting to income inequality.  The left talks about income inequality and imagines that someone else is paying attention.  They hear one another and delude themselves into thinking someone is talking to them.  The ONLY result in imposing income equality is that productive people will leave and go someplace where they have opportunity.  That is the ONLY thing income redistribution can do.  It is how we became a great nation.   Take that away and the nation will die, is dying right now.  

You can stop some innovator from making a fortune in the US, you won't be able to stop that same person from making a fortune in China, or India or even as Russia as it becomes more capitalist.


----------



## EriktheRed

Tipsycatlover said:


> OH yes, the last election proved how optimistic I am.  The national conversation hasn't turned from budget cutting to income inequality.  The left talks about income inequality and imagines that someone else is paying attention.  They hear one another and delude themselves into thinking someone is talking to them.  The ONLY result in imposing income equality is that productive people will leave and go someplace where they have opportunity.  That is the ONLY thing income redistribution can do.  It is how we became a great nation.   Take that away and the nation will die, is dying right now.



Wow, where are you getting _your_ news from?


----------



## georgephillip

Tipsycatlover said:


> OH yes, the last election proved how optimistic I am.  The national conversation hasn't turned from budget cutting to income inequality.  The left talks about income inequality and imagines that someone else is paying attention.  They hear one another and delude themselves into thinking someone is talking to them.  The ONLY result in imposing income equality is that productive people will leave and go someplace where they have opportunity.  That is the ONLY thing income redistribution can do.  It is how we became a great nation.   Take that away and the nation will die, is dying right now.
> 
> You can stop some innovator from making a fortune in the US, you won't be able to stop that same person from making a fortune in China, or India or even as Russia as it becomes more capitalist.


*If you're not worried about this, your descendants will be.*

"The income gap between rich and poor Americans grew to the widest amount on record and represents the *greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations*, according to U.S. Census data.

"The census finds that the top-earning 20% of Americans (those making $100,000 each year) received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4% earned by those below the poverty line.

"That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and *nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968*, the Associated Press reports..."

Census finds record gap between rich and poor Americans


----------



## Katzndogz

georgephillip said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH yes, the last election proved how optimistic I am.  The national conversation hasn't turned from budget cutting to income inequality.  The left talks about income inequality and imagines that someone else is paying attention.  They hear one another and delude themselves into thinking someone is talking to them.  The ONLY result in imposing income equality is that productive people will leave and go someplace where they have opportunity.  That is the ONLY thing income redistribution can do.  It is how we became a great nation.   Take that away and the nation will die, is dying right now.
> 
> You can stop some innovator from making a fortune in the US, you won't be able to stop that same person from making a fortune in China, or India or even as Russia as it becomes more capitalist.
> 
> 
> 
> *If you're not worried about this, your descendants will be.*
> 
> "The income gap between rich and poor Americans grew to the widest amount on record and represents the *greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations*, according to U.S. Census data.
> 
> "The census finds that the top-earning 20% of Americans (those making $100,000 each year) received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4% earned by those below the poverty line.
> 
> "That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and *nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968*, the Associated Press reports..."
> 
> Census finds record gap between rich and poor Americans
Click to expand...


So what.  Do you care what kind of money someone else earns?  Are you jealous, envious?  A Russian guy is sailing around the world on a gold yacht.  Does this impact your life one bit?  

This just proves that the entire leftist inequality complaint is just jealousy.  If you don't lke what kind of salary someone else is paid, get off your ass and become worth that kind of money yourself.


----------



## Katzndogz

EriktheRed said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH yes, the last election proved how optimistic I am.  The national conversation hasn't turned from budget cutting to income inequality.  The left talks about income inequality and imagines that someone else is paying attention.  They hear one another and delude themselves into thinking someone is talking to them.  The ONLY result in imposing income equality is that productive people will leave and go someplace where they have opportunity.  That is the ONLY thing income redistribution can do.  It is how we became a great nation.   Take that away and the nation will die, is dying right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, where are you getting _your_ news from?
Click to expand...


Financial Times.  Every time a company leaves the US I read the reasons why they did.


----------



## Dot Com

Tipsycatlover said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH yes, the last election proved how optimistic I am.  The national conversation hasn't turned from budget cutting to income inequality.  The left talks about income inequality and imagines that someone else is paying attention.  They hear one another and delude themselves into thinking someone is talking to them.  The ONLY result in imposing income equality is that productive people will leave and go someplace where they have opportunity.  That is the ONLY thing income redistribution can do.  It is how we became a great nation.   Take that away and the nation will die, is dying right now.
> 
> You can stop some innovator from making a fortune in the US, you won't be able to stop that same person from making a fortune in China, or India or even as Russia as it becomes more capitalist.
> 
> 
> 
> *If you're not worried about this, your descendants will be.*
> 
> "The income gap between rich and poor Americans grew to the widest amount on record and represents the *greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations*, according to U.S. Census data.
> 
> "The census finds that the top-earning 20% of Americans (those making $100,000 each year) received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4% earned by those below the poverty line.
> 
> "That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and *nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968*, the Associated Press reports..."
> 
> Census finds record gap between rich and poor Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what.  Do you care what kind of money someone else earns?  Are you jealous, envious?  A Russian guy is sailing around the world on a gold yacht.  Does this impact your life one bit?
> 
> This just proves that the entire leftist inequality complaint is just jealousy.  If you don't lke what kind of salary someone else is paid, get off your ass and become worth that kind of money yourself.
Click to expand...


You don't know too much about income-inequality and its ramifications do you ESPECIALLY in light of the last 10 yrs where wall st simply makes $ by betting against Americans/outsourcing.


----------



## georgephillip

Tipsycatlover said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH yes, the last election proved how optimistic I am.  The national conversation hasn't turned from budget cutting to income inequality.  The left talks about income inequality and imagines that someone else is paying attention.  They hear one another and delude themselves into thinking someone is talking to them.  The ONLY result in imposing income equality is that productive people will leave and go someplace where they have opportunity.  That is the ONLY thing income redistribution can do.  It is how we became a great nation.   Take that away and the nation will die, is dying right now.
> 
> You can stop some innovator from making a fortune in the US, you won't be able to stop that same person from making a fortune in China, or India or even as Russia as it becomes more capitalist.
> 
> 
> 
> *If you're not worried about this, your descendants will be.*
> 
> "The income gap between rich and poor Americans grew to the widest amount on record and represents the *greatest disparity among Western industrialized nations*, according to U.S. Census data.
> 
> "The census finds that the top-earning 20% of Americans (those making $100,000 each year) received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4% earned by those below the poverty line.
> 
> "That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and *nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968*, the Associated Press reports..."
> 
> Census finds record gap between rich and poor Americans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what.  Do you care what kind of money someone else earns?  Are you jealous, envious?  A Russian guy is sailing around the world on a gold yacht.  Does this impact your life one bit?
> 
> This just proves that the entire leftist inequality complaint is just jealousy.  If you don't lke what kind of salary someone else is paid, get off your ass and become worth that kind of money yourself.
Click to expand...

I didn't pay for the Russian guy's yacht.

The increased incomes and wealth of the richest Americans have come at the expense of millions of formerly middle class citizens who have seen their jobs shipped to China, their wages slashed, their unions broken and the value of their houses crashed by Wall Street fraud.

If you think the rich are through stealing, you're ignorant and drunk.


----------



## EriktheRed

Tipsycatlover said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH yes, the last election proved how optimistic I am.  The national conversation hasn't turned from budget cutting to income inequality.  The left talks about income inequality and imagines that someone else is paying attention.  They hear one another and delude themselves into thinking someone is talking to them.  The ONLY result in imposing income equality is that productive people will leave and go someplace where they have opportunity.  That is the ONLY thing income redistribution can do.  It is how we became a great nation.   Take that away and the nation will die, is dying right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, where are you getting _your_ news from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Financial Times.  Every time a company leaves the US I read the reasons why they did.
Click to expand...


Think you oughtta diversify, then.


----------



## EriktheRed

Love this gem from last night's Real Time:



> And finally, New Rule: Republicans have to stop calling the Wall Street protesters "hippies".  Yes, they're peeing outdoors, and having sex in sleeping bags, or as Bristol Palin calls it, "dating".  But they're not hippies!
> 
> The hippies are all gone.  Woodstock was 42 years ago.  Forget the brown acid, the people who were at Woodstock are now taking the blue Viagra.  "Turn on, tune in, drop out", refers to their hearing aids.  Wavy Gravy is 75 years old.  He's making wavy gravy in his pants.
> 
> Now, last Saturday, I was in our nation's capital, and I had the chance to see for myself what was going on when I visited Occupy DC.  Everyone was extraordinarily well-behaved, and contrary to reports, I was not offered a single marijuana cigarette.  And I'm a little insulted.  All right, someone did give me a magic mushroom, and it did blow my mind, and I thank you, Senator McConnell.  And sorry about your eyebrows, I'm sure they'll grow back.
> 
> Anyway, the next morning, when I woke up bloody and naked in the woods, I had a relevation... I mean, a revelation. * Of course conservatives want to make this about hippies, because they like to live in the past! * Rush Limbaugh, who really is too square to be a drug addict, said, "When the free drugs run out, when the free sex runs out, they'll get bored and move on to something else."
> 
> Oh that's right, Grandpa.  Look at them, strumming their sitars and wearing dungarees.  Whatever happened to the good old days of segregation and date rape?  But I get it.  You're bitter because we fought a culture war in the '60s and the Right lost.  Rick Santorum is like that Japanese soldier on the island who doesn't know the war is over, so he's still fighting against birth control and butt sex.
> 
> Plus, *Republicans are now mostly a Southern party, and if there's one thing Southerners don't do well, it's lose a war and get over it*.  (audience applause)  But that war is indeed over.  The ideals of the youth movement became assimilated into American society.  That's why we have gays in the military now, and pre-natal yoga classes, and tofurkey.  And that's why Rick Santorum will never be President, and a black guy who snorted cocaine is.  (audience applause)
> 
> It's also why there's not going to be a repeat of what happened the last time the hippies were in the streets. * Those hard hats that you're depending on to turn against the lousy hippies?  Heh.  Here's what they're doing now.  They're cheering them on. * (audience applause)  Because now, the hard hats are just as broke as everybody else.
> 
> *These people down there, they're not the counter-culture.  They're the culture.*  (audience applause)  They don't want free love.  They want paid employment.  (audience applause)  They don't hate capitalism.  They hate what's been done to it.  (audience applause)
> 
> And they resent the Republican mantra that the market perfectly rewards the hard-working and punishes the lazy, and the poor are just jealous moochers who want a handout.  Yeah,* because if there's one group of people who hate handouts, it's Wall Street.*


----------



## Big Fitz

> And finally, New Rule



Yeah... new rule for everyone else but us.  Shut up and stop accurately portraying us.


----------



## georgephillip

Big Fitz said:


> And finally, New Rule
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... new rule for everyone else but us.  Shut up and stop accurately portraying us.
Click to expand...

*Is the following a list of people you defend or admire?*

"Jamie Dimon, Blankfien, Lewis and Pandit are the scum of the earth. They should all be on trial and thrown into prison with Madoff and the rest of the whoring banking thieves."

*Would you agree with the prison part?*

GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha


----------



## EriktheRed

georgephillip said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And finally, New Rule
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... new rule for everyone else but us.  Shut up and stop accurately portraying us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Is the following a list of people you defend or admire?*
> 
> "Jamie Dimon, Blankfien, Lewis and Pandit are the scum of the earth. They should all be on trial and thrown into prison with Madoff and the rest of the whoring banking thieves."
> 
> *Would you agree with the prison part?*
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
Click to expand...


Nah, they love getting fisted by the invisible hand.


----------



## Katzndogz

It is inaccurate to portray to OWS protesters as hippies.  They are SHITTERS, hippies wiped and used a toilet.

They don't call the protest site the Big Stink for nothing.


----------



## The Gadfly

georgephillip said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And finally, New Rule
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... new rule for everyone else but us.  Shut up and stop accurately portraying us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Is the following a list of people you defend or admire?*
> 
> "Jamie Dimon, Blankfien, Lewis and Pandit are the scum of the earth. They should all be on trial and thrown into prison with Madoff and the rest of the whoring banking thieves."
> 
> *Would you agree with the prison part?*
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
Click to expand...

Actually, no. I want them to live long and prosper! I'll help anyone who hurts the Left, and those losers the left panders to. The Left is my enemy, and I am their enemy. YOu may rest assure I will use any and everything I lawfully can to damage the Left, and its followers. As to the culture war, yes, the hippie culture sadly has contaminated our popular culture. After the war you eventually start is over, we will have to do a thorough housecleaning on that. I'm good with whatever it takes.


----------



## georgephillip

Tipsycatlover said:


> It is inaccurate to portray to OWS protesters as hippies.  They are SHITTERS, hippies wiped and used a toilet.
> 
> They don't call the protest site the Big Stink for nothing.


*It's called the "Big Stink" because of its proximity to Wall Street.*


----------



## Intense

OccupyWallStreet
The resistance continues at Liberty Square and worldwide! 

Demands Working Group

Posted Oct. 21, 2011, 3:01 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt

A group claiming to be affiliated with the General Assembly of Liberty Square and #ows has been speaking to the media on behalf of our movement.

This group is not empowered by the NYC General Assembly.

This group is not open-source and does not act by consensus.

This group only represents themselves.

While we encourage the participation of autonomous working groups, no single person or group has the authority to make demands on behalf of general assemblies around the world.

We are our demands. This #ows movement is about empowering communities to form their own general assemblies, to fight back against the tyranny of the 1%. Our collective struggles cannot be co-opted.

Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution


----------



## georgephillip

EriktheRed said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... new rule for everyone else but us.  Shut up and stop accurately portraying us.
> 
> 
> 
> *Is the following a list of people you defend or admire?*
> 
> "Jamie Dimon, Blankfien, Lewis and Pandit are the scum of the earth. They should all be on trial and thrown into prison with Madoff and the rest of the whoring banking thieves."
> 
> *Would you agree with the prison part?*
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, they love getting fisted by the invisible hand.
Click to expand...

When the Savings and Loan looting occurred hundreds of Wall Street losers faced prosecution and jail time...From Wiki:

"The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly dubbed the S&L crisis) was the failure of about 747 out of the 3,234 savings and loan associations in the United States. 

"A savings and loan or 'thrift' is a financial institution that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual members&#8212;a cooperative venture known in the United Kingdom as a Building Society. 

"'As of December 31, 1995, RTC estimated that the total cost for resolving the 747 failed institutions was $87.9 billion.' The remainder of the bailout was paid for by charges on savings and loan accounts[1]&#8212;*which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s*.

American taxpayers and their descendants are on the hook for $trillions in Wall Street's latest looting. So far not a single Wall Street rich bitch has even been charged with control accounting fraud, and elected Republicans AND Democrats will send their own children to Afghanistan (Mexico?) before they will touch property crimes committed by Wall Street.

Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Maybe it's time to give Greens and Libertarians a try?*


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is the following a list of people you defend or admire?*
> 
> "Jamie Dimon, Blankfien, Lewis and Pandit are the scum of the earth. They should all be on trial and thrown into prison with Madoff and the rest of the whoring banking thieves."
> 
> *Would you agree with the prison part?*
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, they love getting fisted by the invisible hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the Savings and Loan looting occurred hundreds of Wall Street losers faced prosecution and jail time...From Wiki:
> 
> "The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly dubbed the S&L crisis) was the failure of about 747 out of the 3,234 savings and loan associations in the United States.
> 
> "A savings and loan or 'thrift' is a financial institution that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual membersa cooperative venture known in the United Kingdom as a Building Society.
> 
> "'As of December 31, 1995, RTC estimated that the total cost for resolving the 747 failed institutions was $87.9 billion.' The remainder of the bailout was paid for by charges on savings and loan accounts[1]*which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s*.
> 
> American taxpayers and their descendants are on the hook for $trillions in Wall Street's latest looting. So far not a single Wall Street rich bitch has even been charged with control accounting fraud, and elected Republicans AND Democrats will send their own children to Afghanistan (Mexico?) before they will touch property crimes committed by Wall Street.
> 
> Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Maybe it's time to give Greens and Libertarians a try?*
Click to expand...


In fairness, if you are going after them, Fannie, Freddie, and HUD, all have allot to answer for too.


----------



## Katzndogz

The Gadfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... new rule for everyone else but us.  Shut up and stop accurately portraying us.
> 
> 
> 
> *Is the following a list of people you defend or admire?*
> 
> "Jamie Dimon, Blankfien, Lewis and Pandit are the scum of the earth. They should all be on trial and thrown into prison with Madoff and the rest of the whoring banking thieves."
> 
> *Would you agree with the prison part?*
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no. I want them to live long and prosper! I'll help anyone who hurts the Left, and those losers the left panders to. The Left is my enemy, and I am their enemy. YOu may rest assure I will use any and everything I lawfully can to damage the Left, and its followers. As to the culture war, yes, the hippie culture sadly has contaminated our popular culture. After the war you eventually start is over, we will have to do a thorough housecleaning on that. I'm good with whatever it takes.
Click to expand...


I'm with you.  That's why I wish the glorious revolution well and hope it starts soon.  I'm good with every company that leaves the country.  They always do well, much better than staying here.  Not only will I do anything to damage the left, but I'll help anyone who wants to damage the left!   I don't care who they are.  The nation at this point is best served by splitting up and separating.


----------



## georgephillip

The Gadfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... new rule for everyone else but us.  Shut up and stop accurately portraying us.
> 
> 
> 
> *Is the following a list of people you defend or admire?*
> 
> "Jamie Dimon, Blankfien, Lewis and Pandit are the scum of the earth. They should all be on trial and thrown into prison with Madoff and the rest of the whoring banking thieves."
> 
> *Would you agree with the prison part?*
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, no. I want them to live long and prosper! I'll help anyone who hurts the Left, and those losers the left panders to. The Left is my enemy, and I am their enemy. YOu may rest assure I will use any and everything I lawfully can to damage the Left, and its followers. As to the culture war, yes, the hippie culture sadly has contaminated our popular culture. After the war you eventually start is over, we will have to do a thorough housecleaning on that. I'm good with whatever it takes.
Click to expand...

Do you want large brokers and funds to prosper from high-frequency trading? If the communists were ripping you off by selling and buying a stock for the same price and still "earning" 0.5 cents per trade, would you object 24/7 365? 

Worry more about the losers on the right who are being led around like a pig with a ring through its nose by psychopaths like Dimon, Lewis and Pandit.

GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha


----------



## georgephillip

Intense said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, they love getting fisted by the invisible hand.
> 
> 
> 
> When the Savings and Loan looting occurred hundreds of Wall Street losers faced prosecution and jail time...From Wiki:
> 
> "The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly dubbed the S&L crisis) was the failure of about 747 out of the 3,234 savings and loan associations in the United States.
> 
> "A savings and loan or 'thrift' is a financial institution that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual membersa cooperative venture known in the United Kingdom as a Building Society.
> 
> "'As of December 31, 1995, RTC estimated that the total cost for resolving the 747 failed institutions was $87.9 billion.' The remainder of the bailout was paid for by charges on savings and loan accounts[1]*which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s*.
> 
> American taxpayers and their descendants are on the hook for $trillions in Wall Street's latest looting. So far not a single Wall Street rich bitch has even been charged with control accounting fraud, and elected Republicans AND Democrats will send their own children to Afghanistan (Mexico?) before they will touch property crimes committed by Wall Street.
> 
> Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Maybe it's time to give Greens and Libertarians a try?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In fairness, if you are going after them, Fannie, Freddie, and HUD, all have allot to answer for too.
Click to expand...

For the last 500 years (at least) the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime is to lose control of the revenue streams that elite criminal activity generates.

Absolutely fill the prisons with elected Republicans AND Democrats AND their bureaucratic tools from Barney Frank and Phil Gramm to Franklin Raines and Chris Cox.

The social networking made possible by the internet makes it possible to FLUSH hundreds (all right, maybe dozens) of incumbents from the US Congress in a singe November news cycle.

That's a political leap of faith, but it would generate authentic Hope and Change.


----------



## Katzndogz

georgephillip said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is the following a list of people you defend or admire?*
> 
> "Jamie Dimon, Blankfien, Lewis and Pandit are the scum of the earth. They should all be on trial and thrown into prison with Madoff and the rest of the whoring banking thieves."
> 
> *Would you agree with the prison part?*
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. I want them to live long and prosper! I'll help anyone who hurts the Left, and those losers the left panders to. The Left is my enemy, and I am their enemy. YOu may rest assure I will use any and everything I lawfully can to damage the Left, and its followers. As to the culture war, yes, the hippie culture sadly has contaminated our popular culture. After the war you eventually start is over, we will have to do a thorough housecleaning on that. I'm good with whatever it takes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you want large brokers and funds to prosper from high-frequency trading? If the communists were ripping you off by selling and buying a stock for the same price and still "earning" 0.5 cents per trade, would you object 24/7 365?
> 
> Worry more about the losers on the right who are being led around like a pig with a ring through its nose by psychopaths like Dimon, Lewis and Pandit.
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
Click to expand...


Absolutely I want people to profit from high frequency trading.  I know a lot of people who do just that.  The only communists that want to rip me off,  are the ones in the American left who go around with their hands out looking for more welfare and more handouts.  Those are the ones I really despise.    That is the difference between the right and the left and why the nation is that divided and just the reason why it needs to split apart.  The left can feed off itself, and the rest of us can get rich.


----------



## Intense

Tipsycatlover said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Is the following a list of people you defend or admire?*
> 
> "Jamie Dimon, Blankfien, Lewis and Pandit are the scum of the earth. They should all be on trial and thrown into prison with Madoff and the rest of the whoring banking thieves."
> 
> *Would you agree with the prison part?*
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. I want them to live long and prosper! I'll help anyone who hurts the Left, and those losers the left panders to. The Left is my enemy, and I am their enemy. YOu may rest assure I will use any and everything I lawfully can to damage the Left, and its followers. As to the culture war, yes, the hippie culture sadly has contaminated our popular culture. After the war you eventually start is over, we will have to do a thorough housecleaning on that. I'm good with whatever it takes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm with you.  That's why I wish the glorious revolution well and hope it starts soon.  I'm good with every company that leaves the country.  They always do well, much better than staying here.  Not only will I do anything to damage the left, but I'll help anyone who wants to damage the left!   I don't care who they are.  The nation at this point is best served by splitting up and separating.
Click to expand...


I don't see much good in that.


----------



## georgephillip

* Tipsy...How many people do you know who have their servers located on the floor of the NYSE?*

The HFT I'm talking about is played in microseconds by those with the money to position their servers physically at the exchange with the rest of us paying that .5 cent tax on transactions that originate in New Jersey, Texas, or California.

The HFT I'm talking about also spikes daily volatility which skews pricing.
How many people do you know who profit from that crime?

You're whining about communists while Wall Street plunders your pension fund.
That's rich.


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the Savings and Loan looting occurred hundreds of Wall Street losers faced prosecution and jail time...From Wiki:
> 
> "The savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s (commonly dubbed the S&L crisis) was the failure of about 747 out of the 3,234 savings and loan associations in the United States.
> 
> "A savings and loan or 'thrift' is a financial institution that accepts savings deposits and makes mortgage, car and other personal loans to individual membersa cooperative venture known in the United Kingdom as a Building Society.
> 
> "'As of December 31, 1995, RTC estimated that the total cost for resolving the 747 failed institutions was $87.9 billion.' The remainder of the bailout was paid for by charges on savings and loan accounts[1]*which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s*.
> 
> American taxpayers and their descendants are on the hook for $trillions in Wall Street's latest looting. So far not a single Wall Street rich bitch has even been charged with control accounting fraud, and elected Republicans AND Democrats will send their own children to Afghanistan (Mexico?) before they will touch property crimes committed by Wall Street.
> 
> Savings and loan crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> *Maybe it's time to give Greens and Libertarians a try?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, if you are going after them, Fannie, Freddie, and HUD, all have allot to answer for too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the last 500 years (at least) the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime is to lose control of the revenue streams that elite criminal activity generates.
> 
> Absolutely fill the prisons with elected Republicans AND Democrats AND their bureaucratic tools from Barney Frank and Phil Gramm to Franklin Raines and Chris Cox.
> 
> The social networking made possible by the internet makes it possible to FLUSH hundreds (all right, maybe dozens) of incumbents from the US Congress in a singe November news cycle.
> 
> That's a political leap of faith, but it would generate authentic Hope and Change.
Click to expand...


I have no complaint with a Righteous Conviction. Remember though, it was Hamilton Style Government that Drove Gig Government into Joint Venture with Big Money, both Monopolizing, giving Government Backed Favoritism and Special Privilege to the Oligarchy Class, and discriminated against Small Enterprise. Big Government, in search of more Power, encouraged Centralization and Nationalization. The Impartial Referee does not have money invested in the game, and should not be picking winners and losers. When the game is about fair game and the integrity of the field, it cannot be predetermining outcome and arbitrary rulings.


----------



## Katzndogz

Why are welfare queens having more babies to be supported  on the public dole?  Why do college students get loans for worthless degrees because they want to smoke pot and drink through their years of school and then don't want to pay their debt?  Why are pimps baby daddys to a dozen women and gather up those EBT cars every month.  Who do shitters at OWS whine about more donations, especially condoms that they expect for free.   

I'd rather Wall Street took it all.


----------



## Intense

Tipsycatlover said:


> Why are welfare queens having more babies to be supported  on the public dole?  Why do college students get loans for worthless degrees because they want to smoke pot and drink through their years of school and then don't want to pay their debt?  Why are pimps baby daddys to a dozen women and gather up those EBT cars every month.  Who do shitters at OWS whine about more donations, especially condoms that they expect for free.
> 
> I'd rather Wall Street took it all.



It is a time of discontent. Easy to pass and divert blame. Also Soul searching time.


----------



## Preius

Tipsycatlover said:


> Why are welfare queens having more babies to be supported  on the public dole?  Why do college students get loans for worthless degrees because they want to smoke pot and drink through their years of school and then don't want to pay their debt?  Why are pimps baby daddys to a dozen women and gather up those EBT cars every month.  Who do shitters at OWS whine about more donations, especially condoms that they expect for free.
> 
> I'd rather Wall Street took it all.



I can agree with much of what you say.  I hate freeloaders whether they are illegal aliens, welfare queens, or hedge fund managers.  I know it is propaganda, but it is poor propaganda to believe that we Dems do not respect the value of a dollar.  All of us have budgets at home that need to be managed very carefully these days.






Proper care of hedge fund managers.​
I still do not understand what the problem is with some posters about OWS.  We need to give it a chance.  I would think you would embrace OWS considering the way the Teabaggers are fading from the political scene.  They got in office because of one word, "Jobs," and they forgot it the minute they got to Washington, D. C.  Time to move on, end your temper tantrums, and come to the 99% who have the real klout.  53% of Americans see the 99% as favorable.  Only 27% see Teabaggers favorably, which translates to 73% do not see the Tea Party favorably.  Frankly, I think the teabaggers blew it when they allowed the label "bigots" to stick.  The Tea Party will be gone after 2012, they produced nothing, and their campaign contributions are the lowest among members of Congress.

There is nothing wrong with admitting that you had high hopes for the Tea Party.  Even I did at first.  Now it is ending.  The 99% has a broader global base, all issues might not go the way of your or my politics on every issue, but the potential great.  Besides where else is there to go?  Both political parties are seen as a joke.  If that were not so, there would be no 99%.   Besides those against the 99% could well end up like Tories after the American Revolution - change fast or leave everything and run, 20% ran.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_%28American_Revolution%29


----------



## Intense

Preius said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are welfare queens having more babies to be supported  on the public dole?  Why do college students get loans for worthless degrees because they want to smoke pot and drink through their years of school and then don't want to pay their debt?  Why are pimps baby daddys to a dozen women and gather up those EBT cars every month.  Who do shitters at OWS whine about more donations, especially condoms that they expect for free.
> 
> I'd rather Wall Street took it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with much of what you say.  I hate freeloaders whether they are illegal aliens, welfare queens, or hedge fund managers.  I know it is propaganda, but it is poor propaganda to believe that we Dems do not respect the value of a dollar.  All of us have budgets at home that need to be managed very carefully these days.
> 
> I still do not understand what the problem is with some posters about OWS.  We need to give it a chance.  I would think you would embrace OWS considering the way the Teabaggers are fading from the political scene.  They got in office because of one word, "Jobs," and they forgot it the minute they got to Washington, D. C.  Time to move on, end your temper tantrums, and come to the 99% who have the real klout.  53% of Americans see the 99% as favorable.  Only 27% see Teabaggers favorably, which translates to 73% do not see the Tea Party favorably.  Frankly, I think the teabaggers blew it when they allowed the label "bigots" to stick
Click to expand...


You had my attention up to the mention of "TeaBaggers". You are playing both sides against the middle. Why do you need to Demonize the Tea Party? Grow up. Try being less toxic. 

It's about Principle, in the end, not Polls, especially when driven by misinformation.


----------



## georgephillip

Intense said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> In fairness, if you are going after them, Fannie, Freddie, and HUD, all have allot to answer for too.
> 
> 
> 
> For the last 500 years (at least) the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime is to lose control of the revenue streams that elite criminal activity generates.
> 
> Absolutely fill the prisons with elected Republicans AND Democrats AND their bureaucratic tools from Barney Frank and Phil Gramm to Franklin Raines and Chris Cox.
> 
> The social networking made possible by the internet makes it possible to FLUSH hundreds (all right, maybe dozens) of incumbents from the US Congress in a singe November news cycle.
> 
> That's a political leap of faith, but it would generate authentic Hope and Change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no complaint with a Righteous Conviction. Remember though, it was Hamilton Style Government that Drove Gig Government into Joint Venture with Big Money, both Monopolizing, giving Government Backed Favoritism and Special Privilege to the Oligarchy Class, and discriminated against Small Enterprise. Big Government, in search of more Power, encouraged Centralization and Nationalization. The Impartial Referee does not have money invested in the game, and should not be picking winners and losers. When the game is about fair game and the integrity of the field, it cannot be predetermining outcome and arbitrary rulings.
Click to expand...

There are some pretty convincing reasons to believe Hamilton would have been happy with an American Monarchy. Once the "founding generation" died off corporations began a power grab that shows no sign of abating. Corporations have a unitary design any monarch would recognize. We freed ourselves from George III, but the descendants of his East India Company are very much in today's game. And they never have enough.


----------



## Preius

Intense said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are welfare queens having more babies to be supported  on the public dole?  Why do college students get loans for worthless degrees because they want to smoke pot and drink through their years of school and then don't want to pay their debt?  Why are pimps baby daddys to a dozen women and gather up those EBT cars every month.  Who do shitters at OWS whine about more donations, especially condoms that they expect for free.
> 
> I'd rather Wall Street took it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with much of what you say.  I hate freeloaders whether they are illegal aliens, welfare queens, or hedge fund managers.  I know it is propaganda, but it is poor propaganda to believe that we Dems do not respect the value of a dollar.  All of us have budgets at home that need to be managed very carefully these days.
> 
> I still do not understand what the problem is with some posters about OWS.  We need to give it a chance.  I would think you would embrace OWS considering the way the Teabaggers are fading from the political scene.  They got in office because of one word, "Jobs," and they forgot it the minute they got to Washington, D. C.  Time to move on, end your temper tantrums, and come to the 99% who have the real klout.  53% of Americans see the 99% as favorable.  Only 27% see Teabaggers favorably, which translates to 73% do not see the Tea Party favorably.  Frankly, I think the teabaggers blew it when they allowed the label "bigots" to stick
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You had my attention up to the mention of "TeaBaggers". You are playing both sides against the middle. Why do you need to Demonize the Tea Party? Grow up. Try being less toxic.
> 
> It's about Principle, in the end, not Polls, especially when driven by misinformation.
Click to expand...


This is a sad subject to post on.  When Dick Armey and a few other rightys decided to 'create' a grass roots movement to put a new face on the Republican Party, their PR team came up with "Teabaggers."  If they had only looked in the encyclopedia they would have learned that "Teabagger" carries a negative sexual connotation.  But, the cat was out of the bag, here is one of their own people selling "Teabagger" buttons.




Since then the Tea Party has done everything they could to separate themselves from the word "Teabagger," but it is too late.  Google will give you more under "Teabagger" than "Tea Party."  I frequently throw the word "Teabagger" into my posts as a way to remind the Tea Party that they jumped without thinking, and this has been typical of their entire opperation.    Also, whomever came up with those tea bag hats made a big mistake, the movement looked like joke.  Are Tea Party politics a joke?  If you want to be taken seriously, you must behave accordingly.  Can you take this man's politics seriously, or does he look like he wants you to bring your income tax to his store?





Joe Kennedy said it, "In politics the facts are not as important as the perception."​
However, depending on your point of view, OWS has read the Tea Party play book.  They know that the minute they take a stand on an issue, the media will start picking at their bones - so they do not commit - it is working.  The 99% know that if they look too conservative or liberal, they will turn potential new members off - hence a strong middle class image - plenty of seniors, firefighters, construction workers etc.

Here is Bill Maher's now definitive statement on the Tea Party.  The Tea Party should never have let this utube go unanswered, because now it has a lock on the left and some independents.  

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU[/ame]

Dwight Eisenhower's daughter sat next to Maher as he did this classic Tea Party take-off.​
OWS is a broader movement, and there is room for you.  This is becoming a global movement as the planet faces financial collapse.  We Americans need to cut the crap and pull together ---------we need the talents of the right.  But, as with the American Revolution 20% of the Tories left the United States after we won that revolution.  All we are looking to get rid of today is less than 1%., or so I say.    Truth is the only reason we had the American Revolution is because the wealthy wanted it.  The same will be true today.  OWS has allies in the 1% also. You can't argue with the source, it is Republican leaning ABC News division of Disney.  'Patriotic Millionaires' Petition Obama For Bush-Era Tax Cuts To Expire - ABC News Please keep an open mind.  

I have watched the Tea Party deal with their Achilles heel "bigotry,"  while I feel sorry for them, they would not give the left a minutes piece if we had made a similar mistake with our name.  So, "Teabagger" is here to stay.  As for me personally, I rarely post on the Tea Party as it is passe.  Perhaps this is because this practical Democrat agrees strongly with the Republicans on the illegal immigration issue.  I believe the efforts in Arizona, Missouri, and Alabama have truly been courageous, while Democrats pander to Mexican American voters.  Hell, Obama's policy is about the same as Bush's.  Both promote amnesty.  I am solidly in for *deportation regardless of circumstances*.  *This is a law enforcement, not racial, question.*
*

The subject of this thread is, "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*


----------



## Intense

Preius said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with much of what you say.  I hate freeloaders whether they are illegal aliens, welfare queens, or hedge fund managers.  I know it is propaganda, but it is poor propaganda to believe that we Dems do not respect the value of a dollar.  All of us have budgets at home that need to be managed very carefully these days.
> 
> I still do not understand what the problem is with some posters about OWS.  We need to give it a chance.  I would think you would embrace OWS considering the way the Teabaggers are fading from the political scene.  They got in office because of one word, "Jobs," and they forgot it the minute they got to Washington, D. C.  Time to move on, end your temper tantrums, and come to the 99% who have the real klout.  53% of Americans see the 99% as favorable.  Only 27% see Teabaggers favorably, which translates to 73% do not see the Tea Party favorably.  Frankly, I think the teabaggers blew it when they allowed the label "bigots" to stick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You had my attention up to the mention of "TeaBaggers". You are playing both sides against the middle. Why do you need to Demonize the Tea Party? Grow up. Try being less toxic.
> 
> It's about Principle, in the end, not Polls, especially when driven by misinformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a sad subject to post on.  When Dick Armey and a few other rightys decided to 'create' a grass roots movement to put a new face on the Republican Party, their PR team came up with "Teabaggers."  If they had only looked in the encyclopedia they would have learned that "Teabagger" carries a negative sexual connotation.  But, the cat was out of the bag, here is one of their own people selling "Teabagger" buttons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since then the Tea Party has done everything they could to separate themselves from the word "Teabagger," but it is too late.  Google will give you more under "Teabagger" than "Tea Party."  I frequently throw the word "Teabagger" into my posts as a way to remind the Tea Party that they jumped without thinking, and this has been typical of their entire opperation.    Also, whomever came up with those tea bag hats made a big mistake, the movement looked like joke.  Are Tea Party politics a joke?  If you want to be taken seriously, you must behave accordingly.  Can you take this man's politics seriously, or does he look like he wants you to bring your income tax to his store?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Kennedy said it, "In politics the facts are not as important as the perception."​
> However, depending on your point of view, OWS has read the Tea Party play book.  They know that the minute they take a stand on an issue, the media will start picking at their bones - so they do not commit - it is working.  The 99% know that if they look too conservative or liberal, they will turn potential new members off - hence a strong middle class image - plenty of seniors, firefighters, construction workers etc.
> 
> Here is Bill Maher's now definitive statement on the Tea Party.  The Tea Party should never have let this utube go unanswered, because now it has a lock on the left and some independents.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU]Bill Maher BECOMES a Teabagger - 4/23/10 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower's daughter sat next to Maher as he did this classic Tea Party take-off.​
> OWS is a broader movement, and there is room for you.  This is becoming a global movement as the planet faces financial collapse.  We Americans need to cut the crap and pull together ---------we need the talents of the right.  But, as with the American Revolution 20% of the Tories left the United States after we won that revolution.  All we are looking to get rid of today is less than 1%., or so I say.    Truth is the only reason we had the American Revolution is because the wealthy wanted it.  The same will be true today.  OWS has allies in the 1% also. You can't argue with the source, it is Republican leaning ABC News division of Disney.  'Patriotic Millionaires' Petition Obama For Bush-Era Tax Cuts To Expire - ABC News Please keep an open mind.
> 
> I have watched the Tea Party deal with their Achilles heel "bigotry,"  while I feel sorry for them, they would not give the left a minutes piece if we had made a similar mistake with our name.  So, "Teabagger" is here to stay.  As for me personally, I rarely post on the Tea Party as it is passe.  Perhaps this is because this practical Democrat agrees strongly with the Republicans on the illegal immigration issue.  I believe the efforts in Arizona, Missouri, and Alabama have truly been courageous, while Democrats pander to Mexican American voters.  Hell, Obama's policy is about the same as Bush's.  Both promote amnesty.  I am solidly in for *deportation regardless of circumstances*.  *This is a law enforcement, not racial, question.*
> *
> 
> The subject of this thread is, "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*
Click to expand...


From my perspective you could not be more full of shit. Feel Free to stick with the TeaBagger Label if you feel the need, no matter how juvenile. Maybe you can fantasize on being on a Date with Anderson Cooper standing over you, but hey, that's your fantasy. The Main Stream People that did originally came up with the name were not aware of what the Gay Community had turned it into. I don't fault them for not knowing gutter slang. The Tea Party walked away from the term long ago. So who are you trying to play Jackass. 

Life Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness is what this Republic was founded on. Your attack is not on the Rich, but on the Right of Private Property, and Due Process, so Fuck You, I know how sad it is, and I really bleed for you, Jerk Off. 

Keep feeding the Angry Mob with your Bullshit and lies. When the eye's are open, it's you that will be within reach. There is no substitute for Unalienable Rights, the Free Will, and the Righteous anger that goes with it. You however are feeding Anarchy, with the hope that when it burns itself out, your Totalitarian Utopia will be there to nipple feed whoever is left. So my message to you, is Fuck Off.


----------



## Preius

Intense said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had my attention up to the mention of "TeaBaggers". You are playing both sides against the middle. Why do you need to Demonize the Tea Party? Grow up. Try being less toxic.
> 
> It's about Principle, in the end, not Polls, especially when driven by misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sad subject to post on.  When Dick Armey and a few other rightys decided to 'create' a grass roots movement to put a new face on the Republican Party, their PR team came up with "Teabaggers."  If they had only looked in the encyclopedia they would have learned that "Teabagger" carries a negative sexual connotation.  But, the cat was out of the bag, here is one of their own people selling "Teabagger" buttons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since then the Tea Party has done everything they could to separate themselves from the word "Teabagger," but it is too late.  Google will give you more under "Teabagger" than "Tea Party."  I frequently throw the word "Teabagger" into my posts as a way to remind the Tea Party that they jumped without thinking, and this has been typical of their entire opperation.    Also, whomever came up with those tea bag hats made a big mistake, the movement looked like joke.  Are Tea Party politics a joke?  If you want to be taken seriously, you must behave accordingly.  Can you take this man's politics seriously, or does he look like he wants you to bring your income tax to his store?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Kennedy said it, "In politics the facts are not as important as the perception."​
> However, depending on your point of view, OWS has read the Tea Party play book.  They know that the minute they take a stand on an issue, the media will start picking at their bones - so they do not commit - it is working.  The 99% know that if they look too conservative or liberal, they will turn potential new members off - hence a strong middle class image - plenty of seniors, firefighters, construction workers etc.
> 
> Here is Bill Maher's now definitive statement on the Tea Party.  The Tea Party should never have let this utube go unanswered, because now it has a lock on the left and some independents.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU]Bill Maher BECOMES a Teabagger - 4/23/10 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower's daughter sat next to Maher as he did this classic Tea Party take-off.​
> OWS is a broader movement, and there is room for you.  This is becoming a global movement as the planet faces financial collapse.  We Americans need to cut the crap and pull together ---------we need the talents of the right.  But, as with the American Revolution 20% of the Tories left the United States after we won that revolution.  All we are looking to get rid of today is less than 1%., or so I say.    Truth is the only reason we had the American Revolution is because the wealthy wanted it.  The same will be true today.  OWS has allies in the 1% also. You can't argue with the source, it is Republican leaning ABC News division of Disney.  'Patriotic Millionaires' Petition Obama For Bush-Era Tax Cuts To Expire - ABC News Please keep an open mind.
> 
> I have watched the Tea Party deal with their Achilles heel "bigotry,"  while I feel sorry for them, they would not give the left a minutes piece if we had made a similar mistake with our name.  So, "Teabagger" is here to stay.  As for me personally, I rarely post on the Tea Party as it is passe.  Perhaps this is because this practical Democrat agrees strongly with the Republicans on the illegal immigration issue.  I believe the efforts in Arizona, Missouri, and Alabama have truly been courageous, while Democrats pander to Mexican American voters.  Hell, Obama's policy is about the same as Bush's.  Both promote amnesty.  I am solidly in for *deportation regardless of circumstances*.  *This is a law enforcement, not racial, question.*
> *
> 
> The subject of this thread is, "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my perspective you could not be more full of shit. Feel Free to stick with the TeaBagger Label if you feel the need, no matter how juvenile. Maybe you can fantasize on being on a Date with Anderson Cooper standing over you, but hey, that's your fantasy. The Main Stream People that did originally came up with the name were not aware of what the Gay Community had turned it into. I don't fault them for not knowing gutter slang. The Tea Party walked away from the term long ago. So who are you trying to play Jackass.
> 
> Life Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness is what this Republic was founded on. Your attack is not on the Rich, but on the Right of Private Property, and Due Process, so Fuck You, I know how sad it is, and I really bleed for you, Jerk Off.
> 
> Keep feeding the Angry Mob with your Bullshit and lies. When the eye's are open, it's you that will be within reach. There is no substitute for Unalienable Rights, the Free Will, and the Righteous anger that goes with it. You however are feeding Anarchy, with the hope that when it burns itself out, your Totalitarian Utopia will be there to nipple feed whoever is left. So my message to you, is Fuck Off.
Click to expand...


In other words, Teabaggers were inept from the start in naming themselves 'Teabaggers,' so we should give those disorganized bigots a break?

You get one break out of me for the Tea Party on deporting illegal immigrants, but don't push your luck.  Teabagging is the easiest win on the board.  Let's not do it.
*

The subject of this thread is, "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*


----------



## The Gadfly

Preius said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with much of what you say.  I hate freeloaders whether they are illegal aliens, welfare queens, or hedge fund managers.  I know it is propaganda, but it is poor propaganda to believe that we Dems do not respect the value of a dollar.  All of us have budgets at home that need to be managed very carefully these days.
> 
> I still do not understand what the problem is with some posters about OWS.  We need to give it a chance.  I would think you would embrace OWS considering the way the Teabaggers are fading from the political scene.  They got in office because of one word, "Jobs," and they forgot it the minute they got to Washington, D. C.  Time to move on, end your temper tantrums, and come to the 99% who have the real klout.  53% of Americans see the 99% as favorable.  Only 27% see Teabaggers favorably, which translates to 73% do not see the Tea Party favorably.  Frankly, I think the teabaggers blew it when they allowed the label "bigots" to stick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You had my attention up to the mention of "TeaBaggers". You are playing both sides against the middle. Why do you need to Demonize the Tea Party? Grow up. Try being less toxic.
> 
> It's about Principle, in the end, not Polls, especially when driven by misinformation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a sad subject to post on.  When Dick Armey and a few other rightys decided to 'create' a grass roots movement to put a new face on the Republican Party, their PR team came up with "Teabaggers."  If they had only looked in the encyclopedia they would have learned that "Teabagger" carries a negative sexual connotation.  But, the cat was out of the bag, here is one of their own people selling "Teabagger" buttons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since then the Tea Party has done everything they could to separate themselves from the word "Teabagger," but it is too late.  Google will give you more under "Teabagger" than "Tea Party."  I frequently throw the word "Teabagger" into my posts as a way to remind the Tea Party that they jumped without thinking, and this has been typical of their entire opperation.    Also, whomever came up with those tea bag hats made a big mistake, the movement looked like joke.  Are Tea Party politics a joke?  If you want to be taken seriously, you must behave accordingly.  Can you take this man's politics seriously, or does he look like he wants you to bring your income tax to his store?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Kennedy said it, "In politics the facts are not as important as the perception."​
> However, depending on your point of view, OWS has read the Tea Party play book.  They know that the minute they take a stand on an issue, the media will start picking at their bones - so they do not commit - it is working.  The 99% know that if they look too conservative or liberal, they will turn potential new members off - hence a strong middle class image - plenty of seniors, firefighters, construction workers etc.
> 
> Here is Bill Maher's now definitive statement on the Tea Party.  The Tea Party should never have let this utube go unanswered, because now it has a lock on the left and some independents.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU]Bill Maher BECOMES a Teabagger - 4/23/10 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower's daughter sat next to Maher as he did this classic Tea Party take-off.​
> *OWS is a broader movement, and there is room for you.  This is becoming a global movement as the planet faces financial collapse.*  We Americans need to cut the crap and pull together ---------we need the talents of the right.  But, as with the American Revolution 20% of the Tories left the United States after we won that revolution.  All we are looking to get rid of today is less than 1%., or so I say.    Truth is the only reason we had the American Revolution is because the wealthy wanted it.  The same will be true today.  OWS has allies in the 1% also. You can't argue with the source, it is Republican leaning ABC News division of Disney.  'Patriotic Millionaires' Petition Obama For Bush-Era Tax Cuts To Expire - ABC News Please keep an open mind.
> 
> I have watched the Tea Party deal with their Achilles heel "bigotry,"  while I feel sorry for them, they would not give the left a minutes piece if we had made a similar mistake with our name.  So, "Teabagger" is here to stay.  As for me personally, I rarely post on the Tea Party as it is passe.  Perhaps this is because this practical Democrat agrees strongly with the Republicans on the illegal immigration issue.  I believe the efforts in Arizona, Missouri, and Alabama have truly been courageous, while Democrats pander to Mexican American voters.  Hell, Obama's policy is about the same as Bush's.  Both promote amnesty.  I am solidly in for *deportation regardless of circumstances*.  *This is a law enforcement, not racial, question.*
> *
> 
> The subject of this thread is, "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*
Click to expand...


Ah, there it is, in the open; the REAL agenda; Global Socialism, One World Government. I wondered how long it would take for another reference; I caught the first one, and that confirms what you are, and what you really want. Yeah, I'll bet you keep your references to THAT oblique!

Here's what it boils down to: of course, you won't state all your objectives openly; you want to lure plenty of the frightened sheep into the fold with you, to facilitate your little revolution, and you'll use as much deceit and deflection to do that as you need to; after all, what you want from most Americans is just for them to stay out of the way, on the idea that you might be able to win a revolt with only the radical 20% or so really committed to the cause-as long as the others stay neutral. Straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals"! What you forget is that the hard core right is approximately as numerous as you, and WILL fight you at every turn. I'd say the odds of you losing are pretty good.


----------



## The Gadfly

Intense said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, no. I want them to live long and prosper! I'll help anyone who hurts the Left, and those losers the left panders to. The Left is my enemy, and I am their enemy. YOu may rest assure I will use any and everything I lawfully can to damage the Left, and its followers. As to the culture war, yes, the hippie culture sadly has contaminated our popular culture. After the war you eventually start is over, we will have to do a thorough housecleaning on that. I'm good with whatever it takes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you.  That's why I wish the glorious revolution well and hope it starts soon.  I'm good with every company that leaves the country.  They always do well, much better than staying here.  Not only will I do anything to damage the left, but I'll help anyone who wants to damage the left!   I don't care who they are.  The nation at this point is best served by splitting up and separating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see much good in that.
Click to expand...


I don't see why not. I'm not happy about it, but the reality is, that compromise between the right and the left is most likely impossible, at least in the long term, and some sort of separation is therefore almost inevitable. There's less and less common ground to be had, with every passing day, if indeed there is any at all. I'd rather we split up peacefully, if we still can, rather than do so after a potentially very ugly and bloody civil conflict. I see nothing to be gained by waiting for that to occur.

Put simply, this is not the same society that got through the Great Depression; it is far less resilient, and has far more serious stress cracks running through it. We have a variety of interests, social, religious, ethnic, economic and political, which simply cannot be reconciled, and it might be better in the long run to frankly acknowledge that, and go our separate ways, rather than attempt one stopgap solution after another until the whole thing explodes.

Look around, and see if you can honestly tell me, or yourself, that you see any real leadership that can pull things back together. We don't have that kind of leadership anymore, for the same reason we don't have real statesmen anymore; this society no longer wants leaders or statesmen, and so it cuts any potential ones off at the knees before they can develop. Now, with a real crisis upon us, we are paying the price for that. I don't believe we are AT a tipping point; I believe we PASSED that tipping point quite a while back. There is no longer anyone or anything to rally around, and so, the only real question becomes not if, but when, and how.


----------



## georgephillip

"*"Supplies and Support Pour into Occupy Wall Street from Every Corner of the US*

"*Liberty Square, NY*  Today we want to spotlight the tens of thousands of people from across the United States and around the world who are supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement by contributing blankets, clothing, food, money, and other needed supplies. *The support has truly been overwhelming.*

"Over one month ago, hundreds, and then thousands, gathered in Liberty Square to *protest unprecedented consolidation of wealth and power*, plummeting household income, skyrocketing school debt, and a broken political system. 

"In the weeks since, hundreds of thousands have rallied and occupied in cities and towns around the world. And people from every corner of the United States have sent donations of tarps, home baked pies, hand-knit mittens, and pizzas  *with personal notes of solidarity and support."*

America Supports #OWS | OccupyWallSt.org


----------



## Katzndogz

The Gadfly said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm with you.  That's why I wish the glorious revolution well and hope it starts soon.  I'm good with every company that leaves the country.  They always do well, much better than staying here.  Not only will I do anything to damage the left, but I'll help anyone who wants to damage the left!   I don't care who they are.  The nation at this point is best served by splitting up and separating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see much good in that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see why not. I'm not happy about it, but the reality is, that compromise between the right and the left is most likely impossible, at least in the long term, and some sort of separation is therefore almost inevitable. There's less and less common ground to be had, with every passing day, if indeed there is any at all. I'd rather we split up peacefully, if we still can, rather than do so after a potentially very ugly and bloody civil conflict. I see nothing to be gained by waiting for that to occur.
> 
> Put simply, this is not the same society that got through the Great Depression; it is far less resilient, and has far more serious stress cracks running through it. We have a variety of interests, social, religious, ethnic, economic and political, which simply cannot be reconciled, and it might be better in the long run to frankly acknowledge that, and go our separate ways, rather than attempt one stopgap solution after another until the whole thing explodes.
> 
> Look around, and see if you can honestly tell me, or yourself, that you see any real leadership that can pull things back together. We don't have that kind of leadership anymore, for the same reason we don't have real statesmen anymore; this society no longer wants leaders or statesmen, and so it cuts any potential ones off at the knees before they can develop. Now, with a real crisis upon us, we are paying the price for that. I don't believe we are AT a tipping point; I believe we PASSED that tipping point quite a while back. There is no longer anyone or anything to rally around, and so, the only real question becomes not if, but when, and how.
Click to expand...


There is more interest in breaking the country up than one might think.  Several states have secession movements.  Not all of them are conservative ones either.  Vermont is unhappy that the country is not left enough for instance.   They are unhappy with the pace of creation of the liberal utopia.  

The time has passed when there could be any leader to unite the nation.  The ideaological underpinnings have just gone beyond anyone's ability.   The left's idea is that of course we can be united, as long as everyone agrees with them.  They fully and completely believe that they are in the majority and nothing short of an ice water dose of reality is going to change that.   Even that won't help.  What is going to happen to the left when next election the senate democrats and the president are voted out of office?   The left, is so convinced that the people are on their side, they won't be able to stand it.   They will challenge every election lost as fraudulent.   The left both loves and hates democracy.   

Like yourself, I would like to see an amicable divorce, by negotiation and agreement rather than a violent breakup.  The only other future is to fall into the chaos of a brutal civil war with some foreign power stepping in to restore order and administer the nation's assets.


----------



## Valerie

You guys are insane.    The US of A is not breaking up and there will be no bloody revolution.


----------



## editec

When I recall the angry zietgeist in the nation during the time of the antiwar movement, AND the civil rights movements, and I compare that to what we're facing right now, I seriously doubt that a bloody revolution is in the making.

As much as some Americans now hate the "dirty smelly hippies" of the OWS movement, the absolutely disgust many Americans felt for the Yuppies, Hippies and anti-war protestors of the late 1960s was even worse than today.

Still we managed to roll with that and come back out of it,_ eventually._

And when this economic finally settles down and people get used to the idea that they are never again going to be in a real middle class and they give up all their delusions about winning the American Dream?

This national Scamocracy we call our American Republic will continue unabated.


----------



## Katzndogz

Valerie said:


> You guys are insane.    The US of A is not breaking up and there will be no bloody revolution.



Whether the US of A is breaking up is not the subject.  It should break up.  It would be wise to do so in a planned and reasoned manner.


----------



## Katzndogz

We have a percentage of the population that thinks it has a right to the fruits of someone else's labor.  We have a widespread belief that there should be limits on the assets someone might acquire through their own efforts and innovation.

We have another percentage of the population that is determined this shall not happen.

You can't see a collision course in there?


----------



## Intense

Preius said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sad subject to post on.  When Dick Armey and a few other rightys decided to 'create' a grass roots movement to put a new face on the Republican Party, their PR team came up with "Teabaggers."  If they had only looked in the encyclopedia they would have learned that "Teabagger" carries a negative sexual connotation.  But, the cat was out of the bag, here is one of their own people selling "Teabagger" buttons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since then the Tea Party has done everything they could to separate themselves from the word "Teabagger," but it is too late.  Google will give you more under "Teabagger" than "Tea Party."  I frequently throw the word "Teabagger" into my posts as a way to remind the Tea Party that they jumped without thinking, and this has been typical of their entire opperation.    Also, whomever came up with those tea bag hats made a big mistake, the movement looked like joke.  Are Tea Party politics a joke?  If you want to be taken seriously, you must behave accordingly.  Can you take this man's politics seriously, or does he look like he wants you to bring your income tax to his store?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Kennedy said it, "In politics the facts are not as important as the perception."​
> However, depending on your point of view, OWS has read the Tea Party play book.  They know that the minute they take a stand on an issue, the media will start picking at their bones - so they do not commit - it is working.  The 99% know that if they look too conservative or liberal, they will turn potential new members off - hence a strong middle class image - plenty of seniors, firefighters, construction workers etc.
> 
> Here is Bill Maher's now definitive statement on the Tea Party.  The Tea Party should never have let this utube go unanswered, because now it has a lock on the left and some independents.
> 
> Bill Maher BECOMES a Teabagger - 4/23/10 - YouTube
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower's daughter sat next to Maher as he did this classic Tea Party take-off.​
> OWS is a broader movement, and there is room for you.  This is becoming a global movement as the planet faces financial collapse.  We Americans need to cut the crap and pull together ---------we need the talents of the right.  But, as with the American Revolution 20% of the Tories left the United States after we won that revolution.  All we are looking to get rid of today is less than 1%., or so I say.    Truth is the only reason we had the American Revolution is because the wealthy wanted it.  The same will be true today.  OWS has allies in the 1% also. You can't argue with the source, it is Republican leaning ABC News division of Disney.  'Patriotic Millionaires' Petition Obama For Bush-Era Tax Cuts To Expire - ABC News Please keep an open mind.
> 
> I have watched the Tea Party deal with their Achilles heel "bigotry,"  while I feel sorry for them, they would not give the left a minutes piece if we had made a similar mistake with our name.  So, "Teabagger" is here to stay.  As for me personally, I rarely post on the Tea Party as it is passe.  Perhaps this is because this practical Democrat agrees strongly with the Republicans on the illegal immigration issue.  I believe the efforts in Arizona, Missouri, and Alabama have truly been courageous, while Democrats pander to Mexican American voters.  Hell, Obama's policy is about the same as Bush's.  Both promote amnesty.  I am solidly in for *deportation regardless of circumstances*.  *This is a law enforcement, not racial, question.*
> *
> 
> The subject of this thread is, "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From my perspective you could not be more full of shit. Feel Free to stick with the TeaBagger Label if you feel the need, no matter how juvenile. Maybe you can fantasize on being on a Date with Anderson Cooper standing over you, but hey, that's your fantasy. The Main Stream People that did originally came up with the name were not aware of what the Gay Community had turned it into. I don't fault them for not knowing gutter slang. The Tea Party walked away from the term long ago. So who are you trying to play Jackass.
> 
> Life Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness is what this Republic was founded on. Your attack is not on the Rich, but on the Right of Private Property, and Due Process, so Fuck You, I know how sad it is, and I really bleed for you, Jerk Off.
> 
> Keep feeding the Angry Mob with your Bullshit and lies. When the eye's are open, it's you that will be within reach. There is no substitute for Unalienable Rights, the Free Will, and the Righteous anger that goes with it. You however are feeding Anarchy, with the hope that when it burns itself out, your Totalitarian Utopia will be there to nipple feed whoever is left. So my message to you, is Fuck Off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, Teabaggers were inept from the start in naming themselves 'Teabaggers,' so we should give those disorganized bigots a break?
> 
> You get one break out of me for the Tea Party on deporting illegal immigrants, but don't push your luck.  Teabagging is the easiest win on the board.  Let's not do it.
> *
> 
> The subject of this thread is, "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*
Click to expand...


Makes me wonder why you fear it so much. Is it the Voice? The Power? The Liberty? Free Will? I can understand fully why you are so afraid of the Tea Party. You get no breaks from me. I don't like Control Freaks. I don't lime Piss Ants that would trade in the Constitution for a chance to gain control of others through Favor. You don't even begin to comprehend the effects of your efforts. Just keep pretending you are in it for the common good, as you strip away Individual Rights, for the Selfish interest of the Angry Horde.


----------



## Intense

Valerie said:


> You guys are insane.    The US of A is not breaking up and there will be no bloody revolution.



They are just showing their cards, in hope of support. By my definition it is Insurrection. When realized for what it is, when realized, the level of their incompetence and stupidity, will shut them down.


----------



## Intense

Tipsycatlover said:


> We have a percentage of the population that thinks it has a right to the fruits of someone else's labor.  We have a widespread belief that there should be limits on the assets someone might acquire through their own efforts and innovation.
> 
> We have another percentage of the population that is determined this shall not happen.
> 
> You can't see a collision course in there?



We have Major Opposition out there in the World around us, that would cause harm. It is not in our best interest to break up. It is pretty retarded to think there will be no consequence. The True colors of the Left shine through here, exposing some pretty bad intention. What they cannot attain through Achievement and Merit, they seek to destroy. They have been weakening us for Decades.


----------



## Intense

So much for seeing who supports the Constitution in truth. These Bastards will say or do anything to further their agenda. Why not just be honest at this point? Why do you have to lie still, to advance your agenda and proselytize through deceit and misrepresentation? Because you would be knocked on your ass by the very people you are trying to deceive, should they figure out what you are.


----------



## Dragon

Tipsycatlover said:


> We have a percentage of the population that thinks it has a right to the fruits of someone else's labor.



Indeed we do. It's called the capitalist class.


----------



## Dragon

Intense said:


> So much for seeing who supports the Constitution in truth. These Bastards will say or do anything to further their agenda. Why not just be honest at this point?



I support most of the Constitution. I'd like to see, at minimum, an amendment to the document that clarifies that money is not speech and that a corporation is not a person.

To see what I might like at maximum, go to the link in my signature and read the free, short e-pamphlet there (about 4000 words).


----------



## Big Fitz

Tipsycatlover said:


> We have a percentage of the population that thinks it has a right to the fruits of someone else's labor.  We have a widespread belief that there should be limits on the assets someone might acquire through their own efforts and innovation.
> 
> We have another percentage of the population that is determined this shall not happen.
> 
> You can't see a collision course in there?


And those who believe force is justified to give them their desired life without merit or work are more than comfortable in using violence to get it.

This has been the case since the French Revolution.


----------



## The Gadfly

editec said:


> When I recall the angry zietgeist in the nation during the time of the antiwar movement, AND the civil rights movements, and I compare that to what we're facing right now, I seriously doubt that a bloody revolution is in the making.
> 
> As much as some Americans now hate the "dirty smelly hippies" of the OWS movement, the absolutely disgust many Americans felt for the Yuppies, Hippies and anti-war protestors of the late 1960s was even worse than today.
> 
> Still we managed to roll with that and come back out of it,_ eventually._
> 
> And when this economic finally settles down and people get used to the idea that they are never again going to be in a real middle class and they give up all their delusions about winning the American Dream?
> 
> This national Scamocracy we call our American Republic will continue unabated.


I hope you're right; I'd sure like to believe you are, but there's at least one big difference between those times and this, and it might be a key factor. Back then, the conflict was between two generations: the Baby Boomers, and the WW II generation, who were then "the establishment". We also were not far removed from WW II and the relatively more conformist and traditional fifties, and the hippies and yippies found little to no support among their elders.

Today's society is different; now, it's the Boomers who hold the levers of power, and while some eventually turned conservative, or at least moderated their views, a significant number did not. In addition there are two more generations, largely raised in permissiveness and entitlement; many of them without any solid values, adrift , disillusioned, and increasingly angry-the perfect fodder for demagoguery. Under those circumstances, the Left still can't win, but it may well be emboldened enough to try, instead of just talk. Meanwhile, society itself is fragmented on other fronts; the racial divide still simmers, with an increasingly angry dispute over illegal immigration continuing unresolved. Add to that increased political polarization, a decline in the influence of religion, and economic hard times and uncertainty; while at the same time, real political and civic leadership has decreased in both numbers and quality until there is virtually none.

The danger is not that this little revolt will succeed; that's extremely unlikely. The real danger is what else it may set off; It's akin to striking a match in a shed full of open gas cans-it's not whether the match actually lights; it's a question of whether the sparks reach the fumes. Just a little bad luck, and an abortive insurrection turns into something far worse, in a cascade of unintended and unforeseen consequences.That's the REAL concern, I think.


----------



## Dragon

The Gadfly said:


> I hope you're right; I'd sure like to believe you are, but there's at least one big difference between those times and this, and it might be a key factor. Back then, the conflict was between two generations: the Baby Boomers, and the WW II generation, who were then "the establishment". We also were not far removed from WW II and the relatively more conformist and traditional fifties, and the hippies and yippies found little to no support among their elders.



Oh, this is also a generational conflict, between the Boomers as elders (those of them in power, anyway) and the Millennials. But there's another important difference. That period was an Awakening era, while this is a Crisis era. We get both at roughly 40-year intervals, alternated. (Thus, a Crisis in the 1930s-40s, an Awakening in the 1960s-70s, then another Crisis in the 2010s-20s.) A Crisis era, like we're in now, is mainly political and economic in focus, while an Awakening era is primarily cultural and moral and religious in focus. The political movements in the Awakening achieved imperfect success because they were a sideshow. The main movements of the time were cultural: changes to sexual morality, women's liberation, gay rights, environmentalism. Those movements have just about completely succeeded, except for the last, and even that has succeeded to the point where "green" has become part of the common moral parlance.



> Today's society is different; now, it's the Boomers who hold the levers of power, and while some eventually turned conservative, or at least moderated their views, a significant number did not.



I would say rather that some Boomers were always conservative. It's a big generation. The idea of hippies turning into yuppies is mostly a myth; Boomers who were hippies are still hippies, although with somewhat more practicality and maturity, and it was a different segment of the generation that were yuppies. Boomers who are now leaders in the religious right were not, in the 1960s, hippies or antiwar protesters.



> In addition there are two more generations, largely raised in permissiveness and entitlement; many of them without any solid values, adrift , disillusioned, and increasingly angry-the perfect fodder for demagoguery.



This is a complete mischaracterization of both Generation X and the Millennials. Well, except for the "disillusioned" part, for Gen-X only. But "without any solid values"? No, they just don't share YOUR values; that doesn't mean they don't have values of their own. They certainly do. They tend to be pro-gay-rights and pro-gender-equality and environmentalist, for example, and all of those are "solid values." You may not agree with them, but they are values just the same.



> Under those circumstances, the Left still can't win, but it may well be emboldened enough to try, instead of just talk.



I wouldn't assume we can't win if I were you. Jefferson was right: a government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Corporate money is keeping the government from truly seeking the consent of the governed. Without that consent, it cannot survive. The power only seems to be with the government and the wealthy elite. In reality, it's with the people, and on some core issues, like that corruption itself, the people are far more united than you seem ready to believe.


----------



## Katzndogz

The people are united only in the existence of discontent.  Where that discontent is directed is the core of dissent.

The parasites in the entitlement class direct their discontent to those who work to acquire assets and refuse to share with that who refuse to work.

The working and business class directs their discontent to the entitlement class and an increasing number of demands.


----------



## Katzndogz

The OWS movement is dying.  They are fighting over money, the protests themselves are badly attended.  Less than 50 people showed up for a police brutality protest.   Partly because there isn't any police brutality.

Tensions grow at Occupy Wall Street as money and power struggles fester behind-the-scenes - NYPOST.com

Even a free movie night with pyjamas in freezing weather and free popcorn can't help.


----------



## georgephillip

"Good news for Occupy Wall Street protestors: *67 percent of New York City voters agree with protestors' demonstrations* and 72 percent of New Yorkers statewide desire a Millionaire's Tax in order to increase taxes for those who earn more than $1 million a year. The numbers were released on Monday by two separate polls conducted by Quinnipiac University and Siena College."

The oligarchs are dying.
In their silk pajamas.
Popcorn pimps to the end.


----------



## Katzndogz

I am familiar with polls conducted by both those organizations.  I am surprised that they didn't come up with 100%.   I would have expected results in the 90% range from them.


----------



## Katzndogz

For a different point of view, that isn't liberal directed.

Figures&#8230; Only 37% of Americans Support Obama-Endorsed #OWS Freakshow | The Gateway Pundit

After weeks of enthusiastic reports by the liberal media &#8211; still only 37% of Americans support the far left Occupy freaks.

I don't believe that one either.  Too many groups support OWS.  The American Nazi party, the Communist Party USA, Unions, Democrats.  Obama, of which I am very happy.  He is going to be welded to OWS at the hip come election time.


----------



## georgephillip

What level of support have you seen for Wall Street?


----------



## Ropey

Intense said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are welfare queens having more babies to be supported  on the public dole?  Why do college students get loans for worthless degrees because they want to smoke pot and drink through their years of school and then don't want to pay their debt?  Why are pimps baby daddys to a dozen women and gather up those EBT cars every month.  Who do shitters at OWS whine about more donations, especially condoms that they expect for free.
> 
> I'd rather Wall Street took it all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a time of discontent. Easy to pass and divert blame. Also Soul searching time.
Click to expand...


QFT


----------



## Intense

Dragon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for seeing who supports the Constitution in truth. These Bastards will say or do anything to further their agenda. Why not just be honest at this point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support most of the Constitution. I'd like to see, at minimum, an amendment to the document that clarifies that money is not speech and that a corporation is not a person.
> 
> To see what I might like at maximum, go to the link in my signature and read the free, short e-pamphlet there (about 4000 words).
Click to expand...


If you want to Remove Speech from one Group, how do not treat All Groups the same way? A Union is not a Person. A PAC is not a Person, The Democratic Party is not a Person, The Republican Party is not a Person. What exactly is Free Speech? What about my Right to Listen? Does Google's attempt to buy up Yahoo concern you? How many minds are controlled by the results of Google Searches? 

I think Monopolies are bad and adversely effect the Free Market. I think only Human Beings should Own Stocks, not Conglomerates. I agree with you on unfair Trade Practices, and would like to see Government Oversight and Review. I do believe the Law Makers are fingering Conglomerates with one hand, while the other is in the pot with the conglomerates. Can GE do anything wrong now a days?

I do believe that we need Major Reform, I do not Agree in any way with throwing away the Constitution, You are all being duped by a Source desperate for Power and Control, willing to stoop to any level to remove the Safeguards, which prevent it from Usurping Authority and Jurisdiction, when Truly, it's only goal is to displace the Ruling Class, not correct any wrongs. Show me the List of Wrongs that have been Corrected. I'll show you the Mass Graves that Always follow these types of Revolutions. That does not include those that fall in Battle. It is the Over informed, the Critics, those with Ball's enough to Question Authority, that end up in the Mass Graves which Fertilize your Promised Socialist Utopia, Comrade. Something that never gets enough Fertilizer to actually succeed in It's Lie. 

Freedom of Speech allows you to Speak your mind, Listen to other Perspectives on any issue, and it also allows you to challenge, address, and Rebut. Stand in confidence of your own Witness, and have the Courtesy to allow others to do the same. Censorship and Arbitrary Proclamations concerning Political Discourse do not serve Justice.


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> What level of support have you seen for Wall Street?



Who's invested in it? Are You?


----------



## Intense

Tipsycatlover said:


> For a different point of view, that isn't liberal directed.
> 
> Figures Only 37% of Americans Support Obama-Endorsed #OWS Freakshow | The Gateway Pundit
> 
> After weeks of enthusiastic reports by the liberal media  still only 37% of Americans support the far left Occupy freaks.
> 
> I don't believe that one either.  Too many groups support OWS.  The American Nazi party, the Communist Party USA, Unions, Democrats.  Obama, of which I am very happy.  He is going to be welded to OWS at the hip come election time.



Most of the Supporters are Truly unaware of the real agenda here. The real Trouble Makers going so far out of their way to make Insurrection look like a natural occurring reaction to perceived Injustice. The Dirt Bags need to be uncovered for what they are.


----------



## georgephillip

Intense said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What level of support have you seen for Wall Street?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's invested in it? Are You?
Click to expand...

No, I'm not invested in Wall Street hence  my pension fund wasn't looted.

I also haven't noticed any mass uprising taking to the streets in support of Goldman Sachs.

Have you?


----------



## Dragon

Intense said:


> If you want to Remove Speech from one Group, how do not treat All Groups the same way? A Union is not a Person. A PAC is not a Person, The Democratic Party is not a Person, The Republican Party is not a Person.



All proposals to take money out of politics would ban money from unions and PACs as well as corporations. No proposals have been offered that would do one but not the other. If corporate money is emphasized when talking about it, it's because that's where the problem really lies; by comparison, union influence is trivial. However, you want to ban union money, too? Not a problem. Me, too. Let's do it.

As for the parties, spending money on campaigns is part of what political parties are legitimately for. As long as we limit the contributions any individual can make, and ban contributions from non-individuals, to the party coffers, we should be fine.



> What exactly is Free Speech? What about my Right to Listen? Does Google's attempt to buy up Yahoo concern you? How many minds are controlled by the results of Google Searches?



What concerns me is corporations having veto power over legislation, and turning our supposed democracy into a plutocracy. Google buying up Yahoo is strictly a monopoly issue, as you said later on. Related to it is the consolidation of the traditional media into too few corporate hands. But none of that has the direct impact on our politics that corporate contributions to campaigns and the spending of NPCs on behalf of candidates has. And we have to fix that before the government will be positioned to fix, well, really anything else.



> I do believe that we need Major Reform, I do not Agree in any way with throwing away the Constitution



I'm not talking about "throwing away" the Constitution, only amending it. You know, there are two amendment procedures built into the document for a reason. Since the Supreme Court has ruled regarding money being speech, we can't just pass a law, but must amend the Constitution in order to fix that problem. I'm for doing that, and realistically it needs to be done through constitutional convention, because Congress is too corrupt for 2/3 of its members in both Houses to pass an amendment and send it to the states for the purpose.


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What level of support have you seen for Wall Street?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's invested in it? Are You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm not invested in Wall Street hence  my pension fund wasn't looted.
> 
> I also haven't noticed any mass uprising taking to the streets in support of Goldman Sachs.
> 
> Have you?
Click to expand...


Nope. I'm not invested either, just for the Record.


----------



## Intense

Dragon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to Remove Speech from one Group, how do not treat All Groups the same way? A Union is not a Person. A PAC is not a Person, The Democratic Party is not a Person, The Republican Party is not a Person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All proposals to take money out of politics would ban money from unions and PACs as well as corporations. No proposals have been offered that would do one but not the other. If corporate money is emphasized when talking about it, it's because that's where the problem really lies; by comparison, union influence is trivial. However, you want to ban union money, too? Not a problem. Me, too. Let's do it.
> 
> As for the parties, spending money on campaigns is part of what political parties are legitimately for. As long as we limit the contributions any individual can make, and ban contributions from non-individuals, to the party coffers, we should be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is Free Speech? What about my Right to Listen? Does Google's attempt to buy up Yahoo concern you? How many minds are controlled by the results of Google Searches?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What concerns me is corporations having veto power over legislation, and turning our supposed democracy into a plutocracy. Google buying up Yahoo is strictly a monopoly issue, as you said later on. Related to it is the consolidation of the traditional media into too few corporate hands. But none of that has the direct impact on our politics that corporate contributions to campaigns and the spending of NPCs on behalf of candidates has. And we have to fix that before the government will be positioned to fix, well, really anything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that we need Major Reform, I do not Agree in any way with throwing away the Constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not talking about "throwing away" the Constitution, only amending it. You know, there are two amendment procedures built into the document for a reason. Since the Supreme Court has ruled regarding money being speech, we can't just pass a law, but must amend the Constitution in order to fix that problem. I'm for doing that, and realistically it needs to be done through constitutional convention, because Congress is too corrupt for 2/3 of its members in both Houses to pass an amendment and send it to the states for the purpose.
Click to expand...




> All proposals to take money out of politics would ban money from unions and PACs as well as corporations. No proposals have been offered that would do one but not the other. If corporate money is emphasized when talking about it, it's because that's where the problem really lies; by comparison, union influence is trivial. However, you want to ban union money, too? Not a problem. Me, too. Let's do it.



The problem is not only Corporate, Government Workers are Unionized, and that in itself lies a very big influence. Disallow Government Workers from Unionizing. End Tenure. Open genuine competition in all fields. You want Fair Labor Laws, write them and support them. Think Impartiality. End the Monopolies, compensate Companies fairly for what they provide and maintain. When Any Group has something Critical to reveal, who are you or I to deny Voice. I truly don't understand why you would want to do that. It is effectively a Gag. Why? What end is served? How is Justice Served?



> As for the parties, spending money on campaigns is part of what political parties are legitimately for. As long as we limit the contributions any individual can make, and ban contributions from non-individuals, to the party coffers, we should be fine.



The Parties seem more corrupted than Private interest to me. They are playing World Domination with the Force of Law behind it. The Threat of Runaway Government a far greater threat than Corporations buying influence. This seems more a problem that Limited Government, accountability, and Transparency, and Review, would fix, if ever applied.



> What concerns me is corporations having veto power over legislation, and turning our supposed democracy into a plutocracy. Google buying up Yahoo is strictly a monopoly issue, as you said later on. Related to it is the consolidation of the traditional media into too few corporate hands. But none of that has the direct impact on our politics that corporate contributions to campaigns and the spending of NPCs on behalf of candidates has. And we have to fix that before the government will be positioned to fix, well, really anything else.



How do Corporations have Veto Power exactly? The Plutocracy or Oligarchy, come from Government Partnership with Private Interest, it comes with the Court claiming Extra Constitutional Powers to act Arbitrarily without Appeal on Imagined Reason and Power, not supported by Original Intent. True, Hamilton was a Schemer from the start, and misled, Still, Madison Style Federalism, should we ever try it, keep the Federal Government so much more accountable and in check. The Conglomerates could never have achieved their current state, without the cooperation of the Federal Government.

Progressive Government by It's Nature, created, supported, Partner shipped, and ran cover for the Conglomerates, and discouraged Small Enterprise. Progressivism is in part about Centralized National reach. Progressivism is about Control.


----------



## Intense

> I'm not talking about "throwing away" the Constitution, only amending it. You know, there are two amendment procedures built into the document for a reason. Since the Supreme Court has ruled regarding money being speech, we can't just pass a law, but must amend the Constitution in order to fix that problem. I'm for doing that, and realistically it needs to be done through constitutional convention, because Congress is too corrupt for 2/3 of its members in both Houses to pass an amendment and send it to the states for the purpose.



It's only a problem when one disagrees with the message. The Remedy is a good rebuttal, and the ability to communicate it. Censorship is not a remedy, it compounds the problem.


----------



## Unkotare

Dragon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for seeing who supports the Constitution in truth. These Bastards will say or do anything to further their agenda. Why not just be honest at this point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support most of the Constitution. I'd like to see, at minimum, an amendment to the document that clarifies that money is not speech and that a corporation is not a person.
> 
> To see what I might like at maximum, go to the link in my signature and read the free, short e-pamphlet there (about 4000 words).
Click to expand...



So you don't 'like' the 1st Amendment? Well fuck you, bitch. Don't try and smear your filth and selfish ignorance on my Constitution.


----------



## Intense

Unkotare said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for seeing who supports the Constitution in truth. These Bastards will say or do anything to further their agenda. Why not just be honest at this point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I support most of the Constitution. I'd like to see, at minimum, an amendment to the document that clarifies that money is not speech and that a corporation is not a person.
> 
> To see what I might like at maximum, go to the link in my signature and read the free, short e-pamphlet there (about 4000 words).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't 'like' the 1st Amendment? Well fuck you, bitch. Don't try and smear your filth and selfish ignorance on my Constitution.
Click to expand...


The bigger threat here, is those advocating Insurrection. The Source of that needs to be rooted out and held to account. Progressivism too, is becoming very open about being Anti Individual Liberty, and Anti Unalienable Right.


----------



## Dragon

Intense said:


> The problem is not only Corporate, Government Workers are Unionized, and that in itself lies a very big influence. Disallow Government Workers from Unionizing.



Absolutely not. Strange as this may seem to you, given the misconceptions the right seems to have about the left being in love with government, I don't trust government agencies, and those who work for them shouldn't have to trust them, either. Collective bargaining is an essential right for everyone who works for someone else. That's no less true when the someone else is the government.

Take away the public unions' right to contribute to political campaigns and any concern about corruption should disappear.



> End Tenure. Open genuine competition in all fields. You want Fair Labor Laws, write them and support them. Think Impartiality. End the Monopolies, compensate Companies fairly for what they provide and maintain.



All right, but how are you going to get any of that through Congress -- setting aside whether or not I agree with you, which really is sort of beside the point here -- when Congress has its strings pulled by corporate donors who in many cases are the very ones consolidating the monopolies?

By the way, in case anyone is wondering, this is NOT a partisan problem. The Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans.



> When Any Group has something Critical to reveal, who are you or I to deny Voice. I truly don't understand why you would want to do that. It is effectively a Gag. Why? What end is served? How is Justice Served?



This isn't just speech. It's bribery. In fact, more than that, it's extortion. The cost of campaigns nowadays means that anyone who hopes to get elected MUST take contributions from the big donors, and that means they MUST adhere to rules (mostly unwritten and underhanded) about what can and cannot be proposed.

Why do you think the big Wall Street banks and financial institutions gave so much to Barack Obama, both in 2008 and now? Because they like him better than the Republican alternative? No, it's because realistically they know he might win, and they want to have a handle on him, have him be beholden to them and dance to their tunes. It works, too. He does. By giving to both him and the Republican nominee (whoever that turns out to be), they can determine what both candidates are allowed to advocate and, in office, to do.

We have laws against bribery of the old-fashioned kind (where the politician pockets the cash and spends it on himself, to improve his lifestyle) precisely because it corrupts public officials to the service of private, selfish interests instead of the public good. Bribery in the form of campaign contributions and third-party campaign spending, although not illegal because the politician doesn't pocket the money and spend it on his own lifestyle, is just as corrupting and just as bad. And it's going on wholesale.



> The Parties seem more corrupted than Private interest to me.



They are, but they're corrupted BY private interests. If we get the big money out of politics, the parties will cease to be corrupt. They'll respond to the voters instead of the donors, because the voters will BE the donors.



> How do Corporations have Veto Power exactly?



Suppose you are a Congresscritter and your reelection is coming up next year, as it is for all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate. Suppose that you know the voters in your district want, oh, let's say an end to ethanol subsidies. But agribusiness funds a lot of your campaign expenses and their lobbyists insist you keep the ethanol subsidies flowing. You cannot offer to end the subsidies because if you did, you would lose that money and not be able to campaign effectively. Neither can your opponent, for the same reason (the interests that want the subsidies make sure of that). So ending the subsidies is vetoed. It's off the table and off the ballot. The voters can't vote for it, because neither candidate dares advocate it.

That's how it works.



> The Plutocracy or Oligarchy, come from Government Partnership with Private Interest, it comes with the Court claiming Extra Constitutional Powers to act Arbitrarily without Appeal on Imagined Reason and Power, not supported by Original Intent.



Not sure what you're talking about here. Are you questioning _Marbury v. Madison_? Judicial review? That's what it sounds like. But the court does have that power. It isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, but it follows logically from what is explicitly stated, namely that the Supreme Court has "the judicial power," which means the power to try cases under the law as to both facts and law. As such, the court can say, "This law violates the Constitution. Therefore, we rule that this case, which was tried by the lower court on the basis of this law, is overturned (or upheld, as appropriate). Moreover, we declare that we will rule similarly on any more cases under this law that come before us." "We declare the law unconstitutional" is just shorthand for that. Since the court obviously does have the power to try cases, it has the power of judicial review automatically.



> True, Hamilton was a Schemer from the start, and misled, Still, Madison Style Federalism, should we ever try it, keep the Federal Government so much more accountable and in check. The Conglomerates could never have achieved their current state, without the cooperation of the Federal Government.



Two answer to this. One, removing the corrupt influence by removing the government's power to serve it won't work, for the simple reason that the influence will demand that the government resume that power immediately. Two, a modern industrial economy has to include a lot of government involvement or it breaks down. Madison governed a country that was still largely pre-industrial. Even so, after the War of 1812 he moderated a lot of his earlier opinions and accepted the re-authorization of the Bank of the United States, recognizing that turning our backs on modernity could result in an ass-kicking. (Having received one under his presidency.)



> Progressive Government by It's Nature, created, supported, Partner shipped, and ran cover for the Conglomerates, and discouraged Small Enterprise. Progressivism is in part about Centralized National reach. Progressivism is about Control.



No. You are attributing to progressivism, or modern liberalism, characteristics that actually belong to modern capital-friendly conservatism. Encouragement of conglomerates and discouragement of small enterprise are aspects of government involvement in the economy pushed by politicians that would today call conservative, not liberal. Progressives push instead aspects of government control that would fight against monopoly and protect the rights of workers and (more recently) the environment. Both accept the necessity of government involvement in the economy, but for different ends.


----------



## Preius

Big Fitz said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's the same demand since 1890.  Quelle suprise!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I pulled out my _Almanac of American History_ by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. to read about the Tories during the American Revolution.  You recall the Tories were the loyalists to England and supported the actions of British troops.
> 
> Tory commentary sounds very much the same as the 1%.  There are always a few who place their own interests above the needs of those who are disadvantaged.  And, there is only one language they understand - violence of the many, trumps the greed of a few.  Just some food for thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, hadn't realized you responded to me you were so busy finding pseudo-intellectual reasons to justify your whining of gimme gimme gimme and eat the rich, with a half-witty image.
> 
> You do realize that many of our founding fathers were corporate interests in this nation.  From publishers to brewers, plantation owners and budding industrialists in a pre-industrial age, they are the ones who revolted against the force of an abusive big government which they had no ability to demand equitable treatment from.  The forces driving much of the revolutionary war were economic where the big imperialist government was demanding they surrender their hard earned money with no say in the process or how it was taxed.
> 
> This is your Occupados desire.  More government, more spending, more taxes, more oppression.  I go by one of your encampments every work day 2 times a day.  My customers who have to work down there and deal with you assholes are sick to the teeth with your infantile demands, inability to have even a coherent message from breath to breath and their insatiable desire to be heard, but lack even an iota of truth, rationality or equality for anyone.
> 
> The lice have revolted and are demanding more from the dog and don't give a shit how they get it.
> 
> BTW, if you really want to be taken seriously, you need to get the anti-war, ecofascist, socialists and anti-semites out of your protest group.  Their signs make it look, once again, as if it's a social event for fucktards.
Click to expand...


Don't know where to begin, you need to read Arthur Schlessinger, Jr's book _The Almanac of American History_ beginning in the ninth century.  Your opinions on American history sound more like bar talk than a scholarly study.

As long as you are driving past 99% demonstrations twice a day anyway, why not park and do a little politicking?  Go directly to the source, and ask what is going on.  What have you got to lose, except perhaps your incorrect assessment of the OWS.  I always open my windows, wave my arm and honk my horn when I drive past to encourage them.

I am sorry that the economic victims of Wall Street excesses clutters your view of your city.  Any chance you might be missing a point here?


----------



## Preius

Tipsycatlover said:


> The left imagines that a general strike, where people who don't have jobs refuse to go to work is going to hurt everyone.
> 
> It won't.
> 
> A general strike by the business class however, would be catastrophic.   Some Tea Party employers right now are vowing not to hire anyone until obama is out of office.  That's a strike that would really hurt.  You want to see pain?   Try a few employers closing for a week and laying everyone off without pay.  Employers don't do that because it's not worth it to them.  Make it worth it and there is a whole different end to that story.



There is a lot of fact checking that needs to go on in this thread.  It is almost like people are getting their American history from Sarah (I'm in it for the money) Palin.  

Fact is the American Revolution only took place because the wealthy wanted it.  The same will be true of the 1%.  The Tea Party playbook is working for the 99%ers.  And, don't forget about the quiet group known as "Patriotic Millionaires" who believe the Bush tax cuts should be ended, and endorse the OWS/99%ers.  http://patrioticmillionaires.org/ 

Tea Party members of Congress represent the lowest amount of reelection money raised for 2012.  The Teabaggers are fading into history.  They  were sent to Washington shouting JOBS, and then have stood in the way of every effort to get American working.  Frankly, I don't blame the patriotic members of the Tea Party, I call it bad management.

It is really too bad because some of the Tea Party ideas on cutting spending and illegal immigration had merit.  Unfortunately, the Tea Party never stood up against accusations of bigotry.  This is why OWS, Occupy Wall Street is going global - no accusations of prejudice.

It was from the Tea Party playbook that OWS learned that politicians stop listening when protestors go home.  This is why OWS is camping in the park near Wall Street.  Look, I am an old boy scout, and I can tell you sleeping in my bed is preferred to a pup tent and sleeping bag.  OWS Americans are making personal sacrifices living at Wall Street.  I salute their patriotic commitment.  The teabaggers never showed this kind of effort.

To the Tea Party, I say, the Tea Party was a great test market, thank you.  Mistakes were made that cannot be corrected.  This 99% movement is about *International anger*, similar to the way Tea Party started out.  We read angry conservative posts in USMB everyday, they are not much different than my own.  Keep that anger up!    OWS continues to learn from the Tea Party experience, now by  broaden the size of the tent, and kicking the ass of Wall Street and* both* political parties.  We are all getting screwed, and working together we can save our democracy and the best of capitalism.  Where does it say you can not be Tea Party and OWS at the same time?

How would Tea Party members feel about booting out every elected official in November 2012 regardless of party?  Come on Tea Party, I know you are as pissed as I am about what has happened to your country as I am.  Then again, we might not get as far as the 2012 election if Greece or Italy fail economically.  My broker told me last Friday that Europeans are getting out of Euros and into dollars, and Americans are getting out of stocks into metals.  Like they say, even the most fortunate people are only 12 meals away from starvation.  

Food for thought.  Only 1/3 of American colonists were in favor of a break with England.  It was the wealthy merchant class who made it happen.  Those members of the Continental Congress were the most respected men of their colonies.  There was left - Thomas Jefferson, right - John Adams, and southern aristocrat - John Rutledge.  Eventually, all of them signed THE SAME Declaration of Independence.  We have done it before, we can do it again.  Make no mistake about it we American people are unhappy about the way our government is working.  Economic change is the issue of anger.  *No one* is talking about throwing out the founding documents of our nation or capitalism.  After the American Revolution only 20% of the Tories, (British loyalists) left the United States, the other 80% assimilated to the new U. S. government.


----------



## Preius

Intense said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had my attention up to the mention of "TeaBaggers". You are playing both sides against the middle. Why do you need to Demonize the Tea Party? Grow up. Try being less toxic.
> 
> It's about Principle, in the end, not Polls, especially when driven by misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sad subject to post on.  When Dick Armey and a few other rightys decided to 'create' a grass roots movement to put a new face on the Republican Party, their PR team came up with "Teabaggers."  If they had only looked in the encyclopedia they would have learned that "Teabagger" carries a negative sexual connotation.  But, the cat was out of the bag, here is one of their own people selling "Teabagger" buttons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since then the Tea Party has done everything they could to separate themselves from the word "Teabagger," but it is too late.  Google will give you more under "Teabagger" than "Tea Party."  I frequently throw the word "Teabagger" into my posts as a way to remind the Tea Party that they jumped without thinking, and this has been typical of their entire opperation.    Also, whomever came up with those tea bag hats made a big mistake, the movement looked like joke.  Are Tea Party politics a joke?  If you want to be taken seriously, you must behave accordingly.  Can you take this man's politics seriously, or does he look like he wants you to bring your income tax to his store?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Kennedy said it, "In politics the facts are not as important as the perception."​
> However, depending on your point of view, OWS has read the Tea Party play book.  They know that the minute they take a stand on an issue, the media will start picking at their bones - so they do not commit - it is working.  The 99% know that if they look too conservative or liberal, they will turn potential new members off - hence a strong middle class image - plenty of seniors, firefighters, construction workers etc.
> 
> Here is Bill Maher's now definitive statement on the Tea Party.  The Tea Party should never have let this utube go unanswered, because now it has a lock on the left and some independents.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU]Bill Maher BECOMES a Teabagger - 4/23/10 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower's daughter sat next to Maher as he did this classic Tea Party take-off.​
> OWS is a broader movement, and there is room for you.  This is becoming a global movement as the planet faces financial collapse.  We Americans need to cut the crap and pull together ---------we need the talents of the right.  But, as with the American Revolution 20% of the Tories left the United States after we won that revolution.  All we are looking to get rid of today is less than 1%., or so I say.    Truth is the only reason we had the American Revolution is because the wealthy wanted it.  The same will be true today.  OWS has allies in the 1% also. You can't argue with the source, it is Republican leaning ABC News division of Disney.  'Patriotic Millionaires' Petition Obama For Bush-Era Tax Cuts To Expire - ABC News Please keep an open mind.
> 
> I have watched the Tea Party deal with their Achilles heel "bigotry,"  while I feel sorry for them, they would not give the left a minutes piece if we had made a similar mistake with our name.  So, "Teabagger" is here to stay.  As for me personally, I rarely post on the Tea Party as it is passe.  Perhaps this is because this practical Democrat agrees strongly with the Republicans on the illegal immigration issue.  I believe the efforts in Arizona, Missouri, and Alabama have truly been courageous, while Democrats pander to Mexican American voters.  Hell, Obama's policy is about the same as Bush's.  Both promote amnesty.  I am solidly in for *deportation regardless of circumstances*.  *This is a law enforcement, not racial, question.*
> *
> 
> The subject of this thread is, "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my perspective you could not be more full of shit. Feel Free to stick with the TeaBagger Label if you feel the need, no matter how juvenile. Maybe you can fantasize on being on a Date with Anderson Cooper standing over you, but hey, that's your fantasy. The Main Stream People that did originally came up with the name were not aware of what the Gay Community had turned it into. I don't fault them for not knowing gutter slang. The Tea Party walked away from the term long ago. So who are you trying to play Jackass.
> 
> Life Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness is what this Republic was founded on. Your attack is not on the Rich, but on the Right of Private Property, and Due Process, so Fuck You, I know how sad it is, and I really bleed for you, Jerk Off.
> 
> Keep feeding the Angry Mob with your Bullshit and lies. When the eye's are open, it's you that will be within reach. There is no substitute for Unalienable Rights, the Free Will, and the Righteous anger that goes with it. You however are feeding Anarchy, with the hope that when it burns itself out, your Totalitarian Utopia will be there to nipple feed whoever is left. So my message to you, is Fuck Off.
Click to expand...


Thank you I will stick with the Teabagger label.  You may recall the Emperor of Austria, Franz Joseph.  In a battle with Hungry, Austria aquirred Hungry.  In the room in the palace where Hungry met Austria around a board table Franz Joseph had a painting of the decisive battle where Austria defeated Hungry made and hung directly across from where the representatives of Hungry sat.  The painting of the defeat of Hungry was ever-present in all conversations between Hungry and Austria.  I see the term 'Teabagger' as a constant reminder of a movement that missed the basics of checking the dictionary before choosing their name.  I for one will never let the Tea Party forget their stupidity.


----------



## Unkotare

Preius said:


> Don't know where to begin, you need to read Arthur Schlessinger, Jr's book _The Almanac of American History_ beginning in the ninth century.  Your opinions on American history sound more like bar talk than a scholarly study.







Here again we see shitforbrains trying to 'boast' of completing Jr High (though I still doubt he actually did). What a fucking dim-wit.


----------



## Preius

aquiredaquired





Intense said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had my attention up to the mention of "TeaBaggers". You are playing both sides against the middle. Why do you need to Demonize the Tea Party? Grow up. Try being less toxic.
> 
> It's about Principle, in the end, not Polls, especially when driven by misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a sad subject to post on.  When Dick Armey and a few other rightys decided to 'create' a grass roots movement to put a new face on the Republican Party, their PR team came up with "Teabaggers."  If they had only looked in the encyclopedia they would have learned that "Teabagger" carries a negative sexual connotation.  But, the cat was out of the bag, here is one of their own people selling "Teabagger" buttons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since then the Tea Party has done everything they could to separate themselves from the word "Teabagger," but it is too late.  Google will give you more under "Teabagger" than "Tea Party."  I frequently throw the word "Teabagger" into my posts as a way to remind the Tea Party that they jumped without thinking, and this has been typical of their entire opperation.    Also, whomever came up with those tea bag hats made a big mistake, the movement looked like joke.  Are Tea Party politics a joke?  If you want to be taken seriously, you must behave accordingly.  Can you take this man's politics seriously, or does he look like he wants you to bring your income tax to his store?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Kennedy said it, "In politics the facts are not as important as the perception."​
> However, depending on your point of view, OWS has read the Tea Party play book.  They know that the minute they take a stand on an issue, the media will start picking at their bones - so they do not commit - it is working.  The 99% know that if they look too conservative or liberal, they will turn potential new members off - hence a strong middle class image - plenty of seniors, firefighters, construction workers etc.
> 
> Here is Bill Maher's now definitive statement on the Tea Party.  The Tea Party should never have let this utube go unanswered, because now it has a lock on the left and some independents.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU]Bill Maher BECOMES a Teabagger - 4/23/10 - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Dwight Eisenhower's daughter sat next to Maher as he did this classic Tea Party take-off.​
> OWS is a broader movement, and there is room for you.  This is becoming a global movement as the planet faces financial collapse.  We Americans need to cut the crap and pull together ---------we need the talents of the right.  But, as with the American Revolution 20% of the Tories left the United States after we won that revolution.  All we are looking to get rid of today is less than 1%., or so I say.    Truth is the only reason we had the American Revolution is because the wealthy wanted it.  The same will be true today.  OWS has allies in the 1% also. You can't argue with the source, it is Republican leaning ABC News division of Disney.  'Patriotic Millionaires' Petition Obama For Bush-Era Tax Cuts To Expire - ABC News Please keep an open mind.
> 
> I have watched the Tea Party deal with their Achilles heel "bigotry,"  while I feel sorry for them, they would not give the left a minutes piece if we had made a similar mistake with our name.  So, "Teabagger" is here to stay.  As for me personally, I rarely post on the Tea Party as it is passe.  Perhaps this is because this practical Democrat agrees strongly with the Republicans on the illegal immigration issue.  I believe the efforts in Arizona, Missouri, and Alabama have truly been courageous, while Democrats pander to Mexican American voters.  Hell, Obama's policy is about the same as Bush's.  Both promote amnesty.  I am solidly in for *deportation regardless of circumstances*.  *This is a law enforcement, not racial, question.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my perspective you could not be more full of shit. Feel Free to stick with the TeaBagger Label if you feel the need, no matter how juvenile. Maybe you can fantasize on being on a Date with Anderson Cooper standing over you, but hey, that's your fantasy. The Main Stream People that did originally came up with the name were not aware of what the Gay Community had turned it into. I don't fault them for not knowing gutter slang. The Tea Party walked away from the term long ago. So who are you trying to play Jackass.
> 
> Life Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness is what this Republic was founded on. Your attack is not on the Rich, but on the Right of Private Property, and Due Process, so Fuck You, I know how sad it is, and I really bleed for you, Jerk Off.
> 
> Keep feeding the Angry Mob with your Bullshit and lies. When the eye's are open, it's you that will be within reach. There is no substitute for Unalienable Rights, the Free Will, and the Righteous anger that goes with it. You however are feeding Anarchy, with the hope that when it burns itself out, your Totalitarian Utopia will be there to nipple feed whoever is left. So my message to you, is Fuck Off.
Click to expand...


Thank you I will stick with the Teabagger label from time to time.  

You may recall the Emperor of Austria, Franz Joseph.  In a battle with Hungry, Austria aquired Hungry.  In the room in the palace in Salzburg where Hungry met Austria around a large table, Franz Joseph had a wall-sized painting of the decisive battle where Austria defeated Hungry hung directly across from where the representatives of Hungry sat.  

The painting of the defeat of Hungry was ever-present reminder in all conversations between Hungry and Austria.  I see the term 'Teabagger' as a constant reminder of a movement that jumped too quickly, and missed the basics of checking the dictionary before choosing their name.  I for one will never let the Tea Party forget their stupidity of their leadership, which we all know was never grass-roots.  It was Dick Armey and Republican lobbyists.

I will not enlist the support of the Tea Party by insulting you, at the same time the Tea Party is responsible for some cheap politics, such as the debt ceiling mess last summer.  Many would like to see the heads of Paul Ryan and Eric Canter on a silver platter, but I digress.

I would like to move on from the subject of the Tea Party.  It is a movement of the past, and *I am trying to extend an olive branch to Tea Party members to join the 99%*.  This is not a big leap of faith.

*

The subject of this thread is, "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​*


----------



## Unkotare

Preius said:


> I am trying to extend an olive branch to Tea Party members to join the 99%




And just who told you that you 'represent' anything, shitbag?


----------



## Katzndogz

The goals of the Tea Party and the goals of OWS are opposite one another.


----------



## Preius

Unkotare said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am trying to extend an olive branch to Tea Party members to join the 99%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And just who told you that you 'represent' anything, shitbag?
Click to expand...


Oh, it is you.  Let me see if I can dumb this down.  If you read something from a real news source you would know that almost the whole 99% of the population is theoretically 99%ers.  So, anyone who chooses to include themselves in the 99% can extend an invitation, duh.

Now, here is your reality in this thread.  I am going to ignore any post you make here.  I have seen your work before.  You are a distraction with nothing to offer, and you have NEVER verified a single word you have posted with a link.  So, by letting viewers see your posts in this thread go unanswered by me will again demonstrate to USMB how incompetent you are.  Maybe you will actually luck out and find a poster willing to waste their time with you.  From what I hear this is your typical MO - spam and name-calling.

However, I will continue to interact with you in the illegal immigration thread.  I have a lot of materials I want to cover, and I can do so as long as you keep bumping the thread.  So, goodbye from the occupy Wall Street thread, you are on ignore.


----------



## Preius

Tipsycatlover said:


> The goals of the Tea Party and the goals of OWS are opposite one another.



Please verify your post with fact links.  Oh, that's right, you do not know how to post a link.  Pretty weird for a guy who has done 877 posts, and still does not know the software.  

Please make an effort and see if you can surprise us with a couple good links!


----------



## Unkotare

So now you consider yourself an official representative of these filthy morons? At least that is something you'd be qualified for, though I doubt even those fecal-covered emo-vandals would put up with you for long.


----------



## Unkotare

And just because some semi-literate goon manages to scrawl "99%" on a piece of cardboard does NOT mean that these wanna-be hippy hypocrites comprise or represent 99% of the population. They are a tiny, stinking little group of self-indulgent morons (like preius), and nothing more. This whole little play session of theirs will be over soon.


----------



## Preius

There are a couple of facts about Occupy Wall Street, the 99%, that most would agree with.  First, these are angry working class and professional people.  *Anger* is the key word here.  We feel we are getting screwed.  Second, money in government has angered people in all walks of life against Wall Street, Democrats and Republicans.  Third, specific issues have been avoided leaving people upset with gridlock in the whole system of government and business.  Fourth, this is not anger against capitalism, it is anger toward all political labels for not making our Republic work any more.  Fifth, the same people who messed up the economy in 2008 are still running the show now, and no one has gone to jail for the financial crisis.  Where are the Republicans and Democrats - bought and paid for?

A lot of opinions are being thrown around, this utube is from Australian David Icke who is best known for his view that banks place us in slavery with credit.  I'll admit some of this is over my head, but the point is ideas like Icke's help define the anger of the OWS/99% movement.  And if you stretch it, the Tea Party would be included too.  If you are truly interested in what is going on review Icke's position and decide for yourself.  I am not totally sold on Icke's point of view, but it did help me focus.  Oh, being new I want to fit into USMB so here is some name-calling - Wall Street bankers are feces cooks.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kafGiz5g5K0]David Icke - Essential Knowledge For A Wall Street Protestor.(mirrored) - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## Intense

Dragon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is not only Corporate, Government Workers are Unionized, and that in itself lies a very big influence. Disallow Government Workers from Unionizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. Strange as this may seem to you, given the misconceptions the right seems to have about the left being in love with government, I don't trust government agencies, and those who work for them shouldn't have to trust them, either. Collective bargaining is an essential right for everyone who works for someone else. That's no less true when the someone else is the government.
> 
> Take away the public unions' right to contribute to political campaigns and any concern about corruption should disappear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> End Tenure. Open genuine competition in all fields. You want Fair Labor Laws, write them and support them. Think Impartiality. End the Monopolies, compensate Companies fairly for what they provide and maintain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All right, but how are you going to get any of that through Congress -- setting aside whether or not I agree with you, which really is sort of beside the point here -- when Congress has its strings pulled by corporate donors who in many cases are the very ones consolidating the monopolies?
> 
> By the way, in case anyone is wondering, this is NOT a partisan problem. The Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't just speech. It's bribery. In fact, more than that, it's extortion. The cost of campaigns nowadays means that anyone who hopes to get elected MUST take contributions from the big donors, and that means they MUST adhere to rules (mostly unwritten and underhanded) about what can and cannot be proposed.
> 
> Why do you think the big Wall Street banks and financial institutions gave so much to Barack Obama, both in 2008 and now? Because they like him better than the Republican alternative? No, it's because realistically they know he might win, and they want to have a handle on him, have him be beholden to them and dance to their tunes. It works, too. He does. By giving to both him and the Republican nominee (whoever that turns out to be), they can determine what both candidates are allowed to advocate and, in office, to do.
> 
> We have laws against bribery of the old-fashioned kind (where the politician pockets the cash and spends it on himself, to improve his lifestyle) precisely because it corrupts public officials to the service of private, selfish interests instead of the public good. Bribery in the form of campaign contributions and third-party campaign spending, although not illegal because the politician doesn't pocket the money and spend it on his own lifestyle, is just as corrupting and just as bad. And it's going on wholesale.
> 
> 
> 
> They are, but they're corrupted BY private interests. If we get the big money out of politics, the parties will cease to be corrupt. They'll respond to the voters instead of the donors, because the voters will BE the donors.
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose you are a Congresscritter and your reelection is coming up next year, as it is for all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate. Suppose that you know the voters in your district want, oh, let's say an end to ethanol subsidies. But agribusiness funds a lot of your campaign expenses and their lobbyists insist you keep the ethanol subsidies flowing. You cannot offer to end the subsidies because if you did, you would lose that money and not be able to campaign effectively. Neither can your opponent, for the same reason (the interests that want the subsidies make sure of that). So ending the subsidies is vetoed. It's off the table and off the ballot. The voters can't vote for it, because neither candidate dares advocate it.
> 
> That's how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you're talking about here. Are you questioning _Marbury v. Madison_? Judicial review? That's what it sounds like. But the court does have that power. It isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, but it follows logically from what is explicitly stated, namely that the Supreme Court has "the judicial power," which means the power to try cases under the law as to both facts and law. As such, the court can say, "This law violates the Constitution. Therefore, we rule that this case, which was tried by the lower court on the basis of this law, is overturned (or upheld, as appropriate). Moreover, we declare that we will rule similarly on any more cases under this law that come before us." "We declare the law unconstitutional" is just shorthand for that. Since the court obviously does have the power to try cases, it has the power of judicial review automatically.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, Hamilton was a Schemer from the start, and misled, Still, Madison Style Federalism, should we ever try it, keep the Federal Government so much more accountable and in check. The Conglomerates could never have achieved their current state, without the cooperation of the Federal Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two answer to this. One, removing the corrupt influence by removing the government's power to serve it won't work, for the simple reason that the influence will demand that the government resume that power immediately. Two, a modern industrial economy has to include a lot of government involvement or it breaks down. Madison governed a country that was still largely pre-industrial. Even so, after the War of 1812 he moderated a lot of his earlier opinions and accepted the re-authorization of the Bank of the United States, recognizing that turning our backs on modernity could result in an ass-kicking. (Having received one under his presidency.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressive Government by It's Nature, created, supported, Partner shipped, and ran cover for the Conglomerates, and discouraged Small Enterprise. Progressivism is in part about Centralized National reach. Progressivism is about Control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. You are attributing to progressivism, or modern liberalism, characteristics that actually belong to modern capital-friendly conservatism. Encouragement of conglomerates and discouragement of small enterprise are aspects of government involvement in the economy pushed by politicians that would today call conservative, not liberal. Progressives push instead aspects of government control that would fight against monopoly and protect the rights of workers and (more recently) the environment. Both accept the necessity of government involvement in the economy, but for different ends.
Click to expand...




> Absolutely not. Strange as this may seem to you, given the misconceptions the right seems to have about the left being in love with government, I don't trust government agencies, and those who work for them shouldn't have to trust them, either. Collective bargaining is an essential right for everyone who works for someone else. That's no less true when the someone else is the government.
> 
> Take away the public unions' right to contribute to political campaigns and any concern about corruption should disappear.



Left Leadership is Progressive Socialist. That's Government control. You are being played, that is the point. Government is not the answer. The Parasite has outgrown the Host, it's hunger is unsustainable. Consider Union's Roll in the Corruption of Politics, they are on borrowed time. The solution  they lay claim to, can just as easily be accomplished through Just Labor Laws. Unionism, especially Government Workers, have become the New Middle Class, on Someone Else's dime. We are tired of the abuse. Your voice is your vote, in part, just like the rest of us. You want to remove Union's from the Political Spectrum? That may be a compromise.



> All right, but how are you going to get any of that through Congress -- setting aside whether or not I agree with you, which really is sort of beside the point here -- when Congress has its strings pulled by corporate donors who in many cases are the very ones consolidating the monopolies?
> 
> By the way, in case anyone is wondering, this is NOT a partisan problem. The Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans.



There should be no Privileged Class concerning Employment, where People Can't be fired short of being convicted of Robbing a 7/11 or a Bank at gun point. That goes for Unions too. If you cannot do a Job competently, there is no reason for others to have to pay you for Inferior work.



> This isn't just speech. It's bribery. In fact, more than that, it's extortion. The cost of campaigns nowadays means that anyone who hopes to get elected MUST take contributions from the big donors, and that means they MUST adhere to rules (mostly unwritten and underhanded) about what can and cannot be proposed.
> 
> Why do you think the big Wall Street banks and financial institutions gave so much to Barack Obama, both in 2008 and now? Because they like him better than the Republican alternative? No, it's because realistically they know he might win, and they want to have a handle on him, have him be beholden to them and dance to their tunes. It works, too. He does. By giving to both him and the Republican nominee (whoever that turns out to be), they can determine what both candidates are allowed to advocate and, in office, to do.
> 
> We have laws against bribery of the old-fashioned kind (where the politician pockets the cash and spends it on himself, to improve his lifestyle) precisely because it corrupts public officials to the service of private, selfish interests instead of the public good. Bribery in the form of campaign contributions and third-party campaign spending, although not illegal because the politician doesn't pocket the money and spend it on his own lifestyle, is just as corrupting and just as bad. And it's going on wholesale.
> 
> 
> 
> They are, but they're corrupted BY private interests. If we get the big money out of politics, the parties will cease to be corrupt. They'll respond to the voters instead of the donors, because the voters will BE the donors.
> 
> 
> 
> Suppose you are a Congresscritter and your reelection is coming up next year, as it is for all of the House and 1/3 of the Senate. Suppose that you know the voters in your district want, oh, let's say an end to ethanol subsidies. But agribusiness funds a lot of your campaign expenses and their lobbyists insist you keep the ethanol subsidies flowing. You cannot offer to end the subsidies because if you did, you would lose that money and not be able to campaign effectively. Neither can your opponent, for the same reason (the interests that want the subsidies make sure of that). So ending the subsidies is vetoed. It's off the table and off the ballot. The voters can't vote for it, because neither candidate dares advocate it.
> 
> That's how it works.
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you're talking about here. Are you questioning _Marbury v. Madison_? Judicial review? That's what it sounds like. But the court does have that power. It isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, but it follows logically from what is explicitly stated, namely that the Supreme Court has "the judicial power," which means the power to try cases under the law as to both facts and law. As such, the court can say, "This law violates the Constitution. Therefore, we rule that this case, which was tried by the lower court on the basis of this law, is overturned (or upheld, as appropriate). Moreover, we declare that we will rule similarly on any more cases under this law that come before us." "We declare the law unconstitutional" is just shorthand for that. Since the court obviously does have the power to try cases, it has the power of judicial review automatically.



We need Transparency and Full Disclosure on Political Donations. On Projects, Proposed Planning, we need competitive Bidding and Ratings on Competence and Ability. Watch Dogs. Limits on Contributions? Sure. That is for Congress and the States to decide. Representatives Affiliations or Interests with Major Companies, Full Disclosure. 

Judicial Review in Constitutional Context is discerning Meaning and Intent of the Constitution, connecting the dots that are there , not inventing dots out of ones Imagination and making false claims and connections. It is not the Role of the Court to Construct from Fantasy. Too many 5-4 splits over the Years to suggest Nobility or Wisdom. Precedent is not a Free Pass to declare same results for similar cases unless Reason Dictates, like when the Parameters are alike. To use Precedent, saying your hands are tied because of similarity or coincidence, Knowing the Decision is Unjust, is a miscarriage of Justice at the Highest Level. The End Cannot serve Injustice and be Just. Try Harder. There is the Weight of the Matter, and Context. We signed on for 3 Equal Branches of Government, not a Majority of 9 Unelected Jurors, to decide issues destined for the Legislative or Executive Branches. There have been enough Supreme Court Decisions Overturned, to prove Fallibility. There have been enough 5-4 Split Decisions. 

What we need is a Congress that can learn to form consistent, clear, and concise Legislation. 



> Two answer to this. One, removing the corrupt influence by removing the government's power to serve it won't work, for the simple reason that the influence will demand that the government resume that power immediately. Two, a modern industrial economy has to include a lot of government involvement or it breaks down. Madison governed a country that was still largely pre-industrial. Even so, after the War of 1812 he moderated a lot of his earlier opinions and accepted the re-authorization of the Bank of the United States, recognizing that turning our backs on modernity could result in an ass-kicking. (Having received one under his presidency.)



By limiting the Role of Government, and applying the Checks and Balances to keep it on track, we keep it more honest and accountable, that was the point from conception. Government by the consent of the Governed. We should not have to be justifying that, sorry. Principle, has nothing to do with Modernization. The War of 1812 was fought, in part,  over Sovereignty and Freedom of the Seas. Madison doesn't have to apologize for that, nor the Kentucky Resolution. We Construct through Amendment. It isn't Rocket Science. You have a plan, lay it out, build up 2/3 Support and we will here it on the Floor. 3/$ Approval, is a nice high bar to remove all doubt.

The National Bank could also have been easily founded on more Federalist Principles. 

You make good points. There are usually multiple ways to achieve, yet each has it's drawbacks and advantages. We are not always limited to what we perceive. Things are not always what they seem either.


----------



## Intense

By KATE ZERNIKE

The New York Times

At a Republican candidate forum last week outside Fort Worth, Texas, a tea-party activist turned Senate candidate proclaimed the Occupy Wall Street protesters "unemployed, uneducated and uninformed." To which the conservative radio host moderating the panel added, mirthfully, "This is the first occupation many of these people have seen in years."

More and more commentators  and President Obama  liken the "Occupy" forces to the tea-party movement. But as they have, conservatives and tea-party activists have rushed to discredit the comparison and the nascent movement. They have portrayed the Occupy protesters as messy, indolent, drug-addled and anti-Semitic, circulated a photo of one of them defecating on a police car, and generally intimated that Democrats who embrace them are on a headlong road to Chicago 1968.

It is a culture war, young versus old, left versus right, communal food tables versus "Don't Tread on Me" flags.

The two movements do share key traits. They emerged out of nowhere but quickly became potent political forces, driven by anxiety about the economy, a belief that big institutions favor the reckless over the hardworking, grievances that are inchoate and even contradictory, and an insistence they are "leaderless."

"End the Fed" signs  and even some of those yellow Gadsden flags  have found a place at tea-party and Occupy Wall Street protests alike.

Nation & World | Tea party refutes comparison to Occupy forces | Seattle Times Newspaper

Where We differ, is the Tea Party does not advocate Revolt, Insurrection, Overthrowing the Government, or the Disillusion of the United States.


----------



## Big Fitz

Cliff Klavin said:
			
		

> Don't know where to begin, you need to read Arthur Schlessinger, Jr's  book _The Almanac of American History_ beginning in the ninth  century.  Your opinions on American history sound more like bar talk  than a scholarly study.



Well THANK you, Cliff Klavin!  Of course it's good to note the viewpoint of the author by what he was involved with.  Might note a small bias perchance on things?  I've seen a few historical revisionists in my day and had them as professors.  They are not content to present the facts as they are, but rather prefer to push their idea of what they want them to mean. 

Case in point on why I'm dubious of his skills as a historian.



> Schlesinger's name at birth was Arthur Bancroft Schlesinger; his  mother was Elizabeth Bancroft and the family has long assumed (without  hard evidence) that there is a blood connection to America's first great  historian George Bancroft. The ancestries of George [13]  and Arthur [14]  imply they were both third and fourth cousins, five times removed.  Since his mid-teens, he had instead used the signature Arthur M.  Schlesinger, Jr. (Schlesinger 2000, pp. 6&#8211;7 and 57)
> He had five children, four from his first marriage to author Marian  Cannon and a son and stepson from his second, to Alexandra Emmet. His  son Stephen Schlesinger is a social  scientist, former director of the World Policy Institute at The New School University  in New York City and contributor to the Huffington Post. His third son Robert Schlesinger and stepson Peter Allan also write  blogs on Huffington Post, as did Arthur Schlesinger himself.
> As a prominent Democrat and historian, Schlesinger maintained a very  active social life. His wide circle of friends and associates included  politicians, actors, writers and artists spanning several decades. Among  his friends and associates were President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Edward  M. Kennedy, Adlai E. Stevenson, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, John Kenneth Galbraith, Averell and Pamela Harriman, Steve and Jean Kennedy Smith, Ethel  Kennedy, Ted Sorensen, Eleanor Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr.,  Alice Roosevelt Longworth, Hubert Humphrey, Henry Kissinger, Marietta Peabody Tree, Ben Bradlee, Joseph  Alsop, Evangeline Bruce, William vanden Heuvel, Kurt  Vonnegut, Norman Mailer, Philip and Katherine Graham, Leonard Bernstein, Walter Lippmann, President Lyndon Johnson, Nelson Rockefeller, Lauren  Bacall, Marlene Dietrich, George McGovern, Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Jack  Valenti, Bill Moyers, Richard Goodwin, Al Gore,  President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton.



Many, a rogues gallery of people who wrecked this nation.



			
				Cliff Klavin said:
			
		

> As long as you are driving past 99% demonstrations twice a day anyway,  why not park and do a little politicking?  Go directly to the source,  and ask what is going on.



The logistics don't allow it.  Instead, I let their signs and screaming do it for them.  If they're shouting these inanities, perhaps they mean what they say?  Besides, do I really want to get within smell range of them?  Or are they just teasing?  Kidding?  Not quite sure what they're screaming?

Is that air you think you're breathing?

[bemused]...hmm.[/bemused]



			
				Cliff Klavin said:
			
		

> What have you got to lose, except perhaps your incorrect assessment of  the OWS.



In other words, "Who're you gonna believe?  Me or your lying eyes?"

You sure your education stuck, or did you spray the inside of your skull with Pam?



			
				Cliff Klavin said:
			
		

> I always open my windows, wave my arm and honk my horn when I drive past  to encourage them.



Only things I want to encourage them to do is:

1. take a bath
2. get a job and do something for a living instead of bitching and screaming 'gimme'
3. stop breeding and polluting our gene pool
4. stop voting and quit fucking up our country with their stupidity



> I am sorry that the economic victims of Wall Street excesses clutters  your view of your city.



Victims????  VICTIMS??? I didn't realize parasites were 'Victims' of the dog they're trying to suck dry.  I've seen more authoritative 4 year olds than this lot.  The only power they have is the threat of violence to achieve their cause, against the cowardice of politicians and corporate boards.  I will lay dollars to donuts that 80% of those people there have never invested a dime a day in their lives.



			
				Cliff Klavin said:
			
		

> Any chance you might be missing a point here?



Nope.  I know you are.


----------



## Big Fitz

Cliff Klavin said:
			
		

> Don't know where to begin, you need to read Arthur Schlessinger, Jr's  book _The Almanac of American History_ beginning in the ninth  century.  Your opinions on American history sound more like bar talk  than a scholarly study.



Well THANK you, Cliff Klavin!  Of course it's good to note the viewpoint of the author by what he was involved with.  Might note a small bias perchance on things?  I've seen a few historical revisionists in my day and had them as professors.  They are not content to present the facts as they are, but rather prefer to push their idea of what they want them to mean. 

Case in point on why I'm dubious of his skills as a historian.



> Schlesinger's name at birth was Arthur Bancroft Schlesinger; his  mother was Elizabeth Bancroft and the family has long assumed (without  hard evidence) that there is a blood connection to America's first great  historian George Bancroft. The ancestries of George [13]  and Arthur [14]  imply they were both third and fourth cousins, five times removed.  Since his mid-teens, he had instead used the signature Arthur M.  Schlesinger, Jr. (Schlesinger 2000, pp. 67 and 57)
> He had five children, four from his first marriage to author Marian  Cannon and a son and stepson from his second, to Alexandra Emmet. His  son Stephen Schlesinger is a social  scientist, former director of the World Policy Institute at The New School University  in New York City and contributor to the Huffington Post. His third son Robert Schlesinger and stepson Peter Allan also write  blogs on Huffington Post, as did Arthur Schlesinger himself.
> As a prominent Democrat and historian, Schlesinger maintained a very  active social life. His wide circle of friends and associates included  politicians, actors, writers and artists spanning several decades. Among  his friends and associates were President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Edward  M. Kennedy, Adlai E. Stevenson, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, John Kenneth Galbraith, Averell and Pamela Harriman, Steve and Jean Kennedy Smith, Ethel  Kennedy, Ted Sorensen, Eleanor Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr.,  Alice Roosevelt Longworth, Hubert Humphrey, Henry Kissinger, Marietta Peabody Tree, Ben Bradlee, Joseph  Alsop, Evangeline Bruce, William vanden Heuvel, Kurt  Vonnegut, Norman Mailer, Philip and Katherine Graham, Leonard Bernstein, Walter Lippmann, President Lyndon Johnson, Nelson Rockefeller, Lauren  Bacall, Marlene Dietrich, George McGovern, Robert McNamara, McGeorge Bundy, Jack  Valenti, Bill Moyers, Richard Goodwin, Al Gore,  President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton.



Many, a rogues gallery of people who wrecked this nation.



			
				Cliff Klavin said:
			
		

> As long as you are driving past 99% demonstrations twice a day anyway,  why not park and do a little politicking?  Go directly to the source,  and ask what is going on.



The logistics don't allow it.  Instead, I let their signs and screaming do it for them.  If they're shouting these inanities, perhaps they mean what they say?  Besides, do I really want to get within smell range of them?  Or are they just teasing?  Kidding?  Not quite sure what they're screaming?

Is that air you think you're breathing?

[bemused]...hmm.[/bemused]



			
				Cliff Klavin said:
			
		

> What have you got to lose, except perhaps your incorrect assessment of  the OWS.



In other words, "Who're you gonna believe?  Me or your lying eyes?"

You sure your education stuck, or did you spray the inside of your skull with Pam?



			
				Cliff Klavin said:
			
		

> I always open my windows, wave my arm and honk my horn when I drive past  to encourage them.



Only things I want to encourage them to do is:

1. take a bath
2. get a job and do something for a living instead of bitching and screaming 'gimme'
3. stop breeding and polluting our gene pool
4. stop voting and quit fucking up our country with their stupidity



> I am sorry that the economic victims of Wall Street excesses clutters  your view of your city.



Victims????  VICTIMS??? I didn't realize parasites were 'Victims' of the dog they're trying to suck dry.  I've seen more authoritative 4 year olds than this lot.  The only power they have is the threat of violence to achieve their cause, against the cowardice of politicians and corporate boards.  I will lay dollars to donuts that 80% of those people there have never invested a dime a day in their lives.



			
				Cliff Klavin said:
			
		

> Any chance you might be missing a point here?



Nope.  I know you are.


----------



## chanel

Exactly.  College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises.  They are clueless about who the culprits are.

My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly"  chanting "Education is a right.  It's not just for the rich and white".  He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white."  And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities.   In fact, it's the law.


----------



## editec

Interested in following this event in real time?

http://www.livestream.com/occupynyc


----------



## georgephillip

chanel said:


> Exactly.  College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises.  They are clueless about who the culprits are.
> 
> My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly"  chanting "Education is a right.  It's not just for the rich and white".  He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white."  And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities.   In fact, it's the law.


The culprits are Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. The same culprits who orchestrated an economic crash resulting in the loss of nine million jobs and the biggest drop in home ownership since the Great Depression. Remember?

Corrupt politicians and colleges serve Wall Street parasites and the richest 1% of Americans.


----------



## EriktheRed

georgephillip said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises.  They are clueless about who the culprits are.
> 
> My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly"  chanting "Education is a right.  It's not just for the rich and white".  He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white."  And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities.   In fact, it's the law.
> 
> 
> 
> The culprits are Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. The same culprits who orchestrated an economic crash resulting in the loss of nine million jobs and the biggest drop in home ownership since the Great Depression. Remember?
> 
> Corrupt politicians and colleges serve Wall Street parasites and the richest 1% of Americans.
Click to expand...


"colleges"?


----------



## Intense

chanel said:


> Exactly.  College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises.  They are clueless about who the culprits are.
> 
> My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly"  chanting "Education is a right.  It's not just for the rich and white".  He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white."  And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities.   In fact, it's the law.



Yep, one of the biggest perpetuated scams in History.


----------



## Samson

I've read a little from the postings of the OWS crowd to add to my initial conclusion that they not only want jobs (or if they have jobs they want more money), but they have also begun to rewrite history to support their fantacy. You may have seen some of it posted here:

'Post WWII USA was a golden era of cooperation between employer and employee because employers understood that employees represented more than a cost of doing business. It was a symbiotic relationship, in which companies would employ and pay workers MORE than they might be worth in terms of productivity. In return, employees would buy goods and services from the company.

This ended during the 1980's, when investors began to control employers, and employees became just another cost to be cut in return for higher ROI. This is how the actual value of US corporations began their decline: Instead of reducing costs, they actually reduced the consuming power of the population upon which they had relied for sales.

The Goal of OWS is to reverse the predominance of investor interests among public corporations, and return to the good old days when they hired people out of the goodness of their hearts; concern for the little guy.'



While this fairy tale sounds wonderful, there's no more evidence to support the theory that employers ever, before, during, or after WWII employed people because they thought they would do any more than produce a profit for the company. OWS will oftem sight Henry Ford as an example to contradict this, claiming he offered higher wages so his employees could afford a Model-A. 

Sorry, um NO.

Like all employers he offered higher wages to attract better workers, so they could produce more goods and higher profits


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises.  They are clueless about who the culprits are.
> 
> My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly"  chanting "Education is a right.  It's not just for the rich and white".  He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white."  And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities.   In fact, it's the law.
> 
> 
> 
> The culprits are Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. The same culprits who orchestrated an economic crash resulting in the loss of nine million jobs and the biggest drop in home ownership since the Great Depression. Remember?
> 
> Corrupt politicians and colleges serve Wall Street parasites and the richest 1% of Americans.
Click to expand...


You keep insinuating that The Government Serves Big Business, Yet Government, not Business has the force of Law behind It. That includes the Cops, the Courts, the Prisons. You are missing an integral part of the equation. You act like Government has no control over It's direction. That is not true.


----------



## georgephillip

EriktheRed said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises.  They are clueless about who the culprits are.
> 
> My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly"  chanting "Education is a right.  It's not just for the rich and white".  He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white."  And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities.   In fact, it's the law.
> 
> 
> 
> The culprits are Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. The same culprits who orchestrated an economic crash resulting in the loss of nine million jobs and the biggest drop in home ownership since the Great Depression. Remember?
> 
> Corrupt politicians and colleges serve Wall Street parasites and the richest 1% of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "colleges"?
Click to expand...

There are corporate colleges on the scene already.
Kaplan comes to mind.

Even State Universities rely on Wall Street to invest their endowments wisely.

Convincing a majority of voters that education is a right and not a corporate-bestowed privilege would probably prove at least as challenging as advocating Medicare-for-all in the health care debate.


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> .
> 
> Convincing a majority of voters that education is a right and not a corporate-bestowed privilege would probably prove at least as challenging as advocating Medicare-for-all in the health care debate.



I thought voters were already convinced.

Don't you have public schools where you live, George?


----------



## Dragon

Intense said:


> Left Leadership is Progressive Socialist. That's Government control.



Not necessarily. One of those two sentences is false, depending on which definition of "socialism" you want to use. If you're defining it in the classic sense of government ownership of the means of production, then the left is not (for the most part) socialist. If you're defining it more loosely so that, for example, European social democratic parties can be called "socialist," i.e. favoring policies that work toward economic equality without abolishing private enterprise, then socialism is not government control.



> You are being played, that is the point. Government is not the answer. The Parasite has outgrown the Host, it's hunger is unsustainable.



To be honest, I consider the above a little paranoid. Government is not a parasite. I am not being "played" -- who would be doing the playing? And while I don't believe more government is the answer, i.e. I think we have about the right amount, what I would like to see is for the government do less of some things (foreign military intervention, corporate subsidies) and more of others (protection of workers' rights, education, infrastructure). So in that sense, government (although not bigger government) is indeed the answer.



> Consider Union's Roll in the Corruption of Politics, they are on borrowed time. The solution  they lay claim to, can just as easily be accomplished through Just Labor Laws. Unionism, especially Government Workers, have become the New Middle Class, on Someone Else's dime. We are tired of the abuse. Your voice is your vote, in part, just like the rest of us. You want to remove Union's from the Political Spectrum? That may be a compromise.



I want to remove the right of ALL collective entities and organizations to donate to political campaigns, directly or indirectly. I'm mainly concerned about for-profit corporations (and the non-profit corps through which they funnel money), but any such rules would have to apply across the board, definitely including unions. And in fact, if you removed the corporate cash but left the union cash in, then union contributions would I think become a serious concern, where right now they're not. So yes, we have to restrict what they do, too. Let them represent the interests of the workers through collective bargaining. That's what they're supposed to do. Political lobbying isn't.

I'm kind of surprised that someone as concerned about big government as you are would propose a paternalistic solution (stronger labor laws) instead of the empowering solution that unions represent. 



> We need Transparency and Full Disclosure on Political Donations. On Projects, Proposed Planning, we need competitive Bidding and Ratings on Competence and Ability. Watch Dogs. Limits on Contributions? Sure. That is for Congress and the States to decide. Representatives Affiliations or Interests with Major Companies, Full Disclosure.



The problem with leaving it to Congress to decide these things (states have no jurisdiction over federal elections except in some very limited ways) is that Congress is corrupt. It's a vicious circle. Also, the Supreme Court in _Citizens United_ tied Congress' hands. We're going to have to amend the Constitution to get around that, and since Congress won't pass the amendment we have to do it the other way, through a constitutional convention.

Regarding your next paragraph, all I can say is that I agree it would be better if the judges were uniformly wise, honorable, and just. But we have to form government from human beings as they are.



> By limiting the Role of Government, and applying the Checks and Balances to keep it on track, we keep it more honest and accountable, that was the point from conception. Government by the consent of the Governed.



I think this is a misconception about the Constitution. Let me see if I can explain this.

The Constitution doesn't limit the role of government. It does limit the role of the _federal_ government, but all powers not enumerated in Article II, Section 8 go to the states, which are still government, except as explicitly forbidden e.g. in Section 10.

As for the limitations on the federal government, they're a lot less tight than some imagine. There are two very broad enumerated powers, the power to tax (and spend), and the power to regulate commerce. There is also essentially unlimited power to fund military forces. These powers existed from the beginning, even though they were not used from the beginning to the extent they are today.

Remember that the purpose of the constitutional convention was not to weaken government but to strengthen it. The Articles of Confederation government was perceived as too weak to do what was necessary. That being so, does it not make sense that the framers would create an instrument with enough flexibility that it would not be rendered impotent by the first crisis that came along?

Separation of powers and checks and balances aren't there to limit the role of government. They exist to prevent any one part of the government from taking all power to itself, creating potentially a dictatorship (if it's the presidency) or an oligarchy (if it's Congress). The total power wielded by the government in the aggregate is unaffected by these measures.



> The War of 1812 was fought, in part,  over Sovereignty and Freedom of the Seas. Madison doesn't have to apologize for that



My point was not that we were wrong to go to war, but that we got hosed. Going to war and losing is kind of always wrong, in my opinion. The Brits kicked our butts. Then they signed a peace treaty giving us most of what we wanted anyway because they were too busy with Napoleon to bother.

What Madison learned from this was the necessity in a modern society of certain institutions he was opposed to on principle. These included a standing army of at least minimal size and competence, and a central bank to help finance it. So he dropped his opposition to the Bank of the United States and signed its re-authorization when Congress passed it. I agree this could have been done differently (we do it differently today), but some sort of central banking institution was necessary.



> You make good points. There are usually multiple ways to achieve, yet each has it's drawbacks and advantages. We are not always limited to what we perceive. Things are not always what they seem either.



Very true. Especially in a time like this, it's necessary to think outside the box.


----------



## Samson

Dragon said:


> I want to remove the right of ALL collective entities and organizations to donate to political campaigns, directly or indirectly. I'm mainly concerned about for-profit corporations (and the non-profit corps through which they funnel money), but any such rules would have to apply across the board, definitely including unions.



Is there any evidence of Union support for this?


----------



## editec

Samson said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to remove the right of ALL collective entities and organizations to donate to political campaigns, directly or indirectly. I'm mainly concerned about for-profit corporations (and the non-profit corps through which they funnel money), but any such rules would have to apply across the board, definitely including unions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence of Union support for this?
Click to expand...

 
Some.

Unions are now flocking sto support  the OWS demonstrations.

As a significant complaint of the OWS movement is the fact that corporations have personhood, if the OWS movement got their way unions would not be able to donate to poltical campaigns and neither could for profit corporations.

.


----------



## Samson

editec said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to remove the right of ALL collective entities and organizations to donate to political campaigns, directly or indirectly. I'm mainly concerned about for-profit corporations (and the non-profit corps through which they funnel money), but any such rules would have to apply across the board, definitely including unions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any evidence of Union support for this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some.
> 
> Unions are now flocking sto support  the OWS demonstrations.
> 
> As a significant complaint of the OWS movement is the fact that corporations have personhood, if the OWS movement got their way unions would not be able to donate to poltical campaigns and neither could for profit corporations.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Has ANY union said they would support a rule preventing them from donating to poiltical campaigns?

Which one?


----------



## georgephillip

Intense said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises.  They are clueless about who the culprits are.
> 
> My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly"  chanting "Education is a right.  It's not just for the rich and white".  He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white."  And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities.   In fact, it's the law.
> 
> 
> 
> The culprits are Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. The same culprits who orchestrated an economic crash resulting in the loss of nine million jobs and the biggest drop in home ownership since the Great Depression. Remember?
> 
> Corrupt politicians and colleges serve Wall Street parasites and the richest 1% of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep insinuating that The Government Serves Big Business, Yet Government, not Business has the force of Law behind It. That includes the Cops, the Courts, the Prisons. You are missing an integral part of the equation. You act like Government has no control over It's direction. That is not true.
Click to expand...

Your Representative and Senators and President are selected by the richest 1% of Voters months before you cast your primary ballot. We agree government controls the monopoly of violence. What I'm saying is those who control the levers of government serve at the pleasure of the richest members of big business.


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> Your Representative and Senators and President are selected by the richest 1% of Voters months before you cast your primary ballot. We agree government controls the monopoly of violence. What I'm saying is those who control the levers of government serve at the pleasure of the richest members of big business.



Government Controls the "Monopoly of Violence?"




huh?

Did you spend more than your usual 40 hours sitting around the hookah pipe smoking Jamacian Red Ganga this weekend, George?


----------



## georgephillip

Samson said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Convincing a majority of voters that education is a right and not a corporate-bestowed privilege would probably prove at least as challenging as advocating Medicare-for-all in the health care debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought voters were already convinced.
> 
> Don't you have public schools where you live, George?
Click to expand...

*They appear to be swirling the drain around here, Samson.*

I've been attending a community college for the last two months. 
Exactly 40 years ago I attended another community college.
In both cases I enrolled in four classes my first semester.

While I was expecting the computer to be the biggest difference between the two experiences, I've discovered it is actually budget cuts that have had the biggest effect. In 1971 all classes met for 15 weeks during Fall and Spring semesters. Today my English class met for 8 weeks and my Algebra class will finish after only four weeks.

In '71 there was no tuition expense for in-state students.
Today tuition amounts to $36 per unit.
As the economic situation in California worsens, I expect classes will become shorter and more expensive.


----------



## georgephillip

Samson said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Representative and Senators and President are selected by the richest 1% of Voters months before you cast your primary ballot. We agree government controls the monopoly of violence. What I'm saying is those who control the levers of government serve at the pleasure of the richest members of big business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government Controls the "Monopoly of Violence?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> huh?
> 
> Did you spend more than your usual 40 hours sitting around the hookah pipe smoking Jamacian Red Ganga this weekend, George?
Click to expand...

Slight rewrite:
*
"The monopoly on violence* (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates) is the conception of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation. According to Weber, the state is that entity which claims a monopoly on violence, which it may therefore elect to delegate as it sees fit. Weber's conception of the state as holding a monopoly on violence has figured prominently in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century."

Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Intense

Dragon said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Left Leadership is Progressive Socialist. That's Government control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. One of those two sentences is false, depending on which definition of "socialism" you want to use. If you're defining it in the classic sense of government ownership of the means of production, then the left is not (for the most part) socialist. If you're defining it more loosely so that, for example, European social democratic parties can be called "socialist," i.e. favoring policies that work toward economic equality without abolishing private enterprise, then socialism is not government control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are being played, that is the point. Government is not the answer. The Parasite has outgrown the Host, it's hunger is unsustainable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be honest, I consider the above a little paranoid. Government is not a parasite. I am not being "played" -- who would be doing the playing? And while I don't believe more government is the answer, i.e. I think we have about the right amount, what I would like to see is for the government do less of some things (foreign military intervention, corporate subsidies) and more of others (protection of workers' rights, education, infrastructure). So in that sense, government (although not bigger government) is indeed the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> I want to remove the right of ALL collective entities and organizations to donate to political campaigns, directly or indirectly. I'm mainly concerned about for-profit corporations (and the non-profit corps through which they funnel money), but any such rules would have to apply across the board, definitely including unions. And in fact, if you removed the corporate cash but left the union cash in, then union contributions would I think become a serious concern, where right now they're not. So yes, we have to restrict what they do, too. Let them represent the interests of the workers through collective bargaining. That's what they're supposed to do. Political lobbying isn't.
> 
> I'm kind of surprised that someone as concerned about big government as you are would propose a paternalistic solution (stronger labor laws) instead of the empowering solution that unions represent.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with leaving it to Congress to decide these things (states have no jurisdiction over federal elections except in some very limited ways) is that Congress is corrupt. It's a vicious circle. Also, the Supreme Court in _Citizens United_ tied Congress' hands. We're going to have to amend the Constitution to get around that, and since Congress won't pass the amendment we have to do it the other way, through a constitutional convention.
> 
> Regarding your next paragraph, all I can say is that I agree it would be better if the judges were uniformly wise, honorable, and just. But we have to form government from human beings as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a misconception about the Constitution. Let me see if I can explain this.
> 
> The Constitution doesn't limit the role of government. It does limit the role of the _federal_ government, but all powers not enumerated in Article II, Section 8 go to the states, which are still government, except as explicitly forbidden e.g. in Section 10.
> 
> As for the limitations on the federal government, they're a lot less tight than some imagine. There are two very broad enumerated powers, the power to tax (and spend), and the power to regulate commerce. There is also essentially unlimited power to fund military forces. These powers existed from the beginning, even though they were not used from the beginning to the extent they are today.
> 
> Remember that the purpose of the constitutional convention was not to weaken government but to strengthen it. The Articles of Confederation government was perceived as too weak to do what was necessary. That being so, does it not make sense that the framers would create an instrument with enough flexibility that it would not be rendered impotent by the first crisis that came along?
> 
> Separation of powers and checks and balances aren't there to limit the role of government. They exist to prevent any one part of the government from taking all power to itself, creating potentially a dictatorship (if it's the presidency) or an oligarchy (if it's Congress). The total power wielded by the government in the aggregate is unaffected by these measures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The War of 1812 was fought, in part,  over Sovereignty and Freedom of the Seas. Madison doesn't have to apologize for that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point was not that we were wrong to go to war, but that we got hosed. Going to war and losing is kind of always wrong, in my opinion. The Brits kicked our butts. Then they signed a peace treaty giving us most of what we wanted anyway because they were too busy with Napoleon to bother.
> 
> What Madison learned from this was the necessity in a modern society of certain institutions he was opposed to on principle. These included a standing army of at least minimal size and competence, and a central bank to help finance it. So he dropped his opposition to the Bank of the United States and signed its re-authorization when Congress passed it. I agree this could have been done differently (we do it differently today), but some sort of central banking institution was necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make good points. There are usually multiple ways to achieve, yet each has it's drawbacks and advantages. We are not always limited to what we perceive. Things are not always what they seem either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true. Especially in a time like this, it's necessary to think outside the box.
Click to expand...




> Not necessarily. One of those two sentences is false, depending on which definition of "socialism" you want to use. If you're defining it in the classic sense of government ownership of the means of production, then the left is not (for the most part) socialist. If you're defining it more loosely so that, for example, European social democratic parties can be called "socialist," i.e. favoring policies that work toward economic equality without abolishing private enterprise, then socialism is not government control.



The difference between Soft Tyranny and Hard Tyranny is both Time, Stage of Development, and Effort. Sitting back and reaping what you did not sow, is only a stage.
You cannot support Liberty, Private Property on one side, and Equal Distribution on the other, and call it Justice.




> To be honest, I consider the above a little paranoid. Government is not a parasite. I am not being "played" -- who would be doing the playing? And while I don't believe more government is the answer, i.e. I think we have about the right amount, what I would like to see is for the government do less of some things (foreign military intervention, corporate subsidies) and more of others (protection of workers' rights, education, infrastructure). So in that sense, government (although not bigger government) is indeed the answer.



When the Government takes beyond Consent, it is being a Parasite. Government Programs define Success by how muck money it takes out of the system, and burns on programs, where the bigger they get, the more the rest of us hurt. That's not okay. Success is Programs that either eliminate the crutch, where possible, or develop into Self Fueling, Self Sustaining Programs. The Focus should be about making a difference, not creating Dependency. 
I actually agree with you on playing World Police, where we are not welcome, and I believe we should be compensated where we are welcome. Worker Right's come best through Legislation and enforcement. My perspective of Honest Government, is the Impartial Referee, maintaining the Rule of Play, and the Integrity of the Field. Not picking Winners and Losers, Handicapping, Betting on Outcome, or Fielding Players of It's own. The Government should not be deciding between Coke and Pepsi, GM and Ford, AT&T or Verizon, GE or Whirlpool. Progressivism, by design, has hurt Small Enterprise and given unfair advantage to the Big Conglomerates. You are in denial. Progressivism demands the Sacrifice of Private Property, to the Controlling Authority, along with Unalienable Right. You are being played. You are looking at Symptoms, not the Root Cause or Core. 



> I want to remove the right of ALL collective entities and organizations to donate to political campaigns, directly or indirectly. I'm mainly concerned about for-profit corporations (and the non-profit corps through which they funnel money), but any such rules would have to apply across the board, definitely including unions. And in fact, if you removed the corporate cash but left the union cash in, then union contributions would I think become a serious concern, where right now they're not. So yes, we have to restrict what they do, too. Let them represent the interests of the workers through collective bargaining. That's what they're supposed to do. Political lobbying isn't.
> 
> I'm kind of surprised that someone as concerned about big government as you are would propose a paternalistic solution (stronger labor laws) instead of the empowering solution that unions represent.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with leaving it to Congress to decide these things (states have no jurisdiction over federal elections except in some very limited ways) is that Congress is corrupt. It's a vicious circle. Also, the Supreme Court in _Citizens United_ tied Congress' hands. We're going to have to amend the Constitution to get around that, and since Congress won't pass the amendment we have to do it the other way, through a constitutional convention.
> 
> Regarding your next paragraph, all I can say is that I agree it would be better if the judges were uniformly wise, honorable, and just. But we have to form government from human beings as they are.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is a misconception about the Constitution. Let me see if I can explain this.
> 
> The Constitution doesn't limit the role of government. It does limit the role of the _federal_ government, but all powers not enumerated in Article II, Section 8 go to the states, which are still government, except as explicitly forbidden e.g. in Section 10.
> 
> As for the limitations on the federal government, they're a lot less tight than some imagine. There are two very broad enumerated powers, the power to tax (and spend), and the power to regulate commerce. There is also essentially unlimited power to fund military forces. These powers existed from the beginning, even though they were not used from the beginning to the extent they are today.
> 
> Remember that the purpose of the constitutional convention was not to weaken government but to strengthen it. The Articles of Confederation government was perceived as too weak to do what was necessary. That being so, does it not make sense that the framers would create an instrument with enough flexibility that it would not be rendered impotent by the first crisis that came along?
> 
> Separation of powers and checks and balances aren't there to limit the role of government. They exist to prevent any one part of the government from taking all power to itself, creating potentially a dictatorship (if it's the presidency) or an oligarchy (if it's Congress). The total power wielded by the government in the aggregate is unaffected by these measures.



The Unions represent Their Interests, not their Members interests. I know too many Union Workers screwed over by their Unions. The Purpose of the Unions is Political Influence and control. Censorship is a violation of Free Speech. You need to choose.

Stronger Labor Laws by consent and Due Process is the Natural Order, when we are considering Just Laws. Government, at it's best is about serving Justice, Impartially. To think otherwise is absurd. That is not Big Government. The Unions serve their own selfish interest, they are no where near Sainthood, Dear. They put Government into Deficit and Bankrupt Honest Enterprise with unrealistic demands. They create their own Caste System.

The only reason the Left wants a Constitutional Convention is to dump Unalienable Rights, Property Rights, Individual Liberty, Protection against the State, and Freedom of Speech. It is Congresses place to Legislate. What is on that agenda is in part related to who we elect. You seem to think Some parts of Government can't do anything Right, and Others can't do anything wrong. My experience suggests that when the waters get muddy, it's to protect the Predators from being seen and witnessed to. Simplify, where you encounter muddy water. 

By original Intent The Federal Government Operates under Enumerated Powers, granted by the Consent of the Governed. You are lost in Hamilton Spin, who argued one concept in order to get the Constitution Ratified, and Reversed himself after Ratification. Government is not God, It's Powers are not limitless in any way. It is Always subject to review, and the Rule of Play, change by Amendment. The Commerce Clause was never designed to decide what you can grow in your Garden. That is an abuse of Power. One of many.

Government is a construct of the people. No construct is greater in value than It's purpose for being. Balance of Power, Checks and Balances, were designed to both protect against Tyranny, and serve Justice first. When there is a conflict between Justice and Government, it is Government that is at fault and bend, rather than trying to redefine what Justice is, and make excuses for why Justice, not Government needs to bend. What you suggest is a corruption and misapplication of Trust.



> My point was not that we were wrong to go to war, but that we got hosed. Going to war and losing is kind of always wrong, in my opinion. The Brits kicked our butts. Then they signed a peace treaty giving us most of what we wanted anyway because they were too busy with Napoleon to bother.
> 
> What Madison learned from this was the necessity in a modern society of certain institutions he was opposed to on principle. These included a standing army of at least minimal size and competence, and a central bank to help finance it. So he dropped his opposition to the Bank of the United States and signed its re-authorization when Congress passed it. I agree this could have been done differently (we do it differently today), but some sort of central banking institution was necessary.



We went to War to Protect our Right to Freely make use of the Sea's and have Our Sovereignty and Property Respected. That was achieved. Yes, a Standing Army was necessary then, and is now. Still, if the focus was more on Reserve and National Guard, we would have more flexibility. Especially in Emergency Response and Disaster Relief. Hamilton corrupted the Relationship between Business and Banking. We could have had a Central Bank, more inclined to True Federalist Principle. 

Thinking outside of the Box always adds to perspective, imagine if you were censored because of who you worked for, or what Organization you belonged to, and we all lost the knowledge because of Protocol or Speech infringement.


----------



## Katzndogz

chanel said:


> Exactly.  College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises.  They are clueless about who the culprits are.
> 
> My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly"  chanting "Education is a right.  It's not just for the rich and white".  He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white."  And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities.   In fact, it's the law.



Perhaps you are misunderstanding the whole idea.  The right is not to go to college.  Anyone can go.  What not everyone can do is graduate with decent grades and come out knowing more than what they did when they started and with some kind of marketable talent.

That's the right they want.  Not equality of education, but equality of outcome.


----------



## Katzndogz

If college kids want a corporation to pay for their college education, they should have applied for a scholarship or a grant.  ALL major corporations hand them out.  All brokerage houses hand them out.    They just have to (dirty word here) qualify.


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your Representative and Senators and President are selected by the richest 1% of Voters months before you cast your primary ballot. We agree government controls the monopoly of violence. What I'm saying is those who control the levers of government serve at the pleasure of the richest members of big business.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government Controls the "Monopoly of Violence?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> huh?
> 
> Did you spend more than your usual 40 hours sitting around the hookah pipe smoking Jamacian Red Ganga this weekend, George?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slight rewrite:
> *
> "The monopoly on violence* (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates) is the conception of the state expounded by Max Weber in Politics as a Vocation. According to Weber, the state is that entity which claims a monopoly on violence, which it may therefore elect to delegate as it sees fit. Weber's conception of the state as holding a monopoly on violence has figured prominently in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century."
> 
> Monopoly on violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Mein Kamph also, "figured prominently in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century."

Is your point that neither are relevant to the 21st century?


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Convincing a majority of voters that education is a right and not a corporate-bestowed privilege would probably prove at least as challenging as advocating Medicare-for-all in the health care debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought voters were already convinced.
> 
> Don't you have public schools where you live, George?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They appear to be swirling the drain around here, Samson.*
> 
> I've been attending a community college for the last two months.
> Exactly 40 years ago I attended another community college.
> In both cases I enrolled in four classes my first semester.
> 
> While I was expecting the computer to be the biggest difference between the two experiences, I've discovered it is actually budget cuts that have had the biggest effect. In 1971 all classes met for 15 weeks during Fall and Spring semesters. Today my English class met for 8 weeks and my Algebra class will finish after only four weeks.
> 
> In '71 there was no tuition expense for in-state students.
> Today tuition amounts to $36 per unit.
> As the economic situation in California worsens, I expect classes will become shorter and more expensive.
Click to expand...




So you're finding that $1 in 2011 doesn't buy as much as it did in 1971.



George, is this the only thing you've bought during the past 40 years?


----------



## georgephillip

"California public schools, which during the 1960s had been ranked nationally as among the best, have decreased to 48th in many surveys of student achievement..."

I never bought into Proposition 13 either.

California Proposition 13 (1978) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## flacaltenn

georgephillip said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Convincing a majority of voters that education is a right and not a corporate-bestowed privilege would probably prove at least as challenging as advocating Medicare-for-all in the health care debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought voters were already convinced.
> 
> Don't you have public schools where you live, George?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *They appear to be swirling the drain around here, Samson.*
> 
> I've been attending a community college for the last two months.
> Exactly 40 years ago I attended another community college.
> In both cases I enrolled in four classes my first semester.
> 
> While I was expecting the computer to be the biggest difference between the two experiences, I've discovered it is actually budget cuts that have had the biggest effect. In 1971 all classes met for 15 weeks during Fall and Spring semesters. Today my English class met for 8 weeks and my Algebra class will finish after only four weeks.
> 
> In '71 there was no tuition expense for in-state students.
> Today tuition amounts to $36 per unit.
> As the economic situation in California worsens, I expect classes will become shorter and more expensive.
Click to expand...


I suspect that whining about $36 per credit for college level opportunity is NOT gonna get a whole of lot of traction with the 99%.. 

The LARGER problem is status obsessed parents who push their kids from pre-school years to attend prestige schools that the family cannot afford. Then these parents literally FORCE their kids to go in hock up their eyeballs for the rest of their lives.. Grow up --- and INDICT those criminal parents... 

You can buy 2 years at that Community College and come out with an AA or AS degree that then gets you into a State school for cheap. And UNDERgraduate curriculums donn't really vary that much or affect outcomes ABOVE the astronomical diff in cost.. 

About $3500 for that AA degree George -- stop whining..


----------



## The Gadfly

georgephillip said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises.  They are clueless about who the culprits are.
> 
> My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly"  chanting "Education is a right.  It's not just for the rich and white".  He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white."  And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities.   In fact, it's the law.
> 
> 
> 
> The culprits are Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. The same culprits who orchestrated an economic crash resulting in the loss of nine million jobs and the biggest drop in home ownership since the Great Depression. Remember?
> 
> Corrupt politicians and colleges serve Wall Street parasites and the richest 1% of Americans.
Click to expand...


"Orchestrated" the recession, and the collapse of the housing bubble? ORCHESTRATED IT? That's ....never mind how ridiculous it is, if you want to make that assertion, back it up! I want you to tell us, in detail, just how you think these entities by themselves planned and "orchestrated" this mess. Please do. I breathlessly await your "explanation"; it should be most enlightening! Keep to demonstrable facts, please; no defending points by saying "Everybody knows that_______!", no suppositions.


----------



## Katzndogz

All those big companies orchestrated the loss of millions of dollars.


----------



## The Gadfly

flacaltenn said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought voters were already convinced.
> 
> Don't you have public schools where you live, George?
> 
> 
> 
> *They appear to be swirling the drain around here, Samson.*
> 
> I've been attending a community college for the last two months.
> Exactly 40 years ago I attended another community college.
> In both cases I enrolled in four classes my first semester.
> 
> While I was expecting the computer to be the biggest difference between the two experiences, I've discovered it is actually budget cuts that have had the biggest effect. In 1971 all classes met for 15 weeks during Fall and Spring semesters. Today my English class met for 8 weeks and my Algebra class will finish after only four weeks.
> 
> In '71 there was no tuition expense for in-state students.
> Today tuition amounts to $36 per unit.
> As the economic situation in California worsens, I expect classes will become shorter and more expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect that whining about $36 per credit for college level opportunity is NOT gonna get a whole of lot of traction with the 99%..
> 
> *The LARGER problem is status obsessed parents who push their kids from pre-school years to attend prestige schools that the family cannot afford. Then these parents literally FORCE their kids to go in hock up their eyeballs for the rest of their lives..* Grow up --- and INDICT those criminal parents...
> 
> You can buy 2 years at that Community College and come out with an AA or AS degree that then gets you into a State school for cheap. And *UNDERgraduate curriculums donn't really vary that much or affect outcomes ABOVE the astronomical diff in cost.. *
> 
> About $3500 for that AA degree George -- stop whining..
Click to expand...

Ah, someone finally said it! IF you have the money and the time, and want a liberal arts degree just to have a broader educartion, fine, and your state university can easily pprovide you that experience, at less cost. *A liberal arts degree, no matter where you get it, is NOT, and was never meant to be, a "meal ticket".* For THAT, you need a technical and/or postgraduate or professional degree. Why the hell is that so hard to comprehend? I would think anyone of sufficient intelligence to do college-level academic work, would KNOW that!


----------



## Katzndogz

The Gadfly said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They appear to be swirling the drain around here, Samson.*
> 
> I've been attending a community college for the last two months.
> Exactly 40 years ago I attended another community college.
> In both cases I enrolled in four classes my first semester.
> 
> While I was expecting the computer to be the biggest difference between the two experiences, I've discovered it is actually budget cuts that have had the biggest effect. In 1971 all classes met for 15 weeks during Fall and Spring semesters. Today my English class met for 8 weeks and my Algebra class will finish after only four weeks.
> 
> In '71 there was no tuition expense for in-state students.
> Today tuition amounts to $36 per unit.
> As the economic situation in California worsens, I expect classes will become shorter and more expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that whining about $36 per credit for college level opportunity is NOT gonna get a whole of lot of traction with the 99%..
> 
> *The LARGER problem is status obsessed parents who push their kids from pre-school years to attend prestige schools that the family cannot afford. Then these parents literally FORCE their kids to go in hock up their eyeballs for the rest of their lives..* Grow up --- and INDICT those criminal parents...
> 
> You can buy 2 years at that Community College and come out with an AA or AS degree that then gets you into a State school for cheap. And *UNDERgraduate curriculums donn't really vary that much or affect outcomes ABOVE the astronomical diff in cost.. *
> 
> About $3500 for that AA degree George -- stop whining..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, someone finally said it! IF you have the money and the time, and want a liberal arts degree just to have a broader educartion, fine, and your state university can easily pprovide you that experience, at less cost. *A liberal arts degree, no matter where you get it, is NOT, and was never meant to be, a "meal ticket".* For THAT, you need a technical and/or postgraduate or professional degree. Why the hell is that so hard to comprehend? I would think anyone of sufficient intelligence to do college-level academic work, would KNOW that!
Click to expand...


That may be the whole problem in a nutshell.  People expect to get good paying jobs with a liberal arts degree and stopping there.   The end of the line!   They don't know and are just never told that this won't help them.   It explains a lot of frustration.  Particularly among the multiple degreed.


----------



## flacaltenn

The Gadfly said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They appear to be swirling the drain around here, Samson.*
> 
> I've been attending a community college for the last two months.
> Exactly 40 years ago I attended another community college.
> In both cases I enrolled in four classes my first semester.
> 
> While I was expecting the computer to be the biggest difference between the two experiences, I've discovered it is actually budget cuts that have had the biggest effect. In 1971 all classes met for 15 weeks during Fall and Spring semesters. Today my English class met for 8 weeks and my Algebra class will finish after only four weeks.
> 
> In '71 there was no tuition expense for in-state students.
> Today tuition amounts to $36 per unit.
> As the economic situation in California worsens, I expect classes will become shorter and more expensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that whining about $36 per credit for college level opportunity is NOT gonna get a whole of lot of traction with the 99%..
> 
> *The LARGER problem is status obsessed parents who push their kids from pre-school years to attend prestige schools that the family cannot afford. Then these parents literally FORCE their kids to go in hock up their eyeballs for the rest of their lives..* Grow up --- and INDICT those criminal parents...
> 
> You can buy 2 years at that Community College and come out with an AA or AS degree that then gets you into a State school for cheap. And *UNDERgraduate curriculums donn't really vary that much or affect outcomes ABOVE the astronomical diff in cost.. *
> 
> About $3500 for that AA degree George -- stop whining..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, someone finally said it! IF you have the money and the time, and want a liberal arts degree just to have a broader educartion, fine, and your state university can easily pprovide you that experience, at less cost. *A liberal arts degree, no matter where you get it, is NOT, and was never meant to be, a "meal ticket".* For THAT, you need a technical and/or postgraduate or professional degree. Why the hell is that so hard to comprehend? I would think anyone of sufficient intelligence to do college-level academic work, would KNOW that!
Click to expand...


Amen.. I'm surprised that MOST of these "forgive my giant Student loan" protesters aren't suing their parents. Or the schools that offered "aid" in the form of loans to boost enrollment. All so mom and dad feel good about Katie getting into Stanford as a freshman.


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> "California public schools, which during the 1960s had been ranked nationally as among the best, have decreased to 48th in many surveys of student achievement..."
> 
> I never bought into Proposition 13 either.
> 
> California Proposition 13 (1978) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



You need to start reading something besides wiki.

California, NY, and Texas have some of the highest ranked public highschools in the country according to US News & World Reports Annual rankings.

Best High Schools - US News Education


----------



## Katzndogz

California does have SOME very good schools.  Generally, the state is crap when it comes to teaching children.


----------



## Samson

Tipsycatlover said:


> California does have SOME very good schools.  Generally, the state is crap when it comes to teaching children.



Literacy rate in the USA is about 100%.


----------



## chanel

flacaltenn said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that whining about $36 per credit for college level opportunity is NOT gonna get a whole of lot of traction with the 99%..
> 
> *The LARGER problem is status obsessed parents who push their kids from pre-school years to attend prestige schools that the family cannot afford. Then these parents literally FORCE their kids to go in hock up their eyeballs for the rest of their lives..* Grow up --- and INDICT those criminal parents...
> 
> You can buy 2 years at that Community College and come out with an AA or AS degree that then gets you into a State school for cheap. And *UNDERgraduate curriculums donn't really vary that much or affect outcomes ABOVE the astronomical diff in cost.. *
> 
> About $3500 for that AA degree George -- stop whining..
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, someone finally said it! IF you have the money and the time, and want a liberal arts degree just to have a broader educartion, fine, and your state university can easily pprovide you that experience, at less cost. *A liberal arts degree, no matter where you get it, is NOT, and was never meant to be, a "meal ticket".* For THAT, you need a technical and/or postgraduate or professional degree. Why the hell is that so hard to comprehend? I would think anyone of sufficient intelligence to do college-level academic work, would KNOW that!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amen.. I'm surprised that MOST of these "forgive my giant Student loan" protesters aren't suing their parents. Or the schools that offered "aid" in the form of loans to boost enrollment. All so mom and dad feel good about Katie getting into Stanford as a freshman.
Click to expand...


It's not just mom and dad.  Our entire culture tells kids that college is the key to a future.  We look down upon people who are "uneducated" - even when those people are more successful.  We've eliminated vocational programs in schools; and put all children (even the handicapped) in college prep courses.  "College for All" is the new mantra.  And no one tells these students that a degree is  not a meal ticket; nor even a guarantee of a job.

But beyond that is the price tag.  I found this article from '08.



> Over all, the report found, published college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007 while median family income rose 147 percent.
> 
> Projecting out to 2036, tuition would go from 11 percent of the family budget to 24 percent of the family budget, and thats pretty huge,



Higher Education May Soon Be Unaffordable for Most Americans, Report Says - NYTimes.com

So who's holding these college crooks accountable?  Why isn't anyone asking what the hell is going on?   Are the students being better served?  No.  Is the teaching staff making mega-bucks?  No.  Where is it going?  Football?  Monkey sex research?  Or in the pockets of the overpaid administrators and their friends?

I've seen this bubble coming for quite a while.  And I understand the fear of the families and students have mortgaged their futures on false promises.  But smart people prepared for it.

We are paying a small fortune for our kids' schooling.  And I'll be damned if  I am asked to bail out other people's kids.  We have all been ripped off.  Deal with it.

When will we start telling kids the truth?


----------



## flacaltenn

Chanel::

I think in the future, we're gonna see the need to consider "College" something that stretches out over a lifetime and not just something we do in our late teens, early 20s.. That may fix the inflated prices and focus on "prestige" rather than value.. In fact, your early career may be more of a combination of internship, apprenticeship and education. Because the world is changing so much more quickly, I think you will need to get into a professional in ways OTHER than buying an expensive diploma...


----------



## Preius

I realize I get people's blood boiling.  This is just a map I found on the internet, there is nothing significant to it.  With all this OWS, I thought the map might interest others as much as it does me.

As a social liberal and fiscal moderate from California, I would love to see it.  We in the west get all our liberal States together.  California is the fifth largest economy on the planet.  We could go our own progressive direction.  San Francisco would make a great capitol!!!

I like the fact that California does not touch Mexico.  Illegal Immigration would become a problem for the Bible Belt.  Let the KKK handle it if you wish.   

You know the United States as we know it could become like the European Union where each country does their own thing, but we could have a common military.  Plus down near San Diego the Homeland States gets a port.  To me, politically, it makes more sense than what we have now.   I am just throwing into this 99% thread for fun, don't make too much out of it.  We had a good time with a this at a party last weekend!


----------



## Big Fitz

Preius said:


> I realize I get people's blood boiling.  This is just a map I found on the internet, there is nothing significant to it.  With all this OWS, I thought the map might interest others as much as it does me.
> 
> As a social liberal and fiscal moderate from California, I would love to see it.  We in the west get all our liberal States together.  California is the fifth largest economy on the planet.  We could go our own progressive direction.  San Francisco would make a great capitol!!!
> 
> I like the fact that California does not touch Mexico.  Illegal Immigration would become a problem for the Bible Belt.  Let the KKK handle it if you wish.
> 
> You know the United States as we know it could become like the European Union where each country does their own thing, but we could have a common military.  Plus down near San Diego the Homeland States gets a port.  To me, politically, it makes more sense than what we have now.   I am just throwing into this 99% thread for fun, don't make too much out of it.  We had a good time with a this at a party last weekend!


Blood boiling?  pfft.  Cliff, you've an overinflated sense of your influence.


----------



## Preius

Tipsycatlover said:


> California does have SOME very good schools.  Generally, the state is crap when it comes to teaching children.



Thank Arnie for that, he never did get the State budget on track in 8 years - fail.







Word is he's got a movie deal in the works.  This Dem likes his stuff.​


----------



## Preius

Big Fitz said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize I get people's blood boiling.  This is just a map I found on the internet, there is nothing significant to it.  With all this OWS, I thought the map might interest others as much as it does me.
> 
> As a social liberal and fiscal moderate from California, I would love to see it.  We in the west get all our liberal States together.  California is the fifth largest economy on the planet.  We could go our own progressive direction.  San Francisco would make a great capitol!!!
> 
> I like the fact that California does not touch Mexico.  Illegal Immigration would become a problem for the Bible Belt.  Let the KKK handle it if you wish.
> 
> You know the United States as we know it could become like the European Union where each country does their own thing, but we could have a common military.  Plus down near San Diego the Homeland States gets a port.  To me, politically, it makes more sense than what we have now.   I am just throwing into this 99% thread for fun, don't make too much out of it.  We had a good time with a this at a party last weekend!
> 
> 
> 
> Blood boiling?  pfft.  Cliff, you've an overinflated sense of your influence.
Click to expand...


Speaking of 'overinflated sense of influence' who are *you* speaking for?  

I've seen your contributions to this forum.  Do you have an opinion about the f*cking map, or is it over your head?


----------



## Stephanie

Preius said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize I get people's blood boiling.  This is just a map I found on the internet, there is nothing significant to it.  With all this OWS, I thought the map might interest others as much as it does me.
> 
> As a social liberal and fiscal moderate from California, I would love to see it.  We in the west get all our liberal States together.  California is the fifth largest economy on the planet.  We could go our own progressive direction.  San Francisco would make a great capitol!!!
> 
> I like the fact that California does not touch Mexico.  Illegal Immigration would become a problem for the Bible Belt.  Let the KKK handle it if you wish.
> 
> You know the United States as we know it could become like the European Union where each country does their own thing, but we could have a common military.  Plus down near San Diego the Homeland States gets a port.  To me, politically, it makes more sense than what we have now.   I am just throwing into this 99% thread for fun, don't make too much out of it.  We had a good time with a this at a party last weekend!
> 
> 
> 
> Blood boiling?  pfft.  Cliff, you've an overinflated sense of your influence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of 'overinflated sense of influence' who are *you* speaking for?
> 
> I've seen your contributions to this forum.  Do you have an opinion about the f*cking map, or is it over your head?
Click to expand...


what opinion is someone suppose to have ON A MAP of the NEW AMERCIA. oh lookie, it's a Progressive DREAM.
good grief.


----------



## Preius

Stephanie said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blood boiling?  pfft.  Cliff, you've an overinflated sense of your influence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of 'overinflated sense of influence' who are *you* speaking for?
> 
> I've seen your contributions to this forum.  Do you have an opinion about the f*cking map, or is it over your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what opinion is someone suppose to have ON A MAP of the NEW AMERCIA. oh lookie, it's a Progressive DREAM.
> good grief.
Click to expand...


Good Grief?...... did not mean to go over your head, just thought it might generate provocative posting.


----------



## Maple

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Twalbert said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


I wonder if they are mad that these Wall Street firms were heavy into campaign donations to Obama??? Somehow I bet they don't know that.


----------



## Maple

Stephanie said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blood boiling?  pfft.  Cliff, you've an overinflated sense of your influence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of 'overinflated sense of influence' who are *you* speaking for?
> 
> I've seen your contributions to this forum.  Do you have an opinion about the f*cking map, or is it over your head?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what opinion is someone suppose to have ON A MAP of the NEW AMERCIA. oh lookie, it's a Progressive DREAM.
> good grief.
Click to expand...


Yes, and it's a conservative dream as well. I'm in, but I am in the middle of that map.


----------



## Unkotare

Preius said:


> I've seen your contributions to this forum.  Do you have an opinion about the f*cking map, or is it over your head?




Has it not yet gotten through to you, shitstain, that YOU are the problem and your asinine, pre-school "Looky, looky at the pretty pictures!" is of interest to no one but your idiotic self? STFU


----------



## georgephillip

The Gadfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  College kids with enormous debt and little job prospects need to be protesting the corrupt colleges and the federal government who offered them easy money and false promises.  They are clueless about who the culprits are.
> 
> My son's school participated in a march at "Occupy Philly"  chanting "Education is a right.  It's not just for the rich and white".  He laughed because nearly all the protesters were "rich and white."  And last he heard, even people of color were afforded the same educational opportunities.   In fact, it's the law.
> 
> 
> 
> The culprits are Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo. The same culprits who orchestrated an economic crash resulting in the loss of nine million jobs and the biggest drop in home ownership since the Great Depression. Remember?
> 
> Corrupt politicians and colleges serve Wall Street parasites and the richest 1% of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Orchestrated" the recession, and the collapse of the housing bubble? ORCHESTRATED IT? That's ....never mind how ridiculous it is, if you want to make that assertion, back it up! I want you to tell us, in detail, just how you think these entities by themselves planned and "orchestrated" this mess. Please do. I breathlessly await your "explanation"; it should be most enlightening! Keep to demonstrable facts, please; no defending points by saying "Everybody knows that_______!", no suppositions.
Click to expand...

Here's a useful starting point in case you're actually interested.
*Keep a sharp eye out for communists on unicorns.*

"Getting a grip on the economic catastrophe that rocked the country during the fall of 2008 is no easy feat, what with so many players, back-room deals, bills, upswings and meltdowns to consider. To that end, Truthdig, once again in collaboration with Capzles.com, has put together a comprehensive multimedia timeline that explains how we got into this mess and how we might avoid repeating history in the near future..."

Truthdig - Financial Meltdown 101


----------



## georgephillip

Samson said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "California public schools, which during the 1960s had been ranked nationally as among the best, have decreased to 48th in many surveys of student achievement..."
> 
> I never bought into Proposition 13 either.
> 
> California Proposition 13 (1978) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to start reading something besides wiki.
> 
> California, NY, and Texas have some of the highest ranked public highschools in the country according to US News & World Reports Annual rankings.
> 
> Best High Schools - US News Education
Click to expand...

*Taken any Chem classes at Cal lately?*

"BERKELEY, Calif.  As the University of California struggles to absorb its sharpest drop in state financing since the Great Depression, every professor, administrator and clerical worker has been put on furlough amounting to an average pay cut of 8 percent..."

California Reeling - University of California, Crown Jewel of Education, Struggles With Cuts - Series - NYTimes.com


----------



## georgephillip

flacaltenn said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought voters were already convinced.
> 
> Don't you have public schools where you live, George?
> 
> 
> 
> *They appear to be swirling the drain around here, Samson.*
> 
> I've been attending a community college for the last two months.
> Exactly 40 years ago I attended another community college.
> In both cases I enrolled in four classes my first semester.
> 
> While I was expecting the computer to be the biggest difference between the two experiences, I've discovered it is actually budget cuts that have had the biggest effect. In 1971 all classes met for 15 weeks during Fall and Spring semesters. Today my English class met for 8 weeks and my Algebra class will finish after only four weeks.
> 
> In '71 there was no tuition expense for in-state students.
> Today tuition amounts to $36 per unit.
> As the economic situation in California worsens, I expect classes will become shorter and more expensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suspect that whining about $36 per credit for college level opportunity is NOT gonna get a whole of lot of traction with the 99%..
> 
> The LARGER problem is status obsessed parents who push their kids from pre-school years to attend prestige schools that the family cannot afford. Then these parents literally FORCE their kids to go in hock up their eyeballs for the rest of their lives.. Grow up --- and INDICT those criminal parents...
> 
> You can buy 2 years at that Community College and come out with an AA or AS degree that then gets you into a State school for cheap. And UNDERgraduate curriculums donn't really vary that much or affect outcomes ABOVE the astronomical diff in cost..
> 
> About $3500 for that AA degree George -- stop whining..
Click to expand...

Education and health care are human rights for those of us who don't believe societies were created to enable psychotic parasites to amass vast, private fortunes.


----------



## Unkotare

georgephillip said:


> [
> Education and health care are human rights for those of us.





LOL! That right there says it all about the mind-set of your sort.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Preius said:


> So, you have decided to ruin this thread.



No, I decided to expose your reeking hypocrisy, and the hypocrisy of the other morons of the Shitter revolution.



> I don't even know who you are.  Out of the blue you are attacking me, and do not even offer a quote of mine to refute!



Son, I've refuted dozens of your posts.



> Folks, I enjoy the spotlight, but this is not the thread for it.  Something very important is happening in global politics and money markets.



The unions are throwing a temper tantrum and demanding "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmee."

Happens all the time. 



> Yes, I am a social liberal, and a fiscal moderate looking for pragmatism.



A fiscally moderate Marxist, imagine....



> I believe it is imperative that we maintain the best of capitalism while escorting in the era of "American Socialism.'



Da Comrade.



> Permit me to remind one and all that it was the Republicans who gave socialism the biggest boost ever with the 7000,000,000,000 TARP which bears the signature of George W. Bush!



How did your Messiah® vote on that? 



> This week my stock broker advised me to get out of stocks and into some metals - the metals guy said that was a first for him.  I am a conservative investor taking the current approach of hanging onto what I have.  My favorite stocks are John Deere and Kroger.  I will not purchase gasoline or bank stocks as I have a moral objection.



Why don't you give everything you have to the OWS movement?

Fraud!



> The metals guy is watching the protests in Greece, (which is also having occupy Wall Street protests).  Apparently, Europeans are buying dollars, and Americans are buying metals, which means, (according to my metals trader) the shit is going to hit the fan bigger than in 2008.  This is pretty scary.
> 
> You can joke all you want, (where you came up with Comrad, I do not know), but this 99%, Occupy Wall Street movement has a lot of people concerned.  My opinion is that it will come out ok.  Remember the United States only came into being because the wealthiest colonists wanted it.  Last survey I saw showed the Tea Party at 27% favorable rating which never changes much.  The Tea Party, (like it or not) has hung itself with the 'bigot ' label which killed any international chances.  53% of the U. S. population views the 99% movement in a positive way.  The potential for global political action is good.




Racism was demagoguery from the party media. 

Funny, racism and antisemitism are rampant in the Shitter movement, but the party press doesn't manage to report on that. 

One might glean that the party press is "pro-shitter." 



> So, while you guys are playing the same old USMB gotcha game.  I bought $17,000 worth of gold coins.  To me it is just about time for a financial crisis where we can all kiss our sweet asses goodbye.



Isn't that nice.



> So, anyone want to talk about the critical issue of Barry Obama's birth certificate?  Or, would you like to hear some opinions from other posters about how the financial unrest of the world is going to effect your way of life?  Even television news can not keep up with what is going on.



Let's talk about the Shitter revolution and your dream of Socialist America, Comrade.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Samson said:


> Mein Kamph also, "figured prominently in philosophy of law and political philosophy in the twentieth century."
> 
> Is your point that neither are relevant to the 21st century?



I hate to support George, but in this he is correct. Most political philosophies agree that the state is the only LEGITIMATE wielder of force. Police and armed forces are adjuncts of the state. This is why it is so important to keep the state small.


----------



## georgephillip

Unkotare said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Education and health care are human rights for those of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! That right there says it all about the mind-set of your sort.
Click to expand...

What does your mind-set tell you about the role chattel slavery played in the creation of the first private fortunes on this planet?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Samson said:


> You need to start reading something besides wiki.
> 
> California, NY, and Texas have some of the highest ranked public highschools in the country according to US News & World Reports Annual rankings.
> 
> Best High Schools - US News Education



California had two on the top ten list - but both are private schools. 

I think George is pointing out that public education sucks in California.

Now we DO have magnet schools, the International Baccalaureate program is quite good. But over all, California schools are abysmal.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Preius said:


> Good Grief?...... did not mean to go over your head, just thought it might generate provocative posting.



Son, your juvenile masturbation isn't "going over anyone's head."

Someday you'll grow up - maybe....


----------



## Big Fitz

Preius said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize I get people's blood boiling.  This is just a map I found on the internet, there is nothing significant to it.  With all this OWS, I thought the map might interest others as much as it does me.
> 
> As a social liberal and fiscal moderate from California, I would love to see it.  We in the west get all our liberal States together.  California is the fifth largest economy on the planet.  We could go our own progressive direction.  San Francisco would make a great capitol!!!
> 
> I like the fact that California does not touch Mexico.  Illegal Immigration would become a problem for the Bible Belt.  Let the KKK handle it if you wish.
> 
> You know the United States as we know it could become like the European Union where each country does their own thing, but we could have a common military.  Plus down near San Diego the Homeland States gets a port.  To me, politically, it makes more sense than what we have now.   I am just throwing into this 99% thread for fun, don't make too much out of it.  We had a good time with a this at a party last weekend!
> 
> 
> 
> Blood boiling?  pfft.  Cliff, you've an overinflated sense of your influence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of 'overinflated sense of influence' who are *you* speaking for?
> 
> I've seen your contributions to this forum.  Do you have an opinion about the f*cking map, or is it over your head?
Click to expand...

Why do I need an opinion about some petulant childish crap obviously put up there by a poster because he hasn't gotten enough attention from mommy and daddy?


----------



## Unkotare

georgephillip said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Education and health care are human rights for those of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! That right there says it all about the mind-set of your sort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What does your mind-set tell you about the role chattel slavery played in the creation of the first private fortunes on this planet?
Click to expand...




Sorry Karl, but your stupid ideas have been proven a muderously horrible failure every time they have been imposed on a large scale. There is nothing left to your empty, irrelevant ideology.


----------



## Dragon

Maple said:


> I wonder if they are mad that these Wall Street firms were heavy into campaign donations to Obama??? Somehow I bet they don't know that.



You lose.


----------



## Samson

Preius said:


> I realize I get people's blood boiling.  This is just a map I found on the internet, there is nothing significant to it.  With all this OWS, I thought the map might interest others as much as it does me.
> 
> As a social liberal and fiscal moderate from California, I would love to see it.  We in the west get all our liberal States together.  California is the fifth largest economy on the planet.  We could go our own progressive direction.  San Francisco would make a great capitol!!!
> 
> I like the fact that California does not touch Mexico.  Illegal Immigration would become a problem for the Bible Belt.  Let the KKK handle it if you wish.
> 
> You know the United States as we know it could become like the European Union where each country does their own thing, but we could have a common military.  Plus down near San Diego the Homeland States gets a port.  To me, politically, it makes more sense than what we have now.   I am just throwing into this 99% thread for fun, don't make too much out of it.  We had a good time with a this at a party last weekend!



You oughta make this another thread of its own: I think its facinating that the "United" States are so consistantly (over a mere 200+ years) at odds with one another.

Unfortunately, in many cases, e.g. California, there is not a strong majority _within the state_. IOW, while the state's coastline remains strongly progressive, the population in the remainder of the state is quite conservative. Texas is another example: along the Mexican Border there are many "progressive elements" compared with the rest of the state.

The fact is that the division of the USA between "Blue States" and "Red States" is something of a myth with few exceptions; Oklahoma (red), Vermont (blue).

If the nation was divided into COUNTIES, the picture would be quite different: Essentially the "Progressive Nation" would include almost every county bordering Mexico (including one in AZ). The "Progressive Map," outside of New England (not including most of NY) appears as a scattering of city states (Miami, NY, Chicago, San Fran, LA, Seattle, and oddly, Jackson, MS).


----------



## georgephillip

Unkotare said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! That right there says it all about the mind-set of your sort.
> 
> 
> 
> What does your mind-set tell you about the role chattel slavery played in the creation of the first private fortunes on this planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Karl, but your stupid ideas have been proven a muderously horrible failure every time they have been imposed on a large scale. There is nothing left to your empty, irrelevant ideology.
Click to expand...

Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What does your mind-set tell you about the role chattel slavery played in the creation of the first private fortunes on this planet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Karl, but your stupid ideas have been proven a muderously horrible failure every time they have been imposed on a large scale. There is nothing left to your empty, irrelevant ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.
Click to expand...




> Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.



Good to hear Marx is still dead. I don't think Finance Capitalism is even close to dead. We continue to borrow, to loan, the more the amount, the more the risk, the longer it takes to repay, generally effect the cost of the loan. Life-101? It's fair, if you know going in to the agreement, generally we all benefit in one way or another. When we keep things simple and transparent, generally Everyone involved is on the same page. 
Too much money in too few hands, is this about why or how? If you achieve it honestly and honorably, who is to proclaim that you have too much? By what Principle? What Principle would you claim in taking something from one Person, without consent,  to enrich another?

Why is it when you give two People the same exact measure, you get different results, with what they do with it? Is it right for you to control the outcome in any way? If you gave two People $100,000.00 and one starts a business becoming self sufficient, and the other blows it on a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City, what is it to you? 
My point is why hand out money like candy in the first place? It's not your money in the first place, it is entrusted to you to serve the Society. Infrastructure, Emergency Services, Maintenance and Repair. Why is that always last on the list and first to be cut? 

I agree that when Government or Conglomerates take big risks and win, the rewards are private, yet when they lose, they spread the losses out on Us, the Public. That is a corruption of Principle, and should be investigated every time, with the findings made Public. Criminals need to be charged, Incompetents need to be removed from Office. The Union's want to protect Scoundrels too, when they do, they should be made to pay for the cost of the remedy. Why should we. 

Monopolies, Subsidies, Government picking winners and losers arbitrarily, or by selfish motive, needs to be called out onto the carpet. It's one thing after another, and Government is in it up to it"s neck. Companies need to learn to stand on their own merit, big or little. Marxism is not the solution, neither is Capitalism on cruise control, or automatic pilot. We need to constantly adjust course. This Vessel, is the making of A Constitutional Federalist Republic. We are not compatible with Progressive Statist, Principles.


----------



## Uncensored2008

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Intense again

Excellent reply anyway!


----------



## Uncensored2008

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Intense again

Excellent reply anyway!


----------



## georgephillip

Intense said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Karl, but your stupid ideas have been proven a muderously horrible failure every time they have been imposed on a large scale. There is nothing left to your empty, irrelevant ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good to hear Marx is still dead. I don't think Finance Capitalism is even close to dead. We continue to borrow, to loan, the more the amount, the more the risk, the longer it takes to repay, generally effect the cost of the loan. Life-101? It's fair, if you know going in to the agreement, generally we all benefit in one way or another. When we keep things simple and transparent, generally Everyone involved is on the same page.
> Too much money in too few hands, is this about why or how? If you achieve it honestly and honorably, who is to proclaim that you have too much? By what Principle? What Principle would you claim in taking something from one Person, without consent,  to enrich another?
> 
> Why is it when you give two People the same exact measure, you get different results, with what they do with it? Is it right for you to control the outcome in any way? If you gave two People $100,000.00 and one starts a business becoming self sufficient, and the other blows it on a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City, what is it to you?
> My point is why hand out money like candy in the first place? It's not your money in the first place, it is entrusted to you to serve the Society. Infrastructure, Emergency Services, Maintenance and Repair. Why is that always last on the list and first to be cut?
> 
> I agree that when Government or Conglomerates take big risks and win, the rewards are private, yet when they lose, they spread the losses out on Us, the Public. That is a corruption of Principle, and should be investigated every time, with the findings made Public. Criminals need to be charged, Incompetents need to be removed from Office. The Union's want to protect Scoundrels too, when they do, they should be made to pay for the cost of the remedy. Why should we.
> 
> Monopolies, Subsidies, Government picking winners and losers arbitrarily, or by selfish motive, needs to be called out onto the carpet. It's one thing after another, and Government is in it up to it"s neck. Companies need to learn to stand on their own merit, big or little. Marxism is not the solution, neither is Capitalism on cruise control, or automatic pilot. We need to constantly adjust course. This Vessel, is the making of A Constitutional Federalist Republic. We are not compatible with Progressive Statist, Principles.
Click to expand...

*You're avoiding the subject.*

"Finance capitalism is a term in *Marxian political economics* defined as the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.[1] It is characterized by the pursuit of profit from the purchase and sale of, or investment in, currencies and financial products such as bonds, stocks, futures and other derivatives. *It also includes the lending of money at interest*. Finance capitalism is seen by Marxists as being exploitative by supplying income to non-laborers..."

Finance capitalism is a casino where the "winners" keep every penny of profit, and the "losers" are bailed out by government, i.e., the taxpayer.

Finance capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good to hear Marx is still dead. I don't think Finance Capitalism is even close to dead. We continue to borrow, to loan, the more the amount, the more the risk, the longer it takes to repay, generally effect the cost of the loan. Life-101? It's fair, if you know going in to the agreement, generally we all benefit in one way or another. When we keep things simple and transparent, generally Everyone involved is on the same page.
> Too much money in too few hands, is this about why or how? If you achieve it honestly and honorably, who is to proclaim that you have too much? By what Principle? What Principle would you claim in taking something from one Person, without consent,  to enrich another?
> 
> Why is it when you give two People the same exact measure, you get different results, with what they do with it? Is it right for you to control the outcome in any way? If you gave two People $100,000.00 and one starts a business becoming self sufficient, and the other blows it on a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City, what is it to you?
> My point is why hand out money like candy in the first place? It's not your money in the first place, it is entrusted to you to serve the Society. Infrastructure, Emergency Services, Maintenance and Repair. Why is that always last on the list and first to be cut?
> 
> I agree that when Government or Conglomerates take big risks and win, the rewards are private, yet when they lose, they spread the losses out on Us, the Public. That is a corruption of Principle, and should be investigated every time, with the findings made Public. Criminals need to be charged, Incompetents need to be removed from Office. The Union's want to protect Scoundrels too, when they do, they should be made to pay for the cost of the remedy. Why should we.
> 
> Monopolies, Subsidies, Government picking winners and losers arbitrarily, or by selfish motive, needs to be called out onto the carpet. It's one thing after another, and Government is in it up to it"s neck. Companies need to learn to stand on their own merit, big or little. Marxism is not the solution, neither is Capitalism on cruise control, or automatic pilot. We need to constantly adjust course. This Vessel, is the making of A Constitutional Federalist Republic. We are not compatible with Progressive Statist, Principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're avoiding the subject.*
> 
> "Finance capitalism is a term in *Marxian political economics* defined as the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.[1] It is characterized by the pursuit of profit from the purchase and sale of, or investment in, currencies and financial products such as bonds, stocks, futures and other derivatives. *It also includes the lending of money at interest*. Finance capitalism is seen by Marxists as being exploitative by supplying income to non-laborers..."
> 
> Finance capitalism is a casino where the "winners" keep every penny of profit, and the "losers" are bailed out by government, i.e., the taxpayer.
> 
> Finance capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


There's no "avoiding the subject."

There's only the difference of opinion: Marxist believe investing in financial products is "exploitive," and there are very few Marxist societies.

On the other hand, Financial Capitalism thrives all over the globe where it is considered beneficial to both lenders and borrowers...including governments.


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because Marx is still dead and wrong about the solution to capitalism doesn't mean he wasn't right about the end days of finance capitalism. Too much money in too few hands leads to a paradox of accumulation and gambling with other people's money. With the understanding all profits are private while losses beyond a certain threshold are guaranteed by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good to hear Marx is still dead. I don't think Finance Capitalism is even close to dead. We continue to borrow, to loan, the more the amount, the more the risk, the longer it takes to repay, generally effect the cost of the loan. Life-101? It's fair, if you know going in to the agreement, generally we all benefit in one way or another. When we keep things simple and transparent, generally Everyone involved is on the same page.
> Too much money in too few hands, is this about why or how? If you achieve it honestly and honorably, who is to proclaim that you have too much? By what Principle? What Principle would you claim in taking something from one Person, without consent,  to enrich another?
> 
> Why is it when you give two People the same exact measure, you get different results, with what they do with it? Is it right for you to control the outcome in any way? If you gave two People $100,000.00 and one starts a business becoming self sufficient, and the other blows it on a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City, what is it to you?
> My point is why hand out money like candy in the first place? It's not your money in the first place, it is entrusted to you to serve the Society. Infrastructure, Emergency Services, Maintenance and Repair. Why is that always last on the list and first to be cut?
> 
> I agree that when Government or Conglomerates take big risks and win, the rewards are private, yet when they lose, they spread the losses out on Us, the Public. That is a corruption of Principle, and should be investigated every time, with the findings made Public. Criminals need to be charged, Incompetents need to be removed from Office. The Union's want to protect Scoundrels too, when they do, they should be made to pay for the cost of the remedy. Why should we.
> 
> Monopolies, Subsidies, Government picking winners and losers arbitrarily, or by selfish motive, needs to be called out onto the carpet. It's one thing after another, and Government is in it up to it"s neck. Companies need to learn to stand on their own merit, big or little. Marxism is not the solution, neither is Capitalism on cruise control, or automatic pilot. We need to constantly adjust course. This Vessel, is the making of A Constitutional Federalist Republic. We are not compatible with Progressive Statist, Principles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You're avoiding the subject.*
> 
> "Finance capitalism is a term in *Marxian political economics* defined as the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.[1] It is characterized by the pursuit of profit from the purchase and sale of, or investment in, currencies and financial products such as bonds, stocks, futures and other derivatives. *It also includes the lending of money at interest*. Finance capitalism is seen by Marxists as being exploitative by supplying income to non-laborers..."
> 
> Finance capitalism is a casino where the "winners" keep every penny of profit, and the "losers" are bailed out by government, i.e., the taxpayer.
> 
> Finance capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

No I'm not. You want to invest, and take your chances, go for it. You want to Borrow, agreeing to the Terms, go for it. You want to fold, stand apart, go for it. What we both may agree on is Government not having any place in Business Investment or Bailing out Poor Investment. I am also against Subsidies. There are better ways to provide for the General Welfare. Where we disagree with you, is the concept of the Marxist Utopia, where the same entities have control over the Law, the Market, and pretty much every aspect of our lives. It ain't happening. I'd rather trade in coin than bullets, prisons, and mass graves for all those it's to inconvenient to indoctrinate. Human Nature is what it is, Marxism is no fix for what ails us.


----------



## georgephillip

Samson said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to hear Marx is still dead. I don't think Finance Capitalism is even close to dead. We continue to borrow, to loan, the more the amount, the more the risk, the longer it takes to repay, generally effect the cost of the loan. Life-101? It's fair, if you know going in to the agreement, generally we all benefit in one way or another. When we keep things simple and transparent, generally Everyone involved is on the same page.
> Too much money in too few hands, is this about why or how? If you achieve it honestly and honorably, who is to proclaim that you have too much? By what Principle? What Principle would you claim in taking something from one Person, without consent,  to enrich another?
> 
> Why is it when you give two People the same exact measure, you get different results, with what they do with it? Is it right for you to control the outcome in any way? If you gave two People $100,000.00 and one starts a business becoming self sufficient, and the other blows it on a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City, what is it to you?
> My point is why hand out money like candy in the first place? It's not your money in the first place, it is entrusted to you to serve the Society. Infrastructure, Emergency Services, Maintenance and Repair. Why is that always last on the list and first to be cut?
> 
> I agree that when Government or Conglomerates take big risks and win, the rewards are private, yet when they lose, they spread the losses out on Us, the Public. That is a corruption of Principle, and should be investigated every time, with the findings made Public. Criminals need to be charged, Incompetents need to be removed from Office. The Union's want to protect Scoundrels too, when they do, they should be made to pay for the cost of the remedy. Why should we.
> 
> Monopolies, Subsidies, Government picking winners and losers arbitrarily, or by selfish motive, needs to be called out onto the carpet. It's one thing after another, and Government is in it up to it"s neck. Companies need to learn to stand on their own merit, big or little. Marxism is not the solution, neither is Capitalism on cruise control, or automatic pilot. We need to constantly adjust course. This Vessel, is the making of A Constitutional Federalist Republic. We are not compatible with Progressive Statist, Principles.
> 
> 
> 
> *You're avoiding the subject.*
> 
> "Finance capitalism is a term in *Marxian political economics* defined as the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.[1] It is characterized by the pursuit of profit from the purchase and sale of, or investment in, currencies and financial products such as bonds, stocks, futures and other derivatives. *It also includes the lending of money at interest*. Finance capitalism is seen by Marxists as being exploitative by supplying income to non-laborers..."
> 
> Finance capitalism is a casino where the "winners" keep every penny of profit, and the "losers" are bailed out by government, i.e., the taxpayer.
> 
> Finance capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no "avoiding the subject."
> 
> There's only the difference of opinion: Marxist believe investing in financial products is "exploitive," and there are very few Marxist societies.
> 
> On the other hand, Financial Capitalism thrives all over the globe where it is considered beneficial to both lenders and borrowers...including governments.
Click to expand...

Where's the difference of opinion over the economic collapse of 2008?

Remember? When all the thriving financial capitalists plundered trillions of dollars worth of value from homeowners and pension funds. The richest 5% of Americans found this event beneficial since it nearly doubled their share of returns to wealth in less than a single generation; however, the remaining 95% found it less than beneficial.


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You're avoiding the subject.*
> 
> "Finance capitalism is a term in *Marxian political economics* defined as the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.[1] It is characterized by the pursuit of profit from the purchase and sale of, or investment in, currencies and financial products such as bonds, stocks, futures and other derivatives. *It also includes the lending of money at interest*. Finance capitalism is seen by Marxists as being exploitative by supplying income to non-laborers..."
> 
> Finance capitalism is a casino where the "winners" keep every penny of profit, and the "losers" are bailed out by government, i.e., the taxpayer.
> 
> Finance capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no "avoiding the subject."
> 
> There's only the difference of opinion: Marxist believe investing in financial products is "exploitive," and there are very few Marxist societies.
> 
> On the other hand, Financial Capitalism thrives all over the globe where it is considered beneficial to both lenders and borrowers...including governments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where's the difference of opinion over the economic collapse of 2008?
> 
> Remember? When all the thriving financial capitalists plundered trillions of dollars worth of value from homeowners and pension funds. The richest 5% of Americans found this event beneficial since it nearly doubled their share of returns to wealth in less than a single generation; however, the remaining 95% found it less than beneficial.
Click to expand...


"Less than beneficial" relative to what? Chinese Marxism?

You seem to believe there is a perfect model: There isn't.

2008 happened, and will happen again. Economic cycling is a fact of economic life.


----------



## georgephillip

Intense said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to hear Marx is still dead. I don't think Finance Capitalism is even close to dead. We continue to borrow, to loan, the more the amount, the more the risk, the longer it takes to repay, generally effect the cost of the loan. Life-101? It's fair, if you know going in to the agreement, generally we all benefit in one way or another. When we keep things simple and transparent, generally Everyone involved is on the same page.
> Too much money in too few hands, is this about why or how? If you achieve it honestly and honorably, who is to proclaim that you have too much? By what Principle? What Principle would you claim in taking something from one Person, without consent,  to enrich another?
> 
> Why is it when you give two People the same exact measure, you get different results, with what they do with it? Is it right for you to control the outcome in any way? If you gave two People $100,000.00 and one starts a business becoming self sufficient, and the other blows it on a trip to Vegas or Atlantic City, what is it to you?
> My point is why hand out money like candy in the first place? It's not your money in the first place, it is entrusted to you to serve the Society. Infrastructure, Emergency Services, Maintenance and Repair. Why is that always last on the list and first to be cut?
> 
> I agree that when Government or Conglomerates take big risks and win, the rewards are private, yet when they lose, they spread the losses out on Us, the Public. That is a corruption of Principle, and should be investigated every time, with the findings made Public. Criminals need to be charged, Incompetents need to be removed from Office. The Union's want to protect Scoundrels too, when they do, they should be made to pay for the cost of the remedy. Why should we.
> 
> Monopolies, Subsidies, Government picking winners and losers arbitrarily, or by selfish motive, needs to be called out onto the carpet. It's one thing after another, and Government is in it up to it"s neck. Companies need to learn to stand on their own merit, big or little. Marxism is not the solution, neither is Capitalism on cruise control, or automatic pilot. We need to constantly adjust course. This Vessel, is the making of A Constitutional Federalist Republic. We are not compatible with Progressive Statist, Principles.
> 
> 
> 
> *You're avoiding the subject.*
> 
> "Finance capitalism is a term in *Marxian political economics* defined as the subordination of processes of production to the accumulation of money profits in a financial system.[1] It is characterized by the pursuit of profit from the purchase and sale of, or investment in, currencies and financial products such as bonds, stocks, futures and other derivatives. *It also includes the lending of money at interest*. Finance capitalism is seen by Marxists as being exploitative by supplying income to non-laborers..."
> 
> Finance capitalism is a casino where the "winners" keep every penny of profit, and the "losers" are bailed out by government, i.e., the taxpayer.
> 
> Finance capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I'm not. You want to invest, and take your chances, go for it. You want to Borrow, agreeing to the Terms, go for it. You want to fold, stand apart, go for it. What we both may agree on is Government not having any place in Business Investment or Bailing out Poor Investment. I am also against Subsidies. There are better ways to provide for the General Welfare. Where we disagree with you, is the concept of the Marxist Utopia, where the same entities have control over the Law, the Market, and pretty much every aspect of our lives. It ain't happening. I'd rather trade in coin than bullets, prisons, and mass graves for all those it's to inconvenient to indoctrinate. Human Nature is what it is, Marxism is no fix for what ails us.
Click to expand...

Does the Security and Exchange Commission have any place in business investment?
What about the Federal Reserve?

Have you noticed how the richest investors with the fastest computers have their own utopia on Wall Street?

*What institution should regulate criminal behavior among the investor class if not government?*


----------



## Katzndogz

New risk for Occupy Wall Street: less media interest | Reuters

OWS is losing interest.  It's getting boring.  Time to move on.


----------



## georgephillip

Samson said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no "avoiding the subject."
> 
> There's only the difference of opinion: Marxist believe investing in financial products is "exploitive," and there are very few Marxist societies.
> 
> On the other hand, Financial Capitalism thrives all over the globe where it is considered beneficial to both lenders and borrowers...including governments.
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the difference of opinion over the economic collapse of 2008?
> 
> Remember? When all the thriving financial capitalists plundered trillions of dollars worth of value from homeowners and pension funds. The richest 5% of Americans found this event beneficial since it nearly doubled their share of returns to wealth in less than a single generation; however, the remaining 95% found it less than beneficial.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Less than beneficial" relative to what? Chinese Marxism?
> 
> You seem to believe there is a perfect model: There isn't.
> 
> 2008 happened, and will happen again. Economic cycling is a fact of economic life.
Click to expand...

2008 happened because of an epidemic of control accounting fraud the FBI began reporting on in 2004.

Are you saying fraud is a fact of economic life among financial capitalists?

Or Chinese Marxists?


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where's the difference of opinion over the economic collapse of 2008?
> 
> Remember? When all the thriving financial capitalists plundered trillions of dollars worth of value from homeowners and pension funds. The richest 5% of Americans found this event beneficial since it nearly doubled their share of returns to wealth in less than a single generation; however, the remaining 95% found it less than beneficial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Less than beneficial" relative to what? Chinese Marxism?
> 
> You seem to believe there is a perfect model: There isn't.
> 
> 2008 happened, and will happen again. Economic cycling is a fact of economic life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2008 happened because of an epidemic of control accounting fraud the FBI began reporting on in 2004.
> 
> Are you saying fraud is a fact of economic life among financial capitalists?
> 
> Or Chinese Marxists?
Click to expand...


I'm saying that fraud is a fact of life, George.

Humans are fallible; so are the institutions that govern them. However, a Marxist Utopia that eliminates all barrowing and lending to "cure" fraud strikes me as a solution that only those that amputate heads to prevent toothaches might pursue.


----------



## georgephillip

Samson said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Less than beneficial" relative to what? Chinese Marxism?
> 
> You seem to believe there is a perfect model: There isn't.
> 
> 2008 happened, and will happen again. Economic cycling is a fact of economic life.
> 
> 
> 
> 2008 happened because of an epidemic of control accounting fraud the FBI began reporting on in 2004.
> 
> Are you saying fraud is a fact of economic life among financial capitalists?
> 
> Or Chinese Marxists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that fraud is a fact of life, George.
> 
> Humans are fallible; so are the institutions that govern them. However, a Marxist Utopia that eliminates all barrowing and lending to "cure" fraud strikes me as a solution that only those that amputate heads to prevent toothaches might pursue.
Click to expand...

Crime is a fact of life.
Should it be encouraged or discouraged?
Should government bailout criminals at the expense of their victims?

I'm not calling for a Marxian solution to this problem.
An all powerful state isn't something I find acceptable.
Neither is oligarchy, imho.


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2008 happened because of an epidemic of control accounting fraud the FBI began reporting on in 2004.
> 
> Are you saying fraud is a fact of economic life among financial capitalists?
> 
> Or Chinese Marxists?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that fraud is a fact of life, George.
> 
> Humans are fallible; so are the institutions that govern them. However, a Marxist Utopia that eliminates all barrowing and lending to "cure" fraud strikes me as a solution that only those that amputate heads to prevent toothaches might pursue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Crime is a fact of life.
> Should it be encouraged or discouraged?
> Should government bailout criminals at the expense of their victims?
> 
> I'm not calling for a Marxian solution to this problem.
> An all powerful state isn't something I find acceptable.
> Neither is oligarchy, imho.
Click to expand...


I recon there will be additional regulations emplaced a la, Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) 2002, which was preceeded by the infamous Enron Ordeal.

A must admit though, that I'm more than a little amazed that the Administration and Congress hasn't seemed to have been anywhere near as concerned about the 2008 financial sector crisis as they were with Enron's Shenannigans. My guess is that, unlike Enron, Government complicity (Fannie May/Mac) had more to do with 2008 than anyone in a Democratically controlled government would like to admit, at least until after the 2012 elections.


----------



## Katzndogz

Is the fact of having money along proof of criminality?

Why aren't we divesting lottery winners of their winnings as having too much money and being criminals?


----------



## georgephillip

Samson said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that fraud is a fact of life, George.
> 
> Humans are fallible; so are the institutions that govern them. However, a Marxist Utopia that eliminates all barrowing and lending to "cure" fraud strikes me as a solution that only those that amputate heads to prevent toothaches might pursue.
> 
> 
> 
> Crime is a fact of life.
> Should it be encouraged or discouraged?
> Should government bailout criminals at the expense of their victims?
> 
> I'm not calling for a Marxian solution to this problem.
> An all powerful state isn't something I find acceptable.
> Neither is oligarchy, imho.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I recon there will be additional regulations emplaced a la, Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) 2002, which was preceeded by the infamous Enron Ordeal.
> 
> A must admit though, that I'm more than a little amazed that the Administration and Congress hasn't seemed to have been anywhere near as concerned about the 2008 financial sector crisis as they were with Enron's Shenannigans. My guess is that, unlike Enron, Government complicity (Fannie May/Mac) had more to do with 2008 than anyone in a Democratically controlled government would like to admit, at least until after the 2012 elections.
Click to expand...

The Savings and Loan Scandal of the late 1980s offers another striking contrast with the current looting. William K. Black figured prominently in uncovering many of those crimes:

"Black was a central figure in exposing Congressional corruption during the Savings and Loan Crisis. He took the notes during the Keating Five meeting that were later published in the press, and brought the event to national attention and a congressional investigation.

According to Bill Moyers,

    "'The former Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention now teaches Economics and Law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. During the savings and loan crisis, it was Black who accused then-house speaker Jim Wright and five US Senators, including John Glenn and John McCain, of doing favors for the S&L's in exchange for contributions and other perks. The senators got off with a slap on the wrist, but so enraged was one of those bankers, Charles Keating &#8212; after whom the senate's so-called "Keating Five" were named &#8212; he sent a memo that read, in part, 'get Black &#8212; kill him dead.' Metaphorically, of course. Of course.'"[4]

William K. Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Black has stated numerous times that hundreds of bankers were prosecuted and jailed for their role in the S&L crimes. It isn't likely Democrats or Republicans will prosecute Wall Street today unless there is a powerful grass roots movement that makes them do it.


----------



## Katzndogz

Yeppers whether or not they did anything illegal.  They got bucks - Get 'Em.


----------



## georgephillip

Tipsycatlover said:


> Is the fact of having money along proof of criminality?
> 
> Why aren't we divesting lottery winners of their winnings as having too much money and being criminals?


Over the past 40 years the richest 1% of Americans have seen their share of national income increase from about 8% to nearly 25%. Those gains have come from shipping middle-class jobs to Mexico and China. Shareholders have become richer at the expense of productive workers.

Contrast the US experience with that of Germany where the richest Germans earned about 11% of their nation's income in the 70s and they earn about the same percentage today. That is due to the fact German labor unions have voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the corporations they work for.

German jobs were NOT outsourced to China like they were in the US.

OWS is saying it's time to reverse the trend of outsourcing US jobs and prosecute those responsible for the Great Recession.

Or are you in favor of promoting accounting fraud and state capitalism.


----------



## Katzndogz

Not enough American jobs are outsourced to China and India.  Outsourcing should continue and be a flood until the confiscatory taxation and overregulation stops.

Think of it like a union strike.  The union members refuse to go to work.  Well companies don't have to hire either.  They can leave and should.


----------



## georgephillip

Where will they sell their products?


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> Where will they sell their products?



At Walmart.

You'll buy them, but tell your Marxist friends that they were grown in a co-op garden... (Like the claims about the Mexican Cartel pot you smoke!)


----------



## Katzndogz

georgephillip said:


> Where will they sell their products?



New Delhi.  It's a bigger world out there than it used to be.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

So the democrat governors of 2 cities decided to end the practice of looking the other way on the legal violations of the protests in their cities.

People aren't happy.


----------



## Katzndogz

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> So the democrat governors of 2 cities decided to end the practice of looking the other way on the legal violations of the protests in their cities.
> 
> People aren't happy.



The shitters aren't happy.  The tax paying citizens who get to have access to their public property back are probably happy.


----------



## georgephillip

Tipsycatlover said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where will they sell their products?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New Delhi.  It's a bigger world out there than it used to be.
Click to expand...

To which state will they pay their taxes?

Is there an upper limit to the percentage of national income the richest 1% feel entitled to?

In the 1970s it was 8%.
Today it's around 25%.
What the top end, Tipsy? 
50%, 75%, ?


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where will they sell their products?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At Walmart.
> 
> You'll buy them, but tell your Marxist friends that they were grown in a co-op garden... (Like the claims about the Mexican Cartel pot you smoke!)
Click to expand...

"Only a humanity to whom death has become as indifferent as its members, that has itself died, can inflict it administratively on innumerable people.
        -Theodor Adorno"

Priming yourself for President Rick Perry's fast and furious assault on Mexican drug cartels?

Occupy Wall Street&#039;s Battle Against American-Style Authoritarianism | Truthout


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> It isn't likely Democrats or Republicans will prosecute Wall Street today unless there is a powerful grass roots movement that makes them do it.



Well, it would help if Wall Street was an individual, and that there were laws that were broken.

Who is "Wall Street?"

What Laws did they break?

I'm not saying that there are no improvements to be made, however, as any 401(k) holder that wants to see his government-incentivised retirement fund increase in value (same as their property investment, i.e. "home,") many Americans ARE Wall Street.


----------



## georgephillip

Samson said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't likely Democrats or Republicans will prosecute Wall Street today unless there is a powerful grass roots movement that makes them do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would help if Wall Street was an individual, and that there were laws that were broken.
> 
> Who is "Wall Street?"
> 
> What Laws did they break?
> 
> I'm not saying that there are no improvements to be made, however, as any 401(k) holder that wants to see his government-incentivised retirement fund increase in value (same as their property investment, i.e. "home,") many Americans ARE Wall Street.
Click to expand...

The following post from July 2009 offers a pretty good starting point.

"This is F%$#ing criminal. Only the biggest bastard banks with the biggest fastest computers with models created by the biggest bunch of immoral MBAs in the history of the planet can get away with it. How much of Goldman's profit came about this way? 

"Why isn't the SEC doing something about it. *This is fraud*. Why isn't that blathering fool Barney Frank outraged by this? Why isn't Schumer and Dodd up in arms? You know why. 

"*Because they want the banks to make money any way they can*. 

"Geithner is applauding this news." 

Pensions and home values were plundered by some of the richest 1% of individuals in this country along with elected Republicans AND Democrats ranging from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. Chris Dodd to Phil Gramm. Barney Frank and Tom DeLay.

I would think reparations are in order for many investors and homeowners.

GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha


----------



## Preius

georgephillip said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't likely Democrats or Republicans will prosecute Wall Street today unless there is a powerful grass roots movement that makes them do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would help if Wall Street was an individual, and that there were laws that were broken.
> 
> Who is "Wall Street?"
> 
> What Laws did they break?
> 
> I'm not saying that there are no improvements to be made, however, as any 401(k) holder that wants to see his government-incentivised retirement fund increase in value (same as their property investment, i.e. "home,") many Americans ARE Wall Street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The following post from July 2009 offers a pretty good starting point.
> 
> "This is F%$#ing criminal. Only the biggest bastard banks with the biggest fastest computers with models created by the biggest bunch of immoral MBAs in the history of the planet can get away with it. How much of Goldman's profit came about this way?
> 
> "Why isn't the SEC doing something about it. *This is fraud*. Why isn't that blathering fool Barney Frank outraged by this? Why isn't Schumer and Dodd up in arms? You know why.
> 
> "*Because they want the banks to make money any way they can*.
> 
> "Geithner is applauding this news."
> 
> Pensions and home values were plundered by some of the richest 1% of individuals in this country along with elected Republicans AND Democrats ranging from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. Chris Dodd to Phil Gramm. Barney Frank and Tom DeLay.
> 
> I would think reparations are in order for many investors and homeowners.
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
Click to expand...


Got to tell you, I have supported Obama up until he started playing poker with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid during the debt ceiling talks.  Basically, his last chance with me is make this American Jobs Act work.  If he fails, I will support Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.

In 2008 Obama came into office, controlled both houses of Congress, and added billions to the TARP - Wall Street Bail Out.  Since that time have you seen *ANY *financial restructuring of America?  Did anyone hold hearings on the Wall Street Bail Out?  Did anyone go to jail?  Main Street is broke, and Wall Street is rolling high again.

What has our treasured Democratic Party done for the average American?  One thing, extend unemployment benefits when Americans are screaming for JOBS.  Now you see why my avatar says, "feel politically homeless."  OWS is a about all we have, and big city mayors are f*ucking that up.






85 arrested in Oakland, CA yesterday as mayor pressures OWS​


----------



## Dude111

ALL OCCUPY LIVE STREAMS FROM AROUND THE WORLD AND AN IRC ROOM!

www.occupystream.com


----------



## georgephillip

Preius said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would help if Wall Street was an individual, and that there were laws that were broken.
> 
> Who is "Wall Street?"
> 
> What Laws did they break?
> 
> I'm not saying that there are no improvements to be made, however, as any 401(k) holder that wants to see his government-incentivised retirement fund increase in value (same as their property investment, i.e. "home,") many Americans ARE Wall Street.
> 
> 
> 
> The following post from July 2009 offers a pretty good starting point.
> 
> "This is F%$#ing criminal. Only the biggest bastard banks with the biggest fastest computers with models created by the biggest bunch of immoral MBAs in the history of the planet can get away with it. How much of Goldman's profit came about this way?
> 
> "Why isn't the SEC doing something about it. *This is fraud*. Why isn't that blathering fool Barney Frank outraged by this? Why isn't Schumer and Dodd up in arms? You know why.
> 
> "*Because they want the banks to make money any way they can*.
> 
> "Geithner is applauding this news."
> 
> Pensions and home values were plundered by some of the richest 1% of individuals in this country along with elected Republicans AND Democrats ranging from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. Chris Dodd to Phil Gramm. Barney Frank and Tom DeLay.
> 
> I would think reparations are in order for many investors and homeowners.
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got to tell you, I have supported Obama up until he started playing poker with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid during the debt ceiling talks.  Basically, his last chance with me is make this American Jobs Act work.  If he fails, I will support Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.
> 
> In 2008 Obama came into office, controlled both houses of Congress, and added billions to the TARP - Wall Street Bail Out.  Since that time have you seen *ANY *financial restructuring of America?  Did anyone hold hearings on the Wall Street Bail Out?  Did anyone go to jail?  Main Street is broke, and Wall Street is rolling high again.
> 
> What has our treasured Democratic Party done for the average American?  One thing, extend unemployment benefits when Americans are screaming for JOBS.  Now you see why my avatar says, "feel politically homeless."  OWS is a about all we have, and big city mayors are f*ucking that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 85 arrested in Oakland, CA yesterday as mayor pressures OWS​
Click to expand...

Several months ago the corporate press noted how quickly Bill Clinton earned his first $100 million.

If Obama gets a second term he will likely succeed in privatizing Social Security and earn his first $billion in less time than Clinton needed to reach 100 million. 

There are multiple established third party candidates already appearing on every California ballot.
In theory, the internet could be used to convince millions of California voters to vote AGAINST every Republican AND Democrat running for reelection in 2012 at all levels of government.

This "anti-vote" argument usually results in millions of eligible voters refusing to participate in elections. Sometimes 30% to 40% of those who could cast their ballot simply don't see anything worth voting for.

Providing an option to vote AGAINST Wall Street and the Pentagon by FLUSHING Republicans and Democrats from DC in 2012 could give Obama more Hope and Change than he can handle.


----------



## ibanker

Twalbert said:


> 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.



LMAO. Oh no, Wall St. is so scared they aren't even going to do anything about it.


----------



## Intense

Just Remember to adhere to Non Violence, at all costs. Your weapon is Being there, Your Voice, and remember to Document what you can. You will accomplish the most by being, Focused, Civil, and by watching Each Others backs. You make this about Justice for All, you have something that will win people over. You make it about Insurrection, and you have already lost.


----------



## georgephillip

There's been a delayed reaction in Europe to Wall Street's latest pump and dump scam that crashed the US economy in 2008:

Robert Reich explains:

*"Its impossible to know*, for example, the exposure of the Street to European banks in danger of going under. To stay afloat, Europes banks will be forced to sell mountains of assets  among them, derivatives originating on the Street  and may have *to reneg on or delay some repayments on loans from Wall Street banks*.

"The Street says its not worried because these assets are insured. But remember AIG?

"The fact Morgan Stanley and other big U.S. banks are taking a beating in the market suggests investors dont believe the Street. 

"This itself proves financial reform hasnt gone far enough.

"If you want more evidence, consider the fancy footwork by Bank of America in recent days. Hit by a credit downgrade last month, BofA just moved its riskiest derivatives from its Merrill Lynch unit to a retail subsidiary flush with insured deposits. 

*"That unit has a higher credit rating because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (that is, you and me and other taxpayers) are backing the deposits.*

"Result: BofA improves its bottom line at the expense of American taxpayers."

Robert Reich (Wall Street is Still Out of Control, and Why Obama Should Call for Glass-Steagall and a Breakup of Big Banks)

The 1% will soon be back for even bigger bailouts than in 2008.

What will you have to say when their pet pigs in congress squeal "martial law" again?


----------



## editec

I can always count on you, Georgephillip, to see beyond the headlines.

You're one of the reasons I still bother posting here.

Thanks!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

georgephillip said:


> There's been a delayed reaction in Europe to Wall Street's latest pump and dump scam that crashed the US economy in 2008:
> 
> Robert Reich explains:
> 
> *"Its impossible to know*, for example, the exposure of the Street to European banks in danger of going under. To stay afloat, Europes banks will be forced to sell mountains of assets  among them, derivatives originating on the Street  and may have *to reneg on or delay some repayments on loans from Wall Street banks*.
> 
> "The Street says its not worried because these assets are insured. But remember AIG?
> 
> "The fact Morgan Stanley and other big U.S. banks are taking a beating in the market suggests investors dont believe the Street.
> 
> "This itself proves financial reform hasnt gone far enough.
> 
> "If you want more evidence, consider the fancy footwork by Bank of America in recent days. Hit by a credit downgrade last month, BofA just moved its riskiest derivatives from its Merrill Lynch unit to a retail subsidiary flush with insured deposits.
> 
> *"That unit has a higher credit rating because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (that is, you and me and other taxpayers) are backing the deposits.*
> 
> "Result: BofA improves its bottom line at the expense of American taxpayers."
> 
> Robert Reich (Wall Street is Still Out of Control, and Why Obama Should Call for Glass-Steagall and a Breakup of Big Banks)
> 
> The 1% will soon be back for even bigger bailouts than in 2008.
> 
> What will you have to say when their pet pigs in congress squeal "martial law" again?



This is why I dont understand why the OWS people didn't occupy the capital instead....that is where the laws originated that allowed wallstreet/banks to get away with risky behavior in the first place and its also where the laws originated that gave these same corporations and banks TRILLIONS of ALL OF OUR money.


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> "Only a humanity to whom death has become as indifferent as its members, that has itself died, can inflict it administratively on innumerable people.
> -Theodor Adorno"
> 
> Priming yourself for President Rick Perry's fast and furious assault on Mexican drug cartels?
> 
> Occupy Wall Street's Battle Against American-Style Authoritarianism | Truthout



The way to deal with the drug cartels is to legalize drugs.

But the point was the hypocrisy of the left which condemns that which it depends on.


----------



## Dragon

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> This is why I dont understand why the OWS people didn't occupy the capital instead....that is where the laws originated that allowed wallstreet/banks to get away with risky behavior in the first place and its also where the laws originated that gave these same corporations and banks TRILLIONS of ALL OF OUR money.



Because all of the things the government did were done due to the string-pulling by big business. The ultimate control rests in Wall Street -- although the ultimate _potential_ control does indeed reside in Washington. Big business' only power over the government is through bribery and corruption, not force. That is not true in the other direction.

Still, the Wall Street end of the corruption stick was being ignored, along with the need for jobs, with everything focusing on the deficit instead. I think the movement picked exactly the right target.


----------



## Intense

Dragon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I dont understand why the OWS people didn't occupy the capital instead....that is where the laws originated that allowed wallstreet/banks to get away with risky behavior in the first place and its also where the laws originated that gave these same corporations and banks TRILLIONS of ALL OF OUR money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because all of the things the government did were done due to the string-pulling by big business. The ultimate control rests in Wall Street -- although the ultimate _potential_ control does indeed reside in Washington. Big business' only power over the government is through bribery and corruption, not force. That is not true in the other direction.
> 
> Still, the Wall Street end of the corruption stick was being ignored, along with the need for jobs, with everything focusing on the deficit instead. I think the movement picked exactly the right target.
Click to expand...


This Government is the Innocent Victim Fallacy is just too much. It's killing me.


----------



## Dragon

Intense said:


> This Government is the Innocent Victim Fallacy is just too much. It's killing me.



Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote, or is this honest confusion?


----------



## Intense

Intense said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I dont understand why the OWS people didn't occupy the capital instead....that is where the laws originated that allowed wallstreet/banks to get away with risky behavior in the first place and its also where the laws originated that gave these same corporations and banks TRILLIONS of ALL OF OUR money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because all of the things the government did were done due to the string-pulling by big business. The ultimate control rests in Wall Street -- although the ultimate _potential_ control does indeed reside in Washington. Big business' only power over the government is through bribery and corruption, not force. That is not true in the other direction.
> 
> Still, the Wall Street end of the corruption stick was being ignored, along with the need for jobs, with everything focusing on the deficit instead. I think the movement picked exactly the right target.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This Government is the Innocent Victim Fallacy is just too much. It's killing me.
Click to expand...


The Ultimate Control rests with Government, which has the Force of Law behind it, the Cops, the Investigators, the Courts, the Prisons, the Military, and Access to All of Our Property. I'm not misrepresenting anything. The Right Target is Progressive Statism, which seeks Centralized control of Our Lives, 24/7, Cradle to Grave. Government by the Consent of the Governed is Justified, that is not the Issue, the issue is Government Overreach, which set up the pins to fall.


----------



## georgephillip

editec said:


> I can always count on you, Georgephillip, to see beyond the headlines.
> 
> You're one of the reasons I still bother posting here.
> 
> Thanks!


"Next week President Obama travels to Wall Street where he&#8217;ll demand &#8211; in light of the Street&#8217;s continuing antics since the bailout, as well as its role in watering-down the Volcker rule &#8211; that the *Glass-Steagall Act be resurrected and big banks be broken up*.

"*I&#8217;m kidding. But it would be a smart move &#8212; politically and economically*.

"Politically smart because Mitt Romney is almost sure to be the Republican nominee, and Romney is the poster child for the pump-and-dump mentality that&#8217;s infected the financial industry and continues to jeopardize the American economy."

Wall Street dodged the bullet in 2008 when it found a rock star with roots to Lincoln to hide behind. If the economy in 2012 is anything like the one in 2008, the attention spans of American voters could be just as focused as they were during the week after 9/11/01.

We could roll back forty years of investor class assaults on the New Deal in as many months or weeks if enough Republicans AND Democrats are FLUSHED into retirement (and prison).

If enough Boomers get out in front of OWS (in spite of its birth pangs) maybe we can even the score for MLK, RFK, and JFK? Whatever happens, OWS will certainly be among us in November 2012.

Robert Reich (Wall Street is Still Out of Control, and Why Obama Should Call for Glass-Steagall and a Breakup of Big Banks)


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Dragon said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I dont understand why the OWS people didn't occupy the capital instead....that is where the laws originated that allowed wallstreet/banks to get away with risky behavior in the first place and its also where the laws originated that gave these same corporations and banks TRILLIONS of ALL OF OUR money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because all of the things the government did were done due to the string-pulling by big business. The ultimate control rests in Wall Street -- although the ultimate _potential_ control does indeed reside in Washington. Big business' only power over the government is through bribery and corruption, not force. That is not true in the other direction.
> 
> Still, the Wall Street end of the corruption stick was being ignored, along with the need for jobs, with everything focusing on the deficit instead. I think the movement picked exactly the right target.
Click to expand...


What?!?!?! That response made me feel a bit exacerbated, sorry.  

Big business askes the politicians to do something and the politicians didn't have to say YES....the politicians could have said no but they didn't.....you are blaming the wrong people, the one's who hold the pens that write these laws are the congress not the corporations.


Who was ignoring the Wall Street end of the corruption stick?  The government.......who gave banks/corps bailouts and coroporate welfare when they screwed up and should have went bankrupt?   The government........who was passing laws like the equal housing act that allowed banks to do risky lending which caused a lot of the crisis?  the govt.

Your dissatisfaction is directed at the wrong people.


----------



## georgephillip

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's been a delayed reaction in Europe to Wall Street's latest pump and dump scam that crashed the US economy in 2008:
> 
> Robert Reich explains:
> 
> *"Its impossible to know*, for example, the exposure of the Street to European banks in danger of going under. To stay afloat, Europes banks will be forced to sell mountains of assets  among them, derivatives originating on the Street  and may have *to reneg on or delay some repayments on loans from Wall Street banks*.
> 
> "The Street says its not worried because these assets are insured. But remember AIG?
> 
> "The fact Morgan Stanley and other big U.S. banks are taking a beating in the market suggests investors dont believe the Street.
> 
> "This itself proves financial reform hasnt gone far enough.
> 
> "If you want more evidence, consider the fancy footwork by Bank of America in recent days. Hit by a credit downgrade last month, BofA just moved its riskiest derivatives from its Merrill Lynch unit to a retail subsidiary flush with insured deposits.
> 
> *"That unit has a higher credit rating because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (that is, you and me and other taxpayers) are backing the deposits.*
> 
> "Result: BofA improves its bottom line at the expense of American taxpayers."
> 
> Robert Reich (Wall Street is Still Out of Control, and Why Obama Should Call for Glass-Steagall and a Breakup of Big Banks)
> 
> The 1% will soon be back for even bigger bailouts than in 2008.
> 
> What will you have to say when their pet pigs in congress squeal "martial law" again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I dont understand why the OWS people didn't occupy the capital instead....that is where the laws originated that allowed wallstreet/banks to get away with risky behavior in the first place and its also where the laws originated that gave these same corporations and banks TRILLIONS of ALL OF OUR money.
Click to expand...

To the Media and Whoever it May Concern | Occupy DC

Occupy DC has just opened a second front on K-Street.

The 1% depend on Treasury and the Fed at least as much as Wall Street.


----------



## Dot Com

Thanks Republicans






​


----------



## Intense

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I dont understand why the OWS people didn't occupy the capital instead....that is where the laws originated that allowed wallstreet/banks to get away with risky behavior in the first place and its also where the laws originated that gave these same corporations and banks TRILLIONS of ALL OF OUR money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because all of the things the government did were done due to the string-pulling by big business. The ultimate control rests in Wall Street -- although the ultimate _potential_ control does indeed reside in Washington. Big business' only power over the government is through bribery and corruption, not force. That is not true in the other direction.
> 
> Still, the Wall Street end of the corruption stick was being ignored, along with the need for jobs, with everything focusing on the deficit instead. I think the movement picked exactly the right target.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?!?!?! That response made me feel a bit exacerbated, sorry.
> 
> Big business askes the politicians to do something and the politicians didn't have to say YES....the politicians could have said no but they didn't.....you are blaming the wrong people, the one's who hold the pens that write these laws are the congress not the corporations.
> 
> 
> Who was ignoring the Wall Street end of the corruption stick?  The government.......who gave banks/corps bailouts and coroporate welfare when they screwed up and should have went bankrupt?   The government........who was passing laws like the equal housing act that allowed banks to do risky lending which caused a lot of the crisis?  the govt.
> 
> Your dissatisfaction is directed at the wrong people.
Click to expand...


Who's sitting at those Politicians Family Holiday Tables?


----------



## Intense

Dot Com said:


> Thanks Republicans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​



Stop Punishing Small Enterprise. Stop Punishing Achievement.


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't likely Democrats or Republicans will prosecute Wall Street today unless there is a powerful grass roots movement that makes them do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would help if Wall Street was an individual, and that there were laws that were broken.
> 
> Who is "Wall Street?"
> 
> What Laws did they break?
> 
> I'm not saying that there are no improvements to be made, however, as any 401(k) holder that wants to see his government-incentivised retirement fund increase in value (same as their property investment, i.e. "home,") many Americans ARE Wall Street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The following post from July 2009 offers a pretty good starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think reparations are in order for many investors and homeowners.
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
Click to expand...


Surely you jest.



When I asked if any laws had been broken, I expected a little more substantive answer than just the blogosphere ravings of James Quinn, a senior director of strategic planning for a major university who has held financial positions with a retailer, homebuilder and university in his 22-year career. Those positions included treasurer, controller, and head of strategic planning. 

The fact that you have no idea who "Wall Street" is, only compounds the already low credability of your unsound position.


----------



## georgephillip

Samson said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it would help if Wall Street was an individual, and that there were laws that were broken.
> 
> Who is "Wall Street?"
> 
> What Laws did they break?
> 
> I'm not saying that there are no improvements to be made, however, as any 401(k) holder that wants to see his government-incentivised retirement fund increase in value (same as their property investment, i.e. "home,") many Americans ARE Wall Street.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The following post from July 2009 offers a pretty good starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think reparations are in order for many investors and homeowners.
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Surely you jest.
> 
> 
> 
> When I asked if any laws had been broken, I expected a little more substantive answer than just the blogosphere ravings of James Quinn, a senior director of strategic planning for a major university who has held financial positions with a retailer, homebuilder and university in his 22-year career. Those positions included treasurer, controller, and head of strategic planning.
> 
> The fact that you have no idea who "Wall Street" is, only compounds the already low credability of your unsound position.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to say Wall Street fraud played no role in crashing the global economy?


----------



## Dragon

Intense said:


> I'm not misrepresenting anything.



You certainly are, because I neither said nor implied that the government was an "innocent victim." But I'm satisfied now that it was an honest mistake.

Just for clarification, the government has been a corrupt partner in crime with big business. Neither innocent nor a victim. But not the only culprit, either, and it's very important to indict the business end of the connection, too.

Incidentally, asking about business behavior "what laws have been broken?" ignores the fact that the business lobby ensures that the laws are written so as to make their misbehavior legal. When big business breaks the law, it has done something clumsy and inept. Most of the time, it only does things that should be criminal, not things that actually are.


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following post from July 2009 offers a pretty good starting point.
> 
> 
> 
> I would think reparations are in order for many investors and homeowners.
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you jest.
> 
> 
> 
> When I asked if any laws had been broken, I expected a little more substantive answer than just the blogosphere ravings of James Quinn, a senior director of strategic planning for a major university who has held financial positions with a retailer, homebuilder and university in his 22-year career. Those positions included treasurer, controller, and head of strategic planning.
> 
> The fact that you have no idea who "Wall Street" is, only compounds the already low credability of your unsound position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you trying to say Wall Street fraud played no role in crashing the global economy?
Click to expand...


I'm saying that you have no notion of what you're talking about because the question remains: _*Who EXACTLY IS "Wall Street?"*_

You and the OWS crowd seems to have the absurd notion that attacking this windmill will slay all the dragons that have caused an inconvenient discontinuance of 99 weeks worth of Unemployment Insurance.


----------



## Big Fitz

Dot Com said:


> Thanks Republicans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


I could give you a good example how that works, but you wouldn't believe it.  You've a vested interest in believing you're 'right'.


----------



## Preius

georgephillip said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The following post from July 2009 offers a pretty good starting point.
> 
> "This is F%$#ing criminal. Only the biggest bastard banks with the biggest fastest computers with models created by the biggest bunch of immoral MBAs in the history of the planet can get away with it. How much of Goldman's profit came about this way?
> 
> "Why isn't the SEC doing something about it. *This is fraud*. Why isn't that blathering fool Barney Frank outraged by this? Why isn't Schumer and Dodd up in arms? You know why.
> 
> "*Because they want the banks to make money any way they can*.
> 
> "Geithner is applauding this news."
> 
> Pensions and home values were plundered by some of the richest 1% of individuals in this country along with elected Republicans AND Democrats ranging from Bill Clinton to George W. Bush. Chris Dodd to Phil Gramm. Barney Frank and Tom DeLay.
> 
> I would think reparations are in order for many investors and homeowners.
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got to tell you, I have supported Obama up until he started playing poker with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid during the debt ceiling talks.  Basically, his last chance with me is make this American Jobs Act work.  If he fails, I will support Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.
> 
> In 2008 Obama came into office, controlled both houses of Congress, and added billions to the TARP - Wall Street Bail Out.  Since that time have you seen *ANY *financial restructuring of America?  Did anyone hold hearings on the Wall Street Bail Out?  Did anyone go to jail?  Main Street is broke, and Wall Street is rolling high again.
> 
> What has our treasured Democratic Party done for the average American?  One thing, extend unemployment benefits when Americans are screaming for JOBS.  Now you see why my avatar says, "feel politically homeless."  OWS is a about all we have, and big city mayors are f*ucking that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 85 arrested in Oakland, CA yesterday as mayor pressures OWS​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Several months ago the corporate press noted how quickly Bill Clinton earned his first $100 million.
> 
> If Obama gets a second term he will likely succeed in privatizing Social Security and earn his first $billion in less time than Clinton needed to reach 100 million.
> 
> There are multiple established third party candidates already appearing on every California ballot.
> In theory, the internet could be used to convince millions of California voters to vote AGAINST every Republican AND Democrat running for reelection in 2012 at all levels of government.
> 
> This "anti-vote" argument usually results in millions of eligible voters refusing to participate in elections. Sometimes 30% to 40% of those who could cast their ballot simply don't see anything worth voting for.
> 
> Providing an option to vote AGAINST Wall Street and the Pentagon by FLUSHING Republicans and Democrats from DC in 2012 could give Obama more Hope and Change than he can handle.
Click to expand...


Believe me, the last thing this Dem wants to hear is more negative about our Democratic president.  We in the Democratic base have serious questions about his commitment to the Democratic Party. * I need an extremely credible link that President Obama would privatize Social Security.* 

Obama is a phoney liberal, but if he tried to privatize Social Security the Democrats would impeach him for the Republicans.  I am going to follow up with you on your claim.  You had best be able to back it up.  I think it is BS.  

Republicans can not be content with the political chaos in Washington, they tend to oversell their point, and usually lose the entire argument.  Somehow I have a feeling that georgephillip  will be quietly dancing away from 'privatized Social Security' in this thread.


----------



## chanel

"Wall Street" did very well today. I guess we all should be angry, eh?


----------



## Preius

Intense said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because all of the things the government did were done due to the string-pulling by big business. The ultimate control rests in Wall Street -- although the ultimate _potential_ control does indeed reside in Washington. Big business' only power over the government is through bribery and corruption, not force. That is not true in the other direction.
> 
> Still, the Wall Street end of the corruption stick was being ignored, along with the need for jobs, with everything focusing on the deficit instead. I think the movement picked exactly the right target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This Government is the Innocent Victim Fallacy is just too much. It's killing me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Ultimate Control rests with Government, which has the Force of Law behind it, the Cops, the Investigators, the Courts, the Prisons, the Military, and Access to All of Our Property. I'm not misrepresenting anything. The Right Target is Progressive Statism, which seeks Centralized control of Our Lives, 24/7, Cradle to Grave. Government by the Consent of the Governed is Justified, that is not the Issue, the issue is Government Overreach, which set up the pins to fall.
Click to expand...


I beg to differ with you.  The ultimate control will be the upper 1%.  I keep posting on the "Patriotic Millionaires" but posters seem to want to believe that the 1% all see things the same way.  Patriotic Millionaires For Fiscal Strength  The millionaires I have read about, or have met see 'money as a tool to build things,' not an end in itself.

The only reason the American Revolution took place is because the wealthy wanted it.  The global economy is getting it's back up against the wall these days.  If we need to refinance the planet we will.  You can not possibly believe that the most powerful military force on the planet, the United States, is going to go under because of numbers printed on pieces of paper?  The UK, France, Spain, Portugal,Italy, Greece, Russia, China, and Japan will find a 'fix.'  

Hey............. I just realized that like the United States all those countries had empires at one time.   Hmmm.........bet they know a few secret economic things you and I don't.

Remember, if the big crash is coming, we go down  they go down too.  Go convert 30% of your portfolio to precious metals and relax!






Patriotic Millionaires are out there.  My problem is I do not* trust* anyone.​


----------



## georgephillip

Samson said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Surely you jest.
> 
> 
> 
> When I asked if any laws had been broken, I expected a little more substantive answer than just the blogosphere ravings of James Quinn, a senior director of strategic planning for a major university who has held financial positions with a retailer, homebuilder and university in his 22-year career. Those positions included treasurer, controller, and head of strategic planning.
> 
> The fact that you have no idea who "Wall Street" is, only compounds the already low credability of your unsound position.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say Wall Street fraud played no role in crashing the global economy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm saying that you have no notion of what you're talking about because the question remains: _*Who EXACTLY IS "Wall Street?"*_
> 
> You and the OWS crowd seems to have the absurd notion that attacking this windmill will slay all the dragons that have caused an inconvenient discontinuance of 99 weeks worth of Unemployment Insurance.
Click to expand...

"Wall Street refers to the financial district of New York City,[1] named after and centered on the eight-block-long street running from Broadway to South Street on the East River in Lower Manhattan. Over time, the term has become a metonym for the financial markets of the United States as a whole, or signifying *New York-based financial interests*..."

Wall Street - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assuming we agree that Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan and Bank of America are part of Wall Street, can you refute James Quinn's analysis of Wall Street criminality?

"So, the Fed buys their toxic assets at 100% of value and then loans them money at .25%. We the taxpayers give them hundreds of billions of our hard earned tax dollars. They then turn around and screw us on every stock trade, making billions more in profit, and then charge us 21% on credit card balances with massive late fees if you are one day late.

Jamie Dimon, Blankfien, Lewis and Pandit are the scum of the earth. They should all be on trial and thrown into prison with Madoff and the rest of the whoring banking thieves."

GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha


----------



## Intense

Preius said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Government is the Innocent Victim Fallacy is just too much. It's killing me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ultimate Control rests with Government, which has the Force of Law behind it, the Cops, the Investigators, the Courts, the Prisons, the Military, and Access to All of Our Property. I'm not misrepresenting anything. The Right Target is Progressive Statism, which seeks Centralized control of Our Lives, 24/7, Cradle to Grave. Government by the Consent of the Governed is Justified, that is not the Issue, the issue is Government Overreach, which set up the pins to fall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I beg to differ with you.  The ultimate control will be the upper 1%.  I keep posting on the "Patriotic Millionaires" but posters seem to want to believe that the 1% all see things the same way.  Patriotic Millionaires For Fiscal Strength  The millionaires I have read about, or have met see 'money as a tool to build things,' not an end in itself.
> 
> The only reason the American Revolution took place is because the wealthy wanted it.  The global economy is getting it's back up against the wall these days.  If we need to refinance the planet we will.  You can not possibly believe that the most powerful military force on the planet, the United States, is going to go under because of numbers printed on pieces of paper?  The UK, France, Spain, Portugal,Italy, Greece, Russia, China, and Japan will find a 'fix.'
> 
> Hey............. I just realized that like the United States all those countries had empires at one time.   Hmmm.........bet they know a few secret economic things you and I don't.
> 
> Remember, if the big crash is coming, we go down  they go down too.  Go convert 30% of your portfolio to precious metals and relax!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patriotic Millionaires are out there.  My problem is I do not* trust* anyone.​
Click to expand...


It's nice to want things, huh. There's all different kinds of Power Preius. Money buys allot of things, it buys allot of People too. It doesn't buy Everything or Everyone though, something to keep in mind. We are a Nation of Laws, not Men, The Best Nations, the best Empires, know that. There are Principles so strong, no amount of money or even Power will Reign over them, not for long anyway, Our very Natures will oppose them. 

You come off as one trying to steer, to manipulate, against reason, what you offer, is not what you deliver.

True, the one Percent have allot of influence and effect, their Property, having worth and Power, which they have every right to, within reason, just like you have the Power to effect with the resources under your control or ownership, within the Law. 

Our Republic does seek to establish and maintain Law and Order, this is a constant process, that we need to serve Vigilantly. We Improve, We Amend, We Build on what works. We don't abandon it because those like you, may not like the hand they are dealt. Do the best with what you have. Make the most of it, find the formula that works for you, and share it, if it pleases you. 

Disrespecting Free Will, or Private Property, is not a battle against Tyranny in any way, it is the application of Tyranny. It is Theft, it is a corruption of Principle. Creating Laws to end abuse, is one thing, in Establishing Justice, Gaining control of the Reins of abuse, so the control is transferred to you, with the abuse  continuing, only now protected by Government is another. Are you more interested in Liberation or a more Powerful Government Bureaucracy, where your Sins are covered and hidden. 

To establish True Liberty, You need to Establish Justice, for both Rich and Poor. Impartiality is the Focus, not respect for Person or Position, but fair resolution. It is about doing the Right thing, because it is the Right thing to do. I don't think there is a greater blessing. 

Why play sides against each other, in the hopes of overthrowing the Government, without regard for the loss of life, or the Tyranny that will result? 
Why not instead just learn to live within your means, and working with legitimate tools, which this Republic recognizes, work for a better Republic?


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to say Wall Street fraud played no role in crashing the global economy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that you have no notion of what you're talking about because the question remains: _*Who EXACTLY IS "Wall Street?"*_
> 
> You and the OWS crowd seems to have the absurd notion that attacking this windmill will slay all the dragons that have caused an inconvenient discontinuance of 99 weeks worth of Unemployment Insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Wall Street refers to the financial district of New York City,[1] named after and centered on the eight-block-long street running from Broadway to South Street on the East River in Lower Manhattan. Over time, the term has become a metonym for the financial markets of the United States as a whole, or signifying *New York-based financial interests*..."
> 
> Wall Street - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Assuming we agree that Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JP Morgan and Bank of America are part of Wall Street, can you refute James Quinn's analysis of Wall Street criminality?
> 
> "So, the Fed buys their toxic assets at 100% of value and then loans them money at .25%. We the taxpayers give them hundreds of billions of our hard earned tax dollars. They then turn around and screw us on every stock trade, making billions more in profit, and then charge us 21% on credit card balances with massive late fees if you are one day late.
> 
> Jamie Dimon, Blankfien, Lewis and Pandit are the scum of the earth. They should all be on trial and thrown into prison with Madoff and the rest of the whoring banking thieves."
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
Click to expand...


What Law did Jamie Dimon break?


----------



## Preius

Here is an interesting video of the Oakland, California before the riot started.  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fR2hx7yXjE]Occupy Oaklander goes off on Oakland Riot Police - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip

Preius said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got to tell you, I have supported Obama up until he started playing poker with Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid during the debt ceiling talks.  Basically, his last chance with me is make this American Jobs Act work.  If he fails, I will support Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries.
> 
> In 2008 Obama came into office, controlled both houses of Congress, and added billions to the TARP - Wall Street Bail Out.  Since that time have you seen *ANY *financial restructuring of America?  Did anyone hold hearings on the Wall Street Bail Out?  Did anyone go to jail?  Main Street is broke, and Wall Street is rolling high again.
> 
> What has our treasured Democratic Party done for the average American?  One thing, extend unemployment benefits when Americans are screaming for JOBS.  Now you see why my avatar says, "feel politically homeless."  OWS is a about all we have, and big city mayors are f*ucking that up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 85 arrested in Oakland, CA yesterday as mayor pressures OWS​
> 
> 
> 
> Several months ago the corporate press noted how quickly Bill Clinton earned his first $100 million.
> 
> If Obama gets a second term he will likely succeed in privatizing Social Security and earn his first $billion in less time than Clinton needed to reach 100 million.
> 
> There are multiple established third party candidates already appearing on every California ballot.
> In theory, the internet could be used to convince millions of California voters to vote AGAINST every Republican AND Democrat running for reelection in 2012 at all levels of government.
> 
> This "anti-vote" argument usually results in millions of eligible voters refusing to participate in elections. Sometimes 30% to 40% of those who could cast their ballot simply don't see anything worth voting for.
> 
> Providing an option to vote AGAINST Wall Street and the Pentagon by FLUSHING Republicans and Democrats from DC in 2012 could give Obama more Hope and Change than he can handle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Believe me, the last thing this Dem wants to hear is more negative about our Democratic president.  We in the Democratic base have serious questions about his commitment to the Democratic Party. * I need an extremely credible link that President Obama would privatize Social Security.*
> 
> Obama is a phoney liberal, but if he tried to privatize Social Security the Democrats would impeach him for the Republicans.  I am going to follow up with you on your claim.  You had best be able to back it up.  I think it is BS.
> 
> Republicans can not be content with the political chaos in Washington, they tend to oversell their point, and usually lose the entire argument.  Somehow I have a feeling that georgephillip  will be quietly dancing away from 'privatized Social Security' in this thread.
Click to expand...

*Tell me who qualifies as a credible source in your opinion?*

Dean Baker?
Robert Reich?
Chomsky?

Jeffrey Liebman?

"Liebman has supported partial PRIVATIZATION of the government-run retirement system, an idea that is rejected by many Democrats and bears a similarity to a proposal for so-called "personal investment accounts" that Bush promoted in 2005.

"'Liebman has been open to private accounts,' said Michael Tanner, a Social Security expert at the Cato Institute in Washington, a think tank in Washington that advocates 'free markets' and often backs Republicans. The Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick plan to loot Social Security also promises raising regressive payroll taxes, cutting benefits, or a combination of both."

Obama's Plan To Privatize Social Security

Do you believe Bill Clinton flirted with privatizing SS about the same time as Monica?
That $2.6 trillion trust fund is the last big pot for Wall Street.
Only a Democratic president can deliver it.

I respectfully suggest you ask yourself if you are judging Obama by the content of his character (and policies) or by the color of his skin.


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several months ago the corporate press noted how quickly Bill Clinton earned his first $100 million.
> 
> If Obama gets a second term he will likely succeed in privatizing Social Security and earn his first $billion in less time than Clinton needed to reach 100 million.
> 
> There are multiple established third party candidates already appearing on every California ballot.
> In theory, the internet could be used to convince millions of California voters to vote AGAINST every Republican AND Democrat running for reelection in 2012 at all levels of government.
> 
> This "anti-vote" argument usually results in millions of eligible voters refusing to participate in elections. Sometimes 30% to 40% of those who could cast their ballot simply don't see anything worth voting for.
> 
> Providing an option to vote AGAINST Wall Street and the Pentagon by FLUSHING Republicans and Democrats from DC in 2012 could give Obama more Hope and Change than he can handle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, the last thing this Dem wants to hear is more negative about our Democratic president.  We in the Democratic base have serious questions about his commitment to the Democratic Party. * I need an extremely credible link that President Obama would privatize Social Security.*
> 
> Obama is a phoney liberal, but if he tried to privatize Social Security the Democrats would impeach him for the Republicans.  I am going to follow up with you on your claim.  You had best be able to back it up.  I think it is BS.
> 
> Republicans can not be content with the political chaos in Washington, they tend to oversell their point, and usually lose the entire argument.  Somehow I have a feeling that georgephillip  will be quietly dancing away from 'privatized Social Security' in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Tell me who qualifies as a credible source in your opinion?*
> 
> Dean Baker?
> Robert Reich?
> Chomsky?
> 
> Jeffrey Liebman?
> 
> "Liebman has supported partial PRIVATIZATION of the government-run retirement system, an idea that is rejected by many Democrats and bears a similarity to a proposal for so-called "personal investment accounts" that Bush promoted in 2005.
> 
> "'Liebman has been open to private accounts,' said Michael Tanner, a Social Security expert at the Cato Institute in Washington, a think tank in Washington that advocates 'free markets' and often backs Republicans. The Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick plan to loot Social Security also promises raising regressive payroll taxes, cutting benefits, or a combination of both."
> 
> Obama's Plan To Privatize Social Security
> 
> Do you believe Bill Clinton flirted with privatizing SS about the same time as Monica?
> That $2.6 trillion trust fund is the last big pot for Wall Street.
> Only a Democratic president can deliver it.
> 
> *I respectfully suggest you ask yourself if you are judging Obama by the content of his character (and policies) or by the color of his skin*.
Click to expand...


You had to play the race card?

Page 2: Obama: No 'Easy Out' for Wall Street - ABC News



> OBAMA: Well, some of them are gone because their institutions have effectively collapsed. You know, keep in mind. though, there are a lot of banks that are actually pretty well managed; JP Morgan being a good example. *Jamie Dimon*, the CEO there; I don't think he should be punished for doing a pretty good job managing an enormous portfolio.


----------



## Intense

How to Be a Citizen Journalist Without Getting Killed
Good Advice for Protestors too.
*Safety*

Tear gas and rubber bullets are painful. They're described as non-lethal weapons, but that doesn't mean they can't do serious damage. Here are tips to help you survive riot containment procedures.

    Bring a Buddy

    Find a friend that shares the same passion as you do about reporting on their topics. Someone that's kinda sorta into this will quickly bail when all hell breaks loose. You can watch each other's backs if things get nasty and if you've ever shot video, you know that you can get blinders while trying to get the perfect shot.
    Tear Gas

    Unless you have a gas mask, tear gas is going to mess you up. Be prepared. The police will usually warn a crowd before it shoots chemical agents at them. You have two options, leave the area and stay safe, or stay and continue to cover the event as it unfolds. If you're like me, you'll stay.

    Before you head to any event with the potential for conflict, grab a bandana and soak it in cider vinegar. Store that in a zip lock bag. Grab a pair of tight-fitting swim goggles from the local sports store. Finally, saline solution will be your best friend once everything dies down. As soon as you suspect that tear gas will be unleashed, try to move upwind if possible. If you have contacts, take them out. Put the swim goggles on, these will protect your eyes. Get your vinegar rag ready, you'll breath through this once the gas has been unleashed. Get your photos/video and quickly move away from the scene. If you don't have the vinegar bandana, breath through your shirt. coughing and spitting will help get the agent out of your system. Whatever you do, DO NOT RUB YOUR EYES. This will make it worse. Once you're in the clear, use the saline solution on your eyes. If you don't have saline solution, Egyptian protesters allegedly used Coke/Pepsi to rinse tear gas out of their eyes. If you have any chemical burns from the gas, seek immediate medical attention.
    Rubber Bullets/Bean Bag Bullets

    Step one, try not to get shot. You're there to document the event, so do not throw rocks, fireworks, or used tear gas canisters at the police. Being a good journalist does not mean you won't get shot, it just lowers the chances. To be prepared anyway in case you're caught in the crossfire I recommend getting protective equipment from people that spend the weekend getting shot. Paintball gear is relatively inexpensive and easy to order from the Internet or pick up a sporting goods store. Pick up a chest protector, slide shorts, and face mask for the best protection. In a pinch, put the thickest sweater you own under your clothes. If you're in a situation that escalates out of control, free weekly newspapers shoved under your clothes can offer some protection from containment bullets. Whatever you end up wearing, remember that if you get struck, it's going to hurt, BAD. Have your buddy help you move to safer area or get medical attention if you're seriously injured.
    Know your Surroundings

    Don't rely on Google Maps on your smartphone to work. Print out a map of the area and keep it handy. If you can, get that puppy laminated. If you need to find an escape path, this will come in handy.
    Listen

    Don't get caught up in the chanting when the police are making announcements. Listen to what they are saying. Not only is this important for your coverage, it can help you avoid getting stuck in the center of a tear gas attack, or getting shot with rubber bullets. Also stay close to the leaders of the movement. What they say will also be important to your coverage, but could also keep you safe.
    Pepper Spray

    Buy some, put it on your keychain or in your bag. This is for self-defense only. Use of pepper spray on an individual is a felony in some states, so seriously, don't mess around with the stuff.
    Communication and Rendezvous Point

    Text messaging works best in loud situations. GroupMe is a great tool for group messaging and will work on any mobile phone once set up. Set a meeting place for your group at a specific time.

How to Be a Citizen Journalist Without Getting Killed


----------



## Big Fitz

Well the growth of the Occupados in Minneapolis has grown to a measly few dozen obvious reprobates.

At least the hackysack circle of 20 something wanna-be anarchists raised them up about 8 people.  They now are at a Protester to Portapotty ratio of 10 to 1 even though they've removed over 80% of the Biffys.

Yep... they sure are growing!


----------



## georgephillip

Samson said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, the last thing this Dem wants to hear is more negative about our Democratic president.  We in the Democratic base have serious questions about his commitment to the Democratic Party. * I need an extremely credible link that President Obama would privatize Social Security.*
> 
> Obama is a phoney liberal, but if he tried to privatize Social Security the Democrats would impeach him for the Republicans.  I am going to follow up with you on your claim.  You had best be able to back it up.  I think it is BS.
> 
> Republicans can not be content with the political chaos in Washington, they tend to oversell their point, and usually lose the entire argument.  Somehow I have a feeling that georgephillip  will be quietly dancing away from 'privatized Social Security' in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tell me who qualifies as a credible source in your opinion?*
> 
> Dean Baker?
> Robert Reich?
> Chomsky?
> 
> Jeffrey Liebman?
> 
> "Liebman has supported partial PRIVATIZATION of the government-run retirement system, an idea that is rejected by many Democrats and bears a similarity to a proposal for so-called "personal investment accounts" that Bush promoted in 2005.
> 
> "'Liebman has been open to private accounts,' said Michael Tanner, a Social Security expert at the Cato Institute in Washington, a think tank in Washington that advocates 'free markets' and often backs Republicans. The Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick plan to loot Social Security also promises raising regressive payroll taxes, cutting benefits, or a combination of both."
> 
> Obama's Plan To Privatize Social Security
> 
> Do you believe Bill Clinton flirted with privatizing SS about the same time as Monica?
> That $2.6 trillion trust fund is the last big pot for Wall Street.
> Only a Democratic president can deliver it.
> 
> *I respectfully suggest you ask yourself if you are judging Obama by the content of his character (and policies) or by the color of his skin*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You had to play the race card?
> 
> Page 2: Obama: No 'Easy Out' for Wall Street - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OBAMA: Well, some of them are gone because their institutions have effectively collapsed. You know, keep in mind. though, there are a lot of banks that are actually pretty well managed; JP Morgan being a good example. *Jamie Dimon*, the CEO there; I don't think he should be punished for doing a pretty good job managing an enormous portfolio.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*Do you believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa, too?*

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. has agreed to pay $153.6 million to settle civil fraud charges that it misled buyers of complex mortgage investments just as the housing market was collapsing...

"The bank agreed to settle the charges two weeks after Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., complained to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that new financial regulations designed to prevent another financial crisis were too burdensome on banks."

JPMorgan to pay $153.6M to settle fraud charges - Yahoo! Finance

You should also learn more about Magnetar, JP Morgan and Rahm Israel Emanuel before taking anything Obama says about Jamie Dimon at face value. 

"Update June 21, 2011: JP Morgan Chase has agreed to pay a $154 million penalty to settle SEC charges that the bank misled investors about a complex mortgage-securities deal during the waning days of the housing boom. *The SEC charged that JP Morgan neglected to tell investors that the hedge fund Magnetar helped create the deal and was betting against it*. This story was the first to detail Magnetar's role.

Update Oct. 29, 2010: This story has been corrected in response to a recent letter from Magnetar. Read their letter, along with our response..."

The Magnetar Trade: How One Hedge Fund Helped Keep the Bubble Going - ProPublica


----------



## Katzndogz

If some Wall Street company defrauded someone, they should definitely pay THAT PERSON, not fling money at the swine like it was slops.


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tell me who qualifies as a credible source in your opinion?*
> 
> Dean Baker?
> Robert Reich?
> Chomsky?
> 
> Jeffrey Liebman?
> 
> "Liebman has supported partial PRIVATIZATION of the government-run retirement system, an idea that is rejected by many Democrats and bears a similarity to a proposal for so-called "personal investment accounts" that Bush promoted in 2005.
> 
> "'Liebman has been open to private accounts,' said Michael Tanner, a Social Security expert at the Cato Institute in Washington, a think tank in Washington that advocates 'free markets' and often backs Republicans. The Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick plan to loot Social Security also promises raising regressive payroll taxes, cutting benefits, or a combination of both."
> 
> Obama's Plan To Privatize Social Security
> 
> Do you believe Bill Clinton flirted with privatizing SS about the same time as Monica?
> That $2.6 trillion trust fund is the last big pot for Wall Street.
> Only a Democratic president can deliver it.
> 
> *I respectfully suggest you ask yourself if you are judging Obama by the content of his character (and policies) or by the color of his skin*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You had to play the race card?
> 
> Page 2: Obama: No 'Easy Out' for Wall Street - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OBAMA: Well, some of them are gone because their institutions have effectively collapsed. You know, keep in mind. though, there are a lot of banks that are actually pretty well managed; JP Morgan being a good example. *Jamie Dimon*, the CEO there; I don't think he should be punished for doing a pretty good job managing an enormous portfolio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do you believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa, too?*
> 
> "WASHINGTON (AP) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. has agreed to pay $153.6 million to settle civil fraud charges that it misled buyers of complex mortgage investments just as the housing market was collapsing...
> 
> "The bank agreed to settle the charges two weeks after Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., complained to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that new financial regulations designed to prevent another financial crisis were too burdensome on banks."
> 
> JPMorgan to pay $153.6M to settle fraud charges - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> You should also learn more about Magnetar, JP Morgan and Rahm Israel Emanuel before taking anything Obama says about Jamie Dimon at face value.
> 
> "Update June 21, 2011: JP Morgan Chase has agreed to pay a $154 million penalty to settle SEC charges that the bank misled investors about a complex mortgage-securities deal during the waning days of the housing boom. *The SEC charged that JP Morgan neglected to tell investors that the hedge fund Magnetar helped create the deal and was betting against it*. This story was the first to detail Magnetar's role.
> 
> Update Oct. 29, 2010: This story has been corrected in response to a recent letter from Magnetar. Read their letter, along with our response..."
> 
> The Magnetar Trade: How One Hedge Fund Helped Keep the Bubble Going - ProPublica
Click to expand...


You took my quote of Obama as agreement?

JP Morgan Chase has settled charges agaist it.

Why are you continuing to whine?


----------



## Dragon

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Big business askes the politicians to do something and the politicians didn't have to say YES....the politicians could have said no but they didn't.....you are blaming the wrong people, the one's who hold the pens that write these laws are the congress not the corporations.



Big business doesn't just ASK. Big business BUYS.

Have you looked into how much it costs to run a Congressional campaign these days? And even more, of course, for the Senate or the White House. And when you include all the ads run by PACs and other non-profits that amount to campaign spending, the amount of money required is just huge.

Someone funding your campaign comes to you through his lobbyists and insists you pass support bill X or oppose bill Y or introduce bill Z, sure, you CAN say no -- and when it comes time to pay for your reelection campaign, so can they.

Saying no under those circumstances is not all that easy.


----------



## georgephillip

Samson said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You had to play the race card?
> 
> Page 2: Obama: No 'Easy Out' for Wall Street - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa, too?*
> 
> "WASHINGTON (AP) -- JPMorgan Chase & Co. has agreed to pay $153.6 million to settle civil fraud charges that it misled buyers of complex mortgage investments just as the housing market was collapsing...
> 
> "The bank agreed to settle the charges two weeks after Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co., complained to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke that new financial regulations designed to prevent another financial crisis were too burdensome on banks."
> 
> JPMorgan to pay $153.6M to settle fraud charges - Yahoo! Finance
> 
> You should also learn more about Magnetar, JP Morgan and Rahm Israel Emanuel before taking anything Obama says about Jamie Dimon at face value.
> 
> "Update June 21, 2011: JP Morgan Chase has agreed to pay a $154 million penalty to settle SEC charges that the bank misled investors about a complex mortgage-securities deal during the waning days of the housing boom. *The SEC charged that JP Morgan neglected to tell investors that the hedge fund Magnetar helped create the deal and was betting against it*. This story was the first to detail Magnetar's role.
> 
> Update Oct. 29, 2010: This story has been corrected in response to a recent letter from Magnetar. Read their letter, along with our response..."
> 
> The Magnetar Trade: How One Hedge Fund Helped Keep the Bubble Going - ProPublica
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You took my quote of Obama as agreement?
> 
> JP Morgan Chase has settled charges agaist it.
> 
> Why are you continuing to whine?
Click to expand...

JP Morgan has settled ONE of many charges of corrupt business practices against it.

That"s why I'm calling for criminal investigations like those that followed the Savings and Loan lootings or the Great Depression.

Dimon and his ilk may be innocent or guilty; we'll never know without trial by jury.


----------



## georgephillip

Tipsycatlover said:


> If some Wall Street company defrauded someone, they should definitely pay THAT PERSON, not fling money at the swine like it was slops.


*What if Wall Street is a criminal enterprise?*

"This is F%$#ing criminal. Only the biggest bastard banks with the biggest fastest computers with models created by the biggest bunch of immoral MBAs in the history of the planet can get away with it. 

"*How much of Goldman's profit came about this way?* 

"Why isn't the SEC doing something about it. *This is fraud*. Why isn't that blathering fool Barney Frank outraged by this? Why isn't Schumer and Dodd up in arms? 

"You know why. 

"*Because they want the banks to make money any way they can*. 

GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> If some Wall Street company defrauded someone, they should definitely pay THAT PERSON, not fling money at the swine like it was slops.
> 
> 
> 
> *What if Wall Street is a criminal enterprise?*
> 
> "This is F%$#ing criminal. Only the biggest bastard banks with the biggest fastest computers with models created by the biggest bunch of immoral MBAs in the history of the planet can get away with it.
> 
> "*How much of Goldman's profit came about this way?*
> 
> "Why isn't the SEC doing something about it. *This is fraud*. Why isn't that blathering fool Barney Frank outraged by this? Why isn't Schumer and Dodd up in arms?
> 
> "You know why.
> 
> "*Because they want the banks to make money any way they can*.
> 
> GOLDMAN, CITI, JP MORGAN & BOA ARE CRIMINALS - James Quinn - Seeking Alpha
Click to expand...


George, finding something on the blogosphere and reposting it over and over again does very little for your credability.


----------



## Big Fitz

Tipsycatlover said:


> If some Wall Street company defrauded someone, they should definitely pay THAT PERSON, not fling money at the swine like it was slops.


oh that's just crazy talk!  Demanding people who experienced direct harm be paid, as what used to be the basis of law in this nation before class action insanity.


----------



## georgephillip

Big Fitz said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> If some Wall Street company defrauded someone, they should definitely pay THAT PERSON, not fling money at the swine like it was slops.
> 
> 
> 
> oh that's just crazy talk!  Demanding people who experienced direct harm be paid, as what used to be the basis of law in this nation before class action insanity.
Click to expand...

Do you see any evidence of "direct harm" in the following?

"American families lost a total of $19.4 trillion (in 2010 dollars) in household wealth from June 2007 to March 2009, when the stimulus started to take hold. First it was the housing market, and then it was the housing and the stock market together that tanked. American families lost $6.4 trillion in home value during this period."

Would you expect each family to confront the Masters of the Universe individually?
Or would that be crazy?

The Consequences of Conservatism: Loss of Wealth Stunning During Great Recession


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> "American families lost a total of $19.4 trillion (in 2010 dollars) in household wealth from June 2007 to March 2009, when the stimulus started to take hold.



Hey George, how could the stimulus "take hold" in March of 09 when not one dime of porkulus was spent until August of 09? Is it that Dear Leader is so wonderful that he went back in time with his glorious peoples stimulus?



> First it was the housing market, and then it was the housing and the stock market together that tanked. American families lost $6.4 trillion in home value during this period."
> 
> Would you expect each family to confront the Masters of the Universe individually?
> Or would that be crazy?
> 
> The Consequences of Conservatism: Loss of Wealth Stunning During Great Recession




The problem I have with "facts" by leftists is that they generally are complete fabrications, such as the above.

To err is human, to lie through your fucking teeth is progressive....


----------



## Preius

Intense said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Ultimate Control rests with Government, which has the Force of Law behind it, the Cops, the Investigators, the Courts, the Prisons, the Military, and Access to All of Our Property. I'm not misrepresenting anything. The Right Target is Progressive Statism, which seeks Centralized control of Our Lives, 24/7, Cradle to Grave. Government by the Consent of the Governed is Justified, that is not the Issue, the issue is Government Overreach, which set up the pins to fall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ with you.  The ultimate control will be the upper 1%.  I keep posting on the "Patriotic Millionaires" but posters seem to want to believe that the 1% all see things the same way.  Patriotic Millionaires For Fiscal Strength  The millionaires I have read about, or have met see 'money as a tool to build things,' not an end in itself.
> 
> The only reason the American Revolution took place is because the wealthy wanted it.  The global economy is getting it's back up against the wall these days.  If we need to refinance the planet we will.  You can not possibly believe that the most powerful military force on the planet, the United States, is going to go under because of numbers printed on pieces of paper?  The UK, France, Spain, Portugal,Italy, Greece, Russia, China, and Japan will find a 'fix.'
> 
> Hey............. I just realized that like the United States all those countries had empires at one time.   Hmmm.........bet they know a few secret economic things you and I don't.
> 
> Remember, if the big crash is coming, we go down  they go down too.  Go convert 30% of your portfolio to precious metals and relax!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's nice to want things, huh. There's all different kinds of Power Preius. Money buys allot of things, it buys allot of People too. It doesn't buy Everything or Everyone though, something to keep in mind. We are a Nation of Laws, not Men, The Best Nations, the best Empires, know that. There are Principles so strong, no amount of money or even Power will Reign over them, not for long anyway, Our very Natures will oppose them.
> 
> You come off as one trying to steer, to manipulate, against reason, what you offer, is not what you deliver.
> 
> True, the one Percent have allot of influence and effect, their Property, having worth and Power, which they have every right to, within reason, just like you have the Power to effect with the resources under your control or ownership, within the Law.
> 
> Our Republic does seek to establish and maintain Law and Order, this is a constant process, that we need to serve Vigilantly. We Improve, We Amend, We Build on what works. We don't abandon it because those like you, may not like the hand they are dealt. Do the best with what you have. Make the most of it, find the formula that works for you, and share it, if it pleases you.
> 
> Disrespecting Free Will, or Private Property, is not a battle against Tyranny in any way, it is the application of Tyranny. It is Theft, it is a corruption of Principle. Creating Laws to end abuse, is one thing, in Establishing Justice, Gaining control of the Reins of abuse, so the control is transferred to you, with the abuse  continuing, only now protected by Government is another. Are you more interested in Liberation or a more Powerful Government Bureaucracy, where your Sins are covered and hidden.
> 
> To establish True Liberty, You need to Establish Justice, for both Rich and Poor. Impartiality is the Focus, not respect for Person or Position, but fair resolution. It is about doing the Right thing, because it is the Right thing to do. I don't think there is a greater blessing.
> 
> Why play sides against each other, in the hopes of overthrowing the Government, without regard for the loss of life, or the Tyranny that will result?
> Why not instead just learn to live within your means, and working with legitimate tools, which this Republic recognizes, work for a better Republic?
Click to expand...


We are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of window dressing.  This is why we have public relations firms, Fox News, and advertising agencies.  The wealthy flex their muscles every day, and most people never pick up on it.  The ideas of the founding fathers were good, but they did not anticipated corporations being protected by Wall Street lawyers.  Does not do any good to have laws when *lobbyists buy* their way around them.

Just last night on the news is was pointed out that Michele Bachmann does not have a chance of winning the Republican nomination, yet her supporters keep dumping money into her campaign.  Why?  Bachmann is nothing but a message delivery system, bought and paid for - a sort of megaphone if you will.  The right is using  her to push the agenda to the right.

Everyone has a price.  The question is are each of us willing to take it when it is offered.  Research shows that most people's confidence in themselves directly relates to the current balance of their checking account!   Do not necessarily equate the price to be paid in dollars either.  I am in advertising, we manipulate your children every Saturday morning to throw a temper tantrum if mom does not buy breakfast cereal with a lot of sugar in it.  What makes it scary, is it is so easy.  Selling a  POTUS is almost as easy as selling Right Guard antiperspirant.  It is amazing, but again it is scary.  You spend $3 on an antiperspirant that does not work for you, no big deal.  But, when you sell a person for political office, who knows what they might do?  People act differently when they actually have power.

If I offer anything to USMB, it is that I force people to think outside the box.  Over time all of us, myself included, find comfortable answers to the questions of life.  We get lazy, we stop rethinking, and out come the platitudes.  Based upon market research conservatives are more afraid of change.  I too find some change uncomfortable, but embracing change is how one "keeps their edge" in an ever-changing world. So, I have learned to welcome change, even if it is temporarily uncomfortable.  This is how we make progress with new ideas.  I would rather fail at something new, than be one of those, "this is the way we have always done it" types.

The main purpose of a college education is to learn how to ask questions.  If you know how to do that, you can stay on the offense and get the responses you want.  My questions scare certain members, but it is really for their own good to open their minds.  The kinds of answers that may have worked twenty years ago may not today.  We now live in a world dominated by cell phones, and Facebook.  "All in the family" and VCR's are history.  Life has changed, we must adjust or be left behind. 

I think it is reasonable to question the Americanism of OWS protestors, while questioning the actions of government.  The OWS riots in Oakland, CA prove the point.  America is not as enlightened as we believe we are.  Someone is going to pay a price for that, and in my opinion it will be the Democratic and Republican Partys who have become dinosaures.  My God Americans are taking to the street because they are losing their homes and jobs, how much more clear does this have to be?  Meanwhile network news anchors ask, "What does OWS mean?"  Well, duh, the American people are pissed, elected officials should know why, otherwise they should step down.




When you can get your thoughts together on freedom and liberty, please drop them into a concise three sentence paragraph.  The end of your post sounds like a Pat Robertson political sermon.  Please cut to the chase.


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "American families lost a total of $19.4 trillion (in 2010 dollars) in household wealth from June 2007 to March 2009, when the stimulus started to take hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey George, how could the stimulus "take hold" in March of 09 when not one dime of porkulus was spent until August of 09? Is it that Dear Leader is so wonderful that he went back in time with his glorious peoples stimulus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First it was the housing market, and then it was the housing and the stock market together that tanked. American families lost $6.4 trillion in home value during this period."
> 
> Would you expect each family to confront the Masters of the Universe individually?
> Or would that be crazy?
> 
> The Consequences of Conservatism: Loss of Wealth Stunning During Great Recession
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I have with "facts" by leftists is that they generally are complete fabrications, such as the above.
> 
> To err is human, to lie through your fucking teeth is progressive....
Click to expand...

Do you have any problems with this fact:

"American families lost a total of $19.4 trillion (in 2010 dollars) in household wealth from June 2007 to March 2009.."

If you do, cite a source with an amount you don't have problems with.

Are you one of the one percent?
Or just another rich-bitch wannabe?


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "American families lost a total of $19.4 trillion (in 2010 dollars) in household wealth from June 2007 to March 2009, when the stimulus started to take hold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey George, how could the stimulus "take hold" in March of 09 when not one dime of porkulus was spent until August of 09? Is it that Dear Leader is so wonderful that he went back in time with his glorious peoples stimulus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First it was the housing market, and then it was the housing and the stock market together that tanked. American families lost $6.4 trillion in home value during this period."
> 
> Would you expect each family to confront the Masters of the Universe individually?
> Or would that be crazy?
> 
> The Consequences of Conservatism: Loss of Wealth Stunning During Great Recession
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The problem I have with "facts" by leftists is that they generally are complete fabrications, such as the above.
> 
> To err is human, to lie through your fucking teeth is progressive....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any problems with this fact:
> 
> "American families lost a total of $19.4 trillion (in 2010 dollars) in household wealth from June 2007 to March 2009.."
> 
> If you do, cite a source with an amount you don't have problems with.
> 
> Are you one of the one percent?
> Or just another rich-bitch wannabe?
Click to expand...


Oddly, I still live comfortably in a house built in 2005, have the same cars as I did in June 2007, and have added on a deck. 

Where the fuck are these "American families that lost 19.4 Trillion?"


----------



## Preius

Here is the utube of the Oakland, California OWS riots.  I want my illusions of American government back.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grs6S5gCKC8&feature=related]Occupy Oakland - A Message to the Police - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Intense

Preius said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I beg to differ with you.  The ultimate control will be the upper 1%.  I keep posting on the "Patriotic Millionaires" but posters seem to want to believe that the 1% all see things the same way.  Patriotic Millionaires For Fiscal Strength  The millionaires I have read about, or have met see 'money as a tool to build things,' not an end in itself.
> 
> The only reason the American Revolution took place is because the wealthy wanted it.  The global economy is getting it's back up against the wall these days.  If we need to refinance the planet we will.  You can not possibly believe that the most powerful military force on the planet, the United States, is going to go under because of numbers printed on pieces of paper?  The UK, France, Spain, Portugal,Italy, Greece, Russia, China, and Japan will find a 'fix.'
> 
> Hey............. I just realized that like the United States all those countries had empires at one time.   Hmmm.........bet they know a few secret economic things you and I don't.
> 
> Remember, if the big crash is coming, we go down  they go down too.  Go convert 30% of your portfolio to precious metals and relax!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to want things, huh. There's all different kinds of Power Preius. Money buys allot of things, it buys allot of People too. It doesn't buy Everything or Everyone though, something to keep in mind. We are a Nation of Laws, not Men, The Best Nations, the best Empires, know that. There are Principles so strong, no amount of money or even Power will Reign over them, not for long anyway, Our very Natures will oppose them.
> 
> You come off as one trying to steer, to manipulate, against reason, what you offer, is not what you deliver.
> 
> True, the one Percent have allot of influence and effect, their Property, having worth and Power, which they have every right to, within reason, just like you have the Power to effect with the resources under your control or ownership, within the Law.
> 
> Our Republic does seek to establish and maintain Law and Order, this is a constant process, that we need to serve Vigilantly. We Improve, We Amend, We Build on what works. We don't abandon it because those like you, may not like the hand they are dealt. Do the best with what you have. Make the most of it, find the formula that works for you, and share it, if it pleases you.
> 
> Disrespecting Free Will, or Private Property, is not a battle against Tyranny in any way, it is the application of Tyranny. It is Theft, it is a corruption of Principle. Creating Laws to end abuse, is one thing, in Establishing Justice, Gaining control of the Reins of abuse, so the control is transferred to you, with the abuse  continuing, only now protected by Government is another. Are you more interested in Liberation or a more Powerful Government Bureaucracy, where your Sins are covered and hidden.
> 
> To establish True Liberty, You need to Establish Justice, for both Rich and Poor. Impartiality is the Focus, not respect for Person or Position, but fair resolution. It is about doing the Right thing, because it is the Right thing to do. I don't think there is a greater blessing.
> 
> Why play sides against each other, in the hopes of overthrowing the Government, without regard for the loss of life, or the Tyranny that will result?
> Why not instead just learn to live within your means, and working with legitimate tools, which this Republic recognizes, work for a better Republic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of window dressing.  This is why we have public relations firms, Fox News, and advertising agencies.  The wealthy flex their muscles every day, and most people never pick up on it.  The ideas of the founding fathers were good, but they did not anticipated corporations being protected by Wall Street lawyers.  Does not do any good to have laws when *lobbyists buy* their way around them.
> 
> Just last night on the news is was pointed out that Michele Bachmann does not have a chance of winning the Republican nomination, yet her supporters keep dumping money into her campaign.  Why?  Bachmann is nothing but a message delivery system, bought and paid for - a sort of megaphone if you will.  The right is using  her to push the agenda to the right.
> 
> Everyone has a price.  The question is are each of us willing to take it when it is offered.  Research shows that most people's confidence in themselves directly relates to the current balance of their checking account!   Do not necessarily equate the price to be paid in dollars either.  I am in advertising, we manipulate your children every Saturday morning to throw a temper tantrum if mom does not buy breakfast cereal with a lot of sugar in it.  What makes it scary, is it is so easy.  Selling a  POTUS is almost as easy as selling Right Guard antiperspirant.  It is amazing, but again it is scary.  You spend $3 on an antiperspirant that does not work for you, no big deal.  But, when you sell a person for political office, who knows what they might do?  People act differently when they actually have power.
> 
> If I offer anything to USMB, it is that I force people to think outside the box.  Over time all of us, myself included, find comfortable answers to the questions of life.  We get lazy, we stop rethinking, and out come the platitudes.  Based upon market research conservatives are more afraid of change.  I too find some change uncomfortable, but embracing change is how one "keeps their edge" in an ever-changing world. So, I have learned to welcome change, even if it is temporarily uncomfortable.  This is how we make progress with new ideas.  I would rather fail at something new, than be one of those, "this is the way we have always done it" types.
> 
> The main purpose of a college education is to learn how to ask questions.  If you know how to do that, you can stay on the offense and get the responses you want.  My questions scare certain members, but it is really for their own good to open their minds.  The kinds of answers that may have worked twenty years ago may not today.  We now live in a world dominated by cell phones, and Facebook.  "All in the family" and VCR's are history.  Life has changed, we must adjust or be left behind.
> 
> I think it is reasonable to question the Americanism of OWS protestors, while questioning the actions of government.  The OWS riots in Oakland, CA prove the point.  America is not as enlightened as we believe we are.  Someone is going to pay a price for that, and in my opinion it will be the Democratic and Republican Partys who have become dinosaures.  My God Americans are taking to the street because they are losing their homes and jobs, how much more clear does this have to be?  Meanwhile network news anchors ask, "What does OWS mean?"  Well, duh, the American people are pissed, elected officials should know why, otherwise they should step down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can get your thoughts together on freedom and liberty, please drop them into a concise three sentence paragraph.  The end of your post sounds like a Pat Robertson political sermon.  Please cut to the chase.
Click to expand...


You lost me with your first sentence, your premise is false. You need to grow up.


----------



## Preius

Intense said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's nice to want things, huh. There's all different kinds of Power Preius. Money buys allot of things, it buys allot of People too. It doesn't buy Everything or Everyone though, something to keep in mind. We are a Nation of Laws, not Men, The Best Nations, the best Empires, know that. There are Principles so strong, no amount of money or even Power will Reign over them, not for long anyway, Our very Natures will oppose them.
> 
> You come off as one trying to steer, to manipulate, against reason, what you offer, is not what you deliver.
> 
> True, the one Percent have allot of influence and effect, their Property, having worth and Power, which they have every right to, within reason, just like you have the Power to effect with the resources under your control or ownership, within the Law.
> 
> Our Republic does seek to establish and maintain Law and Order, this is a constant process, that we need to serve Vigilantly. We Improve, We Amend, We Build on what works. We don't abandon it because those like you, may not like the hand they are dealt. Do the best with what you have. Make the most of it, find the formula that works for you, and share it, if it pleases you.
> 
> Disrespecting Free Will, or Private Property, is not a battle against Tyranny in any way, it is the application of Tyranny. It is Theft, it is a corruption of Principle. Creating Laws to end abuse, is one thing, in Establishing Justice, Gaining control of the Reins of abuse, so the control is transferred to you, with the abuse  continuing, only now protected by Government is another. Are you more interested in Liberation or a more Powerful Government Bureaucracy, where your Sins are covered and hidden.
> 
> To establish True Liberty, You need to Establish Justice, for both Rich and Poor. Impartiality is the Focus, not respect for Person or Position, but fair resolution. It is about doing the Right thing, because it is the Right thing to do. I don't think there is a greater blessing.
> 
> Why play sides against each other, in the hopes of overthrowing the Government, without regard for the loss of life, or the Tyranny that will result?
> Why not instead just learn to live within your means, and working with legitimate tools, which this Republic recognizes, work for a better Republic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of window dressing.  This is why we have public relations firms, Fox News, and advertising agencies.  The wealthy flex their muscles every day, and most people never pick up on it.  The ideas of the founding fathers were good, but they did not anticipated corporations being protected by Wall Street lawyers.  Does not do any good to have laws when *lobbyists buy* their way around them.
> 
> Just last night on the news is was pointed out that Michele Bachmann does not have a chance of winning the Republican nomination, yet her supporters keep dumping money into her campaign.  Why?  Bachmann is nothing but a message delivery system, bought and paid for - a sort of megaphone if you will.  The right is using  her to push the agenda to the right.
> 
> Everyone has a price.  The question is are each of us willing to take it when it is offered.  Research shows that most people's confidence in themselves directly relates to the current balance of their checking account!   Do not necessarily equate the price to be paid in dollars either.  I am in advertising, we manipulate your children every Saturday morning to throw a temper tantrum if mom does not buy breakfast cereal with a lot of sugar in it.  What makes it scary, is it is so easy.  Selling a  POTUS is almost as easy as selling Right Guard antiperspirant.  It is amazing, but again it is scary.  You spend $3 on an antiperspirant that does not work for you, no big deal.  But, when you sell a person for political office, who knows what they might do?  People act differently when they actually have power.
> 
> If I offer anything to USMB, it is that I force people to think outside the box.  Over time all of us, myself included, find comfortable answers to the questions of life.  We get lazy, we stop rethinking, and out come the platitudes.  Based upon market research conservatives are more afraid of change.  I too find some change uncomfortable, but embracing change is how one "keeps their edge" in an ever-changing world. So, I have learned to welcome change, even if it is temporarily uncomfortable.  This is how we make progress with new ideas.  I would rather fail at something new, than be one of those, "this is the way we have always done it" types.
> 
> The main purpose of a college education is to learn how to ask questions.  If you know how to do that, you can stay on the offense and get the responses you want.  My questions scare certain members, but it is really for their own good to open their minds.  The kinds of answers that may have worked twenty years ago may not today.  We now live in a world dominated by cell phones, and Facebook.  "All in the family" and VCR's are history.  Life has changed, we must adjust or be left behind.
> 
> I think it is reasonable to question the Americanism of OWS protestors, while questioning the actions of government.  The OWS riots in Oakland, CA prove the point.  America is not as enlightened as we believe we are.  Someone is going to pay a price for that, and in my opinion it will be the Democratic and Republican Partys who have become dinosaures.  My God Americans are taking to the street because they are losing their homes and jobs, how much more clear does this have to be?  Meanwhile network news anchors ask, "What does OWS mean?"  Well, duh, the American people are pissed, elected officials should know why, otherwise they should step down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can get your thoughts together on freedom and liberty, please drop them into a concise three sentence paragraph.  The end of your post sounds like a Pat Robertson political sermon.  Please cut to the chase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You lost me with your first sentence, your premise is false. You need to grow up.
Click to expand...


I could care less if I lost you.  You are living proof of brainwashing in America.  If you can not understand that lobbyists buy their way around laws, we have nothing to discuss, you are simply ignorant of the facts.  There are over *eight million* links in Google under "Lobbyists buy influence," here is one of them.  Coalition urged to act over lobbyists who use party groups 'to buy influence' | Politics | The Guardian  I suggest you try Google before you post, no one likes to look stupid.


----------



## lilylu

Protesters should start wearing tea bags on their hats so that the police will leave them alone!!!  Why didn't the police use force with the tea baggers?  This is something that I don't understand.  The tea baggers were occupying public spaces and there were no arrests and no police brutality...why?!  The 99% are peacefully protesting using their right to assemble and yet the police come in riot gear and shoot rubber bullets and tear gas????  I want to know why they didn't do that to the tea baggers.  Someone please help me to understand that.  Do corporations own our police dept.?  Are we becoming a military ruled country?
l


----------



## Valerie

lilylu said:


> Protesters should start wearing tea bags on their hats so that the police will leave them alone!!!  Why didn't the police use force with the tea baggers?  This is something that I don't understand.  The tea baggers were occupying public spaces and there were no arrests and no police brutality...why?!  The 99% are peacefully protesting using their right to assemble and yet the police come in riot gear and shoot rubber bullets and tear gas????  I want to know why they didn't do that to the tea baggers.  Someone please help me to understand that.  Do corporations own our police dept.?  Are we becoming a military ruled country?
> l





Welllll lilylu, to begin with, can you cite an instance where the tea party SLEPT in public spaces?


----------



## Preius

Here is the perspective of Bill Maher's left about the OWS movemnent.  Don't be mislead by right wing efforts to smear the 99%.  Get the facts, decide for yourself.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHJaR2tKyUE]Real Time with.Bill Maher 2011.09.30 with Van Jones About our "Occuby Wall Street" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Intense

Preius said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not a nation of laws, we are a nation of window dressing.  This is why we have public relations firms, Fox News, and advertising agencies.  The wealthy flex their muscles every day, and most people never pick up on it.  The ideas of the founding fathers were good, but they did not anticipated corporations being protected by Wall Street lawyers.  Does not do any good to have laws when *lobbyists buy* their way around them.
> 
> Just last night on the news is was pointed out that Michele Bachmann does not have a chance of winning the Republican nomination, yet her supporters keep dumping money into her campaign.  Why?  Bachmann is nothing but a message delivery system, bought and paid for - a sort of megaphone if you will.  The right is using  her to push the agenda to the right.
> 
> Everyone has a price.  The question is are each of us willing to take it when it is offered.  Research shows that most people's confidence in themselves directly relates to the current balance of their checking account!   Do not necessarily equate the price to be paid in dollars either.  I am in advertising, we manipulate your children every Saturday morning to throw a temper tantrum if mom does not buy breakfast cereal with a lot of sugar in it.  What makes it scary, is it is so easy.  Selling a  POTUS is almost as easy as selling Right Guard antiperspirant.  It is amazing, but again it is scary.  You spend $3 on an antiperspirant that does not work for you, no big deal.  But, when you sell a person for political office, who knows what they might do?  People act differently when they actually have power.
> 
> If I offer anything to USMB, it is that I force people to think outside the box.  Over time all of us, myself included, find comfortable answers to the questions of life.  We get lazy, we stop rethinking, and out come the platitudes.  Based upon market research conservatives are more afraid of change.  I too find some change uncomfortable, but embracing change is how one "keeps their edge" in an ever-changing world. So, I have learned to welcome change, even if it is temporarily uncomfortable.  This is how we make progress with new ideas.  I would rather fail at something new, than be one of those, "this is the way we have always done it" types.
> 
> The main purpose of a college education is to learn how to ask questions.  If you know how to do that, you can stay on the offense and get the responses you want.  My questions scare certain members, but it is really for their own good to open their minds.  The kinds of answers that may have worked twenty years ago may not today.  We now live in a world dominated by cell phones, and Facebook.  "All in the family" and VCR's are history.  Life has changed, we must adjust or be left behind.
> 
> I think it is reasonable to question the Americanism of OWS protestors, while questioning the actions of government.  The OWS riots in Oakland, CA prove the point.  America is not as enlightened as we believe we are.  Someone is going to pay a price for that, and in my opinion it will be the Democratic and Republican Partys who have become dinosaures.  My God Americans are taking to the street because they are losing their homes and jobs, how much more clear does this have to be?  Meanwhile network news anchors ask, "What does OWS mean?"  Well, duh, the American people are pissed, elected officials should know why, otherwise they should step down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can get your thoughts together on freedom and liberty, please drop them into a concise three sentence paragraph.  The end of your post sounds like a Pat Robertson political sermon.  Please cut to the chase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me with your first sentence, your premise is false. You need to grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could care less if I lost you.  You are living proof of brainwashing in America.  If you can not understand that lobbyists buy their way around laws, we have nothing to discuss, you are simply ignorant of the facts.  There are over *eight million* links in Google under "Lobbyists buy influence," here is one of them.  Coalition urged to act over lobbyists who use party groups 'to buy influence' | Politics | The Guardian  I suggest you try Google before you post, no one likes to look stupid.
Click to expand...


Okay You are an Idiot, and you need to grow up.


----------



## Intense

lilylu said:


> Protesters should start wearing tea bags on their hats so that the police will leave them alone!!!  Why didn't the police use force with the tea baggers?  This is something that I don't understand.  The tea baggers were occupying public spaces and there were no arrests and no police brutality...why?!  The 99% are peacefully protesting using their right to assemble and yet the police come in riot gear and shoot rubber bullets and tear gas????  I want to know why they didn't do that to the tea baggers.  Someone please help me to understand that.  Do corporations own our police dept.?  Are we becoming a military ruled country?
> l



Maybe after nap time someone could explain it to you. You do know the difference between a Rally and A Demonstration? Good place to start. Interesting that you are disappointed that The Tea Party People were not shot at or arrested, for being behaved.


----------



## Preius

Intense said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> You lost me with your first sentence, your premise is false. You need to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could care less if I lost you.  You are living proof of brainwashing in America.  If you can not understand that lobbyists buy their way around laws, we have nothing to discuss, you are simply ignorant of the facts.  There are over *eight million* links in Google under "Lobbyists buy influence," here is one of them.  Coalition urged to act over lobbyists who use party groups 'to buy influence' | Politics | The Guardian  I suggest you try Google before you post, no one likes to look stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay You are an Idiot, and you need to grow up.
Click to expand...


This is what I enjoy about the right, why not just hang out a sign that says you do not know what you are talking about?

You provide

1).  *No* facts to support your arguments.

2).*  No* links to support your statements.

3).  *No* logical background to support your remarks.

4).  *No* no concept of the words in the U. S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, or D of I.

By the fourth word of your post you have jumped into name calling, and it is really not very creative.  Why not just cut and paste your posts?  After the first couple words, no one reads any more any way?  Viewers are looking for original ideas to consider, supported by back up information.  You offer cardboard.  Not very appealing.


----------



## earlycuyler

Preius said:


> Here is the perspective of Bill Maher's left about the OWS movemnent.  Don't be mislead by right wing efforts to smear the 99%.  Get the facts, decide for yourself.
> 
> Real Time with.Bill Maher 2011.09.30 with Van Jones About our "Occuby Wall Street" - YouTube



Who gots the facts ?


----------



## The Gadfly

lilylu said:


> Protesters should start wearing tea bags on their hats so that the police will leave them alone!!!  Why didn't the police use force with the tea baggers?  This is something that I don't understand.  The tea baggers were occupying public spaces and there were no arrests and no police brutality...why?!  The 99% are peacefully protesting using their right to assemble and yet the police come in riot gear and shoot rubber bullets and tear gas????  I want to know why they didn't do that to the tea baggers.  Someone please help me to understand that.  Do corporations own our police dept.?  Are we becoming a military ruled country?
> l



Why? Well, maybe because the Tea Party folks weren't blocking public streets, demonstrating without permits, urinating and defecating in the public parks, and threatening to incite riots; in short, because they were actually obeying the law, instead of defying the law. There is a constitutional right to free speech; there is NO constitutional right to incite riot! This little OWS movement, such as it is, has threatened violent insurrection; some of its sympathizers have said so, right here on this board. Violent insurrection has consequences; it is not permitted by law or the constitution, and will be put down, by whatever means are necessary. There is NO "right to revolution" in America either! Do feel free to try, however; should you survive, you will enjoy a nice view from your prison cell!


----------



## The Gadfly

Preius said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could care less if I lost you.  You are living proof of brainwashing in America.  If you can not understand that lobbyists buy their way around laws, we have nothing to discuss, you are simply ignorant of the facts.  There are over *eight million* links in Google under "Lobbyists buy influence," here is one of them.  Coalition urged to act over lobbyists who use party groups 'to buy influence' | Politics | The Guardian  I suggest you try Google before you post, no one likes to look stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay You are an Idiot, and you need to grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I enjoy about the right, why not just hang out a sign that says you do not know what you are talking about?
> 
> You provide
> 
> 1).  *No* facts to support your arguments.
> 
> 2).*  No* links to support your statements.
> 
> 3).  *No* logical background to support your remarks.
> 
> 4).  *No* no concept of the words in the U. S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, or D of I.
> 
> By the fourth word of your post you have jumped into name calling, and it is really not very creative.  Why not just cut and paste your posts?  After the first couple words, no one reads any more any way?  Viewers are looking for original ideas to consider, supported by back up information.  You offer cardboard.  Not very appealing.
Click to expand...


Despite all the crap you've spouted Preius,the only facts that matter are these: (1) This republic is ruled by laws and the constitution; nothing more , nothing less, The Declaration of Independence is neither law, nor the Constitution; however noble the sentiments within it, the Declaration is NOT a governing document of the United States.  (2) The law and the Constitution contain no "right to revolution" or any "right" to riot or armed insurrection. Any such insurrection WILL be suppressed and any surviving revolutionaries WILL be tried, convicted, and imprisoned! Those are the only "facts" that matter; none of the rest of the totalitarian garbage you advocate will ever be put in place because of those facts, whether YOU like it or not. You can go ahead with your fantasies of another French Revolution, but it is NOT going to happen here, and that is one FACT you had better accept.


----------



## Intense

Preius said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could care less if I lost you.  You are living proof of brainwashing in America.  If you can not understand that lobbyists buy their way around laws, we have nothing to discuss, you are simply ignorant of the facts.  There are over *eight million* links in Google under "Lobbyists buy influence," here is one of them.  Coalition urged to act over lobbyists who use party groups 'to buy influence' | Politics | The Guardian  I suggest you try Google before you post, no one likes to look stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay You are an Idiot, and you need to grow up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is what I enjoy about the right, why not just hang out a sign that says you do not know what you are talking about?
> 
> You provide
> 
> 1).  *No* facts to support your arguments.
> 
> 2).*  No* links to support your statements.
> 
> 3).  *No* logical background to support your remarks.
> 
> 4).  *No* no concept of the words in the U. S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, or D of I.
> 
> By the fourth word of your post you have jumped into name calling, and it is really not very creative.  Why not just cut and paste your posts?  After the first couple words, no one reads any more any way?  Viewers are looking for original ideas to consider, supported by back up information.  You offer cardboard.  Not very appealing.
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing with you, Dude. You're not worth it. You have not had a legitimate argument on this thread. I'm just calling your spin, spin. You are not interested in truth or justice, or doing the right thing. You want Revolt, and you want to be in a comfortable position of Leadership, should your Fantasy Dictatorship materialize. There are people out there, protesting for Justice, fair enough, you just aren't one of them. You are about Insurrection, you have plainly stated that. There is no place for that in Peaceful Protest. You want a Revolution, you have made that plain. What facts need I provide to you? What could you possibly be interested in other than your own end, by any means? Where you are now, there is little or nothing I can say to convince you of anything. I'm telling you that you are on the wrong track, that's all I can do. You are here to influence people to do harmful things, you do it in a very underhanded way. The evidence of what I claim is in your own Posts.


----------



## nitroz

Well, I think they should go after corporations who outsource jobs overseas.

And whether they realize this or not, they need to have ruthless and aggressive campaigns against politicians and congress members by calling for impeachment and change of laws.

Such as illegal immigration issues. They need to just attack that and make it where ILLEGALS GET DEPORTED! Thats why soooo many jobs are gone and we pay for them to walk on us while they get the illegal privileges from to government that is funded by us.

If the immigration problem was fixed, then unemployment would go down by 25%-40% and debts would be much lower. The next thing to work on would be to have stricter FCC rules on imports with bans on counterfeit/cloned goods. 




The bad guys are the politicians who manipulate for a profit. (and they take our tax dollars to have outrageous benefits/salaries) We need to impeach and punish them 1 by 1.


----------



## Intense

The city has stripped Occupy Wall Street protesters of their power.

Dozens of firefighters and police officers entered Zuccotti Park Friday morning to confiscate generators and gas canisters.

Fire trucks and police vans pulled up on the corner of Broadway and Liberty St. at about 8:30 a.m. and asked the encamped demonstrators to bring the items to them, saying they were a health and fire hazard.

"They made an announcement on a bullhorn saying: 'We are here to take the generators, could you please bring them up to us on the corner of Broadway and Liberty St.,'" protester James Bennett said.

When no one from Occupy Wall Street surrendered the generators, more than 30 uniformed FDNY and NYPD officials entered the park to seize them, witnesses and officials said.

"We did send 30 or 40 firefighters through the park, the police department had its community affairs department there to make sure everyone was safe," Mayor Bloomberg said on his weekly radio show Friday.

"Our first two concerns are the First Amendment and safety, and this was about safety."

Read more: Occupy Wall Street protesters stripped of their power, literally, by fire department and NYPD  - NY Daily News


----------



## Intense

Today
snow 	Rain this morning...then rain...snow with isolated thunderstorms this afternoon. Rain may be heavy at times this morning. Little or no snow accumulation. Windy with highs in the mid 40s. Temperature falling into the mid 30s this afternoon. Northeast winds 10 to 15 mph with gusts up to 25 mph...increasing to 15 to 25 mph with gusts up to 45 mph this afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent. 

Tonight
nt_snow 	Rain...snow with isolated thunderstorms in the evening... then snow likely after midnight. Total snow accumulation of 3 to 5 inches. Windy. Near steady temperature in the mid 30s. North winds 20 to 25 mph with gusts up to 50 mph. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent. 


http://www.wunderground.com/US/NY/New_York.html


----------



## Dragon

The Gadfly said:


> Despite all the crap you've spouted Preius,the only facts that matter are these: (1) This republic is ruled by laws and the constitution; nothing more , nothing less, The Declaration of Independence is neither law, nor the Constitution; however noble the sentiments within it, the Declaration is NOT a governing document of the United States.  (2) The law and the Constitution contain no "right to revolution" or any "right" to riot or armed insurrection.



And yet I believe that Jefferson expressed a truth that transcends the law. You are right only to the extent that there is no _legal_ right of revolution; there is, nonetheless, a moral right, and it is also a practical inevitability when the government has lost the consent of the governed, as clearly it has at the moment. The question is not whether a revolution can happen, but rather whether the government can recover the consent of the governed before that point is reached.

The people have an understanding about how the Constitution is supposed to operate, and their support for the Constitution is conditional upon its working as advertised. Part of that understanding is that the elected official act upon the will of the voters. If they are instead acting upon the will of monied interests that fund their campaign, then the pact is broken and the system is due for an overhaul, one way or another.

If you think that the U.S. Constitution is immune to being overthrown merely because it is, for the moment, the law of the land, I refer you to the example of the Soviet Union, which also broke its promises to the people and did not stand, or to the various Arab governments overthrown in recent times, or to Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, or to any other government throughout history that has been overthrown by its own people when it lost their support.

A democracy is normally immune to that sort of thing because it channels dissent into voting rather than revolution. But since the United States has ceased to be a democracy and become a plutocracy, that affords us no protection anymore.


----------



## georgephillip

In the 2011 version of USA, Inc the bottom two-thirds of African-Americans are worse off economically than the day King marched on Selma in 1965. There are more African-American men in jail or prison or on probation or parole today than were enslaved in 1850.

In his latest post, Chris Hedges makes the connection between OWS and the fall of communism twenty years ago:

"The (US) power elite are frantically searching for the ideological weapon that will discredit the (OWS) movement...

"The power elite, held together by the glue of *force and fraud*, are seeking ways to communicate in the only language they know they can masterunrestrained force... 

"If the movement starts to pull hundreds of thousands of people together, *if it leaps across class lines*, as I saw during the peaceful revolutions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, *then the corporate state is probably finished*. 

"Our corporate overlords know this. 

"And they are doing everything in their power to make sure this does not come to pass."

Occupiers Have to Convince the Other 99 Percent | Truthout


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> In the 2011 version of USA, Inc the bottom two-thirds of African-Americans are worse off economically than the day King marched on Selma in 1965. There are more African-American men in jail or prison or on probation or parole today than were enslaved in 1850.
> 
> In his latest post, Chris Hedges makes the connection between OWS and the fall of communism twenty years ago:
> 
> "The (US) power elite are frantically searching for the ideological weapon that will discredit the (OWS) movement...
> 
> "The power elite, held together by the glue of *force and fraud*, are seeking ways to communicate in the only language they know they can masterunrestrained force...
> 
> "If the movement starts to pull hundreds of thousands of people together, *if it leaps across class lines*, as I saw during the peaceful revolutions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, *then the corporate state is probably finished*.
> 
> "Our corporate overlords know this.
> 
> "And they are doing everything in their power to make sure this does not come to pass."
> 
> Occupiers Have to Convince the Other 99 Percent | Truthout



The Monopolies are maybe finished. We need Corporate to project free Trade George, you never have the need to borrow, take risk, fine, others do. Risk and Profit are a part of the equation. We just want an honest deal with the rules not changing mid hand. No Booby Traps. That's the issue more at hand. Fair Play, not predetermined outcome or redistribution. Incentive.


----------



## georgephillip

Intense said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 2011 version of USA, Inc the bottom two-thirds of African-Americans are worse off economically than the day King marched on Selma in 1965. There are more African-American men in jail or prison or on probation or parole today than were enslaved in 1850.
> 
> In his latest post, Chris Hedges makes the connection between OWS and the fall of communism twenty years ago:
> 
> "The (US) power elite are frantically searching for the ideological weapon that will discredit the (OWS) movement...
> 
> "The power elite, held together by the glue of *force and fraud*, are seeking ways to communicate in the only language they know they can masterunrestrained force...
> 
> "If the movement starts to pull hundreds of thousands of people together, *if it leaps across class lines*, as I saw during the peaceful revolutions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, *then the corporate state is probably finished*.
> 
> "Our corporate overlords know this.
> 
> "And they are doing everything in their power to make sure this does not come to pass."
> 
> Occupiers Have to Convince the Other 99 Percent | Truthout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Monopolies are maybe finished. We need Corporate to project free Trade George, you never have the need to borrow, take risk, fine, others do. Risk and Profit are a part of the equation. We just want an honest deal with the rules not changing mid hand. No Booby Traps. That's the issue more at hand. Fair Play, not predetermined outcome or redistribution. Incentive.
Click to expand...

*Do you actually expect an honest deal from Goldman Sachs?*

Most civilized humans believe it's morally wrong to physically take money from the pockets of someone half your size. The most successful players on Wall Street would also agree with that specific example of force or fraud.

The Wall Street player, however, thinks it is entirely moral to take money from someone who has less knowledge or education in regard to financial matters.

If government is not your choice to regulate psychotic behavior in all forms of force or fraud, what is?


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the 2011 version of USA, Inc the bottom two-thirds of African-Americans are worse off economically than the day King marched on Selma in 1965. There are more African-American men in jail or prison or on probation or parole today than were enslaved in 1850.
> 
> In his latest post, Chris Hedges makes the connection between OWS and the fall of communism twenty years ago:
> 
> "The (US) power elite are frantically searching for the ideological weapon that will discredit the (OWS) movement...
> 
> "The power elite, held together by the glue of *force and fraud*, are seeking ways to communicate in the only language they know they can masterunrestrained force...
> 
> "If the movement starts to pull hundreds of thousands of people together, *if it leaps across class lines*, as I saw during the peaceful revolutions in East Germany and Czechoslovakia, *then the corporate state is probably finished*.
> 
> "Our corporate overlords know this.
> 
> "And they are doing everything in their power to make sure this does not come to pass."
> 
> Occupiers Have to Convince the Other 99 Percent | Truthout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Monopolies are maybe finished. We need Corporate to project free Trade George, you never have the need to borrow, take risk, fine, others do. Risk and Profit are a part of the equation. We just want an honest deal with the rules not changing mid hand. No Booby Traps. That's the issue more at hand. Fair Play, not predetermined outcome or redistribution. Incentive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do you actually expect an honest deal from Goldman Sachs?*
> 
> Most civilized humans believe it's morally wrong to physically take money from the pockets of someone half your size. The most successful players on Wall Street would also agree with that specific example of force or fraud.
> 
> The Wall Street player, however, thinks it is entirely moral to take money from someone who has less knowledge or education in regard to financial matters.
> 
> If government is not your choice to regulate psychotic behavior in all forms of force or fraud, what is?
Click to expand...


Government should play a Role, so should, Transparency, Reason, Competition.


----------



## Samson

Intense said:


> The city has stripped Occupy Wall Street protesters of their power.
> 
> Dozens of firefighters and police officers entered Zuccotti Park Friday morning to confiscate generators and gas canisters.





Damnit

Right after I donated a bunch of Hibachi grills and bags of charcoal to use in their tents.


----------



## Intense

Samson said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The city has stripped Occupy Wall Street protesters of their power.
> 
> Dozens of firefighters and police officers entered Zuccotti Park Friday morning to confiscate generators and gas canisters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damnit
> 
> Right after I donated a bunch of Hibachi grills and bags of charcoal to use in their tents.
Click to expand...


Hey, the snow is coming down pretty hard right now in Queens. Misery Index must be pretty high. Still waiting for the winds to kick in.


----------



## Samson

Intense said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The city has stripped Occupy Wall Street protesters of their power.
> 
> Dozens of firefighters and police officers entered Zuccotti Park Friday morning to confiscate generators and gas canisters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damnit
> 
> Right after I donated a bunch of Hibachi grills and bags of charcoal to use in their tents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, the snow is coming down pretty hard right now in Queens. Misery Index must be pretty high. Still waiting for the winds to kick in.
Click to expand...


Are you saying there's still Hope that they'll light up those Hibachis to keep warm in their tightly closed tents?


Knowing that my donation won't go to waste really makes me feel proud of The Movement.


----------



## chanel

The "Occupy Philly - End the Silence March" has been moved to the subway.  Does that still count as a "march"?


----------



## Intense

Samson said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damnit
> 
> Right after I donated a bunch of Hibachi grills and bags of charcoal to use in their tents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, the snow is coming down pretty hard right now in Queens. Misery Index must be pretty high. Still waiting for the winds to kick in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you saying there's still Hope that they'll light up those Hibachis to keep warm in their tightly closed tents?
> 
> 
> Knowing that my donation won't go to waste really makes me feel proud of The Movement.
Click to expand...


Nah. I'm thinking they should march on the Upper West side and hit the DNC where it hurts for a change. I'd say hit Central Park, but the snow fall is going to bring down allot of tree branches this early in the season. The Park will be dangerous the next few days.


----------



## Samson

chanel said:


> The "Occupy Philly - End the Silence March" has been moved to the subway.  Does that still count as a "march"?



As long as the "movement" moves closer to the sewer, its going in the right direction.


----------



## Intense

chanel said:


> The "Occupy Philly - End the Silence March" has been moved to the subway.  Does that still count as a "march"?



Yes.  At least they had brains enough to seek shelter. Next question, should Demonstrators get to ride for free?


----------



## Samson

Intense said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, the snow is coming down pretty hard right now in Queens. Misery Index must be pretty high. Still waiting for the winds to kick in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying there's still Hope that they'll light up those Hibachis to keep warm in their tightly closed tents?
> 
> 
> Knowing that my donation won't go to waste really makes me feel proud of The Movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah. I'm thinking they should march on the Upper West side and hit the DNC where it hurts for a change. I'd say hit Central Park, but the snow fall is going to bring down allot of tree branches this early in the season. The Park will be dangerous the next few days.
Click to expand...




Oh NO!!

I'd hate for anyone to get hurt.


----------



## Intense

Samson said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying there's still Hope that they'll light up those Hibachis to keep warm in their tightly closed tents?
> 
> 
> Knowing that my donation won't go to waste really makes me feel proud of The Movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. I'm thinking they should march on the Upper West side and hit the DNC where it hurts for a change. I'd say hit Central Park, but the snow fall is going to bring down allot of tree branches this early in the season. The Park will be dangerous the next few days.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh NO!!
> 
> I'd hate for anyone to get hurt.
Click to expand...


Keep in mind, it is a diverse group. Not all are enemies of the State. Not all are seeking Insurrection. A good many don't even know what they want.


----------



## Samson

Intense said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah. I'm thinking they should march on the Upper West side and hit the DNC where it hurts for a change. I'd say hit Central Park, but the snow fall is going to bring down allot of tree branches this early in the season. The Park will be dangerous the next few days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh NO!!
> 
> I'd hate for anyone to get hurt.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, it is a diverse group. Not all are enemies of the State. Not all are seeking Insurrection. A good many don't even know what they want.
Click to expand...


Indeed: they will be missed the most.



Who will flip hamburgers?


----------



## Intense

Thunder and Winds starting up a bit. 

I'm thinking, why not Calamari?


----------



## Intense

Thunder and Winds starting up a bit. 

I'm thinking, why not Calamari?

Anyone you knew?


----------



## Jos

> THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.


December 23, 1776


----------



## Intense

A reminder of why we sought Independence in the first place. We don't Abandon Property Rights.


In our own native land, in defense of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it -- for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.

With a humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the Empire from the calamities of civil war.

By order of Congress,

JOHN HANCOCK,
President

Attested,

CHARLES THOMSON,
Secretary

PHILADELPHIA, July 6th, 1775

Declaration of Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1775


----------



## Intense

A reminder of why we sought Independence in the first place. We don't Abandon Property Rights, Rich or Poor.


In our own native land, in defense of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it -- for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.

With a humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the Empire from the calamities of civil war.

By order of Congress,

JOHN HANCOCK,
President

Attested,

CHARLES THOMSON,
Secretary

PHILADELPHIA, July 6th, 1775

Declaration of Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1775


----------



## georgephillip

Intense said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Monopolies are maybe finished. We need Corporate to project free Trade George, you never have the need to borrow, take risk, fine, others do. Risk and Profit are a part of the equation. We just want an honest deal with the rules not changing mid hand. No Booby Traps. That's the issue more at hand. Fair Play, not predetermined outcome or redistribution. Incentive.
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you actually expect an honest deal from Goldman Sachs?*
> 
> Most civilized humans believe it's morally wrong to physically take money from the pockets of someone half your size. The most successful players on Wall Street would also agree with that specific example of force or fraud.
> 
> The Wall Street player, however, thinks it is entirely moral to take money from someone who has less knowledge or education in regard to financial matters.
> 
> If government is not your choice to regulate psychotic behavior in all forms of force or fraud, what is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Government should play a Role, so should, Transparency, Reason, Competition.
Click to expand...

*Let's be specific.*

No one can be sure at this time what happens to Wall Street if European banks are forced to sell "mountains of assets" in order to avoid a Lehman Brothers fate. It is possible Europeans will delay or reneg on some repayments for Wall Street loans.

In recent days Bank of America has moved some of its riskiest derivatives from its Merrill Lynch unit to a retail division where deposits are insured by the taxpayers.

If Wall Street demands more bailouts from US taxpayers, OWS will not be sympathetic.
Will you?


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Do you actually expect an honest deal from Goldman Sachs?*
> 
> Most civilized humans believe it's morally wrong to physically take money from the pockets of someone half your size. The most successful players on Wall Street would also agree with that specific example of force or fraud.
> 
> The Wall Street player, however, thinks it is entirely moral to take money from someone who has less knowledge or education in regard to financial matters.
> 
> If government is not your choice to regulate psychotic behavior in all forms of force or fraud, what is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government should play a Role, so should, Transparency, Reason, Competition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Let's be specific.*
> 
> No one can be sure at this time what happens to Wall Street if European banks are forced to sell "mountains of assets" in order to avoid a Lehman Brothers fate. It is possible Europeans will delay or reneg on some repayments for Wall Street loans.
> 
> In recent days Bank of America has moved some of its riskiest derivatives from its Merrill Lynch unit to a retail division where deposits are insured by the taxpayers.
> 
> If Wall Street demands more bailouts from US taxpayers, OWS will not be sympathetic.
> Will you?
Click to expand...


I'm no authority in investing or bailouts, George. Hell, I don't like Monopolies, Subsidies, Back Room Government deals with the Devil, so I'm the wrong one to ask for Sympathy for Conglomerates. 

What I would like to see is Protected Reward for Individual Savings Accounts up to a certain amount, let's say for amounts untouched for a Year or more, with guaranteed returns after taxes above the rate of Inflation or Devaluation. Anything less than that is Government Theft.  It also could be the foundation from where Banks should be getting their working Capital, not Government controlled Printing Presses. I know it's fantasy, but, It is a Ground Up Firewall. If we were there now, I don't think we would be so vulnerable. 

I do not believe inh Too big to fail. The Measures are arbitrary, and the Life Rafts are Invitation Only.


----------



## Preius

Intense said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay You are an Idiot, and you need to grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I enjoy about the right, why not just hang out a sign that says you do not know what you are talking about?
> 
> You provide
> 
> 1).  *No* facts to support your arguments.
> 
> 2).*  No* links to support your statements.
> 
> 3).  *No* logical background to support your remarks.
> 
> 4).  *No* no concept of the words in the U. S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, or D of I.
> 
> By the fourth word of your post you have jumped into name calling, and it is really not very creative.  Why not just cut and paste your posts?  After the first couple words, no one reads any more any way?  Viewers are looking for original ideas to consider, supported by back up information.  You offer cardboard.  Not very appealing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not arguing with you, Dude. *You're not worth it.* You have not had a legitimate argument on this thread. I'm just calling your spin, spin. You are not interested in truth or justice, or doing the right thing. You want Revolt, and you want to be in a comfortable position of Leadership, should your Fantasy Dictatorship materialize. There are people out there, protesting for Justice, fair enough, you just aren't one of them. You are about Insurrection, you have plainly stated that. There is no place for that in Peaceful Protest. You want a Revolution, you have made that plain. What facts need I provide to you? What could you possibly be interested in other than your own end, by any means? Where you are now, there is little or nothing I can say to convince you of anything. I'm telling you that you are on the wrong track, that's all I can do. You are here to influence people to do harmful things, you do it in a very underhanded way. The evidence of what I claim is in your own Posts.
Click to expand...


This is what I love about the freak show on USMB.  An anonymous poster tells me I am not worth it, because I ask for backup for his remarks.  How does he know that "I am not worth it?"  Maybe I am the one who will find a cure for cancer, or was Benjamin Franklin in another life.  It does anger me when posters just vomit whatever pops into their mind onto the boards instead of crafting their words.

*Bottom line*, I simply ask for facts, so you accuse me of spinning.  

And when it is all said and done, I restate my previous post, and still don't have a credible answer from.......  Intense is it?



> You provide
> 
> 1).  *No* facts to support your arguments.
> 
> 2).*  No* links to support your statements.
> 
> 3).  *No* logical background to support your remarks.
> 
> 4).  *No* no concept of the words in the U. S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, or D of I.



I do feel a little cheated, I did not get the customary righty name-calling to conclude your post.


----------



## Preius

georgephillip said:


> Preius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several months ago the corporate press noted how quickly Bill Clinton earned his first $100 million.
> 
> If Obama gets a second term he will likely succeed in privatizing Social Security and earn his first $billion in less time than Clinton needed to reach 100 million.
> 
> There are multiple established third party candidates already appearing on every California ballot.
> In theory, the internet could be used to convince millions of California voters to vote AGAINST every Republican AND Democrat running for reelection in 2012 at all levels of government.
> 
> This "anti-vote" argument usually results in millions of eligible voters refusing to participate in elections. Sometimes 30% to 40% of those who could cast their ballot simply don't see anything worth voting for.
> 
> Providing an option to vote AGAINST Wall Street and the Pentagon by FLUSHING Republicans and Democrats from DC in 2012 could give Obama more Hope and Change than he can handle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, the last thing this Dem wants to hear is more negative about our Democratic president.  We in the Democratic base have serious questions about his commitment to the Democratic Party. * I need an extremely credible link that President Obama would privatize Social Security.*
> 
> Obama is a phoney liberal, but if he tried to privatize Social Security the Democrats would impeach him for the Republicans.  I am going to follow up with you on your claim.  You had best be able to back it up.  I think it is BS.
> 
> Republicans can not be content with the political chaos in Washington, they tend to oversell their point, and usually lose the entire argument.  Somehow I have a feeling that georgephillip  will be quietly dancing away from 'privatized Social Security' in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Tell me who qualifies as a credible source in your opinion?*
> 
> Dean Baker?
> Robert Reich?
> Chomsky?
> 
> Jeffrey Liebman?
> 
> "Liebman has supported partial PRIVATIZATION of the government-run retirement system, an idea that is rejected by many Democrats and bears a similarity to a proposal for so-called "personal investment accounts" that Bush promoted in 2005.
> 
> "'Liebman has been open to private accounts,' said Michael Tanner, a Social Security expert at the Cato Institute in Washington, a think tank in Washington that advocates 'free markets' and often backs Republicans. The Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick plan to loot Social Security also promises raising regressive payroll taxes, cutting benefits, or a combination of both."
> 
> Obama's Plan To Privatize Social Security
> 
> Do you believe Bill Clinton flirted with privatizing SS about the same time as Monica?
> That $2.6 trillion trust fund is the last big pot for Wall Street.
> Only a Democratic president can deliver it.
> 
> I respectfully suggest you ask yourself if you are judging Obama by the content of his character (and policies) or by the color of his skin.
Click to expand...


Your pitch is that "Obama has a plan to privatize Social Security." When all you really have to back you up is an obscure blog, "rense.com."  Would you say that ranks that up there with the _New York Times_ or CBS news!!!  

Even your own link reports that this is an economics professor that advised president Obama on Social Security and discussed privatization.  This is a blatant twisting of facts.  You have no evidence that President Obama wants privatization.  You are nailed.  

Then you throw Obama's skin color in?  WTF.  God I hope you are not one of ours from the left.  This is the kind of crap that chases away indy voters!


----------



## georgephillip

Would you say the New York Times or CBS News is likely to report honestly on early efforts to privatize Social Security? I don't remember either *1% corporate entity* reporting much about Bill Clinton's brief flirtation with the idea.

Obama put SS "on the table" for consideration by his Deficit Commission even though SS has not contributed a penny to the deficit. Yet.

Obama's FICA tax holiday for workers changes that dynamic since decreased FICA contributions are to be offset by funds from general revenues. The President's decision to continue this scheme deepens the relationship between SS and "debt."

"In the worst case, Congress could choose to enact the payroll tax cut without actually appropriating revenue compensation for the Trust Fund.  This would mean that the payroll tax cut directly depletes the Trust Fund, creating financial/actuarial problems far sooner than the currently anticipated shortfall date of 2036."

If Americans are gullible enough to give Obama a second term, he will likely repay Goldman Sachs for the $900,000 donation to his 2008 campaign by calling for his "folks" to support "reform" of Social Security.

*And the 1% will win again.*

The Payroll Tax Holiday: Talk about a Ponzi Scheme! | Common Dreams


----------



## steeliniraq

So what is the solution from the occupy wall street crew? All i heard was to take from hard working people and give to other people which isnt exactly American. In Pittsburgh an Army recruiter went down and offered those protesting a job in the Army. All of them laughed and said the Army didnt pay enough. Interesting how that works. Maybe, we as Americans just dont get that you dont just come out of college and get a job making $300000 a year. We have seemed to forget about that whole got to school AND work hard and climb the ladder and one day you will make a great life for yourself. Just saying


----------



## georgephillip

steeliniraq said:


> So what is the solution from the occupy wall street crew? All i heard was to take from hard working people and give to other people which isnt exactly American. In Pittsburgh an Army recruiter went down and offered those protesting a job in the Army. All of them laughed and said the Army didnt pay enough. Interesting how that works. Maybe, we as Americans just dont get that you dont just come out of college and get a job making $300000 a year. We have seemed to forget about that whole got to school AND work hard and climb the ladder and one day you will make a great life for yourself. Just saying


According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office that was issued last week, between 1979 and 2007 the incomes of the richest 1% grew by 275% and then came the looting of 2008 which resulted in millions of foreclosures and job losses.

Three years later many of the 1% who caused the Great Recession have increased their share of national income to nearly 25%.

OWS is saying to prosecute those responsible for crashing the global economy in 2008 and redistribute the money they have stolen.

Thirty Years of Unleashed Greed | Common Dreams


----------



## JStone

georgephillip said:


> steeliniraq said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the solution from the occupy wall street crew? All i heard was to take from hard working people and give to other people which isnt exactly American. In Pittsburgh an Army recruiter went down and offered those protesting a job in the Army. All of them laughed and said the Army didnt pay enough. Interesting how that works. Maybe, we as Americans just dont get that you dont just come out of college and get a job making $300000 a year. We have seemed to forget about that whole got to school AND work hard and climb the ladder and one day you will make a great life for yourself. Just saying
> 
> 
> 
> According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office that was issued last week, between 1979 and 2007 the incomes of the richest 1% grew by 275% and then came the looting of 2008 which resulted in millions of foreclosures and job losses.
> 
> Three years later many of the 1% who caused the Great Recession have increased their share of national income to nearly 25%.
> 
> OWS is saying to prosecute those responsible for crashing the global economy in 2008 and redistribute the money they have stolen.
> 
> Thirty Years of Unleashed Greed | Common Dreams
Click to expand...


Georgie, still whining because you're a loser in life?


----------



## The Gadfly

steeliniraq said:


> So what is the solution from the occupy wall street crew? All i heard was to take from hard working people and give to other people which isnt exactly American. In Pittsburgh an Army recruiter went down and offered those protesting a job in the Army. All of them laughed and said the Army didnt pay enough. Interesting how that works. Maybe, we as Americans just dont get that you dont just come out of college and get a job making $300000 a year. We have seemed to forget about that whole got to school AND work hard and climb the ladder and one day you will make a great life for yourself. Just saying



Oh, this crowd consider themselves far too good for the military; why, they might have to get some dirt and calluses on those soft, manicured, little, entitled hands; good grief, they might even get hurt! We can't have THAT- they are, after all,  "INTELLECTUALS",  don't you know, and far superior to me and you; therefore they should have what others worked for, simply given to them! I wouldn't worry too much; the vast majority of them will yell and screech, and throw rocks and feces like bored monkeys at the zoo, but few if any of them have the guts to pick up a rifle and use it,(as if most of them knew which end the round comes out of)! Much sound and fury, signifying NOTHING but the desperate lunacy of their far-Left masters and puppeteers who have orchestrated this stinking, wretched little "movement" of crybabies and losers. For all the bluster, even a little pepper spray makes them cry "police brutality" like the whining little children they are. My, what great, brave "warriors" they are! Some revolutionaries; this filthy rabble of sandy vaginas, like their hippie progenitors, couldn't start a real revolution in the lowliest, two-bit banana republic. Nothing but arrogant, pompous, treasonous, little windbags and whiners, but they are going to "fight" us "knuckle-draggers"-I am just shaking in my jump boots, in anticipation of their "terrible swift sword"!


----------



## The Gadfly

georgephillip said:


> steeliniraq said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the solution from the occupy wall street crew? All i heard was to take from hard working people and give to other people which isnt exactly American. In Pittsburgh an Army recruiter went down and offered those protesting a job in the Army. All of them laughed and said the Army didnt pay enough. Interesting how that works. Maybe, we as Americans just dont get that you dont just come out of college and get a job making $300000 a year. We have seemed to forget about that whole got to school AND work hard and climb the ladder and one day you will make a great life for yourself. Just saying
> 
> 
> 
> According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office that was issued last week, between 1979 and 2007 the incomes of the richest 1% grew by 275% and then came the looting of 2008 which resulted in millions of foreclosures and job losses.
> 
> Three years later many of the 1% who caused the Great Recession have increased their share of national income to nearly 25%.
> 
> OWS is saying to prosecute those responsible for crashing the global economy in 2008 and redistribute the money they have stolen.
> 
> Thirty Years of Unleashed Greed | Common Dreams
Click to expand...


You and they, Georgie, can wish in one hand, defecate in the other, and see which fills up first.


----------



## georgephillip

JStone said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steeliniraq said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the solution from the occupy wall street crew? All i heard was to take from hard working people and give to other people which isnt exactly American. In Pittsburgh an Army recruiter went down and offered those protesting a job in the Army. All of them laughed and said the Army didnt pay enough. Interesting how that works. Maybe, we as Americans just dont get that you dont just come out of college and get a job making $300000 a year. We have seemed to forget about that whole got to school AND work hard and climb the ladder and one day you will make a great life for yourself. Just saying
> 
> 
> 
> According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office that was issued last week, between 1979 and 2007 the incomes of the richest 1% grew by 275% and then came the looting of 2008 which resulted in millions of foreclosures and job losses.
> 
> Three years later many of the 1% who caused the Great Recession have increased their share of national income to nearly 25%.
> 
> OWS is saying to prosecute those responsible for crashing the global economy in 2008 and redistribute the money they have stolen.
> 
> Thirty Years of Unleashed Greed | Common Dreams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Georgie, still whining because you're a loser in life?
Click to expand...

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, '*a little loyal Jewish Ulster* in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'&#8221;

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

Are you still stealing your neighbors' land and water and killing their children for the benefit of the 1%?

Harvard approves.


----------



## Samson

georgephillip said:


> steeliniraq said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is the solution from the occupy wall street crew? All i heard was to take from hard working people and give to other people which isnt exactly American. In Pittsburgh an Army recruiter went down and offered those protesting a job in the Army. All of them laughed and said the Army didnt pay enough. Interesting how that works. Maybe, we as Americans just dont get that you dont just come out of college and get a job making $300000 a year. We have seemed to forget about that whole got to school AND work hard and climb the ladder and one day you will make a great life for yourself. Just saying
> 
> 
> 
> According to a report by the Congressional Budget Office that was issued last week, between 1979 and 2007 the incomes of the richest 1% grew by 275% and then came the looting of 2008 which resulted in millions of foreclosures and job losses.
> 
> Three years later many of the 1% who caused the Great Recession have increased their share of national income to nearly 25%.
> 
> OWS is saying to prosecute those responsible for crashing the global economy in 2008 and redistribute the money they have stolen.
> 
> Thirty Years of Unleashed Greed | Common Dreams
Click to expand...


From your source:



> Between 1979 and 2007, as the Congressional Budget Office reported this week, the average real income of the top 1 percent grew by an astounding 275 percent. And that is after payment of the taxes that _*the superrich and their Republican apologists*_ find so onerous.



Clearly their is a political incentive for connecting Republicans to the "superrich."

However _EVERYONE's_ income has increased since 1979:



> The rest of the top 20% saw their income grow 65%, while _the middle three-fifths income rose 40% _and the bottom fifth just 18%. All numbers are adjusted for inflation.



Furthermore, for the 28 year time period 1979-2007, _Democrats_, *not Republicans*, controlled congress the majority of the time, and usually by a much greater majority than Republicans ever were in control.


----------



## Intense

From a Year ago.


    According to a Roll Call analysis of Senate financial disclosure forms filed in 2010, more than half of the chamber&#8217;s membership, 54 lawmakers, reported a minimum net worth of more than $1 million. Another four Senators fell short of that mark by less than $100,000.

    In addition, more than half of the Senate&#8217;s membership saw their individual fortunes grow in 2009, the period covered by their most recent disclosure reports.

    Those increases are reflected in the chamber&#8217;s combined minimum wealth, which increased to about $680 million in 2009, or more than 4 percent higher than the previous year.

That pattern is consistent with studies showing a rebound in the U.S. millionaire population over the past year. Reported the Wall Street Journal in Sept.:

    According to a new survey from Phoenix Marketing International&#8217;s Affluent Market Practice, the number of American households with investible assets of $1 million or more rose 8% in the 12 months ended in June. The survey says there now are 5.55 million U.S. households with investible assets of $1 million or more.

    That follows two years of declines and brings the millionaire count back to 2006 levels. Of course, that is still below the peak of 5.97 million in 2007 and the current growth rate is well below pre-financial crisis levels, when the millionaire population increased as much as 35% a year.

The U.S. Senate: Now with even more millionaires | Politerati


----------



## Samson

Intense said:


> From a Year ago.
> 
> 
> According to a Roll Call analysis of Senate financial disclosure forms filed in 2010, more than half of the chamber&#8217;s membership, 54 lawmakers, reported a minimum net worth of more than $1 million. Another four Senators fell short of that mark by less than $100,000.
> 
> In addition, more than half of the Senate&#8217;s membership saw their individual fortunes grow in 2009, the period covered by their most recent disclosure reports.
> 
> Those increases are reflected in the chamber&#8217;s combined minimum wealth, which increased to about $680 million in 2009, or more than 4 percent higher than the previous year.
> 
> That pattern is consistent with studies showing a rebound in the U.S. millionaire population over the past year. Reported the Wall Street Journal in Sept.:
> 
> According to a new survey from Phoenix Marketing International&#8217;s Affluent Market Practice, the number of American households with investible assets of $1 million or more rose 8% in the 12 months ended in June. The survey says there now are 5.55 million U.S. households with investible assets of $1 million or more.
> 
> That follows two years of declines and brings the millionaire count back to 2006 levels. Of course, that is still below the peak of 5.97 million in 2007 and the current growth rate is well below pre-financial crisis levels, when the millionaire population increased as much as 35% a year.
> 
> The U.S. Senate: Now with even more millionaires | Politerati



Yeah, but only REPUBLICAN congressmen were rich....Right?

John Kerry, D-Mass.
Average net worth: $238,812,296

http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-250_162-10008411-2.html


----------



## Samson

Mark Warner, D-Va.
Average net worth: $174,385,102


----------



## Samson

Herb Kohl, D-Wis.
Average net worth: $160,302,011


----------



## Samson

Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
Average net worth: $98,832,010


----------



## Samson

Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.
Average net worth: $94,870,116


----------



## Samson

Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Average net worth: $77,082,134


----------



## Samson

Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Average net worth: $76,886,611



Read more: Frank R. Lautenberg, D-N.J. Pictures - CBS News


----------



## Samson

The quasi Republican:


Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine
Average net worth: $28,612,527



Read more: Olympia J. Snowe, R-Maine Pictures - CBS News


----------



## Intense

Octopus Meze


----------



## Intense

Octopus Meze


----------



## georgephillip

Intense said:


> A reminder of why we sought Independence in the first place. We don't Abandon Property Rights.
> 
> 
> In our own native land, in defense of the freedom that is our birthright, and which we ever enjoyed till the late violation of it -- for the protection of our property, acquired solely by the honest industry of our forefathers and ourselves, against violence actually offered, we have taken up arms. We shall lay them down when hostilities shall cease on the part of the aggressors, and all danger of their being renewed shall be removed, and not before.
> 
> With a humble confidence in the mercies of the supreme and impartial Judge and Ruler of the universe, we most devoutly implore his divine goodness to protect us happily through this great conflict, to dispose our adversaries to reconciliation on reasonable terms, and thereby to relieve the Empire from the calamities of civil war.
> 
> By order of Congress,
> 
> JOHN HANCOCK,
> President
> 
> Attested,
> 
> CHARLES THOMSON,
> Secretary
> 
> PHILADELPHIA, July 6th, 1775
> 
> Declaration of Taking Up Arms, July 6, 1775


*Who owned the private property that was dumped in Boston harbor in 1773?*

"When American colonists declared independence from England in 1776, they also freed themselves from *control by English corporations* that extracted their wealth and dominated trade.

"After fighting a revolution to end this exploitation, our country's founders retained a healthy fear of corporate power *and wisely limited corporations exclusively to a business role*. Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.

"Initially, the privilege of incorporation was granted selectively to enable activities that benefited the public, such as construction of roads or canals. *Enabling shareholders to profit was seen as a means to that end."*

History of Corporations (United States)

The rich federal bondholders and landowners who wrote our constitution crafted a government that safeguards rights and liberties with *a special emphasis on property rights*. Only the 1% would find that acceptable.


----------



## Intense

If it would be necessary to bring proof to a proposition so clear, as that which affirms that the powers of the federal government, as to its objects, were sovereign, there is a clause of its Constitution which would be decisive. It is that which declares that the Constitution, and the laws of the United States made in pursuance of it, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority, shall be the serene law of the land. The power which can create the supreme law of the land in any case, is doubtless sovereign as to such case.

This general and indisputable principle puts at once an end to the abstract question, whether the United States have power to erect a corporation; that is to say, to give a legal or artificial capacity to one or more persons, distinct from the natural. For it is unquestionably incident to sovereign power to erect corporations, and consequently to that of the United States, in relation to the objects intrusted to the management of the government. The difference is this: where the authority of the government is general, it can create corporations in ad cases, where it is confined to certain branches of legislation, it can create corporations only in those cases.

Here then, as far as concerns the reasonings of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General, the affirmative of the constitutionality of the bill might be permitted to rest. It will occur to the President, that the principle here advanced has been untouched by either of them.

For a more complete elucidation of the point, nevertheless, the arguments which they had used against the power of the government to erect corporations, however foreign they are to the great and fundamental rule which has been stated, shall be particularly examined. And after showing that they do not tend to impair its force, it shall also be shown that the power of incorporation, incident to the government in certain cases, does fairly extend to the particular case which is the object of the bill.

The first of these arguments is, that the foundation of the Constitution is laid on this ground: " That all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved for the States, or to the people." Whence it is meant to be inferred, that Congress can in no case exercise any power not Included in those not enumerated in the Constitution. And it is affirmed, that the power of erecting a corporation is not included in any of the enumerated powers.

The main proposition here laid down, in its true signification is not to be questioned. It is nothing more than a consequence of this republican maxim, that all government is a delegation of power. But how much is delegated in each case, is a question of fact, to be made out by fair reasoning and construction, upon the particular provisions of the Constitution, taking as guides the general principles and general ends of governments.

It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the tatter. And for the sake of accuracy it shall be mentioned, that there is another class of powers, which may be properly denominated resting powers. It will not be doubted, that if the United States should make a conquest of any of the territories of its neighbors, they would possess sovereign jurisdiction over the conquered territory. This would be rather a result, from the whole mass of the powers of the government, and from the nature of political society, than a consequence of either of the powers specially enumerated.

But be this as it may, it furnishes a striking illustration of the general doctrine contended for; it shows an extensive case in which a power of erecting corporations is either implied in or would result from, some or all of the powers vested in the national government. The jurisdiction acquired over such conquered country would certainly be competent to any species of legislation.

To return: It is conceded that implied powers are to be considered as delegated equally with express ones. Then it follows, that as a power of erecting a corporation may as well be implied as any other thing, it may as well be employed as an instrument or mean of carrying into execution any of the specified powers, as any other instrument or mean whatever. The only question must be in this, as in every other case, whether the mean to be employed or in this instance, the corporation to be erected, has a natural relation to any of the acknowledged objects or lawful ends of the government. Thus a corporation may not be erected by Congress for superintending the police of the city of Philadelphia, because they are not authorized to regulate the police of that city. But one may be erected in relation to the collection of taxes, or to the trade with foreign countries, or to the trade between the States, or with the Indian tribes; because it is the province of the federal government to regulate those objects, and because it is incident to a general sovereign or legislative power to regulate a thing, to employ all the means which relate to its regulation to the best and greatest advantage.
-Hamilton

Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791


----------



## Big Fitz

Samson said:


> Herb Kohl, D-Wis.
> Average net worth: $160,302,011


Yeah.  Thanks to the Dairy Queen as he's not so affectionately known, the state of Wisconsin has learned that lifetime wealth does not mean incorruptible, but rather out of touch.


----------



## georgephillip

*"Like many Americans*, I grew up believing that conservative values were about local control and personal responsibility for family, community, and nature. It seemed curious to me that the political alliance that drove a rollback of the Roosevelt-era policies that created the American middle class called itself conservative and dismissed its liberal opponents as un-American.

"Eventually, however, I discovered that the term conservative harkens back to a day when *conservatives were monarchists* who considered democracy a threat to social order and the seas were ruled by buccaneers and privateers. 

"*That was a clarifying moment*.

"Buccaneer is a colorful name for the pirates of old who pursued personal fortune with rules of their own making. They were, in their time, an iconic expression of 'free market' capitalism.

"Privateers were buccaneers to whom a king granted legal immunity and safe harbor in return for a share of the booty. Their charge was to extract physical wealth from foreign lands and peoples by whatever meansincluding the execution of rulers and the slaughter and enslavement of native inhabitants..."

From Buccaneers to Profiteers: On the Origin of Corporations | Common Dreams


----------



## JStone

georgephillip said:


> *"Like many Americans*, I grew up believing that conservative values were about local control and personal responsibility for family, community, and nature. It seemed curious to me that the political alliance that drove a rollback of the Roosevelt-era policies that created the American middle class called itself conservative and dismissed its liberal opponents as un-American.
> 
> "Eventually, however, I discovered that the term conservative harkens back to a day when *conservatives were monarchists* who considered democracy a threat to social order and the seas were ruled by buccaneers and privateers.
> 
> "*That was a clarifying moment*.
> 
> "Buccaneer is a colorful name for the pirates of old who pursued personal fortune with rules of their own making. They were, in their time, an iconic expression of 'free market' capitalism.
> 
> "Privateers were buccaneers to whom a king granted legal immunity and safe harbor in return for a share of the booty. Their charge was to extract physical wealth from foreign lands and peoples by whatever meansincluding the execution of rulers and the slaughter and enslavement of native inhabitants..."
> 
> From Buccaneers to Profiteers: On the Origin of Corporations | Common Dreams



George, you're a loser in life.  We get it.


----------



## newpolitics

georgephillip said:


> *"Like many Americans*, I grew up believing that conservative values were about local control and personal responsibility for family, community, and nature. It seemed curious to me that the political alliance that drove a rollback of the Roosevelt-era policies that created the American middle class called itself conservative and dismissed its liberal opponents as un-American.
> 
> "Eventually, however, I discovered that the term conservative harkens back to a day when *conservatives were monarchists* who considered democracy a threat to social order and the seas were ruled by buccaneers and privateers.
> 
> "*That was a clarifying moment*.
> 
> "Buccaneer is a colorful name for the pirates of old who pursued personal fortune with rules of their own making. They were, in their time, an iconic expression of 'free market' capitalism.
> 
> "Privateers were buccaneers to whom a king granted legal immunity and safe harbor in return for a share of the booty. Their charge was to extract physical wealth from foreign lands and peoples by whatever meansincluding the execution of rulers and the slaughter and enslavement of native inhabitants..."
> 
> From Buccaneers to Profiteers: On the Origin of Corporations | Common Dreams



Could not have hit this more on the head.


----------



## Big Fitz

Is it dead yet?

When is it going to be dead?

I'm bored.

I have to go potty.

When are we going to see it dead?

Can we go home now?

They need to grow relevant and interesting, not smaller, more rabid and stupid.


----------



## newpolitics

Big Fitz said:


> Is it dead yet?
> 
> When is it going to be dead?
> 
> I'm bored.
> 
> I have to go potty.
> 
> When are we going to see it dead?
> 
> Can we go home now?
> 
> They need to grow relevant and interesting, not smaller, more rabid and stupid.



Funny...  I was thinking the same thing about intolerance


----------



## Big Fitz

newpolitics said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it dead yet?
> 
> When is it going to be dead?
> 
> I'm bored.
> 
> I have to go potty.
> 
> When are we going to see it dead?
> 
> Can we go home now?
> 
> They need to grow relevant and interesting, not smaller, more rabid and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny...  I was thinking the same thing about intolerance
Click to expand...

Riiiiiight.  It's about intolerance, not stupidity and temper tantrums of overgrown children.


----------



## Dr Grump

Big Fitz said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it dead yet?
> 
> When is it going to be dead?
> 
> I'm bored.
> 
> I have to go potty.
> 
> When are we going to see it dead?
> 
> Can we go home now?
> 
> They need to grow relevant and interesting, not smaller, more rabid and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny...  I was thinking the same thing about intolerance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Riiiiiight.  It's about intolerance,* not stupidity and temper tantrums* of overgrown children.
Click to expand...


That's what you would like it to be, and what the likes of you and your mates at Fox News are trying to give off the perception of being. But it wasn't born out of that, no matter how much you try and twist it.

No cee-gar BF!


----------



## newpolitics

Big Fitz said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it dead yet?
> 
> When is it going to be dead?
> 
> I'm bored.
> 
> I have to go potty.
> 
> When are we going to see it dead?
> 
> Can we go home now?
> 
> They need to grow relevant and interesting, not smaller, more rabid and stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny...  I was thinking the same thing about intolerance
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Riiiiiight.  It's about intolerance, not stupidity and temper tantrums of overgrown children.
Click to expand...


you exemplify intolerance and ignorance at its finest, just as I was pointing out. you couldn't have played into this one any worse.


----------



## Big Fitz

Dr Grump said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny...  I was thinking the same thing about intolerance
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight.  It's about intolerance,* not stupidity and temper tantrums* of overgrown children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what you would like it to be, and what the likes of you and your mates at Fox News are trying to give off the perception of being. But it wasn't born out of that, no matter how much you try and twist it.
> 
> No cee-gar BF!
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't watch cable network news of any stripe except by accident, and where they play it, it's MSLSD.

Second, my job takes me in close proximity... smelling distance... of the collection of morphadidic troglodytes twice a day in .  I see their signs, watch what they're doing and know that if a child of mine acted like this, I'd spank their ass and ground them for a month.

This movement was born out of political ass-troturfing by groups like Americans Coming Together, the Tides Foundation and SEIU and other unions getting the same usual suspects to rabble-rouse and pretend to be a movement that formed from grass roots.

It's about as real as MSLSD's impartiality.  That is to say, non-existent.


----------



## Big Fitz

newpolitics said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny...  I was thinking the same thing about intolerance
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight.  It's about intolerance, not stupidity and temper tantrums of overgrown children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you exemplify intolerance and ignorance at its finest, just as I was pointing out. you couldn't have played into this one any worse.
Click to expand...

Need to quit believing the psychopaths at the Huffypoo and DailyKos.  That stuff will rot your brain.  I see them live.  I see morons like you on here defending their schitzophrenic demands and excusing every stupid or criminal action they take.

I'm not the one who's fucking lost it.


----------



## Dr Grump

Big Fitz said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight.  It's about intolerance,* not stupidity and temper tantrums* of overgrown children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what you would like it to be, and what the likes of you and your mates at Fox News are trying to give off the perception of being. But it wasn't born out of that, no matter how much you try and twist it.
> 
> No cee-gar BF!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don't watch cable network news of any stripe except by accident, and where they play it, it's MSLSD.
> 
> Second, my job takes me in close proximity... smelling distance... of the collection of morphadidic troglodytes twice a day in .  I see their signs, watch what they're doing and know that if a child of mine acted like this, I'd spank their ass and ground them for a month.
> 
> This movement was born out of political ass-troturfing by groups like Americans Coming Together, the Tides Foundation and SEIU and other unions getting the same usual suspects to rabble-rouse and pretend to be a movement that formed from grass roots.
> 
> It's about as real as MSLSD's impartiality.  That is to say, non-existent.
Click to expand...


Well if you work on, or are part of Wall st, then you would say that...

I think there are a lot of hangers on in that movement that guys like you cling to as the norm and are representative of the movement. It's like when, back in the day, Dems tried to make out that David Duke - as a repub - was the norm. it suited their purposes and made the GoP look bad.

At the end of the day, what most people want is simple - if you run a compnay badly, or its share price gets eroded due to piss poor management and bad decisionmaking, you should not get a multi-million dollar bonus. You should have things in place to make sure you don't run around like a chook with its head cut off making bad decisions and no accountability. if wall st could only regulate itself, this would not be a problem.

Your economy tanking? It's not the fault of your average Joe- it is a crappy govt under Obama, and even worse one under Dumbya, and Wall st running riot. You guys seem happy to blame the govt (especially Obama for some reason, but giving Bush a free pass), but want the Wall st jerks to walk. Fuck that, they need their butts kicked. Greed is not good, and Greed does not solve your economy's problems...


----------



## georgephillip

newpolitics said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Like many Americans*, I grew up believing that conservative values were about local control and personal responsibility for family, community, and nature. It seemed curious to me that the political alliance that drove a rollback of the Roosevelt-era policies that created the American middle class called itself conservative and dismissed its liberal opponents as un-American.
> 
> "Eventually, however, I discovered that the term conservative harkens back to a day when *conservatives were monarchists* who considered democracy a threat to social order and the seas were ruled by buccaneers and privateers.
> 
> "*That was a clarifying moment*.
> 
> "Buccaneer is a colorful name for the pirates of old who pursued personal fortune with rules of their own making. They were, in their time, an iconic expression of 'free market' capitalism.
> 
> "Privateers were buccaneers to whom a king granted legal immunity and safe harbor in return for a share of the booty. Their charge was to extract physical wealth from foreign lands and peoples by whatever meansincluding the execution of rulers and the slaughter and enslavement of native inhabitants..."
> 
> From Buccaneers to Profiteers: On the Origin of Corporations | Common Dreams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could not have hit this more on the head.
Click to expand...

Some of what OWS is protesting against began long before the US Founding Fathers crafted a government that provides special protections for property rights at the expense of fundamental human rights.

For example:

"In 1671, Sir Henry Morgan (*yes, appreciative British kings granted favored privateers with titles of nobility in recognition of their service*) launched an assault on Panama City with thirty-six ships and nearly two thousand brigands, defeating a large Spanish force and looting the city as it burned to the ground.

"*As with the buccaneers and privateers of days past, Wall Streets major players* find it more profitable to *expropriate the wealth of others* than to find honest jobs producing goods and services beneficial to their communities.

"Eventually, the ruling monarchs turned from swashbuckling adventurers and chartered pirates to chartered corporations as their favored instruments of colonial expansion, administration, and pillage. 

"The sale of public shares enabled a single firm to amass virtually unlimited financial capital and assured the continuity of the enterprise beyond the death of its founders. *Limited liability absolved the owners of personal liability for the firms losses or misdeeds.*"

From Buccaneers to Profiteers: On the Origin of Corporations | Common Dreams

I'm beginning to wonder if the first private fortunes could have come into existence thousands of years ago without the institution of chattel slavery. Pharaoh would have certainly had to scale back the Pyramids if the Jews of the time had demanded a living wage.


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Like many Americans*, I grew up believing that conservative values were about local control and personal responsibility for family, community, and nature. It seemed curious to me that the political alliance that drove a rollback of the Roosevelt-era policies that created the American middle class called itself conservative and dismissed its liberal opponents as un-American.
> 
> "Eventually, however, I discovered that the term conservative harkens back to a day when *conservatives were monarchists* who considered democracy a threat to social order and the seas were ruled by buccaneers and privateers.
> 
> "*That was a clarifying moment*.
> 
> "Buccaneer is a colorful name for the pirates of old who pursued personal fortune with rules of their own making. They were, in their time, an iconic expression of 'free market' capitalism.
> 
> "Privateers were buccaneers to whom a king granted legal immunity and safe harbor in return for a share of the booty. Their charge was to extract physical wealth from foreign lands and peoples by whatever meansincluding the execution of rulers and the slaughter and enslavement of native inhabitants..."
> 
> From Buccaneers to Profiteers: On the Origin of Corporations | Common Dreams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could not have hit this more on the head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some of what OWS is protesting against began long before the US Founding Fathers crafted a government that provides special protections for property rights at the expense of fundamental human rights.
> 
> For example:
> 
> "In 1671, Sir Henry Morgan (*yes, appreciative British kings granted favored privateers with titles of nobility in recognition of their service*) launched an assault on Panama City with thirty-six ships and nearly two thousand brigands, defeating a large Spanish force and looting the city as it burned to the ground.
> 
> "*As with the buccaneers and privateers of days past, Wall Streets major players* find it more profitable to *expropriate the wealth of others* than to find honest jobs producing goods and services beneficial to their communities.
> 
> "Eventually, the ruling monarchs turned from swashbuckling adventurers and chartered pirates to chartered corporations as their favored instruments of colonial expansion, administration, and pillage.
> 
> "The sale of public shares enabled a single firm to amass virtually unlimited financial capital and assured the continuity of the enterprise beyond the death of its founders. *Limited liability absolved the owners of personal liability for the firms losses or misdeeds.*"
> 
> From Buccaneers to Profiteers: On the Origin of Corporations | Common Dreams
> 
> I'm beginning to wonder if the first private fortunes could have come into existence thousands of years ago without the institution of chattel slavery. Pharaoh would have certainly had to scale back the Pyramids if the Jews of the time had demanded a living wage.
Click to expand...


Don't you think you are stretching it a little bit, comparing Buccaneers to the Wall Street crowd? Buccaneers were legalized Pirates, that you could compare to Soldiers of Fortune maybe. If you want to compare Government Structures, first be honest. Then maybe start closer to the beginning. 

Try here.

The Code of Hammurabi

The Code of Hammurabi ~1700 BCE


----------



## Big Fitz

> I think there are a lot of hangers on in that movement that guys like  you cling to as the norm and are representative of the movement.



When the majority of the people ARE hangers on, looking for a social gathering as most of these morons seem to be, they become representative of the movement.

It's sort of like saying since 100% of terrorists are muslims... you can't use that as an identifying description.  Yet of course serial killers are always described as white males.  The fact that there really hasn't been anything other than a white male serial killer shouldn't factor into it, should it?



> It's like when, back in the day, Dems tried to make out that David Duke -  as a repub - was the norm. it suited their purposes and made the GoP  look bad.



Oh good.  David Duke now supports the Occupados struggle.  



> At the end of the day, what most people want is simple - if you run a  compnay badly, or its share price gets eroded due to piss poor  management and bad decisionmaking, you should not get a multi-million  dollar bonus. You should have things in place to make sure you don't run  around like a chook with its head cut off making bad decisions and no  accountability. if wall st could only regulate itself, this would not be  a problem.



You are not required to support any company that does unethical or lousy business practices.  That's your vote.  You do not have the right to tell them they can't do it if they want to.  Nor does the government.  Your choice is to not support them, or live without their product or service.  If you can't, you need to find a new vendor or suck it up.



> Your economy tanking? It's not the fault of your average Joe- it is a  crappy govt under Obama, and even worse one under Dumbya, and Wall st  running riot.



When you won't prosecute the obvious criminals on wall street and tempt the moral hazard through ungodly bad economic and legislative business policies in the Capital that you also won't prosecute... you get what you deserve.  Nobody's innocent, but you need to address the real issue: immorality and criminality that is in cahoots with one another.  There are dozens of market manipulators out there who have gotten in bed with politicians like Dodd, Fwank, Waters, and government bureaucrats like Franklin Rains.  These people should be looked hard at for criminal prosecutions for collusion in corruption and the like.



> Greed is not good, and Greed does not solve your economy's problems...



Greed is a desire for gain without merit.  Profit is gain with merit.  Greed is not profit.  Profit is not evil.  The greediest people I see nowadays are the poorest.  Just because you have wealth does not mean you're greedy.  It means you're successful.  Success is not a justification for anyone to hate those who are.  THAT my friend is greed.


----------



## newpolitics

Big Fitz said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Riiiiiight.  It's about intolerance, not stupidity and temper tantrums of overgrown children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you exemplify intolerance and ignorance at its finest, just as I was pointing out. you couldn't have played into this one any worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Need to quit believing the psychopaths at the Huffypoo and DailyKos.  That stuff will rot your brain.  I see them live.  I see morons like you on here defending their schitzophrenic demands and excusing every stupid or criminal action they take.
> 
> I'm not the one who's fucking lost it.
Click to expand...


you can say this to yourself all you want. you're not changing anybody's mind.


----------



## Big Fitz

newpolitics said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> you exemplify intolerance and ignorance at its finest, just as I was pointing out. you couldn't have played into this one any worse.
> 
> 
> 
> Need to quit believing the psychopaths at the Huffypoo and DailyKos.  That stuff will rot your brain.  I see them live.  I see morons like you on here defending their schitzophrenic demands and excusing every stupid or criminal action they take.
> 
> I'm not the one who's fucking lost it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you can say this to yourself all you want. you're not changing anybody's mind.
Click to expand...

LOL... silly.  Vegetables don't have minds.  I'm not writing for you, but others who still are in the Animal Kingdom.


----------



## newpolitics

Big Fitz said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Need to quit believing the psychopaths at the Huffypoo and DailyKos.  That stuff will rot your brain.  I see them live.  I see morons like you on here defending their schitzophrenic demands and excusing every stupid or criminal action they take.
> 
> I'm not the one who's fucking lost it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can say this to yourself all you want. you're not changing anybody's mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL... silly.  Vegetables don't have minds.  I'm not writing for you, but others who still are in the Animal Kingdom.
Click to expand...


such petty insults and grand delusions... quite a combination


----------



## Big Fitz

newpolitics said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can say this to yourself all you want. you're not changing anybody's mind.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... silly.  Vegetables don't have minds.  I'm not writing for you, but others who still are in the Animal Kingdom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> such petty insults and grand delusions... quite a combination
Click to expand...







Got anything smart to say?  Or just butthurt to whine about?


----------



## georgephillip

Intense said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could not have hit this more on the head.
> 
> 
> 
> Some of what OWS is protesting against began long before the US Founding Fathers crafted a government that provides special protections for property rights at the expense of fundamental human rights.
> 
> For example:
> 
> "In 1671, Sir Henry Morgan (*yes, appreciative British kings granted favored privateers with titles of nobility in recognition of their service*) launched an assault on Panama City with thirty-six ships and nearly two thousand brigands, defeating a large Spanish force and looting the city as it burned to the ground.
> 
> "*As with the buccaneers and privateers of days past, Wall Streets major players* find it more profitable to *expropriate the wealth of others* than to find honest jobs producing goods and services beneficial to their communities.
> 
> "Eventually, the ruling monarchs turned from swashbuckling adventurers and chartered pirates to chartered corporations as their favored instruments of colonial expansion, administration, and pillage.
> 
> "The sale of public shares enabled a single firm to amass virtually unlimited financial capital and assured the continuity of the enterprise beyond the death of its founders. *Limited liability absolved the owners of personal liability for the firms losses or misdeeds.*"
> 
> From Buccaneers to Profiteers: On the Origin of Corporations | Common Dreams
> 
> I'm beginning to wonder if the first private fortunes could have come into existence thousands of years ago without the institution of chattel slavery. Pharaoh would have certainly had to scale back the Pyramids if the Jews of the time had demanded a living wage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you think you are stretching it a little bit, comparing Buccaneers to the Wall Street crowd? Buccaneers were legalized Pirates, that you could compare to Soldiers of Fortune maybe. If you want to compare Government Structures, first be honest. Then maybe start closer to the beginning.
> 
> Try here.
> 
> The Code of Hammurabi
> 
> The Code of Hammurabi ~1700 BCE
Click to expand...

*"Corporations chartered by the British Crown* established several of the earliest colonial settlements in what later became the United States and populated them with bonded laborers&#8212;*many involuntarily transported from England&#8212;*to work their properties. The importation of slaves from Africa followed.

"The East India Company (chartered in 1600) was the primary instrument of Britain&#8217;s colonization of India, a country the company ruled until 1784 much as if it were a private estate. In the early 1800s, the East India Company established a thriving business exporting tea from China, paying for its purchases with illegal opium.

From Buccaneers to Profiteers: On the Origin of Corporations | Common Dreams

Corporations first came into existence to serve hereditary parasites like George III.

If you want to start at the the beginning, I suggest the Fall of Man.
Do you think that event symbolizes the institutionalization of chattel slavery?
Could the first private fortunes (and parasites) have come into existence without generational slavery?


----------



## newpolitics

Big Fitz said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL... silly.  Vegetables don't have minds.  I'm not writing for you, but others who still are in the Animal Kingdom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> such petty insults and grand delusions... quite a combination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got anything smart to say?  Or just butthurt to whine about?
Click to expand...


I'm not the one posting pictures of cats with the belief that it is insulting. Go relax.


----------



## georgephillip

"The Dutch East India Company (chartered in 1602) established its sovereignty over what is now Indonesia and reduced the local people to poverty by displacing them from their lands to grow spices for sale in Europe.

"It is no exaggeration to characterize these forerunners of contemporary publicly traded limited liability corporations as, in effect, legally sanctioned and protected crime syndicates with private armies and navies backed by a mandate from their home governments to extort tribute, expropriate land and other wealth, monopolize markets, trade slaves, deal drugs, and *profit from financial scams*.

"Wall Street hedge fund managers, day traders, currency traders, and other unlicensed *phantom-wealth speculators are the independent, unlicensed buccaneers of our day*. 

"*Wall Street banks are modern day commissioned privateers who ply a similar trade with state backing and safe harbor.* 

"The economy is their ocean. Publicly traded corporations serve as their favored vessels of plunder, *financial leverage is their favored weapon*, and the state is their servant-guardian."

From Buccaneers to Profiteers: On the Origin of Corporations | Common Dreams


----------



## Intense

The Rule of play is different now George. Wake up to that. Take it back to Adam and Eve, if you want. We live by Our Laws now. We don't condone Slavery or Servitude unless you are applying that yo Contract Law where you may choose to sign away Constitutional Rights for Access, Service, or a Pay Check.  I like to think there is usually a way to expose, and Overcome that kind of corruption. That goes back to fighting the concept of Protected Monopoly.


----------



## georgephillip

Intense said:


> The Rule of play is different now George. Wake up to that. Take it back to Adam and Eve, if you want. We live by Our Laws now. We don't condone Slavery or Servitude unless you are applying that yo Contract Law where you may choose to sign away Constitutional Rights for Access, Service, or a Pay Check.  I like to think there is usually a way to expose, and Overcome that kind of corruption. That goes back to fighting the concept of Protected Monopoly.


*Would you agree with this?*

For the last 500 years (at least) the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime is to lose control of the revenue streams created by elite criminals?


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Rule of play is different now George. Wake up to that. Take it back to Adam and Eve, if you want. We live by Our Laws now. We don't condone Slavery or Servitude unless you are applying that yo Contract Law where you may choose to sign away Constitutional Rights for Access, Service, or a Pay Check.  I like to think there is usually a way to expose, and Overcome that kind of corruption. That goes back to fighting the concept of Protected Monopoly.
> 
> 
> 
> *Would you agree with this?*
> 
> For the last 500 years (at least) the only thing worse for any politician than getting caught doing business with organized crime is to lose control of the revenue streams created by elite criminals?
Click to expand...


No.  Only for the worst of the worst. Criminals usually end up in the same place. A Statesman Politician is there for the People. We too, need to stay focused, and support the hard choices when we know they are the correct path. It's not an easy thing to do.

We do persecute and blame, and Demonize Our Representatives for doing good. That's bad, in itself.


----------



## Big Fitz

newpolitics said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> such petty insults and grand delusions... quite a combination
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got anything smart to say?  Or just butthurt to whine about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the one posting pictures of cats with the belief that it is insulting. Go relax.
Click to expand...

Butch the fuck up Sally Frillypants and pull the taffeta out of your sphincter.  I don't give a flying fuck about your feelings.  The movement is bullshit rehashed socio-fascism's whines of "eat the rich and make us the new kings".  

Been there
Done that
Have the tee-shirt
Novelty hat
2 trays of slides
frequent flier miles
and a membership card in the mail for the club.


----------



## georgephillip

Big Fitz said:


> newpolitics said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got anything smart to say?  Or just butthurt to whine about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one posting pictures of cats with the belief that it is insulting. Go relax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Butch the fuck up Sally Frillypants and pull the taffeta out of your sphincter.  I don't give a flying fuck about your feelings.  The movement is bullshit rehashed socio-fascism's whines of "eat the rich and make us the new kings".
> 
> Been there
> Done that
> Have the tee-shirt
> Novelty hat
> 2 trays of slides
> frequent flier miles
> and a membership card in the mail for the club.
Click to expand...

*Have you been here?*

"Of the 143 million U.S. taxpayers (individuals and households), about 4.5 million have AGIs of more than $200,000 a year.  Though only 3% of all taxpayers, this group claims 32% of all AGI &#8211; or $2.8 trillion.  They already pay about $600 billion in federal income tax, or about 22% of their incomes.  If this group paid a graduated average of 35% instead, that would add $400 billion to federal revenues every year.  This would leave them with about $1.8 trillion after taxes, which is roughly what two-thirds of all taxpayers (with AGIs of less than $50,000) have before they pay taxes."

Taxing Only the Rich CAN Pay for Everything | Working-Class Perspectives

When are you going to toughen up and bitch-slap the rich back into place?


----------



## KissMy

Today Ex-Goldman Sachs Chief / Ex-New Jersey Democrat Governor - Jon Corzine just bankrupted MF Global by investing in socialist countries. Will the OWS's go after him??? Will the FED bail him out???


----------



## Uncensored2008

lilylu said:


> Protesters should start wearing tea bags on their hats so that the police will leave them alone!!!



Why not wear a turd? They are the Shitters, after all.



> Why didn't the police use force with the tea baggers?



Because the Tea Parties didn't break laws. Most Tea Parties lasted 3 hours and disbursed. The Shitters move in and stay when parks and facilities have closed.



> This is something that I don't understand.  The tea baggers were occupying public spaces and there were no arrests and no police brutality...why?!



Because they didn't break the law, they didn't stay after facilities closed and they didn't used drugs.

The Shitters break laws, when the police tried to disburse them, the Shitters resisted.



> The 99% are peacefully protesting using their right to assemble and yet the police come in riot gear and shoot rubber bullets and tear gas????  I want to know why they didn't do that to the tea baggers.  Someone please help me to understand that.  Do corporations own our police dept.?  Are we becoming a military ruled country?
> l



Asked and answered, the Shitters can't seem to play nice.


----------



## Uncensored2008

chanel said:


> The "Occupy Philly - End the Silence March" has been moved to the subway.  Does that still count as a "march"?



If they march down the tracks it does!

I can see the headlines: "Feces flies as Shitter march hit be trains..."


----------



## sitarro

Uncensored2008 said:


> lilylu said:
> 
> 
> 
> Protesters should start wearing tea bags on their hats so that the police will leave them alone!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not wear a turd? They are the Shitters, after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't the police use force with the tea baggers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the Tea Parties didn't break laws. Most Tea Parties lasted 3 hours and disbursed. The Shitters move in and stay when parks and facilities have closed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is something that I don't understand.  The tea baggers were occupying public spaces and there were no arrests and no police brutality...why?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they didn't break the law, they didn't stay after facilities closed and they didn't used drugs.
> 
> The Shitters break laws, when the police tried to disburse them, the Shitters resisted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 99% are peacefully protesting using their right to assemble and yet the police come in riot gear and shoot rubber bullets and tear gas????  I want to know why they didn't do that to the tea baggers.  Someone please help me to understand that.  Do corporations own our police dept.?  Are we becoming a military ruled country?
> l
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asked and answered, the Shitters can't seem to play nice.
Click to expand...


The Tea Party rallies usually pay for the space also. That and they leave that space spotless,  they are the exact opposites of the losers that are distracting the public from such items as " fast and the furious", the obviously baseless accusations against a successful conservative black man by the asswipes in the Democrat party, that asshole Michelle's ridiculous speech whining about "the rich" to a bunch of ubber rich in Florida...... they were the good rich though, they were democrat rich.


----------



## Dragon

sitarro said:


> The Tea Party rallies usually pay for the space also.



Rather, the Koch brothers foot the bill for them, or some other worthy co-opter.



> That and they leave that space spotless



So does Occupy.

It really says a lot about how powerful this movement is becoming that its opponents seem to think lying about it over and over again is justified.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dragon said:


> Rather, the Koch brothers foot the bill for them, or some other worthy co-opter.



Oh bullshit, you mindless, partisan hack.



> So does Occupy.



ROFL

The Shitters are so nasty that the Los Angeles city government, who BACK THEM, had to bring in power washing equipment to get the feces off the ground. The Shitters were sitting in their own shit.



> It really says a lot about how powerful this movement is becoming that its opponents seem to think lying about it over and over again is justified.



It really says a lot about how pathetically stupid you are that you post these absurd lies.


----------



## Big Fitz

KissMy said:


> Today Ex-Goldman Sachs Chief / Ex-New Jersey Democrat Governor - Jon Corzine just bankrupted MF Global by investing in socialist countries. Will the OWS's go after him??? Will the FED bail him out???


Goddamn better not!


----------



## georgephillip

"With all of the media now focused on the Occupy Wall Street encampment in Lower Manhattan, its easy to lose sight of the real human tragedy unfolding right across the bridge. Im referring to Brooklyn, New Yorks most populous borough, which has suffered mightily since the economic meltdown of 2008. 

"Though the crowds participating in the Occupy Wall Street movement are now more racially diverse than at the outset of the protests, most disadvantaged Brooklyn residents are still shying away from demonstrations. 

"This fact is most glaringly evident when one takes the 2 or 3 train from Fulton Street near the protests and heads out into Brooklyn: while most of the protesters are young and white, the subway riders are predominantly African-American and Caribbean."

Occupy Wall Street Will Only Reach Critical Mass When It Attracts the Minorities of Brooklyn, Across the River | BuzzFlash.org


----------



## Big Fitz

Well, the Occupados grew today to a group of LESS than 3 dozen total people and possibly less than 2 when I went by today.  Yes indeed.  It's growing by leaps and bounds into vacant 'campsites'... but yet the garbage remains.

At least they left a filthy plaza behind.


----------



## georgephillip

*And the Word is "Change."*

"As importantly, the (OWS) movement has already changed the public debate in America.

"Consider, for example, last weeks Congressional Budget Office report on widening disparities of income in America. It was hardly news  its already well known that the *top 1 percent now gets 20 percent of the nations income, up from 9 percent in the late 1970s*.

"But its the first time such news made the front page of the nations major newspapers.

"Why? Because for the first time in more than half a century, a broad cross-section of *the American public is talking about the concentration of income, wealth, and political power at the top.*

"*Score a big one for the Occupiers*.

Vote against the 1% in 2012.
FLUSH Republicans AND Democrats from DC.
Change, for a change.

Robert Reich (The Occupiers' Responsive Chord)


----------



## KissMy

Why are the OWS's not protesting the Wallstreet corruption at MF Global?


----------



## chanel

You don't know how sick that's made me.  Corzine nearly destroyed the state of NJ and his most avid supporter - the NJEA - has endorsed OWS.  

Kiss my - I'm starting to feel the frustration of the protesters myself.  They are all corrupt.


----------



## chanel

You don't know how sick that's made me.  Corzine nearly destroyed the state of NJ and his most avid supporter - the NJEA - has endorsed OWS.  

Kiss my - I'm starting to feel the frustration of the protesters myself.  They are all corrupt.


----------



## georgephillip

chanel said:


> You don't know how sick that's made me.  Corzine nearly destroyed the state of NJ and his most avid supporter - the NJEA - has endorsed OWS.
> 
> Kiss my - I'm starting to feel the frustration of the protesters myself.  They are all corrupt.


"Choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth guarantees corruption.
Both parties serve the richest 1% of voters because those are the voters funding their campaigns.
If there are third party candidates on your ballot, send corruption a message it can't miss in November of 2012 by voting AGAINST your Republican AND Democratic incumbents.

Fire the second shot heard 'round the world.


----------



## Big Fitz

Today Occupado Minneapolis had maybe a dozen plus or minus 5 professional protesters, and a few tourists taking pictures of their signs as they mugged for the camera.

Growing like our employment numbers.


----------



## georgephillip

*Like Wall Street's bonus pool.*


----------



## Big Fitz

So today, Occupado Minneapolis took the whole whacky gang from the World Worker's Party and went across the street to another building.  Just an intimate get together of maybe a dozen, leaving the plaza empty save for their mess being watched by one or two of their paid members.

So what were they doing there?  Had sirens, and whistles and bells and screaming incoherent chants holding up a HUGE sign saying "Solidarity with All Prisoners". 

Yes.  The Occupados speak for us all.  

How does this exactly promote the 'goals' of the Occupados... or was this always the goal?

The truth sucks for them.  Nothing more than a bunch of socio-fascist-anarchists wanting to set the world on fire and watch it burn.


----------



## chanel

What do they call this?  Astro-turfing?  Or totalitarianism?



> Officials with the revamped ACORN office in New York -- operating as New York Communities for Change -- have fired staff, shredded reams of documents and told workers to blame disgruntled ex-employees for leaking information in an effort to explain away a FoxNews.com report last week on the groups involvement in Occupy Wall Street protests, according to sources.
> 
> NYCC also is *installing surveillance cameras and recording devices *at its Brooklyn offices, removing or packing away supplies bearing the name ACORN and handing out *photos of Fox News staff* with a stern warning not to talk to the media, the sources said.
> 
> Now theres *no texting i*n the office, *no phone calls* in the office. They tell us to take our phone calls out into the waiting room where theres an intercom, and then *they turn on the intercom to hear our conversations*. Theyre installing new cameras and speakers around the building so they can hear everything.
> 
> It was pretty funny. Jonathan told staff they dont pay for protesters, but the people in the meeting  who work there objected and said, Wait, you pay us to go to the protests every day? Then Jonathan said  No, but thats your job, and staffers were like, *Yeah, our job is to protest, *and Westin said, No your job is to fight for economic and social justice. We just send you to protest.
> 
> Staff said, *Yes, you pay us to carry signs*. Then Jonathan says, Thats your job. It went on like that back and forth for a while.



Read more: ACORN Officials Scramble, Firing Workers And Shredding Documents, After Exposed As Players Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests | Fox News


----------



## editec

KissMy said:


> Why are the OWS's not protesting the Wallstreet corruption at MF Global?


 
Because that wasn't political insider corruption of the system that was plain old CRIME.

No need to protest that event as the SEC is going to come down on those criminals like a ton of bricks.


----------



## mudwhistle

KissMy said:


> Why are the OWS's not protesting the Wallstreet corruption at MF Global?



The number one reason is he's a* Democrat.*

But.....

He's also the former *CEO of Goldman Sachs*.

Also he's from* Obama's state, Illinois.* 

He's also a* University of Chicago alma mater*,  the University that Obama was a guest lecturer at and is given credit for being a full professor at, a school located at *Hyde Park*, where Obama lives.

I'm just saying.

During a presidency that likes to take down the rich and powerful Corzine is allowed to skate because he's friends with Obama. It's just that simple. 

If you have the right connections you can get away with anything. 

Links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Corzine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booth_School_of_Business
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Park,_Chicago


----------



## mudwhistle

editec said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the OWS's not protesting the Wallstreet corruption at MF Global?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that wasn't political insider corruption of the system that was plain old CRIME.
> 
> No need to protest that event as the SEC is going to come down on those criminals like a ton of bricks.
Click to expand...


Corzine is a criminal. But he is a political criminal.


Now I know why the Obama press decided now was a good time to start a sex-scandal.....because is sucks everything out of the room. The media can't resist a good sex-scandal.....even if most of it is made up with false innuendo from anonymous sources.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

mudwhistle said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the OWS's not protesting the Wallstreet corruption at MF Global?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because that wasn't political insider corruption of the system that was plain old CRIME.
> 
> No need to protest that event as the SEC is going to come down on those criminals like a ton of bricks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corzine is a criminal. But he is a political criminal.
> 
> 
> Now I know why the Obama press decided now was a good time to start a sex-scandal.....because is sucks everything out of the room. The media can't resist a good sex-scandal.....even if most of it is made up with false innuendo from anonymous sources.
Click to expand...


I agree nice post.


----------



## editec

The SEC is doing its job as it regards  MF Global.

I fail to see what the complaint is, as it regards that event.

All I'm seeing from the above complaints is more _I hate Obama no matter what_ nonsense.


----------



## Big Fitz

chanel said:


> What do they call this?  Astro-turfing?  Or totalitarianism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Officials with the revamped ACORN office in New York -- operating as New York Communities for Change -- have fired staff, shredded reams of documents and told workers to blame disgruntled ex-employees for leaking information in an effort to explain away a FoxNews.com report last week on the groups involvement in Occupy Wall Street protests, according to sources.
> 
> NYCC also is *installing surveillance cameras and recording devices *at its Brooklyn offices, removing or packing away supplies bearing the name ACORN and handing out *photos of Fox News staff* with a stern warning not to talk to the media, the sources said.
> 
> Now theres *no texting i*n the office, *no phone calls* in the office. They tell us to take our phone calls out into the waiting room where theres an intercom, and then *they turn on the intercom to hear our conversations*. Theyre installing new cameras and speakers around the building so they can hear everything.
> 
> It was pretty funny. Jonathan told staff they dont pay for protesters, but the people in the meeting  who work there objected and said, Wait, you pay us to go to the protests every day? Then Jonathan said  No, but thats your job, and staffers were like, *Yeah, our job is to protest, *and Westin said, No your job is to fight for economic and social justice. We just send you to protest.
> 
> Staff said, *Yes, you pay us to carry signs*. Then Jonathan says, Thats your job. It went on like that back and forth for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: ACORN Officials Scramble, Firing Workers And Shredding Documents, After Exposed As Players Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests | Fox News
Click to expand...

Ass-troturfing I think.


----------



## Big Fitz

editec said:


> The SEC is doing its job as it regards  MF Global.
> 
> I fail to see what the complaint is, as it regards that event.
> 
> All I'm seeing from the above complaints is more _I hate Obama no matter what_ nonsense.


Well, mistakes were made and they didn't stop the SEC quick enough from doing their job.  I'll believe something's REALLY being done when I see Corzine and his cronies frog marched to prison a la Bernie Madoff.


Then please lather, rinse, repeat a few dozen more times till those criminals hiding behind the skirts of politicians... fuck... scoop up those politicians too, and be done with the bunch till they get the point this is NOT how we allow business to act in this nation, or politicians.


----------



## mudwhistle

editec said:


> The SEC is doing its job as it regards  MF Global.
> 
> I fail to see what the complaint is, as it regards that event.
> 
> All I'm seeing from the above complaints is more _I hate Obama no matter what_ nonsense.



I'm just try to bring some reality to the situation. 

I shouldn't have to explain it. 

Something to do with proper perspective that is jermaine to the issues that might effect our lives. 

What is more important, whether or not Cain complimented some woman and yet she found it offensive, or a crooked politician that's a repeat offender and may skate because he knows the right people? We have this president that's stirring up shit by castigating the rich yet he himself is in the group he condemns. 

I guess it depends on your priorities.


----------



## The Gadfly

chanel said:


> What do they call this?  Astro-turfing?  Or totalitarianism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Officials with the revamped ACORN office in New York -- operating as New York Communities for Change -- have fired staff, shredded reams of documents and told workers to blame disgruntled ex-employees for leaking information in an effort to explain away a FoxNews.com report last week on the groups involvement in Occupy Wall Street protests, according to sources.
> 
> NYCC also is *installing surveillance cameras and recording devices *at its Brooklyn offices, removing or packing away supplies bearing the name ACORN and handing out *photos of Fox News staff* with a stern warning not to talk to the media, the sources said.
> 
> Now theres *no texting i*n the office, *no phone calls* in the office. They tell us to take our phone calls out into the waiting room where theres an intercom, and then *they turn on the intercom to hear our conversations*. Theyre installing new cameras and speakers around the building so they can hear everything.
> 
> It was pretty funny. Jonathan told staff they dont pay for protesters, but the people in the meeting  who work there objected and said, Wait, you pay us to go to the protests every day? Then Jonathan said  No, but thats your job, and staffers were like, *Yeah, our job is to protest, *and Westin said, No your job is to fight for economic and social justice. We just send you to protest.
> 
> Staff said, *Yes, you pay us to carry signs*. Then Jonathan says, Thats your job. It went on like that back and forth for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: ACORN Officials Scramble, Firing Workers And Shredding Documents, After Exposed As Players Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests | Fox News
Click to expand...


If this weren't so dirty, and its purpose so sinister, this would be epic comedy! I don't know whether to be more amazed at the sheer, unmitigated gall of the "leaders" of this sham, or the near-idiocy of their followers.

As for what to call it, how about "Astro-turfing for the sake of totalitarianism"; a more complete description, I think.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> I'm just try to bring some reality to the situation.



For you, that would be quite novel.



> I shouldn't have to explain it.



Actually, you should. Actually, the reason you have your head up your ass here has been quite clearly explained to you. Actually, you have offered, once more, nothing at all pertinent in response. Nothing but diversion, red herring, empty rhetoric, and logical fallacies -- as usual.

You say less with more words than any other poster on this forum. I think there ought to be a prize for that.


----------



## Big Fitz

The Gadfly said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do they call this?  Astro-turfing?  Or totalitarianism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Officials with the revamped ACORN office in New York -- operating as New York Communities for Change -- have fired staff, shredded reams of documents and told workers to blame disgruntled ex-employees for leaking information in an effort to explain away a FoxNews.com report last week on the groups involvement in Occupy Wall Street protests, according to sources.
> 
> NYCC also is *installing surveillance cameras and recording devices *at its Brooklyn offices, removing or packing away supplies bearing the name ACORN and handing out *photos of Fox News staff* with a stern warning not to talk to the media, the sources said.
> 
> Now theres *no texting i*n the office, *no phone calls* in the office. They tell us to take our phone calls out into the waiting room where theres an intercom, and then *they turn on the intercom to hear our conversations*. Theyre installing new cameras and speakers around the building so they can hear everything.
> 
> It was pretty funny. Jonathan told staff they dont pay for protesters, but the people in the meeting  who work there objected and said, Wait, you pay us to go to the protests every day? Then Jonathan said  No, but thats your job, and staffers were like, *Yeah, our job is to protest, *and Westin said, No your job is to fight for economic and social justice. We just send you to protest.
> 
> Staff said, *Yes, you pay us to carry signs*. Then Jonathan says, Thats your job. It went on like that back and forth for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: ACORN Officials Scramble, Firing Workers And Shredding Documents, After Exposed As Players Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests | Fox News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If this weren't so dirty, and its purpose so sinister, this would be epic comedy! I don't know whether to be more amazed at the sheer, unmitigated gall of the "leaders" of this sham, or the near-idiocy of their followers.
> 
> As for what to call it, how about "Astro-turfing for the sake of totalitarianism"; a more complete description, I think.
Click to expand...

Here's their planned model.

Sturmabteilung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Go ahead.  Read what they did.  See the similarities.  Collectivist goons are nothing if not predictable.  Why people are always surprised by their actions is always amazing to me.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just try to bring some reality to the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For you, that would be quite novel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I shouldn't have to explain it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you should. Actually, the reason you have your head up your ass here has been quite clearly explained to you. Actually, you have offered, once more, nothing at all pertinent in response. Nothing but diversion, red herring, empty rhetoric, and logical fallacies -- as usual.
> 
> You say less with more words than any other poster on this forum. I think there ought to be a prize for that.
Click to expand...


 

Trying to win debates by constantly doing something that looks like screaming 

_'YOU'RE A GOD DAMNED LIAR!!!!'_

isn't an effective tactic.

Try coming up with proof that the evidence I've laid out is wrong. 


That seems to work much better. 

Otherwise your rants, although slightly more sophisticated, are simply like passing gas.


----------



## Big Fitz

Can we get a title change to "The Movement Grows... smaller"?


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> Trying to win debates



Is that what I'm doing? Is this a debate? Don't you actually have to say something, take a position, before we can have a debate?



> Try coming up with proof that the evidence I've laid out is wrong.



Since you haven't presented any, nor even made any claims that evidence might be applied to one way or the other, that would be pretty hard. Which is probably the point.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trying to win debates
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what I'm doing? Is this a debate? Don't you actually have to say something, take a position, before we can have a debate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try coming up with proof that the evidence I've laid out is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you haven't presented any, nor even made any claims that evidence might be applied to one way or the other, that would be pretty hard. *Which is probably the point*.
Click to expand...


Well, when you figure out your point I'll alert the media.


You know.....ha ha......words have meaning..

So you're claiming now I haven't staked out a position?

Forget that I provided evidence to support my position....you can't even see what my position is????

Is that seriously what you're claiming now???



You're not very good at this.


----------



## chanel

Uh oh.  Looks like OWS is racist or something.  



> Some activists were outraged, however, that the survey results and the infographic show Occupy Wall Street to be 81.2 percent white, and *only 1.6 percent black.*
> 
> By comparison, the U.S. population is 77.1 percent white and 12.9 percent black, according to the U.S. Census Bureaumaking the Occupy Wall Street movement disproportionately white.
> 
> The infographic, depicted below, caused instant controversy when it was shared among Occupy Wall Street organizers. One activist reacted: 81% white protestorsand you actually made a flyer proudly advertising this lie, in a multicultural city like NYC? You must be crazy and blind.



» RACISM!  #Occupy Activists Clash After Internal Survey Reveals #OccupyWallStreet 81.2% White, 1.6% Black - Big Government

The flyer was distributed by FastCompany, the progressive business magazine.


----------



## georgephillip

*Why are the crimes of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs unpunished?*

"Can we all agree that a $1 billion swindle represents a lot of money, and the fact that Citigroup agreed last week to pay a $285 million fine to settle SEC charges for 'misleading investors' demonstrates a damning admission of culpability?  

"So why has Robert Rubin, the onetime treasury secretary who went on to become Citigroup chairman during the time of the corporations financial shenanigans, never been held accountable for this and other deep damage done to the U.S. economy on his watch?"

Robert Scheer: Too Big to Jail - Robert Scheer's Columns - Truthdig

*Is there any reason Lloyd "God's Work" Blankfein shouldn't answer for the crimes of Goldman Sachs?*

"Goldman Sachs commodities index is the most heavily traded in the world. 

"Goldman Sachs hoards rice, wheat, corn, sugar and livestock and jacks up commodity prices around the globe so that poor families can no longer afford basic staples and literally starve. 

"Goldman Sachs is able to carry out its malfeasance at home and in global markets because it has former officials filtered throughout the government and lavishly funds compliant politiciansincluding Barack Obama, who received $1 million from employees at Goldman Sachs in 2008 when he ran for president. 

"These politicians, in return, permit Goldman Sachs to ignore security laws that under a functioning judiciary system would see the firm indicted for felony fraud..."

Chris Hedges: Chris Hedges Arrested in Front of Goldman Sachs - Truthdig

Chris Hedges along with fourteen others was arrested in front of Goldman Sachs headquarters shortly after pointing out the crimes of the 1%.


----------



## editec

*



Why are the crimes of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs unpunished?

Click to expand...

 
Excellent question.

One that both the OWS movement and the Tea Party movement both ought to have been asking.*


----------



## Intense

editec said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the crimes of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs unpunished?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> 
> One that both the OWS movement and the Tea Party movement both ought to have been asking.*



Just follow the money.


----------



## chanel

editec said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the crimes of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs unpunished?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> 
> One that both the OWS movement and the Tea Party movement both ought to have been asking.*



Yep.  How about demanding answers from their supporters in D.C.?


----------



## Intense

chanel said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the crimes of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs unpunished?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> 
> One that both the OWS movement and the Tea Party movement both ought to have been asking.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.  How about demanding answers from their supporters in D.C.?
Click to expand...


This Administration is running cover for so many Felonies, I think it's amazing that they can even keep track.


----------



## mudwhistle

Big Fitz said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do they call this?  Astro-turfing?  Or totalitarianism?
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: ACORN Officials Scramble, Firing Workers And Shredding Documents, After Exposed As Players Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this weren't so dirty, and its purpose so sinister, this would be epic comedy! I don't know whether to be more amazed at the sheer, unmitigated gall of the "leaders" of this sham, or the near-idiocy of their followers.
> 
> As for what to call it, how about "Astro-turfing for the sake of totalitarianism"; a more complete description, I think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's their planned model.
> 
> Sturmabteilung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Go ahead.  Read what they did.  See the similarities.  Collectivist goons are nothing if not predictable.  Why people are always surprised by their actions is always amazing to me.
Click to expand...


Remember when Obama said he would form an army of civilians just as well equipped as our military? The OWS is a good recruiting tool for new activists or sometimes called para-military. 

Currently Obama *is not funding much of the military*. He has allowed us to lapse into an undermanned under-maintained force. We're still waiting for a budget so we can perform needed maintenance. When the *Stooper-Committee* drops the ball half of the military will be gone. It will happen before you realize it happened. 

Things like this are allowed to happen because of politics and because trying to stop a rogue president is too unseemly a proposition to undertake. 

The more they let him get away with the more he will attempt to get away with. And as long as he has a friendly press willing to deflect the nation's focus to silliness like *Herman Cain and his invisible bimbo*....he's gonna get away with murder.


----------



## Intense

He is a Rogue President.


----------



## editec

My ONLY wish is this:

I WISH the OWS events loomed as large and potentially society altering in the minds of the average American as they so obviously are in the minds of this boards right wingers.

You can smell the fear in their hateful posts.


----------



## Intense

editec said:


> My ONLY wish is this:
> 
> I WISH the OWS events loomed as large and potentially society altering in the minds of the average American as they so obviously are in the minds of this boards right wingers.
> 
> You can smell the fear in their hateful posts.



Are you advocating Change through Fear and Intimidation?

There is Nothing Noble in that Editec. I know influence through Reason and valid argument is tough for a group so unfocused, with so many contradictory claims and denials, but it is the High Road. We the People, have a Right to be Concerned about Riot and Insurrection. Why would you even question that?


----------



## mudwhistle

There is good reason to fear that a weak leader who thinks he can control these radical elements or doesn't give a damned what they can do to this country, if they're left unchecked, is allowed to let us slip into chaos. 

Obama is not the mastermind or brain behind this. Somebody or some group who made sure he was placed in power is. Obama is simply the front man. Obama is only as good as his press can make him appear. If whoever has been supporting him and has all of the goods on him were to suddenly appear in his office and threaten him with exposure he would do pretty much anything they wanted. Obama cannot stand up to someone like this. I don't even think it's one person but a group of people btw. 

Some will say we're letting our imaginations run away with us. That's what every country that fell under Totalitarian rule thought. They didn't take it seriously enough till it was already too late to stop it.

I think Hollywood is to blame for the apathy most Americans have toward real threats to this country. So much takes place in fantasyland on the movie screen that nobody can recognize a real threat when it rears it's ugly head.


----------



## editec

Intense said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> My ONLY wish is this:
> 
> I WISH the OWS events loomed as large and potentially society altering in the minds of the average American as they so obviously are in the minds of this boards right wingers.
> 
> You can smell the fear in their hateful posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you advocating Change through Fear and Intimidation?
Click to expand...

 
Now don't get your panties all in bunch, Intense.  

When I advocate something you won't have to ask if I'm advocating it.

I'm just noting the obvous fear that the OWS movment evokes from this boards right wing trolls.

It reminds me of the same kind of fear and loathing that the left wing trolls so obviously felt when the TPM had the spotlight.

Both these movements terrify the MASTERS.  

And _that_ is, I think, a good thing.

They need to wake up and realize that their _divide and conquor_ propaganda techniques that work so well on their easily mislead partisans could be leading to problems that could easily get out of hand.

The masters need to ratchet down the rhetoric despite the fact that both parties know that they'll need to ratchet up the hateful rehetoric in order for the candidates to appeal to the conceits and prejudices of the their most loyal know-nothings.

Both parties need to stop throwing gasoline of the smoldering fires that could lead to civil strife.


----------



## mudwhistle

editec said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> My ONLY wish is this:
> 
> I WISH the OWS events loomed as large and potentially society altering in the minds of the average American as they so obviously are in the minds of this boards right wingers.
> 
> You can smell the fear in their hateful posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you advocating Change through Fear and Intimidation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now don't get your panties all in bunch, Intense.
> 
> When I advocate something you won't have to ask if I'm advocating it.
> 
> I'm just noting the obvous fear that the OWS movment evokes from this boards right wing trolls.
> 
> It reminds me of the same kind of fear and loathing that the left wing trolls so obviously felt when the TPM had the spotlight.
> 
> Both these movements terrify the MASTERS.
> 
> And _that_ is, I think, a good thing.
> 
> They need to wake up and realize that their _divide and conquor_ propaganda techniques that work so well on their easily mislead partisans could be leading to problems that could easily get out of hand.
> 
> The masters need to ratchet down the rhetoric despite the fact that both parties know that they'll need to ratchet up the hateful rehetoric in order for the candidates to appeal to the conceits and prejudices of the their most loyal know-nothings.
> 
> Both parties need to stop throwing gasoline of the smoldering fires that could lead to civil strife.
Click to expand...


But who are the masters.......

It sure as shit isn't us. 

Wake the fuck up.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> So you're claiming now I haven't staked out a position?



That's correct. You have not. You have used a lot of words to say nothing at all.


----------



## The Gadfly

editec said:


> My ONLY wish is this:
> 
> I WISH the OWS events loomed as large and potentially society altering in the minds of the average American as they so obviously are in the minds of this boards right wingers.
> 
> You can smell the fear in their hateful posts.



The ONLY thing I fear, Editec, is the unnecessary bloodshed and the loss of innocent lives that civil strife and/or insurrection will lead to. You've seen war; can you say that any sane man who has would want that here in America?

Aside from anything else, "our masters" as you term them, should they feel sufficiently threatened, will simply hire "private security contractors" (a/k/a "mercenaries')-I expect they can find a plentiful supply. Unleash the dogs of war, and that will be far easier than putting them back in their pen after the shooting stops.


----------



## Dragon

The Gadfly said:


> The ONLY thing I fear, Editec, is the unnecessary bloodshed and the loss of innocent lives that civil strife and/or insurrection will lead to. You've seen war; can you say that any sane man who has would want that here in America?



"Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775



> Aside from anything else, "our masters" as you term them, should they feel sufficiently threatened, will simply hire "private security contractors" (a/k/a "mercenaries')-I expect they can find a plentiful supply. Unleash the dogs of war, and that will be far easier than putting them back in their pen after the shooting stops.



In fact, that is a possibility if Occupy turns to violence. But there is a difference between pursuing violence and unreasonably fearing it. The present state of affairs is untenable, and bowing our heads in servitude to the wealthy elite with no remedy in sight a fate worse than violent death.

We can win this. We will.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're claiming now I haven't staked out a position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's correct. You have not. You have used a lot of words to say nothing at all.
Click to expand...


You're the only person on this site that thinks that.


So that makes you............dumb.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ONLY thing I fear, Editec, is the unnecessary bloodshed and the loss of innocent lives that civil strife and/or insurrection will lead to. You've seen war; can you say that any sane man who has would want that here in America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
> 
> Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from anything else, "our masters" as you term them, should they feel sufficiently threatened, will simply hire "private security contractors" (a/k/a "mercenaries')-I expect they can find a plentiful supply. Unleash the dogs of war, and that will be far easier than putting them back in their pen after the shooting stops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In fact, that is a possibility if Occupy turns to violence. But there is a difference between pursuing violence and unreasonably fearing it. The present state of affairs is untenable, and bowing our heads in servitude to the wealthy elite with no remedy in sight a fate worse than violent death.
> 
> We can win this. We will.
Click to expand...


Who is we???

Are you actually advocating insurrection????

You are one serious dumb-ass. 

Many of us on this site already know who you are.

We remember you from that other site. 

I think you'd better be careful what you say here.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> You're the only person on this site that thinks that.



Prove it.

Actually, I think it's just that I'm the only one who is SAYING it, at this moment.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the only person on this site that thinks that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> Actually, I think it's just that I'm the only one who is SAYING it, at this moment.
Click to expand...


Prove what???

If you're the only one saying it, it doesn't mean you've got some special ability to not see the obvious. It just means you're a silly tuss-bucket with hardly a clue. 

If you're trying to piss me off, it's not working.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> Who is we???



See the title of this thread.



> Are you actually advocating insurrection????



Am I?



> Many of us on this site already know who you are.
> 
> We remember you from that other site.
> 
> I think you'd better be careful what you say here.



LOL no one on the other site knows who I am, either. In fact, you have better chance to know who I am from this site, which doesn't alarm me.

Empty threats, pointless rhetoric, no facts, no claims, no cognitive content whatsoever -- typical Muddy, exactly as I've been saying. You use more words to say nothing at all than any other poster here.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is we???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the title of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually advocating insurrection????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Am I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of us on this site already know who you are.
> 
> We remember you from that other site.
> 
> I think you'd better be careful what you say here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL no one on the other site knows who I am, either. In fact, you have better chance to know who I am from this site, which doesn't alarm me.
> 
> Empty threats, pointless rhetoric, no facts, no claims, no cognitive content whatsoever -- typical Muddy, exactly as I've been saying. You use more words to say nothing at all than any other poster here.
Click to expand...


Everyone from that other site knows......they put out the word.

Oh, I think I'll report you to the proper authorities.


----------



## mudwhistle

According to Title 18. Chapt 115 of the US Code.....


....I am duty bound to alert the authorities to anyone who is committing treasonous or seditious acts, are fomenting insurrection. 


US (United States) Code. Title 18. Chapter 115: Treason, sedition and subversive activities


Dependent upon the seriousness of the offense you can do time for advocating insurrection.

I can get 7 years for not saying anything to a federal judge or the FBI.


So, are you fully intending on committing acts that would be considered treasonous, seditious, or actively engaging in insurrection against the United States????


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> So, are you fully intending on committing acts that would be considered treasonous, seditious, or actively engaging in insurrection against the United States????



Am I?

You go ahead and report anything you want, Muddy. So far, all I've done is to advocate a constitutional convention to modify the Constitution. If you really think that's "insurrection," you probably need to take that up with the Founding Fathers who wrote that clause into the nation's governing document. Oh, that and express support for the Occupy movement, which if it were considered insurrection would be dealt with quite a lot differently than what we see. Anything I post here is wide open to anyone who wants to read it, and I'm not concerned about any federal authorities taking a look at my published material. I will let it speak for itself, retract nothing, and I am quite certain remain comfortably undisturbed by your nonexistent Gestapo.

Incidentally, you are very much backing up what I'm saying here about YOU. You are not engaged in any kind of serious discourse. Everything you do, including this, is taking no position at all relevant to any topic under discussion.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you fully intending on committing acts that would be considered treasonous, seditious, or actively engaging in insurrection against the United States????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I?
> 
> You go ahead and report anything you want, Muddy. So far, all I've done is to advocate a constitutional convention to modify the Constitution. If you really think that's "insurrection," you probably need to take that up with the Founding Fathers who wrote that clause into the nation's governing document. Oh, that and express support for the Occupy movement, which if it were considered insurrection would be dealt with quite a lot differently than what we see. Anything I post here is wide open to anyone who wants to read it, and I'm not concerned about any federal authorities taking a look at my published material. I will let it speak for itself, retract nothing, and I am quite certain remain comfortably undisturbed by your nonexistent Gestapo.
> 
> Incidentally, you are very much backing up what I'm saying here about YOU. You are not engaged in any kind of serious discourse. Everything you do, including this, is taking no position at all relevant to any topic under discussion.
Click to expand...


Your published material???

What have you published????

I see you're backtracking now.

Personally I think you're a nut because if you feel I'm not taking a position then you have to be crazy.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> Your published material???
> 
> What have you published????



Everything I post here, and everything anyone else posts here, is published. I've also published other writings, including the ones in my signature.



> I see you're backtracking now.



Nonsense. I'm not backtracking from anything I've actually said, and it's impossible for me to backtrack from anything you said I said that I didn't. Which is really what this discussion is about. You took something I posted, replaced it with your own words which meant something completely different, and threatened to report your own words falsely attributed to me to the authorities. To which I responded, go right ahead.

Nothing I have posted here or published elsewhere is not Constitutionally protected free speech. This is not Nazi Germany -- not yet anyway. So feel free.



> Personally I think you're a nut because if you feel I'm not taking a position then you have to be crazy.



The way to counter that is to say, "I've taken the positions A, B, and C you bloody fool, can't you read?"

What you're doing instead is to reinforce what I'm saying: you are taking no positions.

EDIT: And what you absolutely DON'T do, if you don't want to earn yourself complete and unutterable contempt, is make hollow threats to turn people over to the Gestapo if they don't shut up. That was incredibly revealing, Muddy. What an utter toad you are.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your published material???
> 
> What have you published????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything I post here, and everything anyone else posts here, is published. I've also published other writings, including the ones in my signature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you're backtracking now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. I'm not backtracking from anything I've actually said, and it's impossible for me to backtrack from anything you said I said that I didn't. Which is really what this discussion is about. You took something I posted, replaced it with your own words which meant something completely different, and threatened to report your own words falsely attributed to me to the authorities. To which I responded, go right ahead.
> 
> Nothing I have posted here or published elsewhere is not Constitutionally protected free speech. This is not Nazi Germany -- not yet anyway. So feel free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think you're a nut because if you feel I'm not taking a position then you have to be crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The way to counter that is to say, "I've taken the positions A, B, and C you bloody fool, can't you read?"
> 
> What you're doing instead is to reinforce what I'm saying: you are taking no positions.
Click to expand...


Published means you've published works in book or document form.

It has to be something you were paid a fee for. 


If what you say is true I've written several novels. 

Saying you published materials is pure hyperbole. 

And taking a position is saying you support one side over another.

My positions are well known to everyone here. 


Basically you're a fool that likes to waste other people's time.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> Published means you've published works in book or document form.
> 
> It has to be something you were paid a fee for.



Incorrect. Published means nothing more than that the words are put out for others to read on a public venue. It may be paid or unpaid. I've done both. It may be in print or electronic media. I've done both.



> If what you say is true I've written several novels.



Might want to stick to fiction, frankly. On second thought, that seems to be what you're doing . . .  



> And taking a position is saying you support one side over another.



And what exactly are the "sides" on this thread? This thread is about the Occupy movement.

I've seen you post stuff about Obama, which has nothing to do with Occupy. I've seen you post irrelevant fluff that doesn't have anything to do with Occupy. I've seen you post empty rhetoric that had no cognitive meaning at all. And now I've seen you post threats to turn me in to the Gestapo.

You have, so far, said nothing whatever in this thread that is in any way relevant to the thread discussion itself. And that is what I call not taking a position, and using many words to say nothing.


----------



## The Gadfly

editec said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> My ONLY wish is this:
> 
> I WISH the OWS events loomed as large and potentially society altering in the minds of the average American as they so obviously are in the minds of this boards right wingers.
> 
> You can smell the fear in their hateful posts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you advocating Change through Fear and Intimidation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now don't get your panties all in bunch, Intense.
> 
> When I advocate something you won't have to ask if I'm advocating it.
> 
> I'm just noting the obvous fear that the OWS movment evokes from this boards right wing trolls.
> 
> It reminds me of the same kind of fear and loathing that the left wing trolls so obviously felt when the TPM had the spotlight.
> 
> Both these movements terrify the MASTERS.
> 
> And _that_ is, I think, a good thing.
> 
> They need to wake up and realize that their _divide and conquor_ propaganda techniques that work so well on their easily mislead partisans could be leading to problems that could easily get out of hand.
> 
> The masters need to ratchet down the rhetoric despite the fact that both parties know that they'll need to ratchet up the hateful rehetoric in order for the candidates to appeal to the conceits and prejudices of the their most loyal know-nothings.
> 
> Both parties need to stop throwing gasoline of the smoldering fires that could lead to civil strife.
Click to expand...


Is it a good thing? I doubt that. They have a monopoly on the machinery of state violence, after all, and that is pretty formidable. Therefore, they will ratchet up the rhetoric, and everything else to attempt to win politically; they already KNOW they can win militarily. No one is going to frighten or threaten them out of power. most people know that, and given the choice between the devil they know, and the one they don't will choose the devil they know.

Is it possible civil strife/insurrection could be a potential outcome? Yes. Is it possible, for such an insurrection to succeed? In my opinion, no. If you like, I can lay out a plausible scenario for how such a thing could develop, and what the response would be. Even if such a movement had broad popular support (it does not), and even if it could choose the precise moment to initiate hostilities (that would likely be some spontaneous event), and if it were prepared to sustain those hostilities (it is not), its chances of success would still be slim to none. Inside a week, such a "movement" would find itself fighting an urban battle, in the dark, short on food and water with no hope of resupply, low on ammunition and with little to no communications (no electricity means no internet, among other things).

As for Dragon, and his dreams of a glorious revolution, and his assertion that he would rather face violent death than a continuation of the present, well, he might just as well blow out his own brains and be done with it, rather than be left to bleed to death like a dog in the street (no romance or glory in THAT), or live out his days in a prison cell lamenting "what might have been". That is usually what happens to romantics and "death lovers" in battle, with the unfortunate corollary that they usually take others not so inclined with them in the process.


----------



## mudwhistle

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Published means you've published works in book or document form.
> 
> It has to be something you were paid a fee for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Published means nothing more than that the words are put out for others to read on a public venue. It may be paid or unpaid. I've done both. It may be in print or electronic media. I've done both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what you say is true I've written several novels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might want to stick to fiction, frankly. On second thought, that seems to be what you're doing . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And taking a position is saying you support one side over another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what exactly are the "sides" on this thread? This thread is about the Occupy movement.
> 
> I've seen you post stuff about Obama, which has nothing to do with Occupy. I've seen you post irrelevant fluff that doesn't have anything to do with Occupy. I've seen you post empty rhetoric that had no cognitive meaning at all. And now I've seen you post threats to turn me in to the Gestapo.
> 
> You have, so far, said nothing whatever in this thread that is in any way relevant to the thread discussion itself. And that is what I call not taking a position, and using many words to say nothing.
Click to expand...


We don't have any Gestapo. That ended in 1945.

 The very thing you accuse me of you are guilty of. It's like you're describing yourself, so Pot meet Kettle.

If I had the inclination to talk back and forth with you about issues or just plain shoot the shit I would. But somehow I get the feeling I'm not dealing with someone possessing a full deck. 

And if I leave the discussion I'm sure you'll jump up in the air and declare victory. I've already seen you attempt that one....even when you were the butt of a joke and didn't know it. What I'm dealing with here is an adult with a child's mind. Somebody not to be taken seriously. Continuing to talk to you only encourages you.

3 guesses what I'll do next.


----------



## Dragon

The Gadfly said:


> As for Dragon, and his dreams of a glorious revolution, and his assertion that he would rather face violent death than a continuation of the present, well, he might just as well blow out his own brains and be done with it, rather than be left to bleed to death like a dog in the street (no romance or glory in THAT), or live out his days in a prison cell lamenting "what might have been". That is usually what happens to romantics and "death lovers" in battle, with the unfortunate corollary that they usually take others not so inclined with them in the process.



I think you are suffering from a paucity of the imagination, Gadfly. You seem unable to envision revolution except in terms of fighting against the U.S. military by an armed militia attempting to overthrow the government by force.

Do you think the machinery for maintaining the status quo in this country is more intimidating than what existed in the Soviet Union, or less? I would say less, wouldn't you? Not because the U.S. military is less formidable than what the USSR had (it's more so), but because the Soviet Union was a despotic state with a secret police and gulags and all that nasty stuff. And yet the Soviet Union was overthrown by its own people, peacefully, with hardly a shot being fired.

The U.S. has an implicit social contract: the people are supposed to be in charge. But the people aren't in charge; elections mean almost nothing because corporations call the shots and buy our elected officials. If that continues, and if there is no other way to change it, then revolution will become possible, not by fighting, not by violence, but simply by the withdrawal of popular support for the government and putting that support behind its replacement, peacefully, without a shot being fired. The military will not stop that, because the military will be among those who are withdrawing their support.

If we have to fight against the military, if we have to resort to violence, we can't succeed. If we can succeed, it will be because there is no longer a military force to fight, because it is on our side.

There may actually be ways of reform short of revolution and, realistically, that's the way to bet. It's what's happened in the past. One very workable possibility would be a constitutional convention to change the Constitution in a way that would resolve the problem and create genuine democracy -- either the radical direct democracy I refer to in my little e-book which you can find by the link in my signature, or, less drastically, a representative democracy purged of the influence of corporate money. I think doing it that way would be better than revolution, not as messy and containing an inherent legitimacy that would avoid post-revolutionary chaos.

But make no mistake, if push comes to shove, and if there is no other way for the people to take the government back from the monied interests that now control it, revolution is possible. If it was possible in the Soviet Union, it's certainly possible here.


----------



## mudwhistle

The Gadfly said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you advocating Change through Fear and Intimidation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now don't get your panties all in bunch, Intense.
> 
> When I advocate something you won't have to ask if I'm advocating it.
> 
> I'm just noting the obvous fear that the OWS movment evokes from this boards right wing trolls.
> 
> It reminds me of the same kind of fear and loathing that the left wing trolls so obviously felt when the TPM had the spotlight.
> 
> Both these movements terrify the MASTERS.
> 
> And _that_ is, I think, a good thing.
> 
> They need to wake up and realize that their _divide and conquor_ propaganda techniques that work so well on their easily mislead partisans could be leading to problems that could easily get out of hand.
> 
> The masters need to ratchet down the rhetoric despite the fact that both parties know that they'll need to ratchet up the hateful rehetoric in order for the candidates to appeal to the conceits and prejudices of the their most loyal know-nothings.
> 
> Both parties need to stop throwing gasoline of the smoldering fires that could lead to civil strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it a good thing? I doubt that. They have a monopoly on the machinery of state violence, after all, and that is pretty formidable. Therefore, they will ratchet up the rhetoric, and everything else to attempt to win politically; they already KNOW they can win militarily. No one is going to frighten or threaten them out of power. most people know that, and given the choice between the devil they know, and the one they don't will choose the devil they know.
> 
> Is it possible civil strife/insurrection could be a potential outcome? Yes. Is it possible, for such an insurrection to succeed? In my opinion, no. If you like, I can lay out a plausible scenario for how such a thing could develop, and what the response would be. Even if such a movement had broad popular support (it does not), and even if it could choose the precise moment to initiate hostilities (that would likely be some spontaneous event), and if it were prepared to sustain those hostilities (it is not), its chances of success would still be slim to none. Inside a week, such a "movement" would find itself fighting an urban battle, in the dark, short on food and water with no hope of resupply, low on ammunition and with little to no communications (no electricity means no internet, among other things).
> 
> As for Dragon, and his dreams of a glorious revolution, and his assertion that he would rather face violent death than a continuation of the present, well, he might just as well blow out his own brains and be done with it, rather than be left to bleed to death like a dog in the street (no romance or glory in THAT), or live out his days in a prison cell lamenting "what might have been". That is usually what happens to romantics and "death lovers" in battle, with the unfortunate corollary that they usually take others not so inclined with them in the process.
Click to expand...


Anyone can say when they're in a safe place that they will face death.

But when the time comes and they actually are facing it......they usually shit themselves.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> We don't have any Gestapo. That ended in 1945.



My point exactly. In that case, I don't have anything to worry about, do I?

Nothing else here that's anything but your usual empty rhetoric and diversion. You have nothing to say. I must admit, though, you do say nothing well. I imagine your novels are probably quite good. Too bad you seem unable to tell the difference between fiction and reality, but hey, that's not necessarily a bad trait in a novelist.


----------



## georgephillip

editec said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the crimes of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs unpunished?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> 
> One that both the OWS movement and the Tea Party movement both ought to have been asking.*


*It is not as if Republicans AND Democrats haven't caused this problem*. Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin had no shortage of help from Phil Gramm when it came to repealing Glass-Steagall. 

Clinton and Rubin, with many Republican helpers, then compounded the crime with the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000 which completed the groundwork for Wall Street's latest looting of the global economy. (They are coming back for more in Europe as we speak)

I suspect a poll of OWS and Tea Party members would reveal strong support for beginning the Wall Street prosecutions with Clinton, Rubin and Gramm, but we will all grow gray and dead before elected Democrats OR Republicans will alienate their 1% base.


----------



## georgephillip

Intense said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the crimes of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs unpunished?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Excellent question.
> 
> One that both the OWS movement and the Tea Party movement both ought to have been asking.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just follow the money.
Click to expand...

*The money leads to the 1%.*

Goldman Sachs received more subsidies and bailout related funds than any other investment bank post 2008 largely because the 1% permitted the investment bank to become a bank holding company. GS has used $billion$ of taxpayer funds to reward its elites: $18 billion in bonuses in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011...

Chris Hedges had this to say before his recent arrest on Wall Street:

"'*This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations*, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out *fraud and criminal activity* rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes...'

Journalist Chris Hedges arrested at Goldman Sachs protest | The Vancouver Observer 

Which side are you on?
OWS or Goldman Sachs?


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Excellent question.
> 
> One that both the OWS movement and the Tea Party movement both ought to have been asking.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just follow the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The money leads to the 1%.*
> 
> Goldman Sachs received more subsidies and bailout related funds than any other investment bank post 2008 largely because the 1% permitted the investment bank to become a bank holding company. GS has used $billion$ of taxpayer funds to reward its elites: $18 billion in bonuses in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011...
> 
> Chris Hedges had this to say before his recent arrest on Wall Street:
> 
> "'*This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations*, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out *fraud and criminal activity* rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes...'
> 
> Journalist Chris Hedges arrested at Goldman Sachs protest | The Vancouver Observer
> 
> Which side are you on?
> OWS or Goldman Sachs?
Click to expand...


Yep, allot of it does, but you are missing the trail. What if your diversion is just another channel to the same end? Take charge of your Life, your Resources, your choices. Get liberated. Join the Free Market of small Enterprise, and take a break from the Bullshit. Imposing on others is not exactly taking a break, just to be clear.


----------



## Intense

Dragon said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, are you fully intending on committing acts that would be considered treasonous, seditious, or actively engaging in insurrection against the United States????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am I?
> 
> You go ahead and report anything you want, Muddy. So far, all I've done is to advocate a constitutional convention to modify the Constitution. If you really think that's "insurrection," you probably need to take that up with the Founding Fathers who wrote that clause into the nation's governing document. Oh, that and express support for the Occupy movement, which if it were considered insurrection would be dealt with quite a lot differently than what we see. Anything I post here is wide open to anyone who wants to read it, and I'm not concerned about any federal authorities taking a look at my published material. I will let it speak for itself, retract nothing, and I am quite certain remain comfortably undisturbed by your nonexistent Gestapo.
> 
> Incidentally, you are very much backing up what I'm saying here about YOU. You are not engaged in any kind of serious discourse. Everything you do, including this, is taking no position at all relevant to any topic under discussion.
Click to expand...




> all I've done is to advocate a constitutional convention to modify the Constitution.



Is that really all you've done??? If so, no Foul. If you advocate Violence or Destruction, or Riot, that is another matter. 

The reason I don't trust a Constitutional Convention is because I Truly believe one of the First Protections to be Abandoned will be Unalienable Rights, The Progressive Puppet Masters will ensure that happens. Speech, Voice, Property, Dissent, anything unsanctioned that does not give Government Ultimate Authority and control over our very being will be on the chopping block and Totalitarianism will win the day. Consider for a moment how scheming Hamilton was. We have yet to correct the damage he has done to the Republic. With the sophistication and High Mindedness today, the damaging effect will be beyond comparison or measure. Constitutional Amendment deals with abuse and Miscarriage of Justice so much more effectively, Issue by Issue, Baby Steps. Move to fast and the Predators will Hi-Jack the Republic.


----------



## The Gadfly

georgephillip said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Excellent question.
> 
> One that both the OWS movement and the Tea Party movement both ought to have been asking.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just follow the money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The money leads to the 1%.*
> 
> Goldman Sachs received more subsidies and bailout related funds than any other investment bank post 2008 largely because the 1% permitted the investment bank to become a bank holding company. GS has used $billion$ of taxpayer funds to reward its elites: $18 billion in bonuses in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011...
> 
> Chris Hedges had this to say before his recent arrest on Wall Street:
> 
> "'*This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations*, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out *fraud and criminal activity* rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes...'
> 
> Journalist Chris Hedges arrested at Goldman Sachs protest | The Vancouver Observer
> 
> Which side are you on?
> OWS or Goldman Sachs?
Click to expand...


NEITHER! I am on the side of the rule of law and the constitution. That means, that whoever you are, you play by the laws and the constitution, and by what they actually say, NOT what you think they ought to say. If you foment, create, or advocate, insurrection and/or civil disorder in this Republic for whatever purpose, I will oppose you! PERIOD!


----------



## georgephillip

Intense said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just follow the money.
> 
> 
> 
> *The money leads to the 1%.*
> 
> Goldman Sachs received more subsidies and bailout related funds than any other investment bank post 2008 largely because the 1% permitted the investment bank to become a bank holding company. GS has used $billion$ of taxpayer funds to reward its elites: $18 billion in bonuses in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011...
> 
> Chris Hedges had this to say before his recent arrest on Wall Street:
> 
> "'*This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations*, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out *fraud and criminal activity* rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes...'
> 
> Journalist Chris Hedges arrested at Goldman Sachs protest | The Vancouver Observer
> 
> Which side are you on?
> OWS or Goldman Sachs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, allot of it does, but you are missing the trail. What if your diversion is just another channel to the same end? Take charge of your Life, your Resources, your choices. Get liberated. Join the Free Market of small Enterprise, and take a break from the Bullshit. Imposing on others is not exactly taking a break, just to be clear.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, are you saying Goldman Sachs and other investment banks should not face prosecution for control accounting fraud? Can you answer that simple question without deflection or extraneous capitalization?


----------



## editec

mudwhistle said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you advocating Change through Fear and Intimidation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now don't get your panties all in bunch, Intense.
> 
> When I advocate something you won't have to ask if I'm advocating it.
> 
> I'm just noting the obvous fear that the OWS movment evokes from this boards right wing trolls.
> 
> It reminds me of the same kind of fear and loathing that the left wing trolls so obviously felt when the TPM had the spotlight.
> 
> Both these movements terrify the MASTERS.
> 
> And _that_ is, I think, a good thing.
> 
> They need to wake up and realize that their _divide and conquor_ propaganda techniques that work so well on their easily mislead partisans could be leading to problems that could easily get out of hand.
> 
> The masters need to ratchet down the rhetoric despite the fact that both parties know that they'll need to ratchet up the hateful rehetoric in order for the candidates to appeal to the conceits and prejudices of the their most loyal know-nothings.
> 
> Both parties need to stop throwing gasoline of the smoldering fires that could lead to civil strife.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But who are the masters.......
> 
> It sure as shit isn't us.
> 
> Wake the fuck up.
Click to expand...

 
Did anything I wrote in the above suggest to you that I thought* we were the MASTERS?*


*Here's a unique thought.*

*Respond to what is written, not what you imagine I meant to say.*


----------



## mudwhistle

editec said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now don't get your panties all in bunch, Intense.
> 
> When I advocate something you won't have to ask if I'm advocating it.
> 
> I'm just noting the obvous fear that the OWS movment evokes from this boards right wing trolls.
> 
> It reminds me of the same kind of fear and loathing that the left wing trolls so obviously felt when the TPM had the spotlight.
> 
> Both these movements terrify the MASTERS.
> 
> And _that_ is, I think, a good thing.
> 
> They need to wake up and realize that their _divide and conquor_ propaganda techniques that work so well on their easily mislead partisans could be leading to problems that could easily get out of hand.
> 
> The masters need to ratchet down the rhetoric despite the fact that both parties know that they'll need to ratchet up the hateful rehetoric in order for the candidates to appeal to the conceits and prejudices of the their most loyal know-nothings.
> 
> Both parties need to stop throwing gasoline of the smoldering fires that could lead to civil strife.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But who are the masters.......
> 
> It sure as shit isn't us.
> 
> Wake the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did anything I wrote in the above suggest to you that I thought* we were the MASTERS?*
> 
> 
> *Here's a unique thought.*
> 
> *Respond to what is written, not what you imagine I meant to say.*
Click to expand...


I was responding to what was written. 

You just didn't understand my point.

I don't think the GOP is controlling this in any shape or form. There are some who are playing along with the socialists from the left primarily because they themselves are left-leaning socialist running as conservatives. The Masters as you call them are all socialists. If the RINOs were to try to split from them they'd become targets of a smear campaign like Herman Cain. They want Mitt Romney because he plays their game.

The mess going on in Greece is just like the mess Obama brought to America. Socialist countries* using Greece as a pawn *to play their *Wealth Distribution* games, *sucking cash from their own countries in effect robbing their own people of trillions*. 

Didn't it look familiar? Didn't it look the same as the mess that hit us when Obama was elected?

You saw what happened to the Greek President when he tried to ask the people what they thought of the bailouts through referendum. They had him go in front of his own government and go through the insult of a confidence vote. He barely squeaked by. Now he's resigning in disgrace. Count that as another one of Obama's government take-downs and add it to Egypt, Libya, and several others. Soon Syria's President will come under the knife. No big loss, but governments are falling all over the place. There are no honest brokers in the world anymore. Obama is trying to bring down renegade governors in America.* Wisconsin, Alabama, Arizona*, anyone who bucks his plan becomes a focus of protests and lawsuits. 

This is the threat we face when you have an irresponsible jerk in our White House. Our Presidents have been holding off the dogs and now Obama is just letting all of this happen. He doesn't give a damn. He figures he's safe. The next GOP president will catch hell going through the massive struggle it will be to clean this mess up, and the press is ready to tie into ass.


----------



## georgephillip

The Gadfly said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just follow the money.
> 
> 
> 
> *The money leads to the 1%.*
> 
> Goldman Sachs received more subsidies and bailout related funds than any other investment bank post 2008 largely because the 1% permitted the investment bank to become a bank holding company. GS has used $billion$ of taxpayer funds to reward its elites: $18 billion in bonuses in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011...
> 
> Chris Hedges had this to say before his recent arrest on Wall Street:
> 
> "'*This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations*, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out *fraud and criminal activity* rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes...'
> 
> Journalist Chris Hedges arrested at Goldman Sachs protest | The Vancouver Observer
> 
> Which side are you on?
> OWS or Goldman Sachs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NEITHER! I am on the side of the rule of law and the constitution. That means, that whoever you are, you play by the laws and the constitution, and by what they actually say, NOT what you think they ought to say. If you foment, create, or advocate, insurrection and/or civil disorder in this Republic for whatever purpose, I will oppose you! PERIOD!
Click to expand...

Do you oppose this sentiment from a convicted financial criminal?

*"We have no respect for the laws*. 

"We consider your codes of ethics, and your laws, weaknesses to be exploited in the execution of our crimes. 

"So the prosecutors, hopefully most prosecutors, are honest if they're playing by the set of the rules; they're hampered by the illegal constraints. 

"The white-collar criminal has no legal constraints. *You subpoena documents, we destroy documents; you subpoena witnesses, we lie*. So you are at a disadvantage when it comes to the white-collared criminal. 

"In effect, we're economic predators. We're serial economic predators; we impose a collective harm on society; time is always on our side, not on, not on the side of justice, unfortunately.&#8221; 

The Wall Street Crime Syndrome: Ten Reasons Why the Banksters "Get Away With It"

Do you believe ethics and laws are weaknesses?

Do the crimes of the 1% qualify as insurrection or civil disorder?

*Do the people ever have an obligation to dissolve government and create a new one?*


----------



## mudwhistle

georgephillip said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The money leads to the 1%.*
> 
> Goldman Sachs received more subsidies and bailout related funds than any other investment bank post 2008 largely because the 1% permitted the investment bank to become a bank holding company. GS has used $billion$ of taxpayer funds to reward its elites: $18 billion in bonuses in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011...
> 
> Chris Hedges had this to say before his recent arrest on Wall Street:
> 
> "'*This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations*, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out *fraud and criminal activity* rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes...'
> 
> Journalist Chris Hedges arrested at Goldman Sachs protest | The Vancouver Observer
> 
> Which side are you on?
> OWS or Goldman Sachs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEITHER! I am on the side of the rule of law and the constitution. That means, that whoever you are, you play by the laws and the constitution, and by what they actually say, NOT what you think they ought to say. If you foment, create, or advocate, insurrection and/or civil disorder in this Republic for whatever purpose, I will oppose you! PERIOD!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you oppose this sentiment from a convicted financial criminal?
> 
> *"We have no respect for the laws*.
> 
> "We consider your codes of ethics, and your laws, weaknesses to be exploited in the execution of our crimes.
> 
> "So the prosecutors, hopefully most prosecutors, are honest if they're playing by the set of the rules; they're hampered by the illegal constraints.
> 
> "The white-collar criminal has no legal constraints. *You subpoena documents, we destroy documents; you subpoena witnesses, we lie*. So you are at a disadvantage when it comes to the white-collared criminal.
> 
> "In effect, we're economic predators. We're serial economic predators; we impose a collective harm on society; time is always on our side, not on, not on the side of justice, unfortunately.
> 
> The Wall Street Crime Syndrome: Ten Reasons Why the Banksters "Get Away With It"
> 
> Do you believe ethics and laws are weaknesses?
> 
> Do the crimes of the 1% qualify as insurrection or civil disorder?
> 
> *Do the people ever have an obligation to dissolve government and create a new one?*
Click to expand...


Not it you don't want to get shot in the attempt.


----------



## editec

chanel said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Why are the crimes of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs unpunished?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Excellent question.*
> 
> *One that both the OWS movement and the Tea Party movement both ought to have been asking.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. How about demanding answers from their supporters in D.C.?
Click to expand...

 
At least SOME of the OWS folks are doing exactly that.

I can tell you one thing based on the lefties I know.

NOne of them are especially fond of Obama.

Few of them think the DEM party gives much hope for change in this economy.

The LEFT, that is to say the REAL left, not those liberal Dems, hasn't supported the DNC since the Kennedy Administration.

I think that in the l;ast election most of those lefties voted for Obama, not so much expecting hope or change, but merely because the alternative seemed so much worse than Obama.

And based on how Obama responded when the economy collapsed, given for example the fact that he DID help out a lot of Americans with food stamps and extentions of unemployment insurance, I guess they were right about that.

_When it comes to domestic social welfare policies, the Dems are marginally less offensive than the GOP._

Not exactly a ringing endorsement, that.


----------



## Dragon

mudwhistle said:


> I was responding to what was written.



Of course you weren't; you never do. At least not with anything pertinent, not with anything that could be called a direct statement.



> You just didn't understand my point.



You don't make points. You create diversions, you make threats, you erect straw men, you employ logical fallacies. You never make points. Here, I'll demonstrate:



> I don't think the GOP is controlling this in any shape or form.



Straw man; this isn't about the Republican Party.



> There are some who are playing along with the socialists from the left primarily because they themselves are left-leaning socialist running as conservatives.



Diversion; nothing to do with what is being discussed at all.



> The Masters as you call them are all socialists. If the RINOs were to try to split from them they'd become targets of a smear campaign like Herman Cain. They want Mitt Romney because he plays their game.



Diversion; nothing to do with what is being discussed at all. (Again, this is not about the Republican Party.)



> The mess going on in Greece is just like the mess Obama brought to America. Socialist countries* using Greece as a pawn *to play their *Wealth Distribution* games, *sucking cash from their own countries in effect robbing their own people of trillions*.



Diversion, nothing to do with anything being discussed at all.



> Didn't it look familiar? Didn't it look the same as the mess that hit us when Obama was elected



Diversion, nothing to do with anything being discussed at all. (Also, no, it didn't look familiar and in fact it wasn't.)



> You saw what happened to the Greek President when he tried to ask the people what they thought of the bailouts through referendum. They had him go in front of his own government and go through the insult of a confidence vote. He barely squeaked by. Now he's resigning in disgrace. Count that as another one of Obama's government take-downs and add it to Egypt, Libya, and several others.



Diversion, nothing to do with anything being discussed at all. (Also, a totally bizarre and irrational conspiracy theory without foundation.)



> Soon Syria's President will come under the knife. No big loss, but governments are falling all over the place. There are no honest brokers in the world anymore. Obama is trying to bring down renegade governors in America.* Wisconsin, Alabama, Arizona*, anyone who bucks his plan becomes a focus of protests and lawsuits.



Diversion, nothing to do with anything being discussed at all. (Also, a totally bizarre and irrational conspiracy theory without foundation.)



> This is the threat we face when you have an irresponsible jerk in our White House. Our Presidents have been holding off the dogs and now Obama is just letting all of this happen. He doesn't give a damn. He figures he's safe. The next GOP president will catch hell going through the massive struggle it will be to clean this mess up, and the press is ready to tie into ass.



Diversion, nothing to do with anything being discussed at all. (Also, a totally bizarre and irrational conspiracy theory without foundation.) This isn't about Obama or the Democrats anymore than it is about the Republicans.

Nothing there, Muddy. Nothing but formless goo and weirdness. You make no points.


----------



## georgephillip

mudwhistle said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> NEITHER! I am on the side of the rule of law and the constitution. That means, that whoever you are, you play by the laws and the constitution, and by what they actually say, NOT what you think they ought to say. If you foment, create, or advocate, insurrection and/or civil disorder in this Republic for whatever purpose, I will oppose you! PERIOD!
> 
> 
> 
> Do you oppose this sentiment from a convicted financial criminal?
> 
> *"We have no respect for the laws*.
> 
> "We consider your codes of ethics, and your laws, weaknesses to be exploited in the execution of our crimes.
> 
> "So the prosecutors, hopefully most prosecutors, are honest if they're playing by the set of the rules; they're hampered by the illegal constraints.
> 
> "The white-collar criminal has no legal constraints. *You subpoena documents, we destroy documents; you subpoena witnesses, we lie*. So you are at a disadvantage when it comes to the white-collared criminal.
> 
> "In effect, we're economic predators. We're serial economic predators; we impose a collective harm on society; time is always on our side, not on, not on the side of justice, unfortunately.
> 
> The Wall Street Crime Syndrome: Ten Reasons Why the Banksters "Get Away With It"
> 
> Do you believe ethics and laws are weaknesses?
> 
> Do the crimes of the 1% qualify as insurrection or civil disorder?
> 
> *Do the people ever have an obligation to dissolve government and create a new one?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not it you don't want to get shot in the attempt.
Click to expand...

*Are you assuming the only way to dissolve this government is through violence?*

If millions of US voters go into the polls next November and FLUSH hundreds of incumbents, Republicans AND Democrats alike, from DC in a single news cycle, who is going to shoot them?

David Rockefeller or George Soros?


----------



## Katzndogz

And replace those ousted incumbents with who?

Largely you will get more of the same.   The liberals will still want more liberalism.  The conservatives will still want to eliminate liberalism.

The problem isn't with the politicians.  It's with the people.  The nation is too fractured to continue whole.  It needs to break up.  Those states that demand honesty will get it.  Those states that will sacrifice honesty for promises of more public benefits will get politicians that promise to rob Peter to pay Paul, after they get their cut.


----------



## Divine Wind

Katzndogz said:


> And replace those ousted incumbents with who?
> 
> Largely you will get more of the same.   The liberals will still want more liberalism.  The conservatives will still want to eliminate liberalism.
> 
> The problem isn't with the politicians.  It's with the people.  .



Agreed "it's with the people".  Disagreed breaking up the Union is the best way to resolve our problems.   Georgephillip has the right idea, more voters need to become involved from local elections on up.  Consider the 2008 Presidential election; one of the most controversial elections in memory of those voting in it yet only 56.8% of voters bothered to get off their asses to vote?  WTF? 

The problem is indeed "We, the People".  Once we realize it and, more of us decide to do something about it be it protesting, contacting our Congressional representatives, voting and/or contacting others to become equally more involved, then the better things will become.   It's the way our system was set up and _it works_.....but it only works if we do our part as citizens.


----------



## Katzndogz

You say that because you firmly believe that the majority would vote for new or expansion of social programs.  If millions of people got off their butts and voted to end welfare programs and social safety nets you would not be imagining that increasing the number of voters is such a good idea.    When people are generally satisfied with the way things are going, they are least likely to vote.  I have not voted in a school board election in 30 years.  I don't care.  Let someone who cares vote.  Someone with kids.  They can vote.  

Low voter turnout only means that whatever side they are on, the voter is generally satisfied with the way things are going.  When the Judges who voted for same sex marriage in Iowa came up for reelection there was a large voter turnout, and those Judges lost.  Get people something they care about and they are likely to vote.  Hopefully the OWS protests will motivate more people to oust the democrats because they OWN these protests.


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The money leads to the 1%.*
> 
> Goldman Sachs received more subsidies and bailout related funds than any other investment bank post 2008 largely because the 1% permitted the investment bank to become a bank holding company. GS has used $billion$ of taxpayer funds to reward its elites: $18 billion in bonuses in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011...
> 
> Chris Hedges had this to say before his recent arrest on Wall Street:
> 
> "'*This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations*, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out *fraud and criminal activity* rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes...'
> 
> Journalist Chris Hedges arrested at Goldman Sachs protest | The Vancouver Observer
> 
> Which side are you on?
> OWS or Goldman Sachs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, allot of it does, but you are missing the trail. What if your diversion is just another channel to the same end? Take charge of your Life, your Resources, your choices. Get liberated. Join the Free Market of small Enterprise, and take a break from the Bullshit. Imposing on others is not exactly taking a break, just to be clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to be clear, are you saying Goldman Sachs and other investment banks should not face prosecution for control accounting fraud? Can you answer that simple question without deflection or extraneous capitalization?
Click to expand...


The Law applies to Everyone without Partiality. Serving Justice is not about seeking Sides, it is about fair, honest, and reasonable, resolution.

Each Side has Rights, Each Side has Fault. Resolution is not that simple, Government involvement effects the equation in multiple ways, at different levels. 

We seek to Establish Justice, Maintain, and Service It. Our Allegiance is to doing the Right thing, in the Right Measure, at the Right time. When We fail to do that, things get more complicated. Claiming to Be Just, while at the same time Obstructing it, seems to be what Government is getting really good at. That promotes both Ill Will and Cheating. Image is nothing compared to Substance.


----------



## Intense

Divine.Wind said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And replace those ousted incumbents with who?
> 
> Largely you will get more of the same.   The liberals will still want more liberalism.  The conservatives will still want to eliminate liberalism.
> 
> The problem isn't with the politicians.  It's with the people.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed "it's with the people".  Disagreed breaking up the Union is the best way to resolve our problems.   Georgephillip has the right idea, more voters need to become involved from local elections on up.  Consider the 2008 Presidential election; one of the most controversial elections in memory of those voting in it yet only 56.8% of voters bothered to get off their asses to vote?  WTF?
> 
> The problem is indeed "We, the People".  Once we realize it and, more of us decide to do something about it be it protesting, contacting our Congressional representatives, voting and/or contacting others to become equally more involved, then the better things will become.   It's the way our system was set up and _it works_.....but it only works if we do our part as citizens.
Click to expand...


We are Each Human Beings First, both Citizens and Non-citizens. for some of us, that comes before Special Interest. The rest, need to learn that Truth.


----------



## georgephillip

Katzndogz said:


> And replace those ousted incumbents with who?
> 
> Largely you will get more of the same.   The liberals will still want more liberalism.  The conservatives will still want to eliminate liberalism.
> 
> The problem isn't with the politicians.  It's with the people.  The nation is too fractured to continue whole.  It needs to break up.  Those states that demand honesty will get it.  Those states that will sacrifice honesty for promises of more public benefits will get politicians that promise to rob Peter to pay Paul, after they get their cut.


Replace the incumbents with Greens, Libertarians, Independents...whatever. Wall Street and the richest 1% of Americans use campaign contributions to control both corporate parties. Some of those third party replacements will probably succumb to corporate bribes. Others won't. Continuing to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat is guaranteed to change nothing as far as Wall Street or the Pentagon are concerned; if your happy with the status quo, vote Republican OR Democrat.

How are you defining "honesty" and "public benefits"?

Where's the conflict between the two?


----------



## Katzndogz

I vote for those who indicate a willingness to end social programs, social engineering and nudge people into taking care of themselves.  In addition, I ask that they lie to me as little as possible and stay out of my way.  Do what the government is supposed to do, provide for the national defense.

Ideally, it would be someone who would end the various forms of social programming like National Endownment for the Arts, National Endowment for the Humanities, the EPA, and all those federal outreach programs as well as the Department of Education.  Housing and Urban Development.  

I don't see many Greenies, Libertarians or democrats interested.


----------



## georgephillip

Do you see the connection between "(providing) for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." and the EPA? Would you trust Goldman Sachs or Enron to ensure your drinking water is safe?


----------



## Dragon

georgephillip said:


> Do you see the connection between "(providing) for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." and the EPA? Would you trust Goldman Sachs or Enron to ensure your drinking water is safe?



Constitutional-law nitpick: the enumerated-power justification for the EPA is found in the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not in the "general welfare" clause. There is no power granted to Congress to "promote the general welfare." There is, rather, a power to tax and spend to promote the general welfare (Article I, Section 8, first clause), and that power does not fully describe what the EPA is doing.


----------



## georgephillip

Dragon said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the connection between "(providing) for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." and the EPA? Would you trust Goldman Sachs or Enron to ensure your drinking water is safe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional-law nitpick: the enumerated-power justification for the EPA is found in the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not in the "general welfare" clause. There is no power granted to Congress to "promote the general welfare." There is, rather, a power to tax and spend to promote the general welfare (Article I, Section 8, first clause), and that power does not fully describe what the EPA is doing.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction.

It's becoming more and more obvious to me how many of our current problems stem from that first Secret Constitutional Convention that was presided over by the wealthiest landowner in the country.

Maybe it is time for a second convention with delegates that aren't limited to 1% white males?


----------



## The Gadfly

georgephillip said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The money leads to the 1%.*
> 
> Goldman Sachs received more subsidies and bailout related funds than any other investment bank post 2008 largely because the 1% permitted the investment bank to become a bank holding company. GS has used $billion$ of taxpayer funds to reward its elites: $18 billion in bonuses in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011...
> 
> Chris Hedges had this to say before his recent arrest on Wall Street:
> 
> "'*This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations*, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out *fraud and criminal activity* rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes...'
> 
> Journalist Chris Hedges arrested at Goldman Sachs protest | The Vancouver Observer
> 
> Which side are you on?
> OWS or Goldman Sachs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, allot of it does, but you are missing the trail. What if your diversion is just another channel to the same end? Take charge of your Life, your Resources, your choices. Get liberated. Join the Free Market of small Enterprise, and take a break from the Bullshit. Imposing on others is not exactly taking a break, just to be clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to be clear, are you saying Goldman Sachs and other investment banks should not face prosecution for control accounting fraud? Can you answer that simple question without deflection or extraneous capitalization?
Click to expand...

IF there is sufficient probative evidence that people have broken the law, then by all means, indict them, prosecute them and convict them in a court of law as the facts warrant.We have laws and regulations that govern the conduct of Wall Street firms, and the banks. If there is evidence these have been violated, and by whom, then produce it. If on the other hand, you want to try people for "crimes" you think they "must" have committed, and there is not sufficient evidence that any actual crimes occurred to be presented to a federal grand jury for indictment, you are making false accusations, and should shut up. We have a functioning system of jurisprudence for the purpose; we have investigative agencies and prosecutors whose function it is to pursue any individual on Wall St. or elsewhere who has committed financial crimes, and bring them before the bar of justice. Anyone so accused has the same rights to due process as anyone else; no more, and no less. YOU, however, have exactly ZERO standing to demand political "Show trials" for imagined crimes which do not meet the standard for prosecution under existing law. We are going to have justice under the law here, NOT a lynch mob!


----------



## georgephillip

"And William K. Black - *the senior regulator during the S&L crisis*, and an Associate Professor of both Economics and Law at the University of Missouri - says that the Prompt Corrective Action Law (PCA), 12 U.S.C. § 1831o, not only authorizes the government to seize insolvent banks, it mandates it, and that the Bush and Obama administrations broke the law by refusing to close insolvent banks.

"Why Wall Street Reforms Have Stalled by William K. Black,  New York Times, Sept 11, 2009..."

The Money party

In case you haven't noticed, the richest 1% have bought enough elected Republicans AND Democrats over the last thirty years to make your childish squeals about a "functioning system of jurisprudence" less meaningful than Hope and Change.

According to Bill Black the FBI began warning of an "epidemic of mortgage fraud...with 80% of the fraud coming from lenders" as early as 2004. Bush and Obama obviously couldn't care less. Maybe that's because they serve the same (criminal) 1% base?


----------



## Katzndogz

A night at Occupy Wall Street.

It's over.  All but the mopping up.

New York Post reporter spends night with Occupy Wall Street protesters in Zuccotti Park - NYPOST.com

Every single night its the same thing. I mean, some guy was a victim of rape! an officer snarls. There comes a time when its over. This is a disaster. Its all were doing, every two seconds, is locking somebody up every time. Its done.

Its done, he repeats. Occupy Wall Street is no longer a protest. 

Scenes like this -- and far worse -- have been playing out since the Zuccotti Park occupation began on Sept. 17.

The parcel is now a sliver of madness, rife with sex attacks, robberies and vigilante justice.


Read more: New York Post reporter spends night with Occupy Wall Street protesters in Zuccotti Park - NYPOST.com


----------



## georgephillip

*"Occupy Wall Street Agenda
Monday, November 7*

Showing events after 11/7. Look for earlier events
Monday, November 7
9:00am
 This is What Democracy Looks Like -- Art Exhibition
10:30am
 Washington Heights to Harlem to Wall Street March
12:00pm
 Think Tank Discussion
12:00pm
 Non-Violent ..."

Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution


----------



## Uncensored2008

Intense said:


> Are you advocating Change through Fear and Intimidation?



Of course.

Violence and the threat of violence are the core of the left.



> There is Nothing Noble in that Editec. I know influence through Reason and valid argument is tough for a group so unfocused, with so many contradictory claims and denials, but it is the High Road. We the People, have a Right to be Concerned about Riot and Insurrection. Why would you even question that?



Reason is the domain of the right. The left seeks change through violence, always.


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see the connection between "(providing) for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..." and the EPA? Would you trust Goldman Sachs or Enron to ensure your drinking water is safe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional-law nitpick: the enumerated-power justification for the EPA is found in the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not in the "general welfare" clause. There is no power granted to Congress to "promote the general welfare." There is, rather, a power to tax and spend to promote the general welfare (Article I, Section 8, first clause), and that power does not fully describe what the EPA is doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the correction.
> 
> It's becoming more and more obvious to me how many of our current problems stem from that first Secret Constitutional Convention that was presided over by the wealthiest landowner in the country.
> 
> Maybe it is time for a second convention with delegates that aren't limited to 1% white males?
Click to expand...


Why?

How about starting by listing your top 3 Grievances, why they are unjust, and what you propose to remedy them.


----------



## georgephillip

Intense said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutional-law nitpick: the enumerated-power justification for the EPA is found in the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not in the "general welfare" clause. There is no power granted to Congress to "promote the general welfare." There is, rather, a power to tax and spend to promote the general welfare (Article I, Section 8, first clause), and that power does not fully describe what the EPA is doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the correction.
> 
> It's becoming more and more obvious to me how many of our current problems stem from that first Secret Constitutional Convention that was presided over by the wealthiest landowner in the country.
> 
> Maybe it is time for a second convention with delegates that aren't limited to 1% white males?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> How about starting by listing your top 3 Grievances, why they are unjust, and what you propose to remedy them.
Click to expand...

Let's start with one grievance from which many stem, imho.

The Founders created a government with special protections for property rights at the expense of human rights. While the Civil War ended the profit from chattel slavery, that special emphasis for property rights has become a bedrock of corporate power.

Tell me why property rights should count for more than human rights, like subsistence and education, for example?


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you advocating Change through Fear and Intimidation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> Violence and the threat of violence are the core of the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is Nothing Noble in that Editec. I know influence through Reason and valid argument is tough for a group so unfocused, with so many contradictory claims and denials, but it is the High Road. We the People, have a Right to be Concerned about Riot and Insurrection. Why would you even question that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reason is the domain of the right. The left seeks change through violence, always.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the left that was seeking change through violence in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, was it?

*Don't you ever gag when swallowing Wall Street's Shit?*


----------



## Katzndogz

georgephillip said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the correction.
> 
> It's becoming more and more obvious to me how many of our current problems stem from that first Secret Constitutional Convention that was presided over by the wealthiest landowner in the country.
> 
> Maybe it is time for a second convention with delegates that aren't limited to 1% white males?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> How about starting by listing your top 3 Grievances, why they are unjust, and what you propose to remedy them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's start with one grievance from which many stem, imho.
> 
> The Founders created a government with special protections for property rights at the expense of human rights. While the Civil War ended the profit from chattel slavery, that special emphasis for property rights has become a bedrock of corporate power.
> 
> Tell me why property rights should count for more than human rights, like subsistence and education, for example?
Click to expand...


This is where you go wrong.  There is no human right to subsistence or education that is paid for by someone else.  You have the right to subsistence, which means that the government cannot prohibit you from legally providing subsistence for yourself.  The government is supposed to protect property rights to prevent theft of property.  It is not supposed to grant RIGHTS to take the property of others.


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> Let's start with one grievance from which many stem, imho.
> 
> The Founders created a government with special protections for property rights at the expense of human rights.



There can be no human rights without property rights.

The recognition that a person is the rightful owner of his mind and body, thus the owner of what is produced as a result of his mind an body, is the foundation of all human rights. Deny this, and all rights are gone.

We must remember our foundations. The right is predicated on the notion that the individual is supreme, that each person is unique and that the universe is diminished by the loss of any individual. As a result, the rights of the individual supersede all other rights.

The left is based on the idea that society is supreme, that individuals have value only in their function to society as a whole. Any given individual is replaceable, some are more valuable, but any person can be replaced and their loss is of no import, people are mere cogs and gears in the machine of the state. The extension of this is that all things rightfully belong to society, i.e. the state. Property rights accrue to the state and the rulers, not to the cogs and gears that turn the wheels.

This is why individuals in leftist societies don't have any human rights, one does not accrue rights to bolts and wires. There are many rules on how to treat the cogs and gears of the machine, rules and run manuals are part of the philosophy of the state as supreme, but the concept of individuals as having worth is anathema to the left.  The death of one or ten million to a Mao, Stalin or Chomsky is no more relevant that a truck load of parts being destroyed. They will have to be replaced, but those lost had no significance on their own.  



> While the Civil War ended the profit from chattel slavery, that special emphasis for property rights has become a bedrock of corporate power.



Quite the opposite.

Corporations have chaffed at property rights since the days of the robber barons. Corporations turned to the state to drive people off of their land so that railways and oil wells could be built "for the greater good." 



> Tell me why property rights should count for more than human rights, like subsistence and education, for example?



There can be no human rights without property rights.

Tell me why the state is more valuable than the individual?


----------



## Unkotare

georgephillip said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you advocating Change through Fear and Intimidation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> Violence and the threat of violence are the core of the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is Nothing Noble in that Editec. I know influence through Reason and valid argument is tough for a group so unfocused, with so many contradictory claims and denials, but it is the High Road. We the People, have a Right to be Concerned about Riot and Insurrection. Why would you even question that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reason is the domain of the right. The left seeks change through violence, always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't the left that was seeking change through violence in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, was it?
Click to expand...



Sure it was. The left was just cheering for the other side.


----------



## georgephillip

Katzndogz said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> How about starting by listing your top 3 Grievances, why they are unjust, and what you propose to remedy them.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with one grievance from which many stem, imho.
> 
> The Founders created a government with special protections for property rights at the expense of human rights. While the Civil War ended the profit from chattel slavery, that special emphasis for property rights has become a bedrock of corporate power.
> 
> Tell me why property rights should count for more than human rights, like subsistence and education, for example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where you go wrong.  There is no human right to subsistence or education that is paid for by someone else.  You have the right to subsistence, which means that the government cannot prohibit you from legally providing subsistence for yourself.  The government is supposed to protect property rights to prevent theft of property.  It is not supposed to grant RIGHTS to take the property of others.
Click to expand...

There's no human right to subsistence or education in an inhuman economic system like capitalism.

But, there are alternatives.
Social Credit as conceived by CH Douglas, for example:

"Douglas disagreed with classical economists who divided the factors of production into only land, labour and capital. While Douglas did not deny these factors in production, he believed the *'cultural inheritance of society*' was the primary factor. 

"Cultural inheritance is defined as the *knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization*. 

"Consequently, mankind does not have to keep 'reinventing the wheel'. 'We are merely the administrators of that cultural inheritance, and to that extent the *cultural inheritance is the property of all of us, without exception.*'[5] 

In our present economic system the dividend from our collective cultural inheritance is claimed almost exclusively by the richest 1% of humanity. OWS is saying it's time to change that dynamic.

Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's start with one grievance from which many stem, imho.
> 
> The Founders created a government with special protections for property rights at the expense of human rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There can be no human rights without property rights.
> 
> The recognition that a person is the rightful owner of his mind and body, thus the owner of what is produced as a result of his mind an body, is the foundation of all human rights. Deny this, and all rights are gone.
> 
> We must remember our foundations. The right is predicated on the notion that the individual is supreme, that each person is unique and that the universe is diminished by the loss of any individual. As a result, the rights of the individual supersede all other rights.
> 
> The left is based on the idea that society is supreme, that individuals have value only in their function to society as a whole. Any given individual is replaceable, some are more valuable, but any person can be replaced and their loss is of no import, people are mere cogs and gears in the machine of the state. The extension of this is that all things rightfully belong to society, i.e. the state. Property rights accrue to the state and the rulers, not to the cogs and gears that turn the wheels.
> 
> This is why individuals in leftist societies don't have any human rights, one does not accrue rights to bolts and wires. There are many rules on how to treat the cogs and gears of the machine, rules and run manuals are part of the philosophy of the state as supreme, but the concept of individuals as having worth is anathema to the left.  The death of one or ten million to a Mao, Stalin or Chomsky is no more relevant that a truck load of parts being destroyed. They will have to be replaced, but those lost had no significance on their own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While the Civil War ended the profit from chattel slavery, that special emphasis for property rights has become a bedrock of corporate power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite the opposite.
> 
> Corporations have chaffed at property rights since the days of the robber barons. Corporations turned to the state to drive people off of their land so that railways and oil wells could be built "for the greater good."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me why property rights should count for more than human rights, like subsistence and education, for example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There can be no human rights without property rights.
> 
> Tell me why the state is more valuable than the individual?
Click to expand...

Just as labor is prior to and more important than capital, property doesn't exist in any meaningful way without humanity. State versus individual is a straw man. When one percent of the individuals in any state dominate government to the extent the richest 1% of Americans dominate both major political parties today, any foundation for human rights vanishes and even property values go into decline occasionally.


----------



## georgephillip

Unkotare said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> Violence and the threat of violence are the core of the left.
> 
> 
> 
> Reason is the domain of the right. The left seeks change through violence, always.
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't the left that was seeking change through violence in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, was it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it was. The left was just cheering for the other side.
Click to expand...

*Do you celebrate killing children for oil?*

"These results provide strong evidence that the Gulf war and trade sanctions caused a threefold increase in mortality among Iraqi children under five years of age. We estimate that an excess of more than 46,900 children died between January and August 1991. (N Engl J Med 1992;327:931&#8211;6.)"

MMS: Error


----------



## Katzndogz

That's not true.

However, for TRUE GENIUS, take this protester.

The WISDOM of OWS on exhibition.

Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » Occupy Portland: Super-Genius Handcuffs Himself Inside Concrete-Filled Barrel&#8230;


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> Just as labor is prior to and more important than capital, property doesn't exist in any meaningful way without humanity.



Labor has no value and is completely unimportant.  Marx was a fool.

Oh this startles you? The dogma you live by says that labor is noble and is the highest good.

Nonsense, labor has no value at all. Go dig a hole in the desert. Have you not labored? What value did your labor create?

Don't like that? Okay, grab a 50 pound bag of carrots and start chopping. I'll plug in a food processor. Not only will I do in a minute that which takes you hours, the quality of results will be far higher from me.

Labor is irrelevant, results matter.  It is the mind that produces results, sometimes through labor, most times through automation.



> State versus individual is a straw man.



Hardly, it is THE issue. Every aspect of the conflict between left and right boils down to whether one holds the individual or society in preeminence. 



> When one percent of the individuals in any state dominate government to the extent the richest 1% of Americans dominate both major political parties today, any foundation for human rights vanishes and even property values go into decline occasionally.



Now THAT is a straw man.


----------



## Intense

georgephillip said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the correction.
> 
> It's becoming more and more obvious to me how many of our current problems stem from that first Secret Constitutional Convention that was presided over by the wealthiest landowner in the country.
> 
> Maybe it is time for a second convention with delegates that aren't limited to 1% white males?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> How about starting by listing your top 3 Grievances, why they are unjust, and what you propose to remedy them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's start with one grievance from which many stem, imho.
> 
> The Founders created a government with special protections for property rights at the expense of human rights. While the Civil War ended the profit from chattel slavery, that special emphasis for property rights has become a bedrock of corporate power.
> 
> Tell me why property rights should count for more than human rights, like subsistence and education, for example?
Click to expand...


Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One

Volume (?)

1784-1796

Organizing the New Nation

THE ANNALS OF AMERICA
---------------------
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

100

Philip Freneau
Rules for Changing
a Republic [into a Democracy, then] into a Monarchy

Those who had opposed the constitution thought their fears justified by the conduct of the government that began to function in 1789. Under the aggressive leadership of Alexander Hamilton, the secretary of the treasury, economic measures were taken that favored the few, while a effective party machine was organized and the army strengthened in such a way as to suggest an intent to control rather than to represent the many. The whole tone of Washington's administration was aristocratic, favoring as it did the educated, the wealthy, the clergy, and the press, who were fearful of "mob rule" and preferred to see what Hamilton called "gentlemen of principle and property" in command. As Hamilton had at his service a newspaper - John Fenno's Gazette of the United States - to support his policies, his opponents, led by Jefferson and Madison, decided to establish a rival newspaper, the National Gazette. Philip Freneau, an experienced journalist of known democratic leanings, was chosen to edit the paper. The editorial, reprinted here, is typical of those in which Freneau criticized the Hamiltonian program from 1791 to 1793.

Source: American Museum, July 1792: "Rules for Changing a Limited Republican Government into an Unlimited Hereditary One."


Rules for changing a limited republican government into an unlimited hereditary one.

1. It being necessary in order to effect the change, to get rid of constitutional shackles and popular prejudices, all possible means and occasions are to be used for both these purposes.

2. Nothing being more likely to prepare the vulgar mind for aristocratical ranks and hereditary powers than titles, endeavor in the offset of the government to confer these on its most dignified officers. If the principal magistrate should happen to be particularly venerable in the eyes of the people, take advantage of that fortunate circumstance in setting the example.

3. Should the attempt fail through his republican aversion to it, or from the danger of alarming the people, do not abandon the enterprise altogether, but lay up the proposition in the record. Time may gain it respect, and it will be there always ready, cut and dried, for any favorable conjuncture that may offer.

4. In drawing all bills, resolutions, and reports, keep constantly in view that the limitations in the Constitution are ultimately to be explained away. Precedents and phrases may thus be shuffled in, without being adverted to by candid or weak people, of which good use may afterward be made.

5. As the novelty and bustle of inaugurating the government will for some time keep the public mind in a heedless and unsettled state, let the press during this period be busy in propagating the doctrines of monarchy and aristocracy. For this purpose it will be particular useful to confound a mobbish democracy with a representative republic, that by exhibiting all the turbulent examples and enormities of the former, an odium may be thrown on the character of the latter. Review all the civil contests, convulsions, factions, broils, squabbles, bickering, black eyes, and bloody noses of ancient, middle, and modern ages; caricature them into the most frightful forms and colors that can be imagined, and unfold one scene of horrible tragedy after another till the people be made, if possible, to tremble at their own shadows. Let the discourses on Davila then contrast with these pictures of terror the quiet hereditary succession, the reverence claimed by birth and nobility, and the fascinating influence of stars, and ribands, and garters, cautiously suppressing all the bloody tragedies and unceasing oppressions which form the history of this species of government. No pains should be spared in this part of the undertaking, for the greatest will be wanted, it being extremely difficult, especially when a people have been taught to reason and feel their rights, to convince them that a king, who is always an enemy to the people, and a nobility, who are perhaps still more so, will take better care of the people than the people will take of themselves.

6. But the grand nostrum will be a public debt, provided enough of it can be got and it be medicated with the proper ingredients. If by good fortune a debt be ready at hand, the most is to be made of it. Stretch it and swell it to the utmost the items will bear. Allow as many extra claims as decency will permit. Assume all the debts of your neighbors - in a word, get as much debt as can be raked and scraped together, and when you have got all you can, "advertise" for more, and have the debt made as big as possible. This object being accomplished, the next will be to make it as perpetual as possible; and the next to that, to get it into as few hands as possible. The more effectually to bring this about, modify the debt, complicate it, divide it, subdivide it, subtract it, postpone it, let there be one-third of two-thirds, and two-thirds of one-third, and two-thirds of two-thirds; let there be 3 percents, and 4 percents, and 6 percents, and present 6 percents, and future 6 percents. To be brief, let the whole be such a mystery that a few only can understand it; and let all possible opportunities and informations fall in the way of these few to cinch their advantages over the many.

7. It must not be forgotten that the members of the legislative body are to have a deep stake in the game. This is an essential point, and happily is attended with no difficulty. A sufficient number, properly disposed, can alternately legislate and speculate, and speculate and legislate, and buy and sell, and sell and buy, until a due portion of the property of their constituents has passed into their hands to give them an interest against their constituents, and to ensure the part they are to act. All this, however, must be carried on under the cover of the closest secrecy; and it is particularly lucky that dealings in paper admit of more secrecy that any other. Should a discovery take place, the whole plan may be blown up.


Cont.......

Freneau: Changing a Republic into a Monarchy (1792)


----------



## Intense

Property


CHAPTER 16 | Document 23

James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

*That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.*

Property: James Madison, Property


----------



## Katzndogz

The OWS shitters really object to property rights.  That's what it comes down to.

Say we had that system.  You OWN whatever you can protect by whatever means you have available.

OWS might go for that.  They won't know what it means,  but at that point who cares.


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as labor is prior to and more important than capital, property doesn't exist in any meaningful way without humanity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labor has no value and is completely unimportant.  Marx was a fool.
> 
> Oh this startles you? The dogma you live by says that labor is noble and is the highest good.
> 
> Nonsense, labor has no value at all. Go dig a hole in the desert. Have you not labored? What value did your labor create?
> 
> Don't like that? Okay, grab a 50 pound bag of carrots and start chopping. I'll plug in a food processor. Not only will I do in a minute that which takes you hours, the quality of results will be far higher from me.
> 
> Labor is irrelevant, results matter.  It is the mind that produces results, sometimes through labor, most times through automation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> State versus individual is a straw man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly, it is THE issue. Every aspect of the conflict between left and right boils down to whether one holds the individual or society in preeminence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When one percent of the individuals in any state dominate government to the extent the richest 1% of Americans dominate both major political parties today, any foundation for human rights vanishes and even property values go into decline occasionally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now THAT is a straw man.
Click to expand...

*Rich individual v poor individual is THE issue.*

"Those who hold, and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination."

Corporate apparatchiks believe the private property rights of the richest 1% count for more than the collective rights of the society that made private property possible. Individuals experience lives that are short, brutish and nasty without the protection afforded by society. Move to Yemen if you're in doubt.

If you dig your hole in the desert, would you be doing more damage to society than AIG and Goldman Sachs? 

Marx was foolish to think an all powerful state was a solution to capitalism.
That doesn't mean he was wrong about its paradox of accumulation.

The Federalist (Dawson)/10 - Wikisource


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> *Rich individual v poor individual is THE issue.*



Moving the goal posts does not aid your argument.

You claimed that labor is more important than capital. How does the above claim support that argument?



> "Those who hold, and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination."



You claimed that labor is more important than capital. How does the above claim support that argument?



> Corporate apparatchiks believe the private property rights of the richest 1% count for more than the collective rights of the society that made private property possible.



Again we see that you, as a leftist hold society as being of greater value than the individual, and accruing rights to society, i.e. the state, rather than to the individual.

Thank you for illustrating my thesis that the divide between left and right is that of state versus the individual.



> Individuals experience lives that are short, brutish and nasty without the protection afforded by society. Move to Yemen if you're in doubt.



Humans create cooperative societies, this is true. Those societies which thrive most are the ones that recognize the rights of the individual. Those that follow the view of the left, of humans as chattel, tend to fall in short order. Ever is the claim that society is served by the exploitation and sacrifice of the individual for "the greater good," yet history shows that the individual is the greater good. 



> If you dig your hole in the desert, would you be doing more damage to society than AIG and Goldman Sachs?



You attempted to dodge the point that labor is irrelevant. Labor means nothing at all. 



> Marx was foolish to think an all powerful state was a solution to capitalism.
> That doesn't mean he was wrong about its paradox of accumulation.



Yet what you advocate is an all powerful state with the individual existing only to serve that state.

Capitalism is the most moral means of people interacting.



> The Federalist (Dawson)/10 - Wikisource


----------



## georgephillip

Labor is prior to and independent of capital.
Without labor capital does not exist.
Labor is more important than capital.


----------



## Dragon

georgephillip said:


> Marx was foolish to think an all powerful state was a solution to capitalism.



Marx didn't think that. His folly lay in other areas.


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> Labor is prior to and independent of capital.
> Without labor capital does not exist.
> Labor is more important than capital.



Repeating idiocy doesn't lend credence to it.

Labor is irrelevant. Labor is simply a tool. A hammer in the hands of toddler builds nothing. Labor in the hands of fools accomplishes nothing. The skilled craftsman may wield both to magnificent result, yet it is the craftsman and not the tool that makes this possible.


----------



## georgephillip

The craftsman is labor.
The hammer is capital.
You're the fool.


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> The craftsman is labor.
> The hammer is capital.
> You're the fool.



George, you're being an idiot because you cannot support your foolish claims.

Labor produces nothing of it's own accord.


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The craftsman is labor.
> The hammer is capital.
> You're the fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George, you're being an idiot because you cannot support your foolish claims.
> 
> Labor produces nothing of it's own accord.
Click to expand...

In the same sense that land produces nothing of its own accord?

What are the factors of production in your economy?


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> In the same sense that land produces nothing of its own accord?



Correct.



> What are the factors of production in your economy?



Knowledge and materials - in all endeavors.


----------



## Big Fitz

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The craftsman is labor.
> The hammer is capital.
> You're the fool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George, you're being an idiot because you cannot support your foolish claims.
> 
> Labor produces nothing of it's own accord.
Click to expand...

Unless they are also the entrepreneur.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Big Fitz said:


> Unless they are also the entrepreneur.



Labor as a verb, not a noun.

What I explained to George is that digging a hole in the middle of the desert is labor, but produces nothing. Labor is a tool, used correctly it can be productive, but it is the mind directing the labor that creates value.

A mindless brute swinging a sledge hammer will never create a computer, regardless of the effort put forth. It is the mind that creates. Often the mind must use labor as a tool to manifest what it conceives, but the conception is where value is born.


----------



## Big Fitz

Uncensored2008 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless they are also the entrepreneur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labor as a verb, not a noun.
> 
> What I explained to George is that digging a hole in the middle of the desert is labor, but produces nothing. Labor is a tool, used correctly it can be productive, but it is the mind directing the labor that creates value.
> 
> A mindless brute swinging a sledge hammer will never create a computer, regardless of the effort put forth. It is the mind that creates. Often the mind must use labor as a tool to manifest what it conceives, but the conception is where value is born.
Click to expand...

ah.  Verbiage trouble.  gotcha.  

So this is apropos for George:


----------



## georgephillip

*la bor (noun)*

(1) human activity that provides the goods or services in an economy. 
(2) the services performed by workers for wages as distinguished from those rendered by entrepreneurs for profits.
(4) an economic group comprising those who do manual labor or work for wages.

Labor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


----------



## Katzndogz

How long will labor work without capital to pay them?


----------



## georgephillip

Katzndogz said:


> How long will labor work without capital to pay them?


*Not long.*

Land, labor and capital are the three classic factors of production.
Entrepreneurship is probably another.
But there is also the cultural inheritance of mankind to consider:

"Cultural inheritance is defined as the knowledge, technique and processes that have been handed down to us incrementally from the origins of civilization..."

Language and Mathematics would be two prime examples of this collective inheritance.
It can be thought of as a universal commons of knowledge that all humanity is entitled to share equally in.
It is where the money would come from for things like universal health care and free education if the richest 1% of humanity did not control all governments.


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> *la bor (noun)*
> 
> (1) human activity that provides the goods or services in an economy.
> (2) the services performed by workers for wages as distinguished from those rendered by entrepreneurs for profits.
> (4) an economic group comprising those who do manual labor or work for wages.
> 
> Labor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary




labor
verb
to devote serious and sustained effort <he labored most of the day over the difficult legal brief>

Labor[verb] - Synonyms and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

We have been discussing the verb, not the noun - as you know.

The group known as labor is a different proposition than the act of labor.


----------



## georgephillip

I thought we were discussing the factor of production known as labor.


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> I thought we were discussing the factor of production known as labor.



Which would be the verb - to labor.


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were discussing the factor of production known as labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which would be the verb - to labor.
Click to expand...

*In addition to:*

"labor

"... (1) : *the human activity that provides the goods or services in an economy* 

(2) : the services performed by workers for wages as distinguished from those rendered by entrepreneurs for profits.

Labor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

*Are you confusing labor with work done?*

"In a more special and technical sense, however, labour means any valuable service rendered by a human agent in the production of wealth, other than accumulating and providing capital or assuming the risks that are a normal part of business undertakings. It includes the services of manual labourers, but it covers many other kinds of services as well. *It is not synonymous with toil or exertion, and it has only a remote relation to 'work done' in the physical or physiological senses*. The application of the physical energies of people to the work of production is, of course, an element in labour, but skill and self-direction, within a larger or smaller sphere, are also elements..."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/326796/labour


----------



## skookerasbil

georgephillip said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we were discussing the factor of production known as labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which would be the verb - to labor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *In addition to:*
> 
> "labor
> 
> "... (1) : *the human activity that provides the goods or services in an economy*
> 
> (2) : the services performed by workers for wages as distinguished from those rendered by entrepreneurs for profits.
> 
> Labor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> *Are you confusing labor with work done?*
> 
> "In a more special and technical sense, however, labour means any valuable service rendered by a human agent in the production of wealth, other than accumulating and providing capital or assuming the risks that are a normal part of business undertakings. It includes the services of manual labourers, but it covers many other kinds of services as well. *It is not synonymous with toil or exertion, and it has only a remote relation to 'work done' in the physical or physiological senses*. The application of the physical energies of people to the work of production is, of course, an element in labour, but skill and self-direction, within a larger or smaller sphere, are also elements..."
> 
> labour (economics) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
Click to expand...



HOLY MOTHER OF GOD..............

This is what you get when they let the professional student off campus!! All these elitist acedemics spend their lives philosophising for the gay.


Shit.........I remember getting w0wed too by The German Ideology. Oh about 32 years ago now..........fascinating shit, but most people recognized their folly at some point, which is why you have the 21%ers = the ones who remain romanticized by that shit until they go to the box.


----------



## georgephillip

skookerasbil said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which would be the verb - to labor.
> 
> 
> 
> *In addition to:*
> 
> "labor
> 
> "... (1) : *the human activity that provides the goods or services in an economy*
> 
> (2) : the services performed by workers for wages as distinguished from those rendered by entrepreneurs for profits.
> 
> Labor - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> *Are you confusing labor with work done?*
> 
> "In a more special and technical sense, however, labour means any valuable service rendered by a human agent in the production of wealth, other than accumulating and providing capital or assuming the risks that are a normal part of business undertakings. It includes the services of manual labourers, but it covers many other kinds of services as well. *It is not synonymous with toil or exertion, and it has only a remote relation to 'work done' in the physical or physiological senses*. The application of the physical energies of people to the work of production is, of course, an element in labour, but skill and self-direction, within a larger or smaller sphere, are also elements..."
> 
> labour (economics) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> HOLY MOTHER OF GOD..............
> 
> This is what you get when they let the professional student off campus!! All these elitist acedemics spend their lives philosophising for the gay.
> 
> 
> Shit.........I remember getting w0wed too by The German Ideology. Oh about 32 years ago now..........fascinating shit, but most people recognized their folly at some point, which is why you have the 21%ers = the ones who remain romanticized by that shit until they go to the box.
Click to expand...

*Is this The German Ideology you were reading?*

"The German Ideology (German: Die Deutsche Ideologie) is a book written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels around April or early May 1846. Marx and Engels did not find a publisher. However, the work was later retrieved and published for the first time in 1932 by David Riazanov through the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow..."

The German Ideology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you now or have you ever been a Marxist?


----------



## Big Fitz

Katzndogz said:


> How long will labor work without capital to pay them?


Simply answered by asking someone to dig ditches for a stranger without benefit of pay.

If they say yes, they're a bonifide idiot.

If they say no, they're a normal person.

If they demand outrageous pay for short hours and many breaks with no means testing for quality, a grievance procedure, paid weeks off, gold plated healthcare plans and a pension that allows them to retire on 90% pay at age 55, they're a liberal union member.


----------



## georgephillip

*"Harvard Students Join the Movement*
by Richard D. Wolff

"Over the last 10 days, Harvard students twice stopped business as usual at this richest of all US private universities.  An Occupy Harvard encampment of tents followed a large march of many hundreds through the campus protesting Harvard's complicity in the nation's extreme inequality of income and wealth.  

"A week earlier some 70 students walked out in protest of Harvard's large lecture course in introductory economics.  

"They too explained that they were acting in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movements.  

"They specifically criticized the narrowly biased economics they were learning that both reflected and reinforced the inequalities and injustices that fuel the OWS movements.  The walkout in the economics lecture deserves our special attention

"That walkout responds to (1) the quality of capitalist development in the US for the last quarter century, (2) the complicity of university economics departments in systematically hiding or rationalizing that development, and (3) *the new space and support for long-overdue criticism of capitalism opened by the OWS movements.*

Celebrating capitalism is not the same thing as studying capitalism.
Richard D. Wolff, "Harvard Students Join the Movement"


----------



## editec

Uncensored2008 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless they are also the entrepreneur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Labor as a verb, not a noun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's both.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I explained to George is that digging a hole in the middle of the desert is labor, but produces nothing. Labor is a tool, used correctly it can be productive, but it is the mind directing the labor that creates value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thinking is a form _of labor._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mindless brute swinging a sledge hammer will never create a computer, regardless of the effort put forth. It is the mind that creates. Often the mind must use labor as a tool to manifest what it conceives, but the conception is where value is born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're creating an artifical distinction between labor of body and labor of the mind.
> 
> _Both_ represent human labor.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bern80

editec said:


> You're creating an artifical distinction between labor of body and labor of the mind.
> 
> _Both_ represent human labor.



Yes they are both labor, but the distinction remains important. Because there is this misconception that simply putting forth hard work, which can take the form of manual labor or even putting in many hours at a desk, should yield ever increasing levels of income. That simply isn't the case. Getting ahead financially isn't about simply working hard. It's about working smart.


----------



## Uncensored2008

editec said:


> It's both.



You figured that out, did you?




> Thinking is a form _of labor._



Perhaps, but not in common parlance. 



> You're creating an artifical distinction between labor of body and labor of the mind.



I'm illustrating that labor is neither noble nor useful without purpose. 

The Marxian idiocy of the intrinsic value of labor is a fallacy.  



> _Both_ represent human labor.



Not in the Marxian sense - Marx worshiped physical labor, toil.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Bern80 said:


> Yes they are both labor, but the distinction remains important. Because there is this misconception that simply putting forth hard work, which can take the form of manual labor or even putting in many hours at a desk, should yield ever increasing levels of income. That simply isn't the case. Getting ahead financially isn't about simply working hard. It's about working smart.



And about achieving results. What I tried to get George to grasp is that effort has no value - results are what has value, regardless of the effort that went into them.


----------



## georgephillip

"NEW YORK (AP)  Police arrested protesters who sat on the ground and blocked traffic into New York City's financial district on Thursday, part of a day of mass gatherings in response to efforts to break up Occupy Wall Street camps nationwide.

"Police in riot helmets hauled several protesters to their feet and handcuffed them at an intersection one block from Wall Street.

"All day, all week, shut down Wall Street!" the crowd chanted...."

Occupy protesters arrested in NYC finance district - Yahoo! News

Maybe New York's finest should prosecute those responsible for the epidemic of mortgage fraud that crashed the global economy in 2008. Fraud the FBI began warning about in 2004 with 80% of the alleged fraud coming from lenders.


----------



## Katzndogz

obama friend Bill Ayers teaches Occupy Chicago.

obama pastor gives occupy church sanctuary.

You can't GET better than this!  obama is going to own every head louse and crab.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Katzndogz said:


> obama friend Bill Ayers teaches Occupy Chicago.
> 
> obama pastor gives occupy church sanctuary.
> 
> You can't GET better than this!  obama is going to own every head louse and crab.



Damn..

So Obama is a headcrab?







Somehow, it all makes sense.


----------



## chanel

> AUSTIN, TEXAS &#8211; A 20-year old Occupy Austin protester arrested Sunday morning at City Hall is charged with exposing his private parts and masturbating in front of a 16-year old girl.
> 
> Jarod Smith was arrested and charged with indecency with a child, which is a third degr



Occupy Austin protester arrested for masturbation at City Hall


----------



## chanel

> AUSTIN, TEXAS  A 20-year old Occupy Austin protester arrested Sunday morning at City Hall is charged with exposing his private parts and masturbating in front of a 16-year old girl.
> 
> Jarod Smith was arrested and charged with indecency with a child, which is a third degr



Occupy Austin protester arrested for masturbation at City Hall


----------



## georgephillip

"You would think that a former partner at the investment bank *Solomon Brothers, which originated mortgage-backed securities*, a man who then partnered with Merrill Lynch in the high-speed computerized trading that has led to so much financial manipulation, would have some sense of his own culpability. 

"Or at least that someone whose Wall Street career left him with a net worth of $19.5 billion would grasp the deep irony of his being the instrument for smashing Occupy Wall Street, the internationally acknowledged symbol of opposition to corporate avarice..." 

But then you would be confusing Mayor Bloomberg with someone who is not a 1% psychopath.

Robert Scheer: The Villain Occupy Wall Street Has Been Waiting For - Robert Scheer's Columns - Truthdig


----------



## JStone

georgephillip said:


> "You would think that a former partner at the investment bank *Solomon Brothers, which originated mortgage-backed securities*, a man who then partnered with Merrill Lynch in the high-speed computerized trading that has led to so much financial manipulation, would have some sense of his own culpability.
> 
> "Or at least that someone whose Wall Street career left him with a net worth of $19.5 billion would grasp the deep irony of his being the instrument for smashing Occupy Wall Street, the internationally acknowledged symbol of opposition to corporate avarice..."
> 
> But then you would be confusing Mayor Bloomberg with someone who is not a 1% psychopath.
> 
> Robert Scheer: The Villain Occupy Wall Street Has Been Waiting For - Robert Scheer's Columns - Truthdig



Georgie, occupy a desk, loser.


----------



## georgephillip

JStone said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You would think that a former partner at the investment bank *Solomon Brothers, which originated mortgage-backed securities*, a man who then partnered with Merrill Lynch in the high-speed computerized trading that has led to so much financial manipulation, would have some sense of his own culpability.
> 
> "Or at least that someone whose Wall Street career left him with a net worth of $19.5 billion would grasp the deep irony of his being the instrument for smashing Occupy Wall Street, the internationally acknowledged symbol of opposition to corporate avarice..."
> 
> But then you would be confusing Mayor Bloomberg with someone who is not a 1% psychopath.
> 
> Robert Scheer: The Villain Occupy Wall Street Has Been Waiting For - Robert Scheer's Columns - Truthdig
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Georgie, occupy a desk, loser.
Click to expand...

*Speaking of psychopathic liars:*

"Amira Hass: Netanyahu is less of a liar than past Israeli PMs | Israeli Occupation Archive

"Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama, we are told, do not believe Netanyahu. But it seems that they and their governments are pissed off at him because he&#8217;s not as good a liar as his predecessors in the Prime Minister&#8217;s Office...."

How's the land and water stealing business in Palestine going?
Better than Bloomberg?


----------



## conner700

Big Fitz said:


> I'd rather have this one question answered:
> 
> If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?
> 
> I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.



The answer is:

Economic Equality.

Now did that hurt?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

conner700 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have this one question answered:
> 
> If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?
> 
> I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is:
> 
> Economic Equality.
> 
> Now did that hurt?
Click to expand...


What system has Economic Equality?


----------



## conner700

Bern80 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're creating an artifical distinction between labor of body and labor of the mind.
> 
> _Both_ represent human labor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they are both labor, but the distinction remains important. Because there is this misconception that simply putting forth hard work, which can take the form of manual labor or even putting in many hours at a desk, should yield ever increasing levels of income. That simply isn't the case. Getting ahead financially isn't about simply working hard. It's about working smart.
Click to expand...


From where I come from, "... working smart" means one has no moral and/or ethical means to obtains one's goals. Discovering a way to steal and cheat others out of their hard earned money isn't work, it is a crime against the United States of America.

Bribbery, ponzie schemes, failure to pay properly, and criminalizing innocent poor people for being poor--isn't the work of a genius--it is the work of a very greedy, selfish person (corporation) who has no thread of humanity in his and/or her own blood.


----------



## MikeK

Big Fitz said:


> I'd rather have this one question answered:
> 
> If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?
> 
> I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.


There is no intention to "do away with capitalism."  

Capitalism is a good economic system provided it is controlled by certain socialist controls to prevent its developing into the laissez faire "supply side" monstrosity foisted on us by Ronald Reagan and accelerated by George W. Bush.


----------



## Big Fitz

> There is no intention to "do away with capitalism."



I call bullshit.


----------



## Big Fitz

conner700 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have this one question answered:
> 
> If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?
> 
> I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is:
> 
> Economic Equality.
> 
> Now did that hurt?
Click to expand...

And answered nothing.  Please define for us HOW "Economic Equality" will be installed, maintained and used.  I want functional answers, not shiny ass platitudes with no specifics.

Who, What, When, Where, Why and most importantly HOW.


----------



## Katzndogz

Big Fitz said:


> conner700 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have this one question answered:
> 
> If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?
> 
> I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is:
> 
> Economic Equality.
> 
> Now did that hurt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And answered nothing.  Please define for us HOW "Economic Equality" will be installed, maintained and used.  I want functional answers, not shiny ass platitudes with no specifics.
> 
> Who, What, When, Where, Why and most importantly HOW.
Click to expand...


For economic equality to be imposed on the people, you need a very strong dictator.  One like Saddam Hussein would do quite well.  Someone strong enough to forcibly remove people's property from them.

Then you have economic equality.


----------



## Big Fitz

Katzndogz said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> conner700 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is:
> 
> Economic Equality.
> 
> Now did that hurt?
> 
> 
> 
> And answered nothing.  Please define for us HOW "Economic Equality" will be installed, maintained and used.  I want functional answers, not shiny ass platitudes with no specifics.
> 
> Who, What, When, Where, Why and most importantly HOW.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For economic equality to be imposed on the people, you need a very strong dictator.  One like Saddam Hussein would do quite well.  Someone strong enough to forcibly remove people's property from them.
> 
> Then you have economic equality.
Click to expand...

Josef Stalin had to just kill over 16 million people to pull off economic 'equality', and he still never truly succeeded although most Soviets were equally poor and oppressed.  He and his cronies still had lots of prosperity.

Oh well, can't have perfection I guess.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Cancer grows also nothing new.
The OWS is like cancer cells
The people in the movement are misguided and are taking their bitterness out on the wrong people.


----------



## Uncensored2008

conner700 said:


> The answer is:
> 
> Economic Equality.
> 
> Now did that hurt?



I take that lots of guns and mutilated bodies will be part of the equation, as is always the case from the left?

Murder the productive and let the dolts who supported you stand in line for toilet paper.....


----------



## Katzndogz

Big Fitz said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> And answered nothing.  Please define for us HOW "Economic Equality" will be installed, maintained and used.  I want functional answers, not shiny ass platitudes with no specifics.
> 
> Who, What, When, Where, Why and most importantly HOW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For economic equality to be imposed on the people, you need a very strong dictator.  One like Saddam Hussein would do quite well.  Someone strong enough to forcibly remove people's property from them.
> 
> Then you have economic equality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Josef Stalin had to just kill over 16 million people to pull off economic 'equality', and he still never truly succeeded although most Soviets were equally poor and oppressed.  He and his cronies still had lots of prosperity.
> 
> Oh well, can't have perfection I guess.
Click to expand...


Libs just can't answer the question of how economic equality for those who work and those who don't led to the labor camps.


----------



## Big Fitz

Katzndogz said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> For economic equality to be imposed on the people, you need a very strong dictator.  One like Saddam Hussein would do quite well.  Someone strong enough to forcibly remove people's property from them.
> 
> Then you have economic equality.
> 
> 
> 
> Josef Stalin had to just kill over 16 million people to pull off economic 'equality', and he still never truly succeeded although most Soviets were equally poor and oppressed.  He and his cronies still had lots of prosperity.
> 
> Oh well, can't have perfection I guess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libs just can't answer the question of how economic equality for those who work and those who don't led to the labor camps.
Click to expand...

Of course they can't.  When faced with the actual application of their desired ideology, they cannot admit how many people will have to die to accomplish the nightmare.

They want to nestle safe and sound in their fantasy that cannot exist in the real world, for if it did... it becomes an unspeakable evil.  And if it COULD exist in the real world... it already would have.

It's like that oft loved, but completely stupid RFK quote:

"People often look at the world and ask 'Why?'  I look at the world and ask 'Why not?'"

The answer, is still "Because if it COULD have been, it would have already existed if it was so simple and natural."


----------



## georgephillip

"Karl Roves Crossroads GPS group has launched the first attack ad against Elizabeth Warren, presumably because she is now running hard for the Senate in Massachusetts...

"...(W)ho destroyed more than 8 million jobs in the United States  and plunged us into the deepest and longest lasting recession since the 1930s...

"...*(W)hat do the Occupy Wall Street protesters really want?*  According to Mike Konczals careful assessment of their published grievances, jobs are the number one issue.  So again we should ask:* Who caused the financial crisis that destroyed so many jobs?*

Too-Big-to-Fail Wall Street Banks, Elizabeth Warren, or OWS?

Wall Street v. Elizabeth Warren « The Baseline Scenario


----------



## chanel

Jobs?  Seriously?  The Occupy Philly group protested Comcast because they made a 5% profit last quarter.  They considered that "greed".  Comcast provides 1000s of jobs in a city that is crumbling.  They have also refused to move from Dilworth Park, where construction is supposed to begin.  This renovation will provide 800 union jobs over the next two years.  (and provide handicap access to public transportation).  But they don't care about jobs.  Or the handicapped.  They just wanna bang and get drunk all day.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlMVazw_vUE]Occupy Anthem - I Don't Want To Work! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bigrebnc1775

I have mixed emotions about this. At one time I have said I support their right to protest, but the right to protest I believe was meant to be able to protest the government, not private citizens. In this case I think it's harassment. So what they are doing is harassing private citizens which is not a protected right.


----------



## Liability

conner700 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have this one question answered:
> 
> If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?
> 
> I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is:
> 
> Economic Equality.
> 
> Now did that hurt?
Click to expand...


"Economic Equality," you amazing asshole, is NOT any "answer."

It is a buzz phrase.

It has no inherent meaning  and certainly it offers nothing which a tool such as you is capable of defining.

Newsflash, shit-for-brain-motherfucker:

MOST Americans *do not want* (or if they bothered to give it any thought at all, they WOULD not "want) anything remotely akin to "Economic Equality."

If a dick-dribble like you was too stupid and lazy to get the education which was offered to you on a fucking silver platter, and/or you later prove too fucking lazy or stupid to be bothered getting a good job, or if you can't land a good job because your ignorance and laziness shines through to prospective employers, then YOU may end up with a rewarding career cleaning the floors and the bathrooms in McDonalds and taking out the garbage.

Why on EARTH would any hard-working person WANT to have the "right" to earn the same low wages you then receive?  

This is a land built on equal opportunity, not on equal outcomes.

I do not *want* to earn the same low wages as you "earn" as you clean the toilets in the men's room at your local Mickey D's.

So take your asinine, ignorant and non-informed liberal-pablum notion of "Economic Equality" and shove it up your big old butt.


----------



## Big Fitz

Liability said:


> conner700 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd rather have this one question answered:
> 
> If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?
> 
> I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is:
> 
> Economic Equality.
> 
> Now did that hurt?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Economic Equality," you amazing asshole, is NOT any "answer."
> 
> It is a buzz phrase.
> 
> It has no inherent meaning  and certainly it offers nothing which a tool such as you is capable of defining.
> 
> Newsflash, shit-for-brain-motherfucker:
> 
> MOST Americans *do not want* (or if they bothered to give it any thought at all, they WOULD not "want) anything remotely akin to "Economic Equality."
> 
> If a dick-dribble like you was too stupid and lazy to get the education which was offered to you on a fucking silver platter, and/or you later prove too fucking lazy or stupid to be bothered getting a good job, or if you can't land a good job because your ignorance and laziness shines through to prospective employers, then YOU may end up with a rewarding career cleaning the floors and the bathrooms in McDonalds and taking out the garbage.
> 
> Why on EARTH would any hard-working person WANT to have the "right" to earn the same low wages you then receive?
> 
> This is a land built on equal opportunity, not on equal outcomes.
> 
> I do not *want* to earn the same low wages as you "earn" as you clean the toilets in the men's room at your local Mickey D's.
> 
> So take your asinine, ignorant and non-informed liberal-pablum notion of "Economic Equality" and shove it up your big old butt.
Click to expand...




> So take your asinine, ignorant and non-informed liberal-pablum notion of  "Economic Equality" and shove it up your big old butt.



...and unlike them pontificating piously about economic "equality", I can give them an action plan full of specifics on how this will be accomplished and can possibly provide a cost effectiveness analysis too..


----------



## Mr. H.




----------



## Douger

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEaCx5XyiGo&feature=player_embedded]AMAZING video of a journalist not taking crap from NYPD - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Katzndogz

When OWS couldn't secure police protection from a bunch of soccer moms looking for a bargain , they pretty much lost credibiity as the revolutionary flavor of the month.  Those who CALL themselves the 99% ran and hid from the 99%.


----------



## sitarro

Douger said:


> AMAZING video of a journalist not taking crap from NYPD - YouTube



What a twat, I applaud the police for being so patient with this clown that obviously was trying to get beat up to get on television.......instead he just looked like the jackass he is on youtube. A hypocrite bitching about evil corporations while carrying at least 3 grand worth of camera equipment.


----------



## georgephillip

Was he breaking any laws?

What does the dollar amount of his camera equipment have to do with his First Amendment rights?

You should worry more about Wall Street coming back for an European Encore:

"If Italy blows, then the eurozone will face a disorderly breakup that will end in a multi-year Depression punctuated by growing social unrest.

*"Didn&#8217;t anyone see this coming?* 

"Didn&#8217;t anyone anticipate that a monetary union devoid of traditional political and fiscal institutions (eg&#8211;*An executive, a congress, a judiciary, a treasury dept, a bond market*) would encounter problems that would prove to be insurmountable leading to the *ultimate dissolution of the union?*...

"More than a dozen years ago when the single European currency was born, Reuters polls of economists show they were well aware of many of the flaws that threaten the euro today&#8230;.

&#8220;I was aware of the problem that you have a monetary union without a fiscal union, and I wrote about the issues that low interest rates for the periphery will likely get them into a boom, but what happens when the* boom goes bust*?&#8221;

When the EU "boom goes bust" will you blame OWS or the 1%?

Past the Point of No Return » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## eots

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQNBZjFy0_A]The Greatest Revolution in History has Begun! BEST OCCUPY DOCUMENTARY - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Full-Auto

eots said:


> The Greatest Revolution in History has Begun! BEST OCCUPY DOCUMENTARY - YouTube



The greatest revolution..................


----------



## Katzndogz

The flea with an erection floating down the river screaming "Raise the Drawbridge".  

Can they really have a revolution if the revolutionaries are frightened of confronting Wal Mart shoppers?


----------



## georgephillip

"*Authentic new social movements do not appear very often, and most of them fail*.

"Throughout the nation&#8217;s history, rebellions have typically been derailed by their own mistakes and divisions or snuffed out by entrenched power. Even when they endure, *it can take years, sometimes generations, to overcome the resistance of the status quo.* 

"Think of the abolitionists and the civil rights movement, women&#8217;s demand for the vote and equal rights, working people collectively asserting their power in unions.

"As with earlier movements, governing elites have grasped the radical nature of this noisy intrusion into their privileged domain, and they have attempted to crush OWS with a series of melodramatic police raids from New York to California. 

"But repression has failed to intimidate the rebellious citizens. 

"Indeed, each attack only seems to strengthen the movement."

The Democratic Promise of Occupy Wall Street | Common Dreams


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> "*Authentic new social movements do not appear very often, and most of them fail*.



There is nothing authentic about the Shitter movement.

It is a poor imitation of the Tea Party, astro-turfed by Unions and the democratic party.

Pamela Anderson's boobs are more authentic than OWS.



> "Throughout the nations history, rebellions have typically been derailed by their own mistakes and divisions or snuffed out by entrenched power. Even when they endure, *it can take years, sometimes generations, to overcome the resistance of the status quo.*
> 
> "Think of the abolitionists and the civil rights movement, womens demand for the vote and equal rights, working people collectively asserting their power in unions.
> 
> "As with earlier movements, governing elites have grasped the radical nature of this noisy intrusion into their privileged domain, and they have attempted to crush OWS with a series of melodramatic police raids from New York to California.
> 
> "But repression has failed to intimidate the rebellious citizens.
> 
> "Indeed, each attack only seems to strengthen the movement."
> 
> The Democratic Promise of Occupy Wall Street | Common Dreams



:shit:


----------



## kowalskil

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I have mixed emotions about this. At one time I have said I support their right to protest, but the right to protest I believe was meant to be able to protest the government, not private citizens. In this case I think it's harassment. So what they are doing is harassing private citizens which is not a protected right.



Yes, indeed.
.


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "*Authentic new social movements do not appear very often, and most of them fail*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing authentic about the Shitter movement.
> 
> It is a poor imitation of the Tea Party, astro-turfed by Unions and the democratic party.
> 
> Pamela Anderson's boobs are more authentic than OWS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Throughout the nations history, rebellions have typically been derailed by their own mistakes and divisions or snuffed out by entrenched power. Even when they endure, *it can take years, sometimes generations, to overcome the resistance of the status quo.*
> 
> "Think of the abolitionists and the civil rights movement, womens demand for the vote and equal rights, working people collectively asserting their power in unions.
> 
> "As with earlier movements, governing elites have grasped the radical nature of this noisy intrusion into their privileged domain, and they have attempted to crush OWS with a series of melodramatic police raids from New York to California.
> 
> "But repression has failed to intimidate the rebellious citizens.
> 
> "Indeed, each attack only seems to strengthen the movement."
> 
> The Democratic Promise of Occupy Wall Street | Common Dreams
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> :shit:
Click to expand...

"The protests in Wall Street, London and Oakland may be its flagships, but the Occupy movement is a global one, *stretching across six continents, more than 60 countries, and sparking up to 2,600 demonstrations*.  

"It is hard to say who started it. Occupy Wall Street, which began in September, was the first to popularize the term. But #OWS was itself predated by camps in Madrid, Athens, Santiago &#8211; and even Malaysia. The day most Occupy camps got going &#8211; 15 October &#8211; was first proposed because it marked the five-month anniversary of the Spanish occupation.

"What unites them? A common rage at economic and social injustice and the feeling that "the 99%" are being shafted..."

*You probably enjoy being shafted.*
Rich-shit eaters often do.

Occupy: We Are the World | Common Dreams


----------



## Katzndogz

Not unlike a toddler when mommy won't get him a double dip ice cream.


----------



## Katzndogz

Do OWS people really REALLY think they have the support of the majority?


----------



## georgephillip

Katzndogz said:


> Do OWS people really REALLY think they have the support of the majority?


*Keeping in mind this is an election year:*

"Three (NY) City Council members introduced a resolution Tuesday that would formalize support for Occupy Wall Street and *its message condemning economic inequality*.

*&#8220;The Occupy movement is more than occupying a public square,'* said Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez, one of the resolution&#8217;s authors, along with Councilman Jumaane D. Williams and Councilwoman Letitia James &#8212; *all Democrats*. 'It is about the frustration of the working class and the middle class who feel we have not received a fair share.'&#8221;

Rich Democrats will have to control the Occupy Movement for the same reasons rich Republicans co-opted the Tea Party. Possibly millions of voters will come to the conclusion that "choosing" between Democrat or Republican in the voting booth has no affect on the behavior of Wall Street or the 1%.

Council Resolution Calls for Support of Occupy Wall Street - NYTimes.com


----------



## Katzndogz

You could easily cite Maxine Waters, she supports OWS too.  This does not mean a majority.  Although I will say congrats on the subtle change from the rich paying a fair share to the poor getting a fair share.  I knew that from the very beginning.  That's what will further push this movement to failure.  

Movements based on nothing more than gimme and envy always fail.  I deserve because I exist is not a battle cry.  Economic inequality is based on a foundation of inequality of ability.  That is never going to change.


----------



## georgephillip

Katzndogz said:


> You could easily cite Maxine Waters, she supports OWS too.  This does not mean a majority.  Although I will say congrats on the subtle change from the rich paying a fair share to the poor getting a fair share.  I knew that from the very beginning.  That's what will further push this movement to failure.
> 
> Movements based on nothing more than gimme and envy always fail.  I deserve because I exist is not a battle cry.  Economic inequality is based on a foundation of inequality of ability.  That is never going to change.


*The 1% don't exist without "gimme and envy."*

"But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold, and those who are without property, have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination..."

Since long before the time of James Madison the richest 1% have consolidated state power and used it to socialize cost and privatize profit. Economic inequality is increased from one generation to the next because of systemic corruption without which the richest 1% doesn't exist.

The rich have been stealing from the poor for thousands of years.
OWS is saying the poor deserve reparations.
Most elected Democrats and Republicans (including Maxine) vote with the rich.
That is never going to change.

The Federalist (Dawson)/10 - Wikisource


----------



## Uncensored2008

Katzndogz said:


> Do OWS people really REALLY think they have the support of the majority?



The Shitters think that they get free food, lots of drugs and girls to fuck.


----------



## Big Fitz

Katzndogz said:


> Do OWS people really REALLY think they have the support of the majority?


yes... they keep that poll data with their "Participant" certificates.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Big Fitz said:


> yes... they keep that poll data with their "Participant" certificates.



Both of which are at the bottom of the baggie of pot.


----------



## MikeK

sitarro said:


> Douger said:
> 
> 
> 
> AMAZING video of a journalist not taking crap from NYPD - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a twat, I applaud the police for being so patient with this clown that obviously was trying to get beat up to get on television.......instead he just looked like the jackass he is on youtube. A hypocrite bitching about evil corporations while carrying at least 3 grand worth of camera equipment.
Click to expand...

Every one of those cops took an oath which includes upholding the Constitution, which includes Freedom of The Press (First Amendment).  That photographer is a credentialed member of the Working Press.  He represents your constitutionally guaranteed freedom to be informed.  

His camera equipment is the tool of his trade.  What does it have to do with his resentment of the emerging corporatocracy?  

You are standing on the wrong side of the line and I doubt you know it.


----------



## georgephillip

*Occupy Next?*

"Occupy Wall Street is promising a '*big day of action' Dec. 6* that will focus on the foreclosure crisis and protest 'fraudulent lending practices,' 'corrupt securitization,' and illegal evictions by banks.

"The day will mark the beginning of an *Occupy Our Homes campaign* that organizers hope will energize the movement as it moves indoors as well as bring the injustices of the economic crisis into sharp relief.

"Many of the details aren&#8217;t yet public, but protesters in 20 cities are expected to take part in the day of action next Tuesday."

A foreclosure crisis that hasn't yet reached the halfway point.
Over four million homes in some stage of foreclosure.
Millions of homeless Americans...

"'*This is a shift from protesting Wall Street fraud to taking action on behalf of people who were harmed by it.* It brings the movement into the neighborhoods and gives people a sense of what&#8217;s really at stake,' said Max Berger, one of the Occupy Our Homes organizers and a member of Occupy Wall Street&#8217;s movement-building working group."

Occupy&#8217;s next frontier: Foreclosed homes - Salon.com


----------



## Katzndogz

I am sure that the people who live in these neighborhoods are going to be very sympathetic to hordes of unwashed, lice ridden occupiers moving into vacant homes and setting up little drug dens.

The shitters should have a little more guts, hit them where it hurts.  Go to the mansions of the rich and occupy THEM.


----------



## georgephillip

Katzndogz said:


> I am sure that the people who live in these neighborhoods are going to be very sympathetic to hordes of unwashed, lice ridden occupiers moving into vacant homes and setting up little drug dens.
> 
> The shitters should have a little more guts, hit them where it hurts.  Go to the mansions of the rich and occupy THEM.


"A network of groups organized as *Take Back the Land* has been doing eviction defenses and related actions around the country for five years, according to organizer Max Rameau.

&#8220;'Now with this Occupy movement ramping up, I think we have a significant chance to keep large numbers of people in their home,' Rameau told Democracy Now earlier this month. '[The goal is to] not only force the banks to allow the family to stay in the home. But also then *force policy changes that would help thousands of other people* for whom we&#8217;re not doing eviction defenses.&#8221;

Occupy&#8217;s next frontier: Foreclosed homes - Salon.com

*Why not wait for the heroic 1% to cut and run before taking their mansions?*


----------



## Uncensored2008

A question for the communists, George, Barb, Dragon; why is stealing your iPhone wrong, but stealing a house isn't?


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> A question for the communists, George, Barb, Dragon; why is stealing your iPhone wrong, but stealing a house isn't?



Who said it isn't?  Only a Nazi such as yourself would so blatantly use the BIG LIE.


----------



## konradv

Katzndogz said:


> I am sure that the people who live in these neighborhoods are going to be very sympathetic to hordes of unwashed, lice ridden occupiers moving into vacant homes and setting up little drug dens.
> 
> The shitters should have a little more guts, hit them where it hurts.  Go to the mansions of the rich and occupy THEM.



But don't dare tax them, huh?  They don't really need the houses, do they, being out there creating jobs and all?


----------



## Katzndogz

The shitters are at their core, cowards.  After days of ballyhooing on how they were going to occupy Black Friday and put an end to corporate greed, they were afraid to face a bunch of soccer moms looking for a bargain.  

Let them invade nieghborhoods, I hope they do.  Occupy vacant homes, do what they did before, harass people going to work, threaten their children, block the streets and driveways.  Crap on the porches of the neighbors.    All to the good, it will raise awareness.  Yes it will.  

That's not enough really.  There are 10,000 sq ft homes in Bel Aire and only one person lives there.  Those are the homes they should occupy.  Lotsa luck.


----------



## georgephillip

"A federal court has recently ruled that about half of the mortgage market has indeed been run as a criminal enterprise, for years -- which may well invalidate any potential foreclosure proceedings for about, oh, 60 million mortgages..."

*Think any of those mortgages are in Bel Aire?* 

OpEdNews - Article: Wall Street theft on a scale unimagined, and Obama wants to keep it covered up


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> A question for the communists, George, Barb, Dragon; why is stealing your iPhone wrong, but stealing a house isn't?


*How much money did you make from liars loans?*

"For the banks that were in on the scam, *liars' loans* meant that 'you tell us what your income is, you tell us what your job is, you tell us what your assets are, and we agree to believe you.' 

"*We won't check on any of those things*. 

"And by the way, you'll get a better deal from us to the extent that you inflate your income and your job history and your assets. And in many cases this was specifically stated to borrowers before they filled out the loan applications. In the trade, they were called ninja loans -- *No Income verification, No Job verification, no Asset verification."*

OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Wall Street theft on a scale unimagined, and Obama wants to keep it covered up


----------



## Katzndogz

georgephillip said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A question for the communists, George, Barb, Dragon; why is stealing your iPhone wrong, but stealing a house isn't?
> 
> 
> 
> *How much money did you make from liars loans?*
> 
> "For the banks that were in on the scam, *liars' loans* meant that 'you tell us what your income is, you tell us what your job is, you tell us what your assets are, and we agree to believe you.'
> 
> "*We won't check on any of those things*.
> 
> "And by the way, you'll get a better deal from us to the extent that you inflate your income and your job history and your assets. And in many cases this was specifically stated to borrowers before they filled out the loan applications. In the trade, they were called ninja loans -- *No Income verification, No Job verification, no Asset verification."*
> 
> OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Wall Street theft on a scale unimagined, and Obama wants to keep it covered up
Click to expand...


As mandated by the Community Reinvestment Act.


----------



## georgephillip

So why were most defective mortgages sold by institutions not covered by the CRA?


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> *How much money did you make from liars loans?*
> 
> "For the banks that were in on the scam, *liars' loans* meant that 'you tell us what your income is, you tell us what your job is, you tell us what your assets are, and we agree to believe you.'
> 
> "*We won't check on any of those things*.
> 
> "And by the way, you'll get a better deal from us to the extent that you inflate your income and your job history and your assets. And in many cases this was specifically stated to borrowers before they filled out the loan applications. In the trade, they were called ninja loans -- *No Income verification, No Job verification, no Asset verification."*
> 
> OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Wall Street theft on a scale unimagined, and Obama wants to keep it covered up




Way to avoid the question.

So you would scream bloody murder if someone took your iPhone, explain why it is okay for you and others to take houses that you didn't pay for?

Economies of scale? (Or is it really that the iPhone is yours' and you are fine with stealing from others, but it isn't right to steal from you?)


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> So why were most defective mortgages sold by institutions not covered by the CRA?



Most of them were granted under CRA/LMI - nearly ALL of the toxic loans were CRA/LMI.


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> Who said it isn't?  Only a Nazi such as yourself would so blatantly use the BIG LIE.



The Shitters and the forum communists have demanded that mortgages be "forgiven," IE that those who occupy homes they didn't and won't pay for, be given those homes.

To normal people, that is theft. 

Why do the Shitters support theft? Why do they object if their goods are stolen? Why the hypocrisy?

BTW, I'm pro-capitalism and pro-Israel - dumbfuck.


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How much money did you make from liars loans?*
> 
> "For the banks that were in on the scam, *liars' loans* meant that 'you tell us what your income is, you tell us what your job is, you tell us what your assets are, and we agree to believe you.'
> 
> "*We won't check on any of those things*.
> 
> "And by the way, you'll get a better deal from us to the extent that you inflate your income and your job history and your assets. And in many cases this was specifically stated to borrowers before they filled out the loan applications. In the trade, they were called ninja loans -- *No Income verification, No Job verification, no Asset verification."*
> 
> OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Wall Street theft on a scale unimagined, and Obama wants to keep it covered up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to avoid the question.
> 
> So you would scream bloody murder if someone took your iPhone, explain why it is okay for you and others to take houses that you didn't pay for?
> 
> Economies of scale? (Or is it really that the iPhone is yours' and you are fine with stealing from others, but it isn't right to steal from you?)
Click to expand...

Wall Street banks gorged on an epidemic of mortgage fraud the FBI began warning about in 2004 leading directly to the crash of the global economy in 2008. Millions of Americans lost their jobs because of Wall Street's thievery. Since, for most of us,mortgage payments are much easier to make when we are fully employed, those who crashed the global economy are responsible for their victims' mortgage payments.

As for economies of scale, you might want to ask your rich friends at the Fed about the $16,115,000,000,000 in "broad based emergency programs" which resulted in funding the thieves on Wall Street bonus pool in 2009.

The rich have been looting this planet since the fall of man.
They are about to be crucified on their cross of gold.
Will you whine or shit about that?


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it isn't?  Only a Nazi such as yourself would so blatantly use the BIG LIE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Shitters and the forum communists have demanded that mortgages be "forgiven," IE that those who occupy homes they didn't and won't pay for, be given those homes.
> 
> To normal people, that is theft.
> 
> Why do the Shitters support theft? Why do they object if their goods are stolen? Why the hypocrisy?
> 
> BTW, I'm pro-capitalism and pro-Israel - dumbfuck.
Click to expand...

*So was Hitler and Yitzhak Shamir:* 

"Zionist factions competed for the honor of allying to Hitler. 

"By 1940-41, the 'Stern Gang,' among them *Yitzhak Shamir, later Prime Minister of Israel*, presented the Nazis with the 'Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the *War on the Side of Germany*'"

BTW.

51 Documents » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> But don't dare tax them, huh?  They don't really need the houses, do they, being out there creating jobs and all?



Konrad, I know that you're a "special needs" poster; but do you honestly thing "the rich" pay no taxes on their homes and property?


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> "A federal court has recently ruled that about half of the mortgage market has indeed been run as a criminal enterprise, for years -- which may well invalidate any potential foreclosure proceedings for about, oh, 60 million mortgages..."
> 
> *Think any of those mortgages are in Bel Aire?*
> 
> OpEdNews - Article: Wall Street theft on a scale unimagined, and Obama wants to keep it covered up



Utter bullshit.

Cite the case and I'll look it up  at Cornell. The whackjob sites you base your opinions on are full of shit.


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> Wall Street banks gorged on an epidemic of mortgage fraud the FBI began warning about in 2004



Whether they did or not in no way changes the fact that a person in a home that they are not paying for has no legal nor ethical right to that home.

For you communists and the Shitters to demand that they keep the homes because you want to destroy the economic system of the nation is a slap in the face of everyone who DOES pay for their homes. 

Joe and John each make a yearly salary of $60,000.

Joe buys a home for $300,000 and can comfortably make the $1,500 monthly payment.

John buys a home for $2,500,000 with a 0% ARM and a 4 year balloon option, lying about his income because no one really checks these things. John has no prayer of making the $14,000 monthly payment nor the $200,000 balloon.

When the ARM kicks in, the bank starts proceedings to foreclose on John.

BUT WAIT, you as a communist and the OWS Shitters demand that John not be foreclosed on, in your alleged mind, it's _his home_. WHY  is it his home? Well, he had the foresight to lie and to buy things he couldn't afford. You say that it's only fair that John gets a $2.5 million home without paying for it, because Wall Street has rich people and you hate Republicans.

BUT, what about Joe? Oh, I guess fuck him for being so stupid that he was honest and played by the rules, huh?

This is the basic position of you communists, wanting to take a shit in the face of every American who has acted in an honest, rational and responsible manner.






> leading directly to the crash of the global economy in 2008. Millions of Americans lost their jobs because of Wall Street's thievery. Since, for most of us,mortgage payments are much easier to make when we are fully employed, those who crashed the global economy are responsible for their victims' mortgage payments.
> 
> As for economies of scale, you might want to ask your rich friends at the Fed about the $16,115,000,000,000 in "broad based emergency programs" which resulted in funding the thieves on Wall Street bonus pool in 2009.
> 
> The rich have been looting this planet since the fall of man.
> They are about to be crucified on their cross of gold.
> Will you whine or shit about that?


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> *So was Hitler and Yitzhak Shamir:*



No George, Adolf Hitler was a socialist who ran a command economy where the government dictated what would be produced and in what quantity. Hitler controlled the means of production. 



> "Zionist factions competed for the honor of allying to Hitler.
> 
> "By 1940-41, the 'Stern Gang,' among them *Yitzhak Shamir, later Prime Minister of Israel*, presented the Nazis with the 'Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the *War on the Side of Germany*'"
> 
> BTW.
> 
> 51 Documents » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names



Scratch a communist, find a Nazi - EVERY fucking time. You know why? Because you and the Nazis are all the same group. You have the same goals and the same methods.


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "A federal court has recently ruled that about half of the mortgage market has indeed been run as a criminal enterprise, for years -- which may well invalidate any potential foreclosure proceedings for about, oh, 60 million mortgages..."
> 
> *Think any of those mortgages are in Bel Aire?*
> 
> OpEdNews - Article: Wall Street theft on a scale unimagined, and Obama wants to keep it covered up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Utter bullshit.
> 
> Cite the case and I'll look it up  at Cornell. The whackjob sites you base your opinions on are full of shit.
Click to expand...

"Since a sale isn't legal unless there's full transfer of the physical note, a lot of the sales of mortgage-backed securities were not entirely legal, since the actual notes were often not transferred. So what are these millions of mortgage-backed securities now worth if the mortgaged houses in question cannot be foreclosed upon? Could their worth be negligible, or nearly negligible? And if so, what are the implications for the U.S. economy?

*What does Cornell say about that, fascist.*

OpEdNews - Article: Wall Street theft on a scale unimagined, and Obama wants to keep it covered up

Why do you swallow Wall Street shit whole and ask for seconds?


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *So was Hitler and Yitzhak Shamir:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No George, Adolf Hitler was a socialist who ran a command economy where the government dictated what would be produced and in what quantity. Hitler controlled the means of production.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Zionist factions competed for the honor of allying to Hitler.
> 
> "By 1940-41, the 'Stern Gang,' among them *Yitzhak Shamir, later Prime Minister of Israel*, presented the Nazis with the 'Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the *War on the Side of Germany*'"
> 
> BTW.
> 
> 51 Documents » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scratch a communist, find a Nazi - EVERY fucking time. You know why? Because you and the Nazis are all the same group. You have the same goals and the same methods.
Click to expand...

*How many communists did Hitler kill?*

Stern Gang: Solution of Jewish Question and Participation in the War on the Side of Germany (1941)


----------



## Katzndogz

The liar loans were supposed to help the "poor" with no or a poor credit history get into home ownership.  It was the way to the American Dream of home ownership for DA PO FOLK.  It worked out real well didn't it.


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why were most defective mortgages sold by institutions not covered by the CRA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of them were granted under CRA/LMI - nearly ALL of the toxic loans were CRA/LMI.
Click to expand...

Like most authoritarians I'm sure you think your views don't require proof.
For those of us who see tools like you as apologists for the 1%, how 'bout some links?
While your at it, tell us if Countrywide or Ameriquest were subject to CRA/LMI
Which Wall Street banks were funding Countrywide and Ameriquest?

FHA?

"Btw, if anyone is interested in knowing what happens to a public agency committed to homeownership in the middle of a housing bubble, *that is not run for profit*, then they should look to the Federal Housing Authority (FHA). 

"While far from perfect, the FHA did not get caught up in the irrational exuberance of the bubble years. Its market share fell from around 10 percent in the late 1990s to 2 percent in 2005."

Washington Post Helps Senator Corker Spread the Big Lie on Fannie and Freddie | Truthout


----------



## georgephillip

Katzndogz said:


> The liar loans were supposed to help the "poor" with no or a poor credit history get into home ownership.  It was the way to the American Dream of home ownership for DA PO FOLK.  It worked out real well didn't it.


*For some, i.e., DA RICH FOLK on Wall Street.*

"Among all the rescue programs set up by the Fed, $7.77 trillion in commitments were outstanding as of March 2009, Bloomberg said. *The nation&#8217;s six largest banks* &#8212; JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley &#8212; borrowed almost half a trillion dollars from the Fed at peak periods, Bloomberg calculated, using the central bank&#8217;s data."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/business/secrets-of-the-bailout-now-revealed.html?_r=2&=&utm_campaign=5994b9b6ea-DD_12_5_1112_5_2011&utm_medium=email&adxnnl=1&utm_source=Daily%20Digest&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1323136908-QZj0uOXacHrk5AAb/G6zjA 

Why did most of the liar loans originate from institutions like Countrywide and Ameriquest (with major funding from Wall Street banks) who were not subject to CRA regulations?

Why did most of their victims live in middle class neighborhoods instead of poor communities?


----------



## Katzndogz

I wish the unqualified had not gotten loans.  Or that Countrywide wasn't in the home loan for poor people business.  

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv17n4/vmck4-94.pdf

The CRA is the heart of the housing collapse.


----------



## georgephillip

Katzndogz said:


> I wish the unqualified had not gotten loans.  Or that Countrywide wasn't in the home loan for poor people business.
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv17n4/vmck4-94.pdf
> 
> The CRA is the heart of the housing collapse.


Most of us agree it's wrong for someone who is physically stronger to beat another and take his/her money. Why do you think so many very smart people think it's permissible to take someone's money who isn't as smart or well educated as they are?


----------



## Katzndogz

georgephillip said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish the unqualified had not gotten loans.  Or that Countrywide wasn't in the home loan for poor people business.
> 
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv17n4/vmck4-94.pdf
> 
> The CRA is the heart of the housing collapse.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us agree it's wrong for someone who is physically stronger to beat another and take his/her money. Why do you think so many very smart people think it's permissible to take someone's money who isn't as smart or well educated as they are?
Click to expand...


The CRA was a mandate telling lenders they had to do it.

Why do we have tax collectors taking someome's money because they aren't as powerful as the tax collector?

The people who applied for these liar loans had no intention of ever paying for them.  The property was another rental, where they move in and never pay the rent hanging on until the eventual eviction.   Sometimes it was people in stable homes, refinancing to take out the equity for a real good time.  Then they find out that they can't pay it back.

This is pure Cloward-Piven at work.  Overwhelm the system with bad loans until it collapsed.  It worked.


----------



## Katzndogz

When my son was looking to buy a house at the height of the CRA craze, he at $400,000 as a down payment.  He and his wife both had long term stable jobs.  They applied to three lenders all of whom had so much money tied up meeting the CRA quotas that they couldn't even make good loans.   Countrywide was one lender.

Had it not been for a major wildfire tha damaged the house they were trying to buy, they might not have been able to get in one at all.    Fortunately the damage wasn't extensive.  Part of the roof and a back bedroom.   That's when the loan was suddenly approved.


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> "Since a sale isn't legal unless there's full transfer of the physical note, a lot of the sales of mortgage-backed securities were not entirely legal, since the actual notes were often not transferred. So what are these millions of mortgage-backed securities now worth if the mortgaged houses in question cannot be foreclosed upon? Could their worth be negligible, or nearly negligible? And if so, what are the implications for the U.S. economy?



So the claim that a "federal judge ruled that 60% mortgage lenders are criminals" was an outright lie and cannot be defended, just as I said. All you have is an editorial from a hate site.



> *What does Cornell say about that, fascist.*



I'm not Barack Obama, I don't support the merging of Kaiser and Blue Cross with the federal government in the establishment of a fascist government.

And Cornell can say nothing, because there is no case, the hate site doing your thinking for you was lying, as is the usual case.



> Why do you swallow Wall Street shit whole and ask for seconds?



I have been to numerous Tea Party protests against Wall Street AND the government who holds their leash. 

You communists think the answer to corrupt government is more government. 

Further, you STILL ducked my question.


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> *How many communists did Hitler kill?*



Far less than Stalin, less than Lenin as well.



> Stern Gang: Solution of Jewish Question and Participation in the War on the Side of Germany (1941)



Yes, I know you're an Antisemite, it is a feature of leftists.


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> Like most authoritarians I'm sure you think your views don't require proof.



Don't be such a fucking moron, George. 

Calling me an "authoritarian" merely reveals you as an ignorant sap.



> For those of us who see tools like you as apologists for the 1%, how 'bout some links?



Links to what?



> While your at it, tell us if Countrywide or Ameriquest were subject to CRA/LMI



{More concretely, there are three very specific ways in which the CRA nudged Countrywide and other mortgage companies to adopt lax lending standards.

1.    The Creation Of Artificial Demand For Low-Income Mortgages. Banks that were regulated by the CRA often found it difficult to meet their obligations under the CRA directly. Long standing lending practices by local loan officers were a big problem. But as banks expanded their deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that they were at risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in making CRA loans.

One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely artificial demand for CRA loans. Countrywide marketed its loans directly to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations. "The result of these efforts is an enormous pipeline of mortgages to low- and moderate-income buyers. With this pipeline, Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC) can potentially help you meet your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) goals by offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are eligible for CRA credit, a Countrywide advertisement on its website read.

2.    The Threat Of Regulation Is Often As Good As Regulation.  It is highly misleading to claim that just because mortgage companies were not technically under the CRA that they were not required by regulators to meet similar tests. In fact, regulators threatened that if the mortgage companies didnt step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

Heres how City Journal explains the dynamic:

To meet their goals, the two mortgage giants enlisted large lendersincluding nonbanks, which werent covered by the CRAinto the effort. Freddie Mac began an alternative qualifying program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldnt exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didnt stop with Sears. If it didnt happen, Clinton officials warned, theyd seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA among the most egregious redliners. To rebuff the criticism, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

3.    The CRA Distorted the Mortgage Market. With banks offering mortgages with high loan to value, delayed payment schedules and other enticing features, the mortgage companies would have quickly found themselves unable to compete if they didnt offer similar loans. The requirement to offer risky loans from banks created a situation where other lenders found they had to offer similar products if they wanted to expand their business.

Of course, Angelo Mozillo didn't need very much prompting on this score. He believed exactly what the CRA regulators believed: that these lax lending practices were the wave of the future, democratizing the glories of home ownership.

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-25/wall_street/30086142_1_cra-lending-standards-mortgage-companies#ixzz1flqnioF6}



> Which Wall Street banks were funding Countrywide and Ameriquest?
> 
> FHA?
> 
> "Btw, if anyone is interested in knowing what happens to a public agency committed to homeownership in the middle of a housing bubble, *that is not run for profit*, then they should look to the Federal Housing Authority (FHA).



FHA bleeds cash - what point are you trying to make?



> "While far from perfect, the FHA did not get caught up in the irrational exuberance of the bubble years. Its market share fell from around 10 percent in the late 1990s to 2 percent in 2005."
> 
> Washington Post Helps Senator Corker Spread the Big Lie on Fannie and Freddie | Truthout



Truthout isn't a valid source. 

Hank Paulson wrote in the left-wing Washington Post;

{A significant root cause of the crisis was the combined weight of government policies promoting homeownership; these are apparent in the housing GSEs, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal Home Loan Banks, the federal tax deduction for mortgage interest and various state programs. Homeownership was overstimulated to the point that it was unsustainable and dangerous to the broader economy. }

Hank Paulson - Housing policy must be set on sustainable basis


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> Most of us agree it's wrong for someone who is physically stronger to beat another and take his/her money. Why do you think so many very smart people think it's permissible to take someone's money who isn't as smart or well educated as they are?



Non Sequitur.

Regardless, those who aren't smart or educated generally don't have any money to take.

Why do YOU think it's permissible to take the money from those who are smarter and more talented than you?


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like most authoritarians I'm sure you think your views don't require proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be such a fucking moron, George.
> 
> Calling me an "authoritarian" merely reveals you as an ignorant sap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those of us who see tools like you as apologists for the 1%, how 'bout some links?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Links to what?
> 
> 
> 
> {More concretely, there are three very specific ways in which the CRA nudged Countrywide and other mortgage companies to adopt lax lending standards.
> 
> 1.    The Creation Of Artificial Demand For Low-Income Mortgages. Banks that were regulated by the CRA often found it difficult to meet their obligations under the CRA directly. Long standing lending practices by local loan officers were a big problem. But as banks expanded their deposit bases and other businesses, they often found that they were at risk of regulators discovering they had fallen behind in making CRA loans.
> 
> One way of addressing this problem was buying the loans in the secondary market. Mortgage companies like Countrywide began to serve this entirely artificial demand for CRA loans. Countrywide marketed its loans directly to banks as a way for them to meet CRA obligations. "The result of these efforts is an enormous pipeline of mortgages to low- and moderate-income buyers. With this pipeline, Countrywide Securities Corporation (CSC) can potentially help you meet your Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) goals by offering both whole loan and mortgage-backed securities that are eligible for CRA credit, a Countrywide advertisement on its website read.
> 
> 2.    The Threat Of Regulation Is Often As Good As Regulation.  It is highly misleading to claim that just because mortgage companies were not technically under the CRA that they were not required by regulators to meet similar tests. In fact, regulators threatened that if the mortgage companies didnt step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.
> 
> Heres how City Journal explains the dynamic:
> 
> To meet their goals, the two mortgage giants enlisted large lendersincluding nonbanks, which werent covered by the CRAinto the effort. Freddie Mac began an alternative qualifying program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldnt exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.
> 
> Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didnt stop with Sears. If it didnt happen, Clinton officials warned, theyd seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA among the most egregious redliners. To rebuff the criticism, the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.
> 
> 3.    The CRA Distorted the Mortgage Market. With banks offering mortgages with high loan to value, delayed payment schedules and other enticing features, the mortgage companies would have quickly found themselves unable to compete if they didnt offer similar loans. The requirement to offer risky loans from banks created a situation where other lenders found they had to offer similar products if they wanted to expand their business.
> 
> Of course, Angelo Mozillo didn't need very much prompting on this score. He believed exactly what the CRA regulators believed: that these lax lending practices were the wave of the future, democratizing the glories of home ownership.
> 
> Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-25/wall_street/30086142_1_cra-lending-standards-mortgage-companies#ixzz1flqnioF6}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which Wall Street banks were funding Countrywide and Ameriquest?
> 
> FHA?
> 
> "Btw, if anyone is interested in knowing what happens to a public agency committed to homeownership in the middle of a housing bubble, *that is not run for profit*, then they should look to the Federal Housing Authority (FHA).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FHA bleeds cash - what point are you trying to make?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "While far from perfect, the FHA did not get caught up in the irrational exuberance of the bubble years. Its market share fell from around 10 percent in the late 1990s to 2 percent in 2005."
> 
> Washington Post Helps Senator Corker Spread the Big Lie on Fannie and Freddie | Truthout
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truthout isn't a valid source.
> 
> Hank Paulson wrote in the left-wing Washington Post;
> 
> {A significant root cause of the crisis was the combined weight of government policies promoting homeownership; these are apparent in the housing GSEs, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), the Federal Home Loan Banks, the federal tax deduction for mortgage interest and various state programs. Homeownership was overstimulated to the point that it was unsustainable and dangerous to the broader economy. }
> 
> Hank Paulson - Housing policy must be set on sustainable basis
Click to expand...

*Hank Paulson is a big part of this problem, or hasn't that come up at one of your Tea Party protests?*

"Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs Are RICO Enterprises

"*This New York Times expose on Henry Paulson* and Goldman Sachs makes one thing clear: There is now no doubt that Henry Paulson and Goldman Sachs have violate numerous federal laws.  

"Paulson laundered several billion dollars of money to Goldman Sachs, through A.I.G.  Paulson lied to Congress about the true nature of TARP.  Paulson lied to Congress about his role in the Federal Reserve's decision to give over $185 billion to A.I.G. "

Crime & Federalism: Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs Are RICO Enterprises

*Paulson and Robert Rubin should be rotting in supermax as we speak.*


----------



## logical4u

Twalbert said:


> 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 you saying that you are against "wealth accumulation"?


----------



## Katzndogz

The movement is over.  A few might get together to smoke dope on a street corner but it is essentially over.


----------



## georgephillip

Katzndogz said:


> The movement is over.  A few might get together to smoke dope on a street corner but it is essentially over.


*The movement will end capitalism.*

"PARIS - *Mansions on one side of the road, and slums on the other*. People queuing for food rations, while others drive by in shiny Land Rovers with tinted windows.

"New data for the United States show that the 'share of after-tax household income for the *top 1 percent* more than doubled' from 1979 to 2007, while the share of the '*bottom' 20 percent* of the population *fell from 7 percent to 5 percent*. 

"Though varied throughout the world, these inequality statistics pervade and paint a picture of a world in which the *rich profit while the poor are left further and further behind*."

In Crisis, The Rich Get Richer | Common Dreams

A system that allows 1% of humanity to grow richer off the misery of the majority is not sustainable.
When  OWS began some protestors suggested a timeline for success similar to that between the signing of the Declaration of Independence and ratification of the US Constitution. 

Stay tuned for Occupation Charlotte.


----------



## Katzndogz

Do you think there are no rich people or income disparity in communist countries?

OWS is over.  It is irrlevant and has failed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> *Hank Paulson is a big part of this problem, or hasn't that come up at one of your Tea Party protests?*



EVEN Paulson, one of the insiders who know, acknowledges the role of FHA in the housing crisis.



> "Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs Are RICO Enterprises



Then Barack Obama is a mobster, given that he's got Goldman Sachs fist so far up his ass that they're tickling his tonsils.

They are corrupt, along with Fannie, Freddie, FHA and particularly, the Federal Reserve. 

Thing is George, YOU want to give these crooks MORE power. 



> "*This New York Times expose on Henry Paulson* and Goldman Sachs makes one thing clear: There is now no doubt that Henry Paulson and Goldman Sachs have violate numerous federal laws.










> "Paulson laundered several billion dollars of money to Goldman Sachs, through A.I.G.  Paulson lied to Congress about the true nature of TARP.  Paulson lied to Congress about his role in the Federal Reserve's decision to give over $185 billion to A.I.G. "



Yet you demand that we give government MORE power to determine the winners and losers....



> Crime & Federalism: Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs Are RICO Enterprises
> 
> *Paulson and Robert Rubin should be rotting in supermax as we speak.*



Along with Franklin Raines, Tim Geithner, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Angelo Mozilo  and a host of others. 

It YOU who wants to protect criminals, not me.


----------



## georgephillip

Katzndogz said:


> Do you think there are no rich people or income disparity in communist countries?
> 
> OWS is over.  It is irrlevant and has failed.


*Name one country where Communism has been implemented.*

"Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, revolutionary and stateless socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production..."

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hank Paulson is a big part of this problem, or hasn't that come up at one of your Tea Party protests?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EVEN Paulson, one of the insiders who know, acknowledges the role of FHA in the housing crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs Are RICO Enterprises
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then Barack Obama is a mobster, given that he's got Goldman Sachs fist so far up his ass that they're tickling his tonsils.
> 
> They are corrupt, along with Fannie, Freddie, FHA and particularly, the Federal Reserve.
> 
> Thing is George, YOU want to give these crooks MORE power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Paulson laundered several billion dollars of money to Goldman Sachs, through A.I.G.  Paulson lied to Congress about the true nature of TARP.  Paulson lied to Congress about his role in the Federal Reserve's decision to give over $185 billion to A.I.G. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet you demand that we give government MORE power to determine the winners and losers....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crime & Federalism: Hank Paulson and Goldman Sachs Are RICO Enterprises
> 
> *Paulson and Robert Rubin should be rotting in supermax as we speak.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Along with Franklin Raines, Tim Geithner, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Angelo Mozilo  and a host of others.
> 
> It YOU who wants to protect criminals, not me.
Click to expand...

*Are you arguing for more corporate power?*
Should government hand over its monopoly on violence to the US Chamber of Commerce?

In a previous post you stated government holds Wall Street's leash.
I believe it is just the opposite and will not change as long as millions of voters continue "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.

I'm calling for filling US prisons with the richest 1% of criminals starting in DC and Wall Street.
How would you enforce that action without resorting to government?


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> *Name one country where Communism has been implemented.*



Name one country where Capitalism has been implemented.



> "Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, revolutionary and stateless socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production..."
> 
> Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



True communism was implemented in Russia in the 1922 - 23 time frame.  In the Spring of 1922, Vladimir Lenin closed off the city of St. Petersburg (Petrograd) and outlawed the use or possession of currency of any kind. All assets were declared to be owned in common by the proletariat. A series of peoples congresses, which is the meaning of "Soviet" were set up on a community by community level. The Soviets, backed by Uparvdoms, armed thugs, decided what each person needed and what they were to contribute in labor. The Soviets often decided that the Bourgeoisie, the middle class that is the object of hatred by the left, didn't need to sleep indoors in the sub-arctic winter, that they did need to labor until they died of exhaustion. 

This was true communism in every way, it was the hell on Earth that you communist yearn for, millions dead with misery and despair for the living. 

Yes George, there has been true communism, where the people as a mob determined life and death for their neighbors, no possessions and no money. It was the most evil system ever devised, petty and brutal. This is what the left seeks, misery and despair for all. The left is evil, pure evil.


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> *Are you arguing for more corporate power?*



No George, you are.



> Should government hand over its monopoly on violence to the US Chamber of Commerce?



Should Kaiser be able to send the IRS to arrest or kill those who fail to buy it's product, as Obamacare dictates?



> In a previous post you stated government holds Wall Street's leash.



Yes, by giving more power to government, you give more power to the well connected looters. 

You support the looters, George.



> I believe it is just the opposite and will not change as long as millions of voters continue "choosing" between Republican OR Democrat in the voting booth.



What you believe is idiotic, based on bullshit rather than the available facts and evidence. Government has the guns and makes the laws. Looters operate at the pleasure of our rulers, on their behalf. When one of the largest corporations in history, Enron, ran afoul of the government, they were gone in months with the leaders of that corporation either dead or in prison. They had ZERO power, they existed because government wanted them to exist, the moment they were a liability, government ended them.

This is particularly true of open looters like Enron, which produced nothing and existed purely to siphon wealth on behalf of our rulers.

Yet you want to give the rulers more power and further crush the individual under the iron fist of the state.



> I'm calling for filling US prisons with the richest 1% of criminals starting in DC and Wall Street.



Of course you are, you are driven by envy and greed. You seek revenge against those who have more than you. 

At the same time, you seek to strip what little liberty is left and promote the totalitarian state.



> How would you enforce that action without resorting to government?



The only actions I would enforce are those of codified law as passed by our legislature, no law created by EO or mandate would be enforced, as it violates our Constitution. 

Looting exists because of government action. No monopoly or price fixing can exist in a free market, it isn't possible. Natural monopolies will exist at times, but they fade.

Let's look at the monopolies this nation has seen;

AT&T - a monopoly of telephone service until 1988. How did AT&T gain a monopoly? Did they fire bomb competitors? No, the government created and enforced the monopoly.

AMTRAK - a monopoly of passenger rail service. How does AMTRAK maintain their monopoly? Do they have thugs who threaten those that would compete - well actually, yes - the thugs of the Federal government.

In EVERY case of monopoly, government creates and enforces the monopoly - which cannot exist without the government.

Yet you demand that MORE government is the answer to corruption and looters.


----------



## georgephillip

Uncensored2008 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Name one country where Communism has been implemented.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name one country where Capitalism has been implemented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, revolutionary and stateless socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production..."
> 
> Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True communism was implemented in Russia in the 1922 - 23 time frame.  In the Spring of 1922, Vladimir Lenin closed off the city of St. Petersburg (Petrograd) and outlawed the use or possession of currency of any kind. All assets were declared to be owned in common by the proletariat. A series of peoples congresses, which is the meaning of "Soviet" were set up on a community by community level. The Soviets, backed by Uparvdoms, armed thugs, decided what each person needed and what they were to contribute in labor. The Soviets often decided that the Bourgeoisie, the middle class that is the object of hatred by the left, didn't need to sleep indoors in the sub-arctic winter, that they did need to labor until they died of exhaustion.
> 
> This was true communism in every way, it was the hell on Earth that you communist yearn for, millions dead with misery and despair for the living.
> 
> Yes George, there has been true communism, where the people as a mob determined life and death for their neighbors, no possessions and no money. It was the most evil system ever devised, petty and brutal. This is what the left seeks, misery and despair for all. The left is evil, pure evil.
Click to expand...

Your account of Petrograd circa 1922 doesn't sound classless or stateless in any way shape or form.
It does sound like Bakunin's warning of "beating the people with the people's stick."
Your apparent confusion over Lenin's, Stalin's and Trotsky's commitment to socialism explains a great deal about why you worship the rich.

*"The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism* was evident from the very start. 

"*In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential.* 

"Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, *establishing the rule of the Party*, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the *anarchists had always understood."*

*Rule of the elites.*

For authoritarians like Lenin and Stalin it meant Party rule.
For authoritarians like you it means the richest 1% rule.
Shit clumps.

The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, by Noam Chomsky


----------



## hipeter924

I don't attend protests, I just try and work and get on with my life. As much as I would like a revolution, without clear demands they are like the French revolutionaries, if they got power they wouldn't solve the problems, just create more. More regulations around banks would be nice (rather than the rhetoric around taxing the rich). Though if we want to stop the global financial crisis happening again how it did, consumers will have to stop re-mortgaging their homes, and getting unstable loans that could easily put them into heavy debt or bankruptcy.


----------



## georgephillip

*Here's a fairly clear demand from Occupiers and the City of Los Angeles:*

"On December 3, just two days before Occupy L.A. was evicted by police, the General Assembly of the occupation passed a unanimous resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.

Today, the City Council of Los Angeles also voted, also unanimously, for a resolution making the same appeal."

LA and Occupy LA Agree: It&#039;s Time to End Corporate Personhood | Truthout


----------



## mudwhistle

Now the Occupy Movement is throwing away any facade they had that they weren't tied at the hip with Obama.....and they're beginning their anti-primary phase. 

Occupy Iowa is the first action directly against the GOP. 



> *The very people who supported Obama in 08 are the Occupy organizers, Goodner said. That same energy has shifted from the electoral arena to the streets.*



Four years later, Obama's supporters ready to occupy Iowa - latimes.com


----------



## georgephillip

mudwhistle said:


> Now the Occupy Movement is throwing away any facade they had that they weren't tied at the hip with Obama.....and they're beginning their anti-primary phase.
> 
> Occupy Iowa is the first action directly against the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *&#8220;The very people who supported Obama in &#8217;08 are the Occupy organizers,&#8221; Goodner said. &#8220;That same energy has shifted from the electoral arena to the streets.&#8221;*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Four years later, Obama's supporters ready to occupy Iowa - latimes.com
Click to expand...

You're confusing the Occupy Movement with what passes for populism on the rich, White, Republican right:

"Unlike the Tea Party, which was launched top down from the arch-Republican heights by Republican-operative groups like FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity and Tea Party Express, OWS really did spring up from outside and from beneath the political establishment. 

"It emerged from the dedicated activism of anarchist and other radically democratic activists acting on an extremely clever and powerful suggestion on the part the Canadian anticonsumerist magazine Adbusters - to occupy the belly of the world capitalist financial beast in New York City's financial district on the model of the revolutionary Egyptians who seized Cairo's Tahrir Square in early 2011."

Occupy Wall Street, Mass Media and Progressive Change in the Tea Party Era: Our Window of Opportunity | Truthout

Democrats are making every attempt to control Occupy, in the same way Freedom Works controls right-wing "populism", but they haven't succeeded yet and it isn't likely they will.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Occupy D.C.


----------



## Katzndogz

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Occupy D.C.



Go all the way.  Occupy the white house.

There is something utterly amusing about an OWS protester shitting on the carpet in the oval office.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Katzndogz said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Occupy D.C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go all the way.  Occupy the white house.
> 
> There is something utterly amusing about an OWS protester shitting on the carpet in the oval office.
Click to expand...


Dogs do tend to bite their masters hand.


----------



## georgephillip

"A recent survey of OWS protesters in New York finds that most disapprove of Obama and are strongly disillusioned with the Democratic party in light of its establishment, pro-Wall Street politics. 

"*Ninety-seven percent say they disapprove of Congress*. 

"A plurality of OWS protesters claim to identify with no political party, while 11 percent identify themselves openly as socialists and another 11 percent identify as Green Party members.

"Most are significantly to the left of center in describing their ideological orientations (80 percent claim to be liberal, 40 percent very liberal), compared to the increasingly center-right Democratic Party."

Occupy Wall Street, Mass Media and Progressive Change in the Tea Party Era: Our Window of Opportunity | Truthout


----------



## Katzndogz

The disconnect comes from thinking that 80% of OWS protesters means 80% of everyone.  

The reality is, the OWS protest movement itself is very small.   Probably smaller now than it was on its first day when the public was not sickened and disgusted by them.


----------



## earlycuyler

Katzndogz said:


> The disconnect comes from thinking that 80% of OWS protesters means 80% of everyone.
> 
> The reality is, the OWS protest movement itself is very small.   Probably smaller now than it was on its first day when the public was not sickened and disgusted by them.



They still doing that ?


----------



## georgephillip

Katzndogz said:


> The disconnect comes from thinking that 80% of OWS protesters means 80% of everyone.
> 
> The reality is, the OWS protest movement itself is very small.   Probably smaller now than it was on its first day when the public was not sickened and disgusted by them.


The average approval rating for congress over the last two weeks is around 12%.

If you're choosing to side with Wall Street and the 1% over a level economic playing field, you will be very disappointed this time next year.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Congressional Job Approval


----------



## Katzndogz

There is no connection between congress and the OWS movement.  To you, the less popular congress is, the more popular OWS is.  That's not true.


----------



## saveliberty

Over 100 days old and still disorganized, violent and nothing to show for it.


----------



## Katzndogz

They are trying to organize in Iowa at least enough to stop the vote.


----------



## saveliberty

Katzndogz said:


> They are trying to organize in Iowa at least enough to stop the vote.



Like I've said all along anarchists.


----------



## Big Fitz

saveliberty said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are trying to organize in Iowa at least enough to stop the vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've said all along anarchists.
Click to expand...

anarchists, useful idiots and ideological nitwits.


----------



## Uncensored2008

earlycuyler said:


> They still doing that ?



The Ocupoo morons are planning to shit on the Rose parade.

Occupy The Rose Parade (Mon, Jan 2, 2012)

Should they do so, I expect they will be publicly beaten by the 99% who aren't going to put up with their shit.


----------



## Uncensored2008

georgephillip said:


> The average approval rating for congress over the last two weeks is around 12%.
> 
> If you're choosing to side with Wall Street and the 1% over a level economic playing field, you will be very disappointed this time next year.
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Congressional Job Approval



Maybe the Shitters should run for Congress, after all, they have about the same approval level.


----------



## Katzndogz

Uncensored2008 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> They still doing that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ocupoo morons are planning to shit on the Rose parade.
> 
> Occupy The Rose Parade (Mon, Jan 2, 2012)
> 
> Should they do so, I expect they will be publicly beaten by the 99% who aren't going to put up with their shit.
Click to expand...


According to the local news, the protesters weren't given a permit to assemble in violation of the parade's permit and right to assemble.  The protesters have been given permission to follow the parade after the parade has completely passed.  They will be in competition with people trying to get out of there.


----------



## Big Fitz

Uncensored2008 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> They still doing that ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Ocupoo morons are planning to shit on the Rose parade.
> 
> Occupy The Rose Parade (Mon, Jan 2, 2012)
> 
> Should they do so, I expect they will be publicly beaten by the 99% who aren't going to put up with their shit.
Click to expand...




> Should they do so, I expect they will be *publicly beaten *by the 99% who  aren't going to put up with their shit.



ohpleaseohpleaseohplease.....


----------



## Uncensored2008

Big Fitz said:


> ohpleaseohpleaseohplease.....



There are some things you just don't fuck with in California, the Rose Parade is near the top.


----------



## Katzndogz

Nothing is going to happen at the Rose Parade except that the cameras will pack up as television shifts programming to football and people will be leaving.

What I wonder is, after the parade, the floats are put on display.   I can see OWS trying to destroy the floats because so many of them have corporate sponsorship.   Then there might be a problem.

Of greater danger of some sort of conflict is in Iowa where OWS plans on disrupting the vote and groups of citizens are planning to disrupt THEM.


----------



## saveliberty

Katzndogz said:


> According to the local news, the protesters weren't given a permit to assemble in violation of the parade's permit and right to assemble.  The protesters have been given permission to follow the parade after the parade has completely passed.  They will be in competition with people trying to get out of there.



So they were given a permit to assemble, just not at the same time as another event.  That is not a violation at all.  It sounds like good safety management as traffic and other concerns needed to be addressed.


----------



## Katzndogz

saveliberty said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to the local news, the protesters weren't given a permit to assemble in violation of the parade's permit and right to assemble.  The protesters have been given permission to follow the parade after the parade has completely passed.  They will be in competition with people trying to get out of there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So they were given a permit to assemble, just not at the same time as another event.  That is not a violation at all.  It sounds like good safety management as traffic and other concerns needed to be addressed.
Click to expand...


No they weren't given a permit at all.  They are being allowed to follow the parade without a permit.   It was a compromise.  The orignal OWS plan was to rush the floats along the parade route doing as much damage as they could and to scare the horses into the crowd.  So they are being allowed to follow the parade if they behave themselves.

This is silliness.  There is no one to agree to any compromise.  There is no leadership.  There will still be those who choose to exercise their freedom as protesters by rushing the floats or horses.  The only thing to stop that would be the fact of being surrounded by hundreds of thousands of people intent on stopping them.  The same way OWS was stopped from disrupting black friday.   They saw those shoppers trampling one another and knew they had no chance.


----------



## saveliberty

So the anarchists wish to commit violence again.  Why would they be issued a permit to do that?


----------



## georgephillip

*Ask the Gracchis:*

"When the Gracchi brothers and their followers tried to reform the credit laws in 133 BC, the dominant Senatorial class acted with violence, killing them and inaugurating a century of Social War, resolved by the ascension of Augustus as emperor in 29 BC...

"Among Rome&#8217;s leading historians, Livy, Plutarch and Diodorus blamed the fall of the Republic on creditor intransigence in waging the century-long Social War marked by political murder from 133 to 29 BC. 

"Populist leaders sought to gain a following by advocating debt cancellations (e.g., the Catiline conspiracy in 63-62 BC). They were killed. By the second century AD about a quarter of the population was reduced to bondage. By the fifth century Rome&#8217;s economy collapsed, stripped of money. 

"*Subsistence life reverted to the countryside.*"

*Creditors and debtors...which side are you choosing?*

Debt Slavery


----------

