Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[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]

The natives are getting restless.

Ignore that at your peril, Masters.

Oh, I'm really scared.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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]

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."

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

"Thirty-six percent (36%) of the nation’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]

There is very little evidence that it is a popular movement.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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. ....

So true. It creates jobs in China.

 

[Dragon]

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]

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]

There is very little evidence that it is a popular movement.

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.

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.

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.

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]

There is very little evidence that it is a popular movement.

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.

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.

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.

Of course you don't want to pay attention to Rasmussen. You don't like what the poll results are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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]

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.