Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[georgephillip]

What level of support have you seen for Wall Street?

Who's invested in it? Are You?

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]

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]

What level of support have you seen for Wall Street?

Who's invested in it? Are You?

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?

Nope. I'm not invested either, just for the Record.

 

[Intense]

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.

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]

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).

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]

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).

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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"​

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]​