world

Occupy Wall Street movement flexes muscles one month on

199 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2011 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

199 Comments
Login to comment

To date not a single specific demand has been issued, prompting ridicule from critics.

Actually lots of demands have been made. The real problem is that no one can tell if they are "official" or not because OWS does not have an official spokesperson. And yeah, some of those critics would love to have that spokesperson so that they can be lazy and not have to read so many signs that do list demands or actually use their own brain to figure out what this all means.

Also, they would like a target; someone from whose words they can cherrypick and deride, and also to stuff strawmen down his throat. Perhaps they would even like a target to arrest.

If you cannot figure out a single demand that would largely appease these people, then you are either stupid or lazy, take your pick.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

a few hundred anti-capitalism activists set up camp in New York

How do you know that they are anti-capitalists??

To date not a single specific demand has been issued, prompting ridicule from critics.

What a ridiculous statement! In your own article you wrote The next major event could be on Saturday which will see a “National Day of Protest to Stop Police Brutality,” according to the www.occupywallst.org website.

Is that not a demand? Occupy "WALLSTREET" should also be pretty self explanitory!

Once again, more injected opinions by JT. Is this really necessary? To the person who wrote this article, do you really think those people are out there just for fun? They are finally standing up for the 99% that were robbed by the greedy people at wall street. Let's use discretion before making false statements like this...it really discredits the integrity of your "news" site

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

....and US financial markets are bleeding.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

OWS could win the day!! They've got my vote, that's for sure.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

even if no one knows where it will go next.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So...where to? Anarchy?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Anti-capitalist" is clearly a loaded term. I'm not saying this AFP article uses it in a calculated way, but there was definitely an editorial decision made to leave it that way, and that's a shame on the journalism industry.

Anyway, if you look past the laughably biased and sometimes outright false media coverage of OWS, you find these statistics, provided by an independent Quinnipac University survey:

3 out of 4 New Yorkers support OWS 72% of New Yorkers say if the protestors obey the law, they can stay as long as they want 72% of New Yorkers understand the views of OWS either "very well" or "fairly well". Only 10% say they don't understand the protestors views.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Let's hope it dies out soon and these idiots go home get cleaned up and look for a real job!

-2 ( +5 / -8 )

anger at economic disparities between the top one percent and the other 99 percent.

Yeah with 1% of the people paying such a huge disproportionate chunk of the taxes that the government sucks in to run the country, and creating the jobs that employ millions of other Americans, who wouldn't be angry about disparity.

The biggest problem with capitalism is that it produces poor results when "elites" in government who "know what's best" start to meddle with the markets (as they did with the housing market, which is largely the reason we find ourselves in the current mess).

Still, it has produced better results than redistributionist socialism ever has, and it will again in future, unless some really REALLY elite people can dream up a better system (not holding my breath).

0 ( +1 / -1 )

bass4funk,

Which job would they be looking for exactly? Because, you know, there is only one job opening for every 7 applicants in America right now.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Anything and I mean, ANYTHING that is legal. I was homeless for 6 moths, I always found some job, yes, many were crappy and MOST people wouldn't take them, but I was not to proud to take it. I lived, survived and prospered. Most people just won't take a job that is beneath them. If illegals can find jobs, then they can find jobs too, NO EXCUSES!

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Davidattokyo,

The 1% pays a "disproportionate chunk of the taxes"? That is the most ludicrous and outright false thing I have heard throughout these forums, and trust me, the right-wingers are dropping untruths left and right.

First of all, you're talking about income tax only. Factor in payroll tax, homeowner's tax, sales tax, you get a much more balanced number. Funny how Republicans always forget about those. I wonder why that is...

The fact is, 100% of Americans pay taxes. 100%. Not 47%. Everyone. Every single adult American pays taxes. Even some children pay taxes if they can go shopping by themselves.

Secondly, if you want to talk about just income tax, then you're not talking about the 1%, you're talking about the 20%.

I know, right? How "elitist" of me to do "research" and "be knowledgeable" about the things I talk about.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

bass4funk,

You're not understanding me. Even if every single protestor on Wall Street "cleaned up" and went looking for a job, 6 of every 7 would come back empty handed. If it is a legal job, it is on record, and thus included in the statistic I provided. There are no jobs.

Illegals can't find jobs. "Illegals" are returning to their home countries in droves because 1) America is not the better option anymore and 2) Especially Mexico's economy is actually growing exponentially. The "illegals" problem is a myth. "illegals" would rather stay in Mexico these days. There's a great NYT article about it from around 2 months ago. Fascinating stuff. I suggest you read it if you can stomach NYT's supposedly "liberal" slant that doesn't exist.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Sorry, I'm just not buying it. But then again, I would do almost anything to stay afloat, but that's me. I know that are jobs there, not the best, but there is something.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I didn't make these numbers up. It's a very simple formula: Look at all the jobs registered with the government, then look at all the people looking for a job. If anything, the number is actually worse because it doesn't include people who are willfully unemployed, such as High School students who prefer not to work part-time and so on.

There's no "not buying it". Now, if you want to work illegally, or create your own job (selling some crafts or something) that's another story, but then you run into another problem: No one is spending any money, so even if you decide to start a business or sell something, no one's going to come knocking anyway. Then you wind up jobless all over again, with a shiny new debt too! Yay!

You see? The so-called "job creators" who are enjoying massive, historic profits are actually LAYING PEOPLE OFF. What happened? I thought "trickle down" economics were meant to empower the "job creators"? Well, one part of the equation is working right now... so where are the jobs?

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Actually lots of demands have been made. The real problem is that no one can tell if they are "official" or not because OWS does not have an official spokesperson.

Yup. Been saying that for a while. Only difference is when I have said it, I get a thumbs down for some reason.

-3 ( +4 / -8 )

Yeah with 1% of the people paying such a huge disproportionate chunk of the taxes that the government sucks in to run the country, and creating the jobs that employ millions of other Americans, who wouldn't be angry about disparity

and where do the large US based multinationals who pay no federal tax whatsoever fit into this equation?? ...

The biggest problem with capitalism is that it produces poor results when "elites" in government who "know what's best" start to meddle with the markets (as they did with the housing market, which is largely the reason we find ourselves in the current mess).

your right - the government shouldnt legislate against the sorts of self serving fraudulent products that Wall Street sold prior to the meltdown... I am sorry, I forgot - Wall Street has no interest whatsoever in profits - they are simply operators of benevolent companies looking to advance the interests of the greater good (hahahaha)

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Ben,

Everyone but you seems to understand what their demands are. In a single word, it's this: Justice.

It isn't their job to draft legislation. It isn't their job to submit very specific demands (although they have). This is not uncommon of protests.

Strangely, I recall a snide remark you made that "Not all non-Americans are interested in what America is doing", but you sure seem to have some very strong opinions about everything the Americans are getting up to.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Everyone but you seems to understand what their demands are. In a single word, it's this: Justice

Well, isn't that tidy. Except, it is obviously not just me as can be seen in other people's posts. In fact, this can be seen in the post I responded to. I wonder why you cannot see this as a problem.

It isn't their job to submit very specific demands (although they have).

Yeah, which seem to include spreading incorrect information like GE not paying US taxes.

Strangely, I recall a snide remark you made that "Not all non-Americans are interested in what America is doing", but you sure seem to have some very strong opinions about everything the Americans are getting up to.

It was not a snide remark, It was an honest statement. You mentioned some politician who is not mentioned at all or nearly at all here in Japan. This story is quite well known. Lastly, it is my business in what I take an interest. I think the idea of protesting corruption and such is rather admirable. I just think it would be nice if their message was clearer than 'Justice' as you put it.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Not true humantarget. I have no clue what their demands are. Set up a list for my simple mind to comprehend.

“Know that if even one individual disrespects the community by not following this Good Neighbor Policy that they are most certainly weakening our mission.”

...and the mission is?????

Gave you a thumbs up Ben

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

This is not uncommon of protests.

Actually, it is. Most protests are actually protesting something specific. 'Injustice' is not specific.

0 ( +1 / -2 )

To date not a single specific demand has been issued, prompting ridicule from critics.

This is common of protests?

Thanks JapanGal!

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Ben_Jackinoff - Yup. Been saying that for a while. Only difference is when I have said it, I get a thumbs down for some reason.

It's only a guess on my part but maybe it's your non de plume? just sayin'

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

No problem Ben-san.

Arrestpaul. Does the French have something to do with a pen?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Le sigh... This is the third time I've mentioned this statistic (and the second time on this very thread)

72% of New York voters say they understand the views of OWS "very well" or "fairly well".

Maybe YOU don't, but everyone else does.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

HumanTarget - 3 out of 4 New Yorkers support OWS 72% of New Yorkers say if the protestors obey the law, they can stay as long as they want 72% of New Yorkers understand the views of OWS either "very well" or "fairly well". Only 10% say they don't understand the protestors views.

The protestors views of what, exactly? That protestors are mad? That they're angry at banks? That the OccupyWallSt mob is keeping their operating funds in a bank? The mob doesn't know what it wants but 72% agree with the mobs views?

This mob is kind of old to be saying, "Fix it for me mommy and daddy".

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Economic equality seems to be the overarching message. Yes, there are splinter groups that demand all kinds of different and sometimes bizarre things but this is not uncommon of protests. It isn't as easy as the "Arab Spring" protests which sought to overthrow their current governments.

Here, it's more difficult, because they seek to improve the existing government.

Here's a quote from reporter Justin Elliot, who covered the recent OWS occupation of Times Square:

" I heard many of the chants from what has become Occupy Wall Street’s repertoire:

“We. Are. The 99 Percent!”

“How do we fix the deficit? End the wars! Tax the rich!”

“Banks got bailed out! We got sold out!” "

Hmm... Repertoire? That seems to suggest a cohesive message that is playing out repeatedly over time, and in multiple OWS locations.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Oh, and at Arrestpaul,

Just out of curiosity, how did you feel about the Boston Police brutally attacking peacefully dissenting Vietnam War veterans and throwing away their property (illegal) as well as several American flags (illegal and what I assume to be an affront to your conservative values)? You support our troops, right?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Ahhh speaking of troops. Now if most of these people are out of a job, the nearby recruiting offices for the US Armed Services are saying we need you. Why not just enlist. Free housing, medical, food, and clothing. Get those chubby bodies in shape, and do something for America.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Japangal,

Don't be so obtuse. The American military is in a world of hurt because the U.S. can't pay for it anymore, not to mention troops on the lowest rungs of the military (the positions you describe) are constantly cheated out of their pay and trapped in loan schemes that the government refuses to regulate. Read the news much?

And how did you feel when you saw that Vietnam Vet scream "we are here in peace, I am a military veteran!" as he was being punched in the face by a police officer?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I do hope this "revolution" does not lead to civil war (unrest) in the United States. Russia, China and even North Korea and others may try to take advantage of the situation (vacuum created) and STRIKE! Or is there nothing to worry about?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

HumanTarget - Here, it's more difficult, because they seek to improve the existing government.

HOW do they plan on inmproving existing government? By asking someone else to do something? "Those guys" over there should be doing a better job of running my life? Give me money? Give me a free house? Eat the Rich?

Here's a quote from reporter Justin Elliot, who covered the recent OWS occupation of Times Square:

" I heard many of the chants from what has become Occupy Wall Street’s repertoire:

I heard a chant from Occupy "something" NY chapter also:

What do we what?

We don't really know.

When do we want it?

NOW.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

arrestpaul,

You have officially stopped making sense and are no longer capable of reasonable, intelligent discussion, so here is where my interaction with you ends. Want to have a polite chat about this? Go read something other than Andrew Breitbart for approximately five minutes, look at a few statistics, get out of your bubble, realize that America is not a Plutocracy (or shouldn't be, anyway), grab some coffee, digest all that information, then come on back here so we can palaver like adults.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

JapanGal - Does the French have something to do with a pen?

It should read "nom de plume" which is French for a "pen name". Mine is arrestpaul, yours is JapanGal.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

HumanTarget,

The 1% pays a "disproportionate chunk of the taxes"?

Yes, a disproportionate chunk. They aren't paying only 1% of the taxes don't you know. (By the way I'm not a "Republican", and I never intend to be.)

You should, like me, thank goodness for these wealthy people throughout the world because without them we'd all be living like the poor North Koreans.

As for America's jobs problem, the problem as I see it is the US government leadership and monetary policy officialdom. Creating massive wads of new regulations and unconventional monetary policy together has created huge uncertainty in the markets, which makes the environment for job-creation worse.

Democratic governments have proved that they can not successfully micro-manage economies, they can only succeed by establishing a healthy environment within which economies can operate. The problem with politicians is that they pander to their interest groups which simply put, screws everything up. (US tax code is, speaking of this, a good example.)

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

David,

I had no idea you were such an expert. Do you have a PhD? I would love to read some of your scholarly journals.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I hope the protests will continue in the USA and all over the world. I rather be aware of what is truly going on, than be a blinded fool by the media. They Live. http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=91

3 ( +4 / -1 )

HumanTarget - Le sigh... This is the third time I've mentioned this statistic (and the second time on this very thread)

72% of New York voters say they understand the views of OWS "very well" or "fairly well".

Not 72% of New York "voters". 72% of the people polled.

From the Quinnipiac poll website -

16. How well do you feel you understand the views of the Wall Street protesters? Do you understand them very well, fairly well, not too well or not well at all?

Very well - 29% Fairly well - 43% Not too well - 17% Not well at all - 10% DK/NA - 2%.

29% understand "very well" that the view of the protestors is that they are angry? 43% understand "fairly well" that the view of the protestors is that they like protesting? 17% understand "not too well" what the heck the views of the protestors actually are?

When the polled respondents finally understand what the Occupy "something" protestors want, I suspect the favorable rating will drop.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Voters. Not people.

Here's the press release: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1302.xml?ReleaseID=1662

Go develop an understanding of the protests before you comment further on what the protets hope to accomplish.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Also, hmm, would you look at that, the press release I just linked draws a correlation between those that understand the views of the protestors, and those that hold college degrees. Education!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

HumanTarget - Go develop an understanding of the protests before you comment further on what the protets hope to accomplish.

I read the poll before. The question doesn't define the actual "views" of the protestors. It is left up to those who were polled to decide what "views" they thought the protestors had.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I see that student-loan debt is one of the issues for OWS.

So who do they think should be paying off their debts, other than they, the recipients of their education?

Well if I take a guess, the students should pay the debts off themselves, because they opted to take the risk they took to spend money to better themselves.

To do this, they need jobs. How do they get jobs? They can either start a business themselves using their great education (and become one of the top 1% even) or pray that the government stops holding businesses back from job-creation with their excessive regulations and unconventional monetary policies which have created uncertainty in the economic system.

If the government were for example to "bail out" the students then that will inevitably result in unintended consequences such as the housing bubble that we are currently sitting in the splat of.

Hopefully we'll learn.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

David,

I don't take a side on this particular debate either way, but many highly educated and well-known economists favor wiping all debts of the 99% entirely. The logic is that the wildly bloated bank monopolies and loaners to whom the debt is owed are more than capable of absorbing the loss and the extra free income would do wonders to kickstart the economy. Think about it: Give people a stimulus package, what's the first thing they do? Pay back their debts. Wipe the debt away? Suddenly everyone has 600 dollars a month in their pocket that they didn't have before.

And please, no more talk about jobs. No one wants to start a business in this economy. Who wants to end up jobless AGAIN plus even more in debt? Increased spending is the only thing that will bounce this economy back. And to increase spending you need to increase consumer confidence. Not business confidence. Businesses are raking it in in numbers never before seen. They've got all the confidence they need.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

HumanTarget,

I see. Interesting logic. Of course if they try it and it works, that'd be great. But my personal experiences me that it'd end in tears (just my personal opinion mind, I'd love it if I were wrong, but I think there's a lot of people who feel the same way as me and seeing this stuff go on makes us less confident).

I don't think jobs is only on the consumer side. Consumers will buy stuff but only if that stuff exists and they want it. iPhones weren't developed because millions of people wanted them, Apple had to take the risks of bringing their ideas to the market. So we need to make it easy for businesses to take more risks so that we get more good products come out, which will help stimulate demand.

Possibly the answer is a mix of policy, maybe then everyone will feel better.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I see that student-loan debt is one of the issues for OWS.

They finally discovered that there really is no such thing as a free lunch. But it isn't keeping them from trying to get one anyway.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@HumanTarget

You mentioned highly educated and well-known economists are in favour of wiping all debts of the 99%. Ok, sounds good but just a few questions to make sure we're on the right track.

1 How did 100s of millions, possibly billions of people accumulate such large debts in the first place?

2 Where did the money come from that was borrowed and how was it created?

3 Do these indebted populations REALLY owe the money the banks and politicians say they do? And if so who do they owe the money to?

4 Why are so many countries in debt and/or in trouble economically? Even China is entering troubled waters as are the BRIC countries.

5 Did the people of these indebted countries (ie: Greece) really have any choice in the matter of how their governments acted?

6 Who are the highly educated and well-known economists you talk about? Do you mean people like nobel prize winner Paul Krugman or Noriel Roubini? If so who pays their salaries and are they really impartial?

7 If the debt is miraculously wiped will it solve everything or will it just reset the system till it happens again a bit further down the road? Who would lose out?

You might be right that wiping all debts is the solution but I ask these questions because it is kind of important that people understand the current problems without being led astray by experts who might be telling only half-truths and avoiding the central issue of why the economies and financial system are in such a state.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The revendication is simple:

If bankers, CEO and the "elite" made insane profits and got insane bonuses for years, this is because the economy was good and because you have people pushing money up the pyramid from the bottom. When everything run havoc, the people at the top should participate to the reconstruction. Especially the people in Wall Street that created this mess should pay.

Low taxes for the "elite" are not creating jobs. This is an illusion. Lowering taxes for companies would.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Weedkila,

Good questions. Here's a link to a recent Reuters special report about debt forgiveness, which seems to highlight significant mainstream support for the idea of mass debt relief: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/03/us-haircut-idUSTRE79125J20111003

Here's another one, in which mainstream economists call for the same: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/03/debt-relief-haircut-economists_n_991909.html

Also, David Graeber, an anthropologist and debt historian has proposed debt forgiveness for the 99%. But he is certainly biased because he is an organizer of OWS.

People encounter debt in a variety of situations. For example, people try to start a business, the business fails (because of the economy) and they end up in more debt. Another thing is student loans.

Student loan debt in the United States outweighs credit card debt for the first time in American history. This is because interest rates and tuition fees and other college related expenses have skyrocketed. So, don't listen to people like Sailwind and the other right-wingers around here that seem to think going to college is a personal choice (how on earth would you succeed without a degree these days?) and that college expenses have somehow not changed. They have. Greatly.

As Salon.com's Alex Pareene writes, "Household debt is at 90 percent of GDP. Any stimulus proposal — even “dropping money from helicopters” — would result in a massive transfer of money from indebted Americans to cash-engorged banks, rather than the spending spree that would theoretically put us back to work."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

and because you have people pushing money up the pyramid from the bottom.

Actually the only money getting to the bottom is pushed down, not up. Some stays in the middle and some gets pushed up from there, to the owners and investors, money in fact generated by the work of the bottom. And there at the top most of it stays, because its far more than what they need to pay for food and bills.

This is not a protest to eliminate rich people or corporations, even if a handful of people hold up placards saying otherwise. This protest is about ending greed among other things. You don't need to be greedy to get rich. But you do need to be greedy to get super rich. The 1 percent are greedy, almost down to a man. There is no other explanation for that amount of wealth. They did not work thousands of times harder than your average laborer who is scrapping by. Its not possible. They kept profits, paid the lowest wages they could, and did not bother to kick any money back to those who actually did the work. They played by rules from the rulebook written by themselves and their breathren, a rule book also full of white-out. For example the Glass-Steagall act, which protected us for nearly 70 years by separating bankers from brokers, which got erased in 1999. And low and behold, things quickly started looking like the 1930s again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Flexes muscles" ? I'll believe that when the people playing protester agree on and endorse individual candidates. Until then it is just a rent-a-mob for the most part, an outlet for the adolescent narcissistic nihilism that passes for 'adult, but still cool' these days. Open secret is that the whole fetid sideshow is surviving off the slush fund Obama and his ilk illegally provide them with. At least now the mask is off, the fan dance no longer fooling anyone...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Here is a good article that suggests some demands for Occupy Wall Street. Accountability for government and corporate monetary actions, compliance with laws that already exist and bringing back laws that were erased for the sake of greed inspired de-regulation.

http://compliancecampaign.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/for-an-occupy-wall-street-demand-how-about-accountability-and-compliance/

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Student loan debt in the United States outweighs credit card debt for the first time in American history. This is because interest rates and tuition fees and other college related expenses have skyrocketed. So, don't listen to people like Sailwind and the other right-wingers around here that seem to think going to college is a personal choice (how on earth would you succeed without a degree these days?) and that college expenses have somehow not changed. They have. Greatly.

After the colleges and universities who benefitted most from skyrocketing tuition costs? Democrats.They get to make promises about a college education for all, the public eventually gets to foot the bill. Who controls the campuses on most universities? "Liberals" do. A look at the Stalin-esque "speech codes" on our campuses is all you need to settle that one. Obama basically nationalized the student loan process. Does anyone seriously believe tuition was actually going to drop once that, as with F Mac and F Mae, the gubmint underwrote the whole scam? Thanks for bringing this up.It is one of those points that highlights how ludicrous it is to try and argue that Democrats and Republicans of a hundred years cannot be compared to party figures of today. Uber-prog Woodrow Wilson had a Ph.D., was a former university prof - just like Obama. (Wilson, to be fair, got there on merit, not as beneficiary of a quota system.)

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Here is a good article that suggests some demands for Occupy Wall Street. Accountability for government and corporate monetary actions, compliance with laws that already exist and bringing back laws that were erased for the sake of greed inspired de-regulation.

Funny, that is what the Tea Party was saying and yet they get vilified as racist. I remember all of the ranting about the supposed Tea Party racists and the supposed Black Congressman who said he was spit on, but I saw something today on TV (NPR even) that was interesting. It was a Black lady who is identified as a teacher from LA, who said that the world economic problems was a result of the international Zionist movement, and that it was the Jews who were controlling the banks. Also in various other media outlets, I saw a few ante-Semitc signs.

I am waiting for the Dems to come out and denounce these people just like they kept wanting the GOP and Tea Party to do. They were trying to go on the same old racist card and trying to stir up rhetoric against them without proof, yet we see it visibly here and not a word of condemnation.

One point I have to ask the OWS and those who keep wanting change. If everyone one of the supposed greedy were replaced, who would they be replaced with? What makes you so sure that those who will gain control will actually "share with the people?" After all, in the old USSR, everyone was supposedly "comrades" but there were rich and connect comrades and thos who were not so rich.

I can understand some of the frustration on the huge spending and profits of Wall Street bankers, but if they are protesting them, why aren't they protesting against socialist countries like Greece and others in the EU? After all, Greece got where it is by overspending and giving away other people's money and look where they are now. So why isn't that worthy enough for the OWS to focus on?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Funny, that is what the Tea Party was saying and yet they get vilified as racist.

One has nothing to do with the other. I support several Tea Party positions as much as their consensus of tax breaks for the rich is just insane. And I don't much like getting sidetracked on the race stuff either. But the Tea Party was not doing a good job policing itself from elements they should have expelled, that much is true. I think might be paying more attention now, because pretty much the only one still bringing it up is you.

I think you would be hard pressed to find such elements with OWS. They are doing a good job policing themselves, not perfect, but better than I would have predicted.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Unreconstructed,

More ranting?

Oh, and by the way, your Republican heroes are all running to support Occupy Wall Street

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/7/HKQPhE4Zn7s

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Alphaape,

The media has been spinning the anti-semitism angle all kinds of ways. Want the truth? Here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks#p/u/48/NEPgAp5Mkyc

There's also another photo of anti-war protesters that's claimed as "from Occupy Wall Street". In fact, it's from 2007.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@HumanTarget

Good questions but can you (or anyone else) answer them?

Sorry but if you quote Reuters about debt forgiveness then I automatically know it's a promotion by the very same banksters that people are protesting against. Do a search and you'll find that Reuters, AP and other corporate media organisations like these are either owned or indirectly controlled by the elite of the elite, the Rothschilds. As for the HuffingtonPost it promotes the left wing agenda which makes it suspect. It's all about divide and rule and is plain to see in the AFP article above.

LEFT

President Barack Obama has led Democrats in tentatively embracing the movement. […] “The president has expressed an understanding of the frustration that the demonstrations manifest and represent.”

RIGHT

On the other side, Republican presidential candidates have been scathing in their attacks on the group, signaling that it has at the least become too big to ignore. […] Even Republicans, while mostly disagreeing with the protestors’ views ...

Left vs Right = Divide and Conquer ---- you can see it in plenty of comments on this board supporting one side or the other.

The elitists set up an argument or problem, control the debate through controlled politicians, the media etc, and finally come up with the solution that suits them. Problem, Reaction, Solution - works every time. For the most part people are non the wiser, although fortunately a lot of people are now catching on.

You mentioned David Graeber and his proposal of debt forgiveness. I don't know much about him but one site I trust had this to say:

What's the alternative media's verdict? Occupy Wall Street has been fomented with organizational elements of the US State Department and its AYM arm, abetted no doubt by the FBI, CIA and other Intel organizations. Funding nominally is being provided via Adbusters magazine, which gets its funding through Soros-managed entities among others and its direct democracy approach from pseudo anarchist David Graeber. -- TheDailyBell.com

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The media has been spinning the anti-semitism angle all kinds of ways.

Unfortunately, many of the Alphaapes and their ilk do not care, and will never care, about the truth. They will find any right-wing half-truths (lies) they can and try to present them as "fact." The video you provided the link to clearly shows their disgusting tactics.

The Turk's video is great because it shows an OWS person clearly denouncing the crazy anti-Jewish person who -- as the video states -- had been around the parks in NYC with his protest for years. This is a FAR cry from the posters that displayed President Obama as a mugger with a knife at Uncle Sam's throat, as a witch-doctor with a bone through his nose, and as a primate on the "Monkey-See-Monkey-Spend" posters at Tea Party rallies.

Take this sentence from Alphaape: "They were trying to go on the same old racist card and trying to stir up rhetoric against them without proof, yet we see it visibly here and not a word of condemnation."

The proof of racist signs at Tea Party rallies is abundantly evident, as are videos of Tea Partiers endorsing violence against liberals and the left. And yet Alphaape claims -- ludicrously -- there was no proof. Heck, even some Tea Party organizations had to denounce some of the Tea Party groups because they saw the evidence of racial slurs. And what Alphaape claims as "visible proof," we clearly saw the truth in your video -- evidence which had been edited out to remove the denunciation by the REAL OWS supporters, so that right-winger can make their false claims.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

America is heading a 'civil war'! Keep infighting, the democrats and the republicans, you guys causing the world in miserables and despair, it's time you guys to taste these hardships!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Another of the right-wings sleazy tactics should be examined:

I can understand some of the frustration on the huge spending and profits of Wall Street bankers, but if they are protesting them, why aren't they protesting against socialist countries like Greece and others in the EU? After all, Greece got where it is by overspending and giving away other people's money and look where they are now. So why isn't that worthy enough for the OWS to focus on?

Is this person serious? We all know that Wall Street financiers helped bring down the U.S. economy and have helped cause massive unemployment and misery. And here we have an obviously delusional person wondering why people in Manhattan are not protesting against Greece??!!

I can tell you this, if they were also happening to protest against Greece, the delusional right-wingers would find some other injustice that wasn't being mentioned and try to somehow delegitimize the protesters for not protesting that. The Greeks, by the way, have plenty of their own people in the streets, as do cities all over Europe. The Occupy movement is slowly joining together in solidarity on a world-wide basis. The movement is barely a month old and taking off far stronger than anything ever seen since the 1960s.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Bring back the draft and fix the problem with the unemployed.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@JapanGal

The banksters and their corporate buddies caused the unemployment problem and you want the draft back so the unemployed can go and fight the bankers wars for them. Brilliant! No wonder they are laughing at us.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is clearly an unAmerican demonstration by people who don't understand what America is all about. The OWS group is basically engaging in drug trafficking, prostitution and trespassing. I don't understand why this is allowed to continue. We are the 53%! We are a clear majority. We pay our taxes to keep the streets safe. Those taxes pay for police, who should be arresting every single one of these people. These protests are a disgrace to humanity.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

HumanTarget - And please, no more talk about jobs. No one wants to start a business in this economy. Who wants to end up jobless AGAIN plus even more in debt? Increased spending is the only thing that will bounce this economy back. And to increase spending you need to increase consumer confidence. Not business confidence. Businesses are raking it in in numbers never before seen. They've got all the confidence they need.

Exhibit A - Businesses are raking it in in numbers never before seen. They've got all the confidence they need.

Exhibit B - No one wants to start a business in this economy. Who wants to end up jobless AGAIN plus even more in debt?

So what you're saying is that businesses are so confident that they don't dare take a chance in this economy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - The proof of racist signs at Tea Party rallies is abundantly evident, as are videos of Tea Partiers endorsing violence against liberals and the left.

Wrong. The racist claims against the tea Parties have been discredited as actually being LaRouche Labor Party sign holders, cleverly edited, pro-Obama, CNN and MSNBC videos, and Progressive Democrat Caucus lies.

There is evidence that progressives and pro-Obama unions have physically attacked candidates and Tea Party protestors including biting the finger off a Tea Party protestor and have egged Tea Party busses.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - The Occupy movement is slowly joining together in solidarity on a world-wide basis. The movement is barely a month old and taking off far stronger than anything ever seen since the 1960s.

But what are their goals? How will the Nazi support influence the movement? How will the pro-Obama unions influence the movement? I understand that the Occupy "something" movement is saving water by not washing but when are they going to come clean about their goals?

How many people will still support this movement once it's goals are known?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The proof of racist signs at Tea Party rallies is abundantly evident, as are videos of Tea Partiers endorsing violence against liberals and the left. And yet Alphaape claims -- ludicrously -- there was no proof. Heck, even some Tea Party organizations had to denounce some of the Tea Party groups because they saw the evidence of racial slurs. And what Alphaape claims as "visible proof," we clearly saw the truth in your video --

@yabits: We keep going around in circles on this and you still can't offer any proof. Whether you like them or not, Bretibart and O'Reilly have both offered rewards to anyone who can show them those supposed racist signs and any other evidence. To date, no one has stepped forward to accept the reward. I would imagine any liberal media organization would jump on the chance to have those on the right eat some humble pie, but so far I have not seen anyone do so.

evidence which had been edited out to remove the denunciation by the REAL OWS supporters, so that right-winger can make their false claims

@yabits: You are missing one point. The lady was at an OWS rally in LA. Not some off shoot splinter but among the rest of the protestors. By the way, Patricia McAllister, who works for LA Unified School District (ie. Union member) was quoted as saying: "I’m here representing myself but I do work for the Los Angeles Unified School District. I think that the Zionist Jews who are running these big banks and our Federal Reserve — which is not run by the federal government — they need to be run out of this country.”

Oh, and FYI, she is a Black woman. So those on the left who like to throw charges of racism at Herman Cain, need to check their own ranks for a change.

.

evidence which had been edited out to remove the denunciation by the REAL OWS supporters, so that right-winger can make their false claims

Spin it as you may, the woman is on tape

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I can tell you this, if they were also happening to protest against Greece, the delusional right-wingers would find some other injustice that wasn't being mentioned and try to somehow delegitimize the protesters for not protesting that.

Greece has wasted more money than the Wall Street bankers. They have bankrupted a country on over spending and entitlement programs. Far worse than what Wall Street has done, and guess what, it's also the people's fault in Greece too. We keep hearing that the Wall Street greedy don't know when to stop and greed just consumes them, well the same goes for people in a country who elect people who will pass out benefits to them more than they need. That's just as greedy.

What ever happened to the days when JFK said: "Ask not, what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Wrong. The racist claims against the tea Parties have been discredited as actually being LaRouche Labor Party sign holders

Our chum Paul here is a consistent presenter of false information. The racist "Obamacare" witch doctor photo was created by a well-known Florida doctor and Tea Party supporter, Dr. David McKalip. McKalip posted the picture on his Tea Party grouplist and Tea Partiers around the nation went to town with it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Whether you like them or not, Bretibart and O'Reilly have both offered rewards to anyone who can show them those supposed racist signs and any other evidence.

A lie. Breitbart's "reward" is specifically for anyone who can prove that the "n-word" was hurled at Congressman John Lewis during one specific incident. It is not for any proof of racist signs, or he'd lose that bet in a minute. I can find no evidence that Bill O'Reilly ever offered any kind of reward. One would expect such a reward to be posted so that any challenger could find it.

You are missing one point. The lady was at an OWS rally in LA.

No. You missed the point. The lady told you clearly she was representing herself. She had nothing to do with OWS, but just wanted to show up where a crowd had gathered. She could just as easily have chosen a Tea Party rally, but those seem to be few and far between these days.

So those on the left who like to throw charges of racism at Herman Cain, need to check their own ranks for a change.

I've never seen a charge that Herman Cain is a racist. Certainly not the way that Glenn Beck impugned that President Obama hated the white race. You are making things up again. As for "checking the ranks" -- checking them for what? Should the lady in LA not been allowed to peaceably assemble, especially since she said she was representing herself?

the woman is on tape

So what? She's representing herself. Who would tape her and try to defame the OWS movement as somehow being associated with her? Dishonest people, that's who.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

including biting the finger off a Tea Party protestor

What's a Tea Party protestor's finger doing in anyone else's mouth, Paul?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

[The Greeks did] ...Far worse than what Wall Street has done

An opinion. And an extremely uninformed one at that. (Nowhere did the Greeks bundle up worthless loans into collateralized debt obligations and get credit agencies on the take to rate them "AAA" and then sell the phony-rated securities to major banks in other countries -- nearly taking them all down. What the Greeks did was peanuts compared to that.)

It is literally stupid to suggest that Americans who have a legitimate beef against Wall Street should forget about it and direct their attention to Greece. Plus, you missed the point again: Even if the protester did mention Greece, you would be looking for some other target that you felt was being ignored by the Wall Street protesters and used that one to try to dismiss them. (You do it ALL the time.)

It's not only a terribly dishonest debating tactic, it's not terribly bright either.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits - So what? She's representing herself. Who would tape her and try to defame the OWS movement as somehow being associated with her

She represents herself, just like everyone else in the Occupy "something" mob. If the mob ever does decide to announce it's goals, most of the other professional protesters will abandon the cause.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fending off an attack by the obama supporters.

Great to know you still can't tell the truth, Paul.

According to the guy who got the tip of finger bitten off (Bill Rice) -- who told Fox News about it -- it happened after he went over to a group of supporters of the Affordable Health Care Act and attacked one of them by punching the person in the face. So it was Rice who launched the attack, and the other person who was defending himself.

Well, the other person did call Rice an "idiot." Now he doesn't have to tie a string around his finger to remind him of that.

Lucky for him his government health care paid for the trip to the hospital. Looks like he won't be punching out any more "Obama supporter" soon, will he?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

All readers back on topic please. The subject is the Occupy Wall Street movement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

(Nowhere did the Greeks bundle up worthless loans into collateralized debt obligations and get credit agencies on the take to rate them "AAA" and then sell the phony-rated securities to major banks in other countries -- nearly taking them all down. What the Greeks did was peanuts compared to that.)

@yabits: That is worse than whatever happened on Wall Street. You have public officials who are supposededly sworn to uphold the public trust, and they squander the public funds giving it away to the people in hopes of staying in office. Also, they showed total incompetence in realizing the trouble that they were in.

The OWS protestors are againse Wall Street and the government on how they were in collusion with them in the past. Some have even been reported as needing to "change the whole system." to offer up new forms of government and entitlement spending. After all they want things like all debt forgiven and college student loans and mortages forgiven.

If they are protesting on how things are run, then they should be pointing out that Greece is a failed state and protesting against that. But I guess not, since the same things that they are demanding that the US does, Greece was doing with masive entitlement spending, and look where that has gotten them.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Arrestpaul,

Good morning. Get that reading we discussed yesterday done?

In response to your previous post:

Businesses have plenty of confidence, yes. What they lack is the regulation that prevents them from doing things like, say, laying off thousands of American workers and moving those jobs to India or forcing their remaining workforce to work ungodly hours at cut-rate wages.

This is very elementary stuff. Back to those books now, eh?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Alphaape,

Sorry man, but you're really veering into nutjob/conspiracy theory territory. Greece and America are completely different countries with completely different economies. The Wall Street protests are about justice in America. They have absolutely nothing to do with Greece. So, why would protesters talk about it?

check out that link I gave you, by the way?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

HumanTarget - The Wall Street protests are about justice in America. They have absolutely nothing to do with Greece. So, why would protesters talk about it?

According to the various videos, the Occupy "something" mob are talking about anything and everything. Debt forgiveness, 9/11, stars in cars, banking, legalized drugs, eating the rich, overthrowing the government, communism, drumming techniques, wars in Uganda/Libya/Iraq/Afganistan, stealing from each other, deficating in the street, nuclear/solar/wind/coal energy, demanding than everyone recieve $115,000 per year, and that many don't know why they are there. I'd be surprised if some of them didn't discuss the problems in the Euro-Zone and that would include Greece.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

HumanTarget - Businesses have plenty of confidence, yes.

Businesses have no idea what the progressive Democrats have in store for them. Higher taxes, more regulations, refusing to allow airplanes to be built in South Carolina because it upsets the unions in Washington State, confiscating hardwood for guitars if that wood is to be finished in the U.S. but not if it's finished in India, unknown healthcare costs, the promise of skyrocketing energy costs, more bailouts and loan guarentees for Obama supporting companies but not for competitors, etc.

These Occupy "something" mobs have no understanding of any of these things. They just want bankers or the taxpayers to subsidize them with free money, free housing, and cars with stars.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

These Occupy "something" mobs have no understanding of any of these things. They just want bankers or the taxpayers to subsidize them with free money, free housing, and cars with stars.

I've noticed, OWS is out in front yelling about the excess of CEO and other pay from people working in banks and on Wall Street. Why aren't they in Hollywood protesting in front of studios the huge disparity in the movie industry. You have actors who can get $20 million per film, yet the sound board operator and cameraman don't get nearly that much. To paraphrase a quote: "They pay more just like Warren Buffet's secretary in taxes than does Warren Buffet" (or words to that effect).

Also, the studios themselves also rip off those other creative writers and persons who work behind the scenes. Movies come out with total box office receipts in the $100's of millions, but somehow they seem to be shown as not showing a profit or a loss on the books, while the big producers get to walk away with millions, and leave us the American consumer with some really crappy films (any of the Rush Hour movies would be a prime example).

Same goes for the television industry, and the music industry. Just take a look at any of those VH1 "Where are they now" series and you will see some musician who was screwed out of royalties by the big record companies, while they go after some teenager who file shares and gets the courts to level thousands of dollars in fines to them.

So, if the OWS are really about "changing the way things are done" they seem to be leaving out a lot of other powerful industries. I guess it is because the heads of those industries probably have ties to some of the organizations who are backing these guys.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Alphaape,

You don't think the protester's pro-union message covers the Hollywood base? Also, why should they protest an institution that offers a completely optional entertainment service?

The overarching message is about change in government, not change in how much Brad Pitt gets paid (although, since he is in or near the top 1%, I'm sure his pay will be affected if the protesters get their way).

The right wing can't come up with any legitimate criticisms of this movement, so instead they resort to "they're on the wrong street!" They're in every street, by the way. There are protests in D.C. and Hollywood.

Also, are you ignoring my posts because my incredible power of logic makes your brain hurt? Or are you just at a loss for a good rebuttle?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Also, are you ignoring my posts because my incredible power of logic makes your brain hurt? Or are you just at a loss for a good rebottle?

@HumanTarget: Not ignoring your post, just haven't looked. Didn't know that you wanted me to see something.

The right wing can't come up with any legitimate criticisms of this movement, so instead they resort to "they're on the wrong street!" They're in every street, by the way. There are protests in D.C. and Hollywood.

Yes they are in every street, but even in Hollywood, they are protesting Wall Street. Remember, movie studios are traded publicly. So they have just as much interest in getting a higher rating on their stocks as much as those bankers. You say we have entertainment options? Not sure where you live, but I imagine that one cable company provides you service. And they pretty much make you pay for basic services and probably don't give you much of a choice in viewing options. You either take Package A or B. That's why many people are statting to cut off their cable and go to the web. But, those big studios know this, and you get the situation where things get blocked in certain areas. I am actually in Japan, and yet I can't stream some media from the states due to licensing, even though I want to see it. So I don't have a choice.

Hate to say it, but you don't have to put your money in BofA. It is optional. Yes they ran heavy and are putting smaller banks and credit unions out of business, but also look at the same thing that entertainment corporations do. Try starting up a movie studio and see if you don't run into red tape.

The overarching message is about change in government, not change in how much Brad Pitt gets paid (although, since he is in or near the top 1%, I'm sure his pay will be affected if the protesters get their way).

I believe we still have a "Pay Czar" that is supposed to regulate how much those guys can make on Wall Street and othe corporations. Not trying to deflect what some of the OWS people are doing, it is within their right. But they also have a choice to not take an expensive student loan, or go to a very high cost school. If they can't afford it, then they should find other ways to do so.

I am curious, they want to change government, what do they want to change?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Stalinist North Korea is the latest bunch of totalitarians who look with favor upon what the spoon-bangers playing protester are doing.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/north-korea-lauds-socialism-says-occupy-wall-street-protests-show-capitalism-has-no-future/2011/10/18/gIQAq1NHuL_story.html

1 ( +2 / -1 )

unreconstructed,

Republicans Eric Cantor, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney also have recently stated they support the OWS movement. Or did you miss the memo?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Seems many in the OWS aren't waiting around to get some wealth distributed right away.

Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops -- and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.

“Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment,” said Nan Terrie, 18, a kitchen and legal-team volunteer from Fort Lauderdale.

“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Shell out 10,000 of your rapidly-devaluing dollars to have First Lady Michelle Obama, Champion of the Common People, deign to be photographed with you

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Michelle-Obama-Charging-10000-Per-Picture-at-Chicago-Fundraiser-132060658.html

and then go shake your lil' fists in the general direction of Wall Street, and insist you are one of the 99 percent.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

zichi - but there's no way to know that the thieves would also be demonstrators, which they are probably not, just opportunistic petty criminals, but you already knew that?

So you're saying that there's no way of knowing who or what type of person is in the mobs. Isn't that what people have saying all along? No one knows who these people are or what they want.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

unreconstructed,

That's a political fundraiser. You knew that, right? yeah, you did. Every politician does it.

Oh, read that memo yet? You know, the one where Republican leaders are saying "yes, yes, yes" to Occupy Wall Street?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

arrestpaul,

Funny, when you say that Tea Party people are a bunch of racists, their response is generally the same. "We have no idea what kind of people might show up for these rallies..."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sailwind - Seems many in the OWS aren't waiting around to get some wealth distributed right away.

Occupy Wall Street protesters said yesterday that packs of brazen crooks within their ranks have been robbing their fellow demonstrators blind, making off with pricey cameras, phones and laptops -- and even a hefty bundle of donated cash and food.

Maybe the mob organizers or individual protestors should ask the police to look into these thefts. Hehehe. The Occupy "something" mob has been flexing their muscles for one month now and they literally have nothing to show for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HumanTarget - Republicans Eric Cantor, Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney also have recently stated they support the OWS movement. Or did you miss the memo?

I believe a majority of people believe this mob has "a right to protest" but no one knows what this mobs goals are. Supporting a "right to protest" is not the same as supporting the unknown goals of the group.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

HumanTarget - Also, are you ignoring my posts because my incredible power of logic makes your brain hurt? Or are you just at a loss for a good rebuttle?

HAHAHAHA, you're a hoot. It's not your "incredible power of logic" that's failing you, it's your inability to convince others that your logic should replace theirs.

The Occupy "something" mob has no stated goals. Unless you are now considered the spokesmodel for the OWS, the mob still has no stated goals.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Alphaape - So, if the OWS are really about "changing the way things are done" they seem to be leaving out a lot of other powerful industries. I guess it is because the heads of those industries probably have ties to some of the organizations who are backing these guys.

The Occupy "something" mob should be protesting their elected representatives if they wanted to change the way things are done. Picking up the phone or emailing their U.S. Representative and 2 U.S. Senators and make their feelings known.

If these mobs are pushing for "redistribution of wealth", which it seems they are, then they are in the right place. "You" guys got money. We want "your" money. Give us "your" money.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Occupy "something" mob has been flexing their muscles for one month now and they literally have nothing to show for it.

They have accomplished more than the "Occupy the House" movement has -- aka the Republican House "leadership" [sic].

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

They have accomplished more than the "Occupy the House" movement has...

Sorry to have called the House Republicans a "movement" -- there's been very little movement out of them in ten months.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

zichi - they sound like people who are coming to steal, I don't think that reflects on the demonstrators?

Isn't that one of the reasons why the portestors are there, redistribution of wealth? They have all come there to demand somebody elses money.

I find it interesting that it's been reported that the Occupy Wall Street officially became a project of the Washington, D.C.-based Alliance for Global Justice on Sept. 28. That allows the alliance to process donations on the movement's behalf, and makes it responsible for tax reporting. The incorporation of OWS also allows it to keeps it's money in the Amalgamated Bank.

What? Aren't they're protesting banks? "Those" banks are bad but "our" bank is good?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - Sorry to have called the House Republicans a "movement" -- there's been very little movement out of them in ten months.

Compared to the lack of jobs created by the Obama administration in over 2 1/2 years and Senator Obama's failure for the 4 years prior to that it's a pretty good record. The voters kicked the progressive Democrats out because the voters rejected the progressive Democrat agenda. More progressive Democrats have to be removed from Congress before the U.S. can start rebuilding it's economy. Growing government doesn't lead to prosperity.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

On the other side, republican presidential candidates have been scathing in their attacks on the group, signaling that it has at the least become too big to ignore.

Of course they have been attacking the movement. It's a movement of average Americans and republicans hate average Americans. They only thing your average republican politician thinks your average American is good for is catching a bullet in Iraq or Afghanistan. And after you catch that bullet, screw you.

The republican party has becomeo pretty unamerican. There are still a few good ones like Huntsman and Snowe but for the most part, it's corrupt through and through.

But make no doubt about it, the republican party does not stand with the 99%.

Taka

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

To date not a single specific demand has been issued, prompting ridicule from critics.

the strategy of simply providing a big tent for mostly young people unhappy about a stagnant economy and angry at the disconnect between ordinary people and the political-business elites

Says volumes to me and confirms that by and large this 'movement' is less of an agenda driven social protest and more of an opportunity for mostly young people who aren't yet seriously in the job market to come and spend some time 'putting it to the man - man'. I don't doubt that there is anger over disparity, but do doubt that many of these young people really fully understand this disparity and the full cause rather than what is spouted to them by the movement's liberal creators.

The 1% pays a "disproportionate chunk of the taxes"? That is the most ludicrous and outright false thing I have heard throughout these forums, and trust me, the right-wingers are dropping untruths left and right.

First of all, you're talking about income tax only. Factor in payroll tax, homeowner's tax, sales tax, you get a much more balanced number. Funny how Republicans always forget about those. I wonder why that is...

The fact is, 100% of Americans pay taxes. 100%. Not 47%. Everyone. Every single adult American pays taxes. Even some children pay taxes if they can go shopping by themselves.

I'm afraid your logic falls apart Human Target if rather than take the examples of obvious corruption by the corporate and financial giants and rather look at the overall view of the wealthy in this US. I used this example in another posting, but I think it a fair one that bears repeating. A friend's father is a corporate millionaire - not big time, but enough that he owns a yacht and his own aircraft, amongst other things. Let's just look at this 'rich man's toy'. I can tell you that he paid more in sales taxes on these than I - very modest income & family of four - pay in income taxes over a period of many years. I can also tell you that he pays a lot in personal property taxes for these toys, along with licensing taxes, fuel taxes, etc. Additionally he helps in some way to employee the folks where he docks his boat and keeps his aircraft. On top of that he employs a few hundred people who earn a reasonable wage.

This man started out as you or I, just a working joe who started his own machine shop and through hard work and perseverance is worth millions of dollars. I'm assuming that when all of you scream about disparity, you certainly include men such as this; how their wealth should be 'redistributed' for fairness. Please explain to me again what this man did wrong, and why someone who chose to get no education, work odd jobs and then become unemployed deserves an equal share, and perhaps a part of this successful man's income. I just don't get that.

I know the answer given is always about the 'fat cats on Wall Street'. But in the end wouldn't any policies designed to 'tax the rich' and promote 'economic equality' in fact hurt anyone with the determination to have actually made a success of themselves? Stop the waste, stop the fraud, stop the corporate crony-ism and all of the bad things that might have manifested. But to take economic, democratic capitalism and chuck it on the fire in favor of some foolish, faux hippy-istic, idealist and not well thought out form of economic socialism is not the American system.

Now you guys are giving YouTube links as 'the truth'?? Next you'll be telling us to look on Wikipedia.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Taka - in truth a good many of the 99% don't stand with the so-called 99% and with good reason

1 ( +1 / -0 )

We can argue about this for months. In the end it comes down to whether you support a capitalist democracy or some type of socialism (scares the bejeezus out of you guys to admit what you're advocating is socialism, doesn't it?). One of my heroes had several quotes on the issue that I think are still stellar.

There is no such thing as a good tax.

Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon.

The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.

All attributed to Winston Curchill. Now there's a man who didn't need a teleprompter!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Oh, just read that Alec Baldwin has thrown his support behind OWS, that means the cause is won. Perhaps if Susan Sarandon can take time off from calling the Pope a nazi, she can join in as well. Shouldn't the rich Hollywood types be told they are protesting against themselves? Nah.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

arrestpaul,

It seems to me that you are really against the Occupy Wallstreet movement. Just curious, how is it hurting you? Why so much animosity toward people who are trying to make your life better?

You should watch the movie Madagascar. There's a very good line in it. "You don't bite the hand."

Taka

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Why so much animosity toward people who are trying to make your life better?

Because he despises it when people exercise their freedom. The audacity that they -- and not these "masters" represented in the 1% -- could come up with a much more just and fair system is too much for them to take. They are like the colonists who derided the upstarts like Samuel Adams for thinking they could take on the king of England.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I don't doubt that there is anger over disparity, but do doubt that many of these young people really fully understand this disparity and the full cause rather than what is spouted to them by the movement's liberal creators.

How would you know what they understand and don't understand? Have you gone out and talked to them?

Go back to the 1960s and the anti-Vietnam war movement. The students knew many times more about the situation than did the average American -- especially when returning vets started to join their ranks. The movement started with "teach-ins" to convey accurate information about what was really happening -- while the governments of Johnson and Nixon portrayed a continuous stream of lies, as revealed by the Pentagon Papers.

It is more than anger over disparity -- far more. The anger is mainly directed at the fact that the US economy was brought down by these people, and nobody held accountable. Worse, the system that enabled the collapse is still largely in place. A better future needs to be brought about -- and these people see it as their duty to help bring about the necessary change. Once they figure out how to bring some real anxiety to the lives of the 1% in a non-violent way -- probably through widening strike-actions -- things will get very interesting.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Because he despises it when people exercise their freedom. The audacity that they -- and not these "masters" represented in the 1% -- could come up with a much more just and fair system is too much for them to take. They are like the colonists who derided the upstarts like Samuel Adams for thinking they could take on the king of England.

Ah yabits, but therein lies the crux of the problem. They have not 'come up with a more just and fair system' other than some rather abstract 'tax the rich' statements and an overall feeling against the the capitalist economy. I have no problem with folks protesting - as a matter of fact I think it is the necessity of a true democracy. It is somewhat ironic (or moronic) that you can only do this legitimately apparently if you are on the left - otherwise you get labeled as a bunch of hick, ignorant, fat-cat racists. But still I think that protesting a system that seem unjust is part of American democracy. But what I do find issue with, and find downright troubling, is that what we have had since America's inception is a constitutional capitalist republic. We simply label it as a democracy, but there it is. The founding fathers were rich, white former English subjects for the most part who, while interested in certain freedoms had no interest in a system of shared wealth. Our capitalist republic has many flaws, but it has worked reasonable well for quite some time, only occasionally coming off the rails (great depression, now). Problems to be sure. Economic disparity - of course. With economic growth into a world power comes the unsavory side of class and corruption.

But I'm an American. I love the American system. I dare feel unashamed pride in our flag, and like 'The Duke' (comments against such sentiments you recently made). I realize it isn't perfect, but it's better than most of what's out there. It's the reason the unwashed masses have the right and ability to protest. You see, what bothers a good many of us about a system that creates a huge government entity that taxes the hell out of anyone who dares a modicum of success and supposedly redistributes wealth from those that actually earn it to those that do not, is that this system has been tried before, more than once, has proven an abysmal failure and most often leads to abuse of power, economic misery for all, and eventual third world status.

We need to fix the economy and move ahead with some brilliant new ideas, not sit about with some vague notions, playing the guitar and pretending it's Haight-Ashbury all over again.

Go back to the 1960s and the anti-Vietnam war movement. The students knew many times more about the situation than did the average American

I'll never understand some people's love for the 1960's and the whole hippie thing, but I suppose it's for the left to grasp onto as a 'great age of social enlightenment'. Spitting on soldiers who were most often drafted to serve their country and calling them baby killers (and having never been there) always struck me as simply vile behavior. I personally also blame much of our decline as a nation on these idiots once they became adults and 'ran things'. But hey, what do I know (you will undoubtedly conclude nothing - but that's okay with me).

A better future needs to be brought about -- and these people see it as their duty to help bring about the necessary change.

It might help if they were able to actually think of and vocalize exactly how to do this. Judging by what I've seen they haven't a clue, other than directing their anger at Wall Street and corporate wealth. In real truth what will happen is that America will emerge from this economic morass and things will go on much the same. My bet is that 75% of the college student protestors end up working for some large corporation; the true irony of life.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

TigermothIIOct. 20, 2011 - 04:02AM JST. I'll never understand some people's love for the 1960's and the whole hippie thing, but I suppose it's for the left to grasp onto as a 'great age of social enlightenment'.

Major changes took place in the 60's that resulted in equal rights for all U.S. citizens. There were legislative achievements during this phase of the Civil Rights Movement were passage of Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" in employment practices and public accommodations, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights; the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, that dramatically opened entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional European groups; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. African Americans re-entered politics in the South, and across the country young people were inspired to action.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

They have not 'come up with a more just and fair system' other than some rather abstract 'tax the rich' statements and an overall feeling against the the capitalist economy.

How long did it take the "leaders" of the current system to come up with a way to massively take down the American economy, and drive the entire banking system to the bring of the abyss? (Answer: much longer than the one month these OWS folks have been out there. Decades, in fact.)

It is somewhat ironic (or moronic) that you can only do this legitimately apparently if you are on the left - otherwise you get labeled as a bunch of hick, ignorant, fat-cat racists.

Nobody ever said that the Tea Party protests weren't legitimate. Concerns have been raised about the people among the Tea Partiers who have tacitly endorsed violence and racist images. A major Senate candidate spoke of "second amendment remedies, " and the threat "if ballots don't work then bullets will" came out of the office of a Republican Tea Party congressman in Florida.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

But what I do find issue with, and find downright troubling, is that what we have had since America's inception is a constitutional capitalist republic.

I totally disagree. Capitalism was never written into the constitution. If "we the people" can gather enough support, we can choose any economic system that best secures the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can go back to the early days of the country to find the government giving away free land to those who were willing to work it. Free land? How is that capitalism? Can you imagine the government buying houses and giving them away for free to those willing to live in and take care of them? The point is that the United States has never been a purely capitalistic society, with good reason.

I dare feel unashamed pride in our flag, and like 'The Duke' (comments against such sentiments you recently made)

As a lifelong American and a veteran of the Navy (with Vietnam service), honesty compels me to have mixed feelings about the flag and my nation's history. We were not perfect when we started and we are far from perfecting justice and liberty today. It's very cheap and easy to wave a flag and pretend all is well. I know there's a certain segment of the population that sucks those things up with a weepy kind of sentimentality. I never put much stock in those cheap and easy feelings.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You see, what bothers a good many of us about a system that creates a huge government entity that taxes the hell out of anyone who dares a modicum of success

During the decades of America's enormous economic growth from the late 40s to the mid 60s, the top marginal tax rate was above 90% for most that period. That's right, 90%. And you call a 15% tax on capital gains being "taxed to hell?" It's time for the rich and their obedient slaves to stop whining.

We need to fix the economy and move ahead with some brilliant new ideas, not sit about with some vague notions, playing the guitar and pretending it's Haight-Ashbury all over again.

I grew up in the 50s and 60s and it most of it had nothing to do with Haight-Ashbury. What we see now as then, however, are conservative liars who wish to marginalize and dismiss the powerful social movements that arose during that time by tagging everyone as "dirty hippies." Brilliant new ideas come out of creativity, which itself comes out of rejection of the status quo.

Spitting on soldiers who were most often drafted to serve their country and calling them baby killers (and having never been there) always struck me as simply vile behavior.

A total lie. I spent nearly a year of my enlistment on Treasure Island (San Francisco) and went into town most nights and weekends during that year, as well as sometimes over to Berkeley on the other side, and never experienced anything resembling that kind of treatment. Those stories were concocted by conservatives years later to further slur and denigrate the anti-war movement.

I personally also blame much of our decline as a nation on these idiots once they became adults and 'ran things'

The fascist mindset has to create the scapegoat. It's a nice, simple, convenient approach that doesn't require too much critical thinking. The failure of Germany after WWI was blamed by some on the Jews of Europe, who were accused of all manner of atrocities (just as "hippies" are accused of spitting on soldiers). Suddenly, everyone who sympathized with the anti-war, equal-rights, and civil-rights movements of the 1960s gets classified as a "dirty hippie."

My bet is that 75% of the college student protestors end up working for some large corporation; the true irony of life.

I don't believe that bet is going to hold true. You just can't see the alternative yet. Most large corporations have been downsizing and are not going to hire massive numbers of new people. The truth about this particularly malevolent form of US capitalism has shown its true face.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Taka313 - It seems to me that you are really against the Occupy Wallstreet movement. Just curious, how is it hurting you? Why so much animosity toward people who are trying to make your life better?

You should watch the movie Madagascar. There's a very good line in it. "You don't bite the hand."

You have got to be joking. Transferrence is an interesting phenomenon, isn't it. I don't know what OWS's goals are. I don't know what OWS intends to do. All I see is a loose bunch of lonely heart protestors who found yet another place to protest. This time, it's with a larger group than they're used to.

I'm simply amazed at the number of people who are so willing to speak for this group. You seem to have a better idea what this group is up to THAN THE GROUP ITSELF DOES. How is that possible? They can't articulate a plan so you invent one for them?

You know absolutely nothing about me either and yet you say that this mob of people are trying to make my life better. How are they trying to make my life better?

How is watching a cartoon going to make me understand this mob? Are you suggesting that listening to the individual OWS attendees spout nonsense is very similar to cartoons in that they are hysterically funny?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If "we the people" can gather enough support, we can choose any economic system that best secures the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can go back to the early days of the country to find the government giving away free land to those who were willing to work it. Free land?

Yabits,

Nothing in life is "free".

Just ask our native American Indian population about the price they had to pay so our Government could give away "free" land.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Nothing in life is "free"

From the point of view of the homesteaders, the land was given to them. Try not to lose the point that a claim was made that the U.S. was "capitalist" from its inception. The government giving away lands -- no matter how they were obtained -- is example that it was certainly not capitalist in many respects.

In many respects, the native Americans were victims of the American-style capitalist impulse at its finest, so I'm glad you brought that up. The Occupy Wall Street movement is a recognition that the capitalists continue to rape, steal, and plunder. Millions of Americans have lost their homes -- just as the natives did -- as a result of bad faith deals with the capitalists.

Yes, a great analogy.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Arrestpaul,

Eric Cantor specifically said he believes people on Wall Street should be held accountable for their corruption. Specifically, he talks about arrests.

Since you ignored my previous link, I've provided essentially the same story about Mitt Romney's flip-flop in an easily digestible crazy right-wing nut blog format for you : http://rightwingnews.com/republicans/flip-flop-romney-now-accepting-occupy-wall-streeters-premise/

Here's one about Cantor : http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_10/cantor_discovers_income_inequa032852.php

Note that in both stories, neither candidate is saying anything about agreeing with the "right to protest". They are specifically saying they agree with the protester's views. In fact, Eric Cantor says something (quoted in article) that sounds eerily like he's proposing a form of wealth redistribution (gasp!)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The Occupy Wall Street movement is a recognition that the capitalists continue to rape, steal, and plunder.

Which either makes them Socialists or Communists or just fringe and should be treated as such.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Where is the Occupy Hollywood movement?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Why no Occupy DC Suburbs movement?

"Federal employees whose compensation averages more than $126,000 and the nation's greatest concentration of lawyers helped Washington edge out San Jose as the wealthiest U.S. metropolitan area, government data show.

"The U.S. capital has swapped top spots with Silicon Valley, according to recent Census Bureau figures, with the typical household in the Washington metro area earning $84,523 last year. The national median income for 2010 was $50,046."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-19/beltway-earnings-make-u-s-capital-richer-than-silicon-valley.html

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Where is the Occupy Hollywood movement?

For those who aren't geographically challenged, Hollywood is part of Los Angeles and therefore part of the Occupy LA movement. One of more than a thousand cities worldwide and growing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

One of more than a thousand cities worldwide and growing.

Growing? Pyongyang has been waiting for you guys...

By Associated Press, Published: October 18

SEOUL, South Korea - North Korea is bragging about its socialist system, saying the Occupy Wall Street movement shows that people are fed up with capitalism's ills.

The official Korean Central News Agency said Tuesday that the worldwide protest movement was attributable to the "extremely acute socio-class contradictions" created after the global financial crisis in 2007.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Growing? Pyongyang has been waiting for you guys..

Desperate, aren't we?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Where is the Occupy Hollywood movement?

What is it with conservatives and false equivalencies? Why can't you play on a level and honest playing field. How many hollywood actors and actresses have screwed over the middle class to get where they are? Most of them started off as starving actors/actresses and worked their way up through the ranks. They didn't pull Enron type tactics on people's retirements. They didn't tear down a company to satisfy a few shareholders. They worked hard and earned their money.

And what's with the animosity? I thought you conservatives liked people who worked their way up from the bottom up. It's "The American Dream." Success stories. I guess you only like them when their politics match yours.

Taka

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Why can't you play on a level and honest playing field.

Why? Because they simply can not.

If a substantial majority of Americans supported conservative ideas, do you think they would be pushing for laws which threaten to decrease voter participation? Heck no -- they'd be all for making it as easy as possible for people to vote, shifting elections to a weekend or making it a holiday to get maximum participation.

This is partly why people are in the streets.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I totally disagree. Capitalism was never written into the constitution. If "we the people" can gather enough support, we can choose any economic system that best secures the blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can go back to the early days of the country to find the government giving away free land to those who were willing to work it. Free land? How is that capitalism? Can you imagine the government buying houses and giving them away for free to those willing to live in and take care of them? The point is that the United States has never been a purely capitalistic society, with good reason.

Well Yabits at least I've finally got you to admit that the system of government you're looking for has no basis in capitalism - that says much to me. Yes, our government was giving away land - which in itself is not a capitalist idea, but the intent was purely so. The idea was that the recipients would work the land and produce, helping both the economy and giving them gainful means of self-sufficiency. Well, and to populate unpopulated areas of course.

I think it safe to say that we have our cultural, political and philosophical differences, and rarely the twain shall meet - but that's what makes life interesting.

Oh, and by the way, whilst I respect your naval service, I know a good many people who served in Vietnam and the stories of spitting and name-calling are not just media inventions. Because you personally did not experience this does not make it fantasy.

The fascist mindset has to create the scapegoat. It's a nice, simple, convenient approach that doesn't require too much critical thinking.

I thought name-calling was not allowed on JT, but if you wish to call me a fascist it just serves to illustrate how little you know. Are you perhaps a Marxist, Leninist - should I call you a Stalinist? He was not a fascist by pure definition, but boy did the idea of 'equality of the people' go awry there.

How long did it take the "leaders" of the current system to come up with a way to massively take down the American economy

The current 'leader' seems to be doing it by spending, which is utter rubbish.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Major changes took place in the 60's that resulted in equal rights for all U.S. citizens. There were legislative achievements during this phase of the Civil Rights Movement were passage of Civil Rights Act of 1964, that banned discrimination based on "race, color, religion, or national origin" in employment practices and public accommodations, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, that restored and protected voting rights; the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965, that dramatically opened entry to the U.S. to immigrants other than traditional European groups; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, that banned discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. African Americans re-entered politics in the South, and across the country young people were inspired to action.

I think you're confusing the civil rights movement with the so-called 'social' movement - two different things.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

What is it with conservatives and false equivalencies? Why can't you play on a level and honest playing field. How many hollywood actors and actresses have screwed over the middle class to get where they are? Most of them started off as starving actors/actresses and worked their way up through the ranks. They didn't pull Enron type tactics on people's retirements. They didn't tear down a company to satisfy a few shareholders. They worked hard and earned their money.

And what's with the animosity? I thought you conservatives liked people who worked their way up from the bottom up. It's "The American Dream." Success stories. I guess you only like them when their politics match yours.

Hey, the liberals are the ones that started with the whole 'tax the rich' and the march on 'Wall Street' without really ever defining who or what was included in their terms of the 'evil empire' of the wealthy. In fact a very small percentage of the overall wealthy in this country are probably in the scope of the Wall Street types that you all deem as the source of all woe. Your complaints tend to center around the fact that '1% owns boatloads while the 99% suffer. In terms of percentages and absolutes, the whole thing is ridiculous. But since you want to paint such a broad stroke, why shouldn't someone like Oprah, who probably has enough dough to pay off the national debt, be just as 'guilty' of hoarding wealth as the lowly CEO? Do Hollywood production companies treat their workers that much better than some other corporation? Aren't they indeed corporations? You speak of an honest playing field when your ilk offers no such thing. Why do you assume that the CEO of some corporate giant did not start off as a 'working class stiff'? Do you presume instead that they were born with corporate reigns in hand? Really?

Yes, conservatives do like the stories of those who worked their way up, but if liberals want to attack that - why only attack the ones that serve your needs?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

But since you want to paint such a broad stroke, why shouldn't someone like Oprah, who probably has enough dough to pay off the national debt, be just as 'guilty' of hoarding wealth as the lowly CEO?

Oprah hoarding wealth? Are you on crack? Oprah goes around building houses for people and buying cars for people and doing a metric butt ton to actually help people in need. Outside of Bill Gates, name a CEO who does the same.

Why can you not understand this? Crimeny. Does the deck ALWAYS have to be stacked in your favor?

Taka

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Man there are some mathematically challenged individuals commenting about taxes and the 1%. Go OWS. We need to stop greed and the effects it has on our economy. Pop all of the bubbles now so that we can get an honest perspective on where this USA stands.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

BTW. OWS is not attacking people who are wealthy, just because they are wealthy. Sell crazy somewhere else. i.e. Warren Buffett

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

doing a metric butt ton

Huh? Anyway - so what? If you look at the big corporations, and even though you wouldn't want to admit this, they donate a lot of money to various things to help the community. Of course they do it for perception, publicity - and of course the tax write-off. But I'll bet so does Oprah. I don't doubt she has a good heart, but don't be fooled, she's a savvy business woman. And quite greedy - otherwise she would have stopped after her first billion. How much does a person need? You still didn't answer most of my points, but rather just picked up on the Oprah thing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Well Yabits at least I've finally got you to admit that the system of government you're looking for has no basis in capitalism

The protesters -- and I agree with them -- want a system that has no basis in the kind of capitalism practiced by the Wall Street financial firms and bankers. When you start bringing up Stalinism, you've gone off your rocker. I happen to like democracy and want it applied more the economic sphere. So do the protesters.

I know a good many people who served in Vietnam and the stories of spitting and name-calling are not just media inventions. Because you personally did not experience this does not make it fantasy.

We can watch the half-truths and lies being spun about the OWS protesters on a daily basis. We learn a lot from past protests, and how the right wing uses lies heaped upon lies to try and make their points. A Holy Cross professor did research and wrote a book on the myth of the "spat-upon" veteran. (The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam). After exhaustive research, he didn't find a single validated case where this occurred. He did find, however, that anti-war protesters and "hippies" were subject to frequent physical abuse by those opposed to them.

My shipmates and I have our own direct experiences, which is far better than the urban myths you've received fifth-hand and suckered yourself into believing.

You've admitted hating and despising these protesters, and want to blame the entire decline of the United States on them, because somehow, despite what you would call their terminal laziness, they were able to rise up to positions of power where they ran everything. Honestly, listen to yourself sometime. Nothing but a bundle of illogic and contradictions.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You speak of an honest playing field when your ilk offers no such thing.

There are some on the right who are so filled with hatred and bile that they wouldn't know an honest playing field if they were offered one.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

BTW. OWS is not attacking people who are wealthy, just because they are wealthy. Sell crazy somewhere else. i.e. Warren Buffett

Oh but I should think that they indeed are. The fundamental cry is against the wall street mobs, but the grass roots belief in the liberal camp is that the wealthy in this country have somehow all become so off the backs of the huddled masses. Well, except for their liberal brethren who just happen to be wealthy as well). I've seen no definition (or very little in the way of actual defined beliefs and objective) to state that there is some cut-off point where, say, owning a smallish corporation and having only twenty million in assets makes you 'okay in our books'. I'd rather sell your perception of crazy than a bag of horse manure.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

yabits - There are some on the right who are so filled with hatred and bile that they wouldn't know an honest playing field if they were offered one.

There are some on the left who are so filled with hatred and bile that they wouldn't know an honest playing field if they were offered one and then often resort to personal attacks in place of legitimate argument.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits - The protesters - and I agree with them - want a system that has no basis in the kind of capitalism practiced by the Wall Street financial firms and bankers. When you start bringing up Stalinism, you've gone off your rocker. I happen to like democracy and want it applied more the economic sphere. So do the protesters.

The protestors say all kinds of things. I've heard protestors say they want cars with more stars than the flag.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

MrDarryl - OWS is not attacking people who are wealthy, just because they are wealthy.

When people carry signs that say "Eat the Rich" it certainly seems like they're attacking people just because they're wealthy.

The demonstrators seem to be demanding "distribution of wealth" and higher taxes. Take from anyone who has money and give it to those who want free "stuff" so they can continue to protest while living off the taxpayers money.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

and then often resort to personal attacks in place of legitimate argument.

You are not here for legitimate argument, Pauly.

If you were you wouldn't have avoided a straight question when asked at least three or four times as to how the leadership of the Republican Congress could have let Barney Frank rule the day in a committee he was a minority member of -- as well as in the general House that the Republicans controlled.

The reason a right-winger won't answer it is because it would immediately shift whatever responsibility they are trying to falsely pin on Frank right bank onto those in charge of Congress and the White House at the time: the Republicans. So much for your legitimate argument.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yabits I think you are the one full of hate, but no matter.

Tigermoth, you've expressed your hate for the 1960s and current OWS protesters several times. I have not expressed hatred of anybody. And, yes, that does matter. It's the difference between the truth and lies.

Any Tom, Dick or Harry can write a book, doesn't make it true or necessarily accurate.

Anyone who can provide reasonable evidence that such a thing occurred can contact the author OR print a rebuttal to counter the many examples in his book which he researched and found to be without merit. That is what is done to get to the real truth of things in civilized countries. It is also grossly unfair and un-American to attempt to tar an entire movement of people for an action that certainly must have been an extremely isolated case, if it occurred at all -- which I don't believe it did.

What you say you want in democracy applied to economics - ergo a system not based upon abilities and initiative but rather a system based upon redistribution of wealth from those that have to those that do not - and that's what we're talking about here is redistribution of wealth

No we're are not talking about that. We're talking about more democracy in the workplace and in the economic sphere. Germany is far more capitalist and competitive, and they exercise much more democracy in the workplace -- with higher union representation and also employee representation on the executive board. There are abundant examples of companies run more according to democratic principles, especially with regards to salaries and bonuses.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits Oct. 21, 2011 - 06:01AM JST. We're talking about more democracy in the workplace and in the economic sphere. Germany is far more capitalist and competitive, and they exercise much more democracy in the workplace -- with higher union representation and also employee representation on the executive board. There are abundant examples of companies run more according to democratic principles, especially with regards to salaries and bonuses.

Democracy about people representing the people? Wrong, that is a republic, like what the U.S. was originally set up as, but no longer is. Government control of economy not present under democracy? When the majority of people, or their so called “representatives”, decide that something should be done by government then the government starts controlling it. Most “democracies” all over the world have a large part of their economy controlled by the government. Try to name one democracy today that doesn’t control the economy?

Democracy has nothing to do with government control of the economy. Democracy is all about voting with the majority winning. Democracy is amoral, meaning it isn’t good or bad on it’s own, it’s just a political system where things are determined by votes. Democracy doesn’t grant, support, or want freedom or equal rights; it’s people who want those things Democracy doesn’t give or preserve liberties, only the law can do that – which is most often done via a Constitution. People heap praise on democracy when they should be praising the Constitution and laws that protect the natural rights of the citizens. Democracy doesn’t bring freedom to the people, it only brings a vote. Only law protecting the rights of the citizens can bring freedom.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

arrestpaul,

My righteous logic bomb renders you speechless yet again. It feels so good to be informed, doesn't it?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hopefully winter weather will come early and dispel these crowds of violent union thugs.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Democracy doesn’t bring freedom to the people, it only brings a vote. Only law protecting the rights of the citizens can bring freedom.

I completely disagree. Only a decently educated and active citizenry, ready to engage in collective non-cooperation and non-violent resistance to any authority which seeks to usurp their natural rights can secure freedom. That is precisely how many of the countries of the former Soviet bloc secured theirs.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

How many hollywood actors and actresses have screwed over the middle class to get where they are? Most of them started off as starving actors/actresses and worked their way up through the ranks. They didn't pull Enron type tactics on people's retirements. They didn't tear down a company to satisfy a few shareholders. They worked hard and earned their money.

Hollywood, believe it or not, is more than just actors. The entire corporate entity is big enough to extort at the state level with threats to take jobs to Canada or even overseas if they do not receive favorable breaks or subsidies. The film business employs the best accountants and tax lawyers in the country. Return of the Jedi (one example I found) is one of the highest-grossing films of all time - something like half a billion worldwide - but on paper the studio shows no profit. Management-wise, is pretty dang 'white' up there at the top; lots of discrimination, too - against women (think the 'casting couch' was made obsolete by feminism?) and against the 99 percent of us who do not look like George Clooney or Halle Barry. And the big studios enjoys something of a monopoly, one that I'm sure the the young malcontents on our campuses are not told to hate with the same passion their profs rail against the supposed monopolies of the so-called robber barons - which actually brought down the prices of steel and gas. My point, rather obvious I thought, is that for most of the OWS rabble it is clear that not all capitalists are the same.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Hollywood, believe it or not, is more than just actors. The entire corporate entity is big enough to extort...

So most executive management of the film industry is run by conservative-business types.

So what?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sfjp330 - Democracy has nothing to do with government control of the economy. Democracy is all about voting with the majority winning. Democracy is amoral, meaning it isn’t good or bad on it’s own, it’s just a political system where things are determined by votes. Democracy doesn’t grant, support, or want freedom or equal rights; it’s people who want those things Democracy doesn’t give or preserve liberties, only the law can do that – which is most often done via a Constitution. People heap praise on democracy when they should be praising the Constitution and laws that protect the natural rights of the citizens. Democracy doesn’t bring freedom to the people, it only brings a vote. Only law protecting the rights of the citizens can bring freedom.

Bravo. Well said. In a democracy everyone can vote on every issue. In a republic, people elect representatives to vote for them. It's the laws that a democracy or republic form of government create that means freedom for the people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HumanTarget - My righteous logic bomb renders you speechless yet again. It feels so good to be informed, doesn't it?

How would you know?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unreconstructed - excellent point and post.

Tigermoth, you've expressed your hate for the 1960s and current OWS protesters several times.

Yabits you mistake my embrasure of what I believe as a truth as the emotion of hate, which is not the case. I don't hate the 1960s so much as I do not embrace the idea - I think primarily promoted by the participants themselves, that it was some great era of social enlightenment. There were monumental happenings, and mainly in the civil rights movement. That was important and historic, but I also separate that from the 'hippie' movement if you will. The hippie culture seems to do that - they want to throw the civil right movement, the women's movement, the gay movement (i.e. Harvey Milk) as the great 'counterculture' movement. Personally I see different dichotomies in that. Human rights issues might have come to fruition with the tide of the times of social unrest, but doing acid and having a sit-in against the establishment is far removed from Martin Luther King marching on Washington. Opposition to the war may have been a unifying theme, but in my mind the Tim Leary thought process of the 'turn on, tune in and drop out - question authority' crowd did not have weight of importance, but rather was just youthful self-indigence. Note I said just my opinion.

And to bring that forward to the OWS crowd, I think that it's even worse. Judging by the lack of a clear vision and purpose beyond some rather abstract statements it seems to me more a movement of young folks, professional protestors and the slightly insane that seem to hang about aimlessly anyway - all just looking for something to do. Sure they have manifested a sense of anger at the 'rich'. But there seems little else of substance. That's not a hatred of them, but rather a realization that there is no real substance there. Again, my opinion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - I completely disagree. Only a decently educated and active citizenry, ready to engage in collective non-cooperation and non-violent resistance to any authority which seeks to usurp their natural rights can secure freedom. That is precisely how many of the countries of the former Soviet bloc secured theirs.

The former Soviet bloc citizens didn't live in a democracy or a republic. They were controlled by a socialist dictatorship. Their goal was to overthrow their puppet governments and replace them with something that responds to the will of the people. If these Occupy mobs acctually wanted to change how the U.S. representatives were governing, then they should be protesting in Washington, DC. If their intention is "wealth distribution" to take someone elses money, then they should continue to annoy bankers and stockbrokers on Wall street.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Only a decently educated and active citizenry, ready to engage in collective non-cooperation and non-violent resistance to any authority which seeks to usurp their natural rights can secure freedom.

If you were you wouldn't have avoided a straight question when asked at least three or four times

I will put a straight question on to you then, and let us see if you can give a satisfactory answer without simply going into the 'greedy corporate America' diatribe. Why do you - and most of your liberal comrades - think that one man (using 'man' as a general term - not to be sexist) who becomes successful due to his own hard work, drive and abilities owes what he earns through this process to someone else who does not? It's a very simple question, but one that gets answered by 'the greedy corporate giants got their wealth off the backs of the common man...blah, blah, blah. I'm not talking the corporate giant really, but rather one of the tens of thousands of other business and corporate owners who by their own doings 'made it' - the American dream. Why does a guy who never got a HS diploma because he chose to drop out, then had four kids that he never could afford deserve the money earned by the man who got a college degree and built a business and wealth?

And follow that with - is it your assumption - or rather your assertion - that everyone who has 'made it' financially must have done so dishonestly? Isn't that what the whole 'tax the rich' - 'eat the rich' OWS movement is really saying?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

yabits - No we're are not talking about that. We're talking about more democracy in the workplace and in the economic sphere.

"In the workplace"? Are you suggesting that the lathe operators and sales personal should run the company instead of the owner or manager?

I've seen many video's of Occupy "something" demonstrators whining that their "bosses" were telling what to do. How dare those people who are charges with running a company actually attempt to run the company. Everyone who supports the OWS mob knows that people who beat on plastic buckets and urinate in the street are much better qualified to run a business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - If you were you wouldn't have avoided a straight question when asked at least three or four times as to how the leadership of the Republican Congress could have let Barney Frank rule the day in a committee he was a minority member of -- as well as in the general House that the Republicans controlled.

Barney Frank and the Progressive Democrat Caucus were the number one defenders of the "affordable housing" sub-prime mortgage debacle that started in 1999 and eventually led to the recession. How he managed to convince others to ignore the problem while he publically championed the bubble isn't clear. Maybe when Barney Frank's boyfriend was running a prostitution ring out of Barney's home, he came across information that would later insure the silence of his fellow representatives? Maybe when Barney Frank was dating some guy that worked at Fannie Mae and forgot to mention that possible conflict of interest, he should have been excusing himself from voting in committee about Fannie Mae issues?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And to bring that forward to the OWS crowd, I think that it's even worse.

Having grown up through the 50s and 60s, I know enough about human nature to understand that things always seem worse now. For his part, Martin Luther King Jr. was absolutely despised by a majority of whites. More than a few cheers were heard in white neighborhoods when he was assassinated. And now, several decades later, white conservatives -- who staunchly opposed honoring him with a day -- talk like they were for him all along.

The last 4-5 years of King's life were dedicated to the cause of economic justice -- which is a primary goal of these OWS supporters. Many people, and in increasing numbers, are coming to view the current capitalist system in America as a great evil. Once that viewpoint is accepted, the next step is finding out if other people feel that way. We're in that phase right now: Finding out that more and more people view the current system, the way it has been run from Wall Street, is evil made manifest. This does not mean that some aspects of the system are not without their good parts and should be kept and built upon.

I don't believe there has been a movement in American history that has attracted this many people from such a variety of backgrounds, in this short a time. As well as having spread to over 1,000 locations across the planet.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

How he managed to convince others to ignore the problem while he publically championed the bubble isn't clear.

What? Are you saying that Barney Frank cast some kind of spell over the Republican leadership? That it was a mystery why they could not fulfill their roles as leaders? (Frank, for his part, has stated that he wants to know why, if he had that kind of power, why the Republicans went ahead with the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the invasion of Iraq -- both moves that he adamantly opposed.)

Suffice to say that the Republicans -- having the majority in both houses of Congress and White House -- were in the best position to rein in the abuses (such as they were) and make the proper reforms. It was they, and not Barney Frank, who bear the primary responsibility for their own failure of leadership which led to the economic collapse. No honest person can deny that.

Ultimately, the reason why it isn't "clear" to you is that you've conditioned yourself to total denial when it becomes abundantly clear that the Republicans played a very major role in the financial debacle.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Your statement about how things always seem worse now - in the present is quite true. And very much the reason that I'm quite certain your 'great social uprising' with the OWS crowd will thin and die as exams kick in the at least part of the crowd realizes they have somewhere else to be. In some ways they've served a point in expressing citizen dissatisfaction - in the same manner as the much maligned Tea Party movement has. Likely it will make news for weeks to come - much as the London riots did. Then society will move on as it inevitably does.

Can I assume you cannot or will not answer my direct question above? I am genuinely interested in the answer.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Why do you - and most of your liberal comrades - think that one man (using 'man' as a general term - not to be sexist) who becomes successful due to his own hard work, drive and abilities owes what he earns through this process to someone else who does not?...Why does a guy who never got a HS diploma because he chose to drop out, then had four kids that he never could afford deserve the money earned by the man who got a college degree and built a business and wealth?

First of all, I can't speak for any liberal besides myself.

To answer your question, to maintain schools, police, firefighters, military, old age pensioners, prisons, widows and orphans, etc. requires tax dollars.

Are you asking if the children of the man who could not afford to have them should not receive any assistance whatsoever and should therefore be left to their own devices rather than be assisted from public funds? And what should be done with the man? Should he be put in prison? (Prison requires a lot of public expenditure for its maintenance and staffing, not to mention the cost to society for many of the crimes that send people there.)

How should all that be paid for? Since you can't be advocating for executing the man and his children -- which would be the cheapest and best way to ensure they didn't become a drain on society -- what is your solution? The liberal solution would be putting programs in place to work with the man to help him raise his skills and find productive employment so that, rather than being a drain on society, he becomes a contributor. Perhaps even able to work for the wealthy person you gave in your example.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"In the workplace"? Are you suggesting that the lathe operators and sales personal should run the company instead of the owner or manager?

Anyone who looks up the name Peter Drucker will find that he was one of the most highly-regarded and astute observers of American management in the 20th century -- whose advice was sought by executives around the world.

Drucker once said something like this, and it left a lasting impression: "Every power must be checked and balanced by a countervailing power, or else it becomes self-destructive. Therefore, there needs to be something like a union, if, for no other reason, than to protect management from its own occasional and colossal stupidity."

Does that mean ordinary workers run the company instead of? Not at all. But they certainly help to run the company, and the company that increases their level of participation will be far better off for it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The former Soviet bloc citizens didn't live in a democracy or a republic. They were controlled by a socialist dictatorship. Their goal was to overthrow their puppet governments and replace them with something that responds to the will of the people.

Through my family, which emigrated from Poland a generation before me, I am somewhat familiar with the Solidarity movement in that country.

There was no overt goal to overthrow the government. What was felt was that the old system would lose legitimacy and fall away of its own accord the more that a greater number of Poles came to see that they could build a better system that wasn't so tied to the Soviet one. Actually, since the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Poles have elected communists and socialists to hold office as well as free-market advocates. I don't believe that could have happened if complete overthrow was the goal.

And it's from that example that I believe OWS leaders -- as they emerge -- should be learning from. I have little doubts they will be studying it carefully. I was delighted when Solidarity leader Lech Walensa lent his support to OWS.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And very much the reason that I'm quite certain your 'great social uprising' with the OWS crowd will thin and die as exams kick in the at least part of the crowd realizes they have somewhere else to be.

I would agree that if, and only if, the economy recovers very quickly, many who are there protesting will leave and go out to earn money.

But what has happened to our economy has been so devastating -- especially housing values that had wildly over-inflated and are forecast to be in a depressed state for many decades -- it is not likely that there will be a recovery of the type that would take the fuel out of what is driving OWS. Economic calamities make for monumental social upheaval, especially where the people have been conditioned to expect much from their economic system, and it fails to deliver.

So I see your prediction as more of a hope -- a sign that things have improved. But I don't see that improvement happening very soon. The system needs to change fundamentally. You can't have a relative handful of people who engineer a massive financial collapse and then continue to benefit and profit from what remains while millions suffer.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Yabits you cannot answer a question with multiple questions. At least not satisfactorily. I asked you why one person who did not earn it deserves the money of someone who did, and you answered that we need taxes to pay for public services. I hardly call that a great answer. Yes, certainly - a given. We have to have some sort of way to have things like fire departments, public education, etc. The necessary evil is our government taking our hard earned cash through taxes. I get it - okay. But that wasn't my question. I suspect that there is no answer that does not make the liberal crowd sound like they want something for nothing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

And you go on about unions. I'm forced to join a union where I work and all I can tell you about labor unions here in NY is that the top positions in the union make a sh*t-load of money for doing very little. And they haven't supported the 'common man' of the average employee very well either. Unions had their use and their day but have become nothing but political machines to gain favor and earn those who run them incomes - which I thought liberals were against.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

There are some on the left who are so filled with hatred and bile that they wouldn't know an honest playing field if they were offered one and then often resort to personal attacks in place of legitimate argument.

But then so are you so it begs the question, why are you judging people on "the left" for doing what you do here all the time?

Taka

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits Oct. 22, 2011 - 12:55AM JST What was felt was that the old system would lose legitimacy and fall away of its own accord the more that a greater number of Poles came to see that they could build a better system that wasn't so tied to the Soviet one. Actually, since the fall of the Iron Curtain, the Poles have elected communists and socialists to hold office as well as free-market advocates.

Communism is simply a political and economic system in which the party in power controls the means of production. There is no such thing as communal ownership. Ownership implies control, so if you don’t control something you don’t own it. If you are a poor citizen who lives in a hut you don’t own anything because you can’t control it. Who controls the means of production in Communism? The people in charge, the people in power.

Both Communism and Democracy have good and bad attributes and both are amoral. Neither one is inherently good or bad in it’s own right. It’s important to note that Democracy, despite how it is championed around the world, without some kind of Constitution and/or laws to protect the rights and liberty of the people, can ever help keep the people free. Communism is in direct conflict with freedom because the people in power exert control over the means of production. How can anyone be free if those in power can seize the things you own, even if it done for the good of the people?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I asked you why one person who did not earn it deserves the money of someone who did, and you answered that we need taxes to pay for public services. I hardly call that a great answer.

The question is not satisfactory in that the person who has the money is not directly paying the poor person(s) who have need of it to survive. A society generally decides that poor people, especially children, should not starve or be thrown out in the cold -- especially in a country that considers itself the "richest on earth." Once a society makes that decision, then tax monies are directed to assist in that purpose.

The question is the same as asking why one guy who is paying more in taxes has to subsidize firefighters to put out blazes in houses and buildings that don't belong to him.

A good question would be asking how much of a dollar paid in taxes by the wealthy person is actually going to help the indigent. Probably not more than a nickel of it. So one wonders why you are making such an issue about it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I can tell you about labor unions here in NY is that the top positions in the union make a sh*t-load of money for doing very little.

All organizations -- all of them, including unions -- have the opportunity to become corrupt and counter-productive. But that doesn't mean the concept of the union is a bad thing, or that corruption is inevitable. I believe America desperately needs organizations that look out for the interests of working people, and I'm hoping that one thing that comes out of the OWS movement is a revitalized trend towards workers joining together to defend each others' interests.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Who controls the means of production in Communism? The people in charge, the people in power.

Yes, exactly as it is here in the United States too, where most places of work are like dictatorships, where, it is said, "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

The communists would often hold sham elections where the results were a given before votes were cast. The same as stockholder elections in a "capitalist" system.

You speak of freedom. I believe the OWS movement would do well to revisit the "Four Freedoms" that Franklin Roosevelt articulated nearly 71 years ago, and adopt them as a key component of their goals:

"The first is freedom of speech and expression — everywhere in the world."

"The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way — everywhere in the world."

"The third is freedom from want, which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants — everywhere in the world.

"The fourth is freedom from fear, which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction in armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor — anywhere in the world."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits - There was no overt goal to overthrow the government. What was felt was that the old system would lose legitimacy and fall away of its own accord the more that a greater number of Poles came to see that they could build a better system that wasn't so tied to the Soviet one.

"Build a better system" plus "old system would lose legitimacy" equals "overthrow the government".

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - Are you saying that Barney Frank cast some kind of spell over the Republican leadership? That it was a mystery why they could not fulfill their roles as leaders?

I don't know. Maybe blackmail from information discovered thru Frank's boyfriend's prostitution ring? Barney Frank was the one who repeatedly denied for years that there was a problem with the sub-prime mortgages. Republicans repeatedly held Congressional hearings to regulate and create proper oversight for the sub-primes and for Frank's boyfriend's Fannie Mae. As a member of the banking committee and as chairman, Frank knew what the numbers were and still fought to "roll the dice somemore" on the sub-primes. "Roll the dice" indicates that Barney was gambling with the public's tax dollars and homes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - So I see your prediction as more of a hope -- a sign that things have improved. But I don't see that improvement happening very soon. The system needs to change fundamentally. You can't have a relative handful of people who engineer a massive financial collapse and then continue to benefit and profit from what remains while millions suffer.

Which is exactly what the progressive Democrats have been doing. Instead of creating an environment that allows private businesses to be created or expand which creates jobs that create more jobs, the progressive Democrats are demanding higher taxes to pay for bigger government. Harry Reid just said that the private sector is doing fine and the Senate should concentrate on creating public (government) jobs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrest the bankers. That would do something. Or do nothing and allow the unrest to grow and grow until all the demands are met. I hope this changes America from the inside out until all the demands are the country and all the naysayers are then on the outside.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It doesn’t matter what kind of political or economic system a country has, what matters is that it has to have checks and balances. Pure democracy doesn’t work because people often aren’t educated enough about what they’re voting on and do stupid things, Pure capitalism doesn’t work either because some people are greedy and create monopolies, pay their workers almost nothing, and basically lie and cheat to get ahead. Without checks and balances you end up with people like Bernard Madoff. This is why the U.S. isn’t a pure democracy and practices a modified form of capitalism. And pure capitalism has never worked. That’s why child laborers died in factories and the workers formed unions so they wouldn’t have to work 12 hours shifts for barely enough money to eat.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

And it's from that example that I believe OWS leaders -- as they emerge -- should be learning from. I have little doubts they will be studying it carefully. I was delighted when Solidarity leader Lech Walensa lent his support to OWS.

Lech Walesa has withdrawn support for the OWS rabble.

"We suspected that the European news media had filtered out accurate information about the genesis of Occupy Wall Street (OWS). When Walesa's comments hit the AP wire last week, my team immediately reached out to our Polish contacts.

[...]

"Using biggovernment.com plus other news sources, rapidly we painted an accurate picture of the groups training, leading, and organizing the "movement." The movement is organized by anarchists, Code Pink, the American Communist movement, jihadists, anti-Israel, socialist, and anti- free enterprise interests. OWS folks are politically to the left of President Barack Obama."

"At the Lech Walesa Institute Foundation in Warsaw, they were thankful to receive this information. Based on our discussion and intervention, President Walesa is not going to get involved with the OWS. He is not comfortable with the "organizations" behind the movement. "

[...]

This spring, when President Obama visited Poland, President Walesa refused to meet with him.

In January of 2010, Lech Walesa endorsed my campaign for Governor of Illinois and made national news when he forewarned... "America is sliding toward socialism."

http://biggovernment.com/aandrzejewsk/2011/10/21/lech-walesa-not-attending-occupywallstreet-in-new-york-after-discovering-hard-left-organizers/

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"At the Lech Walesa Institute Foundation in Warsaw, they were thankful to receive this information. Based on our discussion and intervention, President Walesa is not going to get involved with the OWS. He is not comfortable with the "organizations" behind the movement. "

It is plain to see what happened here: President Walensa -- and I use the phonetic spelling of the last part of his name (Wałęsa) -- initially supported the Occupy Wall Street group. Why? Because he knows the bankers and financiers are on the wrong side. There could have been no other reason for his initially coming out on the side of those protesting against Wall Street.

So that is the honest position -- minus any outside "influence."

Of course, what has now happened is that the lying right-wing of the U.S. have "reminded" him of the nice donations they are making to his foundation in order to ensure that his message and actions never stray from their own line. He's being totally duped and it's pathetic to see. He foolishly believes that today's Republicans are like the the Ronald Reagan he fondly remembers.

In January of 2010, Lech Walesa endorsed my campaign for Governor of Illinois and made national news when he forewarned... "America is sliding toward socialism."

Andrzejewski, and/or the people around him are liars. (It's clear he doesn't speak Polish.) Walensa was asked, "Is there a justifiable worry that America is making a move more towards socialism?", and his answer was somewhat equivocal. "Not so much" is what he said in Polish, while warning about the bankers and government bureaucracy. In no way did President Walensa state that "America is sliding towards socialism." In fact, he indicated that government has to provide health care and "help" for people, but citizens must also "pay attention to" bureaucracy and waste.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits - It is plain to see what happened here: President Walensa -- and I use the phonetic spelling of the last part of his name (Wałęsa) -- initially supported the Occupy Wall Street group. Why? Because he knows the bankers and financiers are on the wrong side. There could have been no other reason for his initially coming out on the side of those protesting against Wall Street.

It's plain to see that Walensa does NOT support the OWS mob. Your interpretation of Walensa's reasons for making the choices that he has is only your interpretation. What information was originally made available to him and what information became available later? The more Walensa found out about the OWS mob, the less he liked it. It's amusing that you believe that if someone doesn't agree with your viewpoint, they must be totally duped, pathetic, and foolish.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's plain to see that Walensa does NOT support the OWS mob.

It's plain to see that Walensa supported OWS before a decision was made not to visit them. He has not made any personal statement as to why.

In his initial statements in support of OWS, Walensa indicated he knew that the protests were an uprising against capitalism run amok. In other words, he fully was aware of the target of the protests before his apparent flip-flop.

The more Walensa found out about the OWS mob, the less he liked it.

Well, we know from the article above that a team of right-wing, Tea Party supporters contacted Walensa's office, letting them know that OWS consisted of "jihadists", among other lies. In other words, they painted a totally false picture to Walensa's people. More importantly is the source of funding to the Walensa foundation by those whose interest it is to keep Walensa in line. The ability of liars with money to corrupt decent people is sad to behold.

The more Walensa found out about the OWS mob, the less he liked it

The only reliable way to find out if something like this is true or not is to visit first-hand and see for one's self. This, the right-wingers can not afford to have Walensa do. The consensus by OWS people is that Walensa would be greeted with open arms. If the right-wingers were really being honest, they would pay for a "fact-finding" trip to NYC for Walensa with an interpreter to have him discover first-hand the real truth about the movement. If OWS is truly what the right-wing claims, they would have a strong spokesman on their side.

But they have to do everything in their power to dissuade him from ever doing that. Jihadists? You know they are lying. And yes, anyone who would believe a right-wing lie is a dupe. Anyone on the right-wing who repeats the lies is far worse.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits - The only reliable way to find out if something like this is true or not is to visit first-hand and see for one's self. This, the right-wingers can not afford to have Walensa do. The consensus by OWS people is that Walensa would be greeted with open arms. If the right-wingers were really being honest, they would pay for a "fact-finding" trip to NYC for Walensa with an interpreter to have him discover first-hand the real truth about the movement.

What a perfect example of "progressive" thinking. Someone else should pay for something that may benefit them.

Walensa is a grown man and can make his own decisions based on his own information. He doesn't appear to agree with your assessment.

At last count, the OWS had over $400,000 in the bank ( a bank? The OWS has money in one of those evil banks that they're protesting?). The Chicago OWS protest only had $7,000. If the NYC OWS mob want Walensas to visit NYC, they can pay for the visit themselves.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

What a perfect example of "progressive" thinking. Someone else should pay for something that may benefit them.

You missed the point. The right-wingers are paying for Walensa to stay away. If the right-wingers had any honor or courage -- which, of course, they don't -- they'd gladly use the money to pay for Walensa's trip to have him see the "truth" first-hand. He was invited and intended to come.

In the Polish press, they are talking about Walensa "selling out."

Gazeta Wyborcza has even gone as far as calling Walensa a "disgrace": “Lech Walensa is a symbol of peaceful democratic changes in Poland and elsewhere in Europe, our ambassador in the world. And now this ambassador disgraces us." The daily cites Walensa's inconsistencies in supporting both right- and left-wing parties, as long as they pay him.

This is apparently not exactly news to the Polish. A great many expressed anger and disappointment when Walensa accepted a €100,000 2-engagement speaking tour for a far-right group in Europe a couple of years back. It is apparent as the man ages, many Poles are thinking he has sold out his principles. Such is the corrupting force of the right wing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I just love all these yahoos complaining about the Occupy Wallstreet movement. What a bunch of hypocrites.

They complain that the Occupy Wallstreet movement has no purpose yet they were right behind the tea partiers with their "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" signs.

They claim that the Occupy movement is overly white when the only black person they can point to at a Tea Party rally was the famous black man who showed up with a machine gun (did he feel he needed a machine gun for protection around all those other tea partiers or was he a violent nut job? Hmmmm...).

The right wingers complain about everything that they are! No wonder they are such a miserable lot. They have to be completely dissatisfied with their lives.

Taka

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

yabitsOct. 22, 2011 - 12:55AM JST

And it's from that example that I believe OWS leaders -- as they emerge -- should be learning from. I have little doubts they will be studying it carefully. I was delighted when Solidarity leader Lech Walensa lent his support to OWS.

yabitsOct. 23, 2011 - 11:48AM JST

Gazeta Wyborcza has even gone as far as calling Walensa a "disgrace". "Lech Walensa is a symbol of peaceful democratic changes in Poland and elsewhere in Europe, our ambassador in the world. And now this ambassador disgraces us."

How quickly your opinion changed. On Oct 22, Walensa was a wise man who should be listened to until you found out he didn't actually support the OWS mob's leadership. On Oct 23, you now consider him a sellout and dupe because he has a better understanding of what the intentions of the mob's leadership is.

You're CLAIMING that Walensa is for sale, which is disrespectful, but offer no proof other than the whining of a small group of other OWS supporters.

The more information people have about the OWS's intentions, the more people will reject this movement.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Taka313 - I just love all these yahoos complaining about the Occupy Wallstreet movement.

I'm sure they love you too.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

How quickly your opinion changed.

Indeed. Walensa's first remarks on OWS were supportive and positive. We have not heard directly from him on what has been, to this point, inaccurately portrayed. Remarks that "America is sliding towards socialism" were never made by Walensa are falsely attributed to him with regards to OWS. It's a complete lie typical of the right-wing.

Further research reveals that Walensa of today does not hold the values of the man who helped lead the Solidarity movement in Poland. Since starting his "fund" in 2009, he has been more attuned to fund-raising and has demonstrated that his stamp of approval is for sale. I was not aware of that.

Since he is more concerned about money than principles, I really don't care any more what he says about OWS -- pro or con. Meanwhile, nearly every large city in Poland has its own group of "Occupy" supporters -- in true solidarity with OWS.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

You're CLAIMING that Walensa is for sale, which is disrespectful, but offer no proof other than the whining of a small group of other OWS supporters.

The Polish media has commented very critically on Walensa's disgraceful selling himself out to right-wingers with money long before OWS came on the scene.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If I were an OWS supporter I wouldn't worry about Walesa. I'd be worried about Iran's full-throated support for the anti-capitalists, the Jihadists, the Code Pink weirdos, the sentimental Marxists and the kooks drumming in the park all together in the futile attempt to counter the Taxed Enough Already movement.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I'd be worried about Iran's full-throated support for the anti-capitalists, the Jihadists, the Code Pink weirdos, the sentimental Marxists

How have you been detecting this "full-throated support" from Iran? Through the fillings in your teeth? Or is that being fed to you by the usual right-wing unreliable sources?

Kind of sounds as though you are envious there. Perhaps the anti-US-Government TEA movement was just too crazy for the Iranians.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

How have you been detecting this "full-throated support" from Iran?

The internet. YouTube. Even Reuters. Not hard to find. There are pictures, videos and eyewitness accounts of Iranians in Teheran showing their support for the anti-capitalists in the US. The rabble in Iran have gone to the trouble to write the slogans on the signs they carry in English. They stand in solidarity with you.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

There are pictures, videos and eyewitness accounts of Iranians in Teheran showing their support for the anti-capitalists in the US.

Looks like Iran can stage just about anything and you'd believe it. Such is the extent of your dupedom.

More importantly, the two American hikers whom Iran recently released from prison chose to make their first public appearance in the U.S. at an OWS gathering in Oakland. I doubt if it is an expression of solidarity with their former captors. I suspect many ordinary Iranians -- the ones who took to the streets to protest the regime -- have much more in common with the OWS-ers than the people you've sucked yourself into believing.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

unreconstructed,

What are you going to do when the government puts their hands on your medicare?

Taka

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Looks like Iran can stage just about anything and you'd believe it. Such is the extent of your dupedom.

Next I'm gonna read from yabits that Andrew Breitbart (or maybe it was the eeevil Koch Bros.) not only bribed Walesa but also the nutters in Teheran rallying in support of the OWS loons. Yeah. The vast right wing conspiracy - as it exists in the heads of people like yabits - really fears a mob like the OWS clowns, one that cannot even formulate a coherent explanation of why they are protesting or what established political channels they would use to change things...

unreconstructed, What are you going to do when the government puts their hands on your medicare?

I will blow them away with the deep wisdom I glean from Pixar movies like Madagascar.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

yabits - Looks like Iran can stage just about anything and you'd believe it. Such is the extent of your dupedom.

More importantly, the two American hikers whom Iran recently released from prison chose to make their first public appearance in the U.S. at an OWS gathering in Oakland.

More personal attacks? Oh well, the Iranian government does support the OWS. It supports anything that is anti-west, anti-capitalism, and anti-democracy. Whether the hikers were aware of that or not is immaterial. They were clueless that it was illegal to enter Iran without going thru proper channels or at an established crossing point. They didn't seem to be aware that an enemy of the U.S. would not take kindly to 3 Americans wandering around Iran. I doubt that these hikers have any idea what the OWS is up since the OWS leadership is not admitting to anything but what the heck, who can pass up free government cheese sandwiches shared with unwashed prison guards or protesters.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I will blow them away with the deep wisdom I glean from Pixar movies like Madagascar.

And even that, you'll steal from me. Better run over to C&L.

Taka

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

unreconstructed,

The Koch brothers exploit loopholes in the law to illegally sell goods to Iran. So, I suppose it's not just OWS the Iranians support.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The vast right wing conspiracy - as it exists in the heads of people like yabits - really fears a mob like the OWS clowns

The right-wingers who might go out of the way to make complete, incoherent fools out of themselves at a Glenn Beck gathering or other Tea Party venue -- at least those among them who have some awareness -- may indeed have some envy and fear over the level of commitment displayed by OWS volunteers.

After learning of Walensa's association with the loser Tea Party candidate, Andrzejewski of Illinois, there is little doubt that right wing money is flowing to his "foundation."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits - The right-wingers who might go out of the way to make complete, incoherent fools out of themselves at a Glenn Beck gathering or other Tea Party venue -- at least those among them who have some awareness -- may indeed have some envy and fear over the level of commitment displayed by OWS volunteers.

Hahahaha, the various 2 to 2.5 year old Tea Parties level of commitment has risen to the point where they have actually elected members of Congress which can have an affect on banking laws, the deficit, tax rates, and creating an environment that will create more private jobs. The OWS has only managed to raise a stink.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hahahaha, the various 2 to 2.5 year old Tea Parties level of commitment has risen to the point where they have actually elected members of Congress

Tea Party = Republican Party. I seriously doubt if any "Tea Party candidate" would have won by running under their own party brand. The OWS are true independents.

.....which can have an affect on banking laws

The Republican-led House hasn't done anything. They're worthless. Absolutely worthless. The public's opinion of Congress, which was low before the 2010 election, has only plummeted further.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits - Tea Party = Republican Party. I seriously doubt if any "Tea Party candidate" would have won by running under their own party brand. The OWS are true independents.

And which progressive Democrat party member will the OWS get elected or re-elected? They don't like politicians from any party. They don't support any politicians. The voters in the democratic republic elect people to represent them in Congress. The OWS are too busy demanding "cars with more stars than the flag" and "$115,000 a year" for beating on a plastic drum.

What's the theme song for the OWS?

Todd Rundgren's "Bang the Drum All Day".

I don't want to workI just want to bang on the drum all dayI don't want to playI just want to bang on the drum all day

Listen to this every day when I get home from workI feel so frustrated the boss is a jerkAnd I get my sticks and go out to the shedAnd I pound on that drum like it was the boss's head

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And which progressive Democrat party member will the OWS get elected or re-elected? They don't like politicians from any party.

A good test will be in the Mass. Senate race between Elizabeth Warren and the pinup boy.

What's the theme song for the OWS?

It's funny that conservatives have to end up stealing their themes from artists who have no desire whatsoever to be associated with them. I think the perfect song written for these right-wing freaks is Frank Zappa's "Broken Hearts are for...." (Always loved the way Zappa slapped little Bob Novak around on the old Crossfire program -- a show which can be seen on YouTube. He had the conservatives pegged.)

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yabits - A good test will be in the Mass. Senate race between Elizabeth Warren and the pinup boy.

Why? Because Warren is claiming to have started the Occupy "something" movement that started in Spain and was push in the U.S. by the Canadian group "adbusters"? If Warren is responsible for the OWS, then Al Gore really did invent the internet.

The voters in Massachusetts will decide who their next U.S. Senator is based on many issues that are important to the people of Massachusetts. Most people do not know what the OWS wants including the OWS protestors. Most people do agree only that the OWS has a right to protest. That doesn't mean they will support the OWS when (if?) it ever decides to agree on something.

I doubt that any of the people living in the parks actually vote.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Because Warren is claiming to have started the Occupy "something" movement that started in Spain and was push in the U.S. by the Canadian group "adbusters"?

The roots of OWS were there well before that. In 2009, to be more precise.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites