Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street

>>Not likely to accomplish much

I stand corrected. They have motivated their party in a substantial way.

>>Fringe

Their values that they often proclaim are on the extreme side of spending, limiting federal power, and their religious and immigration desires. At least to those outside of the strongest conservative base. I know many conservatives that do not associate with the Tea Party movement and would be quick to point that out if it is mentioned to them as they try to keep themselves distanced from their views.

Here are some things you'd never see or hear at a Tea Party rally.


Occupy L.A. Speaker: Violence will be Necessary to Achieve Our Goals
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/11/occupy-l-a-speaker-violence-will-be-necessary-to-achieve-our-goals/


Stinking up Wall Street: Protesters accused of living in filth as shocking pictures show one demonstrator defecating on a POLICE CAR
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shocking-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html

sbdt8631,

Which group is worse in your opinion?

Worse how?  I don't agree much with either, but I respect their right to advocate for what they believe in.
Which is worse, baseball or football?
Tea or cofee?
I'm not sure how to answer that question.  It is all opinion.

>>Worse how?

How many tea party members do you see crapping on police cars, having sex on the streets, trashing up parks, doing drugs, etc...?

And the Democrats have made it known they accept these people

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/20/90772/rep-john-lewis-charges-protesters.html
How many Occupy Wall Street people do you see shouting the N word at congressmen?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032002556.html
How many spit on black lawmakers?

Some Tea Party protestors were accused of both.  As I said previously, if you look for offensive radicals in any movement, you will find them.
There is always one a**hole at every party.

Breitbart offers $10k reward for proof that n-word was hurled at John Lewis
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/03/26/breitbart-offers-10k-reward-for-proof-that-n-word-was-hurled-at-john-lewis/


Never paid out.

sbdt8631, every hear of crashtheteaparty.org?  Where is the crash the occupy wall street website.  I ggogled it, but didn't even find one hit.  Maybe one group is too busy working.......It just appears that all the a**holes in the teaparty were just trying to make it look bad.

Dang, berger.  You stole my thunder.  :)

Levin's goal is to form organization around the country to thwart the Tea Party political goals.  He plans to accomplish this objective by infiltrating the Tea Party with false members.  He will then have those members "out-crazy" the tea partiers.

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-national/crash-the-tea-party-movement-has-conservatives-crying-foul

>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/20/AR2010032002556.html
>>How many spit on black lawmakers?


I don't know.  Those are unfounded accusations....just as the title to the article says.

Here is the link to the spitting incident.  Really they guy must have been a NFL kicker in a previous life.  He didn't even press charges, what a hell of a guy.

You are all missing the point.  The a**hole, by definition, is not representative of the whole.  It doesn't really matter whether he thinks he is with the group or he is a plant.  Either way, he is used to paint the whole with a bad brush.

You'll have to tell me where the proof is.  Nothing in that video shows anyone spitting.

I was listening closely to see if I could send that video in and collect the $10K, but I heard nothing.

Oh I thought the point was that one group spreads lies.  You have a website which stated mission was to infiltrate the tea party to make them look racist...etc.  A link to the spitting incident and a bad acting job by Cleaver.

Anyway, as I understand it, the TEA party stands for Taxed Enough Already, they think that the gov't collects enough taxes now, it just needs to make better use of it.  Now the occupy wall street party, I'm not sure of......they seem to be upset by someone else having more than they do or something.

>>Now the occupy wall street party, I'm not sure of......they seem to be upset by someone else having more than they do or something.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/1014/Can-Occupy-Wall-Street-really-get-money-out-of-politics
This article says it is campaign finance reform.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/12/technology/occupy_wall_street_demands/
"Some protesters are upset about taxation; for others, the big issue is the high unemployment rate. Or corporate greed. Or the distribution of wealth"

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/
occupywallstreet.org has its own list.

But from the cnn money article above:
"But no list has been endorsed by the "general assembly" at Occupy Wall Street, says press team member Mark Bray, who added that "making a list of three or four demands would have ended the conversation before it started.""

I don't think they agree about what they are protesting against.  They can only seem to agree that they don't like the status quo.

I thought we had all agreed to be more civil.  And how come pro athletes always get a free pass.  Maybe I should join the party with my Down with Brady sign.  But I do agree I don't like the status quo today, it's friday and I'm at work. :(  Time to get some TP and head to New York!

>>Time to get some TP and head to New York!

http://www.weather.com/weather/today/New+City+NY+USNY0981
Personally, I'd wait until Sunday afternoon. Weather looks nasty until then.

How many of the Tea Party protesters were arrested?  At least 48 Occupy protesters were arrested.  That is just today and the day is not yet over.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/14/wall-street-protesters-clash-with-police-in-new-york-denver/

First of all, OWS is less than a month old.  Tea Party has been around for a few years now, so obviously the Tea Party is going to be more established.

Tea Party also has big dollar sponsors such as the Tea Party Express, Tea Party Patriots,  Fox News who promoted and hosted  their events.  They have PAC's and organization.

OWS is truly grass roots, starting with a web posting and drawing citizens of all stripes from across the country.  Maybe they will be co-opted by sponsors, but that hasn't happened yet.  

They're both accused of a lack of focus.  The Tea Party made claims about taxes, but taxes are at the lowest levels they've been at in over 50 years.  To me, it just seems like they hate Obama and anything democrat.  Their values and opinions seem to be very far to the right.

OWS is against the influence of corporations on our government, and the resulting transfer of wealth from the middle class to the very rich.  That's something that resonates with a lot of Americans.

I know you don't like alternet, so you're going to dismiss the whole article, but even Fox news agrees!

Critics of the growing Occupy Wall Street movement complain that the protesters don’t have a policy agenda and, therefore, don’t stand for anything. They're wrong. The key isn’t what protesters are for but rather what they’re against -- the gaping inequality that has poisoned our economy, our politics and our nation.

In America today, 400 people have more wealth than the bottom 150 million combined. That’s not because 150 million Americans are pathetically lazy or even unlucky. In fact, Americans have been working harder than ever -- productivity has risen in the last several decades. Big business profits and CEO bonuses have also gone up. Worker salaries, however, have declined.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/14/understanding-occupy-wall-street/

Here's what kills me.  The richest people in america are democrats.  Out of the top 20 richest people in the country, who gives more the dems or rep side?

Beetos, their laughing all the way to the bank, just like Al (Check out the size of my carbon footprint) Gore is.

I'm not sure what you're getting at Berger.

OWS is not affiliated with either party.  OWS wants to take America back from the control of the corporations and give it back to the people.

They remind me of my 4 year old.  But daddy I want it! Wah!.  It's not fair I have to go to bed.  But I don't wanna pick up my cloths.

Why didn't the police attack the Tea Party?  I bet they were afraid they would throw tea bags at 'em.

>>First of all, OWS is less than a month old.  Tea Party has been around for a few years now, so obviously the Tea Party is going to be more established.

Yes, the Tea Party has been around for over three years and how many arrests?  The Occupy protesters is less than a month old and how many arrests?

>>I find one thing strange when it comes to the Tea Party Movement who is for less government but odd enough is for corporation to have more influence in the Government.

Unless you have something to back up this statement, your assessment is wrong.  Yes, the Tea Party is for less government, but they are not for corporations to have more influence in Government.  The Tea Party realizes that "government is best which governs least."  Thomas Jefferson.  This is one of the underlying message of the Tea Party, it is simple and straight forward.  What is Occupy's message?  To get something for nothing, and yes that is the Liberal stance.  Basically more government when they do not understand that government is the biggest problem.  They want the rich to pay more in taxes.  They want less corruption.  Have they heard of Solyndra and the scandal going on there.  That is one big corruption from start to finish spear headed by Obama and the administration.  This company gets Stimulas money, uses it unwisely to say the least, funnels the money back to Obama as a campaign donation, declares bankruptcy, and the head guy Kaiser evades from paying any taxes for years.  The same is true with GE, who President and CEO is an economic advisor to President Obama, and the same is true with Warren Buffett who owes federal taxes.  The list goes on and on and on with this Presidency.  One corrupt deal after another, and yet Occupy is protesting against Wall Street.  But we must supprt them but demonize the Tea Party as racists.  Some people's way of thinking is turned upside down.  I don't see how one can support or defend these people.

> Why didn't the police attack the Tea Party? <

Didn't I just mentioned that the Tea Party are for Republican party and for the Corporation.
You cross them and you get arrested. BTW even the Police get there funds from the Big guys on Wall Street. Why do think that they arrested people. There is video footage of people doing nothing and being attacked by the Police, try and explain that to me.

-Muj ;-|

I get it now.  Warren Buffet is all for his taxes going up since he wan't pay them any way and all dems can do is cheer.  Show mw the footage.

I seems Obama's class warfare strategy is happening now.  Way to go and divide the nation. Yippppie!  And again, can someone please tell me who is responsible for the global meltdown.

>>A new Time magazine poll asked respondents for their opinion of “the Tea Party movement.” Just 27% had a favorable opinion. Then the poll asked about OWS.

Come on, Beetos.  You know the coverage on the always peaceful tea party is negative.  Media is far left.  Repeat a lie enough and people start believing it (see false "n" word post above)





>>Didn't I just mentioned that the Tea Party are for Republican party and for the Corporation.
You cross them and you get arrested. BTW even the Police get there funds from the Big guys on Wall Street. Why do think that they arrested people. There is video footage of people doing nothing and being attacked by the Police, try and explain that to me.


whatchu talkin bout, willis?





>>OWS is not affiliated with either party.  

Dems, including Pelosi and B Hussien, seem to be throwing their support around them.




>>OWS wants to take America back from the control of the corporations and give it back to the people.


What exactly does that mean, Beetos?  Take back what?

Stating reality is NOT class warfare.

It was deregulation of the financial industry that allowed the derivatives trading, which caused the global meltdown.

Ok, WHO is responsible again.  I want names....everyone wants them to be held accountable.  I'm asking who and what actions did they take to cause it.

Obama with his constant people making over $250,000 are evil slogan.....or how ever much this month.

>>Stating reality is NOT class warfare.

Reality is these people are a bunch of worthless deadbeats who think they're entitled to something for nothing.  They're naive and off the charts uninformed.  

This is what the Democrat party has thrown its arms around.  


Coast Guard member spit on near Occupy Boston tents
http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-protesters-spit-on-coast-guard-member-20111013

The Coast Guard in Boston confirmed that a woman in uniform was harassed and spat upon near Occupy Boston protesters.
The woman was walking to the train and said protesters spit on her twice, called her foul names and even threw a water bottle at her.

>>Ok, WHO is responsible again.  I want names....everyone wants them to be held accountable.  I'm asking who and what actions did they take to cause it.

Jimmy Carter for signing the Community Reinvestment Act
Bill Clinton for reinforcing this law and strong arming bankers.
Chris Dodd and Barney Frank for bailing out Fannie and Freddie, among other things.

Tling,  you're still wrong about that.


Meanwhile, regardless of those camping out in the streets to make their point....



Do you believe that corporations and those with extreme wealth have too much influence over our government or not?   Do you believe that the US government should serve its citizens, and act in good conscience to promote what's best for our nation, or what's best for business?

>>Do you believe that the US government should serve its citizens, and act in good conscience to promote what's best for our nation, or what's best for business?

Is Solyndra an example for what is best for our country and serving its citizens?  They spent over half a billion dollars of taxpayer money, and then as a favor gave back this money to Obama's campaign for his re-election.  And this is just one company that we know that received almost a trillion dollars in stimulus.  Obama has raked in almost $70 million dollar as campaign donations.  How many of these donations came from those companies that received stimulus money?  So essentially the taxpayers are funding his 2012 campaign.  Is this not corrupt?  How can you not see it's not corrupt?  As Hermain Cain said they are protesting in the wrong area for the wrong cause.  Basically they are idiots.

Crony capitalism is one of the issues OWS is railing against.   Just sayin'.


You guys can dismiss this movement as a bunch of idiot stoner deadbeats that want to sit back and be handed everything, but you're quite mistaken and you do so at your own peril.

They're protesting.   They're not saying do this or we need to do that.  They're saying what's going on is destroying the middle class and driving American workers into poverty.   All while power and money are being accumulated within the top 1%.

I agree with them, and I'm not alone.  In fact, I'm in the majority.  

Tling - are you calling the majority of Americans idiots?

There are a lot of idiots out there, that's all I am saying.

Thanks Tling - you got me with that one!   Couldn't help but laugh.

Today there has been 82 protest around the world over the Economic.

--
@ Tlingit

> "government is best which governs least."  Thomas Jefferson <

I don't believe Thomas Jefferson would be against Regulation of the Banks, Investors and Corporations. More over all he would support a system that protects the people and consumers.

Its strange you don't see Tea Party protest over the Patriotic Act, Ridicules Immigrations laws in the State of Arizona, Gay Marriage or even Abortion.

People need to realize that there needs to be a balance act between where the government should be involved and where it should not. It is stupid to think that Corporations and Banks should not be regulated. Clearly we have already seen what happens when they are left to regulate themselves.

--
@cars

> Dems, including Pelosi and B Hussien, seem to be throwing their support around them. <

You should know that OWS don't care about Pelosi or Obamas support because they are part of the problem. The good thing about Liberals is that they don't care about Democrats or Republicans.

> Reality is these people are a bunch of worthless deadbeats who think they're entitled to something for nothing <

That's ridicules. Corporations and Banks who took everything from the economy, left many people homeless and unemployed. The rest of the people who would have to be higher taxes to Bail out these Banks who cause the whole thing. People have waited 3 years for things to get better but they haven't and things could even get worst again. People are going to get to the boiling point sometime.

I once again ask why the Tea Party doesn't care? When it was the Tax Payers Money that was put into these Banks to Bail them out and the very first thing they did was pay Bonuses out. They made the Money, they made profits. Yet nothing seems to have changed.
Shouldn't they be sued?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/business/us-is-set-to-sue-dozen-big-banks-over-mortgages.html?pagewanted=all


-Muj ;-|

>>I [Beetos] agree with them, and I'm not alone.  


Here's more as to what the Democrats and Beetos support.

Occupy Portland: Protesters Sing F*ck the USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeuGx8PplAo


Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/figures-nazi-party-throws-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/

If what I see protesting at OWS is the 99% how does this country even manage to produce a paperclip much less feed everyone?

@cars

You seem to be getting desperate by finding any site and any crazy conservative opinion that is against the OWS movement. I am just surprised you haven't seen the propaganda video which calls the OWS anti-semantic despite the fact that many Jewish people are taking part in the protest.
They even had a 'Yom Kippur Services' there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/07/yom-kippur-service-occupy-wall-street_n_1000870.html

http://www.nsfreepress.com/story/atonement-occupy-wall-street-yom-kippur-service-held-adjacent-demonstrations

http://972mag.com/over-1000-jews-gather-at-wall-st-for-occupyyomkippur-kol-nidre/24808/

I am sure you would like to call these people a bunch of communist or Nazi's too.

-Muj ;-|

>>You seem to be getting desperate by finding any site and any crazy conservative opinion that is against the OWS movement.

The band members were not Sean, Mark, or Rush.  It was actually performed by Occupy nut jobs.  The same can be said about the website.  That is not a conservative website, it is a nazi/communism website.

>>You seem to be getting desperate by finding any site

Any site covering this will have to report nutty activities.  These people stink (literally), are lazy, and want something for nothing.

@Tlingit

> That is not a conservative website, it is a nazi/communism website. <
Whats the difference ;-D

--
@cars

> These people stink (literally), are lazy, and want something for nothing. <

Excuse me. They want something for nothing. Most of those people are unemployed. They have paid their shares of the Taxes, Which went directly to the Banks to bail them out. The banks made profits, they even paid bonuses to each other. On the other hand the corporations who still continue to make Money while unemployment rises. They hardly pay any Taxes. While normal people including You, who are made to pay more Taxes.

The real people who got Bail out Money and Tax Exemptions are the ones who got something for nothing. I find it strange that people like you support them. They make the Money, while you are made to pay more Taxes.

-Muj ;-|

So far from OWS crowd:

-F*ck the USA
-Support from the Nazis
-Want to end capitalism
-Violence at marches
-State violence is necessary to meet their goals


And now we have Obama, TODAY, state, in strong terms, his support for these idiots

White House Draws Closer To Occupy Wall Street
http://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-draws-closer-to-occupy-wall-street-says-obama-is-fighting-for-interests-of-the-99-2011-10


No wonder he went to Rev Wright's church for 20 years.

>>Whats the difference

The difference is that conservatives do not align themselves with those ideals.  Nazi and communism is embraced by the left (democrats/liberals/progressives).  These groups are the ones that Occupy attract.  Communism is total control of everything, which means government is in control of every aspect of your life, from beginning to end.  Here in America Democrats (Liberals) want more government control of everything, hence, higher taxes, more regulation, less freedom of speech, and government run health program.  Whereas conservatives want less government.  So which of the two would Nazi and communism embrace?  Liberal ideas, certainly not conservative ideas.

@cars

So from you all I have heard is a childish rant without any facts or substance.
BTW fascism is for Captalism not against it.

@ Tlingit

Wow, where did you get all the information from? Glenn Becks history lesson?
Just because you throw Communism, Nazi, Hitler, Stalin around towards liberals doesnt mean they actually are.
It clearly shows that you & many Americans lack an understand of political ideologies.

Higher taxes for the Rich & Cororations? Is that bad?

Regulations of Banks? Who caused the recession, who the taxe payers bailed out.

Less freedom of speech, my god you are hit a new low. OWS are clearly demonstrating their freedom of Speech. By the way Liberal comes from the word Free.

-Muj ;-|

Where we are on the OWS...

1.  F*ck the USA
2.  Support from Communist and Nazi party
3.  Communist China now supports.
4.  Protesters say they'll clog up court system if charges not dismissed.
5.  Protesters state violence is necessary to achieve goal.

And yet the top Democrats, including Obama, Pelosi, and Reid all support this garbage.

This should be called the Rev Wright, Anti-American movement.

I love these two off of the OWS "Offical Demands" list:

1) A "living wage" regardless of employment status, and

2) Totally open borders.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong?

Anybody who supports the OWS care to explain the two demands dgcheck posted.  How are those even possible?

>Just because you throw Communism, Nazi, Hitler, Stalin around towards liberals doesnt mean they actually are.
It clearly shows that you & many Americans lack an understand of political ideologies.

Actually it shows that you do not understand political idealogies as well as you think.

Take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

In many respects the theories are not mutually exclusive.  All one has to believe in is the primacy of the state over individual rights.

I guess that's really what it boils down to.  State vs. individual rights.  Some people really believe the state can take care of them better than they can.  I guess some people are correct.  

A number of news organizations and reporters are backing Occupy Wall Street protesters.

http://nation.foxnews.com/occupy-wall-street/2011/10/17/emails-nbc-news-anchor-cahoots-occupy-wall-street

Seems pretty clear by your research, especially from sites like Foxnation - the OWS protesters are Nazis and Communists, not good god fearing patriots like the Tea Partiers!   I think someone showed a video of a bunch of them stepping on puppies and kittens!

It's all part of a ploy to eventually turn America into a colony of Kenya, with all of the US citizens ( those not in concentration camps, of course ) into indentured servants.  The fences along the borders will be used to keep Americans from escaping!    

None of that will matter of course, once the evil liberals and their crony scientists impose a new world order based on the fairy tale of global warming, when the whole world will be under the control of Iceland and Switzerland!

>>A number of news organizations and reporters are backing Occupy Wall Street protesters.


Maybe that's why the media was able to overlook all of Obama's shady associations, such as Rev Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko.

Obama was raise to hate capitalism, and these yahoos echo that sentiment.

Yes Cars,

And since he's been in office, Rezko, Ayers, and Wright have teamed up to lay the groundwork for overthrowing the country into some sort of Marxist Socialist Communist Nazi paradise where your unshaven pot smoking neighbors laugh at you as you go off to work everyday to support them.

We haven't heard too much about  it though, because the media is in on it.  They've already got it planned out to quit their jobs and live off the exploited extremely rich.

Man, my kids and I have to pay for this grass over the next 100 years.  These SOBs just ruined it.


'Occupiers' killing stimulus-funded sod in D.C.

...they have already ruined a few newly sodded sections of the park. The re-sodding of the park was completed this year as part of a $419,000 stimulus project to refurbish the square.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/occupiers-killing-stimulus-funded-sod-dc

It's part of Recovery Winter 2011!!!  Let's regrass everything, don't you need a shovel for that?

On Planet Obama, having to re-re-sod the park just means more stimulus. So it is a Win-Win!

>>On Planet Obama, having to re-re-sod the park just means more stimulus.

Only problem is the Democrats killed his jobs bill in the Senate.

>Only problem is the Democrats killed his jobs bill in the Senate.

Personally, I think we should stop calling this stimulus package a 'jobs bill'. It is not such thing and calling it such gives the Democrats an uncalled for advantage in the minds of the uninformed.

Killing the sod?  That's nothing!  Just wait till they start dragging the rich out into the street and killing them....  At least that's what Glenn Beck says is going to happen.

Just wait till they start dragging the rich out into the street and killing them....

So, you are saying that is an impossibility and has never happened before? I am sure people were thinking the same thing in Russia in 1917, before October that is.

Beetos, michael Moore and the protesters have already stated violence may be needed to achieve their goal.

Yes Leon, lazy unemployed stoners are going to rise up into and unstoppable murderous militant mob.

Having never had any ambition in their lives, this small fringe group of slackers is suddenly  going to take over the strongest country on earth by force.

Wait a minute - I'm starting to think this logic is somehow flawed?

In 1917, there were Tsars and starving masses not upper-middle class students looking for sex and a month long "cause."

Yet the Tea Party, with their second amendment remedies and automatic weapons at rallies were Patriots?

And instead we need to fear "upper-middle class students looking for sex?"

Cars,

I'm going to ask you for references on that claim please.

Likewise, I'd like to see a cite on any automatic weapons at a Tea Party Rally.

Me too.  I've never heard of that one before.

Would you still need citation if I changed it to "assault" weapons or "semi-automatic" weapons?

The 99 percent.  Wow,I just don't get it.  It seems most of them are looking for free handouts for bad decisions they've made.  I was suprised at how many are already on gov't assistance.  It was really sad to see so many people jealous of others.  

Freeloaders backed by union thugs - oh my!  Is this the beginning of the end????

dgheck - does that last comment mean you agree that there were rallies where Tea Partiers had weapons?

In 1917, there were Tsars and starving masses not upper-middle class students looking for sex and a month long "cause."

No, the Tsar was deposed in Febuary of 1917 and there were no starving masses. The October Revolution was lead by ideologues, a good number of whom came from middle and upper middle class families.

dgheck - does that last comment mean you agree that there were rallies where Tea Partiers had weapons?

Truth be told, I don't know one way or the other.

But if you don't give a rat's a** about...you know, actual violence then why are you so fixated on mere instruments of violence? Instruments that have gone shockingly unused. To you, anyway.

The accusation is that OWS is threatening violence to achieve their ends.   I disagree with both the premise and the accusation.  But I do recall the Tea Partiers making such threats while carrying weapons to make their point - at other events they had signs that read "We came unarmed, THIS time".

The accusation is that OWS is threatening violence to achieve their ends.   I disagree with both the premise and the accusation.

This is an actual speaker at OWSLA. An actual speaker. Not some guy wandering through the crowd. So both the premise and the accusation are substantiated.

But, again, I have to ask why you worry so much about potential violence when actual violence bothers you not at all. Or are beatings at the hands of SEIU members inherently righteous?

Yeah, I remember this kind of stuff happening all the damned time with the Tea Partiers.

I'm not sure what incident you're talking about dg, but I guess your premise is "Tea Partiers are law abiding America lovers" and "OWS are a violent mob" .   Here's a comment from the link you just posted:

-i am with you. i personally know many constitutionalists, and we are all well-armed. i pack my S & W .357 magnum daily. because there are no "free guns"-these idiots do not have many. i am also thinking of keeping my 12 ga pump in my car¿ - in the event things get wild.

Actual violence?  Would that include the police pepper spraying a woman behind a barricade who was doing nothing?  Would that include the thugs Scott Walker considered sending into the protests in Wisconsin to make them seem like a violent mob?  Not familiar with that?  Well he admitted it to a radio host pretending to be one of the Koch brothers.  The tape of the conversation was widely distributed, and Scott Walker did not deny it.

For the record, I don't believe violence is necessary to achieve the OWS goals - I do believe their actions, amplified by protests across the country and even around the world will affect our politics and hopefully in a way that benefits the country as a whole instead of the few at the top.

You may find a few incidents, a few nuts within the crowd, just like the one police incident I cited does not impugn the whole police force.  By and large it's a very civil protest and seems to be gaining traction.

Here's a good summary I read on their 1 month anniversary.   Remember, this started with a simple web posting - there are no buses, no news teams announcing their plans, no free concerts, just real grass roots populism aimed at causing our elected officials to deal with the problems we elected them to deal with, and stop cow-towing to corporate influence:

 Late last month, a ragtag group of several hundred liberal activists ventured to the centre of America's economic universe – Wall Street – to protest against what they saw as the country's growing income inequality and the stranglehold of corporate money over US democracy. The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement hoped to attract thousands of protesters, but the turnout ended up being disappointingly smaller. Coverage of the protests was largely restricted to liberal media outlets and a snarky piece in the New York Times captured the sentiments of many when it dismissed them as "carnival" and "street theatre". One could be forgiven for dismissing the demonstrations as simply another failure of progressive populist politics in an era where populist energy is generally restricted to the anti-government, conservative right.

What a difference a month makes. Not only has OWS survived, it has captured the imagination of multitudes of embittered Americans. It has become a national force with the very real potential to roil American politics fundamentally. Other groups have sprung up in cities across the US and are now branching out internationally, including London.

American unions are jumping on the bandwagon, showing solidarity with a movement that shares many of labour's anti-corporate views. So, too, are Democratic politicians who detect a shift in the political winds. Mainstream media now treat the "Occupiers" as legitimate political protesters rather than a collection of clueless hippies. In a poll by Time, 54% of respondents rated the Wall Street protests positively, with 25% saying they had a "very favourable" opinion of them.

So what exactly is happening here? In a nutshell, Americans are ticked off. Millions are struggling financially; many are out of a job or are underemployed. They can't pay their bills. They are falling deeper into personal debt. They are losing hope that things will improve in the foreseeable future. Worst of all, while they are falling further behind a small minority appears to be leaping further ahead.

Wall Street and the big banks caused the market crash that cost millions of jobs and plunged the US economy into near-depression. Yet three years later, the country's financial elite continues to prosper while the other 99% suffers. Meanwhile, Washington, due mainly to the unceasing obstructionism of the Republican party, seems completely incapable of arresting America's decline.

>>Cars,
>>I'm going to ask you for references on that claim please.


Michael Moore Threatens The Rich: Let's "Deal With It Nonviolently Now"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/22/michael_moore_threatens_the_rich_lets_deal_with_it_nonviolently_now.html



BTW - quit knocking guns.  Unlike Obamacare, I have a Constitutional right to own a firearm.

"The smart rich know they can only build the gate so high. And, and, sooner or later history proves that people when they've had enough aren’t going to take it anymore. And much better to deal with it nonviolently now, through the political system, than what could possibly happen in the future, which nobody wants to see,"

That's not the same as "violence may be necessary to achieve our goals".

Beetos, Moore's comments remind me of an Eazy E lyric:

Take everything you got and lay it on the f*ckin floor. Don't make me have to set an example today and blow one of you crazy motherf*ckers away

As long as you do what we want, no one gets hurt.  But there will be violence if not.

You can't spin his comments.

Translation: "Nice life you got there. It'd be a shame if anything happened to it."

This is the same Michael Moore that was decrying the fact that Al Qaida attacked a "blue" state on 9/11.

Here you have Michael Moore with these deadbeat, anti-American, Jeremiah Wright wannabes claiming that capitalism is evil, yet Moore has pocketed millions due to capitalism.

In fact, due to greed, Moore sued to get more profit from one of his anti-American movies.

Michael Moore vs Movie Accounting: Sues Weinsteins For More 9/11 Movie Profits After Already Pocketing $19.8 Million
http://www.deadline.com/2011/02/he-redefines-the-term-greedy-michael-moore-sues-for-more-money-from-911-movie-when-he-already-received-19-8-million/

Here you have Michael Moore with these deadbeat, anti-American, Jeremiah Wright wannabes ...


You forgot union thugs, Susan Sarandon, and Kanye West.  Come on Cars, this is your dream come true - you get to collectively bitch about every liberal under the sun!

Of course, none of these characters nor your insinuations changes what the protests are about:

to protest against what they saw as the country's growing income inequality and the stranglehold of corporate money over US democracy

What do you think about that sentiment?

>>to protest against what they saw as the country's growing income inequality and the stranglehold of corporate money over US democracy

Looks good on a bumper sticker, but what do they want to do about it?  What needs to happen (specifically) for them to be happy?



When you're a lazy, deadbeat, Jeremiah Wright wannabe, your only paycheck is going to come from welfare.  The rich continue to do what makes them rich and the deadbeats continue to do what makes them poor.  


>>...union thugs

Repetitive

>>to protest against what they saw as the country's growing income inequality and the stranglehold of corporate money over US democracy

It sounds a lot like Communism.  It sounds a lot like 1917 and 1918 when the revolution came in and took what was the rich and turned it over to the state to form a new government when millions of people died as a direct result of it to only have the system fail 80 years later.

How about returning to the tax rates from 10 years ago?  

How about overturning Citizens United?  

How about preventing the financial influence of lobbyists in Washington?  

How about if our elected leaders started realizing who their supposed to be serving (clue: it's not their bank accounts)?

How about Congress working together in the country's best interests, instead of the constant grandstanding, ideological battles, and gridlock that we see today which led to a downgrade of our credit rating?

Or is all that radical communism that's going to make the slaves of the rich?

Here's what I think......
I'm tired of the stanglehold whiners have over US democracy, and I agree about the income inequality, I'm tired of busting my ass and getting no where and others can lay around and whine that they don't take enough from me.  I worked my way through college (at taco bell mind you) full time so I could get out without owing any money, in a field that I don't even really like (computers), I would much rather be a park ranger or be a pro athlete, but I made choices, now as I sit here and look at my pay stub and see all the money the gov't takes from me (well at this point not me but my kids) to give someone sleeping on the wall street, yeah you could say it pisses me off.  Whiners bitch about low paying jobs like working in a light bulb factory, so they pass regulations to close all the light bulb factories, then they bitch cause these people can't get jobs.  They pass regs to ensure no car plants get built California, then they wonder why the poor get poorer and then you know what they do?  They blame the top 1% for being rich.  And before you even say it, no of course I'm not against all regulation.  It's like the speed limit, should we have one?  Yes of course was the 55 speed limit the feds imposed back in the 80's smart.  NO, it was too much regulation.  You ever have someone you work with that needs her hours cut so she can get more gov't handout?  

>>How about if our elected leaders started realizing who their supposed to be serving (clue: it's not their bank accounts)?

Agree - need term limits.



>>How about overturning Citizens United?  

That'll backfire and allow only the rich candidates to prevail.  


>>How about preventing the financial influence of lobbyists in Washington?  

Obama would NEVER support this.  He has a ton of lobbyists in senior positions in his administration.


>>How about Congress working together in the country's best interests,

Love how liberals NOW call for this, knowing they're about to lose the Senate and presidency.  For two years, B Hussein O'carter shut out republicans from almost everything.  



Real solution is to take away the monopoly government has on education.  Free the dollars and let schools compete for money.  

> Obama would NEVER support this.  He has a ton of lobbyists in senior positions in his administration. <

If you see any Republican do that, the heavens Gate might open and end the corruption in US.

> Real solution is to take away the monopoly government has on education. <

No health care, no education, no government, why not simply let the corporations run the country?
Its so much easier than having less government.

-Muj ;-|

No health care, no education, no government, why not simply let the corporations run the country?
Its so much easier than having less government.

No, what Republicans are asking for is not 'No health care, no education, no government', but a freedom to choose your health care, your education, and a limited form of government that serves the individual.

>>No, what Republicans are asking for is not 'No health care, no education, no government', but a freedom to choose your health care, your education, and a limited form of government that serves the individual.

Liberals hate freedom.  They believe that the government knows what's best for you, and that individuals are too incompetent as to make their own choices.

 

Liberals hate freedom.

I do not think so. IMO, the difference is that to a Conservative Freedom = freedom to choose, while to a Liberal Freedom = equality for all.

>>I do not think so

Then why do liberals try to control every aspect of our lives?

@ Leon

> but a freedom to choose your health care, your education, and a limited form of government that serves the individual. <

I am not against Individuals right to choose health care, education and so on. That is an fundamental rights of the people but what I don't want is that people who cannot get health care, education because they are too poor to have those things to be left out.

-Muj ;-|

Then why do liberals try to control every aspect of our lives?

Because, they believe in equality for all, ie there should be no rich and poor, and there should be no consequences for bad decisions since that creates inequality. Just look at what Muj says in his post:

what I don't want is that people who cannot get health care, education because they are too poor to have those things to be left out.

He is attempting to redress an inequallity, but the issue with this is that he ignores the costs associated with such a program, and the removal of choice from those who can afford those things.

Now there are no absolutes, or at least very few that I found, in this world, so the answer lays somewhere between the two extrimes. What we are now arguing about is where that middle ground is located.

>>but what I don't want is that people who cannot get health care, education because they are too poor to have those things to be left out.

It's called medicaid.

Had these OWS deadbeats been given the option to go to a school of their choosing, there's no telling what they could have been.  But they were raised, as was Obama, to hate capitalism, expect something for nothing, and that "profit" is a bad word.

With that said, the root cause is not corporations, but rather selfish teachers unions that care little about educating kids and more for robbing tax payers.

Conservatives only want less government when it's a Democratic government.  Republicans have no problem imposing their will via government regulations and laws when they are in power.  See the new crop of anti-abortion laws and regulations as proof.

Berger - how do you feel about  the government taking from folks like you and me and your kids and spending it to invade a country that posed no threat to us, but was rich in oil?  Or how about taking our money and giving it to oil companies who've been making the GREATEST PROFITS OF ALL TIME?  How about taking our money and giving it to the 25% of millionaires that pay NO TAXES AT ALL?  Or how about taking our money and giving spending it on useless politically motivated investigations?  Oh yeah, and why did the government take my money and give it to you because you had kids???  Why am I supporting all the breeders out there?

That's great Cars, even for you - now the cause of the financial crisis and the radical transfer of wealth is TEACHERS!  Toto, we're not in Kansas anymore!


FYI - a lot of the protesters ARE college grads who now have a degree, a ton of debt, and no way chance of employment.   I don't believe you know how they were raised, what they think, or what they're even saying.

OWS is NOT asking for some grand hippie commune where all have the same.   They're saying the rules of the game have been tweaked in such a way as to favor those in power or with wealth to such a degree that the countries wealth is being radically redistributed to the top, and the middle class is being driven into poverty.

Or how about taking our money and giving it to oil companies who've been making the GREATEST PROFITS OF ALL TIME?

Really? When did they make you do that? Did you have to write a check to them or did they want it in cash? I guess that I am lucky because they haven't come to my house and taken money from me to give to the oil companies.

>>FYI - a lot of the protesters ARE college grads who now have a degree, a ton of debt, and no way chance of employment

That's b/c they wasted $1000s on degrees in eastern european art history, philosophy, golf management, or recreation and leisure.  

Wonder what the dude that sh*t on the cop car has a degree in?

Rev. Jeremiah Wright:

Not god Bless America, NO NO NO! God DAMN America!

Obama went to his church for 20 years.




OWS:

F*ck the USA

OBAMA: 'WE ARE ON THEIR SIDE'


I SEE A PATTERN.

" Oh yeah, and why did the government take my money and give it to you because you had kids???  Why am I supporting all the breeders out there? "

Oh please do tell, what money was transfered to me from you?  Please I want to know.  Sure, people with kids get a tax credit, but that means I get to keep some of the money I've earned.  That's a big difference.  I agree I'm tired of supporting all the breeders out there too, if you cannot support your kids don't have them.  You also said the same thing about owning a house.  Ok say I own a house, I get to write off interest paid on my federal taxes, but guess what I also get to pay local taxes which in most cases is more than the tax credit.  Anyway the whole point to the child tax credit is to make sure someone is paying into SS to pay for you when your old and didn't have the forethought to plan for retirement.  :)  

> but the issue with this is that he ignores the costs associated with such a program, and the removal of choice from those who can afford those things. <

That's incorrect. Everyone has a choice but those who don't have a choice because they are weak or poor should be given the same choice by those who have one. To think that there isn't enough food or money to go around is ridicules. All that goes around is Greed.

-Muj ;-|

Everyone has a choice but those who don't have a choice because they are weak or poor should be given the same choice by those who have one.

Why? Why should they have the same choice as those who worked and saved, and were successful? Where is the incentive to achieve if you must give it all away?

Oops. My bad. I just checked the mail and the government did send me a bill for the money they want to take from me so that they can give it to the oil companies.

It isn't even broken down by oil company. Can you believe that?

Anyone else get one in the mail today?

Oh, look! It gives me the option to do automatic drafts! How thoughtful.

FYI - a lot of the protesters ARE college grads who now have a degree, a ton of debt, and no way chance of employment.

What's that saying?  'Poor planning on your part doesn't give you the right to take from me.'?  Why not let them work at a light bulb factory, oh yeah we regulated all those jobs away, or how about a car factory, oh yeah we're trying to regulate those away, ok, how about a toy factory, oh shoot, those seem to be leaving also.  How about some of those great green jobs that we keep hearing about?  

Actually, it does sound like fun.  Hey cars I bought a car I can't afford, would you mind paying for it?  Hey I want a new iPhone but don't have $200, I think you should buy it for me since I really want one.  Hey the only job I could find with my general studies degree pays below the 'living wage' I think YOU should pay the difference.   It's not my fault I partied like a rock star all through college......

Um.....can someone explain to me why all of these conversations seem to take place as though the "European model" isn't going into the shitter faster than we are?

Let me see if I have this straight: These morons want free tuition...which means that I now have to pay for that portion of the cost that it takes to educate the little darlings over and above what I pay in taxes to cover the cost of their education not covered by tuition?
 

Here's what I want to know, why are they doing the OWS in Europe?  And explain this to me, all these 99 percenters are whining and crying about having alot of student debt or not having the latest iphone or not getting a job they feel pays them as much as they are worth and they want more.  Are these guys being greedy?  Here they are yelling about how the 1 percenters have more than they do, yet these people have more than 80 percent of the 7 billion people in the world.  It really makes no sense to me.  I could understand if they were doing this because of people in third world countries, but they aren't.  Their doing it because in some way they feel cheated and they somehow deserve more regardless of what they bring to the table.

> Where is the incentive to achieve if you must give it all away? <

Look at the language, give it ALL away. When would anyway say that give all away, never, unless it was Jesus but we are not discussing P&R, so I will not go into that.

I am not talking about the working class of people who already give so much in hard time. I am talking about the rich people. Who can give. They already sit on top of millions to billions of dollars. It wouldn't kill them give some away. If they don't want to give, let them invest in something that create Jobs at least.

I have seen people in my life who have earned so much but the Greed would never go away.
If you owed them even 1 cent, they would want that. People have so much Greed in their eyes that if a person was dying front of you, you won't even call the Ambulance in case you had to pay medical bills.

This is the type of world we live in.

-Muj ;-|

I am not talking about the working class of people who already give so much in hard time. I am talking about the rich people. Who can give.

Ahh but now we are back to definitions of who is rich and who is working class. Once you define those for me we can start talking.

I am not talking about the working class of people who already give so much in hard time. I am talking about the rich people. Who can give. They already sit on top of millions to billions of dollars. It wouldn't kill them give some away.

This assumes that there is a point where the so-called 99% would stop asking for more. It won't happen. The collapse of the European model is showing us that.  How can you look at what is happening in Greece and even begin to believe that those who are prone to demand things from others ever reach a point where they stop doing it?

For some reason you guys think poor people are living high on the hog from the sweat of your labor. You blame them for the ills of the country.   But when it comes to YOUR PERSONAL tax breaks, well that's just common sense that it's ok?

You have a kid, you get a tax break. Have more - get more tax breaks.  So if we made the same money, you'd be paying less in taxes than me - why?   It was YOUR CHOICE to have kids!  And by having those kids, you're using much more resources.  That drives the price of those resources up, and again I have to pay for your choice. Now, those kids need to go to school - my taxes go to pay for that.   Again - not my choice, why do I have to pay?   YOU should be paying more in taxes than me - not the other way around!  

The child tax credit goes into your pocket.  It doesn't do a thing for Social Security.

For some reason you guys think poor people are living high on the hog from the sweat of your labor. You blame them for the ills of the country.

No, but they share the blame. It is is easy to ask for a dole when you do not have to contribute to the pot.

beetos, you said the gov't took your money and gave it to me.  I agree if we make the same I would pay less in taxes than you would, but that's a far cry from someone giving me your money.    Most of the people I know on gov't assistance are not living high on the hog, that's the reason they are in the OWS movement, but they are more happy than if they were working.  Remember they are greedy AND lazy.  Sure it was my choice to have kids, now your bitching they drive up the cost of resources?  I don't get the corralation.  I agree, you shouldn't have to pay for school.  Now why should I be paying more in taxes?  But I do, last time I bought something for my kids.....guess what I had to pay taxes.  A family of 5 eats more, guess what we pay taxes on food.  And no the tax credit does not go into my pocket, as it never came out.  See the difference.  And yes unfortunately, my children will be paying your social security and mine.  Again lack of forethought on your part. :)  What about the house.  Since I own a house I should have to pay more in taxes also (federal and local)?

The child tax credit goes into your pocket.  It doesn't do a thing for Social Security.

Um....so who is going to pay for the money that you take out of the SS system over and above what you put in?

That would be my kids, but I don't think he understood that.

Your family uses more resources, thereby creating more demand.  Demand results in price increases.  Lack of demand would result in price decreases.

Income taxes and sales taxes are different - you're railing against "deadbeats living off your hard work"  because the government is paying them to do so - that's from INCOME TAXES, the same ones that you get a KICKBACK from for having your kids and your house and it goes into YOUR POCKET.

>> And yes unfortunately, my children will be paying your social security and mine.  Again lack of forethought on your part. :)

And yours as well?  Are you saying social security is a bad thing?  Meanwhile corporations are constantly saying they can't afford to pay pensions for workers- what they don't mention is the reason they can't pay pensions to the workers is they stole the money from pension plans in a myriad of ways including "golden parachutes" for their executives.  Those plans were not only solvent but had surpluses less than a decade ago.

>>> Remember they are greedy AND lazy.

They're neither, and you're way off base.   A survey today showed that only 15% of protesters are unemployed.  Your letting your own preconceived notions distort your understanding of the situation.

Here's the reason they are protesting, in chart form so you can understand.  This is what they're complaining about, and they're undeniable facts.  They aren't asking for a handout or even a hand up. It's the feet on top of their heads they don't like:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10#lets-start-with-the-obvious-unemployment-three-years-after-the-financial-crisis-the-unemployment-rate-is-still-at-the-highest-level-since-the-great-depression-except-for-a-brief-blip-in-the-early-1980s-1

If you care to read rather than cast blind aspersions, they've come up with a list of suggested demands.  I didn't see any that said anything about taking your money so they could hang out in the park and smoke pot, or ending capitalism, or giving everyone a living wage for doing nothing:

https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/

Here's the first entry:

1. Implementing an immediate ban on all private contributions of money and gifts, to all politicians in federal office, from Individuals, Corporations, Political Action Committees, Super Political Action Committees, Lobbyists, Unions and all other private sources of money to be replaced by the fair and equal public financing of all federal political campaigns. We categorically REJECT the concept that money is equal to free speech because if that were so, then only the wealthiest would have a voice. These actions must be taken because it has become clear that politicians in the United States cannot regulate themselves and have become the exclusive representatives of corporations, unions and the very wealthy who spend vast sums of money on political campaigns to influence the candidates’ decisions and ensure their reelection year after year.

Beetos,

Doing that plan allows wealthy politicians, such as Romney, to dominate the campaign.  Those with less personal wealth have virtually no chance.

Take Bloomberg, mayor of NYC.  Per your favorite site, the huffington post, he spent $108 million of his own money for a third term.  How is anyone else able to compete?

But if i were to make bumper stickers, this would be a great seller to the OWS deadbeats.

>>A survey today showed that only 15% of protesters are unemployed.

The rest must have a helluva vacation plan.

>>Liberals hate freedom.  They believe that the government knows what's best for you, and that individuals are too incompetent as to make their own choices.

Do Conservatives believe the Republicans know what's best for them? Are they too incompetent to make their own choices on issues? It is rare to hear an original thought on an issue against the conservative norm. Pretty similar.

This is why I choose to be Independent. I make my own choices.

Here a good one from Howard Stern concerning the protests.

http://nation.foxnews.com/wall-street-protests/2011/10/19/howard-stern-exposes-occupy-wall-street-morons

>>Here a good one from Howard Stern concerning the protests.

Nice post, Tlingit.  

"Abolish money"

"I poop anywhere as long as I have baby wipes"

"I like to live life like socialists"

"I want a job so I can buy weed"

[why are you here protesting today?]
"uh...um...we're protesting...uh...um...."


Is this the future of America?

Occupy protester raped in Cleveland

http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2011/10/18/occupy-cleveland-protester-alleges-she-was-raped/

Protesters robbing each other

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/criminal_occupation_oh3CnKANUqYHrGPCaZaLRK

>>Is this the future of America?

Nope.

This is, however, your typical Liberal thought and Obama supports this along with majority of Democrats.  They like this kind of stuff.  This is right up the President's ally.  He was after all a community organizer.

LOL, I can't stop laughing.

>>Protesters robbing each other

Not really a shock.  Robbing someone that has more than they is why they're there in the first place.

She had her macbook stolen that cost $5500.  Really? And she's protesting what?

>>Obama supports this

Obama will support anything that is anti-American: Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Michelle Obama (US is mean), and now this group of maynard g krebs beatniks.

I just heard some interesting statisitcs about the protesters.  15% of them are unemployed so 85% of them have jobs.  Also there are only 6000 protesters in NYC, which is not a lot but I thought there was a lot more.

>>which is not a lot but I thought there was a lot more.


Well, they do the damage of a lot more people, so that's probably where you're getting that.

>>"I poop anywhere as long as I have baby wipes"

My youngest, he's two and a half, would fit right in with these protesters as long as he has his baby wipes.  Oh, wait, he probably wouldn't, he's potty trained.  Oops, my bad.  One less protester.

I like this video about OWS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6iBXubcOWc

-Muj ;-|

Let's see, let's take more from the 1%, well that's not enough to put a dent in anything, let's take it all.  Well we still need more, let's do the top 10%, well we still don't have enough.  Didn't somebody say anybody people making over $250,000 is rich, well let's take what they have.  Seems kind of like what's happening in Greece.

Rape, robbery, and defecation as a means of statement are all deplorable acts.  No question about it.  

While certain elements have chosen to take advantage of the protests, this is NOT the aim, the goal, nor is it condoned.

You guys are so eager to condemn the protesters, you're entirely missing the point.  You allow the Tea Party to use vague ideological ideas and say they have meaning, but specific and lucid complaints by OWS go completely disregarded.

That's ok - you can think and say what you like, but the movement has begun.  The protesters will go home eventually, but the ideas will remain, grow, and become more focused.  

The Tea Party has been driving the political conversation radically to the right - instead of working on jobs or the economy, everything has been about the debt.  They're calling for reduced regulations, and at the same time imposing regulations or cutting funding of anything they disagree with ideologically.  

OWS is going to do the opposite, and direct the conversation back to the left ( or even the center, really).  In fact, they've already done it.  Republicans who derided the protesters have since walked it back.  Media reporting is beginning to change - all of a sudden they're reporting more on what the protesters are actually saying than the negative aspects ( except Fox of course), and they're reporting on the issues the protesters are concerned with; student debt bubble, unemployment, corporate influence over politics.  Less about the deficit and divisive ideological issues.   It's just begun, but I'm guessing the trend will continue and grow.

It took the Tea Party years, corporate sponsorship, and Fox News promotions to change the conversation.   OWS did it in by themselves in a month.  Not bad for a bunch of pot smoking deadbeat hippies with degrees in basket weaving.

Beetos, I don't get it.  You seem like a very smart guy.  Do you really believe that nonsense?

>>You guys are so eager to condemn the protesters, you're entirely missing the point.

See the Howard Stern post.  There is no point.  99% of these beatniks don't even know why they're there.

>>Not bad for a bunch of pot smoking deadbeat hippies with degrees in basket weaving.

Don't forget about the baby wipes.  LOL.  That seems to play an integral part of their grassroots and success.  I know, man, it's amazing.  Peace.

>>See the Howard Stern post.

If OWS can't get Howard Stern, I see trouble for them.  I was shocked that Howard Stern was making fun of them.

The average salary of Gov Fed employees in Washington D.C. is $126,000.00.  I think the protesters are protesting in the wrong area.

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

>>Rape, robbery, and defecation as a means of statement are all deplorable acts.

These protesters are nothing like the Tea Party Protesters.  They don't even come close.  The Tea Party's message was and is coherent: Less government and less government spending.

On the other hand the OWS protesters message:


Do you see the difference?

Tling,

Thanks - that's a fine example of what I was saying:

You guys are so eager to condemn the protesters, you're entirely missing the point.  You allow the Tea Party to use vague ideological ideas and say they have meaning, but specific and lucid complaints by OWS go completely disregarded.

Here is some news:

Citigroup to Pay Millions to Close Fraud Complaint

The company agreed to settle a complaint by the S.E.C. that it had defrauded buyers in a $1 billion portfolio of mortgage-related investments.

http://nyti.ms/ridtoY

--

This is what happens when you have no or little regulations when it comes to Banks.

-Muj ;-|

>>This is what happens when you have no or little regulations when it comes to Banks.

The banking industry is one of the most regulated industries there is.  Adding more regulations ends up hurting consumers.

This is what's wrong with liberals like Barney Frank.

He speaks from both sides.  

One side says I'm with the "F*ck the USA" and sh*t on police car protesters, but, on the other hand, he heads to Wall Street to get money.

Barney Frank supports protesters, raises Wall St. cash
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66412.html

@cars

> The banking industry is one of the most regulated industries there is. <

Than explain this to me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2010#Deregulation

-Muj ;-|

You're really going to quote something that starts out with this line?

"Critics such as economist Paul Krugman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner"


These two guys are to blame for the mess we're in now.

Forget the quote read the list of Degulation!!

This is what happens when you have no or little regulations when it comes to Banks.

No, this is what happens when you defraud your clients. Citi situation is pure fraud, similar to me selling you a race nag for a race horse, and then betting that it will die before the race finishes.

>>The banking industry is one of the most regulated industries there is.  Adding more regulations ends up hurting consumers.

You mean more so than throwing the global economy into the ditch, eradicating $17 Trillion in wealth, decimating the hard work and savings of millions of Americans and creating near double digit unemployment?

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/95689-financial-crisis-cost-households-17-trillion-treasury-official-says

>>"...on the other hand, he heads to Wall Street to get money."

He can ask...

Gural also noted that Frank isn’t counting on Wall Street cash, since the financial reform law, Dodd-Frank, is even named for him. “There are people in the industry who are seriously not happy with him,” and will not be showing up at his fundraisers, Gural said.

For example, about six months ago, members of the financial industry declined to attend another Frank fundraiser. “The feedback that one of our people got… was, ‘Barney Frank, are you kidding?‘“Gural said.

...and how in your mind is Krugman to blame??
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66412.html#ixzz1bKxtA5oO

>You mean more so than throwing the global economy into the ditch, eradicating $17 Trillion in wealth, decimating the hard work and savings of millions of Americans and creating near double digit unemployment?

Whose wealth? Investors, and eventually tax payers after the bailouts. Banks took a risk and lost, it is our fault for giving them the safety net.

Barney Frank taking WS money is like Obama's good friend, Louis Farrakhan, taking money from David Duke.



>>eradicating $17 Trillion in wealth,

If you don't like it then you shouldn't support a party that pushes bad loans.

Here is another article about the kind of people this OWS attracts.  It is quite alarming.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19150644?nclick_check=1

>>Whose wealth? Investors, and eventually tax payers after the bailouts. Banks took a risk and lost, it is our fault for giving them the safety net.

Our 401k's and retirement savings.  You know, the stuff we were supposed to do to prepare for retirement so we wouldn't need to depend on Social Security?     Not to mention the equity that so many worked so hard to build in their homes.

>>If you don't like it then you shouldn't support a party that pushes bad loans.

WTF???  Now I'm starting to think maybe you're really Eric Cantor.

One thing from the Barney Frank article that gives me pause:

Frank said he supports the movement “to the extent that they obey the law” and that he wishes “that kind of energy was around two years ago when we were voting on the financial reform bill. We’d have a tougher bill.”

NO!  That's what our elected leaders are supposed to be doing.  That's why they're protesting.  We bailed out the "too big to fail" banks with no restrictions, and virtually no interest.   They used the money to buy other banks ( got bigger ), and send lobbyists to Washington armed with millions of dollars with the purpose of gutting the new financial regulations.  We, the people, shouldn't need to take to the streets to have the politicians who are supposed to be representing us actually do so.

Our 401k's and retirement savings.

Right, your investments.

> No, this is what happens when you defraud your clients <

And it happened because of lack of regulation.

> Banks took a risk and lost, it is our fault for giving them the safety net. <

The money wasn't a free handout. They lost, they got to pay up.

-Muj ;-|

But it was a free handout Muj;

We "loaned" them money, but at about zero interest.   When does a bank ever lend money to anyone at zero interest?  Especially when they're financially challenged?

A credit card company, for example, would use your hardship to RAISE your interest rates on money you've already borrowed - up to about 30%.  

> We "loaned" them money, but at about zero interest.  When does a bank ever lend money to anyone at zero interest?  Especially when they're financially challenged?  <

Look we didn't ask them to lend out money at 0% interest. We ask them to lend money out to reliable businesses. They didn't. They still have a huge amount of that money. They even gave Bonuses to their employees while millions of people went unemployed.

-Muj ;-|

Exactly Muj!

...not to mention they also used that money to  lobby Congress to weaken the new regulations they were trying to impose.

>>Look we didn't ask them to lend out money at 0% interest. We ask them to lend money out to reliable businesses. They didn't. They still have a huge amount of that money. They even gave Bonuses to their employees while millions of people went unemployed.

Are you talking about GM?

The United Auto Workers union won $5,000 signing bonuses and the possibility of sweeter profit-sharing checks as part of a new four-year contract with General Motors Co., two people briefed on the talks said Saturday

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/GM-UAW-agree-on-profitsharing-apf-4068756496.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

First of all Cars, it was a negotiation and you're cherry picking one detail to try to insinuate something.  

The deal also will include creative ways to cut GM's hourly labor costs. GM pays around $56 per hour including wages and benefits, which is less than what Ford pays but far higher than other companies like Chrysler and Hyundai Motor Co.

Second, the auto industry collapse was a result of the financial meltdown caused by the bailed out banks.   The auto industry did not CAUSE the issue, then ask for help, and then screw over the people they're supposed to be helping.  In fact by your own statement the opposite is shown to be true; they actually may have improved things for their workers.

Third, there were far more restrictions on the GM  bailout than the bank bailout.  You may have complained about Gov't takeovers of GM,  Gov't telling us what kind of cars we could buy,  Gov't Motors, etc.

So no, we're not talking about GM.  We're talking about the Wall St. bailouts.

Nice piece of attempted spin doctoring on your part though.

>>Second, the auto industry collapse was a result of the financial meltdown caused by the bailed out banks.

Caused by unsustainable pensions, health costs, union wages.


>>In fact by your own statement the opposite is shown to be true; they actually may have improved things for their workers

That's my money they're paying some union thug to take 6 breaks an hour.


Billions lost in that deal.

>>Caused by unsustainable pensions, health costs, union wages.
Caused by no one being able to buy a damn car.   Caused by the financial meltdown.  Caused by WALL ST!!!!

>> Billions lost in that deal.
Until they sell all the stock, nothing's been lost.

The workers pay taxes too - so having them employed is a good thing for the country.

>>That's my money they're paying some union thug to take 6 breaks an hour.
You wail about unemployed people being lazy - now the employed are lazy too?  

And obviously, you have no idea what a union thug is.  I'll give you a clue - it's not a guy working 9 - 5 for an hourly wage.

>>Until they sell all the stock, nothing's been lost.

I already told you it has to go up 140%.  Not going to happen.



>>Caused by no one being able to buy a damn car.  

You don't pay $40 an hour for a job that can be done by a monkey.

 

Man, you just won't be happy until the USA is a 3rd world country.  On every issue you take the side of driving down wages.   Good news for you, your side is winning:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/us-incomes-falling-as-optimism-reaches-10-year-low_n_1022118.html

Earlier today I accused you of being Eric Cantor, but now I'm thinking maybe you're one of the Koch brothers?  A cousin maybe?

>>Good news for you, your side is winning:


Obama, February 2009: If this economy hasn’t rebounded in three years, I’m a one-termer

Why are these beatniks protesting GE and Obama?
GE's profit is soaring and they pay ZERO in taxes.  Not a damm dime.

Oh, and it just happens that the CEO is buds with Obama and the CEO is on Obama's jobs council.


GE's Profit Climbs 57%
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204618704576644674279972688.html

>>Why are these beatniks protesting GE and Obama?

NOT protesting, that is

>>>>Why are these beatniks protesting GE and Obama?

>>NOT protesting, that is

I'm pretty sure if you ask any of the OWS about GE, you will get a resounding negative response. GE is the epitome of the corporate demon to the OWS crowd. Huge profits and paying no taxes through loopholes.

> No, this is what happens when you defraud your clients <

And it happened because of lack of regulation.

Has nothing to do with regulation. It is illegal to steal as is. The reason Citi paid the fines is because they were found guilty of braking the law (actually they settled without admiting any fault, but in todays world its the same thing.)

Face of the OWM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLSvK2eIoBs&feature=player_embedded

>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLSvK2eIoBs&feature=player_embedded

That dude was sexy.



Beetos, any idea which candidate gets the most money from Wall Street?  Does anyone know?

Sure.  

Mitt Rommey.

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/683477/romney%27s_raised_more_than_twice_the_wall_st._cash_as_obama..._why_does_the_wapo_say_the_opposite/

President Obama so far gets the most.  Watch the following video.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/1229651599001/occupy-support-hypocrisy/?playlist_id=86923

According to O'Reilly:

Obama got $16 million from Wall Street
Romney got only $7.5 million from Wall Street
Perry got only $2 million from Wall Street

You are right Tlingit.

The Washington Post reported Wednesday its analysis of contribution data reveals Obama has raised more from the financial and banking sector this year than all of the GOP presidential hopefuls combined.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/10/19/Obama-pulling-in-Wall-Street-donations/UPI-18421319065415/#ixzz1bRWDPpUK

Well if Bill O of Fox News said it, it must be true, right?  Because they're "Fair and balanced!"  Especially during their opinion shows.

It's interesting to note that Bill O uses the same numbers from the Washington Post article, which distorts the story.

From my link:

Well, the WaPo included not only cash that Obama has raised on Wall Street for his campaign, but also for the Democratic National Committee

From Cars' link:

Apart from the nearly $12 million he helped raise for the DNC, Obama has raised $3.9 million from the finance sector for his own campaign committee, compared with Romney's $7.5 million and nearly $2 million by Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Beetos, not sure where you're going?   None of what you said changes what both Tlingit and I have said.

So here you have it.  Both Barney Frank and Obama say they agree with the "F*ck the USA" protesters yet they are more than willing to take a handout from the Wall Street fat cats.  Not to mention Obama's in bed with a huge corporation, GE, that pays absolutely zero in taxes and has a 57% profit increase.

Hypocrisy to the max.

There must be a GIGANTIC bed at the Whitehouse if it can hold Obama, his wife, and a huge corporation!

The unfortunate reality is that to be competitive in elections, you need $$$$$

That's what the OWS is railing against; the influence of $$$$ over our politicians, and the fact that a corporation like GE can make gazillions and pay nothing.    

Now, do you agree or disagree with the OWS protesters in that respect?

>>There must be a GIGANTIC bed at the Whitehouse if it can hold Obama, his wife, and a huge corporation!

One can only imagine.  You must remember he has to have his teleprompter in their as well, otherwise he wouldn't be able to lie to the American people on the daily basis.

Nice one Tlingit :)

>>Both Barney Frank and Obama say they agree with the "F*ck the USA" protesters

I'm pretty sure they didn't say **We agree with the F*ck the USA" Protesters**. They probably made the  statement more along the lines of "We agree with the OWS protesters."

Like most groups, the majority is nothing like the few extremes. They aren't all crapping on police cars and have their faces painted or dressed as vikings and weird stuff. You can't possibly believe that just as I don't believe all the Tea Party are off-the-edge fringe conservatives, but there are some there.

There are the few bad examples in both groups. The media and internet focus on the weirdos because they are the most interesting, but the majority are pretty normal people just fed up with the system, even if they have no solutions.

>> Obama got $16 million from Wall Street
Romney got only $7.5 million from Wall Street
Perry got only $2 million from Wall Street <<

Didn't I say Democrats and Republicans are the same. They are in the pockets of Banks and Corporations.

--
BTW cars where the hell are you getting "F*ck the USA" from? I have not heard anyone in OWS say that.


-Muj ;-|

>>BTW cars where the hell are you getting "F*ck the USA" from? I have not heard anyone in OWS say that.



Occupy Portland Protesters Sing “F*ck the USA”
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=30755

Occupy Portland: Protesters Sing F*ck the USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeuGx8PplAo

>>I'm pretty sure they didn't say **We agree with the F*ck the USA" Protesters**.

Obama has a long history of anti-American connections.  Only makes sense he would agree with these beatniks.



These people are the same as Maynard G Krebs:

...whenever the word "work" was mentioned, even in passing, he[Maynard] would yelp "Work?!" and jump with fear or even faint

Some people saying a song 'F*ck the USA'. Means all of OWS are saying it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck_the_System

http://www.metrolyrics.com/fuck-the-usa-lyrics-exploited.html

-Muj ;-|

>>Didn't I say Democrats and Republicans are the same. They are in the pockets of Banks and Corporations.

Yes, but Obama likes to demonize the rich, Wall Street, and corporations, but yet he doesn't mind receiving money from them.  If he truly didn't like these sort of people, he wouldn't accept their donations.  That's the difference.

>>Obama has a long history of anti-American connections.  Only makes sense he would agree with these beatniks.

Again, this in no way Obama saying **We agree with the F*ck the USA" Protesters**

Totally false and totally sensationalist statement with no fact whatsoever. I'm surprised carsRST, you usually have a link to a source for something like that.

> If he truly didn't like these sort of people, he wouldn't accept their donations.  That's the difference. <

Every politician is in the pockets of Coropartion or the Banks. People on street know which side Obama is on & it isn't their.

-Muj ;-|

>>Totally false and totally sensationalist statement with no fact whatsoever. I'm surprised carsRST, you usually have a link to a source for something like that.


It's very logical.  Obama has always aligned himself with anti-American individuals and movements.

Obama's pastor of 20 years: God damn America

Obama's terrorist friend, Bill Ayers: "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough"

Occupy wall street (supported by Obama): F*ck the USA

> It's very logical <

That's not logic, that's called stupidity.

-Muj ;-D

It's like the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon.

How many steps does it take from Obama to get to something anti-American?

> How many steps does it take from Obama to get to something anti-American <

Reminds me of the following video:
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=i1s4fj-5zlk

-Muj ;-|

>>It's very logical.  Obama has always aligned himself with anti-American individuals and movements.

>>Obama's pastor of 20 years: God damn America

>>Obama's terrorist friend, Bill Ayers: "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough"

>>Occupy wall street (supported by Obama): F*ck the USA

Again, these are all points to prove your often stated "Obama is Anti-American." None of them prove Obama stating **We agree with the F*ck the USA" Protesters**

>>None of them prove Obama stating **We agree with the F*ck the USA" Protesters*


Obama: "we are on their side"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-occupy-wall-street-we-are-their-side_598251.html

> Obama: "we are on their side" <

Oh for God's sake it a bloody song. Kids these days hear alot worst music than that.
F this and F that..

Here are the lyrics to the song:
http://www.metrolyrics.com/fuck-the-usa-lyrics-exploited.html

-Muj ;-|

>>Obama: "we are on their side"
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-occupy-wall-street-we-are-their-side_598251.html

Exactly my point. Saying "We are on their side" is not saying "We agree with the F*ck the USA" Protesters".

Big difference to saying you are with a movement, as opposed to saying you are with the extreme fringe of that movement.

> Big difference to saying you are with a movement, as opposed to saying you are with the extreme fringe of that movement. <

How the hell are they a extreme fringe of the movement.
They are singing just a bloody song!
You can even see the lyrics of song to see why they are singing it & it's only two people singing it.

I don't even know how cars can make a link to Obama.

-Muj ;-|

CBS news announced on the radio this morning that the OWS has been bothering and intefering with the local residents. Sounds like the city will be moving in on them soon.

>>Every politician is in the pockets of Coropartion or the Banks. People on street know which side Obama is on & it isn't their.

But if you remember during his campaign he promised to change how things were done in Washington?  I didn't vote for him so I didn't fall for his BS, but millions of Americans did fall for this and voted for him.  The media made it look like he was the literal Second Coming and if you didn't vote for him your were racist.

The media made it look like he was the literal Second Coming and if you didn't vote for him your were racist.

I'm not sure that using the past tense is proper here.

Tea Party full of patriots that clean up after themselves.  


OWS full of "F*ck the USA" protesters, rapists, thieves, bombers, shootings, vandals, beatniks, lazy bums, etc...

Occupy Maine camp attacked with chemical bomb
http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article/177145/314/Occupy-Maine-attacked-with-chemical-bomb

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/10/24/accusations-of-teen-runaway-sexual-activity-at-occupy-dallas/

Teen Runaway Sexual Activity At Occupy Dallas
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/10/24/accusations-of-teen-runaway-sexual-activity-at-occupy-dallas/

Shootings way up in two weeks
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/shootings_way_up_in_two_weeks_rajGrOA0bMpTBslidEUgOI


And yet the Democrats align themselves with OWS and mock the Tea Party.  Does that make any sense?

Democrats/Liberals like to say what is good (Tea Party) is bad, and what is bad (OWS) is good.  Their moral compass is all messed up.  It will be to their demise for supporting these protesters.

I liken our society to this scriptural passage:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Isaiah 5:20

I know I am going to take a lot of heat for putting the above Bible scripture, especially from the Liberals, but this is how our society is turning out.  I will probably take more heat from people for posting this passage than all the illicit acts that OWS protesters are doing combined.  They have come to accept that people can pee any where, take a dump anywhere, have sex anywhere, rape anyone anywhere, shoot anyone anywhere, but we need to look past this because they have an important message, whatever that message is, I don't know, not even Howard Stern could figure it out.

>> Their moral compass is all messed up


Democrats will do anything for a vote.

Look at the stories:

Occupy Maine protesters camped out in Portland's Lincoln Park were attacked early Sunday morning when someone lobbed a chemical bomb at them

I guess Tea Party folks don't like them.

-
Police were alerted after someone recognized the girl from a picture seen on a flyer asking for help locating a missing teen

First she runs away from home and goes to place full of strangers. You will always find people taking advantage of the situation. No everyone at the OWS rallies is their to support them.
Some people are there to see show.

-
Four high-ranking cops point the finger at Occupy Wall Street protesters, saying their rallies pull special crime-fighting units away from the hot zones where they’re needed.

And who makes such a decision, the Cops themselves. They need "Special Crime Fighters" for a few people protesting. The Police is there for the show as well.

--
@Tlingit

I hope this doesn't offend you, the Tea Party, the Corporations/Banks, the Republics or the Conservatives.

For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it. But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that. Those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

Ref: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206&version=NIV

-Muj ;-|

Muj, that was good, I find it funny that the people in the OWS want more stuff......stuff they are unwilling to work for.  The tea party, well they just want to keep the stuff they've worked for.  All the OWS is about is getting stuff.  These people already live better than 80% of the people in the world, they are not fighting for these poor people, what they want is a new iphone or they want someone else to pay for them to stay in school and get a 5th degree.  I want free stuff I make up the 99%.

Can anyone show me a website where conservitives are banding together to go to the OWS and act crazy to discredit the OWS, I can find hundreds for libs to do it to the tea party.  No, I think it's easy enough for the libs to make themselves look silly.  I WANT FREE STUFF!!!  I AM THE 99%!!

@bergertime

> Muj, that was good, I find it funny that the people in the OWS want more stuff <

You have misunderstood my comment and I don't why people like you are in the illusion that OWS want more stuff or like others say the want something for nothing.

There are different things they want:
1. People made accountable for the recession (Banks who got greedy)
2. Banks to be sued. They were given the money on loan, to bail them out & for them to forward that money to business, so they could create new jobs. Instead the very first they did was pay Bonuses to their employyees. Than they turned around and said the money wasn't enough and they were in more debt and needed more money. They still are holding a lot of Tax payers money.
3. Corporation & Rich people to pay their share of taxes. Why is it that normal people have to pay more Taxes than the people at the top. These people got Tax subsidies  & exemptions for years while they turned into billionaires or millionaire. If they don't want to pay taxes, at least invest money to create new jobs. Instead they simple pay off the Democrats & Republicans because it cheapers to buy politicians than investing or paying higher taxes.

Tea Party don't want less government they simply want Obama & Democrats out of the White House.

-Muj ;-|

>>Tea Party don't want less government they simply want Obama & Democrats out of the White House.

Amen to that.  If it means getting Obama and Democrats out of the WH to have less government and the government to spend less, so what, they need to go.

Muj, because they either want more or they want others to have less.

1. Do you include in here al the people who bought houses they could not afford, or charged up their credit cards to high to pay down?  Or is it just those nameless banks?
2.Hey I ran my business into the ground, loan me some money, I won't do what you tell me to do with it.  Who's the sucker?  The Gov't
3.Here it states to be in the top 1% you have to make $343,xxx.  The Top 1% make 17% of the nations wealth and pay 37% of the nations taxes.  Seems like they do a lot.  How much do the bottom 50% pay in taxes?

It makes no logical sense.  We gave the banks money to give to businesses to create jobs, but here's your solution, let's just take more from these businesses in the form of taxes.  You want businesses to have more money in order to create jobs......what does taking money from them do?  Create less jobs?  

And yes the OWS is about getting more stuff.  It's not fair I don't have stuff I'm not willing to work for, please go take it from that guy.  I also find something funny about all the Dems lining up behind the OWS and 99%'s.  Isn't Obama, Peliso in the top 1%?  I can hear it now "We make all kinds of money, you should take it from us.".  Mighty nice of them.  Kinda like Buffet owing back taxes for the last 9 years.  Go ahead tax me more cause I just won't them.  HAHA!

@bergetime

> 1. Do you include in here al the people who bought houses they could not afford, or charged up their credit cards to high to pay down?  Or is it just those nameless banks? <

Let see now, who lend out money to the people, hmm let me guess.. oh yes the Banks.
I personal know people in the construction industry who were give loans up to €3 million just for a housing state. Banks thought the housing market will never go burst. They gave money to people with bad credit. They invested money in other banks and other investments. Why the hell do think it is a Global problem. If Greece goes down, it might effect the EU and it turn the USA.


2.Hey I ran my business into the ground, loan me some money, I won't do what you tell me to do with it.  Who's the sucker?  The Gov't

Again who lent the money. It didn't fall from the Sky, did it now.

> Create less jobs?  <

Small Business and even Medium Size Business are not corporations.
Hence I made the point:
These people got Tax subsidies  & exemptions for years while they turned into billionaires or millionaire.

You also didn't answer the point on the Banks, which most people like you ignore.

>   Isn't Obama, Peliso in the top 1%? <

People are not fools, that why I made the point:
Instead they simple pay off the Democrats & Republicans because it cheaper to buy politicians than investing or paying higher taxes.

-Muj ;-|

I'm not sure what your point on banks was......are you saying banks are bad?  I love my bank, it has been a great asset over the years.

2. I thought it was the Gov't, that's why I put 'Gov't.

Small Business and even Medium Size Business are not corporations. I didn't realize the two were mutual exclusive.

My point is people are fools.......Obama's gonna 'get' that top 1%......really, he is the top 1%.  Warren Buffet......"Please, pretty please, let me pay more taxes.".  I say pay the taxes you already own, but libs cheer him.  Repubs say, "Yeah, I may be rich, but with hard work you can too.".  Dems follow a guy who demonizes who he is....go figure.

Oh yeah...... I WANT FREE STUFF, I AM THE 99%.

@ bergertime

> I'm not sure what your point on banks was. <

Than go back and read it.

> I love my bank, it has been a great asset over the years. <

That because they lend money out to you or your one of those bankers who got a Bonus.

Repubs say, "Yeah, I may be rich, but with hard work you can too.".

Its easy to be rich, simply become a banker!

Oh yeah...... I WANT FREE STUFF, I AM THE 99%.

Who asked for Free stuff. Go back and read my previous post in which I made the point. Which you ignored and say I don't understand because you don't have any answer to them.

-Muj ;-|

Did you read these?  It sounds like they all want stuff to me.  How many of them say I have xxxx in student loans......

I did reread your post and all I gleamed from them was you hate banks.  Yeah, my bank loans to me.....must be the way I smile when I walk in.

I still can't find the point you made that you're looking for an answer to.

Berger,

Student debt now outweighs credit card debt.  It is a major issue, as grads cannot get jobs to pay the debt, and end up in default before they can repay.  PS Not all of them took basketweaving.  

Now, how about this very specific sentiment from their list of suggested demands ( none of which, by the way, is give us stuff for free)?:


CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year.

Please tell us, do you agree or disagree with that sentiment?  Or please enlighten us how that is only the rambling of a freeloading deadbeat?

>>Student debt now outweighs credit card debt.  It is a major issue, as grads cannot get jobs to pay the debt, and end up in default before they can repay.  PS Not all of them took basketweaving.  

I worked two jobs to pay for my college.  Then lived within my means after school to pay off the debts.

I absolutely guarantee these include Eastern European art, philosophy, recreation and leisure majors.

Sorry - but there are no guarantees.  Not up to me to fund the loan of someone that has a diploma in a stupid f*ckin major and now has no job.

I absolutely guarantee these include Eastern European art, philosophy, recreation and leisure majors.

Sorry - but there are no guarantees.

I guarantee you don't know what the protesters studied in college.  I also guarantee that tuition has increased dramatically since you went to school, while wages for the 2 jobs you had have either stagnated or decreased.

Now, how about this very specific sentiment from their list of suggested demands ( none of which, by the way, is give us stuff for free)?:


CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year.

Please tell us, do you agree or disagree with that sentiment?  Or please enlighten us how that is only the rambling of a freeloading deadbeat?

> I gleamed from them was you hate banks.  <

Clearly you didn't anything. I even put it simply words. Do I need to teach you A to Z now because that seems to complex for you.

> Yeah, my bank loans to me.....must be the way I smile when I walk in. <

Imagine if you can't pay back that loan, where will that smile go?

-Muj ;-D

Beetos I'm cool with that but don't you think it might hurt the govt ability  to hire?

Muj if you teach me a-z I'll teach you math:)

The gov't doesn't seem to have trouble hiring; people spend millions to get these jobs.  

And if people won't take the jobs because they can't make a fortune selling the position out to the industry they're supposed to regulate, then we really don't want those people to take those jobs anyway.

Thanks for answering btw.  I'm not going to accuse you of embracing someone who says F*CK the USA just because you agreed with that sentiment.

>>LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING


How about we just save the money and eliminate the government regulators?  Then we don't have to worry about the federal government telling someone where they can and can't work in the private sector - that is unconstitutional to the max.

> eliminate the government regulators < 

So we can have banks do whatever the hell the want?
Wasn't that cause of the recession.
Yeah, we should repeat the process & destroy the economy.
Actually this is what some people in the Tea Party & Republicans Want:

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/216451/250/Tea-Party-group-Stop-creating-jobs

-Muj ;-|

>>Wasn't that cause of the recession.

Do we have to keep reminding you of this?  No, it was the government forcing banks to make loans they knew people could not afford.  

I'm so tired of saying it.


Now it's the issue of overspending/debt - pensions, unions, labor laws about to do in everyone, from the US to Europe.

Well, well...

Here's probably why Obama, former ACORN attorney, is such a fan of the OWS bums.  

ACORN Playing Behind Scenes Role in 'Occupy' Movement
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/26/exclusive-acorn-playing-behind-scenes-role-in-occupy-movement/

The same ACORN known for all its fraud.

>>The same ACORN known for being the victim of a conservative smear campaign.
Fixed that for you.


It's interesting that Fox news, which supported and hosted the Tea Party is complaining about a group of community organizers organizing to help the community.  Such an outrage!

> No, it was the government forcing banks to make loans they knew people could not afford.  <

You mean the Republicans Government under G.W Bush right?

-Muj ;-)

No Muj,

He's referring to the Conservative myth that the poor caused the global recession.  

>He's referring to the Conservative myth that the poor caused the global recession.  

No, he is refering to the Community Reinvestment Act and changes instituted under the Clinton Administration.

Let's see, you became a bank to all your friends, you loan out a bunch of money to people who can't pay the money back.  What happens?  You go out of business....your other friends that could pay back the loan, can't get one from you cause well you went out of business.  Why is it so hard to see?  Just pull up the 99% website I posted, most of them have posted I owe 50 grand or more for a degree in something useless and I can't pay it back.  You seem to have the idea that the rich put their money in a jar and bury it.  You seem to believe that if we get this one magicall regulation in place everything will be better.  Since I answered your question, please answer me this, what is that one rule we are lacking?  And I know it has nothing to do with >>LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING.  Or is it just we need more regulation in a general sense?  It is just amazing some people will never admit that personal debt levels have/had no impact on the recession.

@bergertime, good point.  Nobody is held accountable in this day and age.  It's always somebody else's fault.  What regulation(s) should be implemented to fix it all?  There is none.  Yet the Liberals are still screaming more regulation, more regulation.  There is so much regulation in this country that businesses can't afford to do business.

>>It's interesting that Fox news, which supported and hosted the Tea Party is complaining about a group of community organizers organizing to help the community.  Such an outrage!

No, what is an outrage is that none of the other news will report this information.  The following article talks about how the others choose not to report on the negative of OWS protesters but yet reported very negative about the Tea Party Protests.

http://nation.foxnews.com/wall-street-protests/2011/10/26/networks-and-cable-still-mostly-silent-anti-semitism-occupy-wall-street-protests

If other news outlets reported on this stuff, I would use their information as well, but they don't.

I got 'stuck' last night watching Hardcore Pawn, it's was amazing to see these people who had pawned something for half it's value and NOT pay to get it out in the time allowed, come back in and blame the pawn shop.  How is it the pawn shops fault?  Maybe we should have an Occupy Pawn Shop movement, because you know if they had more regulations, these people might have gotten their stuff.

And since this thread still seems to active, I just want to point out on the part about >>LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING......Where I work, I have to sign a non compete clause, I don't have a problem with that.  Maybe that's the OWS's holy grail.....but I think that may law is a little simplistic.  For example Kal Penn from Harold and Kumar movies was on Obama's National Arts Policy Committee and now has to make a movie.  Would this be a violation?  Yeah, that's silly.  Don't you want 'Aces in their places.'?  Oh I know, lets put Kal Penn in charge of our missle defense systems, that way he doesn't have to wait 5 years to make another movie.  

> he is refering to the Community Reinvestment Act and changes instituted under the Clinton Administration. <

We can always go back Regan if you like.

--
> can't get one from you cause well you went out of business <

Who went out of business? If they went out of business, who the hell did you paid to bailout?

> Why is it so hard to see? <
Because its not reality!

> I owe 50 grand or more for a degree in something useless and I can't pay it back. <

It just shows you how bad the education system is in the USA, that they would have to pay 50K for a degree in uselessness and here people are talking about Privatization of that, so it goes up.
What about a person who has a proper degree because they seems to ignore, what if they can't get a job? or how about the people who are about to go for education, should we tell them, no need for that?

> You seem to have the idea that the rich put their money in a jar and bury it. <
Actually they put it in banks and a lot of them put it in overseas banks so they don't have to Pay Taxes.

> You seem to believe that if we get this one magicall regulation in place everything will be better <

It would much better than having no regulations at all. You can give any fool a loan.

> Or is it just we need more regulation in a general sense <

When the system front of you has broken down, you need to regulate just like anything else.
You don't want restaurants that aren't up to the health, so why want that for the Banking sector.
If everyone started getting food poisoning are you still going stick to your line of no regulation from the Government.

>  It is just amazing some people will never admit that personal debt levels have/had no impact on the recession. <

That's not true all. The truth is that everyone got greed. The fancy cars, the homes, the exotic holidays and so on and most people had to Pay the price for that, losing homes, jobs becoming homeless. Most people have learned from their mistake.

-Muj ;-|

Community Reinvestment Act was implemented by Jimmy Carter, so before Reagan.

>>No, what is an outrage is that none of the other news will report this information.

My guess is that's why no one else watches these other networks.



>>If everyone started getting food poisoning are you still going stick to your line of no regulation from the Government.

A business is in business to stay in business.  Self-regulation.  Board of health only reviews restaurants probably every 6 months.  Lots of time in between to spit on your burger if you piss the 16 year old running the grill.


Regulations don't work.  

Guys, OWS is already achieving what they wanted in just over a month.

Why just this morning I saw a segment on Fox News discussing wealth inequality.  Of course it was slanted and inaccurate as Fox will be Fox, but at least they were discussing it.  

Berger, it's nice that you are so hell bent on accountability.   OWS wants to hold Wall St. accountable for the damage they've caused.  You should be all about that.

Tling - Jimmy Carter?   You go back 30 years and find fault there, completely ignoring deregulation of the Financial industry in particular the derivatives market which ACTUALLY led to the crash.  But nevermind reality....

BTW - Foxnation?? Really?  That's the red meat propaganda arm of a propaganda outlet!

Muj, are you on my side?  You're sending me mixed signals.  I agree our education system sucks and it's regulated by Gov't regulation.  I agree private run schools are better.  I agree banks put the money over seas to keep from paying taxes, lower the tax rate to increase revenue. I have never said no regulation at all, we are just currently over regualted.  I go back to the 55 mph speed limit set by the feds in the 80's.  
Everyone has learned from their mistakes except for those damn banks....let's get 'em.  But I agree everyone got greedy....well not everyone, I kept wondering what the hell I was doing wrong, oh I was living within my means.  But everyone that got greedy shouldn't be punished, it seems we're still trying to bail them out.

>>Guys, OWS is already achieving what they wanted in just over a month.

How can you tell?  F*ckin' morons can't give a reasonable answer as to what that is.


Should I check with their leaders over at ACORN?

FYI Cars, I read an interesting statistic today.   George Bush at this time in his presidency had implemented more regulations than Obama has.  Not tons more, but more.    

If regulations are stifling business, and the super rich (1%) are the job creators who we need to keep their taxes low, then why has their wealth increased nearly 300% in the last three decades?   Seems like they're doing ok despite the regulations.  

Beetos.....I answered your question, you just blew me off. :(  Perhaps the problem is, is I don't understand the damage Wall street has caused.  What's the purpose of Wall Street?  What's the purpose of any business?  I want my 401k to go up in value.  

Beetos, I would think most of those regulations were put in place to fix previous regulations that had a bad effect.  But wouldn't that argument lend support for cars?  Bush passed a bunch of regs and the whole world crashed.  

>>FYI Cars, I read an interesting statistic today.   George Bush at this time in his presidency had implemented more regulations than Obama has.  Not tons more, but more.    


I'd have to see the stats and type of regulations.  But I don't defend Bush when he acts like a Democrat, which he did from time to time.



>>If regulations are stifling business, and the super rich (1%) are the job creators who we need to keep their taxes low, then why has their wealth increased nearly 300% in the last three decades?   Seems like they're doing ok despite the regulations.

Probably have to ask George Soros.  How many different country's currencies has he phukked up?

Other than trying to emulate them, you shouldn't spend your time worrying about these fat cats.  

See the thing is,  OWS doesn't hate any one for being rich, or getting richer.  What they're protesting against is that the influence of money over our politicians has change the rules so much that it's easier for the wealth to acquire wealth, while incomes for the rest of the country stagnate.  

It's really not that radical of an idea, in fact it's just an observation of reality.  I know the Acorn "nontroversy" is the big front page story, but dig a little on Fox and you'll find the wealth disparity report.  

Berger, you put forth the premise that there's one rule that's going to fix everything and asked what it was.  I don't believe that premise, so I can't give you an answer.

Here is the link to what they're discussing.  I'm not sure they are "official positions" or demands or anything:

http://coupmedia.org/occupywallstreet/occupy-wall-street-official-demands-2009

Among other things they want Wall St. to be held accountable, they want an end to the failed war on drugs, they want to reign in campaign finance, re-instate Glass-Steagle ( which is what really led to the financial meltdown), and to repeal CItizen's United.

>>Among other things they want Wall St. to be held accountable

So do I.  I want no bailouts to anyone, including WS, GM, or any state that drove itself in to the ground with bloated pensions (Illinois, California).



>>they want an end to the failed war on drugs

Why?  So they can smoke more doob?   If you remove the moral aspect, you could make the case that it's economically not feasible.  But I'm guessing these beatniks just want another Woodstock.

Of course you're guessing that Cars, for some reason you're quite biggoted against the protesters.  It must be just killing you to know deep down that the "hippies" are right AGAIN.

No, they want an end to the war on drugs because it costing for economic reasons including the cost of law enforcement, and incarceration, and the prohibition allows drug cartels to gain untold wealth and power.  BTW the drug cartels are an excellent example of industry regulating itself ( or NOT).  And what is the moral aspect?   Why can drug companies sell something to help you sleep better even though it may lead to organ failure, suicide, or death when a weed you can grow in your own back yard can do a better job with little or no side effects?

GM was driven into the ground by..... wait for it..... THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN CAUSED BY UNREGULATED DERIVATIVES TRADING ON WALL ST. THAT WOULD HAVE LED TO A RUN ON THE BANKS!!!!  So I don't mind the Gov't bailing out GM.  In fact, I think it's a good thing.  

California will be ok. Don't know about Illinois. What about the rest of the states that took stimulus money to help with their budgets?  Texas for example?  

Among other things they want Wall St. to be held accountable

I don't even know what this means....it like what's a win in Afgan look like....I don't know.  Hold 'em accountable to what?  And do what with them.  Did they break laws, if yes, then put them in jail.  As far as end the war on drugs.....dream on, they (Gov't) makes far too much money on it like it is now.  Besides, when you say the war on drugs, do you include meth?  Or just grass?  This is just sooooo stupid it's funny.  Drugs are so heavly regulated, thy're illegal and you guys want to roll back the regulations on them.  Isn't there some irony in there somewhere?  When I was in my 20's I was all for all drugs being legal and if someone couldn't handle their vice then fk 'em, as I've gotten older and seen what they can do to people, my position has changed.

Beeto, so your not for something specfic in regards to regulations, your just for passing a bunch and then passing more to fix the ones that didn't work.  

But if what you say is in fact true, that the OWS is saying that politicians should do what the people elected them to do, I agree.  Of course all I've seen is a bunch of whining about how in debt most of them are.

Beetos, are we not being ruled by the hippies of the 60's right now.  

>>when a weed you can grow in your own back yard can do a better job with little or no side effects?


I think we should have the first Experts Exchange reunion party at Beetos's house.

GM was driven into the ground because it sold shitty cars, period.  They have sold shitty cars for years.  Beetos, you've lost your mind.  It was time for GM to fail.  

I just don't get it......smoke a little week with a little or no side effects, yet if I smoke a cigerette, I'm the f'n devil.  I just don't get it, the movement to stamp out smoking, but it's cool to smoke pot.  Libs make no sense to me.

"Without the oxygen to fuel their fire they're very much at risk of losing relevance," from the following article.  In other words Beetos, people are getting fed up with their bullsh!$$, literally.  They must be running out of baby wipes down there.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/occupy-wall-street/2011/10/26/media-interest-occupy-wall-street-wanes#ixzz1bvYOasLi

That's just it Berger;  Wall St. didn't break any laws because through their lobbying efforts they've been able to repeal laws and regulations to allow them to do what they want.  We saw what that led to.  The actions of Wall St. have a tremendous impact on the rest of us, yet the Wall St executives are not elected, do not answer to anyone, and even if they make bad decisions they are rewarded handsomely.  

Meth is terrible.  So is crack, coke, and heroin among others.  Other countries are experimenting with treating this drug use as a health problem instead of a criminal problem and having good success;  yes it's on a small scale but it's worth investigating.

Weed, meanwhile, is the #1 thing the feds can catch because you need so much of it and it has a powerful scent.  Half of all Americans have tried it, including the last 3 Presidents!    

>>>.dream on, they (Gov't) makes far too much money on it like it is now.
EXACTLY!

And no, I don't think we need regulations just for the sake of having regulations.   Same thing with laws - I think both laws and regs should be re-evaluated and some expunged.  Like the NYC law against wearing masks, or some states that have laws against women bearing their knees more than 50 ft. from the beach.  

Whining about debt - that's specifically student debt, which has surpassed credit card debt and is #2 only to mortgage debt.   Tuition has been exploding in recent years. Graduates come out owing $50 - $100 thousand, and no way to pay it back because there are no jobs.  Thing is, we need our populace to be educated.   That's what makes us an advanced nation.  It shouldn't be a possible life ruining event to get an education.

Berger, not everyone over 50 was a hippie, but even so, they were right in the 60's about the war, the Iraq were protesters were right, and now OWS.  

Cigarettes are one of the leading causes of death in this country.  Smoking has a huge impact on health care costs.   Marijuana deaths = 0.   In fact, studies have shown MJ can stop the advancement of some tumors.   Of course, the gov't won't let anyone really study it, and when they do, the results are promptly ignored.  

Tling,  please.  Foxnation?  So in addition to OWS losing steam, I guess Obama really is a secret muslim born in Kenya bent on the destruction of the US?  Sarah Palin really can save the country?  Bush ended the war in Iraq?  

...and Cars,  you can come by anytime buddy.  No need to wait for the reunion ;-)~

Everyone answers to someone and I'm not talking about God.  

So instead of protesting wall street shouldn't they be protesting politicians?  See that's what I don't get....you Muj whose wants somebody to go to jail but no laws were broken.  You want Wll street to work in their own worst interest?  It makes no sense.

While your perfecting you kinder, gentler machine gun with handling drugs, I think we should punish meth dealers, and I'm not talking about some sweet ass prison, make 'em pound sand for 20 hours a day......guess what, meth dealing will dry up.

We agree Gov't sucks, the less the better.

I agree school is too expensive, lets make 'em private.  Let's make teachers perform.  My kid who is in the 1st grade gat a +- for talking......what the f is that.  The teacher said he talks too much, but they don't want kids to feel bad for breaking the rules.  Geez!

They're protesting both;  Wall St., Gov't, and in particular Wall St.s influence on the govt.  They don't want Wall St to act in their own worst interests, but they don't want them to operate at our expense with impunity.

You're talking about grade school, but the discussion is about college tuition.    I went to a public school that was fine - there were plenty of opportunities for students there.  Now that my son is there some 25 years later, it's way better than when I went.  So I don't believe in demonizing all public schools.  Yes there are plenty with problems, but that doesn't mean they're all bad and need to go.  

Yes, gov't sucks, but by and large, ours is one of the best ever.

I do agree that the a+ for talking is BS - hell my wife could have a doctorate by now!

> Muj whose wants somebody to go to jail but no laws were broken.  <

Now when did I say?

-Muj ;-?

>>...and Cars,  you can come by anytime buddy.  No need to wait for the reunion

Beetos, Just save a little of that "backyard produce" for me and Muj.

Why are the Occutards not protesting Obama?


Obama Backers Tied to Lobbies Raise Millions
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/28/us/politics/obama-bundlers-have-ties-to-lobbying.html?_r=2&hp

Despite a pledge not to take money from lobbyists, President Obama has relied on prominent supporters who are active in the lobbying industry to raise millions of dollars for his re-election bid.

http://www.zcommunications.org/occupy-wall-street-v-the-tea-party-by-paul-street