Wall Street Protesters

[quote name='Strell']Willardhaven, I hereby pledge to not let you become a jerk if you ever come into a lot of money. I will protect your good nature by allowing you to give it all to me.[/QUOTE]

We should move this post to Other Deals.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']New study showing that 147 companies control 40% of the worlds wealth. Of course the Top 20 is littered with banks

Would love to hear conservatives defend this as just needing more deregulation and people not working hard enough.[/QUOTE]

No you wouldn't. Because it will be the usual suspects parroting the same baseless opinions unsubstatiated by fact and common sense. It will be the same shit you could see on Fox News or Rush Limbaugh but they will swear they came to their warped perspective all on their own (yeah right). Plus they will claim to be independent while espousing the Republican party platform and being so far up the ass of the rich that they are coming out at the mouth.

Todays CAG conservatives lose every debate they participate in, and lose them badly, and frankly the conversation is just better on the rare times when they keep silent.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']New study showing that 147 companies control 40% of the worlds wealth. Of course the Top 20 is littered with banks

http://boingboing.net/2011/10/22/de...panies-control-40-of-worlds-total-wealth.html

Would love to hear conservatives defend this as just needing more deregulation and people not working hard enough.[/QUOTE]

The 147 number didn't make as big an impact on me as this did:

"In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network,"

Talk about concentration of wealth. Damn.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']I don't quite understand why people are so against this movement.[/QUOTE]

I just want them to say something SPECIFIC. Make actual requests.

Do you want CEOs only to make X ammount per year? Corporate profits capped at X and then the excess shared? (Given to govt?)

Banks to have interest rates of X ammount? (Which banks??)

And not having so many white people with dreads visibly on camera would do a lot to help your credibility as well.
White people. With dreads. :roll:
 
[quote name='eldergamer']I just want them to say something SPECIFIC. Make actual requests.
[/QUOTE]

I'd agree with that.

Past civil disobedience movements (civil rights etc.) had clear goals and changes they wanted.

This movement is just too amorphous right now. It's fine to protest against the concentration of wealth and power--I fully support there calling attention to this huge problem in our society.

But the movement currently lacks any focus in terms of what can be done to fix it. Be it what types of policies need enacted, what political candidates people who want change should support etc.

Even the Tea Party had/has more focus as they're at least united on the anti-big government shit, want to repeal Obama's Health Care plan, cut entitlements, reduce taxes etc. The Occupy movement needs some of those policy talking points if they want to be a true left counterpart to the Tea Party.
 
The lack of a clear focus is the inherent problem of having a movement with an established ideal of not having one individual leader.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']I just want them to say something SPECIFIC. Make actual requests.

Do you want CEOs only to make X ammount per year? Corporate profits capped at X and then the excess shared? (Given to govt?)

Banks to have interest rates of X ammount? (Which banks??)

And not having so many white people with dreads visibly on camera would do a lot to help your credibility as well.
White people. With dreads. :roll:[/QUOTE]
You can always participate and attend GA's to hasten the pace, but I've already addressed your qualms several times in this thread. Each city is it's own organization and as a whole, they're trying to organize themselves. It's not a cohesive movement with centralized power; it's a direct democracy model.

As for the hippies, that's just something that the corporate media is trying to delegitimize the movement with, but judging a movement because you find some of the participants lame is something people should think about. Seriously.

[quote name='dmaul1114']I'd agree with that.

Past civil disobedience movements (civil rights etc.) had clear goals and changes they wanted.

This movement is just too amorphous right now. It's fine to protest against the concentration of wealth and power--I fully support there calling attention to this huge problem in our society.

But the movement currently lacks any focus in terms of what can be done to fix it. Be it what types of policies need enacted, what political candidates people who want change should support etc.

Even the Tea Party had/has more focus as they're at least united on the anti-big government shit, want to repeal Obama's Health Care plan, cut entitlements, reduce taxes etc. The Occupy movement needs some of those policy talking points if they want to be a true left counterpart to the Tea Party.[/QUOTE]
Sure, but the Civil Rights Movement took decades to coalese into the form that we saw it ending up with. To assume that the occupy movement can get to that in a month is completely unrealistic...especially when considering that the local government at each site reacts fairly differently.

And in case you forgot about how the Tea Party coalesed: It was organized by think tanks funded by corporations, actual "news" media personalities funded by corporations, framed by corporate media conglomerates, and actual politicians funded by the same corporations. Not to mention that most teabaggers were always the hardcore right-wing of the party anyways. So I don't see the movement being the left analog of the teabaggers, nor should it be because then it'll be co-opted by the dems, which is almost as bad as being co-opted by the cons.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']The lack of a clear focus is the inherent problem of having a movement with an established ideal of not having one individual leader.[/QUOTE]
Pretty much.
 
[quote name='dohdough']As for the hippies, that's just something that the corporate media is trying to delegitimize the movement with, but judging a movement because you find some of the participants lame is something people should think about. Seriously.[/QUOTE]

Good point. You rarely see smear campaigns against rich people unless they are celebrities, politicians, or breaking the law in a way that just can't be ignored (talking Skilling, Raj, Madoff...)

Murdoch is linked to some of the biggest crimes on the planet and more then half the articles on that guy are puff pieces (oh wow his wife saved him from a guy with a pie, tell me more :roll:)

I'm not saying smear campaigns are the way to go, but it's telling that the media looks to only pick on the small fish who can't fight back...
 
Wall Street Journal with a piece on how the 1% have been devestated by the bad economy as well. It talks about how this poor beuty queen trophy wife could not finish her 90,000+ Sqft home.

My favorite line though is

Recently, the family boarded a commercial flight for a vacation, making for some confusion. One of the kids looked around the crowded cabin and asked, "Mom, what are all these strangers doing on our plane?"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...38981631627402.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Wall Street Journal with a piece on how the 1% have been devestated by the bad economy as well. It talks about how this poor beuty queen trophy wife could not finish her 90,000+ Sqft home.

My favorite line though is



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...38981631627402.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories[/QUOTE]
Her husband fired 6,000 people from his time-share scheme...I mean company...and still lives in the type of luxury that should be shameful. When they put people against the wall, they'll be one of the first.

edit: I mean that figuratively of course. I don't think anyone should be killed because they lived a reprehensible life of oppulence. Striping them of enough assets down to what would allow them to live modest life is good enough for me.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']I just want them to say something SPECIFIC. Make actual requests.

Do you want CEOs only to make X ammount per year? Corporate profits capped at X and then the excess shared? (Given to govt?)

Banks to have interest rates of X ammount? (Which banks??)

And not having so many white people with dreads visibly on camera would do a lot to help your credibility as well.
White people. With dreads. :roll:[/QUOTE]

I disagree with this, they do not need any specific requests. True it makes it harder to appease them, but our representatives should be the one's trying to find a way to take their dislike of the current situation and form policy positions.

I fail to see how the onus of constructing policy is necessarily always based upon the individual pointing out a problem, especially when most of the time ideas formed by mob mentality are not always the best and eventually allow the opposition to attack and water down a movements points and ideas.
 
Here's the first third of what I think should be the rules. I know there is bo way on hell it'll be implemented, but it's be what I'd have in my ideal world in my mind... Wrote this up a week ago, and haven't give back to it. Read it if you want, but like I said, I font expect any of it to happen, nor really even a second person who'd agree with all of it.

• Raise capital gains tax higher than wages. (It absolutely does not make sense to me when someone gets taxed less when they sat on their ass raking in $1 million, than an ER doctor making $200,000.)
• Raise the gift tax and estate tax to a really high amount, say 90%. (You shouldn't be born into debt, so the reverse should be true -- you shouldn't be born into wealth. Under this system, if you had $100 million, your kids are still way better-off than 99% of the world still, with $10 million after taxes.)
• If you donate 80% to a general charity fund, you're free from the 90% estate/gift tax. (Of course, the point of the 90% tax isn't meant to be a real source of government revenue, but to fight the accumulation of wealth, while putting that money to good use. A general fund, so they can't set up fake charities.)
• Add incentives for entrepreneurship for small businesses.
• Lower the cost of higher education. (Let's face it, we're falling behind compared to the world, so anyone qualified should have the opportunity.)
• Cap private school rates. (Seriously, $250k for a bachelors in liberal arts is stupid, 99%of the time.)
• Dispel the notion that everyone needs to go to college. (Setup more alternatives paths, like trade schools and apprenticeships. Joe Schmo doesn't need $30k + of debt for a bachelors in English before becoming a mechanic.)
• Cap bank interest rates. (Missed a payment, and your interest goes to 30%? Thatmight as well be robbery.)
• Cap salaries and bonuses. (Seriously, why does anyone need $50 billion?)
• Eliminate the $2.13 per hour wage for the tip-based industries, and do away with mandatory tips. (This is basically deception for most people, when a $20 plate of foods is actually $25. Pay them the correct wages, and raise the prices of food instead.)
• Simplify the tax code, and not the 9-9-9 system. Take into account cost of living in some way. (Something like $0-40k 0%, $40k-$60k 10%, $60k-$100k 20%, $100k-$250k 30%, $250k-$500k 40%, $500k-$1M 50%, $1M-$5M 60%, $5M-$10M 70%, $10M+ 80%.)
• Remove most deductibles, other than charities and dependents. (= 18.)
• No tax cuts for being married. (Honestly, I knew married couples who paid more filing jointly, so it's mostly a stupid idea anyways. Make marriage less about money.)
• Remove tax cuts for mortgage interest. (Seriously, people who don't have houses have to foot the bill for those who do? Ridiculous. Instead, make housing interest less, because even at 4%, a 30 year mortgage means you pay the bank more than your loan amount in the end.)
• Cap the amount of pay for entertainers. (Average NBA salary is $5M, NHL $1.83M, NFL $1.33M. Average soccer salary is like $300k, and average European basketball salary is something like $500k. Still very handsome salaries, if you ask me.)
• Cap the amount agents, I.e. real estate, show business, can earn. (No offense, but I have a problem with someone with no talent making millions because they were at the right place at the right time. Get $600k for selling a $10 million house?)
 
[quote name='dohdough']As for the hippies, that's just something that the corporate media is trying to delegitimize the movement with, but judging a movement because you find some of the participants lame is something people should think about. Seriously.[/QUOTE]

I agree with this. :D
 
Anonymous has announced "Operation Fox Hunt" for November 5th. They say that Fox News conservative bias can no longer be tolerated. They point out how they have been attacking the OWS people as "dirty, smelly, hippies" etc etc for weeks now and that their outright lies and twisted logic can no longer be tolerated.

They claim they will start by bringing down the Foxnews website but have other attacks planned including things to give them a taste of what it feels to be insulted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa_FzQV5fpE
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Anonymous has announced "Operation Fox Hunt" for November 5th. They say that Fox News conservative bias can no longer be tolerated. They point out how they have been attacking the OWS people as "dirty, smelly, hippies" etc etc for weeks now and that their outright lies and twisted logic can no longer be tolerated.

They claim they will start by bringing down the Foxnews website but have other attacks planned including things to give them a taste of what it feels to be insulted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa_FzQV5fpE[/QUOTE]

Guess we'll remember, remember, the fifth of November?
 
I agree with dohdough on this one. The Civil Rights Movement had very little concrete goals. They wanted to end segregation and give black and other minorities equal rights (mainly through voting) but there was very little planning on the hows.

Go back and listen to MLK's speeches and there are very few concrete demands. He wanted his children to be able to play with white children. You could say that was possible already. I think he really meant on the school playground. He wanted people to be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. That's one demand that still hasn't been fulfilled.

Busing programs, affirmative action, and other facets of what LBJ signed into law are at odds with MLK's demand for pure equality.

OWS is a fledgling movement that isn't anywhere near it's MLK moment but everybody wants things instantly. The Civil Rights Movement was given the opportunity to find grass roots support in the black AND white community. Somehow, OWS has to find some more capitalists to realize that the system can't continue like this. We have to get them to realize that everybody will be better off if the 99 receive a bigger piece of the pie.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']OH NO NOT Anonymous! They are going to take down a website for ten minutes!!!1!!11![/QUOTE]

okay, you finally made me giggle with one of your trite one liners.

[quote name='depascal22']I agree with dohdough on this one. The Civil Rights Movement had very little concrete goals. They wanted to end segregation and give black and other minorities equal rights (mainly through voting) but there was very little planning on the hows. [/QUOTE]

personally, i'd go so far as to say a good barometer of any protest movement's status as a genuine organic, grassroots movement can be found in whether or not there is a cohesive message behind it. if it is clear, be skeptical that the grassroots are actually astroturf. if the message is confused and quite messy, but has overall thematic unity, then yeah, it's organic.

that they don't have a clear message is a good sign. tells me that this is not a fraudulent movement.
 
I still don't get the animosity toward these protesters. I mean, the CEOs and Wall Street traders have reason to dislike them but the vast majority of Americans are either A) in the same boat as the protesters and unwilling to see that or B) not in the same situation as the protesters but nevertheless aren't "rich" enough to be threatened by their goals anyway...

Then again, for some people sometimes its just really easy to hate a protester because they're deviating from the social norm.
 
Not sure if this goes here or in the stay classy thread...

Occupy Wall Street (Hearts) Wall Streetby Ann Coulter 10/19/2011

The
worst thing about Occupy Wall Street is that it's ruining a good cause:
hating Wall Street. Just when opposing Wall Street was gaining
momentum, these brain-dead zombies are forcing us to choose between
thieving bankers and them.

If the Flea Party were really
concerned about the greedy "Wall Street 1 Percent," shifting money
around to make themselves richer and everyone else poorer, their No. 1
target should be George Soros​. (Aliens Gyorgy Schwartz, 1930)

Of course, we don't know exactly how much money Soros has, since he keeps all his money in offshore bank accounts.

We
do know that Soros has been convicted of insider trading. And we know
that his general modus operandi is to run around the world panicking
sovereign nations, so he can pocket the difference when their currencies
collapse.

But the Occupy Wall Street protesters love Soros! It's Fox News they hate.

Last
week, the great minds of the OWS movement, bored with playing bocce
ball and getting stoned, decided to protest at the homes of Wall
Street's robber barons. They then proceeded to walk right past George
Soros' apartment building in order to protest at the homes of Rupert
Murdoch and David Koch.

THEY'RE NOT WALL STREET!

You may
not like Koch and Murdoch's products -- fertilizer and media -- but
neither one has anything to do with Wall Street. Unlike money
manipulators such as John Corzine​ (Democrat), Robert Rubin​
(Democrat) and George Soros (Democrat and Obama's biggest supporter),
Koch and Murdoch make money from corporations that actually produce
something.

They take risks, make things and get menaced by the
government. Wall Street schemers take no risks, produce nothing and get
bailed out by the government.

Even assuming, for purposes of
argument, that Koch and Murdoch are as evil as these morons seems to
think, the protesters call their demonstration "Occupy Wall Street," not
"Occupy Businesses Whose Products We Disapprove Of."

This would be like protesting the Holocaust by walking past Adolf Hitler's house and protesting at O.J. Simpson's house.

The
Flea Partiers try to win good will by pretending to protest "Wall
Street" -- but they ignore Wall Street's villains. They claim to speak
for 99 percent of Americans, but their sponsor, George Soros, would be
delighted if America collapsed and the 99 percent were impoverished. All
he cares about is his own power and pocketbook.

Recall that when
the markets first opened after 9/11 and little grandmothers in Iowa
were patriotically calling their local savings banks to find out how to
buy a share of stock so that the American stock market wouldn't crash
because of the terrorist attack, Soros said: Sell, sell, sell!

Now he's helping the cretinous Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Liberals love mob movements because you can't get mobs to think, which is perfect for Democratic ideas.

Do the Wall Street protesters even know that Obama got more money from Wall Street than any other candidate, ever?

These
pea-brained protesters either admire or have never heard of the most
egregious of the Wall Street looters and their co-conspirators: Barack
Obama, Bill Clinton, Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson, Rahm
Emanuel, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank​. Democrats all!

They
have no idea that George Soros has a hand-in-glove relationship with
the Democrats, having bought a whole slew of them, including Obama, Al Gore​, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden​, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, John Corzine, Barbara Boxer​, Mary Landrieu, as well as the Democratic National Committee.

Hamptons-vacationing, helicopter-flying, Russell Simmons​ party-attending New York bankers always give about 80 percent of their political contributions to Democrats.
And the Democrats always return the favor.

In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton​
repeatedly bailed out his friends at Goldman Sachs and Citibank under
the tutelage of his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin -- former chairman
of Goldman Sachs. U.S. taxpayers were fleeced to prop up nations that
were about to default on risky bonds purchased by Goldman and Citibank,
such as Mexico (in 1995), Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea (in 1997),
and Russia (in 1998).Of course, if the bonds turned a profit, only Goldman and Citibank would benefit.This
is the Democrats' idea of "capitalism": Rich, Democratic-donating
bankers get to engage in wild risk-taking; if the bets pay off, they
keep all the winnings, but if the bets lose, they still keep the
winnings, and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.Democrats
are firm believers in the welfare state for their own constituents,
whether that's a crack addict mother of five or a Wall Street banker.Are
the protesters aware that the Democrats' 2010 "financial reform" bill
provides for future bailouts of reckless banks? Goldman Sachs and
Citibank strongly supported the bill.The protesters don't care
-- they have no interest in actual malfeasance by actual Wall Street
bankers. They're too busy denouncing Fox News. (Which did not,
incidentally, receive a taxpayer-funded bailout.)And these are
the intellectuals of the Occupy Wall Street movement! Never mind the
ones who just think stuff should be free and America is the moral
equivalent of al-Qaida. They either know that they are benefiting Wall
Street looters or are utterly brainless.Given a choice between
Wall Street looters and protesters defecating in the street, throwing
rocks at police and chanting "F—k the USA," most people will choose Wall
Street.As always, the mob is serving liberalism.

God I love her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8WQM-KVFwE
 
New York cops defy order to arrest hundreds of ‘Occupy Albany’ protesters
New York state troopers and Albany police did not adhere to a curfew crackdown on protesters urged by Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) and Albany mayor Gerald Jennings.
...
With protesters acting peacefully, local and state police agreed that low level arrests could cause a riot, so they decided instead to defy Cuomo and Jennings

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/...rder-to-arrest-hundreds-of-occupy-protesters/

:applause:
 
[quote name='camoor']http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/...rder-to-arrest-hundreds-of-occupy-protesters/

:applause:[/QUOTE]
Just to put a little context into this: The police and firefighter unions have been having issues in that area, so this adds an extra dimensionas to why local law enforcement isn't breaking out the riot gear like the government is proposing.

[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']If only the military had done the same for the last sixty years.[/QUOTE]
Sixty years is a bit too short, don't you think? ;)
 
[quote name='dohdough']Just to put a little context into this: The police and firefighter unions have been having issues in that area, so this adds an extra dimensionas to why local law enforcement isn't breaking out the riot gear like the government is proposing.


Sixty years is a bit too short, don't you think? ;)[/QUOTE]

I have been hoping for awhile now that the police union would get behind the protestors. First off it would lend a lot of power/attention to the protestors. Second though the only way to defend the city would be something like National guard which would again bring a lot of attention to this movement.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I have been hoping for awhile now that the police union would get behind the protestors. First off it would lend a lot of power/attention to the protestors. Second though the only way to defend the city would be something like National guard which would again bring a lot of attention to this movement.[/QUOTE]
I know what you mean. The problem is that the police enforce the interests of the 1% and not the 99%. While they're in riot gear to keep people fenced in as opposed to protecting them from outside threats, it's important to remember that. I don't really see the police unions openly supporting this movement though.

I certainly hope that the national guard doesn't get brought it though because historically, people tend to get killed when that happens in these types of situations.
 
Mayor Reed sounds like he's full of shit. I'd also like to add:

Reed “must not be a Christian, because if he was, he would know if the clergy come out here, they would have to be on the side of the people that’s occupying this because they’re talking about justice and talking about equity,” Beasley said. “If the clergy comes out and if they’re familiar with the scripture, and they are, then they would have to be on the side of the people and against the mayor.
I wouldn't count on it.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I certainly hope that the national guard doesn't get brought it though because historically, people tend to get killed when that happens in these types of situations.[/QUOTE]


On the bright side, Neil Young might end up writing another legendary song if that happens. Output has been a little iffy since Greendale is all I'm sayin'...
 
Looks like OccupyOakland just got evicted this morning(5 fucking AM) by tons of cops using tear gas. There are rumors of children in the area, but it's confirmed that the cops also hit the tents set up by corporate media as well.

One video(the police start the assault at around 17 minutes: http://ows.bylinebeat.com/post/11933577103/video-occupyoakland-live-steam

There are tons of others from local news copters that were filming the raid live.

This is some serious shit here people. I wish I could say I'm surprised by such a militarized response, but we all know better and I am no less disgusted by such action.

I don't even have the words for this shit...
 
Not a free pass for the behavior of the public officials, but...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...-occupy-oakland-encampment-arrest-dozens.html

On Oct. 17, the first sexual assault was reported. But camp leaders declined to allow police and fire officials to conduct patrols.

By the following day, city officials said in a statement, "We began to receive numerous complaints of threatening, intimidating behavior…. public health and safety requirements were being ignored."
More sexual offenses, fighting and public drunkenness were reported. Officials also said one resident of the encampment had been severely beaten.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Not a free pass for the behavior of the public officials, but...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...-occupy-oakland-encampment-arrest-dozens.html[/QUOTE]
If your goal wasn't to legitimize excessive police force, then what the fuck is your point?

And in case you haven't noticed, almost all corporate media outlets are making the movements out to be drug-infested dens of hippies and homeless that assault one another...sometimes sexually while playing drums.

Maybe you should think about the implications of these actions by the state instead of jacking off to your own bullshit.
 
[quote name='dohdough']If your goal wasn't to legitimize excessive police force, then what the fuck is your point?[/QUOTE]

There are, as always, two sides to every story.

Perhaps, when you hear the other side, instead of shaking your head and ignoring it because it doesn't fit into your preconceived belief system, you should consider the possibility that there's more going on than you know.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']There are, as always, two sides to every story.

Perhaps, when you hear the other side, instead of shaking your head and ignoring it because it doesn't fit into your preconceived belief system, you should consider the possibility that there's more going on than you know.[/QUOTE]
You wouldn't know what the "other side" is if it shot you with rubber bullets and launched tear gas canisters at you.

And somehow, the status quo is the "other side?" Gimme a fucking break.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You wouldn't know what the "other side" is if it shot you with rubber bullets and launched tear gas canisters at you.

And somehow, the status quo is the "other side?" Gimme a fucking break.[/QUOTE]

I'm curious - what solution would you provide?

Sexual assaults and beatings. At what point do the authorities step in and how far should they go? Do they wait until someone is murdered? Perhaps a one of these children you seem concerned about ("Won't someone think of the children?!?") Should the police just stand outside the park, holding up a sign that says "Hey, will that dude who raped that chick yesterday please turn himself in?"

You know, I bet it's secretly Tea Party members who have infiltrated the ranks of OWS that are in there beating and assaulting people. I bet Murdoch himself was in there smacking some old ladies around.
 
*wonders how many Rapes are reported at your average college campus week in week out*

I also think using this logic we must now demand that the American military disperse. Their rape rates are completely unacceptable.
 
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-10-26/why-occupy-wall-street-now-more-popular-tea-party

Diane Rehm show has an hour long episode on The Occupty Wall Street movement today. What makes this a bit different(besides the fact that Diane Rehm actually is pretty fair handed to everyone)is that she has a representative of the OWS movement on for the full hour. She also throughout the show has been doing phone in interviews with people from affiliated groups like Occupy Chicago and SanFran.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm curious - what solution would you provide?

Sexual assaults and beatings. At what point do the authorities step in and how far should they go? Do they wait until someone is murdered? Perhaps a one of these children you seem concerned about ("Won't someone think of the children?!?") Should the police just stand outside the park, holding up a sign that says "Hey, will that dude who raped that chick yesterday please turn himself in?"

You know, I bet it's secretly Tea Party members who have infiltrated the ranks of OWS that are in there beating and assaulting people. I bet Murdoch himself was in there smacking some old ladies around.[/QUOTE]

:rofl: Every day you shred what's left of your credibility that much more...
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']:rofl: Every day you shred what's left of your credibility that much more...[/QUOTE]

You speak like he ever had any credibility to begin with.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']My dad calls me about as much for it. My wife reffers to me as an old man. I love Diane Rehms show as well as Talk of the Nation and Its all Politics.

On a separate note I found this great chart showing Tea Party vs OWS
http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/123/Tea_party_vs_occupy.jpg

Sad but true[/QUOTE]
Hahaha...nice!

Thanks for the link to the show. The guests were Very impressive in regards to being able to articulate their thoughts and stay on message in a very deliberate and easy to understand way. I don't think the representatives are typical of the occupation, but it's pretty clear to anyone paying attention that what they were saying IS consistant with the spirit of the movement and how it's organized.

I'm not a huge fan of NPR, too neo-liberal for me sometimes, but it's as good as you're going to get with factual and somewhat balanced non-sensationalized news in the country. Rehms sounds pretty old, but she's still pretty sharp even though her delivery can be slow at times.

And lemme help you with that pic..heh;)

Tea_party_vs_occupy.jpg
 
bread's done
Back
Top