Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose? (OWS vs. Nativity)

[BigBallinStalin]

So do you balk at collectivization programs, or mass egalitarian polices implemented by the Soviet Union?

If not, then why? Where do you draw the line?

Usually around myself, excluding myself from everything.


--Andy

WAT

[Phatscotty]

I'm afraid the unions are attempting to co-opt the grassroots movement that started here in Manhattan. Still, the vast majority of these protesters are here on their own expense, and their numbers are growing every day, especially since the Tony Bologna pepper spray incident.

Hopefully, the Tea Party and these guys can come to some sort of agreements.

Grassroots huh? Here we go again!

How can it be grassroots when it was planned over a year ago and they have free health care clinics on site and their food is being payed for and many other things? A lot of these protesters are subsidized.

I have a slice of sympathy for these protesters as far as what I think their message is, but still can't be sure because not only is there no coordinated message or goal, it also seems like there are a lot of anti-capitalists and anarchists there which is not exactly my crowd. However my mentor told me yesterday that tearing the system down and recreating a new one is the only option. Not sure about that since I am way more plugged in than he is but he has always been accurate in the past so we'll see. I am heading down to "Occupy Minneapolis" in a couple hours so we'll see

[Phatscotty]

Hard to come to an agreement with people who want to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism.

No middle ground, nope, none at all.

Jeez, you're worse than scotty. And that's saying something.

so....then...what is the middle ground?

[thegreekdog]

I am heading down to "Occupy Minneapolis" in a couple hours so we'll see

Get a job you Communist hippie!

[Phatscotty]

Hard to come to an agreement with people who want to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism.

No middle ground, nope, none at all.

Jeez, you're worse than scotty. And that's saying something.

lol i was just thinking the same..

/

wtf? Funny how I actually do relate to the occupiers. I guess both you and Lootifer are worse than....whatevs

[Phatscotty]

well, the TEA party stands for "taxed enough already" and they were formed during times of historically low taxes in a country that is among the least taxed in the world, so right away their argument seems invalid. i went to a couple of their meetings and am still on their email list. the issue my local chapter seems really fired up about is instituting a back door poll-tax and more military which both = big government to me.

The rates may be low, but the effective tax rate (the amount people actually pay) is much higher than it was before due to withholding money from paychecks and more IRS audits, oversight. When the tax rate was at rates such as 75%, it was also a time where it was much easier to just hide the money and not pay taxes on it.

And what back door poll tax are you talking about?

not to mention, the tea party movement was not a response to current taxes, it was a pre-response to 1.5 trillion in tax increases for Obamacare, not to mention against Obamacare itself, and also against the new 1 trillion in taxes that Obama is proposin in the jobs bill. That's 2.5 trillion in tax increases, not to mention the interest from all the borrowing.

the economy is only doing 13 trillion/year. Given the government already get 2.4 trillion+ (why that isnt enough idk) but now basically they want to raise taxes another 2.5 trillion, well I think with these facts you might conclude the Tea Party response was vaild.

[Phatscotty]

I am heading down to "Occupy Minneapolis" in a couple hours so we'll see

Get a job you Communist hippie!

Mostly because I want to see for myself rather than just listen to what media tells me, but also because I am for ending the Fed AND letting banks fail. Call me whatever you want!

[thegreekdog]

I am heading down to "Occupy Minneapolis" in a couple hours so we'll see

Get a job you Communist hippie!

Mostly because I want to see for myself rather than just listen to what media tells me, but also because I am for ending the Fed AND letting banks fail. Call me whatever you want!

I was just kidding. Let us know (or me) how it goes (and provide a quick estimate of Tea Party types vs. the non-Tea Party types). There is some protest going on in Philadelphia but I'm more concerned about the baseball game (and getting to the stadium) than with whether or not the bailouts are bad three years after they happened.

[Phatscotty]

Must have missed that part... fair enough...

Well, in that case, if/when you have children and they bring out the red crayon for their colouring books, is it going to send you into a nervous breakdown?

I've just never seen someone worry about socialism so much - You do realise there is 0% chance of socialism ever being implemented in the US, right?

I have nothing wrong against the color red. I do have something against using the government to take money from one group and give it to another group (while taking their own large skim off the top), especially when the latter doesn't want to actually work to do earn that money.

Erm, is that actually true? Are you genuinely saying that you have something against the government taxing people to pay soldiers.

I think you might have fallen a little short of truth with that one.

Funny how people equate paying for a military (a legitimate function of our government) with paying unemployed people indefinitely (an illegitimate function of government).

Incorrect, I see government as a legitimate way of transferring money from one group to another in some cases, you claimed to disagree with at as a principal in all cases.

35% waste in government spending is perfectly acceptable, and trusting a government corrupt to the core to redistribute the money honestly is a F'n joke.

[Phatscotty]

I am heading down to "Occupy Minneapolis" in a couple hours so we'll see

Get a job you Communist hippie!

Mostly because I want to see for myself rather than just listen to what media tells me, but also because I am for ending the Fed AND letting banks fail. Call me whatever you want!

I was just kidding. Let us know (or me) how it goes (and provide a quick estimate of Tea Party types vs. the non-Tea Party types). There is some protest going on in Philadelphia but I'm more concerned about the baseball game (and getting to the stadium) than with whether or not the bailouts are bad three years after they happened.

Yeah I'm not bringing my Gadsden or my Betsy Ross, but I am bringing my Bitch

[spurgistan]

Another reason these two things are not the same - Anonymous =/ Dick Armey.

[thegreekdog]

Another reason these two things are not the same - Anonymous =/ Dick Armey.

You do realize that Dick Armey was behind the attempt to take down Facebook, right?

[Phatscotty]

The original question i asked was because I wondered aloud last week if this was the response to the TP, and then I heard Chris Matthews, John King, Dennis Prager, and most recently John Stewart (misinformed) say it was a response/valid comparison to the TP.

[spurgistan]

Not saying the question is invalid, I just find the two things to be apples and (righteous) oranges.

[Phatscotty]

Incorrect, I see government as a legitimate way of transferring money from one group to another in some cases, you claimed to disagree with at as a principal in all cases.

That's because I DO disagree with it in principle. However, there are precise tasks that the federal government is supposed to provide, and of course the people who carry out those tasks should be compensated. The military is a primary function of the federal government, so of course it's ok to use taxes to fund them. However, it's completely inappropriate for the government to pass taxes just so they can buy votes by handing out that money to other people.

You seem to want it both ways, to be able to say that the government should not be in the business of transferring money, and then saying that it should in certain cases.

I appreciate that you like saying that the government shouldn't redistribute money, but as long as you think soldiers should get paid for risking their lives, you're asking for the government to redistribute money in return for services.

Fixed. Hopefully that will help kill this discussion so we can get back to more important issues - like figuring out how to give the Occupy Wall Street protestors a message that will appeal to 99% (rather than 4%).

Here are my ideas:

(1) More mention of the bailouts.
(2) Less stupid college kids talking.
(3) Less 50 something rich magazine contributors and columnists talking about how awesome this movement is (I'm looking at you Krugman).
(4) More Democrat-bashing (I'm in favor of keeping the Republican-bashing).
(5) Less Tea Party comparisons
(6) More Tea Partiers at the Occupy Wall Street protests. If I didn't have a job (that I routinely ignore to type on this site), I would go and bring some Tea Party-appropriate signs (not the sign pimpdave always posts).
(7) Less rich people supporting the Occupy Wall Street protests (I'm looking at you Aqwil Talib or whatever the f*ck your name is)
(8) Less entrenched, mainstream, "I get donations from these Wall Street guys" and "my administration is making sure the Dodd-Frank Act is unenforced" politicians supporting the Occupy Wall Street protests (I'm looking at you President Obama).

If we can get all those things, maybe we'll have some real change.

This, at least most of it.

I do not care for this talk about these people. When I hear there are more coming, I want to laugh. Whatever they are, they are not like us, and that makes them less. We took 100 seats from these people. There was no honor in it. They don't ride well, they don't shoot well. They're dirty. These people could not even make it through one winter here! And these people are said to flourish? I think they will all be dead soon. I think these fools are probably lost!

Your words are strong and I have heard them. It's true that they are a poor people and hard to understand. But make no mistake, they are coming. Even our enemies agree on this. So when I see one of them alone without fear in our backyard, I do not think he is lost. I think he may have medicine! I see someone who might speak for all their people who are coming. I think this is a person with which treaties might be struck.

You are always looking ahead and that is good. But this man cannot put a roof over our heads or feed our children...he is nothing to us! I will take some men. We will shoot this man, and if he truly has medicine, then he will not be hurt. If he has no medicine, he will die.

No man can tell another man what to do, but killing a man is a delicate matter. If you kill one, more are sure to come.

It is easy to become confused by these matters. It is hard to know what to do. We should talk about this more

.

[Phatscotty]

well, The white house says its the same as the Tea Party. Hmmmmmmmm

Carney says Occupy Wall Street is "Democracy" end quote, and that "nobody said anything when the TP did it"

The president is behind Occupy 100%

for the record, over 1700 tea parties, 301 TP express stops, 3 years, 0 arrests, law abiding.
Occupy Wall Street over 1,000 arrests in the first 3 weeks for breaking laws.

pretty much the same. I am glad I made this poll a few days ago cuz the WH is gonna turn up the volume on this.

[thegreekdog]

The original question i asked was because I wondered aloud last week if this was the response to the TP, and then I heard Chris Matthews, John King, Dennis Prager, and most recently John Stewart (misinformed) say it was a response/valid comparison to the TP.

It's not really valid to compare the two since the roots of the grass are the same... it's not their faults that they have been co-opted by the Republicans and Democrats. The original Tea Party didn't want the bailouts. The Occupy Wall Street folks don't want the bailouts. That similarity alone shows the hypocrisy of the media on both sides. The left-leaning folks hated the Tea Party and love the Occupy Wall Streeters. The right-leaning folks love the Tea Party and call the Occupy Wall Streeters Commies.

[Phatscotty]

The original question i asked was because I wondered aloud last week if this was the response to the TP, and then I heard Chris Matthews, John King, Dennis Prager, and most recently John Stewart (misinformed) say it was a response/valid comparison to the TP.

It's not really valid to compare the two since the roots of the grass are the same... it's not their faults that they have been co-opted by the Republicans and Democrats. The original Tea Party didn't want the bailouts. The Occupy Wall Street folks don't want the bailouts. That similarity alone shows the hypocrisy of the media on both sides. The left-leaning folks hated the Tea Party and love the Occupy Wall Streeters. The right-leaning folks love the Tea Party and call the Occupy Wall Streeters Commies.

everyone will always try to capitalize whatever way they can. It doesn't main its the main objective or the end result.

You know I know cuz I'm a TP lover who is going to an Occupy rally. However you could possibly be right about this by the time I get back. At least I will have judged for myself.

[thegreekdog]

The original question i asked was because I wondered aloud last week if this was the response to the TP, and then I heard Chris Matthews, John King, Dennis Prager, and most recently John Stewart (misinformed) say it was a response/valid comparison to the TP.

It's not really valid to compare the two since the roots of the grass are the same... it's not their faults that they have been co-opted by the Republicans and Democrats. The original Tea Party didn't want the bailouts. The Occupy Wall Street folks don't want the bailouts. That similarity alone shows the hypocrisy of the media on both sides. The left-leaning folks hated the Tea Party and love the Occupy Wall Streeters. The right-leaning folks love the Tea Party and call the Occupy Wall Streeters Commies.

everyone will always try to capitalize whatever way they can. It doesn't main its the main objective or the end result.

You know I know cuz I'm a TP lover who is going to an Occupy rally. However you could possibly be right about this by the time I get back. At least I will have judged for myself.

Someone else said this, but the Occupy people have the right idea, they just don't know how to articulate it as well as they maybe should and they aren't including all the right parties. It can't just be Wall Street, it needs to be the politicians as well and they need to have someone speak for them other than moronic rich college kids.

[spurgistan]

Some moronic rich kids -
http://youtu.be/2TF8L2DWhpw
http://youtu.be/CJgWdfZqDj0

[Phatscotty]

throw Anderson Cooper on the list of people who say Occupy Wall Street is the same thing as the Tea Party.

Let the brainwashing begin! Paging Mr. Herman!

Occupy Fed Reserve Bank of Minneapolis video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4VgEJPqFVc

[Nobunaga]

... The left is jealous of the TP movement, there's no denying it. They create and finance their own "grass-roots" movement (immigrants are being paid to hold protest signs in areas now) and get their lapdogs in the media to go along with their story.

... It's pathetic, but the severe lack of anything resembling an articulated and rational demand or argument by the group means it's a complete failure.

... You would think they would have organized a few thoughts first... maybe prepped some flash cards or something.

... The leader or the Cincinnati group was on the radio this morning. The man could not express a demand or an argument that anybody could understand. I almost felt sorry for the guy.

... Pathetic.

...

[Phatscotty]

... The left is jealous of the TP movement, there's no denying it. They create and finance their own "grass-roots" movement (immigrants are being paid to hold protest signs in areas now) and get their lapdogs in the media to go along with their story.

... It's pathetic, but the severe lack of anything resembling an articulated and rational demand or argument by the group is missing from this "movement", so it's a complete failure.

... You would think they would have organized a few thoughts first... maybe prepped some flash cards or something.

... The leader or the Cincinnati group was on the radio this morning. The man could not express a demand or an argument that anybody could understand. I almost felt sorry for the guy.

... Pathetic.

...

You can find a list of Occupy WS demands on Bill Ayers website (the guy who bombed the Pentagon) but remember the Tea Party are the terrorists. The crazier this shit is getting, the more I am buying into Herman Cains brainwashing statements.

[rockfist]

Olbermann was yapping about that stuff that Ayers posted the other day...I thought it was a usual Olbermann rant...I figured he made it up like he does most of his rants...

What I don't understand is how can a leaderless mob that spontaneously appears put forth a semi-coherent list of demands...how do they even build consensus? I could understand it a little more if the protest was organized ahead of time something like "come to this rally to support socialism" or the like, but unless I am mistaken there was no such initial rallying cry.

[Night Strike]

Incorrect, I see government as a legitimate way of transferring money from one group to another in some cases, you claimed to disagree with at as a principal in all cases.

That's because I DO disagree with it in principle. However, there are precise tasks that the federal government is supposed to provide, and of course the people who carry out those tasks should be compensated. The military is a primary function of the federal government, so of course it's ok to use taxes to fund them. However, it's completely inappropriate for the government to pass taxes just so they can buy votes by handing out that money to other people.

You seem to want it both ways, to be able to say that the government should not be in the business of transferring money, and then saying that it should in certain cases.

I appreciate that you like saying that the government shouldn't redistribute money, but as long as you think soldiers should get paid for risking their lives, you're asking for the government to redistribute money.

So you equate welfare and unemployment payments with national defense? So because it's the government's job to provide a military and pay those service members, I automatically support the redistribution of money to people who don't have jobs or think that they deserve taking money from the rich? Because that's the strawman you've apparently convinced yourself of.