Opinion of "Occupy Wall Street"

[angus]

Damn, this is a wide thread.


You think you might be able to scale down that picture a bit snowstalker?

(Just so I don't have to use the horizontal scroll bar.)

Thanks in advance for your attention in this important matter.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

With Obama clearing the field of his compeditors, setting Iran up for the control of the Islamic world, reminded Iran that they could be his target if they don't do things as he, Obama commands - the frame up of Iran, the contention to bomb Saudi officials.

Somehow I get the sense that Iran is as appealing to most of the Muslim world as it is receptive to orders from Washington.

[President Marokai]

You and others will continue to hold up the Tea Party as some example of a dangerous political movement yet turn the other cheek when these people actually get dangerous.

The movement, itself, inherently dangerous? Not really. And the fact that they were a movement itself was also not a problem.

"I and others" (since you're using the ridiculously general accusatory language, I may as well defend "us") got upset with the Tea Party because most of what they were upset over, the reasons behind the movement when it was mainstream, were ridiculous lies. Tea Party members also got upset over preposterous conspiratorial allegations against Obama. The "dangerous" aspect came from Republicans actively encouraging the lowest common denominators instead of acting like leaders and telling them to shape up. Also; the fact that it was not at all a grassroots movement and was funded and organized by billionaires and cable news hosts.

When you can find total equivalence (existence, by the way, does not equal equivalence, just to get that out there) of all of those things in the OWS crowd, people might actually take your BS here seriously. You willfully ignore all of the above in your disingenuous attempt to tear down an actual grassroots movement based on actual public sentiment about real observable issues.

[Keystone Phil]

Also; the fact that it was not at all a grassroots movement and was funded and organized by billionaires and cable news hosts.

Ok, so the people I meet (oh, no! Anecdotal evidence!) are just pawns of billionaires. The grassroots activity that has been such a success over the past few years was all imaginary.

This is what you and yours do when a movement is successful: you cry fraud. "They can't possibly be a group of regular people! It must be the corporations."

When you can find total equivalence (existence, by the way, does not equal equivalence, just to get that out there) of all of those things in the OWS crowd, people might actually take your BS here seriously.

And this is what takes the cake: because billionaires and cable talk show hosts do have a role in the Tea Party, that means they are the entire movement. The movement isn't a movement at all. It isn't grassroots. It's Glenn Beck and the Koch Brothers and Wall Street and...and...and who else can we throw in? "Existence does not equal equivalence...unless I'm using it to prove my point about the bad guys."

 

You willfully ignore all of the above in your disingenuous attempt to tear down an actual grassroots movement based on actual public sentiment about real observable issues.

Have you paid attention to anything I've posted? You cry about the Tea Party being conspiratorial yet totally ignore how your grassroots movement about corporate greed has now turned into a "Free Mumia!" rally in Philadelphia. Then there are those that called for violent revolution in Los Angeles. All of your complaints about the Tea Party can be found here. Yet you still refuse to acknowledge this because it means a) you have to backtrack on your Tea Party trash talk and b) you have to admit that I might have a point. We can't allow that!

[Keystone Phil]

I just can't believe that even someone as disgustingly hackish as yourself could stoop to saying that the Tea Party isn't a grassroots movement "at all." How could someone make such a blanket statement with a straight face? Do you think the hundreds of Tea Party groups across the country all receive checks from the evil big businessmen each week to do what they do?

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Phil, how do you feel about Santorum's reaction to OWS? Do you think that his mentions of income mobility at the debates might have anything to do with OWS?

[bgwah]

You've been a big baby throughout this entire thing. Scumbaggers? That's not even remotely clever. Using rape? Grow up.

"Tea Baggers" is clever? "Using rape?" LOL if you think you and your kind wouldn't be jumping all over an alleged rape at a Tea Party event.

The only babies here are people like yourself, whining about how "unfair" I've been. I'm doing exactly what you do when you hear or see crazy things at other rallies. You don't like dealing with the bad stuff on your side so you throw a hissy fit. Look at your behavior, for example, throughout this thread.

Oh, and please don't tell anyone to grow up. "Keystone Fool." "Keystone Phallus." Definitely grown up!

The sad part is that you think you're winning... that you're effectively proving your point. But if anything you're doing the opposite.

Oh, no! I'm not "winning" over the jackasses here. How depressing!

I think I'm doing just fine proving my point when a) the substance of my posts aren't addressed (yet certain people have the audacity to say that I'm not talking about substance) and b) BRTD responds by posting Tea Party images...which is proving my point.

I don't know why you're attacking me. I recall you even acknowledging how well I behaved when Giffords was shot, despite the ample opportunity to be a hack. Also, putting "unfair" in quotations implies I said that, which I did not. You're the one throwing a hissy fit about the Occupy movement thus far.

But to answer the rest of your questions:
-Teabaggers is certainly more clever than scumbaggers.
-The OWS movement is still quite young. In time, the "Tea Party" movement became more organized, enough that Tea Party organizations could take down congressional incumbents, had major politicians claim to be part of the movement, etc. Obviously some Democratic politicians are eager to turn this into their equivelant of the Tea Party, but whether they will succeed remains to be seen.
-I would definitely argue that the Occupy movement is more ideologically diverse than the Tea Party. Again, that could change as it matures... But there are definitely libertarian and anarchists elements to OWS. Contrast this to what we generally view as liberal in America, and the Democratic Party, and I think so far OWS is more diverse.
-What we hear from the Tea Party more than anything is deficit spending this, budget cuts that, and so on. Yet they were almost completely silent during all eight years of Bush and his budgetary-madness. The movement exploded almost immediately after Obama took over. But Occupy? We're still in Obama's first term. I think this is a key difference between the movements worth looking into.

Personally, I'm going to wait for this movement to mature a bit before I come to such concrete conclusions. If the movement even survives as long as the Tea Party has, which I'm not convinced it will.

[Senator Sbane]

Republican politicians are certainly more closer to the "teabaggers" than the democrats have been to the OWS protesters. The Republicans tried to co-opt that crazy as sh**t "movement" as their own. Democrats haven't tried to do that yet. Even if a random politician here or there has, it's nothing like what the Republicans tried to do with the band of morons. That might make it a little bit of a difference in the "dangerous" factor. I think they are both idiotic movements for the most part, but one was certainly much closer to people with actual power.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't know why you're attacking me.

Uh...because you're the one that responded to me, calling me a baby about this...

Not sure what your behavior during the Giffords shooting has to do with this. Behaving well in one instance doesn't mean you're acting mature in others.

I'm not throwing a hissy fit at all. I'm pointing out the trash elements of this movement and people like yourself are the ones throwing a fit and responding with "But...but...the Tea Party did this! The Tea Party did that!"

But to answer the rest of your questions:
-Teabaggers is certainly more clever than scumbaggers.

In the eye of the beholder, I guess.
 

-The OWS movement is still quite young. In time, the "Tea Party" movement became more organized, enough that Tea Party organizations could take down congressional incumbents, had major politicians claim to be part of the movement, etc. Obviously some Democratic politicians are eager to turn this into their equivelant of the Tea Party, but whether they will succeed remains to be seen.

Ok but I'm not sure of your point here. The one has been fairly successful in achieving its goals electorally and the other has yet to be seen. My point is that it's a Tea Party equivalent because people can point out bizarre signs, causes, etc. at each movement's rallies.

-I would definitely argue that the Occupy movement is more ideologically diverse than the Tea Party. Again, that could change as it matures... But there are definitely libertarian and anarchists elements to OWS. Contrast this to what we generally view as liberal in America, and the Democratic Party, and I think so far OWS is more diverse.

The same can be said of the Tea Party. Tea Partiers range from Paul to Palin types. Tea Partiers have anarcho-capitalist social libertarians and religious populists more concerned with defending Israel. There is more diversity within the Tea Party than people notice.

-What we hear from the Tea Party more than anything is deficit spending this, budget cuts that, and so on. Yet they were almost completely silent during all eight years of Bush and his budgetary-madness. The movement exploded almost immediately after Obama took over. But Occupy? We're still in Obama's first term. I think this is a key difference between the movements worth looking into.

And those opposed to war were extremely vocal during the Bush years yet there aren't nearly as many mass marches against military action in Libya, Uganda, etc.

The Tea Party became prominent because of the healthcare proposal which, despite his fiscal record, Bush never pushed. That's what sent Tea Partiers over the edge, in my opinion. That doesn't mean Bush should have gotten off scott free because of his spending habits but it also doesn't mean Tea Partiers are just pissy because Obama is a Democrat or black.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

And those opposed to war were extremely vocal during the Bush years yet there aren't nearly as many mass marches against military action in Libya, Uganda, etc.

How many actual ground troops are/were being sent to Libya and Uganda? And how many casualties did the US suffer in Libya?

[bgwah]

There you go ahead making up quotes Phil. Quit it. I didn't even say anything even remotely like that. Making up quotes is another one of your losing tactics.

But Ron Paul is a Republican. Libertarinism is a right-wing ideology. Of course they were present at the Tea Party protests.

Were there any major left-wing segments in the Tea Party? Did socialists play a big part of it? I don't think so.

And comparing Uganda to Iraq? That isn't even worth a response...

[Keystone Phil]

And those opposed to war were extremely vocal during the Bush years yet there aren't nearly as many mass marches against military action in Libya, Uganda, etc.

How many actual ground troops are/were being sent to Libya and Uganda? And how many casualties did the US suffer in Libya?

Isn't it the principle of the matter? Not that you have much grounds to discuss this since you're an Obama hack first and foremost and supported the action strictly because Obama authorized it.

There you go ahead making up quotes Phil. Quit it. I didn't even say anything even remotely like that. Making up quotes is another one of your losing tactics.

What quote did I make up? I think you're getting even more desperate now...

But Ron Paul is a Republican. Libertarinism is a right-wing ideology. Of course they were present at the Tea Party protests.

LOL

So that means Libertarians are one in the same with social conservatives. Disingenuous much?

Were there any major left-wing segments in the Tea Party? Did socialists play a big part of it? I don't think so.

There are socially liberal elements of it, yes.

And as long as we're pointing out that socialists didn't play a big role in the Tea Party, let's note the obvious: most of the Invaders aren't far right wingers so don't try to sell me this bill of goods that the Scumbaggers are way more diverse. They're definitely dominated by leftists.

And comparing Uganda to Iraq? That isn't even worth a response...

Someone doesn't understand the point. That's ok though. I'll explain it: when Obama campaigned on ending interventionist military policy, he was embraced by the anti war Left. Whether Uganda is as big as the Iraq War is irrelevant; it goes against one of the fundamental reasons why Obama was embraced by the Left. People on the Left have been very disappointed with this. Don't act like you don't know that just to "prove me wrong." My point is that while they notice the tweeking of his foreign policy stance, they aren't in the streets.

I know you like to be disingenuous. I know your past trollish side comes out every once in awhile. However, please do a better job forming an argument. You've been misleading at best here.

[ChairmanSanchez]

And those opposed to war were extremely vocal during the Bush years yet there aren't nearly as many mass marches against military action in Libya, Uganda, etc.

How many actual ground troops are/were being sent to Libya and Uganda? And how many casualties did the US suffer in Libya?

Isn't it the principle of the matter? Not that you have much grounds to discuss this since you're an Obama hack first and foremost and supported the action strictly because Obama authorized it.

There you go ahead making up quotes Phil. Quit it. I didn't even say anything even remotely like that. Making up quotes is another one of your losing tactics.

What quote did I make up? I think you're getting even more desperate now...

But Ron Paul is a Republican. Libertarinism is a right-wing ideology. Of course they were present at the Tea Party protests.

LOL

So that means Libertarians are one in the same with social conservatives. Disingenuous much?

Were there any major left-wing segments in the Tea Party? Did socialists play a big part of it? I don't think so.

There are socially liberal elements of it, yes.

And as long as we're pointing out that socialists didn't play a big role in the Tea Party, let's note the obvious: most of the Invaders aren't far right wingers so don't try to sell me this bill of goods that the Scumbaggers are way more diverse. They're definitely dominated by leftists.

And comparing Uganda to Iraq? That isn't even worth a response...

Someone doesn't understand the point. That's ok though. I'll explain it: when Obama campaigned on ending interventionist military policy, he was embraced by the anti war Left. Whether Uganda is as big as the Iraq War is irrelevant; it goes against one of the fundamental reasons why Obama was embraced by the Left. People on the Left have been very disappointed with this. Don't act like you don't know that just to "prove me wrong." My point is that while they notice the tweeking of his foreign policy stance, they aren't in the streets.

I know you like to be disingenuous. I know your past trollish side comes out every once in awhile. However, please do a better job forming an argument. You've been misleading at best here.

Phil it finnally occured to me--your never present on the forum during debates. Never during Santorum interviews, or events...I seriously believe you actually are Rick Santorum XD.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Phil it finnally occured to me--your never present on the forum during debates. Never during Santorum interviews, or events...I seriously believe you actually are Rick Santorum XD.

Phil is far more hostile to OWS than Santorum has been. Here's Santorum on OWS:

"You create a moral hazard in the future when you allow people who did things that are clearly illegal and immoral to get away with it and be compensated richly for it."

”I certainly understand the frustration... I think the answers they have with respect to solve that problem, I would go in a different direction.”

It's not a glowing review, to be sure, but has any other non-libertarian Republican candidate been more receptive?

[white trash heroes]

I agree with most of what you've said but...

But Ron Paul is a Republican. Libertarinism is a right-wing ideology. Of course they were present at the Tea Party protests.

LOL

So that means Libertarians are one in the same with social conservatives. Disingenuous much?

Were there any major left-wing segments in the Tea Party? Did socialists play a big part of it? I don't think so.

There are socially liberal elements of it, yes.

Libertarianism isn't 'socially liberal,' it's incredibly hostile to social liberalism (as practiced by american liberals, obv.). Probably more so than a lot of mainstream "conservatives" actually on quite a few issues (racial discrimination laws, "safety net," foreign policy, etc.). Just because there's some overlap occasionally between libertarians and 'liberals' on certain issues doesn't imply they're at all the same thing or even motivated by the same things when it comes to the issues they agree on. So as far as the Tea Party goes the libertarians are definitely one of the more reactionary elements of what's basically exclusively a "right-wing" movement, other than the WN infiltrators (not to imply some aren't both).

Someone doesn't understand the point. That's ok though. I'll explain it: when Obama campaigned on ending interventionist military policy, he was embraced by the anti war Left. Whether Uganda is as big as the Iraq War is irrelevant; it goes against one of the fundamental reasons why Obama was embraced by the Left. People on the Left have been very disappointed with this. Don't act like you don't know that just to "prove me wrong." My point is that while they notice the tweeking of his foreign policy stance, they aren't in the streets.

Obama never campaigned on "ending interventionist military policy," he campaigned on ending the Iraq War so we could focus more on Afghanistan. And obviously plenty of liberals are pro interventionism, look at the support for "UN peacekeeping" and "humanitarian intervention/aid."

[bgwah]

There you go ahead making up quotes Phil. Quit it. I didn't even say anything even remotely like that. Making up quotes is another one of your losing tactics.

What quote did I make up? I think you're getting even more desperate now...

You said, and you even put in quotes:

"But...but...the Tea Party did this! The Tea Party did that!"

Sorry, but I never said that. And you're not even paraphrasing. This is a common tactic you use when you're losing a debate. And you say I'm getting desperate? lol

But Ron Paul is a Republican. Libertarinism is a right-wing ideology. Of course they were present at the Tea Party protests.

LOL

So that means Libertarians are one in the same with social conservatives. Disingenuous much?

I said I thought OWS was more ideologically diverse than the Tea Party. That doesn't mean I said the Tea Party doesn't have any diversity. The Tea Party was a diverse grouping of right-wing ideologies. OWS has both left and right elements.

Were there any major left-wing segments in the Tea Party? Did socialists play a big part of it? I don't think so.

There are socially liberal elements of it, yes.

Occupy and the Tea Party are about economic issues. Not that I'm convinced social liberals were a major segment of the Tea Party.

And as long as we're pointing out that socialists didn't play a big role in the Tea Party, let's note the obvious: most of the Invaders aren't far right wingers so don't try to sell me this bill of goods that the Scumbaggers are way more diverse. They're definitely dominated by leftists.

I agree they're mostly leftists.

And comparing Uganda to Iraq? That isn't even worth a response...

Someone doesn't understand the point. That's ok though. I'll explain it: when Obama campaigned on ending interventionist military policy, he was embraced by the anti war Left. Whether Uganda is as big as the Iraq War is irrelevant; it goes against one of the fundamental reasons why Obama was embraced by the Left. People on the Left have been very disappointed with this. Don't act like you don't know that just to "prove me wrong." My point is that while they notice the tweeking of his foreign policy stance, they aren't in the streets.

I know you like to be disingenuous. I know your past trollish side comes out every once in awhile. However, please do a better job forming an argument. You've been misleading at best here.

Sending 100 military advisers to a country isn't even remotely similar to lying to the nation to invade a foreign nation with something like 150,000 troops. If calling me a troll is the best you can do here, you're getting desperate indeed.

[Wrecking Ball and Chain]

And those opposed to war were extremely vocal during the Bush years yet there aren't nearly as many mass marches against military action in Libya, Uganda, etc.

How many actual ground troops are/were being sent to Libya and Uganda? And how many casualties did the US suffer in Libya?

Isn't it the principle of the matter? Not that you have much grounds to discuss this since you're an Obama hack first and foremost and supported the action strictly because Obama authorized it.

Uh, no? Maybe to a handful of people but I doubt most protesters against the Iraq War were stating that they were opposed to military action under any circumstances whatsoever. There weren't many protests when the Afghan war started either.

Someone doesn't understand the point. That's ok though. I'll explain it: when Obama campaigned on ending interventionist military policy, he was embraced by the anti war Left. Whether Uganda is as big as the Iraq War is irrelevant; it goes against one of the fundamental reasons why Obama was embraced by the Left. People on the Left have been very disappointed with this. Don't act like you don't know that just to "prove me wrong." My point is that while they notice the tweeking of his foreign policy stance, they aren't in the streets.

LOL. Obama never campaigned on ending "interventionist military policy" he said that would end US involvement in Iraq and not start other wars like it. At the end of the year the former will be true, and the latter is true so far.

[Keystone Phil]

Sorry, but I never said that. And you're not even paraphrasing. This is a common tactic you use when you're losing a debate. And you say I'm getting desperate? lol

You might not have but others haven't? Give me a break.

I said I thought OWS was more ideologically diverse than the Tea Party. That doesn't mean I said the Tea Party doesn't have any diversity. The Tea Party was a diverse grouping of right-wing ideologies. OWS has both left and right elements.

"Right" is debatable and they certainly aren't significant enough to be worthy of mention. Being ever so slightly more diverse isn't a ringing argument.

Were there any major left-wing segments in the Tea Party? Did socialists play a big part of it? I don't think so.

There are socially liberal elements of it, yes.

Occupy and the Tea Party are about economic issues. Not that I'm convinced social liberals were a major segment of the Tea Party.[/quote]

...except now the Invaders are talking about freeing criminals (admitted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal), political rights, civil liberties (PATRIOT Act) and military intervention.

And that doesn't debunk my point. The Tea Party has become about social issues, too, and social liberals are present (it's just that they stress the economic issues more).

Sending 100 military advisers to a country isn't even remotely similar to lying to the nation to invade a foreign nation with something like 150,000 troops. If calling me a troll is the best you can do here, you're getting desperate indeed.

Ok, how about Libya? And do you not understand the logic of "the principle of the matter?" I didn't say invading Iraq and action in Uganda are the same or remotely similar in terms of the scale of the operation; it's about committing military personnel to operations that Candidate Obama would never have agreed to.

And I like this bit we're using now: "military advisers."

[Keystone Phil]

I doubt most protesters against the Iraq War were stating that they were opposed to military action under any circumstances whatsoever.

I didn't say that they said that. However, plenty of them were opposed to action in Libya on the same grounds. Where were the mass protests?

LOL. Obama never campaigned on ending "interventionist military policy" he said that would end US involvement in Iraq and not start other wars like it. At the end of the year the former will be true, and the latter is true so far.

...and "start other wars like it" was a swipe at pre-emptive military interventionism. Using the logic he used in 2008, he wouldn't have gone into Libya because they posed no direct threat to the U.S. and it would serve as a distraction from the Afghanistan campaign.

Again, no mass protests against this.

[Rooney]

Unless this movement goes Commitee of Safety style I am saying it is not a going to be a very effective movement. If these guys hate the bankers so much why don't they just pull a Galleanists and blow up Wall Street? That would send a signal just like in 1920. It would start a new "red scare." The cops would crack down on them, break some heads and than they could use this for sympathy. Obama would be revealed as the creature of Wall Street that he is and the movement could expose the guilty.

 I really do not like this movement because it seems to be a movement with no direction that has good ideas but will make no change. The bankers profitt from violence, maybe they will only listen to it.

[Insula Dei]

Unless this movement goes Commitee of Safety style I am saying it is not a going to be a very effective movement. If these guys hate the bankers so much why don't they just pull a Galleanists and blow up Wall Street? That would send a signal just like in 1920. It would start a new "red scare." The cops would crack down on them, break some heads and than they could use this for sympathy. Obama would be revealed as the creature of Wall Street that he is and the movement could expose the guilty.

The hilarious thing is that the cops are cracking down on them, despite that they are a treat to just about noone. Up untill the Oakland events it wasn't really on the scale of what cops in the UK owuld have done (Kettling and all that), but it still was an hilarious overreaction of what supposedly is a free and democratic state.

[Rooney]

The hilarious thing is that the cops are cracking down on them, despite that they are a treat to just about noone. Up untill the Oakland events it wasn't really on the scale of what cops in the UK owuld have done (Kettling and all that), but it still was an hilarious overreaction of what supposedly is a free and democratic state.

This is quite true and quite sad. A guy can't even bitch in public anymore without the cops trying to taze them. One wonders what type of person becomes cop because the person must have some serious control issues.

[Ѕenator Αverroës]

Unless this movement goes Commitee of Safety style I am saying it is not a going to be a very effective movement. If these guys hate the bankers so much why don't they just pull a Galleanists and blow up Wall Street? That would send a signal just like in 1920. It would start a new "red scare." The cops would crack down on them, break some heads and than they could use this for sympathy. Obama would be revealed as the creature of Wall Street that he is and the movement could expose the guilty.

 I really do not like this movement because it seems to be a movement with no direction that has good ideas but will make no change. The bankers profitt from violence, maybe they will only listen to it.

Wait, your problem with OWS is that so far all of the factions involved have rejected violence?

[Lіef]

Iraq veteran shot in the head (with either a rubber bullet or gas canister, it's not clear) by the police state thugs in Oakland last night. Anyone who still believes that there is anything "free" about this country is clearly not paying attention.

[phk]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/26/news/companies/goldman_sachs_rajat_gupta/index.htm?iid=HP_River

GothamExtremist, Today 04:03 PM
ahhhhhhh, Raj & Rajat............. so it was the Indians that took the world economy down the drain.......... and I was blaming the Jews. Sorry.