Occupy Wall Street

[deoxys]

Positive movement showing we're fed up with corruption, beginning of a revolution, or world's largest meetup for bored, chaotic neutral drama club members?

Discuss.

[Mozz]

fags

[dosuser]

deoxys clones

[Rangeetsuper]

Chaotic neutral drama club members.

[Raptor Jesus]

This is basically all you need to know. (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph)

[Doppleganger]

This is basically all you need to know. (http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph)

I took a class in Global Inequality. What I learned is inequality is the most useless statistic from a practical standpoint. But it's a great one for dramatic rhetoric.

[deoxys]

deoxys clones

You know too much... too much.

Link

WELL WHEN YOU PUT IT THAT WAY

[Raptor Jesus]

I took a class in Global Inequality. What I learned is inequality is the most useless statistic from a practical standpoint. But it's a great one for dramatic rhetoric.

People aren't doing Occupy Wall Street because of the absurd inequality... Okay kinda.

But if you look at the gross income charts since 1979, the average income for the bottom 80% has not moved, yet after taxes, it has caused it to go down. At the same time, individual income tax has gone up slightly, payroll tax has increased greatly, while corporate tax has dropped to a new low.

So with poor people being poor, why are they burdened the most?

[blazeVA]

People aren't doing Occupy Wall Street because of the absurd inequality... Okay kinda.

But if you look at the gross income charts since 1979, the average income for the bottom 80% has not moved, yet after taxes, it has caused it to go down. At the same time, individual income tax has gone up slightly, payroll tax has increased greatly, while corporate tax has dropped to a new low.

So with poor people being poor, why are they burdened the most?

Because of idiots like unownmew who think that rich are the only ones who make a difference.

[deoxys]

Because of idiots like unownmew who think that rich are the only ones who make a difference.

That wasn't very appropriate =/

I do agree though there is definitely an imbalance in the country and nothing is being done to halt it or fix it. Instead, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. While I only partly feel this is the fault of a capitalist system and we should just deal with it, I feel it's more the government's fault for constantly jumping in and out of bed with corporations like a whore. That's the issue that needs to be taken care of.

[blazeVA]

That wasn't very appropriate =/

I do agree though there is definitely an imbalance in the country and nothing is being done to halt it or fix it. Instead, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. While I only partly feel this is the fault of a capitalist system and we should just deal with it, I feel it's more the government's fault for constantly jumping in and out of bed with corporations like a whore. That's the issue that needs to be taken care of.

This is unownmew. Everything is appropriate.

And that is so true, people don't even wonder what would happen if the middle and lower classes dissipated. The upper class would tumble like a tower of cards.

[Raptor Jesus]

The big argument is that corporations and rich people are the biggest donators to Congressman and their campaigns to get reelected. Because of this, they quickly try to pass laws in their favor or fear a loss in campaign funds. This makes big business and the rich puppet control over the congressional process.

[blazeVA]

The big argument is that corporations and rich people are the biggest donators to Congressman and their campaigns to get reelected. Because of this, they quickly try to pass laws in their favor or fear a loss in campaign funds. This makes big business and the rich puppet control over the congressional process.

And Congress is easily the most powerful part of the government, more powerful than the other two branches combined.

[Shuckle]

And Congress is easily the most powerful part of the government, more powerful than the other two branches combined.
The whole reason they're so powerful is because there are so many of them. Checks and balances...but I don't think the Founding Fathers expected that their failsafes effectively established a Congress that acts like a TV drama and doesn't get very much done.

So Congress is the weakest branch right now. Yay! Since the checks and balances are not being used, it's limiting its own power.

Or you could listen to unownmew and learn that those superrich people in Loki's graphs are the driving force of the economy, so we should keep things as they are.

[blazeVA]

The whole reason they're so powerful is because there are so many of them. Checks and balances...but I don't think the Founding Fathers expected that their failsafes effectively established a Congress that acts like a TV drama and doesn't get very much done.

So Congress is the weakest branch right now. Yay! Since the checks and balances are not being used, it's limiting its own power.

Or you could listen to unownmew and learn that those superrich people in Loki's graphs are the driving force of the economy, so we should keep things as they are.

Wow, the Congress can pretty much overturn anything the other two branches do. There is no limit on their power.

[Raptor Jesus]

Erm... How old are you blaze?

That's actually the opposite. The President can veto laws and the Judicial Branch can deem them unconstitutional. While congress can overturn a veto with a 2/3rds vote, this is considered very difficult.

[blazeVA]

Erm... How old are you blaze?

That's actually the opposite. The President can veto laws and the Judicial Branch can deem them unconstitutional. While congress can overturn a veto with a 2/3rds vote, this is considered very difficult.

I'm 16. I have read about the branches, and while having "no limit" was an exaggeration, the Congress is definitely the most powerful branch of government.

[Talon87]

The legislative branch (i.e. Congress) today is currently the weakest branch of American government. It was originally envisioned to be the main branch (hence its placement in the Constitution) and to be the slightly-strongest. Originally the executive branch was viewed to be the slightly weakest, although it did head up things like the army and whatnot. But everything pretty much changed with FDR forward. It wasn't just FDR -- there had been presidents before him which bolstered the power of the office, like Civil War president Abraham Lincoln or trust-bustin' Teddy Roosevelt -- but with FDR came the end of the era in American history where the legislative branch was the strongest of the three. From FDR's presidency forward, the executive branch de facto became the policy-setting branch of government, something it was not originally intended to do. (That would be Congress, whose decisions on policy were in turn meant to reflect the wishes of their constituents, i.e. the American populace.) From FDR on forward, the president was pretty much the one who decided what major reforms were needed, from civil rights reform (LBJ) and NASA funding (Kennedy, Nixon) to economic reforms (Reagan, Clinton) and environmental protection acts (Clinton). See "List of United States federal executive orders" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders) to see a partial list of the various laws which Presidents have passed -- yes, you read that correctly, legislation drawn up by and made into law by the executive branch alone -- from the 1800s on up. And notice how, pre-FDR, there really weren't that many. Then notice the precedent FDR established and voilà: the executive branch basically became the most important branch of government, pushing the legislative branch down to rank #2 or rank #3. (Take your pick.)

For a sixteen year old, your American history education's a little lacking. I learned all of this back when I was your age. :? But anyway, yeah: have to agree with the others that your insistence that the legislative branch remains the strongest of the three is misinformed. It was meant to be, but it no longer is nor has it been for many decades.

[Raptor Jesus]

Congress did gain a bit of more power during the Vietnam War when the Presidents over the period sent troops to fight a conflict without congress declaring any wars. The War Powers Resolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution) is considered unconstitutional and slightly power breaking, but it has not been overthrown by the Judicial branch. Personally, I think it needs to be put into effect more often.

[Lonely Cubone]

The movement has spread to Bath.

They're planning to "occupy" a bar in the Student's Union. Now that is a protest I can get behind.

[Doppleganger]

But if you look at the gross income charts since 1979, the average income for the bottom 80% has not moved, yet after taxes, it has caused it to go down. At the same time, individual income tax has gone up slightly, payroll tax has increased greatly, while corporate tax has dropped to a new low.

So with poor people being poor, why are they burdened the most?

Income alone doesn't speak the whole story, it's what that income can be redeemed in goods and services. I don't have any links on me, but if median quality of life has increased since 1979, the increased tax burden is more or less irrelevant. Additionally, while there's DWL from taxing people and then giving the money back in the bottom 80%, I highly doubt the top 20% of the country is benefiting from tax money put to use.

Additionally, the super super rich are widely documented to have increasing diminishing returns with their income, which drives guys like Gates and Buffet to want to donate their entire fortunes to charity.

I don't like inequality as a reason for policy change because it literally means nothing. It measures the dollar value gap between the rich and the poor and NOTHING ELSE, hiding other important information and not addressing the reasons behind why we care about a gap in the first place.

For example, is the point of the article you linked "it's unfair the poor, who have less money, be taxed more than the rich, who have money to spare?" As I mentioned earlier, one has to look at not the relative taxes but if the poor benefit more from tax-funded government initiatives (which the rich do not benefit from) more than they would if taxes were lower across the board. Fairness becomes relative - the rich get no benefit from taxes, while the poor gain all the benefit even if their individual burden is greater. Inequality says nothing about whether people are better off or not, it just says there's a gap and nothing else.

[Raptor Jesus]

In 1979, if you made $30k/year, that would be equivalent to a bit more than $80k/year in 2011 due to inflation. Yet, we're still making $30k/year. So we are in fact poorer.

For example, is the point of the article you linked "it's unfair the poor, who have less money, be taxed more than the rich, who have money to spare?" As I mentioned earlier, one has to look at not the relative taxes but if the poor benefit more from tax-funded government initiatives (which the rich do not benefit from) more than they would if taxes were lower across the board. Fairness becomes relative - the rich get no benefit from taxes, while the poor gain all the benefit even if their individual burden is greater. Inequality says nothing about whether people are better off or not, it just says there's a gap and nothing else.

So when a country is 14 billion in debt and unable to generate any revenue, it's okay to keep the country diving into even more debt so the rich people can live happier?

And you do realize when Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2%, the country had a surplus.

[Doppleganger]

In 1979, if you made $30k/year, that would be equivalent to a bit more than $80k/year in 2011 due to inflation. Yet, we're still making $30k/year. So we are in fact poorer.

To make that conclusion you have to assume people are buying the same (or approximate) goods and services they were in 1979 and 2011. There could be a loss in real value of the money without a change in quality of life. I'd like to think among the poorest tiers of society consumption would be comparable, but that would be well below what the US defines poverty as (it would literally imply people spend 100% income on needs).

Additionally, jobs that gave $30K/year in 1979 were probably adjusted for inflation and are not the same jobs that give $30K/year in 2011, assuming they're the same kind of job and were not eliminated by automation or corporate restructuring.


So when a country is 14 billion in debt and unable to generate any revenue, it's okay to keep the country diving into even more debt so the rich people can live happier?


That's a loaded question and is moving away from the inequality issue, a pet peeve of mine, which is really why I spoke up. But-

I don't think the rich are happy unless they're living in New Zealand. If they're in the US, they're going to be affected by the dour economy in some way. They're definitely not happier.

Deficit spending is bad, but there's not much else the government as-is can do. External events or technological innovation are usually what kick starts an economy, and there aren't any new industries waiting around the corner to suddenly create a bunch of new jobs.

Our options now are to cut programs or cut population, which in turn cuts the demand for programs. But since the US doesn't look like it's going to do either, we're going to deficit spend ourselves to death.


And you do realize when Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2%, the country had a surplus.

The surplus is misleading, since the source of the surplus money came from borrowing against Social Security - a lot of people were paying into SS due to the robust economy, so the SSA bought government securities with the excess, which became cash available for the budget. The surplus money wasn't because of Clinton's management, but was a byproduct of the good economy. Taxing the rich was also taking advantage of the available bounty.

[unownmew]

Some nice discussion going on here.

Positive movement showing we're fed up with corruption, beginning of a revolution, or world's largest meetup for bored, chaotic neutral drama club members?

Discuss.
I'd like to say, it's anything but a "positive movement."
Anti-semitism (http://www.adl.org/PresRele/ASUS_12/6138_12.htm), considered on the fringe (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/10/charges_of_occupy_wall_street_anti_semitism_find_a udience_on_the_right.php), but should not be overlooked.

Disorderly conduct. (http://nation.foxnews.com/tea-party/2011/10/07/why-occupy-wall-street-no-tea-party-movement)

Unsanitary (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shocking-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html)

Incoherent messeges. (http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/charleston/the-tea-party-vs-occupy-wall-street/Content?oid=3629088)

(Apologies on some biased sources, it's hard to find a completely unbiased opinion from a google search in under an hour, if you disagree with the site, please look into what's reported instead.)


Anyhow, that's my thoughts on them. The unorganized, not-grassroots TEA party of the Liberal Democrats, but so much more offensive then we ever were. I wonder how many permits they're lacking for their gathering other protest movements are compelled to have and shut down when they lack.
Because of idiots like unownmew who think that rich are the only ones who make a difference.
I've yet to insult you, it's clear what that says about the two of us.

Rich people employee middle class people. Middle class people do not employ anyone, therefore it is counterproductive, if your objective is to create jobs for middle class people so that can pay bills and survive, to make those who create those jobs pay more and have less money with which to pay wages with. Rich people already pay more % of their income in taxes then Middle class people.

Poor people are middle class people who lack income enough to pay their bills month to month. Which is more useful to them?

Taking money from rich people, funnel it through corrupt bureaucrats, and then hand it out to the poor people in amounts just barely enough to let them survive.
or
Let rich people invest their money (for a future profit), in businesses that employ people, particularly the people who do not already have a job, funnel that money through "corrupt" CEOs, but still have enough left over to offer them a fair salary to be able to live modestly or better.

Please explain your choice.

The big argument is that corporations and rich people are the biggest donators to Congressman and their campaigns to get reelected. Because of this, they quickly try to pass laws in their favor or fear a loss in campaign funds. This makes big business and the rich puppet control over the congressional process.
I would argue that corporations ("Big Business") are not the only special interest groups that donate to congressmen in order for favorable legislation.
Not-for-profit groups also lobby government, like environmental organizations.

And namely, Unions, use their mandatory dues to donate much in favor of Democrats, and then get perks from government to increased members for increase dues for increased Democrat contribution funds.

[deoxys]

Unown, one bad apple does not make a bushel of them bad. You're forgiven on only showing biased sources, but the overall tone of your few links is nothing but one sided. You didn't find anything positive to show on the flipside? There are people like that at every protest. I also enjoy how you didn't link to articles where the group threw on cleaning equipment and scrubbed down the park and threw away abandoned signs to show responsibility. And yes, it was pretty big news, much bigger than the few articles you found. I find it hard to believe you haven't heard about it. If you didn't see that in google news, allow me to help with at least that one: Here's a quick video of the act instead of a news report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sauaNYSi93s)

And holy hell this is NOT about liberal democrats. The occupy movement is comprised of people on both sides of the aisle who are sick and tired of being sick and tired. And if you come back with "well, Al Gore and a few other liberals have publicly backed it", I will retaliate with "That doesn't reflect on the base itself, as a LOT of people are actually rather pissed off about that because it reflects onto #Occupy as a partisan movement instead of a non-partisan one."

[unownmew]

Unown, one bad apple does not make a bushel of them bad.
Except when we're talking about conservatives. ;-)

You're forgiven on only showing biased sources, but the overall tone of your few links is nothing but one sided. You didn't find anything positive to show on the flipside? There are people like that at every protest.
My tone is one sided, because my opinion was one-sided. I am positive there was never a TEA partier that defecated on a cop car and I doubt one has been arrested for disorderly conduct. I have heard a first hand account from a business owner who owned a store on Wall street, attesting to the uncleanliness, disorderly and rude conduct many of the protestors had there, in general, and towards herself. (A caller on the Sean Hannity Show).

Among other things I've heard: public nudity, smoking pot, and having sex on the street.

I'm aware that not everyone is doing all these things, however, it is impossible to overlook them when looking at the movement itself.

I also enjoy how you didn't link to articles where the group threw on cleaning equipment and scrubbed down the park and threw away abandoned signs to show responsibility. And yes, it was pretty big news, much bigger than the few articles you found. I find it hard to believe you haven't heard about it. If you didn't see that in google news, allow me to help with at least that one: Here's a quick video of the act instead of a news report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sauaNYSi93s)
To be completely honest, I have not heard about that, and am frankly, quite amazed. I do not frequent news sites, except when I'm looking for something, and google news is something I've never checked, (nor known existed, I usually just see MSN or yahoo when I check my e-mail).

Confronted with this, I'll eat half my words. I still believe the movement should be watched carefully, due to the bad things that have occurred, but I concede that it is not completely off it's rocker as I first thought.

And holy hell this is NOT about liberal democrats. The occupy movement is comprised of people on both sides of the aisle who are sick and tired of being sick and tired. And if you come back with "well, Al Gore and a few other liberals have publicly backed it", I will retaliate with "That doesn't reflect on the base itself, as a LOT of people are actually rather pissed off about that because it reflects onto #Occupy as a partisan movement instead of a non-partisan one."
It was all IMO, I wasn't claiming anything to be 100% absolutely true, which is why I included, "these are my thoughts." in my post. It was an opinion to be discussed, which it is, and I thank you for bringing those things to light for me.

However, you claim the movement comprises people from both sides of the aisle, I disagree. Find me 1 conservative (in principals and views, not just someone who claims to be such) that attends these protests with any degree of regularity and support, and I'll concede.
The Aisle is not between Republicans and Democrats, but between Liberals and Conservatives. There are Republicans that are much too liberal, and some democrats that seem to be quite conservative, and party lines is not an adequate measure of ideology in this case.

Not just Al Gore, but I have heard that the Communist party, the Nazi party, and other fringe organizations have endorsed it, which they did not do with the TEA party. I agree the endorser does not determine who is in the base, but it does say that they support the ideas/claims of the base, or their actions in general. (Otherwise they would not endorse them).


In general:
For the most part, IMO, it is the incoherence of the movement's message that is bad part of the occupy wall street movement.

They are against bailing out the banks, so am I.

They detest the corruptness of big business. While I would argue not all "big business" is corrupt, I am completely against corruptness in business, as well as politics.

They say they are anti-capitalist, yet they claim they are not socialist. They engage in capitalism often, yet decry it as evil. They demand people give them things, yet refuse to work for them, and deny this as socialist.

They demand the rich to be taxed their fair share, yet, (likely) pay very little in taxes themselves.


They're sick of this economy, so am I.
They claim it is business's fault; I would argue it's entirely the government's fault.

Their proposed solution is more government and personal regulation, which will only stifle and kill more of the economy, and I doubt they would be as happy to submit to the same they require of others.

*shrugs*
This is all in general, things I've heard them say, I'm not saying the entire body claims each and every one of these ideals, but many of them share a few of them. Actually some of them have the same gripes with the TEA party has, they just seem to be a little misguided in what the cause is or what the solution would be.

[deoxys]

Except when we're talking about conservatives. ;-)

Not true. The only conservatives we have discussed and called out here have been called out for legitimate reasons, not simply because they are guilty by association.


My tone is one sided, because my opinion was one-sided. I am positive there was never a TEA partier that defecated on a cop car and I doubt one has been arrested for disorderly conduct. I have heard a first hand account from a business owner who owned a store on Wall street, attesting to the uncleanliness, disorderly and rude conduct many of the protestors had there, in general, and towards herself. (A caller on the Sean Hannity Show).

Among other things I've heard: public nudity, smoking pot, and having sex on the street.

First of all stop listening to Sean Hannity. That's about as biased as you can get. I used to listen to this mean preach to his choir every. single. day until a few years ago. He is a complete and total patoot and his rantings are completely one sided. I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh, too. They are not the voice of reason and as hard as it may seem to believe, they are both very gifted with talking about something and making it seem like they're completely correct, when, in fact, they're manipulating an issue to make it biased and one sided.

I know you're going to completely write that off, but please, get out while you still can. I'm not saying listen to liberal talk shows either. Don't. That's just as bad. What I'm saying is go out and get the facts yourself instead of being told them by partisan, right winged, agenda based conservative republicans. It's just not healthy. If anyone else reading this does the same thing for the liberal side, to you I say this same thing as well. Stop. Just stop. Go out and get your own information.

Anyway, like I said, I know you'll blow that off. I'm fine with that. It makes me feel better to have gotten that off of my chest anyway.

As for everything else, again, this protest is comprised with tens of thousands of protesters. In case you missed it, the answer to my question in my first post is all of the above. Of course you're going to get the bored twenty somethings who think it would be cool to go down and act goofy, yell "Fuck the police!", fuck in the streets, and smoke some joints, but that can not reflect on everyone. You hear more about the bad than the good because that's what the news does; They report the bad things, and then they come at the viewer with "They seem to want to end political and corporate corruption.... but they don't even know what they're protesting!" < While I will agree that there are a bunch of idiots out there who don't know why they're protesting, rest assured this movement has very real backing behind it. I do wish there was more being protested at in DC, but whatever. No one ever seems to stop and think that the banks and the corporations are starting to become afraid of this movement. People are pissed that the rich are getting richer while they pay out of pocket for them to sip fancy wine and dine on horderves. I don't think it takes a genius to know that some of these guys are paying the media to say things like "They don't know what they're doing".

They're also paying the police. I can find the article per your request, but I believe it was Chase that "donated" some 4.6 million or something like that to the NYPD just about two weeks ago. HMMMM.




To be completely honest, I have not heard about that, and am frankly, quite amazed. I do not frequent news sites, except when I'm looking for something, and google news is something I've never checked, (nor known existed, I usually just see MSN or yahoo when I check my e-mail).

Confronted with this, I'll eat half my words. I still believe the movement should be watched carefully, due to the bad things that have occurred, but I concede that it is not completely off it's rocker as I first thought.

This is what I mean! If you had gone to sources that had facts from both sides, you'd be able to better formulate a real opinion, not just one that you are being told! There is a lot more going on out there than you know, and I encourage you to find out for yourself. It's like walking into a totally different world and having your mind blown all at once. I'd say the only other time you get that feeling is when you take a bite into a Snickers.


It was all IMO, I wasn't claiming anything to be 100% absolutely true, which is why I included, "these are my thoughts." in my post. It was an opinion to be discussed, which it is, and I thank you for bringing those things to light for me.

Good, I'm starting to feel like there's hope for you yet... this is good! I'm happy.

However, you claim the movement comprises people from both sides of the aisle, I disagree. Find me 1 conservative (in principals and views, not just someone who claims to be such) that attends these protests with any degree of regularity and support, and I'll concede.
The Aisle is not between Republicans and Democrats, but between Liberals and Conservatives. There are Republicans that are much too liberal, and some democrats that seem to be quite conservative, and party lines is not an adequate measure of ideology in this case.

I'll try to find specifics. I can assure you I've already read testimonies from conservatives and liberals alike who literally have joined together for this because they don't feel that it's a separated political issue anymore.

Not just Al Gore, but I have heard that the Communist party, the Nazi party, and other fringe organizations have endorsed it, which they did not do with the TEA party. I agree the endorser does not determine who is in the base, but it does say that they support the ideas/claims of the base, or their actions in general. (Otherwise they would not endorse them).

Of course they didn't endorse anything tea party related, the tea party was only a grassroots movement for a week until republicans and corporations snatched it up to take advantage of the movement and make money, which is exactly what people are afraid of happening to OWS.

I also find it somewhat hard to believe they've all endorsed this movement officially. If they have, whatever, but where did you "hear" that? Hannity? Limbaugh? Beck? Savage?


In general:
For the most part, IMO, it is the incoherence of the movement's message that is bad part of the occupy wall street movement.

They are against bailing out the banks, so am I.

They detest the corruptness of big business. While I would argue not all "big business" is corrupt, I am completely against corruptness in business, as well as politics.

They say they are anti-capitalist, yet they claim they are not socialist. They engage in capitalism often, yet decry it as evil. They demand people give them things, yet refuse to work for them, and deny this as socialist.

They demand the rich to be taxed their fair share, yet, (likely) pay very little in taxes themselves.


They're sick of this economy, so am I.
They claim it is business's fault; I would argue it's entirely the government's fault.

Their proposed solution is more government and personal regulation, which will only stifle and kill more of the economy, and I doubt they would be as happy to submit to the same they require of others.

*shrugs*
This is all in general, things I've heard them say, I'm not saying the entire body claims each and every one of these ideals, but many of them share a few of them. Actually some of them have the same gripes with the TEA party has, they just seem to be a little misguided in what the cause is or what the solution would be.


I think you should see this: Tea Party co-founder expresses support for Occupy Wall Street (http://occupywallstreet.thoughts.com/mnicholson2/tea-party-co-founder-expresses-support-for-occupy-wall-street).

http://images.politico.com/global//blogs/OWSvsTP-thumb-615x336-66095.jpg

[unownmew]

I'm impressed and quite pleased to hear your responses, it's a lot nicer to have a good balanced discussion about the points brought up then trying to defend myself against general accusations.

Not true. The only conservatives we have discussed and called out here have been called out for legitimate reasons, not simply because they are guilty by association.
I was referring to the TEA party, which some others on this forum have been all too quick to judge as racist bigots, homophobes and other things, because of how they are portrayed in the media, and a couple instances where they have used a tad bit of overcharged rhetoric.


First of all stop listening to Sean Hannity. That's about as biased as you can get. I used to listen to this mean preach to his choir every. single. day until a few years ago. He is a complete and total patoot and his rantings are completely one sided. I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh, too. They are not the voice of reason and as hard as it may seem to believe, they are both very gifted with talking about something and making it seem like they're completely correct, when, in fact, they're manipulating an issue to make it biased and one sided.

I know you're going to completely write that off, but please, get out while you still can. I'm not saying listen to liberal talk shows either. Don't. That's just as bad. What I'm saying is go out and get the facts yourself instead of being told them by partisan, right winged, agenda based conservative republicans. It's just not healthy. If anyone else reading this does the same thing for the liberal side, to you I say this same thing as well. Stop. Just stop. Go out and get your own information.

Anyway, like I said, I know you'll blow that off. I'm fine with that. It makes me feel better to have gotten that off of my chest anyway.
Of course they are biased, everyone is biased, but they are not restricted by party lines, they put the heat on any public figure Republican or Democrat that they feel is not performing up to par. I've listened to them for quite a while (but not every day), and most everything I've heard makes sense.

They back up their claims with soundbytes and poll data, which are impossible to refute. They also brought to light many issues during the 2008 elections that the public "mainstream" media, completely did not report. Which makes me think, maybe the "mainstream media," is biased for Democrats, but masquerading as "unbiased"?

What could possibly be their biased right-wing agenda? They don't seem to make any political friends criticizing democrats, nor get any special treatment. Limbaugh seems to make money off his popularity, but, if conservative right-wingers are such a minority (as the media would claim we are), wouldn't it be more profitable if he had chosen the biggest market? And maybe wooed government for money too? But he didn't. And both have lived a lot longer then I have, meaning more experience and wisdom than I could hope to ask for at this time, I'm a bit more apt to trust them then someone who has not lived as long nor seen as much.

I'm all for getting your own information, and not blindly following anyone, Conservative or Liberal, but it's tough for me to find the time to do that often, and often it seems, there's only 1 side to an issue, and anything else is "biased right wing conspiracy theories." The downplay of their validity is suspicious.
Instead of "Independent Media," (which very likely isn't truly independent), I'd suggest sampling from all aspects, Liberal, Conservative and Independent, and not base on what is "most commonly said", but instead, "what you feel is right."

If I may ask, what caused you to stop listening to them?

As for everything else, again, this protest is comprised with tens of thousands of protesters. In case you missed it, the answer to my question in my first post is all of the above. Of course you're going to get the bored twenty somethings who think it would be cool to go down and act goofy, yell "Fuck the police!", fuck in the streets, and smoke some joints, but that can not reflect on everyone. You hear more about the bad than the good because that's what the news does; They report the bad things, and then they come at the viewer with "They seem to want to end political and corporate corruption.... but they don't even know what they're protesting!" < While I will agree that there are a bunch of idiots out there who don't know why they're protesting, rest assured this movement has very real backing behind it. I do wish there was more being protested at in DC, but whatever.
I would argue that you never would see such disrespectful, disorderly, or otherwise asinine behavior at a TEA party rally/protest/gathering. If it had, the other members would have quickly tossed them out, and prevented them from entering again. Of course there's idiots, and they should not be reflective of the group in general, but they should not be completely overlooked and the group forgiven of them either.

Another thing I'd like to mention, is, protest or not, I highly doubt the group has the required city permits to gather there, nor meet the standard regulations other gatherings are required to follow, which is in direct violation of the law. Something the TEA party would never do.

No one ever seems to stop and think that the banks and the corporations are starting to become afraid of this movement. People are pissed that the rich are getting richer while they pay out of pocket for them to sip fancy wine and dine on horderves. I don't think it takes a genius to know that some of these guys are paying the media to say things like "They don't know what they're doing".
I'd be scared and afraid of a mob of relatively unorganized people who hate me too. I have no love for the banks who got bailed out; if capitalism had been allowed to run it's course they would have gone bankrupt and out of business, and we wouldn't have any of these problems, but crony capitalism won out. Government helps Businesses, businesses help government. IMO, it's the democrats that do most of the business loving, and then rail against the republicans so they have someone to blame.

However, it is not "Corporations" that are evil. A corporation is simply a form of business, which many companies choose to use because it grants the owners legal protection. A corporation doesn't have to be big or in bed with government to be one, you can have a small start-up corporation, and it's still a corporation.
And Big businesses don't necessarily have to be evil either. I believe most big businesses lobby, not for legislation to benefit themselves and hurt others, but rather for exceptions from Democrat bills that would otherwise hurt them (as well as other companies) (like Obamacare waivers). The democrats grant them immunity, in return for their donations, then ram the bill through, because they hate all business (big and small), but love the big businesses' money more.



They're also paying the police. I can find the article per your request, but I believe it was Chase that "donated" some 4.6 million or something like that to the NYPD just about two weeks ago. HMMMM.
I imagine some companies donate harmlessly, but don't disagree that police can be corrupted as well (they're people too).

It's not just money though, connections play a large part too.


This is what I mean! If you had gone to sources that had facts from both sides, you'd be able to better formulate a [i]real opinion, not just one that you are being told! There is a lot more going on out there than you know, and I encourage you to find out for yourself. It's like walking into a totally different world and having your mind blown all at once. I'd say the only other time you get that feeling is when you take a bite into a Snickers.
Snickers? Are you promoting big business? :lol:
Anyway, I was looking for specific information, so I could not have come across that info in my search. And like everyone does, I omit looking for arguments that do not support my point of view.

I'd love to know your sources for this mindblowing information though.

Good, I'm starting to feel like there's hope for you yet... this is good! I'm happy.
I'm rather happy as well, there's someone who more interested in the info being discussed then bashing my opinion to pieces.



I'll try to find specifics. I can assure you I've already read testimonies from conservatives and liberals alike who literally have joined together for this because they don't feel that it's a separated political issue anymore.
I'm starting to believe in the melding a bit more, but I still believe conservative principles are the ultimate solution to the problem, and change should happen through lawful revolution (ousting Senators and putting principled conservative ones in instead), instead of mob protesting.



Of course they didn't endorse anything tea party related, the tea party was only a grassroots movement for a week until republicans and corporations snatched it up to take advantage of the movement and make money, which is exactly what people are afraid of happening to OWS.
I don't believe the TEA party has been "snatched" by republicans and/or corporations, but I do believe the Republican establisment (the higher-ups who 'control' the party), would love the TEA party to disappear, or to utilize them for their own purposes, but I don't believe that they will be able to.
Could you source your claims here?

I also find it somewhat hard to believe they've all endorsed this movement officially. If they have, whatever, but where did you "hear" that? Hannity? Limbaugh? Beck? Savage?
I believe it was a mostly offhand comment from Hannity or Limbaugh (the only two I listen to), but I don't remember exactly. If you want, I'll look for their sites and see for sure.

I think you should see this: Tea Party co-founder expresses support for Occupy Wall Street (http://occupywallstreet.thoughts.com/mnicholson2/tea-party-co-founder-expresses-support-for-occupy-wall-street).

http://images.politico.com/global//blogs/OWSvsTP-thumb-615x336-66095.jpg
I read it, thought about it, and wondered why he would say that. Then I looked him up and found this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/20/karl-denninger-tea-party_n_770108.html
So he rails against Palin, and says the TEA party was hijacked. Ok, so, I haven't followed Palin much, but I don't disagree with her conservative views, what's wrong with her? And how could the movement have been hijacked?
I find this:
http://www.issues2000.org/Sarah_Palin.htm Doesn't look like much I disagree with here, nor much the average TEA partier would either.
I look further, and find this: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35785.html, which is what I assume was being discussed by Karl Denniger.
While not to be ignored, I don't see any evidence of Foul play, and it has been furthering the message the TEA party supporter believe in (lower taxes, lower spending, less government regulation for increased prosperity, repeal obamacare, no bailouts, etc.). While it is good for the TEA party to be independent, if it ends up as a third party, or splits into dissenting factions, it will only detract from it's goals, so it really needs to revitalize the Republican base if it's to have any chance of defeating Obama.