Throw Bread & You Attract Pigeons and Rats

There are at least three distinct groups involved in Occupy Wall Street encampments. One group is made up of student types, idealistic and a little naive. In the second group are the professional organizers, trying to make political hay. A third group is the most experienced in hanging around in parks. These are street people and the general weirdo population who figured out that they can have a nice place to lie around and get free food. Troubles are growing.

A couple of points from an article re

"...36-year-old Andrew Warner told the Boston Herald: "It's turning into us against them." By "them" he didn't mean rich bankers but street vagrants: "They come in here and they're looking at it as a way of getting a free meal and a place to crash, which is totally fine, but they don't bring anything to the table at all." The same is true in New York, where "sanitation committee" member Lauren Digioia told the Daily News: "There's a lot of takers here and they feel entitled.""

"Nan Terrie learned an expensive lesson last week about the importance of property rights. "Stealing is our biggest problem at the moment," the 18-year-old protester told the New York Post. "I had my Mac stolen--that was like $5,500." Why? Because she left it in a public place, amid a crowd demanding the redistribution of wealth. Imagine that."

Who could be surprised? Anytime you get a lot of people hanging around for a long time you will get this kind of thing. The street person/student problem is an old one. Students and vagabonds often occupy similar spaces, but they are very different in outlook. I recall as a student having to throw the bums out, when they would show up at our parties trying to get free beer or snacks. This freeloading (or shall we say redistribution of wealth) is evidently what is happening at the OWS encampments.

Of course, I never felt any guilt about asking the freeloaders to go back to wherever they came from, but then I never thought of myself as a compassionate guy. (I still remember some of the regulars. There was "dirty Helen" who would dance around and try to steal small objects. "Boxcar Willie", who looked like the country singer of the same name, hence the moniker and a guy called "Dirk" who always had several "friends" along, even when he came by himself. The only one we sometimes let stay was a big guy called "Art" who came armed with an ice pick and a particularly aggressive attitude. It seemed the better part of valor to avoid contact and just let him sit in the corner and drink.)

Some of the OWS are going to learn the lessons we did. I bet they have the same cast of characters, maybe a little updated. But once these guys show up, the party is over.

Posted by Christine & John at October 27, 2011 9:26 PM
Comment #331120

This is a great one: the cooks who prepare food for the OWS protestors are themselves protesting because the people eating all the food are just homeless vagrants. So what we have are the cooks, representing the 1% who are protesting the 99% of protestors, and why, because they are just there for the free food. This is ironic. The cooks have become capitalists.

Or how about this one: Occupy Boston fires two of the own “members from its finance team for their lack of transparency and accountability”. Go figure:

The left has cried and whined about Republican governors who want to take away the police’s right to bargain or to make them pay for part of the pension and HC. The left places police, firemen, and teachers in the same category with the right wants to steal your SS, throw grandma off the cliff, and starve children; BUT they have no problem crying police brutality when the cops do their job.

In a recent post by Adrienne referred to the police as brutal because they put a stop to Occupy Oakland and now we have the cops going after the San Diego protestors:

Can anyone with even part of a brain or cognitive ability still compare these pervert freeloaders to the Tea Party rallies? The American people are fast becoming very upset at these protests and to prove this I will say; the democrat mayors of these cities are cracking down only because people are calling their offices and complaining. The only thing democrats love more than civil unrest and protests against “the man”, are elections, or might I say re-elections.

The left is so jealous of the grass roots TP movement and when this orgainized OWS protest began, the democrats (including Obama) jumped all over this as a liberal alternative to the TP. As time goes on, we will see a continued democrat withdrawal of support for these clowns.

Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2011 10:37 AM
Comment #331124

And to think some of them are protesting that some are there for their entitlements.

They bring their bodies to the table which is what they all do.

At one time these people in total were referred to as misfits. The more things change the more they stay the same.


Posted by: tom humes at October 28, 2011 1:01 PM
Comment #331127

I was in the military in the 60’s when the anti-war hippies were protesting. If there is such a word, I would call them scunge buckets. The hippy protestors were the nastiest people you ever saw. They defecated and urinated on lawns and in the streets, had sex wherever they wanted. They lived in under tarps or in cardboard boxes. They stank and never showered. How do I know all this, two of my uncles (same age as me) were part of it. They ended up running to Canada. Needless to say, it caused a rift in the family until this day. My dad, WWII vet did’nt have much use for them.

But anyway, back to the point; these OWS aren’t any different, same old nasty bunch. The dregs of society.

But what else can we expect from the left?

Posted by: Mike at October 28, 2011 3:22 PM
Comment #331136

The OWS mob is very familiar to me as well. It’s the same something-for-nothing crowd that plays while we work and then wants a handout at the end of the day.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 28, 2011 5:35 PM
Comment #331160

From a centrist perspective, protests will ebb and flow as the economy improves/worsens.

The real trick here is for the globalised crowd to transition the US into a european style economy w/o drawing the ire of the population at large. By definition, a globalised economy will project higher unemployment, greater inequality. Evolving technology weighs in to exacerbate the affect of globalisation.

Near 7B people and counting.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at October 28, 2011 9:24 PM
Comment #331165

Oh, we’re not dealing with elitism here at all, are we? Take a few reports from a few people, and now basically the OWS camps are hobo camps. Dirty, nasty, unwashed peasants, the lot of them! Rats and Pigeons!

At some point, you’re going to have to realize, that comparing people to filthy animals is not going to endear you to them, much less convince them that their cause is not just.

What people want is for Wall Street to live according to constraints the rest of us are expected to. They didn’t earn their enormous profits by making this country productive, they earned it by a whole bunch of risky BS that ended in a job-killing, economy-crippling collapse of our system of finance. And then they rewarded themselves with taxpayer money meant to save their asses from bankruptcy.

You really ought to quit this dehumanizing BS regarding the protestors. That Oakland incident? A Marine with crowd control experience said that the tactics that the cops used, which ended with Scott Olsen suffering a skull fracture from a 40 millimeter CS or smoke grenade, would be against the rules of engagement for somebody operating in a WARZONE.

You don’t fire that kind of ammunition at somebody’
s head, and you sure as hell don’t throw a flashbang at folks trying to get him medical attention. That’s against military regulations regarding folks who are just trying to help somebody who is injured.

This is the sadistic mindset that’s overcome the right wing in America. It’s time to remember that these people are American citizens, and that there are still lines which people shouldn’t cross even in the process of a police action in our own country. People have rights that should be respected by those who dare to call themselves defenders of the constitution and upholders of the law.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 28, 2011 10:42 PM
Comment #331169

Ok Stephen, you are ok with living like a pig. That is your choice.

Here is my choice. In Phoenix DPS found a pamphlet with protester paperwork. The pamphlet is titled “When Should You Shoot A Cop”. Some of your piggly-wiggly friends were distributing the pamphlet.

So here is my answer. Make my day!!

Your writing in support of the crap that is called protesting (which it is not protesting) is just plain ignorance of what is going on at street level. NYT, KOS, etc. is not going to tell you what is going on

Posted by: tom humes at October 29, 2011 4:15 AM
Comment #331170


We had two protest movements in the last couple years. We had the Tea Party, which was very big and grass roots. Then we had the OWS, which includes a much smaller number of people.

You have no right to criticize me, after all the things you said about the Tea Party.

Beyond that - WE are the “rest of us”. I am also part of the 99%. I object to the idea that this small number of - yes often scruffy protesters and street people - represent me. Or you. The much larger Tea Party was much more representative, and you didn’t mind demonizing them.

What I like about your writing is that you always provide your own contractions.

How about this with one word change “This is the sadistic mindset that’s overcome the left wing in America. It’s time to remember that these people are American citizens” Now did you really write this about the Tea Party?

We got you guys on this. Sweet turn around - again.

So … is dissent patriotic again?

Re the OWS in general

This movement bears the seeds of its own destruction (to paraphrase Polybius). It is on the streets and provides free food. It has and will continue to attract freeloaders and bums. Eventually that will come to characterize the whole movement.

It will become a movement for cheap wine and loose change. I think this is hilarious. Liberals who jumped into this movement have literally stepped into a pile of shit.

Posted by: C&J at October 29, 2011 7:04 AM
Comment #331175

Stephen, I have no desire to be endeared to these dregs of society. Their cause is a fraud; they are simply another group of lazy people looking for another government handout. As I write this, I am listening to reporters who have been down at these protests and their first words were, “these people stink and need to take a shower”. My point is proved…

SD says, “What people want is for Wall Street to live according to constraints the rest of us are expected to. They didn’t earn their enormous profits by making this country productive, they earned it by a whole bunch of risky BS that ended in a job-killing, economy-crippling collapse of our system of finance. And then they rewarded themselves with taxpayer money meant to save their asses from bankruptcy.”

Tell me SD, just who is WS? Are they not investors, investing the money of millions of Americans? You talk as if WS is a separate entity, separated from the American people.

“You really ought to quit this dehumanizing BS regarding the protestors. That Oakland incident? A Marine with crowd control experience said that the tactics that the cops used, which ended with Scott Olsen suffering a skull fracture from a 40 millimeter CS or smoke grenade, would be against the rules of engagement for somebody operating in a WARZONE.”

Stephen, since you have never been in the military and have certainly never been in a warzone; the only answer I can give you is “shit happens”. It’s called “casualties of war”, or “collateral damage”. When the protestors start throwing rocks and bottles at the police, things escalate. And guess what Stephen, it becomes a war zone. This is called taking responsibility for your actions. If you Stephen were to meet a cop on the street and began to throw rocks and bottles at him, what do you think would happen?

In conclusion, we find Stephen, once again, on the wrong side of history. Once again defending the loser, the anti-American crowd, and trying to say their actions are patriotic. It absolutely kills the left that Americans can come together in a grass roots organization and peacefully protest big government. The OWS protestors are disorganized and started out of Canada, financed by communist/socialist/Marxist organizations, and union funds. They have no common goals, they are a means to attract every low life from the streets, with every possible grievance and here is Stephen once again defending the indefensible.

But unlike Stephen, I am actually willing to look for a link that provides proof of what I say, instead of using the liberal kos talking points. By the way Stephen, had you actually researched, you would have found that no flash bangs were thrown by police, they were actually fire crackers thrown by the protestors:

By the way, this information comes from the liberal MSM.

Tell me Stephen, since you were not around during the anti-war protests of the 60’s; you do understand there were people who were actually hurt and even killed during those protests. Only a liberal could say after throwing a rock at a cop, “it’s not fair, he hurt me”. By the way Stephen, are these, the same unionized cops you were arguing FOR a few weeks ago. Are these the same cops that the left threatens will be taken off the streets if more stimulus funds are not provided; are these the same cops who Republicans are going to take off the streets (according to Democrat political advertisements)?

Stephen, you are a great example of the old saying, “you never know how stupid a person is until they open their mouth”.

Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2011 11:11 AM
Comment #331178

It seems to me, C&J, there is yet a fourth group associated with the Occupy protests around the nation. Those that can see the real problems with the country and realize the solution cannot come from the failed ideologies of the Tea party nor a corrupted Congress. They may not be as apparent as those at the protest who are preying upon the legitimate protestors but they are there. To associate the street people with the protestors because of location is faulty logic.

Can anyone with even part of a brain or cognitive ability still compare these pervert freeloaders to the Tea Party rallies?

Sure can Mike. Just as you can try to tell us the vagrants and the protestors are one and the same. Look at it this way Mike when you attend church do you see all Christians in the pews or do you see some that are just there? Perhaps using the church for personal gain or freeloading? What do you do about it or are you one of them for being in the same pews they are?

This guilt by association propaganda you spew shows that it is not just us guys that need to work on using more of their brain IMHO Mike.

As far as perverts and Tea Party who was it that adopted the term “tea baggers” to describe themselves? ;)

Posted by: j2t2 at October 29, 2011 11:52 AM
Comment #331180

As I think about it C&J it seems yet another group has sprouted up around the OWS. The conservative movement members who listen to the TRC crowd and spew misinformation, half truths and outright lies as they attempt to discredit the protestors.

Just look at the hate and venom spewing from Royal, Mike, Tom and yourself on this thread. Instead of criticizing the message of the protestors you seek to vilify the protestors and “professional protestors” or “naive kids”.

“you are ok with living like a pig.”
“I would call them scunge buckets.”
The hippy protestors were the nastiest people you ever saw. They defecated and urinated on lawns and in the streets, had sex wherever they wanted.”
” They lived in under tarps or in cardboard boxes. They stank and never showered.”
“The dregs of society.”
“The OWS mob is very familiar to me as well. It’s the same something-for-nothing crowd that plays while we work and then wants a handout..”

Yet nothing about the mesage.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 29, 2011 12:02 PM
Comment #331184


There may indeed be such people among the OWS. But they are far outnumbered by the bums and the hangers on. And all OWS protesters would not rival a medium sized Tea Party rally. So I don’t think that a small part of a small movement really represent the 99% of us, the majority of whom are unhappy with the direction Obama has taken our country.

re - information about OWS - we have said much less negative about them than enemies said about the Tea Party.

Besides, we are trying to figure out what OWS is. They specifically will not tell us what they want besides jobs, prosperity and good governance, which everybody, even including that 1% they claim to hate, wants.

I am not currently in the U.S. and have not seen the rallies. One of my friends just came back from NY. He told me that there were not many OWS and it looked a lot like street people. This fist with pictures and commentaries I have seen.

What I think we have is a movement that was not well thought out, which is now becoming victim to a parasite infestation of street people and bums and probably infiltration by anarchists. The OWS has no defenses against this. They cannot kick out the bums, who have as much right (unfortunately) to occupy streets and parks.

This movement will become more and more dirty, odious and offensive until the weather gets cold and most of them wander off.

Posted by: C&J at October 29, 2011 12:35 PM
Comment #331188

There were several attempts to define the mission and message of OWS by those who oppose it.

I thought they succeeded in what they were saying. I presenting their message the opposition layed out that the concept was Marxist oriented. That bums were part of the body count. That there were a host of people who could not articulate why they were there. I appears that people wanted Woodstock and Chicago all wrapped into one large party.

The left sees things from myopia.

Here are a few names of people who are in the decision making positions of OWS. Look them up and explain to me that this is good for the country.

Lisa Fithian
Broderick Johnson
John Bachtell
Roberta Wood
Arturo Cambron
John Wojcik
Jim Lane

There are many more. These are officials of Nazi and Communist organizations. They are at the forefront of OWS. And you on the left still want to allow them to make the choices that are good for the country. It would be more profitable to purchase four flat tires for your car from a TV repairman who is color blind.


Posted by: tom humes at October 29, 2011 1:41 PM
Comment #331191

tom humes-
You like saying provocative things, don’t you?

Nobody’s shooting cops. No mainstream OWS group would suggest it. We’ve had quite a lot of protests, and not one real riot. How many cops have died, or been shot in our protests? That’s right, there haven’t been any such casualties.

Now there are two possibilities about that pamphlet. One that it’s a fringe group. Well, if they’re such a fringe group, then most OWS protestors haven’t listened to them, because we haven’t gotten violent. The other option is that they might be agents provocateur. There was that one conservative journalist who tried to lead other demonstrators on a charge up into one of the National Mall’s Museums.

Either way, we haven’t taken their lead, and I’m proud of them for not doing that.

I got to ask you a question here, before I continue: how exactly are you supposed to have a better idea of what’s going on on ground level than the Liberals at Daily Kos? Our people are actually in those protests. Either you have infiltrators trying to make us look bad, or you’re from the outside looking in. Given the fact that people on FOX actually hold meanings to determine what spin they’re going to put on stories, I rather doubt you’re getting real raw information from them. Contrary to their slogan, they report and they decide.

It’s funny that you disrespect scuffy protestors, when your Tea Party movement based itself on a bunch of people who went onto cargo ships and committed felonies.

As for your one word change?

I’ve seen the Republicans trash a woman whose main motivation was her grief for her son. I saw them trash a twelve year old kid who was in a coma from an accident by trying to allege his parents were faking their need for help. I’ve seen them say that the soldier whose skull got cracked had it coming. Everywhere I go where there’s some sort of feedback or comments section, I see this kind of venom and vitriol, and it just angers me.

You can reverse the words, but I can’t unsee what I’ve seen. Maybe there are people on both sides who have done wrong along these lines, and I’m glad to confront people on my side. Tell me, are you willing to confront people, even on this site, who disregard the fact that they’re talking about a fellow American and human being, when they talk about such things? I’m willing to do that.

I encounter both liberals and conservatives in my daily life, and most of these people are good people. Dissenting when you believe something’s wrong is patriotic. But I think part of loving this country should be a willingness to treat your fellow Americans well.

As for your final comments? Well, those people you call rats and pigeons are human beings, so if they’re getting fed by us, and we become characterized by that charity, so be it. And why are those people there? I seem to remember in my recent political history that many of these people use to be taken care of in asylums before Nixon and other conservatives spearhead efforts to get them dumped on the street. Sure saved the country money, didn’t it? Of course, we don’t like having folks in rags picking through garbage and accosting us on the street, but hey, those are the tradeoffs. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and Wall Streets tried to get a free lunch by taking more and more money from people, at the same time they give less and less back.

Funny thing that when we refuse to be charitable, refuse to do right by people, that they don’t go away. I don’t think the OWS movement’s going to go away. Even if the protests themselves don’t move things all the way, it’s produced a change in people’s mindset, a change in the political landscape. Already Democrats are winning on the generic ballots against Republicans.

So you make your jokes about the homeless people your movement itself helped get kicked out on the street. Just consider that the side effects of the bitter medicine that Republicans have fed to the 99% over the last few decades might be the motivations that create the movement that rides the backlash into power.

Endeared to the dregs of society. Hmm. Perhaps you might want to tilt your head in the air while you say that. Has it entered your mind that you might be playing into precisely the elitist framing we want you to play into?

You ask me who Wall Street is, well I would say nowadays that it’s a corrupt culture. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have some function, nor that it’s made completely from evil people who drag dead babies behind their BMWs and Lexuses. The culture, though, encourages risky, often byzantine financial activity that doesn’t really serve to do something productive.

If that weren’t the case, well, the banks wouldn’t be in trouble. If they had been straight with investors, if they had managed their risk right and policed themselves properly, the 2008 crash would have never happened, end of story.

As for a warzone, **** does happen. Even then, they don’t accept that as an excuse there. Why? Because a dead protestor can become a martyr, and that can become a big negative for soldiers trying to fight an insurgency.

Sound familiar? That injured protestor has become a huge political liability for the city of Oakland, especially with the rest of that heavy-handed eviction. There’s a difference between force you can make up an excuse for, for your own purposes, and force you can justify to others who might not share your viewpoint on things. Oakland just handed the national movement a figure to rally around, and gave many of these movements a new reason to hold firm.

It’s the same thing with your rhetoric. It must thrill your fellow Republicans on whatever right-wing sites let you climb up on your soapbox. But there’s a big difference between making such statements to a bunch of likeminded folks, and then speaking to folks outside the Conservative Hothouse culture.

You know, I’m not as impressed with your rhetoric as you are. You just seem to be dishing out the same stuff I’ve heard from a bunch of people just like you. There’s little evidence you’re doing much else than passing forward whatever the pundits on the right, or their ditto-head followers say.

A cop doing their job would have aimed their smoke grenades and CS grenades away from people. They wouldn’t have set of a flashbang charge right in the middle of a bunch of people trying to help an injured protestor. Whoever it was, they, and not the other cops, the ones who did right, should recieve the blame and the punishment.

Reasonable point, right? It has the added bonus of being truly my position. I don’t just say things to say them.

As for your last line? If you want to take cheapshots, go ahead. I can take it, and it will more than likely end with your getting banned, if you keep it up long enough. I’ve outlasted and outargued many folks who have called me a moron. I’ll win the argument one way or another. If I were you, I would focus on improving your arguments, rather than trying to smear my character.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 29, 2011 2:29 PM
Comment #331192

Stephen “the skater” Daugherty

Who did Obama hire as his chief of staff just in the last few days? Hint: He is a Wall Street Banker.

The pamphlet. Of course a cop has not been killed yet. The pamphlet is telling how to do it for any of the anarchists who feel led to follow their orders.

“It must thrill your fellow Republicans on whatever right-wing sites let you climb up on your soapbox.”

We on the right don’t need right-wing sites for our marching orders. We have the Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions of the several states. Why do I need a person on a soapbox? The soap is gone and the speaker is being rhetorical. I don’t use that or need that.

Your appreciation of people who can think for themselves is totally lacking.


Posted by: tom humes at October 29, 2011 2:46 PM
Comment #331194

TH, SD not only gets his marching orders from the KOS; he actually tries to give the same orders to others. I guess it’s a real culture shock for SD to have someone dispute his rhetoric, since those on the KOS lap up every word they write to each other.

Stephen, unlike your soapbox at the KOS, I have no need or desire to comment on any conservative site. I’m having too much fun on WB.

SD opines:

“As for your last line? If you want to take cheapshots, go ahead. I can take it, and it will more than likely end with your getting banned, if you keep it up long enough. I’ve outlasted and outargued many folks who have called me a moron. I’ll win the argument one way or another. If I were you, I would focus on improving your arguments, rather than trying to smear my character.”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 29, 2011 2:29 PM

Let me say a couple of things about this statement:

1. I have never heard you outargue anyone.

2. I did not call you a moron, but what I did say was, “Stephen, you are a great example of the old saying, “you never know how stupid a person is until they open their mouth”.

You do realize this is just an old saying. Here’s the link:

If it makes you feel better, I could have said your lack of intelligence is seen when you begin to speak words. Or in other words, your comments are unintelligent.

Ah, now we get to the root of the word game. It’s perfectly alright for a libera to make this statement:

“your comments are unintelligent”

I remember a now defunked past writer on WB, who also theought his S**t didn’t stink. None other than DRR, who wrote in the center column, but was a flaming liberal.

3. You have a habit of threating to have people removed from WB if they say something you don’t like of can’t answer, just like DRR used to do. Stop whining Stephen; you’re beginning to sound like a “girlyman”.

3. All that talk, and you didn’t answer one single charge. In fact you seemed to have glazed right over the ABC news link that accused the protesters of setting off firecrackers. You have a real problem with facts, don’t you Stephen.

Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2011 3:34 PM
Comment #331195

The left is so used to telling each other BS, without so much as a question, they have a hard time when someonme questions them.

There is an old saying SD (don’t you just love old sayings?; “if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”.

I’ve never seen anyone booted from WB for quoting old sayings.

Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2011 3:38 PM
Comment #331197


There are no “mainstream” OWS groups. Tell me who they are.

BTW, thanks again for your words - “I see this kind of venom and vitriol, and it just angers me.” Read back on your posts about the Tea Party or about Republicans in general. You must be really mad at yourself.

Let me diagnose your problem. You really cannot see outside your own blinders. You see actions on one side as justified and exactly the same ones on the other hates.

BTW - speaking of vitriol, let me give you one of my own. As you know I went to Iraq. I had several people tell me that they hoped I would get killed since I was supporting my country. It is hard to get worse than that.

Re Tea Party v OWS - if the Tea Party hung around long enough on the streets they would also have that trouble.

The OWS organizational model is flawed. You cannot maintain an encampment like this on the streets of a major city w/o pulling in the bums.

The OWS conception is wrong. They have a diffuse bunch of demands. The ones we know about cannot be achieved by the methods the OWS seem to be advocating.

Re Democrats winning on a generic ballot - we will see what happens next year. That is the ONLY time the people speak clearly. Last year the people spoke clearly. You can speculate about the future. So can I. Neither of us has any basis.

RE your not accepting excuses for the “war zone”. Spoken like a man who has never seen any action. We need to hold people accountable, but you have to recognize the problem of confusion and disorder.

You are quite simply not qualified to judge.

“homeless people your movement itself helped get kicked out on the street.” - this is another thing you don’t understand. I remember the homeless on the streets all my life. I don’t know what you mean by my movement or when you think it started. The homeless problem started to take off in the 1960s. It initially had to do with changes in mental health procedures and vagrancy laws. I don’t think these things were part of “my movement.”

BTW -Oakland has been ruled by Democrats pretty much forever. Those Democratic politicians and officials probably did mess up, but I still worry about judging people in the heat of a confrontation.

Posted by: C&J at October 29, 2011 3:51 PM
Comment #331198

SD wrote; “This is the sadistic mindset that’s overcome the right wing in America.”

I wonder at the leap of logic SD makes when police who attempt to restore law and order, and in the process, injure someone, are automatically Conservative policemen? Did some talking head get an interview with the “offending” police person and discover that…OH, Horrors, they were Republicans?

Can SD or some other OWS mob defender tell me please when and where any TEA party group took over a public park, or other public space and had to be evicted by the police?

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 29, 2011 4:07 PM
Comment #331202

tom humes-
I was commenting that your rhetoric might get cheers from the folks on the right-wing sites, or from folks on the red column here, but how does it look to folks whose idea of things hasn’t been shaped by their political party?

The pamphlets might fit your image of these protests in general, but they remain non-violent, and no cop has died. If one group does something inflammatory, but nobody follows through on them, then the nuttiness should not be ascribed to them. Take the example of the birther nonsense as a counterexample to that: because major figures bought into that BS, because it became a prevalent opinion among the Tea Party, there is no dissociating them from it. But with the pamphlet you’re speaking of, you’ve done little to prove that it was prevalent.

If we want to get carried away with your overly-emotional propaganda, we can ignore that fact, but if you look at the way our movement has behaved, there’s not much real meat to your accusation, and people should not feel alarmed that our folks are a bunch of potential cop-killers.

Oh, I know such sayings are old. Does that change the fact that you brought out a line about knowing how stupid a person was, and then brought out me as a prime example?

Ah, the audacity of ambiguity. I think that’s a terrible way to argue, really, because in the end, it’s the easiest thing for a liberal like me to get people to shrug off.

But you know what? It’s a waste of my time and everybody else’s time on this site, if you’re filling up pages with political statements that amount to insults. I’ve been on sites like that, where everything degenerates into schoolyard screaming, or flamewars as they call them on the internet. For your information, I find them to be about the most tedious and vapid of political discussions. It’s not cowardice that leads me to lay the banhammer on the table with a loud thump. It’s supreme ****ing annoyance.

I could sum it up by saying this: If you’re going to just sit around and spam the pages with provocative BS namecalling, I’m going to call up the people who run the site and have you kicked off, so everybody else who’s serious about discussing politics like adults can enjoy themselves.

Now I don’t take that out so often, because interventions like this are no fun, and they stop all the conversations dead. I don’t see much point in winning arguments through such cowardly means, anyways. I won’t see you banned because I don’t think I can win an argument with you. I’ll see you banned because you make something enjoyable for me an ordeal, and because I want to keep things safe for readers and commentors who don’t want to find visits to this site an exercise in mental endurance.

By the way, David wrote in the Middle Column because he was originally a green party member, as I recall it. He was never much a fan of the parties anyways, and despite the fact that his political views were pretty much to the left, he never thought much of the Democratic Party. There are many on the right, like Roy Ellis and Rhinehold who aren’t big fans of the Republicans either, so they post in the center column, too. That’s their choice, and I don’t see the point in trashing them for which column they write for.

As for firecracker thing? Funny firecrackers they got, according to the video I saw. Instead of going from the protestors to the cops, it went from the cops to the protestors. Then, when it went off, it sounded and looked very much like one of those charges they use when doing SWAT entries on a house. And it’s really funny how this strange firecracker aimed itself right in the midst of a group of protestors trying to help an injured member.

Funny thing for the protestors to do to themselves.

I saw the video of the incident in question, and if that’s a firecracker, you’re the Queen of England. Next you’re going to claim that the guy got his skull fractured by trying to do a soccer header on the cops ammunition.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 29, 2011 6:15 PM
Comment #331203

The group in general is mainstream, in fact far more than it’s counterpart. Reform of Wall Street, measures to help unemployment, accounability for those whose financial chicanery got us into this mess, and end to favoritism in tax and regulatory policy towards corporation for the top one percent?

These ideas poll rather well.

It’s true I’ve shown contempt for some of the behavior and some of the ideas pushed by the Tea Party, but wishing death on them, justifying violence against them? No, I’ve never done that. I’m media savvy, and I’m a big believer in the pointlessness of political violence as a means to persuade people. That’s where part of my disdain for the tactics of the Tea Party comes from.

A person carrying around a gun, or engaging in violence sends the message, however intentionally or unintentionally, that they are not confident enough in the truth of what they say, or in the system itself to persuade without the threat of force, the argumentiam ad baculum, on their side. It might make them feel powerful, but what they feel is irrelevant in political dynamics. It’s what others think or do in response that makes it a success or failure.

Note that I never told you that I hoped you die over there. I would have thought that a real shame. At the very least, my thinking went, you had the courage of your convictions, unlike some. But I did not comment about warzones to make a point about how well I knew them. I freely admit that I have never been in the way of a real firefight, and I hope I never do. Which is not to say that I don’t respect the chaos and confusion of real war. High explosives and bullets are objects of unthinking physics, and don’t spare the innocent on account of their blamelessness, nor the righteous on account of their good character.

I have a healthy respect for what it means to call a place a warzone, so when I say that a Marine said that this conduct would be unpermissable in a warzone, I intend to backstop the basic syllogism of what would be permissable here, in a non-warzone, with the very real character of what an actual warzone would be like.

Those police officers were not being shouted at. If we buy the official story, the worse that was coming their way, with them in full riot gear, was bottles and rocks, not bullets, not molotov cocktails. They were not deal with a bloodthirsty mob.

I think I’m qualified to judge that deadly force was not necessary, not on basically unarmed protestors, who could at worst throw things.

Royal Flush-
The sadistic mindset is that of people who look at this police action, and tell themselves that the unarmed demonstrators who it was targeted at deserve it. The sadistic mindset is in this need to belittle and dehumanize these people as being bums, as being pigeons and rats.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 29, 2011 6:32 PM
Comment #331206


You call small numbers of college students, street people and professional organizers “mainstream” yet you call tens of thousands of ordinary Americans outside.

Once again, let me borrow your words that apply to me, “It’s true I’ve shown contempt for some of the behavior and some of the ideas pushed by the OWS, but wishing death on them, justifying violence against them? No, I’ve never done that.”

And there has been zero cases of political violence at Tea Party rally, although some union thugs have done violence against them.

Re me dying in Iraq - Stephen, despite our differences, you are a kind of friend. I never said you did this and would never expect you did. When I had my 15 minutes of fame in 2007 (which you may or may not be aware of), however, I got some of that. I was actually honored by their hate. They hated the truth.

re the cops - we should tell those Democrats running Oakland to be a little more compassionate, maybe.

It is interesting that when there is police violence alleged, you assume it is a conservative problem when we all know in this case it is a liberal establishment involved.

Posted by: C&J at October 29, 2011 7:37 PM
Comment #331207

“Those police officers were not being shouted at. If we buy the official story, the worse that was coming their way, with them in full riot gear, was bottles and rocks, not bullets, not molotov cocktails. They were not deal with a bloodthirsty mob.”

So Stephen, do you agree with Adrienne that this was police brutality. Since, as C&J said, Oakland is a long time Democrat controlled area; then we can assume the police did not get their marching orders from the non-violent, loving, Democrat leadership. So they must have taken this police brutality decision upon themselves, right?

Now if the police took it upon themselves to attack the non-violent, loving, protestors; then we now have a case of union men attacking union protestors, correct. In fact, how could the left, and you Stephen, even suspect that the police would break the law by being brutal, since both groups are loving, kind, union supporters? Are you saying that some of the police, even though they are union members, are secretly conservatives, because only a conservative could be brutal, right Stephen?

So many questions, and no answers…

Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2011 7:44 PM
Comment #331208

SD writes; “The sadistic mindset is that of people who look at this police action, and tell themselves that the unarmed demonstrators who it was targeted at deserve it.”

You associated the police action with the right and are now trying to backpedal. I heard no one cheering that people were injured. And, I hear no one cheering the police who are doing their sworn duty. I cheer our law enforcement when they follow orders given by superiors and don’t break the law themselves.

The left attempts to place the sins of the OWS on the TEA party which is simply nonsense. Show me the violent confrontation with duly sworn police officers, the takeover of public places, the hindrance of daily activities of non-involved citizens by TEA party demonstrators.

Frankly SD, I am surprised that you count yourself among the OWS mob. You are intelligent and articulate…those folks are not. You hold a job, most of these folks don’t. You have claimed to be a law-abiding citizen, these folks are demonstrably not. Other than an abiding love for other people’s money, I don’t see that you have much in common with them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 29, 2011 8:02 PM
Comment #331211

Royal Flush, Stephen can’t help himself. He worships at the altar of obama and obama came out in support of the OWS, therefore SD is in support. For all that intelligence, he still can’t make his own decisions.

Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2011 9:26 PM
Comment #331213

I love the way the left is confused at the conservative opinions of the OWS. When they were verbally attacking the Tea Party months ago, they had no problem with what was being said. The problem with the left is they can dish it out, but can’t take it.

By the way Royal, I notice you and C&J have asked those on the left to name one time at the TP rallies, when anyne was arrested. The silence is deafening. Come on lefties, list the violence and arrests.

Waiting Patiently

Posted by: Mike at October 29, 2011 9:34 PM
Comment #331217

What is it, three responses? Patient indeed. I’ve discovered the restorative virtues of having a life outside arguing with folks on this website. Watched some Farscape, some Stargate SG-1, and some NCIS.

The reality is, this is a movement of Civil Disobedience, and has been from the beginning. It’s meant to provoke certain responses, non-violently, and then to take the negative responses and turn public sympathy against those responses.

Bloomberg, being who he is, doesn’t seem to be very interested in holding off on the protestors out of sympathy. I think he appreciates that if he loses it and actually clears them out, he’ll only make the problem worse. Use enough force, and he’ll not only end up with the bad publicity, he’ll probably find many of the same people coming back.

The Right Wing didn’t get concerned about crowd numbers until they started getting jealous of Obama’s drawing power when he won in 2008.

As for that other argument? There’s been no consistent pattern of behavior among police forces responding to the protestors, so any inferences you made are undependable at best. What I meant to point out that there were quite a few conservative commentators commenting on the brutality with approval, on this among other things. It truly made me sick to read people basically saying, well that’s what he gets for protesting with a bunch of socialists, in regards to that Marine.

Anybody can be brutal, but not everybody’s building a culture that enshrines that brutality as a virtue when aimed at the other party.

The views they espouse for the most part are pretty mainstream. Just check out the polls. And the sad thing is, where the Tea Party pretty much had to make a bloody spectacle of it, and get Fox News to push them every night, the OWS protestors pretty much formed their group and made their name on their own.

There are political movements you have to build up to, because their political direction counters the current political dynamics. Then there are the political groups that benefit from having the potential energy of public sentiment already at their backs.

You talk of union thugs and things like that, but with the Tea Partiers screaming in people’s faces, they’re lucky they had just a couple isolated incidents. The truth of the matter is, most Democrats are savvy to how they would get treated in the media if they allowed their behavior to get out of hand.

That’s what makes a lot of this rhetoric laughable, except for the fact that people actually believe it, and fear needlessly on its account. It seems to me that in all too many cases, both Republicans and Democrats fall into a trap where they assume that a rivalry necessitates ill-mannered behavior towards the other side.

I don’t think they hated the truth, I think they genuinely disliked and distrusted the policies for their own reasons. Motives are the weakest thing, in my book, to try and refute somebody’s opinions on. I believe that’s true especially if a) they’re right there to tell you what they really think, or b) the motive is just given to fit some stereotype.

The Tea Party failed to satisfy something, I think, because at heart, it was a reaction against a policy change, agaisnt a change in political leadership. Given that people were dissatisfied with the status quo, the Tea Party Republicans were not in a position to benefit from people’s resentment after they got elected. The OWS movement, or least the greater movement it belongs to, are not so hemmed in.

Royal Flush-
I’m not going to bother trying to untangle your argument.

Law enforcement isn’t merely about throwing people in jail, it’s about keeping the peace and helping resolve things peacefully. There are graceful and heavy handed ways of doing things, and the tensions in effect have always been present.

The protestors aren’t looking to discredit themselves, they’re looking to use their situation to give their views greater press coverage. Their crimes are minor, non-violent. If you got people shooting protestors in the head with beanbag rounds or smoke/CS grenades, that sets up a bad dynamic, as the punishment, or forceful treatment outweighs the crime.

I think the cops who have acted that way, or at least the administrators that have them doing that, are fools. They’re not achieving their aim, but subverting it by misunderstanding the situation. The heavy-handedness of the approach has weakened their hand, politically.

Real political power comes from the ability to resolve things. Those who can’t resolve things just make bigger messes, no matter how bold and brash they get doing it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2011 1:01 AM
Comment #331219


The views they espouse ARE mainstream. I agree with almost all of them as I imagine do most members of the Tea Party, Republican candidates and I expect even members of radical right wing groups as well as those on the left.

Who is against more jobs, less corruption and a growing economy?

My problem is with the methods and the messengers. IMO, it will take actual work and effort to get those things I mention above. Hanging around on the streets, banging drums and begging for change (both varieties) won’t accomplish the mission.

Re Tea Party - the reason I mention union thugs is that we BOTH know that there has been no violence among the millions of people at Tea Party rallies EXCEPT among opposition protestors, such as the aforementioned union thugs.

The Tea Party brought millions of people to the streets. They committed no acts of violence and they didn’t make a mess. This is amazing. OWS has not been as well behaved, despite their small numbers.

You talk about OWS as if it is a big deal. It is a big deal in the minds of its supporters and liberal media. Otherwise, it is a small and diverse bunch of idealists, community activists and bums, who have yet to articulate a program.

Obama is president. I know he is trying hard to identify with the protesters in order to hide from his own record. I think this shows his character as a “community organizer” and not a leader.

Posted by: C&J at October 30, 2011 7:20 AM
Comment #331220

BTW - I use pigeon in the old fashioned way. A pigeon in my dated slang is one who is dumb and easy to deceive. These are the idealistic young people. Although as I think of pigeons, they are the perfect liberal bird. They hang around waiting for handouts, congregate in large groups w/o doing any useful work, make a lot of noise and crap all over.

The rats are the street people. I don’t think that use of slang requires explanation. Like rats, they scavenge on the edges of society and are mildly dangerous when confronted.

Posted by: C&J at October 30, 2011 7:27 AM
Comment #331221


“Like rats, they scavenge on the edges of society and are mildly dangerous when confronted.”

One wonders what society would look like if Saint Ronnie hadn’t closed the sanitariums and threw these people out into the streets.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 30, 2011 8:19 AM
Comment #331222


Saint Kennedy closed those places and subsequent court decisions prevented society from protecting itself and the street people from themselves.

Deinstitutionalization began in the 1950s. Kennedy took personal interest in the subject. It has been pushed mostly by the liberal and civil rights communities. They also worked hard to do away with vagrancy laws.

Many of these efforts were good and most were well intentioned, but they created collateral effects. IMO, at times the “rights community” have used the “homeless” as an offensive weapon. During the Reagan times, I remember them actually organizing and busing homeless around Washington to be present at the points were they would be the most visible and create the most annoyance. It was not an attempt to ameliorate conditions but to use them politically. I saw this with my own eyes.

I have a personal explanation for some homeless. I was in the Longshoreman’s Union in the 1970s. Many of my co-workers were drunks, who had trouble working a full work week. But they didn’t really have to. There was a kind of day-labor system available. There was also a lot of pilferage on the docks. Things “fell off the trucks” creating many side businesses. In the 1970s containerized cargo came in. This required fewer men to work AND required steady work with steady hands, eliminating the demand for semi-drunk labor. About the same time, urban renewal eliminated the “flop houses”, i.e cheap hotels like you see in old movies. The new housing was nicer, but less affordable. Lots of guys who would have been day laborers and rented rooms in flop houses hit the streets - hard.

The causes of homelessness are many. I am not sure about the solution, but I am reasonably certain that giving out food on the street is not among them.

Posted by: C&J at October 30, 2011 9:07 AM
Comment #331228

The pigeons like to crap on the bull, while the rats prefer insider trading. Thank God for sheep.

Posted by: jlw at October 30, 2011 1:10 PM
Comment #331229

This has got to be one of the most interesting news articles I have ever read. The two links provided below have never made it to the MSM. We have listened to Stephen Daughter’s and other socialists on WB’ s BS about how peace loving these nasty WS protestors are, and yet have blasted the TP for being violent, which is complete bull shit. Thank God for the ability to get news from somewhere other than the big three who controlled the propaganda for many years.

Once again we have SD on the wrong side of history, defending the indefensible. The left loves to bring up the point that a man was carrying an Ar-15 at a TP Rally in AZ. The MSMBC went so far as to condemn the one with the guns as white racists who were unhappy that we have a black president. Then the little puppet/parrots on the left pick up from there and continue to broadcast this same bilge for the past couple of years. Even Stephen, who is supposed to be the intelligent one who is far above the fray and speaks only the facts, has been one of the most guilty in saying one man represents the whole movement. It’s too bad that the racist white man with the guns turned out to be a black man. Never heard that on the MSM, and MSNBC went to great lengths to hide the fact that this TP man was black, and when it came out, they never corrected their report. Might I suggest you watch the video and listen to the reporting:

But now we find that there are Neo-Nazis attending the OWS protests, which are also armed with AR-15’s and yet not one word from the media. We have the continued lies from the hypocritical left on WB who say one TP man with a legal to carry gun, represents all the TP, and yet several skin head Nazis with guns, do not represent all the OWS protestors. Again, thank God for those who want to report the truth:

Stephen said:

“And the sad thing is, where the Tea Party pretty much had to make a bloody spectacle of it, and get Fox News to push them every night, the OWS protestors pretty much formed their group and made their name on their own.”

No Stephen, the Tea Party had plenty of coverage by the media and it was all negative. It was only on Fox News, that anything close to reality was reported. Pertaining to OWS; the left liberal media have been more than willing to give them all the coverage they wanted. In fact the left leaning media longs for a Kent State type of massacre in order to draw sympathy to the perverts. Oh, by the way Stephen, did you hear the latest, last night another woman was raped in her shanty town tent in NY, by another deviant. Oh, by the way, unlike you, who ignore the facts, here are mine:

Go ahead, continue to defend the deviants.

Posted by: Mike at October 30, 2011 2:14 PM
Comment #331230

If you want to be a liberal socialist, there are three things you MUST remember:

1. Never let a crisis go to waste.

2. Never let facts get between to and your liberal talking points.

3. Always continue with the talking points without ever eluding to the facts.

Posted by: Mike at October 30, 2011 2:22 PM
Comment #331231


I wonder how many TP rallies you would have to research to find one illegal act. I’m sure someone will find a car parked illegally or some such thing. But I am willing to bet you won’t even find someone getting their fanny patted in a friendly manner.
I wonder how many people are participating in the OWS? There were millions that attended TP rallies in small communities and large cities all over this great country of ours. OWS has to do their deeds only in large metropolitan areas.
I gave a memo of 7 people tied to nazi/communist organizations above. Is it taking this long to find one item on each of them that is good for the country? I guess their characters are far more evil for the country. One of those on the list is a Chief of Staff for the President of the United States. Now that is putting the left influence pretty high.
Obama does not support the little guys, the cannon fodder, of OWS. He only supports the organizers, the head honchos, the big shots, the money, the power, the graft, the corruption, the lies, the evil.

If those in Congress that have spoke so enthusiastically for the OWS are so correct, why are they not out there with those “brave?”, “couragous?” souls. That would take them from their ivory towers and mansions.

This movement will wilt away, as it should, when it gets too cold to for those dedicated lefties. Such committment.

Well, in another year we will find out how many people have learned that Obama is not what they thought he was. I called him a ghost then and I call him a ghost now.

Calling Casper, where are you?

Posted by: tom humes at October 30, 2011 4:56 PM
Comment #331236

The people who favor keeping the power structure as it is, whether they benefit from it or are cluelessly indifferent to being damaged along with the rest of us, will do ANYTHING to make OWS go away. As evidenced here. Even though they know that all OWS stands for is true, they will focus on all sorts of bullshit that has nothing to do with the issues, and demonize the movement so that when heads are busted, people are maced and dragged off when protesting peacefully, etc. they can say “see! They deserved what they got!!

So Neo-Nazis were at an OWS protest…… you post this while knowing fully that they have nothing to do with OWS, and that OWS is 180 degrees away from what they represent. Just one instance of babyish gotcha shit. Anyone of intellectual honesty and good will would easily be able to admit that OWS is not Nazi. But, how can you resist? It’s a way to make them look bad!!! And the system of honest debate, the free and open exchange of ideas, takes another hit.

This is all well and good here in your echo chamber….but, sad to say, the OWS message resonates with the public. Big time. OWS enjoys more than 50% support among Americans. Until, that is, you ask Americans whether they think money is too powerful in influencing American politics. Then it goes right off the chart. Ditto with holding financial fraud accountable, or making the 1% pay a fair share of taxes.

The Tea Party gets 23%+ -……a far cry from the popular support OWS has. And the things you can’t stand about them, camping every night in the cold, rain, and snow, not having leaders or bullet points, are the things that keep the movement fresh in America’s eyes. More importantly, the unpredictable and variable message can’t easily be co-opted by Power, as was the case with the ‘baggers, who quickly got highjacked and astroturfed. They went from a middle class populist movement to a group of petulant white guys incensed that Obama was gonna eat their lunch, and tinged with racial overtones in their dressing in blackface and holding up racist drawings of Obama at their rallies. Which never,ever had “millions” attending…singly nor in the aggregate. (smirk)

Anyhoo……as someone who has been working to bring people on the two “sides” together (with woeful progress), I feel that posters here show some of how Americans act with hate toward other Americans. I’ve said before that we have gone beyond simple polarization here in America, and ended up being enemies, to the point where one side will not agree with the other even when the ideas expressed make perfect sense to them.

Posted by: steve miller at October 30, 2011 7:36 PM
Comment #331238


Let’s repeat again - OWS gets support because it claims very general goals and does not specify means.

I have heard what people say OWS stands for and I agree with all of it (so far). But I don’t think the means and messengers will accomplish those goals.

You say you are for bringing the sides together in the same post where you criticize the Tea Party.

Re Nazis at OWS rallies - the point is not that the Nazis are an integral part of OWS (whatever that is). The point is that people who earlier criticized the Tea Party are now cutting OWS much slack.

In all the millions who attended Tea Parties, there was no violence - none, NADA, zip - committed by Tea Party members. Already at OWS meetings, we have seen rock throwing and firecracker throwing. This is small stuff, but it is way more than the TP standard.

So let’s hope OWS lives up to the TP standard. I bet it won’t, but I am sure that if anything happens they perps will not be called OWS. It will be a definitional thing. Anybody who does anything wrong will not be called OWS, even if he is.

BTW - I attended two TP rallies in DC. The one had around 50,000 people. I didn’t see any black face or hear any racial insults. In fact, TP shared the Mall with a black family group and they (TP) people were buying food at the stands.

Posted by: C&J at October 30, 2011 8:04 PM
Comment #331239

Why I support OWS and Elisabeth Warren:

Posted by: Tom Jefferson at October 30, 2011 8:07 PM
Comment #331242

Well, you sure stayed away from the most substantive of my statements. If you think we are not specific, either yopu are not paying attention, or are playing the “I don’t know what they want/stand for” game. The rest of America is getting a good idea…..

The few main (and pointed, as you well know) objectives will be achieved by awareness, followed by outrage, followed by political pressure. You don’t honestly think that people running on a 99% platform won’t get elected? That would be unwise.

Here is something I have been reading:
You may find it interesting. I love it so far, am a little more than half way through. It would seem to be somewhat of an amalgamation of ‘bagger and OWS. It is a complete threat to the status quo.

Posted by: steve miller at October 30, 2011 8:23 PM
Comment #331244

And another thing!! ;)
Kitchen workers don’t want to feed non-participants at their protest? When did OWS declare themselves a soup kitchen? Oh, that’s right, they did not, and are not. Not just another attempt to make em look bad? Naaahhhhhhhhh! Unbelievably weak.

Here in Rhode Island the OWS people feed and house (OK, tent) the homeless. And, they are some of the most dedicated and civic-minded people I have EVER seen.. And I have seen a lot.

I had some moron tell me to get a job, make some money, etc. the usual troll stuff. The guy Googled me or somehow searched and found out I had bought a house in 09 for over $800,000. He then: implied I had taken it away from someone who had it foreclosed on, and: told me I had no right to be dissatisfied with the continually worsening lot of the poor. It’s that kind of “throw ANYTHING and see if it sticks” mentality that sickens me. I couldn’t win if I was a “freeloader” looking for a “handout”..then I couldn’t win for having worked hard and being successful. The kitchen worker “expose” is the same kind of lower than whale shit low-blow sleaze; has nothing to do with anything. Someone could say “the OWS folks have been feeding the homeless and working sixteen hour days doing it”. And that would be closer to the truth. SO. I’m calling “bullshit”. Harrumph!! ;)

Posted by: steve miller at October 30, 2011 8:43 PM
Comment #331245

Yet ANOTHER thing: you know JACK about the makeup of the protesters!!!!!! Spin, slime, misdirect. No debate on the issues. Nice job. Hatchet job, that is.

Posted by: steve miller at October 30, 2011 8:45 PM
Comment #331247

Once again, Mike comes across with a claim that more or less has me being the worst person in the world thinking the worst things in the world with the worst people in the world and the worst intentions in the world.

There’s a term for this trope: informed reputation.

You say a lot of crap, and most of its meant to make people think poorly of me. Folks typically resort to that when they can’t argue with things like the people’s actual points. Instead, they manipulate other people emotionally into opposing them based on things like, say, guilt by association.

Let’s take the Neo-Nazis for example. That’s around the Pheonix OWS rally, right?

Seems like the guy in question also showed up at multiple Tea Party rallies. What your trusted sources forgot to tell you, in addition to that, the man leading those people also spoke at a July 4th celebration in 2009.

More to the point:

It’s worth pointing out that much of the rhetoric Ready spouts during the video — decrying fiat money, saying that he and others were “exercising our Second Amendment right so that everybody can have a First Amendment right,” claiming that Operation Fast and Furious was intended to “take away our rights” and the perpetrators are traitors who should be put to death — sounds much more like the rhetoric of a conservative protestor than an OWS supporter.

Doesn’t it bother you that there’s more evidence to link them to the Tea Party than to us?

The problem of relying on illogical talking points like yours is that if your side hasn’t done enough research, your attack backfires. I would say this has happened, and need say no more to your arguments.

Your people complain about Solyndra, but they turn around and feed their own districts loans from the same program, without once registering the irony. They complain about the burden that taxes put on the average person by retarding job creation, but then their job creators do layoffs anyways, and then lobby congress to push flat taxes that will increase the average person’s tax bill.

Your position is defined not by it’s own consistent philosophy, but by an antagonism to liberalism. Republicans can’t take yes for an answer, because they’ve made it so terrible to be in agreement with the Democrats. I mean, what course of action can be more pathetic than to have your opposition cave, give you the opportunity to win a big success, but because it’s not perfect, and you can’t be seen to compromise with us, you push yourselves even further right, or pitch yourself in nonsensical opposition, and you end up sabotaging your own deals.

Put another way, on two votes where Republicans extorted settlements out of the Democrats, the ending deal became that much more liberal, because the Tea Party Republicans refused to vote for anything less than a complete repudiation of liberals, and the rest of the
Republicans didn’t have the numbers to win a vote with those proposals, or the ones they were currently shopping.

You can’t pull towards the fringe forever without ripping off your constituency from the mainstream, and ending up holding that scrap of the former political glory by yourselves. Compromise is built into the structure of our constitutional government, so people who promise no compromise in the election essentially promise that they will do less, achieve less, and fail more, because that is what happens to those who are unwilling to make deals.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2011 9:27 PM
Comment #331248


IF they represented 99% they would certainly get elected. But if you look at the comments on this blog - and others - you notice that many of us, who are part of the 99%, do not support the OWS.

To represent 99% the OWS would have to get the support of 99% of Republicans, 99% of evangelicals, 99% of Tea Party members, 99% of … even 99% of Neo-Nazis, 99% of weirdos, and of course 99% of Democrats.

Like the OWS, most Americans are tired of Obama’s economy. Like OWS most Americans want more jobs. Like OWS most Americans want the economy to recover.

How about this. I represent 99% of the people too, since those are my platforms.

BTW - if you can afford to buy a house for $800,000 in ‘09, you may be part of that 1% the OWS want to stop. I know that I could not afford to buy a $800,000 house. You know the OWS better than I do. Do they forgive you if you make money like this by having several family members work and by working those long hours?

But this is a self-proving proposition. The Tea Party managed to elect lots of people. The American voters soundly defeated the Democratic majority in 2010.

If OWS results in change at at the voting booth, it will have also represented somebody.

BTW - what type of candidates are OWS seeking to support or do they just want to complain?

Maybe we should advocate voting out anybody who was in any office when the economy hit the skids in 2008/9. Would you support that?

Re what I know about the protesters. I know there are not many of them. I know that they were originally organized by professional activists. I know that lots of street people have moved into the encampments. Interviews I have heard on the radio indicate that there are lots of young people made about having to pay high tuition or student loans.

Posted by: C&J at October 30, 2011 9:36 PM
Comment #331250

tom humes-
Refresh my memory: isn’t glorifying the Tea Party glorifying an illegal act? That is, the original Tea Party, where they stole and destroyed Tea in Boston Harbor, after trespassing on the ships.

I guess you have to repudiate the real Tea Party, because we just simply can’t have protestors doing illegal things, now can we?

I remember, in particular, Tea Party candidates pulling a false arrest on a journalist, and a supporter of Rand Paul stomping on a protestors head.

The support for the OWS comes from what they specifically support, and what they specifically support isn’t some twisting of the need to create jobs, it is a direct call to directly create jobs.

See, many of the Tea Party ideas were essentially, let do all these wonderful things for Wall Street, for big business, let’s oppose regulation and taxes, and hope the secondary effect is to create jobs.

To me, it seems, the Tea Party is simply the Republican Party as it has been, with all the awareness of how politically unlikely their agenda’s triumph will be stripped out, and the inhibitions that would create with it.

The Tea Party is the Republican Party become desperate.

The OWS movement’s simple ideas work because they are naturally the ideas of a liberal party. I mean, tell me, more taxes on the rich to close up deficits- is that not far more easily liberal? Support for direct aid to the economy, instead of adding additional pages to the tax code, in order to produce a never seen economic boom from a tax cut? Support for reform on wall Street, and regulation of the derivatives market? Support for holding those who broke the economy accountable?

The basic goals of the OWS movement are a natural fit, and more over, those basic goals are very popular with the American people.

That’s why the OWS protestors are getting slimed and disparaged. The OWS protestors don’t have to fake much of anything, distort much of anything to both define their message as populist, and crystallize what Americans want to hear about. When working to a political advantage for our side is as easy as falling off a log, that’s when your side worries.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2011 9:46 PM
Comment #331251

Steve Miller said,

“This is all well and good here in your echo chamber….but, sad to say, the OWS message resonates with the public. Big time. OWS enjoys more than 50% support among Americans.”

This has become a consistent statement by the left. And the left believes if they make a statement long enough, people will start to believe it. So, I took it upon myself to research to see if Steve Miller and others were correct or not, and this is what I found:

1. First is the latest CNN poll, which finds only 32% of Americans supporting the OWS.

2. Second is the Washington Post/Pew poll, which shows only 39% of Americans support the OWS.—tea-party-is-red-and-ows-is-blue/2011/10/24/gIQA1UEODM_blog.html?tid=sm_btn_twitter

Those not supporting the OWS were almost equal in the same polls to those who support, with almost another 1/3 of those polled either never hearing of the OWS or not caring.

I also found that the questions being asked by the Times Magazine poll, which is the one quoted by liberal sites and liberals on WB, were skewed. Stephen Daugherty would be the one to consult, but I believe he has stated on previous occasions that the question matter.

Time asked of the OWS:


“This states the views of the Occupy Wall St. crowd in as sympathetic a way as possible — even most conservatives and libertarians opposed the Wall St. bailout and the type of crony capitalism that comes with mixing money and politics. This is not the controversial aspect of Occupy Wall Street.”

In reference to the Tea Party, this question was asked:


“So, while the “Occupy Wall Street” question is phrased in a sympathetic manner, the Tea Party question just mentions the name “Tea Party,” which has been associated with partisan fighting for over two years now. Had pollsters approached the Tea Party question in the same way as the Occupy Wall Street one, they may have written something such as: “Do you support the movement that opposes the Wall Street bailouts, thinks Washington has gotten too big and powerful, and wants to lawmakers to respect America’s founding Constitutional principles?” That clearly would have made respondents view the Tea Party more favorably.

Given the biased way the questions were phrased in the Time poll, it’s no surprise that 54 percent viewed Occupy Wall Street favorably, compared with just 27 percent who said they viewed the Tea Party favorably.

A survey by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling asked much more straight forward questions, and the numbers were much closer. “Do you support or oppose the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement?” PPP asked, and 35 percent indicated support, while 36 percent said they opposed the goals. Asked the same of the Tea Party movement, 39 percent supported it compared to 45 percent who opposed it. On a head-to-head question, “Do you have a higher opinion of the Occupy Wall Street movement or the Tea Party movement?” 40 percent chose Occupy Wall Street compared with 37 percent who chose the Tea Party. I’d predict as more people get to know the Occupy Wall Street movement, it will become less popular. But either way, it simply isn’t fair to say that it’s currently twice as popular as the Tea Party.”

Stephen said, “To me, it seems, the Tea Party is simply the Republican Party as it has been, with all the awareness of how politically unlikely their agenda’s triumph will be stripped out, and the inhibitions that would create with it.

The Tea Party is the Republican Party become desperate.”

Actually Stephen, you are incorrect. According to the above Washington Post/Pew research poll, 18% of the TP supporters are Democrat and 11% are liberal. This means that almost 1/5 of the TP are Democrats.

I would not consider the Washington Post as aconservative skewed poll.

Posted by: Frank at October 30, 2011 10:03 PM
Comment #331252


If OWS think it is possible for government to directly create SUSTAINABLE jobs, they might want to read a little more about the success of the Soviet Union.

Re the Tea Party - you never talked to any TP supporters, have you? They generally do not support Wall Street or big business. They just don’t want to pay more in taxes or expand government. The bailouts were very unpopular with the Tea Party. In this respect, OWS is following the Tea Party lead.

You talk about the popularity of OWS. Let’s see how that works out. We have an election next year and the campaigns are already starting. Tea Party made a difference in congress. What do you think OWS will do.

As I asked above, are you willing to advocate voting out anybody who held an office when the economy went bad, or anybody who voted for the bailouts?

Posted by: C&J at October 30, 2011 10:18 PM
Comment #331253

How about these demands -

Avoid the Pitfalls of Politics - American politics is burdened by big money from lobbyists and special interests with an undue influence on the peoples’ representatives. We are is seen as a threat to the entrenched political parties and thus is the continual target of smear campaigns and misrepresentation of its ideals. We choose not to respond to these attacks except to strongly and explicitly disavow any and all hate speech, any and all violence as well as insinuations of violence, and any and all extreme and fringe elements that bring us discredit. We are a peaceful movement and respect other’s opinions and views even though they do not agree with our own. We stand by our goals and choose to focus our energies on ensuring that our government representatives do the same.

Do you think 99% agree with this?

Posted by: C&J at October 30, 2011 10:23 PM
Comment #331254

Well I’m sorry Stephen if I have made you cry. Buck up and put on your big boy pants. I guess I will have to take it easy on you in the future, your feelings are easily hurt. But to bring us up to date on the violence of the OWS and the Dems support of the group, or lack of…

Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen’s firm surveys the OWS, and turns up some…interesting results:

“The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York’s Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.”

“Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn’t represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.”

Here’s another good one:

“Brian Beutler-October 18, 2011, 9:18 AM

Whether individual Democratic pols realize it or not, a battle’s underway to convince them that the answer to a key question has been settled: What will it mean for you in 2012 if you embrace the Occupy Wall Street movement now?

There have been multiple polls suggesting that pluralities or majorities of Americans support of the Occupy Wall Street protests. None of them suggest directly that embracing the movement would be a good or bad move for members of either party.

So for a particular kind of political professional, a Monday email from the centrist group Third Way attempting to answer that question verged on parody.”

“Occupy Wall Street — Bad strategy for dems,” the subject line read. Third Way prizes itself on dividing politics into poles and seeking a middle path between the two, so their advice came as little surprise. But it also illustrated the extent to which the Democratic party is being pulled in opposite directions on a key question this election season.”

Posted by: Mike at October 30, 2011 10:30 PM
Comment #331257

It just keeps getting better. The more these OWS perverts protest, the more they look like the Tea Party…sure they do.

“DENVER (AP) - The simmering tension near the Colorado Capitol escalated dramatically Saturday with more than a dozen arrests, reports of skirmishes between police and protesters and authorities firing rounds of pellets filled with pepper spray at supporters of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Officers in riot gear moved into a park late in the day where protesters were attempting to establish an encampment, hauling off demonstrators just hours after a standoff at the Capitol steps degenerated into a fight that ended in a cloud of Mace and pepper spray.

Denver police spokesman Matt Murray said 15 people were arrested in the evening confrontation, where authorities were moving to prevent protesters from setting up tents in the park, which are illegal. Officals say the demonstrators had been warned several times that the tents would not be allowed and those who attempted to stop police from dismantling the camp gear were arrested. Protesters have been staying in the park for weeks, but tents have repeatedly been removed.”

Or how about this peaceful OWS rally, a must see:

It’s almost like a worldwide plot at civil unrest, but at leats the Iranian leadership supports the OWS.

The next thing will be the Iranian leadership calling the OWS the “Pervert Spring/Winter”.

Posted by: Mike at October 30, 2011 10:51 PM
Comment #331259

“Refresh my memory: isn’t glorifying the Tea Party glorifying an illegal act? That is, the original Tea Party, where they stole and destroyed Tea in Boston Harbor, after trespassing on the ships.”


“and a supporter of Rand Paul stomping on a protestors head.”

That did not happen. You have taken a story and embellished it to suit your needs.

And what about those people I named above. They are not going to be Pro-American in how they hand out those marching orders. So, if the people in charge are Nazi/Communits it should be fitting that their thought patterns are going to be Anti-American. Go to the bank with that.

And if you and your Obama people are supporting them, they are supporting Nazism and Communism. That does not surprise me in the least. We are seeing some shaking out of those who “your people” claim to just be liberal, but are now making the truth known. They are well past the liberal stance. They are totalitarianists. People on WB have warned in their writing about this and now we are seeing it come to fruition.

In the coming months there is going to be a ton of statements made to give the appearance of being Pro-American. But all it will be is symantic rhetoric. In simplier terms, political BS that will attempt to sway people who do not have the ability to research people running for public service.

For past decades I have been in places where information flowed concerning the security of our nation. There have been so many times I wanted to tell what I know but did not have the liberty to do so. There are times when I cringe when I read in publications of people in high places putting our country at risk. There are times when I read on WB things that people propose and support that makes one wonder about the citizens of this great country and whether they really know what they are doing.

God help us all.


Posted by: tom humes at October 30, 2011 11:09 PM
Comment #331261

Tom, WB is a web site, meaning anyone can write on it. It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out that many liberal socialist of WB are actually writing from a cave in Iran or from a Russian or Chinese coffee shop. It is for certain that many of these socialist on WB have been identifying themselves as racist/Marxist/socialist. So take it with a grain of salt. We don’t even know that SD is an American citizen; we just have their word, which really doesn’t mean much. Tom, have you ever thought that we might be discussing politics with Al Qaeda operatives and being monitored by Obama’s revolutionary guard:)

Posted by: Mike at October 30, 2011 11:28 PM
Comment #331315

You mean Douglas Schoen, the guy who plays one of the token liberals on FOXNews? The guy who advised him not to seek a second term anyways?

Thanks for the laugh. You should also answer one question to me: how does a polling firm do the kind of randomized, scientific polling that actually reflects a good sample of the people present, under those conditions?

As for what Beutler wrote? If you look at the politics of the Tea Party, which appealed to voters along populist lines, along lines of the same frustrations that the OWS now expresses, you’ll find they did just fine. I think Obama, with views in far closer sync to the Public’s, and the OWS protestors, can probably appeal to disaffected voters much more strongly than them.

I’m not worried.

As for your last comment? By your logic you could be some Chinese agent provocateur, sent to this minor political site for some unfathomable reason in order to stir up a tempest in a teacup. You could be an Islamic Communist Koala Bear who sings songs of satanism, for all we know.

If we want to know whose comments to take with a grain of salt, the use of such arguments is not a bad indicator.

Tom Humes-
So, the folks on those ships, the folks who you are emulating in spirit, kindly asked the permission of the ship owners, before they tossed the Tea that they had bought elsewhere into the harbor, ruining it.

As for the Rand Paul stomper, he plead no contest and was sentenced to probation under a deal which acknowledged that Prosecutors could have convicted him. The incident actually happened, and was caught on video, and part of the deal was him paying the woman’s $600 medical bill.

God help you if you keep on trying to make these claims. As the scriptures says, the truth will set you free. The problem here, with your claims, is that the truth is a casualty of the right’s need to destroy its rivals.

The jobs directly created might not be sustained, but once you got money flowing through the economy, jobs will be created of their own accord, and that will become the sustaining force, if it imparts enough momentum.

As for the bailouts?

Well, you can oppose bailouts all you want to, up to and especially after it’s clear that the alternative to doing that is an economic collapse that won’t be any better liked than the bailout.

The difference is, the Tea Party won’t oppose the policies that ultimately lead to the bailouts being necessary, while the OWS will. The Tea Party wants its political purity more than it wants to fix a problem. The OWS movement is primarily about fixing a problem that both Washington and Wall Street seem unwilling to deal with.

There is a difference between intentions and results, and that is the difference between the Tea Party’s populist agenda, and the OWS movement’s agenda.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2011 3:20 PM
Comment #331325


Why do you think that about jobs? Is it the successful Greek experience you are using? Maybe it is the Soviet jobs plan?

Posted by: C&J at November 1, 2011 6:07 PM
Comment #331335


I am miffed. You have made a statement addressed to Tom and I reviewed the above and found I was the only Tom. Could you respectfully clear this up for me? Thank you in advance.

Posted by: tom humes at November 1, 2011 7:20 PM
Post a comment