Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Note to OWS
Look, folks, I have nothing against protesting - not even a little bit. IN FACT, I find it to be a very patriotic thing to do and something that makes us unique (just try doing it over in Syria, for example). But, really, do ya' have to frigging SLEEP in the park, accumulate all sorts of garbage there, publicly defecate, etc. (multiple reports of sexual assault, for example)? I mean, it's not as if the park existed simply for you and your indulgences. Other interests, believe it or not, DO exist; the fact that other people may in fact want to recreate there, the fact that the neighborhood businesses are being negatively effected, etc.. And, please, let me also remind you that there are a whole hell of a lot of other ways that you can do to make a difference these days. Organize and be tutors for inner-city kids. Work at a soup-kitchen. Volunteer at a local convalescent home (you're more than welcome to come to mine). Adopt a stretch of a highway or interstate and beautify it. A lot of things - you know, in addition to the protesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
45 comments:
Those are all very worthy ways to make a difference in someone's life, but they have nothing to do with the wrongs that OWS is protesting.
Read.
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/11/16/la-occupiers-arrested-for-public-masturbation-in-front-of-a-child-battery-and-assault-with-a-deadly-weapon/
The Children of Obama apparently have very active hormones. Jerry Sandusky must be a supporter, as well.
Jerry Sandusky, is a registered republican.
see here
BTW Joe Paterno who either knowingly or inadvertently helped Sandusky avoid getting caught all these years is also.
Sorry ecc102 but that is de facts.
Jerry,could you please explain in some bit of detail just what these OWS dredges are protesting?
I cant for the life of me remember one of the Tea Partyer's shitting in the street.
37,what does Joe Paterno being a republican have to do with anything?
Thats a bit of a stretch,is'nt it?
No more a stretch then commenting on how higher ups in the Catholic church helped cover up their sexual abuse scandal.
Paterno did NOT try very hard to see crimes were properly investigated nor did he make sure underage children were safe from a pedophile working for him, he allowed his "friend" Sandusky to retire instead of making sure the cretin went to prison, like the bishops and cardinals shuffled priests around instead of throwing them into the US justice system for trials and prison if convicted.
Sorry rusty but Paterno failed miserably on this one.
And rusty my reply was to correct the factual record where ecc102 tried a fox news-republican tried and true technique, slime a democrat, or left leaning organization with crimes unrelated to their actual actions;
I am commenting on Paterno's failure to act.
Sorry, Rusty. I am not your research assistant. If you don't know by now what they are protesting, try watching or reading the news, or better yet, look it up yourself.
Oh, and since you don't know what they are protesting, why call them dredges? Don't you like American traditions and our right to protest?
[1] What Jerry said in his first comment. Will needs to get a clue BEFORE badmouthing the movement.
[2] Mentally unstable people, people acting criminally and infiltrators aren't representative of the movement. It isn't as if people are holding up racist signs and everybody else in the movement is totally denying the signs even exist.
[3] OWS is protesting the bank bailouts, fact that no banksters have been prosecuted, and continued lack of regulations that could prevent the "to big to fail" banks from failing again (this, I would say, are the primary beefs).
[4] In reference to point #3: this proves the Tea Partiers are idiots. They protested the bank bailouts, but said nothing about prosecuting banksters. Now the've come out against OWS, even though they are both against the bank bailouts. What more proof is needed that tea partiers are idiots and dupes?
"The Children of Obama apparently have very active hormones."
So you claim that the crackpots who attach themselves to OWS and who are not part of the movement are "The Children of Obama." Okay then, what's to stop anyone from saying the crazy man who shot Rep. Giffords is "A Child of the NRA," and, because the NRA is, by a huge majority, supported by the GOP, makes the murdering crazy shootist from Arizona "A Child of Ronald Reagan."
Once again, wd, you have shamelessly and moronically mischaracterized my position. I am not bad-mouthing the entire movement. In fact, I clearly said that their protesting was PATRIOTIC. My major point is that once you take over a park to the exclusion of others' enjoyment and also turn it into a public health and safety disaster area, that's flat-out where your freedom ends. Protest (in a manner that shares the park with others), go home, and come back the next day.
Can anyone show me any proof that when the TEA Party folks assembled, they trashed the areas they used?
It seems to me they left their protest spots clean upon departure.
Now, about these Occupy folks...well, not so much. Apparently they do crap where they sleep.
"I refer to the protesters as "The Children of Obama" because Mr. Obama birthed them with his class warfare rhetoric and vitriol."
One man's "vitriol" is another man's "straight talk." You don't like Obama, so you see his political straight talk as vitriol. Here's a link to Obama's supposed "vitriol."
The last one, #7 wasn't even uttered by Obama, but the blogger who documented it pins it on him anyway.
Two out of the 7 examples were said during the 2008 campaign, before Obama was president of all Americans. And if the documenter doesn't know the difference between political rhetoric and presidential rhetoric, he or she needs to educate him/herself and learn. Hint: It's NOT the same thing. Overall, if you're honest with yourself, none of what is documented could be construed as "violent rhetoric," but rather normal political rhetoric.
"And, furthermore, he has yet to publicly denounce them even as report after report comes out detailing the atrocities being committed by some of the protesters."
It's not up to the US president to denounce activity that is protected by the US Constitution, nor to speak on a matter--the OWS taking place in the individual states and that activity controlled by those individual states' ordinances and laws, however messy that activity is. In his oath of office the president promises to protect and defend the Constitution, not interfere in what happens in individual states, unless it is a violation of the Constitution.
Mr. Obama didn't denounce the Tea Party demonstrations, even when some TPers showed up where he was speaking with a loaded gun. Constitutionally protected, right?
People seem to be upset over a group of demonstrators being messy, but what do you say about people coming to a demonstration with loaded guns and saying killing the president, a liberal, would be a good idea?
BTW, all of this, except saying the president should be shot, is Constitutionally protected.
'Smatta? Doncha like Democracy in action?
Forgot to include the video link in my last comment.
Will: Once again, wd, you have shamelessly and moronically mischaracterized my position.
Once again, Will, you have you have shamelessly and moronically mischaracterized my characterization of your position.
Will: I am not bad-mouthing the entire movement. In fact, I clearly said that their protesting was PATRIOTIC.
I'm sorry, I thought the title of your post was "Note to OWS"... obviously the title of the post was supposed to be "Note to the Patriotic members of the OWS movement and how I think you can improve it". I'm guessing either blogger screwed it up or someone hacked your account?
Will: Protest (in a manner that shares the park with others), go home, and come back the next day.
Or, do all that and be prevented by the authorities from returning the next day. The protesting needs to be inconvenient for some or it will be ignored.
Will: ...I clearly said that their protesting was PATRIOTIC.
Baloney. You said the individuals protesting are engaging in "indulgences". Clearly you did not mean that any of their "indulgences" include patriotism.
"The protesting needs to be inconvenient for some or it will be ignored."
So true. In fact, it was being ignored by the media until the police rioted.
The protesting (whether it be by the Tea Party or the OWS), AS I STATED, IS patriotic. What, wd, you simply cannot read? But, yes, I have a serious problem with people taking over a park and making it to the point where other citizens cannot utilize it and creating a public health and safety hazard, to boot....And now they want to frigging block the Brooklyn Bridge, too? No. I'm sorry, no.
Again, protesting is patriotic. Trashing the park, mm, not so much.......And I don't know what stations that you've been watching, Jerry, but I've been getting a very steady dosage of this stuff.
Will: And now they want to frigging block the Brooklyn Bridge, too? No. I'm sorry, no.
I think it's frigging AWESOME! I'm watching Keith Olbermann right now and Keith just said up to 35,000 people marched in NY today. THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND!! Holy crap!
I cheer on OWS... Will advises them to do everything they can to be totally ineffective. No. I'm sorry, no.
Will: The protesting (whether it be by the Tea Party or the OWS), AS I STATED, IS patriotic.
As long as they follow the Will Hart rules that would keep the movement ineffective and unsuccessful. The 99 percent have had enough and we will be heard!
Also, I don't know what stations that you've been watching, Will, but I've heard nothing about OWS "trashing" the park.
Will Hart = one of the 99 percent who's inexpiably siding with the one percent.
My comment was alluding to the lack of mainstream media coverage at the beginning of the movement until the police rioted in NY and attacked and gases the peaceful protesters.
And, you do not, YOU DO NOT, have the right to inconvenience the public. YOU DO NOT (you sure as hell better not prevent the passage of this individual). I mean, think about what you're saying here, fellows. What if it was the Tea Party that was blocking traffic, piling up garbage, and shitting in public? Would you still say that it was their right to do so and inconvenience the public? OR (and, yes, I will go there) what about the KKK? They have the right to free speech and peaceable assembly - should they have the right to inconvenience the public, too? You just can't pick and choose who gets these special privileges; if they agree with you yes, if they don't agree with yo no. It just doesn't work that way.
Garbage, wd. There was garbage in the park (including needles) and where in the hell do you think that these people were going to the bathroom? And what about the many reports of sexual assault? Think for a single second, for Christ. And I've already told you that I'm a part of the 53%, the 53% that pays state and federal income tax and property taxes.......And O'Reilly made an excellent point the other night. What about Fannie and Freddie? They took the biggest taxpayer bailout of all AND they just paid their top executives frigging obscene bonuses. Why isn't their an Occupy Fannie and Freddie Movement raging? Frigging double-standard.
And I'm siding with anybody, idiot. I'm simply saying that protesters (ANY PROTESTERS!!!!!!!!) do not have the right to infringe upon the rights of other American citizens; motorists, local businesses, families that may also want to use the park. The son, wd, doesn't rise and fall on yours or anybody else's glorified particular.......As for the Tea Party, yeah, there are a lot of nuts in that group and, yeah, their message is frequently garbled ("keep your government hands off of my Medicare, for example) at times, but, as Rusty has already stated, at least they don't block traffic and shit in public.
[1] I have not heard about "many" reports of sexual assault. I've heard about crimes that happened in the area that people have been trying to pin on OWS. Also, as I've already said, the criminals and crazies that were attracted to the area have nothing to do with the movement.
[2] Your post if rife with Conservative talking points. The needles were from the medical tent. There are people who have legitimate need for needles... people taking insulin for instance (I know the implication is that illegal drugs were being used).
[3] Will is part of the 53 percent is another Conservative talking point. Everybody pays taxes. Never heard of payroll taxes? Never heard of the sales tax?
[4] Fannie and Freddie playing a significant role in the economic downturn is a Conservative myth. We've discussed this before. If Wall Street had been properly regulated none of this would have happened (that would include the minor role F&F played). That is why there is no "occupy F&F).
[6] Bill O'Reilly made an "excellent point"? Yea, right!
[7] The KKK's numbers are small. Public sentiment is not on their side. OWS is a populist movement. What I'm saying is there is no comparison. The KKK doesn't have the people or popular support to do what OWS is doing. I would NOT say that it was the right of the KKK to inconvenience the public. Not because of hypocrisy, but because this KKK movement isn't going to happen. Also, you forget that people are being arrested.
[8] According to Will Hart he's right, I'm wrong... and I'm the one who needs to "think, for Christ". Why don't YOU "think, for Christ" and stop telling me I'm an idiot for not agreeing with you? I'm NOT an arrogant moderate extremist so OF COURSE I'm going to have an opinion that is different than yours.
@w-d,
Here's a list of the ongoing actions of the Occupiers. Enjoy.
http://ecc102.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/just-like-the-tea-party-a-list-of-occupy-mayhem-sorted-by-type-from-verum-serum/
To those who are concerned over the untidyness of the OWS movement, I offer you this quote from a former Secretary of Defense on what it means to be free:
"...freedom’s untidy. And free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They’re also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. And that’s what’s going to happen here. . . ."
Don't like messy Democracy? Well--how did the pro-war people put it to anti-war demonstrators in the past?-- "Leave the country!"
I don't agree with that for one minute, of course, but that is what anti-demonstration folks have said to those demonstrating in the past. Now the proverbial shoe is on the other foot.
As to the comparison between neat and clean demonstrators [TPers] vs. messy ones, I'll take messy over gun-toting, race-baiting, sign carriers any day. The former doesn't lead to the latter--a crazy person who calls Mr. Obama "The Anti-Christ," just like some conservatives have, shooting at the White House in an attempted assassination of the president.
Last link should have gone here.
Everybody shat upon the Tea Party for the actions of a few lunatics. AND, then they condemned the entire movement for not speaking out against the lunatics. Well, here's the OWS movements chance to speak out against THEIR lunatics. And, yes, there were a lot of reports of sexual assaults and groping and I heard it from CNN.............Fannie and Freddie were the frigging biggest bailout OF ALL. To say that these idiots didn't play a roll in the economic downturn is about 145 BILLION dollars off, wd. And they're frigging paying their executives large bonuses WITH OUR MONEY!!! Fuck that shit.............And, Jack, public support has NOTHING to do with free speech and peaceable assembly. We protect all speech (even that which is offensive) and peaceable assembly flat-out doesn't include the blocking of traffic.............As for the popularity of OWS, the latest Wall Street Journal poll had them at 28% ((yeah, we'll have to see what some of the other polls say).
And it's not "untidiness", Shaw. It's the creating of a public health and safety situation that Mayor Bloomberg was concerned about (fuck Mr. Obama, I'm voting for Bloomberg next year). These people, replete with the unsavory elements that unfortunately attached themselves to the movement, took over the park to the point where other citizens couldn't utilize it and the local businesses were being negatively effected. The freedom of your fist stops at my nose. Sorry............."gun-toting, race-baiting (one of the 2-3 guys who brought guns to the rallies was actually black himself but, whatever), sign carriers" - nice, Shaw, nice.
As for the poor, they pay ZERO federal income taxes, ZERO state income taxes, and damn close to ZERO local property taxes. IN FACT, a lot of them end up getting an Earned Income tax Credit to the tune hundreds, sometimes thousands. Yes, these people do pay sales tax. But even there, food and small amounts of clothing are usually exempt. And, yes, they also pay payroll taxes. But that's for their frigging retirement account, for Christ. None of that money goes to social spending, military spending, infrastructure, etc. (or at least it isn't supposed to). And that's fine. It's fine. Just don't go around saying that people are constantly getting shafted/victimized. Those of us who actually pay taxes pretty much don't want to hear it.
And you're entitled to any opinion you want, wd (though, no, you never really state them as opinions but rather as established facts). You're just entitled to impugn my motivation for having a discrepant one. I wrote what I though was a very common sense post here. Yes, it's OK to protest (patriotic even) but, NO, it's not OK to trash a park and dominate it to the exclusion of others. But instead of arguing the merits of this position, you accuse me of siding with the 1% (I was, HELLO, against the bailouts and I have been exceedingly critical of Greenspan - it was him and Paulsen who literally created the bailout culture and removed the concept of risk). It was a totally gratuitous and cheap shot and one of the reasons why even a liberal like John Myste doesn't like dealing with you.
Will: Those of us who actually pay taxes pretty much don't want to hear it.
You mean YOU don't want to hear it. You're not representative of all taxpayers. It's statements like these where you show your true colors (and corporatist leanings).
You saying that you're voting for Bloomberg (despite the fact that he isn't running) is not a surprise really. He represents the 1 percent (and is therefore a perfect fit for you).
I misrepresent your views? What I said was a gratuitous and cheap shot? I think not. You said protesting IN GENERAL is patriotic, but the way OWS is doing it is bad. And I did argue the merits of your position. I think you're wrong.
Also, I believe the poor are getting shafted and being victimized, and I'll go around saying it all day long... so you can stuff that suggestion.
btw, where I live both food and clothing are taxed.
John Myste doesn't like dealing with me? I don't believe that's accurate.
Will: As for the popularity of OWS, the latest Wall Street Journal poll had them at 28%
CNN (11/3/2011) "More Americans supporting Occupy Wall Street. As Americans learn more about OWS, they are becoming more supportive of the movement's positions... The survey, taken Oct. 28-31, shows... more Americans supporting the movement. 36% say they agree with the overall positions of OWS, while 19%... disagree".
CBS News (10/25/2011) "43 percent agree with views of OWS. ...A new CBS News/New York Times poll that found a widespread belief that money and wealth should be distributed more evenly in America. ... HALF of Americans ages 18-29 say they agree with the movement... 27% of Americans said they disagree with the movement".
Also, a 2/28/2011 Gallup poll says, "In US, Negative Views of the Tea Party Rise to New High ... unfavorable opinions [rose] to 47% from 42%".
Note that many more view the Tea Party negatively than view OWS negatively.
Will: Fannie and Freddie were the frigging biggest bailout OF ALL.
Fannie and Freddie made ZERO bad mortgages. They purchased bad mortgages that Investment Banks sold them. These two GSEs were more victims of the greed of Wall Street than participants in it.
WD said: "Fannie and Freddie made ZERO bad mortgages. They purchased bad mortgages that Investment Banks sold them."
And that is how they caused the financial meltdown. Two government agencies that were directed by bad policy (over-regulation) to provide a latrine for banks to dump bad loans into. If these agencies had not exists, or at least not have this mission, there would have been no meltdown.
"These two [government agencies] were more victims of the greed of Wall Street than participants in it."
Victims? Some victims. The government employees that ran these agencies as they destroyed the economy received tens of millions in reward.
The "Greed" of wall street, if it even exists, is not even involved here. Wall Street was merely doing what these government agencies asked them to.
As for this: ".A new CBS News/New York Times poll that found a widespread belief that money and wealth should be distributed more evenly in America."
I hope the people who registered in this poll this way are willing to even matters out by working hard and earning more than they are now.
Rather than taking the lazy and greedy way out of demanding more money from those who ARE doing the hard work and earning more.
dmarks: And that is how they caused the financial meltdown.
Deregulation and Wall Street greed caused the meltdown. Your assertion that deregulation and government "forcing" banks to give bad loans (over-regulation) is what caused the financial crisis is categorically false... and quite laughable.
Look at the link I provided. The government is suing the banks because Fannie and Freddie were "swindled". You've argued here EXTENSIVELY that when courts act THAT IS PROOF. You are wrong dmarks, and the actual authorities agree... F&F did not cause the financial downturn, the big investment banks did.
dmarks: I hope the people... are willing to even matters out by working hard and earning more than they are now.
Not possible. They are working hard (those who have jobs), but they are being underpaid. That is the problem... the wealthy are stealing from the workers by underpaying them (and overpaying themselves). The government needs to step in and take action to get the greed under control (including, *gasp*, redistribution).
dmarks: ...those who ARE doing the hard work and earning more.
Many of these extremely wealthy people are not making the big bucks due to their "hard work". They're gaming the system (and, as I mentioned earlier, stealing from the workers).
FYI, dmarks, "GSE" stands for "Government Sponsored Enterprise". I see you replaced GSE with "government agency" when quoting me, so I'm guessing you don't know what "GSE" means. Now you do.
Can anyone document one bank, just one, that Fannie or Freddy forced to give out one, just one, loan to an unqualified person?
Yes, Fannie and Freddie DID buy up a lot of those crappy loans. They did it under the tutelage of one Franklin Raines (one of the 25 villains, according to "Time") and WE, the taxpayers, got stuck with those idiotic decisions to the tune of 145 BILLION. There is more than enough blame to go around, fellows.............And I don't give a rat's ass as to how much money that Bloomberg has. I don't judge people according to such a rigid and envious standard as that. The guy's a straight-shooting nonpartisan competent person who gets things done. His bank account is immaterial.............And, NO, I DON'T like the way that these people are protesting. They've taken a legitimate position and ruined it by inconveniencing innocent bystanders and by being coopted by extremists. They want to do something productive, work the political process like the rest of us and, please, cease that defecating in public idiocy.
And you accuse me of using "talking points" for saying 53%. It's like, what, 1% and 99% aren't frigging talking points? Give me a fucking break. And, yes, if the Tea Partiers had pulled even a fraction of the stunts that these people have pulled, the left would be going apoplectic. Face it, wd, you just don't have a moral compass, boy. The ends justifies the means and it always will. Scary, very scary.............And I'm IN FAVOR of the top 1% paying more in taxes. You always seem to forget to mention that.
Will,
You seem to be very angry lately. What's up?
Will: ...work the political process like the rest of us.
So this whole "protesting is patriotic" was bullshit? Big surprise.
Will: ...you accuse me of using "talking points" for saying 53%.
No I didn't. I rightly pointed out that you're using REPUBLICAN talking points. The point is that you call yourself a Moderate but when you use talking points they are always Republican. Also, 1% and 99% aren't Democratic talking points... the OWS movement is grassroots and not closely linked to the Democratic Party (unlike the Tea Party movement which was a Republican/1% astroturf movement).
Will: They did it under the tutelage of one Franklin Raines.
Franklin Raines clearly got in on the greed and was a bad CEO who we can blame to a certain extent. This doesn't mean F&F wasn't swindled by the big investment banks that sold them crap mortgages. You've got cause and effect mixed up on this one.
Will: Face it, wd, you just don't have a moral compass, boy.
Because I disagreed with the Tea Party movement and because I agree with the OWS movement, that means I have no moral compass? No doubt another reason I have "no moral compass" is because I disagree with Will Hart. Stupid ad hominem (REALLY stupid).
Will reaches this conclusion because he GUESSES that if the Tea Partiers had protested as vigorously "the left would be going apoplectic". I call baloney on your guess.
No one on the Left EVER said the police should put a stop to the Tea Party demonstrations. EVER. We mocked them and said they were being played for fools... the same thing the Right is now doing to the OWS people. The Right (this includes Will Hart) is just jealous that the OWS movement is so much larger and has more public support.
That said, Will Hart can stuff his disapproval. Those of us on the Left don't care.
Hosni Mubarak would still be President of Egypt if the protestors there had followed the "Will Hart rules for protesting".
I think this shows that Will really is a tool of the wealthy elites. He SAYS he was against the bank bailout and that he's for moderately raising the taxes on wealthy individuals, but in regards to the OWS protests...
...Will says "wait a minute, you're going to far". To far in that what they are doing may actually yield results. Will Hart says protests that can be ignored are the only kind of protests he approves of.
btw, I don't recall anyone complaining/talking about the protestors in Egypt shitting in the park (yet I'm guessing they must have).
Jerry Critter: Will, You seem to be very angry lately. What's up?
I predict he will continue to get angrier as the Occupy movement continues. Because it's an anti-corporatist movment, and that really frosts Will's ass (to borrow a phrase from Rusty).
WD: A GSE is a type of government agency.
Post a Comment