Olbermann to Bloomberg

[Willie Escalade]

Reactions from the peanut gallery??

11-15-11 4 - Special Comment - Mayor Bloomberg - Countdown with Keith Olbermann - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoG9PmdGaT8)

[scroller]

That was awesome. Good for Olbermann!

[Richctdude]

Im glad he is back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Silcc69]

How long before this thread gets hijacked?

[trish]

I agree. We've had enough god-damned batman movies.

[hard4janira]

Olbermann is a hypocrite and a dunce. These theatrics are his way of defending a political movement he identifies with (and justifies as the ultimate expression of freedom of speech), even though they are not abiding by the law. Nobody wants to deny them freedom of speech - all we are saying is that they do not create quasi-permanent tent cities where they are not allowed. They must leave when the park closes at night.

Of course, we had none of these problems with Tea Party protesters (whom Olberman affectionately refers to as 'tea-baggers'. Here is Olbermans take on free speech when it comes from a political movement that he does NOT identify with....

Keith Olbermann: Tea Party Is Disconnected From Reality - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij7pHrYTWdg&feature=related)


Oh Keith, your such a nutter! :salad

[trish]

No we just had tea-baggers (their original name for themselves attesting to just how out of touch they were and still are) carrying guns into public meetings and shouting down others who were attempting to exercise their right to free speech. Any time you have have 1% of the population taking possession 90% of the wealth, the imbalance of money and power will have a corrosive effect on governance. The problem is not government per se, but the dismantling of the power of the government to regulate and oversee the dealings of the huge commercial banks and the giant multinationals. Keep sticking it too 'em, Keith.

[marissaaz]

oberman is a sack of shit and it aint all that hard to get into the US's 1%
do the math 300mill or so people in the US
3mill make up the one %
as of 2010 there were 3.1 mill people who were millionaires

[hard4janira]

No we just had tea-baggers ....carrying guns into public meetings

Not illegal.


and shouting down others who were attempting to exercise their right to free speech.

Lol, as if the left wing nut jobs have never used this tactic before...


Any time you have have 1% of the population taking possession 90% of the wealth, the imbalance of money and power will have a corrosive effect on governance.

What you probably fail to realize is that 99% of the Tea Party are themselves in the 99 percentile. Ironic huh? It's about a smaller, more responsible government that is financially accountable with our tax dollars. When politicians start spending DOUBLE what they take in in taxes, you can bet that a lot of votes are being bought at taxpayers expense.


The problem is not government per se, but the dismantling of the power of the government to regulate and oversee the dealings of the huge commercial banks and the giant multinationals. Keep sticking it too 'em, Keith.

Horseshit. Government is the problem. Sorry you can't see that.

[bte]

I actually like Batman

[trish]

it aint all that hard to get into the US's 1%
do the math 300mill or so people in the US
3mill make up the one %
as of 2010 there were 3.1 mill people who were millionaires

If it's so easy why isn't 100% of population in the upper 1%. Do the math. The problem isn't that there's an upper 1% but that currently the upper 1% has taken possession of 90% of the nation's wealth and consequently wields way too much power. The imbalance threatens the conditions on which democracy inevitably rests.

[fxtech]

Olbermann = douche bag

[hard4janira]

If it's so easy why isn't 100% of population in the upper 1%. Do the math.

Lol, you can't do that math because that math isn't possible....

Mathematically speaking, only 1% can be in the upper 1% if you think about it.

[trish]

You got it! Congratulations!

[nevada64]

United States of America = PLUTOCRACY

[marissaaz]

If it's so easy why isn't 100% of population in the upper 1%. Do the math. The problem isn't that there's an upper 1% but that currently the upper 1% has taken possession of 90% of the nation's wealth and consequently wields way too much power. The imbalance threatens the conditions on which democracy inevitably rests.

no you would rather drag people down then pull yourselves up :rolleyes:

[CORVETTEDUDE]

Belongs in the Political Forum

[MatiasTz]

Re: It ain't that hard to get in the one percent ...

You're funny. If it were easy to get in the one percent, there would more people in it and it wouldn't be "the 1%."

What Olberman and others are talking about is the fact that conservative politicians have restructured the regulatory system in such a way as to favor the wealthy over the middle class. For example, companies get a tax break for outsourcing jobs. This hurts workers. And there are many other examples. And to those of you that claim worker laziness -- American workers have steadily increased productivity since the 70s while real wages have remained stagnant or dropped.

Hell, they even let the banking lobby rewrite the bankruptcy law.

Corvettedude is right. This the wrong forum, but you gotta respond to silliness.

[onmyknees]

No we just had tea-baggers (their original name for themselves attesting to just how out of touch they were and still are) carrying guns into public meetings and shouting down others who were attempting to exercise their right to free speech. Any time you have have 1% of the population taking possession 90% of the wealth, the imbalance of money and power will have a corrosive effect on governance. The problem is not government per se, but the dismantling of the power of the government to regulate and oversee the dealings of the huge commercial banks and the giant multinationals. Keep sticking it too 'em, Keith.

Keep stickin' it to 'em Keith? That's beautiful...like he stuck it to the tea party when he pompously asked..."where are all the black faces?"....until someone asked him where are all the black faces on his own fucking ( former) network. Then rushed to have Jessie Jackson as a guest and groveled as he explained to Jackson that there was in fact a black female who occasionally filled in on the weekends as an anchor. LMAO....He would have been better off saying "Reverend...some of my best friends are black..I swear" What a total asshole this blowhard is......and he's tellin' like it is right where he belongs. At some unknown cable channel watched by almost nobody . He's an irrelevant, self absorbed buffoon.

Hey Trish....Suck on some facts for a change.:dancing:
Total Occupy Wall Street Arrests to date 4018 and counting
Total Tea Party Arrests............0

[Silcc69]

Keep stickin' it to 'em Keith? That's beautiful...like he stuck it to the tea party when he pompously asked..."where are all the black faces?"....until someone asked him where are all the black faces on his own fucking ( former) network. Then rushed to have Jessie Jackson as a guest and groveled as he explained to Jackson that there was in fact a black female who occasionally filled in on the weekends as an anchor. LMAO....He would have been better off saying "Reverend...some of my best friends are black..I swear" What a total asshole this blowhard is......and he's tellin' like it is right where he belongs. At some unknown cable channel watched by almost nobody . He's an irrelevant, self absorbed buffoon.

Hey Trish....Suck on some facts for a change.:dancing:
Total Occupy Wall Street Arrests to date 4018 and counting
Total Tea Party Arrests............0

Because the Tea Party happens to be well funded and simply better organized. OWS is not funded at least not in the real of the Tea Party and they are very disorganized.

[BluegrassCat]

Hey Trish....Suck on some facts for a change.:dancing:
Total Occupy Wall Street Arrests to date 4018 and counting
Total Tea Party Arrests............0

Is that the metric by which we judge the content of a movement? :roll: By that logic the Civil Rights movement was clearly wrongheaded and the segregationists were in the right.
How about we look at what OWS is demanding: accountability for the corporate criminals that wrecked our economy and an end to industry captured government and crony capitalism.
The Tea Party demands more pollution, worse health care, lower taxes on the wealthy and higher taxes on the rest of us. Just listen to what they cheer for in the GOP debates: executions, letting the uninsured die, and torture while they boo the soldiers who risk their lives for this country.

[onmyknees]

Is that the metric by which we judge the content of a movement? :roll: By that logic the Civil Rights movement was clearly wrongheaded and the segregationists were in the right.
How about we look at what OWS is demanding: accountability for the corporate criminals that wrecked our economy and an end to industry captured government and crony capitalism.
The Tea Party demands more pollution, worse health care, lower taxes on the wealthy and higher taxes on the rest of us. Just listen to what they cheer for in the GOP debates: executions, letting the uninsured die, and torture while they boo the soldiers who risk their lives for this country.

Please...please for the sake of what little cred you have here, don't in any way, shape or form compare these folks to the civil rights movement. Please edit your post before too many people see it.

[fred41]

Keith Olbermann's a dick.

[BluegrassCat]

Please...please for the sake of what little cred you have here, don't in any way, shape or form compare these folks to the civil rights movement. Please edit your post before too many people see it.

You're the one who made the comparison with your absurd arrest count. I know you're blinded by ideology but just try to learn some history.

[hard4janira]

Is that the metric by which we judge the content of a movement? :roll:

In this case, yes. You and Olbermann are justifying civil disobedience if it is for a cause you believe in. I bet you wouldn't tolerate civil disobedience from the Tea Party (if there was any)....


How about we look at what OWS is demanding: accountability for the corporate criminals that wrecked our economy and an end to industry captured government and crony capitalism.

As somebody who readily identifies with the Tea Party I would say that we want the exact same thing. The difference between you and I is that I want to extend accountability to federal governement who played a HUGE part in wrecking our economy and regularly engages in crony capitalism. I think that there are many people in the OWS crowd who think that government is exempt from responsibility or accountability, or lack the capability to see the blatant and rampant corruption in those that proportedly are working in thier 'best interests'.


The Tea Party demands more pollution, worse health care, lower taxes on the wealthy and higher taxes on the rest of us.

That's just utter bollocks. I want less government and more personal accountability. I want poeple to pay for thier own health care not demand it from government as some kind of natural right. I want a tax system that is fair and flat for everybody, without all of the loopholes for the wealthy and for large corporations. I want the rest of America (the 51% that don't pay any federal income tax TO START PULLING THEIR WEIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY, and stop whining that the 'rich' aren't paying thier fair share: a claim that is not only absurd but is nothing more that political posturing.

[Silcc69]

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/04/06/outrageous-exxon-mobil-paid-no-income-tax-in-2009/

[BluegrassCat]

In this case, yes. You and Olbermann are justifying civil disobedience if it is for a cause you believe in. I bet you wouldn't tolerate civil disobedience from the Tea Party (if there was any)....


Wrong. I never defended the arrests, although I would, I said that judging a movement by the number of arrests is stupid because it clearly fucking is. Sorry you can't see that.



I think that there are many people in the OWS crowd who think that government is exempt from responsibility or accountability, or lack the capability to see the blatant and rampant corruption in those that proportedly are working in thier 'best interests'.


Oh you think that do you, based on nothing at all but a dislike for them? How about if I say I think the Tea Party is a traitorous movement bent on destroying the country so they can rebuild the Confederacy? Does that make it so or is it just inflammatory rhetoric? Try sticking to the facts.



That's just utter bollocks. I want less government and more personal accountability. I want poeple to pay for thier own health care not demand it from government as some kind of natural right. I want a tax system that is fair and flat for everybody, without all of the loopholes for the wealthy and for large corporations. I want the rest of America (the 51% that don't pay any federal income tax TO START PULLING THEIR WEIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY, and stop whining that the 'rich' aren't paying thier fair share: a claim that is not only absurd but is nothing more that political posturing.

Funny, immediately after calling it bollocks you proceed to propose it exactly. lol

[Jonny29]

The problem isn't that there's an upper 1% but that currently the upper 1% has taken possession of 90% of the nation's wealth and consequently wields way too much power.

I understand "google is my friend" but I cannot locate anything that comes close to supporting this statement. Can you point me in the right direction. Thanks.
Mostly what I see is that the top 20% control 85% of the nations (USA) wealth or if you want to use only the top 1% I see around 37%-42%. As of 2007 and most commentary suggests that it has decreased since 2008.

[natina]

to get into the upper 1% you need to make at least $350,000.00/year

even many of the highest income here do not make that much even when not paying taxes on there income.
:iagree:

I LIKE KEITH OLBERMAN ,HE IS THE MAN:dancing::Bowdown::):whistle::party:


Robert Gibbs Schools Hannity on Ayers

Robert Gibbs Schools Hannity on Ayers - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2AaqcaMkU8)


Gibbs asks Olbermann to stop comparing Obama deal to Nazis



Washington (http://maps.google.com/?q=Washington%2C+DC%2C+United+States&z=4)- MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann recently compared U.S. President Barack Obama's deal on the Bush-era tax cuts to Nazi appeasement. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs asked Olbermann to not make any comparisons to Nazi Germany.

President Obama and the Congressional Republicans negotiated an agreement that would extend former President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, which will be supported (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/12/kerry_will_vote.html) by Democratic Senator John Kerry. Former President Bill Clinton also stood (http://www.accountingtoday.com/news/Clinton-Helps-Obama-Sell-Bush-Tax-Cut-Deal-56599-1.html) with Obama to sell the deal to the public.
This has angered some in the President’s base, including MSBNC commentator/anchor Keith Olbermann, who warned (http://www.businessinsider.com/keith-olbermann-is-so-angry-about-the-tax-deal-hes-calling-for-a-primary-challenge-to-obama-2010-12) that the President could face a primary challenge. Furthermore, according to Politico (http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1210/apocalypse_no_2b8b0e54-510a-43c9-8d42-ec10791a7867.html), Olbermann contrasted the President’s tax cut deal to Nazi appeasement.
During Monday’s White House Press Briefing, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked if the President heard his remarks and if Gibbs had any comments or reaction to the “Countdown” host’s statement, reports Mediaite (http://www.mediaite.com/online/robert-gibbs-on-keith-olbermanns-nazi-appeasement-tax-compromise-comparison-stop/).
“I doubt the President heard that,” Gibbs told reporters. “I, obviously, have given a number of answers that would denote that we think it’s a good agreement. And…I would say this to Democrats or Republicans, whenever you compare anything to what the Nazis did, if you ever get to that point in your speech, stop. Because nothing does, and hopefully, God willing, nothing ever will.”



Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/301381#ixzz1e18zSrfX

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/301381#ixzz1e18so894

http://digitaljournal.com/article/301381




oberman is a sack of shit and it aint all that hard to get into the US's 1%
do the math 300mill or so people in the US
3mill make up the one %
as of 2010 there were 3.1 mill people who were millionaires

[Silcc69]

Hannity is such a dick. What was the point of Colmes being there?

[Ben]

to get into the upper 1% you need to make at least $350,000.00/year

Actually, it's specifically: $400,000. And the top 0.01 percent make over $8 million a year. So, pretty much every single celeb that we willfully worship.
The movement should actually focus on the top 0.01 percent. They're making staggering gains. Like CEOs, athletes and Hollywood celebs.
As I mentioned previously we've been inculcated, or taught, to think in America that income inequality is a good thing.
Also, well, we've been sold the capitalist storyline. (Sadly, it's a fiction. Because we don't have capitalism.
Pure, classic and authentic capitalism means the complete eradication of the state. So, in essence, the government would be completely powerless. Well, would simply vanish.
Would be an interesting experiment. And then we can all revel in the goodness and morality of flawless capitalism....





Michael Bloomberg: The Villain Occupy Wall Street Has Been Waiting For
by Robert Scheer (http://www.commondreams.org/robert-scheer)
In the pantheon of billionaires without shame, Michael Bloomberg, the Wall Street banker-turned-business-press-lord-turned-mayor, is now secure at the top. What is so offensive is that someone who abetted Wall Street greed, and benefited as much as anyone from it, has no compunction about ruthlessly repressing those who dare exercise their constitutional “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” that he helped to create.
You would think that a former partner at the investment bank Solomon Brothers, which originated mortgage-backed securities, a man who then partnered with Merrill Lynch in the high-speed computerized trading that has led to so much financial manipulation, would have some sense of his own culpability. Or at least that someone whose Wall Street career left him with a net worth of $19.5 billion would grasp the deep irony of his being the instrument for smashing Occupy Wall Street, the internationally acknowledged symbol of opposition to corporate avarice.
But only in America is the arrogance of the superrich so perfectly concealed by the pretense of democracy that the 12th richest man in the nation can suppress dissent against corporate rapacity and expect his brutal actions to be viewed not as a means of preserving his own class privilege but as bureaucratically necessary to providing sanitary streets.
Even before he ordered the smashing of dissent by citizens peacefully assembled, Bloomberg denigrated their heartfelt message: “It’s fun and it’s cathartic,” he said of those huddled against the cold in a makeshift encampment, “... it’s entertaining to go and blame people. ... It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.”
It is mind-boggling that Bloomberg still hypes the canard that the banks were forced to reap enormous profits from toxic securities. It is an embarrassing, dishonest position when the record of banker fraud in creating the housing bubble is so well documented in Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuits. Is Bloomberg unaware that the major banks have agreed to pay hefty fines in a meager compensation for their schemes? That he blames the victims of the securitization swindles and then orders the arrest of those who dare speak the truth is a tribute to his belief in the enduring power of the big lie.
If the Bloomberg news service, the stock market idolizer owned by the mayor, had been anything more than an enabler this past decade of Wall Street excess, nay criminality, it’s possible we would not be experiencing the current crisis. If this leading financial news outlet had performed the minimum of journalistic due diligence on unregulated credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations and the other swindles marketed with an abandon informed by deep deceit and the financial industry’s pervasive corruption, the world economy may not now be in such terrible shape.
Yet the man whose personal wealth increased by $4.5 billion the first year of this meltdown when many Americans were losing their life savings now dares shift blame away from himself and others at the center of economic power to the most vulnerable among us. Instead of blaming the Wall Street lobbyists who got the laws changed so that they could securitize people’s home mortgages, no matter how unsound those mortgages were by design, he blames the folks suckered into accepting the banks’ phony offerings. “Blame the opium addict and not the pusher” is the excuse for the bankers who turned the lure of easy credit into a housing bubble that, when it inevitably exploded, impoverished the world but left the bailed-out Wall Street hustlers richer than ever.
“There’s something wrong with a kid who steals a bike going to jail and someone who steals millions paying a fine,” as former New York City Mayor Ed Koch put it in challenging Bloomberg’s blame-the-victims copout. The fines to which Koch referred represent a small percentage of the bankers’ ill-gotten gains, and, of course, as opposed to the kid who steals a bike, none of the bankers fined by the SEC has even been threatened with jail time. “What do you think they got fined for—schmutz on the sidewalk?” Koch asked. “They got fined because they abused their relationship with their clientele. And I want to see somebody—I want to see one of them, of a major corporation, punished criminally.”
Instead, the people led away in handcuffs are not the bankers who perpetuated the fraud of turning homes into the junk of toxic mortgages, which should be judged as criminal, but decent people who have committed only the “crime” of speaking truth to power.
© 2011 Robert Scheer

[hard4janira]

Wrong. I never defended the arrests, although I would, I said that judging a movement by the number of arrests is stupid because it clearly fucking is.

What is it about protesting capitalism and/or big banks that warrants arrests? I'm all ears. I don't think that protesting big-government warrants being arrested (not yet anyway).

I wonderwhy douche bags like Olbermann are so quick to demonize a large (but extremely peaceful) movement like the Tea Party yet turn around and defend the criminal behavior of a different movement. It seems so hypocritical to me.


Oh you think that do you, based on nothing at all but a dislike for them? How about if I say I think the Tea Party is a traitorous movement bent on destroying the country so they can rebuild the Confederacy? Does that make it so or is it just inflammatory rhetoric? Try sticking to the facts.

I don't dislike all of the 'occupiers'. I probably dislike most of them however - but I've made my distinctions very clear on the 'occupy' thread, so no sense in bringing that up again here.

[Helvis2012]

Bloomberg did the same thing in 2004 when the Republicans came to town.
New York wound up with a net loss of 56 million and hundreds of lawsuits are still pending. Last round, people who were jailed for more than a day were offered 10,000 to settle.
These arrests are going to cost the city millions as well.

Arrogance at its best.

[fred41]

Bloomberg did the same thing in 2004 when the Republicans came to town.
New York wound up with a net loss of 56 million and hundreds of lawsuits are still pending. Last round, people who were jailed for more than a day were offered 10,000 to settle.
These arrests are going to cost the city millions as well.

Arrogance at its best.

I don't like Bloomberg...but he finally did what he's supposed to do ...it's not his job to let assholes live in that park...he waited a hell of a lot longer than Mayors from other cities...a hell of a lot longer.
They can protest...but they can't live there.

..and none of these posts change the fact that Olbermann is still a dick...a hyperventilating...over the top , work himself up til the spittle sprays from his mouth...shrill and boorish to the point where lots of people that work with him can't stand him,....utter...colossal dick.

[Silcc69]

I don't like Bloomberg...but he finally did what he's supposed to do ...it's not his job to let assholes live in that park...he waited a hell of a lot longer than Mayors from other cities...a hell of a lot longer.
They can protest...but they can't live there.

..and none of these posts change the fact that Olbermann is still a dick...a hyperventilating...over the top , work himself up til the spittle sprays from his mouth...shrill and boorish to the point where lots of people that work with him can't stand him,....utter...colossal dick.

Sounds just like the Fox Holy Triumvirate. :)

[fred41]

Sounds just like the Fox Holy Triumvirate. :)

No...the difference is- I also think O'Reilly and especially Hannity are assholes...and Rush Limbaugh has become a complete big headed bag of wind...but I try not to let personal ideology blind me from recognizing an asshole when I see one...

...unlike some of you others.

[BluegrassCat]

What is it about protesting capitalism and/or big banks that warrants arrests? I'm all ears. I don't think that protesting big-government warrants being arrested (not yet anyway).


While I fully support the people who have the courage to be arrested for their principles it's a sad commentary that people are arrested for peacefully gathering and executing their 1st amendment rights, while the real criminals from this crisis go unpunished. It's a stain on the city & a blemish on Bloomberg's record.

[fred41]

While I fully support the people who have the courage to be arrested for their principles it's a sad commentary that people are arrested for peacefully gathering and executing their 1st amendment rights, while the real criminals from this crisis go unpunished. It's a stain on the city & a blemish on Bloomberg's record.

Bloomberg has lots of blemishes on his record...but this isn't one of them...flip flopping on the issue was one of them.

[hard4janira]

I don't like Bloomberg...but he finally did what he's supposed to do ...it's not his job to let assholes live in that park...he waited a hell of a lot longer than Mayors from other cities...a hell of a lot longer.
They can protest...but they can't live there.

..and none of these posts change the fact that Olbermann is still a dick...a hyperventilating...over the top , work himself up til the spittle sprays from his mouth...shrill and boorish to the point where lots of people that work with him can't stand him,....utter...colossal dick.

Amen. Why are we even debating this issue? It should be a no-brainer. Come when the park opens, protest, and go home when it closes. Simple concept really.

[johnb]

Why are parks and protests regulated? Why can't they be free markets?

[hard4janira]

While I fully support the people who have the courage to be arrested for their principles it's a sad commentary that people are arrested for peacefully gathering and executing their 1st amendment rights, while the real criminals from this crisis go unpunished. It's a stain on the city & a blemish on Bloomberg's record.

Nobody is being arrested for peacefully gathering and executing their 1st amendment rights. Show me ONE case where somebody was arrested on those charges.

Now, if you want to file suit against the banks then gather the evidence and build a case. I'll be right there with you. A lot of people lost a lot of money when Bear Stearns and Lehman shit the bed. I think there is a lot of blame to go around and probably some outright criminal activity from the ratings agencies and shadow banks as well. Let's fucking get them, I'm all for it. But you have to have evidence and you have to build a case and you have to file suit. That's how the process works.

[BluegrassCat]

Nobody is being arrested for peacefully gathering and executing their 1st amendment rights. Show me ONE case where somebody was arrested on those charges.



What a wildly disingenuous demand. Peacefully gathering ISN'T A CHARGE, so even if that's what they were doing when they were arrested they can't be charged with it. The hundreds of protestors and journalists were arrested because they chose to exercise their rights. If you agree with using state force to silence political dissent, you should reread the Constitution.

[hard4janira]

What a wildly disingenuous demand. Peacefully gathering ISN'T A CHARGE, so even if that's what they were doing when they were arrested they can't be charged with it. The hundreds of protestors and journalists were arrested because they chose to exercise their rights. If you agree with using state force to silence political dissent, you should reread the Constitution.

Duh... you are making my point. They were arrested because they were breaking the law, not because they were 'exercising' their rights. You DO NOT have a right to exercise your 1st amendment right whenever and wherever you want - a point that seems lost on many. There is such a thing as tresspassing, loitering, failing to obey city ordinances, etc..

Personally, I think most major metropolitan cities were extraordinarily lenient with the 'occupiers' and looked the other way for a long time while these clows set up tent cities.

[BluegrassCat]

Duh... you are making my point. They were arrested because they were breaking the law, not because they were 'exercising' their rights. You DO NOT have a right to exercise your 1st amendment right whenever and wherever you want - a point that seems lost on many. There is such a thing as tresspassing, loitering, failing to obey city ordinances, etc..

Personally, I think most major metropolitan cities were extraordinarily lenient with the 'occupiers' and looked the other way for a long time while these clows set up tent cities.

Duh? You aren't making a point, you're missing it. Many people were arrested without having broken ANY laws. So the AP and NYT reporters were breaking the law? Give me a break. It was a mass round up with justifications added later.

You might be more comfortable in a less free society where they just execute dissenters for "trespassing" in a public park.

[hard4janira]

You might be more comfortable in a less free society where they just execute dissenters for "trespassing" in a public park.

More drama than Shakespeare....

In MY city, we have city ordinances that close the parks at 11 PM. The occupiers decided to disobey the law and remain the park after it had closed. This went on for several days until the mayor decided that enough was enough. It's pretty easy to see who is breaking the law here. Here is an excerpt from an Atlanta Journal and Constittution article on it (a very left-wing rag).

Police evicted the protesters from Woodruff Park in downtown Atlanta early Wednesday morning, arresting more than 50 people after several weeks of exemptions to park rules.

I thought this was an interesting comment from the same article:

But some felt that if the occupiers aren’t defying authorities, the media will stop paying attention, middle-class residents will tune out and the movement will fizzle.

I've seen this all before.... These clowns are purposefully breaking the law and antagonizing the authorities. When the police eventually crack down (after many days of ambivalence) the occupiers cry 'foul' even though that is exactly the reaction they are trying to provoke. It would take a moron to fall for these tried and true tactics used to garner sympathy.

Execute? No. Pepper spray? Yes please! :dancing:

[runningdownthatdream]

Duh... you are making my point. They were arrested because they were breaking the law, not because they were 'exercising' their rights. You DO NOT have a right to exercise your 1st amendment right whenever and wherever you want - a point that seems lost on many. There is such a thing as tresspassing, loitering, failing to obey city ordinances, etc..

Personally, I think most major metropolitan cities were extraordinarily lenient with the 'occupiers' and looked the other way for a long time while these clows set up tent cities.

Duh.....government makes the laws that favour those with a voice - i.e.: those who pay to have their voices heard. The people that comprise a nation CAN and SHOULD exercise their right to protest whenever and wherever they want. If you are afraid of that then pick up your weapon and prevent them from exercising that right - don't hide behind the 'law'.

[fred41]

Duh.....government makes the laws that favour those with a voice - i.e.: those who pay to have their voices heard. The people that comprise a nation CAN and SHOULD exercise their right to protest whenever and wherever they want. If you are afraid of that then pick up your weapon and prevent them from exercising that right - don't hide behind the 'law'.

This is convoluted thinking.
So someone should have to break the law, with a possible felony (assault 1)...to stop someone from practicing their right to protest (but using civil disobedience and breaking a few small laws)...in effect being your own police force...

[Tiffany Anne]

What's he getting on Batman's case for? Batman stands with the 99%!

[hard4janira]

Duh.....government makes the laws that favour those with a voice - i.e.: those who pay to have their voices heard. The people that comprise a nation CAN and SHOULD exercise their right to protest whenever and wherever they want. If you are afraid of that then pick up your weapon and prevent them from exercising that right - don't hide behind the 'law'.

This is laughable. I can only imange how big and powerful the lobby is that makes city parks close at 11:00 PM. I tremble in my boots when I think about it. They must have hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars and pull the strings of countless politicians in order get those damn parks closed at 11:00 PM. I really pity the poor tent people who have no voice and only want to live in the parks around the clock. Man, this world is so unfair....

[BluegrassCat]

More drama than Shakespeare....

In MY city, we have city ordinances that close the parks at 11 PM. The occupiers decided to disobey the law and remain the park after it had closed. This went on for several days until the mayor decided that enough was enough. It's pretty easy to see who is breaking the law here. Here is an excerpt from an Atlanta Journal and Constittution article on it (a very left-wing rag).

Police evicted the protesters from Woodruff Park in downtown Atlanta early Wednesday morning, arresting more than 50 people after several weeks of exemptions to park rules.

I thought this was an interesting comment from the same article:

But some felt that if the occupiers aren’t defying authorities, the media will stop paying attention, middle-class residents will tune out and the movement will fizzle.

I've seen this all before.... These clowns are purposefully breaking the law and antagonizing the authorities. When the police eventually crack down (after many days of ambivalence) the occupiers cry 'foul' even though that is exactly the reaction they are trying to provoke. It would take a moron to fall for these tried and true tactics used to garner sympathy.

Execute? No. Pepper spray? Yes please! :dancing:

Why not execute them? They broke the all important CITY ORDINANCE. Since our Bill of Rights is apparently overruled by CITY ORDINANCE the police should really just fire into the crowd, right?

And now you're complaining about the arrests because it gives them attention and momentum? Of course it does, but you can't have it both ways, they either should or shouldn't be arrested. Political speech should be crushed with state force or not. Of course if it was the Tea Party you'd be crying about totalitarianism but since you disagree politically with OWS, it's free speech for me and not for thee.

Here's your pepper spray. Try not to damage your computer ejaculating over the beautiful violence.

[hard4janira]

Why not execute them? They broke the all important CITY ORDINANCE. Since our Bill of Rights is apparently overruled by CITY ORDINANCE the police should really just fire into the crowd, right?

No, I reject that outright. The 'occupiers' aren't above the law nor should they be. Cities have ordiances, laws, and rules for a reason. By and large, city ordinances refelct the will of the poeple living in the community. People don't want their parks overrun with 'occupiers' who decide to squat in them FOR ANY REASON. Obviously you think that this is unreasonable and the people in the community have no right to expect clean parks free from quasi-permanent tent dwellers. So in your opinion (but not mine), a persons 1st amendment right trumps all other laws (presmeably). Where do you draw the line? Where do you establish the limit?

And you still haven't acknowledged that many of these squatters were breaking city ordinances for weeks on end before they were asked to leave. You conveniently leave this aspect out of it. Finally, when they were asked to leave the park (most of whom did by the way), the few that remained decided to antagonize the police for the sole purpose of garnering sympathy for thier movment. It was a calculted, deliberate move. They admit as much.

Why should the 'occupiers' have so little respect for the law or for other people? Many local business owners were the impetus behind having the occupiers removed because it was hurting business (not to mention the fact that they were dealing with vermin using thier restrooms to wash up without contributing anything to the shop).

We never saw these problems from the Tea Party crowds because by and large, the tea party crowds consist of people that have a greater respect for the law and for other people than most of those who make up the occupy crowds. Demographically, the Tea Party crowd is older and more financially stable and would generally prefer to retire to a quality hotel at night and enjoy a hot meal at a fine restaruant.


And now you're complaining about the arrests because it gives them attention and momentum? Of course it does, but you can't have it both ways, they either should or shouldn't be arrested. Political speech should be crushed with state force or not.

I'm not complaining about the arrests, you are. When the police ask you to leave the park because it is closing, YOU LEAVE THE PARK. By all means, come back the next day and wave your banners around and exercise your free speech rights. But simply obey the law - that is NOT asking too much.

[BluegrassCat]

You keep conveniently ignoring all the arrests of people who broke no laws whatsoever. You cheer state administered violence against innocent people because they are your ideological opponents. That's not how a liberal democracy works, you don't get to imprison your political critics. And that you yearn for such an oppressive state is quite troubling.

Btw if you're not aware of the limits of the 1st amendment the SCOTUS has issued plenty of rulings outlining it for you.

[Helvis2012]

You keep conveniently ignoring all the arrests of people who broke no laws whatsoever. You cheer state administered violence against innocent people because they are your ideological opponents. That's not how a liberal democracy works, you don't get to imprison your political critics. And that you yearn for such an oppressive state is quite troubling.

Btw if you're not aware of the limits of the 1st amendment the SCOTUS has issued plenty of rulings outlining it for you.



Amen!

[onmyknees]

Duh... you are making my point. They were arrested because they were breaking the law, not because they were 'exercising' their rights. You DO NOT have a right to exercise your 1st amendment right whenever and wherever you want - a point that seems lost on many. There is such a thing as tresspassing, loitering, failing to obey city ordinances, etc..

Personally, I think most major metropolitan cities were extraordinarily lenient with the 'occupiers' and looked the other way for a long time while these clows set up tent cities.

Indeed. But you'll grow tired of stating the obvious to some folks on here. They contort and conflate in the face of overwhelming evidence. Even if you showed them tape of protesters throwing debris at the cops, or defecating in the streets, ( both of which are readily available) they'd craft a fairy tale about Fox News staging the video. They operate in their own parallel universe. One where there are no rules and no judgement. They spent weeks trying to tie the Tea party to the Tucson shooting, or whining about Tea Partiers carrying guns at rally's yet when cases of real crime and widespread violence such as we have here in the hundreds, committed by their brothers and sisters, they can't find it within themselves to face reality, or they'll attempt to deflect. They are hypocrites of the highest order, and they feel since their ideology is superior, any means is acceptable to achieve their ends. Get used to it....if they can't win in the political process, what you're seeing now and in Greece is a harbinger of things to come.

[Odelay]

No...the difference is- I also think O'Reilly and especially Hannity are assholes...and Rush Limbaugh has become a complete big headed bag of wind...but I try not to let personal ideology blind me from recognizing an asshole when I see one...

...unlike some of you others.

For what it's worth, I'm about as liberal as anyone on this board and I think Keith is a blowhard. Contrary to many on the left, I don't believe he helps our cause at all. Nice to hear someone on the right who has the stones to criticize people like Hannity and Limbaugh.

[Silcc69]

This one of the most sane video's I have seen from Stephen A. Smith.
Stephen A. Smith bashes Glenn Beck over Obama Racist comment - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0dJjWjOKC0)

[hard4janira]

You keep conveniently ignoring all the arrests of people who broke no laws whatsoever. You cheer state administered violence against innocent people because they are your ideological opponents. That's not how a liberal democracy works, you don't get to imprison your political critics. And that you yearn for such an oppressive state is quite troubling.

Btw if you're not aware of the limits of the 1st amendment the SCOTUS has issued plenty of rulings outlining it for you.

Here we go again with the drama, lol.

If somebody is arrested and locked up for no reason then they can sue. Let the courts decide the matter. I'm pretty sure that most of these people weren't even locked up, but given citations insted. Those who were locked up probalby failed to obey the police (and were likely antagonizing them or assaulting them). Do you really think that the police have the time to arrest dozens of people for no reason at all? Do you honestly beleive that city governments enjoy rounding up innocent people so that they can deal with all of the pending lawsuits? You seem pre-disposed to believe that we live in some kind of police state where angry, spiteful cops are unleashed on the poor, hapless masses. In any case, most of the cities where these clashes are occuring are run by left-wing liberal politicians (Atlanta, Oakland, New York - Bloomberg is Republican in name only).

I suppport police action against those who fail to obey the rule of law. It's that simple really. I don't care if it is an occupier or a tea partier, the rule of law must be obeyed and enforced.

Oh, and I am very aware of how 1st amendment rights are limited. For one I know that if you speak your mind NPR will fire you. I also know that the 'politically correct' establishment pass laws like the 'fairness doctrine' so that they can smash free speach that doesn't agree with thier politics. I know that free speech gives influential people like Dan Rather the opportunity to break out his crayons and fabricate documents in order to discredit politicians that he doesn't agree with. Free speech is a wonderful tool for those that know how to lie and manipulte the truth in order to further their own political causes, such as Keith Olbermann.

[runningdownthatdream]

Here we go again with the drama, lol.

If somebody is arrested and locked up for no reason then they can sue. Let the courts decide the matter. I'm pretty sure that most of these people weren't even locked up, but given citations insted. Those who were locked up probalby failed to obey the police (and were likely antagonizing them or assaulting them). Do you really think that the police have the time to arrest dozens of people for no reason at all? Do you honestly beleive that city governments enjoy rounding up innocent people so that they can deal with all of the pending lawsuits? You seem pre-disposed to believe that we live in some kind of police state where angry, spiteful cops are unleashed on the poor, hapless masses. In any case, most of the cities where these clashes are occuring are run by left-wing liberal politicians (Atlanta, Oakland, New York - Bloomberg is Republican in name only).

I suppport police action against those who fail to obey the rule of law. It's that simple really. I don't care if it is an occupier or a tea partier, the rule of law must be obeyed and enforced.

Oh, and I am very aware of how 1st amendment rights are limited. For one I know that if you speak your mind NPR will fire you. I also know that the 'politically correct' establishment pass laws like the 'fairness doctrine' so that they can smash free speach that doesn't agree with thier politics. I know that free speech gives influential people like Dan Rather the opportunity to break out his crayons and fabricate documents in order to discredit politicians that he doesn't agree with. Free speech is a wonderful tool for those that know how to lie and manipulte the truth in order to further their own political causes, such as Keith Olbermann.

In 1776 you would likely have supported the rule of law then? Clearly you would have aided the authorities - the British - to suppress the revolt.

It's amazing that you and your kind spout all this nonsense about law when the society you live in was founded on revolution which by definition involves breaking the law. It's no wonder the US is in its current state when its citizens can't even agree on the principles upon which the country was founded.

[fred41]

In 1776 you would likely have supported the rule of law then? Clearly you would have aided the authorities - the British - to suppress the revolt.

It's amazing that you and your kind spout all this nonsense about law when the society you live in was founded on revolution which by definition involves breaking the law. It's no wonder the US is in its current state when its citizens can't even agree on the principles upon which the country was founded.

What??!! We aren't talking about overthrowing or breaking away from a government.
We are talking about a protest that involves some civil disobedience (as they usually do...trust me - if you know anything at all about a hardcore modern protest movement - there is a core of people who's intention is to get arrested)...
...but your comparison to the American revolution is so over the top...you could almost be Keith Olbermann.
...unfortunately for you....you are probably not making his kind of money though (I'm guessing...I don't know...lol)

[onmyknees]

In 1776 you would likely have supported the rule of law then? Clearly you would have aided the authorities - the British - to suppress the revolt.

It's amazing that you and your kind spout all this nonsense about law when the society you live in was founded on revolution which by definition involves breaking the law. It's no wonder the US is in its current state when its citizens can't even agree on the principles upon which the country was founded.


Good Lord man...get some perspective. In 1776 colonists were subjects of the crown . The irony of this whole thing is if you could get each one of these protestors in a room by themselves, they would come clean and admit that what they want is a society much like the UK , and Western Europe as those nations exist today. Many more expansive social programs, huge government infrastructure ( government workers) socialized medicine, lots of vacation, generous retirement, free college and an oppressive tax structure to pay for it all. The reality they can't quite come to terms with is these social democratic nations are about to cave in on themselves. I give you Greece, Italy, Portugal and many more to follow. The problem with these social democracies are they've run out other peoples money to spend, but their appetite for it remains. California offers the rest of us a snap shot of what awaits us if these folks get their way.

[BluegrassCat]

Those who were locked up probalby failed to obey the police (and were likely antagonizing them or assaulting them).
I suppport police action against those who fail to obey the rule of law. It's that simple really. I don't care if it is an occupier or a tea partier, the rule of law must be obeyed and enforced.


Right sure, if you're arrested you must have broken the law, the police never make mistakes, the authorities are never wrong. If you're poor it's because you're lazy, if you're rich it's because you deserve it. If you're in jail you must be guilty. Injustice can't happen according to you. Sounds like a nice world, too bad it's not the one we live in.

It's just a fact that plenty of law-abiding citizens and journalists have been arrested during these raids and you continue to insist that nothing inappropriate happened; it's all according to the rule of law. Where's the rule of the law for the criminals who hijacked and wrecked our economy? You seem to care more about park rules than the misdeeds that almost laid our country to waste.



Oh, and I am very aware of how 1st amendment rights are limited. For one I know that if you speak your mind NPR will fire you. I also know that the 'politically correct' establishment pass laws like the 'fairness doctrine' so that they can smash free speach that doesn't agree with thier politics.


I was afraid you didn't understand the 1st amendment and you've confirmed it. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with getting fired. Freedom of speech protects you from the government silencing you; exactly what Bloomberg has done with his violent crackdowns and what you cheer as the rule of law. You root for the state suppression of political speech that you disagree with and whine when the market punishes speech you like.

[onmyknees]

[QUOTE=BluegrassCat;1050664]Right sure, if you're arrested you must have broken the law, the police never make mistakes, the authorities are never wrong. If you're poor it's because you're lazy, if you're rich it's because you deserve it. If you're in jail you must be guilty. Injustice can't happen according to you. Sounds like a nice world, too bad it's not the one we live in.

It's just a fact that plenty of law-abiding citizens and journalists have been arrested during these raids and you continue to insist that nothing inappropriate happened; it's all according to the rule of law. Where's the rule of the law for the criminals who hijacked and wrecked our economy? You seem to care more about park rules than the misdeeds that almost laid our country to waste.



Dude....first off, I don't think anyone said out of thousands of arrests, there wasn't a mistake. You obviously don't quite get the fluidity and chaotic nature of a situation like this ......and if you're not prepared for this eventuality, you shouldn't be walking around any of these protests. The cops have to walk a very fine line between civil disobedience, and the rights of non protestors to engage in commerce, get back and forth to work, and carry on their daily lives. That's precisely why the police were instructed to move in and break this little party up, and when that occurs, it's absolute chaos. Cops have to keep the situation under control and don't have the luxury of pulling someone aside to question their intent while someone else is tossing debris or screaming in their face. It's similar to a bar brawl when the cops tell you to get against the wall, and you don't.....you've made a decision right there, and you've put yourself in a dangerous position.

Don't you get all that? These fools could have kept this going for months had they gone home at night and returned the following day. They put themselves in this position, and if Bloomberg had any balls, he'd have bulldozed the tents the first night. And if you're lamenting the lack of prosecution of these Wall Street lawbreakers, well we share one minor point....your problem is you fail to realize Andrew Coumo and your buddy Barrack can't prosecute the same folks they're soliciting for big time campaign contributions...now can they? Which leaves you in no mans land, exactly where these protestors find themselves.

It's unlikely these folks are going to bring about any earth shifting changes. That's done by way of the political system, which your brethren don't quite seem to get. Thier their ideology and political inclinations are far closer to the G-20 type anarchists then bringing about change through the political system in a methodical organized way. That takes disipline, and they have none.

You and your left wing comrades on here love to disparage the Tea Party, but they brought about significant change by peaceful assembly, a concise message, and used the ballot box. That's the formula. When your anarchist friends grasp that concept, then you'll have a political movement on your hands.

[hard4janira]

Right sure, if you're arrested you must have broken the law, the police never make mistakes, the authorities are never wrong. If you're poor it's because you're lazy, if you're rich it's because you deserve it. If you're in jail you must be guilty. Injustice can't happen according to you. Sounds like a nice world, too bad it's not the one we live in.

Again with the hyperbole and drama..... :roll:



It's just a fact that plenty of law-abiding citizens and journalists have been arrested during these raids and you continue to insist that nothing inappropriate happened; it's all according to the rule of law.

Plenty? What's 'plenty'. Four? Twenty-two? Seven hundred? Show me these 'facts' of yours. Where is your evidence that 'plenty' of poeple have been arrested for nothing more than exercising thier first amendment rights. I'll wager you can't find 3 reputable cases. You'll probably find a bunch of 'occupiers' whining about the fact that they were arrested on false charges, but those aren't 'facts'.


Where's the rule of the law for the criminals who hijacked and wrecked our economy? You seem to care more about park rules than the misdeeds that almost laid our country to waste.

Dude, I'm WITH YOU on this. I'll make a deal with you: You start making a case on Wall Street and I'll start making a case agaisnt the Fed's. We'll meet in the middle and prosecute all of these bastards for good. We will put them in jail and throw away the key. :iagree:


I was afraid you didn't understand the 1st amendment and you've confirmed it. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with getting fired. Freedom of speech protects you from the government silencing you; exactly what Bloomberg has done with his violent crackdowns and what you cheer as the rule of law. You root for the state suppression of political speech that you disagree with and whine when the market punishes speech you like.

I honestly do not believe that a single occupier has had thier 1st amendment rights viloated. They have been protesting for months now. They have been given a platform and extensive media coverage (just like the Tea Party). They are simply being asked to obey the law by not setting up permanent residences in public parks (after having done so for weeks on end). Most of them have actually complied with the authorities and vacated the parks. Those who did not, however, chose the path of civil disobedience instead. Being arrested for civil disobedience is not a viloation of somebodies 1st amendment rights. Where are all of these 'mistakes' that you speak of, where the police just rounded up people in the park and put them in paddy waggons? Where are they?

On that note, I'm pretty sure what we will never see eye to eye on this issue, so I'm done with it (although I would like to see you build a case for the miscarriage of justice whereby innocent people were arrested on trumped up charges).

[BluegrassCat]

If you find the implications of your logic too dramatic, perhaps you should rethink your positions. But you're the one who claimed that being arrested is evidence of guilt, a position that flies in the face our constitution.

In only the last week at least 12 journalists were arrested at OWS for documenting the movement and the crackdown; pretty clearly violating the 1st amendment. See: http://www.savethenews.org/blog/11/11/18/journalism-community-condemns-press-arrests

Now for obvious reasons it's impossible to get hard numbers on citizens who were improperly arrested because the NYPD will claim they were all justified while the arrested will overestimate the innocent. But I think it's fair to say that if press with credentials are being rounded up a good deal more of citizens lacking any credentials are arrested for the same thing (i.e. nothing).

For me the arrests and clashes with police can be broken into to 3 basic types.

1. Protestors who are throwing things at police or being otherwise aggressive. I have no problem with them being arrested.

2. Protestors who demonstrate non-violent resistance like sitting with arms locked. Assuming the protestors are blocking a road or sidewalk etc. I support their removal but I utterly reject the use of violence, batons, kicks, punches, tear gas and pepper spray to deal with non-violence resistance. You appear to revel in such gross abuse by the authorities. This is a stain on NYPD's record.

3. Protestors, journalists, citizens who are not even breaking laws should obviously not be arrested. I reject that bearing witness to a movement means sacrificing your liberty to over-eager police. Making an arrest requires judgment on the part of police not bloodlust. This is not a warzone where police just round up everyone "to be safe"; there's nothing to be gained by being overzealous, just more freedom lost.

You often make claims that people have too much faith in government. Well, I find your blind faith in the government to appropriately apply force even where there's plenty of evidence they've acted inappropriately, both worrisome and puzzling. To me, the government trampling the 1st amendment is far worse than making sure poor kids don't starve and limiting the amount of e.coli corporations can put in my spinach. But I'm a liberal so those are my values.

[BluegrassCat]

It's unlikely these folks are going to bring about any earth shifting changes. That's done by way of the political system, which your brethren don't quite seem to get. Thier their ideology and political inclinations are far closer to the G-20 type anarchists then bringing about change through the political system in a methodical organized way. That takes disipline, and they have none.

You and your left wing comrades on here love to disparage the Tea Party, but they brought about significant change by peaceful assembly, a concise message, and used the ballot box. That's the formula. When your anarchist friends grasp that concept, then you'll have a political movement on your hands.

I'm sorry did you just say that the OWS, the movement that decided to protest 24 hours a day for 2 months straight, created a small city with library, kitchen, media center and a daily schedule, organized marches, speakers and a mini-community, these people lack discipline? LOL Give me a break.

So you're comparing the achievements of the Tea Party to OWS? Well remember OWS is only 2 months old. What had the Tea Party done by mid April 2009? They had a few dozen Tea Parties across the country where old white folks got out their gadsden flags and protested Obama cutting (that's right cutting) their taxes. OWS has certainly had an equal or larger impact since its inception. Both movements captured the media's attention but we'll have to wait and see what the electoral impact will be for OWS. But already it's forcing even Republicans to acknowledge the staggering levels of inequality America is facing. So in terms of changing the debate, OWS is already a success. :)

[onmyknees]

I'm sorry did you just say that the OWS, the movement that decided to protest 24 hours a day for 2 months straight, created a small city with library, kitchen, media center and a daily schedule, organized marches, speakers and a mini-community, these people lack discipline? LOL Give me a break.

So you're comparing the achievements of the Tea Party to OWS? Well remember OWS is only 2 months old. What had the Tea Party done by mid April 2009? They had a few dozen Tea Parties across the country where old white folks got out their gadsden flags and protested Obama cutting (that's right cutting) their taxes. OWS has certainly had an equal or larger impact since its inception. Both movements captured the media's attention but we'll have to wait and see what the electoral impact will be for OWS. But already it's forcing even Republicans to acknowledge the staggering levels of inequality America is facing. So in terms of changing the debate, OWS is already a success. :)


You still beatin' this drum ? Dude it's over....move on. You are so pathetically ignorant it's breathtaking. The Tea Party like them or disparage them are the single most dynamic political force in 50 years. They over turned one party rule, took super majorities in the House and Senate and reversed them, Obama'a word for it was a "shellacking"...and you're going to compare them to OWS ????????? I don't know how else to say this, I'm trying to be somewhat respectful....but you're as dumb as the day is long. And don't get all hysterical like you always do about personal attacks. I don't even know you, but I sure pity after reading some of your mindless, fact less posts.. If you took the position that you know in your heart and mind what Obama's doing is right and that he just needs more time, that might be ignorant of the facts, and ideologically driven, but it' at least on the fringes of being legit....But that's not what you do...Contrarily you try to convince us that it's all been a smashing success, and to ignore our lying eyes. You have a curious benchmark for success. You tell us the stimulus worked because you Say it did, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you tell us OWS was a success despite over 4000 arrests and no political follow up to speak of. Not one thing has changed in 2 months...not one public policy, not one statute, not one vote, not one prosecution, and probably not one mind.. The only ones who it was a success for was the cops who piled up the overtime just before Christmas. You really do thrive in your own little world...don't you..........impervious to facts and circumstances. In your little world you can justify anything if you try hard enough. You're a true sycophant.

You want to know why the OSW will be a distant memory by everyone except the bums and anarchists in 3 months? Because they're largely a subsidiary of the left wing...And they and thier union supporters will not, they can not come to terms with the fact Obama has more Wall Street fat cats in his administration , has received more big Wall Street money than any politician in history, has bailed out more shady Banks and Mortgage houses, and vacations in Martha's Vineyard with the 1%...When you reconcile all that...get back to me.

[BluegrassCat]

You still beatin' this drum ? Dude it's over....move on. You are so pathetically ignorant it's breathtaking. The Tea Party like them or disparage them are the single most dynamic political force in 50 years. They over turned one party rule, took super majorities in the House and Senate and reversed them, Obama'a word for it was a "shellacking"...and you're going to compare them to OWS ????????? I don't know how else to say this, I'm trying to be somewhat respectful....but you're as dumb as the day is long. And don't get all hysterical like you always do about personal attacks. I don't even know you, but I sure pity after reading some of your mindless, fact less posts.. If you took the position that you know in your heart and mind what Obama's doing is right and that he just needs more time, that might be ignorant of the facts, and ideologically driven, but it' at least on the fringes of being legit....But that's not what you do...Contrarily you try to convince us that it's all been a smashing success, and to ignore our lying eyes. You have a curious benchmark for success. You tell us the stimulus worked because you Say it did, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you tell us OWS was a success despite over 4000 arrests and no political follow up to speak of. Not one thing has changed in 2 months...not one public policy, not one statute, not one vote, not one prosecution, and probably not one mind.. The only ones who it was a success for was the cops who piled up the overtime just before Christmas. You really do thrive in your own little world...don't you..........impervious to facts and circumstances. In your little world you can justify anything if you try hard enough. You're a true sycophant.

You want to know why the OSW will be a distant memory by everyone except the bums and anarchists in 3 months? Because they're largely a subsidiary of the left wing...And they and thier union supporters will not, they can not come to terms with the fact Obama has more Wall Street fat cats in his administration , has received more big Wall Street money than any politician in history, has bailed out more shady Banks and Mortgage houses, and vacations in Martha's Vineyard with the 1%...When you reconcile all that...get back to me.

I wonder if you even read posts or if you just repeat your same tired talking points: Obama and OWS bad, Tea Party good. Can you offer any more thought than that? You don't like the facts? Go back to your bubble where it's safe from the big bad world and uncomfortable truths. Clearly you're an ideologue but even you must hunger for some accuracy every now and then.

By your logic we could say that Republicans have utterly failed to nominate a presidential candidate, let alone get them elected, a record political catastrophe. I mean can you believe a major political party couldn't even nominate someone? That's pretty bad. Oh wait, is it not fair to ask for a nominee before the primaries have happened? Well, why not, that's how you're judging OWS.

So what had the Tea Party movement done 2 months into its existence that was so great? OWS dramatically changed the debate from deficit reduction to inequality and unemployment. If you deny that, then you deny reality. Which of course is what you do regularly, so I shouldn't be surprised.