The arrests in the Occupy movement are piling up around the nation from Oregon to Oakland to Tennessee now. Soon 99% of the nation's population will be in jail leaving only the Tea Party's 1% who are free because they hold peaceful rallies.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/10/report-fights-erupt-between-occupy-wall-street-protesters/1
Now we learn that fights are erupting in Zuccotti Park (that's in New York City for all you UC Santa Cruz Community Studies majors). We also learn that Boston police are receiving threats from the Occupy Boston crowd.
"I can empathize with that."
Of course, none of this will faze the support from MSNBC-especially Butter and Egg Man Ed Schultz, who still thinks these bums represent the 99%.
Of course, Ed and his fellow mad-hatters at MSNBC will continue to hold positive comparsions of the Occupy mobs to the peaceful Tea Parties even though the latter has yet to see its first arrest. The only thing they threaten to do is vote, which they carry out (no idle threat).
Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.
6 comments:
These occupiers are some of the sorriest humans on the face of the earth. And, those who think they have a legitimate beef, are even more sorrier than the mendicants who join this mob of naysayers. Like Michael Moore, the great pretender, these false complainers will spew their wrath for everything that does not compute into a redistribution (hand-out) in their favor. These low-life individuals complain about how they are mistreated, by using the iPhone4 with a $50.00 a month service charge. They appear to be well taken care of, from the look of their physical health (eyes, hair, teeth manicured nails). Unlike individuals with unworthy complaints, there are those poor souls who are in need of medical care, food, shelter and the basic needs for life. I saw one of these individuals, the other day, walking his decrepit bicycle, wearing soiled thread bare cloths, a tattered baseball cap, a four-day beard and leathery skin. His shoes were in need of repair. This person was not protesting Wall Street, as he passed my car, walking in the cross-walk. He was not asking for hand-outs. If I could have gotten to this person, I would have given him all the money I had in my pocket.
So, these OWS mendicants need a wake-up call. We need to carry signs with the Seven Deadly Sins: Pride, Envy (get the 1% wealth), Lust (doing the drugs for physical ecstasy or others wealth and possessions), Anger (kill the cops fliers), Greed (redistribution of wealth) and Sloth (the nanny state hand-outs derived from our tax dollars).
If the OWS protesters are pointing fingers, they should look in the mirror and point to the true problem in their life.
Squid
One of the main characteristics of mobs is that they are irrational. They offer no solutions, only complaints. They are oblivious to incongruities, as Squid points out. They rage against "corporations" yet they all have IPhones. Who do they think produce them, the food stamp recipients? Or their union supporters? They say they want jobs, but who in their right mind would hire them (Besides ACORN or the government)?
The Tea Party had ideas and a uniform message: Smaller government, less taxes, no ObamaCare, more freedom, less regulations, etc. Some were stronger on one point or another but they were all consistent. And they were all patriotic.
They changed the political landscape in 2010 and they will do the same in 2012. Despite all the media bashing, they know who they are, they know what they want, and they will vote.
The election can't come soon enough for any of us... Obama's policies have been disastrous and this is the end of it.
Squid, when you read your comment over aren't you ashamed of yourself. I had to wait a day to comment after reading it, but I can't come up with words of how disgusted I am reading your pathetic observation of the "rich" and the "poor".
Appearently well dressed people should not be allowed to demonstrate. The wretched creature has other worries, worries he shouldn't have in a wealthy country like the US, where someone as arrogant as you would have given him all the money he had on him but didn't find a way. You are one sorry human being and I always felt your one sandwich short of a picknick.
Ingrid, I understand Squid's point that the apparently wealthy protesters is not that they don't have the right to protest. It is a question about what is it that they are protesting. They have "unworthy complaints."
As to the others, that were in need of medical care, etc., he saw one of them who was not protesting Wall Street, and Squid would have given him all the money available to him had he been able to get to him. What is wrong with that? That Squid couldn't get to him or that in a wealthy country nobody should be disheveled?
You might notice that when a country, wealthy or not, undertakes to finance social welfare programs sufficient to satisfy everyone's needs and wants, it ends up like Greece....rioting in the streets for benefits the government hasn't the funds to pay. They end up like several towns here in California that simply go bankrupt and can't provide any services to any citizens.
As to his other points about the rest of the OWS crowd, I think he is dead on. They are blaming everyone else for their problems and should look in the mirror to come face to face with their real problem.
.
Miggie, there is a reason why people are on welfare, there are and were mistakes made all along the way, but just what is society supposed to do with them? Put them in work houses? Let them starve to death? Lock them up and throw the keys away? Let them linger on the streets in their own filth? If you don't have any workable suggestions to solve those problems you needn't comment, unless you say "Let them eat cake".
If nothing will be done in the future it will be "off with your heads", that's for sure.
Why isn't Squid working in a homeless shelter and throw his money around there? Because he doesn't see the poor unless they stare right in his face.
Ingrid, you hit on one of the core issues which distinguish those on the left and the right. Basically, it is "What's the reason so many people are on welfare and what's to be done with them?"
Personally, I believe that incentives work. The more welfare and unemployment benefits that are paid out by the government, the more unemployed welfare recipients there will be. It turns out many will marshall the resources that come from the government (or game the system) so that not working at all will become a viable alternative. (We have more food stamp recipients now than ever before, for one example.)
Similarly, disincentives also work. The more you tax corporations, rich people, and business, the fewer of them there will be. They find ways around the taxes (and burdensome regulations) or they will move. They move away to more hospitable states and countries.
The left sees the criminal and the underachievers as victims ("miserable victims" in Godwin's words) of special circumstances that provoked the crime or caused the misery. It is the "iniquity of civil institutions" that distinguish them from everyone else. They are the same as everyone else but just got some bad breaks. (That is why people on the left are typically against harsh punishment or capital punishment.)
The right sees the prospect of growing up as decent, productive individuals depends on a whole elaborate set of largely unarticulated practices which engender moral values, such as self-discipline and consideration of others. These practices are incentives conveyed to them through systemic processes - traditions, values, families, markets, etc. When those influences don't "take" or because the application was not effective or the individual was especially resistant then you get antisocial behavior... choosing to accept welfare or crime instead of working.
There is no moral judgement here but it is the way of the world, the nature of mankind and the way both sides see it.
.
Post a Comment