We are the 99 Percent

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by baja

BTW a better movement is "Occupy the Fed"

and let corporations/wall street off the hook? let the teabaggers get distracted with the fed. let them protest the fed. the 99%ers should stay focused on wall street.
this whole occupy the fed thing is just a way for corps./wall street to coopt the protests. a way for corps. to get the protest off there backs where they need to be. this movement is growing.

[baja]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

and let corporations/wall street off the hook? let the teabaggers get distracted with the fed. let them protest the fed. the 99%ers should stay focused on wall street.
this whole occupy the fed thing is just a way for corps./wall street to coopt the protests. a way for corps. to get the protest off there backs where they need to be. this movement is growing.

I say keep both and create ten more.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by baja

www.prisonplanet.tv

Alex Jones? he's hardly an independent commentator.

[peacepipe]

I will say this the federal reserve act of 1913 which established the fed needs to be repealed & replaced with a more transparent fed,one that has to submit itself to audits. I'm not for abolishing the fed outright.

[Rohirrim]

http://www.sandersforpresident.org/p.../#comment-8954

[baja]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

Alex Jones? he's hardly an independent commentator.

He has some great guests. Listen to his show and make up your own mind if he is getting the truth out or not. Nobody is going to get it 100% right but he has some intriguing information from his guests being reported and a great deal of documentation in his archives.

[mosca]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

Farce.

Epic Fail on the very first quote: "Playing hundreds of songs by hundreds of music companies."
Trying to pretend that we owe the major music labels and corporations for the music we listen to?!? Anyone into music knows that the music industry as we know it is dead, was killed off by the internet, and that for quality music, INDEPENDENT music is the way to go. $$$ belongs in the hands of the artists that create the music, NOT the major labels that use artists and pump out crap onto the radio waves.

This post is part of the problem.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

Farce.

Perfect

[Requiem]

What a silly cartoon.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by epicSocialism4tw

Perfect

Just the kind of off-target simplification the simpleminded are attracted to.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Just the kind of off-target simplification the simpleminded are attracted to.

Maybe they should have chosen a bedraggled 1960's radical who never got out of the 60's instead.

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

Farce.

This is Boulder, CO in a nutshell. I LMAO every time I walk down Pearl Street and see a trustafarian b****ing about what's wrong with the world. He's got no job and his parents just paid CU $100k so he can smoke weed and drive his VW Toureg around with a $2500 bike on it's rack and few grand in climbing equipment in it's trunk.

Classic stuff.

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by epicSocialism4tw

Maybe they should have chosen a bedraggled 1960's radical who never got out of the 60's instead.

And what would you know about 60s anything -- let alone 60s radicalism?

Zip.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Panic of the Plutocrats

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 9, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/op...&smid=fb-share

It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.

And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.

Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.

Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them.

Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.

And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the protesters “let their freak flags fly,” and are “aligned with Lenin.”

The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.

Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes — well, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.

And then there’s the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical — it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous dictum that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”

But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, you’d think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. George Will declared that she has a “collectivist agenda,” that she believes that “individualism is a chimera.” And Rush Limbaugh called her “a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it.”

What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.

Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.

This special treatment can’t bear close scrutiny — and therefore, as they see it, there must be no close scrutiny. Anyone who points out the obvious, no matter how calmly and moderately, must be demonized and driven from the stage. In fact, the more reasonable and moderate a critic sounds, the more urgently he or she must be demonized, hence the frantic sliming of Elizabeth Warren.

So who’s really being un-American here? Not the protesters, who are simply trying to get their voices heard. No, the real extremists here are America’s oligarchs, who want to suppress any criticism of the sources of their wealth.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Nobody's panicking about a bunch of intentionally-jobless trust fund crybabies camping out in Manhattan in their own filth.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

So? You could point out that everything in TR's world was owned by the trusts and combinations before he started busting them up. Business isn't bad. The products they create are not bad. Reckless greed is bad. Too bad you can't see the difference.

Exactly.

You can tell the right-wing brownie hounds on this board have absolutely nothing by the fact that they keep using this straw man argument.

[Rohirrim]

Man! Krugman hits that nail on head.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by epicSocialism4tw

Nobody's panicking about a bunch of intentionally-jobless trust fund crybabies camping out in Manhattan in their own filth.

Sure the kleptocrats are panicking.

You can tell by the way they (and their useful tools like you) are going all out to misrepresent their opposition.

[baja]

The term is useful fools

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by baja

The term is useful fools

No, the term is "useful idiots", and it has been used time and time again to describe the morons in Manhattan camping in their own filth.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Man! Krugman hits that nail on head.

Krugman is an odorous turd fresh from the bowls of dead Mussolini.

Nobody reads or respects Krugman.

[Requiem]

Nobody respects you.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Requiem

Nobody respects you.

Except his fellow bankster brownie hounds.

[Meck77]

The 99% were quite happy during the Bush era ironically enough. They were getting paid and at least had a job. They certainly weren't in the streets protesting economic policy.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Meck77

The 99% were quite happy during the Bush era ironically enough. They were getting paid and at least had a job. They certainly weren't in the streets protesting economic policy.

Bush presided over the first net job loss since Hoover.

But when did facts ever get in your way?