Opinion of "Occupy Wall Street"

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Scumbagger Philly occupied our police headquarters last night, blocking traffic and demanding the release of admitted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal. Glad they are sticking to the "Down with corporate greed!" message.

Definitely a mainstream, sane movement. The usual suspects around here will now explode with anger at me and not address the substance of my post.

Because the Occupy protesters are completely unified in beliefs and motives. Seriously, you have everyone there from Paultards to commies.

Also, willing to treat the TP the same way?

[Keystone Phil]

Also, willing to treat the TP the same way?

Uh, perhaps you've missed what I've been saying: these silly rallies can produce just as many stupid signs/people as other rallies. You and others will continue to hold up the Tea Party as some example of a dangerous political movement yet turn the other cheek when these people actually get dangerous.


I have always dismissed the idiots that carry ridiculous signs/say outlandish things at Tea Party events as have many Tea Party leaders. That doesn't mean they represent the entire or even a majority of the movement. Children like BRTD won't admit this, of course, because his motive is just to demonize Tea Partiers. When given a dose of their own medicine and shown how a few nutcases on their side behave, the children get even fussier and still complain about - you guessed it - the Tea Party.

[bgwah]

You've been a big baby throughout this entire thing. Scumbaggers? That's not even remotely clever. Using rape? Grow up.

The sad part is that you think you're winning... that you're effectively proving your point. But if anything you're doing the opposite.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Tea Party Nation is encouraging small business owners not to hire anyone as long as Obama is still in office. This is an official leading Tea Party group, not just a few idiots holding stupid signs.

[Keystone Phil]

You've been a big baby throughout this entire thing. Scumbaggers? That's not even remotely clever. Using rape? Grow up.

"Tea Baggers" is clever? "Using rape?" LOL if you think you and your kind wouldn't be jumping all over an alleged rape at a Tea Party event.

The only babies here are people like yourself, whining about how "unfair" I've been. I'm doing exactly what you do when you hear or see crazy things at other rallies. You don't like dealing with the bad stuff on your side so you throw a hissy fit. Look at your behavior, for example, throughout this thread.

Oh, and please don't tell anyone to grow up. "Keystone Fool." "Keystone Phallus." Definitely grown up!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, no! I'm not "winning" over the jackasses here. How depressing!

I think I'm doing just fine proving my point when a) the substance of my posts aren't addressed (yet certain people have the audacity to say that I'm not talking about substance) and b) BRTD responds by posting Tea Party images...which is proving my point.

[angus]

Damn, this is a wide thread.


You think you might be able to scale down that picture a bit snowstalker?

(Just so I don't have to use the horizontal scroll bar.)

Thanks in advance for your attention in this important matter.

[Хahar 🤔]

With Obama clearing the field of his compeditors, setting Iran up for the control of the Islamic world, reminded Iran that they could be his target if they don't do things as he, Obama commands - the frame up of Iran, the contention to bomb Saudi officials.

Somehow I get the sense that Iran is as appealing to most of the Muslim world as it is receptive to orders from Washington.

[Marokai Backbeat]

You and others will continue to hold up the Tea Party as some example of a dangerous political movement yet turn the other cheek when these people actually get dangerous.

The movement, itself, inherently dangerous? Not really. And the fact that they were a movement itself was also not a problem.

"I and others" (since you're using the ridiculously general accusatory language, I may as well defend "us") got upset with the Tea Party because most of what they were upset over, the reasons behind the movement when it was mainstream, were ridiculous lies. Tea Party members also got upset over preposterous conspiratorial allegations against Obama. The "dangerous" aspect came from Republicans actively encouraging the lowest common denominators instead of acting like leaders and telling them to shape up. Also; the fact that it was not at all a grassroots movement and was funded and organized by billionaires and cable news hosts.

When you can find total equivalence (existence, by the way, does not equal equivalence, just to get that out there) of all of those things in the OWS crowd, people might actually take your BS here seriously. You willfully ignore all of the above in your disingenuous attempt to tear down an actual grassroots movement based on actual public sentiment about real observable issues.

[Keystone Phil]

Also; the fact that it was not at all a grassroots movement and was funded and organized by billionaires and cable news hosts.

Ok, so the people I meet (oh, no! Anecdotal evidence!) are just pawns of billionaires. The grassroots activity that has been such a success over the past few years was all imaginary.

This is what you and yours do when a movement is successful: you cry fraud. "They can't possibly be a group of regular people! It must be the corporations."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And this is what takes the cake: because billionaires and cable talk show hosts do have a role in the Tea Party, that means they are the entire movement. The movement isn't a movement at all. It isn't grassroots. It's Glenn Beck and the Koch Brothers and Wall Street and...and...and who else can we throw in? "Existence does not equal equivalence...unless I'm using it to prove my point about the bad guys."

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Have you paid attention to anything I've posted? You cry about the Tea Party being conspiratorial yet totally ignore how your grassroots movement about corporate greed has now turned into a "Free Mumia!" rally in Philadelphia. Then there are those that called for violent revolution in Los Angeles. All of your complaints about the Tea Party can be found here. Yet you still refuse to acknowledge this because it means a) you have to backtrack on your Tea Party trash talk and b) you have to admit that I might have a point. We can't allow that!

[Keystone Phil]

I just can't believe that even someone as disgustingly hackish as yourself could stoop to saying that the Tea Party isn't a grassroots movement "at all." How could someone make such a blanket statement with a straight face? Do you think the hundreds of Tea Party groups across the country all receive checks from the evil big businessmen each week to do what they do?

[bgwah]

You've been a big baby throughout this entire thing. Scumbaggers? That's not even remotely clever. Using rape? Grow up.

"Tea Baggers" is clever? "Using rape?" LOL if you think you and your kind wouldn't be jumping all over an alleged rape at a Tea Party event.

The only babies here are people like yourself, whining about how "unfair" I've been. I'm doing exactly what you do when you hear or see crazy things at other rallies. You don't like dealing with the bad stuff on your side so you throw a hissy fit. Look at your behavior, for example, throughout this thread.

Oh, and please don't tell anyone to grow up. "Keystone Fool." "Keystone Phallus." Definitely grown up!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, no! I'm not "winning" over the jackasses here. How depressing!

I think I'm doing just fine proving my point when a) the substance of my posts aren't addressed (yet certain people have the audacity to say that I'm not talking about substance) and b) BRTD responds by posting Tea Party images...which is proving my point.

I don't know why you're attacking me. I recall you even acknowledging how well I behaved when Giffords was shot, despite the ample opportunity to be a hack. Also, putting "unfair" in quotations implies I said that, which I did not. You're the one throwing a hissy fit about the Occupy movement thus far.

But to answer the rest of your questions:
-Teabaggers is certainly more clever than scumbaggers.
-The OWS movement is still quite young. In time, the "Tea Party" movement became more organized, enough that Tea Party organizations could take down congressional incumbents, had major politicians claim to be part of the movement, etc. Obviously some Democratic politicians are eager to turn this into their equivelant of the Tea Party, but whether they will succeed remains to be seen.
-I would definitely argue that the Occupy movement is more ideologically diverse than the Tea Party. Again, that could change as it matures... But there are definitely libertarian and anarchists elements to OWS. Contrast this to what we generally view as liberal in America, and the Democratic Party, and I think so far OWS is more diverse.
-What we hear from the Tea Party more than anything is deficit spending this, budget cuts that, and so on. Yet they were almost completely silent during all eight years of Bush and his budgetary-madness. The movement exploded almost immediately after Obama took over. But Occupy? We're still in Obama's first term. I think this is a key difference between the movements worth looking into.

Personally, I'm going to wait for this movement to mature a bit before I come to such concrete conclusions. If the movement even survives as long as the Tea Party has, which I'm not convinced it will.

[Sbane]

Republican politicians are certainly more closer to the "teabaggers" than the democrats have been to the OWS protesters. The Republicans tried to co-opt that crazy as sh**t "movement" as their own. Democrats haven't tried to do that yet. Even if a random politician here or there has, it's nothing like what the Republicans tried to do with the band of morons. That might make it a little bit of a difference in the "dangerous" factor. I think they are both idiotic movements for the most part, but one was certainly much closer to people with actual power.

[Keystone Phil]

I don't know why you're attacking me.

Uh...because you're the one that responded to me, calling me a baby about this...

Not sure what your behavior during the Giffords shooting has to do with this. Behaving well in one instance doesn't mean you're acting mature in others.

I'm not throwing a hissy fit at all. I'm pointing out the trash elements of this movement and people like yourself are the ones throwing a fit and responding with "But...but...the Tea Party did this! The Tea Party did that!"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In the eye of the beholder, I guess.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok but I'm not sure of your point here. The one has been fairly successful in achieving its goals electorally and the other has yet to be seen. My point is that it's a Tea Party equivalent because people can point out bizarre signs, causes, etc. at each movement's rallies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The same can be said of the Tea Party. Tea Partiers range from Paul to Palin types. Tea Partiers have anarcho-capitalist social libertarians and religious populists more concerned with defending Israel. There is more diversity within the Tea Party than people notice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And those opposed to war were extremely vocal during the Bush years yet there aren't nearly as many mass marches against military action in Libya, Uganda, etc.

The Tea Party became prominent because of the healthcare proposal which, despite his fiscal record, Bush never pushed. That's what sent Tea Partiers over the edge, in my opinion. That doesn't mean Bush should have gotten off scott free because of his spending habits but it also doesn't mean Tea Partiers are just pissy because Obama is a Democrat or black.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And those opposed to war were extremely vocal during the Bush years yet there aren't nearly as many mass marches against military action in Libya, Uganda, etc.

How many actual ground troops are/were being sent to Libya and Uganda? And how many casualties did the US suffer in Libya?

[bgwah]

There you go ahead making up quotes Phil. Quit it. I didn't even say anything even remotely like that. Making up quotes is another one of your losing tactics.

But Ron Paul is a Republican. Libertarinism is a right-wing ideology. Of course they were present at the Tea Party protests.

Were there any major left-wing segments in the Tea Party? Did socialists play a big part of it? I don't think so.

And comparing Uganda to Iraq? That isn't even worth a response...

[Keystone Phil]

And those opposed to war were extremely vocal during the Bush years yet there aren't nearly as many mass marches against military action in Libya, Uganda, etc.

How many actual ground troops are/were being sent to Libya and Uganda? And how many casualties did the US suffer in Libya?

Isn't it the principle of the matter? Not that you have much grounds to discuss this since you're an Obama hack first and foremost and supported the action strictly because Obama authorized it.

There you go ahead making up quotes Phil. Quit it. I didn't even say anything even remotely like that. Making up quotes is another one of your losing tactics.

What quote did I make up? I think you're getting even more desperate now...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

So that means Libertarians are one in the same with social conservatives. Disingenuous much?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are socially liberal elements of it, yes.

And as long as we're pointing out that socialists didn't play a big role in the Tea Party, let's note the obvious: most of the Invaders aren't far right wingers so don't try to sell me this bill of goods that the Scumbaggers are way more diverse. They're definitely dominated by leftists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Someone doesn't understand the point. That's ok though. I'll explain it: when Obama campaigned on ending interventionist military policy, he was embraced by the anti war Left. Whether Uganda is as big as the Iraq War is irrelevant; it goes against one of the fundamental reasons why Obama was embraced by the Left. People on the Left have been very disappointed with this. Don't act like you don't know that just to "prove me wrong." My point is that while they notice the tweeking of his foreign policy stance, they aren't in the streets.

I know you like to be disingenuous. I know your past trollish side comes out every once in awhile. However, please do a better job forming an argument. You've been misleading at best here.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

And those opposed to war were extremely vocal during the Bush years yet there aren't nearly as many mass marches against military action in Libya, Uganda, etc.

How many actual ground troops are/were being sent to Libya and Uganda? And how many casualties did the US suffer in Libya?

Isn't it the principle of the matter? Not that you have much grounds to discuss this since you're an Obama hack first and foremost and supported the action strictly because Obama authorized it.

There you go ahead making up quotes Phil. Quit it. I didn't even say anything even remotely like that. Making up quotes is another one of your losing tactics.

What quote did I make up? I think you're getting even more desperate now...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

So that means Libertarians are one in the same with social conservatives. Disingenuous much?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are socially liberal elements of it, yes.

And as long as we're pointing out that socialists didn't play a big role in the Tea Party, let's note the obvious: most of the Invaders aren't far right wingers so don't try to sell me this bill of goods that the Scumbaggers are way more diverse. They're definitely dominated by leftists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Someone doesn't understand the point. That's ok though. I'll explain it: when Obama campaigned on ending interventionist military policy, he was embraced by the anti war Left. Whether Uganda is as big as the Iraq War is irrelevant; it goes against one of the fundamental reasons why Obama was embraced by the Left. People on the Left have been very disappointed with this. Don't act like you don't know that just to "prove me wrong." My point is that while they notice the tweeking of his foreign policy stance, they aren't in the streets.

I know you like to be disingenuous. I know your past trollish side comes out every once in awhile. However, please do a better job forming an argument. You've been misleading at best here.

Phil it finnally occured to me--your never present on the forum during debates. Never during Santorum interviews, or events...I seriously believe you actually are Rick Santorum XD.

[courts]

I agree with most of what you've said but...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

So that means Libertarians are one in the same with social conservatives. Disingenuous much?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are socially liberal elements of it, yes.

Libertarianism isn't 'socially liberal,' it's incredibly hostile to social liberalism (as practiced by american liberals, obv.). Probably more so than a lot of mainstream "conservatives" actually on quite a few issues (racial discrimination laws, "safety net," foreign policy, etc.). Just because there's some overlap occasionally between libertarians and 'liberals' on certain issues doesn't imply they're at all the same thing or even motivated by the same things when it comes to the issues they agree on. So as far as the Tea Party goes the libertarians are definitely one of the more reactionary elements of what's basically exclusively a "right-wing" movement, other than the WN infiltrators (not to imply some aren't both).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Obama never campaigned on "ending interventionist military policy," he campaigned on ending the Iraq War so we could focus more on Afghanistan. And obviously plenty of liberals are pro interventionism, look at the support for "UN peacekeeping" and "humanitarian intervention/aid."

[bgwah]

There you go ahead making up quotes Phil. Quit it. I didn't even say anything even remotely like that. Making up quotes is another one of your losing tactics.

What quote did I make up? I think you're getting even more desperate now...

You said, and you even put in quotes:

"But...but...the Tea Party did this! The Tea Party did that!"

Sorry, but I never said that. And you're not even paraphrasing. This is a common tactic you use when you're losing a debate. And you say I'm getting desperate? lol

You must be logged in to read this quote.

LOL

So that means Libertarians are one in the same with social conservatives. Disingenuous much?[/quote]

I said I thought OWS was more ideologically diverse than the Tea Party. That doesn't mean I said the Tea Party doesn't have any diversity. The Tea Party was a diverse grouping of right-wing ideologies. OWS has both left and right elements.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are socially liberal elements of it, yes.[/quote]

Occupy and the Tea Party are about economic issues. Not that I'm convinced social liberals were a major segment of the Tea Party.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree they're mostly leftists.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Someone doesn't understand the point. That's ok though. I'll explain it: when Obama campaigned on ending interventionist military policy, he was embraced by the anti war Left. Whether Uganda is as big as the Iraq War is irrelevant; it goes against one of the fundamental reasons why Obama was embraced by the Left. People on the Left have been very disappointed with this. Don't act like you don't know that just to "prove me wrong." My point is that while they notice the tweeking of his foreign policy stance, they aren't in the streets.

I know you like to be disingenuous. I know your past trollish side comes out every once in awhile. However, please do a better job forming an argument. You've been misleading at best here.
[/quote]

Sending 100 military advisers to a country isn't even remotely similar to lying to the nation to invade a foreign nation with something like 150,000 troops. If calling me a troll is the best you can do here, you're getting desperate indeed.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And those opposed to war were extremely vocal during the Bush years yet there aren't nearly as many mass marches against military action in Libya, Uganda, etc.

How many actual ground troops are/were being sent to Libya and Uganda? And how many casualties did the US suffer in Libya?

Isn't it the principle of the matter? Not that you have much grounds to discuss this since you're an Obama hack first and foremost and supported the action strictly because Obama authorized it.

Uh, no? Maybe to a handful of people but I doubt most protesters against the Iraq War were stating that they were opposed to military action under any circumstances whatsoever. There weren't many protests when the Afghan war started either.

Someone doesn't understand the point. That's ok though. I'll explain it: when Obama campaigned on ending interventionist military policy, he was embraced by the anti war Left. Whether Uganda is as big as the Iraq War is irrelevant; it goes against one of the fundamental reasons why Obama was embraced by the Left. People on the Left have been very disappointed with this. Don't act like you don't know that just to "prove me wrong." My point is that while they notice the tweeking of his foreign policy stance, they aren't in the streets.

LOL. Obama never campaigned on ending "interventionist military policy" he said that would end US involvement in Iraq and not start other wars like it. At the end of the year the former will be true, and the latter is true so far.

[Keystone Phil]

Sorry, but I never said that. And you're not even paraphrasing. This is a common tactic you use when you're losing a debate. And you say I'm getting desperate? lol

You might not have but others haven't? Give me a break.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"Right" is debatable and they certainly aren't significant enough to be worthy of mention. Being ever so slightly more diverse isn't a ringing argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are socially liberal elements of it, yes.[/quote]

Occupy and the Tea Party are about economic issues. Not that I'm convinced social liberals were a major segment of the Tea Party.[/quote]

...except now the Invaders are talking about freeing criminals (admitted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal), political rights, civil liberties (PATRIOT Act) and military intervention.

And that doesn't debunk my point. The Tea Party has become about social issues, too, and social liberals are present (it's just that they stress the economic issues more).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, how about Libya? And do you not understand the logic of "the principle of the matter?" I didn't say invading Iraq and action in Uganda are the same or remotely similar in terms of the scale of the operation; it's about committing military personnel to operations that Candidate Obama would never have agreed to.

And I like this bit we're using now: "military advisers."

[Keystone Phil]

I doubt most protesters against the Iraq War were stating that they were opposed to military action under any circumstances whatsoever.

I didn't say that they said that. However, plenty of them were opposed to action in Libya on the same grounds. Where were the mass protests?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

...and "start other wars like it" was a swipe at pre-emptive military interventionism. Using the logic he used in 2008, he wouldn't have gone into Libya because they posed no direct threat to the U.S. and it would serve as a distraction from the Afghanistan campaign.

Again, no mass protests against this.

[Rooney]

Unless this movement goes Commitee of Safety style I am saying it is not a going to be a very effective movement. If these guys hate the bankers so much why don't they just pull a Galleanists and blow up Wall Street? That would send a signal just like in 1920. It would start a new "red scare." The cops would crack down on them, break some heads and than they could use this for sympathy. Obama would be revealed as the creature of Wall Street that he is and the movement could expose the guilty.

 I really do not like this movement because it seems to be a movement with no direction that has good ideas but will make no change. The bankers profitt from violence, maybe they will only listen to it.

[Insula Dei]

Unless this movement goes Commitee of Safety style I am saying it is not a going to be a very effective movement. If these guys hate the bankers so much why don't they just pull a Galleanists and blow up Wall Street? That would send a signal just like in 1920. It would start a new "red scare." The cops would crack down on them, break some heads and than they could use this for sympathy. Obama would be revealed as the creature of Wall Street that he is and the movement could expose the guilty.

The hilarious thing is that the cops are cracking down on them, despite that they are a treat to just about noone. Up untill the Oakland events it wasn't really on the scale of what cops in the UK owuld have done (Kettling and all that), but it still was an hilarious overreaction of what supposedly is a free and democratic state.

[Rooney]

The hilarious thing is that the cops are cracking down on them, despite that they are a treat to just about noone. Up untill the Oakland events it wasn't really on the scale of what cops in the UK owuld have done (Kettling and all that), but it still was an hilarious overreaction of what supposedly is a free and democratic state.

This is quite true and quite sad. A guy can't even bitch in public anymore without the cops trying to taze them. One wonders what type of person becomes cop because the person must have some serious control issues.