Occupy Wall Street Baloney

[StMichael]

This whole movement is a joke. It's make up is socialist at best, communist at worst. It is supported by Iran, Red China, our sitting President, David Duke, the Nazi Party, etc. and funded by George Soros through his various organizations.

It is preaching, on a low level, collectivism. As we have seen, women have been raped, people have been robbed and they will not let the story out for the "good" of the group.

Yes, we all share the same disgust as to what out politicians have done by indebtedness, but if you are out there screaming to get your student loan forgiven, you are asking for us all to pay for your education. Furthermore, why not focus this outrage at the universities who have have seen you all as cheap money, knowing that whatever they charge, a student loan will cover? Or go to DC and protest at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and let the President, who had a super majority for over 2 years, know he did not bring the hope and change you voted for?

And the anti-Jew statements being made at these gatherings are simply amazing, where is the media on this?

And lets not forget the lovable unions who are out in full force and the paid protesters.

Yup, so much to love as we turn our country into Greece.

YAY!

[Socrates]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1320326313' post='2330760']
i don't think that's their message, Jlol... throughout this thread, many of you seem to believe these occupy protestors actually have an organized, intelligent point...

to further convolute their message:

[url="http://www.lifenews.com/2011/11/02/planned-parenthood-teams-up-with-occupy-wall-st-movement/"]http://www.lifenews....ll-st-movement/[/url]


Planned Parenthood? really....? I mean, aren't they like the biggest corporation that has the democratic party, especially obama, deep in their multi-million/billion dollar pockets????
[/quote]
The ironies in this are truly beyond words.

(PP is a big money baby-killing business masquerading as a non-profit "charity.")

But, yeah, fight the Establishment, man! (Just as long as you make sure to give us our government grants and funding)

[Jesus_lol]

It appears the Oakland Police are on a roll, as they just brutally injured yet another Iraq war veteran , this time while he was walking home.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj0M4oEXjcA

Edited November 6, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Papist]

[b]On Steve Jobs, Roseanne Barr, and the Wall Street Mob[/b]
By Paul Kengor

I got a double-shock yesterday morning when I turned on my radio.

"Steve Jobs has passed away," I heard a DJ remark. "That's a shame."

Yes, it is a shame. I was saddened to hear that.

I was equally shocked as I turned the dial and heard something even more deadly. It was a comment from actress/comedienne Roseanne Barr, literally calling for the death of certain wealthy Americans.
"I do say that I am in favor of the return of the guillotine, and that is for the worst of the worst of the guilty," said the comedienne, who did not sound like she was joking. "I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay, you know, the ability to pay back anything over $100 million [of] personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of $100 million."

Joining her comrades in the "Occupy Wall Street" protest in Manhattan, the celebrity prattled on, pressing for a modern made-in-America version of Mao's and Pol Pot's reeducation camps: "And if they are unable to live on that amount of that amount then they should, you know, go to the reeducation camps, and if that doesn't help, then being beheaded."

Roseanne's Robespierre-like sentiments seemed especially cruel in light of the death of Steve Jobs. Consider: Jobs earned countless millions of dollars. Would he be exempt from what the bloody French revolutionaries once termed the National Razor? Jobs was no banker, but he was obscenely rich -- which, truth be told, is the ultimate sin in the minds of Roseanne and the zealots.

Sure, sure. I hear the criticism: Come on, Kengor -- Roseanne Barr is a crackpot.

Well, indeed, that's apparently the case. But Roseanne's rant against the rich seems a fitting apotheosis to the anarchical madness on display on Wall Street and elsewhere by the "Days of Rage" gang.
To be sure, I doubt that the marchers would be willing to escort American bankers to the chopping block. That said, they and Roseanne share some crucial, unifying commonalities. First and foremost, they are united by an utter, unhealthy contempt for wealthy people, and they would be happy to take as much money from the wealthy as humanly possible. Moreover, en masse, they demonize a faceless enemy. "The rich" is a handy caricature for whatever assortment of injustices these people believe ails them.

And that brings me back to Steve Jobs.

In fact, Steve Jobs was among "the rich." It is the likes of Jobs who have given these folks the pleasures and creature comforts they enjoy minute to minute. These alleged oppressed masses issue their talking points from the cell-phone world that capitalism and the likes of Jobs have given them.

There is something ludicrous about a throng of ranting, raving, raging college kids slurping Starbucks and staring into iPhones while angrily protesting the very system that made it all possible in the first place. Even the mob's ability to turn out the mob is made possible by this system. It's like an infant indignantly lifting its head from the breast of its mother and saying, "You don't exist."

Well, Steve Jobs existed. As co-founder and CEO of Apple, he changed the world for the better. The Wall Street "occupiers" are exploiting the technology that he helped create.

What the Wall Street horde and Roseanne do not understand is that in America, people generally get rich by providing a product or service that people want. Sure, there are exceptions. Some get wealthy by promulgating vice instead of virtue -- witness the porn industry's parasitical attachment to Jobs' technology industry. Some are rich because they inherited the money -- witness the Kennedy family. By and large, however, "the rich" earn their riches through the consent of millions of citizens who voluntarily purchase products and services through their own free will. That is called the free market; it is the opposite of the command economy.

The failure of young people to know the difference is yet another failure of this nation's horrendous educational system, and especially our bankrupt universities -- bankrupt, that is, morally, albeit certainly not financially. The universities that have mis-educated the mob charge far higher fees than any Bank of America ATM. You want to see greed and enslaving levels of debt? Look at what an Ivy League college charges.

Roseanne and the mob do not understand this country and its market system. Neither is perfect, nor are the wealthy people they produce. You are, however, free here -- and free to keep the wealth you earn.

Steve Jobs understood. May he rest in peace.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College

[Winchester]

Anarchical? They're asking for stronger centralized control using government power. That's not anarchy.

Any they're getting shot by the government while doing it. Idiots.

[Aloysius]

Peter Schiff goes to Occupy Wall Street:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7386330n&tag=re1.channel

that was pretty razzle dazzle; mostly the OWS people came off as pretty ignorant, but I liked the last line, when they asked "who here is pro-Capitalism?" and a bunch of people raised their hands. Peter Schiff was finding a lot of common ground there, which was good.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1320706231' post='2332830']
Anarchical? They're asking for stronger centralized control using government power. That's not anarchy.

Any they're getting shot by the government while doing it. Idiots.
[/quote]
Government-subsidized Anarchy Now!

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1320700141' post='2332749']
[b]On Steve Jobs, Roseanne Barr, and the Wall Street Mob[/b]
By Paul Kengor

I got a double-shock yesterday morning when I turned on my radio.

"Steve Jobs has passed away," I heard a DJ remark. "That's a shame."

Yes, it is a shame. I was saddened to hear that.

I was equally shocked as I turned the dial and heard something even more deadly. It was a comment from actress/comedienne Roseanne Barr, literally calling for the death of certain wealthy Americans.
"I do say that I am in favor of the return of the guillotine, and that is for the worst of the worst of the guilty," said the comedienne, who did not sound like she was joking. "I first would allow the guilty bankers to pay, you know, the ability to pay back anything over $100 million [of] personal wealth because I believe in a maximum wage of $100 million."

Joining her comrades in the "Occupy Wall Street" protest in Manhattan, the celebrity prattled on, pressing for a modern made-in-America version of Mao's and Pol Pot's reeducation camps: "And if they are unable to live on that amount of that amount then they should, you know, go to the reeducation camps, and if that doesn't help, then being beheaded."

Roseanne's Robespierre-like sentiments seemed especially cruel in light of the death of Steve Jobs. Consider: Jobs earned countless millions of dollars. Would he be exempt from what the bloody French revolutionaries once termed the National Razor? Jobs was no banker, but he was obscenely rich -- which, truth be told, is the ultimate sin in the minds of Roseanne and the zealots.

Sure, sure. I hear the criticism: Come on, Kengor -- Roseanne Barr is a crackpot.

Well, indeed, that's apparently the case. But Roseanne's rant against the rich seems a fitting apotheosis to the anarchical madness on display on Wall Street and elsewhere by the "Days of Rage" gang.
To be sure, I doubt that the marchers would be willing to escort American bankers to the chopping block. That said, they and Roseanne share some crucial, unifying commonalities. First and foremost, they are united by an utter, unhealthy contempt for wealthy people, and they would be happy to take as much money from the wealthy as humanly possible. Moreover, en masse, they demonize a faceless enemy. "The rich" is a handy caricature for whatever assortment of injustices these people believe ails them.

And that brings me back to Steve Jobs.

In fact, Steve Jobs was among "the rich." It is the likes of Jobs who have given these folks the pleasures and creature comforts they enjoy minute to minute. These alleged oppressed masses issue their talking points from the cell-phone world that capitalism and the likes of Jobs have given them.

There is something ludicrous about a throng of ranting, raving, raging college kids slurping Starbucks and staring into iPhones while angrily protesting the very system that made it all possible in the first place. Even the mob's ability to turn out the mob is made possible by this system. It's like an infant indignantly lifting its head from the breast of its mother and saying, "You don't exist."

Well, Steve Jobs existed. As co-founder and CEO of Apple, he changed the world for the better. The Wall Street "occupiers" are exploiting the technology that he helped create.

What the Wall Street horde and Roseanne do not understand is that in America, people generally get rich by providing a product or service that people want. Sure, there are exceptions. Some get wealthy by promulgating vice instead of virtue -- witness the porn industry's parasitical attachment to Jobs' technology industry. Some are rich because they inherited the money -- witness the Kennedy family. By and large, however, "the rich" earn their riches through the consent of millions of citizens who voluntarily purchase products and services through their own free will. That is called the free market; it is the opposite of the command economy.

The failure of young people to know the difference is yet another failure of this nation's horrendous educational system, and especially our bankrupt universities -- bankrupt, that is, morally, albeit certainly not financially. The universities that have mis-educated the mob charge far higher fees than any Bank of America ATM. You want to see greed and enslaving levels of debt? Look at what an Ivy League college charges.

Roseanne and the mob do not understand this country and its market system. Neither is perfect, nor are the wealthy people they produce. You are, however, free here -- and free to keep the wealth you earn.

Steve Jobs understood. May he rest in peace.

Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of the Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College
[/quote]

This has to be one of the stupidest articles i have ever read. its hard to know where to begin, although the taking roseanne bar(a comedian) both seriously and as a representative for a gigantic group of people(that she most certainly does not represent) is a fairly good start.

but what the hell was he talking about Steve Jobs for? a popular rich guy died recently, big surprise it happens to everyone eventually. but why was this guy taking Roseanne Bar's statements(which were idiotic btw) as a personal insult and disrespect for Steve Jobs? unless i missed something, she was speaking about the rich in general and never mentioned Jobs(who happened to be one of many in that group).

so if i were to publically say i think turtlenecks look silly, would this guy say that i am spitting on Steve Job's grave? just because he happened to wear them?

But aside from all the emotional appeals and jumping on the praising Steve Job's RIP bandwagon (in fairness, while the dude was no doubt influential he was not nearly as big, nor as saintlike as the author seems to believe) and the harping on some random comedian, what was the point of the article?

[quote]First and foremost, they are united by an utter, unhealthy contempt for wealthy people, and they would be happy to take as much money from the wealthy as humanly possible. Moreover, en masse, they demonize a faceless enemy. "The rich" is a handy caricature for whatever assortment of injustices these people believe ails them.[/quote]

this guy is so far off base. the first sentence is completely wrong, and misleading. He remains intentionally ignorant.
the second sentence is just ironic, as the author is wrapping up a ranting article where he has unsuccessfully tried painting an entire international movement by one random celebrity's incoherent babble, linking them to hating a "beloved, recently deceased celebrity".

[dominicansoul]

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/45193370#45193370"]http://www.msnbc.msn...193370#45193370[/url]


lol, does the reporter say, "We hope he comes down from there..." ????

Edited November 8, 2011 by dominicansoul

[Papist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1320723663' post='2333061']

This has to be one of the stupidest articles i have ever read. its hard to know where to begin, although the taking roseanne bar(a comedian) both seriously and as a representative for a gigantic group of people(that she most certainly does not represent) is a fairly good start.

but what the hell was he talking about Steve Jobs for? a popular rich guy died recently, big surprise it happens to everyone eventually. but why was this guy taking Roseanne Bar's statements(which were idiotic btw) as a personal insult and disrespect for Steve Jobs? unless [b]i missed something[/b], she was speaking about the rich in general and never mentioned Jobs(who happened to be one of many in that group).

so if i were to publically say i think turtlenecks look silly, would this guy say that i am spitting on Steve Job's grave? just because he happened to wear them?

But aside from all the emotional appeals and jumping on the praising Steve Job's RIP bandwagon (in fairness, while the dude was no doubt influential he was not nearly as big, nor as saintlike as the author seems to believe) and the harping on some random comedian, what was the point of the article?



this guy is so far off base. the first sentence is completely wrong, and misleading. He remains intentionally ignorant.
the second sentence is just ironic, as the author is wrapping up a ranting article where he has unsuccessfully tried painting an entire international movement by one random celebrity's incoherent babble, linking them to hating a "beloved, recently deceased celebrity".
[/quote]
You most certainly did.

[Groo the Wanderer]

Occupy Chicken Express!!!

then gobble up the yummy tenders and corn nuggets!!!

[Aloysius]

I think J_lol has a point, actually. The premise of ridiculing OWS for using technology and benefiting from "capitalism" is that, without unfettered non-"compassionate" capitalism (the majority of the wall street occupiers are in favor of capitalism, other than the few extremists calling for full-out socialism/communism, one could label most of the occupiers as militant Keynesians, people who believe in Capitalism with a certain degree of government involvement, higher than I would like it to be but still, not all-out socialists. watch the end of the Peter Schiff video I posted, watch how many peoples' hands go up when he asks "How many people here are in favor of Capitalism"--a lot of hands are raised) they wouldn't have that tech... but that's simply not true, in fact that tech has been developed with many such policies in place like social security and medicare et cetera, and as long as there's an economic system that does allow people to benefit from success you're going to continue to have that.

The OWSers are not against innovation and success, they are against certain aspects of the current financial system that have indeed caused some social inequality. Many are ill-informed as to exactly how and why this system causes inequality, and therefore spout a lot of BS about how they want there to just be higher taxes on the rich and more aid for the poor and all that, but their sentiment against the inequality is in the right place and it's not "hatred of successful people". but the system is indeed set up to widen the gap, and it's because of financial policies that amount to nothing more than USURY, pure unadulterated usury. The Federal Reserve and the fractional banking system are the peak and pinnacle of every reason the Church ever condemned usury, IMHO.

anyway, I think it's unfair to harp on about how OWSers are using tech that was developed under the current system as if that absolutely proves that there should be no other system, or that there shouldn't be any more government policies aimed at shrinking the gap between the richest 1% and the 99%; I disagree wit the types of policies they suggest, but there definitely is a huge degree of economic injustice in our world that needs to be dealt with somehow, and it is my belief that good Christians need to wake up to the fact that usurious banking practices are concentrating wealth and property ownership in the hands of few. Think about how many people really own their own home, I mean really OWN it themselves, not the bank. how much property is really in the hands of how few people; how much wealth is continually funneled up to the top because that's what happens when people deposit their money into a fractional banking system. sure, there's some trickle-down, but the concentration of that property ownership through unjust practices that have been condemned again and again by the Church throughout history is an upwards waterfall such that the trickle-down pales in comparison.

[dairygirl4u2c]

sorry, al. that post was too balanced and fair, and well thought out, for me, and the rest of this board. go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. heh.
let's make hippie references and harp on either or mentalities about capitalism, thankyouverymuch.

[Winchester]

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/flamecondor/n129753_I_dont_want_to_live_on_this_planet_anymore.jpg[/img]

[Aloysius]

hmm, what planet would you like to live on? I'd prefer to live on a Catholic planet myself; there's no way around it, the fractional banking system is the ultimate triumph of the usury the Church always warned against. what the answer is now that the whole world's finances are based upon that system is up for debate, but money being made off of money will always bring about injustice. This is wisdom straight from the two thousand year tradition of the Church.

money needs to more properly represent the exchange of goods, services, and labor in a way in keeping with human dignity. the present system does not do that very well. moreover, the present system has concentrated real ownership in the hands of few. think of all the houses that are actually owned by the banks, with the people living in them paying seemingly endless mortgages... this is perpetuated because of the consumer culture we have cultivated, the ultimate value to the average American is not actually property ownership, it is consumer power, which just continues to feed the system.

there is no easy answer to bring our system into accord with Christian values (and certainly no answer provided by the OWSers will do that), but to ignore that there is a problem with the current financial system which flies in the face of 2000 years of Christian moral teaching, even more because it is based in scriptural prohibitions against usury, is absolutely ridiculous. there are pros and cons to the current system, but there is definitely a significant problem with usurious practices that manipulate the money supply.