The "Occupy Wall St" Protest

samhill wrote:A little debunking of Coulter's perspective.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/15-10

Where do you find this BS at and why would you give it any credibility? Did you notice it's dated in 2009? Ann and Mike are 100% spot on with their comments and the facts are easy to replicate. Not so much with the link you provided. It might be of benefit if both you and Mr Hartman where to actually do some basic research on George Hawes and accounts of his life.. His version doesn't match those of anyone who was an activist in per-revolution Boston . Let's just say basic research indicates he'd be very comfortable among the OWS rabble. The bottom line is your link does not reflect the actual happenings in Boston as recounted by numerous other individuals present. Interestingly enough the Memoir written by George Hawes was written in the closing days of his life, as told to someone else. It often happens that folks blend the truth with fiction as they get older - everyone wants to be remembered in a positive light. Your link is just more liberal revisionist history.

Mr. Hartmann’s ramblings are just cherry picking different things about the “Boston Tea Party” and the events leading up to it, and arranging them in such a way to support an already held opinion which he finally reveals in the end.

This would be the "Money Shot"

The revolutionaries had put the East India Company in its place with the Boston Tea Party, and that, they thought, was the end of that. Unfortunately, the Boston Tea Party was not the end; within 150 years, during the so-called Gilded Age, powerful rail, steel, and oil interests would rise up to begin a new form of oligarchy, capturing the newly-formed Republican Party in the 1880s, and have been working to establish a permanent wealthy and ruling class in this country ever since

If I were living in complete isolation and were shown pictures of the OWS protesters and not given any indication as to what they were protesting against or about I would say I was not with them based on appearances alone. They are a totally different crowd from the Tea Party based on looks alone.

I am sitting here waiting for 11/6/2012 like a five year old waiting for Christmas.

Another Sam link:

"Common Dreams is a nonprofit, progressive, nonpartisan citizens' organization founded in 1997 by political activists Craig Brown and his late wife, Lina Newhouser"

Yeah, sure. Gonna make a cash donation, Sam?


That would be Socialism (or any form of Collectivism really: Communism/Fascism/Socialism/Tribalism). It is why Europe is in soo much trouble. Because the governments of Europe have been taking from one group of people to appease another group of people. But this philosophy is unsustainable, and once the governments began to not take so much from one group and not give as much to another group is where the *censored* hit the fan. Every society that has embraced Collectivism in all of its various forms has failed and its people have suffered through violence, starvation, destitution, hopelessness, and fear. Take a look around the world today and you will see that wherever there is extreme violence, poverty, starvation, massive curruption and fraud you will find a people who have embraced the principles of Collectivism.

Capitalism tries for everyone to pursue their own interests at their own peril and success, at their own expense or fortune. Capitalists do not believe in scarcity and as such feel no need to ration prosperity. Capitalists realize that money is not real and that currency is only a reciept for having created and exchanged value. Capitalists believe wealth, the accumulation of currency, is obtained by creating and exchanging value with others. It is because capitalists recognize that money is only the physical representation of value being created and exchanged, that there is no set amount, nor any limited amount of wealth that can be distributed. And it is because the true origin of wealth lies in ones ability to create and exchange value. It is one's human life value, or the "human element" that determines how prosperous one may become.

And because wealth is generated by the physical and mental labor of individuals, it sickens Capitalists to believe that redistribution in the name of equality is considered virtuous. Capitalists recognize that it does more harm than good to individuals to redistribute to them money without redistributing the ideas, knowledge, skill and labor that created the reciepts to begin with. It is akin to handing out fish instead of showing them how to fish.

Capitalists live lives of abundance. They see all around them an abundance of opportunities to create value that others would willingly and freely exchange for. Capitalists view the rich as prime targets for exchange, and all that is left for them to do is create something a rich person would value. If they do that then the rich will freely empty out their pockets and be glad to do so leaving the Capitalist prosperous.

And if you think that any part of the US Gov't or the US economy resembles true Capitalism, then that is part of the reason why our country is quickly going down hill.

You are where you are in life because of the way you think.

If corporations shouldn't be treated as persons, because they aren't persons, then how can you accuse corporations of having personal attributes, like greed? Isn't greed a human attribute?

Is there really such a thing as "group greed?" How does it work?

If corporations have human characteristics, like greed, wouldn't it logically follow that corporations would also have other human characteristics, like courage in the face of adversity, or altruism towards their own members? If not, why not? Since corporations are made up of humans, why wouldn't a corporation reflect the attributes of its members, both good and bad?

Do you think it would be better if corporations were less human, and had less human attributes? Really?

If a corporation has no rights as a person, why does a labor union? Or for that matter any group of individuals, regardless of their percentage of the population? Aren't they simply groups of people pooling their resources for the greater good of the group, just like corporations do?

What's the difference between one group pooling its resources for the benefit of its members that calls itself a corporation, and another group doing the same thing calling itself a "movement?"

Are there any corporations that aren't made up of human beings? Doesn't fighting corporations mean you're basically fighting other people just like yourselves?

If the problem many of the Occupiers face is they are stuck with useless degrees and huge student loan debt, why aren't they protesting at the schools that ripped them off instead of at Wall Street? How, for example, did Exxon-Mobil cause these occupiers to end up with useless degrees? None of them are graduates of Exxon-Mobil University, are they? Did Apple Inc. force them to go to college and accrue huge debt? What, exactly, did Wall Street have to do with these people's bad personal decisions?

If they're protesting against the ruling class, wouldn't that ruling class presently consist of the President, the Vice President, the Democratic majority in the Senate, and what was up until a year ago a Democratic majority in the House? Also, aren't nearly all of the people in the President's cabinet former (and no doubt future) Wall Street bankers? So why aren't the occupiers all voting Republican, in order to "stick it to the man?"

Dan, there is a relatively small number of people that run & greatly benefit corporations, then comes a rather large group of people that hopefully benefit to some degree by investing in said corporation & lastly comes the group of people that actually do the work that becomes the end product that keeps this corporation going & they benefit the least. A corporation is not & never will be a person period. If you truly believe that it is then that's your problem, a corporation has no human attributes of it's own, only those of the very top that benefit the greatest.
No wonder you would also believe that a person like Coulter would have an unbiased opinion about anything.
Another question that comes to mind, why is it that you & a few others (not All) always have to embellish your replies with derogatory adjectives to get your points across? Just curious is all, I'm certainly not as knowledgeable & worldly as most but for some reason I can't think of a need or reason for it.

Sam what is it with you and jpete? I just worry about you with all your commie links.

I never said a corporation is a person, never claimed Coulter is unbiased. I know Foxnews is biased, just toward the traditional way of thinking that made this country great.

I'm insecure enough with the Latino invasion, now we have all these hipsters whipped up by soros, Obama, and a lot of other enemies. I just can't see you really taking their anti-American side.

I just don't understand how you could fight communism in the Nam, and all these decades later you seem to embrace it. Especially when you don't seem the type.

All I'm sayin is I hope you don't go out and vote for the Bamster again. I don't know if things will ever be the same, I know the country has been sold out. You and jpete gotta understand, it's a big ugly competitive world out there now, there's millions of slaves waiting to have it better than they ever had it by working for a dollar a day and three bowls of cabbage soup. Nobody's doing anything in this country business wise, due to Obama's big government socialist policies. Including myself, I don't want to make any moves right now due to the economy. You just can't realisticly blame it on Bush anymore.
Don't think you have not influenced me, I realize I also don't like corporations that sell out our country for profit. Jpete got me to get out a book on the constitution. He will toss his vote away on Ron Paul. I don't even know what realistic is anymore, but I have zero respect for hipsters that have the time and money to camp out and disrupt people that have a work ethic.

Check this link and scroll down to #58.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

And PS, you are plenty worldly and you have the same access to information that I do. I get derogatory when I get frustrated, who doesn't? It's because I percieve left wing posts as another threat to my well being man.

The latest buzz is that President Obama (the very man who got more contributions of election money from Wall Street than any other Presidential candidate in history) will side with the protesters and bash Wall Street in a new strategy to revitalize his leftist base. Simultaneously with this, the main stream media will work hard to paint the Republican front runners (including Cain) as the Wall Street funded insiders and puppets of the big business establishment.

Along those lines, this: (I muted the heavy metal,) now I really don't know what's going on!



The "Federal" Reserve was audited. The establishment media is trying hard to ignore it. Here is the audit, by the U.S. General Accounting Office: http://sanders.senate.gov/imo/media/doc ... gation.pdf

See page 131. Look at the total of the "bailouts". Is it the $700 billion we were told? HARDLY! And JUST WHO was all that money paid to? See the video (the music is "Big Brother" by DFiVE9.)

The Huffington Post has jumped on the bandwagon already, and just today is declaring Mitt Romney to be "The New King of Wall Street", and Herman Cain to be the puppet of the billionaire and right leaning Koch brothers.

Corps are people...
For the most part...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-klein/supreme-court-ruling-spur_b_437871.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

Well I have to agree with the part about the Corpocracy, We got it, we paid for it & we're going to keep it. Says it all right there we have the best Gov. that Corp.s money can & did buy & the bought one's are doing everything they can to protect their corporations, We The Corporation. How could the conservative party have ever even thought of allowing the banks, automakers or any other Corp. go bankrupt? Why that would be like preforming an abortion if you truly think of it as a person, wonder if that corp. was given birth by same sex CEOs & if the constitution & other documents will be rewritten to give all corp.s equal rights? Give me a break.
As for the reference to the actual Tea Party I did do a quick reference with a current college history text, "Who Built America" & my previous reference to Hawes is currently in a history majors text.
Dan, you still haven't answered just what the names & innuendos do to enhance a discussion, I'm at a loss to understand what name calling does to aid in proving a point.

Although the links provided by CapeCoaler above are obviously more than a bit tongue in cheek, corporate personhood is real, it is the law of the land, and it is here to stay unless the likes of a Ron Paul (the only candidate I'm aware of who opposes it) are elected to the Presidency.

Whats with your donors list Dan, there is no surprise there, the Steelworkers give to the Dem.s & the Steel Co.s give to the Rep.s. Get it the middle class that is being squeezed to death goes one way & the Corp.s go the other, whats your point?
http://politicons.net/walmart-exxon-bp- ... op-donors/
As far as your audit link goes Dan, just what do you think the OWS protests are all about? The banks are Corporations Dan, the ones that yourself & others are so eager to protect, remember the job creators. The last Pres. to go against the Fed.s got shot, there is no surprise there except that it finally got done & is out but even then the HR1207 was watered down to protect someone or something .

samhill wrote:The last Pres. to go against the Fed.s got shot,

.
That's a pretty wild inference Sam. I always thought it was a communist assassin that did it.

If corporations are not the job creators then who is?

The last President to terminate a central bank (in this case the precursor to the current Federal Reserve) contract was Andrew Jackson way back in about 1834. He was subsequently shot at, but both of the pistols pointed at him miraculously failed to fire. I believe he didn't even prosecute the failed assassin.

The amazing part is that from 1834 until the Federal Reserve was started up in 1913 the nation had no central bank, yet for the most part it got along just fine without one.