Tea Partiers vs. Occupiers

Whatevergreen wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Well... I'm certainly glad you agreed that LJ's comments need a counterbalance. Thanks for the encouragement. The Liberals GOP Twin... just proving on a daily basis that you don't have to be smart to post like a liberal.

I just think you are posting more puke. That is it. You are not promoting any intellectual discusion or debate by doing so.

yeah, well he/she didn't post anything worthwhile before (s)he decided that mimicking LJ might get more attention. I think LJ should be flattered, apparently LJ's new twin is incapable of posting without a road map.

archer wrote:

Whatevergreen wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Well... I'm certainly glad you agreed that LJ's comments need a counterbalance. Thanks for the encouragement. The Liberals GOP Twin... just proving on a daily basis that you don't have to be smart to post like a liberal.

I just think you are posting more puke. That is it. You are not promoting any intellectual discusion or debate by doing so.

yeah, well he/she didn't post anything worthwhile before (s)he decided that mimicking LJ might get more attention. I think LJ should be flattered, apparently LJ's new twin is incapable of posting without a road map.

No... no... no... at least for a while, I don't care if I'm posting anything substantive. I'm just in the mood to be a mirror and mimic some of the brain dead rhetoric from the liberals and socialist here that passes for intelligent debate. Deal with it. Limitation Is The Best Form Of Flattery.

Can anyone post a statement, that isn't simply whining by the OWS protesters, about how to solve a problem created by the 1%? The purpose of the thread was to show the differences between TEA Party and the OWSers.

HEARTLESS wrote: Can anyone post a statement, that isn't simply whining by the OWS protesters, about how to solve a problem created by the 1%? The purpose of the thread was to show the differences between TEA Party and the OWSers.

And I think that all the mindless post by the liberals on this thread have already pointed the differences out. They are only trying to help.

HEARTLESS wrote: Can anyone post a statement, that isn't simply whining by the OWS protesters, about how to solve a problem created by the 1%? The purpose of the thread was to show the differences between TEA Party and the OWSers.

Sure



Tea Party arrests... zero. Does that help?

Anyone think the Occupiers should change their methods? Instead of trashing out parks, I think flash mob sit-ins in banks, brokerages, other companies they have a beef with.

I think you would get more participation & less crazies and/or street people/camp followers.

In various cities across the country, mobs of mostly young, mostly incoherent, often noisy and sometimes violent demonstrators are making themselves a major nuisance.

Meanwhile, many in the media are practically gushing over these "protesters," and giving them the free publicity they crave for themselves and their cause -- whatever that is, beyond venting their emotions on television.

Members of the mobs apparently believe that other people, who are working while they are out trashing the streets, should be forced to subsidize their college education -- and apparently the president of the United States thinks so too.

But if these loud mouths' inability to put together a coherent line of thought is any indication of their education, the taxpayers should demand their money back for having that money wasted on them for years in the public schools.

Sloppy words and sloppy thinking often go together, both in the mobs and in the media that are covering them. It is common, for example, to hear in the media how some "protesters" were arrested. But anyone who reads this column regularly knows that I protest against all sorts of things -- and don't get arrested.

The difference is that I don't block traffic, join mobs sleeping overnight in parks or urinate in the street. If the media cannot distinguish between protesting and disturbing the peace, then their education may also have wasted a lot of taxpayers' money.

Among the favorite sloppy words used by the shrill mobs in the streets is "Wall Street greed." But even if you think people in Wall Street, or anywhere else, are making more money than they deserve, "greed" is no explanation whatever.

"Greed" says how much you want. But you can become the greediest person on earth and that will not increase your pay in the slightest. It is what other people pay you that increases your income.

If the government has been sending too much of the taxpayers' money to people in Wall Street -- or anywhere else -- then the irresponsibility or corruption of politicians is the problem. "Occupy Wall Street" hooligans should be occupying Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington.

Maybe some of the bankers or financiers should have turned down the millions and billions that politicians were offering them. But sainthood is no more common in Wall Street than on Pennsylvania Avenue -- or in the media or academia, for that matter.

Actually, some banks did try to refuse the government bailout money, to avoid the interference with their business that they knew would come with it. But the feds insisted -- and federal regulators' power to create big financial problems for banks made it hard to say no. The feds made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

People who cannot distinguish between democracy and mob rule may fall for the idea that the hooligans in the street represent the 99 percent who are protesting about the "greed" of the one percent. But these hooligans are less than one percent and they are grossly violating the rights of vastly larger numbers of people who have to put up with their trashing of the streets by day and their noise that keeps working people awake at night.

As for the "top one percent" in income that attract so much attention, angst and denunciation, there is always going to be a top one percent, unless everybody has the same income. That top one percent has no more monopoly on sainthood or villainy than people in any other bracket.

Moreover, that top one percent does not consist of the "millionaires and billionaires" that Barack Obama talks about. You don't even have to make half a million dollars to be in the top one percent.

Moreover, this is not an enduring class of people. Nor are people in other income brackets. Most of the people in the top one percent at any given time are there for only one year. Anyone who sells an average home in San Francisco can get into the top one percent in income -- for that year. Other one-time spikes in income account for most of the people in that top one percent.

But such plain facts carry little weight amid the heady rhetoric and mindless emotions of the mob and the media

Thomas Sowell

Now there's an opinion I can agree with!

The top 1% in the former USSR were the Communist Party faithful that ruled over the working class the Bolshevik/Russian revolution fought to eliminate. History just keeps repeating itself.

HEARTLESS wrote: The top 1% in the former USSR were the Communist Party faithful that ruled over the working class the Bolshevik/Russian revolution fought to eliminate. History just keeps repeating itself.

Do you really believe that the voters couldn't change this if they wanted to?

Maybe Americans are fat and happy and don't really care that the 1% has most of the wealth. Americans live in a land of plenty where most don't have to worry about starvation.

Voters, probably not. Revolutionaries maybe for a short time. But I'll still try the peaceful method first.
Those that don't understand how good we have it, need to travel to the third world and see starvation and survival first hand.