posted October 11, 2011 05:46 PM            

and not for the first time either.

posted October 11, 2011 05:54 PM            

or the "alabama blogger" who encouraged bricks through windows and the people who obligingly did just that?
http://www.newser.com/story/84083/ala-blogger-hails-window-war-against-dem-offices.html

the ann coulter quote was from 2001. bush was president then so maybe that is why no one noticed her saying "we should invade their countries, convert them to christianity," etc, recommending carpet bombing generally as the best way of wiping out terrorists (all muslims of course). i posted it with source a couple of times not long ago though.
http://old.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml

i am not surprised that those who consider limbaugh and coulter great americans would only see commies and ratbags in these protests, which include people in all walks of life and a wide income range. today i heard limbaugh trying to equate anger at wall street's crooked practices with anti-semitism...because, of course, we all equate banks with jews.

posted October 12, 2011 09:15 AM            

The differences in views.

For instance glen beck is telling his listeners that "they will come for you and pull you into the street!"

Eric Cantor who last week called the protesters a "mob" is backpedaling.

The right would like to disenfranchise these many thousands of protesters across the country as loony & lazy --you know why aren't they at WORK?!

What the leftist media is missing is the important fact that Corporate money is missing from these protests {so far}

No Dick Armey, no free flowing Koch.....

I would also like to point out that in the beginning of the bagger movement weren't they all about the bankers? Weren't they incensed with the Bush WS bailout?
They were easily refocused to HCR and Obama....you aren't mad at this....you are really mad a this.

posted October 12, 2011 02:08 PM            

Which is exactly the point.

It's easy to trivialize Occupy Wall Street -- even as it inspires similar protests around the country -- by saying the movement lacks an end game. The group is trying to crowdsource its list of goals, which all but guarantees that no major ones will be set.

A demand list of sorts has appeared on the official Occupy Wall Street page, serving as an ever-changing document on which people can comment with their own suggestions. It has also served as fodder for critics like Fox News, which posted a version of the list and suggested that readers "try not to laugh."

But no list has been endorsed by the "general assembly" at Occupy Wall Street, says press team member Mark Bray, who added that "making a list of three or four demands would have ended the conversation before it started."

Occupy Wall Street has already achieved what it set out to do.

Like the "Arab Spring" uprisings that inspired its tactics, the word-of-mouth demonstration has tapped into a collective anger. Some protesters are upset about taxation; for others, the big issue is the high unemployment rate. Or corporate greed. Or the distribution of wealth.

How Occupy Wall Street has evolved

For all the individual reasons that draw people to Occupy Wall Street, a similar undercurrent ties the protesters together. They're upset about inequities in their country. They're angry. They want their voices to be heard.

"The guys in Washington are supposed to be helping me, but they don't get it with their mansions and their millions," says an unemployed nurse at the protest on Wednesday, who declined to give her name. "They don't understand my situation and they don't want to hear me. Well, now they'll have to hear all of us."

Lawmakers including President Obama have weighed in on Occupy Wall Street, with many sympathetic to the emotion behind the protests. Large labor unions, including the AFL-CIO and SEIU, have joined in. Media outlets are at the scene in droves. Even a corporate board has shown support: Ben & Jerry's directors released a statement "to express our deepest admiration."

The mere fact that the protest is still going strong after 25 days means it has met one of its goals: Organizers said from the start that they hoped to sustain their demonstration for two months. Occupy Wall Street's real goal has always been simple: Draw focus to the concerns -- and anger -- many Americans have about the country's growing economic gap, plant the seed of an organized voice, and let the protest evolve naturally.

0As part of that evolution, solidarity protests have popped up in Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Denver and Chicago, among other cities.

"We don't want New York to form its own political agenda and drive the conversation in other cities," Bray says. "I would be unhappy if people in LA or Chicago were waiting on us to do something. That would be politics as usual."

That's why Occupy Wall Street isn't focused on a demand list, Bray says.

"To tell everyone that we have the solution to their specific problems, that would be what the political parties are already doing," Bray says. "That isn't working. And that's the whole point."

The original plan was to continue the occupation for two months, and then wrap it up. But Bray says that "has been entirely thrown out the window, and we have no set timeframe in mind."

So what happens as the weeks go on?

That's up to the crowd. Occupy Wall Street is a symbolic protest, but with the economy still sputtering and the wealth gap growing, it's a potent symbol.

posted October 12, 2011 02:34 PM            

Let's see if I can clear this up for you katatonic.

O'Bomber..through O'BomberCare removed more than half a TRILLION dollars from Medicare. Money contributed by those in wheelchairs and others. So, you think it's "extreme" for Medicare recipients to say..."Hands off my Medicare"? What planet are you living on katatonic.

"we should invade their countries, convert them to christianity," etc, recommending carpet bombing generally as the best way of wiping out terrorists (all muslims of course)."...katatonic

How about a little reciprocity katatonic? Isn't it the goal of Islam to invade infidel nations, convert infidels to Islam, kill those who refuse to convert and establish Sharia Law over the earth? Can you think of any rational reason why infidels shouldn't remove these threats to their freedoms...religious and otherwise...and save their lives?

"or the "alabama blogger" who encouraged bricks through windows and the people who obligingly did just that?"...katatonic

Mike Vanderboegh IS NOT from the Tea Parties katatonic. Mike Vanderboegh is a Militia member.

Now katatonic. You forget the Coulter comment I liked best. Coulter posited that ground zero in the next terrorist attack on America should be at the NY Times building.

posted October 12, 2011 02:47 PM            

did i say the alabama blogger was tea party? mea culpa. you thought he was great, as i recall. he was soo pleased to have incited violence. lovely.

and you know, i understand the "reciprocity" argument perfectly. i am afraid i can't agree, though, that wiping out all arabs is the solution,

nor do i want to become JUST LIKE THE ENEMY. we have lost enough already to the frigging war on terror which only creates more terrorists every day. it gives them an excuse to point the finger at us, doesn't it?

but i am not surprised that you think it is okay for us to act just like them. the way to defeat the jihadists is to reach the moderate muslims, not become jihadists ourselves. though it COULD be argued that if we had kept our empire building out of the middle east a lot of this would never have happened. a lot of people in those countries were being seduced by a better way of life, but we encouraged a backlash by trying to take them over.

do you realize that most afghanis don't even know about 9/11 let alone why they are being bombed by us?

sorry but an eye for an eye is not my idea of how to solve these differences. and putting american citizens under lock and key is not my idea of WINNING the war either.

posted October 13, 2011 07:55 AM            

"Hands off my Medicare"!

Interesting that you pronounce yourself "better" than the Islamic terrorists katatonic.

On the other hand, I don't consider myself "better" than anyone else. I'm also not inclined to leave an enemy at my back; especially an enemy who vows to kill me, along with members of my family.

Ann Coulter has it right. reciprocity is the right policy.

As usual katatonic; your memory is full of holes. I never expressed any opinion in favor of throwing bricks through demoscat windows. Nevertheless, you and others attempt to connect a militia member to the Tea Parties...after attempting to compare the Socialists, Communists and Anarchists idiots protesting on Wall Street and in other cities to the Tea Party groups.

No comparison is possible!

posted October 13, 2011 08:05 AM            

Occupy L.A. Speaker: Violence will be Necessary to Achieve Our Goals

Citizen journalist Ringo captured this speaker at the Occupy Los Angeles camp a few days ago letting the cat out of the bag: After dismissing nonviolence as a dead end, he admits that for the Occupiers to achieve their goals, violence and bloodshed will be necessary...........

So, ultimately, the bourgeoisie won’t go without violent means. Revolution! Yes, revolution that is led by the working class.

Long live revolution! Long live socialism!”
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/11/occupy-l-a-speaker-violence-will-be-necessary-to-achieve-our-goals/

OWS Protester Proclaims ‘The Jews Control Wall St.’ In Zuccotti Park Rant
October 12, 2011 11:00 PM

“Blame the Jews.”

That’s the message one Wall Street protester was trying to spread in Lower Manhattan to anyone that would listen.

A new video posted to YouTube shows the protester loudly and aggressively proclaiming “the Jews control Wall Street.”

posted October 13, 2011 08:20 AM            

So far, the only major accomplishment of the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters is that they have finally put an end to their previous initiative, "Occupy Our Mothers' Basements."

Oddly enough for such a respectable-looking group -- a mixture of adolescents looking for a cause, public sector union members, drug dealers, criminals, teenage runaways, people who have been at every protest since the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, Andrea Dworkin look-alikes, people 95 percent of whose hair is concentrated in their ponytails and other average Democrats -- they can't even explain what they're protesting.

The protesters either treat inquiries about their purpose as a trick question, or -- worse -- instantly rattle off a series of insane causes: "No. 1, abolish capitalism; No. 2, because 9/11 was an inside job; No. 3, because Mumia is innocent ..."

Curiously, the only point universally agreed upon by the protesters and their admirers in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media is that "Occupy Wall Street" should be compared to the tea party. Yes, that would be the same tea party that has been denounced and slandered by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media for the last three years.

As a refresher: The Democratic National Committee called the tea partiers "angry mobs" and "rabid right-wing extremists." ABC said they were a "mob." CNN accused them of "rabble rousing." Harry Reid called them "evil mongers." Nancy Pelosi said they were "un-American." CNN's Anderson Cooper and every single host on MSNBC called the tea partiers a name that referred to an obscure gay sex act.

But apparently liberals couldn't even convince themselves that tea partiers were an extremist group unworthy of emulation.

At least they're embarrassed about what the OWS protesters really are: wingless, bloodsucking and parasitic. This is the flea party, not the tea party.

Contrary to all the blather you always hear about how lawless street protests and civil disobedience are part of the American tradition -- "what our troops are fighting for!" -- they are not. We are an orderly people with democratic channels at our disposal to change our government.

The very reason we have a constitutional republic is because of a mob uprising. Soon after the American Revolution, Shays' Rebellion so terrified and angered Americans that they demanded a federal government capable of crushing such mobs.

For nearly 200 years, Americans understood that they lived in a country capable of producing bad politicians and bad policies, but that was subject to change through peaceful, democratic means. There was no need to riot or storm buildings because we didn't have a king. We had a representative government.

Even when injustice existed, there were constitutional mechanisms to right wrongs.

For nearly a century after the Civil War, congressional Republicans kept introducing bills that implemented the civil rights amendments -- only to be blocked by segregationist Democrats. But then, attorney Thurgood Marshall came along and began winning cases before the Supreme Court, redeeming black Americans' constitutional rights through the judiciary.

As long as a Republican sat in the White House, those victories were enforced. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Ark., to walk black children to school in defiance of the segregationist, Democratic governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus -- Bill Clinton's friend.

This is what our Constitution was designed for: to use the force of the federal government to uphold the law when the states couldn't (Shays' Rebellion) or wouldn't (segregationist Democrats).

If Richard Nixon had won the 1960 election instead of John F. Kennedy -- as some say he did -- there never would have been a need for Rosa Parks, the Freedom Rides and the rest of the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement.

But as soon as the Democrats got control of the White House, enforcement of the Supreme Court's civil rights rulings came to a crashing halt. Elected Democrats in the states were free to violate legitimate constitutional rulings without interference from Democratic presidents.

The ingenious system given to us by our founding fathers faltered on the morally corrupt obstructionism of elected Democrats. They simply refused to abide by the rules -- with glee at the state level, and at the federal level, with cowardice.

Here, finally, was an appropriate case for nonviolent protest. There hasn't been another justification for civil disobedience in this country until the Supreme Court invented a "right" to abortion in Roe v. Wade -- another act of lawlessness by liberals.

(All this and more is detailed in the smash best-seller, "Demonic: How the Liberal Mobs Are Endangering America"!)

Now liberals compare their every riot, every traffic blockage, every Starbucks-window-smashing street protest to the civil rights movement –- which was only necessary because of them. These "Occupy Wall Street" ignoramuses seem to imagine they are blacks living in 1963 Alabama under Democratic governor George Wallace.

To the contrary, the Wall Street protesters have no specific objections and no serious policy proposals in a country that is governed, as Abraham Lincoln put it, "by the people." They protest because they enjoy creating mayhem, not because the law is being ignored or their rights violated without penalty by government officials.

posted October 13, 2011 11:49 AM            

Gee, and everyone thought these Socialists, Communists and Anarchists just showed up on Wall Street one day because their mothers kicked them out of their basements and they didn't have any place else to go.

Who's behind the Wall St. protests?
Thu Oct 13, 2011
By Mark Egan and Michelle Nichols

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Anti-Wall Street protesters say the rich are getting richer while average Americans suffer, but the group that started it all may have benefited indirectly from the largesse of one of the world's richest men.

There has been much speculation over who is financing the disparate protest, which has spread to cities across America and lasted nearly four weeks. One name that keeps coming up is investor George Soros, who in September debuted in the top 10 list of wealthiest Americans. Conservative critics contend the movement is a Trojan horse for a secret Soros agenda.

Soros and the protesters deny any connection. But Reuters did find indirect financial links between Soros and Adbusters, an anti-capitalist group in Canada which started the protests with an inventive marketing campaign aimed at sparking an Arab Spring type uprising against Wall Street. Moreover, Soros and the protesters share some ideological ground.

"I can understand their sentiment," Soros told reporters last week at the United Nations about the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, which are expected to spur solidarity marches globally on Saturday.

Pressed further for his views on the movement and the protesters, Soros refused to be drawn in. But conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh summed up the speculation when he told his listeners last week, "George Soros money is behind this."

Soros, 81, is No. 7 on the Forbes 400 list with a fortune of $22 billion, which has ballooned in recent years as he deftly responded to financial market turmoil. He has pledged to give away all his wealth, half of it while he earns it and the rest when he dies.

Like the protesters, Soros is no fan of the 2008 bank bailouts and subsequent government purchase of the toxic sub-prime mortgage assets they amassed in the property bubble.

The protesters say the Wall Street bank bailouts in 2008 left banks enjoying huge profits while average Americans suffered under high unemployment and job insecurity with little help from Washington. They contend that the richest 1 percent of Americans have amassed vast fortunes while being taxed at a lower rate than most people.

BANKING LIFE SUPPORT

Soros in 2009 wrote in an editorial that the purchase of toxic bank assets would, "provide artificial life support for the banks at considerable expense to the taxpayer."

He urged the Obama administration to take bolder action, either by recapitalizing or nationalizing the banks and forcing them to lend at attractive rates. His advice went unheeded.

The Hungarian-American was an early supporter of the 2008 election campaign of Barack Obama, who will seek a second term as president in the November, 2012, election. He has long backed liberal causes - the Open Society Institute, the foreign policy think tank Council on Foreign Relations and Human Rights Watch.

According to disclosure documents from 2007-2009, Soros' Open Society gave grants of $3.5 million to the Tides Center, a San Francisco-based group that acts almost like a clearing house***More like a money laundering center*** for other donors, directing their contributions to liberal non-profit groups. Among others the Tides Center has partnered with are the Ford Foundation and the Gates Foundation.

Disclosure documents also show Tides, which declined comment, gave Adbusters grants of $185,000 from 2001-2010, including nearly $26,000 between 2007-2009.

Aides to Soros say any connection is tenuous and that Soros has never heard of Adbusters. Soros himself declined comment.

The Vancouver-based group, which publishes a magazine and runs such campaigns as "Digital Detox Week" and "Buy Nothing Day," says it wants to "change the way corporations wield power" and its goal is "to topple existing power structures."

SLOW START

Adbusters, whose magazine has a circulation of 120,000 and which is known for its spoofs of popular advertisements, came up with the Occupy Wall Street idea after Arab Spring protests toppled governments in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, said Kalle Lasn, 69, Adbusters co-founder.

"It came out of these brainstorming sessions we have at Adbusters," Lasn told Reuters, adding they began promoting it online on July 13. "We were inspired by what happened in Tunisia and Egypt and we had this feeling that America was ripe for a Tahrir moment."

"We felt there was a real rage building up in America, and we thought that we would like to create a spark which would give expression for this rage."

Lasn said Adbusters is 95 percent funded by subscribers paying for the magazine. "George Soros's ideas are quite good, many of them. I wish he would give Adbusters some money, we sorely need it," he said. "He's never given us a penny."

Other support for Occupy Wall Street has come from online funding website Kickstarter, where more than $75,000 has been pledged, deliveries of food and from cash dropped in a bucket at the park. Liberal film maker Michael Moore has also pledged to donate money.

The protests began in earnest on September 17, triggered by an Adbusters campaign featuring a provocative poster showing a ballerina dancing atop the famous bronze bull in New York's financial district as a crowd of protesters wearing gas masks approach behind her.

Dressed in anarchist black, the battle-ready mob is shrouded in a fog suggestive of tear gas or fires burning. Some are wearing gas masks, others wielding sticks. The poster's message seems to be a heady combination of sexuality, violence, excitement and adventure.

Former carpenter Robert Daros, 23, saw that poster in a cafe in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Having lost his work as a carpenter after Florida's speculative construction boom collapsed in a heap of sub-prime mortgage foreclosures, he quit his job as a bartender and traveled to New York City with just a sleeping bag and the hope of joining the protest movement.

Daros was one of the first people to arrive on Wall Street for the so-called occupation on September 17, when protesters marched and tried to camp on Wall Street only to be driven off by police to Zuccotti Park - two acres of concrete without a blade of grass near the rising One World Trade Center.

"When I was a carpenter, I lost my job because the financier of my project was arrested for corporate fraud," said Daros, who was wearing a red arm band to show he was helping out in the medic section of the Occupy Wall Street camp.

Since its obscure beginnings, the campaign has drawn global media attention in places as far-flung as Iran and China. The Times of London, however, was not alone when it called the protests "Passionate but Pointless."

Adbusters' co-founder Lasn dismisses that, reeling off specific demands: a tax on the richest 1 percent, a tax on currency trades and a tax on all financial transactions.

"Down the road, there will be crystal clear demands coming out of this movement," he said. "But this first phase of the movement is messy and leaderless and demandless."

posted October 13, 2011 01:01 PM            

as to medicare being citizen funded, yes it is, as i have been saying for awhile now, it doesn't qualify as an "entitlement" any more than social security does. i don't want them messed with either, but the republican side of congress wants to mess with both, without consulting the sponsors (taxpayers) at all. the money saved in medicare by the recent measures was to clean up fraud and waste, not services.

as to OWS
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/05/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-wall-street/index.html?hpt =hp_t2

whatever the man at adbusters says, this is not HIS movement, whether inspired by adbusters or not.

nor is it a "working class" movement though i'm sure some like to think it is..

posted October 14, 2011 09:42 AM            

"a(s) for the NYT what is their sin? they wouldn't sell out to rupert murdoch? of course ann hates them, they don't back her."...katatonic

My, my, my katatonic; another disagreeable fact lost in your memory hole?

In the months and years following 9/11, al-Qaeda hideouts and safe houses were raided. Computers were captured and lists of terrorist members...and their cell phone numbers were found.

A top secret plan was instituted by the Bush administration to listen in on calls to and from those cell phone numbers. Thus, al-Qaeda members were tracked, found and either captured or killed.

Someone at the CIA or NSA leaked details of the top secret project to the NY Times. When Bush found out the Treason Times intended to print the details, he told the Publisher and Editor of the Treason Times to NOT print the story as it would damage the national security of the United States and tip off the terrorists they were being tracked by their cell phone conversations.

The Treason Times later went with the story anyway and splashed details of the top secret operation against terrorist all over the front page of the Treason Times. Terrorists stopped using their cell phones and resorted to couriers to pass messages.

Bush is a lot nicer guy than I am.

posted October 14, 2011 01:03 PM            

or the arrest of many muslims who were innocent? or the admission of the people employed to LISTEN to those wiretaps that there was far too much information to even begin to decode let alone use?

may i remind you that before the terrorists came here we were in their faces in their homes? without excusing terrorism one whit, i cannot either exuse the national use of bully tactics against other nations or our own citizens.

posted October 14, 2011 05:35 PM            

the terrorist is by definition david in the goliath story. smaller and weaker, but using ingenuity and surprise to overcome a bigger, stronger, but slower opponent.

is the only solution to all our ills to take it to blowing up the planet? putting minders on the population? and killing billions of people because we are sure there is no reasoning with them?

posted October 15, 2011 12:19 PM            

Ummmm, name a "Right" that was plundered katatonic.

Ummmm, name those Muslims who were arrested but were innocent as new born babes katatonic.

Ummmm, let me acquaint you with the program of selective listening in on phone conversations tied to "KEY WORDS" in a conversation. The name of that program is CARNIVORE. CARNIVORE existed long before 9/11 and the new NSA secret project to "Listen", "Locate" and "Track" terrorists by flagging certain cell phone numbers and listening in. In fact, it was Kommander Korruption, aka, Bill Clinton who vastly expanded CARNIVORE and retooled it with billions to buy new generation computers and other new equipment. Ummm, the Kommander Korruption administration was PRIOR to 9/11/01.

posted October 15, 2011 12:42 PM            

offer these folk jobs and they would go to work. however a lot of them HAVE jobs and are only part-time demonstrators, while others are well off enough to take some time off.

one sign says "i am the 1% but i stand with the 99" clean, well dressed and financially independent.

the bottom line is they want the same thing as your darling tea party, corruption OUT of government. criminal, eh?

do you really think drug dealers gravitate to police hotspots? think again.

sorry it is unimaginable to you that anyone who loves their country might look different than you, these are YOUNG folk and their fashion sense is not to my taste either but that doesn't mean they can't clean up when it's required. they took out loans rather than ask their parents to pay them through college, and came out to find no work to pay off those loans!

are you aware that most jobs available out there have 5-50 applicants? do you reckon they are all going to get hired? and the cutting of govt jobs is just adding to the competition.

and your ann coulter, who gave up a real job to be a big mouth for money, is (as usual) one to talk and look down on others. with her $200 hairdo and snotty attitude, what else is she going to do??