»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
OWS vs Tea Party....signs of the times
| The Alley |
|
OWS vs Tea Party....signs of the times |
|
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia 
|
A (sourced) look, side by side, of the OWS (occupy wall street) vs TEA (total economic amnesiacs) Party protests. http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2011/10/14/common-clause-occupy-wall-street-vs-the-tea-party-photos.html |
||
| © Copyright 2011 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Good link.The signs show the obvious difference between the TEA party and the Outraged White Students. Good work.... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Its nice to think you might be color blind Mike, but fully 25% of the Ows pics feature persons of color, hardly scientific, which should make it all the more credible to the Tea Party..... But hey, it just doens't get more colorful than this http://www.spinner.com/2011/10/14/bo-diddley-son-arrested-occupy-gainesville/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
No doubt you saw the statistics on then breakdown of the occupiers but I don't blame you for acting like you didn't,,,or else maybe you agreed with the occupier spokespereson who said that a good count was difficult because people kept moving around. How DARE they! Bo Didley's son makes it a racially mixed group? Good grief...that's the best you can do? Now, if George Foreman's sons had been arrested, I would agree with you, since they could populate a small city all by themselves.  Read the signs well and you will see very clearly the difference between the two groups. It's not that hard.....really. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
As I said in another thread, I'm not that sorry they are acting that way. There is a large group of independent voters out there, a lot of them being hard-working, decent folks. Every time an OWL get arrested, a conservative gets a vote. For every pile of garbage they leave, a conservative gets a vote. Every time one defecates in public or relieves himself on a police car,a conservative gets a vote. For all of them out of work, Obama loses a vote. Pelosi, Obama and the democratic talking heads are all praising them, oblivious to the fact that they may be petting a dog that's going to bite their hand off. If the OWL's ever figure out who they SHOULD be targeting, the current administration is in trouble. COuldn't happen to a nicer group of people... |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
 A proud OWL in action. Friend of yours, LR? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
[Edited - Address the post, Bob, not the poster. - Ron] [This message has been edited by Ron (10-15-2011 12:06 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I never render an opinion on a photograph that isn't sourced Mike, nice try though. For all we know it was taken in Chile. quote: I know its hard to get the horizontal organizational structure -- at least it is for me, but, one thing I can grasp is the open architecture concept of the movement, it doesn't really matter what issue gets you out - there's an 'app' for that. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You're right, LR. Probably that pic was taken at an Occupy Taco Bell rally. Chile? Please... You left out a small part of the link about the Popularity contest.. Though the Occupy movement is only one month old, the early polling suggests it� is striking a chord with average Americans. Earlier this week, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that 37% of adults "tend to support" the Occupy movement, with 18% saying they "tend to oppose" them. To be fair, the Tea Party was, in its early days, far more popular than it is now. A December 2009 NBC/WSJ poll found 41% of Americans felt positively about the nascent Tea Party movement, while 23% held a negative opinion of it. The Tea Party changed the demographic of congress. What ro you think the OWLs will accomplish? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Mike, you're taking that information you're adding to LR's out of context. You present that data as if it meant that there was another poll taken at the same time that suggested that the protesters showed a different and perhaps lower level of popularity. That may in fact be true, about the levels, but it appears you have the sequence wrong, and that the two polls may well show that there is an increase in popularity at a fairly rapid rate. This is difficult to tease out because all the details are not given, but it appears that way. Beyond that, and perhaps more to the point, Popularity may have an effect in an election, but we have no election for over a year and we don't have a Republican candidate or even, formally, a Democratic candidate. You can, with some conviction, say that the Tea Party affected congress for this past term, and I would agree with you. One question that you haven't asked, and which may have some relevance is this: Is one of those effects the presence of these demonstrators and the anger they have about what seems to be going on in Congress these days, in part at the behest of the Tea Party? If that wasn't part of the subtext of the movement, what reason would there be to run them down, to denigrate them, to make assertions about the demographics about the group on the basis of junk science and unsystematically gathered data, and to try to tie this group in with other groups that the right wing hopes the public as a whole dislikes? The Brits have a Screaming Looney Party, which many people are rather fond of. I am for one. Nobody tries to run them into the ground or treat them cruelly. If the demonstrators were as odd and useless as the right have been painting them, then we'd be having a fine old time here with certified court jesters. But we're not, are we? The right, for all its sarcasm, takes these folks very seriously indeed, and what we folks on the left should be asking ourselves, with equal seriousness, is "why?" For all the flaws and problems that these folks have, and certainly they've got to have their fair share, what is it about them that drives the Right into this state of frenzied response and brings out the race-baiting side of them ("They aren't representative of the nation as a whole!" "They're all whites!" — as though they haven't been trying to actively eliminate blacks from the voting rolls in states like Florida and Ohio for years!) so floridly? The left needs to give considerable thought about what produces that hysteria on the right, because that is something the Right is very much afraid of. We of the left must make a real point of defining that thing for ourselves, in our own language and in our own terms, and we must not let the right get out in front on this. No more defining the liberation of women as being a "feminazi;" no more talking about the economic safety net as "entitlements;" no more talking about affordable health care for everybody as "A government takeover." This one we should try to define ourselves. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
For all the flaws and problems that these folks have, and certainly they've got to have their fair share, what is it about them that drives the Right into this state of frenzied response and brings out the race-baiting side of them ("They aren't representative of the nation as a whole!" "They're all whites!" hmmmm...remind you of anything, Bob....like left comments about the Tea Party?? Seems like they said the same thing....but I suppose it's ok when they say it? Seems to me I recollect you tourself making comments about the "racism" of the Tea Party. Am I wrong? One question that you haven't asked, and which may have some relevance is this: Is one of those effects the presence of these demonstrators and the anger they have about what seems to be going on in Congress these days, in part at the behest of the Tea Party? No, actually, it is all because of Obama preaching to the masses the evils of Wall Street and corporations, in order to cover his own butt by pointing fingers somewhere else. That's all it is. I'll ask again....the Tea Party changed congress. What do you expect the OWLs to accomplish? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
I don't recollect saying the Tea Party was racist, but the thought had certainly crossed my mind. The issue to me, however, was not membership — and the tea party has formal membership while the demonstrators do not, so the comparison is flawed to begin with — but the positions that some of the Tea Party folk took on some of the issues. The younger Congressman Paul was in favor of rolling back the civil rights act and quite a few pieces of civil rights legislation, for example. That would allow lots of folks freely to break the rules in the constitution, which he says he upholds. Attacks on civil rights protections and racism is not a huge leap. While I certainly did wonder about it, and about the civil rights implications of tossing folks of the voting rolls for what seemed to me to be less than valid reasons — a Republican position that's been attempted to be put into action any number of times and one that I've never heard a Tea Party member denounce —I don't know that I actually said anything about it in writing. And,m since there is no actual party involved with the demonstrators, you'd have to be thinking I'm pretty dumb to try to convince me that a comparison was viable. Party versus a group of demonstrators which is still working out an agenda, Hmmm? Which one shall I treat as a fully formed cohesive party with a platform? It appears that your answer is "Both." I would have to say that you're trying to get me to take a sucker bet. Would I say that the Tea Party is racist? I'd say almost everybody is racist, including me at times when I'm not paying attention. If there's some reason why I'd exclude the Tea Party when I include the Democrats and Republicans and all the rest of the political parties I can think of, I'd be fascinated in hearing why the Tea Party is less racist than anybody else. What do I expect the OWL's to do? Let's call them OWL's for now. It's shorter and more punchy, though it offers the illusion of a substance and organization that I haven't seen as yet and which you've pointed out several times. I have no idea. I don't know that there will be an organization next week, let alone in a year, and I have no idea what their platform might look like. A month or two back I heard a radio program that asked for people to write in with ideas for an agenda for a new party to start from scratch. It was an on-line sort of thing and this may be an outgrowth of that. I have no idea. If it is, it could get more organized and more interesting as time goes on, and I don't know what effect it will have on the election. It could really screw up the voting by fragmenting the votes or it could help unify it around a more centrist candidate. It could move the election left or right, depending on the reaction to this reaction looks like. The race is too soon to call. I suspect you probably think the same, though who knows. They've opened us the possibilities to my mind rather than closed them down. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I proudly admit to calling it what it is /pip/Forum6/HTML/001997-3.html#68 But we still can't be sure about the origin of Mike's photo because he wants us to believe that all the OWS are white and that this picture is of an OWS protester. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, at least your mis-quotes are consistent. Of course, if you want to show me where I said all OWLs are white, I'll be happy to look at it. Good luck.. What I DID do was to present this link.. http://news.yahoo.com/99-occupy-wall-street-organizers-look-minorities-200105971.html You can either accept the possibility that the findings are valid or call it junk, as Bob did. Doesn't matter to me, either way. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
They are opinions, not findings, Mike. As opinions, they have the same weight as mine. As findings, they're junk. Findings suggests there's some sort of scientific process involved. In a prior posting I went through some of the reasons where that assumption was a big stretch. If you want to keep the discussion on the level of opinion versus opinion — there's a possibility, though I think it's not very good. If you think it is very good, I've told you why I disagree, and you haven't really responded. If you're talking about "findings," as you did in the posting just above, there are none because there is no science involved as yet. This doesn't mean there won't or can't be. This doesn't mean that the results will be anything I might predict. It does mean that the folks you're quoting haven't used anything like scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, which from a totally unscientific examination of the one photograph (supplied by you) that showed enough of a crowd to make out markers of race (if such a thing exists), gender, age and so on, the results your Conservative columnist reported were wildly off base. That served as the basis for my opinion that if one fairly decent shot blew the generalization out of the water, it might be possible that the other shots could be similarly biased. Enough information to draw a fast and dirty intuitively based opinion for me. Nowhere near what's needed for aa finding either. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ok, once more with feeling.... A 40-photo Washington Post slideshow showing hundreds of angry protesters in New York and other cities includes no more than 15 clearly identifiable minority protesters, and just six African-Americans. The rest of the protesters shown are white, and most are male. In 26 photos from San Francisco and Chicago gatherings posted on OccupyTogether.org, only one person from a minority group is clearly visible, and it’s unclear whether he is a protester or a bystander. So much for the findings based on one photograph, right, Bob? Hey, it doesn't matter. If you want to call it junk because you don't agree with it...fine. If LR wants to call the photo as possibly coming for Chile....good by me, too. No big deal at all.... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
It should be simple enough to source the photo Mike. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Check out pic #4 in reply #29 of the occupy wall street thread and you'll see a similar sign, with Che Guevara prominently displayed, too. That one is in Spanish....maybe IT came from Chile! Pic #3, same location, is a sign from the party for socialism and liberation.... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Bob, the Tea Party does not have 'formal membership'. Where did you see that at? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
great, so where did you get the photos? who took them? who's putting their journalistic stamp on them and saying they are bonafide? |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
#11, this thread: quote: Quite the reverse of the way you read it, as you can see. Perhaps I switched it someplace else and missed it? If so, I'm sorry for the mistake. There are a number of splinter parties as I understand it, some of which recognize others and some do not. You need to have boundaries for this to happen, and membership, otherwise how do you know that your organization is now responsible for paying Sarah Palin's speaker's fee while those folks over there are not responsible. We over here collect and distribute the money for this event; you folks over there do not. The type of organization this resembles is the type which features self-organizing groups which get together around one or another area of interest, sometimes for long periods of time, sometimes for shorter. This is a type of organizational pattern advocated by Prince Bakunin, and it is a form of anarchism, by the way. If any candidates ran as members of the Tea Party or anjy of its sub-groups, that also would make it a formal party with formal membership, in some cases this would be registered with the board of elections should anybody wished to take it that far. If you wished to simplify the question, you could ask somebody which party you belonged to. Some people would tell you they belong to the tea Party, and that would make them members of the Tea Party, wouldn't it? Were you to ask somebody what party they were members of at one of these demonstrations, I have trouble imagining them saying, I am a member of the Demonstrator's Party; or the Occupy Wall Street Party. The movement simply hasn't gone that far yet. It's not a party, though the Tea Party is. You even call the Tea Party a Party. You even say that the demonstrators are too difuse to have any identifiable goal or program. I'm a Democrat, Identify myself as such, often vote as such and the Democrats send me emails and ask me for dough. Far as I'm concerned that makes me a formal member of the party. What the heck do you have to do to be a formal member of The Tea Party? And if it has anything to do with human sacrifice, I don't want to know anything about it. Best... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
How did I misread what you said, Bob? You said that they had 'formal membership'. I said that they didn't. They also are not an official political party as are the Democrats, Republicans and Independents that one can register with. Human sacrifice? I guess that was an attempt at some sort of humor but I'm not getting it. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Yes, reb,I should have listed every credit for every photo. I got them all from the google search engine. I really had no idea that someone would claim they may have come from Chile. If you want to consider them to be forgeries or fakes, fine with me. It comes across like a lawyer, pulling out all stops to defend a client he knows is guilty. I'll let other viewers decide if they feel they are valid or not. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
This link may be handy if you're thinking of applying for TP membership Bob. http://memphisteaparty.com/Membership_Registration.php |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
If you were able to identify it as humor, you got it; you simply didn't think it was politically correct for your end of the spectrum. And it may not have been, Denise, for which I appoligise. I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings, I was trying to be funnyt and stumbled. I accept your correction of "party" amd would suggest that the same point might be made by using the word "caucus" in reference to the Tea Party membership in the House, where it does have a definite legislative presence and definitive membership; or, should you wish, by talking about it was "The Tea Party Movement," which also appears to have a self-identified membership, though, of necessity, not one elected by running for office by running on Tea Party Principles, which are well defined. My point is unaffected by the change in terminology. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Well, wonders never cease. The Memphis Tea Party has an official membership now. I guess we are behind the times in my neck of the woods! Your point, Bob, seems to be that the Tea Party has some sort of official membership. Well, apparently they do in one of the groups out of Memphis. Do you contend that some in the throng gathered at all the Occupy movements don't have similar membership in say the Communist Party USA, SEIU, the Nazi Party, or any number of other groups on the left? They may not belong to an official OWS Party but the fingerprints of all those other groups are well represented. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Actually, Denise, I think that connection is a touch conspiratorial . I've seen the references you've posted to some of these publications and on occasion I've posted my reactions to them. I understand you value them and rate them highly, and I think you have a right to choose your sources. But I've also made it fairly clear what I need to see in a publication to find it creditable; and most of these don't fit. We disagree on this, which is okay with me. I don't throw out a publication because of its political orientation. There are some right wing publications that I trust because I'm clear that they do excellent research, and many of the publications you quote are very sloppy about this sort of thing, and I don't trust them. I don't suggest that you stop. I shouldn't try to dictate this sort of thing to you. But I can say that I don't find their standards of proof acceptable to me. Some of the folks in the ranks of these demonstrators may well be union members. Some may have been right wing folks. Some may have been left wing folks. If you consider, you'll find that they will probably have belonged to many groups. I fail to understand why you can draw the conclusion from this that they are all organized together in a single organized band. That does not follow. They don't even have a common platform or agenda as yet, and may not work one out ever, though I hope they do. The tea party movement, on the other hand, does have a fairly general notion of what their agenda is. They have enough of an agreement to have a congressional caucus and to agree on "fiscal conservatism" and various other elements of a platform which some candidates have supported. Some of these candidates have won seats in the congress through courting Tea Party support. The demonstrators are at a different state of group development than the Tea Party. I would hope that the demonstrators would have some left wing principles that will emerge to guide them, but I have no idea what they are. The ones available in the Democratic Party at this point are pretty lilly livered; and despite the common Right Wing perception of President Obama being terribly left wing, from somebody who is left wing, he doesn't appear that way at all. He appears like an old liberal Republican. No offense, Denise, but I really have a disagreement with the way you're presenting things, and I hope I've made at least some of it a bit more obvious. I hope I doing it respectfully enough, here; but our disagreement really seems basic. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I, on the other hand, have NO disagreement with the way you are presenting things, Denise. Hats off to you.... |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Thanks, Mike! Bob, you can research the facts contained within the links I shared. No need to be primarily hung up on the 'messengers'. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=356769 |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: You certainly can Denise, and I did, unfortunately I couldn't find any evidence regarding who funded the protests. Obviously, you've come across more information in your research than I did - could you supply some specific links to fact based evidence? . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Uncas, she showed the link where an Obama aide is offering a salary for would-be occupy organizers. Also there are videos of a union leader acknowledging some of the protestors are getting paid to attend and then you have this link where teachers are offering students favorable grade credits for attending and carrying posters. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/college-professor-offers-students-extra-credit-for-attending-occupy-protest/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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. http://news.yahoo.com/whos-behind-wall-st-protests-110834998.html The Working Families Party (WFP) (www.workingfamiliesparty.org) is New York's most energetic, independent and progressive political party. Formed in 1998 by a grassroots coalition of community organizations, neighborhood activists, and labor unions, we came together to build a society that works for all of us, not just Wall Street CEOs and the well-connected. WFP is independent from corporate and government funding and in-addition we are community based; community funded and equally uninfluenced by both major parties. Our agenda focuses on economic and social justice, corporate accountability, job creation, environmental protection, and investment in education and healthcare. The WFP is seeking immediate hires. I don't begrudge anyone a job, of course. Honest work, etc. etc. But there is something, well, sharply ironic about a non-profit with enough money and funding (via donations, I presume) to pay folks to protest a system that creates enough wealth to fund, via donations, a non-profit that then hires folks to protest that system. My suggestion is: cut out the middleman. Have Wall Street investment banks permanently employ folks to protest outside their offices. http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Jobless-Protestors-Find-Jobs-Protesting-Joblessness Labor unions, communists, “community organizers,” socialists, and anti-capitalist agitators have all joined together to “Occupy Wall Street” and protest against “greed,” corporations, and bankers. But despite efforts to portray the movement as “leaderless” or “grassroots,” it is becoming obvious that there is much more going on behind the scenes than meets the eye. Billionaire financier George Soros’ fingerprints, for example, have been all over the anti-Wall Street campaign from the very beginning. And this week, the infamous hedge-fund boss publicly announced his sympathy for the protesters and their complaints about bailouts — despite the fact that he lobbied for even greater unconstitutional handouts to bankers in 2009. “Actually I can understand their sentiment, frankly,” he told reporters while announcing a large donation to the United Nations. “I can sympathize with their grievances.” But Soros’ support for the protesters goes far beyond his tepid public statements. In fact, the original call to “Occupy Wall Street” came from the magazine AdBusters, an “anti-consumerist” publication financed by, among other sources, the Soros-funded Tides Foundation. Other Soros-backed outfits promoting big government — some with myriad ties to the Obama administration — are also publicly driving the occupation campaign. MoveOn.org, for instance, has received millions of dollars from the billionaire banker. And now, the group is urging its supporters to join the Occupy Wall Street movement as well. “Over the last two weeks, an amazing wave of protest against Wall Street and the big banks has erupted across the country,” MoveOn said in a recent e-mail to supporters, praising the “brave” demonstrators. “On Wednesday, MoveOn members will join labor and community groups in New York City for a huge march down to the protest site — the biggest yet.” On top of supplying activists to join the demonstrations, MoveOn is also staging what it calls a “massive ‘Virtual March on Wall Street’ online.” The Internet-based demonstrations are a collaborative effort with another radical and well-connected outfit tied to Soros called Rebuild the Dream. Led by self-described communist and former Obama administration czar Van Jones, the “Dream” movement is a partnership between a host of Soros-financed “progressive” groups. Big Labor and even Planned Parenthood — the largest abortion provider in America, which receives hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year — are partners, too. Union bosses and others intimately linked to President Obama — whose top campaign contributors included Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and other big banks — are also playing a key role in the Wall Street protests. The protesters are even recycling administration talking points such as the old “the rich should be forced to pay their 'fair share'" — despite the fact that the “Buffett rule” tax proposal being advanced would almost exclusively soak what remains of the middle class. But that might be the point. According to reports and analysts, the whole anti-Wall Street movement has been carefully orchestrated by the Obama-linked anti-capitalist union titans and tax-funded “community organizers.” A troubling plot to essentially finish off capitalism was exposed earlier this year, and at the time it was blasted as “economic terrorism.” Even more disturbing: It was uncannily similar to the growing Wall Street demonstrations. Community organizer Stephen Lerner of the SEIU, a regular White House guest, was caught on video in March discussing the scheme to “bring down the stock market” and "destabilize" the nation — all with the stated goal of "redistributing wealth." And while the whole conspiracy was not revealed because Lerner suspected police were present, the strategies he mentioned included civil disobedience and mass anti-banker protests. Another conspirator said to be pulling the strings, disgraced ACORN founder and union boss Wade Rathke, was advocating massive “Day of Rage” protests targeting bankers earlier this year. And he is also closely tied to Obama, who actually used to work for Rathke’s “community organizing” outfit. Beyond Big Labor and Soros “front groups,” as critics call them, is also a vast collection of socialist and Marxist organizations supporting the demonstrations. The Socialist Party USA, the Marxist-oriented Workers World Party, the International Committee of the Fourth International, and the Communist Party USA-affiliated People’s World are all publicly and openly backing the movement. While the occupation movement purports to be “leaderless,” in reality, critics say its leaders and financiers are barely concealed. According to analysts, the protests — which are quickly spreading to cities across the United States, Canada, and Europe — actually represent a well-orchestrated operation being used by the very same elite “one percent” supposedly being protested against. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9269-big-soros-money-linked-to-occupy-wall-street |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: Reuters have since retracted the claim Mike after realising that there was absolutely no evidence to back it up. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Soros is a smart fellow with a lot of pull. |
||
|
Uncas Member
since 2010-07-30
Posts 408 |
quote: The fact that he didn't do what they claimed he did might have been a contributing factor too don't you think? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Let me ask you this Mike, you are obviously not a fan of Soros, I'm not a fan of the Koch bros......so, would you agree we need to put K street and billionaire ideologues out of the politics business by limiting all donations,including superpacs and anonymous funding groups, and go to strictly publicly funded elections? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LR, I would have no problem with that. In this case, though, we're not talking donations. We're talking manipulation. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Let me see here. You're upset at claims that Reuters retracted that Soros funded some of these Wall street protests, Mike; Is that right? They were a reliable source when they agreed with you; but when they disagreed with you, they weren't? I would think that a reliable source is one that you trust to give you information that you don't need to cherry-pick, but then that's the way I try to choose my news sources most of the time, and sometimes I have to change my opinion based on new information I get. The name for phony grass roots organizations that I came across, and which I thought was quite clever, was "astroturf" organizations. They're funded from the outside and cultivated artificially. It sounds as tough you think that the demonstrations are an example of that sort of thing, and I can't really debate the issue because I don't know. That Reuters would retract its report on the connection with Soros, I think, seems telling, though. I find the reports of funding by Goldman Sachs somewhat unlikely, since I believe they're one of the firms that's been demonstrated against. It's possible that they might be funding their own demonstrators, of course, as the somewhat tongue in cheek comment earlier suggested, and I must say I like the irony of the thought. I seem to recall that when the Republicans came up to Wall Street to confer with the folks up there a couple of years back about how the Wall Street folks thought regulation should proceed, Goldman Sachs was among the folks included among the conferees. I may well be wrong about that; but that is my recollection. What's yours in the matter? Also, my first memory of the use of the term "astroturf" in reference to organizations had to do with the beginnings of The Tea Party when The Health Care debate was getting underway, and insurance money and some Koch brothers money was being funneled to help start the new Tea Party organization up. I don't recall much, if any, anger on the Right about either the alligations or the reality. Why the fury about the possibility of somebody else doiung such a thing now? Was there something distasteful about it? Should it have been censured or punished in some fashion. Was it an example that should not have been followed? quote: And for painfully detailed information with footnotes about AFP and the Koch brothers and how they work, please feel free to check out this site: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Americans_for_Prosperity |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I'm actually suprised Mike, that Ron would allow you to post photos without sourcing and crediting them, since failing to do so subjects PIP to copyright infringement. Google works from text, so, when it finds text assosiated with, or near a photo that might match your search terms, it will return that picture whether or not it is in fact a pic of your chosen subject, so your method doesn't particularly inspire any confidence on my part. Mad Magazine .....? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ok, back to the other subject --- all money manipulates Mike so if you agree with what I said, and you're serious about gettin money out of politics... http://movetoamend.org/ |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
As far as the pics are concerned, I used ask.com, looking for articles on the Occupy gatherings. Within an article, there were links to photos taken at the events. I tried to backtrack them but my history erases when I leave the 'net so I didn't find them. As far as your link, I have no problem with it at all. Earlier you had made some remark about corporation not being people until they were executed in Texas or some silly stuff and I responded to it because it was such a pathetic attempt to slip in a Republican dig, not because I considered corporations to be people. I agree with your link and would be happy to see corporations out of the election process altogether. For that matter, I would like to see lobbyists out of Washington, too. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
