8537
VIP Member
EVERY POPULIST movement, right or left, is going to be put down by the media.
The last thing the masters want is the people discovering their own power.
Frame that and hang it on your wall. Truth to power.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
EVERY POPULIST movement, right or left, is going to be put down by the media.
The last thing the masters want is the people discovering their own power.
I have visited all the 'official' websites now I think and I still don't see any coherance in either group. The "Occupy DC" group says get rid of the special interests without specifying what a 'special interest' is. The Tea Party in fact is a 'special interest' in that they have specific goals they wish to accomplish through the people they send to Washington. The OWS group doesn't seem to have a clue what they want other than they somehow want the banks and financial institutions and the stock exchange punished without specifying how.
Again, restrict the federal government's ability to favor anybody for any reason and all the other issues disappear except that there will still be rich and there will still be poor because that is the human condition and is not avoidable among even free people. It is just with maximum freedom, the poor are far less likely to remain poor.
This 'coherent message' criticism is so much malarky. "Occupy Wall Street" really says it all: what Wall Street has done is unacceptable, and they needed to be held accountable for fraud, not bailed out.
I am 100% in agreement that government bailouts for anybody are not acceptable. But Wall Street didn't force anybody to bail them out. In most cases the government forced Wall Street to take the bailouts.
The difference between mainstream media coverage of "Occupy Wall Street" and the Tea Party movement has been most interesting and instructive. Ditto the rhetoric coming out of the White House and Congress.
What do you think? The groups are similar? Dissimilar? Are the Tea Partiers the hateful, unsmiling, unhumorous ones as the Left wants to depict them? Or are the OWS groups similar to the Marxist uprising of the new Bosheviks that some are seeing?
I think you're a baby boomer. Only your protest is legitimate to you.
A clash of generational protests
Why Baby Boomers don't understand the OWS protests
Did you actually read that piece by Ferguson - a man who I know personally and respect?
And... you're wrong... it's got jack shit to do with being a 'baby boomer'... it's about who is responsible for the current clusterfuck. OWS blame Wall St.... TEA Partiers are wiser and blame the Government... because the Government are responsible.
This 'coherent message' criticism is so much malarky. "Occupy Wall Street" really says it all: what Wall Street has done is unacceptable, and they needed to be held accountable for fraud, not bailed out.
I am 100% in agreement that government bailouts for anybody are not acceptable. But Wall Street didn't force anybody to bail them out. In most cases the government forced Wall Street to take the bailouts.
you've got to be kidding me. Most of the largest financial institutions and insurance agents were banging on Paulson's door begging like homeless drunks in need of one more fix.
I've noticed the MSM saying nice things about the Tea Party. At least less judgmental things.
Now they're being more careful to cut slack to some of the things which people scoffed at early on.
One example I heard this weekend was about that famous sign where the Tea Partier says to keep gov't hands off their medicare.
That's now an example of people with passion and understandable concerns but not a refinement of their ideas. As to be expected (in hindsight) the refinement of the ideas came later.
Translation: MSM wants people to overlook the wacky signs and soundbites from OWS while OWS tries to find a coherent message. So now in retrospect they're being kinder to the Tea Party.
I am 100% in agreement that government bailouts for anybody are not acceptable. But Wall Street didn't force anybody to bail them out. In most cases the government forced Wall Street to take the bailouts.
you've got to be kidding me. Most of the largest financial institutions and insurance agents were banging on Paulson's door begging like homeless drunks in need of one more fix.
Begging and writing yourself a check are two separate things, At least half of those receiving TARP monies didn't want it
you've got to be kidding me. Most of the largest financial institutions and insurance agents were banging on Paulson's door begging like homeless drunks in need of one more fix.
Begging and writing yourself a check are two separate things, At least half of those receiving TARP monies didn't want it
What in the world are you talking about? Tell me which "half" on this list didn't want TAPR money, even though they filled out the applications and did the paperwork to apply for...TARP funds:
Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout - The New York Times
Begging and writing yourself a check are two separate things, At least half of those receiving TARP monies didn't want it
What in the world are you talking about? Tell me which "half" on this list didn't want TAPR money, even though they filled out the applications and did the paperwork to apply for...TARP funds:
Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout - The New York Times
J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo didn't want TARP money. That's two.
The OWS group assemble where they're told, say what they're told to say, and think what they're told to think. They're nothing more than useful idiots.If the OWS group actually knew what they were protesting, they would be camped out at the White House or the Capital Building instead of Wall Street. They would be complaining about where the problems originate, what escalates them, and what perpetuates them instead of some sort of vague movement against faceless people that had little or nothing to do with it.
What in the world are you talking about? Tell me which "half" on this list didn't want TAPR money, even though they filled out the applications and did the paperwork to apply for...TARP funds:
Tracking the $700 Billion Bailout - The New York Times
J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo didn't want TARP money. That's two.
So when you said "half" you really meant three or so out hundreds? OK then. That's par for the conservatarian course.
Tell me, with new capitalization rules would JP Morgan have survived without TARP funds?
If the OWS group actually knew what they were protesting, they would be camped out at the White House or the Capital Building instead of Wall Street. They would be complaining about where the problems originate, what escalates them, and what perpetuates them instead of some sort of vague movement against faceless people that had little or nothing to do with it.
Hear of Occupy DC?
Have you guys thought about going to their Facebook page and actually read what they are saying? If you did you would know who they are speaking out against.
J.P. Morgan and Wells Fargo didn't want TARP money. That's two.
So when you said "half" you really meant three or so out hundreds? OK then. That's par for the conservatarian course.
Tell me, with new capitalization rules would JP Morgan have survived without TARP funds?
I don't expect a hard core progressive to understand, appreciate, or want the truth nor to do his/her own homework to get it.
Some WILL go to hardcore progressive sites to get the point of view they want to be the truth and don't really care whether it is correct or not so long as it fits the proper mantra.
I still say at least half of those receiving TARP money would never have done so had the government not insisted. You didn't even look at the links I provided, did you.
So when you said "half" you really meant three or so out hundreds? OK then. That's par for the conservatarian course.
Tell me, with new capitalization rules would JP Morgan have survived without TARP funds?
I don't expect a hard core progressive to understand, appreciate, or want the truth nor to do his/her own homework to get it.
So only a hardcore progressive would interpret "half" to mean, oh....50%?
Some WILL go to hardcore progressive sites to get the point of view they want to be the truth and don't really care whether it is correct or not so long as it fits the proper mantra.
and some will just make shit up. For instance, those that claim half of TARP recipients were forced to take the money.
I still say at least half of those receiving TARP money would never have done so had the government not insisted. You didn't even look at the links I provided, did you.
Then why did all those banks apply for TARP funding? You didn't look at the list, did you? Or are you "Still saying that" because it "feel" right and meets your ideological bias?
I don't expect a hard core progressive to understand, appreciate, or want the truth nor to do his/her own homework to get it.
So only a hardcore progressive would interpret "half" to mean, oh....50%?
and some will just make shit up. For instance, those that claim half of TARP recipients were forced to take the money.
I still say at least half of those receiving TARP money would never have done so had the government not insisted. You didn't even look at the links I provided, did you.
Then why did all those banks apply for TARP funding? You didn't look at the list, did you? Or are you "Still saying that" because it "feel" right and meets your ideological bias?
Numerous banks refused the TARP funds
and all have fared better than those who took them. I know who is on the list. I also have done a lot of homework and have followed at least some of the money since TARP was first implemented. The list of financial institutions receiving TARP money cannot be interpreted that all of them WANTED TARP money. But that is a nuance I suppose is over the head of hard core leftwingers. A pity too.
You seem to wish to blame the financial institutions for everything and make the government an innocent pawn in the process. But you would be so very wrong in that point of view.
So only a hardcore progressive would interpret "half" to mean, oh....50%?
and some will just make shit up. For instance, those that claim half of TARP recipients were forced to take the money.
Then why did all those banks apply for TARP funding? You didn't look at the list, did you? Or are you "Still saying that" because it "feel" right and meets your ideological bias?
Numerous banks refused the TARP funds
Such as....which ones, exactly?
and all have fared better than those who took them. I know who is on the list. I also have done a lot of homework and have followed at least some of the money since TARP was first implemented. The list of financial institutions receiving TARP money cannot be interpreted that all of them WANTED TARP money. But that is a nuance I suppose is over the head of hard core leftwingers. A pity too.
Can you show me which half on that list didn't want a virtually zero-interest loan that they could in turn deposit at the Fed and get 1% interest?
You seem to wish to blame the financial institutions for everything and make the government an innocent pawn in the process. But you would be so very wrong in that point of view.
I'm not blaming anyone. I'm simply asking you to be honest about what happened - including being honest that Paulson didn't force half those banks to take TARP funds. That's just rightwing bullshit.