Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That's what obama is facing now, the collapse of his government and instituting a new government. Revolution by other means. Now if there is a counter revolutionary movement of brigandry, we will have to deal with that as it deserves.
At its foundation OWS is a movement of theft. It will not be successful. I am hoping it will end with a whole lot of bloodshed which will firmly end it and the ideology of entitlements with it.
The biggest danger to this country isn't a fight to deprive the rich of their wealth. It's if the rich find this country not worth fighting for. They could follow the many who have already left. The "rich" will become merely the comfortable middle class.
The real assets of the nation isn't dollars, it's the craft and innovation of the people. The rich are those with the ability. OWS creates nothing except mountains of garbage. When those with the ability leave, and take their ideas and abilities to more welcoming shores, this country is finished. Really finished. Leave it to the disease ridden until it becomes feasible to just crush them.
I fully agree with you, when obama loses the election a violent revolution is more likely. Democracy is the very last thing OWS can tolerate. We should welcome such a revolution as a necessary step to ending government thievery. Ultimately what OWS says is "Vote on how much you will give us for nothing." They fully believe the majority supports their indolence. That's the mistake.
That's what obama is facing now, the collapse of his government and instituting a new government. Revolution by other means.
LOL hardly. Obama is not the government, the Constitution is. A revolution cannot emerge from a national election.
I'm not saying one will emerge from Occupy either necessarily, but that's theoretically possible if reform doesn't pre-empt it. Reform, not revolution, has been the result of movements like this in the past every time in this country, so that's probably the way to bet. But if the rich and their puppet government are sufficiently, stupidly stubborn . . .
Actually Obama losing next year's election would make revolution more likely. But only in reaction to what his successor would do.
The Constitution is NOT the government. It is the legal framework which sets up the organization of our government, and by which our government is supposed to conduct itself (of course, we can all see how well THAT'S working out).
That's what obama is facing now, the collapse of his government and instituting a new government. Revolution by other means. Now if there is a counter revolutionary movement of brigandry, we will have to deal with that as it deserves.
What are you talking about?
At its foundation OWS is a movement of theft. It will not be successful. I am hoping it will end with a whole lot of bloodshed which will firmly end it and the ideology of entitlements with it.
The biggest danger to this country isn't a fight to deprive the rich of their wealth. It's if the rich find this country not worth fighting for. They could follow the many who have already left. The "rich" will become merely the comfortable middle class.
So we have to be really nice to them, so they don't leave us! The rich are a lot like Tinkerbell, aren't they?
Actually, many of the rich, if not most, are those who chose their parents well.
Democracy is what OWS is about. That's why the GOP is attacking them.
LOL hardly. Obama is not the government, the Constitution is. A revolution cannot emerge from a national election.
I'm not saying one will emerge from Occupy either necessarily, but that's theoretically possible if reform doesn't pre-empt it. Reform, not revolution, has been the result of movements like this in the past every time in this country, so that's probably the way to bet. But if the rich and their puppet government are sufficiently, stupidly stubborn . . .
Actually Obama losing next year's election would make revolution more likely. But only in reaction to what his successor would do.
The Constitution is NOT the government. It is the legal framework which sets up the organization of our government, and by which our government is supposed to conduct itself (of course, we can all see how well THAT'S working out).
You misunderstood my point.
Your post was full tilt wingnut "Obama is a violator of the Constitution, because I said so".
You're wearing Reynold's Heavy Duty.
You misunderstood my point.
Your post was full tilt wingnut "Obama is a violator of the Constitution, because I said so".
You're wearing Reynold's Heavy Duty.
Considering that I said nothing about Obama whatsoever, I'd say YOU are the one with the delusion issues.
You misunderstood my point.
Your post was full tilt wingnut "Obama is a violator of the Constitution, because I said so".
You're wearing Reynold's Heavy Duty.
Considering that I said nothing about Obama whatsoever, I'd say YOU are the one with the delusion issues.
I'm sure you meant some other head of state.
Try to stop dodging, and explain what you did mean.
Try to stop dodging, and explain what you did mean.
No dodging about pointing out that you have no fucking clue what I actually said, and if you can't be bothered to read the post, why should I bother explaining it?
Try to stop blathering, and go read the post, dickwad.
1. Every once in a while a poster on the board veers off into some spittle punctuated rant based on nothing more than a desire to post.
That would be you.
Such a pattern is often the result of having attended a public school, where every utterance, no matter how inane, is rewarded with a pat on the head.
Not here.
2.You claimed "The OW protesters point to the FACT that you have Wall St. folk NOT being punished for the crimes they committed..."
My request: 'What crimes?'
3. The reponse would have been perfunctory, had you a brain in your head, or the integrity to claim what was actually a FACT.
While neither is the case, I should have been clued in by the term 'liberal' in your avi.
4.The vid you provided was about a thief who was long go sentenced to 150 years. Clearly long-gone culprit has nothing to do with the OWS rabble...
...so either you are as dumb as a box of rocks,
...or you have, to put it kindly, fibbed.
5. Your cavalier "Here's a primer for you" turns out to be appropriate, in that a 'primer' is an elementary text, and since your ability is elementary, I can see where you would grope for that term.
6. While you have no place posting with adults, I feel certain that, with just a bit of remedial training, you could perform adequately as a seeing-eye person for a blind dog.
As for future posting....You should go back to the task for which you are better prepared, using silly putty to lift the comic page. Im sure somebody will open the egg for you.
Like all willfully ignorant neocon toadies with delusions of intelligence, Politicalchic IGNORES the parts of the video I linked to focus in on one aspect...to which she falsely portrays as the ENTIRE focus of the video, which it was not.
Politicalchic asked "what crimes" did Wall St. commit in leading the nation to our current fiscal fiasco....the video interview points to how banking and investment institutions DID NOT follow SEC rules, but knowingly and willingly aided and abetted the falsifying of various investments. Bernie Madoff is but one example, as the interviewee points to Deutsche Bank and others as participants, and how the SEC hierarchy was criminally lax in it's duties despite warnings given by various individuals. All one has to do is actually watch the video to see that I am telling the truth.
Indeed, for those wholly (or willfully) ignorant of the Wall St. shennanigans, this video is indeed just a primer for those truly interested in furthering their research on the matter. Politicalchic, however, is intellectually dishonest and therefore incapable of such honest reseach. Instead, she lies about the true content of the video, and then proceeds in a childish diatribe to lie about what I posted and my character.
In short, we're dealing with a Political-hack of the female persuasion....and a hack of the Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Crowley, Beck, Drudge character judging by her tactic here. It's not about the FACTS, but about replacing them with supposition and conjecture and thus trying to change the narrative.
I answered the Political Chic's question.....if she makes a further fool of herself, I may do a little more of her homework for her to set her on the right track...as this stupidity of comparing the Occupy Wall St. event to the French Revolution is indeed that...stupidity.
Im not a proctologist, but I recognize you
Frances Fox Piven:
An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees. [Emphasis added]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuJZdWTiaJM&feature=player_embedded]Action video of Greece riots as fire bombs, stones fly in Athens - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvOJn2LUPy4&feature=player_embedded]Raw Video: Students Attack Prince Charles' Car - YouTube[/ame]
Sure sounds like the left wants a replay of the French Revolution to me; "See this is what you're gonna get if we don't get our way! You conservatives better be afraid!" That's what you meant to say, is it not? Well no, Sallow, I'm not afraid at all, because one thing I know about the American Left, is that like that avatar of yours, it's far more bark than bite. Your hippie progenitors were going to start a revolution too-how did that work out? The vast majority of you have neither the stomach nor the training for a real fight; all you have, is screeching and bluster. Just those people on the right, described as bitterly clinging to guns and religion, have considerably more capability than your side does in that department. I eagerly await your revolution of the masses; if this OWS crowd is any indication what we'll be up against, I'm not at all worried about the outcome. This is your "revolutionary army"? It wouldn't last an hour in a rock-throwing contest, much less a battle!
Except no one with OWS has said anything like that. Or intended to say anything like that. Or described themselves as a revolutionary army. Or challenged you to a physical fight of any kind.
Cops this evening arrested an Occupy Wall Street protester for allegedly threatening to throw Molotov cocktails at Macys tomorrow during the groups city-wide demonstration.
On the 17th, we going to burn New York City to the f-cking ground, Nkrumah Tinsley, 29, shouted Tuesday amongst a crowd of his fellow demonstrators, cops said.
In a few days theyre going to see what a Molotov cocktail can do to Macys, Tinsley also allegedly vowed, according to a video posted on YouTube.
They got guns! We got bottles!
Tinsley was arrested around 5 p.m. at Zuccotti Park.
Read more: OWS protester busted for allegedly threatening to hurl Molotov cocktails at Macy's - NYPOST.com
Yeah, over 90% of those slobs who were polled said they are planning on, or will, engage in civil disobedience.....That equals destruction and violence......And we've most definitely seen them engage in that behavior.Fact is, those SLOBS coudn't lead a revolution in some third world Banana Republic.
That would be a completely different kind of revolution.
Really? "No one?" Who speaks for the group? I have seen many radicals speak at OWS who were INVITED by the group. Are they not "with them"?
Have you seen them call for violence? Have you seen them tell conservatives to be afraid, or else?
Over 30% of those slobs said they are planning on, or will engage in abject violence.....And we've most definitely seen them engage in that behavior.
Do you live permanently with your typically ignorant liberal head buried firmly up your boney ass?
Try to stop dodging, and explain what you did mean.
No dodging about pointing out that you have no fucking clue what I actually said, and if you can't be bothered to read the post, why should I bother explaining it?
Try to stop blathering, and go read the post, dickwad.
I read it. It was vague. Please clarify your complaints. Thanks in advance.
No dodging about pointing out that you have no fucking clue what I actually said, and if you can't be bothered to read the post, why should I bother explaining it?
Try to stop blathering, and go read the post, dickwad.
I read it. It was vague. Please clarify your complaints. Thanks in advance.
That's about the lame response I expected. You're done here, fool. Thanks for playing. Run along.
I read it. It was vague. Please clarify your complaints. Thanks in advance.
That's about the lame response I expected. You're done here, fool. Thanks for playing. Run along.
You cannot explain yourself, can you?
That's about the lame response I expected. You're done here, fool. Thanks for playing. Run along.
You cannot explain yourself, can you?
I think she probably could, but as she is only here to be obnoxious and annoy people she has no reason to try.
