What Is Your Opinion On The Occupy Wallstreet Protests And Would You Join Us?

No....It is the opposite. Big money fuels corruption. The "state" as you put it, is the effect of the corrupt money that is thrown their way.

Remove the money, and either make honest people out of "the state" or get rid of them. KEEP MONEY OUT.

 

Are you serious... you do realize that the state prints the money, right?

 

Yeah,right,lmaoo
Without rich people,there would be no wealth to distribute to the Commie bums.
Im with Silicon on this one,Ill crack some Commie filth heads as well.These people are pathetic,and deserve no pity from me,and I dont feel sorry for them whatsoever.No one told them to take out student loans they cant afford,no one told them to buy a house they cant afford,if they lose their jobs,theres (*)(*)(*)(*)ing craigslist!Take a shower,put on some nice clothes ,and hit the streets for work,even if its washing dishes,thats (*)(*)(*)(*)ing survival,you do what you gotta do to SURVIVE,even if it means a pay cut.Life isnt always fair,and the tax payers shouldnt be a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ATM Machine to the people unwilling to earn the money themselves.I dont buy this "capitalism causes poverty in the U.S. " bull(*)(*)(*)(*) because your average so called "poverty" household in the U.S. has heat,2 tvs,cable,xbox,a house and 2 cars all on the taxpayers dime.And guess where the taxpayer gets that money?Working.Without capitalism,you wouldnt be typing on a pc made by a "rich" corporation.
Capitalism isnt going anywhere anytime soon and I cant wait to see these Marxist dirtbags camping out on WS when snow hits NY and its 0 degrees outside.Good riddance to them

 

I agree with the protestesters on Wall St. But where i beg to differ is that even though there have been arrests they have remained relativly peacefull. If you want the government and the banks to take it serious, you have to be more vociferous in your protests.

 

Amen. Amen. Amen.

 

So. you're fine with Bill Ayers plan to put up to 25 million people in re-education camps and if they can't be 're-educated' then they're eliminated.

Sorry. but i think you are angry at everyone else for the state of your life. You don't want to do anything for yourself and you want everyone else to be in the same situation as you. ALL without hope. All with no freedom. All poor. All slaves to the state.

 

Please define rich?, Please tell me how much they should be paying in taxes? And how are you exploited by corporate America? And by the way to use the term salve, as defining someone working for a company, is offensive.

The environment, economy and middle class is not being destroyed by corporate America, but by the very government you want to tax these companies to the hills.

Also how is higher taxes on the rich a basic right. Almost all the health care that you say is a basic right, is paid for by these companies, its not like employers are not providing health care for full time employees.

Also what do you care what people make, or how much money they have. I say more power to them, good for them. If you want to be rich, no one is stopping you.

 

Really? How so? Even so, it seems to me that Capitalism (which I support) would be doing a better job, if it were not buying BOTH politicians and elections. It has become corrupt and as we know from today's happenings it does not effectively reflect the will of the PEOPLE.

I think our "Capitalism" has (itself) become 'cancerous'. We haven't had "Socialism" take the role of responsibility which Capitalism has assumed; so, I think you are exaggerating (to a significant degree). Capitalism has been and can be a blessing to this nation... but right not it generally isn't.

Capitalism has so mingled itself into politics in this present day, it has SURELY corrupted politics. The ongoing protests in the streets of America, are testimony to that; you can ignore it if you want, but you'll certainly miss the train.

People used to laugh when I said that. Politicians on ALL side have ignored that. More importantly, most politicians have FAILED to address the very issue you bring up. I want these protests (and political action to follow) to remain and place overwhelming pressure upon the people we elect, to DO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA (not their individual political careers). We need to check all these people out more carefully before we vote them in.

Also, we've GOT TO purge the money from our political system; as much as it is possible.

Thank God the PROTESTERS are out there (sacrificing) to help bring that into being.

 

I told many *******s on this forum that the OWS movement would soon go violent and
now it is starting to gear up. They are Talking about it already.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlPY9AfQFqI&feature=channel_video_title"]Ultimately violence will be necessary, says Occupy L.A. speaker - Pt2 10/01/2011 - YouTube[/ame]


Then will they will call Marshal law on us ALL???.

...

 

Dude....I don't know what your goal is here other than to distort the issue. Big money is problem, almost in its entirety. Big money controls everything. Assign whatever aspect of problematic scenarios you want, and you'll find big money at the core of the problem. Big money is like air in the balloon. It constitutes the very essence of it. Remove the air, the problem goes away.

I'm sorry too dude, because you wealthy fat cats will never see the problem, because, in your world, it doesn't exist.

Big money, controlling everything and everyone is WRONG, and it needs to stop if society is going to continue. If things continue as they are, yes, we WILL ALL be in the same situation (minus the one percent). All poor, all in soup lines, all screwed. This nonsense of you guys trying to blame somebody other than yourselves is yet another attempt to exempt yourselves from any accountability, so that your way of life will continue uninterrupted.

Bottom line...........if you can't see that big money is the core of the problem, then YOU are part of the problem.

 

Who gets to decide what is greedy?

 

52 months of full employment, growing revenues, growing incomes, lower deficits down to $161 billion, a TENTH of where Obama and the Democrats took them.

Yeah why not?

 

It's not OWS creating problems, that;'s what needs to be fought against. There will always be disruptors and infiltraitors in fledgling movements, and keeping it pure will be a battle. So isolate, jump up and down and point fingers going OOO OOO OOO!, THE REAL MOVEMENT IS NOT VIOLENT AND YOUR KIND KNOW IT!

Or..., kissing off 750,000 jobs a month as under Bush.
Or..., watching an economy roar straight towards a massive depression and civil unrest that would have had us under Marshall Law.
Stop being selective in your posts, Bush had us headin' for Armaghedon.

 

They have little to no leadership, no direction, no specific goals, and at the moment they are being used as a successful distraction by both parties. So as usual nothing is getting done. Exactly the same old playbook of the two party system and the best government corporate money can buy (all one in the same).


Would I join the dog in the front yard chasing his own tail? Probably not.

 

Even if i don't agree with their message(even if they don't have a coherent one), I support their right to protest. Which is a world of difference from intolerant leftist.

 

Two years after the Democrats took over the House and the Senate while their housing scheme collapse all around them. It wasn't Bush policies that caused us to be where we are now.

The Republicans with Bush as President turned around the recession they inherited and produced exactly what I stated. 52 months of full employment and GDP growth, one of the longest sustained periods of growth and full employment on record. The deficits fell in 2005, 2006 and 2007. Down to $161 billion. Where are they now?

Sorry you don't get to just dismiss that and then pretend the Democrats along with then Senator Obama haven't controlled the purse strings and legislation since 2008. Along with a President Obama since 2010. And they still out number the Republicans who now have the house and have stopped their reckless policies that have been harming this country for almost 5 years.

 

But you don't have the right to interfer in the private lawful business of other citizens nor cause them damage and cost due to your protest.

 

Liberalminority, Montoya, and Rghtwngafraud are all planning to go.

I think that says it all.

 

However, you still forget 2008 in which Bush was still President. In that year, the deficit would by almost $300 billion. Therefore, Bush would enter the office of the Presidency with a budget surplus, and would leave it with the largest budget deficit in our nation's history, and only to be made worse by Obama.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

The chart clearly shows that we had a $236 billion dollar budget surplus in 2000, and a $128 billion dollar budget surplus in 2001. Bush's deficit struggle came in cycles, with an increasing deficit from 2002 to 2004, a decreasing deficit from 2005 to 2007, and a drastically increased deficit in 2008. While the Democrats in Congress had th emajority in 2008, Bush still went forward with policies that increased the deficit. It is the President that must approve all legislation after approval by both houses of Congress. Why didn't he veto almost every Congressional proposal if the year before the nation was heading towards eliminating the deficit? I think this question must come to mind when considering the last year of the Bush administration.

 

We got attacked by terrorists and engaged in a world wide war against them and then tried to rebuild two countries at our own expense so terrorists wouldn't have places to hide. What did you think was going to happen?

You can say it was folly, but I remember from 2001-2004 or so, this nation was happy to be at war and sticking it to Al Qaeda and Saddam.

 

Pretty much. Talk about the blind leading the blind.

 

There's no such thing as a surplus when you're national debt is 500 billion. That's like saying I have I have a $5000 dollar surplus but still owe the bank a $200,000 mortgage. It's a false surplus. But hey, what ever makes you feel better...

 

I get so very confused by statements like this. Most of the money in this country is controlled by democrats. Most uber-rich are democrats and liberal. (feel free to Google this). The above statement, in effect, says that the republicans are ruining this country by 'helping' those rich democrats.

http://european-americanblog.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-are-democrats-richer-than.html