The free world is in peril
-
[quote]Who is threatening Oceania [citizens who believe in capitalism] now? [/quote] Basically, in the video Roseanne Barr, et al suggested on camera in an interview to cut heads off or send people re-education camps. Why are you asking me questions like this?
So, U.S. citizens who believe in capitalism constitute the entire 'free world'?
puromtec1 wrote:
Roseanne Barr
Who is she? Has she any authority to remove the heads of, or send to re-education camps, citizens who believe in capitalism? If not, how come your little 'free world' is threatened?
puromtec1 wrote:
Why are you asking me questions like this?
Enter at your own risk. :)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
The free world is in peril once again, and the road to serfdom is in sight. Can the US Constitution and our bill of rights survive this assault is the question. What do you all think? Because the state-run media has been covering up what is actually going on, this link should be a good basis for discussion. Best to seek to minute: 105 to hear a non-gold peddler's reaction as an intro. And, in case you have a problem with Glenn Beck and his predictions, who gives a fuck, he is just playing raw footage from people throughout this video, anyway. http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/10/25/the-truth-about-occupy-wall-street-full-episode-for-free/[^]
Extremity is always stupid. Yes, capitalism fucked up big style, it actually fucked itself up, because many banks did not understand the credit products they were buying, and the ratings agencies commited fraud in rating pretty much anything tripple A. Of course the Clinton administration was responsible for pushing house loans for the poor, creating a great deal of low quality debt product, so socialism has a role to play in this. Thatcher freed up the credit market back in the 80s, but it went too far, and lenders lending 130% on the price of a house are just plain stupid. But for people like Rosanne Bar to suggest such idiocy as this is nothing short of laughably childish! And hypocritical if she markets her self for the higest price she can get. :) We need maturity and circumspection, as always. Not extremist chaos.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Extremity is always stupid. Yes, capitalism fucked up big style, it actually fucked itself up, because many banks did not understand the credit products they were buying, and the ratings agencies commited fraud in rating pretty much anything tripple A. Of course the Clinton administration was responsible for pushing house loans for the poor, creating a great deal of low quality debt product, so socialism has a role to play in this. Thatcher freed up the credit market back in the 80s, but it went too far, and lenders lending 130% on the price of a house are just plain stupid. But for people like Rosanne Bar to suggest such idiocy as this is nothing short of laughably childish! And hypocritical if she markets her self for the higest price she can get. :) We need maturity and circumspection, as always. Not extremist chaos.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
the Clinton administration was responsible for pushing house loans for the poor ... so socialism has a role to play in this
Clinton 'Socialist'? Presumably used in the way 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are used in the USA - merely derogatory with no actual political connotations. ;P BTW: Did the Community Reinvestment Act force lenders to make loans to the poor? Or did the ability of non-bank lenders to securitize the loans and sell them on to Wall Street (and from 2005 to the GSEs), encourage them to make loans to the poor?
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Thatcher ... just plain stupid.
With you there, bro. :)
Erudite__Eric wrote:
But for people like Rosanne Bar
Ah, I can place her now. The fat woman who played opposite John Goodman, right.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
We need maturity and circumspection, as always.
Yep. That's the problem. It's always needed. We never get any though.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
the Clinton administration was responsible for pushing house loans for the poor ... so socialism has a role to play in this
Clinton 'Socialist'? Presumably used in the way 'Liberal' and 'Conservative' are used in the USA - merely derogatory with no actual political connotations. ;P BTW: Did the Community Reinvestment Act force lenders to make loans to the poor? Or did the ability of non-bank lenders to securitize the loans and sell them on to Wall Street (and from 2005 to the GSEs), encourage them to make loans to the poor?
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Thatcher ... just plain stupid.
With you there, bro. :)
Erudite__Eric wrote:
But for people like Rosanne Bar
Ah, I can place her now. The fat woman who played opposite John Goodman, right.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
We need maturity and circumspection, as always.
Yep. That's the problem. It's always needed. We never get any though.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
ict558 wrote:
BTW: Did the Community Reinvestment Act force lenders to make loans to the poor? Or did the ability of non-bank lenders to securitize the loans and sell them on to Wall Street (and from 2005 to the GSEs), encourage them to make loans to the poor?
Both. Some guy on CP worked for a bank back then that was forced to make loans to Fannie and Freddie by the government. The bank thoiuight it a bad risk, but had no choice. Others, commiting fraud, dressed bad debt up and sold it on as tripple A.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
ict558 wrote:
BTW: Did the Community Reinvestment Act force lenders to make loans to the poor? Or did the ability of non-bank lenders to securitize the loans and sell them on to Wall Street (and from 2005 to the GSEs), encourage them to make loans to the poor?
Both. Some guy on CP worked for a bank back then that was forced to make loans to Fannie and Freddie by the government. The bank thoiuight it a bad risk, but had no choice. Others, commiting fraud, dressed bad debt up and sold it on as tripple A.
============================== Nothing to say.
That, to some extent. Also, "community organizers" threatened to bandy about the race card if the banks didn't make the loans. Bad publicity is worse than any government pressure, in the long run.
So I rounded up my camel Just to ask him for a smoke He handed me a Lucky, I said "Hey, you missed the joke." My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
That, to some extent. Also, "community organizers" threatened to bandy about the race card if the banks didn't make the loans. Bad publicity is worse than any government pressure, in the long run.
So I rounded up my camel Just to ask him for a smoke He handed me a Lucky, I said "Hey, you missed the joke." My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
ict558 wrote:
BTW: Did the Community Reinvestment Act force lenders to make loans to the poor? Or did the ability of non-bank lenders to securitize the loans and sell them on to Wall Street (and from 2005 to the GSEs), encourage them to make loans to the poor?
Both. Some guy on CP worked for a bank back then that was forced to make loans to Fannie and Freddie by the government. The bank thoiuight it a bad risk, but had no choice. Others, commiting fraud, dressed bad debt up and sold it on as tripple A.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
CP worked for a bank back then that was forced to make loans to Fannie and Freddie by the government.
I'm calling BS on that. I've worked for banks since early 2003 and that's complete BS. They weren't forced to do anything. Listening to these people and how they view depositors is sick. They really do hate their customers. BOFA and CitiBank have basically gotten so big that no part really knows what the other part is doing. Saw it every week I visited as a consultant.
Well, who doesn't release stuff like that ? Microsoft software is just as bad. Christian Graus That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
ict558 wrote:
BTW: Did the Community Reinvestment Act force lenders to make loans to the poor? Or did the ability of non-bank lenders to securitize the loans and sell them on to Wall Street (and from 2005 to the GSEs), encourage them to make loans to the poor?
Both. Some guy on CP worked for a bank back then that was forced to make loans to Fannie and Freddie by the government. The bank thoiuight it a bad risk, but had no choice. Others, commiting fraud, dressed bad debt up and sold it on as tripple A.
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Both.
Well, I guess it is a pity that more loans were not made under the Community Reinvestment Act, since "Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders ... were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the Act." - The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission But, of course, the Act did not force lenders to make bad loans. What did encourage lenders to make bad loans was the fact that Wall Street (and from 2005 the GSEs) were gobbling up the securitized loans. Each step of the way, everyone was working to earn fees on these financial 'products'. Their annual bonuses were awarded for fees earned. Whatcha gonna do? Heads down, blinkers on, spin straw into gold. It's what most people in their position would have done. (Just like playing the 'race card'.)
Erudite__Eric wrote:
and sold it on as tripple A
Ah, yes, the rating agencies. And they're still there, too. Oh the times! Oh the manners! :)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
That, to some extent. Also, "community organizers" threatened to bandy about the race card if the banks didn't make the loans. Bad publicity is worse than any government pressure, in the long run.
So I rounded up my camel Just to ask him for a smoke He handed me a Lucky, I said "Hey, you missed the joke." My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
GenJerDan wrote:
"community organizers" threatened to bandy about the race card
You've got to use whatever edge life gives you. (Anyhows: Hadn't been no racism, wouldn't be no 'race card'.)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
GenJerDan wrote:
"community organizers" threatened to bandy about the race card
You've got to use whatever edge life gives you. (Anyhows: Hadn't been no racism, wouldn't be no 'race card'.)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
Not the issue under discussion, however. Even so, ultimately, it was Congress' fault, since they made it all possible in the first place. A bank is told it is not allowed to take into consideration whether someone has a "good" credit history, or even if they have the ability to pay back the loan at the current time. Then someone comes along and says give these people loans or we start picketing your establishment as soon as the media show up. So, even though they're "losing"* money on the deal, the banks cave. I don't blame them. I, personally, might have told the gov and the COs to kiss my hairy butt, but I also don't have stockholders and pension funds depending on me. :p *sub-prime really just means they're not making as much as they could, not that they're really losing any. The losing came later, when the (surprise, surprise) loanees couldn't make the payments.
So I rounded up my camel Just to ask him for a smoke He handed me a Lucky, I said "Hey, you missed the joke." My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
Not the issue under discussion, however. Even so, ultimately, it was Congress' fault, since they made it all possible in the first place. A bank is told it is not allowed to take into consideration whether someone has a "good" credit history, or even if they have the ability to pay back the loan at the current time. Then someone comes along and says give these people loans or we start picketing your establishment as soon as the media show up. So, even though they're "losing"* money on the deal, the banks cave. I don't blame them. I, personally, might have told the gov and the COs to kiss my hairy butt, but I also don't have stockholders and pension funds depending on me. :p *sub-prime really just means they're not making as much as they could, not that they're really losing any. The losing came later, when the (surprise, surprise) loanees couldn't make the payments.
So I rounded up my camel Just to ask him for a smoke He handed me a Lucky, I said "Hey, you missed the joke." My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
GenJerDan wrote:
Not the issue under discussion, however. Even so, ultimately, it was Congress' fault, since they made it all possible in the first place.
Hear, hear! Distorting the market (even with the best of intentions) never works.
GenJerDan wrote:
A bank is told it is not allowed to take into consideration whether someone has a "good" credit history, or even if they have the ability to pay back the loan at the current time.
But they were already doing so without being told to. Everyone was making money. Securitize the loan, sell it on. So the punter can't pay? 'Renegotiate' the loan. More fees. So the punter defaults? It's a bubble! Reposess and sell. More fees. It's all fun & games until ... POP!
GenJerDan wrote:
I don't blame them. I, personally, might have told the gov and the COs to kiss my hairy butt
I might not have put it quite like that, but I share your sentiment.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Both.
Well, I guess it is a pity that more loans were not made under the Community Reinvestment Act, since "Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders ... were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the Act." - The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission But, of course, the Act did not force lenders to make bad loans. What did encourage lenders to make bad loans was the fact that Wall Street (and from 2005 the GSEs) were gobbling up the securitized loans. Each step of the way, everyone was working to earn fees on these financial 'products'. Their annual bonuses were awarded for fees earned. Whatcha gonna do? Heads down, blinkers on, spin straw into gold. It's what most people in their position would have done. (Just like playing the 'race card'.)
Erudite__Eric wrote:
and sold it on as tripple A
Ah, yes, the rating agencies. And they're still there, too. Oh the times! Oh the manners! :)
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
Regardless of which type of loan defaulted, default they did. It was all bad debt. And yes, greed and incompetence were the biggest players. You know, the UK gov has talked about taxing banks heavilly. Those banks have then said 'fine, we will move to Basel', where upon the UK gov shit itself seeing as London and the finance markets are pretty much all the UK has. But why not club together with the US and Europe and say, 'fine, go to Basel, but you will never do business in this land again'. End of the day the banks HAVE to pay for their fuck up.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
CP worked for a bank back then that was forced to make loans to Fannie and Freddie by the government.
I'm calling BS on that. I've worked for banks since early 2003 and that's complete BS. They weren't forced to do anything. Listening to these people and how they view depositors is sick. They really do hate their customers. BOFA and CitiBank have basically gotten so big that no part really knows what the other part is doing. Saw it every week I visited as a consultant.
Well, who doesn't release stuff like that ? Microsoft software is just as bad. Christian Graus That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
The free world is in peril once again, and the road to serfdom is in sight. Can the US Constitution and our bill of rights survive this assault is the question. What do you all think? Because the state-run media has been covering up what is actually going on, this link should be a good basis for discussion. Best to seek to minute: 105 to hear a non-gold peddler's reaction as an intro. And, in case you have a problem with Glenn Beck and his predictions, who gives a fuck, he is just playing raw footage from people throughout this video, anyway. http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/10/25/the-truth-about-occupy-wall-street-full-episode-for-free/[^]
As expected, everyone deviates from the topic (and writes stupid things). Here is a relevant story to the topic at hand: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20111103/D9QP7IC80.html[^] My feeling is that these zombies are really looking for a heavy-handed dictator like Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini to take charge. They, themselves, are primed for such a leader. And, I would say, their propaganda campaign is really all about priming you. One salient characteristic of this bunch that runs counter to our American society is that they believe that they should exact their own justice against their percieved foes. This is completely un-American. Our judicial system is much better suited for this and does not posses nearly the degree of follies of individuals who take up arms against one another.
-
puromtec1 wrote:
The free world is in peril once again
Again? Who is threatening Oceania now? You must crush them!
puromtec1 wrote:
Can the US Constitution and our bill of rights survive this assault is the question.
And the answer is: Not since Abe Lincoln, no.
puromtec1 wrote:
and the road to serfdom is in sight
Serfdom removes the last pretence that you have any say in how your country is run. And that's a good thing. One should never live a lie.
puromtec1 wrote:
Because the state-run media
Or media-run state. Hand washes hand, you know.
puromtec1 wrote:
has been covering up what is actually going on
From Alec Jones? Impossible!
puromtec1 wrote:
this link should be a good basis for discussion.
Just talk among yourself.
puromtec1 wrote:
And, in case you have a problem with Glenn Beck
We are legion.
puromtec1 wrote:
he is just playing raw footage
Makes a change from spraying raw sewage. You are CSS, and I claim my £5.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
:thumbsup: That would get a 5.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
As expected, everyone deviates from the topic (and writes stupid things). Here is a relevant story to the topic at hand: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20111103/D9QP7IC80.html[^] My feeling is that these zombies are really looking for a heavy-handed dictator like Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini to take charge. They, themselves, are primed for such a leader. And, I would say, their propaganda campaign is really all about priming you. One salient characteristic of this bunch that runs counter to our American society is that they believe that they should exact their own justice against their percieved foes. This is completely un-American. Our judicial system is much better suited for this and does not posses nearly the degree of follies of individuals who take up arms against one another.
puromtec1 wrote:
As expected, everyone deviates from the topic (and writes stupid things).
You're the one that posted the Glenn Beck link. What's to take seriously? Radicals, Communists, Socialists, Revolutionaries, and Islamists (well, Iran) are anti-Capitalist. (I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I find it strange that he did not mention Anarchists, who are largely responsible for the violence associated with peaceful demonstrations. Why is he deflecting your attention from them? Just saying ... Glenn Beck Helps Turn Anarchist Book Into Bestseller[^] ... something to investigate.) Communists and Socialists are anti-Capitalist? Hold the presses!! Transforming the USA to a Communist or Socialist society would require a Revolution, and would be pretty Radical. So 'Radicals' and 'Revolutionaries' are superfluous (unless it's code for his Anarchist friends). But why is Tehran supporting Occupy? Put that way, the answer is obvious - the enemy of my enemy blah, blah. As for the rest of the crap: Occupy was not organic! It was organised! By all the usual suspects! And more such 'revelations'.
puromtec1 wrote:
My feeling is that these zombies are really looking for a heavy-handed dictator like Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini to take charge. They, themselves, are primed for such a leader.
Of course 'they' are. That's the great thing about the 'theys' - they're all alike.
puromtec1 wrote:
And, I would say, their propaganda campaign is really all about priming you.
Well, not me, sweetie. I'm not a paranoid American.
puromtec1 wrote:
One salient characteristic of this bunch that runs counter to our American society is that they believe that they should exact their own justice against their percieved foes. This is completely un-American.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: [Edit: typos]
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.
-
puromtec1 wrote:
As expected, everyone deviates from the topic (and writes stupid things).
You're the one that posted the Glenn Beck link. What's to take seriously? Radicals, Communists, Socialists, Revolutionaries, and Islamists (well, Iran) are anti-Capitalist. (I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I find it strange that he did not mention Anarchists, who are largely responsible for the violence associated with peaceful demonstrations. Why is he deflecting your attention from them? Just saying ... Glenn Beck Helps Turn Anarchist Book Into Bestseller[^] ... something to investigate.) Communists and Socialists are anti-Capitalist? Hold the presses!! Transforming the USA to a Communist or Socialist society would require a Revolution, and would be pretty Radical. So 'Radicals' and 'Revolutionaries' are superfluous (unless it's code for his Anarchist friends). But why is Tehran supporting Occupy? Put that way, the answer is obvious - the enemy of my enemy blah, blah. As for the rest of the crap: Occupy was not organic! It was organised! By all the usual suspects! And more such 'revelations'.
puromtec1 wrote:
My feeling is that these zombies are really looking for a heavy-handed dictator like Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini to take charge. They, themselves, are primed for such a leader.
Of course 'they' are. That's the great thing about the 'theys' - they're all alike.
puromtec1 wrote:
And, I would say, their propaganda campaign is really all about priming you.
Well, not me, sweetie. I'm not a paranoid American.
puromtec1 wrote:
One salient characteristic of this bunch that runs counter to our American society is that they believe that they should exact their own justice against their percieved foes. This is completely un-American.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: [Edit: typos]
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.
ict558 wrote:
Anarchists, who are largely responsible for the violence associated with peaceful demonstrations
If you want to compartmentalize the factions to inoculate the perceivably peaceful groups as separate from the rest (with whom I'm guessing you may relate), then do you think the "Anarchists" are helping or hurting, for example, the campaign for "social justice" conducted by NYCC (formerly known as ACORN). http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/03/acorn-officials-scramble-firing-workers-and-shredding-documents-after-exposed/[^] Or, do you think the "Anarchist" element is augmenting the effectiveness of the rest.
-
ict558 wrote:
Anarchists, who are largely responsible for the violence associated with peaceful demonstrations
If you want to compartmentalize the factions to inoculate the perceivably peaceful groups as separate from the rest (with whom I'm guessing you may relate), then do you think the "Anarchists" are helping or hurting, for example, the campaign for "social justice" conducted by NYCC (formerly known as ACORN). http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/03/acorn-officials-scramble-firing-workers-and-shredding-documents-after-exposed/[^] Or, do you think the "Anarchist" element is augmenting the effectiveness of the rest.
ict558 wrote:
(I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I find it strange that he did not mention Anarchists, who are largely responsible for the violence associated with peaceful demonstrations. Why is he deflecting your attention from them? Just saying ... Glenn Beck Helps Turn Anarchist Book Into Bestseller ... something to investigate.)
I am somewhat concerned that you could take such a remark seriously.
puromtec1 wrote:
(with whom I'm guessing you may relate)
If you are guessing that I relate to people protesting peacefully, you're right. Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Fox Hunting, whatever. Whether I agree with the protesters or not, they have a right to peaceful (don't mind a bit of chanting) protest.
puromtec1 wrote:
do you think the "Anarchists" are helping or hurting, for example, the campaign for "social justice" conducted by NYCC (formerly known as ACORN)...
Or, do you think the "Anarchist" element is augmenting the effectiveness of the rest.How would I know? I am not a citizen of New York, or the USA. For me, the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
-
ict558 wrote:
(I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I find it strange that he did not mention Anarchists, who are largely responsible for the violence associated with peaceful demonstrations. Why is he deflecting your attention from them? Just saying ... Glenn Beck Helps Turn Anarchist Book Into Bestseller ... something to investigate.)
I am somewhat concerned that you could take such a remark seriously.
puromtec1 wrote:
(with whom I'm guessing you may relate)
If you are guessing that I relate to people protesting peacefully, you're right. Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street, Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Fox Hunting, whatever. Whether I agree with the protesters or not, they have a right to peaceful (don't mind a bit of chanting) protest.
puromtec1 wrote:
do you think the "Anarchists" are helping or hurting, for example, the campaign for "social justice" conducted by NYCC (formerly known as ACORN)...
Or, do you think the "Anarchist" element is augmenting the effectiveness of the rest.How would I know? I am not a citizen of New York, or the USA. For me, the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.
ict558 wrote:
For me, the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'.
Here I am going to disagree. The OWS group's perceived ineptitude of the US government to redistibute wealth is what is fueling their actions. Simply put, they want the government to take more actions against its citizens. This is in stark contrast to the Tea-party's goal of trying to restrain our government. IMO, the OWS's acts of violence, intimidation of wealthy private citizens, and general disregard for the rule of law and disorderly conduct are extensions of the concept on which they wish to align our government.
-
ict558 wrote:
For me, the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'.
Here I am going to disagree. The OWS group's perceived ineptitude of the US government to redistibute wealth is what is fueling their actions. Simply put, they want the government to take more actions against its citizens. This is in stark contrast to the Tea-party's goal of trying to restrain our government. IMO, the OWS's acts of violence, intimidation of wealthy private citizens, and general disregard for the rule of law and disorderly conduct are extensions of the concept on which they wish to align our government.
ict558 wrote:
For me, the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'.
puromtec1 wrote:
Here I am going to disagree.
Woah! You can't disagree with what I know is my reaction to violent protests. For me (personally, speaking for myself), the use of violence detracts from the 'cause'. Redistribute wealth. Reduce taxation. Perfectly reasonable 'causes' for which to hold peaceful protests, whether I agree with them or not. I (personally, speaking for myself), do not condone the use of violence to further a 'cause'.
puromtec1 wrote:
The OWS group's perceived ineptitude of the US government to redistibute wealth is what is fueling their actions. Simply put, they want the government to take more actions against its citizens. This is in stark contrast to the Tea-party's goal of trying to restrain our government. IMO, the OWS's acts of violence, intimidation of wealthy private citizens, and general disregard for the rule of law and disorderly conduct are extensions of the concept on which they wish to align our government.
Jolly good. I'll leave you Americans to your fun.
Be dogmatic, not thoughtful. It's easier, and you get bumper stickers.- Anon.