Perhaps the most cogent comment I've heard about the whole difference between the TEA Party and OWS is that the teahadists want to take the "crony" out of "crony capitalism", whereas the fleabaggers want to take the "capitalism" out of "crony capitalism".

Booooga! Booooga! Booooga! Hide your profits! Run! Panic! The big bad socialists are coming for your money! Boooga! Boooga! Boooga!

*open*

"Certainly the agitators behind this movement are far-left ideologues. But my sense is that the rank and file is not so explicitly ideological, and the overall message they have been sending is vague and incoherent. Part of what is driving the movement is Tahrir envy and Tea Party envy:"

*close*

/alrighty, then

The OWS has a very clear message, and to say they don't is a clear indication that you haven't even attempted to listen. I think that just as in every movement there are people along for the ride, and malcontent amongst the followers towards big-business in general, but that this is not largely representative of the movement. If I understand correctly, they want to put an end to extreme corporate greed, and ensure that regulations are put in place to stop another housing crises from occurring.

The one point I believe they are not clear about is job creation: they have offerred a problem but no reasonable solution.

dittybopper: Perhaps the most cogent comment I've heard about the whole difference between the TEA Party and OWS is that the teahadists want to take the "crony" out of "crony capitalism", whereas the fleabaggers want to take the "capitalism" out of "crony capitalism".

Well actually:
The Tea Party wants to give more powers to corporations and the Republican Party
OWS want to take away the abusive streak in corporations
Yes, there are anti-capitalist members. There are also capitalist members of OWS. As someone who has been to an Occupy meeting (not the one in NY, locally) most of the people I met were capitalists and there were was maybe one anarcho-socialist and a shiatton of small government libertarians.

To reiterate, perhaps in a different way, OWS is not anti-capitalism, they are anti corporate greed. I am personally pro-capitalist for a variety of reasons, but I understand the frustration surrounding the advent of corporate person-hood, the incredible greed of corporate management (and it truly is stunning), and the lack of *ethical* capitalism.

FloydA: What are we to make of the Occupy Wall Street movement?

Certainly the agitators behind this movement are far-left ideologues.


I stopped reading right there. If you have to just make s**t up in order to make your point, then your point isn't worth making.

That was where I quit, too. I *should* have stopped as soon as I saw "Real Clear".

1. Your blog sucks
2. I second Lt. Col. Angus's feelings
3. I don't think you fully understand what Rand meant when people would shrug. You probably don't also understand the context of the shrugging action in modern contexts vs. the original writing.
4. You deride the OWS for your version of shrugging, but then complain about how they leave to take showers, go to school/work and participate in protest/politics.....Ummm thats not rand'sshrugging or your version.

Clean up your message, tone down the hyperbole, reread Rand with a literary critical eye and then come back to me.

\when you try to derail a movement because of fringe members or bad tactics you are putting forward a very hackneyed argument based mainly on stereotypes. (see tea party racists, violent anarchists, fat union members, etc)

Dancin_In_Anson: FloydA: I stopped reading right there.

Well there's your problem.

I also find that the article does not cater to my worldview and/or comes from a source which does not agree with my politics, therefore the article in question is irrelevant and should be ignored by everyone.

I think this is supposed to be on the politics tab.

SuperTramp: Anyone who takes seriously, the complete shiat that Ayn Rand wrote, needs some serious friggin' help.

Meh, these are the same people who believe in the Laughter (Laffer) Curve, even though it has been thoroughly debunked, and that the Laughter Curve always says taxes are too high.

Dancin_In_Anson: FloydA: I stopped reading right there.

Well there's your problem.

Are you in the habit of reading opinion pieces ("screed" might be appropriate) built on easily-discredited primary assumptions?

If so, to which religion do you subscribe?

bluelancer03: Dancin_In_Anson: FloydA: I stopped reading right there.

Well there's your problem.

I also find that the article does not cater to my worldview and/or comes from a source which does not agree with my politics, therefore the article in question is irrelevant and should be ignored by everyone.

Yes, let's all be open minded and never consider the source when evaluating arguments or positions. Hey, maybe that bum on the train really is Jesus and maybe ancient aliens built the Parthenon like what weirdo said. Who am I to judge the source?

How can you expect anyone to take your stupid article seriously when you're talking about Birkenstocks. Really? Birkenstocks? Who the hell wears Birkenstocks? NOBODY NOT EVEN LIBERALS.

Also yeah put this in politics.

SuperTramp: Anyone who takes seriously, the complete shiat that Ayn Rand wrote, needs some serious friggin' help.

Where in TFA did they for Rand's ideas? I see a perfectly cromulent reference between actions taken by the cook staff to some actions that occurred in the book. At best you can say shame on the author for ever reading a book.

Saiga410: Where in TFA did they argue for Rand's ideas?

Anavrinman: kanedasan: The OWS has a very clear message, and to say they don't is a clear indication that you haven't even attempted to listen. I think that just as in every movement there are people along for the ride, and malcontent amongst the followers towards big-business in general, but that this is not largely representative of the movement. If I understand correctly, they want to put an end to extreme corporate greed, and ensure that regulations are put in place to stop another housing crises from occurring.

The one point I believe they are not clear about is job creation: they have offerred a problem but no reasonable solution.

Unemployment is a symptom.

A symptom of what? If it's a symptom of corporate greed then by what rationalle will ending corporate greed help with job creation?

It seems to me that unemployment is a complex problem relating to entrepeneurship, corporate outsourcing, lack of training programs or availability of training programs for skilled laborers, and dwindling American manufacturing.

Dancin_In_Anson: FloydA: I stopped reading right there.

Well there's your problem.

I skimmed the rest of the article. It doesn't get much better.

bluelancer03: Dancin_In_Anson: FloydA: I stopped reading right there.

Well there's your problem.

I also find that the article does not cater to my worldview and/or comes from a source which does not agree with my politics, therefore the article in question is irrelevant and should be ignored by everyone.

I think the only logical thing to do is to read every word that is written while being careful to attach equal weight to each one. I mean, sure, the Time Cube guy might be a raving lunatic, but he also might help me to understand the truth of the simultaneous four-day time cube. I think we can all benefit by taking the time out of our day to read Jenny McCarthy's writings on vaccination. Sure, in some narrow-minded "worldviews", her words on the subject are pointless and even harmful, but us open-minded types know better than to consider the source of what we read.

Paraphrased from TFA:

Far-Left ideologues are behind #OWS.
#OWS has no cohesive message.
The 'baggers did it right; #OWS did it wrong.
#OWS is a sham; no one even stays overnight anymore.
#OWS is nothing but 20-year-old freeloaders.
All the cities are getting sick of #OWS.
Every #OWS protester is a snobby elitist but they won't admit it.
The "Human Microphone" gimmick is nothing more than creepy evil groupthink.
Even #OWS hates the homeless, which proves what a joke this all is.
Read Ayn Rand.

STFU, mealymouthed corporate tool.

Oh, and your blog sucks.

Human nauture is what it is. Not even leftie crap can mask that for too long. Look at the failed communes in the 60s here, or Russia/Cuba/Communist China for larger scales.

The cooks are working long hours keeping the thing going and others are not appreciative or contributing, but still want all the benefits. It's a 'teachable moment'.

Wow the Tea Party folks sure are butthurt that someone came along with a significantly larger movement that's not funded by shady billionaires.

kanedasan: they want to put an end to extreme corporate greed, and ensure that regulations are put in place to stop another housing crises from occurring.

More Regulations.. The mega corporations smile and approve.

Huge corporations love regulations, because they usually help write them and they make life really difficult for their smaller competitors.

Some people present themselves as young, vibrant intellectuals:


Robert Tracinski pic in "about the author."

When in fact they're old, fat teabaggers:


Robert Tracinski in his present Jabba-the-hut-like form.

I suspected this. He sounded fat.
I wonder if medicare paid for his hoverround.

Rapmaster2000: bluelancer03: Dancin_In_Anson: FloydA: I stopped reading right there.

Well there's your problem.

I also find that the article does not cater to my worldview and/or comes from a source which does not agree with my politics, therefore the article in question is irrelevant and should be ignored by everyone.

Yes, let's all be open minded and never consider the source when evaluating arguments or positions. Hey, maybe that bum on the train really is Jesus and maybe ancient aliens built the Parthenon like what weirdo said. Who am I to judge the source?

Ah, a valid and salient point, indeed. Since this article appears to be an opinion piece from a source which I recognize as opposed to party or politcal beliefs that I am supportive of, I too am frightened and must profess to others my desire to ignore said source. That way, others who also fear the opinions of the author may follow suit and consensus may be reached that any points made or facts cited therein are invalid.

bluelancer03: Rapmaster2000: bluelancer03: Dancin_In_Anson: FloydA: I stopped reading right there.

Well there's your problem.

I also find that the article does not cater to my worldview and/or comes from a source which does not agree with my politics, therefore the article in question is irrelevant and should be ignored by everyone.

Yes, let's all be open minded and never consider the source when evaluating arguments or positions. Hey, maybe that bum on the train really is Jesus and maybe ancient aliens built the Parthenon like what weirdo said. Who am I to judge the source?

Ah, a valid and salient point, indeed. Since this article appears to be an opinion piece from a source which I recognize as opposed to party or politcal beliefs that I am supportive of, I too am frightened and must profess to others my desire to ignore said source. That way, others who also fear the opinions of the author may follow suit and consensus may be reached that any points made or facts cited therein are invalid.

No, you.

Moosecakes: How can you expect anyone to take your stupid article seriously when you're talking about Birkenstocks. Really? Birkenstocks? Who the hell wears Birkenstocks? NOBODY NOT EVEN LIBERALS.

Also yeah put this in politics.

My brother wore Birkenstocks.

It had nothing to do with politics, he just said they were remarkably comfortable if somewhat expensive sandals.

/but yeah the clothing and hair fetishism with #OWS critics is a little creepy

Your blog sucks.

EdTheHead: Some people present themselves as young, vibrant intellectuals:

[www.realclearpolitics.com image 100x142]
Robert Tracinski pic in "about the author."

When in fact they're old, fat teabaggers:

[cdn2-b.examiner.com image 170x170]
Robert Tracinski in his present Jabba-the-hut-like form.

I suspected this. He sounded fat.
I wonder if medicare paid for his hoverround.

Wonderfully put, good sir. The opinions the author presented are so vastly distant from my own, so this must certainly be directly related to his appearance. The content of his character is made apparent by the photograph, and must be relayed to others so that they may judge his opinons based on his weight and general attractiveness.