'Occupy' types

^
Gotta love the unhappy kid on the far right. Must be a Sesame Street Republican.


Thats Oscar the Grouch, that kid is just in character. Youd be pissed too if you lived in a trash can..... or an occupy tent

Kid's probably just a little hippie leaching off the rest of the family - GET A JOB GROUCHY!!!

Also, guess what? The US supported Bin Laden and his Jihad, who turned around and killed over 3,000 of our people (and more if you count the wars). You didn't care much about who supported who then did you, so why in the hell are you caring now? Oh, because it fits your agendas.Without restating JoeR's excellent post (the last couple lines hit the nail squarely on the head) here's another fact for you. The U.S. did NOT finance Bin Laden.

Dispelling the CIA-Bin Laden Myth | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html)

You'll call this article BS, from Fox News, blah, blah, blah, but unless you've done extensive research into the matter (like the author has) or have concrete evidence, your statement is simply a matter of misguided opinion.

Here's the part of my post you referenced in a response to JoeR:
"I know this will never change your mind/views, but it's as hypocritical as the day is long for you to lecture us (particularly conservatives) about how you "don't care about D vs. R, Red vs. Blue", etc. and we're all so stupid we don't know the "Man" is pitting us against each other while he keeps us down.

....Yet many of your posts lean far left and you post an article from a Democratic strategist who was a comms director at the DNC and a senior advisor to Hillary that bashes the GOP in several spots and glosses over the fact that campaign contributions made by major corporations split almost evenly between D & R pols. It completely blames the GOP for the current state of affairs, which couldn't be further from the truth since the Ds have controlled Congress for quite sometime."

You think you "know good and gd well" that I only see R vs. D, yet a majority of what you post leans hard left, then you claim some sort of higher intellectual ground....yes that's hypocritical.

You are definitely an angry fella.

Is this Woodstock thing still going on?

heard balt mayor rawlings-blake talk today about occupy baltimore and the alleged rape.

the concealed identity lady in the balt fox news interview who said she was raped and there is rape evidence at the hospital would lead you to believe there was semen taken from her va jay jay.

Rawlings-blake said she had scratches on her butt and bruises . . which means no semen, im going to assume no penetration. . .

the lady also said she had $1,800 taken from her tent that night and doesnt remember anything that happened.

mayor also said the occupy people are going to have to stop sleeping there overnight at some point/pretty soon.

the new mayor sounds good, she sounds like she is an honest straight up person unlike dixon who just seemed and sounded so so corrupt. idk give stephanie some more time as a politician and lets she is she changes . .

@ JoeRedskins – thanks very much. I completely agree and feel the same on all points you raised.

@ NCSkins – I have requested that the author of that list add Buddy Roemer to the list, which im almost positive he will. There are a lot of people/groups still not on the list and the author mention that this is just a start. Michael Moore, comes to mind. Also Unions are left off.

I think the intention of the list is to show that there is a lot of extremely questionable and unsavory supporters of the OWS movement. Although its obvious to rational people that OWS leadership (if there is any) would not accept endorsement from some of these groups. However, the reasoning these groups are supportive of OWS is because of the socialist/communist/collective principles that they and OWS share. The same issued plagued the Tea Party’s limited government capitalistic principles, and the attraction unsavory groups had early on to the Tea Party was very well publicize by the media. If anything I would say OWS is being treated far better by the media then the Tea Party ever was.

Ill also add that the majority of Americans and nearly all conservative commentators ive heard are upset and agree with the heart of what OWS is protesting (bailouts, inequality, special interest/corporation influence) (I think that’s what their protesting, right?), but the solutions to those issues are far different then the solutions OWS seem to endorse. I define myself as socially liberal / fiscally conservative and that individual interest is just as important and sometimes even more important than collective interest; in no way am I supportive of Social Justice. So while current fiscal and social issues may be just as upsetting to me and most other Americans as they are to you and OWS protesters, my views on solving the problems are vastly different.

Unfortunately there was another rape reported, this time at Occupy Baltimore. Baltimore is the same place that started handing out pamphlets that discouraged individuals from reporting sexual assaults to the police in a effort to keep the allegations internal.

Raped and Robbed Occupy Baltimore Woman Receives No Help From ‘Activists’ | Video | TheBlaze.com (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/emotional-interview-alleged-occupy-baltimore-rape-victim-says-activists-refused-to-help/)


I think I was 1 rape short in my above post, plus there was one i missed all togather at Occupy Lawrence in Kanas.

This is the current recap of reported rapes or sexual assaults:


1 at Occupy Cleveland
1 at Occupy Dallas (statutory, 14 year old)
1 at Occupy Oakland (questionable)
3 at Occupy Wall Street (NYC), including one on a deaf man
1 at Occupy Lawrence (Kanas)
1 at Occupy Baltimore


Plus 1 at Occupy Glasgow (in the UK)


This brings the total to 8 or 9, plus 1 serial flasher that was arrested in Seattle and 1 serial groper that was arrested in NYC. Again these are a mix of reported rapes from a combination of first hand and second hand testimony, although a minimum of 4 have been reported to police. Heres a good recap of most of the assults:

Occupy Wall Street | Sexual Assault | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/31/sexual-assaults-continue-to-plague-occupy-protests/)


Also a couple more things to add to this list:

An Occupy New Hampshire protester got arrested for trying to pimp out a 16 year old girl to a undercover police officer:

New Hampshire woman, Justina Jensen, tried to pimp Â*out teen she met at Occupy protest: policeÂ* - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/hampshire-woman-justina-jensen-pimp-teen-met-occupy-protest-police-article-1.969272?localLinksEnabled=false)

And Occupy Madison (Wisconsin) was denied getting their perment reissued do to instances of public masturbation (I guess because theyre no longer willing to be screwed by the banks):

Permit denied for Occupy Madison due to public masturbation - Fayetteville Political Buzz | Examiner.com (http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-fayetteville/permit-denied-for-occupy-madison-due-to-public-masturbation)

You don't want to debate. You just want to sit up here, paint these guys as the hippies and that they should just go home so you all can continue business as normal. ... Like I said, you don't want to debate and it's obvious by the remarks many of you have made up here.

First, I have not painted them as hippies - I believe I have been very evenhanded in both my portrayal and understanding of individuals within the movemnt.

Second, I am sorry but it is you who continually cut off debate by ignoring valid points, moving your rhetorical target and assuming you have some moral high ground on all the issues. I am happy to debate the validity of the movement, what it stands for and how it can best accomplish it's goals. You, however, have a disconcerting methodology of disparaging/ignoring facts you don't like or are not supportive of your agenda and of selectively addressing questions with answers that would be disprove your answers to other questions (the whole "govt. suing finance companies as evidence of misdoing but not of govt. action" thing - it wasn't the first time you have used such disengenous arguments and I doubt it will be the last).

As long as you continue with this type of "debate" and nonsense, I'm going to continue to be "angry". You are fine with your arguments of "What do they want?", "What are their demands?", "why are they there?". Valid arguments and points. So why bring the other mud slinging into this? To back up the stereotypes you all have so eloquently painted? I'm going to fight fire with fire. It's how I operate. When you stop stereotyping, so will I.

So when confronted with what you believe to be unreasonable arguments, rather than expose the lack of reason through thoughtful logical responses based in fact, you will simply respond with what you know to be equally unreasonable arguments.

"Fight fire with fire"?? When others act unreasonably or speak illogically it is okay to do the same? That's an excellent way to solve the problems facing America - I am sure that responding to what you believe to be name calling with name calling will raise the level of debate and create a political atmosphere conducive to problem solving.

First, I have not painted them as hippies - I believe I have been very evenhanded in both my portrayal and understanding of individuals within the movemnt.

Second, I am sorry but it is you who continually cut off debate by ignoring valid points, moving your rhetorical target and assuming you have some moral high ground on all the issues. I am happy to debate the validity of the movement, what it stands for and how it can best accomplish it's goals. You, however, have a disconcerting methodology of disparaging/ignoring facts you don't like or are not supportive of your agenda and of selectively addressing questions with answers that would be disprove your answers to other questions (the whole "govt. suing finance companies as evidence of misdoing but not of govt. action" thing - it wasn't the first time you have used such disengenous arguments and I doubt it will be the last).



So when confronted with what you believe to be unreasonable arguments, rather than expose the lack of reason through thoughtful logical responses based in fact, you will simply respond with what you know to be equally unreasonable arguments.

"Fight fire with fire"?? When others act unreasonably or speak illogically it is okay to do the same? That's an excellent way to solve the problems facing America - I am sure that responding to what you believe to be name calling with name calling will raise the level of debate and create a political atmosphere conducive to problem solving.

LOL.....he also stated the he would throw gasoline bombs at police if so provoked.

I wonder if the OWS types considered their effect on local, small businesses, and their workers:

Cafe Owner Says He Was Forced To Cut Staff By Nearly A Fourth Because Of 'Occupy' Protests | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/01/owner-occupy-wall-street-cost-restaurant-21-jobs-and-counting/?test=latestnews)

The OWS folks aren't doing anything to hurt Wall Street, investment bankers, hedge fund managers, or corporate CEOs, but they're destroying this small business and certainly others like it so they can keep up their Woodstock-like, 20-something shenanigans.