Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

OWS: Destruction, Not Democracy

What does this solve?

What does this teach people? Our kids? What I think it teaches: If you disagree with someone, it's appropriate to act like spoiled, destructive children. Again, what does this solve?


  1. There is a small faction of anarchists that have holed up with the Occupy movement. You cannot pin this on the movement itself. Because Occupy is open, anyone can join in, whether they support the movement or not. The anarchists are, in my opinion, unwanted guests but there is nothing that can be done. In instances where this stuff happens, more often than not, the true Occupy people have returned to these areas to help try to clean up. There is nothing anyone can do about the anarchists and it is unfair to put their actions on the entire movement. It's the same as a championship parade. It seems at every championship parade anymore it turns into violence and crime. Does that make all of those that celebrated the championship at the parade vandals and/or criminals?

    1. It's called "Guilt by association," Whatsamattausa. . .

      Like it or not, the Occupy movement has done nothing to police itself or its movement. It has encouraged destructive behavior.

      They think the riots and destruction are "cute" and bring attention to their movement. The problem is, most of America, who is PAYING for these little temper tantrums can see right through their antics.

      The idea that they can put a Guy Fawkes mask on and bang on drums entitles them to some piece of the pie. They are sadly mistaken.

      The sad thing is that these idiots cannot see that they are being played like a fine violin and by participating are nothing but a bunch of useful idiots.

  2. Whatsamattausa - You do make very sound points here. Yes, as with any group of people, there are some bad mixed in with the good. My counter is that there seems to be a large* amount of bad for a group that's supposed to be "non-violent." I can cite the OWS violence in Oakland, Portland, Los Angeles, Denver, New York City, etc. Your argument does stand up either way, that yes, in all these cities, there would be bad apples mixed in with the good, peaceful ones.

    At the end of the day, what you and I would have is a debate on the relative meaning of the word *large (notice the * :-) ) I can say I see a relatively large amount of bad apples, you can say they are relatively small. I hope it doesn't come to that. Other than that, I would agree with you in some parts, and still say that I do see a vague "a lot" of bad apples mixed in.

  3. Whatsamattausa - And yes, you did handle my position and my argument and the video behind it very well. I always appreciate an argument that's backed. As conservative as I am, I have more respect for the liberal whose beliefs are based on the evidence and facts he cites over the conservative with the same views as me but can't stand by or back them intelligently... Ignorance is... well, pretty disgusting. Thank you.

  4. The point is this movement is against the free market, the capitalist system, and the American way of life. They have no right to occupy anything except private property, their own.

    The Tea Party has had rally's across this nation for 3 years. And it also is open. Anyone can mix in. Yet you will never see the absurd violence, anti-American groupings and pairings with Communists, or ACORN, for example, within that group.

    The argument of a few bad apples doesn't wash. Whether or not the host is violent, the message is. They are attacking not just a few (let's be fair) greedy CEOs, which is their right to be, by the way and embraced by those who bailed them out, greasing them even further, such as Obama, they are directly attacking capitalism.

    That is a violent approach. They want to take down our way of life. We, the American patriots, won't stand for it. I'll guarantee you that.

    Anyone still believing in this rag tag mob is either completely bereft of intellect or downright anti American.

  5. Anonymous - Well said. And thank you for your post. I do totally understand your points. I can definitely see your side that the OWS movement is against a capitalist system and the capitalist's way of life (which, as an Adam Smith economist, I believe is the best way to allocate resources). I do respect whatsamattausa's opinion about how there are some bad apples, and like I said, it would ultimately come down to "what's the definition of 'relatively large'?" I can easily see how you believe this group is what you say it is. All it takes is looking at some pictures/videos of their attacks, their signs, etc. In the case of this post, I think you and whatsamattausa make good points in a respectable (thank you) way. Hope to hear more from you. It's much appreciated!

  6. I think we also disagree on who starts the violence as well as what right the protesters have with their encampments. i believe the 'communities' that are springing up throughout the country are legal because i believe the 1st Amendment allows extended protest (or does the protest have to escalate to war in order to be allowed to camp as the revolutionaries did). When you start to limit the constitution, you are opening a can of worms that can only be to the detriment of THE PEOPLE as a whole. the Occupy movement itself is non-violent and i'm not sure how that could be argued. however, when cops clad in riot gear descend on people doing no wrong (again, the pretense is that they are simply exercising their constitutional rights - something that i wouldn't stand for and, agree or disagree with the movement, you shouldn't either lest we risk becoming an authoritarian state), they are going to stand up for themselves, as they should. but even then, considering the number of people at these rallies, none have yet turned into a free for all where ALL or even a majority of protesters becomes violent.

    also, Anonymous, i think you are not getting the Occupy message other than hearing the negative things you want to hear. sure, there are people advocating all kinds of things i disagree with but those things (socialism, etc.) have not taken center stage so much as corporatism has. i do agree with you that Occupy needs to be directing anger more toward DC but that is happening as is evidenced by the numerous 'mic check's' occurring at political speeches and speeches by the aforementioned greedy CEO's. (Cantor, Bachmann, Obama, Blue Cross/Blue Shield CEO, and likely more i've not yet seen). this movement is in its infancy and is gaining legs while the organization itself continues to get better and the actions more pertinent.

  7. Whatsamattausa - Thanks for the post and welcome back!

    With regards to starting the violence, it's a pretty difficult case to quantify, but, for the most part, I'd say that from what I've seen, OWS has typically started the bad behavior. With the video listed above, for instance, I don't think the destroying of personal property seen is a defensive move. That wasn't me being facetious, but I've seen this and numerous (again, unquantifiable) cases of OWS attacking the police. As far as their encampments, you and I seem to disagree mostly on this one (with a little bit of agreement). I have no problem with the peaceful protests, as long as they are 1. not on private property (we've talked about this and Zuccotti park) and 2. they don't stop or infringe on people's rights with respect to movement, getting to work, doing their jobs (I say this in reference to the groups occupying West Coast ports). Other than that, the First Amendment does guarantee the right to protest legally, which I do stand for. I'm just against the illegal behavior that goes along with many of the OWS protests. You and I have debated if the occupy movement is non-violent and we both seem to agree that there are some bad apples in there. It seems to come down to a question of how many... Debating that would more than likely cause a lot of back and forth with little solid ground being reached :-)

    In my opinion, if cops are not behaving lawfully, they should be dealt with accordingly. We have courts for that. I don't like seeing citizens taking the law into their hands. Additionally, when it comes to police in riot gear, I'm not opposed to that (again, if used lawfully) either. If OWS protesters are acting unlawfully and disobeying police orders to stop, the cops should be able to use force if necessary (cops can forcefully stop someone from fleeing, to me, a larger crowd doesn't grant that crowd special privileges). If the protesters feel they are unjustly being removed from an area, they can take legal action. In some situations, people don't have the right to obstruct. Sitting in an area arm locked, while seemingly peaceful, could be breaking the law. If a police officer who is charged with enforcing the law attempts to clear an area and the arm locked protesters don't move, he really has no choice.

    I definitely don't agree with the "mic checks" and other various interruptions whether it's against Eric Cantor or Barack Obama. These speakers don't come to the interrupter's house to bother them, and I don't feel it's fair or mature to interrupt anyone in the way they do. I believe there are more civil means of sending a message. In the talk about rights, I think that sometimes these interrupters need to realize that not everyone wants to hear their position, and the crowd has the right not to have a speech they're attending get interrupted. If the interrupters have a message they want the speaker to receive, they can do it in other less disruptive ways. Again, this is just my opinion.

    Thanks for the post. Again, I might disagree with you (mostly) but your civil means of posting/debating are well respected. Hope to hear more soon!

  8. LME - Just a quick note on 'mic checks'. The reason I think they are a great tactic and support this obviously disruptive action, is because it is impossible to ignore. These politicians and CEO's, etc. have been ignoring the people for far too long while exchanging cash and gifts for policy and tax breaks. As an example, Eric Cantor was to come to Philadelphia to speak at the University of Pennsylvania in an event sponsored by the Wharton Business School (on of the top in the country). He, in my opinion, lied about why it was cancelled (stating it was never supposed to be a public event). Upon hearing that OccupyPhilly was set to march on the speech, he cancelled it for fear that he would actually have to speak to THE PEOPLE that he represents. That, to me, is pure cowardice and is negligent of his duties as a United States representative. That is why I think the 'mic checks' are appropriate. Occupy does not have lobbyists and the general population cannot get their message to the politicians who are supposed to represent them. They cannot ignore this tactic and, as it grows (and I've a feeling it will), these 'speech givers' will either have to crawl into a hole and hide or to actually address the people. Joe Walsh recently did this at a town hall type meeting. Though I think he's way off base and disagree with almost everything he said, he had the guts to do it and I respect that. Until other politicians embrace his courage, I say "mic check"!

    1. Did it ever occur to you that in doing so, even IF Cantor did cancel, you deprived a whole bunch of people, (who WANTED to hear his speak) of their freedom of speech? Of course that does not matter to thugs like the occupy movement.

      Talking about "mic checks" Do you think you really have something to say that the audience has not hear before or considered? All you are doing is showing themselves to be intolerant little twits who are, like a child, having a temper tantrum?

      I didn't thinks so. . .

  9. HA! I hear the chant "this is what democracy looks like." It looks like this? This is despicable. These children need to understand what REAL democracy is. If they have a problem with legislation, regulations, banks, etc. they can LAWFULLY petition the government as stipulated in the First Amendment.

    And Whatsama - No, I'm sorry. This "mic check" crap is NOT democracy either. If I went to see a politician speak, I'm there to hear HIM/HER speak, not some kids that want to be heard. Where are my rights in that? How come my right to NOT hear them are not protected. Shouting out people in a disrespectful manner is not democracy. They can again, petition their representatives, their senators, etc. if they don't like a politician. These mic check @$$holes can participate in democracy like the rest of us. Their little play party should be ended immediately.

  10. CA Dave - they are petitioning the government, legally, in accordance with their 1st Amendment rights.

    The thing that makes this country great is that people have the right to offend other people. these 'mic checks' are done to gain notice (the point of protest is to gain notice, gain momentum, and gain the objective). the do what they do, they are escorted out, and things should progress from there. Some of the pols, Cantor, Bachmann, etc.) have left in an act of cowardice.

    "Their little play party should be ended immediately." --- This is what hypocrisy looks like!

    You can disagree with them and dislike how they are going about what they're doing but to advocate for the limitation of 1st Amendment rights to satisfy your apparent craving to feel superior is shameful!

  11. The core problem here is OWS is getting nothing but bad press, because thier viewpoints threaten the profits or corporations, and commercial news media answers to these same corporations. Posting positive stories about OWS would anger their sponsors, so they find the few negative stories and amplify them.

    OWS has needed to be creative in getting attention, because of this, and that is why you see the peaceful disruptions and mic checks.

    The violent behavior is portrayed as a *large problem because corporate America wants to protect its profits from Americans who think that Corporations should not have the rights of people, that CEO bonuses are out of control, and that politics is too greatly influenced by money.

    OWS is not against these tenets of the American way of life:

    Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

    Freedom of speech for individuals must be protected.

    Checks and balances means more that a bank statement.

    Any concentration of power, government, or corporate, runs contrary to freedom.

    1. How stupid can you be?

      "The core problem here is OWS is getting nothing but bad press, because thier viewpoints threaten the profits or corporations,. . ."

      Its stuff like this:

      Like it or not, this is what the American People see. When you "Occupy" for days on end, you tend to attract the less than desirable. Common sense. But seemingly lacking in the OWS crowd. People have a tolerance limit.

      OWS is not against these tenets of the American way of life:

      Government of the people, by the people, for the people.
      -Look around, we are closer to it than anyone in the world, or did you notice?

      Freedom of speech for individuals must be protected.
      -Unless its something you disagree with like Cantor, above, right?

      Any concentration of power, government, or corporate, runs contrary to freedom.
      -And the total absence of power, is chaos. or did you think about that?

  12. Whatsamattausa - Welcome back. Hope you had a great Thanksgiving!

    I never got to respond to CA Dave, so I guess I'll try to talk about Dave's, yours and Anonymous' all at once.

    So, Dave's and Whatsa's kind of relate to each other. Let me start by saying (Whatsa knows this) that I'm against OWS' methods of protest as well as the interruption of officials and other speakers via "mic checks." The big thing between Whatsa and me, Dave, is that we, though we don't personally know each other, mutually respect each other. Sometimes we agree; sometimes we don't, but regardless, it's respectful. With that, Dave, yes, I do agree with your positions. I respectfully disagree with Whatsa's favor of "mic checks." I believe Dave's statement of "If they have a problem with legislation, regulations, banks, etc. they can LAWFULLY petition the government as stipulated in the First Amendment" is correct. To me, that is the way to do it. When it comes to mic checks, I do believe in free speech. But free speech, however, in my opinion, doesn't mean unlimited speech, and it doesn't mean infringing on the rights of others to not hear your speech. I think it's rude to interrupt people, and perhaps the people in the crowd don't want to hear the mic checks. By loudly shouting, to me, that is disrespecting people's right to choose what they hear because you're forcing them to. I believe a lawful way to do it is to petition, write, make commercials, blogs, newsletters, public lawful protests, but I'm sorry, I do not condone loudly interrupting anyone without permission. So Whatsa, I'm sorry man, but I don't agree with ya on this one (but you already knew this :) ). I think maybe Dave could have been a little more civil (calling people a$$holes isn't great) like you and I tend to be.

    As for anonymous, I've seen plenty of news outlets giving OWS good press (obviously, they aren't posts I would typically frequent) but I think it's heavily supported on the left. As far as "because their viewpoints threaten the profits or corporations, and commercial news media answers to these same corporations" I'm not sure how, and I'm not sure you can prove this.

    As far as getting attention... I'm not a supporter of the Tea Party per se, but they did a very good job of getting attention. They did not unlawfully obstruct, occupy, squat or destroy property. You say "peaceful" disruptions, but what is peaceful about the video posted above?

    This line "The violent behavior is portrayed as a *large problem because corporate America wants to protect its profits from Americans who think that Corporations should not have the rights of people, that CEO bonuses are out of control, and that politics is too greatly influenced by money" in my opinion is more of a rant... As this post does, I would challenge you to prove this rather than rant about something I don't think you can. Care do differ? That's what this blog exists for?

    You saw OWS is for freedom of speech, but how to they protect that when they shout out someone else's freedom of speech via mic checks?

    And concentration of power... I think OWS concentrated power today by occupying subway stations and preventing Americans from moving freely. Just my opinions. You don't have to agree, but I respect yours regardless.

    I hope this all made sense. Dave, Whatsamattausa and Anonymous, thank you very much for your posts. Whatsa, thanks again for the Thanksgiving wishes. Glad to see you back, and of course, I look forward to your posts, no matter how much you agree or disagree with me. Always good stuff.

  13. Same poster as anonymous from Nov 30.

    Most of the news articles I have read about OWS show how much damage they have done, how they are associated with the left (I am a moderate, not a liberal) how dirty, or disruptive they are, and this inlcudes the majority of artilces on news sources such as MSNBC and foxnews. Even you associate it with the left. Just that kind of rote polarization is intended to make the movement unappealing to the right.

    LME, you say you are an economist, so I am surprised that you do not see how OWS viewpoints threaten corporations, or how corporate news media is influenced by corporations. I will provide an example: Lets say you own a Manhattan newspaper. Much of your revenue comes from wall street advertisers, like big banks and heavily traded corporate stock companies. If you post a news article that supports OWS and criticizes CEO profits and corporate rights, your advertisers may chose to use a different paper to advertise in, costing you money. While if you instead excoriate OWS those same advertisers may preferentially chose your paper to patronize. OWS does oppose these large financial institutions and corporate 'citizenship' and if their views were shared with enough people, it may greatly hurt the profits of said corporations. Because of these views, it would be in the best interest of those newspapers with corporate advertisements to include negative, or no press about OWS, thus biasing their readers on the movement.

    The Tea Party did do a great job of getting attention, namely by being sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a corporately (Koch Brothers) funded political action group. They did not need to obstruct, occupy, etc, because they got plenty of good press, especially from fox news from their inception. Commercial news was happy to pick up their story, because if they had success, it meant lower taxes and less regulation for them and their sponsors.

    As for peaceful disruptions, you keep referring to the one video below. Thousands of people have participated at hundreds of locations nationwide, yet one video should be 'proof' that they are all violent? Again, these stories are being amplified to besmirch the movement as a whole.

    Citizens United vs FEC gave unlimited rights to corporations for promoting political viewpoints. One ABC/washington post poll showed 80% of americans are opposed to the ruling. This ruling allows corporations to flood the airwaves with propaganda in an attempt to bias the population as they wish.

    CEO pay is out of control. From the (obviously biased) AFL-CIO is the following:

    Even if they are off by a factor of 2, it is still unsustainable.

    As for political influence by money, see Citizens United vs FEC, above.

    The persons who were shouted out, were still able to voice their opinions, they just had to wait. Was it rude? Sure it was, but when no one is giving OWS a turn to talk to America, they felt they needed to be rude to get a turn.

    If you can get enough people to support a plan, and that plan is big enough to disrupt transportation, I would say that is not a concentration of power. Without thousands of supporters sharing the power, it would not be possible. The only reason I can think of as to why people support the rich so fervently is so they can eventually share in the wealth. Were then does the power lie in that relationship? Where the most money is concentrated.

  14. Same anonymous poster from Nov 30th. – Thank you for coming back. Did you happen to bookmark us?

    As always, I will try to address every point you made in your comment in a respectful manner whether I disagree or not.

    Here we go:

    Yes, the media is reporting this. Why wouldn’t they? There is a lot of validity to it. I would respectfully disagree that it’s all they post on, and with that and the notorious liberal lean of the MSM, I would say OWS is actually getting a lot of good press. The negative things OWS are doing are unavoidable. OWS is undeniably left. How can you say they are conservative at all?

    Yes, I am an economist. That’s my education and background. I’m not really sure if I follow your example, however. People’s willingness to patronize media like newspapers is what determines advertisers’ willingness to spend money on advertising. That’s just about that. Yes. OWS is anti-corporation. I see the existence of their viewpoints, but I think it’s a blip on the radar with regards to a “threat” to corporations. Plus, for as many “conservative” newspapers out there, there are far more liberal ones that are happy to pick up the positive side of OWS. As for corporate control of the media, yes, Fox News is pretty right… but MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS are all arguably under the left’s influence. So again, I’m not really following this example. But that’s ok.

  15. (continued): As far as the Tea Party. Yes, they got good press. Please show me one single clip showing the TP’s damage? One killing, sexual assault, defecation in public, destruction of property, etc. Those things are typically associated with “negative” press, and those things have all been done by OWS. With alllllll the liberal press out there licking its chops to say something bad about the Tea Party, don’t you think if something bad happened because of the Tea Party we would have heard it. If you have some examples, please give them. Again, the things OWS is doing is documented by the left and the right. Again, the mainstream media is notoriously liberal, so the claims about corporate media kind of go out the window.

    Side note, you name-dropped the Koch Brothers. I hear the a LOT by liberals. I now pose a side question to you because I think this is another catchy, gitchy thing liberals have caught on to without knowing the facts behind it. What’s your take on the Koch brothers? Why did you name drop them? Please back what you say.

    Ok, back to your post.

  16. (continued): Ok, well, you and me both know it’s not just one video. But, I will give a few more of the many, many examples:

    What about the violence observed here?

    Why would this safety tent be needed? Why all the sexual assaults?


    And arrests galore:

    Three quick questions: Again, LME is not part of the Tea Party, but how many arrests have been made at Tea Party Rallies?

    If OWS wasn’t so violent, why all the pepper spraying?

    How much pepper spray was unleashed at Tea Party rallies?

  17. (continued): As far as the Supreme Court’s decision, it held up the Constitution. How can the government limit the speech (political endorsement and all activities of the like) of a company? I am ok with their decision because, you know why? It is non-discriminate. It does not say only conservative companies can endorse candidates. It made sure corporations are treated without government discrimination.

    Thank you for stating that your link and the associated point about CEO pay are bias. My questions to you: Define “out of control.” In my view, I am perfectly okay with CEO pay being what it is. Why? Because whose right is it to determine how much pay is too much for a CEO? The government’s? That is way too much power to put in the government’s hands. The only person that should be concerned with CEO pay is the CEO and the person that is willing to pay him. It’s not your business; it’s not my business. His pay is a meeting of supply and demand. He has skills, experience and education that a company wants. If they think he is worth $10,000,000 per year, and he thinks he is worth $30,000,000, they won’t meet his demands and they will find someone else. Just like my middle class salary is determined by supply and demand, so is a CEO’s. You know what is great about it? We ALL have the ability to get to be a CEO. There is no government regulation or law that says we can’t. The reason he is a CEO and I’m a middle class economist is because he CHOSE to make the decisions to get there, and I CHOSE mine. How can you refute that? Where we are in life is a summation of all the choices we made to get there. We all have the opportunity to make choices for ourselves.

  18. (continued): And 2, show me evidence that this is “unsustainable?” Let me provide a quick example. Alan Mulally took over Ford Motor Company in 2006. Ford was tanking and on the verge of bankruptcy. He has spearheaded an amazing turnaround that has made the company, its employees and its owners a lot of money. He took a company that was about to go under and cost its employees their 340,000 jobs from the potential red into the black. He saved all those jobs and even brought in more. He is compensated with approximately $18,000,000 per year. Is he worth it? I say absolutely! Responsibility for 340,000 employees, company branding, etc. etc. etc. is something very few men can take on, and it’s a responsibility I cannot even begin to fathom. Who are you or me or anyone to say his salary is “out of control?”

    Just because OWS feels they need to get herd doesn’t mean they can just interrupt people that potentially don’t want to hear them. There are constitutionally granted freedoms that allow for proper petitions and expressions of regressions against the government.

    And no, I don’t support the rich because I want to share their wealth. I support the rich because I do not discriminate against anyone. A criminal is a criminal. If a wealthy person did something illegal, then by all means they are scum and should be and will be dealt with accordingly (see Burnie Madoff, Kenneth Lay, etc.) But why be upset at the wealthy? What if they behaved ethically and legally? What if they made good decisions and worked really hard? (I do, and I’m building my wealth, slowly). Does that make me evil? Would you protest outside my future mansion? (This is not me being snide, trust me. I respect your opinions no matter how much I disagree). And as far as power, what are you referring to. You can vote only one vote just as a rich person. If you don’t like political donations from the wealthy, you shouldn’t be mad at the wealthy. Those donations are legal. Be mad at Washington; they made the laws making the behavior legal.

    Thank you again! We hope to hear back from you.

  19. its funny many commenting here are 'outraged' by this - but not at the fact that your politicians are bought, banks & corporations dictate policy, police rough up peaceful protest, mayor's ride rough-shod over constitutional rights and not one of the REAL criminals who robbed the country of trillions of dollars has been prosecuted. but a broken window and bit of paint is a bad example and proves OWS is all about destruction and vandalism. this is maybe the second example of this kind of thing in three months, and while it is not cool, it is at least hitting a valid target! BofA are disgusting not the protesters - get some perspective!

    1. LOL, whole heartedly agree. A few broken windows and spray paint is the end of the world, but corporate corruption and destruction of the middle class are A-OKAY!

    2. Anonymous - Thank you for your reply.

      I am curious since I want to understand: are you condoning violence?

      Also, many on the right (me and this blog included) believe that a lot of OWS' claims are simply a house of cards. It seems that OWS gathers and protests things like "corporate corruption and destruction of the middle class" but they cannot prove or stand by these statements.

      We have respectfully reached out to OWS on numerous occasions:

      See our email to OWS in this post:

      Perhaps you would like to answer these claims. You made the claim above... would you like to write about it? If you did, we would be happy to post it for you. Check it out... it's a fair, open and respectful way to express what you feel and to share ideas about what you believe in:

      Let us know.

  20. I was the first annonymous poster.

    I disagree that any of this mob makes sense. You cannot march against greed and actually think you will make a difference. Will you march against sin? It's ludicrous.

    From the many interviews I've listened to, the OWS crowd are against the American way of life. Period. They do NOT believe in capitalism and that is dangerous.

    I dismiss their claims as being a positive group of change. Nonsense. The only change they want is the only change Obama wants: Redistribution.

    Sorry. America's greatness was first in its constitution founded upon God's moral compass. Seconldy, it was the ability for free men to gain, to prosper, to become whatever they liked. Third, it was to industrialize and thereby create a dominant power able to withstand attack.

    Though there is greed in this world, it is utterly naive to think a movement like this can change that.

    OWS are children with ideologocial views of some fantasy land that would ultimately destroy this country.

    This is no innocent group. This is a mob. And I denounce them.

  21. Welcome back Anonymous! We appreciate the comments.

    Yes, probably the thing that we agree most with is that "it was the ability for free men (and of course, women) to gain."

    Every choice has a consequence. If you choose to do certain things, you can become very wealthy or very poor. If the gov't keeps promoting a system that rewards and coddles failure (welfare, WIC, subsidized housing, unemployment insurance, etc.) why would anyone work hard to earn an income, and additionally, why would anyone behave in a safe manner (saving funds, investing, being prepared for a rainy day) if they knew the gov't had their back. Going one step further, why would anyone try to gain when so much is then taken from you AND you're vilified for gaining?

    Good points, and we hope to hear more from you soon. Thank you.

    1. The government similarly rewards and coddles the middle class and wealthy. SO much for "self made."

      "Roughly 72 percent of this $746 billion in mobility expenditures, or $540
      billion, is delivered mainly through employer-provided work subsidies, aids
      in asset accumulation, and savings incentives. This spending flows mainly
      to middle- and higher-income households and often excludes lower-income
      households or provides them comparably little in benefits."

    2. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... The government coddles/rewards failure, while employers reward their employees?

  22. This is the first time i have visited this site. What I find funny about the whole thing is that the OWS folks claim they are they 99%. How ever I think they are the .0005%. Most people I know don't even know they are still out there and don't care. Most are never were's and never will be"s. You can't have any meanifull purpose in life if you can spend that much time on a sidewalk living in a tent.Most are bums and lowlifes looking for a place to hang out or young wet behind the ears high scholl drop outs or college kids who think they have all the answers in the world but haven't been in the real world yet.I also notice the commentors are the same people using the same arguments that hold very little water in the real world. Oh I'm sure some of the OWSers Trily believe in what they are doing but I'm sorry your wasting your time. They rest of the world has real lives to live and must get on with them keeping the country running.Don't look for me to respond to any comments as I have a real life to live.

  23. "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by
    legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person
    receives without working for, another person must work for
    without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody
    anything that the government does not first take from
    somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that
    they do not have to work because the other half is going to
    take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea
    that it does no good to work because somebody else is going
    to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the
    end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing

    ~~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

  24. NOT ANON the FIRST. Lack of respect for anyone or anything breeds anarchy. Unfortunately OWS doesn't seem to comprehend that their right to protest ends where my right to live my life, as I choose, begins. If I don't want to eschew their POV that is my business, not theirs. IN my face is not their right, it is an intrusion.

  25. that damage was not from OWS it was from black bloc

  26. If OWS don't whant them thare why dont git ridof them?

  27. Looks like BOA paid someone to tag their building,

    Nothing new......

    More corporate warfare against anyone standing up against their crimes

    1. Again, in contrary to what we at this blog like to see... can you back this?

      You said, "Looks like BOA paid someone to tag their building..."


    2. do you have proof OWS did it?
      this video does not show any proof OWS did anything.... am i missing something?

  28. wow, i was trying to read through this blog but there are so many uniformed and ignorant comment i can't even continue....

    It's sad that a majority of these comments are common spoon fed lies the "media" is feeding the population.

    but its ok..............
    as you rant and rave about american's standing up against corruption and greed you will continue to see corporations influence politicians on both sides of the isle and take your rights away as Americans more and more every year with the use of fear and urgency.

    all the while the wealth gap will continue to widen , monopolies will continue to become more prevalent, you're standard of living will go lower and lower and you will continue to be in denial that the corporations and absurdly wealthy people you see as your idols and gods will not stop going down the path of self destruction.

    At that point you will finally see that we have reached a point were corporations have been given the same rights as human beings and that they have voted profits over people time and time again

    You will finally see that this country has turned into a one party system with to names

    You will finally see that that all your rights have been taken away and that free speech has been turned into a "privileged" not a right

    I just hope and pray you see before its to late, but i doubt it.

    Most great country's were destroyed from within by corruption and greed.

    Same story different time.....

    1. Okay,.. again. Obviously you disagree with comments, and you make claims of your own. Can you please provide the backing?

      For instance:

      1. You said, "wow, i was trying to read through this blog but there are so many uniformed and ignorant comment i can't even continue...."
      - Which are you referring to? Any? Got examples?

      2. You said, "It's sad that a majority of these comments are common spoon fed lies the "media" is feeding the population."
      - Give an example or two of which one you think is the case?

      3. The rest of your post: what are you talking about? Can you give any backing to these claims at all?


    2. Im sorry but im not even going to dedicate any of my time into trying to explain all of my points in depth when this whole article is based on nothing

      You are telling me to defend my comments when this whole story is based on a random video with no evidence of who commited the crime, were the crime took place, why it is associated with ows, who took ownership of the crime

      this whole story is a joke.....

    3. You are being asked to stand behind claims that you've made.

      The video shows visual evidence that OWS did the destruction. To claim, "liar, liar, pants on fire" isn't a counter-point that has any weight.

      In addition, you have made other claims... namely, points 1 and 2 listed right above your comment.

      Those are actually unrelated to your claim that OWS did not create the destruction in the video. So, since they aren't related... care to back them? Making statements is fine... again, it tends to help people understand your viewpoint when you back your statements with evidence.

  29. "The video shows visual evidence that OWS did the destruction"

    were....... I watched it three times

    I dont see any place were someone claiming to be ows is doing anything to that building.

    were is there evidence they did it?

    1. Throughout the entire video... Just because there isn't a person that steps in front of the camera and says, "Hi, my name is xxxx xxxxxxx. I represent OWS and this is an OWS protest and yes, we are causing all this destruction" doesn't mean it isn't occurring. Now, again, aside from trying to shoot down the video of with, "how do you know that's not someone else causing the destruction," would you like to back the OTHER, non-related claims you made?

    2. so you admit, u have not proof AT ALL

      so if the tea party is in downtown Indianapolis and someone is shot downtown they are all automatically killers.

      Those gun toting country folk shot somebody......

      I took part in this blog because u did claim it was about facts..... and baking up your attacks

      but then you post this loud of crap, that shows no evidence that anyone 1 in ows did anything, there is not even evidence the group is ows and beyond that no evidence that anyone there did any of the damage...


      so much for backing up your claims,

    3. Again, for the last time, as stated: just because there isn't a person that steps in front of the camera and says, "Hi, my name is xxxx xxxxxxx. I represent OWS and this is an OWS protest and yes, we are causing all this destruction" doesn't mean it isn't occurring.

      The video was shot at an OWS protest in Oakland, California. You are simply trying to say that because someone in the video does not explicitly claim "yes, we are OWS and we are doing this destruction at this time, at this place, etc." that it's not happening.

      Now, you can disagree with the opinions that follow it... and that's fine. You can disagree with the source of the video, and the video's footage... that's fine. But to claim we aren't backing anything, to claim, "liar, liar, pants on fire" is absolutely silly. If you don't agree with the film, fine... show how it is factually incorrect. If you, for instance, found that film elsewhere, and it turned out it was really from some other protest (it's not, but go ahead and claim it)... then prove it. But just like I said, you are claiming it didn't happen based simply on the fact that no one comes out and says they did this. (notice how you're the only one making this claim, by the way).

      You also are employing diversion in your tactic to try to shoot this down. By bringing up a non-related issue of the tea party, you're trying to draw attention away from this.

      To me, it sounds like there is a video on here that you don't agree with, and instead of providing a rebuttal based on facts, you're simply shouting, "it's not true!"

      I say, "prove it."

      To claim that when we take a video from an OWS protest, labeled as OWS on youtube from youtube, and ignore the facts of the video, why saying we don't back things on our blog is a really weak position. What's sad is it takes something you simply don't agree with to upset you at the blog. I say... instead of stomping your feet and getting upset, create a counter argument.

      So... attempt #4: are you going to back your claims?

    4. I say, Prove it as well, but to you. Prove that this video shows damage done by OWS. Circumstantial evidence of time and place do not prove guilt. If this is the best proof you have, I am unconvinced.

    5. So in addition to Loyal Watcher,.. though there are additional OWS videos showing their destruction, and the fact that no one in the video says, "I am part of OWS, and I am about to cause or am causing this destruction at this time in this place," you're going to use the "liar, liar, pants on fire" defense?

      Instead of seeing the destruction in the video, acknowledging it for what it is, which most people have done, you're claiming that for some reason this video is fake? Instead of countering with insightful, fact-based positions, you just want to go the route of "well, no one on here is claiming to be from OWS, no one is saying "hi, I'm OWS and I'm doing this"?

      I'm sorry to say, based on this video, and the numerous OWS people that have seen this video and acknowledged this (and the many, many that are out there), you don't have a strong leg to stand on.

      I suppose numerous articles (yes, numerous) like this aren't real also:

      Is it because the offender didn't hold up a sign that said "I'm OWS and I'm s###ing on this car?"

      I think you should try to come up with a better defense than that. Just my opinion.

    6. I make no such claims, but simply ask you for the same thing you asked for; proof. I am unconvinced, and I ask if you have any proof that the damage was done by OWS.

      If your proof is only circumstantial evidence, and the acceptance of that circumstantial evidence by others, I am still not convinced.

      I think you need to come up with better proof than anonymous photos and videos.

    7. So, again, because no one has a sign, an intro, direct video footage of themselves saying "Hi, I'm part of OWS and I did this," you're discounting it as not evidence? I guess in your mind, video evidence of something happening isn't proof unless someone comes forth in that fashion to take claim?

      But that's all fine. You don't have to believe anything. That's the purpose of this blog: to share information. I would say I respectfully disagree with you, and the notion that this simply isn't true and is some other random protest that isn't what the title of the video says it is is silly, but that's my opinion, and yours are yours. I don't think saying, "well, you can't prove it's OWS" because there are no people taking direct claim for it is a very weak defense, but that's my opinion.

    8. I think categorically associating a group with an act based on circumstantial evidence is disingenuous. And taking an anonymous photo or video out of context, and placing it in a context that suits the needs of the poster is all too easy. I do not accuse you of that, but skepticism requires me to ask for proof more reliable than anonymous photos and videos posted on a partisan blog to be convinced.

    9. And to be clear, do you have any proof of OWS involvement?

    10. I think categorically attempting to dis-associate a video showing the aftermath of an act, though the video is titled and purported to be of and by a group, simply on the basis of "no one is explicitly admitting to it in front of the camera" is disingenuous.

      If you look at the entire post, the title implies OWS is responsible. The video implies OWS is responsible. Did I go to the creator of the video and take it from his hand, with a signed affidavit that he made it? No. Does that mean it is discredited? No. Now, aside from the title, the text of this post merely says, "What does this solve? What does this teach people? Our kids? What I think it teaches: If you disagree with someone, it's appropriate to act like spoiled, destructive children. Again, what does this solve?"

      There is no harping on OWS here; there is harping on the violent acts and destruction. I think it is 100% fair to stand by the maker's original claim in the video that yes, this is OWS' doing. You ask for proof (as we do time and time again in this blog), the video is the proof. The maker made the video showing what happened, and he/she titled it appropriately. That's the proof. If you want to shoot it down, come up with something to shoot it down with other than, "you lie." To play the game of "well, I didn't see anyone claim this is actually OWS because nobody admits to it" is again, a weak defense.

      You have video evidence of the violent acts, and you have the maker of the video's claim. Now, if you came and posted something that showed this was from something else (a Super Bowl riot, something unrelated, etc.) you would have a stronger claim. But again, for hopefully the last time, to simply say "well, it's not true because no one says they are from OWS" is again, nothing against you personally, just your argument, quite silly.

    11. Additionally, take this video here:

      Say, for example, you disagreed with the questions being asked. Say you felt they were unfair, they were mocking, they did not represent you, they weren't genuine, etc., is it okay to simply say "well, do you have proof those are OWS people speaking and responding? No one says, 'I'm from OWS and I feel this way'." Can we just write them off?

      Again, this is nothing against you personally, but if you can provide proof that the clip above is something OTHER than what it is claimed to be, in a way that simply is not "well, no one admits they are OWS in the video", I would be happy to take it down and update the post.

      Additionally, since you seem very passionate about it, perhaps you would like to write a rebuttal. I don't know if you've seen this or not, but we are an open-forum blog where anyone of any view can write on the main page for everyone to see:

      Take a look. If it interests you, let me know, or just email your piece in. We get many visitors/readers per day, and your post would go up unedited.

    12. So, you are saying circumstantial evidence in an anonymous video/photo posted on the internet is proof. I still disagree, and am unconvinced.

      This is your video post. The responsibility is yours to provide proof if you want to convince me.

      You keep using "you lie" in quotes (among other things). It implies I said those things, which I did not.

  30. i gave you a rebuttal based on the same facts u gave.

    You saw the video and u made an ASSUMPTION that OWS did the damage.

    I saw the video and made an ASSUMPTION that BOA did it to alienate OWS and make them seem extreme to persuade public opinion against any group protesting against them

    so who's ASSUMPTION is right?

  31. This article has a lil more info about the clip u showed.

    "Nurse, teacher and other worker unions are taking part in the protests, and Oakland is letting city workers use vacation or other paid time to take part in the general strike. About 5 percent of city workers took the day off Wednesday, according to City Administrator Deanna Santana.

    About 360 Oakland teachers didn't show up for work, or roughly 18 percent of the district's 2,000 teachers, said Oakland Unified School District spokesman Troy Flint. The district has been able to get substitute teachers for most classrooms, and where that wasn't possible children were sent to other classrooms, he said"



    "The protests were largely peaceful throughout the day, but as evening approached some incidents of vandalism and violence among a group of anarchists were reported"