That line is one of the famous “Mom-ilies” often heard in homes all around the country. Perhaps mothers have drawn this wisdom from the Bible and Proverbs 13:20:
“He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm.”Either way, The Blaze has presented details on the people inside the OWS movement as well as those believed to be supporting it with money, material goods (sleeping bags, non-perishable foods, etc.), organizational skills, and even storage space. We have named names from the White House to the American Nazi Party, we have shown connections to several unions (like SEIU, UFT, and TWU) and pointed out the organizers like the Working Families Party and ACORN.
This morning we ask you to consider the recently posted Official list of Occupy Wall Street’s supporters, sponsors, and sympathizers put together by intrepid blogger Zombie.
“Local” supporters:
Some big names in the political world have also lent support to the cause:Communist Party USA
The American Nazi Party
Revolutionary Communist Party
Black Panthers
Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan
CAIR
International Leaders and Governments:President Barack Obama
Vice President Joe Biden
Nancy Pelosi
“As each new controversial endorsement has appeared over the last month, OWS supporters have dismissed them one by one as ‘isolated examples’ that don’t reflect any overall trend toward extremism,” writes Zombie. “But when viewed in aggregate like this, it becomes much more difficult to dismiss any individual endorsement as an aberration; instead, an undeniable pattern emerges.”Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei
Hugo Chavez
Revolutionary Guards of Iran
The Govt of North Korea
Communist Party of China
Hezbollah
Zombie has sourced the list with links back to evidence of participation or support of the Occupy Wall Street movement. It will be regularly updated.
(Z: By the way.... I think, most importantly, we need to look at this: “As each new controversial endorsement has appeared over the last month, OWS supporters have dismissed them one by one as ‘isolated examples’ that don’t reflect any overall trend toward extremism,” because the media's treated it that way, too, even blatant Anti Semitism screamed at interviewers in all the videos we've seen, right? Consider what the media said every time one lowly nut with a racist sign at a huge Tea Party gathering said :-)
I rest my case.
z
47 comments:
Yep.
I'm not sure how much traction OWS will have a year from now. But if OWS does have sufficient traction, that traction will impact election results.
Consider what the media said when one lowly nut defecated on a cop car. There are many different groups trying to coopt this movement like the Koch brothers did with the Tea Party. This movement is not about left or right like many are trying to make it out to be. It's about things like the fact that corporations can spend millions on helping politicians get elected. As well as the fact that in 1978, the average American CEO made 39 times the amount of the average worker. By 2000, that number had jumped to 1039 times the average worker. In 2007, the top ten percent made 49.7 percent of the wages in the nation, a level higher than any year since 1917. From 2002-2007, the top 1 percent had 2/3 of the economic growth. 750,000 people homeless, 150,000 of them homeless for over a year continuously. These are some of the many issues discussed at the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations, and while it makes sense that many anti-capitalist groups would try to channel the frustration over these issues for their own agendas, that's not what most people I've talked to want. Most want to end the monied corruption of the government, so they can protect the American people and our environment from the corporations
krazygrrl07: "...in 1978, the average American CEO made 39 times the amount of the average worker. By 2000, that number had jumped to 1039 times the average worker."
So what?
Today's average American farmer feeds about 155 people worldwide. In 1960, that number was 25.8.
His productivity hasn't improved "yields" nearly as much as the average CEO has. Corporate profits more than doubled in the last five years alone.
Of course, if we were to take all those corporate profits and give them to the government... we still wouldn't have enough money to keep our government in the black...
When the wealth transfer has become maximized they are going to leave the hulk.
And go where, Galt's Gulch? lol!
You've got Randerrhoids on the brain, duckmeister.
Ducky I could take your point and apply it to my own experience.
The Walmart greeter or cashier slots are the jobs the students and PhDs take in France when they can't find anything after college.
Your Manichean vision of the world must make you feel miserable every day.
Ducky can you post a link to your India thing? Or will you run away again?
B&M all you want duckmeister, but until you've come up with a viable alternative, THAT is all it is B&M's.
And ps - "redistribution" only works so long as you can convince your "host animals" to keep on producing to feed your "parasitic load".
Goes back to the point yesterday.
Ducky read an article about India and focused on the negatives as he always does
And now he's pulling it out to make a point because he is incapable of using his own thoughts without a movie or an article, and look at the broader picture of a country that was underdeveloped decades ago and that is improving. Improvement takes time, a learning curve and will have obstacles.
Call that progressive? He wants people to stay in their misery as long as they don't abide by socialist or communist principles. He doesn't want them to soften the cast system. Doesn't want them to be more free or happy.
No everything has to be perfect from the get go or we need to throw it away.
Doesn't understand life isn't perfect, that's it's tough, unfair.
And he's a religious man?
Very sad.
FB, "No everything has to be perfect from the get go or we need to throw it away.
Doesn't understand life isn't perfect, that's it's tough, unfair."
I try to make that clear all the time here so thanks for agreeing; it's so obvious that leftwingers believe in utter perfection and, if it's not perfect (and can never be due to human nature, good and bad), there must be a law/edict trying to make it perfect.
It's a self-destructive philosophy that will drag us all down into that abyss if we're not careful.
We're facing people who don't believe in self sufficiency, who don't believe we should all be the best we can be, who don't want kids to get grades or score points in games because they'll feel badly if they don't do well; this is something we'd all better stop soon because we're raising a bunch of wimps who can't be raised again; they're grown and lost.
By the way, everybody;
I had MSNBC on just now and (of course) they were talking about Cain and one of the women actually said "We expect to know all about our presidential candidates, all their records, anything from their past..."
And not ONE of the people on the panel said a thing about Obama not having produced grades, who paid for his education, the original birth certificate when asked for it, etc etc etc.......you can't make this stuff up :-)
and note how the current admin wont shut them down!..traitors the whole lot of them Z!
Z, something dawned on me.
This vision that everything has to be perfect is something that the critics do. Not the doers, not the producers.
The producers, the doers know that there will be obstacles, challenges and that one step at a time, they'll get closer to good results.
Ducky is an art editor I believe. I wonder if he ever painted, sculpted or drew. Or if he just reviews.
Even artists throw away art pieces, rip apart to achieve their vision.
Even in movies, the editor takes the best acting scenes and removes the bad ones to give the impression of perfection. But the reality of the actor's performance is made of various shots that don't have the same quality.
We need more do-ers in this world.
This OWS mob/'movement will eventually cave in owing to its constituency's true nature: a bunch of unmotivated bums.
Regardless of how much $$$ that Soros and the gang throws at this rabble, camping out on concrete and eating Girl Scout cookies for months at a time is way, WAY too much like work. Hard work.
And this bunch doesn't have the stomach for it, and they will be rinsed away with the winter rains and snow.
Sure, they will come back in the Spring (much like mosquitoes), but their numbers will be diluted with time, and indifference.
FB, I think that's an excellent observation.
It's a play's rehearsals until it's 'perfect', it's knowing when to stop painting because it's now 'perfect'...
perfection is something farmers and carpenters could strive for but there is no editor, no critic who''ll judge it to match mostly his own criterion.
I think that's another point; criteria change....and the elitists have been the ones to establish those; to make 'perfection' in their eyes.
politics can't work that way, real life can't work that way, humanity can't work that way. The real people keep working and striving to a level of competence, if allowed to.
Fredd, you could be right, but I think they'll stay in it as long as they're paid to stay in it.
And it sure isn't the Koch Bros who are paying them, but let someone mention Soros or anybody else and it's all hell to pay while the Left can conjecture and slam the Koch Brothers with what they think is justified outrage! :-)
FB, do NOT watch the speech Obama's giving now, your head will blow off your neck.
by the way, it's odd that the points in the post have barely been addressed, isn't it?
Sidestepped by issues other than the truth again by some I deleted and some I allowed to stay.
I think the supporters of the OWS are pretty repugnant and telling, myself.
You're right. It's a pretty sad list.
I was re-reading a bit about Feb 6-9, 1934 in France. Not entirely similar but I feel like there are some common points with our time.
One of the commonalities is the confusion I find in people in those protests symbolized the broad spectrum of ideologies. And obviously the economic situations, the moral crisis and the ineffectiveness of the French parliament at the time (our Congress?)
And the anti-semitism as well.
krazygrrl07 said: a lot.
Unfortunately, she does not have a feel for what is really going on.
1. We can end a lot of corruption at the Federal level by throwing out the Party of Corruption, The Democrat Party. Then, we can remove most of the temptation by establishing a flat tax system.
Thousands of lobbyists will go unemployed, but those people are at the high end of smart and will find a new con game.
2. There is no evidence of the Koch brothers coopting anything. This is just ignorance of kgrlls part.
3. Yes, CEO's make a lot of money, and their salaries and perks are voted on by board members and stock holders. What'w wrong with that? Does envy rule your soul, kgrrl?
4. In The Soviet Union, the top bosses income and perks exceeded the bottom earners by a factor in the hundreds, too. Where do you think all those dacha's came from? Just how do you think that there were two levels of stores, one for the poor bastards at the bottom where the lines were long, and there was little food on the shelves. The stores for the rich Communists were like Kroger or Macy's. There was lots of stuff for the nomenclatura at cheap prices.
Don't waste your bandwidth talking about this country's disparity of income groups. Socialist and communist countries have pretty much the same situation.
5. The OWS crowd has a collective IQ lower than average as evidenced by the hundreds of interviews we see on cable TV. I don't believe they have found one person who understands basic arithmetic.
6. It has been documented that the OWS "movement" is financed by several, disparate liberal goups. Read Z's article.
7. OWS is not so much a movement, but a crime wave. Here we have ignorant people who couldn't get a job at a carwash jabbering on and on about corporate earnings. These same goofy kids don't have a clue where their parents get the money to keep them smoking the good shit.
Krazygrrl07, you are off in the weeds, maybe of the smoking variety.
Amen to that, great post.
Z..no matter how much evidence to show what the protest is all about, it won't stop the supporters' ill-informed comments.
Awhile ago, I read a list of rules for the lefties to use when trying to debate the Right, which instructed them to mention the Koch brothers as often as possible.
Have you noticed how often that happens on here?
Here's something I read today, which is rather interesting:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/02/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-live-in-luxury/
Hypocrisy abounds.
for what it's worth, it's fun to tell you that I just had a lib comment (and I deleted) that we'll believe anything :-)
COMPLETELY oblivious to the fact that the whole post is true......and the link IN the post proves it..
what can we do to educate people to think beyond agenda? ANYTHING?
http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-045625415.html
Wow...the protesters live in luxury when they're at home...:-)
There have been rapes at the ows. There are a few young people who wanted to report it to the police, but were told that would not be in the interest of the "collective".
I don't think rape or other crimes, were part of the agenda. At least not at this point.
These demonstrators are drones who must obey the "rules", and the rules seem to be, nothing, no crime committed, is to be handled by our laws. The "collective" will deal with it. Really?
It's about time we stand up and tell our mayors, sheriffs, and politicians, to enforce our laws, don't you?
Uh, and oh yes, Mr. President, where are you with this? Out to lunch? I thought so.
Btw, to Ducky, libdude, I saw this on video yesterday, so don't try to tell me it didn't happen. It just proves the state run media, is out to lunch too.
This "collective" is bringing back thoughts of Charlie Manson's little commune. How far will this crap go before people see how dangerous this is, and how many people will be victims.
White people participated in the Civil Rights Movement. You don't have to have a home in foreclosure, be struggling to feed your family, or have thousands in debt to understand the plight of your fellow Americans.
Between 1967 and 2010, the GDP per capita rose 1036%, but the median household income only rose 21%. Between 1979 and 2007 "The share of income going to higher-income households rose, while the share going to lower-income households fell.
-The top fifth of the population saw a 10-percentage-point increase in their share of after-tax income.
-Most of that growth went to the top 1 percent of the population.
-All other groups saw their shares decline by 2 to 3 percentage points."
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12485
The elite are using the average Americans' hard work to make themselves richer, at the expense of the American people and economy, and our congress has let it happen. Lobbying is a major source of corruption in both parties, not just the Democratic one. Corporations, as well as wealthy individuals, can now spend any amount they want helping a politician get elected or re-elected. Right now, our elected officials are no longer acting on behalf of the American people, they are acting on behalf of the people who will spend the money to get them reelected.
The conservatives at the occupations are not as outnumbered as you probably think, and because the consensus method of decision making (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making) is used, their voices are heard. These people aren't getting paid to be out there, unless you consider food and blankets payment, and they're not being told what to do. There are no leaders, and there are no spokesmen. There are no talking points for the movement as a whole, just individual reasons for being there and ideas that many share. Because of this lack of structure, it's easy to find people who don't sound knowledgeable, especially with the discomfort of a camera pointed at you.
Margaret Thatcher
To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.
krazygirl...the mistake some make when reading our disdain for this bunch is that we're taken to think no changes need to be made.
Instead, if one reads our posts and comments on this subject and others on the economy closer, one will see that we do believe we need to plug loopholes and hold responsible the banks which were unethical and, possibly, illegal.
Somehow, it's very easy to jump to conclusions that we don't care about the middle class (by the way, we are ALL middle class and intelligent and well informed, so we don't need lectures) or the poor, etc.
What the OWS group is becoming is anarchists and you apparently haven't read the list of their demands. You probably have a television which shows you that they're creating havoc at least in Oakland, California...and that it's the police the media are demonizing by only reporting on their attempts at protecting the rest of the city from the anarchy of breaking glass, raping, defecating in public, lighting fires, fighting, etc.
There are mature, adult ways of handling things. THis isn't it.
ELBRO: She was so right. sadly
krazygrrl07:
Thanks for the link to the CBO study. I don't want to defend the numbers, but to offer some explanation.
Corrections are in order:
1. The period in the study was 1979-2007, not 1967-2007.
2. Lumping GDP numbers with income numbers doesn't mean much. We must compare incomes with incomes.
Points about disparities in group incomes:
1. Most of the difference between the lower groups income compared with the higher groups is called market income. Market income includes labor income, business income, and investment income. The bottom group has mostly labor income, while the higher groups have increasing amounts of business and investment income.
Businesses tend to be owned by higher income people, and those are the people who made the most money, and whose incomes increased the most. It is a natural outcome that those who risk their money will make more than those who don't.
2. During the time period, there were huge increases in economic productivity, reflecting the integration of computer and other technologies with industry and commerce. US productivity increases exceeded that of the rest of the industrialized world.
Economic activity mushroomed, and so did incomes. Those in technical careers did better than those in other areas. It was a golden age for technology and technologists.
3. The study says that the people in the lowest quintile in 1979 were not the same people in that quintile in 2007. There is a lot of upward mobility in the economy. Most people I knew had fantastic increases income during the 1980's, and they were not super rich capitalists snatching food from the mouths of street urchins.
4. There are undoubtedly people stuck on the bottom, and these are the people who may be inadequately educated, mentally disadvantaged, druggies and potheads, or terminally lazy. Studies show that the better prepared and educated have the higher incomes.
I am sure someone can expand on the composition of those bottom groups.
In reply to one of your statements, "The elite are using the average Americans' hard work to make themselves richer", I have to question your source. You are making an unsupportable statement.
The people at the top of the heap are not out raping the lower groups, they are just taking advantage of their business and investment opportunities without which there would be no jobs for those in the lower income groups.
No matter what kind of economy you have, be it capitalist, socialist, communist, or totalitarian, money has to be invested to create production, jobs, and incomes. That is as basic as gravity is to the physical world.
krazygrrl07 said: "Between 1967 and 2010, the GDP per capita rose 1036%, ".
Sorry, I misread your paragraph. You were accurate with your time frames.
The OWS forgot to read this. Of course with the IQ level of the mob it is doubtful that any of them could understand the words. See if you can understand this Krazygrrl07:Seems as if all this talk about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer is BS. Oh and guess what the numbers take in those evil CEO's who make so much money.
"Consider these data compiled by the Federal Reserve and put in a chart by the American Enterprise Institute's Mark J. Perry in Tuesday's Examiner. The data showed that fully 56 percent of those who in 2001 were in the lowest 20 percent quintile of income earners had moved up to a higher income quintile. At the opposite end of the spectrum, 66 percent of those who in 2001 were in the highest quintile of income earners dropped at least one quintile by 2007. And, as Perry notes on his Carpe Diem blog, lest anybody think the period spanning those years might not be representative because of the housing boom that triggered the Great Recession of 2008, data cited by the Fed point to the same pattern of high income mobility from 1996 to 2005. Fully 57.5 percent of those in the top 1 percent of income earners dropped to a lower quintile by 2005, while 57.8 percent of those in the lowest quintile in 1996 moved to a higher one by 2005. Since the Occupy Wall Street protestors took up residence in New York's Zuccotti Park, Americans have been repeatedly assaulted by Democratic politicians, academics and members of the liberal mainstream media bewailing the growing income inequality in the country. ... But such a static analysis misses entirely the more relevant question that has long been at the heart of the American economic miracle: To what degree can individuals change their economic status through their own labor and without having to overcome obstacles to their efforts by law or custom? ... The income mobility data above surely make clear that the right answer is not increasing federal taxes on the rich or expanding government regulation of business." --The Washington Examiner
I heard that at some of these events rapists have been helping themselves to the idiots. Most recently charges of public masturbation by some of these varmints have been leveled. Definitely not a group i would want to hang around with.
Bob, since 1979, many people in the bottom quintile have probably advanced in their fields, or changed fields because in 1979 they were working their way through school. Meanwhile, many young adults, who have a much higher unemployment rate than the national average, weren't even born, let alone working in 1979.
Are you saying there is a sudden outbreak of laziness and stupidity in this country? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/us-poverty-data-poorest-poor
You are correct about money needing to be invested, but when more and more of the wealth is in the hands of the super rich, then that leaves less and less for the lower income people to buy the goods and services that create a need for new business. When a company pays it's executives huge sums of money, rather than increasing pay for the average worker, or creating new jobs with that money, are they really helping the economy?
Z, What list of demands are you referring to? Many have been circulated, some have been posing as official, but I have seen none that have been consensed upon by a general assembly. However, there are so many general assemblies, I may have missed a list consensed upon by one of them.
I don't know if you really understand the structure of this movement. Each Occupation is completely autonomous, making it's own decisions. There have been instances when groups of individuals associated with the movement have made actions representing the individuals participating, not the occupation as a whole. There are also instances where other groups, not associated with the Occupy movement at all have come to actions organized by the movement, not always to the benefit of the movement
The destruction of property was not perpetrated or condoned by the occupiers in Oakland. They put out a call to action for a peaceful general strike, and a shut down of the port. There were many, many people who answered that call, not all of which had the best intentions. If you wanted to discredit a peaceful movement, what would you do? Even if it was people who are upset about the same things, they obviously had no for the peaceful ideals of the movement. Many of the posts on the Occupy Oakland forum are denouncing the destruction of property, as well as discussing ways to deal with the people responsible in the future. I have not seen a single one condoning it, and one person goes so far as to suggest a citizen's arrest when they are seen, and expose their identities in a public forum. This is a video showing masked people trying to prevent the unmasked Occupiers from putting out a fire agitators had started
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pW8Qeprahcs#!
The Occupy Oakland's reclamation of a building, where services were once provided to the homeless until their funding was cut, is controversial even within the movement. Some say it is trespassing and wrong, others believe making spaces that are unused available for community purposes is no different than eminent domain.
Why does my comment keep disappearing? The only thing that could be possibly construed as offensive is me saying I don't know if you understand the structure of the movement. Which is not offensive considering the fact that you can't expect someone to understand the structure of a movement unless they are a part of it or educated about it. It's obviously less offensive than this direct attack on the intelligence of the Occupiers in general, and my own in particular Ticker: "Of course with the IQ level of the mob it is doubtful that any of them could understand the words. See if you can understand this Krazygrrl07"
(Attempt number three posting this) Bob, since 1979, many people in the bottom quintile have probably advanced in their fields, or changed fields because in 1979 they were working their way through school. Meanwhile, many young adults, who have a much higher unemployment rate than the national average, weren't even born, let alone working in 1979.
Are you saying there is a sudden outbreak of laziness and stupidity in this country? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/03/us-poverty-data-poorest-poor
You are correct about money needing to be invested, but when more and more of the wealth is in the hands of the super rich, then that leaves less and less for the lower income people to buy the goods and services that create a need for new business. When a company pays it's executives huge sums of money, rather than increasing pay for the average worker, or creating new jobs with that money, are they really helping the economy?
Z, What list of demands are you referring to? Many have been circulated, some have been posing as official, but I have seen none that have been consensed upon by a general assembly. However, there are so many general assemblies, I may have missed a list consensed upon by one of them.
I don't know if you really understand the structure of this movement. Each Occupation is completely autonomous, making it's own decisions. There have been instances when groups of individuals associated with the movement have made actions representing the individuals participating, not the occupation as a whole. There are also instances where other groups, not associated with the Occupy movement at all have come to actions organized by the movement, not always to the benefit of the movement
The destruction of property was not perpetrated or condoned by the occupiers in Oakland. They put out a call to action for a peaceful general strike, and a shut down of the port. There were many, many people who answered that call, not all of which had the best intentions. If you wanted to discredit a peaceful movement, what would you do? Even if it was people who are upset about the same things, they obviously had no for the peaceful ideals of the movement. Many of the posts on the Occupy Oakland forum are denouncing the destruction of property, as well as discussing ways to deal with the people responsible in the future. I have not seen a single one condoning it, and one person goes so far as to suggest a citizen's arrest when they are seen, and expose their identities in a public forum. This is a video showing masked people trying to prevent the unmasked Occupiers from putting out a fire agitators had started
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pW8Qeprahcs#!
Here's one with protesters trying to prevent masked people dressed all in black from damaging property http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWHjPdAS1oU&feature=youtu.be
The Occupy Oakland's reclamation of a building, where services were once provided to the homeless until their funding was cut, is controversial even within the movement. Some say it is trespassing and wrong, others believe making spaces that are unused available for community purposes is no different than eminent domain.
krazygirl, nobody's deleting any comments; can't you see yours are still there above?
Also, if you read my comment above you'll see clearly that I do exactly know what the movement is about but, apparently, you don't ...unless you honestly think that list of twenty demands is helpful?
VERY occasionally, a comment won't post and that might be what's happening to you but when I delete, I usually tell the person and I'm not deleting you. Not at this point.
Most recently charges of public masturbation by some of these varmints have been leveled
it's why Occupy Madison (WI) coulnd not get their permit renewed.
I'd like to see a concensus of 330 million people. It can't happen. It's why we have a representative gubmint.
OK, I'm just going to say it. I am SICK, and I do mean SICK of everyone blaming the big bad banks.
I'm no fan of Jamie Dimon after finding out he originally supported Obama, but Chase is/was not the problem.
People do not understand and the media does not report that the largest 10 banks were FORCED to take TARP money. The reasoning was supposedly because five of the top 10 were in trouble and the government did not want a run on the 5 banks they FORCED the other 5 to take a "bailout" they did not need, they did not want, and they fought to repay.
Chase was a healthy bank, it was not anywhere close to failing and was indeed still profitable.
Since they were forced to take the TARP money, they were also forced into the strict regulations that the federal government insisted upon.
Then Dimon, among other banking execs were hauled before Congress and used to feed this "hate the banker" mentality that now feed the anarchists.
And those healthy banks were not allowed to pay back the TARP money until the government allowed them to.
Now think about that. Suppose you were a profitable business owner. Suppose the federal government forced you to take funds you do not want or need. Suppose because you now have those funds, you are not allowed to pay YOURSELF a bonus even when you are profitable. Suppose you want to give the government back those funds and they tell you that you are not allowed. And then suppose they haul you before Congress, broadcast the hearing and crucify you because you "took" taxpayer funds.
The banks were not the bad guys here. The sub-prime loans were never the bank's idea, they were an invention of the government. The invention of mortgage-backed securities allowed the middle class to get better fixed term rates, it was not a scheme by the banks to "steal" houses in foreclosures or deceive investors into bad investments. Congress insisted through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that banks and mortgage companies make more loans to people who had no business getting a mortgage. And they made it profitable for them to do so.
And contrary to popular belief, banks NEVER make money on foreclosed homes. That is their last resort and always result in significant losses.
OK, I'm through ranting. Well, maybe I'm not, but I worked too long in that industry and I get sick of hearing how the big bad bankers want more foreclosures.
And after hearing Jamie Dimon did not realize Obama was anti-business before he was elected makes me not feel one bit sorry for him. He may know how to run a bank, but he is a complete buffoon in choosing a Presidential candidate.
Truth is hard to face sometimes is it not krazygrrl07.
Oh yes, I very well understand the movement. It is a populist socialist movement determined to collapse this country and turn it into a socialist state.
This sums up pretty well the entire group of malcontents or as I call them "Useful Idiots". As I said before the IQ level is so low they don't realize that they are being used.
This however says it best.
Their mantra is simple (by necessity): "We are the 99 Percent, and we're all victims of the 1 Percent." By any objective standard, the 99 Percenters are not the brightest bunch, and they really represent the roughly 20 percent of Americans who are irrevocably dependent upon government subsidies and pay no income tax. Thus, this 20 percent has no vested interest in the cost of government and is predisposed to vote for the redistribution of others' incomes rather than work for their own. The underlying assumption is that it's easier to confiscate wealth than create it.
This "entitled" 20 percent combines with the 10 percent of American labor who are collectivists and another 5 percent who are perpetual malcontents to thus form Barack Hussein Obama's entrenched socialist constituency of Useful Idiots.
The intellectually challenged Occupy morons have built their movement around the errant assertion that if the assets of the 1 Percent were entirely redistributed, everyone would live happily ever after. Unfortunately, what the 35 Percenters really want, "redistributive justice" as Obama calls it, would require the redistribution of income from the other 65 percent of Americans families who live on earned income, so that everyone could be equally impoverished.
Of course, there's a problem with liquidating the assets of the 1 percent (comprised of more celebs and pro athletes than Wall Street bankers), or even the top 25 percent of the so-called rich: Most of their assets are on paper, and the rest of that "wealth" is in the form of small businesses and real property that support the jobs of tens of millions of Americans who actually work for a living -- and take pride in their occupations.
Thus, liquidation would result in the collapse of the entire economy, leaving everyone under the same statist tyranny as Obama's 35 Percenters -- equally miserable, equally dependent upon the government, and that much closer to Obama's mandate to implement Democratic Socialism.
You can read the rest at Mark Alexanders Post: http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch
Oh and karzgrll while you were so busy whining about your precious nonfactual post disappearing you failed to read the facts I presented in mine. But then that would go against your agenda. All you could find to bitch about is the fact I hit a nerve with my apt description of you and the "useful idiots of OWS or what ever street they are occupying.
Krazygrrl107 appears to be a troll just like Libturddude. How much are you being paid to post your BS Kgrrl
Furthermore this is a damnable lie:
These people aren't getting paid to be out there, unless you consider food and blankets payment, and they're not being told what to do. There are no leaders, and there are no spokesmen.
Unions are paying many of the protesters as well as going as dear volunteers and being paid by the Unionista thug fund. They are also being paid by Soros and the Tide Fund as well as David Felton of Felton Communications.
The CPUSA is also paying the "useful idiots" as well.
Which one is paying you Krazygrrl107.
Identity Page
No identity page for opaque identifiers
What are you hiding keazygrrl?
Ticker, GOOD JOB! And yes, someone's paying these blogless trolls.
RITA...well said. I couldn't agree more; we can't blame all the banks. But that's the class warfare part of Obama's plan.
Post a Comment