Classy lefty protesters leave big mess

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
Never saw this with the Tea Party marches, did ya...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...g-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html

Warning...NSFW pics at the link.

Also, look at the irony of this pic...

planet-politics-lg.jpg

planet-politics-lg.jpg
 
I hate to burst your bubble, but they are still living in that craphole. All of the sleeping bags are full at night. F'n weirdos though.
 
not sure which is more obscene... the picture of the guy defecating on a police car...or the picture of Olberman. ;)
 
not sure which is more obscene... the picture of the guy defecating on a police car...or the picture of Olberman. ;)

Olberman is more obscene. The guy taking a dump is only throwing out ordinary feces. Olberman stinks clear across the US.

KS
 
Ok. I read it now. They are still there and still sleeping in those filthy sleeping bags. I love how they protest big banks and probably owe them money for their prius and eco-homes. Or how they use facebook, twitter, and apple to spread their ideas, but protest the owners and creators.
 
How much you wanna bet those sleeping bags were not self-made, either. ;)
 
Occupy’ crasher busted in grope

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/party_over_bum_ezkUNyRYN1Z94jCRyIddFM

The methadone-addled man freeloading off the Wall Street protest -- who told The Post there are warrants out for his arrest -- was collared yesterday for allegedly groping a young woman.
Dave Park, 27, was handcuffed after he allegedly grabbed the victim’s behind in Zuccotti Park. It was one of four arrests yesterday connected to the rambunctious, 2,000-strong Occupy Wall Street rally.
Protesters said Park, of Stamford, Conn., had a hard time keeping his hands off the cheap booze and drugs and free food at the encampment -- and also off the women.

“He’s been asked to leave almost every day. I heard he’s been grabbing girl’s asses, their chests and crotches, and I heard he even tried to jump in someone’s sleeping bag,” said Tony Parila, a protester from the Lower East Side.
“He doesn’t represent us, and he’s given us a bad name.”
The woman Park allegedly assaulted declined to press charges, but police held him on an open-container warrant he had received in Manhattan, sources said.
Park also claimed he’s wanted on a burglary warrant.
“It’s a bunch of crazy people doing crazy things,” Park had said before his arrest.
“I don’t know how it all started, but it’s cool.”
A friend of the woman said her pal was shaken and upset, but “she’s going to be OK. She just wanted to make sure that this didn’t happen to any other girls.”
Also arrested yesterday was Nathan Putney, 20, of Richmond, Va., and a 27-year-old man from Brooklyn.
Both were handed disorderly- conduct summonses for taking photos of police after they had been told to stop, sources said.
As he was arrested, Putney flashed the peace sign and a mob, screamed, “Let Nathan free!”
Meanwhile, Rachel McMurray, 27, was arrested for “damage to the sidewalk,” for writing on the corner of Liberty Street and Broadway in chalk.
A nearby protester said McMurray had intended to write, “Good morning, NYPD.”
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly explained why there were numerous arrests last weekend but very few this weekend.
“People didn’t break the law. It usually works that way. If you don’t break the law, you won’t have a problem,” he said.
Today, protest organizers will put on a “Millionaires March” to the homes of wealthy city residents.
The march is set to begin around 11:30 a.m. at 59th Street and Fifth Avenue, organizers said.
It was unclear whether they had the proper permits for the marches.
One celebr made an appearance at Zuccotti Park yesterday. Rapper Kanye West rallied the crowd, which has been there since Sept. 17.



 
Not for nothing, but since when is it illegal to take pictures of police? Why do police always try to pull that crap.
 
Because dealing with lowlifes and liars on a regular basis corrupts their ethics.
They consider themselves the thin blue line and you antagonize them at your peril.
 
Wall Street's Gullible Occupiers

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203633104576623083437396142.html
The protesters have been sold a bill of goods. Reckless government policies, not private greed, brought about the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis.


There is no mystery where the Occupy Wall Street movement came from: It is an offspring of the same false narrative about the causes of the financial crisis that exculpated the government and brought us the Dodd-Frank Act. According to this story, the financial crisis and ensuing deep recession was caused by a reckless private sector driven by greed and insufficiently regulated. It is no wonder that people who hear this tale repeated endlessly in the media turn on Wall Street to express their frustration with the current conditions in the economy.
Their anger should be directed at those who developed and supported the federal government's housing policies that were responsible for the financial crisis.

Beginning in 1992, the government required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct a substantial portion of their mortgage financing to borrowers who were at or below the median income in their communities. The original legislative quota was 30%. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development was given authority to adjust it, and through the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations HUD raised the quota to 50% by 2000 and 55% by 2007.
It is certainly possible to find prime borrowers among people with incomes below the median. But when more than half of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie were required to buy were required to have that characteristic, these two government-sponsored enterprises had to significantly reduce their underwriting standards.
Fannie and Freddie were not the only government-backed or government-controlled organizations that were enlisted in this process. The Federal Housing Administration was competing with Fannie and Freddie for the same mortgages. And thanks to rules adopted in 1995 under the Community Reinvestment Act, regulated banks as well as savings and loan associations had to make a certain number of loans to borrowers who were at or below 80% of the median income in the areas they served.
Research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae (now a colleague of mine at the American Enterprise Institute) has shown that 27 million loans—half of all mortgages in the U.S.—were subprime or otherwise weak by 2008. That is, the loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or were loans with no or low down payments, no documentation, or required only interest payments.
Of these, over 70% were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie or some other government agency or government-regulated institution. Thus it is clear where the demand for these deficient mortgages came from.
The huge government investment in subprime mortgages achieved its purpose. Home ownership in the U.S. increased to 69% from 65% (where it had been for 30 years). But it also led to the biggest housing bubble in American history. This bubble, which lasted from 1997 to 2007, also created a huge private market for mortgage-backed securities (MBS) based on pools of subprime loans.
As housing bubbles grow, rising prices suppress delinquencies and defaults. People who could not meet their mortgage obligations could refinance or sell, because their houses were now worth more.
Accordingly, by the mid-2000s, investors had begun to notice that securities based on subprime mortgages were producing the high yields, but not showing the large number of defaults, that are usually associated with subprime loans. This triggered strong investor demand for these securities, causing the growth of the first significant private market for MBS based on subprime and other risky mortgages.
By 2008, Mr. Pinto has shown, this market consisted of about 7.8 million subprime loans, somewhat less than one-third of the 27 million that were then outstanding. The private financial sector must certainly share some blame for the financial crisis, but it cannot fairly be accused of causing that crisis when only a small minority of subprime and other risky mortgages outstanding in 2008 were the result of that private activity.
When the bubble deflated in 2007, an unprecedented number of weak mortgages went into default, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S. and throwing Fannie and Freddie into insolvency. Seeing these sudden losses, investors fled from the market for privately issued MBS, and mark-to-market accounting required banks and others to write down the value of their mortgage-backed assets to the distress levels in a market that now had few buyers. This raised questions about the solvency and liquidity of the largest financial institutions and began a period of great investor anxiety.
The government's rescue of Bear Stearns in March 2008 temporarily calmed the market. But it created significant moral hazard: Market participants were led to believe that the government would rescue all large financial institutions. When Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail in September, investors panicked. They withdrew their funds from the institutions that held large amounts of privately issued MBS, causing banks and others—such as investment banks, finance companies and insurers—to hoard cash against the risk of further withdrawals. Their refusal to lend to one another in these conditions froze credit markets, bringing on what we now call the financial crisis.
The narrative that came out of these events—largely propagated by government officials and accepted by a credulous media—was that the private sector's greed and risk-taking caused the financial crisis and the government's policies were not responsible. This narrative stimulated the punitive Dodd-Frank Act—fittingly named after Congress's two key supporters of the government's destructive housing policies. It also gave us the occupiers of Wall Street.

________________________________________________________

More of the something for nothing mentality that permeates our politics.
Throwing credit risk out the window is a policy only idiots can believe in and now we see the results.
 
Wondered what these threads might contain....seems ditto heads are everywhere! A bunch of rightwing power brokers finance a fake grass roots movement and every lame redneck comes out of the woodwork to claim they are patriots. Let's face it tea baggers are the new John Birchers that the Koch bros. Thought up to fool the simple minded republican't masses. The tea baggers don't have the guts to do what these OWS people have done. The baggers wouldn't spend a day on the street to save a single job. OWS are true Americans more like our founders than the bagger wanta be's. Our founders fought a huge colonial power that was trying to oppress and what has this country become?
 
Unfortunately, a safe haven for a s s holes like you:D

KS

Since you're omega man, can we safely expect that this is the last of you?
 
The British in their view were merely protecting the investment they made in their colonies and transfering and collecting some of the cost of the defense of protecting America from the Spanish military.

OWS have organizers but no money,real leaders, plans or power other than BO:p
Their motto could be "We didn't ask to be born so take care of us"
They're like the fizz in soda that goes flat.
The Tea Party among other things are people fed up with carrying the freeloaders.:rolleyes:
This is what the Koch brothers have siezed upon ;):cool:
 
Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party: Compare and Contrast

One looks cooler. The other smells better. Do they agree on anything?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...the_tea_party_do_they_agree_on_anything_.html

The Tea Party movement began on Feb. 19, 2009, when Rick Santelli, the CNBC financial journalist who reports from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, ranted against the government bailing out homeowners who couldn’t pay their mortgages. The Occupy Wall Street protest got going two and a half years later, when editors at the anti-corporate Canadian magazine Adbusters were inspired by events in the Middle East to call for a mass demonstration against the financial industry on Sept. 19, 2011.
Those origins tell you a lot about how the two movements differ. The Tea Party has remained a purely American affair, while Occupy Wall Street strikes a global posture. The Tea Party began spontaneously, when a guy on TV got mad about freeloaders. Occupy Wall Street was planned over email by experienced organizers. The Tea Party is a revolt of the haves; Occupy Wall Street a revolt of the have-nots. Yet there are points of commonality between them. Both are angry about what they see as economic unfairness—the Tea Party over deviations from free-market principle, the Occupiers over excessive adherence to it. Both are hostile toward society’s elite, though they define that elite differently. Both are frustrated with the American political system.
Grass-roots authenticity: Critics of the Tea Party have been quick to point out the ways in which it has been driven from above. Fox News used its megaphone to hype and encourage the Tax Day protests that were the Tea Party’s first big outing. Its personalities Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin became darlings of the movement. Wealthy conservatives like the Koch Brothers bankrolled the Tea Party while Republican politicians tumbled over each other to glom on.
It’s hard to see a parallel here to Occupy Wall Street, which has no major media champion or institutional support. Reuters published a weak story today attempting to link the liberal financier George Soros to the movement though a tenuous connection between his Open Society Institute, a San Francisco non-profit, and Adbusters. But Soros says he’s never heard of Adbusters and Adbusters says it hasn’t received money from Soros. Labor leaders want in, but so far haven’t had much impact on the protests.


Message coherence: At this point, it is pretty clear what the Tea Party view of the world is: smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, and less regulation. One can’t say the same about Occupy Wall Street, which raises a wide variety of complaints: Bankers should be punished; they should be paid less; government should regulate them more aggressively; society is becoming more unequal; people are out of work; money should have no sway in politics; capitalism isn’t working; etc. But Occupy Wall Street is less than a month old, and at a similar point in its emergence, it was much harder to say what the Tea Party stood for beyond “freedom” and the Constitution. OWS leaders, such as they are, have promised that more specific demands will emerge.


The problem is that many of the Occupiers’ most trenchant complaints, like excessive pay for CEOs, don’t translate readily into a political program.


Impact: The energy generated by the Tea Party helped produce the big Republican swing in the 2010 election. But the influence of the Tea Party within the GOP also led to the nomination of unelectable candidates who arguably cost Republicans the Senate. Probably the Tea Party’s greatest achievement to date is keeping House Speaker John Boehner from agreeing to a debt-ceiling deal with President Obama that would have included a modest tax increase. Overall, the movement has made the Republican Party more rigidly right-wing without producing any substantive accomplishments. Its influence may now be on the wane. The GOP seems poised to nominate a candidate the Tea Party doesn’t like. Occupy Wall Street is probably at an earlier stage of its lifecycle, but already pointed toward a similar role: energizing the liberal base and pulling the Democratic Party to the left, without making anything in particular happen.



Style: Where the Tea Party is anarchic in principle and conservative in style, Occupy Wall Street is anarchic in style and liberal in principle. Tea Party rallies are dominated by middle-class, middle-aged white men who pack up their coolers and go home at the end of the day. The Occupy Wall Street encampment, which I visited a couple of times last week, is more like a Phish concert that forgot to end.

The Tea Party, remember, was launched by a guy in a suit on the floor of a financial exchange; it’s the backward-looking movement of people worried about losing their place in society. Occupy Wall Street was spawned by a poster of a ballerina perched atop Wall Street’s bronze bull. It is the image-conscious, forward-looking movement of people worried that they may never live in the kind of country they want. Occupy Wall Street looks cooler. The Tea Party smells better.:p

Structure and Tactics: The Tea Party has evolved toward a hierarchical decision-making structure; OWS insists on a horizontal, consensus-driven one. Both movements are nonviolent, with deviations. Tea Partiers created an ugly scene at the Capitol last year and were accused of using racial epithets and spitting at members of Congress. OWS protestors have come into conflict with the police, and been criticized for creating squalor and nuisance in Lower Manhattan. Their tactics include civil disobedience, confrontation with authority, and a willingness to get arrested—something Tea Partiers aren’t interested in doing. This has already proved effective at drawing attention and sympathy. An episode of brutality by a New York City police officer with a can of pepper spray greatly expanded the profile of protests.


There is not much that the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street agree about other than that they are not like each other. Because of their huge cultural and ideological differences, both groups object to the comparison. But as spontaneous, unpredictable movements reshaping the political landscape, they have more in common than meets the eye. The parallels are much stronger than either prefers to admit.


_______________________________________________________________


The Occupy Wall Street protest got going two and a half years later, when editors at the anti-corporate Canadian magazine Adbusters were inspired by events in the Middle East to call for a mass demonstration against the financial industry on Sept. 19, 2011.

Started by Canadians eh!

They are the leaders! LOL!:cool:
 
It’s hard to see a parallel here to Occupy Wall Street, which has no major media champion or institutional support. Reuters published a weak story today attempting to link the liberal financier George Soros to the movement though a tenuous connection between his Open Society Institute, a San Francisco non-profit, and Adbusters. But Soros says he’s never heard of Adbusters and Adbusters says it hasn’t received money from Soros. Labor leaders want in, but so far haven’t had much impact on the protests.

That part is a little less then accurate. The entire mainstream media is their "media champion". They have been getting very favorable (if not sycophantic) coverage disproportionate to their size by all the MSM outlets. Comparatively, at this state in the Tea Party movement, that same MSM was ignoring them when convenient and dismissing them as a irrelevant when they couldn't be ignored.

In fact, I just ran across this story of a media outlet specifically looking to coordinate with this group for messaging purposes. There are other Leftist groups helping to organize donations and food deliver food there.

Unlike any coverage the tea party recieved, the MSM is making an active effort to whitewash the crude, radical and petulant aspects of this group. Calls for violence from some of them or their supporters, anti-Semite remarks, calls for communism, deficating on cars, etc are all being downplayed by the MSM when they cannot simply be ignored. If anything like this happened from the Tea Party the MSM would actively seek to make that the end of the Tea Party.

To claim that there is no "media champion" of this movement is dishonest.

The same goes for the insinuation that it is purely a grass roots effort with no institutional support. When Unions (including NEWS Unions) start to support the group and people are getting paid to protest, it is not a grassroots effort but a Potemkin protest.

The media and politicians are playing with fire here. In legitimizing vice and peoples base instincts with these type of protests, it is very easy for these movements to become violent and to be co-opted by opportunistic politicians and would-be-tyrants. From Obama on down, the Democrat party is beginning to make these efforts.

It is a framework first seen in 1789 with the Rousseau inspired French Revolution and the terrors of Maximilien Robespierre. Most every ideological tyranny since then has followed that same framework. A mob calling for a more perfect society through collectivism has been the means loss of freedom, austerity and, in far to many cases, tyranny.

The most politically effective totalitarian systems have gotten people to give up their own freedom in order to vent their resentment or hatred at other people -- under Communism, the capitalists; under Nazi, the Jews

-Thomas Sowell​
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

OPINION OCTOBER 18, 2011 Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd
In interviews, protesters show that they are leftists out of step with most American voters. Yet Democrats are embracing them anyway.
Article Video Comments (374) more in Opinion | Find New $LINKTEXTFIND$ »
Email Print Save ↓ More
smaller Larger
By DOUGLAS SCHOEN
President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election.

Last week, senior White House adviser David Plouffe said that "the protests you're seeing are the same conversations people are having in living rooms and kitchens all across America. . . . People are frustrated by an economy that does not reward hard work and responsibility, where Wall Street and Main Street don't seem to play by the same set of rules." Nancy Pelosi and others have echoed the message.

Enlarge Image

CloseGetty Images

'Occupy Wall Street' demonstrators in the financial district of New York
Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote.

Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren't represented by any political party.


James Taranto on President Obama's Wall Street ties and protesters' disenchantment with the Democratic party.

What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party.

In 1970, aligning too closely with the antiwar movement hurt Democrats in the midterm election, when many middle-class and working-class Americans ended up supporting hawkish candidates who condemned student disruptions. While that 1970 election should have been a sweep against the first-term Nixon administration, it was instead one of only four midterm elections since 1938 when the president's party didn't lose seats.


With the Democratic Party on the defensive throughout the 1970 campaign, liberal Democrats were only able to win on Election Day by distancing themselves from the student protest movement. So Adlai Stevenson III pinned an American flag to his lapel, appointed Chicago Seven prosecutor Thomas Foran chairman of his Citizen's Committee, and emphasized "law and order"—a tactic then employed by Ted Kennedy, who denounced the student protesters as "campus commandos" who must be repudiated, "especially by those who may share their goals."

Today, having abandoned any effort to work with the congressional super committee to craft a bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction, President Obama has thrown in with those who support his desire to tax oil companies and the rich, rather than appeal to independent and self-described moderate swing voters who want smaller government and lower taxes, not additional stimulus or interference in the private sector.

Rather than embracing huge new spending programs and tax increases, plus increasingly radical and potentially violent activists, the Democrats should instead build a bridge to the much more numerous independents and moderates in the center by opposing bailouts and broad-based tax increases.

Put simply, Democrats need to say they are with voters in the middle who want cooperation, conciliation and lower taxes. And they should work particularly hard to contrast their rhetoric with the extremes advocated by the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is author of "Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What It Means for 2012 and Beyond," forthcoming from Rowman and Littlefield.
 

Members online

Back
Top