NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury

Yurt said:
it is hilarious that wealthy protesters are protesting wealth...iow...they are protesting themselves
Click to expand...

What is hilarious is your ridiculous claim that these protestors are wealthy when you've yet to provide the financial documentation to prove your claim.

So a few protesters own houses valued at just over $300,00.00? Gee, in New York, that probably buys you a 2/2 with no garage...but don't blame the Yurtard for being disingenuous and pretending that $300,000.00 will buy you "opulent" anywhere close to NYC.
 
Onceler said:
Not that surprised that you couldn't answer my question.

The occupy movement isn't really protesting the idea of wealth, for the most part. It's not hypocritical for someone who is wealthy to support the principles they're talking about.
Click to expand...

Of course they are protesting wealth you moron.....they are bitching about the disparity between those that have it and those that don't....its class war, the same as its been encouraged by liberals and Democrats for 50 years.....
 
christiefan915 said:
The median age of the occupiers is 27. I hardly think all these youngins actually own the houses that were viewed.
Click to expand...


It didn't say they OWN the houses...its says they fuckin' RESIDE in the house...they live with their mommies and daddies and don't have a clue....
 
bravo said:
Of course they are protesting wealth you moron.....they are bitching about the disparity between those that have it and those that don't....its class war, the same as its been encouraged by liberals and Democrats for 50 years.....
Click to expand...

You have a very generalized view of what they're asking for.

They're not asking for a societal change whereby wealth no longer exists. Maybe that's why you guys are against it so vehemently..because you don't understand it?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
What is hilarious is your ridiculous claim that these protestors are wealthy when you've yet to provide the financial documentation to prove your claim.

So a few protesters own houses valued at just over $300,00.00? Gee, in New York, that probably buys you a 2/2 with no garage...but don't blame the Yurtard for being disingenuous and pretending that $300,000.00 will buy you "opulent" anywhere close to NYC.
Click to expand...

the OP proves my claim. try clicking the link and educating yourself.
 
The basic principles that the Occupy movement is going for are more along the lines of creating more public jobs, having things like higher ed & public transportation at no cost, and higher taxes on those in the highest income bracket. The movement as a whole is not for eliminating wealthy people.

Are you going to find some protesters in there who believe in communism and/or the elimination of classes? Sure, but I would wager very few. That's not what the movement is about.
 
A lot of them are protesting the bailouts, which I did from day 1. Billionaires in the hamptons got a bailout, my 401k did not. And I damn sure know you anti education righties are not in the 1 percent. You just perceive it as anti Obama or anti poor. Simpletons
 
Zappa is kinda funny

\When the Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003 the unemployment rate was 6.2 percent. Now, in the ninth year of those cuts, the unemployment rate is 9.2 percent, where is the evidence that these cuts for the most affluent actually create jobs?
Click to expand...

Yeah....John Kennedy cut taxes in 1962, unemployment average about 5.5% and here we are just 49 years later and over 9%....

Thats proof that tax cuts don't create jobs....:)

Guess hes right.............

except for the FACT that the tax cuts of 2003 were cuts for EVERYONE.....some through rates, some through exemptions, child credits, and other deductions, etc.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/background/bush-tax-cuts/2001.cfm
 
Onceler said:
The basic principles that the Occupy movement is going for are more along the lines of creating more public jobs, having things like higher ed & public transportation at no cost, and higher taxes on those in the highest income bracket. The movement as a whole is not for eliminating wealthy people.

Are you going to find some protesters in there who believe in communism and/or the elimination of classes? Sure, but I would wager very few. That's not what the movement is about.
Click to expand...

Need a little history lesson, huh..

In 1958, the Independent Socialist League led by Max Shachtman dissolved to join the Socialist Party of America. Shachtman had written that Soviet communism was a new form of class society, bureaucratic collectivism, in which the ruling class exploited and oppressed the population, and therefore he opposed the spread of communism. Shachtman also argued that democratic socialists should work with activists from labor unions and civil-rights organizations to help build a social-democratic "realignment" of the Democratic Party.
In its 1972 Convention, the Socialist Party changed its name to "Social Democrats.

Communist Party of USA Constitution lays out certain positions as non-negotiable:

"struggle for the unity of the working class, against all forms of national oppression, national chauvinism, discrimination and segregation, against all racist ideologies and practices… against all manifestations of male supremacy and discrimination against women… against homophobia and all manifestations of discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people…


I'd guess the number are quite high of these two organizations alone and the rest of the crowd are sympathizers for their issues but wouldn't admit they are Socialists or Communists......They would call themselves "Progressives".....
SO....its not what they call themselves, its what they support..........Ya know..."A rose by any other name, etc....".
 
bravo said:
Need a little history lesson, huh..

In 1958, the Independent Socialist League led by Max Shachtman dissolved to join the Socialist Party of America. Shachtman had written that Soviet communism was a new form of class society, bureaucratic collectivism, in which the ruling class exploited and oppressed the population, and therefore he opposed the spread of communism. Shachtman also argued that democratic socialists should work with activists from labor unions and civil-rights organizations to help build a social-democratic "realignment" of the Democratic Party.
In its 1972 Convention, the Socialist Party changed its name to "Social Democrats.

Communist Party of USA Constitution lays out certain positions as non-negotiable:

"struggle for the unity of the working class, against all forms of national oppression, national chauvinism, discrimination and segregation, against all racist ideologies and practices… against all manifestations of male supremacy and discrimination against women… against homophobia and all manifestations of discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people…


I'd guess the number are quite high of these two organizations alone and the rest of the crowd are sympathizers for their issues but wouldn't admit they are Socialists or Communists......They would call themselves "Progressives".....
SO....its not what they call themselves, its what they support..........Ya know..."A rose by any other name, etc....".
Click to expand...

Clearly, you have a certain way you'd like to classify them. I get that. You'd rather not look at what they're really saying, and - more importantly - what they have documented as the core principles they're fighting for. It isn't communism, or socialism, or the elimination of the wealthy class.

It's easy for you to dismiss them as you are, by presenting some sort of cliched depiction of what you think they REALLY want, and then throw in some history regarding communist thought as some sort of "proof." But it's just not that way. I don't agree with a lot of what they're saying, but there are reasons that there is some unrest going on right now, and that is something I understand.
 
bravo said:
Need a little history lesson, huh..

In 1958, the Independent Socialist League led by Max Shachtman dissolved to join the Socialist Party of America. Shachtman had written that Soviet communism was a new form of class society, bureaucratic collectivism, in which the ruling class exploited and oppressed the population, and therefore he opposed the spread of communism. Shachtman also argued that democratic socialists should work with activists from labor unions and civil-rights organizations to help build a social-democratic "realignment" of the Democratic Party.
In its 1972 Convention, the Socialist Party changed its name to "Social Democrats.

Communist Party of USA Constitution lays out certain positions as non-negotiable:

"struggle for the unity of the working class, against all forms of national oppression, national chauvinism, discrimination and segregation, against all racist ideologies and practices… against all manifestations of male supremacy and discrimination against women… against homophobia and all manifestations of discrimination against gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people…


I'd guess the number are quite high of these two organizations alone and the rest of the crowd are sympathizers for their issues but wouldn't admit they are Socialists or Communists......They would call themselves "Progressives".....
SO....its not what they call themselves, its what they support..........Ya know..."A rose by any other name, etc....".
Click to expand...

I get the feeling that there are many Americans who miss the Soviet empire and are, busy scurrying around, trying to find new "reds under the bed" or even in the park in this case.
 
Onceler said:
Clearly, you have a certain way you'd like to classify them. I get that. You'd rather not look at what they're really saying, and - more importantly - what they have documented as the core principles they're fighting for. It isn't communism, or socialism, or the elimination of the wealthy class.

It's easy for you to dismiss them as you are, by presenting some sort of cliched depiction of what you think they REALLY want, and then throw in some history regarding communist thought as some sort of "proof." But it's just not that way. I don't agree with a lot of what they're saying, but there are reasons that there is some unrest going on right now, and that is something I understand.
Click to expand...


You can't deny that the Communists and Socialists are marching there right beside those "progressives"...that is undeniable.....so..

Ask yourself, "why are they there"...?....its obvious their issues are the same, exactly the same.....now their bottom line goals might differ, but that is beside the point....

The Commies and Socialists aren't there to support wealth in any fashion....you gotta get your head out of the sand lad.....and how did
you like that video ?....want to see the interview Howard Stern had with the protesters ?....They are for the most part assholes that don't know why the fuck they are there or far left, anti American nuts.....
Dress them up any way you like, it won't change who they are.

Just are you and yours mis-characterize the Tea Party folks as racists and bigots.....the truth just don't get through you skull.....
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I get the feeling that there are many Americans who miss the Soviet empire and are, busy scurrying around, trying to find new "reds under the bed" or even in the park in this case.
Click to expand...

Hardly....todays nutjobs call themselves "progressives".....they would never consider themselves Socialists or Communists.....
Its the Socialists and Communists that have "come over" to support todays Democrats......its issues...not labels....

Just as todays Democrats undeniably promote class war...so do the Communists....its the issues....
 
bravo said:
You can't deny that the Communists and Socialists are marching there right beside those "progressives"...that is undeniable.....so..

Ask yourself, "why are they there"...?....its obvious their issues are the same, exactly the same.....now their bottom line goals might differ, but that is beside the point....

The Commies and Socialists aren't there to support wealth in any fashion....you gotta get your head out of the sand lad.....and how did
you like that video ?....want to see the interview Howard Stern had with the protesters ?....They are for the most part assholes that don't know why the fuck they are there or far left, anti American nuts.....
Dress them up any way you like, it won't change who they are.

Just are you and yours mis-characterize the Tea Party folks as racists and bigots.....the truth just don't get through your skull.....
Click to expand...


So you're a groaner, huh ?.....instead of groaning like a child, what did I say that is not correct....?
 
bravo said:
It didn't say they OWN the houses...its says they fuckin' RESIDE in the house...they live with their mommies and daddies and don't have a clue....
Click to expand...

So they're protesting that their parents have money and are supporting them.
Maybe mommy and daddy should kick them out. :)
 
bravo said:
You can't deny that the Communists and Socialists are marching there right beside those "progressives"...that is undeniable.....so..

Ask yourself, "why are they there"...?....its obvious their issues are the same, exactly the same.....now their bottom line goals might differ, but that is beside the point....

The Commies and Socialists aren't there to support wealth in any fashion....you gotta get your head out of the sand lad.....and how did
you like that video ?....want to see the interview Howard Stern had with the protesters ?....They are for the most part assholes that don't know why the fuck they are there or far left, anti American nuts.....
Dress them up any way you like, it won't change who they are.

Just are you and yours mis-characterize the Tea Party folks as racists and bigots.....the truth just don't get through you skull.....
Click to expand...

There is a lot of irony in that last statement. That's pretty much exactly what you're doing w/ "occupy" - mischaracterizing them based on a few interviews you've seen, or generalizing assumptions. You are what you criticize.

And I've never called the TEA party racist or bigoted in a monolithic way, as you are characterizing this protest movement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top