'Occupy Wall Street' Goons Are the Flea Party, Media Itching to Cover Them Favorably
By Ann Coulter | October 13, 2011 | 11:44
So far, the only major accomplishment of the "Occupy Wall Street" (OWS) protesters is that they have finally put an end to their previous initiative, "Occupy Our Mothers' Basements."
Oddly enough for such a respectable-looking group -- a mixture of adolescents looking for a cause, public sector union members, drug dealers, criminals, teenage runaways, people who have been at every protest since the Berkeley Free Speech Movement, Andrea Dworkin look-alikes, people 95 percent of whose hair is concentrated in their ponytails and other average Democrats -- they can't even explain what they're protesting.
The protesters either treat inquiries about their purpose as a trick question, or -- worse -- instantly rattle off a series of insane causes: "No. 1, abolish capitalism; No. 2, because 9/11 was an inside job; No. 3, because Mumia is innocent ..."
Curiously, the only point universally agreed upon by the protesters and their admirers in the Democratic Party and the mainstream media is that "Occupy Wall Street" should be compared to the Tea Party. Yes, that would be the same Tea Party that has been denounced and slandered by the Democratic Party and the mainstream media for the last three years.
As a refresher: The Democratic National Committee called the Tea Partiers "angry mobs" and "rabid right-wing extremists." ABC said they were a "mob." CNN accused them of "rabble rousing." Harry Reid called them "evil mongers." Nancy Pelosi said they were "un-American." CNN's Anderson Cooper and every single host on MSNBC called the tea partiers a name that referred to an obscure gay sex act.
But apparently liberals couldn't even convince themselves that tea partiers were an extremist group unworthy of emulation.
At least they're embarrassed about what the OWS protesters really are: wingless, bloodsucking and parasitic. This is the Flea Party, not the Tea Party.
Contrary to all the blather you always hear about how lawless street protests and civil disobedience are part of the American tradition -- "what our troops are fighting for!" -- they are not. We are an orderly people with democratic channels at our disposal to change our government.
The very reason we have a constitutional republic is because of a mob uprising. Soon after the American Revolution, Shays' Rebellion so terrified and angered Americans that they demanded a federal government capable of crushing such mobs.
For nearly 200 years, Americans understood that they lived in a country capable of producing bad politicians and bad policies, but that it was subject to change through peaceful, democratic means. There was no need to riot or storm buildings because we didn't have a king. We had a representative government.
Even when injustice existed, there were constitutional mechanisms to right wrongs.
For nearly a century after the Civil War, congressional Republicans kept introducing bills that implemented the Civil Rights Amendments -- only to be blocked by segregationist Democrats. But then, attorney Thurgood Marshall came along and began winning cases before the Supreme Court, redeeming black Americans' constitutional rights through the judiciary.
As long as a Republican sat in the White House, those victories were enforced. In 1957, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Ark., to walk black children to school in defiance of the segregationist, Democratic governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus -- Bill Clinton's friend.
This is what our Constitution was designed for: to use the force of the federal government to uphold the law when the states couldn't (Shays' Rebellion) or wouldn't (segregationist Democrats).
If Richard Nixon had won the 1960 election instead of John F. Kennedy -- as some say he did -- there never would have been a need for Rosa Parks, the Freedom Rides and the rest of the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement.
But as soon as the Democrats got control of the White House, enforcement of the Supreme Court's civil rights rulings came to a crashing halt. Elected Democrats in the states were free to violate legitimate constitutional rulings without interference from Democratic presidents.
The ingenious system given to us by our founding fathers faltered on the morally corrupt obstructionism of elected Democrats. They simply refused to abide by the rules -- with glee at the state level, and at the federal level, cowardice.
Here, finally, was an appropriate case for nonviolent protest. There hasn't been another justification for civil disobedience in this country until the Supreme Court invented a "right" to abortion in Roe v. Wade -- another act of lawlessness by liberals.
(All this and more is detailed in the smash best-seller, "Demonic: How the Liberal Mobs Are Endangering America"!)
Now liberals compare their every riot, every traffic blockage, every Starbucks-window-smashing street protest to the civil rights movement ?- which was only necessary because of them. These "Occupy Wall Street" ignoramuses seem to imagine they are blacks living in 1963 Alabama under Democratic governor George Wallace.
To the contrary, the Wall Street protesters have no specific objections and no serious policy proposals in a country that is governed, as Abraham Lincoln put it, "by the people." They protest because they enjoy creating mayhem, not because the law is being ignored or their rights violated without penalty by government officials.
They are not in the tradition of the tea partiers, much less our Founding Fathers. They are not in the tradition of the civil rights movement or Operation Rescue. They are in the tradition of Shays' Rebellion, the Weathermen and Charles Manson.
<<Like Ann's columns? Help us take on media bias and bring you the best in conservative columns by donating to NewsBusters (there's also a PayPal option on that page). Without the support of our readers, NewsBusters would not be possible.>>
- Ann Coulter's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
The right treats Occupy Wall
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:48am.
The right treats Occupy Wall Street the way the left treated the Tea Party. Neither one exactly has the high road, nor should claim it, here.
you're right
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:01pm.
Speaking the truth about the behavior, platform and general point of view of OWS is certainly the same as telling lies about the Tea Party behavior, platform and general point of view..
OccupyAVotingBooth
Submitted by Free Stinker on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:09pm.
I love it!
The best cure for President ØbamAA+, the OccupyAVotingBooth protests.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
OccupyCraigslist.com
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:26pm.
One I just thought up :)
- shy on vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
How about "OCCUPY A SHOWER!"
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:26pm.
And get a haircut and a job!
Reminds me of a good friend
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:37pm.
From Delaware
I see the latest update is going swimmingly : [
Reminds me of a good friend
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:38pm.
From Delaware
I see the latest update is going swimmingly : [
SinceThey Are Already a Republican Joke Why Not
Submitted by Avitar on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 2:26am.
Republicans have a joke about a Republican Farmer being yelled at by a woman drifting pass in a hot air balloon. He concludes correctly that the woman is a Liberal Democrat because :
She doesn't know where she is going
She doesn't know where she is
She got into the situation by failing to listen to instructions
She doesn't know how to get out of the situation that she is in
And she expects someone else to get her out of the situation she got herself into.
Apparently the woman from the joke had children and grandkids and they went to Columbia University in New York City and are now picking up a few hundred dollars a week protesting Wall Street.
Republicans have laughed at people like the one protesting for years. It feels like beating a dumb animal to watch them now. The SNL skit on them was just too cruel to the typical Democrat Voter.
"Wht do we want?" "We don't know!"
'When do we want it?" "Now!"
You go CKL.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:06pm.
You got the bead on what the right is treating. Hey, was that you holding the Free Mumia sign?
Moral equavalence???
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:27pm.
After reading the whole of Ann's article,(I assume you read it, right?), all you have to offer is a desperate stab at moral equivalence?
Don't know why I'm surprised, just typical Bal in action.
Did he read it?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:34pm.
Cmon, snap out of it, Restless, you know how it goes:
"OK, I didn't actually see the movie, but I plan to not read the book someday"
Yeah, what WAS I thinking?
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:39pm.
His comment has nothing to do with the article. He was just looking for a place to spout his usual tripe.
What's wrong with pointing
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:53pm.
What's wrong with pointing out that everyone ragging on OWS are doing the same thing that the left did to the Tea Party? Ann isn't above this comparison. I'm sure she believes the Tea Party was only filled with upstanding, well-spoken, intelligent people, and doesn't dare to think the same about OWS. Chris Matthews is the reverse.
Have you seen the pictures?
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 1:00pm.
Riiight, Bal. Living like a filthy pig in a commune is EXACTLY the same as the Tea Party leaving their protest area(s) cleaner than they found them.
Also, kindly provide links to vendors adjacent to Tea Party protests who have had a Tea Partier demand "free stuff", a la OWs.
Or, you could provide some links proving that the tea party protesters are paid operatives of Code Pink, or Unions.
See how your little moral equivalence breaks down in light of the facts? Ooops. Failed. AGAIN.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 134 (and Counting)
Because it's disingenuous.
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 1:06pm.
There is a complete difference in character, motive, and goals between the two. To not see that is either intentionally ignorant, or utter dishonesty. Pointing at others that do see these differences, and saying "See, she's doing the same thing as matthews," is, sorry, just trying to legitamize the pitiful show of disdain the left has shown the Tea Party.
I mean, think about it, how many Tea Partiers were caught shitting on police cars, urinating in public, trashing public and private property...?
Does that behavior define the
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 1:30pm.
Does that behavior define the majority of OWS?
one way to find out
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 1:34pm.
go look for yourself.
Oh, OK. Hold on a sec
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 1:38pm.
Oh, OK. Hold on a sec everybody. I'm going to go to NYC for a sec...
oh good grief
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 1:42pm.
http://www.livestream.com/occupywallstnyc
and I would guess there is an "occupy" near you.
But hey good news - It looks like the Teachers Union for NYC is giving them storage space so they can move their crap while they get action groups together to clean Zuccotti park so the mayor can't kick them out. I sure hope they know someone who can wire because they've broken most of the sidewalk lighting.
Really? I'm going to get a
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 1:47pm.
Really? I'm going to get a good sense of what's going on through a crappy video stream?
Look all I'm saying is that I'm sure OWS has its freak and creeps, but the majority _seem_ to be good-intentioned people expressing themselves, just as the Tea Party is/was.
good for you Bal
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 1:52pm.
eyes shut, ears closed policy is the best way to form your own opinion.
This is not about finding "freaks and creeps". If you want to inform yourself about their behavior and viewpoints - the information is readily available.
Let's see
Submitted by ckc1227 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 5:37pm.
Tea partiers love their country, and support freedom, while Owlers generally hate their country, and support theft. But other than that, the two movements are just alike, and should be treated as such.
Not.
Tea Party vs. OWS
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 8:55pm.
Don't forget, the Tea Party cleans up and leaves it's meeting places cleaner than when they arrived. Tea Party gatherings don't involve bodily functions that belong in sewers being done in public, nor do they have full sex in public. The Tea Party has a specific mission, OWS, not so much.
But, yes, otherwise they're both the same.
Kata
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:57pm.
I did. I found out that the Tea Party isn't as nuts as people made them out to be, same with OWS.
Why, coming from you bal...
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:03pm.
...that means very little.
Mind explaining how the OWS denizens can explain why they wallow in corporate existence (clothing, food, transportation, technology, all of the other niceties of life) but at the same time want to deny it?
The OWS is non sequitur. Rupie doesn't have a coherent answer as to how they are able to pay the bills for the technology they use while simultaneously deriding it. To say this is a contradiction goes beyond the power of language to describe such an effect.
But, but, but, but
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:17pm.
You said here that you couldn't get a good sense of what's going on from a "crappy video stream". Now you are sure the occupy your ass movement is not a nuts as it seems.
You saw the Tea Party first hand I take it, but not the occupy your ass movement, yet you are sure they are the same.
Huh???
I can't get a sense from a
Submitted by balboa on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:39pm.
I can't get a sense from a video stream if they're all degenerates as has been suggested.
no
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:53pm.
the guy on now is the one that had the fit that they were serving meat. Have a glass of blended wheatgrass, Bal :)
they aren't "nuts"
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:49pm.
they're a montage of a Left wing activists convention. They ARE having drug, alcohol, exhibitionist sex, sanitation and theft problems. It's not good when you have to have a "point of action" regarding making sure no one craps in the gardens anymore.
Thus, the newest decree for zero tolerance for any of the above - and the 2 hr long meeting on who is going to be the first person to pick up a broom. The tactics the organizers are starting to use at the general meetings are becoming bullying and thugish because they are losing control of the mob. It's resembling something of a cross between a union meeting and frat party with a goldfish bowl waiting. Being arrested is now looked upon as honorable. It's not pretty.
There are some kids that are there because they have nothing else to do. Some people DO have jobs and have apartments in the area but a lot are just local college students skipping class and "experiencing life". You can tell from the excitement when they have 1000 viewers and they light up because they finally feel like they mean something. And that's dang sad.
The most frightening example I saw was two kids having a discussion about how they'd gotten there via hitchhiking in the sleeper section of long haul trucks. Their parents didn't even know where they were.
I can't see Tea Party members putting up with any of this. At all. Ever.
Columbia University PolySci majors need something to do
Submitted by Avitar on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 2:31am.
Certainly nobody in their right mind is going to hire them
For the benefit of your
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:21pm.
For the benefit of your future, Mr. & Ms. Columbia University PolySci major, repeat after me...
"Do you want fries with that?"
At least the PoliSci majors will
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 6:34pm.
have a job, not so much for those students of "women's studies", or the whole liberal arts schtick.
Don't hold back, Anne....
Submitted by DumbCanuck on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:51am.
...Tell us what you REALLY think!!!
;)
"There... Are... Four... Lights!"
I say let 'em demonstrate
Submitted by Galvanic on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:59am.
If they are peaceful and complying with the terms of their permits, let 'em hang out in front of TV cameras everyday.
Before long, the fascination of the MSM will dwindle like air slowly escaping from a balloon. At least until something dynamic happens, at which point the OWS becomes its own PR nightmare.
The elements comprising the demonstrations are content with little or no leadership and loosely defined, non-mandatory goals, all in an effort to keep the numbers growing and minimize internal conflict.
But that environment can't persist for too long, especially when the inclement weather sets in.
So, as long as laws aren't broken, let 'em have at it and ignore them. Focusing attention on them only fuels their determination. Meanwhile, someone is paying for their food, drink, condums, etc. -- let them continue to empty their pockets.
I agree
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:12pm.
wholeheartedly. They MSM has no idea just how much they are alienating regular American folks and I see it as a blessing. I say onward and downward!
"Permits, We Don't Need No Stinkin' Permits..."
Submitted by bigdaddy on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:21pm.
I know that they made the Tea Party get permits for all of their get-togethers but I don't think they made the "Flea Baggers" procure any.
Excellent article!!!
Submitted by Beukeboom on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 12:00pm.
Excellent article!!!
Fleabagging
Submitted by Vonu on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 1:12pm.
Statists since 2011.
Poll numbers
Submitted by alvin on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 7:42pm.
The new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll shows that Americans support the Occupy Wall Street protests by a two-to-one margin (37 percent in favor, 18 percent opposed) while more Americans view the Tea Party negatively (28 percent in favor, 41 percent opposed).
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/October_Poll.pdf
So?
Submitted by gobnait06 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 7:47pm.
That must mean that 63% either oppose or don't know how they feel about the protests. The pollsters can hardly be accused of being fair.
..... the Chipmunk
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 7:56pm.
Thanks for that valuable, insightful, revealing "poll" by NBC/WSJ. I think I'll completely change my opinion of these hooligan, mob-like, public-urinating, law-breaking, cop/museum guard-assaulting, public area (see: parks, roads, bridges)-highjacking, stinky, trashy, never-going-home protests.
Not.
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
I don't see OW$ mentioned in that poll
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 8:18pm.
where is the 37% in favor poll?
Page 24 of the poll, kata..
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 2:57am.
And, Thinking about something else…
Q29b Have you seen, read, or heard the news coverage about sit-ins and rallies in New York City and other major
cities around the country with people protesting about the influence Wall Street and corporations have on
government? (IF YES:) And, have you seen, read, or heard a lot or just some about this?***
Yes, a lot .................................................. 40
Yes, just some .......................................... 40
No ............................................................. 19
Not sure ................................................... 1
*** Asked of 762 Respondents
(ASK ONLY OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAY "YES" IN Q29b:1-2)
Q30 From what you know about these protests do you tend to support or tend to oppose these protests, or do
you not have an opinion either way?****
Tend to support ................................................................... 37
Tend to oppose ................................................................... 18
Have no opinion either way .................................................. 25
Not sure ............................................................................. -
No, haven’t seen, read, or heard/not sure (Q29b) .............. 20
**** Asked of 612 Respondents
Note: The foregoing is provided for informational purposes only and is in no way intended to reflect the personal views of the poster.
Jer
ah ha
Submitted by kata on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 11:22am.
Thanks Jer. I was looking specifically for it by the current "Occupy" name. I didn't have a ton of time to really take it in.
Now that I have a minute to really absorb some of the information I notice this poll also has Obama winning the election against all Republican candidates and the Democrats taking back congress. The tax the rich sentiment also seems quite high. Given that, and the generally ambiguous platform of the OWS folks, and the somewhat positive light they are being shown in on the MSM, I am not surprised that people don't mind tying their kite to it.
Who, after all, would want to be associated with a racist organization such as the Tea Party?
(and since I've been misread so often in the last couple days : YES that's sarcasm) :)
I should really start answering these polls rather than hanging up on them but for some reason they also seem to call when I am fixing dinner.
Help Jer,
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 11:29am.
I must be reading something wrong because it seems like it says that 20% of the people who have seen, read or heard of the protest have not seen, read or heard of the protest.
It is time to get glasses.
That's what I see too, Agnostic...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 9:59pm.
With or without glasses. [Even my rose-colored ones.]
Jer
"...they're embarrassed about
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 8:23pm.
"...they're embarrassed about what the OWS protesters really are: wingless, bloodsucking and parasitic. This is the Flea Party, not the Tea Party."
Plus, they have fleas 'cause they're dirty hippies who don't bathe, amiright?!
Of course, predictably, the knee-jerk criticism of the latest wave of American protest is both hypocritical and paradoxical.
Either you broad-brush these protesters as "parasites" and suggest that they're just unemployed losers who live in their mom's basements (thanks, Ann, for your lightning-fast census research on this matter) or you attack them for being bourgeois and out of touch with so-called Real Americans.
As for the former slander, I'm afraid Rush beat you to it. But still, what it boils down to is making fun of unemployed people. I'm sure that would have gone over real well in regard to the Tea Party: "Oh yeah, that guy in the Uncle Sam costume who feels taxes are too high? Yeah, he got laid off from the machine shop 2 years ago, can't even afford to pay his mortgage or support his family! Loser!!" Yup, nothing like making fun of people who aren't upwardly mobile. But of course, if they're in the Tea Party, it's because Obama won't LET them be. If they're in OWS, it's because they're just lazy sacks of shit. Gotcha.
But then there's the other side of that coin, the claim that they're just over-entitled, over-educated brats who chose a worthless college major like Art History or Philosophy and now they're just little hypocrites who blog on their dang iPhones while supposedly protesting the system. Well gee whiz, if they're purchasing consumer electronics and are clearly solidly middle-to-upper-middle class, it's kinda hard to see how they're leeching on, as opposed to contributing to, the system.
And finally, what neither side seems to want to confront is that OWS and the Tea Party have the exact same goals in mind. Where they differ is not in what they want to see come out of all this; where they differ is their stereotyped aesthetics ("familiy values" & blue collar Joes vs. hipsters & pretentious artsy types) and, much more importantly, their choice of scapegoat. You wanna blame the Obama administration and the absurd myth that he's wrought socialism upon this great Republic. They wanna blame the plutocrats. But really, so adamantly trying to separate government from business in order to tar one side and lionize the other is stupid beyond belief. Anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge concerning PACs, lobbying, interest groups, and the notion of corporate personhood understands that the problem lies not in big business or in government but in the intertwining of the two.
Rupert---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 8:45pm.
"And finally, what neither side seems to want to confront is that the OWS and the Tea Party have the exact same goals in mind."
Really?
Are you related to balboa?
If so, take a hint - at least balboa keeps his comments pithy.
Stereotyped aesthetics?
Hog wash.
Note - two syllables versus seven.
MD
Oh yeah, how dare I actually
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:00pm.
Oh yeah, how dare I actually try to put together an argument instead of just shrieking nonsense like "The OWS crowd is a bunch of filthy parasites" or "The Tea Party is just a bunch of illiterate racists!" I'm such an elitist.
As far as I understand, the goals of each group - and to even make this statement, I have to assume that both movements are homogeneous and unified in their respective stances, which is a bit of a stretch - are to level the economic playing field and more realistically embrace the idea that all people can prosper if given a fair chance to do so. The Tea Party sees this ideal blossoming out of lower taxes and laissez-faire-style deregulation. The OWS sees it blossoming out of higher tax rates for the wealthy and the eradication of the idea that corporations are entitled to the same constitutional privileges as individuals.
If you really want to play the silly game of speculating about their REAL goals and motives, with no concrete evidence whatsoever, or to attempt to discredit either group as astroturf rather grassroots, feel free. Those slings and arrows can be hurled at either side.
Rupert
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:09pm.
There is no cohesive message of OWS, despite what you may think, I'll take any evidence to the contrary. The goal of the Tea Party was not a level economic playing field, it was exactly what they said it was. Lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, and adherence to the Constitution.
OWS is a collection of various people and groups, all looking for something different, united in only one thing, protest.
why speculate when you can read it
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:33pm.
there is an OWS "Declaration" google document that you can go look through if you google for it. (I'd recommend logging out of gmail/iGoogle first unless you want your email broadcasted while you read it). You can also look at their calendar of speakers. It reads more like LeftyCon.
But it's not a cohesive assembly
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:41pm.
Disagree Kata, there are to many people with to many agenda's there. I've heard people calling for anarchy, socialism, Marxism, a return to primitivism, fight for the planet, etc. The Tea Party has specific goals that run throughout each organization.
if you read the declaration
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:02pm.
you'll see just how incohesive it is. I've been watching the evolution of the demands and the document. They finally had to set up a disclaimer and "guardrails" for their demands because so many of them contradict each other. That's why I said there's no reason to speculate. You can read all the "action meeting" minutes. Transcripts of their speakers. The whole thing is there. They are trying to be as inclusive as possible else they are going to fray at the edges.
"Lower taxes, fiscal
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:42pm.
"Lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, and adherence to the Constitution."
How would lowering taxes, according to the TP's economic ideology, not be an instance of such a leveling? If exorbitant taxes create an unfair economic climate, lowering them would create a more fair economic climate, yes? One in which people have more take-home pay and thus more discretionary money to infuse back into the system? That's all I mean by leveling.
Fiscal responsibility. OK, fine. But another way of thinking about fiscal responsibility could be to insist that those who benefit the most contribute back the most. I know that makes me sound like a filthy OWSer and/or the lovechild of Marx & Engels, but, as Krugman rightly pointed out recently, that was a pretty middle-of-the-road viewpoint until the grotesquere of contemporary partisan politics made any centrist point of view into an extreme.
Exactly what Constitutional articles and/or amendment have been so desecrated since January 09? Specifically. Let's be frank here, Obama's administration is what we're talking about. If Ann is going to sling nonsense about how 9/11 "truthers" are forming the bulk of OWS, I think it's fair to make the comparatively sane point that the TP is largely anti-Obama. I don't buy the idea that this is all because of racism, but there's no way you can say with a straight face that this is a constitutionalist movement with no element of blind partisanship.
Rupert
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:09pm.
You do insist that the Tea Party is for "leveling the economic field". No, it's not a stated goal. No matter what you say it's not.
But another way of thinking about fiscal responsibility could be to insist that those who benefit the most contribute back the most. Please, now you're dictating morals. Fiscal responsibility is managing money in such a way as you are taking care of yourself and not being a burden to others. For our federal government it is spending only on what the Constitution allows. As far as those who benefit the most contributing the most, that is a moral issue, not a governmental one. Currently however, those who benefit the most do contribute the most. Would you have them contribute everything? Government is not the most efficient way to help others. If it was why would people like Bill Gates form their own charities? Why wouldn't he simply give his money to the government to disburse? For obvious reasons, it wouldn't be as effective, and we should have the freedom to share what we chose with whom we choose, regardless of the opinions of others.
As far as the Constitution, where in the Constitution does the government have the right to buy stock in private companies? What gave them the power to coerce banks who were healthy into taking government money and accepting government control?
I'll not deny the Tea Party was in response to the policies of Obama, but it was also in response to the policies of the GOP, who have behaved very much like democrats in fiscal matters. It's not a partisan issue, but it is an idealogical one.
Rad79 > The Rupester
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:35pm.
As far as those who benefit the most contributing the most, that is a moral issue, not a governmental one.
Like.
Rupert, again, give it up. Rad79, I was waiting for someone better skilled than myself to touch on this particular post of his. He's eloquent, I'll give him that, but I knew there were holes in his argument. Grand Canyon-size, too, but he's kinda' clever.
- Shy's a "Something" Percent'er
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Rad79 (again)
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:39pm.
Currently however, those who benefit the most do contribute the most.
Yeah, like, contributing jobs to people. They are the wealth distributors.
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
"Yeah, like, contributing
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 7:30am.
"Yeah, like, contributing jobs to people. They are the wealth distributors."
OK, yes, that is a major disparity between how the two groups regard corporations. Here, we can agree.
But I think it's silly to so vehemently and out of hand dismiss the phrase "level the playing field" and act as though that's completely dissociated from TP goals just because it sort of SOUNDS like something the left would say.
level playing field
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 8:04am.
The call for a level playing field by what ever phrase they want is dependent upon how it is applied.
For conservatives a level playing field is the starting point or the lack of government intrusion in economic factors that allow everyone an opportunity to succeed. Basically, everyone has the right and the opportunity but it is up to the individual.
For the OWS crowd and many, many liberals the level playing field is in respect to the outcome of economic endeavors. Take from the producers so everyone has a chance.
In an economic model, one that doesn't make assumptions that run against history and common sense, money used by consumers is used less efficiently than money used by investors (assuming the investor is not the government because they are not really investing but buying votes - both sides). Assume a lump sum of $50K, a thousand people buying a pair of jeans is contributing to the economy - investing in a small business that pays vendors for stock and services, hires additional employees, pays multiple taxes, pays for transportation, pays for advertising and pays for shipping is a local economic boon.
Of course things are never that simple but in terms of economic efficiencies it is close enough to make a point.
If wealth is distributed, how do you propose new markets are created? New markets are the most efficient and necessary way to grow an economy to allow for the growth of a society and/or population.
Rupert Cadell
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:13pm.
"As far as I understand, the goals of each group..."
Isn't that you speculating about their "REAL goals and motives, with no concrete evidence whatsoever..."?
Not really, it's more like me
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:16pm.
Not really, it's more like me parroting what those in each group who have managed to cobble together an articulate word or two on the matter seem to be saying about it. The "speculation" part would be along the lines of "the Tea Party just hates having a black president" or "OWS gets money and organizational guidance from someone who works for George Soros' half-brother, and is thus discredited."
Rupert
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:32pm.
No need to speculate on what the Tea Party stands for: http://www.teaparty-platform.com/
Now, about OWS...
And the Tea Party hating having a black president, that was all from the MSM. NEVER has anyone in the Tea Party made racist comments without being told to get out by the other members.
Well you'd probably know
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:44pm.
Well you'd probably know better than me how TP members dealt with overtly racist participants, so I'll take your word on that. But yes, that was my point, that that accusation would involve baseless speculation.
As for platforms, something tells me that the 3 y/o TP didn't have such an organized mission statement 2.5 weeks into its movement.
Except the roots of the OWS movement go back to June.
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:48pm.
If they don't have a coherent statement after four months, they are a massive failure.
One of the major movers behind the OWS movement is AdBusters, an astroturf George Soros organization that is part of a larger Socialist movement decades old.
Your argument of 2.5 weeks holds as much water as the average kitchen pasta strainer.
Rupert
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:49pm.
Just about all of the racist Tea Party members have been proven to be plants.
And 2 1/2 weeks into it's movement the Tea Party had a very unified message, lower taxes and fiscal responsibility.
I still contend there is nothing unified about OWS except protest for protest's sake.
OK, then the OWS message is
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:45pm.
OK, then the OWS message is raise taxes on the wealthy and don't bestow constitutional rights that were meant for individuals on large groups of economically-incorporated individuals.
See, I can throw together neat little bite-size platforms too!
And even more oddly, I seem to recall every other right-wing stuffed shirt who managed to get in front of a microphone in fall 2009 lauding the TPers for the diversity of their worldviews, backgrounds, politics, and goals.
Well it makes more sense to deal with lawmakers
Submitted by kata on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:49pm.
than Marxist philosophers. What is your point?
Have you read their Declaration?
Rupert
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:53pm.
Silly boy, I didn't make up the platform. I linked it for you, you know, I sourced it. I can link all kinds of video of OWS protestors saying they want various things, I'm leaving it to you to find a succinct platform of the OWS that refutes all the video. Maybe someone in charge, saying "oh, no, we stand for ___ not ___". Hint, you can't as they have no leaders. Well, no official leaders. Only Soros pulling strings from behind. The biggest irony of all...
And the Tea Party is pretty specific about who represents them and who doesn't. Being a right wing stuffed shirt doesn't make someone a Tea Partier.
Right, right, right, but
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:09pm.
Right, right, right, but isn't it a point of pride, at least among the rank-and-file TPers (as opposed to the politicians who have repeatedly try to hitch their wagons to the movement) that it's not, or at least certainly wasn't for the first year or so, a homogeneous organization with a centralized leadership? I realize that anecdotal evidence only carries so much water, but every TP sympathizer I've ever spoken with, when I've said something about the party's aims, has been quick to aver that there's no ONE goal or even one set of goals, but that the party represents a whole bunch of various positions and worldviews.
Let me make it as simple as possible and then I'm going to bed because I have to work tomorrow (a liberal with a job! Crazy!): It seems quite clear to me that both groups fancy themselves victims of an out-of-control system of entitlement and economic elitism and, by golly, they're not gonna take it anymore. Throw the bums out, and all that. One group identifies the bums as government, the other as certain elements of banking and big business.
Rupert
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:16pm.
You're right, anecdotal information is worthless. I linked, you avoided. The Tea Party and OWS are diametrically different, in composition, goals, character, you name it. O.k., they are members of the same species on the same continent within the borders of the same country.
"The Tea Party and OWS are
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 8:04am.
"The Tea Party and OWS are diametrically different, in composition, goals, character, you name it"
Hey, maybe if you say this one more time without bothering to acknowledge any of the details I've given to support my claim, it'll just MAGICALLY become the case!
Why don't you use YOUR magic?
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 8:11am.
OK, Rupert, how about if you prove that OWS and the Tea Party ARE the same in composition, goals and character.
Go ahead, give it your best shot. The similarities are.......?
Rupert
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 9:18pm.
You haven't given any factual information to support your case. Have you linked the goals of OWS? Have you shown me where in the Constitution the government obtained the power to buy GM? Coerce the banks? Force it's citizens to buy health insurance?
Epic fail.
"Right wing stuffed shirt" ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:56pm.
--- but you are not a troll, huh?
Next thing you know, Rupe, you'll be trying to convince us that you don't lean left.
MD
Hahaha, so vaguely referring
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:01pm.
Hahaha, so vaguely referring to celebrity pundits as "stuffed shirts" is what qualifies one as a troll? Yeah, that's a pretty vicious insult right there! I think I learned it from my 103-year-old grandfather when he was telling me about FDR.
Yes, I "lean left" culturally and consider myself an economic centrist, even though the loons on both sides have decided that that's no longer an existent position.
Make up your mind, Rupe,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:22pm.
as you just defined yourself in a preceding post as a liberal with a job.
Economic centrist, indeed.
What, exactly, does that entail, belief-wise?
You "lean left" culturally.
Thank you for that blinding glimpse of the obvious.
MD
Hey, Rupe---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:32pm.
Dare away !
That's what these threads are all about.
Suffering the slings and arrows (whether of misfortune or as a result of taking a seemingly liberal stance on a conservative site) is always an inherent possibility when posting, but I will give you this -
"shrieking nonsense", regardless of whether 'shrieking' is used as a verb or an adjective, is as good a definition of the OWS message as I have come across.
MD
You may have tried "to put
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:21pm.
You may have tried "to put together an argument" but you failed to do so. Your post was more equivocation rather than cogent argument.
Rupert Cadell
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:09pm.
When's the part where you explain how criticisms of the OWS protests have been "paradoxical"?
The 3 paragraphs that follow
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:30pm.
The 3 paragraphs that follow the word "paradoxical." The twin accusations are that the OWS folks are parasites by virtue of being
a) Spoiled, petite bourgeoisie brats who have been indoctrinated by Marxist professors at their little $50,000 per anum liberal arts colleges, and hypocrites to boot because they are affluent enough to own all the latest gizmos and gadgets
or
b) Unemployed losers who "live in their mom's basement" as Ann, in one of her ever-so-original snippets of whipcrack wordplay, suggests.
Unless we're delusional enough to suppose that all of these protesters mothers indulgent enough to give them free room & board AND pay down their student loan debts AND buy them iPads and such....these two lazy-ass caricatures are mutually exclusive. But more importantly they don't work independently of one another.
One somehow suggests that people who infuse significant amount of money into the system are parasites upon that system; which demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of either consumer capitalism, the concept of a parasite, or basic logic.
The other, as I already said, boils down to mocking the unemployed and implying that Tea Partiers who are in the same situation are somehow exempt from such mean-spirited criticism because Obummer personally took away their livelihood.
It's fun to expose the ineptitude of Ann's insults.
Ineptitude, you say, Rupe---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:36pm.
If ineptitude = telling the truth with sarcasm that bites the liberal arse until it bleeds; by Jove, I think you've got it.
MD
If they don't have a job or assets...
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:42pm.
...where did they get the money for the iPads, laptops, iPhones and the monthly bills that come with cellular services? Did they divert the student loan money away from its intended purpose of supporting truly educational purposes only (and thus commit loan fraud in doing so)? Or are they working a job they consider menial so they can pay their own way?
Where did they get the money to go to the protests? If they hate corporations and the wealthy so much, why are they using resources created and sustained by corporations and why are they allowing themselves to be exploited by liberal millionaire elites like Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins? We certainly don't see them giving away their fortunes, so the added hypocrisy of earning large salaries for useless garbage and taking advantage of free publicity reeks of paradox.
The final irony is that we get to see exactly who you are, mainly a sleeper troll account suddenly reanimated like some bad horror movie fiend after an accidental lightning strike.
So far, everything points to the protesters are being absolutely paradoxical in their hatred of corporations and millionaires, yet that is how they are being clothed, fed and coddled. Please do explain that dichotomy to this psychiatrist without the use of the severely misused and misunderstood psychobabble endemic to the left?
Moment of silence for Steve Jobs
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:45pm.
I heard an audiotape of the protest when there was a call for a moment of silence for Steve Jobs. What a riot, he was soooo capitalistic and greeedddyyy (he didn't give to charity). Only one person in the crowd had a problem with this honoring of Jobs. These idiots don't realize that their iPhones, iPods, and Macs, wouldn't be around if Jobs didn't have the potential of making money by being creative.
Ain't it rich?
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:51pm.
Warren Buffett earned over $62 million last year, but his company still owes a billion in taxes. Steve Jobs shut down Apple's large charitable programs to regain profitability. The funniest part of this OWS movement is they have zero idea they are being played like a marlin on a Hatteras boat (the kind that only millionaires can afford) and come up with this convenient anti-capitalist ranting and raving because it is what Soros and his opinion mafia told them to say. Mindless automatons, much?
Hey, dr. sam---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:51pm.
'ol Rupe is only ten weeks shy of being on board for five years ---
Amazing how Obama's sorry excuse for an administration, headed by THE most sorry excuse of a prez, ever; brings out a cacophony of flailing words from his disappointed, and heavily disheartened, supporters.
MD
I saw that.
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:53pm.
Latent like a tuberculosis infection.
Not really an Obama supporter
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:02pm.
Not really an Obama supporter and wouldn't personally wouldn't be caught dead at an OWS rally. Just really can't stand political caricaturizing. Coulter is particularly susceptible to this.
Not really an Obama supporter
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:06pm.
Not really an Obama supporter and wouldn't personally be caught dead at an OWS rally. Just really can't stand political caricaturizing. Coulter is particularly susceptible to this. It's sad.
Further, as I said elsewhere tonight, my real-life identity isn't wrapped up in a cliquey message board. It's okay just to post now and then, you know.
Interesting, Rupe, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:43pm.
that you can be so vague with "Not really an Obama supporter", but so descriptive with your vituperation of Ann Coulter.
Misogynist?
" -- and wouldn't personally be caught dead at an OWS rally."
Better than that bunch?
" -- my real life identity isn't wrapped up in a cliquey message board."
Better than conservatives who spend time on threads at NB's?
Elitist, eh?
MD
Your first two paragraphs
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:55pm.
Your first two paragraphs support, rather than rebut my point. So thank you.
So let me get this right, only the truly destitute can speak out against social conditions without being called out for hypocrisy? That would be like me saying to a TP member "how dare you protest high taxes when your children aren't wearing tattered rags and eating gruel!"
Which of the words that I chose constitutes "psychobabble"? Oh, or are you just throwing vague insults at the wall?
Nice metaphor about reanimation. I love a good Frankenstein allusion. But no, believe it or not, some people post the OCCASIONAL remark on the message boards of politically-oriented websites that they FREQUENTLY read because they're not under the impression that their opinion is needed on every single topic. As if it matters, I had posted several times in the 2007-08 era, but those posts appear to have been expunged despite my account not being banned.
Finally, how quaint that you use the exact same tactic as Ann does toward the OWS in trying to kill my arguments. Psychobabble! Troll! Just keep hurling completely unmerited negative buzzwords. Good times. .
If you had bothered to read and comprehend...
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:11pm.
...I am specifically asking about how they at once own technology (which costs money) and at the same time maintain their access to that technology if they do not have an identifiable source of income. Student loans are intended for use only for valid educational purposes, not for supporting the occasional sojourn into politics. The fact that they openly despise and denigrate the companies that produce the technology they rely upon for their movement is at the very least discordant with the fact they use it so much. I ask again...where does the money to pay their bills come from? If they had jobs, either they have abandoned them to take up their protests or they are not actively searching for employment. Conversely, if they are students, why are they not in class? Most institutions of higher education have strict attendance policies related to their acceptance of student loans under their participatory agreements with the US Department of Education. Don't attend class = no grade = no advancement = denial of further student loan money. That leaves only parental support or inherited assets or income to support them. If they are receiving parental support or investment income, where do they think this money comes from? Magic?
The liberal political elite are supporting the OWS protesters for all of the free publicity that comes with association with that movement. What do the OWS protesters gain from them? Not much except a commensal relationship and not a symbiosis. The OWS is being blatantly converted into a pro-Obama deflection mechanism politically. One would think the lessons of 1968 would tell them otherwise, but we are talking Democrats who never learned any lesson except tax more, spend more and repeat ad nauseam.
I asked you also NOT to use psychobabble, I did not say that you were using it. As for killing your arguments, you are doing that nicely of your own volition in your own rhetorical form of hara-kiri. I dont' mind being associated with Ms. Coulter to the extent that she certainly is witty and able to inflame liberals to the point of hyperventilation.
The quality of your reanimation seems less like Frankenstein and more like a badly produced Japanese monster flick circa 1972.
"The quality of your
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:19pm.
"The quality of your reanimation seems less like Frankenstein and more like a badly produced Japanese monster flick circa 1972."
Is one really so much worse than the other?
If you had bothered to read and comprehend...
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:14pm.
...I am specifically asking about how they at once own technology (which costs money) and at the same time maintain their access to that technology if they do not have an identifiable source of income. Student loans are intended for use only for valid educational purposes, not for supporting the occasional sojourn into politics. The fact that they openly despise and denigrate the companies that produce the technology they rely upon for their movement is at the very least discordant with the fact they use it so much. I ask again...where does the money to pay their bills come from? If they had jobs, either they have abandoned them to take up their protests or they are not actively searching for employment. Conversely, if they are students, why are they not in class? Most institutions of higher education have strict attendance policies related to their acceptance of student loans under their participatory agreements with the US Department of Education. Don't attend class = no grade = no advancement = denial of further student loan money. That leaves only parental support or inherited assets or income to support them. If they are receiving parental support or investment income, where do they think this money comes from? Magic?
The liberal political elite are supporting the OWS protesters for all of the free publicity that comes with association with that movement. What do the OWS protesters gain from them? Not much except a commensal relationship and not a symbiosis. The OWS is being blatantly converted into a pro-Obama deflection mechanism politically. One would think the lessons of 1968 would tell them otherwise, but we are talking Democrats who never learned any lesson except tax more, spend more and repeat ad nauseam.
I asked you also NOT to use psychobabble, I did not say that you were using it. As for killing your arguments, you are doing that nicely of your own volition in your own rhetorical form of hara-kiri. I dont' mind being associated with Ms. Coulter to the extent that she certainly is witty and able to inflame liberals to the point of hyperventilation.
The quality of your reanimation seems less like Frankenstein and more like a badly produced Japanese monster flick circa 1972.
Who says they don't have
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:57pm.
Who says they don't have jobs? My whole point is that this either/or BS whereby OWS protesters must be either trust fund baby brats or unemployed losers ignores the fact that, gee, maybe a lot of them are employed or working their way through school. Seriously, are you suggesting that people who have student loan debt but show up at a political demonstration or own a smartphone are in some sort of violation of terms to their creditor? Give me an effing break. Again, that's as persuasive as saying a Tea Party attendee who's a little behind on the bills is a derelict monster for showing up at the rally instead of working a 3rd job to get up to speed. Furthermore, you seem to rely on the idea that all OWS protesters haven't budged from the spot they staked out since the whole thing began.
Your arguments fail to persuade because they recurringly rely on caricature.
As for the psychobabble point, I now remember one thing that always irked me about this virtual place; when posters are on the ropes, they fall back on an insistence on exactl, ultra-literal language. Oh right, you didn't flat out SAY that I was using psychobabble. But why bring it up at all then? You might as well have said "explain your liberal position without referring to 18th century British naval history."
"Caricature", Rupe ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:05pm.
is precisely what anyone with prescience notes when they observe the mooksters of OWS.
Anyone who attempts to defend them while stating "I wouldn't be caught dead at an OWS rally", is either a phony, or is still too confused after landing on his head upon falling off the fence, to remember which side of the fence he belongs on.
MD
"is precisely what anyone
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:14pm.
"is precisely what anyone with prescience notes when they observe the mooksters of OWS."
If you truly think it's that simple, you're beyond trying to argue with. It is NO DIFFERENT from a liberal looking at a few select pics of TPers (the most exaggerated incarnations, of course, with the Uncle Sam costumes and the "Hands of my Medicare" signs) and dismissing the entire thing as a block party for rubes.
Rupert
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:21pm.
Jumping the shark here Rupert.
Come on, comparing people dressed as symbols of our country to the mass of unwashed bizarro people at OWS? Looking at pictures of Tea Party members you see people you would run into at work, in the mall, in the grocery store, etc.
Members of OWS, I don't run into those freaks unless I go to South Street in Phillly.
How superficial of you. So
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:37pm.
How superficial of you. So if an OWSer put on a bald eagle t-shirt or whatever people at your local mall wear, they might be slightly more worthy of your attention.
And I've jumped the shark? Everything you've posted has been nonsense based on the most childish of stereotypes.
Rupert
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 1:13pm.
You are a sad and angry little man aren't you? My link was a childish stereotype? No, you're temper tantrum is childish.
Despite what childish fantasies you may have, looks and clothing DO matter in this world. Our appearance dictates our jobs, our social standing, our personalities and much more. Can you deny that people who dye their hair multicolors, heavily tattoo, and/or pierce their bodies are sending a message? Do you deny that people going to interviews wear suits to impress upon their employers that are professional and serious prospects?
The outlandish dress of the majority of the OWS demonstrators indicates their desire to live outside of the "norm" of society. But now they want to force their "norm" to become the norm for everyone else. That norm does not project the type of person who wants to work hard, save money, and contribute to society. That's not superficial, it's opinion based upon thoughtful observation.
No, in fact, I am happy and
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 9:21am.
No, in fact, I am happy and content, as it is a beautiful autumn Saturday morning and all I have to do is rake some leaves, sip coffee, and look forward to a weekend of collegiate and professional football.
Yes, our society puts a lot of importance on superficial and arbitrarily-determined standards of appearance, but in my experience it's only teenagers who actually, truly, consciously believe they can determine a person's value and mindset from a person's clothing.
Rupert
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 5:16pm.
Oh come on, be honest. Would you go to a doctor who had dreads, 20 visible piercings, and wore clothes that looked like they had been slept in? Or would you prefer someone with neat hair and clothes?
This is not unique to our society, it's common throughout mankind.
No thoughts about the message the OWS people are sending through their attire?
OK, OK, you're right, I'm
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 8:14pm.
OK, OK, you're right, I'm just sayin'.
Rupert
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 1:15pm.
You are a sad and angry little man aren't you? My link was a childish stereotype? No, you're temper tantrum is childish.
Despite what childish fantasies you may have, looks and clothing DO matter in this world. Our appearance dictates our jobs, our social standing, our personalities and much more. Can you deny that people who dye their hair multicolors, heavily tattoo, and/or pierce their bodies are sending a message? Do you deny that people going to interviews wear suits to impress upon their employers that are professional and serious prospects?
The outlandish dress of the majority of the OWS demonstrators indicates their desire to live outside of the "norm" of society. But now they want to force their "norm" to become the norm for everyone else. That norm does not project the type of person who wants to work hard, save money, and contribute to society. That's not superficial, it's opinion based upon thoughtful observation.
Rupaul, NB's Resident OWS Lover
Submitted by MrShy on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 3:30pm.
There is absolutely -- and you know this, but you're a knucklehead and a commie ideologue -- no stereotyping going on here.
And sure, looking up pics is silly. Go to NYTimes, CNN, MSNBC (all .com's) now and see what's shaking today -- either smack dab on the homepages, or the articles are just a click away:
- direct, physical clashes with outnumbered police officers
- arrests by the dozens
- incidents in many cities
- camped-out-forever hooligan protesters refusing to leave parks and other public spaces they've seized.
- parks officials getting death threats (look it up, numbskull)
I'm tired of linking you to all of it, idiot. OWS is a scary, dangerous, ever-growing, VIOLENT, anarchistic, youth-brainwashed, thug-mob movement out to do as much damage to this country and to our capitalistic system as possible.
Idiot.
- Shy, a proud 1* (or 53) Percenter
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Rupe, stop, please
Submitted by MrShy on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:26am.
"It is NO DIFFERENT from a liberal looking at ***a few select pics*** of TPers..."
No one here is sizing up these OWS mob/hooligan/trouble-making protests as, well, mob/hooligan/trouble-making protests from picking out "a few select pics". The pics are out there by the many, many, many truckloads. You choose to look away, naturally, as you are an ideologue and you are desperate. We know the truth.
Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Pic 4
Pic 5
Pic 6
Pic 7
Pic 8
Pic 9
Pic 10
Pic 11
Pic 12
Pic 13
Pic 14
Pic 15
Pic 16
Pic 17 (an instant classic)
I only spent 15 minutes finding these, and I had to stop from the headache and heartache it was producing. They range from just about everything that is ugly -- Mobs storming public places like bridges, museums, assaulting guards, taking over parks and block after block of city streets for weeks on end and turning them into stinky garbage dumps, camping out on sidewalks anywhere they choose, clogging up traffic, unruly/violent protesters deliberately being disobedient or breaking the law and forcing the hands of police officers, unhinged, shirtless, tattoed hippies and punksters screaming and being carried away, anarchists with masks over their faces.... and on and on....
So really, stop.
What this demonstrates is, the left (and the complicit media lavishing praise on it, and the celebrities that come out and support it, and Obama and his gang coming out and expressing their empathy and understanding, AND, by extension, you, Rupy) wants all out war with this country.
Fine. Let's role.
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Nope, sorry, pictures
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 7:48am.
Nope, sorry, pictures manipulate. There are plenty of people involved in this who don't look like they're fresh from central casting as "The hypocrite anarchist weirdo." Do a Google Image search for "tea party _____" (inserting just about any negative word in the blank. Now tell me, is this an accurate representation?
Rupert Cadell - Leftist Bigot, Hater & Groupie Groper
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 8:23am.
I did a search on google for that. Wow. Look what I found.
Rupert Cadell - Leftist Bigot, Hater & Groupie Groper.
Surprise boys and girls. This groupie groper troll was a tea party hater long before he was a flea party suck up.
Someone want to explain to me
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 3:48pm.
Someone want to explain to me how Rupert can be a member of Newsbusters for 4 years and 43 weeks yet according to NB track feature this is the FIRST NB article on which Rupert comments?!? Am I missing something?
TheVet: why didn't that post you linked to not come up in NB track on Rupert's account? Did he has a different acct. in 2009?
two years ago
Submitted by kata on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 3:48pm.
all comments were lost when the changeover happened to the new format. I don't know the exact date. I was on an extended afk myself.
Thanks for the info.
Submitted by Beukeboom on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 3:58pm.
Thanks for the info.
Rupert
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 6:22pm.
Well now you're just pathetic. You can see where at least some of the pictures come from when you click on the
(I can't say all, I only could stand looking a couple-gross !). So you can see for yourself if they've been altered. The idea of just not accepting any information you don't like is like a child holding his hands over his ears so he doesn't hear mommy say it's bedtime.
Grow up or get out.
MD > Rupe
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:27pm.
Anyone who attempts to defend them while stating "I wouldn't be caught dead at an OWS rally", is either a phony, or is still too confused after landing on his head upon falling off the fence, to remember which side of the fence he belongs on.
Like.
Rupert, the game is up. You're just another liberal trying to pull one big one over the people you're debating. We, however, are the master debaters.
:)
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:48pm.
indeed.
Check out Rupe's reply to Rad, just north of here.
Dude is starting to lose it; slipping into nastiness veiled by condescension.
How many times have we seen it thus - a troll meltdown?
Lovin' it, I tell ya.
And ol' Rupie asks plaintively, "Why am I considered a troll?"
It is to laugh.
MD
MD
Submitted by MrShy on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:43am.
Yes, hilarious. Rad79? Suddenly fabricating "childish" stereotypes?
I had a liberal facebook "friend" lecturing me to stop my "venomous bull***t", and if I could show you the thread (he zapped it -- shocker, I know) you'd be scratching your head. (And that rhymed :))
- Shy's 12" (Vinyl)
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
If they have jobs or assets....
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:20pm.
...it is incongruous why they are protesting against those who do. The anti-corporation mantra does NOT hold up when they rely on corporate existence to be able to use it. They are entitled to their opinions, but they are not entitled to hold them as sacred, inviolate fact. Two mistakes on your part: 1) you deflect the issue of where the money is coming from to support them - it certainly has to be either a job they work (that makes them part of the established economic process); and 2) if they are working their way through school, they why are they not at WORK or AT SCHOOL? You just keep insisting on the same two points over and over again, and the incongruity of this relative to your silence for four years does nothing to bolster your credibility. In analyzing the contents of your posts, you keep harping on the point that you don't like the stereotypes of the OWS protesters, yet your own behavior relative to this board exemplifies precisely the points we are making. You fed the contradiction to the point where it became a non sequitur on its way to reductio ad absurdum.
So you don't like when someone brings up the use of psychobabble? If you did indeed look at this board and notice the obligate overuse of psychological terms, despite misapplication and serious lack of comprehension by the liberals who we post about, or more intemperately POST at this board, you would note that many of us who work as mental health professionals have cautioned about the misapplication of these terms many times. We do so because our professional requirements tell us to.
After more than four years you appear out of nowhere to complain about Ann Coulter's depiction of OWS protesters? The incongruity stands, Rupie. Either way, your judgment of any regular poster's arguments is inconsequential and/or uninformed. You cannot have it both ways. The OWS protesters can say all they want, but saying they do not match the persona which they have so publicly displayed negates your objections to their portrayal.
What would you reasonably expect on a CONSERVATIVE website? Empathy for them? Again, the mismatch between your sudden displeasure with the consensus of opinion of them on this website and your constant harping on this specific thread after so many years negates your credibility.
Day-um, doc---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:55pm.
that was a top notch post.
MD
THE BEST
Submitted by gfrrman on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 1:20am.
SLAPDOWN I have seen recently(although I can't read all posts, obviously)...with no slams against "THE Vet".
g
I think that was a compliment.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 1:40am.
I can't be...I think it was a compliment.
It soitainly---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 1:51am.
was.
MD
YESH, VET
Submitted by gfrrman on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 2:01am.
....always entertained and enjoy the beatdowns you administer on the FACTS, too. The doc......well,.....on fire on this one and usually on all topics. Enjoy "docs'" expertise, knowledge and RATIONAL thinking. Thanks guys,
g
As do I sir.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 2:20am.
.
kata had a list of the supplies they are requesting.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:44am.
Here.
A list of Items as long as your arm that corporations create, ship, store, and sell. Publicly traded corporations that are bought and sold in tiny slivers called stocks just down the street from the urine soaked park they inhabit.
The irony is thick as molasses with this bunch.
corporate brand named molasses at that.
Submitted by kata on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:47am.
;)
"The anti-corporation mantra
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 7:57am.
"The anti-corporation mantra does NOT hold up when they rely on corporate existence to be able to use it."
This faulty premise torpedoes your argument. You, along with most others, seem only to be able even to acknowledge this group's existence by labeling them as socialists and anarchists. Which are interesting go-to labels since it's as likely that anarchists would throw rocks at socialists (that's what those Chomsky-reading losers do, dontcha know) as bankers. But as much as the posters here insist that there's no guiding ideology for this movement, it seems quite clear to me that their beef is not that "Corporations suck!!" but that the relationship between corporations and government is unconscionable. Your pointing out of some fundamental hypocrisy on the part of OWS works ONLY if - yet again - the person your trying to convince accepts a CARICATURE of the goals of these protests. I'm sorry to keep making these comparisons, but it's a potent tactic: Your criticism carries all the weight of an Elizabeth Warren type saying that anti-tax folks are hypocrites for gathering in public (i.e. publicly maintained through taxes) spaces.
Labels. Yeah. Labels. Hmmm. Labels. Ok.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 8:27am.
Who cares what they do or
December 5, 2009 - 18:48 ET by Rupert Cadell
Who cares what they do or don't call themselves? They're 98.5% Beck-worshipping crybabies with apparent short-term memory impairment regarding recent history who think the election of a half-black man is the root of all our current ills, can't wrap their heads around the fact that most mainstream economists agree that the stimulus actually prevented a full-blown depression, and believe that "Drill Baby Drill" is a brilliant policy statement.
Yeah. Labels.
socialists and protest
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 8:28am.
"the relationship between corporations and government is unconscionable" - in the current economic and political climate going back about 80 years I believe this is a widely supported comment. Throwing Rocks at Socialist - Socialist will use any demonstration that evokes the ideas of government control. Sometimes by direct action and sometimes by no more than sending down food, medical care and materials for signs - which is the case at some of the OWS protest.
There was a fairly well know picture that floated around the internet on a protest in California about 6-7 years ago that showed a nicely formed protest group up close. A contrasting picture that was taken by a pedestrian showed that you a nicely formed protest group carrying a sign flanked by a communist group that was helping to organize the people and hand out signs to achieve the optimum photo opportunity. You may not believe in their cause but if a stronger central government is the result of your cause they will be there in one form or another to assist.
"relationship between corporations and government"
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 8:49am.
More please. More.
I own lots of stock in corporations. Lots. Please corporations. Make lots of money with your uncommicansionalbelingny relationship with government. Please. And increase your dividends. I like dividends from cozy corporations and governments. Really. I do. I really really do.
Oh and groupie gropers suck. They suck bad.
Vet's Stock
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 10/17/2011 - 12:29pm.
here what you are saying and good for you! Of course if your stock was in a company competing with GE and your money was having to compete with a company not having to pay taxes, getting special R&D funds and expedited government clearances on patents and regulations it would suck.
There will always be government involvement in the market in a mixed economy - it is the 'why' and 'how much' that determines the effectiveness of the involvement.
Good morning Rupert
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 8:42am.
What else would you have us call these socialist anarchists? And in case you don't know, that computer you are using is a result of that awful relationship between government and corporations.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Microsoft is a corporation.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 8:51am.
Intel is one too. I own stock in both. I love corporations. I really love corporations that pay dividends. A lot.
I have no interest in groupie gropers. Ain't one ever gave a nickel out to no one.
Good morning Vet
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 8:58am.
Corporations helped found this country by cooperating with government.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
cooperating with government
Submitted by Agnostic on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 9:10am.
Then the corporations created monopolies and working conditions declined. Thus the government and the corporations created the need for unions. Unions came in and established a need for improved working conditions and quality of life for workers. Then the Socialist that used the unions for power became too powerful and started damaging the corporations but now the government was dividing on ideological terms. Both parties had ties to unions and to business but one side support the unions trumped their support for business and vice versa for the other. The political sides grew further and further apart as socialist rhetoric and promises to the working people and the unemployed kept one party in at least partial control of Congress for nearly all of 75 years. The pendulum is swinging back and unions are losing their power and socialist unions, media and the Democrat Party that supports them are holding on for fear of having the pendulum swing too far back toward pure capitalism - which never really occurs.
Welcome (BACK) to NewsBusters, troll
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:49pm.
-Dave
LOL Dave*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:53pm.
He does seem to be running around in circles
c2,
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:15pm.
LOL - Ain't it funny how they still thing they can fool us.
Four years, 42 weeks and this.
They just never learn.
-Dave
I don't get it either.
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:52pm.
Four years of nothing then suddenly he appears like a bad reincarnation of ADK. I have to ask how many of these sleeper troll accounts were registered in the great wave of years past?
Agree drsam that he is a troll*
Submitted by cajun2 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:00pm.
But I dont think this one is acct # 35 for deddy.. This one seems to have writing skills just - this much better than deddy...LOL
Can someone explain to me
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:17pm.
Can someone explain to me what I'm doing that makes me a troll? I'm not calling other posters vile names. I'm trying to respond to everyone who challenges me. As for posting frequency, I realize you all have no cause to believe me, but I did make several posts as recently as 2009 that are no longer there. Maybe posts get wiped after a year or something? I don't know.
But anyway, aside from not buying Ms. Coulter's reliance on caricature, what have I done that's so contemptible?
Rupert---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:29pm.
come out from under that bridge, and I'll tell ya.
MD
Troll
Submitted by gfrrman on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 1:06am.
by any other name.......if you had some ounce of decorum and not post with your pinky-flared, nostril blowing, nose-in-the-air elitist, smarmy, know-it-all talking down to others attitude.
THAT simple, son(see how that works?)
geez, sometimes you just have to take the damn horse out of the shed and SHOW IT where the water is, and they STILL won't drink!!! 'cept in this case the case, the kool-aid.
g
gfrrman---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 1:23am.
" --- and not post with your pinky-flared, nostril blowing, nose-in-the-air elitist, smarmy, know-it-all talking down to others attitude."
Damn.
I wish I had said that. :o)
MD
Doc Sam,
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:14pm.
This one has been here before.
I can't quite put my finger in it, but the SN is familiar.
LOL - But after a while, they all seem to run together, anyway.
-Dave
Just looking at the language of the posts...
Submitted by drsamherman on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:34pm.
...reminds me of several other sleeper trolls we have encountered, albeit the writing style and content is different as Caj has indicated.
Two things that are clues from a forensic standpoint: a) Rupie's sudden indignant response over a known conservative's opinion of OWS protesters; and b) the deflection created by creating this as an emotional issue versus a logical analysis of the publicly available information on the protesters. I find the inconsistencies rather interesting and quite telling of Rupie's argument.
On one hand, the indignation is pointed towards what Rupie considers to be stereotypes of the OWS protesters. The publicly available information, summarized from the Zuccotti Park ownership and Mayor Bloomberg saying the protest site is now a public sanitation problem to the available information on who is sponsoring and publicly exploiting these protests seems to rile Rupie. The information, being public, cannot be ignored and relative to those of us who lived through the 1960s and 1970s, supports a pattern that we all know essentially became malignant in 1968.
On the other hand, Rupie conflates Ann Coulter's descriptions as somehow being gospel to all conservatives. There may very well be conservatives who support different parts of the OWS message, but the convergence of the conflation along with the silence of over four years, combined with the emotionalization Rupie has displayed thus far lead to a conclusion that either Rupie's account was created specifically for activation over a contentional point or otherwise ignored until a time when instructed to complain.
I do not believe Rupie's sudden burst of indignation is a coincidental occasion. The available evidence points more likely to a ticked-off liberal troll with multiple accounts activated for the purpose of replying to specific issues.
Just my two cents.
lead to a conclusion that
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 8:13am.
lead to a conclusion that either Rupie's account was created specifically for activation over a contentional point or otherwise ignored until a time when instructed to complain.
Wow. You guys are a paranoid bunch.
Option C: Guy creates username to comment on provocative story sometime in 2007. Gets kind of into the whole debate/argument atmosphere of the site. Posts consistently for a few weeks. Continues to read site a few times a week. Chimes in now and again.
This scenario, of course, is ludicrous and impossible, seeing how it doesn't fit in with the narrative of there being liberal operatives hiding in every nook & cranny of your online conservative strongholds.
Also, "emotionalization"? That almost sounds like psychobabble, doc. More to the point, where and what do you see me emotionalizing?
The indignant nature of your posts is emotionalization.
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 10:25am.
Must be tough to hear that, but you continue to act with a degree of self-righteous indignation over a depiction of the OWS protesters to a degree that your defense of them is constructed around a core of irrationality. The publicly available information thus far: a) the city has told the protesters the park is not up to sanitary standards and needs to be cleaned; b) city attempts to clean the park but the protesters refuse to leave.; c) the park is not public property but instead a private space where public use is permitted under limited circumstances. The other supporting item of your emotionalization of this issue is this issue is the persistence with which you post, which is rising to the level of fixation (remember I get to use the terms--I'm a psychiatrist). It's only a short way from fixation to delusion to obsession. Indignation is a human emotion, Rupie. So is the imputed rage with which you are defending a minor point.
Secondly, the temporal (timing) element of your posting history and your self-admitted liberal bias makes us wonder why you suddenly show up after two years (remember, you said your last posts were in 2009) to pursue a single depiction of OWS protesters is questionable at the very minimum. You tell us you didn't have much to say. Fine. Turns out what you did have to say already established an anti-tea party position on a conservative website. Applying the concept of rational expectations (not psychobabble--economic), what would you reasonably expect this conservative website to say about someone who starts in with anti-tea party rhetoric? A bifurcation of intent emerges, that is you were either seeking to stir up trouble and then remove yourself suddenly from it (the liberal troll gambit) OR you left because this board would defend its pro-tea party position vigorously. The "just a guy posting here now and then" argument holds little or no water either. As a self-professed liberal, you are aware of the conservative nature of this site and the multiple situations where we have seen never-used accounts posting outrageous statements to draw attention. Temporally and politically, it seems that shoe fits your foot.
And finally we get to the repeat use of "ludicrous and impossible". You used the terms "negative buzzwords" that have emerged in describing your behavior. Are not those words "ludicrous and impossible" your attempt to score a few points before you go back into your coma until the next time you decide to post in one of your infrequent rants about liberals? Again, that shoe is fitting your other foot.
Your option C is implausible based on a reasoned consideration of your posting history and analysis of the rhetoric you have used. As for calling us paranoid, do you even know what the term means in a clinical sense? Just to let you know as a freebie: it's a guy who comes into a conservative website, throws around a bunch of insupportable nonsense and then indignantly and vociferously complains that he is not being taken seriously because the evidence is stacked against him. Thank you for proving my points.
Good day. I also have a job to do.
Not to put too fine a point on it---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 6:54pm.
because many here have contributed, but:
Doc Sam, The Vet, and cocodrie have kicked this Rupert Cadell so hard in his moronic liberal arse that Rupie's descendants are gonna be pooping patent leather shoes.
MD
I am also a psychiatrist.
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 11:23pm.
I am also a psychiatrist. Small world.
I'll refrain from responding to every single one of your "critiques" since you do indeed strike me as one of those shrinks who would jump straight from a diagnosis of "fixation" to obsessive compulsion or even full-blown psychosis (makes it so much easier to just stuff 'em full of quetiapine and score some points with the pharm industry, eh?) but you do realize the Catch-22 you put me in, right? The only reason I posted so "persistently" was that I had about 15 different angry conservatives to respond to. I did my best to reply to all, given the tortoise-like speed at which this site runs. So I'm either the good doctor's "fixated" little liberal or I just cement my new "troll" status by posting and never returning. Which is worse?
And no, a far more accurate definition of "paranoid" would be the assumption that a dissenting poster with minimal posting history is a Daily Kos-funded operative as opposed a guy who just doesn't wake up every morning thinking about how NB will never get by without his $.02. "Delusions of grandeur" might not be the clinical term, but it certainly fits here.
well dr rupie*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 11:46pm.
"paranoid" is not appropriate when we have had sto' bought and paid for trolls driving by NB regularly dropping lib talking points simply to incite, demean, and insult.
You would be surprised at the "professions" of some of the NB posters. There are no rube redneck toothless idiots here. We are familiar and comfortable debating with liberals until they spin the truth, lie, and show their blind ideology rather than substance. We are comfortable debating with any liberal here, ask Jer, and some of the posters do a grand job of educating the "intellectual elites" that drop by. That does not mean anyone suffers from "delusions of grandeur". For posters like The Vet, Ms Radical, Drsamherman, and others, it simply means "been there, done that".
Welcome to NB.
Riiiiight!
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 12:14am.
Thanks for the laugh! Although at this time of the evening, a beverage alert might have been prudent.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 134 (and Counting)
Mee Tooo!!
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 12:16am.
I am also a cement troll in the Neverending Story. Small potatoes.
Wait. How does this troll thing work again? I don't think I did that right.
Well, since I---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 12:23am.
am a retired All Pro NFL running back with a degree that allows me to perform orthopedic surgery at Cedars of Lebanon Hospital pro bono when not conducting big game safaris in Antarctica -
I can see ol' Rupe being a psychiatrist.
MD
Hee hee, md
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 12:28am.
For a "shrink".....he's certainly not very convincing, is he?
Kind of like a 3rd rate understudy, whose been in academe forever. A 55 year old effeminate Peter O'Toole wannabe.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 134 (and Counting)
Gosh, you'd think I'd claimed
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 8:49am.
Gosh, you'd think I'd claimed to be a Spaceman/Cowboy/Running Back/Secret Agent. Psychiatry isn't all the glamorous. I basically live an exceedingly boring middle-class life. Sometime I even take little trips on the strength of my investments (!!!)
Tell us about your investments.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 8:56am.
Tell us more. Any corporations that trade on Wall Street which is occupied by, wait, no, no, a park near Wall Street is wall to wall with stink.
Tell us more about your Psychiatry degree.
Tell us more of what your profession would think of statements like this ---
Who cares what they do or
December 5, 2009 - 18:48 ET by Rupert Cadell
Who cares what they do or don't call themselves? They're 98.5% Beck-worshipping crybabies with apparent short-term memory impairment regarding recent history who think the election of a half-black man is the root of all our current ills, can't wrap their heads around the fact that most mainstream economists agree that the stimulus actually prevented a full-blown depression, and believe that "Drill Baby Drill" is a brilliant policy statement.
Tell us why everyone one calls you a groupie groper.
I knew I'd posted in 2009!
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 9:06am.
I knew I'd posted in 2009! Thanks. Heh, yeah, I was in a bad mood when I posted that one, clearly. Definitely out of line. This is why I don't use my real name, I suppose.
Why do you think it's any of your business what companies I have holdings in? Some have worked out, others have not. Just because you see fit to trumpet your portfolio contents to the world doesn't mean I have to.
And my mentioning investments was to underscore a point. These protests, which I'm "supporting" only at the level of trying to dispel silly stereotypes about the participants, don't seem to me to be directed at everyday Americans who purchase stocks.
What would you like to know about my education?
As for "groupie groper," it must have to do with that time in '85 when I got backstage passes for the Journey show in Passaic.
Phweet.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 12:45pm.
We having a conversation troll? Pack sand. You are the same nasty vicious little troll you were in 2009. Bad mood my ass. You troll because you think the anonymous nature of the internet can cover whatever vicious attacks you want to make on anyone you want. It is the troll way. It is your way.
Huh. Well I honestly thought
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 1:52pm.
Huh. Well I honestly thought that a sincere apology and a self-deprecating joke might be received as the olive branch it was intended to be, but if this is your preferred response, that's fine too.
Whatever. Look at your nonstop insults here.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:20pm.
...so-called Real Americans. ... ..TP...You wanna blame ... ...stupid beyond belief. ..TP... ... just shrieking nonsense... ...TP... ...you... play the silly game...with no concrete evidence whatsoever... ...Ann is going to sling nonsense... ...TP TP TP...""the Tea Party just hates having a black president" ... See, I can throw together neat little bite-size platforms too! ......TP... ...right-wing stuffed shirt......TP......if you say this one more time without bothering... TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TP TPTPTPTPTPTP ...expose the ineptitude of Ann's insults. ... ...TP... ....my real-life identity isn't wrapped up in a cliquey message board.... Did I refer yet again to the Tea Party? Let me do it again. ...TP... ...TP... ...TP.... Do I constantly make references and comparisons to the Tea Party.... HELLLLLL1!!!!z111!!!!! YA!!!!!!!! TP TP TP TP!!!! ..."psychobabble"? ... ...My Diaper is full. I had posted several times in the 2007-08 era, but those posts appear to have been expunged despite my account not being banned. Mommy. Change my diaper.... Ann. Ann. Ann. Ann. Psychobabble! Troll! Tea Party. Tea Party. Tea Party. Mommy, I got Tea Party on the brain. This is a forum about the OWS people but I can't stop saying TP and Tea Party in post after post after post.... Tea Party!!!@! TP! TP! TP! TPers. What is this forum about again? TP TP TP!!!!@! ...superficial of you. Everything you've posted has been nonsense...
I don't believe for two seconds you are a psychiatrist
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 10:34am.
You couldn't be more transparent if you tried. You haven't the vocabulary for it, first of all. Secondly, DocSam diced and sliced you fourteen ways from Sunday before you popped up with this shrink schtick.
Lying isn't your strong suit, Rupe.
FAIL.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 134 (and Counting)
You're such a poseur, Rupe
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 12:25am.
A fiction writer. A wannabe.
You're no more a shrink than I am an astronaut. But keep trying. Such a bad liar, Rupe....truly.
I love your WHINE, too.....fifteen "angry" conservatives hounding you to hell.
Hilarious.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 134 (and Counting)
Move over Blonde*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 12:36am.
Here come the hounds.
Oh, you caught me. I'm just
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 8:45am.
Oh, you caught me. I'm just a 15 y/o zit-faced kid in mom's basement waiting for my check from George Soros for "disrupting" a Newsbusters forum. Because that really happens.
Are you so desperate to believe that anyone who doesn't swallow Ann Coulter's toxic stereotypes whole must be a pathetic loser that I couldn't possibly have the same occupation as this Sam Herman fellow? That simply saying "oh hey, that's what I do too" is grounds for a "beverage alert." That's just really sad.
Gators fan, eh? Great showing at LSU. Don't worry, I'm sure Auburn won't humiliate you TOO badly...
I don't think your a 15 year old, kid, either
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 10:44am.
I suspect you're a middle aged liberal in some mediocre profession, probably indoctrinating middle schoolers or somesuch.
You're no psychiatrist, just admit it. Although maybe you stayed at Holiday Inn once upon a time. Your attempt to portray yourself as DocSam's equal was absolutely hilarious....in your dreams, Rupe.
Nice attempt at an insult there, though. Now I know you probably attended one of those second rate schools in the ACC (sorry Rick). Or one of the girls' schools in New England. My Gators would gut any team sport at whatever pathetic institution you attended.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 134 (and Counting)
I only mentioned my
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 11:07am.
I only mentioned my profession when DocSam mentioned his. And you'll note that I haven't been trying to parade it around and offer "psychobabble" diagnoses of other posters.
This is what I mean about Catch-22s. Imagine the uproar and vitriol if I had prefaced my initial comments with "As a psychiatrist..." and then started using "the vocabulary" to discuss Coulter, TPers, OWSers, etc. Even if you'd "believed" me, you'd surely have vilified me for using specialized language on a message board. You've decided I can't possibly have an occupation that is more than mediocre or earns over $30,000/yr because you don't like what I've said. Something tells me you've never asked Vet to prove he's a veteran just because he doesn't use military lingo in his posts. Something tells me you believed instantly that DocSam IS an esteemed psychiatrist from Day 1 (not that I don't think he is). I mean, it even says he is on his profile!!!
I have no idea what you do, but according to your own logic, if you were ever to mention it, I should not believe you because you didn't announce it in your first post of the forum.
It wasn't an insult. Not at you, anyway. I'm assuming you're not a player or coach with the Gators. There's a psychiatric term for the sort of behavior that leads individual fans to believe that they're somehow integral to a team's performance (these are usually the same fans who say "we" and "us" in reference to said teams). Of course, I only pretend to be a psychiatrist, so I don't know what this term is.
Of course you're not
Submitted by Blonde on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 11:17am.
a psychiatrist....hence you don't know the term. But you've certainly done an awful lot of projecting about me, my beliefs, my motives, etc.
Sorry my description of you is a little too close to the truth, Rupert.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 134 (and Counting)
Of course, if I wanted so
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 11:25am.
Of course, if I wanted so badly to make you believe I was one, it would take me about 2 seconds to use Google to find out what that term might be, wouldn't it?
Anyway, back to grading this stack of 7th graders' papers on the Teapot Dome Scandal. Gotta finish up in time to watch Florida lose.
To be sure, Dave
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:25am.
I vaguely remember the SN as well, although, it's been so long that I really remember not much about this particular poster (had it been Hater, or one of the other epic idiots, I'd have twigged to the fact).
I have to say, I have thoroughly enjoyed the lickin' (whilst tickin') you all have laid upon Mr. Cadell in my absence. NB has been a twitch factory all day, so I've been goofing on my Gator boards...and I come back and find this perfectly beautiful thread....full of whack a liberal.
SWEET!
We can expect more of ALL of this (trolls and *cough* protests) in the near and not too distant future. I find it hilarious that the leftists must come and defend the paid protesters (Union goons, Code Pinkos, et. al)....OMO!
Finally, Rupert....if you are still reading this, or manage to show up tomorrow....let me explain it to you. It is entirely possible for a trust fund baby, who has had a SIX FIGURE education, to be unemployed and now living in mom's basement (well, guest house). The two are not mutually exclusive, you see. It is NOT rocket science. (But, if you are interested in Rocket Science, look up the Hermanator).
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 134 (and Counting)
just from the sheer post length
Submitted by kata on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:35am.
I'd have to say 007. That's of course the iteration I remember. But you know me, I don't care.
OH! not to pull you OT. But check out Ms M's new dress.
I see that, Kata
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:41am.
(Okay, to all, we are NOT going to derail this thread any further).
It's not her dress that has me curious. It's her lipo, and the rest of the plastic surgery. Kata, you must join us on MOTUS, you are a natural MOL (Mean Old Lady).
Back to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress.
I remember Rupert, just not anything pertinent he's ever said. But I surely have enjoyed you all kicking him to bloody bits tonight.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 134 (and Counting)
kata
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 11:53am.
OMG that was funny! Don't they ever have some sort of photographer around to at least work on the posing for these photos? The up/down/up/down when looking at the people is hysterical.
If they've had a 6-figure
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 8:55am.
If they've had a 6-figure education, Blonde, then they have infused (or had infused on their behalf - in material terms it doesn't really make a difference) quite a bit of money into the "system." Not just tuition. Being a student is expensive and contributes to economies both micro- and macro-, no matter who you are. Whether or not these people actually happen to still live with mum and papa is pretty beside the point. Is it sort of sad that they'd come out of such an expensive education with no ambition. Absolutely. Parasitic? Not really. Kind of the opposite. These puffed-chest stories about how much better we are because we worked to put ourselves through night school and no one gave us anything, etc, etc, is not much different from the "class warfare" of which liberals are so routinely accused.
Class warfare?
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 8:59am.
You mean like insulting people that are out protesting?
Who cares what they do or
December 5, 2009 - 18:48 ET by Rupert Cadell
Who cares what they do or don't call themselves? They're 98.5% Beck-worshipping crybabies with apparent short-term memory impairment regarding recent history who think the election of a half-black man is the root of all our current ills, can't wrap their heads around the fact that most mainstream economists agree that the stimulus actually prevented a full-blown depression, and believe that "Drill Baby Drill" is a brilliant policy statement.
Yes, Vet. Two years ago I
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 9:10am.
Yes, Vet. Two years ago I posted some unkind comments that basically performed the same stereotyping as what I've accused Ms. Coulter of doing. My comments then were over the top and motivated by anger rather than rationalization. Guilty.
Shut up troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 12:49pm.
You started out here with the same nasty style of comments here. You want to apologize for 2009. Apologize for your behavior here. Or do I have to line them up with your apologies included?
Shut up, troll? No I think
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:01pm.
Shut up, troll?
No I think I'll just continue posting whenever I feel like it, actually. Or you can go cry to the moderators and try to get me banned. Either way.
Two men enter, one man leaves.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 2:07pm.
And it ain't gonna be you.
Though I'm not sure what this
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 9:12am.
Though I'm not sure what this has to do with class warfare.
Yes. The BIGOT would not know.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 12:58pm.
DId you catch the name of the forum? Huh? Bigot. You hate based on political ideology. Bigot.
And that post Rupie*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 1:04pm.
Is why you have us all laughing...Psychiatrist, yeah right...LOLOL
Rupert Cadell
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:54pm.
OK, let's assume that someone makes the assertion that the OWS protesters are both affluent and economic parasites (and I'm not sure Coulter does both), then that still doesn't constitute a paradox.
Putting forth an argument which (seems to) logically entails "A" and "not A" is a contradiction. Although that typically is a necessary condition for a paradox, it isn't sufficient.
I don't see how your argument demonstrates the paradoxical nature of the criticisms of the OWS protesters.
Also, your comment about mocking the OWS protesters for being unemployed but not doing the same to Tea Party protesters who are unemployed is an example of hypocrisy. That isn't the same as paradoxical.
Thank goodness, a cogent and
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:59pm.
Thank goodness, a cogent and intelligent reply!
No, the paradox would be in subscribing to the idea that the typical OWS participant is both of these things. Because conservative criticism of undesirables tends to be noisy but inconsistent, several of the usual suspects have casually alternated between these two characterizations.
If I said that each individual proposition is paradoxical, then I retract. I meant to say that they are unsustainable and yes, hypocritical.
Rupert
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:10pm.
Whenever I hear the old "at last, a reasonable argument", or some such drivel, it's a signal that the writer can no longer defend his main point, and has latched onto something he feels he can defend/distort into something completely different.
No, the Tea Party and OWS are NOT fighting for the same things, as you said earlier.
Radical1979
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:13pm.
Hey - maybe my response was cogent and intelligent and maybe I am just that awesome :0
Hydro
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:20pm.
Didn't mean to take away from awesomeness on your party Hydro. 'Cause when you start in on the physics and science stuff I know to keep the keys still.
Of course you are, hydro!
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:28am.
You must be, a liberal actually gleaned a clue from your post.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 134 (and Counting)
After careful analysis, hydro, you are obviously suffering from
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 5:54am.
megalomania associative delusions of grandeur compounded by episodic Axis II acute paranoia. Here's a scrip for Iloperidone.
That'll be fifty dollars. Please leave a check with Ms. Parkinson made payable to DrJer*.
NEXT!
Wow...I can be a psychiatrist too!
Jer
* Okay. Technically speaking, I'm not a Doctor. But it was fun to pretend.
You can go now rupie*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 9:05pm.
Our resident libster, Jer, is back on line and he wants his throne back.
Oh, and just so you know, Jer is a state supreme court Judge.
"Yeah, THAT's the ticket!" --
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 10/17/2011 - 11:27am.
"Yeah, THAT's the ticket!" -- Tommy Flanagan
I'm reporting you to the
Submitted by Beukeboom on Mon, 10/17/2011 - 11:19am.
I'm reporting you to the authorities for practicing without a license.
<*grinning, ducking, and running*>
Well Rad, that might often be
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:14pm.
Well Rad, that might often be the case, but thus far there hasn't been much to argue. The only resistance I've received has been your outlining of the TP's TRUE goals (I responded to each individually) and a smattering of "Nuh-uh, troll!" So...yeah.
My true goals.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 9:13am.
To have so much money pouring in from the dividends of all the corporations I own and love, I will be able to retire early and move in with matthewdean and shoot wildlife from our back porch.
And all those dividends I got pouring in from all the great corporations that I own now are helping because I take all those dividends and BUY MORE CORPORATIONS.
I am currently stocking up on Chevron and Raytheon. Ohhhhh, I am getting overexcited just thinking about how happy I will be owning more of those corporations. Gotta take a break. Wind down a bit. MAN I LOVE CORPORATIONS.
Rupert Cadell
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:09pm.
I understand that you are arguing that a paradox entails if you assert both. I thought I expressed that understanding in my last post but maybe it wasn't as clear as I thought.
So I'll just basically repeat myself here - an argument which asserts something and its contradiction isn't a paradox by virtue of that alone - it's simply a contradiction.
If I assert that it's raining outside and that it isn't raining outside, I've contradicted myself - I haven't generated a paradox.
Aren't we kind of splitting
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:32pm.
Aren't we kind of splitting hairs here? Isn't the act of contradicting (by positing mutually exclusive scenarios) what produces a paradox?
I certainly don't claim to be an expert in logic (and yes, I realize this phrase opens me up to all sorts of jabs along the lines of "you can say THAT again!!!"), so maybe I've misused the term. What then is the criteria for something to be a paradox?
A paradox is someone trying his---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:52pm.
damndest to come across as erudite while slamming a columnist who slams his heroes.
MD
Ooh, "erudite." Look at you,
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:22pm.
Ooh, "erudite." Look at you, Mr. Safire.
Grown-ups are talking.
Where?
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:29pm.
I see a liberal er...economic centrist or...a left leaner or a whatever getting his arse kicked up and down the thread.
sentry---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:38pm.
:o)
MD
Well MD
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:50pm.
He's obviously down. Let the toe kicking commence.
Yes, Rufie, Dr Sam, Hydro, MD
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:03am.
Sentry, Rad, Dave, Cajun and the others are the grown-ups, sadly, you don't measure up.
Now toodle on back to whichever "left-center" hole you crawled out of.
here's one upnorth*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 1:28am.
Let's see how rufie feels about the OWLs when the rest of this story comes out...See if the troll agrees with the organizers for their MAIN goal
Breitbart does it again
Caj, I'm quite sure this
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 10:09am.
left-center, or is it center-left today, liberal agrees whole-heartedly with their goals. Although, he wouldn't be caught dead at an OWLS event./sarc
Rupert Cadell
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:56pm.
I wouldn't call it splitting hairs. The term "paradox" has a specific meaning which is distinct from "contradiction". True paradoxes generate a lot of interest in philosophy, science and math. Contradictions - not so much.
Paradoxes are sort of hard to classify (although a lot of progress has been made to that end in recent decades) but in a very general sense, a paradox is generated when a seemingly reasonable argument, predicated on assumptions which all seem to be true or plausible, leads to what appears to be a contradiction or an unreasonable conclusion.
So no - contradictions and paradoxes aren't the same thing.
I can see how that would be
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 11:24pm.
I can see how that would be more specific to math and science than lignuistics and symbolic logic. OK, I'll switch to contradiction then.
Math & Science.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 9:08am.
I don't know outright what corporations I own that use a lot of math and science. But I do own 3M and they do a lot of research. I own Raytheon and General Dynamics. Lots of math and science going into defense related stuff. And Dow. You gotta get the math and science right to make chemicals or stuff blows up. It blows up real good.
Of course, I also do a lot of math counting all of my dividends that come pouring in every month and quarter. Sometimes it takes so long figuring out all the dividend math, I need to take a break.
Lawd, I do love me my corporations. Yeah, I only own a tiny slice. Still, they are mine. You can thank me next time you visit McDonalds. Just yell out "Thanks Vet". They have heard it before. They will understand.
Try this one RC*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:46am.
To quote kata from a previous discussion about trolls...
" if you are running across a shooting range, don't whine about being shot at"
A firearm metaphor. I'm
Submitted by Rupert Cadell on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 7:40am.
A firearm metaphor. I'm shocked.
I don't own any firearm manufacturers.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 9:13am.
I do own Walmart stock. Walmart sells firearms. Gawd, I love corporations. Walmart has an ok dividend, not great but they keep raising it. Oh my lawd above I love corporations.
O/T - Do they still give you a free Sam's Club membership?
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 3:31pm.
Back when I directly owned Wal-mart stock, they were giving all shareholders free Sam's Club memberships.
Does the company still do that?
No sir.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 9:53pm.
No freebies. They do keep raising the dividend though. Man, I love corporations!!!!11! Internet excitements!!@@!11!@!
Oh darn.
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 9:58pm.
I might just buy some Wal-mart stock again because they always treat their shareholders so nicely. As long as that dividend check keeps increasing, I'm fine with them.
We have a corporate Costco membership that I use. The Sam's Club is a bit far from our house.
Best wishes, Vet.
You ought to get one....
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 10:29pm.
....just because.
Your name is SAM!
*sorry* silly time....my mom is driving me crazy...well, I'm DRIVING her, because we had to take her car away. Alas.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 134 (and Counting)
*cue redneck hillbilly jokes*
Submitted by kata on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 10:54am.
Yes, we own guns. My husband is military and also a long time hunter and fisher. Feel free to commence with any derogatory names you'd like to insert here.
Good morning Kata
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 11:07am.
That makes you a three time loser. Married to a man, a hunter and a conservative. Maybe I'll get to meet y'all in the reeducation camp.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
LOL!
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 11:17am.
.
Post of the day Cocodrie*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 11:43am.
Coco drops Rupert head first in a one sentence post...Had me rofmoao
Merci mon ami!
It is odd Rupie*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 4:14pm.
According to your profile, you have been here 4 years and yet you do not know the cajun.
Let me introduce myself
CAJUN.......OH THAT IS WONDERFUL!!!!
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 10:01pm.
Now if the picture was in a Spanish colonial dress and Ma Kettle was wearing a mantilla, you would be seeing a picture of mi abuela!
Thanks drsam*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 10:26pm.
I love mantillas but that is not my culture.
Just cal me diggy liggy lo
Hey, y'all, Rupe found a WiFi connection near his tent...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 10:07pm.
...at one of the commie Occupy Wall Street protests.
LOL - I don't even want to know what he had to do to get the batteries charged. :-O
-Dave
I'd bet Rufie, er Rupie is in NY, not DC.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:00am.
If he were in DC, he'd be complaining about the rain that washed out the 23 or so hippies that were trying their best to "occupy" DC.
I wonder, Dave, if he actually found a connection, or if he's pirating it off of one of those "evil" Wall Streeters, or Bankers.
Or the ones who showed up in Austin....
Submitted by drsamherman on Fri, 10/14/2011 - 12:27am.
...and could not be differentiated from the town's usual suspect degenerates and lowlife. Funny how protesting means your are not allowed to wash your hair or take a shower.
UN,
Submitted by Dave. on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 9:08pm.
LOL - He might just be.
-Dave
Nice to see Ann here :-)
Submitted by DaMav on Thu, 10/13/2011 - 9:17pm.
yep
Wrong forum.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 7:51am.
.
Wall Street Occupiers
Submitted by RealVet on Sat, 10/15/2011 - 7:46pm.
Check out these "stereotypes". LOL
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shock...