Anonymous wrote:
BTW this isn't the first reference Obama has made to the wealth of the wealthiest. He's made several references over the years - it has noting to do with the occupy movement. Don't delude yourself into inflating their worth as a cause.

Obama's speech was clearly influenced by the narrative OWS has injected into the national discourse. In November, Politico reported:

"A quick search of the news--including print articles, web stories and broadcast transcripts--via Nexis reveals a significant rise in the use of the term “income inequality,” from less than 91 instances in the week before the occupation started to almost 500 instances last week."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1111/Occupy_Wall_Street_is_winning.html

Without that sea change, Obama wouldn't have given the same speech. Look at this coverage in today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/us/politics/obama-strikes-populist-chord-with-speech-in-heartland.html?_r=1&hp

"Infusing his speech with the moralistic language that has emerged in the Occupy protests around the nation, Mr. Obama warned that growing income inequality meant that the United States was undermining its middle class..."

"At one point, he noted that the average income of the top 1 percent — adopting the marker that has been the focus of the Occupy movement — has gone up by more than 250 percent, to $1.2 million a year."

Ezra Klein makes the same argument I'm making here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-occupy-wall-street-occupies-obamas-2012-campaign/2011/12/07/gIQAZVN0bO_blog.html

"But perhaps the most obvious thing to say about it is that this isn't Obama's narrative. It's Occupy Wall Street's narrative. The speech is substantially about inequality."

"Inequality has not been a major theme in Obama's economic addresses over the last year. But it looks like it will be the major theme in his reelection campaign. And it's hard to believe that's not in response to Occupy Wall Street's success in turning the national conversation towards inequality."

So, OWS gave "income inequity" media prominence and Obama adopted their rhetoric as a central theme of his campaign. Like I said above, not bad for a bunch of thugs.

Anonymous wrote:

republicans have bad apples.
They even include that thug called Donald Trump
I wish they would rise above their bad apples, but instead have stagnated.

Ah yes, the dems are so superior--an artificially waxed and shinny apple that is wormy and mealy under the skin is so much better.

You've got it wrong. The Republicans are like an artificially waxed and shinny apple that is wormy and mealy under the skin (thiink about all their talk of family values and homosexuals are deviants while having multuiple affairs and meeting up with male prostitutes in airport bathrooms). Or maybe they are granny smith apples - bitter.

The democrats... They more like a honeycrisp apple. Multicolored skin, but watery inside.

republicans have bad apples.
They even include that thug called Donald Trump
I wish they would rise above their bad apples, but instead have stagnated.

Ah yes, the dems are so superior--an artificially waxed and shinny apple that is wormy and mealy under the skin is so much better.

I support their right to protest. I think it's admirable of anyone to spend their days (not to mention nights) out in the rain and the cold because there's a message they believe in. I don't support building structures and tent cities.

What I like about the occupy movement is they are agitating for an important issue - the corruption of our government by moneyed special interests. Otherwise their message is free of hate towards individuals or groups - their ire is directed towards behavior, not race or religion or economic class.

All that said I do wish they wouldn't block my commute home and it's a pain now that my building has to lock down by day because they don't want to be invaded by protestors.

republicans have bad apples.
They even include that thug called Donald Trump
I wish they would rise above their bad apples, but instead have stagnated.

Jeff, I never said the movement should be discredited because of a few thugs. Reread what I wrote.
Any movement attracts a few undesirables, and some movements have an inspirational leader or cause that enables them to rise above a few bad apples. Unfortunately, this movement does not. I understood their initial movement. Frankly, they've stagnated. The news coverage on the whole (and I don't watch fox) is not particularly positive.

Yes, the fraud by the banks and real estate people has made me discredit them. As you wrote, it takes two to tango. We (as a whole nation) are to blame for buying into the bubble. What made normal sane people believe a home could triple in value in 5 years? Realistically, we all knew it was too good to last. We let ourselves be duped because we are just as greedy as the brokers.

BTW this isn't the first reference Obama has made to the wealth of the wealthiest. He's made several references over the years - it has noting to do with the occupy movement. Don't delude yourself into inflating their worth as a cause.

I support them
I want to protest for the right to protes!
Thugs?? I think the police can be described as such

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, I thought you were above cherry-picking quotes. Apparently not. You cut off my quote before this part "Movements like this - regardless of cause - will attract "undesirable" people that commit crimes. And unfortunately, they give the movement a bad name even though they have little to do with the movement."
Nice diversion on your part, too bad you were caught.

To me (and most), a thug is someone committing crimes. Rape is a crime. Lewdness is a crime. There have been thefts and vandalism as well, google it. So yes, crimes are being committed, by thugs or whatever you want to call them. And yes, any movement will get this, LIKE I WROTE. And it detracts from the message.

There are very few foreclosures where people should not have been foreclosed on. People incurred a debt, and failed to pay it over a course of many months, if not years. Foreclosure is the appropriate action.

Okay, so according to you, there should never be any type of movement because all movements will attract thugs that will discredit them. I guess that all college sports have been discredited as well. The Catholic church has been discredited. The US House of Representatives has been discredited. In fact, virtually all of American society has been discredited because of unrelated crimes committed by people on the margins.

You are correct that people incurred debt. But, much like the tango, a mortgage requires two parties. One party should not seek a mortgage that is beyond its means. Similarly the other party should not offer a mortgage that is not soundly secured. What we have seen is that while both parties to these mortgages erred, only one party has had to suffer. That is an injustice that is worth protesting.

As for crimes, consider the fraud committed by the finance industry that contributed to our current economic problems. From mortgages that were made on optimistically-appraised homes, transferred under dubious circumstances so that frequently the actual owner cannot be determined, wrongly bundled and sold, misleadingly rated, and so on. There was fraud at every step of the process. Doesn't that discredit the finance industry? Doesn't it discredit capitalism entirely? I doubt that you think so. Yet, you so easily condemn people who put themselves at risk.

Today, President Obama said this:

"Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top one percent has gone up by more than 250%, to $1.2 million per year. For the top one hundredth of one percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her workers now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade, the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about six percent."

Do you think those words would be coming out of his mouth if there were not occupy movements in cities all over the United States?

Not bad for a bunch of thugs.

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
There is no comparison to the behavior of the tea party demonstrators and the occupy demonstrators.
I agree tea party is/was much worst. Just nasty racist old people, you know republicans.
As one who also has more sympathy for occupiers than tea partiers, I would ask the second PP to refrain from name-calling, since the majority of tea partiers, like the majority of occupiers, are probably honest citizens exercising their First Amendment rights.

Besides, as an old person myself, I am uncomfortable with having "old" linked to "racist" like that.

Just friendly feedback; please don't take offense.

No office taken. This has been my personal experience with the tea partiers. The tea partiers I have encountered were older 70 +, upset about Obama(black & Democrat), wanted to cut services/budget of everyone but themselves(SS and medicare, protect what they have, but cut it for everyone else.) Proudly self identified as tea partiers(but are really just republicans)

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the PP quoted. I don't watch Fox News either. But there are a few thugs giving the movement a bad name. Let's see...
In Novemeber, a woman protester at the Occupy Philadelphia encampment at City Hall was raped in a tent (reported on multiple news outlets, like ABC News). Sexual assaults have been reported from camps in Hartford, Montreal, Australia, DC, and Baltimore. The protesters in New Orleans didn't notice a dead homeless guy for 2 days (death had nothing to do with them, just a body in their camp that no one paid any attention to). In LA, Madison, and Austin, there have been reports of public lewdness, including one allegation that a protester exposed himself and masturbated in front of several people, including children.

This is what you base an allegation of "thugs" on? Yes, sexual assault of anyone is appalling. I can tell you that in the DC encampment someone was arrested for sexual assault and theft and at least one allegation in Baltimore (were there more than one?) turned out to be false. All in all the number of incidents you are able to report is amazingly small and I can't begin to see how you would use that small number to discredit the entire movement. What you listed are public safety concerns that would apply to almost any large gathering. When you claim that violent thugs are discrediting the movement, I would expect examples of people violently attacking police and/or innocent bystanders or taking other violent actions. What you cite are cases of common criminality and the sort of thing that the occupiers themselves participate in combatting.

You can all watch the "thugs" live here:

http://www.livestream.com/occupynyc

Complete with thug balloons and a brass thug band. They are thuggishly occupying a house that is marked for foreclosure.

BTW, what people do to their homes after foreclosure has nothing to do with OWS or the unfairness of the foreclosure crisis. Nice diversion attempt, however.

Jeff, I thought you were above cherry-picking quotes. Apparently not. You cut off my quote before this part "Movements like this - regardless of cause - will attract "undesirable" people that commit crimes. And unfortunately, they give the movement a bad name even though they have little to do with the movement."
Nice diversion on your part, too bad you were caught.

To me (and most), a thug is someone committing crimes. Rape is a crime. Lewdness is a crime. There have been thefts and vandalism as well, google it. So yes, crimes are being committed, by thugs or whatever you want to call them. And yes, any movement will get this, LIKE I WROTE. And it detracts from the message.

There are very few foreclosures where people should not have been foreclosed on. People incurred a debt, and failed to pay it over a course of many months, if not years. Foreclosure is the appropriate action.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the PP quoted. I don't watch Fox News either. But there are a few thugs giving the movement a bad name. Let's see...
In Novemeber, a woman protester at the Occupy Philadelphia encampment at City Hall was raped in a tent (reported on multiple news outlets, like ABC News). Sexual assaults have been reported from camps in Hartford, Montreal, Australia, DC, and Baltimore. The protesters in New Orleans didn't notice a dead homeless guy for 2 days (death had nothing to do with them, just a body in their camp that no one paid any attention to). In LA, Madison, and Austin, there have been reports of public lewdness, including one allegation that a protester exposed himself and masturbated in front of several people, including children.

This is what you base an allegation of "thugs" on? Yes, sexual assault of anyone is appalling. I can tell you that in the DC encampment someone was arrested for sexual assault and theft and at least one allegation in Baltimore (were there more than one?) turned out to be false. All in all the number of incidents you are able to report is amazingly small and I can't begin to see how you would use that small number to discredit the entire movement. What you listed are public safety concerns that would apply to almost any large gathering. When you claim that violent thugs are discrediting the movement, I would expect examples of people violently attacking police and/or innocent bystanders or taking other violent actions. What you cite are cases of common criminality and the sort of thing that the occupiers themselves participate in combatting.

You can all watch the "thugs" live here:

http://www.livestream.com/occupynyc

Complete with thug balloons and a brass thug band. They are thuggishly occupying a house that is marked for foreclosure.

BTW, what people do to their homes after foreclosure has nothing to do with OWS or the unfairness of the foreclosure crisis. Nice diversion attempt, however.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I understood "Occupy Wallstreet". Now... it just seems like bored people that don't have jobs. I'm not sure what good camping out is doing. The point was made months ago - big banks got bailouts but hard-working average Americans that fell on bad times didn't, and that just isn't fair or right. Now what? The message was heard, but the message is now getting diluted by the few violent thugs and by the perception that its just a bunch of bored unemployed guys with nothing better to do.

First, where are the "few violent thugs" that keep being mentioned? That must be a story that only appears on Fox News because I am a news addict and haven't seen any such stories (but, I rarely watch Fox News). As for "now what?", today OWS is engaging in "Occupy Our Homes" in order to draw attention to the foreclosure issue. All over the country, occupiers are engaging in activities aimed at stopping foreclosures. This is where the gap between the 1 percent and the 99 percent really becomes clear. The bankers were bailed out and not are provided record bonuses. At the other end of the spectrum, people are being tossed out of their homes. A concrete step in addressing this inequity is to reform the foreclosure process.

Also, many of the occupiers are employed. These are not a bunch of bored college kids. Bored college kids would have moved on by now. To the contrary, there are people of all ages who are making a huge commitment. They deserve an immense amount of praise.

I'm the PP quoted. I don't watch Fox News either. But there are a few thugs giving the movement a bad name. Let's see...
In Novemeber, a woman protester at the Occupy Philadelphia encampment at City Hall was raped in a tent (reported on multiple news outlets, like ABC News). Sexual assaults have been reported from camps in Hartford, Montreal, Australia, DC, and Baltimore. The protesters in New Orleans didn't notice a dead homeless guy for 2 days (death had nothing to do with them, just a body in their camp that no one paid any attention to). In LA, Madison, and Austin, there have been reports of public lewdness, including one allegation that a protester exposed himself and masturbated in front of several people, including children.

Movements like this - regardless of cause - will attract "undesirable" people that commit crimes. And unfortunately, they give the movement a bad name even though they have little to do with the movement.

I'm unsure how a handful of people sitting at vacant property is going to affect foreclosure reform. Seriously. We are attempting to buy a home that was foreclosed on. The owners had it on the market for a year before it was foreclosed. We've put in an offer. Our realtor told us not to expect a reply for 4-6 months on our offer. So if the Occupy protesters came and camped out at the property, it wouldn't impact anybody but the potential buyer, because the bank does not care about the house at all.

I've been through several foreclosed homes. Many have been completely trashed by the previous owners who were bitter about the foreclosure. Sledgehammers taken to toilets and tiling. Carpets purposely ripped up. Holes in the wall. Yes, loosing your home to a greedy bank isn't a great thing to go through. But being childish and throwing a tantrum and destroying things does not help. The families loose any sympathy from me when I witness the effects of their childish behavior.

I've also known people who decided to foreclose because they were underwater. They don't have my sympathy either. Buying a home is a risk, and should be approached that way. Instead, people thought it was a great way to make money. When they lost, they cry foul. You know what? I lost money in my investments and I don't think anyone should pay it back. It was a risk that I took. Yes, its not fair that the big banks got bailouts and the rest of us didn't. And yes, there needs to be reform. But pepole also need to take responsibility for their actions.

Anonymous wrote:I am truly I have a great idea, all of you who support the occupiers should foot the bills for the police, clean up etc. Why should the rest of us have to pay for these idiots? Personally I was disappointed here in Calofornia that the LAPD didn't go "LAPD" on the occupiers. I just about threw up when they brought them turkeys for Thsnksgiving and let them squat for 2 months. Imagine how many job applications could have been filled out, while all these buns sat around in tents doing nothing.

1st Amendment rights are guaranteed and don't come with a bill. The police could easily reduce their expenses by ending the shows of force. There is absolutely no reason to deploy what are essentially armies against peaceful protesters who are doing nothing more than chanting. But, if you want protesters to begin paying the costs of their activities, let's apply that across the board. As a resident of DC, my tax dollars are constantly used to pay for the costs of protests from an entire slew of causes. Our public safety resources are almost always being diverted to some march or other that rarely has anything to do with local DC issues. You don't thing Glen Beck's demonstration with its "five million" participants was free do you?

I am truly I have a great idea, all of you who support the occupiers should foot the bills for the police, clean up etc. Why should the rest of us have to pay for these idiots? Personally I was disappointed here in Calofornia that the LAPD didn't go "LAPD" on the occupiers. I just about threw up when they brought them turkeys for Thsnksgiving and let them squat for 2 months. Imagine how many job applications could have been filled out, while all these buns sat around in tents doing nothing.

Anonymous wrote:I understood "Occupy Wallstreet". Now... it just seems like bored people that don't have jobs. I'm not sure what good camping out is doing. The point was made months ago - big banks got bailouts but hard-working average Americans that fell on bad times didn't, and that just isn't fair or right. Now what? The message was heard, but the message is now getting diluted by the few violent thugs and by the perception that its just a bunch of bored unemployed guys with nothing better to do.

First, where are the "few violent thugs" that keep being mentioned? That must be a story that only appears on Fox News because I am a news addict and haven't seen any such stories (but, I rarely watch Fox News). As for "now what?", today OWS is engaging in "Occupy Our Homes" in order to draw attention to the foreclosure issue. All over the country, occupiers are engaging in activities aimed at stopping foreclosures. This is where the gap between the 1 percent and the 99 percent really becomes clear. The bankers were bailed out and not are provided record bonuses. At the other end of the spectrum, people are being tossed out of their homes. A concrete step in addressing this inequity is to reform the foreclosure process.

Also, many of the occupiers are employed. These are not a bunch of bored college kids. Bored college kids would have moved on by now. To the contrary, there are people of all ages who are making a huge commitment. They deserve an immense amount of praise.