Tea Party

Hooray for "fear of extremism and mob violence"!

|

Remember when angry public demonstrations amounted to "the politics of the jackboot," a dire stormcloud of brownshirtery in which "an angry minority" of white people was "engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence"? Well, now that the protesters in question are more anti-capitalist than anti-government spending, such threats are a good thing. At least according to the partisan mind of Jonathan Chait:

The larger role of the protests, should they continue, ought to be to reestablish the terms of the political debate. Historically, liberalism best succeeds when compared against a radical alternative. In the thirties and sixties, fear of extremism and mob violence made business elites eager to accept liberal compromise designed to preserve the system. Since 2009, the question of how to respond to the economy has been framed as a debate between meliorative liberalism and vicious reaction. In this climate, Wall Street has been howling about Obama's mild verbal scolding of the industry, his plans to impose some measure of regulation upon it, and ever-so-slightly raise the tax levels of the very rich.

The protests can usefully re-center the debate. When Wall Street CEOs are expressing even tepid fear for their personal safety, terms like "class warfare" might start to be reserved for more stringent measures than the return of Clinton-era tax rates.

Because nothing says disenfranchisement more than a 41-year-old writer from Brooklyn who has just discovered metaphor. Photo by Andrew Ross Sorkin/New York Times.

That link in the Chait excerpt, by the way, goes to an Andrew Ross Sorkin piece in The New York Times entitled "On Wall Street, a Protest Matures." What are some examples of this new maturity?

"We're disenfranchised," said Chris Cobb, a 41-year-old writer and designer from Brooklyn who was conducting mock interviews with a cardboard television camera and microphone emblazoned with the Fox News logo. "Wall Street is a metaphor for the financial industry," Mr. Cobb said.

Sorkin also reports that "several protesters were gathered around a laptop watching an online video that had just gone viral of Rosanne Barr," and "seemed to be quite amused." This was the occasion for mirth:

I guess opposition to the death penalty, like anxiety over political rhetoric inciting violence, is last week's news.

More on media double standards for protest violence by A. Barton Hinkle here and here.

Advertisement

NEXT: The Poverty of Nations

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Go fuck yourself, Matt.

    1. ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF! ARF!

    2. Poor Max. He sees it all slipping away under King Obama the Narcissistic Buffoon. This is just the beginning of the Democrat exile heading your way, Mad Max.

  2. Those were white people, and these are White People. It’s totally different.

    1. Ok, so I’ve been out of the news cycle for about three weeks. I see a bunch of white kids waving signs of protest on wall street. What’s this about? Are the tea partiers demanding Barack Obama take back all the gifts?

      1. I just went to the Chicago branch of the protest and although it is microscopic compared to the one in New York it was much smarter and more polite, with protests against corporatism and the Federal Reserve. And against littering!

        1. I’m looking at the “occupyseattle.org” website right now. Quote on the main page: “Dissent is what rescues Democracy”.

          Hoo boy, as a libertarian who’s constantly accused of mucking up progress with my “dissent”, I’m putting that one in the quote file.

          1. No, no, no! PATERNALISM is what rescues Democracy!

  3. Is this about FOX News’ coordinated attack on the Wall Street protests when they were the biggest champions of tea party protests before?

    Oh no, reason is only leftwing hypocrisy police, such an important contribution to political thought.

    1. It ever occur to you that there is a difference between the Tea Party, a group with a coherent message and a mass following, and the Wall Street protests, a small number of completely incoherent rich kids demanding their parents increase their allowance?

      No, you are Tony, of course it didn’t.

      1. Ever occur to you to stop thinking in rightwing talking points?

        1. Ever occur to you to start thinking Tony? Or maybe you just can’t do it.

        2. at least john’s rusharrhea is predictable

          1. You were getting so much better. And now you are making up words again like we somehow magically speak your secret language.

      2. “Get your government hands off my medicare” is not a coherent message.

        The Tea Party’s message was whatever Glenn Beck told them it was. It boiled down to “we’re mad as hell that a Democrat is president!” However coherent they may have appeared (and Frank Luntz can do that for you), their message is complete nonsense, and played directly into the hands of the people who are the biggest culprits in the shitstorm the globe is going through. Those people are the ones being protested on Wall Street, and even if the message isn’t as tight as it could be, I fail to see why you’d have a problem with it.

        1. There message was stop spending money and bankrupting the country. That is quite coherent. It just seems incoherent to you Tony because you yourself are completely incoherent.

          1. That’s supposed to be a coherent message? Stop spending money on what? Not Medicare, I guarantee it. Not wars, for the most part. Not tax giveaways for billionaires. So what?

            1. What’s the matter, Tony? Sourpuss because your dumb little hipster buddies had themselves upstaged in message, motivation and energy by a bunch of tea bagging retirees? In fairness I suppose if my ideological brethren’s protest movement’s core message was, “We’ve got something to say – just give us a minute, man!” then I’d probably be a bit upset and embarrassed too.

              I passed the Occupy Whatever people on my way in to work yet again this morning. The guy speaking was mumbling into a bullhorn. You got that? HE WAS MUMBLING INTO A BULLHORN. So sad.

              1. Have you been to the protests, or are you just regurgitating messaging about them you swallowed?

                1. Asshole, I PASS THE PROTEST EVERY DAY, AS IT IS HAPPENING QUITE LITERALLY DOWN THE STREET FROM WHERE I WORK. Can you fucking comprehend the written English language?

                  1. Man, I read this article and was going to spoof Tony to troll everyone, but someone beat me to it.

                    1. Having merely seen footage of said protests, I am amazed it hasn’t turned into mass violence on the part of the protesters.

                      The cops overreacting, so far, has been the worst in terms of physical damage. But all it’s going to take is for some schmucks like, say, Ed Schultz, to fan those flames and turn those crowds into angry mobs.

                      And, frankly, there are people in this country just itchin’ for that to happen… and they all have Ds after their names.

                      At least, if nothing else, tea-partiers are capitalists.

                    2. I’ll be charitable and give you this much, Tony:

                      The tea-party movement should have stuck to what it was after Rick Santelli did his CNBC rant.

                      But what’s happening now, with the Wall Street Irregulars? Fuck that shit.

                    3. At least, if nothing else, tea-partiers are capitalists.

                      Oh please. Hundreds of protesters are arrested by police and because they happen to be liberals all of a sudden libertarians find nuance and a pacifistic impulse with respect to police power?

                    4. Did I acquiesce to police power, Tony?

                      How you got that out of “tea-partiers are capitalists”, is a fucking mystery only you can solve.

                    5. Tony, I have only a few word for you: ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?

                  2. Really? No pulp fiction quotes?

                    1. Shit, I should really refresh at least every hour or so.

    2. when lacking a subtantive argument, blame Fox. Or Bush. Or Israel. Or some other straw man. Tea Party protests were characterized, in part, for leaving the grounds where events were held cleaner than they were at the start. Plus, TP folks actually HAD a complaint, they put forth candidates of like message, and affected change through the electoral process. At no point were they demanding other people’s money, free anything, or the rest of the tripe coming from this rag-tag crew of 60s retreads.

      Tony, does it ever cross your mind who feeds, waters, and provides facilities for rent-a-mobs that can camp out for 3 weeks at a time? Are you curious how virtually all of them are armed with the latest technological toys…you know, the ones made by evil, nasty corporations? Does it strike you as odd that the protesters are remarkably well-dressed if poorly-disinfected?

      1. One can appreciate the good corporations do while protesting the bad. Because corporations gave us the iphone doesn’t mean we owe them our undying devotion and endless government handouts.

        1. Yeah Tony. We can destroy the corporations and still get all the stuff they make. Of course we can.

          And I will believe you care about government handouts when I see you get upset about Solyandra or say you are not voting for Obama because he continued TARP and gave billions to the auto industry. Until you do that stop acting like the rest of us are as stupid as you are.

          1. What you’re saying is you only give a shit about government money going to corporations when Democrats do it.

            What you want me to do is agree to the false equivalency of Republican corporatist looting and Democratic investment in energy and the auto industry for the purpose of shoring up the economy. That’s so you can pretend Republicans aren’t really at fault for anything, because you’re a tiresome partisan shill.

            1. I don’t like it when republicans do it either. And I would cut the government down to about a half of what it is now and end it all.

              You in contrast would double it in size and somehow think none of it is going to be stolen. And you just called the theft of 500 million dollars and investment in energy. My God you are a tiresome sock puppet.

              1. Says the Drudge zombie.

                1. Zombies! Awesome.

            2. What you’re saying is you only give a shit about government money going to corporations when Democrats do it.
              —————————
              Epic wrong, Tony. It is bad when either party subsidizes ANY for- or non-profit entity from Big Oil to Big Green to NPR. Of course, Repubs are also at fault; that’s why the Tea Party targeted and defeated some of them, too.

              The only partisanship is from you, with your undying support of corporate welfare for energy and carmarkers. I didn’t hear Toyota or Ford bellying up to the govt trough, or do the Dems not think those two are worth saving? Maybe those two did not require saving because at least one of them does not subscribe to an antiquated and unsustainable business model.

              1. Stop defending John. He quite clearly thinks corporate subsidy is only bad when Democrats do it.

                1. Stop defending John. He quite clearly thinks corporate subsidy is only bad when Democrats do it.

                  And you quite clearly think it’s only bad when Republicans do it. So what’s your point?

                2. Bloody murderous warmongering is only bad when WarPig Bush does it.

                  1. I think it’s always bad. I just don’t think you’re going to convince me that they’re both 100% equal and therefore I should vote for Romney.

                    1. I just don’t think you’re going to convince me that they’re both 100% equal and therefore I should vote for Romney.

                      1) You’re not going to be convinced their equal because you never attribute any bad intentions to people on Team Blue

                      2) No one here is trying to convince you to vote for Romney.

            3. Ah, “shoring up the economy,” which I’m expected to believe involves sitting in on board meetings at a company whose executives made massive campaign contributions. That part is a critical component to the highly anticipated economic recovery that’ll be poking its head around the corner at just about any moment now, right?

            4. And Tony the corporate whore appears.

        2. tony, if these protesters while actually protesting something beyond the platitude of the day, they might be worth listening to. And no one here advocates “endless..handouts” for anyone, not for Wall St, not for Solyndra, and not for Planned Parenthood or Volt buyers, for that matter.

        3. “One can appreciate the good corporations do while protesting the bad.”

          So you’ll be protesting Apple then?

          Chinese workers link sickness to n-hexane and Apple iPhone screensStaff suffer health decline after supplier’s use of toxic chemical to clean western gadgets

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..ple-iphone

          1. I thought n-hexane was decently harmless…

            1. As long as you don’t bath in it, drink it, or inhale it.

      2. Regarding your second paragraph, I blame the parents.

      3. when lacking a subtantive argument, blame Fox. Or Bush. Or Israel.

        No you fools its teh Joooooosss

    3. “Since 2009, the question of how to respond to the economy has been framed as a debate between meliorative liberalism and vicious reaction.”

      Only by vicious reactionaries.

      1. “meliorative liberalism”
        HAHAHAHAHA

    4. STFU, Tony.

    5. You need to exercise some rigor and parsimony here. Fox News is just one cable news network out of many. During the “violent rhetoric” debate about the Tea Party, they were virtually the only network defending the demonstrations, while all the others were attacking the TP (and bear in mind that glen beck did eventually lose his job in part for the things he said).

      Fox News attack of the OWS protests is indeed an about-face when the rhetoric is coming from the other side, but then so is the about-face of the Times, WaPo, MSNBC, etc etc… In the very least, we have a situation of everybody acting in bad faith.

      Stepping on to my soapbox, generally “eat the rich” rhetoric is far more acceptable across broader swaths of the media/”public discourse” than “fear the government”. Consider points 1, 3, and 4 from Chapter 2 of the communist manifesto: http://www.marxists.org/archiv…..o/ch02.htm

      “1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes…
      …3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
      …4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. ”

      How many major news sources are criticizing the affiliation of International Workers World party with OWS?

      1. Which seems to me to be related to the fact that any given movement/philosophy/society each decide for themselves when violence is acceptable.

        In general, most humans, and by extension, societies agree on many reasons for using violence such as defense of self or others, though some groups advocate no violence at all.

        Its the details of course where things get fun, as what happens if a group redefines defense of self to include defense of religion and going further, includes assuming any negative comments about their religion is an attack on self?

        What about the guy in Norway? Crazy, yes. But he hnestly believes killing innocents will increase security and thereby he is “defending others”.

        Indeed,the entire thought process is logical and helps explain the question.. why so many doctors, engineers, etc, etc, in terrorist organizations?

        Possibly its the price of extreme logic….

        But I digress… the reason for some obvious hypocrisy, and some more nuanced hypocrisy, is in the details of how any given group defines legitimate uses of force.

        Side note: The TP never claimed violence. In many developed countries, the main source of violence is from the far left, anti-globilisaton/extreme environmentalists, who all where the badge semi-proudly (they say they don’t encourage it, but “understand” it).

  4. fear of extremism and mob violence made business elites eager to accept liberal compromise

    Thuggery and intimidation FTW!

  5. Andrew Ross Sorkin.

    What an annoying little dweeb.

  6. I still waiting for that MSM story about the lack of minorities participating in these protests.

    1. That’s a good one. Can you take credit for it?

    2. u mean hipsters have become the majority?

      1. why are there no black people there? Do black people not feel comfortable? Are they uncomfortable with black people?

        I think it is long past time for hipster dofus leftists to come to terms with their race problem.

        1. There are plenty of different ethnicities at the protests: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/sta…..115988.jpg

          1. I see two black guys and everybody else is white.

            1. Also, it looks like 95% of the protesters are men.

          2. Why hast thou forsaken me?

          3. Holy fuck – you call that “plenty of different ethnicities”? So, in your book plenty = statistically insignificant. Got it.

            1. According to a feministing, they are using a “progressive stack” which means if you are a white male, you only get to speak if no one else wants to. From the pic, it doesn’t apear to be helping much.

            2. Why, the are every color of the rainbow from Northern European to North Central European!

              1. I see some dark hair and olive skin – them Southern Europeans are there too!

          4. That’s some serious lens distortion.

          5. Hey, there’s an End the Fed sign in the picture too.

  7. “We’re disenfranchised,” said Chris Cobb

    He can’t vote?

    1. Unless your side wins and gives you exactly what you want, you are disenfranchised. Don’t you know these things RC?

    2. He means that McDonald’s won’t give them franchises due to them lacking the financial qualifications.

    3. I thought he couldn’t raise the capital to open a Subway franchise, which is why he is on Wall St.

    4. Transcript error. He said, “We’re dissin’ franchises.”

  8. Rosanne Barr: The Rich Should Be Beheaded

    Step up and be the first in line, you hag-faced hypocrite.

    1. Where should they be headed to?

      1. To where should they be headed?

        1. Pedantism is a thing, up with which I will not put.

    2. My first thought. Unless she spent all her money on pies and chicken fat, she’s rich. But how do you behead someone who has no neck?

      1. “”My first thought. Unless she spent all her money on pies and chicken fat, she’s rich.””

        LOL, my first thought too. How poor is Rosanne?

      2. I recommend using the third chin as a strike point for your ax.

        1. It’s chins all the way down.

    3. Well, Rosanne Barr is nuts and she knows she’s nuts; she really does support leftist policies because the policies are nuts. Those smelly hippes don’t even know that much. At least her head is in the right place in terms of consistency.

      1. She was a regular customer at a bookstore I worked at in the mid-90’s. She’s nucking futs.

    4. “Rosanne Barr: The Rich Should Be Beheaded”

      Aw, come on — don’t you know she was only joking, and it’s not to be taken seriously? You know, just like Limbaugh’s statements are always perceived …. oh fuck, nevermind.

    5. She looks like Ozzy Osbourne in that screen cap.

      1. Beat me to it.

  9. I’m still hoping these protests will really take off and overthrow our corporatist president and his cronies – like in Egypt.

    1. So you want sharia law here too?

  10. Nothing annoys me more than people comparing these protests to the Arab Spring activities. They aren’t even remotely comparable.

    Arabs were tired of their unelected leaders stealing their money and denying them basic human rights.

    These “occupy wall street” protests are about people wanting free shit.

    It’s disgusting to compare them.

    1. The Arab spring protesters were risking their lives. These clowns were risking what?

      1. so far, pepper spray & arrest.

        1. BFD Fluffy said it best the other day. Protests mean nothing in the US because the protesters don’t risk anything. They mean a lot in a place like Syria because the people protesting are risking their lives. I could get a few hundred people to protest anything in the US.

      2. Hey, Mom is gonna be PISSED when she finds out that some homeless dude pissed all over that nice Northface sleeping bag. She might take away their allowance or something.

        IMAGINE THE HORROR OF NOT BEING ABLE TO AFFORD PBR AT A HIPSTER DOUCHEBAG BAR???? OH THE HUMANITY!!!

        1. Hipsters don’t wear North Face. Just everyone else in Seattle. Except me.

          1. How do they know what the proper uniform is for today? Is there some kind of guide or twitter feed that tells them?

            1. I am acquainted with a guy that belongs to a left-wing activist organization. A few years back my ex-girlfriend went to dinner with him and some Latin American activists that his group was hosting. She told me that earlier in the day he called her and asked that she not wear any obvious designer labels so the Latin Americans wouldn’t think his friends are all bourgeois. I am not making this up.

              1. so what’d she wear?…and dont make it up

          2. It wasn’t theirs anyways. Dad bought it for a Xmas gift but the lazy little brats never used it for that compaing trip until now, and when these idiots give it to Mom to wash because they are too fucking lazy to do their own laundry, she’s gonna get pissed about the homeless pee all over it, and then tell Dad who will cut the allowance for the little brat.

            1. They don’t know how to do laundry.

      3. getting the clap.

    2. These “occupy wall street” protests are about people wanting free shit.

      The banks are the object of the protests, not the participants. Probably because they don’t need to demonstrate in the street to get the biggest lump of free shit in history.

      1. And I am sure you are so angry at Obama and the Democratic Congress who gave it to them.

        1. Poor Bush, he just can’t get a break despite being a total innocent in the economic collapse that happened 8 years into his presidency.

          1. Way not to answer the question Tony. The Democratic Congress lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid gave trillions to wall street. And you will mindlessly vote for them again. And you expect us to believe you are anything but a pathetic sock puppet.

            1. You’re still trying to play “my team wins!” without examining what’s wrong with the policy or offering an alternative. The response to the crisis was not good. Better than doing nothing, but not as good as doing something more productive.

              1. The proper response was to let the banks and wall street go broke like they deserved. You scream about welfare to billionaires and then tell us how it was the right thing to do when your side does it.

                You have less self awareness than even MNG.

                1. If we had let all the banks collapse like Lehman, I’m sure you’d be praising Obama for his courage in maintaining capitalism.

                  Oh no, no you wouldn’t. You’d be screaming even more loudly at his failure given that the global economy would be even worse than it is now.

                  1. The economy would have recovered by now had they let the banks fail.

              2. “Better than doing nothing, but not as good as doing something more productive.”

                So you think these protestors are in the wrong?

            2. “”The Democratic Congress lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid gave trillions to wall street. “”

              I guess you’re talking about something else other than TARP?

              1. Was not Pelosi the Speaker of the House and Reid the majority leader of the Senate in 2008 and 2009 when TARP occurred? Maybe they have changed the Constitution, but last I looked Congress had the power of the purse.

                1. TARP wouldn’t be around if Bush didn’t sign it.

                  This is why people call you partisan. You only want to mention the other team when it fits your arguement leaving out key players on your team.

                  1. It also wouldn’t be around if Congress hadn’t passed it. They are both responsible. And I was talking to Tony pointing out that the very people he votes for did what he is claiming is so horrible.

                    And TARP wouldn’t have been as big if Obama hadn’t continued it.

                    And yes Vic, Bush signed it. I have never denied that. I guess I won’t be voting for him again.

                    1. “”And yes Vic, Bush signed it. I have never denied that. ‘”

                      I’m not saying you did. I’m saying you conviently left it out to blame the dems.

                    2. Because Tony was denying the Dems had anything to do with it Vic. Follow the context.

                    3. ^^THIS^^

                      There really are some poor readers on these threads, John.

                    4. “”^^THIS^^

                      There really are some poor readers on these threads, John.””

                      Well since you’re a better reader than me, point out the text where Tony denies the dems had anything to do with it.

                    5. Every major presidential candidate supported the bailouts. If Bush wasn’t there, Kerry would have signed it. If they were both opposed, McCain, Hillary, or Obama would have signed it in a month or two. That isn’t just speculation; all four of them voted in favor of bailouts in the Senate.

                      But, crucially, Republicans in Congress split 50/50, Democrats favored the bailouts 75/25 (that’s adding Representatives and Senators and rounding to the nearest whole percentage — yes, it is that exact).

                      All Presidential possibilities favored bailouts, and the majority of Senators from both parties supported them. However, House Republicans were substantially against the bailouts. If House Democrats had even just been neutral on the issue, the bailouts wouldn’t have happened. They were the deciding factor.

                    6. It also wouldn’t be around if Congress hadn’t passed it. They are both responsible.

                      You can’t really blame Nancy, Hairy and their peeps because they vote for every piece of shit bill possible, without ever reading it first.

                2. It’s like complaing about the New Deal in 2005. The republicans didn’t do anything to backtrack it therefore it’s their fault.

                  Either the President gets the blame/credit for what he signs, or he does not.

                  1. So the Republicans are equally responsible. So what Vic? If you are looking for someone to defend the Republican establishment that voted for TARP, don’t look at me. That doesn’t make the Democrats any less responsible. They had the majority in Congress and the Presidency for half of TARP.

                    1. “”If you are looking for someone to defend the Republican establishment that voted for TARP, don’t look at me.””

                      I didn’t ask you to defend anything and I don’t know where you got that idea.

                      If anything, I was getting you to acknowledge that it wasn’t just “The Democratic Congress lead by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid”. Which you have now done.

                    2. Of course it wasn’t just them. But it couldn’t have happened without them. And that is the point.

              2. This is post-FOX-spin reality. The crash happened under Obama, as did TARP. Things were perfectly fine until Jan. 20, 2009.

                1. And Bush wasn’t a disastrous feckless incompetent, he was merely feckless and incompetent whose bill signing hand operated on its own.

                2. TARP happened under Bush Tony. And Bush singed a bill passed by a Democratic Congress. Live with it an own it Tony. The Democratic Congress gave trillions of dollars that could have been used for welfare, healthcare and every other progressive goody to wall street billionaires.

                  1. Bush Sr. bailed out the banks too.

                    1. No he didn’t. The S&L bill was totally different than TARP. People actually went to jail. They came in and closed those S&Ls; and wrote off the bad debts and made the depositors good. That is not “bailing out the banks”. It was bailing out the depositors. If TARP had closed Goldman Sachs and AIG and thrown the CEO and boards in jail but made good to the depositors, it wouldn’t have been as bad.

                    2. Actually Bush 41 signed FIRREA, which established the RTC.

          2. Poor Bush, he just can’t get a break despite being a total innocent in the economic collapse that happened 8 years into his presidency as soon as the smart money realized Obama would be occupying the white house.

            http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/misc/charts/

        2. To answer your question minus the partisan shillness, I am angry about the bailouts, because the banks should have been nationalized.

          1. Of course you are going to vote for the people who did it. You tell them Tony. Whatever you mindless moron.

          2. I don’t recall Obama opposing TARP, or any other bailout for that matter. So next fall, you’ll vote for whom? Yeah, thought so.

            Liberals wonder why Obama laughs at them. It’s because they get “angry” about things but support him anyway. That was exactly Cain’s point about blacks; the complain about Dems but support them anyway despite a mountain of evidence showing that support to be self-defeating.

            1. I won’t be voting for Obama because of TARP, but because the alternative will be a right-wing fanatic christianist moron who will almost certainly turn the country into a banana republic with nukes.

              1. Beyond stupid.

          3. So, if we nationalized the banks and recapitalized them with taxpayer money, that would be better than recapitalizing them with taxpayer money?

            This is what I’ve never gotten about Communists. Why is it better that the government own an industry than Warren Buffet? It’s not like it changes anything at all in YOUR life. Either way, YOU don’t own jack.

            1. Nationalized industries = controlled by the people. Private industries = controlled by shareholders who want good quarterly numbers = who gives a fuck about the overall economy if we’re making money.

              1. So… all industry should be nationalized? Or just some of it?

              2. We really need to counter this fantasy that the prospects of any corporation could affect the overall economy.

                Such nonsensical thinking has resulted in trillions in bailouts and budget deficits.

                1. And you do know that nationalization is a violation of human rights?

                  Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 17 (2)
                  No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

                2. Are you suggesting that the state of the financial industry doesn’t have an affect on the overall economy?

              3. Nationalized industries = controlled by the people.

                No, controlled by a bureacracy.

                Private industries = controlled by shareholders who want good quarterly numbers = who gives a fuck about the overall economy if we’re making money.

                Oh, those horrible barbershops! They’d be so much more efficient and moral if they were nationalized!

              4. Honeybuns, I work with the government every fucking day. If you think bureaucrats give two shits about “the people”, I have penis-shaped monument in DC to sell you.

              5. Hi Tony,
                People in government are just as susceptible to corruption as those in business. What makes you think nationalized industries would do any better than private ones? Their motives? How can you know their motives?

                Besides, “the people” already control industries through their purchase and investment decisions. I find it hard to believe that introducing a third party into that process will improve things ? especially when those in government won’t share the same risk as the individual investor or customer.

                1. Joseph,

                  Obviously government officials can be corrupt, but they can be dismissed at regular elections. Do shareholders have that power in a corporation? And it’s absurd to claim that those people who participate in the market are like democracy, or even better than democracy. One dollar one vote is not democracy.

              6. “Nationalized industries = controlled by the people.”

                Bwahahahahah!!!! *Inhales* Hahahahah!!!!

                You are a fucking idiot.

              7. “controlled by the people”

                What does that even mean? What people? Does everyone get a vote on everything a nationalized company does? No. Nationalized means controlled by the government.

              8. “Nationalized industries = controlled by the people”

                Yes, that’s why most government agencies are so responsive to public opinion. Gosh, just look how easy it is for Congress to stop DoJ from selling motherfucking guns to motherfucking narcotrafficantes.

                We are a democracy in name only, idiot. The vast majority of government power lies in the executive branch, which has increasingly made itself unaccountable to the people through secrecy, complexity, usurpation of legislative and judicial powers (e.g., Libya, secret interpretations of law), and the increasing use of recess appointments.

              9. Yeah, because the government sector schools monopoly has worked so well and is so easy for the people to control.

              10. Nationalized industries = controlled by the people.

                Ha ha ha.
                You actually believe this?

                How much “control” do you have over government-run space-flight? How much do “the people” control, let’s say, mail delivery or the overall efficiency of the USPS? Thought so.

              11. Just like the soviet union where when they needed engineers to work on the grand state industry controlled by the people they just rounded up engineers and shipped them of to the gulag.
                If share holders are making money said private industry is doing well hence the economy is doing well. You’re a fucking idiot.

          4. the banks should have been nationalized

            Which would have accomplished what, exactly? Make all the bad debt disappear?

            For the record, anyway, the Federal Reserves owns the worst of the toxic assets now. So the effect is the same.

          5. the banks should have been nationalized.

            WHY?

          6. Know who else nationalizes private entities, Tony?

        3. John, stop wasting your time with Tony.

          All the cool kids just ignore him now. You wouldn’t want to be uncool now, would you?

          1. I love being uncool. Wear it like a badge of honor.

            1. So you’re trying to be cool by wearing your uncool like flair? Not cool, man.

              1. Not cool man

                Now you see where I am going with this.

                1. ^^meta cool^

      2. Then these protesters need to be protesting the folks that gave them all the free shit. Like all of those Democrats and Liberals that voted for 2008 banking bailouts. It would be like Tea Partiers going to a housing project to protest welfare.

      3. 77% of the TARP has been paid back so far. Have you looked at GM’s stock price lately, or solar panel makers?

        1. Yes. Rent seeking does give one an advantage. Imagine that.

        2. 77% of TARP has been paid back? Whose ass did you pull that out of?

        3. Citation please.

        4. Solar panel makers like Solyndra? Perhaps you’re referring to Sterling Energy. Maybe you mean First Solar whose stocks are trading at 4 year lows.
          Who is buying GM stock? Their sales are predominantly fleet sales and the Volt is nowhere near the sales they need to be close to breaking even.

      4. “The banks are the object of the protests”

        In a free market, those banks would be long gone by now. You statists are the ones propping them up.

        1. No shit–look at the role call of Senators that voted for TARP. All but 3 or 4 of the Dem ones–the very same people these SWPL faggots approve of– voted yes.

          1. 9. And Bernie Sanders. (But Rs still had more).

      5. Yes, three years after the bailouts, they’ve finally noticed that the banks got a huge chunk of free shit.

        What were they stoned for the last three years or something?

        1. Yes, and they’re mad the dope isn’t subsidized by the govt.

          1. Drug use kills fewer brain cells than the socialist indoctrination at government schools.

          2. Drug use kills fewer brain cells than the socialist indoctrination at government schools.

            1. You can say that again. 🙂

        2. What were they stoned for the last three years or something?

          If government schooling counts as a drug, yes. Not that using drugs and being in an indoctrination camp are mutually exclusive.

          1. I wouldn’t debase drug use like that.

          2. Yeah, why so down on drug use, man?

        3. They only give a shit now because Obama’s stimulus failed to restore the economy and find a niche for their pointless comp-lit degrees.

      6. “the biggest lump of free shit in history.”

        We spend far more on entitlements EVERY YEAR than the one-time bailout.

  11. Unless she spent all her money on pies and chicken fat, she’s rich.

    That’s kind of where I was headed.

    Maybe she just doesn’t consider herself “RICH rich”. Not like some hedge fund guy with a wife and an ulcer to support.

    1. She farms macadamia nuts in Hawaii in between “celebrity” appearances/shilling. To me, sitting at a desk from 9-6 each day answering the phone, that sounds a lot like being “rich”.

  12. These clowns were risking what?

    If they don’t file the “I’m taking the semester off” papers correctly, they might be classified as “drop-outs” and then their student loans will come due.

    1. LOL. One of the best arguments against the draft, beyond the obvious ones, is what the hell did the military do to deserve to have to deal with these clowns?

      1. Oh, I expect there are some boot-camp sergeants out there who would relish the challenge.

        Not that I favor reinstating the draft, despite the potential entertainment value in watching these Phishheads get some basic training.

        1. Now that is a reality show waiting to happen. Get a bunch of urban hipsters who want to be on TV and send them to bootcamp and film the ensuing hilarity. That is some made for TV entertainment.

          1. I have never watched a reality TV show, but I would tune into this.

          2. At the end of the day, they would get to vote on who gets KP duty.

  13. To where should they be headed?

    Where’s the library at, asshole?

  14. the banks should have been nationalized.

    *groans, beats head on desk*

  15. ok in 2 weekend i’ll be in nyc & will ck out the protests (along w the nearby 9/11 memorial & teh [MOSQUE]).

    im making protest signs to impress teh [GIRLZ] !

    FRONT: when will the wealthy create teh [JOBZ]?

    BACK: ONLY public $ 4 electionz !

    i know libtoidz will b impressed & salute the double o with fine scotch !

    any other sign suggestionz?

    1. wait, not stick it up…or something like dat

    2. I’m looking forward to seeing the picture of molespeak protest signs. It could become the counterweight to “Descent is the Highest Form of Patriotic.”

    3. All we ask is that you post pictures online somewhere so that we can mock you.

      1. i might could do dat dere

    4. “ok in 2 weekend i’ll be in nyc & will”

      I think I can translate:

      He’ll be in Oklahoma the weekend after next and then in NY and then Williston (ND?).

      1. We don’t want him here!

  16. But, but, the protestors are just modern versions of the original Tea Partiers. After all, Thinkprogress tells me so!

    1. I got as far as this:

      “1.) The Original Boston Tea Party Was A Civil Disobedience Action Against A Private Corporation…”

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!

      1. And the King sent the Redcoats to defeat the evil Tea Corporation and that’s how America was born. To honor the great liberator, we named our first president after him.

        1. Somewhere, someone out there actually believes what you said to be true.

  17. any other sign suggestionz?

    How about KICK ME?

    1. “HE’S WITH STUPID”?

  18. Even the still of that Roseanne video is offensive. She is not only the most deplorable kind of leftist hypocrite, she is an incoherent, rambling, belligerent hag. She wrote a disgusting and, again, completely nonsensical piece in (IIRC) New York Magazine a few months ago that the harpies on Jezebel loved and that induced instant vomiting in anyone sane. She is the worst kind of trash.

    1. Why do I do this to myself? Here it is. Could you at least make your self-hatred and wallowing a little coherent? And for the record, you are a “white bitch in high heels.” Pathetic.

      1. harridan (plural harridans)

        A vicious and scolding woman, especially an older one.
        [edit] Synonyms(vicious and scolding woman): shrew, virago

        1. fish?wife (fshwf)

          1. A woman who sells fish.
          2. A woman regarded as coarse and shrewishly abusive.

        2. I remember the Yamaha Virago. Glad I did not buy one now.

    2. She pretty much made her career by proudly being the worst sort of trailer trash.

      1. Until recently, I had no idea her show was supposed to be some kind of celebration of the “working class.” My dad wouldn’t let us watch it because he thought it was too trashy (and she was too annoying).

        1. Initially it wasn’t that bad. But like most shows it went downhill quickly. And most of the reason it was any good was John Goodman and the woman who played her best friend not her. There is a reason why she has literally never done anything else of note. She was very lucky in the actors they put around her in that show.

        2. The most amusing part of the whole series arc is that somehow, the family can get approved for loan after loan for failed business after failed business, but no financial stability is achieved until the Roseanne character won the lottery.

          Ironically, any family that had a lick of sense would have realized that having a breadwinner in the construction business would dictate that you’d move where the construction took place, not stay in some dead Illinois factory town.

      2. Her stand-up act was pretty funny back in the day. I don’t know exactly where it all went haywire for her.

        She and Whoopi Goldberg pretty much live on the same planet, as far as I can tell.

        1. Golberg’s original one woman broadway show was quite good as well.

        2. Her stand-up act was pretty funny back in the day. I don’t know exactly where it all went haywire for her.

          She got rich.

    3. It is also ironic how the hags at Jezebelle will look down their noses at conservative women who they don’t think meet their junior league standards but will embrace a leftist like Barr despite her being all of their worst stereotypes about conservatives.

  19. There’s hypocrisy on all sides.

    The truth is anytime someone’s protesting the government it’s good thing, whether or not I agree with what they’re protesting.

    1. But they are not protesting the government. They are at Wall Street not the capitol.

      1. same diff…which is kinda the point, duh

        1. Not really. They could no more protest in Washington than Catholics could protest in Vatican City.

    2. You can’t be protesting the government when you’re calling for greater government intervention.

    3. The Occupiers aren’t coherent enough to be hypocritical.

    4. When they actually start protesting the government, you let us know, mkay?

  20. The sense I get is that the Wall St. protesters have a lot of free time on their hands. And not because they are unemployed, but because their mommies and daddies have made enought money that they can afford to camp out. Hey, maybe their folks made money on Wall St.?

    Also, I also have heard that one of the major differences between the Wall St. people and the tea partiers is attention to hygiene.

    1. I know, Tea baggers smell gross, huh?

    2. hygiene? u mean like teh [URINEZ] odor in the depends?

      1. WE HAZ DEMANDS

        Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

        The worst part isn’t the stupidity of the demands, it’s the illiteracy of the person who wrote it.

        1. Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps

          Someone ask these fools to define both terms, please.

  21. You are all missing the upside. The $100 million cap will wipe out most of Hollywoods most vocal retards! I’m thinking we can lower the threshold to around $75m net worth and take out almost all of the annoying people in Hollywood. We would of course start there since the idea originated there and after the initial pilot program in Hollywood is finished we can reevaluate the effectiveness of the entire project and its viability as a national program.

  22. Another article talking about how the media is incorrectly portraying the movement as “anti-capitalist”. There’s also in interesting bit about how the movement didn’t necessarily start out as a purely left-wing movement, but now groups like the unions etc are trying to co-opt it for their own ends.

    1. Leftists are involved in the Wall Street Irregulars hell-raising-for-no-good-reason movement.

      Leftists only – at best – tolerate capitalism because it’s necessary to generate a tax base to fund exponentially-expanding government.

      Period.

      1. Do tell us more about what “leftists” think.

        1. I don’t need to… you do it so well.

  23. I’d love to play the Tu Quoque Game and find all the partisan shills who just a few months ago were calling for civility, tolerance and bipartisanship from the generally law-abiding Tea Party mere months ago who are now praising the disruptive Occupy Wall Street protestors as demonstrating the health of democracy in action.

    Both the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street protestors devolve into incoherent, populistic sloganeering:

    “Say no to government! …except Medicare, Social Security, cracking down on employers who hire illegals, war, blah, blah, blah”

    “Say no to Wall Street! …and yes to the government that made them what they are today!”

    “Nobama Hussein Stalin was born in Kenya!”

    “Bankers are racist, fascist Nazis!”

    “Look how patriotic we are!”

    “Look at how hip and edgy we are!”

    1. But as far as I can tell, the difference is where they started. The teaparty started with the sole message “No bailouts”. It was co-opted into incoherency after that. OWS seems to be an incoherent mess from the get-go.

      1. In other words, coherency about cutting off the cash is the threat.

  24. Their demands

    Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

    The worst part isn’t the stupidity of the demands, it’s the illiteracy of the person who wrote it.

    1. Fuck you, squirrels. How the hell did that happen?

    2. Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness

      Yes… yes… then no one could get loans to buy a house, and since they would no longer have any opportunity to gradually build up ownership of property, would have no reason to labor productively and save in order to build any future estate to improve the lives of offspring… and also, there’d be no more private universities because no one can afford them anymore…we’d of course have a nationalized educational system but given that there would be no lending for business investment, the only thing anyone would need to learn would be how to get public jobs…yes, yes, a credit-free universe would be a utopia indeed. Food production would be crushed because Agricultural Credit Unions would be outlawed, any independent ability to borrow against the value of your land to make profit would be verbotten. I presume access to land, seed stock, machinery, would all be regulated by the government… and we all know how well centrally planned food production has worked in the past!

      They seem to think of capital allocation only in terms of extortative usury or something. They dont seem to understand *anything* about basic economics, how wealth is created, how a free market moves capital around to where it is productive… or that their current government is the world’s largest debtor? “Forgive” that debt…?

      Basically, they *want* everyone to default on their credit obligations. Whether those people *want to or not*. They want to eliminate capital liquidity. Because…? well, money is like…. bad or something…

      All I can think of is… FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS
      STRENGTH, …

      They really dont understand what they are even saying.

      1. Pretty much they want a feudal society where our lord & master is the Big Benevolent Gubmint.

        1. No [CORPRIT] fatcatz in feudal soc, duh.

    3. Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

      Unalloyed economic genius. The author(s) will one day be more justly celebrated than Copernicus.

    4. Their parents need to take them aside and explain that this will mean their trust fund goes away, and they’ll have to do actual work for a living.

  25. WE HAZ DEMANDS

    Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

    The worst part isn’t the stupidity of the demands, it’s the illiteracy of the person who wrote it.

  26. If this current protest wave continues and – [insert deity of choice] grows – we are in danger of it turning into something disastrous… like, say, Russia in 1917.

  27. Its good to be the king.

  28. Sure, the Wall St. gang are clueless statists.

    But I bet if you asked them their views on, say, D. Cheney as a war criminal, the war in Iraq, gay marriage, immigration, etc., why they’d be indistinguishable from Reason.com as well as many commenters here.

    And yet you same clowns wonder why the country keeps moving leftward economically and liberty-wise.

    1. I bet if I asked them about B. Obama as a war criminal, the war…err…kinetic action in Libya, etc., they’d defend their tribe to the end.

    2. Sure, the Wall St. gang are clueless statists.

      But I bet if you asked them their views on, say, D. Cheney as a war criminal, the war in Iraq, gay marriage, immigration, etc., why they’d be indistinguishable from Reason.com as well as many commenters here.

      Sadly, ^ THIS ^.

      1. This is supposed to be insightful? Almost everyone believes in some limited version of freedom for their special things. In those areas, they are going to overlap with libertarians. In most other areas, they can still be statist pricks.

        I like chocolate. I bet some of the protesters like chocolate too. Oh shit! I’m a statist. You got me.

  29. Everything the Left favors increases government’s power over the citizen.

    For instance, the push to legalize all green plants isn’t about making it legal like butter. But at its heart is having the government tightly control its suppliers, sellers and ultimately its users.

    But whatever. You can’t suck down cosmopolitans and wax poetic about Edmund Burke if you’re getting dirty looks from the Look at Me I’m So Tolerant crowd.

    1. Once again, you got me. I’m a libertarian so that liberals will invite me to their parties.

      Let me guess, you’re a conservative so that the Look at Me, I’m a Bigoted Retard crowd will let you drink beer and watch NASCAR with them. See how easy this is?

    2. I suppose we should just sit back and not complain about the continuing War on Drugs instead of trying to convince people to limit the government in any small way possible. Cause straight decriminalization is gonna go over so well with libs and cons who love the state.

  30. you’re a conservative so that the Look at Me, I’m a Bigoted Retard crowd will let you drink beer and watch NASCAR with them.

    Uncanny Tony impersonation, assuming that’s what you were actually going for.

  31. Gee, don’t the lefties have faith in their Big Government anymore?

  32. Your essay is good, I like it very much. Here I would like to share with you some things :
    Ugg Boots On Sale http://www.uggsukmall.com. —- yangqi

  33. Libertarians for police authority!

    1. I’m responding to an obvious troll!

  34. Of course, if the ‘you know what’ hits the fan because some nutball goes off the deep end, NONE of these “protestors” will accept culpability.

    And neither will the Whiner-in-Chief, who’s really ramping up the class warfare hatred as of late.

  35. Assholes think that ends justify means. Newsflash at 11.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.