Neighbors from Hell - Sourced List of OWS Supporters


Recommended Posts

Neighbors from Hell - Sourced List of OWS Supporters

There's a guy named Zombie over at PJ Media who put together a sourced list of OWS supporters. It reads like something put together by Pravda and Al Jazeera for propaganda purposes, but it is fact.

The 99%: Official list of Occupy Wall Street’s supporters, sponsors and sympathizers

Here is the list as of my posting right now (Nov 1). Zombie says it will be updated as he goes along. You can see icons and source links if you go to Zombie's post in the link above.

Communist Party USA

American Nazi Party

Ayatollah Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran

Barack Obama

ABC News, CBS News, ForexTV, NBC New York

The government of North Korea

Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam

Revolutionary Communist Party

David Duke

Joe Biden

Hugo Chavez

Revolutionary Guards of Iran

Black Panthers (original)

Socialist Party USA

US Border Guard

Industrial Workers of the World

CAIR

Nancy Pelosi

Communist Party of China

Hezbollah

9/11Truth.org

International Bolshevik Tendency

Anonymous

White Revolution

International Socialist Organization

PressTV (Iranian government outlet)

Marxist Student Union

Freedom Road Socialist Organization

ANSWER

Party for Socialism and Liberation

People are adding to the list so here is a compilation without the sources that can be found in the comments where Zombie says he will add them.

Michael Moore

Ron Paul

A slew of unions (USW, NY Transit, IWW)

National Lawyers Guild

Working Families Party

SEIU

AFL/CIO

Moveon.org

ACORN

United Teachers of Los Angeles

Greenpeace

IBEW

Elizabeth Warren

350.org

Congressman John Lewis

Raul Grijalva, House of Representatives for Arizona

Wikileaks

John Boehner

Code Pink

Al Sharpton

Jesse Jackson

Reverend Jim Wallis

Young Communist League

Peoples World (affiliated with CPUSA)

Workers World

Peter Joseph, founder of the “Zeitgeist movement”

CWA

PENDING BUT NOT YET SOURCED AS OF Nov. 1, 2011

Washington Community Action Network

Move to Amend

occupytogether.org

ALIGN (Alliance for a Greater New York)

Venice for Change (venice4change.com)

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Blue America

Alliance for a Just Society

Adriel Nation (wiredtoshare.com)

Rebuild the Dream

Rainforest Action Network

PLAN (Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada)

The Other 98%

Oregon Action

Jobs with Justice

USA Job Party WPA 21 Century

ICAN (Idaho Community Action Nettwork)

Down with Tyranny

CrooksandLiars.com

Citizen Action of New York

The Main Street Alliance

The New Bottom Line

OUR (Organization United for Reform) aka ACORN

Student Labor Action Project

Washington CAN

UnitedNY.org

ACCE (Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment)

Strong Economy for All

Vocal New York

Tim Robbins

Yoko Ono

Deepak Chopra

Russel Simmons (Unirush Financial, music business)

Kayne West (rapper)

Lupe Fiasco (rapper)

Alec Baldwin

Mark Ruffalo

Pete Seeger

James O’Keefe

Tavis Smiley

Noam Chomsky

George Soros

The comments started getting contentious, so I stopped.

Obviously, a few of the people above might get excluded if the sourcing is not sufficient or erroneous.

The one that honked at me was Ron Paul. I looked at the source and here it is: Ron Paul offers support for Wall Street protests at examiner.com. To me, the report is border-line. Let's see if it is enough for him to stay on that list or if other sources appear. Some Ron Paul supporters have already protested in the comments.

There it is. More and more are coming and this thing is setting off a firestorm. To be honest, I came across it at The Blaze: This Is the Comprehensive List of Those Supporting Occupy Wall St.

I just can't express how angry I am. Livid is more like it, but even that is not enough.

Raw evil plus sheer stupidity--all sanctimoniously mouthing "principle"--is too much.

Don't people have eyes?

For God's sake!

If a guy is pointing a gun at you, do people really need him to pull the trigger before they understand the message?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Michael,

I heard about this list on Beck's radio program this morning.

Such lists don't really mean anything, because a group cannot control who endorses it. I recall some atheist group years ago -- one of those organizations with a name like "Atheists United" -- that would mockingly threaten to endorse conservative political candidates, and then campaign for them, if they didn't uphold the separation of church and state. :cool:

Having said this, I should note the hypocrisy of the mainstream media. When David Duke endorsed the Tea Party protests, liberal commentators were all over the story like mold on cheese. Well, David Duke has also endorsed OWS, but the same commentators regard this fact as too insignificant to mention.

I still cannot fathom Ron Paul's endorsement. It was made early on, and I suspect some young libertarian-type advisers got him pumped up about the potential of OWS. It was a bad move. OWS, from its inception and from a libertarian perspective, had "disaster" written all over it.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

When I get the time, I will try to supplement this list with sponsors of OWS--folks giving money, goods and services.

Somebody is paying the bills, that's for sure.

Wanna bet that you will find a lot of them on the list above?

That's not my concern with the money, though. My real concern is the ones who are not on this list, like say a foreign government if such be the case.

Actually, I hope Zombie segments the list into organizers, sponsors, donors, and supporters or something like that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like the Tea Party, what began as an expression of rage against bailouts and corporatism has been corrupted by professional activists attempting to hijack anti-corporatism/cronyism sentiment and turn it into a reliable voting bloc.

I wish I could say I was surprised, but that's politics for you.

I've seen plenty of libertarian sentiment at the OWS webforum and even amongst some OWS people. But its becoming clear that there's a split between actual OWS-ers and the "higher ups" that are commandeering the movement (just like the Tea Party, there's libertarian sentiment on the ground but the higher up you go the more conservative it gets).

This reminds me very much of a letter posted to Reddit by an early Tea Party supporter that left after the TP got corrupted, to Occupy Wall Street. Said letter said quite bluntly what would happen. First, the media would spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt in order to obfuscate the central message of the protestors. Second, whilst this was happenning, the group would be infiltrated by partisan political forces attempting to turn the group into a bunch of soundbite-spewing on-message cheerleaders for the Obama administration (who ironically received more campaign donations from Wall Street than any previous Presidential candidate). Finally, when the infiltration was complete, the "respectable" and "higher ranking" "representatives" of the "movement" would finally be allowed into "respectable mainstream discourse" by the media.

That letter was absolutely prophetic.

The Tea Party started out as principally libertarian and free-market anarchist, this message was conveniently obscured by lots of 'respectable mainstream commentary' who deliberately ignored the anti-corporatist message and simply accused them of racism (blank out the fact that the TP started under Bush). but then got infiltrated by every anti-Obama group there was and suddenly we had Sarah Idiot Redneck Jesus-Freak Palin as the "official" representative.

OWS seems to be turning out the exact same way. It started out as principally anti-corporatist with substantial (if admittedly minority) elements of libertarian and market-anarchist involvement (enough to attract the qualified support of both Ron Paul and Gary Johnson). The media then went on a blitz saying there's "no real message," "confused and angry young people" and "public disorder" etc etc. During this time, the professional left dug its claws in, and before you know it we had "OWS" release a long statement basically endorsing everything that Progressives want, coupled with very well developed and trendy marketing slogans and memes ("99%" and "1%").

Naturally, now that OWS is endorsing the favored agenda of the leftist media, OWS has now been invited to participate in "respectable" mainstream discourse and gets uncritical, flattering coverage in the non-Fox Press.

This, honestly, is all very depressing. It shows how Team Red and Team Blue partisans are first and foremost interested in defending the established duopoly, which has been in crisis mode ever since the W Bush Administration. This also explains the demonization of libertarianism since false dichotomies don't like third options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew:

Your perception of the TEA party is not quite accurate.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew,

Nor is your vision of how OWS started.

OWS was not "infiltrated." It was scheduled and set up by people who kept out of the public eye. These are the ones now calling the shots.

In other words, They have been calling the shots all along.

Here's a video from the Glenn Beck show from 8 months ago or so (when he was still on Fox) giving actual audio from Stephen Lerner (an SEIU dude) at the Left Forum Conference--in a meeting that was not supposed to be recorded, talking about how to organize college students with loans and mortgage holders to bring down the banking system. He also mentioned how it was necessary to keep the public perception of union participation out of it and make it look spontaneous. And, of course, he said he could not give too many details because there might be police in the room. But he did mention that the organization of this thing was to include 10 other cities as of the time he was talking.

Lerner is a nasty piece of work. And his ties to Obama are troubling. But don't think he is the only one running the show. The Left Forum has lots of members from lots of different organizations. Lerner was just the one who got caught with his pants down.

The thing about this audio is that it has been practically scrubbed from the Internet. Fox owns the material from this show, not Beck. Beck's own links have been removed from YouTube. And the lefties have been pretty relentless in hunting down other copies. So the video below, also, might eventually be removed. (This is a stupid attempt by whoever is doing this since it will eventually fail. There was just too much stuff out there.)

The original protest was not to be OWS, but instead a more targeted approach against one bank (Chase). It was supposed to happen in May. Since Beck blew the whistle on it, it fell apart and they pushed the date up and made bigger plans.

btw - I really like how Beck contrasted this to Holder's persecution of the guy who was making liberty-related gold coins. Kat even managed to buy one before he was shut down.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LHGvgwbBodo?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There are many, many references all over the news and Internet from left-wing people predicting OWS in one form or another before it happened. Van Jones outright said that there was going to be a huge thing in October that would shake things up all across America. If you like, I can hunt up plenty of stuff from the lefties in their own words.

I don't mean this to sound snarky (seriously), but libertarians who have involved themselves in OWS are totally in the role of "useful idiot" in the most classic sense possible. Their principles were targeted to make them an easy patsy for the left-wing organizers, and they took the bait and fell into it just like Madoff's victims fell for his con.

There's nothing wrong with this. We all get conned at some time or other. But there is something wrong in wanting to persist in the error in light of overwhelming evidence. I'm not saying this about you. I'm just giving a general statement for the reader here, principally because, in the Objectivist and libertarian orbit, people almost never say they were wrong or duped. They prefer to die on their swords rather than own up to a big error.

The common ground between libertarian principles and the left-wing organizers of OWS--common ground that has been touted to the skies--is on the surface only. It's essentially a ruse to make a smokescreen.

Here's the truth. All the left wants to do is destabilize the structure so it can make a power grab. That's the long and short of it. Hell, left-wing people openly and constantly say this is what they want to do.

OWS has a slew of left-wing organizations behind it. And, now, they are out in the open. Do you really think this was "infiltration"?

Maybe folks should take lefties at their word--that all they want right now is to create chaos so they can take over later.

I know I do. I don't want to be anywhere near people like that, especially if they are mouthing a few words I agree with on the surface. I know bait when I see it (most of the time).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mean this to sound snarky (seriously), but libertarians who have involved themselves in OWS are totally in the role of "useful idiot" in the most classic sense possible. Their principles were targeted to make them an easy patsy for the left-wing organizers, and they took the bait and fell into it just like Madoff's victims fell for his con.

There's nothing wrong with this. We all get conned at some time or other. But there is something wrong in wanting to persist in the error in light of overwhelming evidence. I'm not saying this about you. I'm just giving a general statement for the reader here, principally because, in the Objectivist and libertarian orbit, people almost never say they were wrong or duped. They prefer to die on their swords rather than own up to a big error.

The common ground between libertarian principles and the left-wing organizers of OWS--common ground that has been touted to the skies--is on the surface only. It's essentially a ruse to make a smokescreen.

I have been arguing the same point on the Left Libertarian II list for nearly a month. On Oct. 6, I wrote:

Anyone who detects significant libertarian sentiments among the herd of protesters is fooling himself. It has been suggested that libertarians should support the

protesters. Better yet, let's attend the next Democratic Convention and cheer it on as well. Maybe we could convert some of the attendees to our point of view.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Ghs

When arguing with fellow anarchists, it can be a good tactic to quote famous anarchists. That is what I did in another post:

No one put the point better than the anarchist Bakunin in his critique of socialists and Marxists:

"They are enemies of the powers-that-be only because they cannot take their place. They are enemies of the existing political institutions because such institutions preclude the possibility of carrying out their own dictatorship, but they are at the same time the most ardent friends of State power, without which the Revolution, by freeing the toiling masses, would deprive this would-be revolutionary minority of all hope of putting the people into a new harness and heap upon them the blessings of their governmental measures...."

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYCC should be on that list as well, based on the article I posted - http://www.objectivi...showtopic=11334

~ Shane

Shane:

NYCC has allegedly fired two (2) staffers, is actively shredding documents at it's Brooklyn office with ACORN info and has installed surveillance cameras.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NYCC has allegedly fired two (2) staffers, is actively shredding documents at it's Brooklyn office with ACORN info and has installed surveillance cameras.

Adam,

Here ya' go:

ACORN Officials Scramble, Firing Workers and Shredding Documents, After Exposed as Players Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests

By Jana Winter

November 03, 2011

FoxNews.com

From the article:

Officials with the revamped ACORN office in New York -- operating as New York Communities for Change -- have fired staff, shredded reams of documents and told workers to blame disgruntled ex-employees for leaking information in an effort to explain away a FoxNews.com report last week on the group’s involvement in Occupy Wall Street protests, according to sources.

NYCC also is installing surveillance cameras and recording devices at its Brooklyn offices, removing or packing away supplies bearing the name ACORN and handing out photos of Fox News staff with a stern warning not to talk to the media, the sources said.

“They’re doing serious damage control right now,” said an NYCC source.

. . .

A source said that immediately following publication of the FoxNews.com report staff were called into the Brooklyn office for meetings headed by NYCC’s organizing director, Jonathan Westin. Westin handed out copies of the article and went through it line-by-line, the source said.

Staffers were also given copies of photos of Senior Fox News Correspondent Eric Shawn and three other Fox News staff members, including this reporter.

“They reminded us that we can get fired, sued, arrested for talking to the press,” the source said. “Then they went through the article point-by-point and said that the allegation that we pay people to protest isn’t true.”

“‘That’s the story that we’re sticking to,’” Westin said, according to the source.

The source said staffers at the meeting contested Westin’s denial:

“It was pretty funny. Jonathan told staff they don’t pay for protesters, but the people in the meeting who work there objected and said, ‘Wait, you pay us to go to the protests every day?’ Then Jonathan said ‘No, but that’s your job,’ and staffers were like, ‘Yeah, our job is to protest,’ and Westin said, ‘No your job is to fight for economic and social justice. We just send you to protest.’

“Staff said, ‘Yes, you pay us to carry signs.’ Then Jonathan says, ‘That’s your job.’ It went on like that back and forth for a while.”

I wonder how OWS-supporting libertarians feel about ACORN community organizers working for Ron Paul.

Or worse, Ron Paul and supporters working for ACORN.

For free!

Is that really what they want?

They need to get away from these people and get some of their own damage control running.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael:

Thanks.

Now maybe we can get the Feds in there also. They seem to be quite active in the NY area with two (3) cases. Two (2) involving the NYPD and another with the LIRR Pension Fraud.

The building that the NYCC/ACORN office http://www.nycommunities.org/New York Communities For Change is at 2-4 Nevins St, 2nd Fl Brooklyn, NY 11217

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty bad when the head honcho is trying to blow smoke up his own people's ass. Thanks for the info, gents :)

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael and Adam,

You guys are probably right, but I think both of you would agree that it would be fair to say the following:

1) During the early phase of both the Tea Party and OWS, there was a significant amount of legitimately libertarian-compatible, anti-corporatist sentiment.

2) Over time, both movements saw some level of (proportional) decline in this sentiment and each movement (or at least the higher-ups within it) began to drift towards allying themselves more closely with the political right (TP) and the political left (OWS) (whether or not this was the product of infiltration or was designed from the start is not the point).

3) As a result, it is fair to say that movements which at the start had some level of appeal for libertarians now have less appeal for libertarians than they had during their early days.

Honestly, I was quite enthusiastic about the Tea Party during its early days, including when it was protesting the bailouts made by Bush. I saw the viciously-stupid commentary made by CNN, that apparently these protestors demanding "small government" just wanted "Republican orthodoxy" (even when the targets of the initial protests were Republicans!!!). I even agree that the accusations of racism are clearly overblown and were obvious attempts by the leftist portions of the media to discredit anyone complaining about an excessively large political class.

But over time, the coverage I've seen (including that from libertarians!) has demonstrated a picture that the TP is getting more conservative. Sure, there are plenty of (real) libertarians involved in Tea Party rallies... I've seen various numbers on it, but generally speaking they all indicate that libertarians form a sizeable minority of anywhere between 25% to 40%

In all fairness, the mix of local groups obviously fluctuates, and I think that even in spite of the number of social conservatives, the TP has done a pretty good job of sticking to the economic issues and trying to avoid having social-cons screw things up. But even here there are noteable failures... Michele Bachman being a terrifying case in point (if all women were like her, I'd be gay. Ditto Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin). That said, I had negative expectations for Rand Paul but he ended up standing against reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act and in doing that earned a lot of respect from me (even if pro-lifers piss me off).

OWS, I think I was always clear about having mixed feelings towards from the start. I did argue that not only were some libertarians involved, but that a significant portion of the actual people on the ground were potential outreach targets that would be sympathetic to a well-written piece of libertarian literature that appealled to their concerns. I still stand by this position even if I concede that performing such outreach would be harder at the moment than it would have been at the start of the OWS phenomenon (indeed, I think its a bit of a missed opportunity that some of the libertarian discussion of OWS during the early days seemed calculated to turn off potential converts).

Needless to say I think that OWS is entering its last days. Clearly there are many disaffected OWSers and the leftist puppet-masters are CLEARLY attempting to politically mobilize the movement... in its earlier days, most polls said that most OWSers weren't planning to vote even. Hell, even the drummers are protesting! Clear "leaders" are indeed coming out of the shadows and attempting to mobilize the movement, but I think they'll fail to do so and at best mobilize a portion of it.

I also think the media coverage is clearly double-standard material... I mean, with the name "Occupy" you'd think that someone would point out "militaristic rhetoric" or something, but no, we all know "civility" only applies to people we agree with! Signs clearly advocating violence get ignored etc.

I guess the reason I had a bit more sympathy with OWS was cultural. As a strongly countercultural person myself (and one who wonders why far too many Objectivists seem repulsed by counterculture when Objectivism is so utterly countercultural), I was more than willing to give OWS a long hearing, and to see it as a potential opportunity. But now that every attempt is being made to codify, define and mobilize the movement into a political voting bloc, that opportunity is coming close to evaporating. Disaffected OWSers and those of smaller, less mobilized groups MIGHT still be a good opportunity, however.

As for the Tea Party, I know there are quite a few libertarians there and I support the libertarian elements within the TP for the same reasons as I support the (remaining) libertarian elements that affiliate with the Occupy movements. But still, there's a culture gap, especially when you have lots of romantic-nationalists and religionists running about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew,

The Tea Party is best understood as an ad hoc movement with very specific goals:

1. Reduce the size of government.

2. Lower taxes.

3. Get rid of lots of business regulations.

4. Reduce government spending, get rid of loan financing for government programs, get rid of lots of entitlements and balance the budget.

5. Veer the government towards adherence to the Constitution.

Note, this is a political movement based on these ideas. It is not an ideological movement. The same complaints I hear from you--essentially that it is not a libertarian movement--I have heard from social conservatives at Tea Party meetings--that it is not anti-abortion, does not promote religion, etc.

There is no central organization and never was. But there are a few ground rules for action:

1. Non-hatred.

2. Work within the governmental system that is already in place, especially by electing politicians.

3. Eschew crony capitalism in political action--especially as a hidden agenda.

There has been an emphasis on electing Republicans because the right is closer than the Democratic party to the goals above, but the Tea Party is not a wing of the Republican party. The people who set up local chapters mean what they say in promoting those limited goals. This is not by central design, but instead a common sense idea that gets traction for being so rational.

I have seen local Tea Party organizers call each other on this point. Don't forget that many Tea Party members are entrepreneurs or want to be. People of this mind-set know the importance of keeping to clear limited goals for getting stuff done. And they know the danger of diluting goals and losing focus.

Those who make the mistake of thinking the Tea Party is Republican always end up perplexed and complaining.

Also, honesty is a big plus. Tea Party members who end up selling out, promoting hatred, or preaching their respective ideologies too much are simply pushed away.

Now, among the people who belong to the Tea Party movement, you will find social conservatives, just as you will find libertarians. But the scope of the Tea Party is limited to its purpose and nothing more.

There is another aspect that is a media event more than reality. The media perception is that the Tea Party is old news, so there is a kind of image that it is losing ground. Nothing could be further from the truth. The simple fact is that the USA is not close to an election. Keep an eye on what happens when election time comes around. You will undoubtedly see the mainstream media once again look on, scratch its head and wonder what the hell happened.

You can see this reaction currently in the rise and persistence of Herman Cain as a top contender for the nomination, which doesn't make any sense to the mainstream media.

But if you look at the goals above, ones you find mentioned openly at any Tea Party event, you see that this makes perfect sense.

On the other hand, the OWS movement is totally different. It was built to be bait-and-switch from the very beginning and it was formally organized--with a central planning committee and the whole nine yards. One bait to get non-insiders on board was a legitimate gripe--financial institutions that got bailout money, but still living high on the hog. This was so in-your-face that it looked like the banks were buying politicians in order to get government money. (And they were.) Another bait was the high cost of student loans in a market of job instability. This was added to a 60's Woodstock style to make it look cool.

There's more stuff, but the point is that none of this happened because people of like mind simply decided to get together to see what they could do to fix things (as happened with the Tea Party--which wasn't even called that in the beginning). All of these elements--let's call them attraction points--were carefully chosen by central planning to be promoted at protests they organized. In the beginning they trained people in these attraction points and paid them to go to the rallies to present them to the public as if this were a spontaneous rising up of "the people." Once they ball got rolling, they ramped down on the paid members.

You, as a libertarian, were duped by OWS. You were conned. You were scammed. You were set up to be a useful idiot from the start by some very ill-intended people. And you--as well as many libertarians--fell for it, hook, line and sinker.

I have been studying cons for several years as part of my interest in human nature. There is one principle that never fails. People who simply accept the fact that they got taken big-time are less likely to be conned the next time around. But the problem is that this is an extremely bitter pill to swallow and most people who get scammed will not really admit it, even when they say they do. They do not accept a self-image that allows them to become a patsy for anything, much less for something involving their core principles. They want to adhere to the belief that they know better by default--that their way of thinking automatically keeps them safe from being tricked. And it stings big-time when they see evidence to the contrary.

The simplest, most effective, way to deal with this is to say to yourself, "Boy did they get me on that one," fix the parts well in your mind where you were deceived--including your own stupidity, if there was any (there usually is)--so you will not be vulnerable the next time, and move on.

That's the simplest way. But that's not the easiest way.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew/Michael:

FYI:

Taxpayers Get the Bill for Occupations

John on November 4, 2011 at 3:09 pm

Turns out there are costs associated with a tent city, few of which are being picked up by the occupiers. Michelle Malkin already did an excellent column on this but that was two weeks ago and the costs continue to rise. I’m just going to put together a list of costs mentioned in the press and I’ll continue to update this over the next few weeks:

Total: $9,111,487

Some of these numbers haven’t been updated in more than a week, so they’ll go up. And I’m sure I’ve missed a few cities. If anyone sees one that should be added, please send it or post it in the comments.

Another significant difference between the TEA party and OWS. To the best of my knowledge, the TEA party has paid for their permits when required.

Second, I am not aware of specific statements by any of the localities as to the TEA party "costing the taxpayers" a specific amount because of their "protests." However, I am sure that their have been some costs in terms of police monitoring of the gatherings, but I have not seen any data on this.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just came across this. The sourced list looks like a fairly representative cross-section of North American society to me,the all-powerful American Comunist Party excepted.

b.gifo.gifo.gifempty.gifc.gifh.gife.gifa.gifp.gifempty.gifs.gifh.gifo.gift.gifempty.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daunce,

Cross-section of North American society?

Heh.

Not really. Not in the USA. Mostly urban, academic and mainstream media folks is more like it. Try the heartland sometime and see if you still think that.

You need to get out more. There's a big world out there.

:smile:

Incidentally, I remember you and WSS once having a hoot and yukking it up about Glenn Beck warning viewers about The Coming Insurrection. "Who?" you both laughed. "Sounds serious." (chuckle chuckle) And so on...

Here's a clip from the horse's mouth--from one of the leftie insider folks at OWS (editor and activist Malcolm Harris speaking at some sort of panel meeting in early October)--saying Glenn Beck had a much better notion of what is going on than even lefties. He took his pot shots at Glenn, but he did own up.

Here is a video clip of Glenn's radio show (which he broadcasts in video) where he discusses this and plays the tape of Harris: Glenn Beck: OWS Organizer admits Beck right. I believe this show was broadcast October 25, but I'm not 100% certain. At least it was close to that day.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/naLgNDxA2lI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Just for the record, for your enjoyment, a transcription of the pertinent part (obtained from The Blaze, but my bold):

And the capitalists know that’s not the case, right? If you want to read what the capitalists think about this you can go look at what Glenn Beck says, right? He’s got a better analysis than most people on the left about where this could go, how threatening this…—

[Video cuts, but seems to continue about Beck when it continues.]

…I think he’s like one of those fortune tellers who 99 percent of the time is just totally bullshitting everyone, and then 1 percent of the time [beck's] eyes roll back in his head and he’s got, like, divine insight, you know: ”It’s the coming insurrection. It’s–I’ve been reading these French guys.

There is a more in-depth discussion of this at The Blaze, with more videos:

Did Leftist Panel Member Admit Glenn Is Right About Occupy Wall St?

October 25, 2011

Jonathon M. Seidl

The Blaze

You might also enjoy the statement by one Natasha Lennard (who writes for the NYT) on another video at that link saying that the "anti-authoritarian" and "anarchist" folks are not speaking in public because they don't want to "out" themselves--or the gentleman at the end of that clip who tried to clean up her boo-boo by making a point to emphatically say that we do not really, actually, you know, not seriously, live under an "authoritarian" system.

I got all teary-eyed listening to that dude. He sounded awfully like someone on, say, Hannity all of a sudden, telling us what a great country we live in right there in the middle of all those OWS lefties... :smile:

Argggghh... I can't resist. I gotta post that video:

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/106747" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daunce,

Cross-section of North American society?

Heh.

Not really. Not in the USA. Mostly urban, academic and mainstream media folks is more like it. Try the heartland sometime and see if you still think that.

As to the cross-section, I'll take your word. Population-wise, Canada is mostly urban, though our current government staunchly represents the mighty heartland.I realize how different it is in the US.

I don't remember making any comment on Beck predicting an insurrection, though. If it was in the last two months, I couldn't have, because as you know I was cutoff the Internet. I am always happy to yuk it up with WSS of course, but could you refresh my memory on this one?

You need to get out more. There's a big world out there.

:smile:

Incidentally, I remember you and WSS once having a hoot and yukking it up about Glenn Beck warning viewers about The Coming Insurrection. "Who?" you both laughed. "Sounds serious." (chuckle chuckle) And so on...

Here's a clip from the horse's mouth--from one of the leftie insider folks at OWS (editor and activist Malcolm Harris speaking at some sort of panel meeting in early October)--saying Glenn Beck had a much better notion of what is going on than even lefties. He took his pot shots at Glenn, but he did own up.

Here is a video clip of Glenn's radio show (which he broadcasts in video) where he discusses this and plays the tape of Harris: Glenn Beck: OWS Organizer admits Beck right. I believe this show was broadcast October 25, but I'm not 100% certain. At least it was close to that day.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/naLgNDxA2lI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Just for the record, for your enjoyment, a transcription of the pertinent part (obtained from The Blaze, but my bold):

And the capitalists know that’s not the case, right? If you want to read what the capitalists think about this you can go look at what Glenn Beck says, right? He’s got a better analysis than most people on the left about where this could go, how threatening this…—

[Video cuts, but seems to continue about Beck when it continues.]

…I think he’s like one of those fortune tellers who 99 percent of the time is just totally bullshitting everyone, and then 1 percent of the time [beck's] eyes roll back in his head and he’s got, like, divine insight, you know: ”It’s the coming insurrection. It’s–I’ve been reading these French guys.

There is a more in-depth discussion of this at The Blaze, with more videos:

Did Leftist Panel Member Admit Glenn Is Right About Occupy Wall St?

October 25, 2011

Jonathon M. Seidl

The Blaze

You might also enjoy the statement by one Natasha Lennard (who writes for the NYT) on another video at that link saying that the "anti-authoritarian" and "anarchist" folks are not speaking in public because they don't want to "out" themselves--or the gentleman at the end of that clip who tried to clean up her boo-boo by making a point to emphatically say that we do not really, actually, you know, not seriously, live under an "authoritarian" system.

I got all teary-eyed listening to that dude. He sounded awfully like someone on, say, Hannity all of a sudden, telling us what a great country we live in right there in the middle of all those OWS lefties... :smile:

Argggghh... I can't resist. I gotta post that video:

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/106747" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Michael

Daunce,

Cross-section of North American society?

Heh.

Not really. Not in the USA. Mostly urban, academic and mainstream media folks is more like it. Try the heartland sometime and see if you still think that.

You need to get out more. There's a big world out there.

:smile:

Incidentally, I remember you and WSS once having a hoot and yukking it up about Glenn Beck warning viewers about The Coming Insurrection. "Who?" you both laughed. "Sounds serious." (chuckle chuckle) And so on...

Here's a clip from the horse's mouth--from one of the leftie insider folks at OWS (editor and activist Malcolm Harris speaking at some sort of panel meeting in early October)--saying Glenn Beck had a much better notion of what is going on than even lefties. He took his pot shots at Glenn, but he did own up.

Here is a video clip of Glenn's radio show (which he broadcasts in video) where he discusses this and plays the tape of Harris: Glenn Beck: OWS Organizer admits Beck right. I believe this show was broadcast October 25, but I'm not 100% certain. At least it was close to that day.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/naLgNDxA2lI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Just for the record, for your enjoyment, a transcription of the pertinent part (obtained from The Blaze, but my bold):

And the capitalists know that’s not the case, right? If you want to read what the capitalists think about this you can go look at what Glenn Beck says, right? He’s got a better analysis than most people on the left about where this could go, how threatening this…—

[Video cuts, but seems to continue about Beck when it continues.]

…I think he’s like one of those fortune tellers who 99 percent of the time is just totally bullshitting everyone, and then 1 percent of the time [beck's] eyes roll back in his head and he’s got, like, divine insight, you know: ”It’s the coming insurrection. It’s–I’ve been reading these French guys.

There is a more in-depth discussion of this at The Blaze, with more videos:

Did Leftist Panel Member Admit Glenn Is Right About Occupy Wall St?

October 25, 2011

Jonathon M. Seidl

The Blaze

You might also enjoy the statement by one Natasha Lennard (who writes for the NYT) on another video at that link saying that the "anti-authoritarian" and "anarchist" folks are not speaking in public because they don't want to "out" themselves--or the gentleman at the end of that clip who tried to clean up her boo-boo by making a point to emphatically say that we do not really, actually, you know, not seriously, live under an "authoritarian" system.

I got all teary-eyed listening to that dude. He sounded awfully like someone on, say, Hannity all of a sudden, telling us what a great country we live in right there in the middle of all those OWS lefties... :smile:

Argggghh... I can't resist. I gotta post that video:

<iframe title="MRC TV video player" width="640" height="360" src="http://www.mrctv.org/embed/106747" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cross-section - I'll take your word. Canada, population-wise, is mostly urban, with our government staunchly representing the mighty heartland, so I probably don't understand US demographics.

As to my scoffing at Beck's prophecies, when did I do that? I don't remember it. I always enjoy yukking it up with WSS of course, but it couldn't have been in the past 2 months anyway because I was cutoff from cyberspace, as you know. Please refresh my memory on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow!

Carol has no response!

She must think there is a conspiracy!

507096guawmjggak.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cross-section - I'll take your word. Canada, population-wise, is mostly urban, with our government staunchly representing the mighty heartland, so I probably don't understand US demographics.

As to my scoffing at Beck's prophecies, when did I do that? I don't remember it. I always enjoy yukking it up with WSS of course, but it couldn't have been in the past 2 months anyway because I was cutoff from cyberspace, as you know. Please refresh my memory on this one.

But if Beck said there is going to be real rioting on Wall Street, I will laugh at that. The Rangers are never going to make it to the Stanley Cup final.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now