Jon Stewart On Occupy Wall Street

Submitted by: cuthere2 5 years ago
The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Occupy Wall Street Divided
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Jon has a point!
There are 76 comments:
Male 50
I don`t think a Pyramid scheme is what the people had in mind when they came up with the Mandrake mechanism. There`s nothing wrong with having a currency of negative value so long as you don`t overextend yourself. Unfortunately, the banks and many home owners were way above the recommended 10 to 20 % range of earnings. Some people will say, "But most mortgages are 20% more than people`s earnings" A mortgage isn`t 100% debt. The house has value. Where people got in trouble is when they started paying well above the market value of a house and the banks gave them a mortgage based on that price. As for social security & employment "insurance"; they`re more transfer payments rather than pension plans or actual insurance. They look like pyramid schemes because the ratio of people retired/unemployed vs employed(payees into the plans) has gone up drastically since the plans inception.

Happy boxing day?
0
Reply
Male 3,631
P.S. - I don`t know, but you can easily delete your superfluous posts by following the associated link directly beneath your Avatar.

P.P.S. - I figured as much. But in return, I won`t put up any fight if you want to shoot me a salutation in observation of December the 26th!
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Mr. Tool - your distinction between the approach of well-regulated vs. heavily-regulated was highly insightful. How often we find ourselves regulating an industry back into the problems it faced before regulation was called for! Another point you hit upon which is of great interest to me - the Pyramid scheme. Here in America, at least as far as the financial system is concerned, we call it the Mandrake mechanism! Bank assets are backed by other people`s debt (as you pointed out). But it goes deeper than that - we don`t have a currency of positive value, as does virtually no other county of this day (regardless of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd-world status). If you want to talk about the ultimate pyramid scheme however, I consider it to be what we call `social security` along with several of its related entitlements (let me know if any of this sound unfamiliar to you, although I highly doubt it).
0
Reply
Male 50
Why does my original post keep repeating?

Happy Thanksgiving to you, Suicism. Actually, ours was a few months ago but thank you just the same. In regards to your comment about government backed lending and the FDIC, you`re absolutely right. Having a government-backed mortgage entity that is required to provide affordable housing is kind of like trying to have your cake and eat it as well. You either pay for affordable housing or you don`t. As for the FDIC, it would have been more accurate for me to say you have to have a well regulated banking system as opposed to a heavily regulated one. My understanding is that banks where packaging good and bad loans together and selling them to other investors. In other words, banks were generating income by selling the futures on their loans rather than on the repayment of the loans. Then, they would go out and make more loans; some good, some bad. Pyramid scheme, anyone? Yes, this is a simplified version of what happened.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Hey SimpleTools - Happy Thanksgiving. And I`m glad you approve of my nickname compared to the alternative you provided, lol. I`d like to spend more time discussing your first point. One of the ironies of our banking system here in America actually has to do with government-backed mortgage entities contributing to the crisis on a mortgagee level. One of Fannie Mae`s charters (which is a privately funded, government sponsored lending enterprise) is that they must make affordable housing part of their business. This led in part to a sub-prime boom since, as I mentioned before with regard to other goods, the more you subsidize something the more of it you`re going to see.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Secondly, interestingly enough, it is not uncommon among economists to view the FDIC as a source of moral hazard in banking. Institutions with sound lending policies are not rewarded for their prudence in an economy in which, in order to compete, they must push their reserve ratios to the breaking point - defined by that amount of loss their FDIC participation could insure them against. If we had neither of these two regulatory industries involved in the equation, not only would sub-prime lending be more responsible (since it would have only its own solvency to answer for, and not a government-backed charter) and possibly more affordable (since there`d likely be more competition for the market) but we wouldn`t have a false sense of security built into the banking system which condones risky behavior up to an arbitrary limit, regardless of market conditions.
0
Reply
Male 50
@Suicism: I suppose calling me tool is better than calling me simple. :)

As for Canadian banking regulations, I`m sure anyone can look them up but it boils down to not making risky unsecured loans.

And yes, the education and healthcare isn`t "free" but it isn`t at full cost either. The term "it takes a village to raise a child" comes to mind.

Bottom line, if you or a loved one comes down with something serious, you`ll wish you had been paying taxes all those years for those "free" services.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between using taxes for healthcare, public education, roads, etc. as opposed to using it to bail-out a bank or company. Which has happened in Canada; at least for companies, but not on the scale it has in the U.S.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
No - we`re just a bunch of losers who keep checking the same posts over and over to see if we got the last word (looks like I achieved that distinction on this account).

So Tool (you don`t mind if I call you that, do you?) could you tell me some more these banking regulations which are in place in Canada?

And just for the record, you know what really drives me nuts? When people willfully confuse services that are forcefully exacted on the part of taxpayers with ones that are voluntarily contributed, i.e. "free."
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Little bit of wisdom - if you can`t trust people to manage their own affairs, how can you possibly expect them to wisely manage the affairs of others?

If your goal is to defend the middle class, you can`t possibly consider yourself a statist, much less a "liberal." That`s where our common ground suffers a rift far bigger than those between classes in the grip of any one of your statist regimes.

You came in here with claws swinging, straw minions of fox-news parrots erected and all the ingredients for a flame war carefully, if not eagerly primed - and now you have the audacity to call me a troll.

Sorry little squirrel - I didn`t bite.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Suicism: Wow, I was trying to find common ground with you, and clearly that was a mistake. Frankly, your posts are betraying a weird combination of smugness and misinformation. So no, little troll, I`m not going to bite.

As an aside, I find it amusing how people who`ve been so brainwashed into thinking that "Obama`s a socialist" (?) have such a hard time accepting that most liberals don`t even consider him a liberal.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Interesting perspective on Obama - maybe now you`re beginning to see why corporate welfare can only be considered a liberal policy, rather than a traditionally conservative one. But it goes way beyond that. You`re going to have to supply a celebrity quote excoriating the entire Federal legislature as `quasi-liberal` for having constructed and passed this bill (and representatives from which side of the political spectrum stood in staunch opposition to it, overwhelmingly?) in order to weasel out of this one. In fact, it goes even further than that. I`m sure with your elevated grasp of cultural and historical affairs, you must be well aware of macro-economist Maynard Keynes` long-standing status as the economist-du-jour among liberal thinkers. If any philosophy promulgates the transfer of wealth from the responsible and `conservative` to the reckless and wealthy, it`s his. Do you have any Helen Thomas quotes for us on that account?
0
Reply
Male 10,339
Pretty sure Baal went to the hospital after that beat down.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Suicism: Once again, we agree on something. I think Obama`s sellout to Wall Street and the financial industry is sickening. Obama`s a hypocrite: He talks liberal when it suits him, but virtually every action of his in office has served to further enrich the wealthy at the expense of the vanishing American Middle Class.

Helen Thomas said it best: "He [Obama] lacks courage. And he`s *not* a liberal."
0
Reply
Male 3,631
I`m pretty sure Obama`s endorsement of legislative acts to rescue the purveyors of our economic catastrophe, e.g. Goldman Sachs and AIG, weren`t `slips of the pen(s)` either.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Suicism, I`d respond to your post at length but your first sentence suggests would be a waste of time. You know, the one where you`re stating that corporate welfare is a liberal policy (?). Right off the bat, that tells me this will be another bizarre argument, similar to your last post where you suggest that Karl Marx wasn`t *really* against capitalism, but against "collusion." (Clearly, *Das Kapital* and *The Communist Manifesto* were slips of the pen.)

Ehhh. I`m sure you`re smart and I don`t mean to be smarmy. Take it from me, if you`re arguing for the preservation of the Middle Class, we`re on the same team. I`m a liberal/statist, you`re a libertarian, so there`s going to be some key differences--but let`s focus on defending the Middle Class, an endangered species if ever there was one. Peace out.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
The reason this results in a widening gap between the "rich" and "poor" is because that class I talked about, the one that`s getting squeezed to subsidize both of them?

Yeah, that`s known as the MIDDLE class. I`m sure you`ve heard about it (maybe in a history book).
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Yeah - liberal policies like corporate welfare, which IS welfare, make no mistake about it; the liberal expansion of our monetary supply to the point that not even our status as the world`s (former) reserve currency can salvage it; the outrageous institutional infrastructure that comes along with having to manage the implementation of these "liberal" policies (talk about income disparity!) and the fundamental law that when anything is subsidized - be it food, housing, or even your minimum wage - its actual market value is distorted by an artificial spike in demand, since everyone can now "afford" it, and those workers who have been fortunate (or responsible) enough to pay their own bills and plan for the future are punished, either by higher prices and/or a decline in the purchasing power of their dollar.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Suicism: That`s the most tortuous--and bizarre--argument I`ve heard in a long time.

Let me get this straight: You conclude your post by arguing that the widening gulf between Rich and Poor in this country is a result of liberal policies? Seriously?
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Here`s your intelligent response, sans the flurry - this `law of the jungle` Capitalism that "spawned" communism doesn`t make communism the answer, nor does it make the conditions preceding it "capitalism." From what I understand, much of what Marx and other sympathetic intellectuals were outraged against was the type of COLLUSION in place between State and the Bourgeoisie during the industrial revolution. It`s this type of collusion that pure Free Market doctrine and Austrian enthusiasts (your "right-wingers?") rally AGAINST, as it is the very thing which becomes inevitable once the government is invited to tinker, and commandeer, in the private sector. Look what`s happened now - the mechanism of income redistribution, once the hallmark of a Socialist economic structure, has once again managed to benefit the wealthy, and damage the prospect of wealth acquisition for the poor, as well as middle classes. It is socialism that begets poverty, not the reverse.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Wow. So much cultural and historical ignorance in these posts one hardly knows where to start. How about a simple question to the right-wingers:

If you hate socialism and liberalism so much, why do you tirelessly promote the kind of Law of the Jungle capitalism that spawned communism?

(I won`t hold my breath waiting for an intelligent response. I do, however, expect a flurry of not-very-lucid FOX News propaganda.)
0
Reply
Male 50
To all those arguing about whether OWS is a socialist movement or not, I feel the need to point out that socialism is not the same as communism. Unfortunately, most of the OWS protesters don`t realize this either. China is one of the last communist strongholds in the world and even there, it`s not a pure form of communism. Just so you know, I`m Canadian and Canada is a socialist country. What that means is that we believe in, among other things, a basic level of free healthcare, subsidized higher education, and a regulated banking system. Because of the regulated banking system, the savings and loan crisis and housing crash didn`t have any-where near the same impact on families here as it did in the U.S.

I know this doesn`t actually help either side of the debate, but it just drives me nuts when people confuse communism with socialism.

BTW, how do you guys know when someone has posted a rebuttal? Is there a button you press that I`m just not seeing?
0
Reply
Male 36,410
vv @Baalthy: you DO KNOW that there were leftists who organized infiltrations to the Tea Party rallies, right? They did so in order to try to disgrace the TP movement with racist signs & etc.

So unless YOU can prove those photos were NOT infiltrators, and were actually approved by the Tea Party organizers, your case is MOOT.
And brainless too.

For example: WHY is a "lyin african" racist? Humm? It`s about his truthfulness (or lack thereof) and hi Kenyan birthplace. Race doesn`t enter the picture.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
cuthere2: I doubt either of us would ever convince Baal that he`s wrong, it`s not in the nature of a liberal to concede that their socialist/communist ideas are built on previous failures in other countries.

As you and I know the upper class pulls the lower classes up with it in prosperity, trying to make everyone equal, just makes everyone equally miserable and the hard workers quit working hard.
0
Reply
Male 30
I love the guy with the laptop who said "I`m against private property, this is personal property" LMAO!!! I`d facepalm but I`m laughing at the hypocracy too hard!
0
Reply
Male 554
..drating hipsters.

Passive aggression does NOTHING....nothing !

Grow a pair and make the change you seek, take it !
0
Reply
Male 39
@cuthere2

... pipe down...
0
Reply
Male 317
Baal, one more item... Mind explaining why Occupy Wall Street has been making extensive use of Communist Posters and art to advertise their movement? No not once, not twice, but 5 posters being put out by OWS are using Communist slogans, art work, and symbolism... Doesn`t get much more official than that!
0
Reply
Male 317
Communist Party Officially Endorses Occupy Wall Street - Direct Link

Hmmmm... Never saw them endorsing the Tea Party! Birds of a feather and all that right?
0
Reply
Male 317
Nothing like marching around with mass murderers plastered all over your signs to show what you stand for eh?
0
Reply
Male 317
Former USSR confronts Occupy Wall Street socialists... Look at the idiocy of these people!!! Can these people be any more in denial? They don`t like the facts, they simply deny it! Socialist Occupy Wall Streeters Make Fools of Themselves
0
Reply
Male 317
An attendee of Occupy Wall Street in Charlotte from the Economic Policy Blog reported:

"The first order of business was an agreement that organizing committee names would be drawn from a hat. The inner circle were known to each other in advance. I could not see the hat, or the people drawing the names, so I can`t say exactly what happened, but I can conjecture.

In any case, organizers were selected from the hat. The very next order of business, I kid you not, was "All socialists will huddle at such-and-such area."

Silence. The rest of us are wondering, OK, are they going to suggest any other groups? Next announcement: organize in small groups any way you want.

The self-identified socialists huddle. By some miraculous coincidence, the anointed leaders are all socialists.
0
Reply
Male 317
While we`re at it Baal, let`s also ignore the words of Occupy Wall Street organizers themselves!!

"***"We’re the International Socialists Organization… Our goal is to raise political consciousness to build a revolutionary party and work for a revolution here in the United States."***

***"The problem is capitalism… We need a new system that’s going to put people first and put profit back to the wasteland of history."***

***"Socialism is the solution. We need a society where everything is produced to meet human needs and wants rather than to make money off of them."***
0
Reply
Male 317
Let`s see, the Socialist Party backs the movement, as does the Nazi Party - They`ve both publicly declared tehir support.

To anyone who doubts the anti-capitalism of OWS, why not head over to their message boards and read the THOUSANDS, yes, I mean THOUSANDS of posts declaring capitalism as "Dead" and "Destroying this country." Add to that the hundreds of pro socialist posts, and I think you`ll get the general idea of what they stand for.

Or perhaps Baal you also missed the fact that multiple leads of the Communist Party was were warmly welcomed to come speak at their marches?

Communist Leaders Speak at Occupy Wall Street

But let`s not let the facts get in the way!! I mean, inviting these people to speak at your events means nothing right? (Rolling eyes)
0
Reply
Male 317
Hahaha!!! Oh man, I see the Liberals are still using some of hte pics that were already debinked years ago! What? Did you somehow forget about all the Liberals who were caught bragging htey were going to infiltrate the Tea Party movement and make them "look bad?" Did you also forget about the fact that when there was a legit racist found spouting nonsense, he was told to leave, and banned from participating?

So what we have here is Tea Party = Take action Occupy Wall Street = Embrace, hide and cover-up... Allow women to get raped, and theives to run free... Gotcha! Sounds bout right!

Also amazing how the media gave DAYS and even WEEKS of coverage to any potential hint of negative behavior from the Tea Party, yet ignores rapes, murders, cops being slashed, sexual assault, racism, threats to burn down buildings, etc. Typical.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Baal: Btw, the vast majority of the photos on your `tea party racism` goggle image search come up with photos of celebrities and news people that have falsely claimed that the tea party was racist.

fact is, after page 2, the above, celebrity photos is pretty much all you`ll see, excluding images like these.



Which is rather a fitting image considering what you just tried to do.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Baal: So you found a few signs calling Obama `African` or `Kenyan`, that is only true, his father was born in Kenya, Africa. That would be no different than me calling you an Arab or you calling me American, no racism there.

You can`t keep score, because you are dishonest, you believe any sign that criticizes Obama to be racist and that is just simply false.

Now let`s get back to what you originally challenged, you said you could produce VIDEOS of OWS people stating that they were not anti-capitalist that would outnumber the images I could find that illustrated that they were.

Instead you knew you were wrong, that you would loose that bet, and decided to change the terms, and yet you still loose because you couldn`t resist being both deceitful and dishonest.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Again. As always. I`m happy to keep score.

I`ve always offered up methodologies and challenges before I knew the outcome of those methods and challenges.

Again, is that enough? I don`t know if that`s enough to call the Tea Party Racist?

Doesn`t it get embarrassing when I can beat you at your own game even when you refuse to tell me the rules?
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Which one exactly are you talking about?
All from page 1.





I understand your standards for racism are fairly low, but that`s really no excuse.

Name your time. Place. Methodology. Number. Anything.

You never get bent out of shape when I state my position, but jeez, it`s a struggle to get you to back up yours.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Baal: You`re a lying piece of crap, there was only one sign that could`ve possibly been considered `racist` in your `tea party racism` search, by a tea party protester, and there are dozens and dozens of anti-capitalist OWS protester signs.

You just couldn`t do it honestly could you ? You had to count liberal counter-protester signs falsely calling the tea party racist.

You`re a liar and a cheat, I hope you`re proud of your idiocy.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Or to fairer, using my search methods rather than yours.

"OWS Capitalism" brings up 5. (Counting duplicates of yours the first time they show up, not counting duplicates of each other).
"Tea Party Racism" brings up 7. (Same).
"OWS Socialism" brings up 4 (or 5, depending if you count a certain pic as a duplicate or not).

So, Tea Party only about 40% more racist than OWS is Socialist.

Again. Is this an adequate demonstration of why your methods of determining everything you know amount to nothing? Or would you like to pick another of your strongly held beliefs that can be easily torn apart by your own methods?

I am still willing to compete on the terms I initially suggested btw, just give the word, and the number.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
You have never wanted to keep score.

I have.

Your claims to victory as you repeatedly run, tail tucked, and bollocks retracted, ring hollow.


On to substance:
"quick image search" of:
"Capitalism occupy wall st." No quotes.
Provides 4 images by page 3, and already I`m duplicating one of yours.

"Tea Party Racism" No quotes.
Provides 7 by page 1.

Are you sure you want this as your methodology for determining the underlying reasons for a movement?

Crakr Science:
Tea party 16 times more racist than OWS are socialist.

anyway, I asked you for a number. What number of photographs constitutes proof of the underlying motivations of a movement.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Baal: You would loose, easily. Don`t believe me do a google image search on capitalism and occupy wall st., a short count of the anti-capitalists signs you`ll find will outnumber any number of videos you can dig up to the contrary.

I know your ego prevents you from admitting defeat, from previous debates here, but your amusingly misguided view comes from liberal spin-control, not reality.

Claiming victory out of the jaws of complete failure is, after all, a talent liberals have honed to near perfection.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Examples of genuine hypocrisy:

"Wall street is capitalism"
"Obama is a socialist"
"Obama is in bed with wall street"

"REAL unemployment is 23%" (When yelling "where are the jobs")
"REAL unemployment is 4%" (When yelling "get a job")

"Jobless bums"
"Spoiled rich kids"


And finally:
"Jeez, these OWS guys have such an inconsistent message as a group, what hypocrites."
0
Reply
Male 4,547
You misspelled job creators there viking.

When the rich are asking to be taxed more, you`re telling them they shouldn`t be. You alternate between "spoiled brats" and "jobless bums" while screaming hypocrisy?

Look, America as a nation, wants better wealth distribution. You`re going to get the wealthy and the poor in on this.

You have about equal support from Millionnaires for OWS (30-40%) as you get from general populace (39-52%).

That`s a good thing... I know it makes it hard for some of you to keep track of who you`re hating though, so I can understand the confusion.
0
Reply
Male 1,444
...and yet these idiots enjoy a higher level of living then 80% of the population. Bunch of spoiled brats.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
CrakrJak:
I`m willing to go toe to toe with you on this.

For every picture you posted, I can post a video interview. Will you change your mind as you expect me to change mine if I do so? What is the number, that will make you apologize and retract?


Hopeislost and others:
"Occupy a job"
85% are employed, less than the national average, but given the argument, expected.

Although I appreciate your wholehearted support you give the president in his job creation. Gosh, I remember just weeks before OWS many were still using "real" unemployment of 23% as the benchmark. Although I hear Bill O`Reilly is now touting a number of 4% as the "important" unemployment figure when discussing OWS.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
The Daily Show is mostly tripe, but that was sublime.
0
Reply
Male 525
Gerry1of1, I think we are Occupying McDonalds. They go there for cheap, filling food and to use the bathroom while denouncing the evils of capitalism.
0
Reply
Male 207
I love how none of them can agree on exactly why they are all there.
0
Reply
Male 914
Posting a country-restricted video = 1 star
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@hopeislost: Well, buddy, you`re just a ray of sunshine, aren`t you?
0
Reply
Male 734
LOL...absolutely brilliant!
0
Reply
Male 4,286
Holy crap you make me laugh CrakrJak. But more in a shaking my head confused sort of way.
0
Reply
Male 4,286
For the conservatives that are being partisan. Think back to the Tea Party Rallies. I`m sure you said, "The people being interviewed and shown in pictures are all the weirdoes and don`t speak for the movement." But now you just freely associate the weirdoes of OWS as people that represent the movement. That`s a nice double standard.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
DrProfessor: I believe it`s rather obvious that their `anti-capitalist` goals were evident in the name they chose `Occupy Wall St.` and the attempt Thursday to `shut down Wall St.`

Wall St. = Capitalism, that`s a simple concept that most people know and understand.
0
Reply
Male 196
Cry me a f###ing river. Boo hoo, this country is so corrupt. If these lazy hippy f***ing idiots are so bitter and think the US is so corrupt, why don`t they all move to a backwards ass Middle East s##thole or some communist dump where you`re not even allowed to speak your opinion and perhaps they may appreciate their country a little more. Here`s an idea, how bout occupying a job.
0
Reply
Male 31
so the problom is the way ppl thinking here in united state and not just the corrupt GOV. this remaind me of - Southpark - the poor kid episode.
0
Reply
Male 3,894
@Crakrjak the only point you`re proving is that OWS isn`t unanimous, and that people against capitalism will jump on any excuse to get attention for their cause.

In the anti-fascist revolution of WWI Spain, there were a bunch of anarchists who jumped in on the revolution. That didn`t mean the entire revolution`s purpose was to create anarchy in Spain, just that the resistance movement was in no place to deny the extra manpower.
0
Reply
Male 4,286
The biggest mistake this movement made was making it a sleep over. That just invited the homeless. And with the homeless comes the crazy. And those are the people the news media interviews.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Baal: The OWS was filled with commies and socialists saying "Down with capitalism" and such.

Maybe your news media didn`t show those.








If those aren`t enough to prove my point I can show dozens more.
0
Reply
Male 526
i`m tired of seeing this myself. unless they all have a plan that could actually work, then they should just all go home. because in the end nothing will changed, as it hasn`t for a very long time.

the next thing we`ll see is them suing the city when they freeze to death sleeping in the park during an ice storm.
0
Reply
Male 510
I`m tired of the OWS stuff. Can we please move on to something else?
0
Reply
Male 3,894
I`d contribute, but I don`t think I can say it any better than Baalthazaq.

People are constantly misinterpreting the movement as promoting redistribution of wealth, and as being against capitalism. It isn`t. It`s about the unfair levels of representation that corporations and "1%-ers" get in our government, because they have the money to make themselves heard, and the money to influence politicians into making it even easier for them to accrue more wealth, while at the same time making it harder for everyone else to do the same.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
To better illustrate the example pooptart:
I`ve given poor people computers. I`ve given them second hand ones. I`ve bought them new ones.

I will end up giving this one away some day.

I still own a computer... it has my files on it. I work on it. I`m not going to give it away now, while it is mine. I don`t expect anyone else to.

It has never been an aspect of my ideology that anyone should. I`ve never told or asked anyone to. There is nothing hypocritical about both ownership AND wanting other people to own something.

drat, have you never given less than your entire life savings to charity? It`s not an all or nothing concept.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
"Except for your iPad 2, right? Hypocritical communist assh*le."

There is a distinct difference, between "everyone should have food" and "Everyone should have my food".

There is an ideological, economic, mathematical, and logical difference between "I want taxes (including my own) raised 1%, to feed 30 million people", and "Here, one dude, take my food, I`ll just die in a corner and make no large scale impact".

You`re not an imbecile. You shouldn`t need this explained to you.
0
Reply
Male 4,547
Cuthere:
"Oh, and they love to demand free stuff and sharing, and all this warm and fuzzy ideology, but in practice, they want what is there`s and don`t feel THEY should have to share... (Remember the homeless people eating their food? How`d they react to that? Oh yea "We worked for it!" lol - So the truth is, they DO believe in capitalism - But only when it benefits them!"

The OWS was never against capitalism as a movement.

They are against:
Corporate lobbying.
Government subsidies for oil companies.
Low corporate tax rates.
Bank bailouts.
Corporate interference in government.
etc.

You mislabel that as "against capitalism".
Then whenever evidence pops up that is contrary to your mislabel, you don`t go "Whoops, I was wrong", you go "They must be BOTH ANTI and PRO!"
0
Reply
Male 380
Funny, same thing happened to occupy LA, they got divided too.
0
Reply
Male 1,610
Maybe we should just start conditioning people to accept their class-status. Soma, anyone?
0
Reply
Male 381
Gerry, how many times are you going to post about the McRib? I`ve seen twice this week so far, but I`m sure my count is behind.
0
Reply
Male 317
"Or, the one where there are no toilets in the park? Because, he hardly said anything through the whole video. Just because it`s his show, doesn`t mean he made the point." His (The show) point was that OWS is full of hypocrites! They are whining about "class warfare" yet they practice the same.

Oh, and they love to demand free stuff and sharing, and all this warm and fuzzy ideology, but in practice, they want what is there`s and don`t feel THEY should have to share... (Remember the homeless people eating their food? How`d they react to that? Oh yea "We worked for it!" lol - So the truth is, they DO believe in capitalism - But only when it benefits them! Like I said, and as Stewarts show is alluding too - A bunch of hypocrites!
0
Reply
Male 37,888

Can we Occupy McDonalds?
At least while the McRib is back.
0
Reply
Female 7,833
Love to watch- can`t!
0
Reply
Male 81
Okay, which of Jon`s points are you talking about? The one about no one knowing/caring about the park? Or, the one where there are no toilets in the park? Because, he hardly said anything through the whole video. Just because it`s his show, doesn`t mean he made the point.
0
Reply
Male 2,440
The guy at 4:17 is a [email protected]

"I`m more against private property, not personal possession."

Except for your iPad 2, right? Hypocritical communist assh*le. I`m glad the OWS bullsh*t is over. It was stupid.
0
Reply
Male 878
People are people and you can`t change them. On a positive note, the protest seems to collect people from all walks of life.
0
Reply
Male 317
Link: Jon Stewart On Occupy Wall Street [Rate Link] - Jon has a point!
0
Reply