Thomas Lindaman writes:
When I'm Right... I'm right.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/top-ten-richest-celebrities-supporting-occupy-wall-street/
So, Occupy Wall Street claims to be the 99%, but allows members of the 1% in their ranks without question?
And let's not forget there's another member of the 1% who has his fingerprints all over OWS: George Soros.
BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
That's right, folks! George Soros's influence goes WORLDWIDE!
Here's what a billionaire funded protest looks like, folks:
All kidding aside, Soros ain't funding OWS. Nice try.
And how did each of these 1% members make their money? By being capitalists. But we can't pay attention to that little detail, can we?
Okay, Lindaman... what is the maximum dollar amount that they are allowed to make per year for them to care about this country, and their fellow people, and to think that the recipients of the bank bailouts engaged in criminal behavior and did massive damage to our country?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with ambitious people becoming very successful (ethically). There is nothing wrong with companies putting out a good product or service and becoming even more successful than they already are. Our country depends on excellence and should reward it whenever possible. The problem is that a tiny percentage of our population control nearly everything, and in doing so, artificially control access to government and to success itself.
According to right-wingers like Lindaman, these wealthy individuals that are contributing to OWS are hypocrites for supporting a more equitable tax burden on their income class, with a separation of power between the business class and government authority.
Conservatives have made an art out of convincing people to support causes that go against their own interests, and now they're pissed about this? Who's the hypocrites again?
I thought these were dirty, unemployed, pot-smoking hippies, Lindaman. Guess you guys had to change tactics when that didn't work.
On the one hand the right-wing media claims OWS is class warfare and demonizes the rich. Now they're saying there are rich folk involved as well, which would indicate it's a broad-based coalition of interests. So, which is it?
And all the complaints basically boil down to "these people are rich so the only reason they can possibly be supporting OWS is because they're hypocrites".
Which is a good summation to the mindset of the right. It just never even occurs to these idiots that some people may think that there are more important things in this world than a bank account.
Kinda like Teabaggers complaining about "big gubment" while decrying cuts in military spending, and supporting the government telling women what to do with their bodies, and supporting the government executing its own citizens, and supporting the government to shut down an islamic community center. In those cases, intrusive government works beautifully.
No, wait, the Teabagger hypocrisy actually is hypocrisy. Never mind.
Lindaman is just upset because in spite of supporters like the ones he listed, OWS actually IS a grass roots organization, unlike the Teabaggers.
Seriously, the Teabagger movement was literally created, run, and funded by guys like Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers and Fox News. And all we got out of your little day camps was a downgrade of our credit rating. And now you're going to argue that OWS isn't a "real" protest movement, because a month after it started, and a week after it began spreading all over the globe, more famous people got involved? Too little, too late. You Cons ought to have started your smear campaign on these guys weeks ago.
The Teabaggers are openly hostile to the working class and the poor. Thus, they aren't populists like OWS.
And now the Teabaggers have stepped up to defend the banks, Wall Street, and Government from the outrage of their fellow citizens. Honestly, was this any surprise?
When I'm Right... I'm right.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/top-ten-richest-celebrities-supporting-occupy-wall-street/
So, Occupy Wall Street claims to be the 99%, but allows members of the 1% in their ranks without question?
And let's not forget there's another member of the 1% who has his fingerprints all over OWS: George Soros.
BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA!
That's right, folks! George Soros's influence goes WORLDWIDE!
Here's what a billionaire funded protest looks like, folks:
All kidding aside, Soros ain't funding OWS. Nice try.
And how did each of these 1% members make their money? By being capitalists. But we can't pay attention to that little detail, can we?
Okay, Lindaman... what is the maximum dollar amount that they are allowed to make per year for them to care about this country, and their fellow people, and to think that the recipients of the bank bailouts engaged in criminal behavior and did massive damage to our country?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with ambitious people becoming very successful (ethically). There is nothing wrong with companies putting out a good product or service and becoming even more successful than they already are. Our country depends on excellence and should reward it whenever possible. The problem is that a tiny percentage of our population control nearly everything, and in doing so, artificially control access to government and to success itself.
According to right-wingers like Lindaman, these wealthy individuals that are contributing to OWS are hypocrites for supporting a more equitable tax burden on their income class, with a separation of power between the business class and government authority.
Conservatives have made an art out of convincing people to support causes that go against their own interests, and now they're pissed about this? Who's the hypocrites again?
I thought these were dirty, unemployed, pot-smoking hippies, Lindaman. Guess you guys had to change tactics when that didn't work.
On the one hand the right-wing media claims OWS is class warfare and demonizes the rich. Now they're saying there are rich folk involved as well, which would indicate it's a broad-based coalition of interests. So, which is it?
And all the complaints basically boil down to "these people are rich so the only reason they can possibly be supporting OWS is because they're hypocrites".
Which is a good summation to the mindset of the right. It just never even occurs to these idiots that some people may think that there are more important things in this world than a bank account.
Kinda like Teabaggers complaining about "big gubment" while decrying cuts in military spending, and supporting the government telling women what to do with their bodies, and supporting the government executing its own citizens, and supporting the government to shut down an islamic community center. In those cases, intrusive government works beautifully.
No, wait, the Teabagger hypocrisy actually is hypocrisy. Never mind.
Lindaman is just upset because in spite of supporters like the ones he listed, OWS actually IS a grass roots organization, unlike the Teabaggers.
Seriously, the Teabagger movement was literally created, run, and funded by guys like Dick Armey and the Koch Brothers and Fox News. And all we got out of your little day camps was a downgrade of our credit rating. And now you're going to argue that OWS isn't a "real" protest movement, because a month after it started, and a week after it began spreading all over the globe, more famous people got involved? Too little, too late. You Cons ought to have started your smear campaign on these guys weeks ago.
The Teabaggers are openly hostile to the working class and the poor. Thus, they aren't populists like OWS.
And now the Teabaggers have stepped up to defend the banks, Wall Street, and Government from the outrage of their fellow citizens. Honestly, was this any surprise?