From David Freddoso:
Those people you left stuck in traffic have a hard time paying their bills and rents and health insurance and mortgages. They worry about things like finding decent schools for their children to attend and making sure they don’t get fired at work, and fixing leaking roofs and chimneys.
You know what they don’t worry about, ever? Smashing patriarchy and capitalism.
So when your organizers go on television and say things like, “It’s revolution, not reform!” and they’re not joking, those words might give some of these narrow-minded people an unpleasant, October 1917 kind of feeling.
Read all.
[Late-morning update]
The pathology of capitalism, new and improved with trutherism.
I’m going to ask the question here, that I’ve asked elsewhere.
WHEN can “Joe Average” begin to shoot these morons? Seriously, when can we protect ourselves?
IF they openly and constantly continue to be ‘revolutionaries’, and they want to ‘shut down the evil profiteering American / World economy’, and they want to ‘change peoples minds about how to live’, among other threatening verbiage they use daily.
If we get threatened by someone, and we fear for our lives, doesn’t the “Castle Doctrine” apply? I’m not looking for a legal answer. This is rhetorical.
For now, for today, for this moment.
Chill a bit, Schtumpy.
I accidentally ended up drinking with a Joe Protester last night. He was a marginal young doofus, working a part-time job at the university because the Teamsters wouldn’t let him go full time in a closed shop without kicking up to the union. A born victim, in other words. But his having been successfully arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge with the Occupy Wall Street mob was a Mark of Status: he was Revolutionary Man! And lord, did he not like it when I kept sniggering at his swaggering and starry-eyed boasting.
God knows why he was drinking in that expensive microbrewery pub – probably getting his tab picked up by his quiet, much-suffering-looking wife, who apparently is doing much better in the world than Joe Protester.
Yea, I had a run in with the resident anarchist that hangs out my corner bar. He was like, “Man this is great! The protestors on Wall Street are rising up in revolution! Next step is destroying the evil bankers, bringing down the Fed, and eliminating the false hope created by money.” I was like, “Uh, so what happens when you get rid of all the money?” He was like “We get rid of the money and replace it with fairness!” The conversation just pretty much went downhill from there. I ended up slapping my forehead and just walking away from the fool. There’s just no debating with someone stuck on stupid.
God knows why he was drinking in that expensive microbrewery pub – probably getting his tab picked up by his quiet, much-suffering-looking wife, who apparently is doing much better in the world than Joe Protester.
Odds suggest it’s his parents who’re paying for him intead of a wife.
Mitch,
I heard a number of TV Talking Heads comment about these “poor”, “downtrodden” protesters and their $185 running shoes, $95 Patagonia Fleece Jackets, and other obvious signs of reasonable wealth.
Why is it that Communists can’t have nice things?!
(my cheek and tongue are sore from poking them together it took so long to write that last sentence while I snickered too hard to type)
I think it’s funny as hell that these people are well dressed, well fed, and obviously well educated and they are out there advocating ‘leveling the field’. I’ll be honest, most of them are better dressed than I am most of the time. They definitely have more money for shoes!
What are the chances I could get them to give me their high $ shoes, because I’m wearing cheaper shoes that are in need of replacement!?
I’m not holding my breath.
I think it’s funny as hell that these people are well dressed, well fed, and obviously well educated
Actually, based on the nonsense that they spout, it’s obvious to me that they are very poorly educated, though they may be highly credentialed.
To make Rand’s point, go to PJ Tatler and read this article:
An Open Letter to the Self-Proclaimed ’99%’
Self-delusion is no way to go through life, but it’s clear from perusing the “We Are the 99 Percent” web site that self-delusion has become an epidemic. Anyone who believes that they represent 99% of Americans, without any supporting evidence, doesn’t. Deluding yourself that you do leaves you unprepared for opposition and rejection.
The 99 percent site reminds me of the “Sorry Everybody” site, on which liberals posted photographs of themselves apologizing to the world for the re-election of George W. Bush. Perhaps many of the 99 percenters still haven’t quite come to grips with that defeat. Regardless, common themes emerge from the photos posted there — excessive academic credentials that are mostly unrelated to producing anything in the real economy, high personal self-regard, massive personal debt, and shattered dreams.
…
So the 99 percenters need to do a few things, in my opinion. First, they need to put aside the notion that the world owes them a job. It doesn’t, and never did. They need to assess what makes them worth hiring, and then act accordingly. If you don’t have any marketable skills, get some. They need to put aside the delusion that they represent 99 percent of their fellow Americans. They don’t and never will. They need to come to grips with the fact that their unrealistic view of the world is not only getting in their way, it’s a big part of what has made our economy as weak as it is.
Will they 99 percenters heed any of this? Eh, at most maybe one percent will. It’s best to keep our expectations realistic.
99%? …and none of them no anyone that voted for Nixon.
Quoting the “Instapundit” Glenn Reynolds:
“My question is, why aren’t they presenting their demands to President Goldman Sachs at the White House? Where do they think Obama’s campaign donations came from? Who has gotten rich — and bailed out — under his Administration?”
My question to everyone assembled here, we know these protestors are all the usual moonbats and everything, but who, in the end, are these people really protesting, and why are we suspicious of people who are angry at the Crony Capitalism that has passed for Obama Administration policy?
why are we suspicious of people who are angry at the Crony Capitalism that has passed for Obama Administration policy?
Because they are upset with capitalism, which they disassociate with President Obama, who they advocated for re-election. If you think they want to vote for a fiscal conservative message, you have to start with the notion these people are rational. What makes you think they are rational?
Because they believe in magic beans, Paul. My Joe Protestor was rambling on about the wonders of non-profit farming communes in Vermont. He was a fervent, disorganized believer in unicorn fart fuel and cloth woven from braided rainbows.
The commentary over at Hot Air is taking the same tone as here, that the protesters are stupid moonbats, but I quote one comment on the Hot Air thread on this subject:
“If only the gop had a candidate that understood this anger out on mainstreet. one who could bring together those that are against big business with ones who are against big government….one who is able to explain this inworking between the two groups. And calls out both parties for their part in the proble,. And runs on a platform to sever those ties……if only…
unseen on October 5, 2011 at 5:00 PM
“
She announced today that she will not be running.
This gives me an unpleasant flashback to the seventies. Full of idealism and ignorance, they’re going to “change the world”. And they are coming out of the same fever swamps of academia that the last ones did. Forty years and nothing has changed. Except that the seventies idiots are now in power. And there’s no arguing with either group; reason and facts make no dent in their smug self-righteousness. It doesn’t bode well for the future.
Would be interesting to see how this movement compares to the Tea Party. I see that it has massive union support and hundreds of arrests so far.
And calls out both parties
She’s out of the race.
They respond to the guy who was upset about getting home late, “You need to sacrifice for the cause.”
They respond to the guy in the video, “He is not representative of the protesters.”
They respond to the guy in the video, “He is not representative of the protesters.”
They respond to the guy in the video, “He is not representative of the protesters.”
I think I see a pattern.