"The fact that it makes you nervous enough to start sputtering about it being a racist nazi blah, blah, blah..., signifies its efficacy."

Really quit trying to make such lame parallels. This isn't anything like the sit-ins. Everyone knows if we let these camps degenerate into a total mess of human waste rats and waste and rapes and murders without intervening it will be all the rest of the "1%'s" fault who didn't step in an intervene. It's likely we will see law suits against the cities if anything unsafe happens while these people occupy the commons, yelling that they should have been protected from each other. Plus we can expect if any of the city workers get an illness from the clean up some more possible legal action. , http://www.app.com/article/20111130/NJNEWS18/311300124/Occupy-LA-camp-cleanup-takes-hazmat-suits-masks Did the sit-ins require hazmat suits and masks and millions of dollars in clean up because of what the protesters at the areas they protested at? "The fact that it makes you nervous enough to start sputtering about it being a racist nazi blah, blah, blah..., signifies its efficacy." This is getting ridiculous, we can watch a whole group of people mindlessly repeat after one another, who are broke, in school debt and have been told its wallstreet's fault from the very professors who are working for the organization that gouges them for the sake of profit, raising their rates double and triple that of inflation every year. And somehow we should have no fear these college educated human microphones would ever be swayed by someone from a nazi agenda explaining who might be at fault as to why they are in the situation they are in.

Who is talking about free assembly here. I can't go and set up camp in the middle of the city or at a capital lawfully, its a distortion to think someone is denying free speech and assembly because we want this group to also abide by the laws in place.

The Berman article was a good read, of course so much of it has no connection to anything, nobody really knows the lifespan of capitalism, or if we can change the course of climate cycles by our actions, or if we are running out of resources, or if we can change human nature to contribute and produce without any extra incentive above those who don't. Its all just a crock of others who want power they currently don't have; still connected completely to their human nature themselves, asking the rest of us to disconnect from ours. It won't happen until they occupy, and rule us by threat and penalty, it won't come by vote Its a neat idea to have the occupiers calling attention to the rule of law as they break laws camping where the law says they can't, calling all of us to be concerned more for the environment as we pay to clean up after them each time they are finally forced out. There is nothing in this movement that is calling anyone's attention to the rule of law. Here's a link tracking the movement who is alerting us to the failure of the rule of law: http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/print/ Clearly we have no reason to believe if we allow these people to occupy us we will somehow restore the rule of law throughout our society. "As for its demographics, if there had been more black folk on the front lines this fall, police violence and disproportionate response would have been exponentially worse than it's been thus far." Sorry, but I am betting if we research will find there is more violence occupier on occupier than the police responding to the occupiers who refuse to obey our laws.

Is this better for you? http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/why-is-the-tea-party-on-a-roll--104232134.html His ending remarks in the piece: "Finally, when the state, on the eve of ruin, maintains only a vain, illusory and formal existence, when in every heart the social bond is broken, and the meanest interest brazenly lays hold of the sacred name of 'public good,' the general will becomes mute: all men, guided by secret motives, no more give their views as citizens than if the state had never been; and iniquitous decrees directed solely to private interest get passed under the name of laws." This is a description of the ruination of America, evidenced by the trashing of the Constitution, the dismantling of our private enterprise system, the spending and tax-hike spree and the downgrading of our national security when our president can't bring himself to publicly utter the words "radical Islamic terrorism" in identifying our enemy. But the "general will" described by Rousseau is no longer "mute." There is a nationwide outrage by "We the People" coupled with a love of God, country and the Constitution. It is what spurs the Tea Party to "educate voters" and to fan a political firestorm that has already singed some politicians. Come November, the movement will defeat even more politicians who have a record of tearing down what our Founding Fathers built. CN--"Second, I'm not looking to JC Watts or anybody else for validation of what I can easily understand is happening in the political and social sphere. Peak capitalism is flying apart at the seams, whether you believe it, can accept it and adapt to it, or not." What bunk, and what is replacing it? Eurpoean socialism? Russian economics? Maybe its Chinese idea of leveraging its massive population to work for the few, maybe just straight up communism. Your occupy movement is exactly what the name says, it won't produce a candidate, because no one would ever vote for one of them in a democracy. It will as I saw Brother Brown mention somewhere, I think on your site, have to occupy the polls. Its a white movement pure and simple, their internal demographic survey showed 81% white and only 1.2% black, far less diverse than the tea party movement. If it does take hold (I don't think it will) it will be far more racist than anything you thought the tea party was. These mindless sheep will be manipulated to do whatever whose ends up controlling them wants. Look how excited the nazi party is to get involved: http://anp14.com/news/archives.php?report_date=2011-10-16

Well Craig, I confess I misspoke, it appears Watts might actually identify more with the Tea Party: http://americawatchesobama.com/jc-watts-why-is-the-tea-party-on-a-roll I wanted to see if he looked on the occupiers as a respectable parallel but he appears to not give much credit to that movement: http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/commentary-134553878.html

Do you honestly think because he sees some of the shortcomings of his party, as we all do, won't identify himself as a Republican? He can't identify with you and talk like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ7kowLRGhc He is still Republican, plain and simple.

That's not much of point, many say they support Chris Christie in the Republican party, and my guess is he is probably liked by a majority of republicans, yet his endorsement of Romney didn't boost Romney's numbers. The supporters of these people aren't puppets. Say for instance if, who is that you sit at the feet of.. Snaglepuss? Oh yeah, Hypertiger, let's say she endorses someone like Paul or Mckinney or somebody like that, does that mean all the people grouped around her for story time are automatically going to get up and walk like robots and pull the lever for Mckinney? Well that was a poor parallel, because probably that story group would, but the point you have swerved into is republicans are making there own decisions, slowly evaluating who they are going to vote for; endorsements don't seem to matter, like they do in your party.

"and your current crop of rejects and retardates all but ensures that Obama gets a second term, which very clearly at this juncture, he doesn't even want anymore." I think most of the candidates have won most if not all the elections they have been in, so it would be a stretch to call them rejects. I do get you, about Obama not wanting a second term anymore; just trying to bash your opponent can only go so far, I have no idea what else he can run on, nor probably does he. Maybe ladies will start fainting again as Obama speaks, those were the glory months... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLKgbeG-KGc I don't remember if we ever got to hear about what happened with any of the individuals who fainted, we never heard about the health of any of them or even the individual story of how they were overwhelmed and just fainted. It never seemed to be emergency situation; chalk it up as a strange happening that never sparked a reporter to dig deeper.

The caption..."One day the GOP will get a legitimate black conservative voice. That day hasn't come." And are we to assume the left got there's when Biden proclaimed: I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." I happened to like the end of the article and I think there will be parallel left/liberal thoughts about Obama's loss in the 2012 election: "No, the next time around, voters -- black or otherwise -- will demand more than they did from Cain. Next time, whoever that black Republican is, she'll have to win votes with real ideas about war, foreign trade, promoting entrepreneurship, taxation, immigration and school reform. Thanks to Cain, the next time around, if a black conservative wants to win, it won't be good enough just to be the black conservative in the field. He'll have to be the best conservative in the field. Next time around, he'll have to win votes the old-fashioned way: He'll actually have to earn them. And what could be more conservative than that?" Of course the key point the author fails on is: Cain didn't win any votes for anything. He was given a fair chance like everyone else to show his ideas and to be vetted. He was weeded out, were still making a decision who will be the best conservative in the field.

Ok, maybe I agree, I hear he's the adult in the room; have you ever sat down and looked at his budget proposal? http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf Its his administration's expectation that by 2017 he will be able to raise total tax income from 2.1 trillion as it is now to 4 trillion, and because of this increase, we should be able to increase spending from 3.4 trillion like it is now up to 4.7 trillion. (page 3) http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/02/15/presidential-press-conference-2012-budget at 4:55 is the question that let's Obama give us his whopper at 5:30

I'm sorry I am missing what you are referring to. I haven't seen Obama make a sincere attempt at a budget. I think its true Cain's plan would take government out of deciding who is winners and losers, but I think it ends up distracting us from the conversation we are about to have on what the government can really afford and what its responsibilities are. Perhaps when that issue has been answered, maybe a new way to collect revenue would be worth looking in to.

Ann Coulter has also endorsed Romney. http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-11-16.html Although it looks bad for Cain, this last woman again is not exactly strong in credibility and free from other motives. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/who-is-ginger-white/2011/11/29/gIQAMPD49N_story.html Even without these stories Cain was fading with his other issues. His 9 9 9 is what he is running on as his main piece. The chances of it passing has got to be almost 0. There's no way of knowing how the economy would change with a 9% tax on purchases, no deductions for mortgage interest, and a tax increase for those who currently pay no tax and receive an earned income credit. He wasn't supplying how he knew his plan would benefit the masses before the women's stories and I suspect we will even get less details with the distractions.

I am not understanding how science can be separated from the discussion of whether God exists or not. If God created and established the laws of heaven and earth, all the laws of science and math and motion and physics and life are the work of His Word and actually are the Word of God. How can a religion that seeks the truth and knowledge of God not want to seek truth in all these areas; and consider these relevant for modern day thinking.

Sorry taking place in the heart of the city

You don't get to hear daily surveys of OCW demographics like we did with the tea party, but here was an internal OCW took of itself. http://occupywallst.org/media/pdf/OWS-profile1-10-18-11-sent-v2-HRCG.pdf The introduction: Main Stream Support for a Mainstream Movement The 99% Movement Comes From and Looks Like the 99% Profile of web traffic taken from occupywallst.org Page 6 was interesting, considering these gatherings are taking place usually it he heart of the city: Table 6 asks respondents to identify their race and ethnic origin. The data suggest that 81.3% of respondents considered themselves White, 1.3% Black\African American, 3.2% Asian, .4% Native American Indian, 2.9% Mixed, 7.7% Hispanic, and 3.2% considered themselves some other group.

I wonder how to connect the overwhelming school debt with the advertised advantages of higher education. http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/a/edandearnings.htm Aug 24 2011 How much is higher education worth in cold hard money? A college master's degree is worth $1.3 million more in lifetime earnings than a high school diploma, according to a recent report from the U.S. Census Bureau. The report titled "The Big Payoff: Educational Attainment and Synthetic Estimates of Work-Life Earnings" (.pdf) reveals that over an adult's working life, high school graduates can expect, on average, to earn $1.2 million; those with a bachelor's degree, $2.1 million; and people with a master's degree, $2.5 million. Persons with doctoral degrees earn an average of $3.4 million during their working life, while those with professional degrees do best at $4.4 million. "At most ages, more education equates with higher earnings, and the payoff is most notable at the highest educational levels," said Jennifer Cheeseman Day, co-author of the report.

I guess what I was thinking was the idea that the individual person's motivation is for the Common Good, and can be held culpable if it can be shown individual actions and choices were made without making choices to benefit the Common Good. The intrusions would be limitless.

One of course could really expand that thought, "They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility"; the statement implies individuals have culpability and responsibility. What a change it would be if we would now force individuals to only take actions and decisions with motivation to only benefit the [C]ommon [G]ood at large. And held each individual culpable who resulted in a negative to the [C]ommon [G]ood.

I think the declaration gives a little better definition of the mindset: http://www.nycga.net/resources/declaration/ As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known. They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage. They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses. They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation. They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization. They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices. They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions. They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right. They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay. They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility. They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance. They have sold our privacy as a commodity. They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit. They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce. They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them. They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil. They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit. They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit. They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media. They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt. They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas. They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*

Strategically speaking, you should have said Wallace and Byrd and Lott evolved...

"For all the extended blather about code words and assumptions and crypto-racist conspiracies, it is astonishing that George Wallace has been left out of the conversation. It's as if his body had been exumed and all of the Republican party thrown into his grave without any regard to the headstone. It is George Wallace's grave." Why do you feel it to be astonishing? George Wallace returned to the democrat party. He endorsed Carter. Was Byrd ever part of the conversation? Maybe someone can come up with someone, but I can't think of any democrat who was ever part of the conversation, no matter how obvious their racist credentials of the past are. If Wallace went republican, he would have been part of the conversation, even if after this: Wallace announced that he was a born-again Christian in the late 1970s, and apologized to black civil rights leaders for his earlier segregationist positions. He said that while he had once sought power and glory, he realized he needed to seek love and forgiveness.[note 3] In 1979, Wallace said of his stand in the schoolhouse door: "I was wrong. Those days are over and they ought to be over."[4] His final term as Governor (1983–1987) saw a record number of black appointments to government positions.[43] Also in his final term, Wallace was the first governor to appoint two black members in the same cabinet, a number that has been equalled but never surpassed.

Sorry to keep giving posting videos, but for liberal this was pretty funny http://www.hulu.com/watch/293304/the-colbert-report-herman-cains-campaign-ad

Nobody there was willing to give the person standing right in front of them a number they would be satisfied with. I have to believe the fear the number they come up with might be less than the individual pays.

engaging in argument with the 99ers http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/26/peter_schiff_takes_on_occupy_wall_street_protesters.html