Executive pay is not based on results.

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Not really sure why we are debating whether the Tea Party and Occupy movements were/are both pissed off at the way government has worked. The tea partiers fancied themselves as Washington outsiders.

Tea Party fave Grover Norquist wants to drown government: "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

The Occupy wall street movement just just sees itself as outside of the power structure. It wants government to work for the 99% as well as it works for the privileged few.

Regards,

D-Ray

The comparison is not congruent because the objectives of the two groups are so radically different.

For example, there are members of both the black and white communities who would prefer "black only" or "white only" schools or school programs, and would be just fine if they were publicly funded. However, their reasons for wanting such accommodations are very different.

Same can be said of the "comparison" between OWS and the Tea Party. There is a "critical difference." To me, its like saying that the Hubble Telescope and Jupiter have much in common because they are both in space.

[whell]

To whit - since the target of the Tea Party's ire is government, and because they typically have WAY better manners than the OWS crowd, your would likely not find Tea Partiers harassing and threatening private citizens.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/10/news...test/index.htm

And, or course, if the Tea Party planned to do anything remotely like this, I doubt that the CNN article would be quite so kind in writing about it.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

To whit - since the target of the Tea Party's ire is government, and because they typically have WAY better manners than the OWS crowd, your would likely not find Tea Partiers harassing and threatening private citizens.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/10/news...test/index.htm

And, or course, if the Tea Party planned to do anything remotely like this, I doubt that the CNN article would be quite so kind in writing about it.

Walking past their homes is harassment? Give me a break. Turning up at a rally with a gun - now that is harassment.

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

To whit - since the target of the Tea Party's ire is government, and because they typically have WAY better manners than the OWS crowd, your would likely not find Tea Partiers harassing and threatening private citizens.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/10/news...test/index.htm

And, or course, if the Tea Party planned to do anything remotely like this, I doubt that the CNN article would be quite so kind in writing about it.

Perhaps some of the personal criticism expressed here is based upon a profound willingness to twist the truth. Tell me where that article supported your allegation that the protesters were threatening private citizens. I read it twice, because I did not want to be making unfounded accusations about your fealty to the truth - or lack thereof. Support for your allegation is simply not there.

For that matter, one would have to engage in a substantial stretch to suggest that a peaceful march on public streets - indeed one in which there will be no obstruction of traffic - amounts to harassment. Besides, who knows in which one of their several homes the financiers involved will be staying at the time. Forgive me it I lack sympathy for those poor downtrodden billionaires.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Perhaps some of the personal criticism expressed here is based upon a profound willingness to twist the truth. Tell me where that article supported your allegation that the protesters were threatening private citizens. I read it twice, because I did not want to be making unfounded accusations about your fealty to the truth - or lack thereof. Support for your allegation is simply not there.

For that matter, one would have to engage in a substantial stretch to suggest that a peaceful march on public streets - indeed one in which there will be no obstruction of traffic - amounts to harassment. Besides, who knows in which one of their several homes the financiers involved will be staying at the time. Forgive me it I lack sympathy for those poor downtrodden billionaires.

Regards,

D-Ray

Seriously? Perhaps some of the personal cynicism expressed here is based upon a profound willingness to twist the truth.

Tell me that you wouldn't be concerned for your wife and kids if protestors, who have already shown a disregard for the law, came to your HOME, stood outside and yelled all manner of threats and obscenities (I'm quite sure that the crowd mentality of the OWS bunch is quite capable of this) or acted up in some worse fashion? Your wife and certainly your kids would be scared to death. You wouldn't consider that threatening or harassing behavior? I'll bet you would if the target of the protests was one of your clients.

The march has yet to occur as far as I know, so we'll see what develops. However, I don't have high expectations of this crowd based on their current behavior. And to take their grievances directly to the source of their ire seems to me a recipe for trouble.

NY's mayor told them that they were permitted to protest in Zuccotti Park, but did not approve a demonstration or march outside that venue. So the OWN bunch is willing to expand its protest against the Mayor's direction. I hope that there's no trouble, but we'll see....

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Walking past their homes is harassment? Give me a break. Turning up at a rally with a gun - now that is harassment.

Turning up at a rally to support the constitutional right to bare arms by bringing a gun that you're legally allowed to carry? That's harassment?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Seriously? Perhaps some of the personal cynicism expressed here is based upon a profound willingness to twist the truth.

Tell me that you wouldn't be concerned for your wife and kids if protestors, who have already shown a disregard for the law, came to your HOME, stood outside and yelled all manner of threats and obscenities (I'm quite sure that the crowd mentality of the OWS crowd is quite capable of this) or acted up in some worse fashion? Your wife and certainly your kids would be scared to death. You wouldn't consider that threatening or harassing behavior? I'll bet you would if the target of the protests was one of your clients.

The march has yet to occur as far as I know, so we'll see what develops. However, I don't have high expectations of this crowd based on their current behavior. And to take their grievances directly to the source of their ire seems to me a recipe for trouble.

NY's mayor told them that they were permitted to protest in Zuccotti Park, but did not approve a demonstration or march outside that venue. So the OWN bunch is willing to expand its protest against the Mayor's direction. I hope that there's no trouble, but we'll see....

There you go again. In stating that the Occupy Wall Street protestors could remain in the park, the mayor did not prohibit demonstrations elsewhere. He would have some First Amendment problems if he tried that.

Lets look at the location of the march - uptown. It's not like people are going to be marching past quaint little country cottages. This is the city. Have you even been to NYC? These uptown apartment buildings
have plenty of security at the front door. This is not a situation where the kiddies are cowering behind mommy's apron.

You also state your prediction about the conduct as established truth.
There is a difference between your cynical predictions and fact.

I don't see anything about this post that brings your earlier allegations an inch closer to the truth.

BTW, my kids would likely participate in an OWS demonstration if they were there, and I would be proud of them!

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Turning up at a rally to support the constitutional right to bare arms by bringing a gun that you're legally allowed to carry? That's harassment?

What do short sleeves have to do with guns?

Regards,

D-Ray

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

Turning up at a rally to support the constitutional right to bare arms by bringing a gun that you're legally allowed to carry? That's harassment?

No, but to show up heavily armed at the seat of the nations government claiming that said government is "Totalitarian Socialist" is testament to ones lack of cognizance or susceptability to fearmongering. (If it were true lots of people would have died or gone to jail that day.)

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

To whit - since the target of the Tea Party's ire is government, and because they typically have WAY better manners than the OWS crowd, your would likely not find Tea Partiers harassing and threatening private citizens.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/10/news...test/index.htm

And, or course, if the Tea Party planned to do anything remotely like this, I doubt that the CNN article would be quite so kind in writing about it.

The Tea Party has become part of the government. And they are unmistakeably sycophants for the machine, supporting only things that bring about further corporatization of our government. Or haven't you noticed that?

Dave