Thursday, October 06, 2011

Tea Party vs. "THC" Party

Jon Stewart takes a humorous look at the "Occupy Wall Street" protests that started in NYC and are spreading across the country. I love how he compares FOX News' coverage of the Tea Party to their coverage of the Occupy Wall Street protesters, whom he sarcastically suggests may be called the "THC" party.


Also watch a NYPD "white shirt" pepper spray peaceful protesters.

36 comments :

ArtVanDeLay said...

Last time I check no Tea Partier has been arrested for vandalism or creating a public nuisance ,while these parasites,layabouts ,entitlement hounds and trust fund socialists that infest the Wall Street protests are just asking for a beating!They deserve worse

C.H. said...

Art,

Good point...these people in NYC want a confrontation with the police, and the organizers are relishing these "police brutality" videos they can release.

The Tea Party has held plenty of massive rallies...where they condemn the government and Obama. Yet, the police never arrest or come down on them. Why is that?

Iraqi Mojo said...

Perhaps a few protesters do want a confrontation with police, but it's clear that the majority of protesters are peaceful, and in some cases the cops are the aggressive ones. The video of white shirt NYPD schmucks pepper spraying those women is evidence of that. The women were just standing there, unarmed, and the schmucks walk up to them and pepper spray them. I expect that kind of behavior from Arab police, not American police.

ArtVanDeLay said...

Uggh, for the sake of fairness, I subjected myself to viewing nearly 10 mins of the unfunny,derivate ,pompous ass Jon Stewart.
Somethings he missed out-videos of these protestors ,a good number paid by unions, others stupid college kids and college graduates who took majors like English,philosophy and womens studies are shocked SHOCKED that they cant find a job with those "skills"!
Jon Stewart, a Jew, shied away from a young self hating Jewish punk taunting an elderly JEwish man,"give me some money Jew".."I dont want to work for $7 an hour"
So thats the diff between the Tea Party and these cretins.The Tea Party wants the govt of their back and these creatures want the govt to wipe their ass for them.
I dont buy this stuff a "few wanting confrontations" ,if so then the few define the many since the many are unwilling or unable to counter them.
In the TeaParty,the few people carrying racist signs(breathlessly reporting on by waste of skins like Stewart and Olbermann) were quickly confronted and thrown out.


IraqiMojo if you favor big government, you have learnt very little from the tragic history of your old country.The more government gives you,the more it can take away and leave you in utter servitude.

As to the NYPD whiteshirt, there was just too many questions-the video was lacking in context-incomplete ,the crowd was on the verge of hysteria despite being cordoned in.
And please dont compare them to Arab police, the latter would just haul them away and ...depending on the country...rape them or attach electrode to their clitoris!

Maury said...

In news sure to inject shock and awe into the Republican political primary season, a Zogby poll released Thursday showed Herman Cain leading the Republican field, topping former front-runner Mitt Romney by an astonishing 20 points. Cain would also narrowly edge out Obama in a general election, the poll found, by a 46–44 margin.

The poll found that 38 percent of Republican primary voters said they would vote for Cain if the primary were held today. Eighteen percent said they would throw their support to Romney, while 12 percent each said they would vote for Perry and Texas congressman Ron Paul. No other candidate attracted double-digit support.

http://tinyurl.com/3ul6qfz

Iraqi Mojo said...

I am not in favor of big government, but I am in favor of proper regulation. History has proven that corporations (people) will often make money at the expense of the public. It has happened throughout the modern history of the world. Thankfully in America we have a free and vibrant press that has called bullsh*t on the corporations that have done wrong and as a result the American public has forced govt to do something about it. Example: Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" exposed the nasty ways of the food industry and the American public became frightened, disgusted, and enraged, which forced the govt to regulate the food industry. This led to the creation of the FDA.

Iraq's tragedy was not that it had big govt. Under the Baathists Iraq had a police state. Saddam built a big army and a big security apparatus, which allowed a dictator to take power and eliminate his political enemies. That was the real tragedy that befell the Iraqi people, not big govt.

It could be argued that Iraq's socialist ways led to waste and inefficiency, but many Iraqis, including my father, could not have been so educated if it were not for the Iraqi govt's scholarships that paid for his education.

ArtVanDeLay said...

Hey Im in favor of regulation too but there is a thing as too much.
Barney Frank ,Clinton et al who had assured all concerned that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were a ok ,so the financial industry took mortgage securities based on government assurance.
Now I am not defending Wall Street ,crony capitalism was the order of the day and what I found most nauseating about the TARP bailout was "capitalism when I win,socialism when I fail" mindset which pretty much rewarded risk irrespective of failure or success.
Wall Street dysfunction is bipartisan-they will grovel to whoever they anticipate will grab power which is why they donated disproportionately to Obama in 2008

Whatever gave you the idea that American conservatives are against free press?
The last time I checked most FoxNews people are not a fan of WallStreet either but they just loathe the protestors more due to their entitlement complex.

Well Saddam Hussain and his distinctive style of governance is not big government gone amuck then I dont know what is!

re you father.Sure all socialist countries do this-indeed tech and engineering institutes in Iraq werent half bad.When my dad worked in Baghdad as a civil engineer,his colleague who was a part time lecturer at an military engineering school(i forget which) said that the students and faculty were easily comparable to his a top tier school in his native India.It was from them he heard substantiated rumors of the impending invasion of Kuwait and he hightailed it out of there a month or so before.

I was there in the 87/88 as a boy and it was a pleasant place and I had fond memories but the tension and fear in the air was quite palpable ,and it struck even at that young age.

Iraqi Mojo said...

ArtVanDeLay, I did not say that American conservatives are against a free press. I wrote "Thankfully in America we have a free and vibrant press that has called bullsh*t on the corporations that have done wrong and as a result the American public has forced govt to do something about it."

You seem to make assumptions and jump to conclusions when you shouldn't, ArtVanDeLay. Saddam Hussein was not an example of big govt run amok! There is no correlation between big govt and murderous dictatorship.

CMAR II said...

Denouncing the govt do something about the corporations that have "done wrong" is like asking Al Capone to crack down on the moonshine distilleries.

No industry is more regulated than the mortgage industry. And the greatest offender of all is the phony private corporations "Fannie & Freddy" who led the expansion of the securities bubble and to a great degree helped it grow larger than it ordinarily would.

The pols in Washington DC regulate and tax an industry willy nilly and then openly advertise "Let's make a deal!" They knocked themselves out to pass Obamacare and then passed out 1200 waivers to the well-connected revealing that the power to hand out waivers was the sole purpose of the legislation.

The Occupy protesters are dupes for the whores in Washington who want to build fancier brothels. They are suckers. The children of the Senators are investment bankers and are married to TV news executives and reporters. It's crazy to think those guys are going to responsibly regulate anything. If they want to change anything, they should be marching on Washington and calling to gut the powers of Congress, insisting they stop ignoring the 9th Amendment.

CMAR II said...

Jon Stewart didn't mention how predominantly white the THC Party are. Shouldn't they have to admit the racist elements in their movement?

CMAR II said...

uh oh...

Organizer admits to paying ‘Occupy DC’ protesters [VIDEO]

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/organizer-admits-to-paying-occupy-dc-protesters-video/#ixzz1a8YGY69M

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/organizer-admits-to-paying-occupy-dc-protesters-video/

A liberal organizer told the Daily Caller on Thursday afternoon that he paid some Hispanics to attend “Occupy DC” protests happening in the nation’s capital.

TheDC attended the protest event, an expansion of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement that began in New York City. Some aspects of the protest, it turned out, are more Astroturf than grassroots.

One group of about ten Hispanic protesters marched behind a Caucasian individual from the DC Tenants Advocacy Coalition, a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting rent control in Washington, D.C.

Asked why they were there, some Hispanic protesters holding up English protest signs could not articulate what their signs said.

Iraqi Mojo said...

"There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.

...In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst — but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers’ sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support — and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts — behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.

Given this history, how can you not applaud the protesters for finally taking a stand?"

--Paul Krugman

Iraqi Mojo said...

Ronald Reagan: No tax loopholes for millionaires!

madtom said...

"Given this history"

Sure, if you rewrite history you can make anything you want true

madtom said...

"To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal. Bill Ayers

These are your new friends, and Obama supporters? And yet you don't think O is a Marxist, they just support him, why?

CMAR II said...

A "loophole" is nothing but a deduction. And a deduction is just something the government has deemed is not income, but a reasonable expense.

CMAR II said...

Glenn Reynolds tonight:

The Obama administration has become a house of mirrors.

Wall Street is the wicked enemy! ([but] Geithner is Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs is everywhere in the Obama admin)

Rise up against the evil bankers!

Pay off the evil bankers!

The evil bankers must direct our economy policy or we are doomed!


Like I said yesterday: If you’re not protesting against President Goldman Sachs, you’re not protesting against “Wall Street.” You’re just a hack. Sorry.

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/129297/

Iraqi Mojo said...

"And a deduction is just something the government has deemed is not income, but a reasonable expense."

Evidently Ronald Reagan was in favor of eliminating some of those deductions for millionaires. Reagan was smart in that respect.

Iraqi Mojo said...

madtom, did Paul Krugman lie? Did the banks not take advantage of derugulation and inflate the housing market? Were they not bailed out by taxpayers when the bubble burst? Please explain how Krugman lied.

Dolly said...

What made America successful in the past, was precisely the rejection of socialism. And the belief that anyone can become rich. From this belief, it follows that there is no need for class warfare against the rich. Because everyone has the chance to become rich himself.

Now if the U.S. abandons those values, and starts hatin' on successful people, then the U.S. risks becoming just another country - no longer standing out for special success.

So the likes of Hugo Chavez and Russia Today are thrilled to see these losers protesting.

Iraqi Mojo said...

Interesting. Dolly and the Teabaggers have something in common. I'm beginning to understand why Republicans love KSA so much.

CMAR II said...

Ronald Reagan flattened the tax tiers, lowered the rates, AND removed deductions and incentitives
(which encourage people to engage in the unproductive behavior of chasing tax incentitives instead of the productive behavior of risking capital and working harder to make more money). This is essentially what Rep. Paul Ryan has been calling for.

However, when the deductions were gone in the 80s, in the early 90s the Democrats insisted that the rates be increased again. They didn't call for a return of the deductions. Nor did they ever deliver on the promised spending cuts.

Personally, I'm for ending the Bush tax cuts. ALL of them. They represent a supposed $700 bilion (in 10 years) from the top 5%. But they represent a supposed $3 TRILLION from everyone else. (Actually not everyone since the bottom 40% would still pay no taxes)
But I back it because the Bush tax cuts are the reason that almost 50% of workers pay NO income tax. So let's get rid of the Bush tax cuts.

But that's not what the president is asking for.

madtom said...

"Please explain how Krugman lied."

Does the government own 90% of all mortgages or do the banks?

Iraqi Mojo said...

madtom is no doubt referring to Fannie and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises that buy and sell mortgages. Yes most mortgages are owned by Fannie and Freddie. The problem with your implication that the government owns 90% of all mortgages is that Fannie and Freddie were operating as publicly traded companies until 2008. They were operating as banks, just like B of A, Chase, Washington Mutual, Wells Fargo, etc. and just like those banks, they were lending large amounts of money to people who should not have been allowed to borrow large amounts of money.

This is not to say that government was not part of the problem. It was the govt, after all, that lowered interest rates and helped increase demand for mortgages. And this is not to say that low interest rates are a bad thing. I like low interest rates:) But when Joe the Plumber is allowed to borrow a million dollars without income verification, that will eventually lead to problems. The government was indeed part of the problem in that it did not regulate the mortgage industry properly.

Who was in charge of that government between 2002 and 2008? Was it Obama the Marxist?

Iraqi Mojo said...

A good summary:

"The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) is the nation’s largest mortgage buyer and a financial juggernaut that affects the lives of tens of millions of home buyers. It was taken over by the federal government on Sept. 8, 2008, along with Freddie Mac, as the two mortgage giants struggled with deep losses and investors lost confidence in the pair.

The federal government created Fannie and Freddie to increase the availability of loans. Largely because of investors' belief in an implicit government guarantee, these so-called government sponsored entities were able to lower the cost of millions of mortgages. But during the housing boom, they misused the government’s support to enrich shareholders and executives by backing millions of shoddy loans. Fannie and Freddie lost more than $30 billion, in part as a result of the deals, losses that were borne mostly by taxpayers."

Iraqi Mojo said...

"Reagan was not happy about raising taxes or expanding government, and we certainly shouldn't forget that he had to work within the constraints placed upon him by a non-compliant Congress. But that doesn't change the fact that Reagan both increased spending and, after the initial cut, showed a willingness to raise taxes - exactly the sort of policy prescriptions so widely condemned by today's Reagan-reverent conservatives."

madtom said...

"They were operating as banks, just like B of A"

With congressional mandates, and the executive pool coming from congressional staff and ex politicians?

"The government was indeed part of the problem in that it did not regulate the mortgage industry properly."

You got that backwards, the GSE's did exactly as the government ordered them to do. They followed the regulations to the tee. Which is why you can't trust the government to run the economy, they will do what is politically convenient, not what is economically sound. That goes for both parties, as we have seen inthe last decade where the Republicans acted just as bad as the current marxist is acting.
Isn't that why the Tea Party grew from the grass roots and includes people from the middle of both sides? People are sick with the two entrenched powers and are going to take back their government.

Iraqi Mojo said...

The banks were regulated when they lent millions of dollars to Joe the Plumber and other schmucks without verifying their income? Wasn't the banking industry deregulated in the 1980s as a part of Reaganomics?

It is typical of a Republican to imply that regulation is actually the problem, and that the solution is to deregulate further! LOL

Yes let's take back our government from Goldman Sachs! Obama should start being a good Marxist and fire Timothy Geithner!

Iraqi Mojo said...

Another great article by Paul Krugman:

"It remains to be seen whether the Occupy Wall Street protests will change America’s direction. Yet the protests have already elicited a remarkably hysterical reaction from Wall Street, the super-rich in general, and politicians and pundits who reliably serve the interests of the wealthiest hundredth of a percent.

And this reaction tells you something important — namely, that the extremists threatening American values are what F.D.R. called “economic royalists,” not the people camping in Zuccotti Park.

Consider first how Republican politicians have portrayed the modest-sized if growing demonstrations, which have involved some confrontations with the police — confrontations that seem to have involved a lot of police overreaction — but nothing one could call a riot. And there has in fact been nothing so far to match the behavior of Tea Party crowds in the summer of 2009.

Nonetheless, Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, has denounced “mobs” and “the pitting of Americans against Americans.” The G.O.P. presidential candidates have weighed in, with Mitt Romney accusing the protesters of waging “class warfare,” while Herman Cain calls them “anti-American.” My favorite, however, is Senator Rand Paul, who for some reason worries that the protesters will start seizing iPads, because they believe rich people don’t deserve to have them."

Iraqi Mojo said...

continued:

"Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.

And if you were listening to talking heads on CNBC, you learned that the protesters “let their freak flags fly,” and are “aligned with Lenin.”

The way to understand all of this is to realize that it’s part of a broader syndrome, in which wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is.

Last year, you may recall, a number of financial-industry barons went wild over very mild criticism from President Obama. They denounced Mr. Obama as being almost a socialist for endorsing the so-called Volcker rule, which would simply prohibit banks backed by federal guarantees from engaging in risky speculation. And as for their reaction to proposals to close a loophole that lets some of them pay remarkably low taxes — well, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the Blackstone Group, compared it to Hitler’s invasion of Poland.

And then there’s the campaign of character assassination against Elizabeth Warren, the financial reformer now running for the Senate in Massachusetts. Not long ago a YouTube video of Ms. Warren making an eloquent, down-to-earth case for taxes on the rich went viral. Nothing about what she said was radical — it was no more than a modern riff on Oliver Wendell Holmes’s famous dictum that “Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.”

But listening to the reliable defenders of the wealthy, you’d think that Ms. Warren was the second coming of Leon Trotsky. George Will declared that she has a “collectivist agenda,” that she believes that “individualism is a chimera.” And Rush Limbaugh called her “a parasite who hates her host. Willing to destroy the host while she sucks the life out of it.”

What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.

Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.

This special treatment can’t bear close scrutiny — and therefore, as they see it, there must be no close scrutiny. Anyone who points out the obvious, no matter how calmly and moderately, must be demonized and driven from the stage. In fact, the more reasonable and moderate a critic sounds, the more urgently he or she must be demonized, hence the frantic sliming of Elizabeth Warren.

So who’s really being un-American here? Not the protesters, who are simply trying to get their voices heard. No, the real extremists here are America’s oligarchs, who want to suppress any criticism of the sources of their wealth."

madtom said...

"The banks were regulated when they lent millions of dollars to Joe the Plumber"

This is just another lie, at least here in Miami the biggest defaults have come from 20 or 30 new billion dollar high-rise apartment buildings. Believe you me, Joe the Plummer could not get in the door unless he's using the service elevator.

Iraqi Mojo said...

Rich people played the game too? Not surprising. In 2005 a mortgage broker assured me I could borrow up to a million dollars without even verifying my income. I was kinda shocked, and a little tempted. I'm so glad I didn't give into temptation.

In 2006 I dated a beautiful woman who bought a 3 bedroom condo for $500k the year before. I thought it was crazy, but I wasn't sure what was going to happen to the market. I broke up with her that year, after dating for only a few months, mainly because I was afraid of marriage (still am), but one of the reasons I didn't want to marry her was because she was in so much debt. Does that make me a jerk? I still wonder if I made a mistake with her.

Dolly said...

Why don't the protesters openly come out in favor of Communism and be honest about it

I thought the current system was Market Capitalism, so why are these commies demanding free cash

madtom said...

"so why are these commies demanding free cash"

Because they are being promised free cash and by calling for the taking from "millionaires" it's like being told you can have all the fat free chips you want and not gain a pond. This is O's class warfare hard at work. Next they will be burning the kayaks.

Dolly said...

And another fraud is telling the people that only 1% are rich.

But 1% is only liquid millionaires, which means around $1.5 million.

What if someone has 900,000 dollars - he would fall under 99%.

Clearly that is not poor at all, by global standards.

Dolly said...

So I support Herman Cain, he tells it like it is.
Some of my fave quotes of Herman Cain:

"The protesters just want to take somebody else's Cadillac."

"To be angry at somebody because they're successful is anti-American, in my opinion."

"If you're not rich, blame yourself."