People taking to the streets to demonstrate - it's crazy, radical, violent and lawless

As is typical with Prog-lib-dytes, this ignores the 400+ actual examples of craziness, radicalism, violence, and lawlessnes. Congratulations on flunking Common Sense 101 and Remedial Reading.

displaying this website's bias

Of course Big Government is biased. Videosift is biased. CNN is biased. Fox is biased. MSN is biased. Now - at least you haven't flunked Remedial Reading like Drax, but you still flunk Common Sense 101. The bias of Big Government as a website is rather irrelevant compared to the CONTENT of the listing. Maybe you should - you know - actually read the 400+ independant news articles from the AP, NYT, CNN, NBC, Fox, and many other news outlet from which the unbiased and accurate list of OWS crimes was compiled. Your call. You can keep pretending that OWS was just a bunch of people 'taking to the streets' if you want. Fact and reality tells quite a different story though. But - as I say - facts and reality are foreign to the typical Prog-lib-dyte, so I wouldn't be surprised if you keep trying to ignore them.

Mark of the Beast, by Manilla Road. Early, experimental, album shelved for twenty years because the band themselves thought it was shit, finally released because a fifteen year old fan heard a bootleg copy and grew up to run a record label. Possibly not the most convincing start to a recommendation. Well, he loved it, and I love it too. Retro even when it was recorded, very 70s, lots of dreamy prog numbers and the occasional blast of heaviness. Complexity, sincerity, wailing guitar solos everywhere, Mark Shelton's incredible love-it-or-hate-it voice, wow, I don't know why I'm not listening to it right now.

1. Mark of the Beast
2. Court of Avalon

3. Avatar
4. Dream Sequence
5. Time Trap
6. Black Lotus

7. Teacher
8. Aftershock
9. Venusian Sea

10. Triumvirate

After seeing this and all the other Prog-Lib-Dyte videos this week desperately trying to explain away the OWS meltdown, I have reached the firm conclusion that I need to act swiftly. I need to open up a tin-foil hat stand and go to OWS sites right away before this lucrative market dissapates.

all of those bills are just ones the GOP themselves say are jobs bills, not anything having to actually do with jobs

And Obama's bill is just one that he says is a job bill, not anything having to do with jobs.

UCwhutididthere? From a fiscally conservative position, the GOP bills are about jobs. To a hard-left prog-lib-dyte, they aren't. To a fiscal conservative, Obama's bill is an absolute joke, but to a proglib-dyte it looks wonderful.

The truth is that both approaches are "methods" for creating jobs, but take different approaches. The GOP is using free markets, natural resource development, and small business tax breaks as a means of spurring job growth. The Democrats approach is taxes and deficit spending on temporary jobs and unions. But the past 3 years has shown us that Obama's approach is crap, and the GOP is saying "here's a viable alternative - let's try it". The Democrats in the Senate are saying, "Oh no you ain't going there!" Meanwhile the Democrats and President are saying, "Let's keep going what we've been doing for the past 3 years..." and the GOP in the House are saying, "Oh no you ain't going there!" It's a philosophical debate, and the nation as a whole prefers the GOP approach - not the President's. So he's trying to get the stupid and the suckers to buy into this moronic "do nothing" congress line. He's got nothing else because poll after poll shows both him and his plan are cratering.

the second thing you cite to is a bill basically eliminating the EPA

No - it is a bill to reduce the EPA to a less stupid level. EPA regulation of Co2 is not something the people voted for. It was rammed through by legislative fiat by Obama as a means of stifling energy production and imposing regulations on businesses which (in turn) hurt jobs. Obama's administration is rife with such bullcrap. He bans drilling in the Gulf which COSTS jobs. He blocks the Canada pipeline - which COSTS jobs. He blocks Ohio natural gas drilling - which COSTS jobs. Meanwhile he is literally dumping billions into failed projects like Fisker, Solyndra, and others which they KNOW are bad investments and are going bankrupt left and right. The GOP effort to halt that would almost immediately create over a MILLION jobs. The result will be more energy production, which will lower costs and create work. THAT is a job plan. Obama's plan kills jobs and raises energy costs.

"Without suggesting an alternative bill focused on improving the plight of struggling American's, RIP-ublicans clearly have their heads up their @%%&%"

Let's put this particular peice of stupididty to rest, shall we?

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/11/11/10/updated-summary-of-22-jobs

The GOP has !!22!! alternative bills focused on improving the plight of struggling Americans. It is Barak Obama, Harry Reid, and the Democrats who are lovingly french-kissing their own duodenums.

I know it is really REALLY hard for people on the left to process facts that are rooted in fundamental truth and reality - but just for once give it a shot? This whole "do-nothing Congress" line is nothing but prog-lib propoganda that leftists are desperately repeating on thier blogs and on the news in order to get the inattentive and stupid to beleive the GOP is the problem. It is something the left is REALLY pushing hard right now because they've got nothing else to go on this election cycle - what with Obama being such a dismal failure.

Case in point - Obama has by himself using what can only be described as tyrannical executive fiat - has within the past 13 days PERSONALLY killed 600,000 jobs. The Canadian oil pipeline, and natural gas drilling in Ohio. Both projects would have immediately created hundreds of thousands of jobs. If Obama wanted to goose jobs, he'd allow both projects to proceed. But because he's a leftist moron, he blocks them. And it is the REPUBLICANS who are stopping job creation by not agreeing with Obummer's idiotic tax & union slush bill? Sometimes I wonder if the prog-lib left has any clue about real life.

Bad form Ry. False attributions with no statement of clarification? M'eh - what else to expect from a prog-lib when faced by facts, I suppose. When facts shatter the illusion, the only shelter is to shovel out another layer of lies. Hope you like it under there.

public sector jobs generally pay people less than the private sector would offer them at their education and experience, even after you factor in benefits

See above links. The poor, underpaid public worker slaving away for less money than his private sector equivalent is a myth. The current reality is that public sector workers earn MORE than private sector equivalents - and it is not by a small amount either.

subsidizing big business friends that don't need the subsidy or tax break may be the place to look for that

Places like Illinois, California, Wisconsin, and New Jersey are not facing fiscal black-holes because they are paying too much in subsidies to ‘big business friends’. The main problem is that they have promised government workers a gold-plated lifestyle when they only had a copper-plated budget. You could end every ‘big business’ tax break, subsidy, and kickback tomorrow and it would not even make a dent in the budget shortfalls of states like Illinois. The problem is government over-spending. Here it is in black and white. This isn’t ‘left or right’. This isn’t ‘liberal or conservative’. This is just the brutal, harsh, cold reality…

http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Illinois_state_budget#Public_Employees

You will notice that Illinois’ budget is NOT dominated by a big line item of ‘subsidies to big business’. The budget is dominated by government spending on unions, union benefits, and entitlements. The only way to ‘fix’ such a budget is to cut the spending. Really. Because for every 12 people living in Illinois, there is one full-time salaried government worker pulling a higher wage, more benefits, and a better retirement than the people paying for him. Such a system is economically impossible to support. And there is plenty of evidence that such systems will ALWAYS collapse because of ineffiency. Greece, Italy, Portugal – entire nations are collapsing because of exactly the same problem. And that problem is the poison of Keynesian economics propping up an impossibly lavish public sector.

That's basically my point, this country has plenty of money, it just does it's that people are greedy as **** so they're going to say that only THIS slice of the pie is available for you guys

You are talking as if the public sector is NOT getting its ‘piece of the pie’…

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/09/14/study-finds-public-employee-compensation-better-than-private-sector.html

http://www.aei.org/docLib/AEI-Working-Paper-on-Federal-Pay-May-2011.pdf

It's just not true, public service unions have nothing to do with the crisis, when you look at the fact that we're in two Wars and spend double what the entire world spends on the armed forces

To say public unions have 'nothing' to do with the economic shortfalls is just factually incorrect. The links above prove it. Illinois has entire sections of its budget dominated by union issues, and union contracts repeatedly block any attempts at reform.

But regardless... Sure. Cut federal defense spending. And while we are at it, we should also cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and every other program. Cut them all. Slash them by 33% across the board. No exceptions. No mercy. But anyone that thinks that the only place we need to cut is ‘defense’ and that’ll fix it all it living in a dream world.

For example – how is cutting defense spending going to help Illinois? Or California? Or New Jersey? Or let’s take it national. Greece’s defense spending was a measley 3.4%. Explain how they would solve their massive budget shortfall by cutting defense. Or the US… Even if you cut US defense spending to zero, our current deficit is over 1.4 trillion. Defense to zero? 700 billion. Only HALF of just the deficit. It doesn’t even touch the 14 trillion in debt the nation already has. Or the further SEVENTY trillion in debt we have to cover all the 'unfunded liabilites' of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

At some point all the prog-libs out there are going to have to accept the facts. You can’t close the massive budget shortfalls that cities, states, and nations have with defense cuts. The problem is not defense. It is not ‘big business’. The problem is that governments are overspending on unsustainable public employee packages and entitlements that have no reasonable expecation of ever being paid for.

Dude, stimulus does not immediately kick in. It takes time to take effect.

Yes - so far it has taken over 2 years and STILL hasn't 'taken effect'. (rimshot)

And considering the economic data that suggests that this was the worst economic downturn in since the Great Depression, where unemployment reached 25%, how is it "balderdash" unemployment would have climbed into the teens?

Where is the evidence that 'proves' unemployment WOULD HAVE reached 13% or 17% or 25%? Depends on who you are talking to of course. There are indicators that US unemployement is indeed more along the lines of 17% when you take away 'book cooking' techniques such as not counting people who aren't looking for jobs anymore, and so forth. Regardless, there is no substantive economic evidence that unemployment as traditionally measured was going to keep increasing beyond the plateau it reached.

You also failed in your economic analysis.

It isn't my economic analysis. It is the economic analysis of economists. Argue with them. Just because you disagree with them doesn't make you right. It just makes you one of millions of people with an uninformed opinion.

"...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has '[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points' and '[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.'"

I already talked about the CBO report - which is one of the most 'generous' interpretations possible and is based on fuzzy facts and a bunch of imagination. Other analysis is far more critical, and has a lot more concrete data to back it up.

"most economists believe"

Nope - you don't get to pull an Obama tactic here. When Obama says bullcrap like this he skates away because the media doesn't call him out. I'm different. I'm calling you out. Define your claim. "Most economists"... What economists? Name names. Name the organizations. Name the time. Name the place. Name the report. Name the data. Supply your proof to your claim that 'most economists' say the bill wasn't successful because it wasn't big enough. The only economnists who say that kind off garbage are prog-lib Keneysians - who aren't worth the powder to blow them up. There are HOSTS of economists who completely, unequivocally, and thoroughly disagree with that highly questionable position.

Again, I challenge you to show me a recession in modern times that was not ended after a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?

Your position is spurious because for the past 70 years the US government has been on a constant deficit spending binge. I can with equal validity claim the following...

"I challenge you to show a recession in modern times that was not PRECEEDED by a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?"

When the baseline of government is constant debt spending, for anyone you to claim that all 'positive' events are the result of deficit spending is nonsense. The chart proves nothing expect that the government has been debt spending 95% of its existence. It sort of also proves that that the recessions in the 60s, 70s, 80s, and this recession were preceeded by deficit spending.

there's no other way to explain it

Yes there is and I just showed it to you. Only people who are mired in a narrow, biased, bigoted, and blinkered Keneysian world-view can say there is 'only' one explanation. Reality and facts prove otherwise.

we've ALWAYS ended recessions with deficit spending

And this is why you are proven to be narrow-minded, biased, bigoted, and blinkered. Private sector growth is what ends recessions - not deficit spending. If deficit spending 'ended' recessions, then why are we still in a recession? Obama Jerkface the First has engaged in more deficit spending than any president in US history in raw terms. Why aren't we in an economic boom right now after 3 years on his debt steroids? If debt got rid of recessions, then we'd never go INTO a recession because we've been debt spending 95% of the time. Your analysis is so simplistic, so flawed, and so moronic that it begs the question whether you even think about what you write, or if you are just so steeped in leftist propoganda that you have abandoned free-thinking completely.

So what was WWII?! What were the 1980's?!

WW2 was a world war that was followed by a post-war private sector boom of increased private spending and greatly decreased government debt spending. The 1980s was a period of time when private businesses grew as a result of decreased government taxation - caused by a conservative president forcing a liberal congress to cut entitlements somewhat.

Explain how in the world deficits prolonged the Great Depression!

Like many prog-libs, you lack historical knowledge. FDR engaged in massive debt spending and public works long before WW2. The creation of public works based on deficits created an environment where government was a 'job creator', not the private sector. When the government is actively involved in setting wages, being the 'job creator', and otherwise setting a baseline of economic activity, then the private sector holds back its capital, jobs, and other activities. The reason is simple - the private sector cannot compete when the public sector is artificially manipulating costs and prices. It creates an atmosphere of massive economic uncertainty, and the private sector is unwilling to take risks, make bold moves, or otherwise do anything that might be jeopardized by a sudden decision by government to move in that direction.

So when government is subsidizing construction workers (such as with public make-work crap), it interferes with the private constriction industry. They are not going to hire workers at $20 an hour when government workers are getting tax-subsidized $30 jobs. They can't compete with that. So they don't hire anyone, and they fire people they already have, and they also have people quit because government is hiring at higher than market value wages. Then in a year when those jobs dry up, the private sector is flooded with workers who expect a 30 an hour job, but the job environment is full of employers who only pay 25 (or less), and who are scared to hire anyone because they have no idea if government is going to go on another bogus debt binge or not. The only time the private sector steps up in in periods of time when they know the government is NOT going to be rocking the boat with arbitrary decisions for a while. This is why there was a big boom AFTER the war (when government activity decreased) and in the 80s. Recessions are ended when the private sector has CONFIDENCE - and that only happens when government is NOT doing anything.

I could go on a long time, but I doubt you care to hear it. Prog-libs who believe only the Keneysian model don't care to hear how thier precious philosophy screws up the world market, prolongs economic downturns, and basically is the major cause of suffering, poverty, and economic unrest.

I don't for the life of me understand why people like you will literally argue the sky isn't blue if it fits your ideological narrative.

Pot - meet kettle. Your world view is 100% backwards. You are the one calling the sky green. You are the one saying the moon is made of cheese. We in the real world await your arrival some day when you're ready for it.

As soon as I saw the words "Tea Party" I stopped reading; I am not sure what your argument is about, but I am sure it's dumb on general principle.

Your response is typical of prog-libs. The second they encounter an idea, concept, person, or philosophy that does not lie 100% flush with thier own, the standard modus-operandi is to stick their fingers in their ears and start singing "Meet The Flintstones". And you guys are the ones that call yourselves 'open-minded'? I find most truely liberal people are the most closed-minded, narrow, unthinking, and intellectually simplistic people that exist on the planet. Far more so than any fundamentalist Christian.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

M'eh - I'll say it again. The OWS guys are angry at the wrong target. They are like a guy who blames his apartment's supervisor for the policies of his landlord.
As I am the most brilliant person I know, I'll just quote myself...
"The FED jacked around the rates. The FED changed Glass-Steagall. The FED told banks they would back ARMs. So in the year 2000, some doofus who earned only 30K a year could walk into a bank to find a literal smorgasboard of million dollar loans he legally qualified which would have laughed him out of the bank in 1995.
Some banks acted conservatively in the bubble and many others chose to do the risky (but still legal) loans. Just like how there were borrowers who behaved conservatively during the bubble, and others who took the risky (but legal) option. The problem was that the number of conservative players was a lot smaller than the risk-takers.
The banks were stupid to take so many risks. People were stupid to take out so many loans. But it was GOVERNMENT that engineered the whole mess. They are the primary offender in this picture. The Federal Government. If government had not interfered in the market, then the whole mess would never have happened."
Cain hit the nail on the head when he said the protesters should be at the White House. The problem is that the OWS crowd is primarily composed of a bunch of fringe, left-wing dupes and they only go where their prog-lib pipers order them to go.


@winston_pennypacker
LOL..awesome.
wait..you are being serious?
duuuuude.
check your facts brother.
who "owns" the FED?
ill give ya a hint..it aint the federal government.
and look into WHO lobbied for class steagal to be recinded/revised.

i find it interesting how tea party folks say that OWS is angry at the wrong people.that they should be angry at the government.
i can agree with that ..in part.
but to ignore the massive influence,corruption and outright theft of our political system by the corporate elite is JUST as naive.
for 30 years both have built a relationship that has become so entwined and entrenched that BOTH need a serious enema.
a plutocracy that has become a machine that enables each other to perpetuate the status quo.

the tea partiers,the original tea party,not the corporate sponsored koch brother bullshit machine,and OWS are both correct in their anger.
wall street for their BLATANT disregard for the law and outright LIES and FRAUD which has been swept under the rug by a government THEY (meaning wall street) PAID for.

the tea party should head down to every occupy protest,join hands with those folks and REALLY start making the whores we call "politicians" start peeing their pants.
because NOTHING gets a government,crown,leader or grand poo-ba crapping himself than a few thousand really pissed of citizens.

but that aint gonna happen because my country still has a majority of retards who buy in to the whole "rightwing nutbag","neo-lib socialist"..blah blah blah.

bullshit fed to the masses in an easy to swallow diatribe broadcast on a media that was bought by the very people fucking you in the ass for 3 decades.

americas propaganda machine is by far one of the most effective.
/rant off

Oh WP, that vine swings both ways. Just do me a favor and try not to cover those of us in the middle with the fecal rhetoric while you feel the need to sling it out with "the far left fringe"

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I will be genuinely surprised if these protesters remain non-violent for much longer.
Elements of OWS have been violent for for some time. This particular incident was preceeded by (essentially) a riot where OWS goons were hurling rocks, bottles, and other crap at the police. The order went out for the crowd to disperse. They ignored it. At that point once the crowd has been warned and still refuses to obey the police it is pretty stupid to pretend that rubber bullets and tear gas are somehow out of line. Whatever point they may have ever had is now entirely lost in a sea of their own bad behavior. Behaving like jackasses and then whining about it when grown-ups are forced to put you in line doesn't make you a hero or noble. It makes you a giant douche.
But what can we expect from a group kickstarted by known anti-capitalist Kalle Lasn, fronted by his rag Adbusters, and trained by a professional anarchist running around conducting sessions on how to get arrested? The good book says, "By their fruits ye shall know them."
http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstre
et-the-rap-sheet-so-far/
It will eventually turn to violence if people aren't allowed to be heard
Lol. They've been 'heard' for weeks. The news media has been giving them almost constant coverage, and on the national side it is mostly positive. The NYT alone has published over 180,000 words on OWS. But of course OWS and other prog-libs are still angry because they think they haven't gotten ENOUGH coverage, or that their coverage hasn't been as positive as they wanted.
And like most things, I know exactly why they feel this way. These hooligans are at the far left fringes of society. On a 100 point scale where 1 is "crazed liberal" and 100 is "crazed conservative", they are probably somewhere around 10 or 15. They aren't mainstream. They are out there. WAAAAY out there in many cases.
The news media coverage has been left-positive, but not AS left-positive as they want. If we scaled it, the overall media coverage of OWS has been around 35-40. Mostly centrist, leaning left. But that is not good enough for OWS and the prog-lib sympathizers. Unless the coverage mirrors their own bias (10 or 15) they consider it 'right wing'. This is not because the coverage isn't leftist. They feel this way because the coverage happens to be to the right of THEMSELVES.
So essentially they are mad because the entire national media isn't an OWS propoganda outlet. Anything less than that is somehow "unfair" or "not enough coverage". People who are chimpanzees swinging on the radical vines of the far left fringe will continue to fling their poo until everyone is as covered with it as they are.

As soon as I saw the words "Tea Party" I stopped reading; I am not sure what your argument is about, but I am sure it's dumb on general principle.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Now - let's turn back the clock a year and say that this was a Tea Party rally that started throwing rocks at cops, tearing up a public place, and otherwise behaving like a bunch of vandals. The cops tear gas up the joint and disperse them. Would anyone on the Sift have cared. Highly unlikely. In fact, I suspect that prog-libs all over the nation would have cheered as cops took the nightsticks to Tea Party members, and we'd have had all kinds of commentary from leftists about how the Tea party was dangerous, needed to be slapped down, or otherwise removed from the public discourse.
Ah - what a difference it makes when it is prog-libs on the other end of the truncheon.
I've seen the vids. These OWS losers were rioting. They deserved everything they got. No sympathy here. The Tea party has never engaged in these kinds of shenanigans, and if they had then they'd have deserved a few police beatings as well. If you are 'protesting' something and can't make your point peacefully, then you don't have much of a point. If you decide that your point can't be made peacefully, then openly declare your intention to instigate violence and mayhem so people can judge you properly. If you can't (or won't) honestly portray yourself, then you're just a coward who wants to cause trouble hiding in a crowd.

I will be genuinely surprised if these protesters remain non-violent for much longer.

Elements of OWS have been violent for for some time. This particular incident was preceeded by (essentially) a riot where OWS goons were hurling rocks, bottles, and other crap at the police. The order went out for the crowd to disperse. They ignored it. At that point once the crowd has been warned and still refuses to obey the police it is pretty stupid to pretend that rubber bullets and tear gas are somehow out of line. Whatever point they may have ever had is now entirely lost in a sea of their own bad behavior. Behaving like jackasses and then whining about it when grown-ups are forced to put you in line doesn't make you a hero or noble. It makes you a giant douche.

But what can we expect from a group kickstarted by known anti-capitalist Kalle Lasn, fronted by his rag Adbusters, and trained by a professional anarchist running around conducting sessions on how to get arrested? The good book says, "By their fruits ye shall know them."

http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/

It will eventually turn to violence if people aren't allowed to be heard

Lol. They've been 'heard' for weeks. The news media has been giving them almost constant coverage, and on the national side it is mostly positive. The NYT alone has published over 180,000 words on OWS. But of course OWS and other prog-libs are still angry because they think they haven't gotten ENOUGH coverage, or that their coverage hasn't been as positive as they wanted.

And like most things, I know exactly why they feel this way. These hooligans are at the far left fringes of society. On a 100 point scale where 1 is "crazed liberal" and 100 is "crazed conservative", they are probably somewhere around 10 or 15. They aren't mainstream. They are out there. WAAAAY out there in many cases.

The news media coverage has been left-positive, but not AS left-positive as they want. If we scaled it, the overall media coverage of OWS has been around 35-40. Mostly centrist, leaning left. But that is not good enough for OWS and the prog-lib sympathizers. Unless the coverage mirrors their own bias (10 or 15) they consider it 'right wing'. This is not because the coverage isn't leftist. They feel this way because the coverage happens to be to the right of THEMSELVES.

So essentially they are mad because the entire national media isn't an OWS propoganda outlet. Anything less than that is somehow "unfair" or "not enough coverage". People who are chimpanzees swinging on the radical vines of the far left fringe will continue to fling their poo until everyone is as covered with it as they are.

What WPP does is try and increase doubt to a level that becomes a passive ad hominem attack.

Nope - I view the story from as many angles as possible, come to a conclusion, and then state my perspective from a position of informed certitude. I know this infuriates prog-libs, but I make no apologies for it.

Then that would clearly discredit all the protests worldwide

No - it would not discredit OWS. However, it would supply evidence that Mrs. McProtester was the kind of person Fox News said she was.

Who gives a &&&& what this woman is doing?

Her family, perhaps? A parent has responsibilities and obligations beyond their own selfish whims. If a person ditches thier responsibility without the family's explicit leave then others are not out of place for saying she lacks character. What is needed is more information - specifically the husband's side of the story. What cursory evidence we have seems to suggest that she left for OWS and her family was not exactly cool with it (IE reports that her husband is 'puzzled'). But without more data nothing definitive can be said.

The paragraphs you have dedicated to this non-story show that you are exactly the type of drone these $$$holes are trying to stir up in the first place.

I've observed OWS and reached a reasoned conclusion that they're a bunch of prog-lib dupes and union astroturf who are mad at the wrong people. They have no plan, and many of them are attempting to agitate anger, resentment, and (in some cases) violence. I put it to you that it is more accurate to say that YOU are exactly the kind of drone that OWS is trying to stir up.

You are worrying about &&&& that doesn't matter, you have no idea what you are talking about, and it's none of your business anyway. She is one of thousands sacrificing who-knows-what to be there and support OWS. She is there doing what she believes in.

Family solidarity and fidelity matters. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Her true character is as yet undetermined. I live what I believe in every day.

The story isn't about how this mother did or did not coordinate going to the protest with her family but how the media is exploiting one person and her family to push their agenda... just like they always do except it's really really blatantly obvious now.

I think that prog-libs are seeing things that don't exist with this crazy 'push their agenda' foolishness. This is Fox & Friends. It's a morning 'chatting idiots' show like Good Morning America. Look - just because someone on TV says something that is not flush with YOUR political perspective does not mean there is some sinister master agenda that seeks to undermine you.

There are multiple media studies that show the news media - as a whole - is far more slanted left than it is right - and that even FOX news isn't anywhere near as 'right wing' as prog-libs think it is. But even I don't think there the leftist slant is some 'agenda' the news media has. I think that the news media is simply populated by prog-libs who pick stories and portray them from a left-wing bias because that's how they think things are.

When a prob-lib journalist sees a bunch of prog-lib OWS protesters, they feel sympathy for them and report accordingly. When they see a bunch of conservative Tea-Party protestors, they despise them and report accordingly. And that's exactly how it all went down. The media mostly treats OWS with kid gloves and slobbers all over them because leftist like them. But the Tea Party was 'conservative', and so it got no such softshoe treatment. The TP has been entirely peaceful. Not one cop has been injured. Not once have they had to be tear gassed, or 'evicted', or otherwise cause trouble. But to the media they were a bunch of dangerous, evil, racist, thugs. But that isn't the media's 'agenda'. It is a result of thier perception bias.

For example - let's say you are a typical prog-lib. Compared to the national 'average', a prog-lib is way left of center. If we use a 100 point scale where 1 means "liberal" and 100 means "conservative" then a prog-lib is way down in the teens or twenties. So they see the world from that perspective, and their friend do too. So when they encounter an opinion that is actually "moderate" (say 50 on the scale) they see it as "right-wing" because it is so far to the right of themselves.

When you occupy a far-left opinion, pretty much ANYTHING you encounter other than similarly far-left opinions appears to be radical "neo-con" right-wing extremism. In reality, that is totally untrue, and most of the stuff they see as 'right-wing' is actually centrist. So when Fox & Friends expresses the rather centrist opinion that a woman who abandons her family is a bad person, prog-lib hackles go up because the woman is a fellow prog-lib and such a moralization is clearly some sort of 'right wing' agenda seeking to undermine the OWS group you empathize with.

Now - let's turn back the clock a year and say that this was a Tea Party rally that started throwing rocks at cops, tearing up a public place, and otherwise behaving like a bunch of vandals. The cops tear gas up the joint and disperse them. Would anyone on the Sift have cared. Highly unlikely. In fact, I suspect that prog-libs all over the nation would have cheered as cops took the nightsticks to Tea Party members, and we'd have had all kinds of commentary from leftists about how the Tea party was dangerous, needed to be slapped down, or otherwise removed from the public discourse.

Ah - what a difference it makes when it is prog-libs on the other end of the truncheon.

I've seen the vids. These OWS losers were rioting. They deserved everything they got. No sympathy here. The Tea party has never engaged in these kinds of shenanigans, and if they had then they'd have deserved a few police beatings as well. If you are 'protesting' something and can't make your point peacefully, then you don't have much of a point. If you decide that your point can't be made peacefully, then openly declare your intention to instigate violence and mayhem so people can judge you properly. If you can't (or won't) honestly portray yourself, then you're just a coward who wants to cause trouble hiding in a crowd.