The report is from Pakistan and the language is Urdu
India/Pakistan, same thing almost.


It's even funnier if you know what they're saying:

-----------------
Anchorwoman:
... what do you see out there and how is the fervor amongst the youth regarding new years night?

Reporter:
The young ones are out shouting slogans whilst the police is trying to clear the street. When it was 12 o'clock people started dancing a lot of bhangra, chanted "Long live Pakistan", they even shot guns into the air, the police also baton charged the crowd, and people shot more guns into the air.... *whack!*

Achorwoman continues as if it's not a biggie: Well there you are ladies and gentlement so and so reporter informing us about people celebrating new years.
------------------

*This btw was that last report in the news that's always a 'general interest story'.


>> ^westy:

>> ^rich_magnet:
Maybe it's a language barrier, but I can't really tell what's happening in this reportage. I think I need to rewind and see it about 15 more times, in ever slower-mo. Maybe then I'll see what's going on.

Well this peace is so deep in subtext , I definitely think think its a valid commentary on the class system in India.

@quantumushroom If facts are so important to you, then why is it that you never employ them while making implausible comments like liberalism causes black people to have babies out of wedlock, or that gays don't want equal marriage rights, or that California is broke because of liberalism.

You proudly admit to getting your media from questionable, corporate funded sources that a) carry no credibility outside of hardcore sympathetic ideologues, and b) have been shown to be less effective at keeping you informed than no media at all. This should be a big red flag.

http://www.good.is/post/poll-finds-fox-news-is-worse-than-no-news-at-all/

Beyond all this, you support a political ideology that has been on the wrong side of history, from slavery to women's rights to civil rights, to labor rights, and continuing with campaigns against gays, Muslims and Mexicans, as well as a continuation of the prejudices of old.

Do you ever wonder how regular German citizens got sucked into supporting fascism? Well wonder no more.

Let's take a look at the 14 defining characteristics of fascism and see how you do....

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

CHECK

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

CHECK

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

CHECK

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

CHECK

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

CHECK

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

CHECK

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

CHECK

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

CHECK

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

CHECK

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

CHECK

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

CHECK

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

CHECK

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

CHECK

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

I've seen nothing to suggest you support fraudulent elections.

13 out of 14. NOT GOOD DUDE. NOT GOOD AT ALL. You are free to dispute which ever ones you like, but you've got years of incriminating comments on this site to back this up.

But of course if you could see it, then the Germans would have been able to see it too, and we wouldn't have had to fight that war.



In reply to this comment by quantumushroom:
My problem is only with intellectual dishonesty, whether it's via curable ignorance or deliberate deception is almost irrelevant.

I've been where you are now politically, only LONG ago. I worked my way UP from liberalism, wiped the slate clean with anarchism, aimed toward libertarianism and am now floating in the undefined, invisible world of 'conservatarianism'. I do not agree with liberal policies based on liberals' good intentions. As a taxpayer and citizen, I demand positive RESULTS, and anyone foisting social experiments on society better be ready to defend them when they fail. Do you know the stats on Black crime and births out of wedlock? "Racism" did not cause a 70% illegitimacy rate in the Black community, LIBERALISM did. Crazy Johnson's "Great Society" garbage. The results of holding Blacks to lower standards--including standards of behavior--is self-evident.

There is even a fair argument for gay marriage, but the gay "lifestyle" generally is a sad one, with rampant promiscuity and diseases. It's not established that most gays even want legal marriage. And though no one else cares to acknowledge it, AIDS is a behaviorally spread disease. Remember that the billions politically steered towards AIDS research could also have been spent on cancer research, and cancer affects FAR more people.

California is broke. It got that way due to liberalism. RESULTS. Not good intentions, RESULTS.

You have a right to your opinions, but no one has the right to their own facts. If I had to judge you, I would say you're highly intelligent but misguided, not because your political views don't mirror mine, but because you refuse to step back and view the entire picture.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

The bottom line is that your problem with gays, blacks and other minorities is just that: your problem. It's not their fault that they have ended up on the wrong side of your emotional development. It's something you need to come to terms with on your own.

My new slogan in life is... FUCK THE FED.

This should gather support from both Republicans Democrats and independents.

>> ^quantumushroom:

As boneheaded a declaration as it was, more worrisome is the threat of LIBERAL EQUALITY FORCE stormtroopers kicking down the door. Political correctness is training for enslavement.


Was that the best your slogan-maker could come up with? Really? You should have hit "Generate" a few more times.

i am loathe to respond in bullet form,maybe because i find it the weakest and laziest form of debate in a text format,but let me address a glaring misconception you seem to have concerning the occupy movement.you seem to be under the impression that its driving force is against rich folk.

now lets put that aside for a second and i shall not deal with just how utterly inaccurate that statement is because what REALLY intrigues me is this: how did you formulate that opinion when so much information is already out there revealing a totally different animal?how did you derive this conclusion and by what information did you base it on?
now THAT is a far more interesting conversation.

Its driving force is against the powers that be. "They". They say money runs the government, and they are right. Money is at the root of all evil. Who controls all the money? The "1 percent", although it's really more the ".001" percent. So it is essentially against the rich and powerful, the income divide they have engineered, and the entrenched power structure they orchaestrate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is an ongoing series of demonstrations initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters which began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly that of the financial services sector—on government. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.

you also put forth that your main premise was that the students were warned that they would be removed,by force if need be.
maybe i am misunderstanding your thinking but it appears that if there is an announcement then any use of force is justified.
yet in your previous paragraph you stated you understood the necessity to disobey then turn around and become an apologetic for police force.
these two premises are in conflict.

I was merely countering the assertion that they were sprayed without warning, which was a lie. I do believe police have the right to use force, however, I think they could have handled that situation a little better. I do believe we should disobey authority when it runs contrary to what God has commanded, but then and only then.

then in the next paragraph you continue with a verbal denigration of the people of occupy using tried and true tactics of any powerful institution.you literally have just regurgitated state propaganda and i dont think for a second you even realized that fact.do you even know what a marxist,anarchist or socialist actually is? i ask that sincerely not as a slight towards you,because it doesnt appear that you do.

I am not on the side of the state, I am on the side of God. Governments tend towards corruption and unless they adhere to biblical principles they will fall into decay and injustice will be the normative state of the land. So I do not prefer the state at all, but neither do I favor removing it, at least until Jesus returns. It is, as the founders believed, a necessary evil.

Yes, I know what they represent, and their positions are often interchangable. They were out in force waving their communist flags, talking about income redistribution and private property rights, distributing their anti-capitalist propaganda. Here is a quick portrait:

http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2011/11/zuccotti-utopia-portraits-of-revolutionaries/comment-page-1/#comment-22376

They even had maoists:



again i find your premise in conflict.
on the one hand you agree and are aware of the corruption gnawing at our democracy and then turn around and dismiss those who are protesting that VERY corruption you just acknowledged as somehow being unworthy.
i even posted the playbook that powerful institutions use and you fell into lock step with that message.

then lastly you again use a perjorative to describe the occupy movement with obvious disdain and then chastise me for comparing occupy with the civil rights movement.
either you dont understand my point or didnt think it through.
i was not comparing them as being similar in intentions.i was comparing them to how the power of the people are the ONLY way to enact change.
and if you truly agree that this government is corrupt and has been purchased by corporations who use their immense wealth to further their own profit margin at the expense of the average american citizen then i do not understand why your premise is so diametrically opposed in thought and in reason.

your argument is a contradiction.

The fundemental disagreement is this. What I recognize is the corruption gnawing at all of mankind. Everyone is looking at this catastrophe called civilization and thinking "how can we rearrange this so a utopia emerges?" Some people think the inequitable distribution of resources is the source of eivl, and believe that if we just set up a system to share the resources equitably then all goodness will follow from that. Other people think that just having a system is the source of corruption and want to eliminate it altogether and live without any central authority. The issue is that these schemes are all predicated upon the assumption that human beings are generally good. The reality is, human beings are generally sinful and tend towards corruption and not goodness. It isn't the system, or lack thereof that is the problem, it is the human heart:

Jeremiah 17:9

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?

If you wiped out everything and started with a blank slate, putting the population of the world into an instant utopia, it would only be a matter of time before the whole thing was rotten to the core. The problem isn't the system, it is us. The only solution to this problem is Jesus Christ. Humans are incapable of governing themselves equitably. The founders recognized this, which is why they instituted checks and balances into the constitution, to try to offset mans sinful nature. They knew no man could be trusted with power. In the same way, to switch systems we would simply just be trading one polished turd for another. When Jesus returns and sets up His kingdom, only then will there be peace upon this Earth.

one last thing and while i hope you know .i shall state openly here.
what i am about to ask i ask in all sincerity and humility.
where do you think jesus would be sitting on this issue?
would he be on capitol hill with the plutocrats and corporate lobbyists?
think about it.

What Jesus is interested in is our salvation. Neither the plutocrats or the protesters are doing anything to reach or to further His Kingdom. They both outside of His will and are following man-centered doctrines and philosophies which glorify themselves and give God no acknowledgement what-so-ever. Jesus wouldn't be happy with any of them.

Luke 11:28

But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

Luke 18:8

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

>> ^enoch:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Making a foray into politics?

so it appears and not a very impressive one.
@shinyblurry
i.

I'm glad the one reporter asked the question about her feeling threatened, but the reporters asking various other questions were working hard at ruining the vibe there. That was a truly impressive protest. It had much more of an impact than a protest full of shouting or slogan chanting.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You didn't respond to main thrust of my comment. I'll take that to mean you have no coherent response. Instead you've given me a hodgepodge of political slogans.
(I know I shouldn't lavish you with undeserved attention, but I've got a debate jones to satisfy.)
"Tax the rich" All those record profits are doing the economy no good stagnating in corporate coffers. Take that money and pump it into the economy. Use it to create jobs, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, to provide health care. Tax revenue can create jobs when markets fail. It worked in the last great depression. It will work in this depression too.
"Socialism" Nice of you to put words in my mouth. I don't want extreme socialism anymore than I want extreme capitalism. A balanced system that takes advantage of the best of both systems is the wisest.
"Founding fathers" I find it funny that when conservatives come up short in the argument department, that they put words in the mouths of the founding fathers. If your argument cannot stand on it's own then don't make it. Putting words into the mouths of dead people is no more acceptable than putting them into the mouths of the living.
"Tyranny of the majority/Cover for oligarchs" These two stock arguments you've chosen to regurgitate contradict one another. Clearly oligarchs and the people can't both be in charge. You've got to pick one or the other. These types of contradictions reinforce my belief that you are unable to think things through for yourself.


Keep the personal attacks coming, it shows how pathetic your position really is. Debate jones, is that what this is? More like your satisfying your flaming jones, which makes me really question your psychological health.

Fraud and corruption caused the last depression, this depression, and future depressions if left to you. Instead of trying to fight and prevent the fraud, you try to present the problem as a partisan one. And offer solutions sponsored by Wall Street politicians.

You didn't respond to main thrust of my comment. I'll take that to mean you have no coherent response. Instead you've given me a hodgepodge of political slogans.

(I know I shouldn't lavish you with undeserved attention, but I've got a debate jones to satisfy.)

"Tax the rich" All those record profits are doing the economy no good stagnating in corporate coffers. Take that money and pump it into the economy. Use it to create jobs, to repair our crumbling infrastructure, to provide health care. Tax revenue can create jobs when markets fail. It worked in the last great depression. It will work in this depression too.

"Socialism" Nice of you to put words in my mouth. I don't want extreme socialism anymore than I want extreme capitalism. A balanced system that takes advantage of the best of both systems is the wisest.

"Founding fathers" I find it funny that when conservatives come up short in the argument department, that they put words in the mouths of the founding fathers. If your argument cannot stand on it's own then don't make it. Putting words into the mouths of dead people is no more acceptable than putting them into the mouths of the living.

"Tyranny of the majority/Cover for oligarchs" These two stock arguments you've chosen to regurgitate contradict one another. Clearly oligarchs and the people can't both be in charge. You've got to pick one or the other. These types of contradictions reinforce my belief that you are unable to think things through for yourself.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I think my comment was pretty clear. I know further clarification is probably a waste of breath, but so be it. The 'job creator-trickle down' spiel goes like this: If you lower taxes for wealthy people, they make lots of money which they then pump back into the economy in the form of jobs (among other benefits to society).
Well, we've now lived under this assumption for 3 decades now, and while it is clear that cutting taxes does give the wealthy more money, it has failed to produce the promised jobs. On the contrary, it seems to actually have the effect of killing good jobs, either by automating them or sending them overseas to third world slaves. This is probably because the extra money is used to lobby the government, rather that create new jobs.
Another big problem with the 'job creator' argument is that from a business standpoint, you generally only hire as many employees as you need to maximize profits, regardless of how much money you have stagnating in their bank accounts. Hiring more or less help than you need makes little sense.
This is how 'we got here'. We've let business take control of our democracy. With this power, big business has taken us to war, filled it's coffers with public money, given itself all manner of no-bid contracts, subsidies, bail outs and trade deals, has eroded our civil rights, corrupted our courts, monopolized our media, among other horrors. They've deregulated and privatized the financial sector as to allow themselves the freedom to pollute, exploit and swindle.
Capiche?

>> ^marbles:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
The problem with the 'job creators' stratagem is that, with record high wealth/corporate earnings, record low taxes and record high unemployment, it has no obvious basis in reality. It is also delightful to see these protesters dodge his obvious trap, forcing him to awkwardly offer up the payoff without an organic set up. His karma ran over his dogma.

You seem to be oblivious to how we got here. Your argument/position has no obvious basis in reality. Raising taxes doesn't fix anything. It doesn't break up the big banks, stop corporatism, or end the magic money tree called the federal reserve.
It's a delight to frame these serious problems into false partisan arguments?
Nice joke though. But the 90s called and want to know wtf you're talking about.


So let's raise taxes on the rich! That'll teach 'em! And our problems will be fixed.
The most most glaring error in your analysis is that "democracy" got us here.
Socialism is not a remedy. Socialism always has and always will always be a mechanism to consolidate the wealth of the people before looting it.
Our founders didn't set up a "democracy". They recognized the fundamental flaw to "group think". The minority is always at the tyranny of the majority. Protecting the rights of the minority is the only way to preserve the rule of law, and the smallest minority is the individual.
And just like socialism is used to deceive the people, so is democracy. It's political cover for oligarchs. It's not about taking "control of our democracy", for that's the entire point. Democracy is either a false perception or tyranny of the majority. The people lose either way.

@chilaxe

I'm not disputing their facts. I'm disputing their pedigree, and thus their probable selective use of facts. Like I said, if career Democrats wrote a book showing how right-wing policies are destroying the world I wouldn't cite it as an independent source because I wouldn't trust it to be impartial.

FWIW, Wikipedia says, "We are the 99% is a political slogan, Internet meme and implicit economic claim that emerged from the "Occupy" protests in 2011." So yes, it's both an economic fact and a term used to refer to supporters of the protest movement themselves. This is in contrast to people who don't support the protest. These people don't define themselves as part of the 99% who are losing out (even though they are). They define themselves as part of the 53% who are "contributing". Either way, if your point is that Cenk should stop confounding the two uses of the term, then yes, I'm with you, and might even send him a note to that effect myself. I took the title straight from the YouTube video.

I hope you don't mind my bringing in a quote of yours from elsewhere:

Liberalism doesn't prefer decay, but it does prefer the conditions that cause decay.

Twice now, your example to support this is California, which isn't something I know anything about, nor am interested in studying in enough depth to argue with you. I can point, instead, to statistics that clearly show that economic inequality in the developed world correlates very strongly with all sorts of social problems.

http://videosift.com/video/Richard-Wilkinson-How-economic-inequality-harms-societies

Notice, I'm not talking about liberal policy or conservative policy or anything ideologically based, just the observable facts. Now, you might think that the only measure of success is some financial indicator, but for me, success can only be measured by high social conditions. Otherwise, what good is money? Money is the means to the end of good conditions. Current American policy helps outrageously rich people become richer at a rate several times that of the rest of the country. In other words, almost all the economic success of your country is being enjoyed by the top 1% simply because of government policy, not because they're doing anything different from what they did in the 50s. Now correlation doesn't entail causation, but it makes more sense that the causal arrow points from the gap to the problems than vice-versa, or from a third unknown factor which causes both the economic gap and the wide array of social "decay" in country after country.

I think you've dismissed the tone too readily. And also the content.

The article tells us:
She is "obsessed" and "abandon[ed] [her] family" to "[cozy] up to some like-minded radicals". She is "otherwise 'occupied'" and "plans to stray awhile". She is "keeping herself warm at night with the help of a young waiter". In the morning "the pair... woke up... on their little patch of paving stone... and dashed off... to wash up." Her slogan is to "Make Love Not War".

I'm pretty sure there is some defamation of character in there somewhere.

>> ^marinara:

>> ^notarobot:
Is there any law that allows her to sue (faux/NYpost) for defamation of character for being misrepresented?

Besides the tone ofthe piece, How was she misrepresented?

@chilaxe
Your source is "by the well-known Reagan economist Arthur B. Laffer, the Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore, and Jonathan Williams of ALEC." I couldn't figure out which way ALEC leans in a 2-minute search, but the first two authors are almost certainly biased towards the right. Everything they say may be informationally accurate, and it might even be a fair all-around representation of the situation, but I wouldn't go quoting it as a neutral unbiased source any more than if Hilary Clinton co-wrote a similar book with someone from MSNBC.

Cenk's mistakes aren't "the same kind." The mistakes the Fox dudes are making are patently false and misleading. Cenk's "mistake" was talking about two things with the same name. I put mistake in quotes this time because I watched the video again, and he says, "the 99%", which is the slogan of the protest movement, so it's not even wrong. He didn't say, "99% of the population". Your argument that it's a lie is like saying that members of the Tea Party weren't actually in attendance at the Boston Tea Party in 1773. I think anyone listening would understand that both he and the Fox guys mean the protesters. The Fox guys might not even disagree with how he said it.

Is there anything else you can point to of Cenk's that is a clear falsehood, especially one that he continues to repeat? While I like having heroes, I prefer it when their armour is a little tarnished, so you'd be doing me a favour.

"99%" is the % of people who are losing under the corporate-run system. Whether you know it or not, whether you support their efforts or not, everyone not in the top 1% of earners in the country is making less than their fair share of profits from our combined labour. It's not a poll of support. The number is accurate. Just like the reaction number "the 53%" is accurate in that it represents the % of people who pay income tax in the States. It doesn't represent the % of people who support their point of view.

Also, you didn't say if you could name anything that Cenk consistently says or has said that's factually incorrect. Got anything?>> ^chilaxe:

@messenger said "There's nothing in your link about why "99%" is an inaccurate number."

The people who are saying they represent 99% actually think they're representing 99%.
It's good as a slogan, but the poll discussed by the San Francisco Chronicle found only 37% support the movement.
We can claim to represent anybody we want to, but if they don't agree with us and they don't feel we're representing their interests or the interests of society, that claim seems to contain large inaccuracies.

@messenger said "There's nothing in your link about why "99%" is an inaccurate number."


The people who are saying they represent 99% actually think they're representing 99%.

It's good as a slogan, but the poll discussed by the San Francisco Chronicle found only 37% support the movement.

We can claim to represent anybody we want to, but if they don't agree with us and they don't feel we're representing their interests or the interests of society, that claim seems to contain large inaccuracies.

The only thing you proved is there are idiots in every crowd.

This is certainly true. I in no way mean to imply that the offenses were representative of "all OWS participants". Obviously not all OWS people are doing these kinds of things. But there is enough of it going on though that it is becoming a serious issue with how the public views OWS as a whole.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/angry_manhattan_residents_lambast_RjpTU0jG2z9yrgf5o4bRcO#ixzz1bPHgxmGZ

Manhattan residents are sick of them. The data shows that the OWS is vastly different in ideological and demographic makeup than average voters. This is very different from the Tea Party, which solidly reflects actual American voters...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/Tea-Partiers-Fairly-Mainstream-Demographics.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=syndication&utm_cont
ent=morelink&utm_term=Politics

Really - when an 'average person' encounters the OWS movement, it is like walking into the Star Wars Cantina. We hike up an eyebrow and think, "Who the heck are THESE guys?" The average American has a family, a job, and social obligations. He doesn't want to ditch all that to go camp out in a filthy tent-city with a bunch of noisy, disaffected college kids. The average American has a 401K, investments, and other property. They don't want to blow up Wall Street. They just want Wall Street to no longer be the beneficiary of government favoritism - which is a GOVERNMENT problem, not a Wall Street problem. The average person has far more in common with the Tea Party than with OWS.

OWS doesn't want a specific message because that means they'd have to defend a position. When anyone comes at them and tries to have an actual discussion, they dive back into the tall grass of being a 'vague movement' with nothing but vagueries and sloganeering. The average american demands better than that. OWS is never going to be anything but a fringe group unless they can come up with a specific message.

Now, this vid bozo seems quite proud of the fact that they have no real message beyond "we are the 99%" and "we don't like Wall Street!" Well, that's fine. Most Americans are 'mad' at Wall Street if you only keep the topic vague, undefined, and ephemeral. The problem is that OWS is using that vague, ephemeral, nebulous "we're mad at Wall Street" message and saying that it means "most of America" agrees with the OWS movement. That is blatantly false, because while both OWS and 'average americans' can both agree on that generalization, they are as different as night and day when you actually get down to any specifics.

And that really is the problem for OWS. When the rubber meets the road and these yahoos try to actually build a REAL movement (as opposed to just a tent city of malcontents) then the effort falls apart because you can't build a large movement without a specific message. And the INSTANT that any of the OWS movement ever coughs up any specifics on what they want, then they drive away average folks like me like they were plutonium.

"The unifying force that will beat Obama"

So even your slogan is just about kicking out the black guy?