The Mad Moderate wrote:I cannot believe what I am reading here, you people of all people should be sticking up for these people who are patriots and love their counter as much as we do. They are fighting for people not corporations like the Tea Baggers are, how have the GOP convinced you people to work agents your own interests. The Citizen United ruling was the final nail in the coffin of our democracy, the corporations are the problem here they have been for a while. Its insane to me that there are people who do not see the wool being pulled over our eyes by the corps and the media. The insults here are the same that were lobbed at the TP before the only difference is in this case they are far more inaccurate.
Unfortunately, I do not think the Mad Moderate is joking. He has seen the light in some respects, but there are still some dark areas in his philosophy.
No one has said they do not have the right to protest. Their message is just so muddled and hysterical. What I have gleaned from the occupiers is that they don't want to pay for anything themselves. They want others to give them what they need. They don't want to pay for the debt they have already incurred. They are no better than someone that signs the papers to buy a house they cannot possibly afford to pay for. If I tell someone that the payments for a house are $1,500 a month and someone only makes $2,000 a month they cannot afford that house. There are many other expenses that will make it impossible to make the house payments, but many seem unable to grasp that concept and say the banks tricked them. When my wife and I were looking for our first house we qualified for a house up to $150,000, but bought a $64,000 house. We could not have afforded a house anywhere near what we were approved for and we knew that. The mean ole bank did not trick us and we never missed a payment and actually paid that house off. We were able to do that because we lived within our means.
If we listened to and went along with these poor unfortunate misled souls, only the police and criminals would have guns and everyone would give 100% of their income to the government and the government would give us what they think we need. Oh, but that would only be the people making over $250,000 to start with. If, after a few years, they didn't think they were being GIVEN enough they would lower than number to $200,000 or even $150,000. However, they would then want themselves exempt from that once they started earning more than $250,000. Funny thing how they are not upset with taking stuff from someone else to redistribute, but get very upset when the prospect of getting what they have earned taken away.
You have heard the parable about if you give a man a fish he can eat that day, but if you teach him to fish he'll be able to eat every day? This is exactly that. If we keep giving people capable of working free stuff they won't learn a thing and become dependent. Does this ring any bells? This is also how drug dealers get their suckers/clients hooked.
That's the first time I saw that post by RPB (that you quoted).