Friday, October 14, 2011

Evict the "Occupy White House" Protestants

Documentatians are pinning their "Oscar" hopes on the lamest protest since my seventh grade 'irregulars' showed disdain for authority by taking the pennies out of our penny loafers-RADICALS!
Lech Walesa is looking into a lawsuit against President Obama for attempting to 'co-opt' "Solidarity".
Walesa's reasoning is that his Solidarity movement was attempting to break up communist rule; President Obama is heading the other direction.
Obama's LOVE for (and solidarity with) the anti-Capitalist whine-mongers shows where his dried up tiny little heart lies.
Speaking of lies, I'm still not ready for the political season of electioneering. This post is more about President Obama's standing shoulder to shoulder with inane financial anarchists than his many political sins. Others can point out those demerits.
This is about the ridiculosity of a man who has become wealthy by pointing a bony finger of shame at 'Capitalism'...who cheers on morons wearing designer clothes, carrying ipods and expensive cell phones who stage a sit-in of Wall Street.
Think about this. These 'Occupy Wall Street' nimrods gnash their teeth at banks and financial markets.
They wear stupid signs and chant slogans complaining about the fictive "1%" being evil.
Really? 1%? I would LOVE for only 1% of any group to be evil! But of course their flawed math skills seem to conflate the idea that there is some sort of sainthood bestowed on them for being part of the '99%'.  Because they've suffered so much. The scar marks from the whips and chains from the 1% are still...I'm sorry! No marks on them at all! Silly me!
Okay-they don't like banks. But I would bet you that they have bank accounts, and some presence in financial markets as individuals. I would give a crisp one hundred dollar bill for a picture of an "Occupy Wall Street" protestant at an ATM getting lunch money.
They also seem to hate Capitalism, which is the part which would warm the cockles of President Obama's heart if flint could burn.
The clothes on their backs are there because of Capitalism. The houses/apartments where they live exist because of Capitalism. They have food in their kitchens because of do I really need to repeat myself?
One TV talking head I saw suggested that this Occupy movement is being ginned up to distract the country from the lousy job that President Obama and Congress have been doing ahead of an election year.
It won't help. I think that President Obama will be defeated next year.
My advice to the "OWS" protestants is: get jobs. If there are no "ACCEPTABLE" jobs where you live, don't whine-lower your standards or move to where there are jobs. At one time in my soiled past I was working one full time and two part time jobs to 'make it.' Get to work.
Addendum de dum dumb: I found this picture on reddit-Jordanian communists showing support for OWS.
Think about that. Athiestic Muslim communists are thrilled by the fools and whiners who would tear down Capitalism if they had any grip strength in their fou fou hands. Ridicuable!


Doug said...

My placing of Bob and Doug McKenzie in the picture as representing the 'documentarians'in my post is in no way an insult to them or their fine work above the border. Even though they DID once attempt to shake down a brewery for free beer by placing a dead mouse in a bottle and staging a sit-in at the beer factory. Well, it was supposed to be a sit in...they were put to work (!!!!) and eventually helped save the brewery from the clutches of an evil Brewmeister.
The funniest Hamlet yet.
Don't shed too many tears for those poor abused 'Occupy Wall Street' clowns. They will fade away, back into the crowds of working citizenry, once they realize that they look ridiculous.
Class warfare is unbecoming for the upper middle class. Poor people in rags elicit sympathy. Well dressed, well fed knuckleheads don't.

James said...

Matthew 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

What do you think Christ would make of the modern "conservative" religious movement that declares the poor are poor because of their own personal moral failings while the rich are well-off because of their own virtue?

Sounds like the "prosperity Gospel" to me ...

- James

Doug said...

Hello James.
Here is the verse you quoted in context:
"16And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?”
17And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18Then he said* to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness;
19Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
20The young man said* to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?”
21Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
22But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
23And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24“Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
25When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?”
26And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Matthew 19:16-26

" he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property."
Rich people can be saved, but if they depend on their riches to carry them through instead of admitting that they are sinful, morally bankrupt creatures (as we all are-all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God)...then it is harder for them to come to Christ.
This young man wanted Jesus to accept him on his terms-he had kept all of the commandments, probably was one of the Pharisees mentioned earlier in the chapter who were very self righteous. Jesus was telling the rich young man that self righteous gets you no-where.
I am not self righteous-but I have been accepted by God and imputed the righteousness of Christ.
Tell me, James: is it righteous to take from those who work and give to those who don't?
If I work and give, I am exhibiting charity.
But if I work and my money is taken from me to give to those who do not work, that is an entirely different animal.
That is called theft. Robin Hood was a myth.
It also does little for those who are poor-does it equipt them to do anything but stick their hand out?
These "Occupy Wherever" protestants are losers. They should be earning their bread by the sweat of their brow instead of whining that others have more than they do. Class warfare is of the devil.

James said...

"Is it righteous to take from those who work and give to those who don't?"

Depends on why they're not working.

Are you saying that everyone who is unemployed is in their current predicament because they're unwilling to work? Thousands - maybe millions - of workers have suffered layoffs and can't find work because of changes in their industry and who have sent resume upon resume to employers who don't want or need their skills.

Yes, they may need to revisit their skills, but to say they're simply a bunch of slackers is beyond ignorant.

This doesn't even address those who are suffering health problems or disability who are truly unable to work.

In case you suspect I'm some socialist-loving welfare recipient, I'm not: I make a nice six-figure salary in the software industry and yes ... I'd like to pay less taxes if only because I know money is spent wastefully by the government (mostly on ridiculous nation-building neo-con war efforts).

However, I have no problem with it being used as a safety net for people in desperate situations, and there are plenty of those.

If you're unwilling to work, then no ... you get nothing. If you CANNOT, then the government can and should provide enough assistance for basic necessities: food, immediate shelter and basic expenses (not a deluxe apartment in New York).

Is this unreasonable?

Doug said...

You are reading too much into the question:
"Is it righteous to take from those who work and give to those who don't?"
No. It is not righteous. If I choose to give to someone in need from what I have, that is me showing charity. To have someone else, whether it is a government or a criminal, take funds from me so that they can show charity (or hire more office workers, expanding their dukedom)is theft.
"If you're unwilling to work, then no ... you get nothing. If you CANNOT, then the government can and should provide enough assistance for basic necessities:"
Welfare cheats are well recorded, and there are many able-bodied persons who are kept from working so that their families don't lose their Welfare checks. These people essentially steal food and benefit from those truly in need.
They say that the Roman empire crumbled once the citizens learned that they could vote for themselves bread and circuses. The broke the government, and many of us see that happening here and warn against it.
I mistrust the Government's idea of charity.

Doug said...

Annie graces us with a history lesson: