sometimes i forget that any website i frequent is inhabited with extremely liberal young adults.

now im not saying conservatism is the right way...thatd be a wee bit out of my comfort to tell someone to follow an opinion. but i do expect the (semi) intelligent people on this lovely little site to take an objective approach while arguing a political point...never let your subjective, larger counterpart interfere. all youre doing is making yourself out to be an ass and sounding as dumb as an infant.

one last thing, who in their right mind is going to believe the statistics offered in movements like these? its obvious the people of the 99% thing are extremely biased (to the left). of course they will exaggerate any number given to them.

long live independent media! IT DOESNT EXIST!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHH

@MonJoe: i pooped

@gudemonster: That's funny, because statistically more conservatives get news online because traditionally it is print media and television that is liberally biased. If going to liberally biased sites is bothering you, there are more conservatively biased ones for you to be looking at.

Democracy only ensures that a country gets a government it deserves. Nothing more, nothing less.

One thing to note that while Banks were to a large extent responsible for the crisis, not bailing them out would have worsened the situation. It is simply the way banking works throughout the world now.

The fault lies with the regulators who left loopholes for banks to do their business so irresponsibly. As long as a system allows banks to take great risks for profit they will do so, as the risks are not truly undertaken by them but by the people.

tl;dr Blame the regulators not the banks.

@Anonymous: Your odds of getting elected unless you're a member of a political party are incredibly slim for one reason. To fund a campaign, you need lots and lots of money.

Despite what you might think about voters giving power to an elected body, the only candidates that stand a reasonable chance of gaining power must run extremely expensive campaigns. This money has to come from somewhere (corporate donors and sponsors), so politicians have their loyalty split between the voter and their source of funding. This is how lobby groups have as much power as they do, through what is in essence legal bribery.

So yes, voters choose who holds power. However, no choice will give a politician that is fully loyal to their voters.

@Anonymous: Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, Wordpress require a computer and an internet connection.
Gettin on talk shows/speeches covered by press, probably not gointo happen if you're not already famous, or in an important position.
photo ops: camera, gas, maybe computer/editing software, publishing.
THere are quite a few people in America who lack these media.

@jayjay: This is why canv.as should be >18

@MonJoe: I agree. I have a feeling that most people who are making this argument that those that are upset aren't hard working. What seems definite to me is that those people don't in fact have the life experience to be compassionate. If the economy doesn't recover (and they aren't hyper privileged to begin with) they will get the opportunity to feel the pain that many hard working Americans are right now.

@Anonymous: Are you suggesting that a politician use social networking sites to run a campaign? Nice idea, but this assumes voters are going to make an effort to find you. They aren't. You still need ad space, you still need to deliver speeches, and you still need to go on the road to show your constituents you care. Running a campaign effortlessly from your computer may be CONVENIENT for sure, but it sends the wrong message to your voters, it shows a lack of dedication.

Partisan politics also have associated costs. Do you have any idea how much money political parties spend on their party infrastructure alone? This has to come from somewhere.

@Anonymous: Step 1: Debt-spend on house, debt-spend on business
Step 2: Lose house, lose business
Step 3: Debt-spend on house, debt-spend on business
Step 4: Lose house, lose business, lose wife (?)
Step 5: Become meme
Step 6:
Step 7: Profit

"These are not rants against the system. They're not anarchist manifestos. They're not calls for a revolution. They're small stories of people who played by the rules, did what they were told, and now have nothing to show for it,"

@Anonymous: It's not that we're not compassionate...it's that we don't like people that blame their problems on other people, such as the wealthy. Just because they've either lucked out in life or worked their way to the top, it's no difference to me. I could be off a lot worse, look at some of the other countries in the world I could've been born into; I could weigh 70lbs and be covered in flies. I'll make the best of what I got and keep striving to be better. I'm too busy working right now to sit outside an office building in New York protesting with a bunch of smelly annoying people.

Can we all grow up and stop buying into this whole "99% vs 1%" nonsense the liberal politicians and organizers have been feeding us? I don't know about most of you, but I'm not a follower and like to make educated decisions myself.

This is all class warfare by definition. Look it up. Marxists have been using this as a tactic to separate us into different groups so they can control us for their political purposes. It's in Chapter 1 of the communist manifesto.

Very simply put, there are no classes in the United States. There is no line drawn between rich and middle class. If you can prove there's a middle class in US, I'll give you a cookie. Once you realize the truth, you'll be able to see past these stupid tricks and laugh at clowns like Michael Moore, Stephen Lerner and the rest of these goons.

Read more about truth of the "1%": http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8759

@Anonymous: sowat.jpg

While parts of what you say might ring true: yeah its a tad unfair to separate out a small group for unwarranted attention, you are focused on what is a minor portion of the argument. Most people ( put that in quotes ) can put that aside on an interpersonal level. "oh there is no class structure in the good ol you ess of A" is quite simply denial of the Powell memo fueled assault that have been systematically tearing apart the 'good ol you ess of A' for over a generation, leaving in their wake a stinking pile of corporatized plutocracy.

If you think that there are no classes, you probably haven't had to spend any time outside of your own insular little fantasy world propped up by your very own class position.

Also, Cato institute doesn't count as any sort of evidence, its a known mouthpiece for conservative bullshit.

You want to see something so ludicrous I'm shocked it wasn't written in crayon...read the Occupy WallStreet Proposed 'List of Demands" http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

Probably the funniest thing I've read all day.

@Anonymous: I really have no idea what you're trying to say in your incoherent babbling but once again, you can't answer the question. If there are classes in the US, define a 'middle class.'

@Anonymous: Babbling, hardly incoherent.

I wasn't attempting to answer any question, and I have no desire to provide you answer (even if I could).

I was just riffing on your smelly attempt at misdirection.