Rep. King: “We Can’t Allow More Coverage Of Occupy Wall Street, Or They Will Win”, page 1

Rep. King: “We Can’t Allow More Coverage Of Occupy Wall Street, Or They Will Win”, page

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

Topic started on 9-10-2011 @ 10:42 PM by Agent_USA_Supporter

Congressman Peter King (R) says he remembers 1960s .. Don't legitimize OWS or they will win'
Source

Peter King took an phone interview and went over the edge. What you ATS make of this?

reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 10:49 PM by Terrorist

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

Haha he's consistently a wanna-be Joseph McCarthy. The same stuff he's saying could easily be tailored to fit a critique of the Tea Parties. I can't believe he actually went that far and compared this to the civil rights movement in the 60s and portrayed it as a bad thing! Did that seriously just happen??

reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 10:49 PM by proximo

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

Well he does a very good job of demonstrating just how out of touch he is with the average American. Instead of realizing the protests are just bubbling up frustration with Wall street and our government he somehow jumps to it is a ploy to get Obama's job bill passed?

Wow, if that is in any way indicative to the mindset of most congressmen - they have no idea what is coming - or how soon.

reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 10:51 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

What will "they" win?

reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 10:53 PM by Terrorist

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

That's a good point. "They will win" is very vague. I'm honestly thinking he meant for it to be ambiguous, so that different conservatives would take it different ways. The ambiguity seems to be there to evoke a sense of fear.

reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 10:55 PM by neo96

the booby prize which is more of the same.

i dont legitimize ows same thing sitting in the oval office

reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 10:56 PM by illuminatislave

Originally posted by Terrorist
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

Haha he's consistently a wanna-be Joseph McCarthy.

Hmph, seems like a good % of the posters on this forum, with their tired rhetoric about communists and socialists, while they turn a blind eye to the nanny state relationship between the government and the corporations.

reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 10:57 PM by Terrorist

reply to post by neo96

They whole OWS movement is against the president for a lot of things. They're farther left than Obama, the painfully centrist bastard that he is.

reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 11:07 PM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Terrorist
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

That's a good point. "They will win" is very vague. I'm honestly thinking he meant for it to be ambiguous, so that different conservatives would take it different ways. The ambiguity seems to be there to evoke a sense of fear.

I sincerely do not think that Rep. King should be taken anymore seriously than the children poutily protesting on Wall Street. Where the so called "OWS" sect thinks it noble to scream at the birds for chirping, and yell at the dogs for barking, and cry because the mosquito's are biting, King seems to think it is politically prudent to draw and "us and them line" between government and the People.

The so called "OWS" sect is an unfortunate representation of the People, but as tragic as that may be, they are some of the People, and apparently they are "mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore." Of course, they have no idea what they are really mad at, nor any idea what they would do if given the chance to fix things, but this is deal with a government of the People, for the People, and by the People. Such a government gets messy.

If you really want to find conspiracy, I would suggest that the most insidious conspiracy would be the one where the so called "OWS'ers" conspired with ambitious politico's to grab the spot light and draw it away from the reasonable, level headed People who are quietly, and unassumingly withdrawing from the bogus system currently in place, refusing to acquiesce to all the nonsense. My guess is that Rep. King does not want People to know that there are plenty of American's who do not acquiesce to licensing schemes, corporate charters, 501c-3's for "non-profits", or any of the other multitudes of regulatory schemes that proliferate legislative books.

A manufactured battle between "the establishment" and the "anti-establishment" will draw plenty of attention and grant those bread and circuses so many of the populi crave. Individuals actually, and quietly living their lives as free People isn't as entertaining to the woeful, miserable, masses.

reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 11:52 PM by mishigas

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter

Peter King took an phone interview and went over the edge. What you ATS make of this?

Same old erroneous knee jerk reaction from from ATS. They hear "1960's" and "afraid they'll win" and immediately concoct a narrative that Peter King is against the Civil Rights Movement.

What he is saying is, if we legitimize OWS, then the MSM will tie the lack of jobs to Obama's "Jobs Bill" and blame people such as Boehner and Cantor's fault for not passing it. The tie to 1960 was about unions and the thuggery they brought to the table.

reply posted on 10-10-2011 @ 12:07 AM by JBA2848

Well the Tea Party is given the Sammies Award.

www.flickr.com...

www.flickr.com...

samadamsalliance.org...

reply posted on 10-10-2011 @ 12:21 AM by Terrorist

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

A few days ago I would have agreed with you, but over the past 70-something hours OWS has turned from a bunch of people complaining about nothing to more of a cohesive protest against corporate greed and fake liberalism, in other words, against the Obama-types, and anyone else who doesn't want "wall street" to be held accountable

reply posted on 10-10-2011 @ 12:40 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Terrorist
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

A few days ago I would have agreed with you, but over the past 70-something hours OWS has turned from a bunch of people complaining about nothing to more of a cohesive protest against corporate greed and fake liberalism, in other words, against the Obama-types, and anyone else who doesn't want "wall street" to be held accountable

All closed systems tend towards entropy. Another word for entropy is chaos. It is way past foolish to believe that this entropy, or chaos we are facing was the result of "wall street", or "corporate greed", or "fake liberalism", or "Obama-types". People get the government they deserve, and the People "occupying" Wall Street, and other areas of the nation, just as it is with the vast majority of the rest of the People, all seem to believe that we "Americans" live in a "free market economy".

We do not have a free market economy, we have, and increasingly so, a closed market system where one must apply for licenses and other regulatory contracts to gain permission from the state to do business. Of course, one "must" not do any such thing, but most People have come to believe they must, and so they do. This acquiescence is what has led to our current state of affairs, and either We the People will accept responsibility for that acquiescence, or we won't.

Protesting is just a limp wristed way of admitting helplessness. Helplessness is not going to solve anything.

reply posted on 10-10-2011 @ 12:43 AM by gimme_some_truth

He says he remembers the 60's and is afraid we will win?

What, was the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's a bad thing or something? Now granted you can't really compare this movement to the civil rights movement, but I am not the one making the half baked comparison. King is....

What a moron.

edit on 10-10-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-10-2011 @ 12:50 AM by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
He says he remembers the 60's and is afraid we will win?

What, was the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's a bad thing or something?

What a moron.

The "civil rights" movement of the '50's and '60's was a horrible thing. Because of this atrocious American sacred cow called "civil rights", you would be hard pressed to find a single attorney in the entire nation that advertises as an unalienable rights attorney. My guess is every single licensed attorney who "specializes" in rights advertises themselves as a "civil rights attorney". Why is this so bad?

Civil rights are legal rights. This means they are rights granted to the People by government. This means that the government gets to decide what rights are being granted, and finally, this means that whatever rights the government granted, they can just as easily take away, through repeal.

Unalienable rights, on the other hand, are those rights you were born with. They are the rights that no one can give you because you all ready own them. They are the rights that no one can transfer, neither by granting them, nor by taking them away. Is the possession of unalienable rights a bad thing or something?

reply posted on 10-10-2011 @ 12:51 AM by yourmaker

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Terrorist
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

That's a good point. "They will win" is very vague. I'm honestly thinking he meant for it to be ambiguous, so that different conservatives would take it different ways. The ambiguity seems to be there to evoke a sense of fear.

A manufactured battle between "the establishment" and the "anti-establishment" will draw plenty of attention and grant those bread and circuses so many of the populi crave. Individuals actually, and quietly living their lives as free People isn't as entertaining to the woeful, miserable, masses.

Sounds exactly like what happened in Thailand last year. What started a peaceful protest turned into, well...

and I quote,

The protests escalated into prolonged violent confrontations between the protesters and the military, and attempts to negotiate a ceasefire failed. More than 80 civilians and 6 soldiers were killed, and more than 2,100 injured,

Video footage from the international media showed soldiers firing assault rifles in fully automatic fire mode in the direction of protesters. Protest leaders claimed that a number of protesters were hit by army snipers from nearby buildings.

Protesters seized a large amount of military equipment left behind by retreating troops, including nine M-16 assault rifles, 25 Tavor TAR-21 assault rifles, six .50 caliber anti-aircraft guns, 116 riot shields, 105 batons and 80 suits of body armour. Troops also abandoned six personnel carriers and three high-mobility multi-purpose vehicles. Ammunition also went missing, including 580 rubber bullet rounds, 600 .50 caliber anti-aircraft rounds, and 8,182 5.56 mm M-16 rifle rounds

Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban said the government has no plans to back down either..... "The government will continue the operation to take back the roads from the protesters because their occupation is unlawful."

Eventually "Yellow Shirt" protesters threatened "to step into the conflict and push out the Red-Shirts themselves if the army didn't take firmer action.

OWS may see opposite factions come out of hiding should they disrupt the right network.

reply posted on 10-10-2011 @ 03:15 AM by ThirdEyeofHorus

Oh gosh, what will OWS tell CPUSA? No you can't come to our party?

www.washingtontimes.com...

Notice especially how Nancy Pelosi praised their efforts. Hmmm after she cried in anguish over the scary Tea Partiers....I guess the Left is really where she is most comfortable, even though she did liken the Tea Party to the more violent happenings of the radicals in the 70's.

The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations have been supported by labor unions and Democratic lawmakers and their party leaders on Capitol Hill. “God bless them for their spontaneity,” said Nancy Pelosi of the OWS protesters to reporters. She then added, “It’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused and it’s going to be effective.”

I think Nancy is just really an old communist at heart