It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by cavalryscout
reply to post by kimish
No - It defines "occupy" to a t. You're right though as they are nothing but low life squatters.
Originally posted by cavalryscout
Originally posted by ApolloBloodline
reply to post by cavalryscout
You obviously know very little about the occupy movement. It isn't about a bunch of squatters whining about what they aren't getting. It is, and always has been, about the influence that big banks and corporations have in politics and policy making that allows them to gain large amounts of wealth at the expense of a nations people. It doesn't detail those that have worked hard to obtain their own money.
Whoever told you otherwise is completely wrong and there are large amounts of people going to these occupations without knowing what they are about. This isn't about a bunch of dirty jobless hippies who just want to whine and moan, this is about hard working americans that put their nose to the grind for near nothing while a small percentage of individuals who know how to pull the strings through special interest groups and lobbyist tactics do hardly nothing and gain more than their fair share. This is about those small few that reap what other people sow.
edit on 30-10-2012 by ApolloBloodline because: verbiage modification
Thank you.
That is a very well written interpretation of events.
Here is what I see...
I see a lot of people who accepted loans from banks that they couldn't afford. A lot of people living a lifestyle they couldn't afford. Many of those people lost their jobs and couldn't make the mortgage payment. Now thay want to blame the banks.
edit on 30-10-2012 by cavalryscout because: (no reason given)edit on 30-10-2012 by cavalryscout because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by cavalryscout
reply to post by Anundeniabletruth
Okay lets say it's 50 / 50 banks and borrowers fault.
How exactly are the banks benefiting by making loans they knew wouldn't be repaid? This isn't the first time I've heard this argument but it's another thing that doesn't make any sense.
Originally posted by cavalryscout
reply to post by CagliostroTheGreat
i had nothing to do with any of it so why should i defend the actions of people 200 years ago?
I've never killed a native american nor have I ever owned a slave. Not anything I did or can change.