Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Occupy Groups Get Funding

Posted 2 years ago on Feb. 28, 2012, 11:11 a.m. EST by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

By JESSICA FIRGER

A group of business leaders—including Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield of Ben & Jerry's ice cream and former Nirvana manager Danny Goldberg—are planning to pour substantial funds into the Occupy Wall Street movement in hopes of sustaining the protests and fostering political change.

Their goal is to provide some ballast to an amorphous movement that captured the world's attention with nonstop, overnight protests in dozens of cities but has had trouble regaining momentum since most of those encampments were broken up by police in the past few months.

I have posted what is available without subscription. The link is provided as a source and for anyone that may have a subscription.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203833004577249811049566178.html

YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKzgyv2hRbI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuUb-hZoZYA

108 Comments

108 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Outstanding!

[-] -1 points by egoldman (-5) 2 years ago

Does this mean that Van Jones and SEIU are no longer the sole supporters financially?

Does this mean that Der Leader Kalle Lasn has turned his whip over to ben&jerry?

Does this mean if we don't listen to Nirvanna that OWS will delete our forum accounts?

We need a consensus on this contribution.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Soon it will be easy to tell the "good" people from the "bad" the good ones will be supporting OWS, won't that make life simpler.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 2 years ago

Very nice ...

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I thought so.

[-] 2 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

I welcome Ben and Jerry because they run their company in accordance with the same values they espouse politically (and the same values that seem to have been missing from corporate America for far too long). They've directly tied executive pay to the salary of the lowest-paid guy on the assembly line (along with the pay of everybody else), they've limited their stockholders to just local and state residents to make themselves truly responsible members of the community, they give 3/4 of a tithe of their profits to charity, they dispose of their waste in an environmentally friendly manner, basically you name it they're doing it right. They're not fair weather liberals but model CEOs and model members of society.

It's completely true that they're putting money into causes like Occupy in the hopes of leading America in a more sustainable direction, but despite the yapping from people like Carletini99 this is a very different animal from the oft-mentioned machinations of the Koch brothers. The difference here is that the former found an actual grass-roots political and social initiative to get involved with and support rather than simply buying and bullying their way into the halls of power.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Well said

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

They don't run the company anymore. Even if they once did run the company with morals, and have such an executive limit on pay in the past, they committed the ultimate act of treason to their employees when they sold the business to Unilever, a Dutch corporate conglomerate, which gave out 6 million euros in executive compensation last year while cutting 20,000 jobs. Ben and Jerry can take their treasonous behinds and get out of the country immediately, leaving their blood money with the workers that got laid off. They no longer have any control of the company.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

That's interesting.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I posted some youtube on it, in the OP.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

As I understand it the money was to come with conditions- A board set up by Ben and Jerry was to approve of the projects the money would be used for, and people speaking for OWS have rejected this offer. I concur. It's not a good thing for a few rich people, even if they mean well, to decide what the people's movement may and may not do.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I don't think they are deciding what anyone cannot do, only assisting with their own private funds, what they are willing to support. How is that different than any other protester? You are not required to support every aspect of this movement in order to be a part of it. I think you present a double standard, and that my friend is the problem with our gov, double standards. So your issue with this is no different than the issue I have with the gov, rules for one group are not the rules for another.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

If someone makes a financial contribution with strings attached it's just that - a contribution with strings attached. That's an effort to control. Anyhow, that seems to be the feeling of OWS.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

so you accept this movement with no strings attached? I can't wait till the order to jump off the roof is given lol. whatever.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 2 years ago

The movement is not dependent on me as an individual and I am not trying to make myself the arbiter of what it does and does not do. If I had a million dollars I'd want to give it to the movement so the movement could decide how to utilize that money, not me.

[-] 1 points by johannaclear (1) 2 years ago

me worried. wherever money goes, corruption & hierarchy follows

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Sometimes the rich can be valuable allies of the 99% against the super rich. The super rich want to impoverish anybody who is below them, so we should try get together with the rich to fight back.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

and there are bad people in society, guess you better go live in the woods.

[-] 1 points by incomeforall (64) 2 years ago

Since we have no leaders, who will they give the money to? Is the Finance Committee back from Spain yet??

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I'm sure they spent time communicating with able persons before getting this far. There are many ways to fund something.

[-] 1 points by incomeforall (64) 2 years ago

So, the 1% always rises to the top.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

lol, not really. Wealthy people have been run out of their home country many times throughout history. I don't see your focus to be my own regarding the 1%, at least not in the manner you present. The existence of that statistic is the issue and the 99% badge is a reminder of why I support the movement. I don't automatically blame someone who has a lot of money but engages in respectable practices.

[-] 1 points by incomeforall (64) 2 years ago

I was referring to the "able persons", were they selected by osmosis? Who decided they should receive the cash? My point is that in any group of humans, on whatever scale, the 1% will rise to the top.

I don't think Ben and Jerry will give the guy that shit on the cop car any money. :)

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

if they wanted to buy a spot for their company in the light you're implying, they could just do what everyone else is doing.

[-] 1 points by incomeforall (64) 2 years ago

Is English not your first language?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

generic reply.

[-] 1 points by sato (148) 2 years ago

this is great news just wait until the winter ends Im sure OWS will come back stronger

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

but they're a multi-million dollar corporation seems like a conflict of interest

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

it could, if you didn't posses the ability to distinguish between success and corruption.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i know Ben and Jerry's i like the company i just feel that its a conflict of interest. We dont know what corruption could be in their company i hope there is none but this seems like a bad idea. it opens the flood gates of possibilities that could be harmful

i did like the video it and they have the right to there personal opinions. Its just could they be using a corporation in favor of something that could go bad. He did make the comment that I've been trying to drill into peoples head business need to make money

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

and they do... I like the approach.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

its a tricky one the more i think about it the more i like their approach of convincing companies to reform to be more just. But they want to keep capitalism and profits the same

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Capitalism exists even in socialism.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i don't believe in a government run business because when your competing with the card dealer your destined to lose. We must have separate systems for there to be an equal playing field. Socialism sounds good but its failing in Greece Spain and Ireland right now. So i just don't see it working for us let us develop a different solution and not take a failed one.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

LOL, how could socialism be failing if it's the banks that got them in trouble? You have a strange understanding of how things work.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

the banks failed and should of went out of business non of this shit where the government bails them out they should of let them fail

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

The fact that the gov't does such a good job at crowding out the private sector should be evidence that the gov't is efficient, and, furthermore, gov't institutions should be seen as a good alternative for distribution of critical services, IE, health care, water,sewer, heating and electricity. ALL other inferior goods should stay private, just because it would be a waste of time, money, manpower and talent to move them to the public sector.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

explain crowding

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

It is an economic term and is employed by many right wing politicians. Pretty much what it means is no one does it better than gov't, and when they do decide to act, their ability to create economies of scale are no match for the individualistic corporations. Google crowding out and economies of scale. Most economists don't describe it as pointedly as i do, but, hey, what's you going to do.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

o ok i understand where your coming from but the more government intervention i see the more corruption i see coming from it. I mena what if the taxed all people more money if they dont buy their product or what if their product isn't done correctly and not up to regulation but since they are the government they cant pay fines to themselves. To me this screams unfair practice and monopoly. Honestly im scared of a government that holds are the cards because it means they have all the power and no one should have all the power.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I see your point, to a degree, then it all becomes a slippery slope argument. Gov't institutions are apt to be mandated by the politicians to undermine the public good, but historically so has the private sector, Ie Enron, Macy energy, BP, Halliburton, ectra, and I'd say more often than naught. I'm not arguing for total domination of the people by the gov't for economic efficiency, I'm saying some things need to be more efficiently distributed. I do see a difference between the bureaucratic arm of the gov't and the political one. The former can get shit done, and the latter can fuck shit up.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Since you look at the examples of Greece and Spain as failures, which we should avoid, alternatively, we should look for examples of successes that we should emulate.

When were some of the periods of the greatest economic success in the US? I would say in the period following JFK's presidency, when the discoveries from the space program spun off into the rest of the economy as high tech products such as fiber optics, etc.

Also, FDR's presidency, when he rebuilt our whole infrastructure and manufacturing base, took us out of the great depression, and enabled us to win WW2 through our productive capacity.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yes your right but we must look at it at both ways the government didn't build these thing they just told people to they were the consumers. they did build certain things and so did capitalist. We must look at thing as a different perspective we have to develop our own form. We must not adopt any type of society that exist now but make a hybrid where government regulates and does nothing more and people drive the market. where society can truly be free

The biggest thing the government could do to increase our technology and government is to build a space elevator. No im not joking it would provide jobs and would launch us into a new era of space exploration

"The long-term survival of the human race is at risk as long as it is confined to a single planet. Sooner or later, disasters such as an asteroid collision or nuclear war could wipe us all out. But once we spread out into space and establish independent colonies, our future should be safe."-Stephen Hawking

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Yes, maybe something like a space elevator. I've heard that having manufacturing bases on the moon is the idea. The moon is very dense in resources such as metals. We could have shuttles to go to and come back from the moon, as well as using it as a base to go to Mars.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yes maybe sorry i agree that we need a new system but let it be our own. Yeah i agree to disagree with you on stuff i like you opinions though and i respect them.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I don't think we disagree really, Usually, the way new things are created is by combining old things in a new way.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

in that case good i just think that we need capitalism but we need government and if we could have both work better for those who put in effort and hard work so they can find a way to have a livable life then i think were doing something right. But i also dont want to take way from people who have done well in their life just to get it taken away because they were told it was unfair.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Sure, that makes sense. I think government and business can work together and should make things better for the average working man. But it doesn't have to be by taking it away from somebody else.

Its not about how you divide the pie, but how you make more pie for everybody.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

good statement its hard to make enough pie but we should find some way

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

I was told that Ben and Jerry's is actually owned by Unilever.

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by Disco (-1) 2 years ago

FUCKING GREAT cant wait to see thousands more wasted for these fuckers at occupywallst this is why they want the movement to bare their name to keep filling their fucking pockets. Fuck you motherfuckers.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

Interesting perspective. I'll take it under advisement.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

hehehehe ... getting a little bit nervous discie ? .... why are u so angry ? ... how is a little demonstration and voicing of FREE SPEECH going to hurt u ?

[-] 1 points by Disco (-1) 2 years ago

nervous about what? im with occupy. occupywallst BRANDED the OCCUPY movement for a reason. So they could be the ones who get all the cash. They aren't spending it on outreach there not recruiting hundreds of thousands to occupy. THEY ARE FAILING THE MOVEMENT AND STUFFING THEIR POCKETS. O god would i love to see how much there spending on themselves. fucking retards like bradb here who think occupy is becoming something. open your eyes. We arent growing and were arent reaching out to middle america.

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

sounds like what the koch brothers do. why aren't you protesting the Ben & Jerry evil manipulators of our society?? oh wait, this just in...Ben & Jerry are liberals so they can influence whatever they want to with their money. Dang i keep making that mistake..

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The Koch brothers started the TEA party to carry out their Royal decrees, Ben & Jerry are offering money for OWS to carry forward OWS’s own message, see the difference?

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

the koch brothers did not start the Taxed Enough Party.
ows was started and backed by geoge soros, and his many slimy foundations.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Oh yes all those who think the billionairs are overburdened just rose up and founded it, ah yes I do meet a lot more of those people than you would think, don't give a damn about the homeless but scared to death a rich man might get taxed.

[-] 0 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

there is no difference

its like this saying in "war there are no bad, guys just people with different views"

who should decree what is a good political agenda and a bad one. here is the answer no one

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Look this is really poorly written but I think I get your gist, I guess we could go a couple ways here but why not just straight at it. So you can't tell the difference between going to war against Hitler in 1939, and invading Iraq in 2003?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

In 1938 Adolf Hitler was named man of the year by time magazine, everyone thought he was doing something great and most of the Germans felt that way till 1945. Propaganda on both sides is used to make the enemy like an animal. The Japanese told their children that the Americans were going to run over them in tanks also we didn't go to war with the Germans or anyone else till 1941.

I can tell the difference between the two but really we made these people out to be mad men and then we went and tried to kill them.

the point of the post was that if you look from multiple views you can see that there is more answers to the question than just one.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey you run your checks I'll run mine. Anyway I don't equate the idea that there are many ways to look at things, with the concept that there is no difference. If you allow the idea that there are always many views to not choose any then what's the point? Isn't that how we got in this mess too many people letting the easy answers suffice when more thought and committed effort was required?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

no thats the point do this like an engineer view all data then use the best option that will be good for that project.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I suppose but in the meqan time the GOP in AZ just pushed out a bill to eliminate our public funding law in a straight party line vote. I don't mind looking at a lot of options as long as they include reducing the number of the GOP in office.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

...why so we can have bias decisions they are not the best but we need people from all views to have an input. I think we need more parties more independents and less democrats and republicans lets get out of this black or white view and move to that isn't so evil because the sith only work in absolutes

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Did you see the part about the GOP fighting against campaign finance reform? Are we trying get something done or are we just wanting to talk about stuff?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

yes im saying we need people like them in congress and other positions so we can have an even panel. We also need commies, liberals, socialist, capitalist, ,libertarians and many more. We need every view of the untied states to be present. I am tired of a One party system i want more views in Washington that way everything will be balanced again

that is my talk

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I agree

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So we need to take a seat away from someone who supports campaign finance reform and give it to someone who opposes it? (we are not "making more seats")

You want to take a seat away from someone who wants to reduce income inequality and replace them with some one who wants to increase it?

I disagree, and I think you are hurting OWS

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

So you're trolling. Good to know. The discrediting thing has been tried, it won't get you far. You can stop trying to diminish our numbers by being divisive and trying to co-opt this movement for party politics, or I can call you out on every post until you stop using this user name or the forum all together. Either way, I will not stand by while you alienate other supporters and try to make this a partisan movement.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

no please call me out, the more you talk the more you are reveled, you want us to do nothing so your bosses will be safe

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

oh I see, you think you can make OWS a leg of the democratic party. Well OWS has no party. Your attempt at co-opting OWS for your political bias is unwelcome as is anyone trying to railroad supporters into party politics. If you want to play the red team blue team bullshit, you need to find another forum.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You want to destroy OWS by preventing it from having any affect where it really matters, you know that if you can come in here and pretend that the D's are just as bad as the R's your buddies on Wall-Street will have nothing to fear from a bunch of unfocused, dreamers.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

did you really just put your words in my mouth and then condemn me for it? Go fk yourself.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

oppps, hey I thought we were in this thread:

http://occupywallst.org/forum/republicans-try-to-kill-public-financing-in-arizon/

what do you think?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

For every R we have in congress there is someone who oppose OWS, maybe with a D it might be different, but every R will fight against every thing we want to do, if you want Rs in congress you oppose OWS.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

these were the words you put there:

points by DanielBarton (173) 13 hours ago yes im saying we need people like them in congress and other positions so we can have an even panel. We also need commies, liberals, socialist, capitalist, ,libertarians and many more. We need every view of the untied states to be present. I am tired of a One party system i want more views in Washington that way everything will be balanced again

that is my talk

↥like ↧dislike reply permalink [-] 2 points by richardkentgates (1371) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 10 hours ago I agree

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So we need to take a seat away from someone who supports campaign finance reform and give it to someone who opposes it? (we are not "making more seats")

You want to take a seat away from someone who wants to reduce income inequality and replace them with some one who wants to increase it?

I disagree, and I think you are hurting OWS

[-] 2 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i am allowed to be here so i can spread my ideas too. They dont have to be a liberal bias. First of all if you believe that the parties are different i feel bad for you they're not. They all want something in common power and money, now i'm purposing we vote commies, liberals, socialist, capitalist, ,libertarians and many more. We need every view of the untied states to be present. we dont need to replace our system with anything it just needs and oil change and a tune up to fix the problem

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Of course you can be here, many people are here to hurt the OWS movement. If you are so blind you don't see the difference between Bernie Sanders and Trent Franks then I doubt you see much of the problem or how to solve it, that's just my opinion.

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

i see the difference the point being is that people from that state can vote for who ever they want and since you don't live there its not your problem. Same goes if i don't like a candidate in some other district i dont live there so i cant vote there. Like i said our system is fine it just needs a tune up

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

no. it just depends on whose side you are one. they both are trying to influence using their money. you just happen to be a socialist, communist, anarchist, or whatever radical left winger people call themselves now, who agrees with them.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Fair enough, I'm not really so concerned about the influence so much as the direction of the influence. I oppose those like the Koch brothers who are seeking to restore monocracy to America, and I support democracy, so yeah for me it really is more about what you're doing more than how you get there.

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

restore monocracy, where do you all get that propaganda rubbish?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

What do you call inherited power and wealth? Have you ever heard of "the death tax" all that crap is about bringing back monocracy, get your head out the sand.

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

so if i work hard and save money i have to give it to the government when i pass instead of to my kids. And best of all i become royalty. Wow! Look you moron it would be my money not the governments.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Actually ownership is determined by the government, but have you ever heard the trem "You can't take it with you?" as far as your kids go if you got enough to worry about the death tax you better have gave them the best education money can buy, and I'm ok wiht you give'em 5 million or so, but if they can't kickass with that kind of start in life, we sure as hell don't need them with a billion just cause their your kids.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

YOUR money is yours to do with as you please.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You should take a look at it sometime.

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

its their money they can do what they want to with it. the u.s. isn't a communist country and can tax but can't say how much money you can keep when you die (i.e. your 5 million). You probably don't have kids nor money.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So you support the return of monocracy? Not surprised we had your kind around during the Revolution too. The people have no right to limit the king's power yada yada.

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

you are making up information. you live in a liberal left wing bubble, get out and explore a bit, you will see how stupid you really sound.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You are a LIAR.

[-] 0 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

Virginia, tell me what sort of country to you want the U.S. to be?

[-] -2 points by NorthernHick (-31) 2 years ago

You are a liberal idiot and need to get out in the real World

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

You know what happens if they don't win?

You are going to be standing in the unemployment line.

A-hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Yeah, the day just got even better.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

And may you and your other identities have a great day! You do know what day it is, doncha?

:D

[-] -1 points by NorthernHick (-31) 2 years ago

In other related new!!!!! Romney wins Michigan, Arizona primaries

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I'm just reading your comments, you don't believe in the people’s power through their government to protect themselves from a privately funded army, it's clear in what you write, don't you read your own comments?

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

i love the the police, FBI, the US military, CIA who are there to protect us from traitors, muslim terrorist, anarchist and radicals and i'm not afraid of any liberal imaginary army.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6616) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

As long as they remember who the King is right? I mean nobody from Goldman is going to jail right? I know you want plenty of cops to protect the wealth, but not one for justice.

[+] -6 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

ben & jerry, goldberg, sound like a bunch of pot heads. why doesn't occupy, occupy their homes and property since they (ben, jerry...) are so supportive. no one else wants the occupiers around.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

You don't like ice cream?

[-] -3 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

i do, but not ben and jerry's . i think that they sold to Unilever a while back. typical lexus liberals.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

your reply seems to have popular support :)

[-] -1 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

not sure that i understand the last comment.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

popular support