Conservative Daily News - The best news, analysis and opinion articles written by a collection of citizen journalists. Covering a range of important topics in blogs, op-ed, and news posts, these upstanding patriots are bringing back American exceptionalism with every entry..

Protesting for the problem they're against

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Protesting for the problem they're against”.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. This is due to our approach that citizens have a voice, not only the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments (0)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Max says:

    Brady,

    You need to look at this event recorded in Atlanta. In attendance is Rep. Lewis. He has asked permission to speak at a drone event, and in the video the drone-master is seeking unanimous consent from the drone-audience for Lewis to speak (far from democracy). Needless to say, he doesn’t get it.

    This isn’t a movement. It’s brainwashed people who chant-repeat what has been said, all without any thought of their own. Need proof? Look at time 3:45, the drone in the pink jacket states “Senator Lewis” and all the brainless drones repeat her idiocy… “Senator Lewis”.

    Lewis isn’t a senator. This alone proves these people have no brains of their own… they regurgitate, over and over again.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI

  2. WillofLa says:

    There is also a very important fact that Mr. Boyd left out that people need to know in order to be more able to put two and two together. And that is there were a couple of things that took place after Teddy Roosevelt left office and that was in 1913 Socialists in our government created the Federal Reserve Act, which by the way was unConstitutional. Only Congress has the authority to mint money, make tax laws(being very careful to not violate the Constitution), and regulate the markets keeping them fair for everyone. That would have meant that Big Meat would have been forced to compete with the smaller companies and self regulate in cleanliness, and efficientcy. If they didn’t want to do that, then to bad. But since something else happened some time after 1913 that gave the rich an automatic in, with those in the government that gave them the economic that protected the big corporations from having to compete in the open market.

    Right after World War I our government was broke due to the extreme cost of supplying the military and navy with equipment it needed to win the war. The government had only one choice since there wasn’t any China back in those days to borrow huge amounts of money from like it is today. And the only choice they had was to borrow the money from the wealthy, like the Carnegies, and Standard Oil owners and on and on. The wealthy agreed to meet with the government. Once they agreed to the amount that government needed, which was a drop in the bucket to them at that time, there was only one thing left to talk about. And what that was, was how much control would the wealthy have on how the government operated, and what laws it wanted to pass for the people of America.

    And looking back we can see why a decade later we had the “collapse” of the stock market. Why? I believe that the wealthy didn’t want the middle class to have the free market to allow them to build their own wealth and in doing so could, could get themselves where they were financially self sufficient. The wealthy couldn’t have that, so the wealthy took a big chunck of the value of the market away by having agreements with European bankers and investors to pull the plug on the market over there while our wealthy pulled the plug on our markets here.

    It took over 50 years for the markets to make up the difference from the stock market crash in 1929. That would be 1979 and we see that when Reagan took over and cut taxes how the markets were more than ready to take off like a rocket providing the prosperity of the bankers and investors both here in America and overseas.

    Oh, I left out the ordinary people and that small businesses, didn’t I. Well, you see who it is who has taken the hit from the collapse of the banks and investors again after Freddie/Fannie went haywire, don’t you? And the wealthy have been in control of our country since 1918-20. And that would be right when the Socialists and Communists came in also, isn’t it? I wonder how much of that history the protesters down on Wall Street know anything about that?

    What needs to be done is the elimination of the Federal Reserve and cut the running of our government by the wealthy. They are also the ones who are driving the train to hell of the New World Order, where the control of the rich will transfer from the United States to the UN and that will also suck in the Europeans as well. It’s the power of the money of the wealthy that have taken all opportunities away from American’s and to be our own guide as to where our efforts would take us. America would be full of Steve Jobs if we could get loose of the wealthy. But they would have to be made to cooporate with what the Constitution says they are to do.

  3. Anonymous; expect us says:

    The difference between my message, the one that this protest is a protest movement against…

    …against greed and a corrupted system

    and your assertion that protesters are protesting against capitalism is….

    the average american understands exactly what I’m talking about.

    Think about it.

    • DJ Redman says:

      A friend of mine up in DC points out that if ANON here is not in fact Mr. Jesse Lee, the White House progressive [[propagandist ] media director, they certainly look like they work for him. The pattern fits, posting on every article trying to claim that the “occupy park benches’ crowds are a grassroots movement, while supporting the underlying Liberal talking points of class warfare favored by the Obama administration 24/7. Meet Mr. Lee:

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/meet-the-white-houses-new-story-squasher-director-of-progressive-media/

      • Anonymous; expect us says:

        DJ,

        Sorry. not even warm. Not sure yet if I’m flattered or not in the accusation. (?) I suppose it’s better than the last accusations ~ being a “simpleton” and a “violent mob.”

        I’ve not held a job with the government with two exceptions: a summer job as “park technician” while augmenting veteran’s educational benefits, (earned from my other government job as a soldier in the military) as I paid my way earning my undergraduate degree as a young person, what some 30 (?) years ago.

        But keep up the guess work surrounding some “boogie man” behind the Occupy protest… rather than outrage at Wall Street (more generally: greed and a corrupted system) being what is “behind” the protest. It’s working to heighten MSM visibility of our protest message.

  4. Anonymous; expect us says:

    You might very seriously reconsider a more thoughtful examination of your understanding of what Occupy Wall Street is protesting if to you…. it seems that the protesters are protesting for what they claim to be against.

    And simultaneously when you are told by someone who actually is protesting, stops and says “Hey, you got our protest messaging all wrong!”

    If you don’t bother addressing that little point – your article is all straw-man. Sorry.

    Thanks….

    • Brady Boyd says:

      The article is obviously over your head.

      • Anonymous; expect us says:

        Bradly,

        Right…. obviously too deep for me. Despite an undergrad degree in political science, 20 years ago, having included a dozen political theory classes. Damn. All that money wasted. But maybe not. Maybe it imparted some critical thinking skills despite my obviously low IQ. Seems this article’s depth requires that a reader accept your assignment of what protesters are protesting rather than their own protestation. That’s clearly too deep for me.

        Their protest is against greed and the corruption of our system. If you want to frame that as a protest against democracy or against capitalism – that would be your prerogative – not theirs. ;)

        If you want to argue about one protester’s sign or six protesters signs, as being inappropriate please do that too. However, your assigning a couple of individual’s cardboard signs onto the entire movement is about as valid as picking a couple of the interesting signs seen at Tea Party protests and assigning those to the Tea Party as what they were protesting. I clearly understand what is being done in an exercise of assignment like that… as is being done in your article. The only remaining question is do you? I’m not sure if my learning that you understand it completely would be a better thing… than my learning you did not understand what you were doing. (?)

        • Anonymous; expect us says:

          Bradly,

          If you’ve never studied the topic of “fallacies of logic” used often for devising an argument, I suggest you look up the term (and some examples) of “straw man.” A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. Generally, the straw man is a highly exaggerated or over-simplified version of the opponent’s original statement, which has been distorted to the point of absurdity. This exaggerated or distorted statement is thus easily argued against, but is a misrepresentation of the opponent’s actual statement.

          Try instead an article arguing against our genuine protest message: “We are in the streets protesting greed and the corruption of our system.” If you can put together a coherent argument against our protest message, I’d be very interested in reading it and responding to it.

          • Anonymous says:

            It’s really cool u know what a straw man is. But the article is over your head. That is why you are focusing on defining what the protesters are “for.” the vast majority are anti-capitalist. You may not be, congratulations. By the way, by holding up credentials through an anonymous avatar makes you seem either stupid or untruthful. You can’t see it but I am golf clapping for your “achievements” right now.

  5. Anonymous; expect us says:

    Brady Boyd,

    The article’s premise is flawed from the start. Occupy Wall Street is not calling to end Capitalism. Occupy Wall Street is calling to end greed and a corrupted system.

    Try again,
    A Protester.

    • Brady Boyd says:

      Yet you want more government intervention, which causes more corruption. Also maybe you should tell the majority of protesters to stop calling for the end of capitalism, if that is not what the protest is about.