I have no idea, though, why we haven't declared these people to be be economic terrorists.

Oh, wait - because someone's making money off the ride.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, speaking Monday as Occupy Wall Street protesters celebrated the passage of a month encamped in Zuccotti Park, said he was trying to strike a balance between protecting protesters' right to free speech and the needs of Lower Manhattan residents.

"The Constitution doesn't protect tents," he said at a news conference in Queens. "It protects speech and assembly."

The mayor expressed concern that those exercising a "right to be silent" might be getting drowned out amid the din of the protests.

"We can't have a place where only one point of view is allowed," he said. "There are places where I think it's appropriate to express yourself, and there are other places that are appropriate to set up Tent City. They don't necessarily have to be one and the same."

I guess it's escaped Bloomberg's notice that OWS has gone to the site of where the other side has been "expressing itself" at will so that another point of view can be put out there for consideration.

"I think it was purchased for about $38,000 and was gonna be resold for some amount greater than that"

You mean there's money to be made in smuggling drugs, who knew.
-----------------

Couple of issues, first, bribing a TSA agent.  Sure it's weed, if their purpose is too keep the skies safe, even weed should be inspected.

Secondly, that guy is singing like a canary.  He got busted, take your lumps, quite telling them how many times you bribed TSA officials and who they are.  I can't remember the last time I read a story like this with so many fricken details.

Ya had the senate, the house and the presidency Barney...what did you execute?

but I, again, want to be honest, simply being in a public place and voicing your opinion in and of itself doesn't do anything politically

In other words, it's undemocratic to protest oligarchic rule; if these protesters truly believed in democracy, they would raise a few million dollars, hire lobbying firms filled with ex-political officials, purchase access to and influence over political leaders, and then use their financial clout to extract the outcomes they want. Instead, they're attempting to persuade their fellow citizens that we live under oligarchy, that our democratic institutions are corrupted and broken, and that fundamental change is urgent -- an activity which, according to Applebaum [in Slate], will "simply weaken the [political system] further."

Link

The existing system is working just fine for Barney Frank and Anne Applebaum and Bill Keller and all the others who have chimed in to tell OWS that they're not doing protest the right way, which is why they are writing op-eds and blog posts and going on the TV and radio to trivialize and mock and demonize, and throw in a little bastardization of the Constitution while they're at it.  

Politicians like Frank feel threatened; they want the fight on their turf, their way, because after years of the citizenry more or less passively allowing them to do as they pleased, they have come to feel they own the democracy - and OWS is here to tell them otherwise.  The pundits and the op-ed writers?  Well, they're feeling threatened, too, because whatever threatens the powerful they have so dutifully served, also threatens them.

As for Barney Frank taking umbrage at people he assumes did not vote having the temerity to blame him - how does he answer those who did vote and who haven't gotten what they thought they were voting for?  

Barney Frank is fighting for Barney Frank, for the life of power and privilege to which he feels entitled, and which has been made possible to a great extent by those sitting in corporate boardrooms and corner offices on Wall Street and in other financial centers, who have donated generously in order to safeguard their own lives of power and privilege.  The people?  They have been merely tools, willing dupes who go to the polls and cast votes based on who is marginally better in the shrinking hope that "this time" will actually be better.

since he won his re-election.  What people are missing here is that I don't think this is actually all about him keeping power.  He wants the house back because this house is TERRIBLE.  Fair enough, that's a worthy goal.  

He seems to think he is entitled to votes.

A terrible statement from him.

The t-shirt has the familar face of Willy Shakespeare with this quote:

I've read a fair amount of the stuff about the de Vere theories - some of it is convincing, some of it not so much. I always remain convinced it is not true, and Shakespeare was the bard from Stratford-on-Avon.

That's not Dems taking action.  That's bankers taking actions.

I need to know a bit more, such as . . . hmm, what the answers were from Dems?

I'll know that, of course, when I see what Dems actually DO.

I vote on actions, not just words.  Or just phones ringing.  

The DCCC sees the campaign cash and vote value in "supporting" the Occupy movement - what a surprise!  Wouldn't shock me if the DCCC's e-mail wasn't the end result of some very worrisome internal polling that shows Dems bleeding support - and cash.

Stand up for "say anything" Dems?  I have to see some standing up done on my behalf first.

If I were to guess, that would be like every working person tossing in around $150 to either campaign.  That's not including the endless mailings, commercials, and all the other cash it takes to get someone elected.

Then add in the near 500 members of Congress and your proposal is truly mind numbing.  Which of course is the heart of all of this:

The 99% can't afford to buy representation the 1% can.