Reverend: OWS protesters ‘are basically white kids’

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:25 PM GMT
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/23/ows-are-basically-white-kids/

    Columnists and reporters have been falling over themselves trying to analyze how the Occupy Wall Street protests compare to the tea party movement. But they’ve failed, says One Nation Back to God founder the Rev. C.L. Bryant, to treat both movements fairly.

    In a compelling interview with The Daily Caller’s Ginni Thomas, Rev. Bryant, who used to be a rising star on the left, laid out the differences he sees between the two movements and how the media is treating them.

    “It’s amazing to see that the ‘occupiers’ of Wall Street are basically white kids, and they’re dressed fairly well — there are some out there who are kinda scruffy — but I don’t see the media bringing up the fact that there are no black folks in it,” he said.


    Video at the link above.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:28 PM GMT
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwdGyuN_q-6Bzn0o7A2-4
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:28 PM GMT
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQqI3OsHRxQlUEPoddKZVV
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:29 PM GMT
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSeOAjZJ1whh9vaEPBZ3mK
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:29 PM GMT
    meninlove saidimages?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwdGyuN_q-6Bzn0o7A2-4


    So long as you're not one of the ones who makes the claims that any minorities at tea party protests are window dressing or that those who support Herman Cain must be just supporting the "token" black man.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:30 PM GMT
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTAuy09Kdj86CVRQqdUPSq
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:31 PM GMT
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2UBzlHJ_-muXYOmi_APH
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:31 PM GMT
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS92W0jPVHnMr0nu_YsVrb
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:31 PM GMT
    riddler -

    Do you even realize what sources you're citing? I mean it's bad enough to quote Tucker "I've been fired from every cable news channel there is" Carlson, who - by the way - thinks beating up gay kids if great, little vanity site, but to then use an article by Ginni Thomas?

    Surely, you can find something better. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:31 PM GMT
    meninlove saidimages?q=tbn:ANd9GcS92W0jPVHnMr0nu_YsVrb


    And I repeat - So long as you're not one of the ones who makes the claims that any minorities at tea party protests are window dressing or that those who support Herman Cain must be just supporting the "token" black man.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:32 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidriddler -

    Do you even realize what sources you're citing? I mean it's bad enough to quote Tucker "I've been fired from every cable news channel there is" Carlson, who - by the way - thinks beating up gay kids if great, little vanity site, but to then use an article by Ginni Thomas?

    Surely, you can find something better. icon_lol.gif


    They are pulling from a video interview.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:33 PM GMT
    A claim that others have noticed as well.

    http://moneyland.time.com/2011/10/20/is-occupy-wall-street-too-white/

    The Occupy Wall Street movement that has spread beyond New York’s financial district to cities all over the country and even beyond the U.S. has one glaring shortcoming, according to some activists: It’s too white. According to the Village Voice, New Yorker Malik Rhasaan launched a Facebook page for Occupy The Hood after observing what he sees as a lack of racial diversity among OWS protesters. “I noticed there isn’t a strong black and Latino presence. … People don’t know why Wall Street affects them. It affects us the most when we’re not knowledgeable about it,” he told the newspaper. As of Wednesday, the Facebook page had nearly 6,700 followers, and Rhasaan had paired with Detroit-based community activist Johari Uhuru to help spread the word in other cities.

    While it’s impossible to precisely measure the racial makeup of the deliberately leaderless Occupy movement, most of the images and video clips that have garnered media attention do indeed seem to feature mostly whites. Occupy The Hood leaders say their role is necessary because the more established protest movements don’t do enough to address racism in financial industry misdeeds. “They’re gonna have a problem with people of color [getting involved] if they don’t connect the effects of capitalism to racism,” Uhuru told the San Francisco Bay View newspaper.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:33 PM GMT
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPd6qlAQkituBFx_9BMP1
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:35 PM GMT
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTQHEJ1w5vwznt0Yd_P8vw
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:36 PM GMT
    meninlove saidimages?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPd6qlAQkituBFx_9BMP1


    I'm curious - what's this picture of? Random asian in a suit? lol
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 2:53 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidriddler -

    Do you even realize what sources you're citing? I mean it's bad enough to quote Tucker "I've been fired from every cable news channel there is" Carlson, who - by the way - thinks beating up gay kids if great, little vanity site, but to then use an article by Ginni Thomas?

    Surely, you can find something better. icon_lol.gif


    They are pulling from a video interview.


    I'm not sure what your point is? This is a woman who couldn't be bothered to file her taxes and who's husband refuses to recuse himself from Supreme Court cases when his wife has a financial conflict of interest. They are deeply unethical and amoral people.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 3:09 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidriddler -

    Do you even realize what sources you're citing? I mean it's bad enough to quote Tucker "I've been fired from every cable news channel there is" Carlson, who - by the way - thinks beating up gay kids if great, little vanity site, but to then use an article by Ginni Thomas?

    Surely, you can find something better. icon_lol.gif


    They are pulling from a video interview.


    I'm not sure what your point is? This is a woman who couldn't be bothered to file her taxes and who's husband refuses to recuse himself from Supreme Court cases when his wife has a financial conflict of interest. They are deeply unethical and amoral people.


    That you attack the interviewer rather than the subject matter is pretty much characteristic of your field of vision - that's the point. And at this point it's really not remarkable how far you'd go to try to smear a highly respected Supreme Court justice - or even Tucker Carlson - who according to you thinks beating up gay kids is great.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 3:19 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidriddler -

    Do you even realize what sources you're citing? I mean it's bad enough to quote Tucker "I've been fired from every cable news channel there is" Carlson, who - by the way - thinks beating up gay kids if great, little vanity site, but to then use an article by Ginni Thomas?

    Surely, you can find something better. icon_lol.gif


    They are pulling from a video interview.


    I'm not sure what your point is? This is a woman who couldn't be bothered to file her taxes and who's husband refuses to recuse himself from Supreme Court cases when his wife has a financial conflict of interest. They are deeply unethical and amoral people.


    That you attack the interviewer rather than the subject matter is pretty much characteristic of your field of vision - that's the point. And at this point it's really not remarkable how far you'd go to try to smear a highly respected Supreme Court justice - or even Tucker Carlson - who according to you thinks beating up gay kids is great.


    The subject matter is ridiculous. Have you been to OWS? I have. It's quite diverse. Certainly more so than tea bagger gatherings.

    Clarence Thomas is not "highly respected". Perhaps you don't realize that being in Canada but he's kind of a joke. He writes nearly no opinions. He rarely asks any questions and his unethical behavior is legendary.

    In terms of Carlson:

    http://gawker.com/294673/tucker-carlson-beats-up-gay-men-with-his-friends
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 3:27 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidriddler -

    Do you even realize what sources you're citing? I mean it's bad enough to quote Tucker "I've been fired from every cable news channel there is" Carlson, who - by the way - thinks beating up gay kids if great, little vanity site, but to then use an article by Ginni Thomas?

    Surely, you can find something better. icon_lol.gif


    They are pulling from a video interview.


    I'm not sure what your point is? This is a woman who couldn't be bothered to file her taxes and who's husband refuses to recuse himself from Supreme Court cases when his wife has a financial conflict of interest. They are deeply unethical and amoral people.


    That you attack the interviewer rather than the subject matter is pretty much characteristic of your field of vision - that's the point. And at this point it's really not remarkable how far you'd go to try to smear a highly respected Supreme Court justice - or even Tucker Carlson - who according to you thinks beating up gay kids is great.



    The subject matter is ridiculous. Have you been to OWS? I have. It's quite diverse. Certainly more so than tea bagger gatherings.

    Clarence Thomas is not "highly respected". Perhaps you don't realize that being in Canada but he's kind of a joke. He writes nearly no opinions. He rarely asks any questions and his unethical behavior is legendary.

    In terms of Carlson:

    http://gawker.com/294673/tucker-carlson-beats-up-gay-men-with-his-friends



    Your extremism is once again showing Christian. icon_rolleyes.gif - as for the OWS folks here in Toronto - they are "basically" white - as are most of the videos on Youtube elsewhere.

    As for Clarence Thomas: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/28/new-blue-nightmare-clarence-thomas-and-the-amendment-of-doom/

    Writes Toobin:" In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication."

    This is one of the most startling reappraisals to appear in The New Yorker for many years. It is hard to think of other revisions as radical as the declownification of Clarence Thomas: Herbert Hoover as the First Keynesian? Henry Kissinger as the Great Humanitarian? Richard Nixon, the most liberal president ever (that one might even be true)?


    Then again, I suppose he must be stupid and a clown because he's black and isn't a Democrat? I often wonder if those who are far more racist are the Democrats given how blacks who disagree are treated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 3:49 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Your extremism is once again showing Christian. icon_rolleyes.gif - as for the OWS folks here in Toronto - they are "basically" white - as are most of the videos on Youtube elsewhere.

    As for Clarence Thomas: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/28/new-blue-nightmare-clarence-thomas-and-the-amendment-of-doom/

    Writes Toobin:" In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication."

    This is one of the most startling reappraisals to appear in The New Yorker for many years. It is hard to think of other revisions as radical as the declownification of Clarence Thomas: Herbert Hoover as the First Keynesian? Henry Kissinger as the Great Humanitarian? Richard Nixon, the most liberal president ever (that one might even be true)?


    Then again, I suppose he must be stupid and a clown because he's black and isn't a Democrat? I often wonder if those who are far more racist are the Democrats given how blacks who disagree are treated.


    As usual, you side step the Carlson issue because you've been shown to be defending the indefensible.

    And the fact that the right-wing has managed to pack the Supreme Court with a bunch of corporate Koch-suckers so that Thomas' views are now in the plurality does not make him any better of a justice nor does it excuse his (and Alito's) stunning breaches of ethics.

    Thomas' race is only an issue because often joins rulings that have negative consequences for African Americans and other minorities. If one is going to betray their community, they should be called to account for it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 4:03 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    riddler78 said
    Your extremism is once again showing Christian. icon_rolleyes.gif - as for the OWS folks here in Toronto - they are "basically" white - as are most of the videos on Youtube elsewhere.

    As for Clarence Thomas: http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/28/new-blue-nightmare-clarence-thomas-and-the-amendment-of-doom/

    Writes Toobin:" In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication."

    This is one of the most startling reappraisals to appear in The New Yorker for many years. It is hard to think of other revisions as radical as the declownification of Clarence Thomas: Herbert Hoover as the First Keynesian? Henry Kissinger as the Great Humanitarian? Richard Nixon, the most liberal president ever (that one might even be true)?


    Then again, I suppose he must be stupid and a clown because he's black and isn't a Democrat? I often wonder if those who are far more racist are the Democrats given how blacks who disagree are treated.


    As usual, you side step the Carlson issue because you've been shown to be defending the indefensible.

    And the fact that the right-wing has managed to pack the Supreme Court with a bunch of corporate Koch-suckers so that Thomas' views are now in the plurality does not make him any better of a justice nor does it excuse his (and Alito's) stunning breaches of ethics.

    Thomas' race is only an issue because often joins rulings that have negative consequences for African Americans and other minorities. If one is going to betray their community, they should be called to account for it.


    Once again your extremism is showing. On Tucker Carlson:

    http://mediamatters.org/research/200708290003

    Let me be clear about an incident I referred to on MSNBC last night: In the mid-1980s, while I was a high school student, a man physically grabbed me in a men's room in Washington, DC. I yelled, pulled away from him and ran out of the room. Twenty-five minutes later, a friend of mine and I returned to the men's room. The man was still there, presumably waiting to do to someone else what he had done to me. My friend and I seized the man and held him until a security guard arrived.

    Several bloggers have characterized this is a sort of gay bashing. That's absurd, and an insult to anybody who has fought back against an unsolicited sexual attack. I wasn't angry with the man because he was gay. I was angry because he assaulted me.


    I feel sorry for you - unable to even attempt to be objective about any issue - always seeing it in a lens that is either about classwarfare or racism. And yet, when there are those like the poor or those who are black who have the audacity to point out that you as a white man, are advocating policies that are hurting them, you call them unethical, and amoral. Your ideological allies call them uncle tom's and stupid as you ignore them.

    But here's the irony. OWS that you support, is largely white, and organized by white college students. Yes, at the fringe there are a few minorities - and yes, unions have jumped on the bandwagon and lent their minorities to the movement. But so what? Let's see how long it lasts. I for one home a long life - at least to the end of 2012.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 24, 2011 4:21 PM GMT
    riddler78 said...But here's the irony. OWS that you support, is largely white, and organized by white college students. Yes, at the fringe there are a few minorities - and yes, unions have jumped on the bandwagon and lent their minorities to the movement. But so what? Let's see how long it lasts. I for one home a long life - at least to the end of 2012.

    The Democrats are trying to use the whole thing to focus attention away from the administration's performance and make the financial community the sole culprit behind all that is wrong. Then they want to link the Republicans with the financial industry, of course despite the funding they received. Not working as the poll numbers indicate. While they show widespread agreement for the issues expressed by the movement, i.e. bad economy, unemployment - who wouldn't agree?, the attempt to deflect blame away from the administration isn't working.
  • dancedancekj

    Posts: 1761

    Oct 25, 2011 2:36 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said...But here's the irony. OWS that you support, is largely white, and organized by white college students. Yes, at the fringe there are a few minorities - and yes, unions have jumped on the bandwagon and lent their minorities to the movement. But so what? Let's see how long it lasts. I for one home a long life - at least to the end of 2012.

    The Democrats are trying to use the whole thing to focus attention away from the administration's performance and make the financial community the sole culprit behind all that is wrong. Then they want to link the Republicans with the financial industry, of course despite the funding they received. Not working as the poll numbers indicate. While they show widespread agreement for the issues expressed by the movement, i.e. bad economy, unemployment - who wouldn't agree?, the attempt to deflect blame away from the administration isn't working.


    Nope, that's what the GOP thinks the strategy is. Because they're actually that evil and petty enough to go there (as witnessed by Eric Cantor calling up for people to fight back against the OWS movement, ironically calling for them to use the same principles that the OWS is striving for).

    In reality, the OWS is far greater in scope than just the Democrats and Republicans. It's pointing that yes, corporations and politicans (indirectly) are to blame, but it's not just some coverup by the Democrats or some union funded movement. Believe it or not, people are actually joining in the movement because they believe in the principles of the movement alone.

    Did you know Republicans have a larger amygdala and therefore a larger fear response from the lizard part of their brains? http://dmschreiber.ucsd.edu/Publications/RedBrainBlueBrain.pdf

    And what's funny as Troyathlete pointed out in another thread, you are the ones concerned about race - not the liberals. Here you are again ranting about how the OWS is a mostly white movement. So what if it is? Why has it ever mattered to you? You've never cared about our racial makeup before. Such a double standard.
    The OWS doesn't really care about your race, creed, occupation, age, or socioeconomic status, which is nice. That's why you're seeing all matter of diversity....

    of faith...
    ?controllerName=image&action=get&id=1693
    ?controllerName=image&action=get&id=1693
    ?controllerName=image&action=get&id=1693
    ?controllerName=image&action=get&id=1693

    occupations...
    http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/10/3788610/lawyers-occupy-wall-street-wade-through-legal-morass-first-amendment?page=all
    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/10/23/medical-professionals-protest-corporate-greed-at-occupy-wall-street/
    healthcareprotesters.jpg?w=300

    and so on.


    Occupy Wall Street looks like the America I work with, interact with, pass on the street, and take care of. It is impossible to define the movement by any sort of measure, with the diversity in ideology, personality, and background that is not seen with the Tea Party. It's growing every day, and is growing globally, with Canada, Europe, obviously the Arab Spring, and even Japan joining in. This shit's not going away, and I frankly think it has all your GOP deniers frightened because THIS is what a real American movement and protest looks like.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2011 8:36 AM GMT
    dancedancekj said
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said...But here's the irony. OWS that you support, is largely white, and organized by white college students. Yes, at the fringe there are a few minorities - and yes, unions have jumped on the bandwagon and lent their minorities to the movement. But so what? Let's see how long it lasts. I for one home a long life - at least to the end of 2012.

    The Democrats are trying to use the whole thing to focus attention away from the administration's performance and make the financial community the sole culprit behind all that is wrong. Then they want to link the Republicans with the financial industry, of course despite the funding they received. Not working as the poll numbers indicate. While they show widespread agreement for the issues expressed by the movement, i.e. bad economy, unemployment - who wouldn't agree?, the attempt to deflect blame away from the administration isn't working.

    Nope, that's what the GOP thinks the strategy is. Because they're actually that evil and petty enough to go there (as witnessed by Eric Cantor calling up for people to fight back against the OWS movement, ironically calling for them to use the same principles that the OWS is striving for).

    In reality, the OWS is far greater in scope than just the Democrats and Republicans. It's pointing that yes, corporations and politicans (indirectly) are to blame, but it's not just some coverup by the Democrats or some union funded movement. Believe it or not, people are actually joining in the movement because they believe in the principles of the movement alone. ...

    My comments were about how the Democrats are intending to use the movement, not about the movement itself, so your response, aside from your Cantor reference, misses the point of what you quoted. As far as "evil" motives, the point is much of the economic problems that the demonstrators are complaining about come from Washington, so they are misled and are being used as tools. Secondly, your comments about political groups and groups of RJ members contain generalizations that do not have a bases in fact. I'll leave that as a general comment that you can disagree with, but not intending to pursue that further.

    BTW if you like studies, here's one for you: http://neuropolitics.org/Anxiety-Depression-and-Goal-Seeking-in-Conservatives-Liberals-Moderates.htm
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 25, 2011 9:03 AM GMT
    dancedancekj said

    Did you know Republicans have a larger amygdala and therefore a larger fear response from the lizard part of their brains? http://dmschreiber.ucsd.edu/Publications/RedBrainBlueBrain.pdf


    This is not meant as a response directly to the original poster, but as to everyone in general.

    I do not consider myself a Republican in any way; but I also don't condone highly misleading and misinformed studies. I also don't think citing studies that are poorly written, as truth, is a fair way to support your argument. Not all papers written in academia and being hosted on a genuine ".edu" site necessarily have stunning, significant, or correct results.


    I read this study through, twice. Although it's tempting to claim it as significant, the fact is that studying 54 subjects really holds no significance, considering that "Democrat" and "Republican" are two labels that are way too easily cast to misrepresent ideas that are much too complex to label and that transcend the bipartisan spectrum.

    As with any study, you really have to question the motivation of it, and the significance of the results. Who funded this study, and why? Why doesn't the paper mention a motivation for the study. Any good academic paper should exhibit why the study is being conducted (for a non-trivial reason, other than "to understand") and what broader implications it has. Also, what has failed to be mentioned here, is the fact that this study has not really been replicated (as far as I know, I can't find any really similar articles using the same method and hypothesis as this one).

    The graphs and the data "shurr are purdy", but the methods they used to gather and process data are far more interesting and significant than the actual results the paper reports. Clearly, this is a poorly written paper. I may be 22, but I have written more than one research article for an undergraduate academic journal, and clearly this one wouldn't even make the cut for any such journal.

    If you look at table S2, there are only two independent variables. Clearly, with such a bold claim as the paper makes, you would think that if the authors were actually serious about the study, that they would factor in more independent variables, such as education (a big one, with regards to 'fear' response), income status, location, so on so forth. To simplify it down to mother-father partisanship is, frankly, pathetic.

    Did anyone happen to look at the references as well? You will be shocked. I am surprised that any sort of professor or group of doctorate degree holders would not be embarrassed to publish such a scientifically dishonest and poor paper.


    P.S. The accuracy of the prediction method means nothing, considering that these authors did the taboo thing of using data from their original subjects to predict the political affiliation of the same subjects. Dumb, dumb, and dumb. Clearly they should have enlisted the help of a statistician or mathematician.

    Of course, there is the possibility that I am reading it entirely wrong (although I have read the paper more than once). If I am, then I am not objecting to the fact I may be wrong. I just thought it was curious what I mentioned above.