Wall Street Protesters and Dishonest Media Propagandists

Present featured headline on AT&T/Yahoo "Newss" (boycott AT&T and Yahoo), from the always despicable Associated Press:


"Injured vet spent days at work, and nights at protest"


Howe is that for "neutral" reporting? You are right, it might be "netural" for STALIN'S "Pravda" or HITLER'S Ministry of Propaganda. George Orewell's "1984" lives at the Associated Press. I could not even make this stuff up, if I were TRYING to discredit the truly despicable AP, and the rest of the mainstream media. These are the same pepoel who would CONVICT the Tea Party of racism (or having a "racsit element", in the words f the really despicable Piers Morgan, on CNN--ohne of the wordst human beings I have ever seen on television, except if compared to the rEST of teh peole on CNN), based on a SINGE isolated sign or example of ONE person. Yet this is the same media that will PRAISE the Wall Street protest movement baseed on ONE individual.


This is how to LIE--as shown to you by the dishoenst hyppocrites of the AP, who use "1984" as a TRAINING manual--while not technically telling a lie. I am relatively sure that this "injured vet" exists, although you could not possibly depend on the propagandists of the AP to "vet" the "story". (I kno: I deserve to DIE for this pun.) There HAVE to be SOME sincere people--even admirable people--in the "occupy Wall Street" "movement".


But is this injured vet REPRESENTATIVE of the "occupy Wall Street protesters? Don't be silly. You ha e to be an AP propppagandist to even consider that possibility. The vast majority of the Walls Street protesters--especially if you excude the professional union agitators, and other professional leftist agitators--HAVE NO JOB. The dishonest hypocrites of the AP--the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth, on two legs or four--LOOKED for a SINGLE "admirable" Wall Street protester just as hard as they looked for ISOLATED members of the Tea Party who were NOT admmirable. Any objetive person would have to conclude that the Tea Party was, and is, composed of more "legitimate" solid ccitizens than is true of the "occupy Wall Street" groups. It is not even close. For one thing, the vastr majority of Tea Party people HAD JOBS, and almost NONE flouted laws and got, or have ever gotten, arrested.


Yes. The "occupy Oakland" crowd created a RIOT, and showed a lperfect willingness to egage i VIOLENCE. The vaious groups have TRASHED place after place. Rapes have been alleged. Laws are routinedly broken by the various occupy Wall STreet groups. The COMMUNIST PARTY was an "honored guest" at "cccupy Chicago". Drugs are everywhere. My older daughter, in Boston--who voted FOR Obama, to my shame--has described to me that "half' of the "occupy Boston" people appeared to be crazy, homeless people (surely an exaggeration, but it is NOT an "exaggeration" to say that homeless people are MORE representative of the people out there than is an "injured vet" who actually works during the day, as the people of the AP prove themselves world champion LIARS once again).


As I have said in this blog, if the occupy Wall Street people were really thoughtful, seriious people, they would VOTE CONSERVATIVE (and support this blog). WHO is it who really POOSED the Wall STreet bailouts? Righ. It was CONSERVATIVES, including this blog. In fact, I have a panned article for morrow titled: "China and the Europe Bailout: Wall Street, The Stupidest People on Earth". Yep. I have SOLD into this awesomely SICK Wall STreet rally, as I BOUGHT into the decline (gradually, in both cases). We are now in yet anoterh stock "bubble". It is CONSERVATIVES who wanted--for the most part--to LET WALL STREET AND THE BIG BANKS FAIL.


Nope. The Wall Street protesters, for the most lpart, are NOT legitimately "frstrated" with the way Wall Street got bailed out. These are merely the usual LEFTIST supects who can be produced as a crowd at almot any time (especailly in this internet age). Yu may remember similar people protesting outside the DEMOCRTTIC convention that nominated Obama. Such crowds have routinelly been produced at G-7, G-8, or G-20 events (or whatever "G" event you want to name, referring to those conferences on world economic policy held from time to time involving a certain number of nations). Unions, of course, have gotten behind these protests as well, and Wisconsin has shown how easily unions can produce a cROWD, even though union members now account for only something like 7% of our population. And these are mostly PUBLIC EMPLOYEE unions, which means that TAXPAYERS (unons dues on public employee salaries) are PAYING for some of these protests HURTING the economy of this country. This is not to mentin that TAXPAYERS are having to pay for the COSTS of dealing with these irresponsible protests (unlike Tea Party rallies), whihc includes DAMAGE that these people are doing (and clean up for the mess they are leaving).


Nope. I just can't get over how OBVIOIUS the propaganda, hypocrisy and dishonesty of teh hypocrites of the mainstream media has become.


It is still unreal to me that REPUBLICAN candidates, in the most recent debate, appeared unwiling to really lower the boom no Obama for supporting these obviously far left, and sometimes literaly deranged, people in such destructive and self-defeating protests. This may be matched by the absurdity of Obama, Democrats and the mainstream media in thinking that this "occupy Wal Street" "movement" is going to HELP them. If my older daughter is wiling to ridicule this "movement", then I think it is obvious that there is no future here for Democrats. Oh, my older daughter is SMART, but she is exposed to BOSTON propaganda day after day (part of the reson she voted for Obama). This is simply a "movement' impossible to "sell", no matter how hard the dishonest propagandists of the media try. And no, I don't care what any "poll" says. I, for example, am willing to say--as this blog routinely says--that I have NO respect for the economic fascists of Wall Street, but that does not mean that I ever even thought of supporting this obviusly destructive "movement" that merely appears to want government to bail EVERYONE out (rather than just the banksl and Wall Street). Who is ging to do the "bailing"? China? Evidenty so, if this latest bailout of the Wall Street types of the world means anything. I have this feeling that the ocupy Wall Street" people, for the most part, would be perfectly willing to turn this country over to CHINA to run.


It would almsot be worth seeing that last thing, to watch how CHINA would deal with these kinds of protests.


P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). No fooling. It is the one thing I AGREE with Jim Cramer on: the way to TRADE this market is to SELL into huge, sick rallies (as we have now had), and to BUY into the sharpm, sick declines ("sick' because they are over such short periods of time, and based on hype and momentum instead of any real change in the economy or economic prospects). Sure, you risk mistting huge, sustainted move in the stock market. That migth actually occur, without reason, as it did in the approach to 200 and in 2007 (right before the people of Wall Street were proved STUPID by the economic collape). But you will get another chance. There is NO chance that our economy is ow sound enough to trigger a real economic boom. That means that the stock market--even divorced from economic reality--will ALWAYS give you another chance to buy (so long as you don't buy at the TOP and sell at the BOTTOM). Oh. and I agree with Cramer on the WAY to do this. BuyGREADULLY (not assuming that a bottom has been reached), and sell GRADUABLLY (on the cahcnce that the market will keep going up, even if it has alreayd moved up--on momentum and hype--too far and too fast). Now I have told you, correctly, that Wall STreet is now totally a "computer gaiming casion", and that the sane thing to do is not to TRADE stocks at all (as distinguised from a simple investing strategy of investing in mutual funds on an AVERAGING basis, rather than trying to "time" the market at all). However, if you must be INSANE, like me, and TRADE, then rallies are the time to SELL (gradually), and rapid declines are the time to BUY (gradually). Yes, I know that strict momentum playes, including Cramer himself, sort of do the OPPOSITE of this (and can make money, because they play a game of musical chairs, whre YOU and I are left without a chair). This is one reason the peope on Wall Street are The Stupidest People on Earth. For example, my cash position went down to 20% as the market recently declined. It is now up to about 50%, even though my total inveted has gone up 9although still not over a million dollars--meaning I am not one of those hated "millioniaires"). If the market continuyues this up move, furhter inot a "bubble', then I wil continue to SELL. I will only buy again (basent some special situation) upon a SUBSTANTIAL DCLINE (which will come, even though I have no idea which way the market will go next week). This is the only sANE way for a smaller invester to invest in the present Wall Street. "Buy and hold" is insane, except in long-term "retirment" investing in MUTUAL FUNDS (not individual stocks). I am almost never, as you can tell, completely out of the stock market, but I wish I had folowed my own advice more consistently and intelligently. I would, then, be a millionaire. As a general principlle, however, I think Cramer and I are righ--although Cramer only upshes this "principle' when the market is DOWN. When it is UP, Cramer is the very biggest momentum player around--hardly ever considering that you should be raising cash because the market is too high.