61% in FoxNews Poll Agree With "Occupy Wall Street"

Rate this post

The waking-up news this morning is that the Occupy Wall Street movement, now entering its 4th week, has spread to cities across the United States and across the world.
The usual (left-wing) suspects of unions (SEIU, teachers, writers) and multibillionaire George Soros’ MoveOn.org are participating in it. [Go here for the list of some of the participants.]
Multimillionaire hypocrite Nancy Pelosi called the TEA Party “neo-Nazi” “racists” and an “astroturf” (fake) movement. But she approves of the Occupy movement, telling ABCNews yesterday, “I support the message to the establishment, whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment approve of it.”
Commie actor Danny Glover called for more “warriors” to join Occupy L.A.:

But if we go by the results of an unscientific FoxNews poll, a majority of Americans say they share the views of the Occupy movement.
The poll asks you to choose among 4 responses:

  • Maybe. I am not even sure what they want.
  • No. They have no idea how jobs are created or how a free enterprise system works.
  • Yes. These folks are right about corporate greed and what’s happening to the little guy.
  • Other (post a comment).

When I voted at 3:30am, west coast time, Monday, Oct. 10, 2011, these were the results:

Of a total of 132,136 votes:

  • Maybe 2.77%
  • No 35.46%
  • Yes 60.95%
  • Other 0.82%

Don’t let the Occupy movement speak for you. CLICK HERE to vote in the poll!

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “61% in FoxNews Poll Agree With "Occupy Wall Street"

  1. They haven’t gone away you know – the Commies. The fall of USSR was one of the greatest hoaxes perpetrated on mankind, along with PC,false racism, and homosexuality and now this bleeding heart commie claptrap. I will never watch any movies with these “stars” in them. Not that I ever do.

  2. I believe moveon.org has their minions rigging polls. Can’t belive Fox viewers would overwhelmingly support this.

    • Only if it’s George Soros and crony capitalism like w/ Solyandra, perhaps… otherwise, it’s MoveOn.org at work.

  3. Numbers now: 2.72% 33.87% 62.6% 0.82%
    It made me sick to see those spoiled brats complaining as they used their blackberries and laptops. I can’t afford a blackberry. I have a basic cell phone. And I’ve noticed their laptops are the cheap ones. Yes, I have a computer to do my work, work that is now disappearing because of Obamacare. Corporations ARE people! Some of the people are amazing and some of them are despicable. Almost makes me want to join the protest because they’re being paid more than I am. I wonder if taxes are being collected on those checks.

  4. Like I have been saying for years, this country is becoming too stoopid to survive much longer as founded.
    Marxism has just become too ingrained in the Amercan psyche.

  5. Now you know what they are doing on their laptops and smart phones…

  6. Yes, a poll with fraud detection built into MUST be rigged by billionaire commies because surely the majority of the American people don’t sympathize with dirty hippies who don’t want to work.
    Haha, the conspiracy theories here are too funny. Wake up, people!

    • Hey, George,
      You really really need to WAKE UP if you think that the FoxNews poll has a built-in “fraud detection.”
      Earth to George: Nor is that poll scientific, i.e., representative — which means the results of the poll are only descriptive of the people who took the poll, but CANNOT be generalized to (or descriptive of) the larger US population.
      And the reason the poll is unscientific or not generalizable is because the sample of respondents is not randomly selected. Instead, the people who took the poll selected themselves, for whatever reason. This means that it is entirely possible for a particular group of people who have a vested interest in skewing the poll, to “flood” the poll.
      I suggest you take a course on elementary statistics, survey research, and sampling. You desperately need it.

      • Do you use that same argument to discredit and explain presidential election results?

        • No, stupid. Presidential elections are not a survey or poll. The election results are exactly descriptive of those Americans who registered to vote and actually voted. Nobody pretends that the election results actually speak for EVERY and all Americans, unless of course the election had a 100% voter turnout. Maybe you do, but then you’re woefully uneducated, ignorant, and really really stupid.

  7. Okay, so the poll is descriptive of those who participated in it. In this case, the poll received votes from over 100,000 people who agree with Occupy Wall Street. While this may irritate you, it does not constitute “vote rigging.”

    • You just don’t understand what an unscientific or non-representative poll means, do you?
      Such a poll means WE DON’T KNOW whether the results have been rigged or not. Only a scientific or representative poll can guarantee that the results are not rigged.

  8. ^@ Dr.Eowyn

  9. I’m sure the poll is being taken by MANY people, other than Fox New’s regular readers/viewers…..this viewpoint is much more indicative of the mindset of MSNBC etc viewers…ummm, of course this is an “unscientific” poll!
    I can’t stand the illogical thinking behind these protests…demanding “free tuition” to colleges…who on earth do they think will teach these courses in free colleges? The Union teachers and professors who are always screaming for more pay and benefits….will they teach for free now? And will these students now roll up there sleeves and do the landscaping, sanitation and cooking at these free colleges…for free?
    And in my ongoing irritation regarding my fellow illustrators who are in love with these protesters….I am confused at the group lament, hue and cry regarding the shrinking budgets and worsening contracts regarding educational illustration…what used to bread and butter work for kids book illustrators…illustrating textbooks, especially elementary school English/Reading, math, science books……wah wah wah….I assume they’d be up for illustrating for free, too.
    What a pile of BS…….
    one is either a maker or a taker…….easy peasy
    and these idiots are takers!

    • So the people exercising their first amendment rights in support of the middle class are idiots and takers?
      What do you call the big bankers who have given the American people the shaft? The bankers who:
      * invested our money in risky derivitives and hedged against it in a way that is so complex that only the brightest scientists can fully explain it
      * encouraged risky loans only to later foreclose on people when they couldn’t make the payments
      * bear the brunt of the responsibility for the colllapse in 2008
      * and gladly took hundreds of dollars of tax payer money to keep them afloat
      Are those bankers makers or takers?
      This economy is one that has socialized losses and privatized gains at the very top. It’s not capitalism and it sure isn’t a market economy. It’s a distorted economy which serves the super rich and make it difficult for the middle class to prosper.
      Arist, education would be much more affordable if the country wasn’t spending $700B/yr on “defense”. But the wars are yet a whole other can of worms.
      Site owner: it’s nice to know that you block an IP address from posting comments if you happen to disagree with them. That makes for a very objective and credible blog!

      • Newsflash: most of the protesters aren’t a fan of Obama (I’m assuming “skippy” = Obama”). Among other things, I was disappointed by his extension of the Bush tax cuts and his lack of follow through on his promise to end the wars. I’m actually a big Ron Paul supporter and so are a lot of the patriots giving the middle class a voice. Ron Paul’s the only candidate that I’ve researched who makes any sense.

        • By no means am I saying that 100% of the protesters or 100% of the American middle class are saints. Stealing and being dishonest is never excusable. On the flip side I know that not all politicians or lenders are greedy with no have no regard for who they hurt in order to profit. I’m not naive enough to believe in blanket statements like that.
          I single out the bankers in this example because their actions were on a much bigger scale like you pointed out and led to much more hardship for a much greater amount of people. And to add insult to injury, they have only been rewarded for their actions.

        • his foreign policies are down right dangerous. A person would feel about as safe as one does right now.

      • George,
        What on Earth caused you to think this blog aims to be a blog for all people? Read our About page. The Constitution’s 1st Amendment guarantees our right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean ANYONE gets to publish their comments here. Don’t like it? Go write your own blog!
        Since this is my blog, I get to decide how to run it. You don’t get to dictate whether you get your comments published on this site.
        I’m sure you’ll find a way to acquire yet another IP address, after your original LaHabra, California IP address, and this one in the Netherlands.

      • If you don’t trust the bankers to invest your money in ways only a scientist can understand, then stuff it under the mattress. There are valid investors out there you can trust. We all take risks, with no guarantee of success, when we invest. Unless you are named Soros.
        Bankers encouraged risky loans? So did FMx2, supported by our democrats.
        Gladly took taxpayer $? Um, many were forced to accept them by Skippy.
        Much blame to go around. It starts with the government rules and regulations and what they choose to allow, for their voter base, and what they choose to demonize, for their voter base.
        Defense a waste? Explain why Skippy hasn’t cancelled all that spending then.

      • The bankers didn’t have a choice, you government educated moron.
        The government forced them to make risky loans to unqualified buyers, and if they didn’t make enough of them, the banks faced all kinds of fines and penalties.
        I worked in a related industry for nearly three decades, and I knew a lot of mortgage loan officers.
        Government goons would come to their offices on a regular basis and pour over their loan portfolios.
        If they didn’t think there were enough loans being made to low-income borrowers, they would threaten the banks with all sorts of unpleasantness.
        You are too ignorant and uneducated to be posting here.

  10. Steve,
    I’m sure Soros has his numb-nut supporters voting like mad in that poll.
    Problem is, I’m still seeing Obama approval numbers in the low 40% range, and Obama is working to implement much of the protester’s agenda – they’re just too stoopid to see that.
    If this poll was scientific, I would guess the results in support of the commies would probably be in at least the high 30s.
    That’s scary.

  11. I’m an enthusiastic supporter of OWS but I have to tell you guys — this poll means nothing. It would mean nothing in any case, but in this particular case it’s meaningless because several groups of internet pranksters (whom I won’t name but they’re the usual suspects) have been pushing a macro script that allows savvy voters to submit votes by the hundreds. Most are pro-OWS.
    Personally I think most Americans would support OWS if the movement’s philosophy and goals were reported widely and accurately. E.g.: 1. Wall St. crooks should go to jail; 2. Big money should not be allowed to dominate politics such that it negates the voice of average citizens, which is what’s happening now; 3. Taxation should be applied progressively, far more than is now done.
    Many authentic polls have shown most Americans support these goals. Call it marxism if you want; in reality it’s common sense economic populism perfectly compatible with capitalism. (And I say that as a radical who would be happy to call himself a marxist — most people would reject my socialist views, but they would support OWS goals!)

    • Frank,
      Since you say the Occupy Wall St movement’s real philosophy and goals haven’t been reported accurately, perhaps you can point us to a credible source for that philosophy and those goals — other than your pronouncement here? Is there a central organization? How did all the disparate groups of the OWS movement come together to decide on the philosophy and goals? Was there a vote?

      • You’re probably looking for the declaration which is here: https://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/. It’s voted on by the General Assembly which anybody can attend.

        • It’s a bunch of grieviances that evade personal responisbility and no concrete demands for anything… we’re supposed to infer what they want from what they complain-about (presumably peace/love, naked surfing and socialism for everyone, but I may be wrong).

        • Hello, George, yet again!
          I read the NYC Assembly “Declaration.” Alas, nowhere in that long list of grievances do I see what commenter Frank referred to as the OWS movement’s unreported “real” philosophy and goals of (as Frank claims):
          1. Wall St. crooks should go to jail; 2. Big money should not be allowed to dominate politics such that it negates the voice of average citizens, which is what’s happening now; 3. Taxation should be applied progressively, far more than is now done.”
          As for the NYC Assembly Declaration, I don’t disagree with some of its complaints, but I’m wholly baffled by all the “they” “they” “they”. Who are all these “theys”? Are the “they” who abuse animals (a cause about which I care) the same “they” who took exorbitant bailouts from taxpayers with impunity?

      • What GeorgeG said.
        But if I left the impression that OWS has a single clear philosophy and set of goals, I apologize. It doesn’t. But that’s an important positive: the movement has begun out of a sense of near-despair at the utter corruption of the business, financial and political elite — to a large extent we don’t have a clear set of solutions. But we see and are calling attention to the fact that the problems exist. Up to now it has seemed all but impossible to do anything about it: now we have OWS. So at the very least OWS wants to see the end of the corruption, and the movement is a steadily growing alliance of various groups who agree on at least that much. But the range of opinion seems to go from moderate liberal to quite radical — though I’d say the handful of folks who started it were pretty clearly anarchists.
        In my small city we had a first meeting to organize an Occupy protest here — amidst all the hardcore lefties there was even a combat veteran who served in Iraq who put in his voice that we not disrespect the armed services. But he supported the goals of the movement.
        If it continues to grow as it now appears likely to do, there will be a more clearly articulated philosophy. But for now, the basics are pretty obvious.

        • Frank,
          Why don’t you and the OWS movement protest Obama and Congress? Afterall, aren’t they the ones who gave millions and millions and millions of taxpayers’ dollars to bail out those fat cats on Wall St.?

          • I agree — though of course I’d add that the bailout was a bipartisan effort. Yes, Obama’s one of the corrupt politicians. The protests started on Wall St. because, well, they had to start somewhere, and at this point Wall St. symbolizes the corrupting influence of money and power more clearly and powerfully than does Washington.
            This is not a pro-Obama movement or a pro-Democratic Party movement. If it becomes that, I’ll lose interest and so will most other supporters.
            But I imagine at this point if any politicians are capable of being nudged modestly (oh so modestly!) in the right direction, it’s Democrats. They tend to be spineless cowards, but if they feel the heat they’ll at least pretend to do something.
            But in the end the Occupy movement won’t succeed if it relies on Democrats. And I think it knows it. I just hope it doesn’t forget!

            • Poor little lamb. Your naivete is almost touching.
              You do know that some of the wealthiest members of Congress are Dems, right? Like Pelosi and Kerry, both worth tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars.
              Do come back in a couple of months and tell us if the Democrats “nudged” your movement “in the right direction” — whatever “nudged” and “right direction” mean….

              • Can’t you even accept it graciously when I agree with you?

                • I find it fascinating that you set the rules in our exchanges.
                  Let’s see: you finally admit that you were just playing with us/me, as you so eloquently put it: “to piss you off.” But you expect me to be gracious?
                  Since you describe yourself as being “new” to this blog, you really should try to read our posts. You’ll then discover that FOTM is NOT pro-Republican. I’m not even registered GOP; I’m a non-partisan Independent. I also believe, as Prof. Angelo Codevilla aptly presented it, that we are ruled by a bipartisan political elite class.

    • Go straight to Hell, you freedom and America-hating commie scum.
      God how I hate stinking commies.

  12. You write: “Nancy Pelosi called the TEA Party “neo-Nazi” “racists” and an “astroturf” (fake) movement” — but the link you provide gives no evidence of this claim. In that Weekly Standard article, Pelosi is quoted describing the tea party movement as “astroturf”; but the other two epithets are not linked to Pelosi in any way. So you’re statement is either a lie or an instance of culpable negligence.
    But then, I’d say the TP really is racist and I’d be happy if Pelosi said it. But I don’t see evidence that she did.
    The “neo-Nazi” epithet is obviously stupid, however.
    In any case these last two epithets are both mentioned only in the context of a “document” distributed by an unnamed “senior aide” in Congress. In other words, the claim is virtually meaningless.
    I know you consider me the enemy, but could you let down your guard long enough to consider my request that you stick to the facts? Thanks.

    • Pelosi said the Tea Partiers are “like Nazis”:

      According to the Huffington Post, this was the swastika sign Pelosi referred to. As you can see, the Tea Party woman’s sign has a strike across the swastika, which means she is AGAINST the Nazis, not that she favors Nazism.
      Nancy Pelosi is an idiot
      I know you consider me your enemy, but could you stick to the facts and provide evidence that “the TP really is racist”?

      • This is your evidence? Really?
        In the clip from youtube, Pelosi doesn’t compare the tea party to Nazis in any way. She alludes to the presence of swastikas NOT because she thinks the tea party is pro-Nazi but because she thinks it’s outrageous that some people in the tea party claimed Obama was a Nazi or was similar to Nazis. The article from HuffPost supports this interpretation. The photo you post confirms it.
        But what does this have to do with my original argument — that the link to a National Review article didn’t provide the evidence the original post claimed it did?
        Racism in the Tea Party … oh my my my. I’ve had a long day. It’s a big topic. I’ll concede for the moment; my goal in truth was just to piss someone off, not to get into a debate. My bad.

        • So you get to ask me for evidence, I produced it, then you say it’s not good enough.
          I ask you for evidence that the Tea Party is racist, but then you refuse to produce any, and change your story again — to ” my goal in truth was just to piss someone off.”
          Gosh, to think I actually took you seriously and wasted my time. Now that you’ve conceded that you’re really not a serious person, I will save our readers from wasting even another second on you.
          Readers of FOTM, kindly disregard EVERYTHING that Frank has written. His goal was not truth, but just to piss us off.

          • Not sure if this means you’re banning me, but oh well.
            “My bad” was a short way of saying “I was wrong to make this claim” since I wasn’t prepared to back it up. To be more explicit: I’m sorry for trying to piss you off.
            As for evidence: your evidence proved the opposite of what you claimed. If your evidence doesn’t prove what you say it proves, don’t I have a right to object? Isn’t that covered in Critical Thinking 101?
            By the way I’m totally new here — didn’t realize the blog was quite so far to the right. Would you believe I’m a Catholic? It’s true — I attended Franciscan University, converted about 25 years ago, etc. I believe in objective morality. You know, one big reason I’m against American-style corporate capitalism is precisely because it undermines the economic foundations of the traditional family structure.

            • Your apology is accepted.
              Yes, I certainly can believe you’re a Catholic. So am I. But then, I’m a traditional Catholic (not your liberal Catholic) who believes that Big Business corporate capitalism — in cahouts with the Left — have utterly destroyed moral values and the family in America. See Daniel Bell’s classic, The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism.
              I particularly object to Globalism — economic globalization of “outsourcing” — that hollows out America’s manufacturing economy and serves the interests of the trans-national corporate elite, to the detriment of America and Americans. That elite care not a whit for American patriotism or nationalism. See Christopher Lasch’s prescient The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy.
              So, you see, we are not entirely in disagreement. We have some common ground in identifying the problems and the culpable. Where we very much disagree is “what to do about it.” Your Marxism/socialism/communism had been tried so many times in the 20th century, to disastrous consequences — of hundreds of millions of human lives. What was that thing Einstein said about insanity being doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results?

              • I’m absolutely flabbergasted that you recommended Christopher Lasch — for years he was one of my favorite cultural critics, though I haven’t read him for a long time. I need to re-read him.
                I understand your objection to marxism but disagree — to twist a phrase from Chesterton (from memory), the problem with marxism isn’t that it’s been tried and found wanting, but that it hasn’t been tried. Terry Eagleton is very articulate about this: http://www.amazon.com/Why-Marx-Right-Terry-Eagleton/dp/0300169434 — not the usual theory-laden tome, but a beautifully written series of essays on common objections. Not that I expect you to accept Eagleton’s conclusions, but he surely does show why marxism is not the totalitarian ideology it’s often claimed to be.
                I bet you read, or have read at some point, the New Oxford Review, eh? I used to love that magazine. But … yes, Dale Vree went too far to the ideological far right for me. It was at its best right after the switch from Anglican to Roman, circa 1984.

                • Have you ever wondered why is it that Marxism hasn’t been “properly” tried? Not in the USSR, not in the PRC (China), not in Vietnam, not in Kampuchea, not in Cuba, not in Hungary, not in Romania, not in Poland, not in East Germany, not in Albania, not in North Korea, not in Yugoslavia….
                  Poor Milovan Djilas, communist Yugoslavia’s first VP, was promptly put in prison for writing his brilliant The New Class, still the best analysis, ever, by a Marxist, of the inevitable failure of Marxist revolutions. I assume you’ve never read The New Class. If you had, you wouldn’t be so sanguine about doing the Marxist Revolution “right” this time. Read it. It’s brilliant.
                  As for Dale Vree’s New Oxford Review (it’s now run by his son, Pieter; Dale sadly had a stroke and is now mute), not only do I read it, I’m twice published in it. I would write more, but blogging now consumes all my time.

                  • Sorry to hear about Dale Vree’s ailments. I came to disagree with the direction of NOR, but I always remembered him fondly because of the role NOR had in my conversion.
                    I’ll see if I can track down Djilas’ book. And yes, of course I’ve wondered about the failures of so-called marxism throughout the world. Eagleton talks about it at length. But in case it’s not obvious (and I guess maybe it isn’t), I would never support anything in the nature of state bureaucratic control of the whole economy, suppression of dissent, etc. But I don’t think Karl Marx would either.
                    Thanks for the exchange. I’ll stop back in sometime.

                    • Eowyn quite literally mopped the floors of FotM with your Marxist ass today, comrade.
                      Should you dare venture in here again, I hope you will arrive better armed, ’cause I might just have to get involved directly.
                      And believe me when I tell you, that is the last thing you want to have to deal with.
                      Marxism, like Islam, positively sucks, and Marxists, like their fellow-traveling camel-washers, are stoopid suckers.

                    • “I would never support anything in the nature of state bureaucratic control of the whole economy, suppression of dissent, etc. But I don’t think Karl Marx would either.
                      Frank, you seriously need to read Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto to remove all the wool from your eyes.
                      Marx called the period right after the successful anti-capitalist proletarian (workers’) revolution the DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat, wherein the vanguard Communist Party would seize all power in the name of the proletariat, abolish private property, eliminate the exploitative capitalist class, and equalize “the means of production” (wealth), so as to get society ready for the advent of full communism. Marx intended this period of Socialism to be very brief — long enough to abolish private property, etc — after which society moves to the halcyon utopia of Communism, wherein it would be “from each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs”, there would be genuine self-government (instead of the capitalists’ bogus democracy of representative govt) and government would just wither away.
                      Alas, in EVERY so-called Marxist revolution humanity have had, the Communist Party (CP) — comprised mainly of intellectuals, whom Marx identified as “petite bourgeoisie“, not the proletariat — refused to “wither away” but became instead a new ruling class that is more brutal, more exploitative than all the ruling classes that preceded the CP. Unlike previous ruling classes, such as the medieval Aristocracy who at least were patrons of exquisite works of art, architecture, and music (Mozart!), the CP ruling class produced only ugliness — ugly art, ugly music, and really really ugly architecture.
                      That, in a nutshell, is the thesis of Milovan Djilas’ The New Class — still the best analysis, using Marxist theory, of why all Marxist revolutions failed.
                      And that’s also why, if the Occupy Wall St movement actually succeeds, it too will simply spawn yet another warped Marxist government. Why? because OWS is peppered with the petite bourgeoisie — teachers, students, MoveOn.org “community organizers”, fat union members, intellectuals. There’s not a single genuine “proletariat” in OWS. And so, like all prior Marxist revolutions, OWS will seize all power “in the name of the proletariat” and install a dictatorship, more brutal than the Wall Street oppressors the OWS movement overthrew.

                  • Eowyn~
                    Three cheers! … Even I’m left breathless after this exchange, LOL … Well Done! 😀

  13. “You’re” should be “Your”
    I blush with shame.

    • And don’t be an asshole of a spelling NAZI, comrade.
      Most of the “graduates” of the very government schools your stoopid-ass supports (with other people’s money, BTW), and that are run by equally stoopid teacher’s goonion twits couldn’t spell C*A*T if they were spotted the C and the T in advance at gun point.
      And it’s not just the blonds.

  14. I don’t care what they “say” they’re about; they are colluding with labor unions, breaking the laws of the land and common decency, and many are being paid to be there, by groups like Working Families… hello ACORN, renamed, again. They chanted and cheered for people who are making millions of dollars. Sorry, but you can’t decry the rich and then cheer for them because they’re saying what you want to hear. The hypocrisy of this whole thing is mind boggling.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *