Home > Commentary, Culture & Media > A Concise Description of the OWS Phenomenon

A Concise Description of the OWS Phenomenon

Saw this in an email.  The analysis is quite accurate and the therapy relevant to the diagnosis.


The folks who are getting the free stuff, don’t like the folks who are paying for the free stuff,
Because the folks who are paying for the free stuff,
Can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff,
The folks who are paying for the free stuff,
Want the free stuff to stop.

And the the folks who are getting the free stuff,
Want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

The people who are forcing the people who Pay for the free stuff,
Have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff,
That the people who are PAYING for the free stuff,
Are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

The people who are GETTING the free stuff,
Have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff,
By the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff,
And giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are
Now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this.  All great democracies have committed financial suicide
somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded.

The reason?

The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing
people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 231 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff.

We have one chance to change that in 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.


A Nation  of Sheep Breeds a  Government of Wolves!  

How’s this for a platform to run on?

Obama:   Gone!
Borders:   Closed!
Language:   English only!
Culture:   Constitution, and the Bill of Rights!
Drug Free: Mandatory Drug Screening before Welfare!
NO  freebies to:  Non-Citizens!

  1. 21 Oct 2011 at 5:38 AM

    Really like this, Interface. Have a question, though — why do I see this idea popping up more and more: “Constitution, and the Bill of Rights”?? Isn’t the BORs part of the Constitution? I see them separated more and more in writing.

    • 24 Oct 2011 at 6:28 AM

      Mrs. AL, the Constitution was ratified by all the colonies/states in 1787. Within the Constitution is outlined the procedure for amending it, and almost immediately, the founding fathers recognized they’d left a few items out that should have been in there. The first set of amendments to the Constitution collectively became know as the Bill of Rights, ratified by the final state in 1791, because all of the amendments are statements of various rights of the people and set limits on the federal government. (I may have missed a few details, but that is the gist of it. The BoR is part of the Constitution, but sufficiently distinct enough to have its own moniker.)

      • 24 Oct 2011 at 6:50 AM

        Of this I am aware, Interface. What troubles me is seeing the separation of these ideas more and more. We have ONE U.S. Constitution, do we not? Why separate the ideas if it is ONE document? When separated, it gives the impression that they are somehow disconnected. Oh wait — they are today, aren’t they?

        Sorry to be a pain, Interface, but I engaged in this type of language analysis for many years. Just comes natural.

  2. 23 Oct 2011 at 1:10 PM


    Love this. Very funny indeed.
    The platform is great. I will vote yes to that.

  3. 24 Oct 2011 at 10:42 AM

    Mrs. AL, first, logical comments and calm discussion thereof do not constitute being “a pain.” We’re conservatives and can have discussions even to the point of “arguing” without resorting to DH0 level shouting (see Disagree? page above for precise definition of DH0). Not that we are even approaching arguing heretofore, or heretothereafter (hmmm…I think I just made up that last word).

    Secondly, those who might be picky would probably argue that they are separate documents and can be treated as such particularly given the different ratification dates. Liberals especially do not like the rights granted in the Bill of Rights and may want to keep them separate so they can still say they are being “constitutional” while denying a right or rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Then again, I doubt liberals even read these documents, so the line between ignorance and incompetence is generally obscured for them. Contrariwise, conservatives may want to ensure that the rights in the Bill of Rights are included in the discussion and so enumerate both documents for the sake of liberals who would try to exclude it from the discussion.

    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

    Since the connection exists whether one acknowledges it or not, it may ultimately come down to po-tay-to versus po-tah-to.

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean–neither more nor less.”

    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”

    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master– that’s all.”

    • 24 Oct 2011 at 11:26 AM

      Gads, I did revisit your ‘pyramid’ of disagreement. Kinds of makes me paranoid now to respond. Oh well, what the heck. Won’t be the first time I muff it (but I did have a muffin at a holiday inn express this morning).

      It is my understanding that the “Bill of Rights” is, in the legal sense, a “bill” but that the context in which this Bill was written was restriction on government(s), not an enumeration of rights per se. Am I mistaken?

      Seems to me this train got off the track when the Preamble to the Bill of Rights was eliminated from print. Today, even the Supreme Court does not appear, overall, to make this distinction. Again, am I wrong?

      • 24 Oct 2011 at 2:11 PM

        Mrs. AL, unless you are name-calling or engaging in an ad hominem attack, you really have no reason to be paranoid! The point of the pyramid is to help categorize content to determine whether or not it has any value in debating an issue.

        You are probably right in your first point above about the nature of the Bill of Rights being more of a restriction on what government can and cannot do rather than on enumerating the rights of individuals.

        As to the second point about the omission of the Preamble, I honestly don’t know the history in enough detail to say if you are right or wrong. Sounds like an idea for some historical research with a detailed post at the end. Go for it! (It’s been awhile since I read David Barton’s Original Intent, but you might start there.)

  4. 24 Oct 2011 at 2:20 PM

    Hi Interface. Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but Paragraph 2 says it all, IMO —

    “Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

    The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several states as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution.

    Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and Ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.”

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: