An Occupy Wall Street protestor from November, 2011 (top) and Cliven Bundy. Is she the same as Bundy? Only a moron would believe so!
After the recent Right Wing media debacle of supporting nutso racist Cliven Bundy and his merry band of militia losers, one can't imagine how the mental deterioration could get worse. But evidently it can, because they're now trying to compare Cliven Bundy's Nevada stand - the egregious claim he "owns" the land his cattle are grazing on - to the Occupy Wall Street protestors of 2011.
According to one idiot Denver Post letter writer (who clearly got this nonsense from FOX or some other lamo news site):
"A previous letter writer said the Republican Party is 'saddled with' Cliven Bundy forever. Is the Democratic Party saddled with the anti-government Occupy Wall Street people? Probably not! The Democratic Party jumped into bed with that ridiculous group the same way the Republicans did with the ill-spoken Bundy"
Not so fast there, Sparky! False equivalence is widespread but you gain nothing by attempting to invoke it against the Dems.
Let's try to clear the air for this numbskull:
1) Occupy Wall Street was not a unilateral "anti-government" group as this fool claims. They were protesting against ONE facet of government: the privileged banking -financial sector (mainly based in Federal Reserve- though technically it isn't even a part of the federal gov't) which had been responsible for expediting the nation's plunge into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (in 2008). Conversely, Bundy declared opposition to ALL branches of the federal government, to the extent he wouldn't even recognize it!
2) Bundy and his band of nuts were REAL anti-government tools, who actually took arms against Bureau of Land Management staff in NV - with militia snipers hiding in the covers aiming their rifles. By contrast, Occupy Wall Street protestors had been placed in the sniper sights of security forces, for example in Houston TX, see e.g.
3) Occupy Wall Street protestors made no remarks or statements that could be construed as racist, or endorsing the horrific slave system, unlike Bundy who blustered:
"I wanna tell yuh one more thing I know about the Nigras! Weren't they better off as slaves, pickin' cotton and havin' a family life ..."
4) OWS actually protested on allocated areas permitted for those purposes, in assorted cities, e.g. NYC. Even the odd protestors (as in LA) who took over an area, didn't lay permanent claim to it or graze cattle on it like Bundy did. They did not appropriate land for which federal FEES are assessed - remain there for YEARS (with the fees and penalties piling up) then refuse to pay them.
5) OWS protestors didn't have "militias" arrive, armed to the teeth, from all over the country and point their rifles at the police who faced off against them.
6) Occupy protestors were fighting against the rampant inequality of income distribution (enshrined in the Neoliberal capitalist system) that has allowed the wealthy and their scions get wealthier while the ordinary middle class has descended further into the morass of debt and economic despair. Even seeing their offspring saddled with monstrous college debt that now totals $1.2 trillion.
Bundy - already a millionaire rancher- has demanded special privileges for himself in grazing his cattle free off federal land, that no other NV ranchers have. In this he has put himself firmly in the class of the privileged elites (1 percent) that OWS inveighed against.
Mixing Occupy Wall Street with Cliven Bundy is the typical false equivalence tactic I'd expect from a Reepo moron, thereby attempting to tar both parties- but it won't work. We already know which party is racist and also know which party wants to keep most workers in the country poor ....and on food stamps.
For that look no further than the Repukes' blocking any hike in the national minimum wage yesterday. They'd rather have and support those like Cliven Bundy than the typical OWS protestor who still owes $30,000 in college debt. The Repukes want millionaire "socialists" who want to feed off government's teats (e.g. land) for free - not indebted and impecunious young people!