Several thousand Occupy movement protestors shut down the Port of Oakland yesterday, a week after Oakland police attacked the protest with tear gas and, allegedly, flashbang grenades and rubber bullets. Big news story.
On the Twitter, CUNY’s C.W. Anderson marvels at how The Wall Street Journal frames it:
Wow. This #WSJ article on #occupyoakland really is the tops. If you want a lesson on media framing, here it is. on.wsj.com/sh1Z7s
“largely fizzled” “protesters became unruly” “raising questions about the breadth of … support” “Some expressed disappointment.”
Indeed. Here’s the Journal’s lede:
The Occupy Oakland protesters’ call for a general strike Wednesday largely fizzled as organizers failed to rally significant support from unions, but protesters brought operations at the Port of Oakland to a halt.
By contrast, here’s The New York Times:
Thousands of Occupy Oakland protesters expanded their anti-Wall Street demonstrations on Wednesday, marching through downtown, picketing banks and swarming the port. By early evening, port authorities said maritime operations there were effectively shut down.
The Los Angeles Times:
Thousands of demonstrators chanted, marched, danced and waved signs Wednesday during a general strike called by Occupy Oakland, a largely peaceful protest that snarled downtown streets, rerouted buses, closed the busy port and drew hundreds of teachers and city workers from classrooms and offices.
Thousands of people jammed into downtown Oakland on Wednesday for a general strike called by Occupy Oakland to protest economic inequity and corporate greed - then marched en masse to the Port of Oakland and shut it down.
That a general strike from a month-old movement failed to shut down all parts of the city is pretty unsurprising, and it’s not your lede. That it shut down a major hub of economic activity is.
And it’s not just the Journal’s lede that’s all screwy.
The rest of the 400-word story, as Anderson points out, tries to downplay the significance of seven thousand people on the streets of a major city shutting down its port.
Not good.
Surely you didn't expect a newspaper by, of and for the 1% to sympathize with an Occupying force?
#1 Posted by Jonathan, CJR on Thu 3 Nov 2011 at 03:51 PM
The Bay Area has a population of what, 7 million? Mobilizing a few thousand milquetoast progressives/anarchists/Maoists/Wobblies isn’t much of a feat, especially considering the politics of the area. The effectiveness of the “general strike” could have been measure by how many businesses were shut down because of striking workers, not by striking workers, because lets be honest, how many of the people work anyway?
Speaking of media framing though, why not look at the demonstration from the perspective of the 99% that actually works for a living:
Several truckers were stuck when the protesters headed to the port. While some appeared to support the protesters, others didn't.
"I get paid per run, I don't get paid by the hour," said one hauler for NevCal Trucking out of Reno, who would only identify himself as Sam. "My personal opinion, the 1 percent down here is protesting, the 99 percent is down here working."
#2 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 3 Nov 2011 at 04:35 PM
"Speaking of media framing though, why not look at the demonstration from the perspective of the 99% that actually works for a living"
That is interesting. One of the few middle class jobs left is in trucking. And this man is trucking goods from the port into America for the most part, considering the trade deficit et all. Where are these goods coming from?
http://www.portofoakland.com/maritime/facts_trade_02.asp
China inc. Why has 99% experienced no wealth/wage growth over the last 30 years? "Trade policies that benefit no one but the one percent," is a start.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 3 Nov 2011 at 05:18 PM
http://bit.ly/uLZzfd -- Pulitzer prize-winning journalist shot in stomach by Oakland Police.
#4 Posted by George Efwill, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 05:53 AM
Now George.... "Shot"? You make it sound like the reporter was hit by gunfire...
From the article:
"But in the semi-darkness around Oakland’s City Hall, a group of 200 militant protesters was now confronting – in some cases, provoking -- the police"
Note to "professional journalists":
If you decide you want to cover a violent confrontation, and if you go to an area where you know that the police are shooting tear gas cannisters... You should not be surprised if you are struck by... A tear gas cannister.
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 08:41 AM
So Ryan, you're proud of this? You think OWS shutting down a port and inciting a riot is a good thing? The WSJ downplaying it is just another example of those meanie conservatives?
Funny, I thought the criticism of the Tea Partiers was that they were "violent." So these OWS guys aren't violent enough?
Compare and contrast. Absolutely unbelievable...
#6 Posted by JLD, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 08:59 AM
You don't get it, JLD.
The "protesters" (as opposed to "masked criminals") were "attacked" (as opposed to "arrested", "apprehended" or "dispersed") by the police.
Ryan said so.
#7 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 09:09 AM
Uhmmm, yeah. The tea party was mobbing political representatives while brandishing weapons and talking about the blood of patriots, and this was when they weren't chucking rocks through windows.
And let's keep in mind this was less than a year after Obama got elected and after more than 8 years of fraudulent elections, spending out the wazoo, illegal wars, illegal torture, illegal wiretapping, failure to stop terrorism on 9-11 or catch the anthrax bomber, putting out an unfunded entitlement that was a 700 billion dollar gift to the pharmecuticals (a cost they lied about), domestic propaganda to a degree never observed in American society (VNS's, pentagon paid consultants, lies spread to on one media by Cheney so officials like Cheney could say "the new york times reported *insert lie*), and all of this shameful behavior was. It met by silence .. nope support from the a-holes who became the tea party. These were the people crushing Dixie chick CDs and screaming "4 more years" while Bush talked about his "ownership society" which tanked the global economy in 2007 - 08.
Not the most rational bunch of individuals, these guys who cheered secession talk in response to the stimulus and defended the bonuses of executives while being outraged by the idea of helping "losers" out with their crooked mortgages.
And let's not get started on the lunancy of the tea party network and its star during that time - Glen Beck.
I forget, how many tea party protests did the police pull batons out at and fire tear gas into? Nadda you say? And yet, even though it was your psychos who got into the shoot outs with police and were caught with the bombs, even though the police never brought violent crowd control tactics to bear on your demonstrations, even though you guys are still the widdle victims, hmmn? "Wah, why didn't you talk about how nice the tea party was while OWS protesters are being shot at and pepper sprayed? Wah."
For the love of Christ, please shut up about your billionaire sponsored, shark jumping, movement. Can't "Once upon a time, Sarah Palin was our leader" be its epitaph?
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 10:34 AM
Jumping the shark.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 10:40 AM
Thimbles, did you get into the magic markers again?
JDL: Of course it’s a good thing! When the trustifarians from Walnut Creek and Orinda come down to the ghetto to get their riot on, this is a positive expression of their deeper democratic impulses. Don’t you know that if you don’t stand with Bob Avakian then you stand with the oligarchs?
#10 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 10:54 AM
Shouldn't you be spamming a "fracking" article somewhere?
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 11:23 AM
JLD,
Please tell me how you possibly get the impression from this post that I am "proud" of people shutting down a port or "inciting a riot" or that I think these are good things.
#12 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 11:49 AM
Ryan...
When you use loaded language, your bias shines through.
When you accuse a paper, without basis, of "downplaying" a story, your bias shines through.
You can't blame your readers for calling you on it. You own it.
There is nothing in the Journal's story that "downplays" anything.
#13 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 12:31 PM
Per Ryan's question, there's also the issue of what questions CJR doesn't ask. When some little old ladies and retired gentlemen started getting aggressive at town meetings a couple of years ago, they were discounted for awhile - then obsessed over as a threat to our civic culture. Remember all those solemn pundits going on about 'divisive' rhetoric?
But when the demonstrations are left-wing, and when they turn violenct as they often do, the issue is re-framed in terms of the protestors' issues. The old, weary double standard. I'd like to see CJR find the courage to do a compare and constrast of the press coverage of OWS vs. the Tea Partiers (I've seen at least two articles in national papers, written with apparently straight faces, on the topic of whether the OWS movement is going to produce a revival of 'protest' music, like in the never-never 1960s). Somehow I don't think that's on CJR's radar.
#14 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 12:44 PM
"When you accuse a paper, without basis, of "downplaying" a story, your bias shines through."
Yeah because there's a difference between a protest fizzling and a protest being gased and beaten.
And we'll talk about tea party bias one day when the tea party network stops covering every gathering of three in its name and Eric son of Eric (of goat f*cking child molester fame) isn't given prime real estate on once respectable TV news.
Just stop, you whiney ass titty babies. This is not about your little fake grassroots club. Deal.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 01:43 PM
Shouldn't you be spamming a "fracking" article somewhere?
Nothing stupid has been written today, so no.
#16 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 04:00 PM
It is important to know WHO these protesters are and WHAT it is they want. The answer to this can be found on: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10502940-is-wall-street-occupation-a-communist-rally
#17 Posted by Rev. Austin Miles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 04:26 PM
The stated goal of the "Occupy Oakland" Hissy was to "shut down the city".
That unquestionably didn't happen.
The only way to fairly characterize the "movement" is to say that is "largely fizzled"
Compare the coverage of this 7000 person event to Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally - an event that attracted many times the number of people.
#18 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 04:39 PM
padikiller: "Boo hoo. The media is so unfair to people like Glen Beck."
I got nothing to add.
#19 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 05:46 PM
Ryan, you address a story about a group shutting down a major port and your quibble is that the Journal didn't give them enough credit. In fact, all of the news sources including the Journal treated these guys with kid gloves. The LA Times spins OWS as "largely peaceful" and the Chronicle helpfully suggests it's about "economic inequity and corporate greed."
As a matter of interest you should research what these same papers said about the Tea Party. Meanwhile the MSM did all they could to smear the Tea Party as racist and violent.
The OWS IS violent. And you obviously could care less.
#20 Posted by JLD, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 07:27 PM
Well... it is the WALL STREET Journal, you know.
#21 Posted by El, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 08:36 PM
These OWS thugs are about snatching other people's stuff.
PERIOD.
It's all about greed and sloth.
They feel entitled, by nature of their birth, to other people's stuff. And they will riot, vandalize, rob, thieve, and even kill... Rather than work for money.
That's just the way it is people.
And commies like Ryan want to glorify this violent thievery as some kind of noble movement.
#22 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 09:25 PM
"They feel entitled, by nature of their birth, to other people's stuff. And they will riot, vandalize, rob, thieve, and even kill... Rather than work for money."
That's not a nice way to talk about the bankers and lawyers on wall street. Yes, it's true and all, but it isn't very nice.
#23 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 4 Nov 2011 at 10:57 PM
Things you didn't see at Tea Party rallies:
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/11/03/more-ugly-occupy-oakland-pictures-that-wont-make-msm-front-pages/
#24 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 5 Nov 2011 at 01:13 PM
Whether or not some of those professional looking "down with capitalism" signs are real (right wing activists have been making protest appearances and planting "dirty hippie" evidence as a distraction) so effin' what.
Modern capitalism sucks. It is completely divorced from the regulated and wealth generating capitalism of earlier ages which built the prosperous and healthy American middle class. This is the kind of capitalism people are reacting to:
http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/halloween-costumes-foreclosures-creditors-bargains-and-how-the-1-view-our-laws-on-debt/
"“Technical mistakes.” Notice the blame in Calabria’s comment. Banks, by not following the trust and REMIC laws that constitute the securitization process, aren’t the ones undermining the process in which banks can legally bring foreclosures to court, and thus the concept of a mortgage. The states, and ultimately the homeowners, are undermining it by pointing out that the banks haven’t followed the rules. This comment is consistent with the idea that the only reason to have laws is to protect creditors from debtors.
This view of the world has its roots in a theory of how the rules governing debt, especially bankruptcy, should function in this country. A heuristic can be used to understand it — it’s called the creditor’s bargain. In this idea, the rules should only exist to the extent that they benefit the creditor’s ability to collect money. It’s simple: if a law, custom, norm, or rule helps creditors collect when things go wrong, it is a good one. If it takes into account concerns other than creditors’ return — say, destroyed neighborhoods, whether banks follow the rules, etc. — they are worthless...
In this world, debtors probably could challenge the legality of their foreclosures, making sure proper procedure was followed. But that’s not what the rules are meant to do. The rules are just there to benefit creditors, not debtors. It is in this world that those Halloween costumes make perfect sense. I love pointing out how passionate libertarians like Calabria have been all for the sanctity of contract when it comes to bankruptcy reforms like “cramdown,” but when it comes to the idea that all these mortgages are unsecured debt because of bank-led abuses in the chain of property records, they get angry at debtors, even though they are still holders of contracts. But again, if the law is just there to protect creditors against the difficulty of collecting on debtors, not to provide a level playing field for those with debt, it makes perfect sense.
It also makes perfect sense that creditors and bankers haven’t gone to jail, but debtors who took out a liar’s loan have gone to jail. It makes sense that elites, like former Peterson Institute CEO David Walker, want to see debtors’ prisons on the agenda while no elites talk about jail sentences for the abuses in property law. The law is there to coordinate the best interests of creditors, not provide rules and protection for debtors."
Screw that capitalism! Screw it in the ear!
#25 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 5 Nov 2011 at 05:40 PM
How do we get the part where it's OK to vandalize?
#26 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sat 5 Nov 2011 at 09:09 PM
How do we get the part where it's OK to vandalize?
It's right by the part where it's okay to shoot abortion doctors and race war.
Black bloc isn't OWS, and I doubt the tea party would be all dignified and dainty after the police took tear gas and batons to them a few times.
#27 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 5 Nov 2011 at 10:01 PM
Thimbles wrote: Black bloc isn't OWS
padikiller responds: What I'm not reading is your condemnation of crime and violence. Go figure. When it suits your agenda, a little crime and violence is fine.
So the bad apples at the OWS Hissy Fits are distinct from the good apples? What do we do to ferret them out? A DNA test?
If the Tea Partiers had ignored police and disobeyed the law for a few weeks, they would have been dispersed a WHOLE lot sooner than these commies were. No question about it.
You commies want the money from the "Old Capitalism" and the welfare from the "New Capitalism". It aint' gonna happen.
Welfare has created the "income inequality" you bewail. The average work week of an adult in the bottom 20% of American income earners is only 14 hours a week. Pitiful.
You want the "income equality" of post-war factory jobs without the jobs.
You want lenders to give away free houses and cars to borrowers who can't or won't pay. It ain't gonna happen. Or at least it shouldn't.
You lack a fundamental understanding of economics. If you force lenders to lose money on loans to the "poor" - the lenders will stop lending money to the "poor" - and then your so-called "poor" people won't be able to buy cars, houses or big screens and you commies will go nuts. If you dump the cost of forgiving these loans on the taxpayers through regulation, then the economy will tank and everybody suffers. If you dump the cost on the lenders, the lenders will fold and the economy suffers.
Your position is absurd at its mosic basis level. You believe the "poor" Americans are far too stupid to be permitted to enter into contracts to buy cars or houses on their own, yet you think that these same "suckers" (your word) should have an enhanced role in running the country.
Thankfully, the violence in Oakland is demonstrating the true nature of this OWS "movement" and despite the MSM's best effort, the images will filter to the American people who soundly reject such stupdity.
#28 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 6 Nov 2011 at 07:57 AM
"padikiller responds: What I'm not reading is your condemnation of crime and violence. Go figure. When it suits your agenda, a little crime and violence is fine."
Am I cheering the violence? Have I once said, "You know what the banks need? Bricks through their windows." What I've said was
a) the guys who are responsible for much of the property destruction are members of a group that preceeded OWS and should take their feces-stirring ways back to ye jolly ole England where hooliganism is a bit more tolerated
b) by using violence on non-violent protestors, the police are radicalizing the protests. It's hard to have a nice rational discussion about how a disconnected financial elite has a corrosive effect of both economy and democracy after being beaten with a truncheon. When you've got all those fight or flight chemicals in your head, strong becomes the attraction to irrational reactions.
Now with the tea party, they were throwing bricks through windows because of non-existent death panels and non-existent "help with losers' (your and Rick Santelli's words) mortgages". They didn't have irrational beaten into them, so what's their excuse for brandishing weapons, talking about secession, screeching about non-existent tax increases (never mind FEMA camps and kenyan birth certificates), violence at counter protests, phoning in regular death threats, inciting followers to go on shooting rampages, and promoting hostility throughout society towards Illegal immigrants and American Muslims?
Now you bitch about the mob? Spare me.
"You commies want the money from the "Old Capitalism" and the welfare from the "New Capitalism". It aint' gonna happen."
You're an idiot, and I'm trying to be generous. I'm not sure what you mean by "old capitalism" and "new capitalism" but if you're trying to reframe what I posted above, stop. "Your capitalism" is the problem. The type that has no rules nor regulation and has industries working in collusion to grift consumers and investors while destroying the society around it. That crony capitalism Is as rotten and inefficient as any politbureau enterprise in Moscow. It can only thrive wrapped in secrecy and the protection of corrupt law and it makes the economic system vastly more risky than it should be. It is the capitalism that goes by many names, some call it anglo-saxon others call it plutonomy. If we go by the results, we'd call it crap. Even in its good times, it produces less growth and general prosperity than the capitalism that preceded it, and bad times always follow wiping out the meagre growth the crap economy had and then some.
But at least you had low inflation :?
This isn't about taking money from an old economy. This is about taking money back from state supported thieves and getting the effin laws enforced so that criminal banks and lawyers don't lie and steal from us again. You once or twice claimed to support that kind of thing. Was that just a throw away line?
#29 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 6 Nov 2011 at 04:31 PM
Thimbles blithered: "Your capitalism" is the problem. The type that has no rules nor regulation and has industries working in collusion to grift consumers and investors while destroying the society around it.
padikiller scoffs: NO "rules nor regulation"?
The Federal Reserve dates to 1913. The FTC dates to 1914. The FDIC dates to 1933. The SEC has been around since 1934. The newcomer - the CFTC - has been around for more than 30 years.
When exactly were the "good times" of the "good capitalism" that preceded this unregulated era of "bad capitalism"?
Dude... The problem IS regulation. It doesn't work.
#30 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 6 Nov 2011 at 06:50 PM
The Great Compression. Around the world great societies were being built and, around the world, these societies thrived until the oil shocks which allowed the monetarists to move in and hector them about inflation and over regulated industries, particularily finance.
When jimmy carter got in, he started financial deregulation and allowed Volcker to waterboard the economy with insane interest rates until inflation drowned. Then Reagan took the reins and it's been cowboy crony capitalism ever since. Both the democrats and the republicans have given up on the idea of government policy being the means of a stable middle class and economy. These goals are mostly left now to markets alone, which gives the executives in those markets huge power over society's direction. The problem being, libertards always seem to forget when you put the wealth of a society in the hands of self interested leaders of capitalism, they tend to keep it and screw the rest of us.
It's not like we haven't seen this play a few times (s&l's, enron, countrywide, etc...) in the last 4 decades. When are you going to learn?
#31 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 6 Nov 2011 at 07:59 PM
So you're agreeing with me that regulation doesn't work.
About time.
#32 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 6 Nov 2011 at 09:35 PM
You haven't been paying attention, young Padi. The last 40 years have brought about deregulation which was supposed to bring prosperity and wealth and nirvana to us all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIsJ0pZTAjc
"And our children will live, to see that... perfect world... in which there's no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused."
What happened, Padi? We deregulated the markets like was asked, Padi. We put deregulators in charge of regulatory agencies and elected anti government zealots like was asked, Padi. We kicked out people who wanted to protect the public and stood in the way of barbarian capitalism, Padi. Where's the promised benefit, Padi? You got near everything you wanted and what's been the return?
#33 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sun 6 Nov 2011 at 10:42 PM
So Thimbles.. Just to nail this down...
Your contention is that Carter started us down a road to deregulation that has resulted in a "bad" capitalism.
Right?
#34 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Sun 6 Nov 2011 at 10:52 PM
I've laid out my contentions here:
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/audit_notes_politicos_goldman.php#comments
And here:
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/executive_compensation_as_the.php#comments
#35 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 01:27 PM
I'm just trying to figure out what you guys want.
You want 1967? 1957? 1947?
What?
When exactly did we have this "good capitalism" that has somehow been perverted?
#36 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 02:32 PM
Now here is a true commie, dishing out a little economic reality:
"If you look at the troubles which happened in European countries, this is purely because of the accumulated troubles of the worn out welfare society. I think the labour laws are outdated. The labour laws induce sloth, indolence, rather than hardworking. The incentive system, is totally out of whack."
Jin Liqun, the supervising chairman of China's sovereign wealth fund
Witness the state of the MSM, were we have to resort to a commie on Al-Jazeera for the truth.
#37 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 03:08 PM
"Now here is a true commie, dishing out a little economic reality:"
It takes a guy like Padililler to tell us how America should be more like China.
Ps. Jin Liqun knows crap about the Euro situation. Europe had the same collapse in private demand that America did, had the same banks on the verge of collapse that America did, but its countries can't do anywhere near the same steps America took to ameliorate the problems. That's because European countries are semi-sovereign.
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/09/problems-with-design-of-euro-responses.html
"Q3 Philip: How do governments borrow from the ECB?
A: Well, technically that is prohibited—the ECB was not to buy government debt. That was the beauty of the system—governments had to sell to markets, therefore they would be subject to market discipline and would not run up excessive deficits.
Hey, how’s that working for them so far? Not so good. You all know the stories. Goldman helped them hide the debts. Markets did not understand that these are not sovereign nations—until it was too late. And French and German banks loaded up on high risk Greek debt. The rest is history; or at least will soon be. Market discipline does not work. Ever. Never.
Q4 James: Aren’t euro nations much like US states?
A: First prize! By Jove he’s got it. That’s the problem. They are like US states with no Washington backing them."
#38 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 04:43 PM
Interesting..
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/11/do-harvards-econ-students-have-point.html
Occupy the economics classroom.
#39 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 04:53 PM
By my calculations, somebody is paying $109 for each class these silly commie kids ditch - the very same Harvard econ class they signed up for.
Commies are real good at wasting other people's money.
#40 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 05:22 PM
Thimbles wrote: Jin Liqun knows crap about the Euro situation.
padikiller responds: Yeah... What does a guy who runs a half a trillion dollar fund know about anything? It's not like he has any background in economics, aside from his extensive education and vast experience.
#41 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 05:44 PM
"Commies are real good at wasting other people's money."
You know who's really good at wasting other people's money? Modern bankers.
Thanks for playing.
#42 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 06:41 PM
Thimbles wrote: You know who's really good at wasting other people's money? Modern bankers.
padikiller responds: Don't put your money in banks. Problem solved.
#43 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 7 Nov 2011 at 08:07 PM
"Don't put your money in banks. Problem solved."
Probably a good idea.
It's not like they want our money.
#44 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 8 Nov 2011 at 02:07 PM