Grandfather arrested for holding up robber by gunpoint

[Chocolate Shake Man]

It's not distracting at all, in fact I'd say a concentration of one-percenters donating 15 million dollars (or more) in one night to a political candidate or party is exactly the type of thing Occupy would rail against in this economic climate, yet they don't seem to have had this on their list. It makes me suspicious, that's all.

Well, actually, from what I've read, about 2/3rd of the money was coming from grassroots supporters. Not sure if I fully believe it. But again, the central purpose of the Occupy movement shouldn't be to protest fundraisers.

[guitarfool2002]

It's not distracting at all, in fact I'd say a concentration of one-percenters donating 15 million dollars (or more) in one night to a political candidate or party is exactly the type of thing Occupy would rail against in this economic climate, yet they don't seem to have had this on their list. It makes me suspicious, that's all.

Well, actually, from what I've read, about 2/3rd of the money was coming from grassroots supporters. Not sure if I fully believe it. But again, the central purpose of the Occupy movement shouldn't be to protest fundraisers.

Wait, I don't understand this, do you mean 2/3 of the 15 million pledged at Clooney's fundraiser came from grassroots supporters? I wouldn't think "grassroots" is the proper term to describe a house full of Hollywood's registered Democrats.

And the last comment about protesting fundraisers: Please forward that to "Occupy Philly", they don't seem to agree, at least judging from their actions...

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Wait, I don't understand this, do you mean 2/3 of the 15 million pledged at Clooney's fundraiser came from grassroots supporters? I wouldn't think "grassroots" is the proper term to describe a house full of Hollywood's registered Democrats.

Me neither, which is why I questioned it myself. Nevertheless, it surely implies that the money wasn't coming from the top-tier. Certainly Hollywood's registered Democrats wouldn't qualify amongst that group either.

And the last comment about protesting fundraisers: Please forward that to "Occupy Philly", they don't seem to agree, at least judging from their actions...

I'm just talking about my personal opinion.

I will say, though, that it is probably easier to organize a protest taking place at a hotel rather than one going on at someone's private home.

[GreatUrduPoet]

Classic Fox news story.

Ooops! Your ideology is showing...

[guitarfool2002]

Wait, I don't understand this, do you mean 2/3 of the 15 million pledged at Clooney's fundraiser came from grassroots supporters? I wouldn't think "grassroots" is the proper term to describe a house full of Hollywood's registered Democrats.

Me neither, which is why I questioned it myself. Nevertheless, it surely implies that the money wasn't coming from the top-tier. Certainly Hollywood's registered Democrats wouldn't qualify amongst that group either.

And the last comment about protesting fundraisers: Please forward that to "Occupy Philly", they don't seem to agree, at least judging from their actions...

I'm just talking about my personal opinion.

I will say, though, that it is probably easier to organize a protest taking place at a hotel rather than one going on at someone's private home.

I just want to understand what you're saying in the first comment: the registered Democrats at Clooney's event wouldn't qualify as "grassroots" or wouldn't qualify as "top-tier"? Because when you have Clooney who commands tens of millions for movie roles, execs like Jeffrey Katzenberg - head of DreamWorks, and others of their wealth and status level paying something like 40 thousand average each to get in, I'd say "top tier" is definitely a fitting description.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Wait, I don't understand this, do you mean 2/3 of the 15 million pledged at Clooney's fundraiser came from grassroots supporters? I wouldn't think "grassroots" is the proper term to describe a house full of Hollywood's registered Democrats.

Me neither, which is why I questioned it myself. Nevertheless, it surely implies that the money wasn't coming from the top-tier. Certainly Hollywood's registered Democrats wouldn't qualify amongst that group either.

And the last comment about protesting fundraisers: Please forward that to "Occupy Philly", they don't seem to agree, at least judging from their actions...

I'm just talking about my personal opinion.

I will say, though, that it is probably easier to organize a protest taking place at a hotel rather than one going on at someone's private home.

I just want to understand what you're saying in the first comment: the registered Democrats at Clooney's event wouldn't qualify as "grassroots" or wouldn't qualify as "top-tier"? Because when you have Clooney who commands tens of millions for movie roles, execs like Jeffrey Katzenberg - head of DreamWorks, and others of their wealth and status level paying something like 40 thousand average each to get in, I'd say "top tier" is definitely a fitting description.

Katzenberg is, yes. Clooney, no. In fact, Clooney in a Marxist sense, is a member of the proletariat working class, as is any actor. If you are seriously committed to left wing principles you would never condemn someone like Clooney even if he commanded "tens of millions for movie roles."

[guitarfool2002]

Wait, I don't understand this, do you mean 2/3 of the 15 million pledged at Clooney's fundraiser came from grassroots supporters? I wouldn't think "grassroots" is the proper term to describe a house full of Hollywood's registered Democrats.

Me neither, which is why I questioned it myself. Nevertheless, it surely implies that the money wasn't coming from the top-tier. Certainly Hollywood's registered Democrats wouldn't qualify amongst that group either.

And the last comment about protesting fundraisers: Please forward that to "Occupy Philly", they don't seem to agree, at least judging from their actions...

I'm just talking about my personal opinion.

I will say, though, that it is probably easier to organize a protest taking place at a hotel rather than one going on at someone's private home.

I just want to understand what you're saying in the first comment: the registered Democrats at Clooney's event wouldn't qualify as "grassroots" or wouldn't qualify as "top-tier"? Because when you have Clooney who commands tens of millions for movie roles, execs like Jeffrey Katzenberg - head of DreamWorks, and others of their wealth and status level paying something like 40 thousand average each to get in, I'd say "top tier" is definitely a fitting description.

Katzenberg is, yes. Clooney, no. In fact, Clooney in a Marxist sense, is a member of the proletariat working class, as is any actor. If you are seriously committed to left wing principles you would never condemn someone like Clooney even if he commanded "tens of millions for movie roles."

Are you serious about Clooney? Did you ever hear of Rosemary Clooney or any other members of his family? He was born into a wealthy, successful family with a showbiz background and connections throughout several facets of the entertainment industry, where more doors open and more backing is available for those folks than are to those moving to the big cities with nothing but dreams and determination to their credit, no matter how talented.

Again, I can't see the difference between Clooney being worth that much money for working on a movie when he is only one name out of literally hundreds who are a vital part of the film being completed and successful, down to the people serving the catered lunch and changing the lightbulbs making far less for their work, any more than the Occupy movement would condemn the president of a successful company whose salary far exceeds the guy changing the lightbulbs in that company.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Wait, I don't understand this, do you mean 2/3 of the 15 million pledged at Clooney's fundraiser came from grassroots supporters? I wouldn't think "grassroots" is the proper term to describe a house full of Hollywood's registered Democrats.

Me neither, which is why I questioned it myself. Nevertheless, it surely implies that the money wasn't coming from the top-tier. Certainly Hollywood's registered Democrats wouldn't qualify amongst that group either.

And the last comment about protesting fundraisers: Please forward that to "Occupy Philly", they don't seem to agree, at least judging from their actions...

I'm just talking about my personal opinion.

I will say, though, that it is probably easier to organize a protest taking place at a hotel rather than one going on at someone's private home.

I just want to understand what you're saying in the first comment: the registered Democrats at Clooney's event wouldn't qualify as "grassroots" or wouldn't qualify as "top-tier"? Because when you have Clooney who commands tens of millions for movie roles, execs like Jeffrey Katzenberg - head of DreamWorks, and others of their wealth and status level paying something like 40 thousand average each to get in, I'd say "top tier" is definitely a fitting description.

Katzenberg is, yes. Clooney, no. In fact, Clooney in a Marxist sense, is a member of the proletariat working class, as is any actor. If you are seriously committed to left wing principles you would never condemn someone like Clooney even if he commanded "tens of millions for movie roles."

Are you serious about Clooney? Did you ever hear of Rosemary Clooney or any other members of his family? He was born into a wealthy, successful family with a showbiz background and connections throughout several facets of the entertainment industry, where more doors open and more backing is available for those folks than are to those moving to the big cities with nothing but dreams and determination to their credit, no matter how talented.

Again, I can't see the difference between Clooney being worth that much money for working on a movie when he is only one name out of literally hundreds who are a vital part of the film being completed and successful, down to the people serving the catered lunch and changing the lightbulbs making far less for their work, any more than the Occupy movement would condemn the president of a successful company whose salary far exceeds the guy changing the lightbulbs in that company.

In fact, a serious leftist wouldn't "condemn the president of a successful company" either. This is where it is crucial to have an understanding of the fundamental principles that are driving leftist thought. This kind of confusion is what leads to the mischaracterization of leftist desires as simply "wanting to spread the money around equally."

[guitarfool2002]

Wait, I don't understand this, do you mean 2/3 of the 15 million pledged at Clooney's fundraiser came from grassroots supporters? I wouldn't think "grassroots" is the proper term to describe a house full of Hollywood's registered Democrats.

Me neither, which is why I questioned it myself. Nevertheless, it surely implies that the money wasn't coming from the top-tier. Certainly Hollywood's registered Democrats wouldn't qualify amongst that group either.

And the last comment about protesting fundraisers: Please forward that to "Occupy Philly", they don't seem to agree, at least judging from their actions...

I'm just talking about my personal opinion.

I will say, though, that it is probably easier to organize a protest taking place at a hotel rather than one going on at someone's private home.

I just want to understand what you're saying in the first comment: the registered Democrats at Clooney's event wouldn't qualify as "grassroots" or wouldn't qualify as "top-tier"? Because when you have Clooney who commands tens of millions for movie roles, execs like Jeffrey Katzenberg - head of DreamWorks, and others of their wealth and status level paying something like 40 thousand average each to get in, I'd say "top tier" is definitely a fitting description.

Katzenberg is, yes. Clooney, no. In fact, Clooney in a Marxist sense, is a member of the proletariat working class, as is any actor. If you are seriously committed to left wing principles you would never condemn someone like Clooney even if he commanded "tens of millions for movie roles."

Are you serious about Clooney? Did you ever hear of Rosemary Clooney or any other members of his family? He was born into a wealthy, successful family with a showbiz background and connections throughout several facets of the entertainment industry, where more doors open and more backing is available for those folks than are to those moving to the big cities with nothing but dreams and determination to their credit, no matter how talented.

Again, I can't see the difference between Clooney being worth that much money for working on a movie when he is only one name out of literally hundreds who are a vital part of the film being completed and successful, down to the people serving the catered lunch and changing the lightbulbs making far less for their work, any more than the Occupy movement would condemn the president of a successful company whose salary far exceeds the guy changing the lightbulbs in that company.

In fact, a serious leftist wouldn't "condemn the president of a successful company" either. This is where it is crucial to have an understanding of the fundamental principles that are driving leftist thought. This kind of confusion is what leads to the mischaracterization of leftist desires as simply "wanting to spread the money around equally."

Yet again, if this were the case, then there is a huge disconnect with what many politicians and activists self-described as "on the left" in the US are saying about company presidents and CEOs and your analysis. Much of the anger towards corporate interests seems directed at those running the companies, which would include "company presidents".

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Yet again, if this were the case, then there is a huge disconnect with what many politicians and activists self-described as "on the left" in the US are saying about company presidents and CEOs and your analysis. Much of the anger towards corporate interests seems directed at those running the companies, which would include "company presidents".

CEO's yes, Presidents no. And again, I would say there there isn't a disconnect but there is a very confusing picture being painted by the media about what the arguments coming from the left are.