Such a broad array of supporters from successful entrepreneurs ... One guy from the entertainment industry, who built his business through his close relationships with other entertainers and selling himself (and his friends) by appealing to those who feel disaffected

Congressional Democrats?

Outside which, these people aren't protesting them.

They seem to be protesting EVERYONE who's rich.  They are planning marches to rich peoples homes.  They're just anti anyone being successful.

Really Obama's "Job Czar" and CEO of GE puts it best when he says "I want you to root for me, everbody in Germany roots for Sehmans, everybody in Japan roots for Toshiba, everybody in china roots for China South rail,  I want you to say Win GE."

They essentially want to create jobs by taking down US companies.

Which, me, I want to make money by NOT going to work, but that's not very feasable.

I mean, it'd bring the income disparity closer together, but only because we'd all be relativly much more poor.

They blame the rich because they bribed the government.

They blame the government because they allowed to be bought.

IMO, it would be pretty hard to be clear about what they are all upset about since there are a lot of broken things to go around.

They can't protest the government since the government got guns, LOL.

He's right though...

The founding fathers for example SPECIFICALLY chose to have a Republic over a Democracy... and wrote actural reasoning for it.

For example, James Madison.

"There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice and truth can regain their authority over the public mind."

They specifically chose to have a republic over a monarchy (for obvious reasons). All states are either republics or monarchies. 'Democracy' is not part of this word group. I think the issue here is a problem of semantics. When I say 'democracy', I mean liberal democracy (and all that it entails), which is what the US is (and most states from Europe and the Americas are).

Your founding fathers didn't seem to trust the people they wanted to lead to independence very much though (as seen by your electorate process), but I don't think you'd argue that they were supporting forming a totalitarian state, no? (since that's the only alternative to a democracy).

Actually that was part of his writing on a letter as to why they were going to choose a Republic over a Democracy... basically to prevent "Tyranny of the Majority."

Whether to be a Republic or a Democracy was actually quite a point of contention between the founding fathers.

If you need a direct quote mentioning both as different... again i'll use James Madison from the same long essay.

"Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it."

So they were using the term 'democracy' to refer to the direct democracies that existed during the ancient period (since the Ancient Greek states are the only ones described as simply 'democracies')? Again, this all seems to be an issue of semantics. Democracies, in the sense he was refering to, wouldn't even work on a large scale (not to mention that they weren't inclusive states, as only certain men were considered human beings).

The comment was "name one" and I did.  How many more do you want named?

I never said "name one" ... and I certainly never said "name one outsider who feigns support for this movement to increase his sales of music to disaffected youth"

The entire movement is people (by their own admission) being locked out of being successful and being unwilling to accept any responsibility for their current position in life; even though (to most objective observers) the overwhelming majority of these individuals have demonstrated poor decision making which is at the core of their problems.

Obviously, there is a collection of intelligent and/or successful people who will try to make money or gain influence by manipulating these morons; but that doesn’t mean these people actually support what the movement is calling for. After all, if Russell Simmons believed what he was saying why isn't he hiring these poor unfortunate people? After all, he's worth half a billion dollars and all these people want is jobs; and I'm sure his company has many great opportunities available for graduates of cultural anthropology, women's studies or art-history.

The best one so far has been Alec Baldwin.

Who claims support with the movement, despite the fact that he's a spokesman for Capital One... and according to him they're still "Good Partners" despite the whole occupy wallstreet thing.