This picture, posted by Tony Robbins (a public Republican supporter), is misledaing and full of crap.

It’s a classic example of what’s wrong with the political discourse in the US.

I know that the Occupy Wall Street movement doesn’t have a clear list of demands, but what Tony Robbins is doing with this picture is disingenuous.

At the core, the movement is against the influence of money over politics, and unchecked corporate greed.

Perhaps Tony Robbins needs a lesson in semantics?

Being against greedy corporations is not the same as saying that all corporations are greedy, no more than saying “fat people” implies that all people are fat.

It’s just talking about the ones that are greedy, saying they should be reigned in, so they can’t get away with it quite so easily.

Speaking as if I were a part of the group, for a moment, I’d say we’re not against corporations per se. We like the products that a lot of companies make. Of course we do, otherwise we wouldn’t buy them, and they couldn’t continue exist.

What we’re against is the disproportionate influence on the political agenda that allows them to get the laws changed to be more in favor of them and less in favor of the general population, then exploit those laws to make more profit while sending the bill to clean up the mess, whether in the environment, in our nation, or in our bodies, to us, the taxpayers.

What we oppose is that multinational companies can easily get away with paying 0% in taxes in the US, as well as other countries they operate in, like Denmark.

What we don’t agree with is the fact that Wall Street can lobby Washington to lift regulations, then exploit those regulations to steal trillions of dollars, then infiltrate the political system even more (hello, Hank Paulson), and get another trillion or so in bailouts, no strings attached, and use that money to pay huge bonuses.

We like companies that make great products, pay their taxes, and behave responsibly.

We oppose companies and Washington ganging up to steal from the general population.

Is that so hard to understand?