As i watch these "Occupy Wall Street" protests I cant help but see the irony in the fact that both the right and left are angry about over the exact same single incident yet we are both angry at completely opposite sides of the exact same coin. On the one hand the Tea Partiers are choked at the government for their contribution in the collapse of '08 that was a direct result of poor government "social engineering," and them being asleep at the switch, the number 1 thing they are mad about is the government over spending and bailing out corporations. Tea partiers want to see the government back off and quit bailing out banks/corporations and quit spending so much. Occupy wallstreet is mad that corporations and banks have wrecklessly overspent, and they are mad that Banks, and CEO's who have lived high on the hog, without ever suffering the consequences of their actions. Occupy Wallstreet crowd also wants to see an end to bank bailouts, but they want to see alot more government spending and involvement, and they want to see the government tax the shit out of the bankers and give it to the poor. So with the shit that is going on in Europe there is a very realistic possibility, albeit a small one, that if European banks start going under we will have to bail out the banks in the U.S. again as well, or else watch a complete systemic collapse. I think if there was another bank bailout in the U.S. that there is a very realistic possibility there could be a civil war, the Tea Party would be out in full force fighting against government and the OWS people would be out fighting against banks, and supporting government. The ironic thing is that the only people who would come out of that situation unscathed would probably be the politicians and the bankers. What do you guys figure? Could a bank bailout end up being the proverbial "shot heard round the world," Which leads to either Civil war or World War 3?