Occupy Wall Street

[Deadite]

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/10/12/341801/the-other-occupation-how-wall-street-occupies-washington/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK1MOMKZ8BI&feature=player_embedded

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2nZbo8SKbg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjdAiqPl3I4

http://www.theoccupiedamendment.org/faq/

[bouncingbrick]

My opinion? My opinion is that there is no legitimate representation for the majority of Americans in America.

By "no legitimate representation", I mean that the majority of Americans can no longer make meaningful changes through government that the minority does not wish changed.

Ie. Fake democracy, a charade of politicians totally beholden to special interests.

Ie. "our" government is owned by a wealthy few.

But sure, you can pretend for a little while longer that the government is corrupt but not that corrupt and that it might get better eventually if we just keep voting for guys who campaign on corporate money, if that makes you feel better.

Do you even understand what I'm trying to say? I'm asking if the OWS people can make any kind of difference with what they're doing and you're giving me some bulls*** about a fake democracy.

First off, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic.

Second off, I don't pretend anything. I know we have a government corrupt beyond repair. And to change things these dopes are marching in the streets and causing headaches for the police and citizens alike.

I say march to DC. I say find politicians who agree with their position and start campaigns to get the public interested in them. I say organize national "Don't go to work days". I say take all those thousands of marchers and loiterers and go to your banks and empty your bank account. You know, actually do something.

Now, in your opinion, do you think these protests will change anything? Really? Because that's the question I've been asking you for several days and you talk nonsense to me about "fake democracies". Sheesh. :rolleyes:

[DexterRiley]

Brick, you are a dense lad. Open your eyes, and clean out your ears. OWS has already changed things.

[bouncingbrick]

Brick, you are a dense lad. Open your eyes, and clean out your ears. OWS has already changed things.

Bull s***.

What has it changed? The Tea Party had a bigger impact on US politics and it was backed by crazy nutter Glenn Beck.

EDIT: You don't even live in the US, what the hell do you know?!??!?!??

[ash_is_the_gal]

well, not living in the US doesn't mean he wouldn't know anything about it. he can find out the same way as any of us.

i'd like to hear how it's changed things, though.

[7thson]

I would not say it has change much. I think it has however opened some eyes, which I guess is a good start.

[bouncingbrick]

well, not living in the US doesn't mean he wouldn't know anything about it. he can find out the same way as any of us.

I don't know about this. He's not hearing his neighbors complaining because they can't find a job or at least find a job that pays as much as the one s/he had before the financial collapse. He's not seeing the people first hand or talking to them or living with them. Perspective can make all the difference.

i'd like to hear how it's changed things, though.

That's the 64 thousand dollar question, IMO! :D

[Deadite]

You almost seem to be gloating.

[Deadite]

Do you even understand what I'm trying to say? I'm asking if the OWS people can make any kind of difference with what they're doing and you're giving me some bulls*** about a fake democracy.

First off, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic.

Second off, I don't pretend anything. I know we have a government corrupt beyond repair. And to change things these dopes are marching in the streets and causing headaches for the police and citizens alike.

I say march to DC. I say find politicians who agree with their position and start campaigns to get the public interested in them. I say organize national "Don't go to work days". I say take all those thousands of marchers and loiterers and go to your banks and empty your bank account. You know, actually do something.

Now, in your opinion, do you think these protests will change anything? Really? Because that's the question I've been asking you for several days and you talk nonsense to me about "fake democracies". Sheesh. :rolleyes:

We actually are supposed to be a democratic republic. You know, representative government?

You don't believe in democracy? Why did we send people to risk their lives in Iraq?

I think your complaints are laughable. People are protesting and making a difference by forcing the issue. You take shots from the sideline, demand they hurry up and fix things, and label the entire movement with sweeping generalizations based on the worst scuffles.

Hey brick, why are all cops crooked and evil? Why are all protesters stupid and useless?

Why are all Simpsons fans pedophiles?

Answer me that before we can continue. ;)

[Deadite]

Bull s***.

What has it changed? The Tea Party had a bigger impact on US politics and it was backed by crazy nutter Glenn Beck.

EDIT: You don't even live in the US, what the hell do you know?!??!?!??

The corruption of our government is actually part of a global problem. You have a very narrow view.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc2st1nx3qM

[Deadite]

Also, crying for a bank run is irresponsible. This isn't about getting money out of banks. That's dumb. It's about getting big business out of politics.

[Deadite]

http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html

America: Republic or Democracy? by William P. Meyers

Lately, from politicians, radio-talk show hosts, and other commentators, we have heard that we should forget about democracy, because the U.S.A. is a republic. But some questions are being posed by democracy advocates: What is a republic? What is a democracy? Should the United States be a mere republic, or a genuine democracy?

Republicans and other democracy detractors point to the U.S. Constitution and bits of history, and say, "See, the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution gave us a Republic. They believed democracies were dangerous and unworkable."

On that, they are partly right, but they fail to mention that democracies and republics overlap. They are not opposites. And they fail to account for the history of American government since 1788, much less the debates that took place in America prior to 1788, when the U.S. Constitution was substituted for the Articles of Confederation.

Democracy means rule of the people. The two most common forms of democracy are direct democracy and representative democracy. In direct democracy everyone takes part in making a decision, as in a town meeting or a referendum. The specific rules may vary: perhaps everyone must agree, perhaps there must be consensus, perhaps a mere majority is required to make a decision. The other, better known form of democracy is a representative democracy. People elect representative to make decisions or laws. Again, specifics vary greatly.

And, surprise, a representative democracy is a kind of republic. What distinguishes a republic is that it has an elected government. Representative democracies are, therefor, a kind of republic. Self-appointed governments such as monarchies, dictatorships, oligarchies, theocracies and juntas are not republics. However, this still allows for a wide spectrum. The classic is the Roman Republic, in which only a tiny percentage of citizens, members of the nobility, were allowed to vote for the Senators, who made the laws and also acted as Rome's supreme court. Most people would say that Rome was a Republic, but not a democracy, since it was very close to being an oligarchy, rule by the few. Although the Roman Republic was not a dictatorship (until Augustus Caesar grabbed power), it did not allow for rule of the people. In both theory and practice the Soviet Union, that late evil empire, was a republic (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) because the lawmakers were elected, if only by the Communist Party members.

Beginning with the Constitution's adoption, America has been a Republic. But the dominant trend over the last two centuries has been to make it into a democracy as well, a representative democracy, also known as a democratic republic. True, the creation of the Constitution itself was partly a reaction against democracy. In states like Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, the situation was getting way too democratic for the monied aristocracy that had, since the American Revolution, refused to share power with ordinary men.

The causes of the American Revolution were many, but for the monied class there were three principal aims. They sought self-government: that is, they sought to rule the colonies themselves, to further their own interests. They sought to protect the institution of slavery, which had been endangered by Lord Mansfield's ruling against it in the Sommersett case of 1772. And land speculators like George Washington sought to seize more Native American Indian land, which the British had outlawed.

But to win the American Revolution this predatory elite needed help. Their own rhetoric about freedom and equality led to widespread demands for the right to vote: universal suffrage. In other words, the people began demanding democracy. Even the slaves (white and black alike) demanded to be freed and allowed to vote.

After the British were defeated a centralized, national government was seen by George Washington and company not as a method of extending freedom and the right to vote, but as a way of keeping control in the hands of rich. They wrote several anti-democratic provisions into the U.S. Constitution. Slavery was institutionalized. The Senate was not to be elected directly by the people; rather Senators were to be appointed by state legislatures. The President was not to be directly elected by the voters, but elected through an electoral college. The Supreme Court was to be appointed. Only the House of Representatives was elected directly.

More important to our democracy-versus-republic debate, the U.S. Constitution left the question of who could vote in elections to each individual state. In most states only white men who owned a certain amount of property could vote. So, on the whole, the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only a fig-leaf of democratic representation. This is what today's commentators mean when they say America is a republic, not a democracy.

Fortunately (for the democrats), the early federal government was not very powerful. In state after state it became easier for white males to qualify to vote. And slowly, decade after decade, our republic became a democratic republic.

At the national level the major steps toward democracy can be marked by amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights guaranteed limits to the power of the federal government. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment effectively extended the vote to all adult male citizens, including ex-slaves, by penalizing states that did not allow for universal male suffrage. The Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gave the right to vote to former slaves. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did not extend suffrage to women, a vigorous campaign for the vote was launched by women, who received the vote through the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.

But the main Amendment that tipped the scales from the national government of the United States being a mere republic to being a true representative democracy was the often-overlooked Seventeenth Amendment, which took effect in 1913. Since 1913 the U.S. Senate has been elected directly by the voters, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. That makes the national government democratic in form, as well as being a republic.

There will always be anti-democratic forces in any society. The most blatantly undemocratic feature of U.S. government in the 20th century was the unconstitutional but systematic disenfranchisement of African-American and other non-white citizens. This came to an end in the 1950's and 1960's with a series of Supreme Court decisions against segregation laws, the passage of Civil Rights Acts, and the passage of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment outlawing poll taxes. We even lowered the voting age to 18 with the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in 1971.

There are no longer any voter-qualification impediments to democracy in the United States. But many have noted that the will of the people has tended not to prevail, and that a majority of people eligible to vote are so discouraged that they do not vote. The main reason for this is the buying and selling of elections and politicians by the wealthier class of citizens and their special interest groups. A year or more before elections take place, the winner is decided by those who vote with dollars. But this is a defect in democracy, not a reason to abandon it. The answer is to cure the defect, not to attempt to destroy our representative democracy.

February 19, 2002
Please circulate freely. William P. Meyers can be reached at [email protected]

[Deadite]

Obviously, what we need is a new form of separation of capitalism from government, similar to separation of church and state, to protect the citizenry from corporate monopoly of government. We can have both, obviously, but capitalism has to be regulated by government, not the other way around. It doesn't work. Call it socialism if you want. I call it protecting the public good.

Until that happens, we do not have a representative government, and the majority of Americans will remain disenfranchised within their own country.

Simply put, voting with dollars doesn't work. It isn't in the best interest of the majority of Americans, and it endangers America itself. It endangers the very idea of America. It eats away at democracy. It increasingly centralizes power into the hands of a few who make profit-motivated decisions at the expense of the many. Our values as a nation cannot continue to be dictated by a profit-motivated minority.

Of course, I'm not saying anything new. Nor am I claiming to have a magic bullet.

Right now, the Occupy movement are doing a great service to our country by putting themselves on the front line in what is essentially a class war. The longer the protests continue, the less complacency with business as usual there will be. And the protests should continue. They should continue until this nonsense is resolved. Truly resolved.

Not just continue until somebody has an idea for something better. Not just until a politician makes a promise to try. The protests should continue up until the very moment the majority get what they want.

The protests should continue. The protests should continue. The protests must continue. I hope this is only the beginning of the protest, not the apex.

For the sake of this country, I hope so.

You satisfied yet, brick?

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S880UldxB1o&feature=player_embedded#at=82

[Deadite]

http://www.thenation.com/article/how-get-our-democracy-back

But it is this part of the current crisis that the dark soul in me admires most. There is a brilliance to how the current fraud is sustained. Everyone inside this game recognizes that if the public saw too clearly that the driving force in Washington is campaign cash, the public might actually do something to change that. So every issue gets reframed as if it were really a question touching some deep (or not so deep) ideological question. Drug companies fund members, for example, to stop reforms that might actually test whether "me too" drugs are worth the money they cost. But the reforms get stopped by being framed as debates about "death panels" or "denying doctor choice" rather than the simple argument of cost-effectiveness that motivates the original reform. A very effective campaign succeeds in obscuring the source of conflict over major issues of reform with the pretense that it is ideology rather than campaign cash that divides us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10

[bouncingbrick]

Also, crying for a bank run is irresponsible. This isn't about getting money out of banks. That's dumb. It's about getting big business out of politics.

No, actually it's not dumb because the only thing big business listens to is their wallet and if you hurt them in their wallet they will start listening. Once the people prove they can hurt them in the wallet the movement will succeed. You are naive if you think anything else.

Obviously, what we need is a new form of separation of capitalism from government, similar to separation of church and state, to protect the citizenry from corporate monopoly of government. We can have both, obviously, but capitalism has to be regulated by government, not the other way around. It doesn't work.

I understand this, but I don't think it can happen and our country remain a true capitalistic society. I don't think we need a seperation, we just need some sort of real and defined regulations.

Until that happens, we do not have a representative government, and the majority of Americans will remain disenfranchised within their own country.

Simply put, voting with dollars doesn't work. It isn't in the best interest of the majority of Americans, and it endangers America itself. It endangers the very idea of America. It eats away at democracy. It increasingly centralizes power into the hands of a few who make profit-motivated decisions at the expense of the many. Our values as a nation cannot continue to be dictated by a profit-motivated minority.

Of course, I'm not saying anything new. Nor am I claiming to have a magic bullet.

Right now, the Occupy movement are doing a great service to our country by putting themselves on the front line in what is essentially a class war. The longer the protests continue, the less complacency with business as usual there will be. And the protests should continue. They should continue until this nonsense is resolved. Truly resolved.

Not just continue until somebody has an idea for something better. Not just until a politician makes a promise to try. The protests should continue up until the very moment the majority get what they want.

The protests should continue. The protests should continue. The protests must continue. I hope this is only the beginning of the protest, not the apex.

For the sake of this country, I hope so.

You satisfied yet, brick?

No, I'm not because you still haven't really answered me. I asked how the protests specifically target big business. I also told you they won't listen until their stopcks drop and their bank account lighten. Unfortunately this can have adverse side effects on the majority of the US and the world, but it may be the price we have to pay to finally be over this.

Inderstand this, Deadite, you are talking to someone far to cynical to believe that marching and chanting in the streets can actually have an effect on the world. This isn't the 1960s when peaceful protests could change the world. People simply don't listen to that anymore. Sexy Celebrity and I see eye to eye on this point. The world we live in doesn't listen to protesters, they listen when people slam loaded airplanes into buildins killing thousands. They listen not when you inconvenience them, but when you grab them by the shirt collar and shake the crap out of them.

The politicians hardly listen to voters anymore. And the people with money don't listen to anyone. You can go on thinking that this movement is powerful and making a difference, but it's not. Nothing will change until the stake become serious for those involved. I know this because in the 33 years that I've been on this earth the most impactful moment of our current history was 9-11 and probably the collapse of the USSR. Neither of those events were brought about by simple protests. What you're suggesting is something about as major as those things. Business has nestled in snug and tight with the goverment for generations. Should the OWS movement succed it will send shockwaves through the world, however, as I've said, it won't succeed without much stronger tactics.

[Deadite]

No, actually it's not dumb because the only thing big business listens to is their wallet and if you hurt them in their wallet they will start listening. Once the people prove they can hurt them in the wallet the movement will succeed. You are naive if you think anything else.

I disagree. Yet I also think you are assuming we have to have an either/or here. I understand your cynicism. I feel it too. But the problem is your "solution" is too pat, and it is misguided. Fact is, most people are not going to do that, and while consumer apathy is one reason, another reason is that we don't have to.

Also, that would just make it that much easier to spin the whole thing as anti-capitalism. It's not anti-capitalism; it's pro-democracy. So while you are right enough that how an average person spends their money is important, the fact is that where you spend your money won't change the basic flaw in government.

Because that's where the flaw is: in government. And that is what has to be changed.

I understand this, but I don't think it can happen and our country remain a true capitalistic society. I don't think we need a seperation, we just need some sort of real and defined regulations.

Again, I disagree. It can happen and it must happen. "True" capitalism or not, government must be extricated from the jaws of a machine that runs on political donations and "gifts".

It is institutionalized hide-in-plain-sight bribery. Until it is ended, nothing will change.

No, I'm not because you still haven't really answered me. I asked how the protests specifically target big business. I also told you they won't listen until their stopcks drop and their bank account lighten. Unfortunately this can have adverse side effects on the majority of the US and the world, but it may be the price we have to pay to finally be over this.

We don't have to burn the village to save it. Targeting businesses with boycotts and whatever else you are suggesting directly while ignoring a corrupt political system won't change anything.

The problem is big business influencing government, not big business per se. So end the system of legal bribery and take the money factor out of politics.

Inderstand this, Deadite, you are talking to someone far to cynical to believe that marching and chanting in the streets can actually have an effect on the world. This isn't the 1960s when peaceful protests could change the world. People simply don't listen to that anymore. Sexy Celebrity and I see eye to eye on this point. The world we live in doesn't listen to protesters, they listen when people slam loaded airplanes into buildins killing thousands. They listen not when you inconvenience them, but when you grab them by the shirt collar and shake the crap out of them.

I believe you. You're extremely cynical.

But you're also wrong. People do listen. Protest is a cornerstone of America, a defining part of our history. You can call me naive, but if you can look at the history of our country and say protest doesn't matter, then you're worse than naive. You're blind.

The politicians hardly listen to voters anymore. And the people with money don't listen to anyone. You can go on thinking that this movement is powerful and making a difference, but it's not. Nothing will change until the stake become serious for those involved. I know this because in the 33 years that I've been on this earth the most impactful moment of our current history was 9-11 and probably the collapse of the USSR. Neither of those events were brought about by simple protests. What you're suggesting is something about as major as those things. Business has nestled in snug and tight with the goverment for generations. Should the OWS movement succed it will send shockwaves through the world, however, as I've said, it won't succeed without much stronger tactics.

I think this movement is in its infancy, and there is always hope. The stakes are deadly serious.

But you're still wrong. Protest can work. It is democracy in action.

[will.15]

http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html That is a very simplistic and distorted view of Americn history. The purpose of the Revolutionary War was not to protect slavery. The division between North and South, though not as heated as it would get, existed even then. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were anti slavery and would soon clash after the United States was formed with pro slavery Southerners like Thomas Jefferson (whose supposedly anti slavery sentiments are rather hollow when you examine his entire record).

This link is a bit slanted the other way as some of the people they list as anti salvery were really hypocrites whose actual deeds once the U.S. was formed put them in the other camp. (I am referring to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison). But it shows how many of the founders were strongly anti slavery and to claim they were interested in protecting slavery is nonsense. Federalist slave owner George Washington was more conflicted than Thomas Jefferson, whose later views are hardly different than John C. Calhoun).

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html

[Deadite]

That is a very simplistic and distorted view of Americn history. The purpose of the Revolutionary War was not to protect slavery. The division between North and South, though not as heated as it would get, existed even then. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams were anti slavery and would soon clash after the United States was formed with pro slavery Southerners like Thomas Jefferson (whose supposedly anti slavery sentiments are rather hollow when you examine his entire record).

http://allotherpersons.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/did-slavery-cause-of-the-revolutionary-war-yes-book-review-of-slave-nation/

[Deadite]

Sure, will, it's arguable. But it's also incidental to the main point, which is the evolution of democracy in America. That can be clearly measured.

[bouncingbrick]

I disagree. Yet I also think you are assuming we have to have an either/or here. I understand your cynicism. I feel it too. But the problem is your "solution" is too pat, and it is misguided. Fact is, most people are not going to do that, and while consumer apathy is one reason, another reason is that we don't have to.

Also, that would just make it that much easier to spin the whole thing as anti-capitalism. It's not anti-capitalism; it's pro-democracy. So while you are right enough that how an average person spends their money is important, the fact is that where you spend your money won't change the basic flaw in government.

Because that's where the flaw is: in government. And that is what has to be changed.


Then why is it called Occupy Wall Street? Why are they not marching on Washington? Why are they not finding politicians who support their movement?

Looking at it either my way or yours, it still looks like they are going about matters the worng way.

And, for the record, I still think extreme action is needed in this particular case. Protest is not enough. Hell, voting hasn't even been enough. The wealthy do not play fair. They make their own rules. No amount of marching/protesting/causing trouble for the police can change that.

[DexterRiley]

lol @ causing trouble for the police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1w9h2S4UWA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmndxtajee4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYhGyBxaUfw

#OWS is about a lot of things. Outing Injustice is paramount.

[Deadite]

Then why is it called Occupy Wall Street?

Dunno, dude. Fer sh!ts & giggles, mebbe. I'll see if I can't find out for you, do some investigative work and whatnot. If I'm not back in time for the next volley of inane questions, go on without me.

[DexterRiley]

http://i.imgur.com/HHHKj.jpg

http://media.gazettextra.com/img/photos/2011/10/11/1724-OccupyWallStree_t700.jpg?f40c0e74b997dbb01ce524758e0d04a31382c8af

http://www.cartoonaday.com/images/cartoons/2011/10/Occupy-america-revolution-cartoon-598x882.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/378338/NEW-YORKER-COVER-OCCUPY-WALL-STREET.jpg

[bouncingbrick]

Dunno, dude. Fer sh!ts & giggles, mebbe. I'll see if I can't find out for you, do some investigative work and whatnot. If I'm not back in time for the next volley of inane questions, go on without me.

Ah, can't answer the questions so we're back to the sarcastic d-bag routine. And here I thought we were making progress...

Try answering the serious questions, here they are again:

Why are they not marching on Washington? Why are they not finding politicians who support their movement?

[will.15]

http://allotherpersons.wordpress.com/2009/06/08/did-slavery-cause-of-the-revolutionary-war-yes-book-review-of-slave-nation/
Saying the North compromised with the South about slavery to get their support for the Revolutionary War is different than saying it was fought to preserve it. The British court decison didn't have any real direct impact on the South and before the invention of the cotton gin the South itself was more divided on slavery than they would later be.

[DexterRiley]

http://i.imgur.com/fdmCL.jpg

Brick i get that you are of the Twitter/video game generation and all, but it took 30 odd years to gradually come to this point, its not gonna get turned around overnight.

its just not.

http://s3.imgimg.de/uploads/tumblrlt5oosnijl1qz9ciuo1r1500f29c68c9jpg.jpg

[Deadite]

Ah, can't answer the questions so we're back to the sarcastic d-bag routine. And here I thought we were making progress...

Try answering the serious questions, here they are again:

No, just tired of explaining stuff to you that you should be able to figure out yourself. I've more than went out of my way for you.

But one more time: They are protesting the corruption of their government. Who has corrupted their government and why?

Not the poor. They don't have any money! :eek:

Not the middle class. They're too busy working their asses off for what little money they still get! :eek:

Whoooo then?

Hmmm....

I wonder who it could be?

And what does Wall Street have to do with anything??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2Bs1ZZ-7b8

[Deadite]

Why are they not marching on Washington? Why are they not finding politicians who support their movement?

They are still building momentum. Rallying. Organizing. Trying to get as many people involved as possible, I reckon. People who care. Maybe not you.

Why Wall Street? Wall Street symbolizes what is wrong with America. It is high profile. It gets attention. The flaw is in the system but the exploiters of the flaw are not. They are basically a law unto themselves.

Your questions aren't hard to answer. This is all common sense, really. There are some good videos and articles in this thread that already discuss Occupy.

You aren't showing anything other than willful ignorance and cynicism.

I refuse to play along with you any longer. You've already made your cynicism perfectly clear. Well, cynicism is not a real position as far as I'm concerned, it's a feeling.

I'm not going to continue arguing with a feeling.

[Deadite]

http://i.imgur.com/HHHKj.jpg

http://media.gazettextra.com/img/photos/2011/10/11/1724-OccupyWallStree_t700.jpg?f40c0e74b997dbb01ce524758e0d04a31382c8af

http://www.cartoonaday.com/images/cartoons/2011/10/Occupy-america-revolution-cartoon-598x882.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/378338/NEW-YORKER-COVER-OCCUPY-WALL-STREET.jpg

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/connections/JanFeb2006/images-janfeb/confusedman.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFdVkPgeHuk

[bouncingbrick]

They are still building momentum. Rallying. Organizing. Trying to get as many people involved as possible, I reckon. People who care. Maybe not you.

Why Wall Street? Wall Street symbolizes what is wrong with America. It is high profile. It gets attention. The flaw is in the system but the exploiters of the flaw are not. They are basically a law unto themselves.

Your questions aren't hard to answer. This is all common sense, really. There are some good videos and articles in this thread that already discuss Occupy.

You aren't showing anything other than willful ignorance and cynicism.

I refuse to play along with you any longer. You've already made your cynicism perfectly clear. Well, cynicism is not a real position as far as I'm concerned, it's a feeling.

I'm not going to continue arguing with a feeling.

Strange that my posts of cynicism and lack of common sense are getting positive reps, though...

Fine, I accept that you don't have an answer. I accept that the movement doesn't have a decent strategy. I accept that nothing will change. I accept that you disagree with me.

[Deadite]

Brick i get that you are of the Twitter/video game generation and all, but it took 30 odd years to gradually come to this point, its not gonna get turned around overnight.

its just not.

http://s3.imgimg.de/uploads/tumblrlt5oosnijl1qz9ciuo1r1500f29c68c9jpg.jpg

Nah dude, you're being unreasonable. If the protests haven't worked by now, it's a waste of time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4AzYmy4_mw

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wtHTh6NZXc

[Deadite]

Bank Transfer Day, Occupy Wall Street Share Sentiments But Take Different Approaches

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/11/04/bank-transfer-day-occupy-wall-street_n_1077088.html

For the protesters' part, it seems they have no plans for an organized, mass run on the banks; instead they're looking to draw attention to the cozy relationship between government and the banking industry. Activists associated with Occupy Wall Street plan on Saturday to march from Liberty Plaza to Foley Square -- the site of the New York Supreme Courthouse -- to protest a deal that government officials are negotiating with banks to settle allegations (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/kentucky-jack-conway-eric-schneiderman-foreclosure_n_975634.html) that the companies illegally foreclosed on homeowners.

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp0Or4KiGk8

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L1dSPwuRw4

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/24/alan-grayson/alan-graysons-defense-occupy-wall-street-impassion/

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZbNT62aprM

[Deadite]

http://occupyatlanta.org/2011/12/05/occupy-atlanta-goes-home/#.Ttx4jGCfuBY

December 6: The Occupy Movement “Goes Home”
National Day of Action to Stop (and Reverse) Foreclosures
The fight to reclaim democracy from the banks is growing from Wall Street to Main Street.
On Tuesday, December 6th Occupy Wall Street will join in solidarity with a Brooklyn, NY community to liberate a foreclosed home.
This action is part of a national kick-off for a new frontier for the occupy movement: the liberation of vacant bank-owned homes for those in need, and the defense of families under threat of foreclosure and eviction. Actions will take place in more than 25 cities across the country on Tuesday.
The banks got bailed out, but our families across America are getting kicked out.
Millions of Americans lost their homes in the Wall Street recession and one in four homeowners are currently underwater on their mortgages. The 99% is bearing the brunt of a crisis caused by Wall Street and big banks.
That’s why, all across the country, Americans have begun standing up to the banks that are trying to evict them. It’s already happened in Atlanta, Miami, San Francisco, Minneapolis, and cities and towns across the country. Now, it’s happening in Brooklyn and beyond.
Across the country, people are making eviction defense at foreclosed properties, doing takeovers of vacant properties by homeless families, and taking foreclosure action disruptions.
Wall Street and the big banks are making record profits while most Americans are struggling to stay in their homes. Banks break the law with impunity, but millions of us get served with eviction. Banks make trillions and get bailouts, while we face record unemployment and record debt.
No more! Our system has been serving Wall Street, big banks, and the one percent.
We are the 99%. We are reclaiming our democracy.
And we are reclaiming our homes.
On Tuesday December 6th Occupy Atlanta plans to disrupt the auctions of mortgages which take place on the steps of country courthouses every month. Our goal is to surround the auction and mic check the proceeding. We do not believe this action is illegal, as we are not using an amplification system. THIS ACTION IS OUR CHRISTMAS GIFT TO THE METRO ATLANTA AREA, THE GIFT OF HOUSING TO THE STRUGGLING THOUSANDS IN OUR CITY.
During these cold holiday months we can’t think of a better holiday gift to our city then stopping these auctions. Many of the homes auctioned off still have people living in them, disrupting the auction means that hundreds of metro Atlantans can continue to occupy their homes through at least January.
We are mobilizing folks for the Fulton, Gwinnett, and Dekalb court houses. We need to have people there at 9:30am, as the auctions start promptly at 10am. Below are addresses.
Fulton
136 Pryor
Atlanta, GA
At 10:30am we will be holding a press conference with Presidential medal of honor winner and dean of the civil rights movement Dr. Joseph Lowery who will be making a challenge to the nation around the foreclosure crisis.
Dekalb:
405 DeKalb County Courthouse
Decatur, GA
Gwinnett:
145 Johnson Ave
Fayetteville, GA
Contact: Deborah Storm
[email protected]
OCCUPY ATLANTA WILL ALSO BE SETTING UP PERMANENT OCCUPATION SITES AT TWO METRO ATLANTA HOMES THAT ARE CLOSE TO EVICTION IN THE ATLANTA AREA. IF THE SHERIFF PLANS TO EXECUTE EVICTION ORDERS ON EITHER HOME, THEY WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH US FIRST.
3pm we will be holding a press conference outside the home of Valerie Jones on Glen Iris Road. Valerie’s mother passed away last week and left the home to Valerie. Valerie has been living in the home for three years with her husband and four children in an effort to take care of her mother. It is only after her mother’s death that she has learned that her mother was a victim of one of the most predatory loans we’ve ever seen.The house has been in the family since 1953. Join us at three to hear how we plan to fight for the Valerie’s home, and expose the unjust practice of predatory lending in our city.
7pm We will be holding a press conference at the home of Bridget Walker in Riverdale Georgia. Bridget is a decorated Iraq war veteran who is on 90% disability as a result of an injury she sustained while serving. Bridget’s fixed income, and Chase Bank’s unwillingness to negotiate, has placed her home deep into the foreclosure process. Joining us for the 7pm press conference will be three full time Occupiers who also served in Iraq. Occupy Atlanta will not allow Chase Bank to foreclose on our wounded veterans without a fight.

[DexterRiley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSwGNG0KWOI&feature=related

[Yoda]

By their growth rate.
Apart from being vague (growth rate over what period?), there are three issues with using this:

1) Smaller economies grow faster than larger economies, because growth is measured as a percentage of their existing economy. The larger an economy is, the harder it is to keep a higher growth rate, and our economy is still over two-and-a-half-times as large as China's.

2) Assuming you're measuring growth by GDP, you can "teach to the test" on growth with government works projects that temporarily raise GDP even if they're clearly foolish. You've already provided evidence of this with that article about their reckless infrastructure spending. Technically speaking, you can hire people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them back up, and that counts towards GDP.

3) They have a poor human rights record. I'm sure we could squeeze lots of extra efficiency out of our workers if we were willing to cut more corners. I'll bet the pyramids were built for very little, too. But real growth comparisons between countries first need to establish some kind of baseline of human rights.

Anyway, you've said you don't think it's entirely for real, and I agree. Infrastructure spending and human rights issues lessen the meaningfulness of the comparison, we'd expect a smaller economy to growth faster, and to the degree that they have grown it seems like a clear result of them adopting freer (though certainly not free) markets than they had before. For these reasons, as a capitalist, I am not terribly concerned that this represents any kind of experimental threat.

People turn to government when the economy goes wrong.
Absolutely. That's part of the problem: the very nature of a crisis makes it almost impossible not to intervene, even if that intervention worsens or prolongs the problem. People panic and want to see their leaders doing things, and leaders want to appear proactive and responsive to problems. It's a structural problem with human nature and the nature of economic recessions.

The second longest American Depression, which was actually brought on by making the economy less dependent on government:

The Panic of 1837 was triggered by a combination of factors including the failure of a wheat crop, a collapse in cotton prices, economic problems in Britain, rapid speculation in land, and problems resulting from the variety of currency in circulation.
It was the second-longest American depression, with effects lasting roughly six years, until 1843.
The panic had a devastating impact. A number of brokerage firms in New York failed, and at least one New York City bank president committed suicide. As the effect rippled across the nation, a number of state-chartered banks also failed. The nascent labor union movement was effectively stopped, as the price of labor plummeted.
The depression caused the collapse of real estate prices. The price of food also collapsed, which was ruinous to farmers and planters who couldn’t get a decent price for their crops. People who lived through the depression following 1837 told stories that would be echoed a century later during The Great Depression.
The aftermath of the panic of 1837 led to Martin Van Buren’s failure to secure a second term in the election of 1840 (http://www.movieforums.com/od/leaders/a/1840campaign.htm). Many blamed the economic hardships on the policies of Andrew Jackson, and Van Buren, who had been Jackson’s vice president, paid the political price.
I'm new to this event, but even a little rudimentary research indicates that there was tremendous government-created inflation leading up to this crisis. Speculative bubbles are pretty much invariably accompanied by cheap credit government policies.

[Deadite]

Yeah, our compassionate leaders ruined everything by forcing the people who own them to help out the poor.

Wake the **** up.

It was a heist. The government answers to the banks and corporations. The poor are the fall guys.

[Yoda]

What the hell are you talking about? Nobody's using the poor as the fall guys. Stop arguing with things you merely imagine I'm saying.

This topic has become completely pointless. It's just a barrage of here's-someone-who-agrees-with-me videos and uninformed sarcasm, and anyone who dares question any part of the righteous movement--even people who agree with its aims!--is derided.

Wake me up when any of you want to have a conversation. You might remember conversations as those things where one person says something, another replies to that something in a meaningful way and asks some questions, the first person replies to those and asks their own, and so on. I highly recommend them.

[ash_is_the_gal]

I kinda wanted to say stuff, but more than half the people in this thread who don't show 100% support have been called stupid/moronic/dense at least once, so why bother?

[bouncingbrick]

I kinda wanted to say stuff, but more than half the people in this thread who don't show 100% support have been called stupid/moronic/dense at least once, so why bother?

In the case of me, I am dumb. Didn't you know?

You can tell by the way my sarcasm has been kept to a minimum in this thread. That's a true sign of stupidity.

[will.15]

Apart from being vague (growth rate over what period?), there are three issues with using this:

1) Smaller economies grow faster than larger economies, because growth is measured as a percentage of their existing economy. The larger an economy is, the harder it is to keep a higher growth rate, and our economy is still over two-and-a-half-times as large as China's.

2) Assuming you're measuring growth by GDP, you can "teach to the test" on growth with government works projects that temporarily raise GDP even if they're clearly foolish. You've already provided evidence of this with that article about their reckless infrastructure spending. Technically speaking, you can hire people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them back up, and that counts towards GDP.

3) They have a poor human rights record. I'm sure we could squeeze lots of extra efficiency out of our workers if we were willing to cut more corners. I'll bet the pyramids were built for very little, too. But real growth comparisons between countries first need to establish some kind of baseline of human rights.

Anyway, you've said you don't think it's entirely for real, and I agree. Infrastructure spending and human rights issues lessen the meaningfulness of the comparison, we'd expect a smaller economy to growth faster, and to the degree that they have grown it seems like a clear result of them adopting freer (though certainly not free) markets than they had before. For these reasons, as a capitalist, I am not terribly concerned that this represents any kind of experimental threat.


Absolutely. That's part of the problem: the very nature of a crisis makes it almost impossible not to intervene, even if that intervention worsens or prolongs the problem. People panic and want to see their leaders doing things, and leaders want to appear proactive and responsive to problems. It's a structural problem with human nature and the nature of economic recessions.


I'm new to this event, but even a little rudimentary research indicates that there was tremendous government-created inflation leading up to this crisis. Speculative bubbles are pretty much invariably accompanied by cheap credit government policies.
But direct government intervention in economic upheavals didn't really become common until after the Great Depression. Before then the economic upheavals in the United States was more frequent and intense than in the twentieth century. The evidence clearly shows after the Great Depression, after more government control, the economy ran smoother. There was one depression in the United States in the twentieth century and four of them, not merely recessions, in the 19th century. Even the current economic downturn is only a recession, but common sense says without government intervention it would have been a depression.

As for the Panic of 1837 (a depression) it was created by deregulation, Andrew Jackson dissolving the Bank of the United States and depositing government money in various state banks. The free market President caused it (back then the Democrats were the free market party, Republicans were pro business protectionists). EDIT: (okay, it was the Whig Party at that point or about to be the Whig Party, which basically became the Republican Party with a strong stance against slavery).

Egypt had slaves to help bulid their pyramids. The Chinese aren't quite that bad off. And part of the reason they went crazy with the public works projects is because if there is a serious downturn they are afraid their people will turn against them. China by introducing capitalism into China no longer has the tight grip on the populace they once had. They aren't North Korea. They have been able to miinimze democratic pressure because the standard of living has been raised, but if they go into the toilet, the supposed communists will be in big trouble. They saw what happened to the Soviet Union and it scares the crap out of them. And the Spring revolt in the Middle East is another reminder economic troubles is a big threat for the survival of autocratic regimes.

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhFvZRT7Ds0

[bouncingbrick]

^^^^Deadite, are you trying to say that the OWS people are putting themselves on the gears of the machine? Because that is the very core of our disagreement. I'm pretty sure they haven't put their bodies anywhere near the gears of the machine.

[Deadite]

Scott Olsen would disagree. But you go ahead and keep baiting and playing games, brick. I'll do my best to keep to what Yoda and I agreed on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPV3h_dpBwQ

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yrT-0Xbrn4&feature=player_embedded#at=69

[DexterRiley]

Then why is it called Occupy Wall Street? Why are they not marching on Washington? Why are they not finding politicians who support their movement?



The internet is an awesome place. Really Brick, you've gotta go out of your way to be ill-informed if you have an internet connection.

From November 21st

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5EzSjUAGR8

From today (dec 5th)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH5ItJmc9CQ&list=UUB14snoJKEyyDMS-2YvNYhQ&feature=plcp
The 99%’s Deficit Proposal: How to create jobs, reduce the wealth divide and control spending

http://october2011.org/blogs/kevin-zeese/99-s-deficit-proposal-how-create-jobs-reduce-wealth-divide-and-control-spending

[bouncingbrick]

The internet is an awesome place. Really Brick, you've gotta go out of your way to be ill-informed if you have an internet connection.

From November 21st

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5EzSjUAGR8

From today (dec 5th)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dH5ItJmc9CQ&list=UUB14snoJKEyyDMS-2YvNYhQ&feature=plcp
The 99%’s Deficit Proposal: How to create jobs, reduce the wealth divide and control spending

http://october2011.org/blogs/kevin-zeese/99-s-deficit-proposal-how-create-jobs-reduce-wealth-divide-and-control-spending

So you tell me I have to be willfully ignorant and then provide me with a video explaining how they will camp out all winter and a video that didn't tell me anything. Well, I'll be honest, I could only stand watching about 2 minutes of that second video because that guys just obnoxious and full of hot air. If getting turned off by the person bringing the message to me (message used very loosley), then I'll stay willfully ignorant. I can't stand this grand standing bulls***. Cut to the effing chase.

I have no patience! Distill the message down to a few sentences or a 20 second sound clip! If you're going to preach at me I'm turning you off.

Stupid, pointless videos. You might as well follow Deadite's lead and post some music videos...

Tell me what the message of the movement is. Straight up. What do they want? No videos, no bloviating, no music videos, no sarcastic crap. Tell me what the core agenda is. I'm pretty sure they don't have one, which may be their downfall in the long run, but if you know what it is, I want to know.

And, for the record, simply saying "get the business/money out of politics" isn't saying what they want. Showing me a politicain who will vote in thier favor is something. Showing me a law/constitutional amendment/etc. that will spark change is something. Give me something substantial.

If I can't see how this movement will work at least show me what they want.

And, I swear to God, if I see that 9 minute clip of the middle-aged republican lady again I'll loose my s*** even more than I have already. I don't know what she wanted either because I can't watch that crap. Stop preaching and starting speaking.

[DexterRiley]

lulz

you are amusing.

i posted a constitutional ammendment proposal several pages back. You are more interested in sniping than learnen anything, which is fine.

you sure do whine alot though.

[Deadite]

Just ignore him, Dex. He's a waste of time. I feel sorry for him more than anything.

[DexterRiley]

by request

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5K3D_g3FPo

[bouncingbrick]

lulz

you are amusing.

i posted a constitutional ammendment proposal several pages back. You are more interested in sniping than learnen anything, which is fine.

you sure do whine alot though.

Ok, I can't find it. Could you link to it? You have several posts that are epic in length, it makes my brain hurt.

Let me better explain my position.

If the movement doesn't come up with a very specific idea of what it wants as a whole then the normal people who are watching from the outside won't understand it. If they don't understand it they won't take an interest in it. If they don't take an interest it will never be anything more than a fringe movement and it will fail.

I want change in how our government operrates but I just don't think the OWS movement has what it takes to get it done.

[Deadite]

Maybe try Ritalin or something?

[bouncingbrick]

Maybe try Ritalin or something?

Maybe you need ritalin since you seem unable to simply have a conversation.

Here, I'll start. Explain to me how I'm wrong in my last post. How can the OWSers make change if they are percieved by the public to be fringe protesters and radicals with no comprehendable message? Let's take it one step at a time. Answer that simple question.

Or be sarcastic and prove to me that you can't answer a question and you aren't as smart as you think you are. Either one, no skin off my back.

[bouncingbrick]

Sorry for the double post but I just remembered what I wanted to say to Dexter! :D

I want simple messages, not propaganda. Why do you keep posting propagana videos? Those aren't information.

90% of all the stuff both of you post is propaganda. That's a very biased way to attempt to debate. It's not a debate if you post a propaganda video as if to say "see? I'm right!" Show me information and give me your opinion based on said information. I've done it already, why can't you guys?

[Sedai]

I dunno, Brick is holding his own pretty well from where I am sitting...

Dex - Do you really think you are well-informed because you have the internet? You don't think there's any, like, misinformation on the web?

[Yoda]

Yeah, I asked Dex that very thing (why he trusts one source over another) awhile back and got no reply, as is so often the case.

The fact that information is available is only relevant when you're talking about something that's not under dispute. The Internet gives you no excuse not to find out what Tom Petty's birthday is, if you want to know, but it doesn't help a lot with something more subjective like this.

I think you'd be a lot less frustrated, brick, if you realized that this thread--even though you're the one who started it--is not for debate or discussion. It's just an alter where people place their offerings to the movement. Usually in the form of some tangential-at-best video.

[DexterRiley]

I dunno, Brick is holding his own pretty well from where I am sitting...

Dex - Do you really think you are well-informed because you have the internet? You don't think there's any, like, misinformation on the web?

There is misinformation everywhere Seds. The nightly news is full of it.

its up to each individual how much or little weight they assess to their sources for information.

But at the end of the day, yes of course the Internet should make folks more informed.

Ron Paul has been talking about auditing the Fed for 30 years, didnt gain any sort of traction whatsoever until the internet rolled around.

The net levels the playing field to a great degree wouldn't you say?

[DexterRiley]

Yeah, I asked Dex that very thing (why he trusts one source over another) awhile back and got no reply, as is so often the case.



oh i missed that. Thats an easy one.

Credibility. Every Source gets the benefit of the doubt until they are proven to be either lying or worse intellectually dishonest.

This eliminates roughly 90 percent of the mainstream media that banged the War drums like cheerleaders without bothering to ask critical questions.

[bouncingbrick]

Soooo...you're not going to tell me what the proposed amendment was? :D

And you're not going to tell me how they expect to make real change without any kind of mainstream acceptance?

@ Yoda You mean a music video of Rage Against the Machine isn't debate material?

[DexterRiley]

broken record is broken. the search function is not.

use it.

also, your expectations are your own.

lotsa Colonists didnt partake in the Revolution back in the day.

[bouncingbrick]

Search for what? "Coherent response"?

EDIT: I just want to point out that I've been called "dense" and a "broken record" and other things and yet I don't think I've been given a straght answer this entire thread. Just sayin...

[Fiscal]

This is the most creative, agreeable video I have watched regarding Occupy Wall Street.

"I don't keep a knife under my seat, to join the revolution and spill blood in the streets. I'd rather have a discussion over a bottle of butter, puff on a blunt, then get something to eat."

Then ends it, "lets talk it over, over more rounds. What do you say?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6lowoCgyzQ

[DesignerFloss]

I too don't entirely understand the goal of the Occupy movement either. I appreciate that they're generally peaceful and coherent individuals, but they don't seem to want anything specific.

[Deadite]

http://liamkinnon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Occupy-Signs.jpg

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/occupy%20signs%20lawsuit.jpg

http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/node-gallery-display/gallery_occupy9.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Production/Blogs/arts-post/Images/506728606.jpg?uuid=trrpsP5oEeCayZUAsvM-EQ

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Occupy_Oakland_99_Percent_signs.jpg

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/occupy-wall-street-signs.jpg

http://media.egotvonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-brooklyn-bridge-october-1-2011-protester-with-sign-pepper-spray-goldman-sachs-01-600x399.jpg

http://weblog.sinteur.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/corporations-texas-execute.jpg

http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/Protesters-form-a-wall-of-signs-at-the-Occupy-Portland-camp-in-downtown-Portland-Oregon.-AP.jpg

http://img.izismile.com/img/img4/20111008/640/classic_occupy_wall_street_protest_signs_640_26.jpg

http://www.lolgallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/classic_occupy_wall_street_protest_signs_640_07.jpg

http://www.seattlerex.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/occupyseattle10-600x450.jpg

[bouncingbrick]

Thanks, not only does that tell me nothing, but it's yet another non-answer. Way to go, Deadite.

[Deadite]

http://flaglerlive.com/wp-content/uploads/signs-occupy-wall.jpg

http://www.businessinsider.com/image/4e9d80b5eab8ead153000023/occupy-wall-street-sign.jpg

http://interfaithreflections.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/OccupyDE-signs.jpg

http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luzefr58WV1qaqp1mo1_500.jpg

http://dailyexhaust.com/images/occupy-boston-signs05.jpg

http://digitaljournal.com/img/3/1/3/8/8/3/i/9/7/3/o/OccupyNWA_signs_313112_10150424533742952_759802951_10315729_214319389_n.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UnxEmOGxqV0/TtVgwWv6-qI/AAAAAAAAJnM/0ZUoL4lbEtU/s1600/occupy3.jpg

http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/node-gallery-display/gallery_occupy7.jpg

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/OccupyWallStreetSign.jpg

http://cdnl.complex.com/assets/galleries/2011/8711/620x400/cake_nxmak.jpg

http://cdnl.complex.com/assets/galleries/2011/8711/620x400/enhanced-buzz-18013-1318017000-48-1.jpg

http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/node-gallery-display/main_occupy5_0.jpg

http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/node-gallery-display/gallery_occupy10.jpg

http://img.ibtimes.com/www/data/images/full/2011/10/07/170761-occupy-wall-street-protest-signs.jpg

http://www.blogto.com/upload/2011/10/20111020-occupy-sign.jpg

[Deadite]

Thanks, not only does that tell me nothing, but it's yet another non-answer. Way to go, Deadite.

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I couldn't care less what you think at this point.

[Deadite]

And since this thread is about Occupy, and Occupy is about representation versus corruption, I will continue to post stuff like this:

http://liamkinnon.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Occupy-Signs.jpg

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/occupy%20signs%20lawsuit.jpg

http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/node-gallery-display/gallery_occupy9.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Production/Blogs/arts-post/Images/506728606.jpg?uuid=trrpsP5oEeCayZUAsvM-EQ

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Occupy_Oakland_99_Percent_signs.jpg

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/occupy-wall-street-signs.jpg

http://media.egotvonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-brooklyn-bridge-october-1-2011-protester-with-sign-pepper-spray-goldman-sachs-01-600x399.jpg

http://weblog.sinteur.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/corporations-texas-execute.jpg

http://media.zenfs.com/en/blogs/theticket/Protesters-form-a-wall-of-signs-at-the-Occupy-Portland-camp-in-downtown-Portland-Oregon.-AP.jpg

http://img.izismile.com/img/img4/20111008/640/classic_occupy_wall_street_protest_signs_640_26.jpg

http://www.lolgallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/classic_occupy_wall_street_protest_signs_640_07.jpg

http://www.seattlerex.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/occupyseattle10-600x450.jpg

And if you don't like it, tough.

[Deadite]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Pz73TRtH0Es/Tpz1V4cycRI/AAAAAAAAEtU/lm_annL3g_k/s400/occupy%2BLA%2Bsign_milked.jpg

http://www.elpueblodehouston.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/occupy1w-signs.jpg

http://ph.cdn.photos.upi.com/collection/upi/e5de65fae8d5bda3c6c43e332e3c2c6b/A-man-holds-a-sign-during-an-OccupyAtlanta-protest-in-Atlanta_46.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VMZwKr5QPBA/TpS2FhcjukI/AAAAAAACbh4/OgQlLE8ov9I/s1600/occupy-wall-street-protest-signs-15.jpg

http://joannagardner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/IMG_2978.jpg

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_full_width/hash/87/9c/397px-Occupy_Boston_-_signs_3_0.jpg

http://podcast.rocketlawyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/occupy_wall_street-signs-99.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eA_bYYKS-NI/Tsdj8ImEjqI/AAAAAAAACB4/1UVK4jesqmI/s640/occupy+wall+street+signs+008.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oG2BlVJk1v4/TpohD0RZMtI/AAAAAAAADc8/iFET9uQSnJY/s1600/1015occupy1.jpg

http://photos.dailycamera.com/News/Occupy-Boulder-Rally-10142011/i-nFdXhsd/0/M/Occupy-Boulder-Rally003-M.jpg

[Deadite]

http://letstalkmagazine.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/occupy_boston_sign1.jpg

http://1.images.theweek.com/img/dir_0067/33691_slideshow_full/occupy-wall-street-protest-signs-a-slideshow.jpg

http://www.thefloridanewsjournal.com/sites/thefloridanewsjournal.com/files/imagecache/Article-Page/TFNJ-L110-3102-Occupy-UCF-Signs4a.jpg

http://f1s1.olapic.com/data/media/d/d/m/ddmtka3/protesters-and-their-signs-occupy-wall-street_normal.jpg

http://www.forkparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ws16.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6RBpB7Pq8fI/TpjaiBV-99I/AAAAAAAAAk0/z59OigcHohU/s640/FoxSignOccupyWallStreet.jpg

http://toddkinsey.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Occupy-Portland-Signs1.jpg

http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4e8f392669bedddc04000036/protest-sign.jpg

http://0.tqn.com/d/dc/1/0/C/d/1/IMG_2423.JPG

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cGW5NRn-1a0/TpoIKd2RBfI/AAAAAAAABEw/KHnzzbtEBsg/s1600/occupy-denver-signs-800.jpg

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_full_width_scaled/hash/58/a0/Occupy6.jpg

[Fiscal]

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ltc4ufx7dW1r1vzzeo1_500.jpg

[mark f]

Is that supposed to refer to one single person, no matter where they're from? That's a great way of telling every human they're worthless. I realize one may well be, but I don't really like it put that way. Obviously some people think they're "worth" more than others, but I'll stop talking (typing) now.

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lj9eq5kuIT1qamw24o1_500.png

http://annyas.com/htdocs/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/they-live-09.jpg

[will.15]

http://weblog.sinteur.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/corporations-texas-execute.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-VMZwKr5QPBA/TpS2FhcjukI/AAAAAAACbh4/OgQlLE8ov9I/s1600/occupy-wall-street-protest-signs-15.jpg
What Occupation Wall Street need is more good looking women like these holding up signs.

[Deadite]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-3WY4Ashm-9o/TscuVCQ931I/AAAAAAAAVF4/Wdc9lddNsc0/s1600/Occupy+Anchorage+Signs.jpg

http://www.baltimorebrew.com/publish/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/occupy-in-rain-99-problems.jpg

http://videos.videopress.com/v3R5gVVG/lates-tsigns-from-occupy-wall-street-occupywallstreet_std.original.jpg

http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_full_width_scaled/hash/5f/2d/Occupy9_1.jpg

http://media.egotvonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/occupy-the-hood.jpg

http://diaryofahollywoodstreetking.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-protest-signs.jpg

http://www.thearkansasproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/occupying_collage.jpg

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Occupy+Wall+Street+Protestors+Take+Up+Residence+FQjUIf4_P6ol.jpg

[Deadite]

What does Wall Street want?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-raushenbush/what-does-wall-street-really-want_b_1006861.html

[Deadite]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MuloSY4jPSQ/TppjcjoUAvI/AAAAAAAADzs/S--vEd6pPz8/s1600/occupy9.jpg

http://www.sunshineslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Occupy-Orlando-1-0547-575x400.jpg

http://www.thegrio.com/uploads/OccupyWallstreet_TStarr10_resized.jpg

http://www.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_full_width/hash/OccupyRaleigh1%20%2816%29.JPG

http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNews/img2/20111016/800_occupy_toronto_signs_cp_111016.jpg?2

http://www.cbsnews.com/i/tim/2011/10/30/eve_salinger_1030_480x360.jpg

http://img.allvoices.com/thumbs/image/609/480/87311657-members-the.jpg

http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bRr5rL8Pe2tY/x610.jpg

http://ph.cdn.photos.upi.com/collection/upi/90218eb83a68ffe7370727413172646c/Occupy-Wall-Street-demonstrators-are-allowed-to-remain-in-Zuccotti-Park-in-New-York_27.jpg

http://www.inhenryswake.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/sign-making-2.jpg

http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2011/10/4ea1bf94e8075.jpg

http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2011/10/4ea1c1fd9f8df.jpg

http://static.happyplace.com/assets/images/2011/10/4ea1c7d71ac4a.jpg

http://www.postconsumers.com/education/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/democracy.jpg

[Deadite]

http://www.thenation.com/article/164767/democratic-promise-occupy-wall-street

Another reason I’m optimistic about the Occupy movement is its distinctiveness from other movements. Its horizontal, leaderless quality confuses outsiders but ensures its autonomy as a free-standing force not beholden to political parties or financial patrons that might restrict its behavior. OWS’s creativity depends on its independence.

[bouncingbrick]

http://www.thenation.com/article/164767/democratic-promise-occupy-wall-street

And it's lack of leadship will ultimately be it's downfall, as I've already stated.

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I couldn't care less what you think at this point.

This is extremely unfortunate because I still care what you think but, at this point, I don't think you think anything at all. Because you won't have a discussion with me.

For starters, I don't think you've listened to a single thing I've said. I agree with the idea that things have gotten completely out of control. The US (and most governments) are infected with corruption. From the president down to local alderman to fire chiefs, money and the influence of those who have a lot of it have taken the true power out of the hands of the voters. I agree that the greed and reckless business practices that lead to the crash of 2008 should have been kept in check and now millions of people are paying for the actions of a few. That should never happen again.

However, I still have two concerns about the Occupy Wall Street movement that neither you nor Dexter will answer.

1) There is no central message or leadership to the movement. I know there's some dunces out there who think this is a good thing, but those people don't take into account that for the movement to succeed they need these things. They cannot affect real change by themselves. They need the support of a larger group of people, specifically the voters. But they won't find that backing without a clear message. You keep pointing to past protests as if that's some form a debating this point, so I'll do the same. The civil rights movement had a clear message, eaqual rights for minorities. It had leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King. The womens sufferage movement had a clear eaqual rights message and leaders like Susan B. Anthony to move it forward. OWS has been going on for a few months with little to show for it other than a ton of bad press. At this point the only news that comes out about them is negative news. They really need a publicist.

2) Their methods do next to nothing to affect the people responsible for our situation. They are a minor inconvenience to both lawmakers and financial leaders. They are a major headache for law enforcement, however, and those are the people they claim to be supporting! Without the backing of the people (read #1 again), they cannot get the power to reach the lawmakers that they need. This is not an issue that will be fixed by simple peaceful protesting. Especially because the mainstream media and a good portion of the populace have written them off as a fringe group.

Now, I know that you either can't or won't address my concerns and I doubt that DexterRiley will either. But, I promise that when you do I will cease being a broken record. If you are half as smart as you think you are, you will explain to me why I am wrong. And you will do it without pictures or videos. You will do it without propaganda. You will do it by simply explaining to me how you think they will succeed.

But I know this won't happen. :(

[Sedai]

Hey Will15 - I know you tend to not read people's posts, but now it appears that you won't even look at the pictures, either. Any reason you posted the exact same pictures Deadite posted a mere 3-4 posts earlier? Because, you know, we saw them the first time.

[DexterRiley]

My name is Patrick Meighan, and I’m a husband, a father, a writer on the Fox animated sitcom “Family Guy”, and a member of the Unitarian Universalist Community Church of Santa Monica.

I was arrested at about 1 a.m. Wednesday morning with 291 other people at Occupy LA. I was sitting in City Hall Park with a pillow, a blanket, and a copy of Thich Nhat Hanh’s “Being Peace” when 1,400 heavily-armed LAPD officers in paramilitary SWAT gear streamed in. I was in a group of about 50 peaceful protestors who sat Indian-style, arms interlocked, around a tent (the symbolic image of the Occupy movement). The LAPD officers encircled us, weapons drawn, while we chanted “We Are Peaceful” and “We Are Nonviolent” and “Join Us.”

As we sat there, encircled, a separate team of LAPD officers used knives to slice open every personal tent in the park. They forcibly removed anyone sleeping inside, and then yanked out and destroyed any personal property inside those tents, scattering the contents across the park. They then did the same with the communal property of the Occupy LA movement. For example, I watched as the LAPD destroyed a pop-up canopy tent that, until that moment, had been serving as Occupy LA’s First Aid and Wellness tent, in which volunteer health professionals gave free medical care to absolutely anyone who requested it. As it happens, my family had personally contributed that exact canopy tent to Occupy LA, at a cost of several hundred of my family’s dollars. As I watched, the LAPD sliced that canopy tent to shreds, broke the telescoping poles into pieces and scattered the detritus across the park. Note that these were the objects described in subsequent mainstream press reports as “30 tons of garbage” that was “abandoned” by Occupy LA: personal property forcibly stolen from us, destroyed in front of our eyes and then left for maintenance workers to dispose of while we were sent to prison.

When the LAPD finally began arresting those of us interlocked around the symbolic tent, we were all ordered by the LAPD to unlink from each other (in order to facilitate the arrests). Each seated, nonviolent protester beside me who refused to cooperate by unlinking his arms had the following done to him: an LAPD officer would forcibly extend the protestor’s legs, grab his left foot, twist it all the way around and then stomp his boot on the insole, pinning the protestor’s left foot to the pavement, twisted backwards. Then the LAPD officer would grab the protestor’s right foot and twist it all the way the other direction until the non-violent protestor, in incredible agony, would shriek in pain and unlink from his neighbor.

It was horrible to watch, and apparently designed to terrorize the rest of us. At least I was sufficiently terrorized. I unlinked my arms voluntarily and informed the LAPD officers that I would go peacefully and cooperatively. I stood as instructed, and then I had my arms wrenched behind my back, and an officer hyperextended my wrists into my inner arms. It was super violent, it hurt really really bad, and he was doing it on purpose. When I involuntarily recoiled from the pain, the LAPD officer threw me face-first to the pavement. He had my hands behind my back, so I landed right on my face. The officer dropped with his knee on my back and ground my face into the pavement. It really, really hurt and my face started bleeding and I was very scared. I begged for mercy and I promised that I was honestly not resisting and would not resist.

My hands were then zipcuffed very tightly behind my back, where they turned blue. I am now suffering nerve damage in my right thumb and palm.
I was put on a paddywagon with other nonviolent protestors and taken to a parking garage in Parker Center. They forced us to kneel on the hard pavement of that parking garage for seven straight hours with our hands still tightly zipcuffed behind our backs. Some began to pass out. One man rolled to the ground and vomited for a long, long time before falling unconscious. The LAPD officers watched and did nothing.

At 9 a.m. we were finally taken from the pavement into the station to be processed. The charge was sitting in the park after the police said not to. It’s a misdemeanor. Almost always, for a misdemeanor, the police just give you a ticket and let you go. It costs you a couple hundred dollars. Apparently, that’s what happened with most every other misdemeanor arrest in LA that day.

With us Occupy LA protestors, however, they set bail at $5,000 and booked us into jail. Almost none of the protesters could afford to bail themselves out. I’m lucky and I could afford it, except the LAPD spent all day refusing to actually *accept* the bail they set. If you were an accused murderer or a rapist in LAPD custody that day, you could bail yourself right out and be back on the street, no problem. But if you were a nonviolent Occupy LA protestor with bail money in hand, you were held long into the following morning, with absolutely no access to a lawyer.

I spent most of my day and night crammed into an eight-man jail cell, along with sixteen other Occupy LA protesters. My sleeping spot was on the floor next to the toilet.

Finally, at 2:30 the next morning, after twenty-five hours in custody, I was released on bail. But there were at least 200 Occupy LA protestors who couldn’t afford the bail. The LAPD chose to keep those peaceful, non-violent protesters in prison for two full days… the absolute legal maximum that the LAPD is allowed to detain someone on misdemeanor charges.
As a reminder, Antonio Villaraigosa has referred to all of this as “the LAPD’s finest hour.”

So that’s what happened to the 292 women and men were arrested last Wednesday. Now let’s talk about a man who was not arrested last Wednesday. He is former Citigroup CEO Charles Prince. Under Charles Prince, Citigroup was guilty of massive, coordinated securities fraud.

Citigroup spent years intentionally buying up every bad mortgage loan it could find, creating bad securities out of those bad loans and then selling shares in those bad securities to duped investors. And then they sometimes secretly bet *against* their *own* bad securities to make even more money. For one such bad Citigroup security, Citigroup executives were internally calling it, quote, “a collection of dogshit”. To investors, however, they called it, quote, “an attractive investment rigorously selected by an independent investment adviser”.

This is fraud, and it’s a felony, and the Charles Princes of the world spent several years doing it again and again: knowingly writing bad mortgages, and then packaging them into fraudulent securities which they then sold to suckers and then repeating the process. This is a big part of why your property values went up so fast. But then the bubble burst, and that’s why our economy is now shattered for a generation, and it’s also why your home is now underwater. Or at least mine is.

Anyway, if your retirement fund lost a decade’s-worth of gains overnight, this is why.

If your son’s middle school has added furlough days because the school district can’t afford to keep its doors open for a full school year, this is why.

If your daughter has come out of college with a degree only to discover that there are no jobs for her, this is why.

But back to Charles Prince. For his four years of in charge of massive, repeated fraud at Citigroup, he received fifty-three million dollars in salary and also received another ninety-four million dollars in stock holdings. What Charles Prince has *not* received is a pair of zipcuffs. The nerves in his thumb are fine. No cop has thrown Charles Prince into the pavement, face-first. Each and every peaceful, nonviolent Occupy LA protester arrested last week has has spent more time sleeping on a jail floor than every single Charles Prince on Wall Street, combined.

The more I think about that, the madder I get. What does it say about our country that nonviolent protesters are given the bottom of a police boot while those who steal hundreds of billions, do trillions worth of damage to our economy and shatter our social fabric for a generation are not only spared the zipcuffs but showered with rewards?

In any event, believe it or not, I’m really not angry that I got arrested. I chose to get arrested. And I’m not even angry that the mayor and the LAPD decided to give non-violent protestors like me a little extra shiv in jail (although I’m not especially grateful for it either).

I’m just really angry that every single Charles Prince wasn’t in jail with me.
Thank you for letting me share that anger with you today.

http://inspirement.tumblr.com/post/13865546607/my-name-is-patrick-meighan-and-im-a-husband-a

[Yoda]

More totems for the shrine. Just pile 'em on.

[bouncingbrick]

That's not a f***ing answer, Dexter! That is what happens when people break the law!

Again, I'll be here when you are actually ready to have a debate. Call me a broken record all you want, but it's really just the pot calling the kettle black.

[Yoda]

This page has been taking a long time to load properly, and I assumed it was because of one huge image that our resizing script was having to resize each time; that happens sometimes. So I went looking for it. You know what I found?

There is no one huge image, just dozens of big ones together choking off the page's ability to load properly. So much stuff posted so frequently and with such aimlessness that it actually impairs people's ability to see them. The message itself is sacrificed in the name of relentlessly repeating it.

I think the irony and appropriateness of that metaphor just made my nose bleed.

[DexterRiley]

i guess i could make my own thread call it Vids and pictures and stories of the Occupy Movement, but chances are great it would be merged into this one.

I answered your query several pages back. That you are 2 damn lazy to search your own thread isnt my problem.

So, I'll continue to do what i have been doing, which is posting inforimation and stories that i think might have interest for others.

And thats that.

[DexterRiley]

And it's lack of leadship will ultimately be it's downfall, as I've already stated.



This is extremely unfortunate because I still care what you think but, at this point, I don't think you think anything at all. Because you won't have a discussion with me.

For starters, I don't think you've listened to a single thing I've said. I agree with the idea that things have gotten completely out of control. The US (and most governments) are infected with corruption. From the president down to local alderman to fire chiefs, money and the influence of those who have a lot of it have taken the true power out of the hands of the voters. I agree that the greed and reckless business practices that lead to the crash of 2008 should have been kept in check and now millions of people are paying for the actions of a few. That should never happen again.

However, I still have two concerns about the Occupy Wall Street movement that neither you nor Dexter will answer.

1) There is no central message or leadership to the movement. I know there's some dunces out there who think this is a good thing, but those people don't take into account that for the movement to succeed they need these things. They cannot affect real change by themselves. They need the support of a larger group of people, specifically the voters. But they won't find that backing without a clear message. You keep pointing to past protests as if that's some form a debating this point, so I'll do the same. The civil rights movement had a clear message, eaqual rights for minorities. It had leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King. The womens sufferage movement had a clear eaqual rights message and leaders like Susan B. Anthony to move it forward. OWS has been going on for a few months with little to show for it other than a ton of bad press. At this point the only news that comes out about them is negative news. They really need a publicist.

2) Their methods do next to nothing to affect the people responsible for our situation. They are a minor inconvenience to both lawmakers and financial leaders. They are a major headache for law enforcement, however, and those are the people they claim to be supporting! Without the backing of the people (read #1 again), they cannot get the power to reach the lawmakers that they need. This is not an issue that will be fixed by simple peaceful protesting. Especially because the mainstream media and a good portion of the populace have written them off as a fringe group.

Now, I know that you either can't or won't address my concerns and I doubt that DexterRiley will either. But, I promise that when you do I will cease being a broken record. If you are half as smart as you think you are, you will explain to me why I am wrong. And you will do it without pictures or videos. You will do it without propaganda. You will do it by simply explaining to me how you think they will succeed.

But I know this won't happen. :(

Because its unanswerable.

You think it will fail for the reasons you've stated. i disagree, but only time will tell.

Nobody knows. This is totally new on American Soil. There is no playbook.

Bleating over and over again that without a defined leader they can't succeed accomplishes what exactly?

[ash_is_the_gal]

This page has been taking a long time to load properly, and I assumed it was because of one huge image that our resizing script was having to resize each time; that happens sometimes. So I went looking for it. You know what I found?

There is no one huge image, just dozens of big ones together choking off the page's ability to load properly. So much stuff posted so frequently and with such aimlessness that it actually impairs people's ability to see them. The message itself is sacrificed in the name of relentlessly repeating it.

I think the irony and appropriateness of that metaphor just made my nose bleed.

yeah, my Tapatalk app has trouble loading this thread, too.

i support the "OWS propaganda" thread idea. without all the clutter clogging up this thread , some Mofos might come out of the woodwork and fancy actually discussing this a bit more.

i can do research on my own time. i come to Mofo to read and partake in actual discussion.

[DexterRiley]

What are your thoughts on this OWS proposal Ash?

The 99%’s Deficit Proposal: How to create jobs, reduce the wealth divide and control spending

The recommendations below begin to correct the unfair policies of the last three decades, but these are only first steps to the transformational changes that are needed.

Tax the highest income households: From 1960 to 2004, the top 0.1 percent of U.S. taxpayers — the wealthiest one in one thousand — have seen the share of their income paid in total federal taxes drop from 60% to 24.3%. America’s highest income-earners — the top 400 people who have wealth equal to 154 million Americans — have seen their federal income tax drop from 51.2% in 1955 to 18.1% in 2008. If the top 400 paid as much of their incomes in personal income tax as the top 400 of 1955, the federal treasury would have collected $50 billion more in revenue from just those 400 taxpayers. If the top 0.1% of taxpayers — Americans with incomes that averaged $4.4 million — had paid total federal taxes at the same rate as the top 0.1% paid these taxes in 1960, the federal treasury would have collected an additional $250 billion in revenue.

Merely not extending the Bush tax cuts would add nearly $500 billion each year in tax revenue. Thus in just over two years the goal of the deficit committee would be met. This would be insufficient to correct the wealth divide and does not go as far as Occupy Washington, DC advocates.

A tax of a half of a percent or less on Wall Street speculation could raise over $800 billion in a decade. The Speculation Tax on the purchase of stocks, bonds and derivatives would be a tiny tax with a big impact. People in the U.S. pay much higher taxes on purchases of food and clothing; it is only fair that the wealthy pay taxes on purchasing wealth instruments.

A fair tax on capital gains, treating it as ordinary income would raise $1 trillion over a decade. Wealth-based income and work-based income should be treated equally under the law as it used to be. Warren Buffet has received a great deal of attention for pointing out that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary or anyone who works for him. The reason for this is that investment income is taxed at a much lower rate than income from labor. The United States needs to tax wealth more and work less.

Congress should enact a “pure worldwide” tax system, in which all profits of U.S. corporations, whether they are generated in the U.S. or abroad, would be taxed by the U.S. This would end “deferral,” i.e. where taxes are deferred until money is brought back into the United States. U.S. corporations would continue to receive a credit against any taxes they pay to a foreign government (the foreign tax credit) so that profits are not double-taxed. Under a pure worldwide tax system, corporations would have little or no tax incentive to move jobs offshore because the U.S. would tax profits of corporations no matter where they are generated. The Treasury estimates that deferral of U.S. taxes on offshore corporate profits costs close to $50 billion each year, and many experts think this estimate is substantially understated.

Ending deferral does not even address the hundreds of billions lost through tax havens. Tax havens should be shut down through the passage of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act. In fact, the U.S. Treasury estimates this costs $100 billion each year. In 2006 the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations reported that Americans now have more than $1 trillion in assets offshore and illegally evade between $40 and $70 billion in U.S. taxes each year through the use of offshore tax schemes.

Closing corporate tax loopholes would return the fair share of taxes paid by corporations to the funding of government. Declining corporate taxation is another prime factor in increasing deficits. Corporate income taxes have fallen from roughly 4.8% of GDP in the 1950s to only 1.8% of GDP over the past decade. Ending just two large breaks, deferral of overseas revenue and accelerated depreciation would raise about $114 billion over a decade. The Treasury Department lists $365 billion in corporate tax breaks being gifted annually — that’s $3.65 trillion over the next 10 years. Due to tax loopholes, corporations pay record low tax rates — they actually pay 21% on average. Indeed, a recent report by Citizens for Tax Justice found that Wells Fargo received $18 billion in tax breaks, while both Verizon and General Electric paid negative taxes. Earlier Citizens for Tax Justice reported that 12 major companies which together made $171 billion in profits from 2008-2010 paid a negative $2.5 billion in taxes, thanks to $62 billion in tax subsidies.

The taxes described above would generate at least $600 billion annually. The goal of the Joint Deficit Committee of $1.2 trillion over ten years could be met in two years. The United States has more than enough wealth to meet the needs of its people.

http://october2011.org/blogs/kevin-zeese/99-s-deficit-proposal-how-create-jobs-reduce-wealth-divide-and-control-spending

[bouncingbrick]

That's why I won't search for your answer, Dexter. Because most of your posts are entire novels worth of near useless information. If you don't want to repost a simple sentence, fine. I won't ask you for answers anymore. But Deadite will still get my attention.

By the way, how does increasing taxes help when you have a government so incompetent in how they spend money that they can't keep the postal service or social security from going bankrupt? You really want to give them more money to burn? I think not.

[Yoda]

I'm more interested in how they reconcile the cognitive dissonance inherent in simultaneously demanding more jobs and wanting to tax businesses and investors more. The two are pretty much in direct conflict with one another.

The excerpted proposal above has so many problems with it I barely know where to begin. And why begin, anyway? I've been through this song and dance: if I refute it point-by-point, it's not as if that's going to receive so much as an acknowledgement, let alone a mea culpa. It'll be ignored or glossed over and then there'll magically be another article to refute. It happens every. Single. Time.

Posting this information is fine in and of itself. The problem is the refusal to stand by any of it when it gets torn apart. It's great as a jumping off point, but not as an end point. It's just "here's stuff that agrees with me, and I'm not interested in hearing about why it's wrong." What's the point in that?

[Sexy Celebrity]

For me, my complete disgust with things right now - and why I support Occupy - is mostly due to the student loan problem in America. I'm not going to talk about my own personal reasons for this because that's my business, but until going to college doesn't become a lifelong trap where lenders want to do nothing but suck you dry for life - or harass you in the worst way if you don't - while never forgiving you for taking out loans to improve your life (many not even fully aware of the repercussions until after college) - never discharging your loans, ruining your credit, etc. - I will never, ever go back to college until this crap is changed and fixed. We need free education in America. We need to quit brainwashing people that they're worthless unless they go to college and bury themselves into what is called "good debt."

http://occupystudentdebt.com/

[Yoda]

We do have free education: it's called public school, and it's been pretty terrible. Besides, the primary selling point of college are comparisons (usually distorted) between those with degrees and those without. That selling point ceases to exist if access is universal. And on top of that free college really just means demand for private colleges that offer a better education for more, and they become to the public colleges what the public colleges currently are to GED.

You'll get no argument from me that the cost of college very often outstrips its actual value these days. But the solution is for people to stop giving them their money. That's what I did.

[will.15]

Hey Will15 - I know you tend to not read people's posts, but now it appears that you won't even look at the pictures, either. Any reason you posted the exact same pictures Deadite posted a mere 3-4 posts earlier? Because, you know, we saw them the first time.
You missed the point obviously. Of course I saw the pictures and picked out those two pictures deliberately to comment on. If you can't figure out why there is no pont in explaining it, but the two positive reps means other people understood what I was doing.

[will.15]

We do have free education: it's called public school, and it's been pretty terrible. Besides, the primary selling point of college are comparisons (usually distorted) between those with degrees and those without. That selling point ceases to exist if access is universal. And on top of that free college really just means demand for private colleges that offer a better education for more, and they become to the public colleges what the public colleges currently are to GED.

You'll get no argument from me that the cost of college very often outstrips its actual value these days. But the solution is for people to stop giving them their money. That's what I did.
Free education is not terrible. It is terrible in poor neighborhoods for a lot of reasons.

And it is not free either.

[Yoda]

Free education not being free was going to be my other line, but I figured everyone knows by now that "free BLANK" is pretty much always a misnomer. Or at least, they should.

Public school is not terrible in all instances at all times, sure. But it is quite bad in total, and fully discovers the "terrible" moniker when judged against its cost. There's certainly nothing in lower education that should inspire confidence at government taking on higher education any more than it already has.

[will.15]

Public education in upper middle class neighborhooods when you look at SAT scores do as well as private schools. That is why vouchers have never won a referendum because most parents are satisfied with the education their children are receiving.

[Yoda]

Sure, if you cherry-pick it might be comparable. But even if we conveniently exclude the schools bringing averages down they'd still be paying far, far more for similar results. Getting the same results for more money is a failure in any sphere other than government.

I can't speak to voter reasoning behind voting down voucher referendums, but using one's own satisfaction would be a terrible argument against them because vouchers are a) optional and b) generally targeted towards failing school districts.

[will.15]

http://www.coalition4publicschools.org/coalition/documents/new/TheCaseAgainstPrivateSchoolVouchers.pdf

[ash_is_the_gal]

What are your thoughts on this OWS proposal Ash?well i won't pretend like i know the ins and outs of the whole deal, but i spent a lot of yesterday and the greater part of this afternoon reading up on it, and i'm glad i did, because i think i understand it... a bit better now. like Sexy Celebrity said, i think our country needs this. people are angry and bitter and sick of the way things are. i don't think the protestors really want to have a plan right now - i think it just feels good to let off some steam and just bitch and shout and grab everyone's attention, which they've certainly done.

but i'm with bouncing brick on this. so far, this whole thing is poorly executed, and i think supporters of the the current cause are mostly built in wishful thinking.

i did find this article (http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/do_we_know_what_ows_wants_yet/singleton/) today as proof of at least one thing that looks like some kind of 'goal' the group has in mind, which is basically a declaration for congressmen to gather on July 4th of next year to at least try to communicate about their list of grievances. well, that's something, at least. (notice how i'm linking to it, and writing a little summary blurb about it, but not copying and pasting the entirety of it on this page to save on clutter - you can do this, too. it's much more reader-friendly).

another thing i found quite interesting was this survey (http://www.fastcompany.com/1789018/occupy-wall-street-demographics-statistics#disqus_thread) which basically says that not only are a third of the protestors older than mid-thirties, but nearly half are employed full-time. i think earlier in this thread someone said that the majority of the protestors were on unemployment and had lost their homes (in fact, i think SC used this as a justifier for all the sexual assaults that were taking place).

anyway, in all honesty, i need to read more up on this than i have. which will take time.

[Sexy Celebrity]

i think earlier in this thread someone said that the majority of the protestors were on unemployment and had lost their homes (in fact, i think SC used this as a justifier for all the sexual assaults that were taking place).

It was a bad joke for those of you just coming in. No job, no house = probably no girlfriend = go to the Occupy protests and get laid. Men find women in the same situation as them = fall in love. Men who can't even accept rejection from homeless, jobless women = rape.

[Deadite]

I am just here to post propaganda. Ignore me all you like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45BotfjfGpE

[DexterRiley]

That's why I won't search for your answer, Dexter. Because most of your posts are entire novels worth of near useless information.

:facepalm:

[Sexy Celebrity]

That's why I won't search for your answer, Dexter. Because most of your posts are entire novels worth of near useless information.

http://i39.tinypic.com/6sqr6p.jpg

[bouncingbrick]

:facepalm:
Funny, I have the same reaction to everything you post in this thread.

Answer me this, what's so hard about simply restating the proposed amendment?

Is it the thing from the big black box of text way back near the beginning? Because I already read that and reacted to it and I think someone already pointed out that that was more the opinion of the author than the opinion of the movement. Besides, it doesn't change the fact that the movement still hasn't put out any unified message other than their 99% promotion. Yeah, we get it, you aren't rich...unless you're one of the many celebrities who lower yourself enough to be seen in public at one of these things.

By the way, have you seen one of the many videos of celebrities visiting the protesters? Deadite has posted several...

[Yoda]

http://www.coalition4publicschools.org/coalition/documents/new/TheCaseAgainstPrivateSchoolVouchers.pdf
Sweet screaming monkeys, are those some terrible arguments. 1 is a false dichotomy, 2 is just literally false (and beside the point, anyway), 3 is cherry-picked and contradicted by many other examples, 4 is just 2 restated (erroneously), 5 is often false but so vague and unexplained as to be impossible to critique specifically, 6 doesn't argue about voucher effectiveness (and is partially false in a purely technical sense, as well), and 7 is simply not an argument.

Seriously, terrible stuff. If you want to continue this, I'll create a thread, and I'll do it gladly. The arguments against school choice are some of the flimsiest arguments in the political discourse today.

[mark f]

Many of the protestors are university professors! Even one of Sarah's professors was interviewed on cable TV with her lawyer husband. Yeah, they were both arrested, I think, but that was months ago. I watched the LAPD "clear" out the "park" on the news. It was on after the 11PM news. I can't actually verify whatever was said by that "Family Guy" writer, but I was pretty disgusted. One of the main reasons it pissed me off was that LAPD was using Dodger Stadium as a staging area. Anyway, this is just the tip of the iceberg. With the elections coming, it's only going to escalate, no matter what anybody else thinks about it.

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URoSs20ImZQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_Lav8vzYPw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CQhW4bzokY

http://detnews.com/article/20111206/METRO01/112060386/Occupy-Detroit-protests-Southgate-couple%E2%80%99s-eviction

[DexterRiley]

Funny, I have the same reaction to everything you post in this thread.

Answer me this, what's so hard about simply restating the proposed amendment?

Is it the thing from the big black box of text way back near the beginning? Because I already read that and reacted to it and I think someone already pointed out that that was more the opinion of the author than the opinion of the movement. Besides, it doesn't change the fact that the movement still hasn't put out any unified message other than their 99% promotion. Yeah, we get it, you aren't rich...unless you're one of the many celebrities who lower yourself enough to be seen in public at one of these things.

By the way, have you seen one of the many videos of celebrities visiting the protesters? Deadite has posted several...

Rich? what does Rich have to do with anything? You think the 1 percent that is being protested are the pro athletes making millions, or movie actors doing the same?

They aren't gaming the system.

you want to make this a straight up and down class war thing, so it can be conveniently slotted in a box. Its not that simple.

Anyways lazybones..

How about an Ammendment to the Constitution?

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

What does this actually mean?

Line one: simply put, this part of the amendment would forbid any candidate for federal office (President, House or Senate) from accepting money to run or campaign for that office. This would include self-funders, corporations, labor unions, etc.

Line Two: this part of the amendment cuts off the Supreme Court's ability to strike down any and all campaign finance laws passed by Congress. This is THE most important aspect of the amendment. Without it, the Supreme Court will continue to say corporation and people can use their money as a device for political speech.

Line Three: this part of the amendment establishes a national day of voting. Most civilized countries have already-established national days of voting and their voter participation far exceeds ours.

http://www.getmoneyout.com/

Starbucks CEO: Wake up and smell the coffee!

Howard Schultz wants fellow CEOs and campaign donors to boycott campaign contributions until the parties actually do something constructive to fight long-term fiscal concerns and the jobs crisis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXlx4Geq7CA&feature=related
and

monkeypunch, this might be up your alley.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykLB0d4KNAc

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

proposed 28th Ammendment to the Constitution :



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg0O3OyWi5Y&feature=relmfu

[bouncingbrick]

Rich? what does Rich have to do with anything? You think the 1 percent that is being protested are the pro athletes making millions, or movie actors doing the same?

No, I don't think Austin Powers is being protested. What I said about celebs was meant to be taken half jokingly. Yes, they don't live paycheck to paycheck or wonder how to pay for their next meal when they've been out of work for 9 months, which, IMO, makes it seem a bit condescending to show up at these things. However, I don't want this thread to get derailed that way because I still don't see the point of the movement. Strike from the record that I made a bad jape about celebs.

you want to make this a straight up and down class war thing, so it can be conveniently slotted in a box. Its not that simple.



Actually, it is that simple. The people with the money have the power. It may not be that all people with money are doing bad things, but it's certainly not the financiall downtrodden who are buying political favors or warping the system in their favor. I'm not saying all rich people are bad, I'm saying (in this scenario) all the bad people are rich.

Now, as to the amendment...:rolleyes:

I can't run for head dog catcher without having the funds to print yard signs. How in the hell is someone supposed to run for president without accepting funding? How do they pay for their campaign? That is absurd!

And, Cenk Uygur sounds like an idiot in that second video. He says make an amendment that "gives back the power to the people". Is that exactly how the amendment will read? "The people of the US will henceforth be given back the power." He has no specifics in that video. He has no real answers in that video! This is exactly what I've been saying this whole damn thread. The movement has no voice and no direction so how is the public supposed to accept them and endorse them?

@Deadite Keep up the good work! I expect nothing less!

[DexterRiley]

Actually, it is that simple. The people with the money have the power. It may not be that all people with money are doing bad things, but it's certainly not the financiall downtrodden who are buying political favors or warping the system in their favor. I'm not saying all rich people are bad, I'm saying (in this scenario) all the bad people are rich.

Now, as to the amendment...:rolleyes:

I can't run for head dog catcher without having the funds to print yard signs. How in the hell is someone supposed to run for president without accepting funding? How do they pay for their campaign? That is absurd!

And, Cenk Uygur sounds like an idiot in that second video. He says make an amendment that "gives back the power to the people". Is that exactly how the amendment will read? "The people of the US will henceforth be given back the power." He has no specifics in that video. He has no real answers in that video! This is exactly what I've been saying this whole damn thread. The movement has no voice and no direction so how is the public supposed to accept them and endorse them?



Are you incapable of clicking links?

the ammendment reads

Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed.

[bouncingbrick]

Are you incapable of clicking links?

the ammendment reads

Sorry, I didn't see the link. And, for the record, yes I'm incapable of clicking them. Thanks for pointing out my handicap to everyone, you insensitive jerk! :p

That still isn't much of an answer. How do politicains raise money if they can't take more than $100 from any one person? How does saying that a coporation is not a person do anything at all? To my knowledge they don't have the same rights as people anyway. The only line that makes sense is "Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly." But how do you enforce that?

Besides, that doesn't attack the problem. How do we deal with lobbyists? How do we deal with lax regulation? Or too tough regulations? How do ensure that financial crashes like the 2008 occurance from happening? How do make sure other circumstances don't contribute to another crash (trick question, we can't)?

Again, let's attack the problem, OWS. Instead of making headaches for the police force...

[Yoda]

The problem with public financing, off the top of my head at least, is that it's either a) really expensive to taxpayers or b) insufficient to run even moderately large campaigns. And if it 's b), that means people make decisions with less information. That's not good.

There is no magical bullet, people. If it's not money, it'll be favors; political corruption exists under all political systems. If you want the money out of politics, stop giving politicians so much control over everything.

[mark f]

I realize that the internet is full of hot air and hatemongering, but it would seem that in this day and age, it should be cheaper to run a campaign. I also understand that some people still don't have access to the internet, but I'm also sure you realize what a waste of money all those unwanted pieces of mail and repetitious, lying TV commercials are too. I really loathe campaign propoganda from whatever source. I tend not to watch commercials in general but with electioneering seeming to stretch out for years rather than months, it makes it almost pointless to watch live TV.

[DexterRiley]

Sorry, I didn't see the link. And, for the record, yes I'm incapable of clicking them. Thanks for pointing out my handicap to everyone, you insensitive jerk! :p

That still isn't much of an answer. How do politicains raise money if they can't take more than $100 from any one person? How does saying that a coporation is not a person do anything at all?

The better question is, why do humans have to raise hundereds of millions in the first place?

To air TV commercials primarily i would suggest.

The airwaves are public domain. they are liscenced out. Make it a condition of a broadcasting liscense that 1 hour each day in prime time be alotted commercial free for televised debates featuring all registered parties in the 6 months preceding a presidential election.

From the good folks at Fora Tv from a few years ago, but relevant to the discussion at hand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a38LnLVX9Ow

[bouncingbrick]

My point, Dexter, is that that ammendment does next to nothing to combat the problem (like the OWS movement). And businesses will find ways around it.

What about lobbyists? What about regulations? What about bailouts? What about sub-prime mortgages? What about adjustable rate mortages?

You can't fix this stuff easily and your sure as hell can't fix it by rallying in the streets.

[will.15]

If you want the money out of politics, stop giving politicians so much control over everything.
Yeah, right. So what are the politicians we elect supposed to do, sit there and twiddle their thumbs?

[Yoda]

What an odd, confusing question. Firstly, because saying they shouldn't have "so much control" in no way implies that there is nothing at all for them to do. Secondly, because the perspective is entirely backwards: we don't exist for them, they exist for us. We don't have to find things for them to do. And thirdly, because it betrays exactly the sort of structural bias I mentioned before: that people value action merely because it feels like something, even though it's not inherently valuable. When someone doesn't know how to fix something, "twiddling their thumbs" is vastly preferable to them trying to do so anyway.

[will.15]

We elect politicans to fix things. If voters don't like what they do, they can vote them out of office and let the other party fix things and see if they like that any better. A politician who said I don't know what to do about a problem so I won't do anything couldn't get elected as dog catcher.

[Yoda]

"We elect politicians to fix things." That fact that people treat this as their starting point is precisely the problem. I primarily elect them to safeguard my rights. Insofar as I elect them to "fix" something, it's usually the result of some previous attempt to "fix" something else.

It is entirely true that politicians who propose we not interfere have trouble getting elected. That's the whole problem. There is a structural bias for intervention completely independent of any debate about whether or not it is the wisest course of action in a given circumstance. This is what I keep saying.

[bouncingbrick]

We elect politicans to fix things. If voters don't like what they do, they can vote them out of office and let the other party fix things and see if they like that any better. A politician who said I don't know what to do about a problem so I won't do anything couldn't get elected as dog catcher.

If this is the case, then shouldn't one of the parties have fixed our financial situation? We've had the power swing to both major parties over the course of the last decade and no one has done a damn thing about it.

[will.15]

If this is the case, then shouldn't one of the parties have fixed our financial situation? We've had the power swing to both major parties over the course of the last decade and no one has done a damn thing about it.
You can't wave a magic wand and fix the economy overnight.

But we probably would be in a depression right now or just getting out of one without the bank bailout which was bipartisan.

The jury is still out if the stimulus had any impact on helping the economy. I suspect it helped a little, but maybe not enough to justify the expense.

But we would be in major doo-doo if the tea party had their way and government did absolutely nothing as bank panic and failure spread.

The price of doing nothing is much greater than government trying to solve problems.

We still have an auto industry because of government intervention.

[Deadite]

The government uses taxpayer money to fix things. Like when we saved the banks.

If any of you want to use corruption as an excuse to cut social programs, then that's your own agenda. If so, your sink-or-swim mentality is part of the problem. I believe in helping less fortunate people.

The problem isn't regulations per se. The problem is big money tipping the scale.

It was the banks that lobbied for the merges/restructuring that cost taxpayers their shirt. You people need to quit twisting this to suit your own agendas.

We don't need "less" government. That's nonsense. We need to fix it so it will be harder for big money to monopolize what gets done.

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvnO_SH-4WU&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veAOoQEy0PI&feature=related

[DexterRiley]

If this is the case, then shouldn't one of the parties have fixed our financial situation? We've had the power swing to both major parties over the course of the last decade and no one has done a damn thing about it.

Which is why a 3rd party should clearly be an option.

Except the Republicans and Democrats are really kind of tickled with the Status Quo.

So all this " things can never change" or "things dont get fixed easily" gobbleygook is playing right into their hands.

If you think nothing can be changed, nothing will.

then again, lotsa folks once upon a time thought lots of things would never change, whether a woman voting, or a person of colour eating in the same restaurant as white folks or an openly gay man being elected to publc service.

they were wrong.

and i believe, that you are as well in this instance.

[DexterRiley]

You can't wave a magic wand and fix the economy overnight.

But we probably would be in a depression right now or just getting out of one without the bank bailout which was bipartisan.

The jury is still out if the stimulus had any impact on helping the economy. I suspect it helped a little, but maybe not enough to justify the expense.

But we would be in major doo-doo if the tea party had their way and government did absolutely nothing as bank panic and failure spread.

The price of doing nothing is much greater than government trying to solve problems.

We still have an auto industry because of government intervention.

bailing out the banks is one thing, having these same bankrupt companies give over 200 individual million dollar bonuses to executives is quite another.

Not to mention the stuff that was done behind closed doors, like the fed lending Trillions of dollars interest free, while at the same time absorbing gazillions of toxic crap.

[DexterRiley]

And, Cenk Uygur sounds like an idiot in that second video. He says make an amendment that "gives back the power to the people". Is that exactly how the amendment will read? "The people of the US will henceforth be given back the power." He has no specifics in that video. He has no real answers in that video! This is exactly what I've been saying this whole damn thread. The movement has no voice and no direction so how is the public supposed to accept them and endorse them?





Warning that "American democracy in endangered," Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday(dec 8/11) proposed a constitutional amendment to overturn a Supreme Court ruling that allowed unrestricted and secret campaign spending by corporations on U.S. elections. The first constitutional amendment ever proposed by Sanders during his two decades in Congress would reverse the narrow 5-to-4 ruling in Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9qZZVqSQdo&feature=player_embedded

[Deadite]

As I see it, anybody involved in giving those bonuses needs to be in jail. They basically took money out of taxpayers pocket and stuck it in theirs. Rewarding themselves for a job well done?

[Deadite]

http://www.newbottomline.com/say_no_to_big_bank_executive_bonuses

[bouncingbrick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9qZZVqSQdo&feature=player_embedded

Hey, a video made it into this thread that I actually watched in its entirety! Now, if Mr. Uygur was half as intelligible as this guy maybe I'd listen to him.

I agree with everything he said. It's too bad the OWS movement isn't doing something to support this guy...

As I see it, anybody involved in giving those bonuses needs to be in jail. They basically took money out of taxpayers pocket and stuck it in theirs. Rewarding themselves for a job well done?

Did I miss something? Where did this come from?

Anyway, I assume you're talking about the bail out companies executives taking bonus money after their company recieved bail out money from the government. I'm going to say something unpopular; those people have contracts with the companies and if those companies didn't pay those bonuses they could be held legally liable. It's unfair, it's disgusting, but the companies were bound by legal contract to pay those. I can't understand why people got so bent out of shape over those things. If someone didn't pay you money they contractually owed wouldn't you get pretty mad about it?

[will.15]

Hey, a video made it into this thread that I actually watched in its entirety! Now, if Mr. Uygur was half as intelligible as this guy maybe I'd listen to him.

I agree with everything he said. It's too bad the OWS movement isn't doing something to support this guy...



Did I miss something? Where did this come from?

Anyway, I assume you're talking about the bail out companies executives taking bonus money after their company recieved bail out money from the government. I'm going to say something unpopular; those people have contracts with the companies and if those companies didn't pay those bonuses they could be held legally liable. It's unfair, it's disgusting, but the companies were bound by legal contract to pay those. I can't understand why people got so bent out of shape over those things. If someone didn't pay you money they contractually owed wouldn't you get pretty mad about it?
They are BONUSES, those are not usually automatic.

[Deadite]

I was responding to Dex. Brick still seems to think it's all about him.

[Deadite]

Another thing is, the line between business and government has been very blurred by revolving door practices. That needs to be addressed. If someone wants to be a public servant, then they can't have these conflicts of interest where they're offered corporate positions and such.

Being a politician should not be lucrative. Period.

Make being a politician a job. Not a way to get richer. Then we'll see who's actually interested in serving the public.

And as far as bonuses go, again: it's a slap in the face to the rest of america, especially all those who are strugging hard just to barely make ends meet.

And as for public financing of campaigns, good! It might cost the public but at least they'll have more control! We end up paying through the nose with the system we have anyways! And if it limits the size of campaigns, GOOD AGAIN! Most of the "information" is propaganda and dirty tactics anyways!

All I hear is people complaining about the downsides, but only offering "less gubmint" nonsense.

[Deadite]

It is also colossally ignorant to downplay the importance of the supreme court's decision on corporate personhood. I cannot begin to understand how any ordinary person can so casually dismiss the corrupting influence of that ruling.

I seriously can no longer even bring myself to read the shrugs and rationalizations of some posters. They spend too much energy defending or downplaying the very things that are wrong while also constantly badmouthing other people for making any attempt to help.

It makes me sick.

[Deadite]

Rep. Donna Edwards Responds to Occupy Protesters--with Fair Elections

http://fairelectionsnow.org/progress/news/rep-donna-edwards-responds-occupy-protesters-fair-elections

[bouncingbrick]

They are BONUSES, those are not usually automatic.

Actually, those "bonuses" are included in the contract. Most of those high end executives work for a lowered salary and a high year end bonus.

It is also colossally ignorant to downplay the importance of the supreme court's decision on corporate personhood. I cannot begin to understand how any ordinary person can so casually dismiss the corrupting influence of that ruling.

I seriously can no longer even bring myself to read the shrugs and rationalizations of some posters. They spend too much energy defending or downplaying the very things that are wrong while also constantly badmouthing other people for making any attempt to help.

It makes me sick.

Who is doing this? Seriously?

I'm pretty sure you're the one who's badmouthing the people who disagree with you (whilst ignoring their pleas for rational discussion!).

I'm "badmouthing" the movement because I don't think it does enough! Have you read anything at all that I've posted?

[Deadite]

You're probably right, brick. It's pretty much hopeless. Congratulations on that. Now direct your cynicism at someone else. I'm tired of it.

[Yoda]

Calling something "nonsense" seems to be your only way of addressing an alternative viewpoint on this issue. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. And I don't know where you get off trying to summarize this philosophy as "less gubmint," as if you're talking to some yokel stereotype. That's either ignorant or lazy, and neither requires a thoughtful reply.

So, let's recap: alternate ways of dealing with problems we agree on are dismissed without serious comment or rebuttal, and anyone who dares question the methods of OWS--even people who agree with most of its goals--are derided as heretics. This demand for total support in both motive and method is a perfect populist analogue for "my country; love it or leave it." Apparently it's full-throated support or nothing.

You're basically conducting a worship service at this point.

[DexterRiley]

Calling something "nonsense" seems to be your only way of addressing an alternative viewpoint on this issue. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. And I don't know where you get off trying to summarize this philosophy as "less gubmint," as if you're talking to some yokel stereotype. That's either ignorant or lazy, and neither requires a thoughtful reply.

So, let's recap: alternate ways of dealing with problems we agree on are dismissed without serious comment or rebuttal



like this you mean? (aways back on page 5 i might add)

How about an Ammendment to the Constitution?

"No person, corporation or business entity of any type, domestic or foreign, shall be allowed to contribute money, directly or indirectly, to any candidate for Federal office or to contribute money on behalf of or opposed to any type of campaign for Federal office. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, campaign contributions to candidates for Federal office shall not constitute speech of any kind as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution or any amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Congress shall set forth a federal holiday for the purposes of voting for candidates for Federal office."

What does this actually mean?

Line one: simply put, this part of the amendment would forbid any candidate for federal office (President, House or Senate) from accepting money to run or campaign for that office. This would include self-funders, corporations, labor unions, etc.

Line Two: this part of the amendment cuts off the Supreme Court's ability to strike down any and all campaign finance laws passed by Congress. This is THE most important aspect of the amendment. Without it, the Supreme Court will continue to say corporation and people can use their money as a device for political speech.

Line Three: this part of the amendment establishes a national day of voting. Most civilized countries have already-established national days of voting and their voter participation far exceeds ours.

http://www.getmoneyout.com/

Starbucks CEO: Wake up and smell the coffee!

Howard Schultz wants fellow CEOs and campaign donors to boycott campaign contributions until the parties actually do something constructive to fight long-term fiscal concerns and the jobs crisis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXlx4Geq7CA&feature=related

Before we get into whether or not that's actually a good idea (feasibility aside): does that mean you concur that OWS protesters who want more government regulation of business are wrong? Because it seems to me what's what a ton of them--even the less crazy ones--want.

you never did adress the ammendment proposal, but rather decided to flip the script and ask a question that had nothing to do with the ammendment.

but i answered right away anyway.

[Yoda]

like this you mean? (aways back on page 5 i might add)
I was talking to Deadite. You, on the other hand, certainly do add serious comments and rebuttals, though they're usually someone else's and arguing with them tends to just produce others.

you never did adress the ammendment proposal, but rather decided to flip the script and ask a question that had nothing to do with the ammendment.
Guilty as charged; I've stopped addressing the majority of things said in this thread, in fact, for a variety of reasons. I partially explained why here (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=781603#post781603).

[DexterRiley]

im not an articulate writer. I've long ago learned to accept there are issues that i can speak intelligently on from the hip, while others its best for more qualified folks to do so.

so i post them.

Like when you asked me to explain derrivatives.

like that.

[Yoda]

I don't begrudge you any of that; that's all entirely reasonable and I admire the humility in it. But there's got to be some give-and-take if these things are being presented as arguments for consideration. I can't find much reason to refute an article point-by-point if doing so is just going to give me another article, ya' know? When does it end? And it doesn't really seem like refuting something causes anyone to stop believing it, anyway. So if I don't benefit from it, and the person I'm talking to doesn't benefit from it...why do it? One of us (ideally both of us) ought to be enjoying themselves or learning something from this stuff.

[DexterRiley]

I'm more interested in how they reconcile the cognitive dissonance inherent in simultaneously demanding more jobs and wanting to tax businesses and investors more. The two are pretty much in direct conflict with one another.



Really. You think hedge fund managers are Job creators?

for real? I realize thats the verbage being tossed about, that gazillionaires are job creators automatically, but you don't really believe that do you?

The lads using the stock market like a casino, where booms are private wealth while busts get dropped on the regular American..this is ok with you?

Warning im posting someone elses words..hide the children


"It’s all right to let Wall Street bet each other millions of dollars every day but why make these bets affect the fellow who is plowing a field out in Claremore, Oklahoma?"

My all time favorite Cherokee, Will Rogers, wrote that in 1924. Today, most of the fellows plowing fields in Claremore, Oklahoma, are still Cherokee -- but a lot fewer of them own the land they are plowing.

Nine years after Will Rogers made that complaint, the New Deal was beginning to roll, and Congress passed the Glass-Steagall Act in response. Glass (D-VA) and Steagall (D-AL) created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. In the Great Depression, when a bank went belly up your money was just gone. Even now, it’s not widely known that the FDIC does not cost the taxpayers a penny. Fees assessed on the commercial banks fund it.

Just as important, the Glass-Steagall Act created a firewall between commercial banks and investment banks. Investment banks were not insured by the FDIC, did not have to pay the assessments, and were free to gamble with the money of anybody dumb enough to entrust it to them for the purpose.

Commercial banks are the places you go to get your crop loan, your car loan, or your mortgage. They had strict capital reserve requirements, which placed a limit on the amount of “leverage” they could bring to bear -- that is, the multiple of customer deposits they could invest.

Bankers always thought this limit cramped their style, and I suppose it did. They were free to gamble with their own money, but they were limited in how much they could gamble with the money deposited by that fellow plowing his field in Claremore, OK.

This terrible injustice to the banksters, I mean bankers, was corrected by Gramm (R-TX), Leach (R-IA), and Bliley (R-VA) in 1999. Their bill, tearing down the wall between investment and commercial banking, was signed into law by President Clinton, who should have known better, but the political zeitgeist of the times was still deregulation. “Government,” in the famous words of President Reagan, “is the problem.”

Phil Gramm was John McCain’s principal economic advisor until he got canned for referring to Americans as “a nation of whiners.” The “whiners” did not know it at the time, but the gamblers unleashed by Gramm’s deregulation had leveraged their assets 30:1 and had, by spinning out derivative instruments of mind-bending complexity, become “too big to fail.”

That is, if they went broke they would take down so many businesses and people with them that the farmer in Claremore would get knocked right off his tractor. Of course, some people doubted any investment bank was “too big to fail,” and so the folks in charge let Lehman Brothers go down in 2008, apparently to see how bad it could get.

The Dow Jones average took the greatest one-day dive in history and racked up a trading range of 1,000 points. Lehman’s failure set off a cascade of smaller failures that played out for months. If you once had a retirement account but you don’t anymore, you can thank that experiment.

I remember back when I was young enough to be shocked, an undergraduate at the University of Texas. A law professor who was on President Nixon’s defense team in the Watergate scandal was asked whether some new cover-up revelation was “serious.” “Serious?” the professor asked, “the Dow Jones dropped 50 points on the news!” Fifty points. Serious. How times do change.

So we had to bail out the banksters from the consequences of their own recklessness or kiss our retirement plans goodbye. No problem, right? Wasn’t the major issue of the 2000 elections what to do with the budget surplus?

It was the issue, indeed. Bush said, “it’s your money and you know better than the government how to spend it.” Al Gore said this is our chance to “put Social Security in a lock box” and end the bipartisan accounting tricks with the trust fund.

Oh, now I remember. Bush won, and cut our taxes.

“When a party can’t think of anything else they always fall back on Lower Taxes. It has a magic sound to a voter, just like Fairyland...” Will Rogers wrote that in 1924, not 2000, and in the same year he expressed the only thing that will get us out of this even if we do, as Occupy Wall Street demands, quit allowing unlimited gambling with other people’s money:

“People want JUST taxes, more than they want lower taxes. They want to know that every man is paying his proportionate share according to his wealth.”

Maybe I’m biased by my Cherokee genes, but any man who could write that in 1924 deserves our attention today. There was about to be an event called the Great Depression.

http://www.truth-out.org/will-rogers-occupy-wall-street/1322511389


i bolded the parts id have written if indeed i was a better writer.

[Deadite]

I don't automatically agree with anything OWS does, Yoda. You're the one who's pigeonholing me. I've already expressed concern what effect a bank run could have. Maybe no effect, though. But OWS is still doing a lot of good just by keeping a spotlight on the issue. And they're helping ordinary people who have been hurt by the crisis, far as I can see. At least somebody is.

And you're the one who isn't saying anything meaningful, with your stale "less government" talking point. It's ridiculous. This isn't about less or more. It's about the specifics of what is instituted and what is repealed. We can have as little government as you like and it still won't change anything. The private sector will still exert extreme influence and use big money and crony connections to leverage policy their way.

You're the one with the silly magic bullet, the typical kneejerk thoughtless "less government" chant, that totally misses the point, obscures what's important, and helps impede anything from getting done.

[Deadite]

But okay, I'll play along. Explain what exactly you mean by "less government". Give me your definition of "less government", Yoda. What does it look like? How does it behave? What has been removed? What gets to stay?

[Deadite]

http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=13

One of the most common and misleading economic myths in the United States is the idea that the free market is "natural" - that it exists in some natural world, separate from government. In this view, government rules and regulations only "interfere" with the natural beneficial workings of the market. Even the term "free market" implies that it can exist free from government and that it prospers best when government leaves it alone. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, a market economy does not exist separate from government - it is very much a product of government rules and regulations. The dirty little secret of our "free" market system is that it would simply not exist as we know it without the presence of an active government that creates and maintains the rules and conditions that allow it to operate efficiently.

[will.15]

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15 http://www.movieforums.com/community/images/buttons/lastpost.gif (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=781868#post781868)
They are BONUSES, those are not usually automatic.

Actually, those "bonuses" are included in the contract. Most of those high end executives work for a lowered salary and a high year end bonus

They still are not usually automatic, but supposed to be based on company performance. Otherwise, what is the point of a bonus apart from a straight salary?

[will.15]

The idea if we had less government big business would have less control of politicians quite frankly is absurd. Look at the 19th century and the Gilded Age.

[Deadite]

Found this, talks about the bank run issue, isn't pro-Occupy either far as I can tell: http://pragcap.com/could-o-w-s-create-a-run-on-the-tbtf-banks

[bouncingbrick]

I don't automatically agree with anything OWS does, Yoda. You're the one who's pigeonholing me. I've already expressed concern what effect a bank run could have. Maybe no effect, though. But OWS is still doing a lot of good just by keeping a spotlight on the issue. And they're helping ordinary people who have been hurt by the crisis, far as I can see. At least somebody is.


Who are they helping and how? You're crazy if you actually believe that. So far they've made no impact, to my knowledge.

And, no, putting a "spotlight" on the problem is not the answer to that question. Anyone with even a passing interest in current events knows the dire situation of the world economy. We've had riots in Europe, a global stock market dive, 10% unemployment in the US, and a government so partisan and ineffective that they can't even agree on a form of health care reform (despite everyone in the entire country being aware that the system is in need of an overhaul). If I watched the news just ten minutes a day for the last 3 years I'd know just as much as what the OWS movement could "teach" me.

Found this, talks about the bank run issue, isn't pro-Occupy either far as I can tell: http://pragcap.com/could-o-w-s-create-a-run-on-the-tbtf-banks

The irony here is that you say a bank run would have no effect, but what they're doing right now will? :rolleyes:

It won't have an effeect on them financially, sure. But if you honestly think the bankers and CEOs won't notice a bank run, you're nuts. It would have a psychological effect for sure. It would send a loud and clear message that the people are prepared to take action to fix the situation. Actual action, not just protesting in the streets and causing a headache for the local police.

[Deadite]

I said maybe no effect.

As for who they're helping, your question is beyond dumb. Go troll someone else. For the last time: I am finished with you.

[Deadite]

http://www.goerie.com/article/20111211/OPINION08/312119994/Boone%3A-Occupy-Wall-Street-movement-is-about-fairness-human-dignity

For years, people have watched in dismay as they tried to live and work honestly and humbly in the ways they were taught would bring them a good and dignified life, only to see it taken away. Countless people in rural and small-town Pennsylvania are deeply frustrated about the loss of jobs and the suffering that brings, about widening and crushing inequality in our state and nation, losing their life savings to wild Wall Street schemes, then losing tax dollars to Wall Street bailouts and their homes to foreclosure by the same banking regime.

[Deadite]

Mayor and Congressman Clash on Police at Occupy Wall Street Protests

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/nyregion/bloomberg-and-nadler-clash-on-police-conduct-at-zuccotti-park.html

[bouncingbrick]

I said maybe no effect.

As for who they're helping, your question is beyond dumb. Go troll someone else. For the last time: I am finished with you.

If it's so dumb then f***ing answer it!

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqC5NHF6LlM&feature=related

[Deadite]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/business/media/occupy-movement-shows-potential-of-live-online-video.html

This week the channel delivered live coverage from several Occupy-related events around the country, including a march in Washington and a campaign to fight foreclosures in Los Angeles and New York. In Boston, Occupy organizers positioned 15 smartphones to help deliver live video from their tent city as a way for people to closely monitor the police who have been trying to move the protesters.

[Deadite]

Commentary: Sorry GOP but Jesus would side with 'Occupy' folks

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/12/12/3310845/commentary-sorry-gop-but-jesus.html

[Deadite]

Former officer chastized for Occupy activities

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/former-officer-chastized-for-occupy-activities/article_d5bf671b-4cbd-5f9e-bb2c-a5fed3bc998c.html

Lewis, who lives in upstate New York, said he joined the Occupy movement "because I have a strong conviction that this country is being destroyed by corporate America.""Corporate America is just raping the people and the land of this country," he said, "and when I saw the people at Zuccotti Park, they inspired me to come down and join them. Their convictions were so strong, and they lined up perfectly with what I believed for years."

[Deadite]

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Affordable housing and homeless advocates in Rhode Island joined Occupy Providence on Saturday to call for more funding and the passage of legislation to protect the homeless from discrimination and foreclosed homeowners from eviction.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/rhode_island/articles/2011/12/10/advocates_occupy_to_march_on_ri_statehouse/

[Yoda]

Really. You think hedge fund managers are Job creators?

for real? I realize thats the verbage being tossed about, that gazillionaires are job creators automatically, but you don't really believe that do you?
Uh, most "gazillionaires" absolutely are, yeah. Absolutely. But hold the phone: since when is the entire movement just about restricting hedge fund managers? They're calling for all sorts of things that are not one-tenth as targeted as that. You should know, because most of the stuff you've posted has said as much; for example, you posted this (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=781585#post781585) twice, and it is not as narrow in scope as what you're saying now.

The lads using the stock market like a casino, where booms are private wealth while busts get dropped on the regular American..this is ok with you?
No. As I said before, I'm against economic policies that socialize that kind of economic risk. People can ultimately do whatever risky, stupid things they want with their money so long as they're not insulated from their failures.

Warning im posting someone elses words..hide the children
Heh. As I said, I don't mind at all. I appreciate the more targeted comments, but my only gripe is with posting things and then just posting something else when the first thing is refuted or questioned.

As for the article: it's mostly just rhetoric. Apart from a pretty silly attempt to link the '01 and '03 tax cuts with our current problems, most of it's pretty unobjectionable in a technical sense, and dealing with the same issues I just mentioned in the paragraph above. I'm glad that people recognize the inequity in socializing financial risk. But there's a huge disconnect between that simple recognition and the proposed "solutions" to it, almost all of which are insanely blunt and carelessly far-reaching, and have little regard for secondary consequences.

i bolded the parts id have written if indeed i was a better writer.
You won't ever catch me criticizing any argument you make or advance because it wasn't written well enough. I doubt I've ever done that. If I argue with something, it's because I think it's wrong or poorly reasoned, not because it isn't purty.

[Yoda]

I don't automatically agree with anything OWS does, Yoda. You're the one who's pigeonholing me. I've already expressed concern what effect a bank run could have. Maybe no effect, though. But OWS is still doing a lot of good just by keeping a spotlight on the issue. And they're helping ordinary people who have been hurt by the crisis, far as I can see. At least somebody is.
There's little meaningful distinction between not agreeing with everything they do, and not wanting anyone to criticize anything they do.

And you're the one who isn't saying anything meaningful, with your stale "less government" talking point.
Is "stale" supposed to explain why it's wrong? I couldn't care less how fresh and new an idea is, let alone to one person, specifically. Give me an old truth over a new lie any day.

It's ridiculous. This isn't about less or more. It's about the specifics of what is instituted and what is repealed. We can have as little government as you like and it still won't change anything. The private sector will still exert extreme influence and use big money and crony connections to leverage policy their way.
How do you figure this? The point of money in politics isn't just to have money in politics, it's to influence law. It's to exert control. The more troughs there are along the way in the political process, the more opportunities for abuse and graft there are. I suppose we can argue about which way to combat this, and why, but I don't see how it's remotely arguable that having less government control reduces the opportunities and degree of influence. The whole existence of political corruption is based on the consolidation of broad societal power in the hands of a few. If that power is removed (IE: dispersed to us, collectively), that makes less corruption possible. It's almost a math problem.

It is true, of course, that people of means will always influence politics to some degree, and to some degree that might not even be a problem. But that's true of any world, even the one you suggest which restricts the flow of money. Influence can be peddled all sorts of ways. That's not going away, regardless of whether or not you want to limit the money, or limit the political control.

You're the one with the silly magic bullet, the typical kneejerk thoughtless "less government" chant, that totally misses the point, obscures what's important, and helps impede anything from getting done.
Please. I'm sure I am many things to you, most of them involving not very nice words, and believe me, I can live with all of it. But I've never given you the slightest reason to think that anything I say or believe is at all "thoughtless."

[Yoda]

But okay, I'll play along. Explain what exactly you mean by "less government". Give me your definition of "less government", Yoda. What does it look like? How does it behave? What has been removed? What gets to stay?
I don't have time to list everything I'd like to do, but to start: stop bailing out businesses. Stop subsidizing losses. Stop promising to buy up securities and perverting risk-reward incentives. And stop inflating credit. That's the cause of almost all malinvestment.

[Yoda]

The idea if we had less government big business would have less control of politicians quite frankly is absurd. Look at the 19th century and the Gilded Age.
At some point we need to start a thread about the history of business and regulation, because you're peddling all sorts of non-sequiturs. But it'll have to be after the holidays.

[DexterRiley]

I don't have time to list everything I'd like to do, but to start: stop bailing out businesses. Stop subsidizing losses. Stop promising to buy up securities and perverting risk-reward incentives. And stop inflating credit. That's the cause of almost all malinvestment.


whole lot less pentagon and military as well.

http://s3.imgimg.de/uploads/0014cb0f7c0jpg.jpg

http://s3.imgimg.de/uploads/002ab99fd01jpg.jpg

[Yoda]

I'd be okay with some military cuts. Well, I should say I'm okay with the cuts we've already made, provided they actually get made. Ditto for the other spending cuts we were promised.

[Deadite]

First of all, Yoda, I'm not stopping anybody from criticizing anything. Others are free to tell me exactly what they think, and I'm free to tell them to bugger off when I get sick of their opinion. If I say I'm done with somebody, that's not silencing them. They are free to criticize or be as cynical as they want. I will simply not play along.

Second, I say "stale" because it's pat rhetoric that anyone can fall back on when they don't have a real point to make. Hell, I can say I want less government too; It's unspecific, practically no more than the very sloganeering you yourself dislike. So yes, it's thoughtless.

Third, address the problem sensibly and specify the kinds of limits of control you want to see in place that not only end current abuse but prevents future abuse. And don't come at me with a false standard of having to utterly eradicate corruption; this is about minimizing the clout of a rich few who are abusing the system.

Lastly, I have no malice of any kind against you. I actually respect you.

[bouncingbrick]

First of all, Yoda, I'm not stopping anybody from criticizing anything. Others are free to tell me exactly what they think, and I'm free to tell them to bugger off when I get sick of their opinion. If I say I'm done with somebody, that's not silencing them. They are free to criticize or be as cynical as they want. I will simply not play along.

First off, we all know you're talking (mostly) about me. Second, name calling is usually a tactic people use to put someone in their place and/or shut them up. It is oppressive behavior.

How about you just have a straight conversation with me? I love how you can calm down enough to respond to Yoda's criticism of your behavior but you can't calm down enough to answer my questions/concerns.

Second, I say "stale" because it's pat rhetoric that anyone can fall back on when they don't have a real point to make.

I LOLed at this because you've not had a real point to make for 21 pages and you have the balls to call Yoda out for that?!?!?! :rolleyes:

Third, address the problem sensibly and specify the kinds of limits of control you want to see in place that not only end current abuse but prevents future abuse.

And then I LOLed again at this! How about you address the problem sensibly and specifically?!?!?!?!?!??!?! Seriously! It's all I've asked of you for weeks! Give it a try and don't you dare ask anyone else to do it until you yourself do!

So, I ask, yet again, who and how is OWS helping anyone?

[Deadite]

I don't have time to list everything I'd like to do, but to start: stop bailing out businesses. Stop subsidizing losses. Stop promising to buy up securities and perverting risk-reward incentives. And stop inflating credit. That's the cause of almost all malinvestment.

Sounds ideal (though I wonder if you seriously are suggesting we should be in a Depression - though we're already too close for comfort - right now rather than having went against your Darwinistic principles), but how is it you think we got in a bailout situation in the first place? What led up to it and how do we avoid it happening again? Things don't just magically happen to the "free market" without cause.

In other words, how do you propose any of those things can happen if crooks control what gets done and it benefits the crooks for those things NOT to get done?

[Deadite]

Brick, I have nothing more to say to you. That post was for Yoda. I only mentioned you briefly. It was not intended as an invitation for more of your "questions".

This may come as a shock to you, but I am not obligated to convince or answer or explain anything to you. Your inane questions are either due to ADD or are simply you blatantly ignoring posted links and videos.

Either way, I no longer care. Even if you were paying attention, I still despise your cynical attitude and want only for you to piss off with it.

[wintertriangles]

So, I ask, yet again, who and how is OWS helping anyone?I need a break from studies, so I'll answer this because Deadite is being too much of an American to make a point and prefers bitching instead of, ya know, discussion. QUESTION + RESPONSE + REBUTTAL + ET AL = Discussion. QUESTION + F YOU + QUESTION(2) + F YOU =/= Discussion.

OWS has reminded the American public that protest exists. It has also reminded people that we suck at it. The purpose of a protest is to basically remind the government that the people are the ones in charge, not them, and the continuation of a protest is basically playing chicken with them to see who will suffer more from one not working with the other, but media coverage and a million online pictures doesn't equal results. Just because people can reach the same conclusion doesn't mean they get there the same way, and furthermore it doesn't mean that one group even understands the conclusion, their reasons for it, and cannot function as a voice for the cause. The problem is that this makes up most of the Occupiers.

Second point, protests are not supposed to be violent, they are not supposed to damage public or private property, and the protesters themselves should be unified. All these things are untrue for OWS: they steal from each other, not to mention a few rapes, they've caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages to their own cities (mimicking government destruction doesn't make your point known), and a lot of the people "camping out" go back home at night. It's pathetic that the media can attack the Tea Party when they get permits, are non-violent, and actually have a voice, but OWS just skates by.

People want to say that media bias has "been exposed" because of OWS but that's a crock of bs, anyone with a brain knows the media's been bought out long ago. People also want to say that the "police state has been exposed." Again, it's been there, nothing new. The only reason people want to say "exposed" is because most Americans don't research, don't understand diddly about corruption in their country, and so when they are "exposed" to something "new" to them, they get aimlessly furious and that's where we get OWS. You're telling me people didn't know about student loans until now? Piss off. Fixing that will not be accomplished through being an ill-informed hypocrite, and those who are knowledgable shouldn't want to be related to this movement.

If a protest wanted to have purpose in this country, it would take place in DC first of all, and second of all, they would kick out anyone who damages property and others. If a protest wanted to have purpose, it would make sure it's message was clear, it would have thinking tanks where it could educate the aimless protesters, and it would never resort to a 99% binding slogan that compares someone dying of hunger to someone with a fixed income having trouble with his mortgage.

I still despise your cynical attitude and want only for you to piss off with it.Says the cynic.

[bouncingbrick]

Thank you , wintertriangles.

Expect name calling, sarcasm and links and videos to irrelevent things from Deadite. In his opinion, it's how a person has a "debate".

[bouncingbrick]

Brick, I have nothing more to say to you. That post was for Yoda. I only mentioned you briefly. It was not intended as an invitation for more of your "questions".

This may come as a shock to you, but I am not obligated to convince or answer or explain anything to you. Your inane questions are either due to ADD or are simply you blatantly ignoring posted links and videos.

Either way, I no longer care. Even if you were paying attention, I still despise your cynical attitude and want only for you to piss off with it.


And, no, we all know the real reason you are ignoring me is because you actually don't have an answer to my questions. But I won't let it drop. The concerns stand.

[Yoda]

First of all, Yoda, I'm not stopping anybody from criticizing anything. Others are free to tell me exactly what they think, and I'm free to tell them to bugger off when I get sick of their opinion. If I say I'm done with somebody, that's not silencing them. They are free to criticize or be as cynical as they want. I will simply not play along.

Second, I say "stale" because it's pat rhetoric that anyone can fall back on when they don't have a real point to make. Hell, I can say I want less government too; It's unspecific, practically no more than the very sloganeering you yourself dislike. So yes, it's thoughtless.

Third, address the problem sensibly and specify the kinds of limits of control you want to see in place that not only end current abuse but prevents future abuse. And don't come at me with a false standard of having to utterly eradicate corruption; this is about minimizing the clout of a rich few who are abusing the system.

Lastly, I have no malice of any kind against you. I actually respect you.
I'm not accusing you of censoring or silencing anyone. Just of mocking them or dismissing their criticisms as unimportant. As you say, you're free to do so, but it certainly has a chilling effect. And I think, while the movement could be bogged down by self-criticism, it could just as easily become extreme and unreasonable and lose support by its failure to self-critique at all because it believes its general thrust to necessitate total fealty to the cause.

Re: stale rhetoric. It can be thoughtless if you don't put thought into it, yeah, but that describes all rhetoric. But doesn't your demand for specifics contradict what you've been saying up and down this thread? You insisted quite firmly before that it was perfectly okay for the protesters to demand reform without having to specifically enumerate the measures they would take to bring it about. So are they being "thoughtless," too?

[Yoda]

Sounds ideal (though I wonder if you seriously are suggesting we should be in a Depression - though we're already too close for comfort - right now rather than having went against your Darwinistic principles), but how is it you think we got in a bailout situation in the first place? What led up to it and how do we avoid it happening again? Things don't just magically happen to the "free market" without cause.
I think calling free market principles "Darwinistic" misrepresents them. To me, that phrase implies that people be left on their own because that's what freedom means and nobody has a right to take from you, etc. I think you can make a pretty good case on those grounds, but that's not the only reason I believe in free markets. I also believe in them because I think they do more overall to reduce that kind of need, and upwardly redefine what qualifies as needy in the first place, than welfare programs. Not always, mind you, but often. In other words, though there's a good philosophical debate to be had, but I also think free markets can meet the arguments for welfare programs even on their own terms, using a "which helps the most people in need the most over time?" metric.

As for how we got here in the first place: first, because government feels the need to make itself as relevant and crucial as possible and right every wrong with a new regulation, law, or tax. Nobody wants to appear callous, so it's never permissible to not have a "plan" for every ill. Second, because when an industry fails (either naturally or because of careless intervention), people always panic and demand action, and the government makes the inane claim that the business is vital and cannot be allowed to fail. So they prop it up and insulate the business from the natural consequences of its mistakes and/or theirs. This undermines the very core of capitalism, which is about the consequences of loss every bit as much as the rewards of success. Neither can be removed without sabotaging the entire process.

As for how we avoid it: ugh, I don't know if we can, man. It seems built into the nature of humanity that we'll demand intervention when anything goes wrong, even if that intervention makes it worse or plants the seeds for the next crisis. I think there's a good chance that the nature of this is simply that we have to keep re-learning these lessons again and again.

In other words, how do you propose any of those things can happen if crooks control what gets done and it benefits the crooks for those things NOT to get done?
I honestly don't know. And sadly, this isn't just a question that my own ideas have to try to figure out, but it's true of any attempt to reform the system. Whatever your opinions about how to move forward, any number of people have a huge stake in keeping things the way they are. It's a universal problem fundamental to the nature of reform--if such impediments didn't exist, reform wouldn't even be necessary.

The only answer, either for OWS or free market types like myself, is vigilance. The nature of these problems are generally that the better we handle them, the better things get, and the less urgent our vigilance becomes. Our success creates the comfort and conditions of our future lackadaisicalness.

[Deadite]

And, no, we all know the real reason you are ignoring me is because you actually don't have an answer to my questions. But I won't let it drop. The concerns stand.

I changed my mind, brick. You're right, OWS isn't making any difference. I'm not sure why I ever believed they were, or even could. I guess I just wanted something to feel hopeful about for a little while. It's clear now, though. Thanks for helping me face the truth. I admire your conviction, but I think we should stop speaking to each other now. As much as I agree with your insights and predictions, I can only take so much truth before my head starts to ache. I won't waste any more of your time.

[wintertriangles]

Don't worry I was being sarcastic about everything too :rolleyes:

[Deadite]

As for how we got here in the first place: first, because government feels the need to make itself as relevant and crucial as possible and right every wrong with a new regulation, law, or tax.

Sorry, I know you're tired of hearing it, but your explanation is clueless. We're not in a mess because politicians messed things up trying to do good. We're in a mess because too many politicians are paid to either look the other way or actively work against safeguards to prevent just these sorts of things from happening.

I really can't figure how you can agree the government is corrupt in one breath and then blame "over-regulation" and "good intentions" with the next breath.

The simple fact is that these people did this with no concern for the consequences because they knew there would be little or no criminal prosecution and that the taxpayers would foot the bill. You are naive and wrongheaded to blame government per se for what happened. Politicians just do what they're told.

[Deadite]

Re: stale rhetoric. It can be thoughtless if you don't put thought into it, yeah, but that describes all rhetoric. But doesn't your demand for specifics contradict what you've been saying up and down this thread? You insisted quite firmly before that it was perfectly okay for the protesters to demand reform without having to specifically enumerate the measures they would take to bring it about. So are they being "thoughtless," too?

So let me get this straight: I call you out on being vague and your excuse is OWS is doing it too?

I'm just saying, dude, if you're going to criticize an entire movement of people who surely have many different views and opinions, a movement which is naturally democratic and still very early in the making, you could at least have some real suggestions of your own, beyond stuff like "We need less government regulation so crooks won't be able to screw us again" or "We need less (name corrupt practice here) if we're going to reduce corruption".

[wintertriangles]

Possibly the most hypocritical person in this thread right here

http://motivationalcartoons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/TopOfWorld.jpg

[Deadite]

Oh yes, we are all huge hypocrites and thus I demand everyone including myself must STFU. :)

Let he who is without sin make the next post.

[will.15]

I think calling free market principles "Darwinistic" misrepresents them. To me, that phrase implies that people be left on their own because that's what freedom means and nobody has a right to take from you, etc.

That's not freedom for everyone, it is freedom for those who make it, and exploitation of those who don't with poor working conditions and low wages.That is the history of the 19th century. Government intervention created a higher standard of living for blue collar workers.

I think you can make a pretty good case on those grounds, but that's not the only reason I believe in free markets. I also believe in them because I think they do more overall to reduce that kind of need, and upwardly redefine what qualifies as needy in the first place, than welfare programs. Not always, mind you, but often. In other words, though there's a good philosophical debate to be had, but I also think free markets can meet the arguments for welfare programs even on their own terms, using a "which helps the most people in need the most over time?" metric.

Again, that's not what history teaches us.

As for how we got here in the first place: first, because government feels the need to make itself as relevant and crucial as possible and right every wrong with a new regulation, law, or tax. Nobody wants to appear callous, so it's never permissible to not have a "plan" for every ill. Second, because when an industry fails (either naturally or because of careless intervention), people always panic and demand action, and the government makes the inane claim that the business is vital and cannot be allowed to fail. So they prop it up and insulate the business from the natural consequences of its mistakes and/or theirs. This undermines the very core of capitalism, which is about the consequences of loss every bit as much as the rewards of success. Neither can be removed without sabotaging the entire process.

That is the problem with ideologues, no exceptions and broad general statements, as if government bails out every industry that fails, which they don't. The auto industry wa an exception under unique circumstances brought on by by the mortgage debacle. Their problems existed before it, but it was the trigger that made their extinction an immediate danger. And what came of it? A good example of government succeeding. Capitalism was undermined, its very core? Ooh!

As for how we avoid it: ugh, I don't know if we can, man. It seems built into the nature of humanity that we'll demand intervention when anything goes wrong, even if that intervention makes it worse or plants the seeds for the next crisis. I think there's a good chance that the nature of this is simply that we have to keep re-learning these lessons again and again.

That is because certain conserrvatives will always find a way to blame governent regulations for everything that goes wrong and ignore other explanations like deregulation.

The only answer, either for OWS or free market types like myself, is vigilance. The nature of these problems are generally that the better we handle them, the better things get, and the less urgent our vigilance becomes. Our success creates the comfort and conditions of our future lackadaisicalness.
I can't disagree with that because I don't know what the heck you said. Did you just become Romney's speechwriter?

[Yoda]

Sorry, I know you're tired of hearing it, but your explanation is clueless. We're not in a mess because politicians messed things up trying to do good. We're in a mess because too many politicians are paid to either look the other way or actively work against safeguards to prevent just these sorts of things from happening.
I'm only tired of hearing it in that I'm tired of hearing it instead of an explanation. You asked me what I think caused it, I answered, and your only reply to my explanations seems to be "no, I think this other thing did it." Well, bully for you. I think you're totally wrong. If you want to actually argue about it, I'm always down, but if you wanted that it'd have happened already.

I really can't figure how you can agree the government is corrupt in one breath and then blame "over-regulation" and "good intentions" with the next breath.
For lots of reasons, one of which is that government is not a hivemind that is totally corrupt or totally well-intentioned. Another of which is that the politicians writing a law may be less well-intentioned than its citizen advocates. Another of which is that motivation is not so simple: I know Barney Frank is corrupt, but I don't know if he genuinely realizes it or rationalizes it away. Mainly, though, I call such things "well-intentioned" to try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Because I want to keep the focus on the merits of the idea, rather than get bogged down in some ugly, pointless argument speculating about people's motives.

The simple fact is that these people did this with no concern for the consequences because they knew there would be little or no criminal prosecution and that the taxpayers would foot the bill. You are naive and wrongheaded to blame government per se for what happened. Politicians just do what they're told.
I think that's a pretty simplistic view of the way corruption actually operates. Buying a politician's influence (which happens in far subtler ways than the way you're implying, I think) doesn't mean you own them, and the fact that people are vying for political influence with their money doesn't mean that the one who is granted favor suddenly has all the power, and can control their new political puppet. What you're saying has the virtue of not being naive, I guess, but that's only because it's cynical to the point of cartoonishness.

Here's what I expect people to do: I expect them to play within the rules, whatever those are. If you give them a tax break, they will take it. If you give them money, they will take it. If you give them a safety net, they will factor it into their risk-taking. I would no more blame a business for taking more risks when they are insulated from risk than I would blame you or any other individual from participating in the hypohetical "free money" program I posited earlier.

[Yoda]

So let me get this straight: I call you out on being vague and your excuse is OWS is doing it too?
So let me get this straight: your response to me pointing out this contradiction is to ask a meaningless rhetorical question?

No, that's not my excuse: when you asked for more specifics, I gave them to you. Not that you should need the same degree of ideological specificity to make a comment on the Internet as you should to start obstructing institutions and demanding massive social change, anyway.

You say being vague on this issue is thoughtless. OWS has been vague on this issue. Ergo, you think OWS is thoughtless. Straight line from one to the other.

[Deadite]

It's not a contradiction, Yoda, unless you chose to ignore the substance of my post. I said I think OWS is too varied and too new for your criticism to make any sense. Perhaps your inexperience with genuine grassroots democratic movements causes you to expect something that can be neatly categorized.

But keep criticizing them while having no real solutions of your own, it's no matter to me. I'm just going to go back to posting propaganda now. :)

[Yoda]

Will, you will find a response to your post here, in this new thread:

A thread about the history of business and regulation (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=27375)

[Yoda]

It's not a contradiction, Yoda, unless you chose to ignore the substance of my post. I said I think OWS is too varied and too new for your criticism to make any sense. Perhaps your inexperience with genuine grassroots democratic movements causes you to expect something that can be neatly categorized.
Even granting you every benefit of the doubt, that would still only mean that you find OWS thoughtless right now, but think it won't be later.

I don't expect OWS to be neatly specific at all. I expect you not to criticize someone for lacking specificity when this sacred movement is practically defined by that selfsame thing.

But keep criticizing them while having no real solutions of your own, it's no matter to me. I'm just going to go back to posting propaganda now. :)
Yeah, again: I gave you more specificity. I have no idea why you apparently think that reply doesn't exist, given that you already responded to it. I want the government out of trying to create artificial growth with ill-considered spending projects and inflation, I want them out of the business of providing bailouts, and I want them out of the mortgage-backed security-buying business, just for starters.

[wintertriangles]

Does anyone else find it funny Deadite called someone else a troll?

[Deadite]

Again, Yoda, saying you want X to stop is really pointless when the crooks basically control the government. Sorry if that's too cynical for you!

And again, OWS is composed of many different people with many different thoughts, so that still doesn't excuse your lame criticism. Again, you are comparing a fairly large (and growing!) democratic movement's variety of concerns and approaches to your individual and shallow pontification.

Also, Yoda, you keep calling me cynical for saying our government is very corrupt.

Remind me again how many people went to jail for fraud?

Never mind, of course. Just another one of my meaningless rhetorical questions. Obviously, we are at a point of agreeing to disagree. I see hypocritical fingers pointing at me and crying troll, so I think I'll end the argument here, as I can't see how further anti-OWS speculation will produce anything of value.

[Deadite]

Does anyone else find it funny Deadite called someone else a troll?

Don't you mean hypocritical? :rolleyes:

[wintertriangles]

No, I meant funny, because you're a joke overall. Your aimless logic equals that of the politicians you criticize.

[Deadite]

No, I meant funny, because you're a joke overall. Your aimless logic equals that of the politicians you criticize.

You sure told me! That'll learn me to troll!

[bouncingbrick]

I changed my mind, brick. You're right, OWS isn't making any difference. I'm not sure why I ever believed they were, or even could. I guess I just wanted something to feel hopeful about for a little while. It's clear now, though. Thanks for helping me face the truth. I admire your conviction, but I think we should stop speaking to each other now. As much as I agree with your insights and predictions, I can only take so much truth before my head starts to ache. I won't waste any more of your time.

Ah, sarcasm. The old stand-by. It's so much easier than debate, isn't it? Plus, it distracts the really stupid people from noticing how you aren't actually saying anything of substance.

I ask again, who is OWS helping and how? If you respond with a link at least sum up your personal belief backed by the info in the link. A simple link tells me nothing.

[Deadite]

Are you an absolute ******* moron or what? If they get one homeless family off the street for one night, or delay the eviction of one single american from their home, then that is good enough for me. And probably more than your sorry ass will ever do.

[wintertriangles]

Nothing OWS does will cause either of those things to happen, if not cause more problems through hot-headedness. Anything else?

[Yoda]

Alright, we're into the post-deleting area now. Please take it down a notch.

[Deadite]

Nothing OWS does will cause either of those things to happen, if not cause more problems through hot-headedness. Anything else?

They're already doing it.

[Deadite]

Alright, we're into the post-deleting area now. Please take it down a notch.

Gotcha. I'm done.

[bouncingbrick]

They're already doing it.

There are countless organizations and government programs doing those things, and most likely they're doing it more effectively.

And, for the record, there's just as many home foreclosures that are the fault of the borrower as there are the lender. Especially this late in the game. If there's still people being dupped into sub-prime mortgages and adjustable rate loans it's they're own damn fault.

Fine, maybe they've done those things (though I've seen no press about it), but that's doing literally nothing to combat the real problem.

[DexterRiley]

And, for the record, there's just as many home foreclosures that are the fault of the borrower as there are the lender. Especially this late in the game. If there's still people being dupped into sub-prime mortgages and adjustable rate loans it's they're own damn fault.



Matt Taibbi: Courts Helping Banks Screw Over Homeowners

Retired judges are rushing through complex cases to speed foreclosures in Florida

The foreclosure lawyers down in Jacksonville had warned me, but I was skeptical. They told me the state of Florida had created a special super-high-speed housing court with a specific mandate to rubber-stamp the legally dicey foreclosures by corporate mortgage pushers like Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan Chase.

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/story/matt-taibbi-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110/1000x306/main.jpg

This "rocket docket," as it is called in town, is presided over by retired judges who seem to have no clue about the insanely complex financial instruments they are ruling on — securitized mortgages and laby*rinthine derivative deals of a type that didn't even exist when most of them were active members of the bench. Their stated mission isn't to decide right and wrong, but to clear cases and blast human beings out of their homes with ultimate velocity.

They certainly have no incentive to penetrate the profound criminal mysteries of the great American mortgage bubble of the 2000s, perhaps the most complex Ponzi scheme in human history — an epic mountain range of corporate fraud in which Wall Street megabanks conspired first to collect huge numbers of subprime mortgages, then to unload them on unsuspecting third parties like pensions, trade unions and insurance companies (and, ultimately, you and me, as taxpayers) in the guise of AAA-rated investments. Selling lead as gold, ***** as Chanel No. 5, was the essence of the booming international fraud scheme that created most all of these now-failing home mortgages......

Full Article here (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110)

for the tl/dr crowd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3e71oxkp74&feature=player_embedded

[Deadite]

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9RJ14LG0.htm

Occupy protesters seek to shut West Coast ports

[Deadite]

http://news.businessweek.com/article.asp?documentKey=1376-LW47Z16K50Y201-1J05DVN1PVIQC5DK66LK6N26RR

Dec. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley are getting a chilly reception at top colleges, including Harvard University and Princeton University, as campus offshoots of Occupy Wall Street target investment-bank recruiting events.

[Deadite]

There are countless organizations and government programs doing those things, and most likely they're doing it more effectively.

There is already video and links in this very thread addressing using Occupy as a platform to draw attention to such organizations.

Fine, maybe they've done those things (though I've seen no press about it), but that's doing literally nothing to combat the real problem.

More expert analysis from the ADD crowd?

[bouncingbrick]

More expert analysis from the ADD crowd?

As opposed to your endless supply of propaganda links and non-information? Are you even capable of forming an opinion or do you just regurgitate the **** that people shovel you?

Again, how are they helping? By showing people that there are outlets in place for them? Things they should have been doing on thier own?

From what i understand from your article quotations (since you still can't talk for yourself even when I directly ask for it :rolleyes:), some people from an organization that helps with people who are being forclosed on have gone to the protests to get their names out, right? Why aren't those people finding these organizations on their own? So we need people marching in the streets to advertise now? Obviously we are in far more dire a situation than I thought.

And, again I ask, how does this combat the problem overall? What does this do to prevent people from getting into bad loans? What does it do to combat the larger problems?

Look at it this way, it's like putting a band-aid on a severed limb. They can send people to the protests to help individuals who are in trouble with their homes but it's not doing a damn thing to stop the over all bleeding.

If you think the endless problems they are causing the police and sometimes each other is worth them helping a few foreclosures and homeless people then you've got your priorities way out of wack.

Also, just out of curiosity, how is it ADD when I've been asking the same thing for weeks and you are the one who can't answer it?!?

EDIT: I just want to go down to one of these protests and scream in thier faces "What is the point? What are you after? What are your goals? How will you achieve them?" Because if Deadite, someone who believes in the cause with a blind ferocity like I've never seen, cannot even answer those questions then how the hell are the millions of people in the country who are on the fence about it going to decide to support them?

Alright, bring on the idiot propaganda machine and the doofus trying to tell me we need a new amendment...

[Deadite]

How would you know what's non-informative propaganda? I've been posting links to mainstream news stories too. Your opinion of links doesn't concern me, anyways. The fact that you've ignored most everything with a handwave dismissal complaining about length is enough for me to be contemptuous of your opinion.

As for what they're doing, it's varied, I repeat. It's general social protest combined with specific activism efforts. Protest inconveniences people, sad but true. It inconveniences police, sad but true. It's a start, IMO, and your criticisms and belittling of their efforts only makes me wonder why you spend more time on here arguing with me rather than actually doing something about it, since you claim to be concerned with how they're going about this, claim to be concerned about your country, claim to have ideas about how to do it better.

You demand answers, you ignore any information for any number of arbitrary reasons, you complain they aren't doing enough, they aren't doing it the right way, you complain, complain, complain, but what I don't hear is you telling anyone what you are doing to help people.

How are you helping, brick? Why not get involved with OWS and let them know how they can do better. Share your ideas with them, if you really care so much and really want change.

Don't tell me what OWS should be doing. I'm just here in support of protest and to balance out the constant attacks with a bit of defense. But I don't speak for or answer to them. I have my own ways of contributing to social change/activism.

Obviously, I'm not going to convince you that OWS matters or can make a difference, and you aren't going to convince me they're wasting their time, so why not quit wasting my time and yours with these childish demands combined with even more childish refusals to watch/read/listen to "propaganda"?

[Deadite]

EDIT: I just want to go down to one of these protests

I think that's a wonderful idea! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj5OT3z1VGA

[bouncingbrick]

Did that hurt, Deadite? Was it really that hard to actually sum up your own words? Yeah, you still skirted the issue, but I'm proud of you.

I'd love to do something but I have a family and we're moving into our first home and I have financial obligations. If there arrives a time/means for me to take action from home or if things ever settle down in my personal life then I'd love to do something. But, until then my best course of action is probably voting. Although I'm pretty sure I'll be throwing my votes away because I can't see myself voting for one of the two major parties any time soon.

[Deadite]

And I have my mother to look after. So we both have our reasons. Sorry that you feel I skirt issues, but to be fair, I think it is far too early to tell what impact OWS will ultimately have.

That aside, I also cannot say for certain who I will vote for, and really it just feels like going through the motions but more likely than not, it will be for Obama.

Because he talks so darn pretty.

[Powdered Water]

It doesn't matter who's in office. But anyway...

A couple of protesters here in the Seattle Occupy got themselves arrested yesterday for throwing things at the police. I really hope this Occupy continues but not at the expense of other guys who are doing their jobs and are getting sh*t thrown at them. Not cool.

Throwing bags of bricks at the cops isn't going to get anyone any where. And why rock or bricks or paint cans?

Whatever happened to the days of flowers in the gun-barrels. Everything is about violence today.

[wintertriangles]

^^^That's one of my main points

[Deadite]

It doesn't matter who's in office. But anyway...

A couple of protesters here in the Seattle Occupy got themselves arrested yesterday for throwing things at the police. I really hope this Occupy continues but not at the expense of other guys who are doing their jobs and are getting sh*t thrown at them. Not cool.

Throwing bags of bricks at the cops isn't going to get anyone any where. And why rock or bricks or paint cans?

Whatever happened to the days of flowers in the gun-barrels. Everything is about violence today.

******* cops, ******* protesters. Not fair to the rest of the cops, not fair to the rest of the protesters.

[Deadite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZafoyyqJ7I

[Deadite]

disabled teacher brings occupy our homes movement to murrieta

http://obrag.org/?p=51243

“My mom Lesliane Bouchard, a disabled teacher in California, may lose her home because her mortgage company, First Mortgage Corporation, refuses to participate in some of the federal programs that could keep her in it.


She has been *approved* for the federal government’s Hardest Hit State Fund, which would pay down enough of her principal balance enough to keep her in her home. But First Mortgage Corporation refuses to participate in the program, which is only optional for lenders.


Mom is completely bedridden due to a spinal injury that left her in constant excruciating pain. She had to stop teaching last year as a result, and her income dropped by 40%. Programs like the Hardest Hit States Fund exist to help people just like her, but they won’t work if lenders won’t participate in them.


Mom’s current home is about the same distance from all of her adult children, enabling us to share the responsibility of caring for her. If she loses her home, it will be impossible to split duties, making her care much more difficult, and more expensive.


Her home was in foreclosure until HUD put a 90-day hold on the proceedings. Now the time is just ticking away until mom is once again at risk of losing her home. Lesliane Bouchard should be able to live out her life with access to appropriate care and all her children. Please join me in demanding that First Mortgage Corporation keep her in her home.”

[bouncingbrick]

It doesn't matter who's in office. But anyway...

A couple of protesters here in the Seattle Occupy got themselves arrested yesterday for throwing things at the police. I really hope this Occupy continues but not at the expense of other guys who are doing their jobs and are getting sh*t thrown at them. Not cool.

Throwing bags of bricks at the cops isn't going to get anyone any where. And why rock or bricks or paint cans?

Whatever happened to the days of flowers in the gun-barrels. Everything is about violence today.

This is exactly one of the concerns I've had all along. The police are part of this magical 99% that the OWS people should be supporting and they're causing them constant headaches and sometimes worse. If these protesters had any brains they'd simply listen to the police and keep their protests confined to places where they won't get into trouble. In the case of a group like this there is such a thing as bad press. Who the hell wants to take a bunch of misfits and hooligan seriously. All it takes is for a few rotten apples to spoil this bunch in the eyes of the rest of the population.

And don't give me this, "It's the police officers' fault" crap. Most of the police have been acting as they should during the course of these protests. *Spider-sense tingling! I feel a thread derailment coming!*

[Deadite]

I agree, brick. It is unfortunate, but then again, they're protesters, not the frigging Borg.

[Deadite]

NEW YORK -- In celebration of their three-month anniversary, Occupy Wall Street protesters in New York City are gearing up for Occupation 2.0, an attempt to occupy a small piece of unused land that is owned by the Trinity Church in Manhattan's Tribeca neighborhood. If all goes according to plan, the second occupation would begin this Saturday, Dec. 17th.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/16/occupy-wall-street-occupation-2_n_1153249.html

[Deadite]

Yesterday in Washington, civil rights icon Benjamin Chavis announced the formation of Occupy The Dream. In his youth, Dr. Chavis was an assistant to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who inspired him to work in the civil rights movement.

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/216049.html

[DexterRiley]

An Open Letter from America's Port Truck Drivers on Occupy the Ports

We are the front-line workers who haul container rigs full of imported and exported goods to and from the docks and warehouses every day.

We have been elected by committees of our co-workers at the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York and New Jersey to tell our collective story. We have accepted the honor to speak up for our brothers and sisters about our working conditions despite the risk of retaliation we face. One of us is a mother, the rest of us fathers. Between the five of us we have 11children and one more baby on the way. We have a combined 46 years of experience driving cargo from our shores for America’s stores.

We are inspired that a non-violent democratic movement that insists on basic economic fairness is capturing the hearts and minds of so many working people. Thank you “99 Percenters” for hearing our call for justice. We are humbled and overwhelmed by recent attention. Normally we are invisible.

Today’s demonstrations will impact us. While we cannot officially speak for every worker who shares our occupation, we can use this opportunity to reveal what it’s like to walk a day in our shoes for the 110,000 of us in America whose job it is to be a port truck driver. It may be tempting for media to ask questions about whether we support a shutdown, but there are no easy answers. Instead, we ask you, are you willing to listen and learn why a one-word response is impossible?

We love being behind the wheel. We are proud of the work we do to keep America’s economy moving. But we feel humiliated when we receive paychecks that suggest we work part time at a fast-food counter. Especially when we work an average of 60 or more hours a week, away from our families.

There is so much at stake in our industry. It is one of the nation’s most dangerous occupations. We don’t think truck driving should be a dead-end road in America. It should be a good job with a middle-class paycheck like it used to be decades ago.

We desperately want to drive clean and safe vehicles. Rigs that do not fill our lungs with deadly toxins, or dirty the air in the communities we haul in.

Poverty and pollution are like a plague at the ports. Our economic conditions are what led to the environmental crisis.

You, the public, have paid a severe price along with us.

Why? Just like Wall Street doesn’t have to abide by rules, our industry isn’t bound to regulation. So the market is run by con artists. The companies we work for call us independent contractors, as if we were our own bosses, but they boss us around. We receive Third World wages and drive sweatshops on wheels. We cannot negotiate our rates. (Usually we are not allowed to even see them.) We are paid by the load, not by the hour. So when we sit in those long lines at the terminals, or if we are stuck in traffic, we become volunteers who basically donate our time to the trucking and shipping companies. That’s the nice way to put it. We have all heard the words “modern-day slaves” at the lunch stops.

There are no restrooms for drivers. We keep empty bottles in our cabs. Plastic bags too. We feel like dogs. An Oakland driver was recently banned from the terminal because he was spied relieving himself behind a container. Neither the port, nor the terminal operators or anyone in the industry thinks it is their responsibility to provide humane and hygienic facilities for us. It is absolutely horrible for drivers who are women, who risk infection when they try to hold it until they can find a place to go.

The companies demand we cut corners to compete. It makes our roads less safe. When we try to blow the whistle about skipped inspections, faulty equipment, or falsified logs, then we are “starved out.” That means we are either fired outright, or more likely, we never get dispatched to haul a load again.

It may be difficult to comprehend the complex issues and nature of our employment. For us too. When businesses disguise workers like us as contractors, the Department of Labor calls it misclassification. We call it illegal. Those who profit from global trade and goods movement are getting away with it because everyone is doing it. One journalist took the time to talk to us this week and she explains it very well to outsiders. We hope you will read the enclosed article “How Goldman Sachs and Other Companies Exploit Port Truck Drivers.”

But the short answer to the question: Why are companies like SSA Marine, the Seattle-based global terminal operator that runs one of the West Coast’s major trucking carriers, Shippers’ Transport Express, doing this? Why would mega-rich Maersk, a huge Danish shipping and trucking conglomerate that wants to drill for more oil with Exxon Mobil in the Gulf Coast conduct business this way too?

To cheat on taxes, drive down business costs, and deny us the right to belong to a union, that’s why.

The typical arrangement works like this: Everything comes out of our pockets or is deducted from our paychecks. The truck or lease, fuel, insurance, registration, you name it. Our employers do not have to pay the costs of meeting emissions-compliant regulations; that is our financial burden to bear. Clean trucks cost about four to five times more than what we take home in a year. A few of us haul our company’s trucks for a tiny fraction of what the shippers pay per load instead of an hourly wage. They still call us independent owner-operators and give us a 1099 rather than a W-2.

We have never recovered from losing our basic rights as employees in America. Every year it literally goes from bad to worse to the unimaginable. We were ground zero for the government’s first major experiment into letting big business call the shots. Since it worked so well for the CEOs in transportation, why not the mortgage and banking industry too?

Even the few of us who are hired as legitimate employees are routinely denied our legal rights under this system. Just ask our co-workers who haul clothing brands like Guess?, Under Armour, and Ralph Lauren’s Polo. The carrier they work for in Los Angeles is called Toll Group and is headquartered in Australia. At the busiest time of the holiday shopping season, 26 drivers were axed after wearing Teamster T-shirts to work. They were protesting the lack of access to clean, indoor restrooms with running water. The company hired an anti-union consultant to intimidate the drivers. Down Under, the same company bargains with 12,000 of our counterparts in good faith.

Despite our great hardships, many of us cannot — or refuse to, as some of the most well-intentioned suggest — “just quit.” First, we want to work and do not have a safety net. Many of us are tied to one-sided leases. But more importantly, why should we have to leave? Truck driving is what we do, and we do it well.

We are the skilled, specially-licensed professionals who guarantee that Target, Best Buy, and Wal-Mart are all stocked with just-in-time delivery for consumers. Take a look at all the stuff in your house. The things you see advertised on TV. Chances are a port truck driver brought that special holiday gift to the store you bought it.

We would rather stick together and transform our industry from within. We deserve to be fairly rewarded and valued. That is why we have united to stage convoys, park our trucks, marched on the boss, and even shut down these ports.

It’s like our hero Dutch Prior, a Shipper’s/SSA Marine driver, told CBS Early Morning this month: “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”

The more underwater we are, the more our restlessness grows. We are being thoughtful about how best to organize ourselves and do what is needed to win dignity, respect, and justice.

Nowadays greedy corporations are treated as “people” while the politicians they bankroll cast union members who try to improve their workplaces as “thugs.”

But we believe in the power and potential behind a truly united 99%. We admire the strength and perseverance of the longshoremen. We are fighting like mad to overcome our exploitation, so please, stick by us long after December 12. Our friends in the Coalition for Clean & Safe Ports created a pledge you can sign to support us here.

We drivers have a saying, “We may not have a union yet, but no one can stop us from acting like one.”

The brothers and sisters of the Teamsters have our backs. They help us make our voices heard. But we need your help too so we can achieve the day where we raise our fists and together declare: “No one could stop us from forming a union.”

Thank you.

In solidarity,

Leonardo Mejia
SSA Marine/Shippers Transport Express
Port of Long Beach
10-year driver

Yemane Berhane
Ports of Seattle & Tacoma
6-year port driver

Xiomara Perez
Toll Group
Port of Los Angeles
8-year driver

Abdul Khan
Port of Oakland
7-year port driver

Ramiro Gotay
Ports of New York & New Jersey
15-year port driver

http://occupywallst.org/article/open-letter-americas-port-truck-drivers-occupy-por/

[Powdered Water]

I'm shocked they put their names on that. They will be out of work before the end of the year.

[Deadite]

The Protester

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2101745_2102132,00.html

[DexterRiley]

conflict of interest, how does that work.

http://i.imgur.com/PVpFY.jpg

[will.15]

So?

You want to pass a law that says people in the private sector can't work for the government?

[Sexy Celebrity]

Throwing bags of bricks at the cops isn't going to get anyone any where. And why rock or bricks or paint cans?

Whatever happened to the days of flowers in the gun-barrels. Everything is about violence today.

Now we're getting somewhere. Finally those OWS people are listening to me. They've learned not to like the pepper spray.

[Deadite]

Oh for godsake.:facepalm:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcG47CpsU6c

[rice1245]

Holy crap. On this page it was all friendly, posting articles, a little sarcasm here and there, I look on the previous page and there's hypothetical fur flying and negative reps everywhere, I don't feel like negative reputation should be given for an essentially political argument on a film site. It took you guys 23 pages to agree to disagree? I could have told you that was going to happen 22 pages ago, sheesh! In the end we're all mofos anyway and we can all agree that 2001 is a great movie right? ...right?

now kiss and make up

[Tyler1]

Politics makes my head hurt too. This is my first post on this thread.

[DexterRiley]

Too Big to Fail, Hopefully not Too Big to Jail


MASSACHUSETTS AG FILES SUIT AGAINST BANKS FOR DECEPTIVE PRACTICES DURING FORECLOSURE CRISIS

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/01/380023/massachusetts-ag-files-suit-against-banks-for-deceptive-practices-during-foreclosure-crisis/

Press Conference below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4JIpboy4bA&feature=player_embedded


This is what #OWS is all about.

also, Should Banks and Institutions be granted Civil and or Criminal Immunity for alleged potential wrongdoing related to illegal mortgage and foreclosure practices?

http://act.boldprogressives.org/sign/Baldwin_signon

[rice1245]

o.O I got negative rep for that? Sad

[Deadite]

Holy crap. On this page it was all friendly, posting articles, a little sarcasm here and there, I look on the previous page and there's hypothetical fur flying and negative reps everywhere, I don't feel like negative reputation should be given for an essentially political argument on a film site. It took you guys 23 pages to agree to disagree? I could have told you that was going to happen 22 pages ago, sheesh! In the end we're all mofos anyway and we can all agree that 2001 is a great movie right? ...right?

now kiss and make up


"hypothetical fur flying"

:D

I try not to neg rep people for their opinion alone; Everybody has 'em. They're very popular! :D

Agreeing to disagree is all well and good but realistically, as long as threads with controversial subjects get posted, they inevitability get heated. 2001 is indeed a great film, in my opinion. :)

[Sexy Celebrity]

Politics makes my head hurt too. This is my first post on this thread.

I am just... urgh. Fail thread. I'm staying out of the miscellaneous subforum from now on and focusing only on the movie forums. This thread is impossible to get hooked into. Nothing wrong with Occupy Wall Street, but this thread is a boring disaster.

[bouncingbrick]

I am just... urgh. Fail thread. I'm staying out of the miscellaneous subforum from now on and focusing only on the movie forums. This thread is impossible to get hooked into. Nothing wrong with Occupy Wall Street, but this thread is a boring disaster.

My poor thread...:( :bawling:

[DexterRiley]

So?

You want to pass a law that says people in the private sector can't work for the government?

There ought to be some regs attached dontcha think?

Unless, you think this is perfectly acceptable :

Inside Capitol, Investor Access Yields Rich Tips

When Senate Democrats finally brokered a compromise over the proposed health-care law, a group of hedge funds were let in on the deal, learning details hours before a public announcement on Dec. 8, 2009.

The news was potentially worth millions of dollars to the investors, though none would publicly divulge how they used the information. They belong to a select group who pay for early, firsthand reports on Capitol Hill.

Seeking advance word of government decisions is part of a growing, lucrative—and legal— practice in Washington that employs a network of brokers, lobbyists and political insiders who arrange private meetings ...

full story here:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204844504577100260349084878.html

Video Break-Down of the Wall Street Journal article :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMJ7V3ytEgE&feature=relmfu

[DexterRiley]

http://s3.imgimg.de/uploads/pepperspray90d37604gif.gif

[will.15]

It tastes great on chicken.

[Sexy Celebrity]

And yet, Dexter, you still called me a psycho when I suggested that these people should have fought back against the cops who pepper sprayed them.

[DexterRiley]

http://s3.imgimg.de/uploads/1f05f7c35jpg.jpg

[DexterRiley]

Bankers Join Billionaires to Debunk ‘Imbecile’ Attack on Top 1%

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-12-20/bankers-join-billionaires-to-debunk-imbecile-attack-on-top-1-.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAxGSyAUkVA&feature=relmfu

[wintertriangles]

I saw that the other day, made me sick

[Deadite]

Successful bankers are successful.

http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/successful-troll-is-successful.jpg?w=720

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTr-BH1Dl_s

[DexterRiley]

http://s3.imgimg.de/uploads/tumblrlu5n3jfkiz1qbmlero1500df08ec4ejpg.jpg

http://s3.imgimg.de/uploads/tumblrlvj6lk2L4T1qj90dro1500c7c82008jpg.jpg

http://s3.imgimg.de/uploads/Clipboard0135857ee8jpg.jpg

“Every 99 percenter, the tall and the small, was protesting without any camp at all.
And The Man with his money, his heart cold as snow, stood puzzling and puzzling ‘How could it be so?’ It came without kitchens! It came without tents! It came without port-o-potties, drum circles, or beds! And he puzzled and puzzled til his puzzler was sore. Then The Man thought of something he hadn't before. Maybe ideas can't be shut down like a store, maybe ideas mean a little bit more.”
-occupy portland

[MrPink]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKy22KsxX9k&list=UUNpAwV6GlFst1x3jmqCgYbQ&index=4&feature=plpp_video

the last time that blamed the Jews for all the problems in this world does not end well, at times we call this the Holocaust.

And see how much support he has, about 50 thousand per clip.

[will.15]

Nobody pays attention anymore to David Duke. Last year he was threatening to run for president, but only if he got adequate financial support. I guess he didn't get it. He was in prison a few years ago for misappropriating funds. He is like the bankers. Except he got caught.

[Deadite]

This isn't about religion or race. It's about crooks. Anybody can be a crook. Stop trying to poison the well by falsely framing it into anti-semites vs. jews. All kinds of different people get involved in Occupy. Some will inevitably be bigots. The real question here is why you feel obliged to post that sh!te and make some general statement about "blaming jews" as if that motivation were a given.

[MrPink]

This isn't about religion or race. It's about crooks. Anybody can be a crook. Stop trying to poison the well by falsely framing it into anti-semites vs. jews. All kinds of different people get involved in Occupy. Some will inevitably be bigots. The real question here is why you feel obliged to post that sh!te and make some general statement about "blaming jews" as if that motivation were a given.

Ok .... I could understand it if it were a single case.
But look at the rest of his videos, he incites against Israel and Jews. Every bad thing in the world is blaming Israel and "Zionists."
instead of using the word "Jews", he says "Zionists".

[Deadite]

I'm not saying he isn't a racist piece of *****. He is.

I'm saying he is not representative of Occupy.

I made that clear enough in the first place. Just stop.

[will.15]

Duke just tries to latch on to whatever is going on at the time. He tried to do that with the tea party movement and didn't have much luck.

[DexterRiley]

I don't seeing this ending well.

http://news.yahoo.com/cops-ready-war-094500010.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhUrai9b5Io&feature=relmfu