# Occupy Wall Street Goes Global



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 15, 2011)

> LONDON ? Linking up with the Occupy Wall Street protests that began in New York, tens of thousands of people around the world took to the streets Saturday to reiterate their anger at the global financial system, corporate greed and government cutbacks.
> 
> Rallies were held in more than 900 cities in Europe, Africa and Asia, as well as in the United States, with some of the largest occurring in Europe. The demonstration in Rome turned violent, but crowds elsewhere were largely peaceful.
> 
> ...





Well it's pretty clear that this issue just hit critical mass.  Read in a few NY news sources that they're gonna have to start arresting people.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Oct 15, 2011)

I hope this grows and grows, its so exciting.


----------



## lint789 (Oct 15, 2011)

Global scale civil protest as we enter a new decade... this is the next step in the advancement of humanity.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 15, 2011)

Maybe if it grows even bigger, more and more people will start hearing.

Flushing out corporate whores should be a priority. As well as anyone who bends to the will of those who wish to exploit the people for their own gain.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 15, 2011)

And this is what i don't like to see. Both Obama and Ron paul are attempting to highjack this movement for their own selfish ends. 

When i see Bernie out there i smile


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 15, 2011)

obama should hijack the movement if anyone, those are liberals out there, and it's conservatives who are taking shots at them.

anyway , the movement has even reached sleepy california, and there were plenty of protestors out in the suburbs, which is a great sight.


----------



## kazuri (Oct 15, 2011)

It's great to stand up for something, but wtf do they expect the government to do? There is no overall plan, or even a 'list of demands'..


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 15, 2011)

kazuri said:


> It's great to stand up for something, but wtf do they expect the government to do? There is no overall plan, or even a 'list of demands'..



people like u r ridiculous, do u think that a list of demands is the first thing that people make when they protests?  that can come later, ur just setting up false dichotomies.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 15, 2011)

kazuri said:


> It's great to stand up for something, but wtf do they expect the government to do? There is no overall plan, or even a 'list of demands'..



Protests are not about presenting demands.  Protests are about getting noticed.  You have protested enough when the persons being protested come begging to hear your demands.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 15, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> obama should hijack the movement if anyone, those are liberals out there, and it's conservatives who are taking shots at them.
> 
> anyway , the movement has even reached sleepy california, and there were plenty of protestors out in the suburbs, which is a great sight.



The thing is Simpson; OBAMA AINT A LIBERAL!

Hell he goes crawling to Wall Street if they even so much as breath wrong at him, you expect the people he's trying to get votes and money from to take anything he says seriously?


Anyway



this are my list of demands, and i can say with confidence that there is a large margin of people in Occupy Wall Street that agree with me


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 15, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> The thing is Simpson; OBAMA AINT A LIBERAL!
> 
> Hell he goes crawling to Wall Street if they even so much as breath wrong at him, you expect the people he's trying to get votes and money from to take anything he says seriously?
> 
> ...



ur really deluding urself if u think the GOP is gonna do better, really who is more likely to adapt their policies to the needs of the ows, obama or perry?  if u can't answer obama than u need to just stop.

hint: there is no third party, there's not even a real tea party! and they've been sabotaging policy for 3 years now.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 15, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> And this is what i don't like to see. Both Obama and Ron paul are attempting to highjack this movement for their own selfish ends.
> 
> When i see Bernie out there i smile



if we're really protesting wall street, look no further than who wall street supports this year:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-street-donors-in-race-for-campaign-cash.html


> Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has raised more than twice as much money from Wall Street as Barack Obama -- an edge gained in part by luring away at least 100 donors, mostly investors, who backed the president in 2008, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
> 
> The former Obama donors are helping the former Massachusetts governor lock up Wall Street dollars as Romney races to financially outpace primary rival Texas Governor Rick Perry in advance of the Sept. 30 third quarter deadline for campaign fundraising.
> 
> ?It?s going to be very hard for the president to bash the rich and create jobs at the same time,? said Anthony Scaramucci, 47, founder and managing partner of New York-based SkyBridge Capital LLC that manages $8 billion, who has switched support from Obama in 2008 to Romney. ?I don?t think the country is about class warfare.



think about whether you want to bash dems and put romney in office, really think hard on that when you talk down obama.


----------



## Mael (Oct 15, 2011)

Didn't Italy go full retard and start torching cars?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 15, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> ur really deluding urself if u think the GOP is gonna do better, really who is more likely to adapt their policies to the needs of the ows, obama or perry?  if u can't answer obama than u need to just stop.
> 
> hint: there is no third party, there's not even a real tea party! and they've been sabotaging policy for 3 years now.



....Who the heck is talking about electing the GOP Simpson?  Have you been listening to what i'm saying this whole time??

This is about people holding those who manipulate the system accountable, this is not about Perry, this aint about Santorum, this ain't about Obama. This is not about next years inconsequential elections, this about change from the bottom up.




NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> if we're really protesting wall street, look no further than who wall street supports this year:
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...-street-donors-in-race-for-campaign-cash.html
> 
> ...



 You do realize that this is all due to the entire political process being manipulated by having to beg rich and powerful interests(aka suitable donors including but not limited to Wall Street) for money right? You honestly don't understand what's going on?

This is the same self serving skewed up political rigging that Occupy Wall Street wants to see stop. This is not limited to any political party. I'm not going to choose between two evils, i'll instead go with reformation.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 15, 2011)

At this point it's pretty much irrelevant to see who gets donations from whom.  All the politicos need to know at this point is there's an upwelling of populist sentiment, and if they dismiss it as being inconsequential, it will fuck them over.  If OWS gets large enough, it really won't matter who pays who.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 15, 2011)

Yes well, that's what they don't get just yet it seems, that's why they're either attempting to control or negate its influence. but this anger, if it manifests in a certain way, will most definitely change how things are done. In some way, things will change


----------



## Patchouli (Oct 15, 2011)

74 arrested in New York



This shit is not going to get any better if police keep punching women and arresting everyone in sight.


----------



## Mael (Oct 16, 2011)

Ms. T said:


> 74 arrested in New York
> 
> 
> 
> This shit is not going to get any better if police keep punching women and arresting everyone in sight.



Can you please tell me where in that article women were punched?

I saw this instead:


> Also, he said, two police officers were hospitalized as a result of injuries sustained at 46th St. and 7th Ave. as protesters there tried to topple police barriers; head injury in one instance and foot injury in the other.



So spare me.


----------



## Horu (Oct 16, 2011)

Wow, those Romans are pretty brutal.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 16, 2011)

So why are protestors not allowed to bring barriers?  Seems to me if everyone brought their own barriers and stayed behind them, no one would get hurt.


----------



## Mael (Oct 16, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> So why are protestors not allowed to bring barriers?  Seems to me if everyone brought their own barriers and stayed behind them, no one would get hurt.



Sounds like a logistical nightmare.


----------



## Patchouli (Oct 16, 2011)

Mael said:


> Can you please tell me where in that article women were punched?
> 
> I saw this instead:
> 
> ...



Huh?

I didn't say the woman being punched was mentioned in the article. 

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BsnupGU8-Y[/YOUTUBE]

Here she is


----------



## Mael (Oct 16, 2011)

Ms. T said:


> Huh?
> 
> I didn't say the woman being punched was mentioned in the article.
> 
> ...



Ok, so let's see the build-up to that.  Was the officer attacked?  Was there a need for escalation of force?

Maybe yes, maybe no.  The officer likely acted out of line but it's not 100% concrete.  The reason I say these things is because people typically post videos without the ENTIRE feed or an entirely good angle, thus forming conclusions based off of cut evidence.  It's like the Rodney King videos.  There was more than just that minute plus.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 16, 2011)

> As the protesters proceeded uptown, most spectators briefly gawked -- taking iPhone photos or videos -- or ignored it altogether. Not all were supportive. Cries of "Get a job" and "Shut up" were heard as the march passed by.
> 
> "They need to stop blaming the government and the rich and take some responsibility," said Peter Maxwell, a 22-year-old student.


----------



## Patchouli (Oct 16, 2011)

Mael said:


> Ok, so let's see the build-up to that.  Was the officer attacked?  Was there a need for escalation of force?
> 
> Maybe yes, maybe no.  The officer likely acted out of line but it's not 100% concrete.  The reason I say these things is because people typically post videos without the ENTIRE feed or an entirely good angle, thus forming conclusions based off of cut evidence.  It's like the Rodney King videos.  There was more than just that minute plus.



I think that's irrelevant. 

When you have a bunch of pissed off people, they don't need the full story. Seeing a cop assaulting a woman is enough to make things turn full riot mode.

Not saying I don't like cops, but NYPD needs to really watch their asses out there. (For their own safety)


----------



## bullsh3t (Oct 16, 2011)

Ms. T said:


> Huh?
> 
> I didn't say the woman being punched was mentioned in the article.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't have lol'd so hard if it wasn't for the OHHHHHHH... HOlY SHIT! ROFL


----------



## Mael (Oct 16, 2011)

Ms. T said:


> I think that's irrelevant.
> 
> When you have a bunch of pissed off people, they don't need the full story. Seeing a cop assaulting a woman is enough to make things turn full riot mode.
> 
> Not saying I don't like cops, but NYPD needs to really watch their asses out there.



It's completely relevant.  People need the full story otherwise they'll behave irrationally, as again displayed when given cut bits of video.  Policeman wasn't right in straight punching the woman, but I highly doubt that woman was 100% innocent.  Something set it off.  If people are fine just taking that and going ballistic, then we'll get the same bullshit like Korean shop-owners getting attacked like in LA, but this time people just trying to run a business in general or someone who just happens to work for a bank or a policeman/woman competely unrelated to the incident.  I mean if they want to act like a pack of animals, treat them as such, but I'll trust my fellow man to understand something set that off.

As the article you posted put, it's a two-way street.  Protesters if they're so bent on protesting peacefully shouldn't also try to pick a fight with cops and take down barriers set up for the greater protection of the city.  This isn't Les Miserables.

Then again it's NY.  I observed a rally for a couple hours in Boston at Park Street and none of this went down.  

Then I realized we just really celebrate for sports teams winning.


----------



## Patchouli (Oct 16, 2011)

Ms. T said:


> I think that's irrelevant.
> 
> When you have a bunch of pissed off people, they don't need the full story. Seeing a cop assaulting a woman is enough to make things turn full riot mode.
> 
> Not saying I don't like cops, but NYPD needs to really watch their asses out there. (For their own safety)



I want to clarify, it's only irrelevant for the protesters.

It's easy for us to take a step back and see the whole picture, but when you're on a street and a cop is beating the shit out of someone, you just don't have that perspective.

You do make a valid point, for us at least.


----------



## Patchouli (Oct 16, 2011)

Mael said:


> It's completely relevant.  People need the full story otherwise they'll behave irrationally, as again displayed when given cut bits of video.  Policeman wasn't right in straight punching the woman, but I highly doubt that woman was 100% innocent.  Something set it off.  If people are fine just taking that and going ballistic, then we'll get the same bullshit like Korean shop-owners getting attacked like in LA, but this time people just trying to run a business in general or someone who just happens to work for a bank or a policeman/woman competely unrelated to the incident.  I mean if they want to act like a pack of animals, treat them as such, but I'll trust my fellow man to understand something set that off.
> 
> As the article you posted put, it's a two-way street.  Protesters if they're so bent on protesting peacefully shouldn't also try to pick a fight with cops and take down barriers set up for the greater protection of the city.  This isn't Les Miserables.
> 
> ...



You posted before I got my clarification post in. 

New York is crazy on a good day, and probably does stand out in the worldwide occupy event.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 16, 2011)

Mael said:


> Sounds like a logistical nightmare.



Only if you're trying to ride horses through crowds of people, fire water cannons, and use teargas to escalate the situation.  Honestly I think the use of barricades would force public servants to rethink how they respond to protests.

Additionally, having protestors build their own barricades helps unify them and gives them a symbol to rally around


----------



## Shima Tetsuo (Oct 16, 2011)

Ms. T said:


> Huh?
> 
> I didn't say the woman being punched was mentioned in the article.


----------



## Mael (Oct 16, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Only if you're trying to ride horses through crowds of people, fire water cannons, and use teargas to escalate the situation.  Honestly I think the use of barricades would force public servants to rethink how they respond to protests.
> 
> *Additionally, having protestors build their own barricades helps unify them and gives them a symbol to rally around*



1. I didn't know this was Les Miserables. 
2. Why do I not feel the motivation from the OWS movement to bring their own ramshackle stuff?  They're not orks after all.


----------



## ExoSkel (Oct 16, 2011)

Ms. T said:


> Huh?
> 
> I didn't say the woman being punched was mentioned in the article.
> 
> ...


That's not a girl. That's actually a guy.


----------



## Shɑnɑ (Oct 16, 2011)

This should prove interesting and important should a change actually occur. Hopefully people don't lose sight of their cause and start killing people, although a global protest won't end well imho; just an excuse to start policing people and start a military state.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 16, 2011)

Mael said:


> 1. I didn't know this was Les Miserables.
> 2. Why do I not feel the motivation from the OWS movement to bring their own ramshackle stuff?  They're not orks after all.



We're definitely not at French Revolution level of derp yet, but eventually if you step on people enough--you get French Revolution'd--or you get Thailanded.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Oct 16, 2011)

I'm not actually following any of this and wondering if there any news of when or if Occupy Wall street is going to be in Montreal? I'd like to join the legions of people on the street getting side long glances from the smug masses driving by in their cars.

Ps: This movement needs a charismatic leader to synthesize the multitude of ideologies into a singular focalized quasi melting pot legislation in the spirit of the counter culture movement of the (60s?). Until someone emerges as the symbol for change, or protest turns to nigh uncontrollable civil unrest on a global scale that makes the London riots look like a bunch pansies, all the movement will accomplish is some headlines, property damage, and pointless arrest. In any case, I think we can all agree Kayne West would be a good pick to lead us into a new area….


----------



## Zaru (Oct 16, 2011)

Ironically the majority of "capitalism haters" present at these "occupy" events would have a much worse life for decades if their desired change occured.

Not saying I don't want those bankers and the like to get a good bitchslapping with a sack of batteries.


----------



## impersonal (Oct 16, 2011)

kazuri said:


> It's great to stand up for something, but wtf do they expect the government to do? There is no overall plan, or even a 'list of demands'..



I think there's a relatively clear demand that governments should make heads roll in the financial sector. In the US as well as in Europe, banks and other corporations have acquired and kept much of the power that the people should have. Look at Sarkozy, Berlusconi, or Cameron: these people represent about half-and-half the 60 million "regular" people of their respective countries, and their 60 most powerful bankers.

Similarly in the US the sheer number of bankers in the government is proof enough of the intensity of the corruption that's going on. The financial crisis is largely a result of this; though there are many other factors involved.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 16, 2011)

how are the protests in london? i figure after the violence there a few months ago and bc of rome, the authorities in london must be pretty cautious.


----------



## Chappz316 (Oct 16, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> how are the protests in london? i figure after the violence there a few months ago and bc of rome, the authorities in london must be pretty cautious.



The rioters of August got bitchslapped with heavy sentences. And the majority of them arent smart enough to understand the motivation behind occupy wall street. And a the moment there isnt enough potential for a riot. So they aren't showing up yet.


----------



## Raiden (Oct 16, 2011)

There is a lovely article on CNN saying that some Senators are scratching their head at the movement. Of course, some of them are Democrats.

The parties leaders must be among the most indecisive and bone headed in history.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 16, 2011)

President Goobang said:


> There is a lovely article on CNN saying that some Senators are scratching their head at the movement. Of course, some of them are Democrats.
> 
> The parties leaders must be among the most indecisive and bone headed in history.



they are out of touch , plain and simple, they congress has been getting generous 5% raises every year on the year while wages for the average american (99%) have dropped for 10 years.  the congress has unbelievable health care coverage and retirement pensions while half of americans can only hope to die when they get sick, or go broke, and lost half their 401k in the last 4 years.

Why would a congress person understand?


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 16, 2011)

Yes well, we know that washington has no idea what they're doing wrong, all they look at are poll numbers and how much political funds they've amassed for their campaigns and factor that into their "popularity". Part of the problem.


The injustice of the system is the main issue here, and the propagators are easily identifiable.

Its hard to fathom why one would not think the White House is complicit in it. Let's play a guessing game; how many Goldman Sachs employees does Obama have in his cabinet?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 16, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Yes well, we know that washington has no idea what they're doing wrong, all they look at are poll numbers and how much political funds they've amassed for their campaigns and factor that into their "popularity". Part of the problem.
> 
> 
> The injustice of the system is the main issue here, and the propagators are easily identifiable.
> ...



oh u r a piece of work, goldman sachs pervades every facet of every administration of the US, and here u r calling out obama  good luck with a romney administration, they're gonna let dogs loose on the occupiers.

i guess what i'm saying is , _it can be worse_, obama is a better starting point than "i'm a pariah" perry


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 16, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> oh u r a piece of work, goldman sachs pervades every facet of every administration of the US, and here u r calling out obama  good luck with a romney administration, they're gonna let dogs loose on the occupiers.
> 
> i guess what i'm saying is , _it can be worse_, obama is a better starting point than "i'm a pariah" perry



You keep calling me a "piece of work" but i'm only trying to explain these things to you in a concise manner 

I've known that the powerful have had a stake in the political process for a long time, and this is my answer for you, "That is not the issue! "

As i've said to you numerous times Simpson that you conveniently seem to ignore; That is apart of the problem.  It doesn't matter if it its from Romney or Obama, if they're apart of the manipulation of the system they are apart of this problem. And it has grown too powerful for the people to take, it doesn't matter if its been like that for a long time, that must be changed.

That's what this movement is about. As long as Obama pussy foots around on campaign finance reform and simply talks it up, he is apart of the problem. As long as he tries to talk up the financial regulation bill or the health care bills as "accomplishments" even thought they did nothing, he is apart of the problem.

Just because the conservatives are fully in the pockets of the system does not excuse Obama or a fairly large sum of the Democrats from becoming apart of that same system that must be reformed.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 16, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> You keep calling me a "piece of work" but i'm only trying to explain these things to you in a concise manner
> 
> I've known that the powerful have had a stake in the political process for a long time, and this is my answer for you, "That is not the issue! "
> 
> ...



lol, tell me about it when the ows movement produces a presidential candidate, and i'm not saying it won't, but not working with democrats is like throwing out the baby with bathwater, repubs are calling the occupiers "mobs", that's how little they think the occupiers.

i'll describe it as i see it another way.  a child has a mom and dad, one is the disciplinarian, the other is the softie.  the child has to address the softie to get things they want that might not otherwise be allowed.  For progressives the repubs are the disciplinarians , they aren't gonna give progressives shit, obama might listen.  

anyhow, these politicians will have to acknowledge the movement soon, and obama better get on top of making some acknowledgment.   it wouldn't be fair to leave these protestors out there so long without acknowledgment.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 16, 2011)

Bernie Sanders is this movement's spiritual leader  he would not say so, but he encompasses the entire anger at the injustice of the system.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 17, 2011)

bloomberg is reporting pretty strong protests in london, as well as camping in Hong Kong.  

I saw that in atlanta the govt thought of evicting occupiers, i hope the occupiers can stand their ground.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 17, 2011)

I hope not too many people are hurt than have already been hurt, there's gotta be some way


----------



## Urban Specialist (Oct 17, 2011)

Before too long, I can see the governments confronted with OWS calling the military or some sort of PMC or PSF to try and control the "problem".

Seeing as how the police are having such a hard time controlling things.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 17, 2011)

Urban Specialist said:


> Before too long, I can see the governments confronted with OWS calling the military or some sort of PMC or PSF to try and control the "problem".
> 
> Seeing as how the police are having such a hard time controlling things.



yeah, then every ows protest turns into rome


----------



## ninjaneko (Oct 17, 2011)

I...approve... 

I just hope something concrete and positive actually comes out of all this.


----------



## MunchKing (Oct 17, 2011)

ninjaneko said:


> I...approve...
> 
> I just hope something concrete and positive actually comes out of all this.





Don't get me wrong, I have sympathy for the movement, but expecting a meaningful change in policy as a result of these protests is naive. The nature of the movement is such that there is no organized leadership. They're not interested in going into politics. 

They're dissatisfied with the Financial-Political clusterfuck and want to raise attention to the issue and I think they have succeeded in conveying their message to the public. it's just a shame that so few seem to care.


----------



## Jersey Shore Jesus (Oct 17, 2011)

Ms. T said:


> Huh?
> 
> I didn't say the woman being punched was mentioned in the article.
> 
> ...



After all these beatings and other things I think its just a matter of time till someone pulls a gun I swear someone will eventually.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Oct 17, 2011)




----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 17, 2011)

OWS is of the same populist bent as the Tea Party and has much the same sort of fundamental complaint--that there are parties in this country with too much influence.  In the Tea Party's case, the government has too much influence.  In OWS's case it's the corporations who make donations to the politicians in the government who have too much influence.

I see room for overlap in the outlooks.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 17, 2011)

^ OWS wants regulation so that money of powerful interests stays out of the political process. 

Tea party is against government regulation that would get money out of the political process. Not only that, but the movement was actually jump-started in part by those same interests to simulate a "grassroots upswing" against government regulation of them. Didn't you see the Tea party protests against the financial regulation bill when it was in the senate and house? That wasn't because it wasn't strong enough 

They are not anywhere near on the same wavelength  To be fair, they're both angry at something, if that could be called a similarity.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Oct 18, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> ^OWS wants regulation so that money of powerful interests stays out of the political process.
> 
> Tea party is against government regulation that would get money out of the political process. Not only that, but the movement was actually jump-started in part by those same interests to simulate a "grassroots upswing" against government regulation of them.
> 
> They are not anywhere near on the same wavelength  They're both angry at something, if that could be called a similarity.



I'm saying there's room for their respective intentions to overlap as they are in a way, angry about the same thing.  Do you think people would be angry at bankers if the world economy hadn't gone to shit--taking jobs and joy away from millions?  

Their dissatisfaction has the same root.  Not too recently a lot of individuals were wronged economically & financially.  Those individuals are now going through the process of figuring out why they were wronged, how they were wronged, and who wronged them.  

This thought process filters through existing biases and predispositions.  Hence why you get TPers who would claim the government is the problem, and OWSers who would claim that certain moneyed interests are the problem.

I'm pretty sure no party, bank, or person wants to be on the receiving end of that thought process.  But the process has to continue.  The bigger and angrier, and more unfocused the better.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 18, 2011)

Well i've always said the manipulators of the system will rue the day the people get their shit together enough to figure out who did what to them  

If we wanna get technical here Space, the draining of resources from the West started long before the crash of 08, that was simply the point where everyone understood something was wrong for sure. 

Even without the crash, there still would be reason to protest. What i will concede to you however, is that most people would not be of the mind to protest had the crash of 08 not happened.

If only because of that tragedy giving light to what was really going on inside of Wall Street's inner workings. Hedge funding derivatives was illegal in 1998. In 2000, it was legal. The fact that its still legal today, that is why there are protests now.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 18, 2011)

cantor plans a friday speech about income gap and growing inequality, get ur tomatoes and cream pies ready!


----------



## Bungee Gum (Oct 18, 2011)

I'm guessing he will say that it's;

1. Obama's fault

2. If we can pass republican legislature in the future it will disappear

3. If we vote in a republican president, all our problems will disappear

4. And he will end by saying it's Obama's fault, and all the protesters are unamerican and polls about taxes and OWS support are false.

Huzzah!


----------



## Chessmaster (Oct 18, 2011)

Goova said:


> I hope this grows and grows, its so exciting.


Yeah, excitingly stupid. These guys have no direction, just wasting their time whining about America. When they could be using their degree to actually make a living.



			
				Ms.T said:
			
		

> Here she is


That woman put her hands on the cop, of course she gonna get a fist-full-knuckle sandwich.


----------



## Oil Can (Oct 18, 2011)




----------



## ExoSkel (Oct 18, 2011)




----------



## Seto Kaiba (Oct 19, 2011)

Man, conservative humor sucks.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Oct 19, 2011)

I got a chuckle out of that Because I'm a history buff


----------



## BlazingCobaltX (Oct 20, 2011)

I'm planning to go with my sis to Occupy Amsterdam, wanted to go last week but I has to study.


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Oct 20, 2011)

Occupy Subway


----------



## Mael (Oct 20, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Man, conservative humor sucks.



You could try this:


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Oct 20, 2011)

What happened to the good ol' days when we could arrest these people on grounds of being insurrectionists.


----------



## Mael (Oct 20, 2011)

Hellrasinbrasin said:


> What happened to the good ol' days when we could arrest these people on grounds of being insurrectionists.



The Freedom of Assembly happened.


----------



## Guru (Oct 20, 2011)

Oh lol this happened in my city and apparently my parents walked past the 'huge' protest and there were about 5 stoners drooling while bobbing about with signs


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Oct 20, 2011)

Mael said:


> The Freedom of Assembly happened.



There is a flip side to that coin The Government has The Freedom to Dis-assemble the assembled.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Oct 20, 2011)

Hellrasinbrasin said:


> What happened to the good ol' days when we could arrest these people on grounds of being insurrectionists.



Politicians decided they needed those people for votes.




Hellrasinbrasin said:


> There is a flip side to that coin The Government has The Freedom to Dis-assemble the assembled.



Does it, Hellrasinbrasin? Does it?


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Oct 20, 2011)

Yup as they decide what Laws your have a right to if the law they let you have a right to is being turned into an eyesore at them they'll just sign it away.


----------



## Raiden (Oct 20, 2011)

It's nice to see the emergence of another populist movement. I wonder if this one will get hijacked by a conservative politician as well.

When I think about anger out there, it's kind of funny that the GOP is pushing forward Mitt Romney. Boy is he in for a fight/ pillaging.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 20, 2011)

Its because Romney is the only person who even seems semi sane out of the Red's cast of characters(notice how i only said "seems")  That's why people like Cain, Perry, Paul, ect all get shafted. Cause they don't try and tamp down their rhetoric.

For as much as the Reds want to get votes from their crazies, they also want to ride the "independent" swing vote


----------



## Circe (Oct 20, 2011)

Mael said:


> You could try this:


Well, that's one of the more hamfisted pieces of shite-slinging propaganda as of late.


----------



## fieryfalcon (Oct 20, 2011)

Inuhanyou said:


> Its because Romney is the only person who even seems semi sane out of the Red's cast of characters(notice how i only said "seems")  That's why people like Cain, Perry, Paul, ect all get shafted. Cause they don't try and tamp down their rhetoric.
> 
> For as much as the Reds want to get votes from their crazies, they also want to ride the "independent" swing vote



Very conventional wisdom, but also not a very good track record of success.  McCain was a moderate, but he failed.  Even if we throw out the 2008 election, since the nation had severe Bush fatigue, you're still not going to find a lot of success for moderates.  Bob Dole was the moderate mainstream guy in 1996, but he lost to a floundering Bill Clinton that had just been defeated soundly on his socialized health care scheme.  George H. Bush was a moderate, he got elected in 1988 as Reagan's third term and then lost to a nobody from Arkansas.  That isn't a slight to Clinton either, but Clinton was literally a nobody in the Democrat party who was thrown out as a sacrificial lamb against an incumbent war hero President.

Reagan, of course, was the conservative's conservative and he won two landslide elections, the second one even bigger than the first.  Ford, moderate, mainstream, crushed by Jimmy 'peanut farmer' Carter.  Of course, you might chalk that up to Nixon fatigue which takes us back to Goldwater, the only real conservative to lose a national election, but he was fighting against a dead hero President, Kennedy, and at that point we're so far back that we're in an era where comparisons can't be made.  President Kennedy was more conservative than Mitt Romney and Rick Perry, which illustrates just how radical the left has become.

Herman Cain is easily moderate enough to appeal to most independents.  Now, if you're a European or a OWS bed-wetter you probably won't be able to understand this, but mainstream 'centrist' America looks a lot more like Herman Cain than it does Obama or the editorial board of the New York Times.  That's why the supposedly extreme knuckle dragging Bible thumping hawks keep getting elected despite the chattering left wing talking heads getting the vapours every time someone appears to the right of Bill Kristol.


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Oct 21, 2011)

Hellrasinbrasin said:


> Yup as they decide what Laws your have a right to if the law they let you have a right to is being turned into an eyesore at them they'll just sign it away.



Hey. . .I order this in english.


----------



## Tkae (Oct 21, 2011)

*Occupy Space*

*Occupy 4th Dimension*

*Occupy Octopi*


----------



## Tkae (Oct 21, 2011)

This is my problem with the whole thing.

Sure, okay, whatever, it's about money or something.

But it's bullshit that they could be, first of all, "occupying" everything. Occupation of a location is neither a successful not effective protest method. Those guys have the protesting skills of a kindergarten class protesting the end of nap time.

Especially since they aren't actually occupying Wall Street. They're occupying a small park somewhere in the general vicinity of Wall Street. Cause they're pussies who can't stand a little pepperspray. They don't even get to say they "Occupy Wall Street". 

And then to compound that, every other fucking city in the world is "Occupying Wall Street".

No, dumbfucks, you're not. You're occupying the roads conveniently outside your houses, cause apparently putting forth a little effort would be too big of a deal for you. Occupying your city does nothing since it's not your city that's causing the problem, it's wall street. So what good does it do to occupy your city square when the city square accomplishes nothing?

At most you get half a second on CNN as part of a montage. Great job, there. 

When MLK marched on Washington, he *marched* on motherfucking *Washington*! He walked 300 miles on foot from Alabama! Lazy fat asses can't even go two miles from your own homes. Ghandi walked to a fucking salt mine to get salt. What are you people doing? 

Waving signs, getting arrested for stupid shit that has nothing to do with the cause, and letting rent-a-cops with pepper spray undermine your entire protest by de-occupying you from Wall Street. Show a little verve, a little commitment.

I mean, hell, Burning Man does exactly the same thing. They build a city, they occupy it, and they promote a message. But Burning Man is more fun and makes a bigger statement. Piss or get off the pot, "99%".

If I have to be part of the 1% just to be part of a group that knows how to protest effectively, then so be it. I refuse to associate with you until you grow some balls. Read some Che Guevara. Do _something_ other than fuck up every other day


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 21, 2011)

Tkae said:


> This is my problem with the whole thing.
> 
> Sure, okay, whatever, it's about money or something.
> 
> ...



if only u tried so hard to tear down the tea party


----------



## Tkae (Oct 21, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> if only u tried so hard to tear down the tea party



The Tea Party is doing a good enough job at that itself. 

Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are like steroids for it, too.

Steroids that break down the muscles and make the balls tiny and shriveled.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 21, 2011)

Tkae said:


> The Tea Party is doing a good enough job at that itself.
> 
> Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin are like steroids for it, too.
> 
> Steroids that break down the muscles and make the balls tiny and shriveled.



i haven't seen witch doctor or joker obama or other offensive representations of politicians at OWS protests yet. kinda big difference.  

OWS is really getting hippy punched in the press, when it turns violent guess is the only way people listen nowadays.


----------



## Tkae (Oct 21, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> i haven't seen witch doctor or joker obama or other offensive representations of politicians at OWS protests yet. kinda big difference.
> 
> OWS is really getting hippy punched in the press, when it turns violent guess is the only way people listen nowadays.



Like I said, they have the protesting skills of whiny kindergarteners.

A large group of people does not a protest make. They've gotten arrested for all sorts of stupid shit and made the cardinal sin of protesting: 

*DO NOT CEDE GROUND!*

People have no respect for you if you're just like, "Oh, okay, sorry. We'll just protest against you over there."

You demand to know what reason they have for asking you to move, and can stand your ground in a nonviolent, respectful manner if their reason isn't good enough. 

You do symbolic things. You could block the city streets if you gave enough notice. You could make a wall of protesters around the entire few city blocks of Wall Street and the NYSE to protest, encircling it. 

I mean, geeze. The ACLU has fucking pamphlets on how to protest without getting arrested! Google them, call them and ask for mass distributions of them! And they're using Twitter, so why not use Twitter to coordinate a protest? Designate zones and zone leaders and use the park as a Central Command. 

They don't do these things, is my point. They can't do violence because they don't even have the basics under their belts. Which is why Greek rioters can burn half of the capital down and get away with it, but Americans can't. Until you master the peaceful protest, the violent protest is above you. 

It makes me sad. Americans are such pussies now. Syrians are getting blown the fuck up by tanks and keep protesting, but Americans try to protest and it turns into Woodstock without the cool stuff


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 21, 2011)

Tkae said:


> Like I said, they have the protesting skills of whiny kindergarteners.
> 
> A large group of people does not a protest make. They've gotten arrested for all sorts of stupid shit and made the cardinal sin of protesting:
> 
> ...



u make sense, i've shown how american progressives and even progressives in this form are self hating, it ends up affecting policy when democrats in govt get bullied and can't make policy.


----------



## Raging Bird (Oct 21, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_XtXhiekQk&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7nASn2g8x4&feature=feedu[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Tkae (Oct 21, 2011)

At the same time, they can overcompensate and be ridiculously hypersensitive to compromise. The Republicans feed on that. Like the chupacabra feeds on goat blood.

If Hillary Clinton could manage to really make a push for redefinition, I think she'd be a good compromise. She's neither an Ice Queen like Pelosi, nor is she flaccid and weak like Obama. 

She won't run though. She's got it too good now to run. The good ones are smart enough not to bother with running


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 21, 2011)

Tkae said:


> At the same time, they can overcompensate and be ridiculously hypersensitive to compromise. The Republicans feed on that. Like the chupacabra feeds on goat blood.
> 
> If Hillary Clinton could manage to really make a push for redefinition, I think she'd be a good compromise. She's neither an Ice Queen like Pelosi, nor is she flaccid and weak like Obama.
> 
> She won't run though. She's got it too good now to run. The good ones are smart enough not to bother with running



as soon as a progressive get's tough they get villified as a castro type.  those scars  from the mccarthy days, i guess.


----------



## Raging Bird (Oct 21, 2011)

It doesn't matters who runs(for president), OWS is non partisan and WILL NOT support the Left-Right paradigm, Obama or any of the GOP clowns.


the biggest risk right now, OWS could be compromised by a major group.


----------



## Oil Can (Oct 24, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> i haven't seen witch doctor or joker obama or other offensive representations of politicians at OWS protests yet. kinda big difference.
> 
> OWS is really getting hippy punched in the press, when it turns violent guess is the only way people listen nowadays.



They have their own threatening stuff though... Taken from Occupy Boston yesterday;


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

Oh yeah I saw that too.  I was betting on some anarchist douche posting that.  Anarchists suck in general.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 24, 2011)

Ehandz said:


> They have their own threatening stuff though... Taken from Occupy Boston yesterday;



looks kinda tongue in cheek.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Oct 24, 2011)

Raging Bird said:


> It doesn't matters who runs(for president), OWS is non partisan and WILL NOT support the Left-Right paradigm, Obama or any of the GOP clowns.
> 
> 
> the biggest risk right now, OWS could be compromised by a major group.



A small mistake here.  OWS is NOT non partisan, as they are probably comprised of all kinds of individual viewpoints, but a majority are made up of what the Liberals have been saying for years upon years. They are in essence, the anti tea party, except that they are not for political affiliation the same way the Tea party was for the GOP and the conservative establishment in Washington 

What you mean to say is they are not affiliated by any political party, meaning the democrats or the GOP 

Because as we've seen, the Democrats as long as they are hooked on the money that funds the corruption of special interests in Washington, are as much part of the problem as the GOP is. This movement is as much about a petition to get corporate money and lobbying out of the political process as much as it is a protest against the Banks, the banks are only one of the many powerful interests that has taken hold of congress and the Whitehouse over the years dating back decades


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Oct 24, 2011)

In Vancouver a law was recently passed making it illegal for the OWS people who have set-up tents in front of art galleries to have those tents up during the day. They're allowed to sleep over night, but per the new law, any occupation in the day is illegal. Tis yet another example of why Vancouver is part of the 1%. FUCK YOU VANCOUVER.


----------



## Mael (Oct 24, 2011)

Cthulhu-versailles said:


> In Vancouver a law was recently passed making it illegal for the OWS people who have set-up tents in front of art galleries to have those tents up during the day. They're allowed to sleep over night, but per the new law, any occupation in the day is illegal. Tis yet another example of why Vancouver is part of the 1%. FUCK YOU VANCOUVER.



Replay the 2011 Stanley Cup and then you'll see a difference. 

/Bruins


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Oct 24, 2011)

I'm behind the general idea and all, but they are going to have to get more organized if they want change. It's something that they don't like, but the reality is, they have to get some leaders out there, and form a political faction that can actually be real contenders. 

The GOP is a rabid dog right now, and the DNC is a neutered one...parties here have fell apart or co-opted or completely shifted ideology before, sooner or later it will happen again. I'm hoping that the OWS actually forms some kind of third party that can at least gain some local seats of office in the states.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 25, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I'm behind the general idea and all, but they are going to have to get more organized if they want change. It's something that they don't like, but the reality is, they have to get some leaders out there, and form a political faction that can actually be real contenders.
> 
> The GOP is a rabid dog right now, and the DNC is a neutered one...parties here have fell apart or co-opted or completely shifted ideology before, sooner or later it will happen again. I'm hoping that the OWS actually forms some kind of third party that can at least gain some local seats of office in the states.



despite the fact that the ows protests are becoming increasingly organized and better funded, _i object _ to the idea that protest must inevitably lead to greater organization and party formation with leadership and fundraising.  the right to protest is very simple, all that other stuff ur asking for is just embellishment of the right to free speech and assembly.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 25, 2011)

by the way eric cantor canceled his inequality speech:



> House Majority Leader Eric Cantor abruptly canceled a speech at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton Business School because the University couldn’t guarantee the “selected audience” that had previously been agreed upon, according to several reports. According to Cantor’s office, the speech was originally restricted to media, students, and faculty, but UPenn decided to open the speech up to the first 300 people to show up. The University says the speech was always open to the public.





lol, eric cantor calling U Penn liers


----------



## Oil Can (Oct 25, 2011)

This was the highlight of Occupy Boston for me.

I also have video of my friend debating an anarchist (it was quite civil and fairly interesting) and Marshall Ganz talking to a crowd of protesters (it opens with that stupid "everyone in the crowd repeat what I am saying as I pause" thing but it also fairly interesting). I've been too lazy to upload those however so please enjoy this dance party.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IICi5BAyffk[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 25, 2011)

Ehandz said:


> This was the highlight of Occupy Boston for me.
> 
> I also have video of my friend debating an anarchist (it was quite civil and fairly interesting) and Marshall Ganz talking to a crowd of protesters (it opens with that stupid "everyone in the crowd repeat what I am saying as I pause" thing but it also fairly interesting). I've been too lazy to upload those however so please enjoy this dance party.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IICi5BAyffk[/YOUTUBE]



that's pretty good dancing and drums


----------



## Oil Can (Oct 25, 2011)

^
They were significantly better than expected. Also, there is a strict "no drugs/no alcohol" policy so anyone saying that its just a bunch of doped up hippies is wrong.

That being said, they really were not the friendliest bunch. Barely anyone was willing to talk. I had a press pass and the people were almost universally anti-media, but the site that I work for is so insignificant that you would think someone would have overlooked the whole thing. Even when I took off the press pass it was no good. One guy even straight up said "If you don't know what we believe in you should go home. We don't want people that don't get it" which seemed A) counter-productive and B) didn't answer my question at all ("what do you desire to accomplish by doing this?"), though I do suspect he just wasn't very articulate and had a bad case of unwarranted self importance.

The one anarchist guy did. He was wicked cool even though I disagree with his opinion. His idea seemed to be that capitalism is an unfixable system and needs to be replaced with something better. He liked the idea of direct democracy, but I think that people are too lazy to ever really successfully pull that off. Representative systems are just easier and more convenient. I was really appreciative of the fact that he was willing to actually discuss things though.

But his prescience also kind of alluded to another aspect that was painfully obvious after being there for about an hour. There was no real community-feel to it. That's not to say that they were horribly organized. They were actually surprisingly well run; there was a food center, a generator tent, a library, and a structure that seemed to be where the people camping out could pick up donated goods like blankets. The donation center girls were especially nice and gave me batteries for free. Physically, they looked like every 70s hippie stereotype. They were genuinely good people and I'm sure others that I didn't talk to were as well. People have their own reasons for not talking to the media and I can respect that. When I say there was no community feel though, I mean that there were a ton of different smaller causes (anti-war, anti-capitalism, anarchy, etc) that didn't seem to want to associate themselves with the other groups other than the 99 percent identity and as a result, the overall message seemed weakened.  

TL;DR- It was well organized from a technical perspective but the ideology is still kind of all over the place. And some of the people were douche-bags. Also, anarchists are apparently really articulate and now I am pretty interested in the topic.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 25, 2011)

Ehandz said:


> ^
> They were significantly better than expected. Also, there is a strict "no drugs/no alcohol" policy so anyone saying that its just a bunch of doped up hippies is wrong.
> 
> That being said, they really were not the friendliest bunch. Barely anyone was willing to talk. I had a press pass and the people were almost universally anti-media, but the site that I work for is so insignificant that you would think someone would have overlooked the whole thing. Even when I took off the press pass it was no good. One guy even straight up said "If you don't know what we believe in you should go home. We don't want people that don't get it" which seemed A) counter-productive and B) didn't answer my question at all ("what do you desire to accomplish by doing this?"), though I do suspect he just wasn't very articulate and had a bad case of unwarranted self importance.
> ...



i could see how protestors would be ticked off after getting the same dumb questions over and over again.  the "if u don't get it then leave" answer is something i might give if i thought i was talking to someone who was just jerking my chain.


----------



## Mael (Oct 25, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> i could see how protestors would be ticked off after getting the same dumb questions over and over again.  the "if u don't get it then leave" answer is something i might give if i thought i was talking to someone who was just jerking my chain.



That doesn't matter.  Get a clue and some tolerance if you really want this to garner sympathy.  One thing the Tea Party, as much as I despise it, got right was that it communicated its misbegotten agenda with a more media-accepting tone than some parts of OWS so far.  Wanna get a message out?  Suck it up and talk into the microphone.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 25, 2011)

Mael said:


> That doesn't matter.  Get a clue and some tolerance if you really want this to garner sympathy.  One thing the Tea Party, as much as I despise it, got right was that it communicated its misbegotten agenda with a more media-accepting tone than some parts of OWS so far.  Wanna get a message out?  Suck it up and talk into the microphone.



who are u talking to guy, i didn't say that should be done. i just said i could understand..get a grip


----------



## Oil Can (Oct 25, 2011)

^
I kind of agree with Mael but I know what you are saying, NSU. I suppose my stance would be that if you are dedicated enough to the cause to sleep in a tent in the cold for days at a time, you should probably be able to explain why you are doing it to anyone who asks. It doesn't take more than a few sentences (tops) and it paints your cause as a lot less pretentious.

On the other hand, the conditions they were living in would probably put anyone on edge and in a bad mood. 

Random note: One thing I forgot to mention was that they and the cops seemed to get along really well which was kind of cool. And the speaker we saw there has his own wikapedia page and was one of Obama's main grassroot organizers.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 25, 2011)

Ehandz said:


> ^
> I kind of agree with Mael but I know what you are saying, NSU. I suppose my stance would be that if you are dedicated enough to the cause to sleep in a tent in the cold for days at a time, you should probably be able to explain why you are doing it to anyone who asks. It doesn't take more than a few sentences (tops) and it paints your cause as a lot less pretentious.
> 
> On the other hand, the conditions they were living in would probably put anyone on edge and in a bad mood.
> ...



i'm willing to bet many protestors are getting mocked or abused and clamming up, like those ones in maine who were attacked with a bomb, or the oakland protestors who have been mass arrested (oakland, u never learn do u :ho)

not to mention the media is kind of playing dumb with the OWS protestors , protecting that corporatism no doubt.


----------



## Mael (Oct 25, 2011)

You're betting, therefore assuming.


----------



## kazuri (Oct 25, 2011)

I have a royal flush, I'm betting all my chips I therefor am assuming I am going to win.


----------



## Mael (Oct 25, 2011)

kazuri said:


> I have a royal flush, I'm betting all my chips I therefor am assuming I am going to win.



In what way does a calculated and numerical odd system like poker have anything to do about the human brain in a quasi-organized protest?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 25, 2011)

Mael said:


> You're betting, therefore assuming.



i'm assuming the bombing of the protest in maine and the arrests of protestors in oakland?


----------



## Mael (Oct 25, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> i'm assuming the bombing of the protest in maine and the arrests of protestors in oakland?





Not talking about that, I'm talking about the reluctance to talk to the media.


----------



## Oil Can (Oct 25, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> i'm assuming the bombing of the protest in maine and the arrests of protestors in oakland?



Why do you hate Mael so much?


----------



## Mael (Oct 25, 2011)

Ehandz said:


> Why do you hate Mael so much?



It's because I dare to criticize or critique the dear movement that so far hasn't gone anywhere in Boston, despite repeated observations, or that I just state the truth that the movement doesn't have the media power/concrete message besides slogans and a website that doesn't help much either.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 26, 2011)

Mael said:


> It's because I dare to criticize or critique the dear movement that so far hasn't gone anywhere in Boston, despite repeated observations, or that I just state the truth that the movement doesn't have the media power/concrete message besides slogans and a website that doesn't help much either.



lol, that's why i posted a thread of los angeles politicians already making policy decisions bc of ows demands.   

and if ur too dumb too notice, obama is quietly incorporating ows demands in his policy.


----------



## Grep (Oct 26, 2011)

Somebody should have told OWS you never go full retard.


----------



## Mael (Oct 26, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> lol, that's why i posted a thread of los angeles politicians already making policy decisions bc of ows demands.
> 
> and if ur too dumb too notice, obama is quietly incorporating ows demands in his policy.



Yeah, "quietly" incorporating demands into his policy.  I'm not from Missouri, but you need to show me instead of just blindly proclaiming it since we know you are an Obama fanboy.


----------



## AmigoOne (Nov 10, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ[/YOUTUBE]

New one video, I felt like this one was important cause its pretty goddamn clear unlike most other ones. No visible provocation for a significant amount of time to cause the act of aggression seen from the police. This protest actually seems like a peaceful one.


----------



## Le Mâle-Pensant (Nov 10, 2011)

This movement doesn't really work in Paris.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdQ0Z8FXORA&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Tion (Nov 10, 2011)

My issue with Occupy Wall St is that it shouldn't be putting pressures on banks (who's sole role is to make bloody profit) but n government to regulate banks.


----------



## emROARS (Nov 10, 2011)

one's starting in cardiff tomorrow. if I had money i'd go see them but I'm poor.


----------



## vampiredude (Nov 10, 2011)

I still say this is futile.  

Well at least for now, but hey who knows? maybe i'm wrong.


----------



## Mintaka (Nov 10, 2011)

Perhaps it is.

However it shows the american people are angry, and with the correct goals could be turned into something more useful....


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 10, 2011)

Tion said:


> My issue with Occupy Wall St is that it shouldn't be putting pressures on banks (who's sole role is to make bloody profit) but n government to regulate banks.



The important thing is controlling the national dialogue.  If they marched only on Washington then the dialogue would be how angry they are with Washginton (and then it would segway into how mad they are at Obama even though he isn't the target).

By protesting at financial institutions it forces them to be the center of the discussions.  When you actually force Eric Cantor to start discussing income inequality you know that they're having an effect.



vampiredude said:


> I still say this is futile.
> 
> Well at least for now, but hey who knows? maybe i'm wrong.



What is futile about it?


----------



## makeoutparadise (Nov 10, 2011)

Some kid got shot in oakland


----------



## Keile (Nov 10, 2011)

What exactly do you think they are protesting, Tsukiyomi? Predatory finance? Wall Street executives? Self-interested profit-making? Monkey sex?


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 10, 2011)

A wide array of issues but most prominently income inequality and reckless banking practices.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 10, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> The important thing is controlling the national dialogue.  If they marched only on Washington then the dialogue would be how angry they are with Washginton (and then it would segway into how mad they are at Obama even though he isn't the target).



What does it matter if its directed at Obama or not? The issue is Washington is responsible for letting Wall Street roam free. And since when is the OWS so incapable of clearly directing a message to let Fox News know that Obama isn't the target? Oh yea.. they seem pretty unclear about things.



> By protesting at financial institutions it forces them to be the center of the discussions.  When you actually force Eric Cantor to start discussing income inequality you know that they're having an effect.



I still don't understand how "forcing the discussion" will do a damn thing to change anything. Its totally pointless. We don't need OWS to start a discussion about something we already know. The point of this movements is to DO SOMETHING about it, and they are doing nothing about it except getting mad at those who merely pay to play.


----------



## Mael (Nov 10, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> A wide array of issues but most prominently income inequality and reckless banking practices.



But every time we read a manifesto it looks like they want to change everything.  Sorry...too idealistic, thus won't work.  If anything, half the base wants capitalism completely destroyed.  No thanks.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 10, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> What does it matter if its directed at Obama or not? The issue is Washington is responsible for letting Wall Street roam free.* And since when is the OWS so incapable of clearly directing a message to let Fox News know that Obama isn't the target? *Oh yea.. they seem pretty unclear about things.



You're assuming the news would choose to air that part of the message.

The problem with it being blamed at Obama is he had NOTHING to do with the financial crisis so focusing on him misses the true problem.  It also creates the risk that if he were voted out of office people might assume the problem has been dealt with.



LouDAgreat said:


> I still don't understand how "forcing the discussion" will do a damn thing to change anything. Its totally pointless. We don't need OWS to start a discussion about something we already know. The point of this movements is to DO SOMETHING about it, and they are doing nothing about it except getting mad at those who merely pay to play.



Ok, elaborate on "do something".  What EXACTLY do you want them to do?

Controlling the dialogue is how you sway hearts and minds and the more people can they sway to their cause the more powerful the movement becomes.



Mael said:


> But every time we read a manifesto it looks like they want to change everything.  Sorry...too idealistic, thus won't work.  If anything, *half the base wants capitalism completely destroyed.*  No thanks.



What are you basing that on?


----------



## Mael (Nov 10, 2011)

^My daily stroll past and thru the Occupy Boston.

Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists ahoy! 

Sorry, get me a unified goal that doesn't incorporate "taking down the corporate machine for mankind" and maybe I'll start listening again.  Oh, and those V masks?   Fucking stupid.  Stop being Anon, who is futilely fighting cartels vtw.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 10, 2011)

So you'll only listen if the entire movement only has one single goal?


----------



## Mael (Nov 10, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> So you'll only listen if the entire movement only has one single goal?



A concise set of goals.

Every time I read that manifesto, it's a clusterfuck of all different angles to where knowing the myriad of groups involved will eventually come to a head.  Let's go baby steps, please.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSN3JB2XTSI[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 10, 2011)

did they teach mael "aim low" while he was in the military?  or some teacher taught him to dream small or not at all


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 10, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> You're assuming the news would choose to air that part of the message.
> 
> The problem with it being blamed at Obama is he had NOTHING to do with the financial crisis so focusing on him misses the true problem. It also creates the risk that if he were voted out of office people might assume the problem has been dealt with.



You're assuming CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNBC, Bloomberg, New York Times, Washington Post, and the rest of the media are as complicity stupid and negligent of reporting accurate news as Fox News Channel. I mean it's pretty easy to see what a protester is targeting if they hold up a sign reading "TO CONGRESS: REGULATE THE BANKS" "TO SUPREME COURT: END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD" Fox News: "Gee I see those signs...they must targeting the President. " 

You're also assuming that the blame will fall solely on Obama. What makes you think Obama will be blamed? What makes you think Congress won't get blamed even more? 

Only those that are that Republican party ass kissers would hold that a movement in Washington is directed solely at President Obama. 



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> Ok, elaborate on "do something". What EXACTLY do you want them to do?



"Do Something" as in you know.. demand regulatory reforms...reinstate the protections that were dismantled under Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush etc. Demand Congress alleviate the problems of the poor, unemployed middle and lower classes by passing a jobs bill? Demand the Congress change something about corporate person hood? Demand Congress make corporations held with greater accountability and punishments for irresponsibility? 

As someone who supports this movement, shouldn't YOU be the one with the answers to what must be done? 

I don't know, I'm not the one protesting. It seems all they want to do is bitch and moan that people have more money than them, and not think of real solutions to alleviate their problem. 



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> Controlling the dialogue is how you sway hearts and minds and the more people can they sway to their cause the more powerful the movement becomes.



And they can control the dialogue just as easily, but more effectively and with a greater chance for making regulatory reforms by occupying Congress or the Supreme Court. From what I see of this movement, their dialogue isn't swaying people to their cause, it's turning people _away_.


----------



## Mael (Nov 10, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> did they teach mael "aim low" while he was in the military?  or some teacher taught him to dream small or not at all



We were taught to keep it simple...oh and aim for the chest.

OWS clearly hasn't letting in a clusterfuck of all sorts of groups just generally pissed off people to include bored college kids and fucking Burning Man.  If they came in saying "We have a beef with the corporate tax scheme and we demand they fix it!" along with maybe proposing XYZ in a clear, concise, and understandable manner, people wouldn't be looking at them like it's Woodstock '69 without the good music.

Protesting at the politicians does a better job.  Instead, these people just laugh at you and fly applications out the window.  When I remember the first thread over this, a politician offered his support and was immediately rebuffed.

Genius move.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 10, 2011)

Mael said:


> We were taught to keep it simple...oh and aim for the chest.
> 
> OWS clearly hasn't letting in a clusterfuck of all sorts of groups just generally pissed off people to include bored college kids and fucking Burning Man.  If they came in saying "We have a beef with the corporate tax scheme and we demand they fix it!" along with maybe proposing XYZ in a clear, concise, and understandable manner, people wouldn't be looking at them like *it's Woodstock '69 without the good music*.



you are actively choosing to interpret them as such.  i've been around protests so i know that some messages are just background noise and some are distinct.  ows protest have a distinct message along with the typical background messages.  ur choosing to view them the way u do cause many people on this board can tell u what the aim of ows is without a moments hesitation, ur still acting like u don't speak english.


----------



## Mael (Nov 10, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> you are actively choosing to interpret them as such.  i've been around protests so i know that some messages are just background noise and some are distinct.  ows protest have a distinct message along with the typical background messages.  ur choosing to view them the way u do cause many people on this board can tell u what the aim of ows is without a moments hesitation, ur still acting like u don't speak english.



And yet you refuse to type in English.  Ironic.

I've been to the website a hundred times over and read through a list more extensive and confusion than the 2010 Health Care measures implemented by Congress.  Just because you're in Cali Cali where people are always pissy over something doesn't mean I'm getting the same vibe.  I see this and read it and just cannot get a concise message.  It's just a fucking tent city billboard every time I walk by the Rose F. Kennedy Parkway with "V" masks and a little dance-off.  Wow.  Brilliant.  Burning Man 2.0.  Excuse me, I've got some upgrade jobs to apply to, so thanks for opening the space.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 10, 2011)

Tion said:


> My issue with Occupy Wall St is that it shouldn't be putting pressures on banks (who's sole role is to make bloody profit) but n government to regulate banks.



We need them sorely, which is ridiculous considering how the current crop of GOP candidates keep going on about how we have "too many regulations" or some the strictest in the world...


----------



## Mael (Nov 10, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> We need them sorely, which is ridiculous considering how the current crop of GOP candidates keep going on about how we have "too many regulations" or some the strictest in the world...



The problem is the GOP lives in a fantasy world.  When I gripe about OWS, it's not fantasy I try to cloud myself with, but more a realization that the private businesses they rail against will just watch and laugh.  You force their hand.  How do you do that?  Influence government.  Placards on shareholders will do jack and shit.

Case in point, Teddy Roosevelt's labor rulings.  Placards alone against just business didn't solve it.  It took the big man himself.  

As much as the Tea Party twits like to say it, there is a little merit in their commentary about how OWS needs to go after DC instead of Wall Street where Sharehold John Q. doesn't give a shit about student loans except for his own livelihood.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 11, 2011)

ows doesn't need to go after washington, they are going after wall street bc the 1% have no qualms with bullying our leaders and throwing around their money expecting favors.  

i'm starting to see the ows more akin to bolshevism, and i'm not sure if i'm using that term correctly either, but an uprising of the poor and working class against the rich who will openly buy the leadership.

for example this morning i watched the CEO of cisco talking about how cisco has 40 billion dollars parked outside the US that they won't bring back cause it will get taxed as revenue.  according to him last time cisco brought 1 billion back they created 1200 jobs.  but he doesn't exactly say that if he brings the 40 billion back with no or lower taxes he's gonna hire people.  so cisco is hoarding money overseas until they can bully the US into a lower tax rate to bring that money back.


----------



## Wolfarus (Nov 11, 2011)

Hopefully all these protests have a lasting effect on governments and policies. 

Though im fearing that aside from creating some short-term feelings of solidarity among the working-class mass's, and giving the tv/paper some stories to talk about, this will eventually fade and we'll be back to business as usual


----------



## T4R0K (Nov 11, 2011)

The first "occupy" movement was in Spain, in spring and summer.


----------



## Blue (Nov 11, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> So you'll only listen if the entire movement only has one single goal?



As I said in some other thread (or maybe this one) I have nothing but disdain for OWS, despite sharing many of their concerns, because there isn't much they aren't concerned about, and some of it is batshit insane.

They're just a bunch of pissed off people who don't care who they roll with as long as everyone is equally pissed off.

Here is a handy infographic I made to explain this:


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Nov 11, 2011)

Mael said:


> A concise set of goals.
> 
> Every time I read that manifesto, it's a clusterfuck of all different angles to where knowing the myriad of groups involved will eventually come to a head.  Let's go baby steps, please.



It depends who you ask.  Some of these people are in a state of disarray but some of them are pretty focused and eloquent.



LouDAgreat said:


> You're assuming CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNBC, Bloomberg, New York Times, Washington Post, and the rest of the media are as complicity stupid and negligent of reporting accurate news as Fox News Channel. I mean it's pretty easy to see what a protester is targeting if they hold up a sign reading "TO CONGRESS: REGULATE THE BANKS" "TO SUPREME COURT: END CORPORATE PERSONHOOD" Fox News: "Gee I see those signs...they must targeting the President. "
> 
> You're also assuming that the blame will fall solely on Obama. What makes you think Obama will be blamed? What makes you think Congress won't get blamed even more?
> 
> Only those that are that Republican party ass kissers would hold that a movement in Washington is directed solely at President Obama.



The other news networks have a habit of following Fox's lead without looking into stories themselves.  Case in point the ACORN "scandal".  Absolutely nothing happened but Fox ran with it and the other news networks ran with it as well rather than be scooped and it led to the organizations demise even though they did nothing wrong.



LouDAgreat said:


> "Do Something" as in you know.. demand regulatory reforms...reinstate the protections that were dismantled under Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush etc. Demand Congress alleviate the problems of the poor, unemployed middle and lower classes by passing a jobs bill? Demand the Congress change something about corporate person hood? Demand Congress make corporations held with greater accountability and punishments for irresponsibility?



And they aren't demanding those things now?  How do you figure?



LouDAgreat said:


> As someone who supports this movement, shouldn't YOU be the one with the answers to what must be done?
> 
> I don't know, I'm not the one protesting. It seems all they want to do is bitch and moan that people have more money than them, and not think of real solutions to alleviate their problem.



Lets get one thing straight, YOU are the one who demanded they "do something".  So when I ask you to elaborate on what YOU mean don't get pissy.

You want to know what I think should be done?  Do you mean with the protests or fixing the countries problems?  With the protests I think they're doing it perfectly, they're protesting in too many places to be ignored.  They're getting attention in hundreds upon hundreds of locations.

For the countries problems this is what I would want to see done (long list and description coming).

1.) Pass a constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people and money is not speech.

2.) Make it a felony for anyone to give _any_ amount of money to a politician unless it is an election cycle where that politician is up for re-election, they represent you (so I living in LA can't influence elections in say Wisconsin), you're a registered voter _and_ limit it to $3,000.

3.) Eliminate the filibuster in the senate and force all negotiations to be done live on CSPAN.

Those things would fix the most issues of corruption in our elected officials.

Then I'd make changes to the courts.  Open investigations into all 9 members of the Supreme Court looking for corruption, Thomas at the very least is corrupt.  I'd form a congressional panel with the authority to investigate and impeach the justices.

That would fix the issues with the Supreme court and the damage some of its more recent decisions have caused.

Then for banking I would either nationalize or break up all of the big banks and reinstate laws like glass-steagall.

I'd raise taxes on income over $1,000,000 a year to 80% and raise the estate tax to 50% on estates worth more than $5,000,000 and slash as many loopholes out of the tax code as possible to ensure people and corporations actually pay what they owe.

I'd bring back the high tariffs we had from the George Washington administration until the late 1970s/early 1980s to force jobs to be brought back to the US.

Then I'd start pouring insane amounts of money into rebuilding the country's infrastructure. Putting tens of thousands of people to work fixing roads, bridges, sewers, schools etc...  and upgrade things like the power grid to be significantly more efficient.

I'd also have people start building a public transportation system that would be the envy of the world including high speed rail.

I'd go through the prison system and free anyone who is actually a threat to society like people on non-violent drug related charges, at the same time I'd do away with private prisons so you don't have prisons lobbying for harsher laws to increase prison populations and their profits.

Then I'd forgive all federal student loans, then all of our educated citizens who are currently saddled with debt can be more stimulative to the economy.

After that I'd close all unnecessary military bases around the world and slash the military budget to a fraction of what it is now.

Then I'd institute a national healthcare system, there is no reason in a country this wealthy for people to be dying due to a lack of simple medical care.

If I were pushing a message I'd try to get as many of those things as possible implemented. Now I may not prioritize it in that particular order, I just wrote them as they came to mind and I'm sure I forgot a couple of things.



LouDAgreat said:


> And they can control the dialogue just as easily, but more effectively and with a greater chance for making regulatory reforms by occupying Congress or the Supreme Court. From what I see of this movement, their dialogue isn't swaying people to their cause, it's turning people _away_.



You think they'll have more effect by focusing all in one place?  That doesn't make any sense.  Suppose the entire movement was focused at the Supreme Court for example.  As long as the news isn't constantly covering that area there isn't any effect on the dialogue.  Also anyone who isn't in that immediate area feels no effect.

By spreading demonstrations into hundreds of locations across the country it has a few effects.  

First it makes it significantly easier for anyone who wants to join the movement to do so, whereas they may not have been able to make across the country to sit outside the Supreme Court.

Second it makes the movement significantly harder to ignore because more and more people will be directly effected by it across the country.  Just look at how much attention the Occupy Oakland or Occupy Denver movements have been getting, especially with the excessive use of police force against them.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 11, 2011)

Tsukiyomi said:


> The other news networks have a habit of following Fox's lead without looking into stories themselves.  Case in point the ACORN "scandal".  Absolutely nothing happened but Fox ran with it and the other news networks ran with it as well rather than be scooped and it led to the organizations demise even though they did nothing wrong.



You're assuming the news networks follow Fox's lead on every news story. You're also assuming these networks wouldn't do their own investigative work into the movement and figure out what the people actually want. 

If tens of thousands of people occupied Washington for several weeks, and continually delivered the same message of regulatory reform, accountability on Wall Street with no background messages (i.e, "EAT THE RICH"), you still think ALL news networks would simply ignore that massive group with a coherent message and "say, oh they're after Obama"? You think all news outlets from the Times, Huffington Post would not start to accurately reporting what these people want? 



Tsukiyomi said:


> And they aren't demanding those things now?  How do you figure?



And once again, what is the point of demanding those things FROM WALL STREET? How in the hell do you get those reforms by camping out in front of Wall Street? Wall Street doesn't write national laws, Wall Street doesn't vote for the laws, Wall street doesn't pass the laws, Wall Street pays lobbyists to influence what the laws say. If Wall Street goes to Washington to get what it wants, why isn't this movement doing the same thing? 

They are misdirecting their political capital at those who don't change the rules of the financial system. 



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> Lets get one thing straight, YOU are the one who demanded they "do something".  So when I ask you to elaborate on what YOU mean don't get pissy.



When I say "do something", I mean do something other than "start a discussion". Its past time for discussing what we already know. DO SOMETHING ABOUT. Crying about wealth inequality, no jobs, greedy corporations in front of Wall Street, or in your local park isn't doing anything. These people have nothing in mind to do something about their issues other than camp at Wall Street. That's not doing anything.  



Tsukiyomi said:


> You want to know what I think should be done?  Do you mean with the protests or fixing the countries problems?  With the protests I think they're doing it perfectly, they're protesting in too many places to be ignored.  They're getting attention in hundreds upon hundreds of locations.
> 
> For the countries problems this is what I would want to see done (long list and description coming).
> 
> ...



It's great you want all those things but, but occupying Wall Street can't get any of those things. That's why this movement should be called Occupy Congress, or Occupy Washington. Washington is where all of those things listed could get done. 




Tsukiyomi said:


> You think they'll have more effect by focusing all in one place?
> 
> That doesn't make any sense.  Suppose the entire movement was focused at the Supreme Court for example.  As long as the news isn't constantly covering that area there isn't any effect on the dialogue.  Also anyone who isn't in that immediate area feels no effect.



Not just any place, Tsukiyomi... THE NATION'S CAPITAL. Some places have more meaning, more significance than others. Sorry but Washington D.C is more significant and important, and more likely to draw attention than Oakland, or some town in the middle of Missouri. It makes perfect sense to get tens of thousands of angry people screaming loud and threatening to bring unrest to the capital if lawmakers don't pass the laws demanded... 

You don't think that would generate attention? 

Also, you wouldn't feel the effects?  People in California or Denver didn't feel the effects of Occupy Wall Street?Why else are they protesting if they didn't feel the effects?

 People didn't in those didn't feel the effects from distant states didn't feel the effects of seeing the announcement of Barack Obama's becoming the first black president on national television? 

You are totally ignoring the power of nationally televised broadcasts. You are totally ignoring the emotional sentiment that could be gained with seeing tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people screaming and demanding Washington change the course of Wall Street and provide opportunities for the middle class. Things that happen far away from us, if seen on t.v could motivate us and change our perceptions. What makes you think that wouldn't happen in a centralized location? 




> By spreading demonstrations into hundreds of locations across the country it has a few effects.
> 
> First it makes it significantly easier for anyone who wants to join the movement to do so, whereas they may not have been able to make across the country to sit outside the Supreme Court.



Your point of recruitment is fair, but by spreading the protests across the country, you now risk the chance of protests in less important and significant cities to be totally ignored. If there were protests in 150 cities at once,  some of those protests are not gonna be covered by the national media, they just wont send a team to cover every city. When you consolidate those protesters into the political center of the country, you not only concentrate coverage so that now more people can be seen, the significance of your movement has jumped, as you are now camping in front of the building where laws are decided.[/QUOTE]

Second it makes the movement significantly harder to ignore because more and more people will be directly effected by it across the country.  Just look at how much attention the Occupy Oakland or Occupy Denver movements have been getting, especially with the excessive use of police force against them.

Locals may not ignore it, but people from other cities will ignore it. Some people may even see their local protests as an inconvenience. 

Also, Because of what's happened in Oakland and Denver  the debate has now shifted from changing laws to fix the financial system to policy brutality. The focus has been lost, the movement has gone off track.  Another issue has taken center stage. Don't mix and meddles messages.


----------



## Blue (Nov 11, 2011)

I am an ignorant tool of the system.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 11, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I am an ignorant tool of the system.



A good example of a entrepreneur seeing a opportunity, taking advantage of it, and attempting to make some dough.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 11, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I am an ignorant tool of the system.




I like the comments.


			
				Robert O'Connor ?  Top Commenter ? Works at California Fire News said:
			
		

> Shameful Disgusting attempt to make money off the movement, *and worse the shirts are made in Mexico! POS*


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 11, 2011)

You know the movement needs coherency and leadership, but the other side of the fence seems to be equally as stupid at this point. Corporations and banks are running wild and exploiting a shrinking middle class. Hilarious.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 11, 2011)

Bishop said:


> I like the comments.



The 1% trying to make money off the activities of the 99%. Its why they're the 1%; they are smart, cunning and take advantage of opportunities.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 11, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> The 1% trying to make money off the activities of the 99%. Its why they're the 1%; they are smart, cunning and take advantage of opportunities.



Like this, for example.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 11, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Like this, for example.



So, you mad people are smart and know how to exploit money making opportunities?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 11, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> So, you mad people are smart and know how to exploit money making opportunities?



I know you hold a lot of libertarian ideals, so I really don't know if you are actually serious with these comments or if you're just that naive. I think even you'd realize that legacy and just dumb luck still plays a very strong role in one's social standing and social mobility. The top 1 percent especially is filled with people that were born into wealth, acquired long before they were born. Wealth opens great opportunities for higher quality education in maintaining that wealth, but not all of them are that smart (or at least, competent), not all of them are actually involved in making the money that stays in their families, and certainly not as individuals can be given credit alone for that wealth.


----------



## Talon. (Nov 11, 2011)

Its a good day to be a supporter. 

when something like this goes global, shits gonna get real.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 11, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> I know you hold a lot of libertarian ideals, so I really don't know if you are actually serious with these comments or if you're just that naive. I think even you'd realize that legacy and just dumb luck still plays a very strong role in one's social standing and social mobility. The top 1 percent especially is filled with people that were born into wealth, acquired long before they were born. Wealth opens great opportunities for higher quality education in maintaining that wealth, but not all of them are that smart (or at least, competent), not all of them are actually involved in making the money that stays in their families, and certainly not as individuals can be given credit alone for that wealth.



No, I don't think it's just "dumb luck", people see opportunities and decide not to go with it because it's just too risky or they're not bold enough to take the chance. Of course its hard to create wealth, to acquire the assets that generate those big incomes. But the resources, the knowledge and the ability to get wealth is available to everyone. 

Sure, there will be a few losers, but there will also be a lot of winners as well. I don't buy that "they're born into wealth" bullshit. People being born rich doesn't stop you from becoming rich. It all comes down to acquiring the knowledge to get yourself wealth. You don't need to go to an expensive school; a community school with a business, finance or accounting  program will do just fine. Pick up a book, go to a seminar, talk to someone who is rich and gain insights into how they gain wealth. Take every opportunity to learn about the functioning of businesses, stocks and bonds, real estate, how oversees markets work. Learn to manage risk. 

Learn how to acquire assets and make those assets work for you. Learn to minimize your expenses and liabilities. 

Not all rich people are born rich, they also make their millions through investing, real estate, and starting businesses. Play their game, and you might make it.


----------



## Blue (Nov 11, 2011)

I can claim to be part of the 3% legitimately, but it helped that my family was able to float me 600 grand when I needed it.


----------



## Bishop (Nov 11, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I can claim to be part of the 3% legitimately, but it helped that my family was able to float me 600 grand when I needed it.



We're in the 2%, and we earned it through hard work and sacrifices.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 11, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> No, I don't think it's just "dumb luck", people see opportunities and decide not to go with it because it's just too risky or they're not bold enough to take the chance. Of course its hard to create wealth, to acquire the assets that generate those big incomes. But the resources, the knowledge and the ability to get wealth is available to everyone.



It is, very much so, and plays just as much a role as effort. Luck is an enormous factor because it's what influences all the other factors on where you get in life. You should always put as much effort as you can to get ahead, and it certainly helps one's chances; but for most people, it's just not enough. Not everyone has the same opportunities and resources available to them to get ahead, at least as far ahead to be apart of that 1%.

It's a gamble ultimately, when you aim big, you risk losing big. 



> Sure, there will be a few losers,



There will be a lot. Most will be.



> but there will also be a lot of winners as well.



Very few.



> I don't buy that "they're born into wealth" bullshit.



It doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe, that's the truth of income brackets in America. It's especially true that now, an American is likely to die in the same bracket they're born in, and that goes for the wealthy as well. Like I stated, legacy is still plays strong in where people go. 



> People being born rich doesn't stop you from becoming rich.



That actually depends. There are a multitude of factors, but the most common one is again, just dumb luck. You don't always have to be the smartest, charismatic individual to win the race, many times it just helps to be the luckiest. 



> It all comes down to acquiring the knowledge to get yourself wealth.



It always helps to try, but I say again, knowing is just not enough. There are multiple factors that are simply out of one's control. Again, most will fail in their pursuit of wealth. The success stories we see are exceptions, not the example. 



> You don't need to go to an expensive school; a community school with a business, finance or accounting  program will do just fine. Pick up a book, go to a seminar, talk to someone who is rich and gain insights into how they gain wealth.



No, you don't need to go to expensive schools to acquire knowledge that would lead to a greater opportunity to social mobility. I actually agree with that, and it is something people don't even understand. It's always helpful to arm oneself with knowledge, but starting out with a realistic goal of moving up in one's social bracket should be the aim before focusing on getting wealthy (if that's the goal at all).



> Take every opportunity to learn about the functioning of businesses, stocks and bonds, real estate, how oversees markets work. Learn to manage risk.
> 
> Learn how to acquire assets and make those assets work for you. Learn to minimize your expenses and liabilities.
> Not all rich people are born rich, they also make their millions through investing, real estate, and starting businesses. Play their game, and you might make it.



Effort helps, learning helps, but it's not the only thing. It's why I find claiming that the 1% as a whole are where they are because they tried harder or were smarter than the people of the 99% is just naive. Your advice is the typical stuff, the more optimistic side that people get fed, but it's a hell of a lot more complicated than that.


----------



## Tion (Nov 11, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> We need them sorely, which is ridiculous considering how the current crop of GOP candidates keep going on about how we have "too many regulations" or some the strictest in the world...



BRING IN THE NEW NEW DEAL


----------



## Rescuebear (Nov 11, 2011)

Perhaps a cap of all presidential donations?
And a record of who gave it, how much and how it was spent.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 11, 2011)

Rescuebear said:


> Perhaps a cap of all presidential donations?
> And a record of who gave it, how much and how it was spent.



We'll have to wait for Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts to die for that...they OK'ed unlimited campaign contributions, ANONYMOUSLY.


----------



## Tion (Nov 11, 2011)

Make voting compulsory like us. Then you wouldn't have to spend so much on making people vote in the first place.


----------



## Saf (Nov 11, 2011)

It seems like a lot of people here struggle with the concept of a decentralized movement, and seem completely uninformed about the General Assembly processes. It doesn't seem like there's many well-informed supporters, either, so I guess I'll try to hang around and address things until I get sick of this forum again and leave.


----------



## Chessmaster (Nov 12, 2011)

Just cringing at some of the comments here. 



> I'd raise taxes on income over $1,000,000 a year to 80% and raise the estate tax to 50% on estates worth more than $5,000,000 and slash as many loopholes out of the tax code as possible to ensure people and corporations actually pay what they owe.
> 
> I'd bring back the high tariffs we had from the George Washington administration until the late 1970s/early 1980s to force jobs to be brought back to the US.


Just like this one. Are you trying to make everyone poor?


----------



## A. Waltz (Nov 12, 2011)

i really dont understand the point of this all, we all know goverments aren't gonna do shit to change things even if it did go global.
sorry but its the truth
you can neg me all you want, we both know nothing's gonna change
people will still complain no matter what is done


----------



## NanoHaxial (Nov 12, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> We'll have to wait for Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts to die for that...they OK'ed unlimited campaign contributions, ANONYMOUSLY.



All the Supreme Court ruling did was allow corporations and unions to broadcast political ads within 60 days of an election.



> First, while the court threw out decades-old constraints on corporations and unions today in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it preserved disclosure requirements that at least force those expenditures into the public eye.
> 
> Second, the court's dramatic reversal does not threaten the existing ban on direct corporate and union campaign contributions. So while those players may now lavish money from their treasuries on independent campaign expenditures, they still may not donate directly to candidates.



The ALCU even supported the decision.



> *Whether a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which bars unions and corporations (both for-profit and non-profit) from engaging in "electioneering communications," violates the First Amendment and should be struck down as facially unconstitutional.*
> 
> Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 prohibits unions and corporations (both for-profit and non-profit) from engaging in ?electioneering communications.? The legislative definition of an ?electioneering communication? was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003 and then substantially narrowed by the Supreme Court in 2007. In scheduling this case for reargument, the Court specifically requested briefs on whether section 203 should now be struck down as facially unconstitutional. The ACLU has consistently taken the position that section 203 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech, and our amicus brief takes that position again.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 12, 2011)

Like I was saying.



> Overruling *two* important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.





> The ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, overruled *two precedents*: *Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates*, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.



Furthermore:


----------



## NanoHaxial (Nov 12, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Like I was saying.



The FEC says differently:



> The ruling did not affect the ban on corporate or union contributions or the reporting requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communication
> 
> Disclosure
> 
> ...


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 12, 2011)

And a more local example:


----------



## NanoHaxial (Nov 12, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> And a more local example:



Local and federal campaign finance laws differ. The Supreme Court case was in regards to federal regulations.



> Independent Expenditures
> 
> Under federal election law, an individual or group (such as a PAC) may make unlimited "independent expenditures" in connection with federal elections.
> 
> An independent expenditure is an expenditure for a communication which expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and which is made independently from the candidate's campaign. To be considered independent, the communication may not be made with the cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate or his/her authorized committees or a political party, or any of their agents.  While there is no limit on how much anyone may spend on an independent expenditure, the law does require persons making independent expenditures to report them and to disclose the sources of the funds they used. The public can review these reports at the FEC's Public Records Office.



The above now includes unions and corporations. That's the sole outcome of the case decision.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 12, 2011)

The FEC is in a deadlock, and because of that really can't enforce the laws it's supposed to uphold, which pretty much still leaves the loophole in the Supreme Court's ruling as that and whatever campaign finance laws to put a halt on what's going on pretty much ineffective.



Aside from that loopholes exist in the FEC's own laws that still allow anonymous contributions. What do you think the massive surge of Super PACs in both parties are for? Also, again, the deadlock in the FEC is hindering their ability to enforce the rules on this issue, and whatever laws may apply to this.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-06/the-high-price-of-anonymous-cash-in-american-political-campaigns.html

Like the previous example I provided, these loopholes exist on a more localized level as well. The problem is pretty much the same on all levels of government.


----------



## Wicked (Nov 12, 2011)

Outside of america, what other places have they occupied.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Nov 12, 2011)

As long as the supreme court can overrule any law, what we do to curb political money is pretty much useless. And that's taking into account that its only one part of corporate US's dominance, the rest is their complete stranglehold on all sides of Washington


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 12, 2011)

Protest is not a matter of convenience, and certainly not a matter in which one goes out of the way to make things convenient for authorities. And they certainly don't have much incentive to do so if the authorities are not acting in good faith towards the protestors. So, if you hope to shame protestors into obeying the laws, when what they want is to force authorities to *change* the laws, then I would say that you've misunderstood something about the aims of the movement.


----------



## Blue (Nov 13, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> And they certainly don't have much incentive to do so if the authorities are not acting in good faith towards the protestors.


The problem is that this is not possible. With no concrete demands the "authorities" can't (and won't, obviously) act in the protester's interests at all, let alone in good faith.


----------



## Saf (Nov 13, 2011)

Allowing them to continue to exist so they can get to the point of "concrete demands" would certainly be acting in good faith.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 13, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> The problem is that this is not possible. With no concrete demands the "authorities" can't (and won't, obviously) act in the protester's interests at all, let alone in good faith.



The medium is the message.  I'm a lifelong Republican/Conservative, but I fail to see how billy-clubbing, firing upon, tasing, or tear gassing largely nonviolent protestors serves the interests of liberty.

I mean even if it's a fucking park and they might be causing damage by their presence, certainly a municipality could work with them.

Hiring a few people to pick up trash or move dumpsters in and out of the area cannot possibly be more expensive than expending teargas, rubber bullets, and fighting civil suits.  There are plenty of things municipalities could resort to without resorting to violence.

Is there a culture of beating protestors in California?  You'd think that by being the state most acquainted with peaceful protest, that officials would have learned some tolerance for bending of the rules.  Yet they do their absolute damnedest to be lawful stupid at every opportunity.

You can always re-seed grass in the spring or whenever if the climate is temperate.  You can't reverse wrongful injury/deaths.


----------



## ensoriki (Nov 14, 2011)

So anonymous saying it won't let Toronto authorities stop Occupy Toronto.


----------



## Toby (Nov 14, 2011)

Saf said:


> It seems like a lot of people here struggle with the concept of a decentralized movement, and seem completely uninformed about the General Assembly processes. It doesn't seem like there's many well-informed supporters, either, so I guess I'll try to hang around and address things until I get sick of this forum again and leave.



You're right. There are no critics of the movement on this forum that have even googled OWS or read the stuff that they post. If they did, then they would have known that or at least the analytical process that OWS is encouraging.

It is not how things should have turned out. A lot of Americans really ought to protest at Congress' lack of sound government for the lost decade - but the media makes it look like this movement is somehow obstructing the US path to economic recovery while also maintaining that it is not achieving anything at all.

I think you can compare the current state of affairs to the apathy that was common in Cold War Britain and America. People would simply steer away from difficult subjects because they raised tension.


----------



## Agmaster (Nov 14, 2011)

Baal.  Not to jump in late in the game, but the media's portrayal of OWS really only seems to affect middle america.  Everyone else looking at it, seems to get information from alt sources.  Just saying that their image is not totally tainted in peoples' eyes.


----------



## Toby (Nov 14, 2011)

True. I don't know what it looks like on the street in the US but the people on NF aren't doing much research about it. Those who are, know what the movement is about, and are probably in favour of the spirit of the movement at least.

The reason I don't want to put up with this any more is that OWS is the first civil rights movement in my lifetime that I can the use for, and identify with. OWS is trying to connect people on the left and the right to fix what is wrong with our economic system, and it is not fair as the mainstream media hacks it up to be - an attack on all forms of economic theory. Many of the points OWS raises are the same ones that economists have researched for decades. Information failure, consumer sovereignty, the role of derivatives in credit markets - are they stabilizing or destabilizing, or not important at all? 

These questions are key, and OWS wants answers. Mainstream media wants no answers at all.


----------



## Agmaster (Nov 14, 2011)

Agreed.  As such, the question becomes.... how do 'people' outcommunicate the system designed to communicate and inform?


----------



## Blue (Nov 14, 2011)

Toby said:


> Many of the points OWS raises are the same ones that economists have researched for decades. Information failure, consumer sovereignty, the role of derivatives in credit markets - are they stabilizing or destabilizing, or not important at all?
> 
> These questions are key, and OWS wants answers. Mainstream media wants no answers at all.


What absolute bollocks. OWS only raises pertinent and researched questions regarding their economic and societal concerns in that the more educated members of the OWS coalition will add legitimate concerns to the  of the movement. Unfortunately reality parts with the folktale; the soup is utterly inedible.

The media, of course, is pandering to the lowest common denominator - the average Joe Blow who grows angry or excited hearing about street protests, depending on his political leanings, but is utterly ignorant in either case. Criticizing them is hardly constructive; if you want a more erudite rundown of events, read the Economist or something. 

Anyway I'm now quite convinced that OWS will peter out and die fairly soon, and having accomplished nothing, I doubt they'll merit a footnote in the Great Recession chapter of modern history textbooks.


----------



## impersonal (Nov 14, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> What absolute bollocks. OWS only raises pertinent and researched questions regarding their economic and societal concerns in that the more educated members of the OWS coalition will add legitimate concerns to the  of the movement. Unfortunately reality parts with the folktale; the soup is utterly inedible.
> 
> The media, of course, is pandering to the lowest common denominator - the average Joe Blow who grows angry or excited hearing about street protests, depending on his political leanings, but is utterly ignorant in either case. Criticizing them is hardly constructive; if you want a more erudite rundown of events, read the Economist or something.


The core ingredient of the soup is not a stone (as in the folktale); it's protest against the excessive political power of big banks and excessive income disparities.

This core ingredient, on its own, is valid and justifies the protests. You can add spices and condiments to make the soup delicious, but the simple version is nourishing enough.


Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Anyway I'm now quite convinced that OWS will peter out and die fairly soon, and having accomplished nothing, I doubt they'll merit a footnote in the Great Recession chapter of modern history textbooks.


I don't get this objection. "Let's not join this movement because it does not accomplish anything". Well, if nobody joins a movement, of course it stops and does not accomplish anything. How stupid is that? Criticize the movement for _aiming to accomplish bad things_. Do not criticize it for failing to accomplish good things -- when you're not even trying.


----------



## Toby (Nov 14, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> What absolute bollocks. OWS only raises pertinent and researched questions regarding their economic and societal concerns in that the more educated members of the OWS coalition will add legitimate concerns to the  of the movement. Unfortunately reality parts with the folktale; the soup is utterly inedible.
> 
> The media, of course, is pandering to the lowest common denominator - the average Joe Blow who grows angry or excited hearing about street protests, depending on his political leanings, but is utterly ignorant in either case. Criticizing them is hardly constructive; if you want a more erudite rundown of events, read the Economist or something.
> 
> Anyway I'm now quite convinced that OWS will peter out and die fairly soon, and having accomplished nothing, I doubt they'll merit a footnote in the Great Recession chapter of modern history textbooks.



As someone who actually reads and understands all of the content in The Economist, I can safely say that they have not managed to understand the movement either. Which is why I said mainstream media has failed to understand it. The blogosphere is alive with great analysis of the movement and as I mentioned, the OWS has its own webpage where they post their views. You have opted to not read it. As for The Economist, it isn't very good on this topic at all and simplifies even its own classical liberal economic view, which doesn't resonate at all with a decentralized civil rights movement by the way. From an IR perspective it has failed to acknowledge the international appeal of the movement, and writes the same level of garbage that any other paper has. They either dismiss the movement for being weak, for not "achieving" anything, almost as if they knew what they were supposed to be about. It's actually kind of an arrogant analysis. How can you not achieve something without a list of demands? It's almost as if there's a circular argument at play.

Ah, because there is.

The Guardian has written a bit better on the subject, as has the Financial Times, but they aren't mainstream. Just in case you haven't understood this already, The Economist has been a great magazine because of its history of providing a good reach of articles on economics, trade and finance - not because of its political views. God no. In fact if it weren't for the fact that my subscription is now free, I wouldn't read it so much. FT is much better.

So about OWS: Many of them are young and can't find a job because youth unemployment is just under 20%. You must be a fucking Marsian if you don't know that the unemployment numbers alone explain why they are here and that they justify the act of protesting. But when it is comprised of the poor, the unemployed and the people who don't want to part of the current system only to experience it collapse on them when they grow old, why should people who have no concerns at all care about them? The soup is quite edible, but you're too good for salt. That's the problem. Now since every single one of my points just hit home, I suggest you do as I recommended. Google the movement and read up on their issues, their demands, everything. If you read the articles, you'll find out. But in brief, what would they want if they are unemployed, have lost their savings and/or retirement fund? Well they want their fucking lives back, of course. But how will you replace that? With a concrete list of demands? Please.

And before you go ahead and ever challenge me on economics or politics again. Keep in mind that I know this stuff, you don't, and I am not going to let you get away with talking like this to me or any other user on this forum again.

That's the only warning you get.


----------



## Blue (Nov 14, 2011)

Toby said:


> In fact if it weren't for the fact that my subscription is now free, I wouldn't read it so much. FT is much better.


How'd you manage that trick? The subscription fee is exorbitant.

And now I feign anger.



> So about OWS: Many of them are young and can't find a job because youth unemployment is just under 20%. You must be a fucking Marsian if you don't know that the unemployment numbers alone explain why they are here and that they justify the act of protesting.


You're obviously frustrated because you sympathize with the movement, and aren't impressed with my disdain, but your seem to have come to the conclusion that I don't believe the protests are justified.
They absolutely are. But...



> But when it is comprised of the poor, the unemployed


The educated, the uneducated, the inexperienced, the rebellious, the bored, the mostly white, interestingly, considering the racial wealth and employment disparity...


> and the people who don't want to part of the current system only to experience it collapse on them when they grow old, why should people who have no concerns at all care about them?


Basic human compassion, perhaps?



> The soup is quite edible, but you're too good for salt. That's the problem.


Oh no, salt is wonderful. But there's milk in the soup too, and that makes for a nauseating combination. It needs to be dumped. And remade with a recipe.



> Now since every single one of my points just hit home


You're not even firing in the right direction. Filtered and distilled, I agree with the OWS movement. For instance, corporate meddling in government. The problem is that a great deal of it never makes it past the filter. Disproportionate wealth distribution, for instance, in my oh so limited economic education, cannot be "fixed." The rich getting richer has been cliche since feudal times and it's not ever going away. To receive capital gains, you require capital. Even if you dramatically increase tax on the wealthy (and you should) this remains true. Feel free to educate me if you're so inclined.



> But in brief, what would they want if they are unemployed, have lost their savings and/or retirement fund? Well they want their fucking lives back, of course. But how will you replace that? With a concrete list of demands? Please.


So in brief: They're useless to enact reform and have a right to be useless? We're in agreement!


> And before you go ahead and ever challenge me on economics or politics again. Keep in mind that I know this stuff, you don't, and I am not going to let you get away with talking like this to me or any other user on this forum again.


I consider you extremely well educated, and I read your posts regarding economics with a great deal of interest and have reformed several of my opinions based on them. 

But you carry around your vocabulary as your sole defining character trait. You're nothing without your esoteric verbosity. Most people don't even fully understand what you write, and you prefer it that way. It doesn't work on me. I know actual geniuses, prodigies who are as far beyond most as you are beyond Forrest Gump. I knew, in fact, 4 right here on NF. You are not one. I think you're a pretty cool guy, but this intimidation thing? Save it for the rest of the cafe.



> That's the only warning you get.


Come at me. Bro.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 14, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> The educated, the uneducated, the inexperienced, the rebellious, the bored, the mostly white, interestingly, considering the racial wealth and employment disparity...



 white middle class have plenty to complain about, since whites were the greatest percentage of the middle class which has been getting squeezed, and not for the benefit of the poor but the rich.


----------



## Blue (Nov 14, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> white middle class have plenty to complain about, since whites were the greatest percentage of the middle class which has been getting squeezed, and not for the benefit of the poor but the rich.


I don't disagree they have a lot to complain about, but if you look at the income and employment disparities, it shines a light on the ratio of maligned to malcontent in the OWS movement.

Which is to say blacks are getting fucked and nobody really cares, because it's about sticking it to the man, not changing everything for the better.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 14, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I don't disagree they have a lot to complain about, but if you look at the income and employment disparities, it shines a light on the ratio of maligned to malcontent in the OWS movement.
> 
> Which is to say blacks are getting fucked and nobody really cares, because it's about sticking it to the man, not changing everything for the better.



congrats for trying to turn this into a race issue, i've seen a variety of faces and skin colors at the protests, what the OWS is asking for, and you would know this if u listen for a second, will benefit all people.  u keep spinning falsities.

ps some of the first big names to support the OWS were black academics and entertainers, fyi

pps if there was just a black grievance strike, absolutely _nobody_ would give it a second.  that's part of the reason OWS is so important. grievances blacks have had for a long time have now reached the masses, including social inequality, wealth disparities, and police brutality.  

Now there's strikes in denver, portland, tulsa, Hawaii , etc. places where people are feeling the pain like the rest of the population


----------



## Toby (Nov 15, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> How'd you manage that trick? The subscription fee is exorbitant.



It is cheaper for students. Also, subscription is free through certain university libraries. Mine included. I get other perks from doing research for professors. Not sure which one justifies the amount of free stuff I get.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> And now I feign anger.
> 
> You're obviously frustrated because you sympathize with the movement, and aren't impressed with my disdain, but your seem to have come to the conclusion that I don't believe the protests are justified.
> They absolutely are. But...



Stop right here. Of course I care about them, they are in a terrible situation. You do too, so dont make this into a hormone-argument. 

You are brushing off a lot of what I have said, and that other people have written about the occupy movement worldwide. When I said that this was a movement with international appeal, you just skipped that part - and you missed a major moment. Skipping ahead to your point about racial demographics in OWS ignores it: This is not US-specific. By definition, the demographics of the movement are not entirely white. And we really need to consider that a lot of the people sympathetic to the occupy movement do not have the means to attend, but still support it. Same goes for any rally. 

The high unemployment is being experienced in almost every single advanced economy around the world, with very few exceptions. I can only count a handful of countries with the financial regulation to weather this crisis, but even some of them have underlying labor market distortions. The ethnic demographics of these movements are certainly quite diverse, so I dont see either the evidence nor relevance, given my past point, of any of this. Granted I have not counted the number of non-whites in the OWS movement, I know that they are ethnically diverse from what they themselves have written, and those OWS members who have spoken to the press.

So, I find it hard to believe that you do take their reasons for protest as valid when you are implying that there is some hypocrisy revealed in their demographics. This is disturbing on many levels not only because it is not relevant, but also because this is not hypocrisy at all. If you are rich and donate to charity, you are not a hypocrite. You arent. If you are a rich, famous Ivy League scholar and support the poor, you are not a hypocrite.

A hypocrite is someone who would, for example, state their support for the poor, but not act on it at all. If a rich white kid goes to protest in OWS, he is not less credible than others. You could call it a waste, but it is not hypocrisy. I need to make this crystal clear to you because this is also a major problem with mainstream portrayal of the movement. 



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Oh no, salt is wonderful. But there's milk in the soup too, and that makes for a nauseating combination. It needs to be dumped. And remade with a recipe.
> 
> You're not even firing in the right direction. Filtered and distilled, I agree with the OWS movement. For instance, corporate meddling in government. The problem is that a great deal of it never makes it past the filter. Disproportionate wealth distribution, for instance, in my oh so limited economic education, cannot be "fixed." The rich getting richer has been cliche since feudal times and it's not ever going away. To receive capital gains, you require capital. Even if you dramatically increase tax on the wealthy (and you should) this remains true. Feel free to educate me if you're so inclined.
> 
> ...



No, you are now contradicting your post last made in the thread where the CBO analyzed American income brackets from 1979 to 2009.

In brief, you have gone from believing this



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Nobody got poorer.
> 
> They got richer less quickly than the rich. And that's not surprising. At all. It's been that way forever and ever.



to this



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Disproportionate wealth distribution, for instance, in my oh so limited economic education, cannot be "fixed." The rich getting richer has been cliche since feudal times and it's not ever going away.



Or maybe you maintain both views, which is an absolute contradiction. In any case, what the CBO said is that income share of total wealth accumulated per year from 1979 to 2009 has worsened, meaning they have become worse off by any and all measures of income per person. And in case you are wondering, GDP per capita is not a good alternative because it does assume either a completely equal distribution of income, or, in weighted scenarios, a relatively equal distribution - regardless of whether this is the case or not. Bottom line: There is no net gain here. They are not slowly getting rich when they have gotten poorer. That statement of yours makes no sense at all and it is at the heart of this conflict of opinion. You need to address this because this is serious.

I am leaning towards the view that you are slowly catching up with what I have been arguing about for the past two years, which is that
- an unprecedented increase in youth unemployment, and
- a decrease in the nominal median wage among Americans since 1979 to 2009

has led to the point where the poor Americans are now shunned from the political light, and there is only one group willing to speak for them: OWS.

You should know that this particular group live in absolute poverty, not simply back to back on paycheck, but without any hope of climbing the ladder of social mobility in society. They will get poorer and poorer, meaning their descendants will inherit poverty. That is unheard of, but not a secret, nor news for those of us who use other measures than GDP per capita to measure income. This is only going to get worse because people dismiss the OWS movement instead of helping it gain ground. Making a list of demands might help, for sure, but dismissing them outright for not making it is so damn cheap. Rather it shows the weakness of pacifist decentralized movements. Lets talk about this in IR terms if that is easier: Without power, no systemic change will occur.

But there is a serious difference between those of us who support and make constructive criticism, and those who laugh this off as some daft movement. There is no more important movement today than this one, because income inequality is the most important issue that needs to be addressed. Obviously we cant get any further with this unless you explain what has happened since your last post in the thread on the CBO report.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> But you carry around your vocabulary as your sole defining character trait. You're nothing without your esoteric verbosity. Most people don't even fully understand what you write, and you prefer it that way. It doesn't work on me. I know actual geniuses, prodigies who are as far beyond most as you are beyond Forrest Gump. I knew, in fact, 4 right here on NF. You are not one. I think you're a pretty cool guy, but this intimidation thing? Save it for the rest of the cafe.
> 
> Come at me. Bro.



I never claimed to be a superb genius and I dont care who your genius friends are. This is not the point at all. I said that you dont understand the subject, and the contradiction quoted above is a great example of it.

Suffice to say, you need to take that accusation serious. I have tried to take this criticism of yours at heart previously because you have used it many times before, but I never seem to meet any of the people who dont understand my posts. It cant be the terminology I use because I tend to explain the meaning of it, link to an article about it, or you know - explain the relevance of it within the posts where I use it. Moreover what is the most complicated word that I have used, or statement that I have made, that has led to this misunderstanding? Seriously, you need to prove this.

Since the financial crisis began, I have experienced people asking me and other economics students here to explain the crisis - and the theory of economics, but not once have I even heard someone ask me to explain a term that I used. I could almost forgive this critique of yours if "most people" did not want to be named out of embarassment, but I dont think this is the case. Nobody contacts me in private about this stuff.

So ... it doesnt happen. You on the other hand seem to be of the opinion that it does, and you might have a questions of your own about some term I have used in the past - but you wont quote an example or ask me to explain anything here. 

But if I took the time, I could find a host of examples to back up my case. Thus far, I have made my case. You have not.


----------



## Blue (Nov 15, 2011)

There is obviously no hypocrisy involved in their demographics. That would imply the movement was designed from the ground up by someone or someones who are themselves hypocritical, and that's just obviously not the case. As you've said, it's organic.

That said, any organic chemist (like me!) will tell you: You are what you eat. And what has incorporated itself into the OWS movement - especially its intellectual elite - is the malcontent, not the maligned. 

I'll move away from the ethnic disparity of the OWS movement, simply because I really don't want to get into it. You do raise a relevant point in that many people don't have the means to attend rallies in neighboring cities or states - but then again, that's still telling. Who does have the means? The money to survive in a cold park for months and no job to worry about? Hm.

OWS absolutely does have international appeal, but simply pointing out that countries across the ethnic spectrum have native OWS movements isn't particularly relevant. The United States is one of a very small number of countries in the world who have a large amount of racial diversity - where the minorities, taken together, are the majority. Malaysia comes immediately to mind, but other than that, I can't think of any. So you would, of course, expect the dominant ethnicity to fill an OWS rally in any given country. I was examining the United States in particular.

And so you would say that the international appeal of the OWS movement proves that the problem isn't limited strictly to America, to which I would agree. I would point out, however, that as you've noted, the problems exist across the political and economic spectrum. Rather than hold this up as evidence of a recent conspiracy of the rich to disenfranchise the poor as some would, I would posit that this sort of economic exploitation is the norm for the human condition and the frustration that has been felt by the lower classes for the last 2000 years has recently been exacerbated by a recession for not the first and not the last time.
None of which is to say there aren't problems and that progress can't be made. If whites can vote and fight to emancipate blacks, and men can vote to grant suffrage to women, the rich can enfranchise the poor. Greed is a powerful force to fight against, but so is prejudice. Some men would sooner die than see their daughter marry a man of the wrong race. Most men would part with a nickel for their life.



> So, I find it hard to believe that you do take their reasons for protest as valid


Why? If I said of a man who murdered his wife for cheating on him "What a terrible man, but I understand his reasoning." would you find that difficult to believe as well? To move away from the contemptible, a man who has received a spurious parking ticket yelling at the officer. In how many movies and TV shows and books has the line "I understand how you feel, but this isn't the way to do it" been repeated? It's a cliche embedded deeply in our culture. I don't understand how this could go over your head.


> In brief, you have gone from believing this





> to this





> Or maybe you maintain both views


I do!


> which is an absolute contradiction.




I don't believe that it is. More than that, I don't see your reasoning. 



> In any case, what the CBO said is that income share of total wealth accumulated per year from 1979 to 2009 has worsened, meaning they have become worse off by any and all measures of income per person.



mm. Untrue. By the most basic measure, quite simply income per person... the bottom quintile's incomes grew by 18 percent, and that's completely ignoring the fact that they ended the timeframe in the middle of the biggest recession since the Great Depression. It was undoubtedly higher than 18 percent prior to 2009.
Of course that doesn't account for inflation and other market forces, but...

Real incomes have remained steady since the Second World War, and while commodity prices have also remained steady - therefore seemingly leaving people without additional purchasing power - luxury items have fallen in price drastically, making very little not within the purchasing power of an average American consumer. A man working at McDonald's can afford a car, a television, and an air conditioned home, and still save money. Don't tell me they can't, because my best friend does exactly that. Except he doesn't save it, he blew the better part of 200 dollars at a strip club with us Saturday. Not something I encouraged, but...
Anyway, that's not something that you could do with 1969 dollars. 
Do I think this justifies the wealth disparity? No. 
Do I think your statistics are propaganda? Yes.



> Making a list of demands might help, for sure, but dismissing them outright for not making it is so damn cheap. Rather it shows the weakness of pacifist decentralized movements. Lets talk about this in IR terms if that is easier: Without power, no systemic change will occur.


Yeah, basically. Thank you for making it easier. I have a deep understanding of International Relations but technical terms like "so damn cheap?" Completely over my head.



> But there is a serious difference between those of us who support and make constructive criticism, and those who laugh this off as some daft movement. There is no more important movement today than this one, because income inequality is the most important issue that needs to be addressed.


Incorrect. There are a huge number of more important issues, starting with actual poverty rather than income disparity and the associated abysmal quality of life and mortality, and ending with climate change. Points for dramatics, however.



> Moreover what is the most complicated word that I have used, or statement that I have made, that has led to this misunderstanding? Seriously, you need to prove this.


I don't need to look very far. Let's use the post you just made.



> I can only count a handful of countries with the financial regulation to weather this crisis, but even some of them have underlying labor market distortions


We're on Naruto Forums. What the fuck is a labor market distortion?
That's a rhetorical question.


> Rather it shows the weakness of pacifist decentralized movements.


Let's come back to this one. I love this phrase.
By "pacifist decentralized movement" I'm sure you meant "peaceful protests without leaders" right? Now granted, most people know what you mean. Yet you're using heavily technical terms to describe a phenomenon easily identifiable in the collective consciousness to a mixed audience, only a small fraction of whom are in technical fields of study and work. 
Now either you have absolutely no concept of how to communicate in the vernacular - possible, I'll grant, but some of your non-cafe posts have led me to believe otherwise -
or you know exactly what you're saying, and you're saying it to wow the average community college student here into submission. Lending credence to this theory is another of your quirks - 


> Lets talk about this in IR terms if that is easier: Without power, no systemic change will occur.


"If that is easier"
The only people who don't contract "that is" into "that's" are Data, Spock, and you. Seriously, ctrl + f "that is". But hey, that aside.
That is an enormously condescending statement, and while I've been condescending unintentionally in the past, and I'm not offended, the fact that you seem to think that International Relations is lowbrow enough to be worthy of your condescension leads me to think that that entire phrase is calculated to make you seem unimpeachable academically. 
So in conclusion, you're correct in saying that few people need your vocabulary personally explained to them. There is such a thing as Google. I've looked up a few of your more technical terms in the past. My education has been in politics and the physical sciences, not economics. It's just for show.

And I would have been more than content to simply let you continue your show if you hadn't _threatened me with your sheer intellectual might_. 


> And before you go ahead and ever challenge me on economics or politics again. Keep in mind that I know this stuff, you don't, and I am not going to let you get away with talking like this to me or any other user on this forum again.


Remember that? _Not going to let me get away with it_? Slay me with your vorpal sword of enlightenment, is it? You couldn't possibly have said something more puerile if you'd threatened to track my ip address and beat me up.

Now you can drop this infantile attempt at intimidation and contradict my statements re: OWS, as I'm certain you're quite capable of doing to some extent or another, as I'm sure you'd agree that any science tied to sociology is never dealing with absolutes. People have opinions, sometimes they're even right, and while I think you're naive politically, you probably have a few things to teach me economically.

Or you can "not let me get away with it".


----------



## Mael (Nov 15, 2011)

Well Zucchini Park is getting cleared out...so that's a might blow to the OWS movement.



But maybe this is the price they pay without centralized leadership and actual objectives followed by action.  Sit-ins aren't what they used to be.


----------



## Blue (Nov 15, 2011)

I hope that many of the Occupy protestors, and those influenced by their message (including myself) become actual policymakers in the future to enact change for the better.

In that, I think, they may yet be successful.


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 15, 2011)

Has the Occupy movement had any gains so far?

In Europe we hear nothing of them, maybe in america they actually get something done.
Though i doubt it very much


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 15, 2011)

Mael said:


> Well Zucchini Park is getting cleared out...so that's a might blow to the OWS movement.
> 
> 
> 
> But maybe this is the price they pay without centralized leadership and actual objectives followed by action.  Sit-ins aren't what they used to be.



OWS just got an injunction against the eviction of protestors from Zuccotti park, allowing them to return with tents & other materials, as of 6:30 AM.  

Unfortunately for the NYPD, Bloomberg just opened his mouth saying: 





> ?The final decision to act was mine, and mine alone," he said at a press conference.
> 
> "We could not wait for someone in the park to get killed or injure another person before acting.?
> 
> ...





That was the sound of the Mayor of New York City openly admitting civil liability for an act of questionable legality.  He's just opened the City of New York to paying OWS a legal jackpot.  

Hopefully it will be disproportionately large, large enough to serve as a deterrent to municipalities who think they can trample on the constitutional right to peaceably assemble.


----------



## Mael (Nov 15, 2011)

So if they're going to set up camp again, can they get rid of those drums and other Burning Man 2.0 bullshit set-ups?

Maybe they could be taken a little more seriously.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 15, 2011)

Mael said:


> So if they're going to set up camp again, can they get rid of those drums and other Burning Man 2.0 bullshit set-ups?
> 
> Maybe they could be taken a little more seriously.



I don't think so.  Considering the City of NY will probably be paying out the ass for a lot of nice new camping gear/supplies once the civil suits are settled or lost, it'll definitely be more like Burning Man.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 15, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> OWS just got an injunction against the eviction of protestors from Zuccotti park, allowing them to return with tents & other materials, as of 6:30 AM.
> 
> Unfortunately for the NYPD, Bloomberg just opened his mouth saying:
> 
> ...



I hope the city gives them shit on a shingle. My city's money don't need to be dished out to those people.


----------



## Mael (Nov 15, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> I don't think so.  Considering the City of NY will probably be paying out the ass for a lot of nice new camping gear/supplies once the civil suits are settled or lost, it'll definitely be more like Burning Man.



Great...now I can't wait to point and laugh again while wishing these efforts could actually be funding concrete projects instead of that.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 15, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> I hope the city gives them shit on a shingle. My city's money don't need to be dished out to those people.



Bloomberg should have thought of that before ordering civil rights violations.  That's basically like cutting the protestors a check.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Nov 15, 2011)

> Bloomberg should have thought of that before ordering civil rights violations. That's basically like cutting the protestors a check.



The city gave them a notice to vacate prior to the eviction. Additionally, the park has a ban on camping gear. I doubt they'll be seeing any money.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 15, 2011)

NanoHaxial said:


> The city gave them a notice to vacate prior to the eviction. Additionally, the park has a ban on camping gear. I doubt they'll be seeing any money.



The injunction means that the constitutionality of the city's eviction of the protestors will be up for judicial review.  The ban was ex-post facto, and hence illegal dude to the nature of the park as a public space.  

For example if I were to warn a black person that I am going to beat the shit out of him because he is a filthy ^ (use bro) walking on the sidewalk in front of my house, prior to beating him bloody, I am still violating his civil rights.  In such a case my prior notification of eviction is irrelevant.

If they are found to be in violation of the constitutional rights of the protestors, the city--and Bloomberg will be vulnerable to lawsuits per section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act.


----------



## Blue (Nov 15, 2011)

Judge ruled against the protesters. No damages for them.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 15, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> The injunction means that the constitutionality of the city's eviction of the protestors will be up for judicial review.  The ban was ex-post facto, and hence illegal dude to the nature of the park as a public space.
> 
> For example if I were to warn a black person that I am going to beat the shit out of him because he is a filthy ^ (use bro) walking on the sidewalk in front of my house, prior to beating him bloody, I am still violating his civil rights.  In such a case my prior notification of eviction is irrelevant.
> 
> If they are found to be in violation of the constitutional rights of the protestors, the city--and Bloomberg will be vulnerable to lawsuits per section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act.





Where's your legal jackpot now?


Judge to 99%


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Nov 15, 2011)

Anyone hear about this:



Respect.


----------



## Blue (Nov 15, 2011)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I am an ignorant tool of the system.





Fuck!

At least I got refunded.


----------



## makeoutparadise (Nov 15, 2011)

And So the occupy movement ended and nothing of value was ever made or lost


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 15, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> Where's your legal jackpot now?



Standing around waiting to be won.  All those incidents of unjustifiable police brutality are bound to win someone a civil suit or settlement.  



> Brookfield Properties, owner of the 24-hour public park, put up signs prohibiting lying on the ground or on benches, and declaring the park would close from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
> 
> However Connie Pankritz, spokeswoman for the city corporation counsel, said the notices would have to be taken down.
> 
> ...



The NYPD has visibly curtailed Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Assembly, and Freedom of Speech for mind bogglingly stupid reasons.  

The odds that they completely followed legal procedures in arresting and beating all the protestors are extremely low, hence the protestors' chances of winning a large settlement from the city either now or months down the road are extremely large.

Bloomberg is gambling in a Casino where the odds are stacked against him.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 15, 2011)

Here's my bet: they aren't gonna win shit.


----------



## Mael (Nov 15, 2011)

> The odds that they completely followed legal procedures in arresting and beating all the protestors are extremely low, hence the protestors' chances of winning a large settlement from the city either now or months down the road are extremely large.



We have accounts of the beatings while they cleared it out?  The whole billy club to the face and all?

State judges backed the ruling, Space.


----------



## Agmaster (Nov 15, 2011)

Mael; So why not go to federal court?  Appeal it and keep a good log of everything.  Facts as always matter less than perception.  It is about time hippies took this creed with half the passion bulls and other insulting terms for people of power and prestige have.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 15, 2011)

So they ban tents but not sleeping bags, meaning the judge made the protestors cold.


----------



## Ae (Nov 15, 2011)

Ms. T said:


> This shit is not going to get any better if police keep punching women and arresting everyone in sight.



But it's okay to just destroy shits?


----------



## iander (Nov 16, 2011)

Well the protesters are back in Zuccotti Park with even more enthusiasm and more news coverage.  All they lost was some tents and personal items.


----------



## Mael (Nov 16, 2011)

iander said:


> Well the protesters are back in Zuccotti Park with even more enthusiasm and more news coverage.  All they lost was some tents and personal items.



Real question is how long they're going to stay in Zucchini Park when the real nice cold from the Hudson River comes.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 16, 2011)

Mael said:


> Real question is how long they're going to stay in Zucchini Park when the real nice cold from the Hudson River comes.



Igloos of course!  Snow forts are far more effective insulators than mere tents.  Once a big hollowed out mound of snow freezes hard, it's almost impossible to move without heavy equipment.  

The events of the past day were a  by municipalities across the nation.  Coordinated violence against your own citizens is repulsive.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Nov 16, 2011)

Winter is coming.


----------



## MunchKing (Nov 16, 2011)

Why are some people being so hostile towards this movement? 



The Space Cowboy said:


> Igloos of course!  Snow forts are far more effective insulators than mere tents.  Once a big hollowed out mound of snow freezes hard, it's almost impossible to move without heavy equipment.



Perhaps that would violate some housing laws.


----------



## First Tsurugi (Nov 16, 2011)

MunchKing said:


> Why are some people being so hostile towards this movement?



They view them as entitled and dirty, lazy hippies.


----------



## HolyDemon (Nov 16, 2011)

MunchKing said:


> Why are some people being so hostile towards this movement?



Because they either can't understand the financial market is big multinational scam, or are still profiting themselves heavily on the market. 

Conflict of interest, as they say.


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 16, 2011)

HolyDemon said:


> Because they either can't understand the financial market is big multinational scam, or are still profiting themselves heavily on the market.
> 
> Conflict of interest, as they say.



I just dont like dirty selfentitleled hippies as the above poster said.

All the Occupy people  where i come from, are a bunch of communists who only want money for themselves.

Also, they say they're the 99% but it appears that 99% of all people dont care about their protests anymore


----------



## Zhariel (Nov 16, 2011)

MunchKing said:


> Why are some people being so hostile towards this movement?



Everyone I personally know who seems to be against it eventually ends up saying "Don't these losers have jobs?!" or something to that extent. So, they must view them all as lazy freeloaders.

Also, I saw an 80- something year old lady got a face full of pepper spray at the one in Seattle the other day. Gotta watch those geriatrics, they might try and give you some hard candy or something.


----------



## Mathias124 (Nov 16, 2011)

Graeme said:


> Everyone I personally know who seems to be against it eventually ends up saying "Don't these losers have jobs?!" or something to that extent. So, they must view them all as lazy freeloaders.
> 
> *Also, I saw an 80- something year old lady got a face full of pepper spray* at the one in Seattle the other day. Gotta watch those geriatrics, they might try and give you some hard candy or something.



I saw the picture.
I loled, looked like someone jizzed in her face

Why do the protesters put on old woman on the front line?
At least escort the lady away frm the police when violence erupts


----------



## Toby (Nov 16, 2011)

Part 1 OWS (we are posting way too much text, so I will be straight to the point here)



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> There is obviously no hypocrisy involved in their demographics...
> That said, any organic chemist (like me!) will tell you: You are what you eat. And what has incorporated itself into the OWS movement - especially its intellectual elite - is the malcontent, not the maligned.
> 
> I'll move away from the ethnic disparity of the OWS movement, simply because I really don't want to get into it. You do raise a relevant point in that many people don't have the means to attend rallies in neighboring cities or states - but then again, that's still telling. Who does have the means? The money to survive in a cold park for months and no job to worry about? Hm.



Fine, ignore the demographics. After all, you chose to look into it.

I'm not sure how to interpret this next paragraph. A moment ago it seemed like you said OWS' intellectuals was a bunch of entitled white kids who were being malignant, and now you are saying that they are malcontent.

To me, malcontent are those who are dissatisfied with the current living conditions, and the maligned are the ones who are ... well, raging about it. So I would call the intellectuals malcontent, whereas I'd expect you to call them maligned. Sure you didn't mix those words up? Or do we agree on something? 

As for the means of living in Zucotti Park, even the mainstream articles explain that. OWS supporters aren't always able to join in, but the camps have received food, electric power generators, and whatnot. This allowed them to recently invite the homeless to get food and shelter at their camp. Not sure if they still have it after the raid. Anyway, it would have lasted them a few months into winter for sure.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> OWS absolutely does have international appeal, but simply pointing out that countries across the ethnic spectrum have native OWS movements isn't particularly relevant....So you would, of course, expect the dominant ethnicity to fill an OWS rally in any given country. I was examining the United States in particular.
> ... Rather than hold this up as evidence of a recent conspiracy of the rich to disenfranchise the poor as some would, I would posit that this sort of economic exploitation is the norm for the human condition and the frustration that has been felt by the lower classes for the last 2000 years has recently been exacerbated by a recession for not the first and not the last time.



No need to start strawmanning me. No need at all. I didn't say this was a conspiracy and I don't believe that this is done intentionally to disenfranchise the poor. Yes, some OWS supporters definitely believe that, but not all of them - and across an international movement that much is certain. They are primarily complaining about the consequences of the policies, not their intentions. Nobody doubts that food stamps, medicaid and medicare have good intentions - but do they deliver? Similarly, have banks served American people's interest? Not really. Intentional or not, it's the problem.

As for this being the norm, that's not fair. The poor have not always gotten worse off, which is obvious because of our living conditions today. (Not sure how you are measuring wealth.) The access to healthcare for starters, healthy foodstuffs, and other benefits of living in a modern society are some examples. But there is also the concept of real income, not simply nominal wages, which is what you are referring to later - and mistake for, the actual income of people. Inflation is important, but you also need to account for the rise in income, relative to inflation, and then adjusted for prices on essential goods.

One of these essential goods that is often left out if of course housing, and here I am sure your friend would agree with me that housing prices in the US have been ridiculous. If you are disapproving my claim, then you are refuting one of the causes of the financial crisis. So I assume you understand that the price of real estate only a few years ago led to many Americans being evicted due to foreclosures and that most certainly many, many more young Americans simply cannot afford to buy their own house.

Which is a problem, because with house ownership, you gain that independence that liberal democracies are all about. This is perhaps one of the best examples of real poverty, because many Americans go into debt simply to be able to buy their own house. Credit card companies, banks etc engage in predatory lending and it is not only bad for the people, but bad for business as well.

See, no conspiracy theory. 

To be fair, and to prove that I am constructive, I know that some writers for OWS have a hard-on for both parties. . I don't agree with him, but some of his points are good. Anyway, just to prove that some OWS people are mad crazy while others aren't.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> None of which is to say there aren't problems and that progress can't be made. If whites can vote and fight to emancipate blacks, and men can vote to grant suffrage to women, the rich can enfranchise the poor. Greed is a powerful force to fight against, but so is prejudice. Some men would sooner die than see their daughter marry a man of the wrong race. Most men would part with a nickel for their life.



Either you think I'm a conspiracy theory nut or a moron because obviously I agree with what you are saying here - I have constructive criticism, you know. Economic growth can go many ways, and it is definitely possible to transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, for example by making social policies and tax rates align to distribute enough benefits to the poorest. 



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Why? If I said of a man who murdered his wife for cheating on him "What a terrible man, but I understand his reasoning." would you find that difficult to believe as well? To move away from the contemptible, a man who has received a spurious parking ticket yelling at the officer. In how many movies and TV shows and books has the line "I understand how you feel, but this isn't the way to do it" been repeated? It's a cliche embedded deeply in our culture. I don't understand how this could go over your head.



I don't think it went over my head, but I think it is far too stuck in your head and the American media that is moralizing this debate like so many other political games. And yes, media where I live does moralize politics too - but not in this way. They have ridiculed people who are, for the most part, obviously defenseless and in need of help. Then the world turns their back on them.

Your point is at best an argument about credibility, but you know that many people who are unemployed don't understand the causes of this crisis. OWS needs to be a movement about informing the world, and if some rich white kids with liberal opinions join the group, that's no harm done. But if the prejudice of outsiders judge them for it, then yes, it can be harmful for their reputation. That doesn't make it a true or fair accusation though, and that is what I am holding you to account for: Your own words.


----------



## Toby (Nov 16, 2011)

Part 2 The numbers


Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> I do!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it's contradictory and I will try to explain it but I really need to understand what you are saying because it relies on CBO numbers but on very different interpretations.

That's the 18 per cent quoted in the report, I assume? Ah, I think I see why you misunderstood the report. You need to keep reading because they actually DO adjust for inflation later in the report. Also, keep in mind that those aren't the same people in 1979 that have an 18% increase in their income by 2007. This is not adjusted for birth cohorts. I am pretty sure that kind of information is not recorded in the US. AFAIK the US Census Bureau would be the one collecting the info, or the CBO or Treasury, but I think that for a country your size they only use selected groups for each level of income.

Anyway, they did adjust for inflation, and that saves us a lot of work. For example





Basically, the lowest quintile's income growth went cash negative (adjusted for inflation) for a very long period of time. Now, keep in mind that this does not adjust for birth cohorts, so some of these people may have received a higher income later, or a lower one - and they are not the same people in 2007. Think of it as the composition of "incomes" as opposed to "people" and you'll see a trend emerge. What kind of incomes existed between 1979 and what do we see today?

People frequently argue that many rich people fall down into the middle class, but that's ridiculous. What we are seeing here is the moment in time when real incomes stopped being relatively unequal, and went to a whole new level of inequality.

To improve this, we do a better analysis for people in general, and use their average income for a lifetime, and compare it for two periods across two income groups. Krugman amongst others did this, and you get a picture like this





as for your point about the 1969 dollars, you need to keep in mind that in 1969 we didn't have xboxes, flat screen TVs etc. Technology lowers the cost of production as well, as you know, and these products get cheaper over time primarily because of the improvement in manufacturing costs. This much I will say, and that echoes a classical view of economics. Sorry but I'm not some red youth guy.



Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Of course that doesn't account for inflation and other market forces, but...
> 
> Real incomes have remained steady since the Second World War, and while commodity prices have also remained steady - therefore seemingly leaving people without additional purchasing power - luxury items have fallen in price drastically, making very little not within the purchasing power of an average American consumer. A man working at McDonald's can afford a car, a television, and an air conditioned home, and still save money. Don't tell me they can't, because my best friend does exactly that. Except he doesn't save it, he blew the better part of 200 dollars at a strip club with us Saturday. Not something I encouraged, but...
> Anyway, that's not something that you could do with 1969 dollars.
> ...



First, yes, it does account for inflation. Keep reading the report.

Second, I am not looking for justification, but your understanding of the cause of the inequality. And don't call the CBO's work propaganda without a serious argument to back it up. Those aren't my statistics, those are the CBO's. (I don't have access to that kind of data. Don't flatter me.) My interpretations are legit. Also, some things you probably didn't know, but that I want to fill in here. US real incomes began to decline already in 1974, as did the top 1% of income. This was a result of the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1973, followed by the rise in oil price during the first oil crisis, and following there was a rise in the cost of food and other key imports like steel and iron. All of this obviously affected the poor more than the very rich, because even though both the rich and the poor ate the consumed the same amount of food and gas for their cars, it became a much larger part of the household budget. Second, I don't have a good source for this, but if you read up on the car industry, you would know that cars after the first oil crisis got more expensive, and they were increasingly targeted towards and designed for the richer elements of society.

A few years later Jimmy Carter begins the process of deregulating business laws, and thus we have many effects hitting the American middle class in a profound way that has never since been reversed. Lyndon Johnson's war on poverty could never save the country from this. The question is, which of these factors is the most important in explaining the increase and now systemic difference in America (in terms of income brackets)?

The one part of the story that is obvious at this point is that the share of national wealth geared towards higher-income families because the world economy became inherently more based around financial business. And that business tends to pick people in a way that other business practices don't. 









Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Yeah, basically. Thank you for making it easier. I have a deep understanding of International Relations but technical terms like "so damn cheap?" Completely over my head...
> 
> Or you can "not let me get away with it".



And now you are overreacting as per usual. "Feigning" anger didn't last for long.

I am not going to apologize for raising what is clearly an important issue. You don't have the same know-how that I have of economics. That was the whole point of my accusation, and there was no need for you to take it as a personal insult. 

What did come out quite however is that you were hurt by it, and that you don't like it when I use words like "labor market distortion". I will try not to, but you can't shoot me in the ballsack for using words that economists use to describe stuff. As I quite politely pointed out, you are free to ask questions. 

The reason I chose IR is because I know that you like it and I think you could defend yourself in an IR subject. I don't know why you took that as an insult unless you think less of IR than economics. I don't think less of it personally, what with my bachelors degree being in, amongst other things, IR.

My threat should be interpreted this way: You have a real tendency to come down way too hard on people in this section, and I will keep an eye out for it because you tend to lose sight of the debate and get way too personal.


----------



## Mael (Nov 16, 2011)

Now we await and see if perhaps this force to keep them from squatting will actually prompt OWS to make more fluid and objective-based moves than "bringing down the corporate machine with the power of drums, maaaaaaaan" and other outside goals that had convoluted the message.

Personally I still think they should be upon Washington, because again most CEOs clearly don't give a shit.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 16, 2011)

some people prefer to focus on the drums instead of the message.  and some people really hate drums , lol


----------



## Mael (Nov 16, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> some people prefer to focus on the drums instead of the message.  and some people really hate drums , lol



Aesthetically it helps outside observers to not see Burning Man 2.0.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 16, 2011)

nobody knows or cares waht burning man is

burning man is a festival in arizona full of debauchery, occupy is a protest that started in NY, obviously no relation


----------



## Mael (Nov 16, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> nobody knows or cares waht burning man is
> 
> burning man is a festival in arizona full of debauchery, occupy is a protest that started in NY, obviously no relation





Relation =/= impression.

People see dancing, drums, and aesthetic akin to Woodstock or BM, that's what they're going to think.  Fair or not, impressions of these OWS as entitled hippies exist for reasons one way or another.  You can bitch and hide behind the Kool-Aid punch bowl if you want, but there's a reason why public opinion had dipped.




So when Occupy DC decides to raid a Tea Party place, it screams hypocrisy.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prgkEAuSQT0&feature=player_embedded[/YOUTUBE]
Morons...a good lot of them.  I don't see much difference in Boston save for the fact they just don't do anything.  And before anyone cries about the Daily Caller with some conservative agenda...they feature Arianna Huffington and Keith Olbermann.

Let's see if they can clean up their over-idealistic act this time before you wank to these clods some more.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 16, 2011)

Mael said:


> Relation =/= impression.
> 
> People see dancing, drums, and aesthetic akin to Woodstock or BM, that's what they're going to think.  Fair or not, impressions of these OWS as entitled hippies exist for reasons one way or another.  You can bitch and hide behind the Kool-Aid punch bowl if you want, but there's a reason why public opinion had dipped.
> 
> ...



i guess you see what you choose to bc i see alot of marches and signs and political demonstrations.  

as for public opinion, please, the media is and the govt are taking potshots at protestors.  it's no wonder public opinion would dip.


----------



## Mael (Nov 16, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> i guess you see what you choose to bc i see alot of marches and signs and political demonstrations.
> 
> as for public opinion, please, the media is and the govt are taking potshots at protestors.  it's no wonder public opinion would dip.



Public rallies on Park Street.  The messages and rhetoric are there, but no movement.  Zero.

Nothing at the State House only five minutes away.  Ironic.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 16, 2011)

Mael said:


> Public rallies on Park Street.  The messages and rhetoric are there, but no movement.  Zero.
> 
> Nothing at the State House only five minutes away.  Ironic.



i guess massachusetts is the model  there's many examples of politicians being demonstrated on, including obama recently. i can't speak as to what goes on specifically in mass. just like i can't say why there's no demonstrations in bismarck


----------



## Mael (Nov 16, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> i guess massachusetts is the model  there's many examples of politicians being demonstrated on, including obama recently. i can't speak as to what goes on specifically in mass. just like i can't say why there's no demonstrations in bismarck



MA is one model.  Oakland's the clusterfucked other side.

Oh you mean that dinner occupy?

Yeah that's not going to amount to much...sorry to break it to you.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 16, 2011)

Mael said:


> MA is one model.  Oakland's the clusterfucked other side.
> 
> Oh you mean that dinner occupy?
> 
> Yeah that's not going to amount to much...sorry to break it to you.



no, it does amount to much that a protestor can demonstrate right under the president's nose, it's not easy to get close to the president.  ur not the arbiter of what "means much", sorry to break it to you.


----------



## impersonal (Nov 16, 2011)

To add to your excellent post, here's a shortcut interpretation (I don't have the data right now):
In the last 30 years,
* Productivity increased rapidly
* Wages didn't follow

Basically, the workforce worked harder, or at least they worked better, but they didn't see much of the benefits of their work. These benefits went to the "1%": CEOs (read: the oligarchy), and shareholders (read: banks). The organisation of society has changed: producing goods does not give high rewards anymore. Owning goods, or social status, does.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 16, 2011)

MunchKing said:


> Why are some people being so hostile towards this movement?



Because some whiteys don't like it when people try to change the status quo.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Nov 16, 2011)

MunchKing said:


> Why are some people being so hostile towards this movement?



Because everything they say is a lie.

No one's really going through any problems, all the occupy protesters around the world are just lazy and aren't taking advantage of their magic powers to snap their fingers and instantly get a job, get out of debt and improve their lives in general. Plus they're hassling those poor innocent rich people and ever selfishly demanding for a little more equality in terms of wealth.


----------



## Mael (Nov 16, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> Because some whiteys don't like it when people try to change the status quo.



Actually, update.  We've resorted to white on white crime.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 16, 2011)

Cunts don't count as white anymore.


----------



## Mael (Nov 16, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> *Cunts* don't count as white anymore.



Women never counted as humans anyway.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 16, 2011)

I'm talking about lawyers and cops.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 16, 2011)

_*November 17*_ is an official 99%-er action day with a concentration of protests planned around that day including major cities such as boston and smaller cities everywhere.  Find local events here


----------



## Mael (Nov 16, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> _*November 17*_ is an official 99%-er action day with a concentration of protests planned around that day including major cities such as boston and smaller cities everywhere.  Find local events here



In Boston, anywhere that doesn't involve the greater half of Boston Common and especially the State House won't be sending the message adequately.  The Financial District won't work.

Just a word of advice for these people.


----------



## Toby (Nov 16, 2011)

Rebuild the Dream looks interesting. Here's their teach-in video. I haven't watched it yet but I will get on it and I seriously hope this is as good as it is promising.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p473X6A9YVI[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 16, 2011)

Mael said:


> In Boston, anywhere that doesn't involve the greater half of Boston Common and especially the State House won't be sending the message adequately.  The Financial District won't work.
> 
> Just a word of advice for these people.



sign up and form a protest there genius


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 16, 2011)

Toby said:


> Rebuild the Dream looks interesting. Here's their teach-in video. I haven't watched it yet but I will get on it and I seriously hope this is as good as it is promising.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p473X6A9YVI[/YOUTUBE]



I just saw them on tv, apparently they will be organizing a search for 2000 candidates nation wide to run on a 99% platform.


----------



## Mael (Nov 16, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> sign up and form a protest there genius



I'd rather not.  I have to work and also apply to better jobs, thanks.

I'm just telling you most "Wall Street" folks don't give a shit.  You need to influence the state politics first.  They're the power.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Nov 16, 2011)

JJ Demon said:


> Because everything they say is a lie.
> 
> No one's really going through any problems, all the occupy protesters around the world are just lazy and aren't taking advantage of their magic powers to snap their fingers and instantly get a job, get out of debt and improve their lives in general. Plus they're hassling those poor innocent rich people and ever selfishly demanding for a little more equality in terms of wealth.



the 99% are all soviet sleeper agents that want to bring the destruction of the us from the inside by introducing communism. 

99% proved theory


----------



## Mael (Nov 16, 2011)

Miss Goobette said:


> the 99% are all soviet sleeper agents that want to bring the destruction of the us from the inside by introducing communism.
> 
> 99% proved theory



Actually they're CommunIslamists.

Get it right.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 16, 2011)

They are anti-capitalist, anti-freedom liberal communists!


----------



## Mael (Nov 16, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> They are anti-capitalist, anti-freedom liberal communists!



Trying to resurrect the corpse of the secret love child b/w Hitler and Stalin.


----------



## Brotha Yasuji (Nov 16, 2011)

Miss Goobette said:


> the 99% are all soviet sleeper agents that want to bring the destruction of the us from the inside by introducing communism.
> 
> 99% proved theory



You weren't supposed to say anything damn it!


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 16, 2011)

Mael said:


> Trying to resurrect the corpse of the secret love child b/w Hitler and Stalin.



Show me a liberal that supports a free-market society and I'll show you a pink elephant with wings! Everyone knows it was excessive regulation that brought about this economic disaster, and OBAMANATION is only ruining us further with his socialist agenda! That's why libertarianism I read about yesterday is the answer! (Seriously, the OWS should go after Congress too.)


----------



## Herekic (Nov 16, 2011)

People have finally gotten sick of watching the rich get richer while everyone else struggles just to stay afloat


This is the way it's pretty much always been. the rich stay rich and rule the poor, passing it down to their kids like new age royalty.


With the advent of the information age though, people can finally see how badly they're getting fucked by a bunch of people they've never even met.

This is why they keep trying to pass all these borderline anti-constitutional bills in the US, they see that the free information of the internet is a threat to their dominance.

they are getting scared


----------



## Toby (Nov 16, 2011)

Mael said:


> I'd rather not.  I have to work and also apply to better jobs, thanks.
> 
> I'm just telling you most "Wall Street" folks don't give a shit.  You need to influence the state politics first.  They're the power.



Having watched the video, I'm pretty sure that's where this new movement is headed. Well, they cite Roosevelt, the New Deal, and the rule of law as key to the cause of this crisis - so they better go to Congress.

Anyway I'm sure they will smarten up and start to host stuff so that other people can join in on marches and demonstrations. The big difference between these guys and OWS is pretty obvious. They are basically saying that they aren't OWS's spokespeople, but they are advocating the same worldview, and want to make a public invitation to all people dissatisfied with the situation now to take up the fight somehow. I don't think they need to bring out huge numbers but they are organizing petitions and going the legal way from what I can see.

Here's their new .


----------



## Agmaster (Nov 16, 2011)

First Tsurugi said:


> Winter is coming.


Don't care if you beat me to it.  Brace yourselves.


----------



## Agmaster (Nov 16, 2011)

So ....mael.  I was reading and I think you have a valid point about there being no movement.  The smart people in OWS need to branch off into political turf and start poking those who 'care about votes'.  This divide risks the OWS thing attacking itself, though as the hippies likely are not educated on the matter enough to play that up correctly.  

So.  How is a divide in the group created.  For a group that screams about being united.

PS.  Oh, RtD looks interesting.


----------



## Mael (Nov 16, 2011)

Toby said:


> Having watched the video, I'm pretty sure that's where this new movement is headed. Well, they cite Roosevelt, the New Deal, and the rule of law as key to the cause of this crisis - so they better go to Congress.
> 
> Anyway I'm sure they will smarten up and start to host stuff so that other people can join in on marches and demonstrations. The big difference between these guys and OWS is pretty obvious. They are basically saying that they aren't OWS's spokespeople, but they are advocating the same worldview, and want to make a public invitation to all people dissatisfied with the situation now to take up the fight somehow. I don't think they need to bring out huge numbers but they are organizing petitions and going the legal way from what I can see.
> 
> Here's their new .



That's actually a relief, after viewing this a couple times.  This has a little more of a clear direction and not as utterly unrealistic a manifesto.  Honestly, I cannot be more of an advocate for a *centralized* movement.  Each has their advantages but it really depends on the context.  In regards to sending a national message, it's better to place your faith in a collective leadership than to simply trust natural human tendencies in willy nilly locations and think they're all on the same page.

Clearly, as displayed from Oakland, Portland, Zucchini Park, Denver, Boston, etc., each one is very different with many just not doing anything at all.  Others just troll as seen so vividly in DC.


----------



## Toby (Nov 16, 2011)

Mind you, even with a clear list of demands the question is really - what do they want? This is pretty much where I will either part with the movement or support it wholeheartedly. 

I've watched a few documentaries and read some of the worst articles ever on the subject. Even good economists make up totally irrelevant proposals for fixing the system. Surprisingly, the best story in my opinion, is rendered in . If they even repeal one of the major legal changes in that documentary I will be happy. Of course it would also help if the FDIC and Fed got serious about protecting depositor insurance. I'm not sure what Bernanke really wants reformed at this point.

Anyway, the reason Inside Job wins so hard is this. It's simple. It focuses on two major legal changes during the Clinton administration
-- Gramm-Leach Bliley Act: This allowed investment banks to merge with commercial banks, which gave them increased access to savings deposits to spend as part of their investment banking practice.
-- Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000: Basically the federal government explicitly forbids any form of regulation of credit derivatives. I think it says something when even some of my friends who are libertarians think that this was a step too far. Derivatives weren't all to blame for it, but some specific ones like credit default swaps in particular were at the heart of our current crisis.

And that's pretty much it. After that IJ goes on to explain what this did to the financial services industry. It mentions briefly but doesn't explain the Savings and Loans crisis, which happened prior to both of these regulatory changes, so it lacks a bit on that topic. Also, it could have and should have explained how Alan Greenspan's decision to lower interest rates led investors to buy high investment-grade products that were basically very risky and poorly rated products - instead of what is traditionally valued as high investment-grade products like government bonds. That transformation was instrumental in causing system decline and regulatory capture on two fronts because, once the government pays hand over pocket to fix the banks after they crash, the government's debt balloons even further, and banks move over to hold government securities. Not exactly what we need, which is for banks to invest in the economy. (Of course Bernanke's decision to lower rates was right in my opinion and that affects bond prices but hey, nobody's investing so whatevs.)

But overall, Inside Job is the best documentary I have ever seen, and I think that it has helped cause a shit storm on the ground. Of course, it also helped that the Supreme Court ruling to lift any and all federal restrictions on campaign financing went viral on the internet like a rapist killer bee.


----------



## Blue (Nov 16, 2011)

> Either you think I'm a conspiracy theory nut or a moron because obviously I agree with what you are saying here - I have constructive criticism, you know.


Okay, before I get into this at all, what you need to understand is that I do not go out of my way to avoid agreeing with a single thing you're saying. I don't feel the need to discredit every one of your points to write a countering viewpoint, especially not the ones I actually agree with. I find acknowledging the strengths of an opposing viewpoint builds credibility for one's own viewpoint, at least among those who aren't too politically jaded to not see it as weakness or concession. Considering this is an internet forum, home of the every-single-one-of-your-words-is-bullshit theory of intellectual debate (I suppose that's actual politics too), I don't really blame you for being confused. Anyway.



> To me, malcontent are those who are dissatisfied with the current living conditions, and the maligned are the ones who are ... well, raging about it. So I would call the intellectuals malcontent, whereas I'd expect you to call them maligned. Sure you didn't mix those words up? Or do we agree on something?


We don't. 
I was using malcontent as a word for those who're unhappy with the current situation, as it applies to them personally or in general. The maligned, as the verb to _malign_ suggests, have been wronged personally. While the malcontent could certainly also be maligned, I was suggesting that the bulk of them were not, at least not relative to the worst off.

So, alright. Donations from more occupationally-enabled members of the OWS movement kept them provisioned in the park.



> No need to start strawmanning me. No need at all. I didn't say this was a conspiracy and I don't believe that this is done intentionally to disenfranchise the poor.


I wasn't trying to strawman you, but "Since 197X..." is an OWS buzzword. Since 1973 the top 1% have gained this much wealth, since 1979 the bottom 20% have lost this much wealth, et cetera et al ad nauseum. 
It's all very calculated to put a modern spin on a phenomenon which has been uninterrupted (save in some very ideologically pure communist countries) for literally ever, as far as the human race is concerned and to portray it as a situation which is rapidly spinning out of control... which it simply isn't. 
Yes, the rich are getting richer. As I've noted before, having capital results in capital gains. Living from paycheck to paycheck does not. You would be extremely hard pressed to defend the position that the wealth gain curve of the bottom quintile should be in the same order of magnitude as the top 1%. Mathematically, socially, economically, it just doesn't work that way. And it doesn't mean that money is spiraling ever faster away from the poor. As previously noted, they have no money to spiral away, unless you want to look into the deeper issues of economic exploitation of nations, foreign consumption of nonrenewable raw materials for instance, which I do not.



> But there is also the concept of real income... and then adjusted for prices on essential goods.
> 
> One of these essential goods that is often left out if of course housing, and here I am sure your friend would agree with me that housing prices in the US have been ridiculous. If you are disapproving my claim, then you are refuting one of the causes of the financial crisis. So I assume you understand that the price of real estate only a few years ago led to many Americans being evicted due to foreclosures and that most certainly many, many more young Americans simply cannot afford to buy their own house.


I think he would agree. But it wasn't the prices of housing that were the root cause, was it? Rather the collapse of the market and the resultant loss of wealth - for all involved, not just the homeowners. It was never the price of real estate that ruined anyone; rather the disparity between the bubble pricing and the normalized value. Young Americans are now, more than ever before in history, able to afford a home, with prices as they are. I own a home I don't even live in, and it's only a small fraction of my modest portfolio, having been cut in price 70% from it's high. The mortgage payment would be less than 350 dollars a month at most and further devaluation is impossible absent a nuclear war.
So yes, predatory lending was a problem. Remains a problem. But I think that improved regulation regarding potentially toxic asset exposure and a bit of education on the part of home buyers will prevent this situation in the future. Capitalism is still very much a learning experience.

Continued!


> You need to keep reading because they actually DO adjust for inflation later in the report.


Whoops. I would have guessed as much, but I kind of assumed such a clearly defined increase in wealth would not prompt you to say 





> meaning they have become worse off by any and all measures of income per person.


I'd have preferred everything I said to be completely right, but I'll take what I can get.

I got about two paragraphs into dissecting the statistics for you when I realized I'd really rather not. A couple of the points I thought about raising were that the postwar boom, having finally dragged the world out of the Great Depression and taking it to new heights, would obviously be expected to economically empower the lower classes at a considerably higher rate than baseline, making up for all that lost time, and that the bottom quintile, the plight of which upon so much depends, quickly start doing very decently for themselves when taken as part of the 99% as a whole. Yes, the rich are getting richer but, as I previously mentioned - so are everyone else, including the bottom quintile.

But the statistics are open to interpretation. When I said "your statistics are propaganda" I meant, of course, your interpretation and your choice of data set, in particular this CBO report that starts and stops in recessions and ends with a massive transient spike in top 1% earnings which, if it was continued for several more years, would end in a large trough. 

And I am huge into historical continuity. I believe that almost all modern trends in any cultural phenomenon with any historical depth are unlikely to deviate very far from historical norms. When I see a data set purporting to show a particular economic problem that only goes back 30 years, I find that very questionable. And so I would interpret the CBO statistics as possibly indicative of a trend and worthy of closer analysis but not telling in any concrete way. I'd want to see statistics going further back, and if I saw such spikes in top income bracket earnings in the past, I'd find out what likely caused them. 

But saying NOPE THESE FACTS ARE NO GOOD isn't exactly productive, so.



> And now you are overreacting as per usual. "Feigning" anger didn't last for long.
> 
> I am not going to apologize for raising what is clearly an important issue. You don't have the same know-how that I have of economics. That was the whole point of my accusation, and there was no need for you to take it as a personal insult.


Actually I was going to feign anger, but I forgot to that whole post I made was pretty mellow. And I'm still not angry. 

And saying I took it personally suggests I was deeply impacted when, in fact, I was more amused than anything else. I was incredulous you said something so ill-conceived.
I think it goes without saying that I have a better grasp of, well, everything, than an average person. But I would never dream of saying something like you did - "I KNOW THINGS AND YOU DON'T AND IF YOU CROSS ME I WILL END YOU. INTELLECTUALLY." to a person, despite the fact I am often frustrated by people, their lack of knowledge on a subject, and their absolute conviction that their view of a topic is the correct one despite that.



> My threat should be interpreted this way: You have a real tendency to come down way too hard on people in this section, and I will keep an eye out for it because you tend to lose sight of the debate and get way too personal.


I'd love an example. Would you consider me calling your post "absolute bollocks" getting way to personal? Because I didn't mean you yourself were bollocks. Just your impressions.

Other than that as far as I can tell, I'm pretty mellow. Half my posts are image memes and the other half are opinions which I may or may not support depending on if I feel it's necessary. I can't help but feel you're projecting your own feelings onto it.

And this post doesn't really do justice as a response but a good third of it was written on my phone as I am now at dinner and expect service shortly.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 17, 2011)

occupy the stock exchange tomorrow, which has been guarded by public servants since the OWS first started.


----------



## Toby (Nov 17, 2011)

I had to rewrite this a few times just so that I can explain why that one good point you have about cheaper houses is - actually, very bad for the poorest of the American people, Blue. I hope you find this interesting because it illustrates the dilemma that the US is in.

First off, the weakness of the CBO stats is rather the cutoff date at the end rather than at the beginning. A 30 year picture for 1979-2007 is perfect for a historical analysis because 1979 was the year Carter began deregulation for financial firms, and it went on during Reagan, Bush snr, Clinton and Bush junior until that fateful day in 2007 when the financial crisis began. That is why they chose those years.

The date is in other words quite pertinent. Yes, we could look at a longer historical trend, and I will do that in a second to put this all in perspective. But first I want you to realize that you have focused too much on housing prices and income in isolation of one another. The problem is broader illustrated in the total debt among American households. 

Income relative to house-price is good to look at. We also need to keep in mind however that debt relative to house value (household debt) and debt relative to income, is the real problem that is reducing the welfare of the bottom quintile. 

The CBO report looked at income adjusted for inflation, in other words real income. But that is not enough. Nor are housing prices. Why? Because when you buy a house, you usually take a loan to afford it, and this loan includes interest payments. Now, the CBO report doesn't look at debt nor does it look at income growth relative to interest payments of household owners. And this is kind of important, because the biggest expense you have is the interest payment on your house, and then car, food, etc.

I grabbed us two cross-historical data sets for household debt. The Fed's total historical record of total debt (household + consumer credit) and the Matthew Ruben numbers for 1975-2007. It's 4 years longer than the CBO numbers in other words. I also grabbed a larger research paper that shows us the difference between increase in debt relative to income, because that's pretty important too.

It happens to be one of the most authoritative papers on the subject, so I will let them take it away in this quote



> In 1950 U.S. household debt to disposable income, basically after-tax income, was 34% (if disposable income was $10,000, households had $3,400 in outstanding debt). This figure grew to 58% by 1960 and levelled off eventually reaching 69% in 1980. As of the end of 2003 that ratio stood at 115% and rising. This means that the outstanding debt on a disposable
> income of $28,400 (the current U.S. per capita average) is now $32,660 (for every $10,000 of disposable income, households now have $11,500 in debt).


*Disposable income = Income after tax


*Spoiler*: __ 









What we are seeing is that the total income relative to debt went negative (i.e. debt share of income exceeded 100%) over the course of 1999 to 2000. Now, what that means is that all Americans will have to downsize to pay off their debt. More importantly, debt actually grows faster than disposable income. This happened in 1992 and has only gotten worse.


*Spoiler*: __ 







In other words, Americans got worse off. Because you have to pay your loan or the bank takes your house.

Now, you seem to be quite certain that the reference to 1979 isn't significant, so let me show you the buildup of household debt for a similar cross-section of time (1975-2007) and for historical numbers from 1966 to 2006.


*Spoiler*: __ 








What we can see is that more Americans were bound to take on more debt during this period. In fact, what should have happened during deregulation of the financial sector? Why of course, a more efficient financial sector. With banks giving good loans to Americans so that they could sustain their quality of life - no, improve it! But why then are housing loans increasing? House prices are definitely important, but what we also need to keep in mind is that because this goes exponential from the 90s into the 21st century, we also know that debt grew faster than income.

 also charts the total history of accumulated household debt in case you are interested in the full history of doom:

*Spoiler*: __ 




(The difference between the two is that the Fed included consumer credit and charts a longer history from 1966-2006)




Look at the historical numbers if you really want to see it. This confirms essentially what I was saying about the change in composition of the US economy. In the 1955 boom the US economic growth was mostly due to manufacturing. However from 1979 and onwards, the focus was on making the living conditions right for finance, and it has not quite delivered the results that it should have.

Obviously, finance hires fewer people than manufacturing, and the income for finance-sector jobs has been very good, and their income growth is unrivaled. But the number of manufacturing jobs that so many (then) wealthy Americans relied on was reduced, and their incomes did not grow as fast as their debt did. So they became worse off.

As for housing value, this is what I think happened.

For one thing, houses are both a good and an investment. Without your house, you will freeze. It is a basic need to have a roof over your head. And second, your house value changes over time - and it is not growing at the same pace as credit markets are. When the house has a high value you can take on lots of debt, but you will probably see it decline so you try to match it to your needs. More importantly, incomes in the lower quintile do not grow fast enough to pay down interest payments on the household debt, and what you get is an escalating and continually worsening balance sheet problem among the poorest in society. To hammer this point in: They can't pay the interest without going further into debt, meaning that they aren't even able to pay off a large chunk of their debt. Thus the total loan downpayment is extended into pensionhood and people are forced to take out retirement benefits to pay off a loan. 

Obviously this would not have been a problem if there were banks for the poor that had reasonable rates, and if the housing market were efficient. But since neither condition is fulfilled, people born into the bottom quintile are going to be stuck paying even larger interest payments than the current generation, because we know that they can't pay. Income alone certainly isn't growing fast enough for them to do this. (In case anybody is wondering, the subprime mortgage market for debt on housing was about 8%, whereas the ratio of households with a debt in excess of total house value is probably somewhere around 18-20%. This would not be a problem if the 20% weren't in the bottom quintile, which a lot of them probably are.)

So in real income terms, there is a slight improvement, but how much of this income do they keep after paying interest payments on their loans? This is the problem. The government could get serious about forcing banks to sort this out, but the problem is massive. Nothing short of guaranteeing the debt will protect many people from losing their homes to a foreclosure.

Now to respond to your last post and make you see things my way: I see that you think that a large number of Americans can afford a house now that their values have a dropped a lot - and just want to throw onto that with my point here about household debt and a falling income share that
1. with a falling income they would be lucky to afford a house and
2. with the unresolved household debt crisis your point that houses are declining in value is now a bad thing for the homeowners whose houses are now less secure.

It's not enough that wages go up. Yes housing prices are nice to look at, but only if the price is acceptable relative to wages, and if you don't spend your life paying the debt off as interest - as I have pointed out is the case for many poor Americans. Of course plenty of you don't have to worry about this, but 20% of homeowners clearly do.

You went on later to write that the top 1% income growth seems to be tied in with capital gains.

Well, yes, but that's not the biggest part of it. Not at all actually.

Using the  I found numbers for the US top 1% income with and excluding capital gains. I know you like the history so I included 1913 till today.



As you can see, capital gains to income difference is miniscule - the top 1% are back in business. But capital gains illustrates my point - that deregulation allowed for a whole new level of income inequality never seen before in American history.


----------



## Mael (Nov 17, 2011)

> But opponents argue that not making demands will strengthen the “Occupy” cause by keeping all options on the table, including the sort of systematic changes that they believe are needed to address the economic inequalities that are at the core of their anger.





Seriously, movements need motives.  I'm getting tired of this blanketed statement from the die-hards of OWS who just want "justice" and "equality" and in the case of some a less-than-subtle end to capitalism.  It doesn't work.  People want clarity.  When the opposition asks, "What do you want from us" you don't just belt out your best 1970s far-left terrorist group mantra of "power to the people."  Give them fucking concrete demands and show you have some applicable knowledge to make it work.  That's why I can't stand a good portion of OWS or take them seriously for that matter.  It's idealism with little pragmatism.  Sorry folks but welcome to Earth 2011, where things get tenuous and real.  People can wank to the decentralized aspect which frankly in most spots hasn't gone anywhere concrete despite the youth of the movement, but it'll be too late for the movement if it keeps trying to figure out whether sit-ins with placards as a public spectacle work or trying to actually deliver concise messages and demands that don't rip apart the entire system would work.

It's not about narrowing what OWS could achieve.  It's about making baby steps and then working from there.  Produce a laundry list of untenable demands and Wall Street is going to laugh and dump more McDonalds applications on you, morally right or not.  Spare me a manifesto.  Marx tried that, some tried to apply, it didn't pan out.  Learn.  America was built on compromise.  So fucking compromise, people.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 17, 2011)

Saw them trying to create traffic jams during rush hour and running around screaming on subways in NYC today. Not sure exactly what they hope to gain by harassing the working class.


----------



## Mael (Nov 17, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Saw them trying to create traffic jams during rush hour and running around screaming on subways in NYC today. Not sure exactly what they hope to gain by harassing the working class.



They're about to get their asses handed to them by Jets fans in a good hour or so.

But hey, there are the so-called idealists of the group that act before they think, but they're doing the right thing.


----------



## vampiredude (Nov 17, 2011)

Why are there so many goddam hipsters in the movememt? 
No wonder OWC is falling apart

Ahem hipster racism aside.. 

This happens when we dont bring anything concrete to the table people. Just yapping around, singing songs and hindering people from going to work isn't helping anybody.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 17, 2011)

Saw them as I was walking down Broadway this afternoon. Had just finished some shopping. There was a lot more of them this time

Like Megaharrison, I don't understand the purpose of occupying the subway, it's probably why the 4 and 5 trains were fucking late this morning. If they're trying to get support by causing people to be late to work, they're most likely will lose support.



vampiredude said:


> Why are there so many goddam hipsters in the movememt?
> No wonder OWC is falling apart
> 
> Ahem hipster racism aside..
> ...



You noticed that too?


----------



## Raiden (Nov 17, 2011)

They made quite a few people late this morning. That doesn't make sense. Should have just left them in the park.

I would love to see these guys support a third party candidate/force Obama to fight for actual beneficial policies.


----------



## iander (Nov 17, 2011)

I like how the right is claiming OWS is dead now when thousands of people were marching today in NYC.  If anything, it is getting bigger.  Its also getting way more coverage in the news than it did before.  The unions and religious groups are getting more involved.  The SEIU president was arrested today.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 17, 2011)

iander said:


> I like how the right is claiming OWS is dead now when thousands of people were marching today in NYC.  If anything, it is getting bigger.  Its also getting way more coverage in the news than it did before.  The unions and religious groups are getting more involved.  The SEIU president was arrested today.



The real test of OWS's endurance will be January-February-March.  If the movement can survive past those months of next year, I'd call them a political force to be reckoned with.

The next few days in NY ought to be popcorn worthy.  On the 22nd, there's that Thanksgiving Day Parade thing with millions in the street.  You couldn't beg for a better juncture or Holiday to protest economic equality.


----------



## vampiredude (Nov 17, 2011)

iander said:


> I like how the right is claiming OWS is dead now when thousands of people were marching today in NYC.  If anything, it is getting bigger.  Its also getting way more coverage in the news than it did before.  The unions and religious groups are getting more involved.  The SEIU president was arrested today.



I hope your right and this turns for the better I really do, but i fear they lack the dicipline and centralized focus to make a change.

Btw winter is coming to test their true determination.


----------



## Mael (Nov 17, 2011)

iander said:


> I like how the right is claiming OWS is dead now when thousands of people were marching today in NYC.  If anything, it is getting bigger.  Its also getting way more coverage in the news than it did before.  The unions and religious groups are getting more involved.  The SEIU president was arrested today.





The Space Cowboy said:


> The real test of OWS's endurance will be January-February-March.  If the movement can survive past those months of next year, I'd call them a political force to be reckoned with.
> 
> The next few days in NY ought to be popcorn worthy.  On the 22nd, there's that Thanksgiving Day Parade thing with millions in the street.  You couldn't beg for a better juncture or Holiday to protest economic equality.



Can either of you explain why it's so necessary to be fucking assholes to the working man though, be it blue or white collar, especially in commute?  If Occupy Boston was screwing my commute, I'll be one of the first to shove them out of the fucking MBTA.  I'm not going to risk myself for your dumb ass.

I don't wanna hear some *idealistic* prattling.  I want to hear a legitimate excuse.

Space, got me some evidence of beatings too?


----------



## iander (Nov 17, 2011)

Mael said:


> Can either of you explain why it's so necessary to be fucking assholes to the working man though, be it blue or white collar, especially in commute?  If Occupy Boston was screwing my commute, I'll be one of the first to shove them out of the fucking MBTA.  I'm not going to risk myself for your dumb ass.
> 
> I don't wanna hear some *idealistic* prattling.  I want to hear a legitimate excuse.
> 
> Space, got me some evidence of beatings too?



I don't share your opinion that protesting for working class issues constitutes being assholes to working people.  Protests are always confrontational but working against injustice is worth the price of some people having a slightly longer commute.  I am sure people were inconvenienced by the Montgomery bus boycotts too or any other protest movement in history.  Its like if a business goes on strike and a customer complains about having to wait to buy their product.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 17, 2011)

iander said:


> I don't share your opinion that protesting for working class issues constitutes being assholes to working people.  Protests are always confrontational but working against injustice is worth the price of some people having a slightly longer commute.  I am sure people were inconvenienced by the Montgomery bus boycotts too or any other protest movement in history.  Its like if a business goes on strike and a customer complains about having to wait to buy their product.



*Boycotting* a bus service is different from *getting on a train* and bringing your unwanted message to people who just want to get to work. 

How you managed to connect the Montgomery Bus boycott to this is totally beyond me.


----------



## iander (Nov 17, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> *Boycotting* a bus service is different from *getting on a train* and bringing your unwanted message to people who just want to get to work.
> 
> How you managed to connect the Montgomery Bus boycott to this is totally beyond me.



A lot of things are beyond you.  The point was protest (in this case, protests that occur in public transportation) often inconvenience people. I am sure people on the bus Rosa Parks was on, loved it when the bus was stopped so she could be arrested.  Sometimes people are inconvenienced to campaign against injustice.  The ranks of the White Citizen's Councils swelled a bit during the bus boycotts because of people angry at the boycott.  Protests anger some people because they are confrontational but they are necessary to bring light to problems in this country.


----------



## Mael (Nov 17, 2011)

iander said:


> A lot of things are beyond you.  The point was protest (in this case, protests that occur in public transportation) often inconvenience people. I am sure people on the bus Rosa Parks was on, loved it when the bus was stopped so she could be arrested.  Sometimes people are inconvenienced to campaign against injustice.  The ranks of the White Citizen's Councils swelled a bit during the bus boycotts because of people angry at the boycott.  Protests anger some people because they are confrontational but they are necessary to bring light to problems in this country.



You're not even there.  Lou knows because he's a fucking New Yorker as heretical as he is, just how I know more about Occupy Boston because I fucking walk by it and observe it on a fucking daily basis.  If these schmucks decided to disrupt the Green/Red/Orange lines of the MBTA, odds are someone's going to get shanked at Ruggles or Savin Hill.  This is not fucking productive.

Don't make a terrible analogy with Rosa Parks.  There's an actual injustice with the *transportation system* back in 1960s Alabama.  There's no prejudiced ruling that low-income folks have to ride in the back of NY buses or the fucking A Train from Brooklyn to Soho.

And also, the Montgomery boycott was a fucking boycott.  They didn't disrupt and delay working NYers to their actual livelihoods running up and down the trains and delaying working people from their working jobs.  So stick to your cutesy idealism in the land not at all involved in this.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 17, 2011)

Occupy Atlanta is like totally falling apart. Despite my misgivings of the OWS, and things I think it could improve on, idiots like Peter King should cram it.


----------



## Mael (Nov 17, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Occupy Atlanta is like totally falling apart. Despite my misgivings of the OWS, and things I think it could improve on, idiots like Peter King should cram it.



Thank you for reminding me, and hopefully us, of why *centralized leadership* beats a decentralized feel-good movement nine times out of ten.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 17, 2011)

iander said:


> A lot of things are beyond you.  The point was protest (in this case, protests that occur in public transportation) often inconvenience people. I am sure people on the bus Rosa Parks was on, loved it when the bus was stopped so she could be arrested.  Sometimes people are inconvenienced to campaign against injustice.  The ranks of the White Citizen's Councils swelled a bit during the bus boycotts because of people angry at the boycott.  Protests anger some people because they are confrontational but they are necessary to bring light to problems in this country.



The White Citizen's Council's reaction was from people NOT USING PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. They can fuss all they want about people boycotting public transportation, but people have a right not to choose a service. 

In this case, people who*paid* for public transportation, who aren't boycotting, who have an expectation to receive what they paid, can't get what they expect because these OWS assholes are slowing the system down with their protests. People who aren't boycotting, people have nothing to do with these OWS are being inconvenienced because some group feels entitled to slow the MTA down for their own cause. 

The purpose of a train is to take people from point A to Point B, not to serve as some protest location. New York City has time, place, and manner restrictions that allows the city to dictate where protests can occur and how they can do it. 

Wanna protest? Protest somewhere else. The orderly fashion of public services is more important than your qualms.


Edit:



			
				Mael said:
			
		

> Don't make a terrible analogy with Rosa Parks. There's an actual injustice with the transportation system back in 1960s Alabama. There's no prejudiced ruling that low-income folks have to ride in the back of NY buses or the fucking A Train from Brooklyn to Soho.
> 
> And also, the Montgomery boycott was a fucking boycott. They didn't disrupt and delay working NYers to their actual livelihoods running up and down the trains and delaying working people from their working jobs. So stick to your cutesy idealism in the land not at all involved in this.



You said it better than me.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 17, 2011)

You either join or you'll be late for work. Do the decent thing and join the fucking thing.


----------



## Mael (Nov 17, 2011)

^Lol not even there in NYC or Boston.

Believe it or not, Elim, since you're a student, but people have livelihoods to worry about sacrificing and aren't quite ready to give everything up for a movement that might not actually pan out.

Shocking, I know.



			
				Lou said:
			
		

> You said it better than me.



A rare moment of unity b/w Boston and NYC.


----------



## iander (Nov 17, 2011)

Mael said:


> You're not even there.  Lou knows because he's a fucking New Yorker as heretical as he is, just how I know more about Occupy Boston because I fucking walk by it and observe it on a fucking daily basis.  If these schmucks decided to disrupt the Green/Red/Orange lines of the MBTA, odds are someone's going to get shanked at Ruggles or Savin Hill.  This is not fucking productive.



I work in NYC and I've been attending the protests and the general assemblies for months so spare me the BS about not knowing.  Moreover, my brother is a major organizer in Occupy Boston so I know plenty about whats going on there. 



Mael said:


> Don't make a terrible analogy with Rosa Parks.  There's an actual injustice with the *transportation system* back in 1960s Alabama.  There's no prejudiced ruling that low-income folks have to ride in the back of NY buses or the fucking A Train from Brooklyn to Soho.
> 
> And also, the Montgomery boycott was a fucking boycott.  They didn't disrupt and delay working NYers to their actual livelihoods running up and down the trains and delaying working people from their working jobs.  So stick to your cutesy idealism in the land not at all involved in this.



Actually, they did.  The boycott wasn't just people refusing to use the buses. They protested at bus stops and many were arrested on buses. Rosa Parks wasn't even the first. She was just the most ideal person to launch a campaign with. The whole campaign financially crippled the public bus system.  You know who else was angry at the boycott? Montgomery's business community who were frustrated with the boycott, which was costing them thousands of dollars because blacks were less likely to shop in downtown stores (that also ringing any bells?).  You don't think all this inconvenienced people?  You don't think about any of that because you weren't alive to see it.  You only see the results.  Protests inconvenience people. It is an unfortunate consequence but a necessary one.    

So, you can have fun sticking to your arm chair whining about protests movements all you want.


----------



## Mael (Nov 17, 2011)

You work in NYC?  Where?  Last time I checked weren't you South of the Border?

Also?  Occupy Boston?  Yeah those dipshits haven't done anything except for pointless rallies at Park Street and camping out around South Station. Nothing has happened.  Deval Patrick has no message sent to him whatsoever.  He has done nothing.  The BPD has done nothing.  The Financial District has done nothing.  Meanwhile, working people take the T every day to actually work...so do I.  Deal with that.

So fuck you iander.  It's not arm chair when you witness this day after fucking day.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 17, 2011)

iander said:
			
		

> Actually, they did. The boycott wasn't just people refusing to use the buses. They protested at bus stops and many were arrested on buses. Rosa Parks wasn't even the first. She was just the most ideal person to launch a campaign with. The whole campaign financially crippled the public bus system. You know who else was angry at the boycott? Montgomery's business community who were frustrated with the boycott, which was costing them thousands of dollars because blacks were less likely to shop in downtown stores (that also ringing any bells?). You don't think all this inconvenienced people? You don't think about any of that because you weren't alive to see it. You only see the results. Protests inconvenience people. It is an unfortunate consequence but a necessary one.
> 
> So, you can have fun sticking to your arm chair whining about protests movements all you want.



The public transit system in Montgomery wronged the Black Community in that city with a policy of racial discrimination, WHAT THE FUCK did the MTA do to these OWS assholes for them to freeze service the way they did? *NOTHING*. 

They are a bunch of self-important pricks who think their cause is so noble, they can hold up regular everyday working people. It's big headed, prickish move and its unwelcome.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 17, 2011)

great day to be an occupier! 

i don't know about deval patrick, but all politicians are cowardly trying to avoid the topic of ows as much as they can.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 17, 2011)

Elim Rawne said:


> You either join or you'll be late for work. Do the decent thing and join the fucking thing.



I've heard justifications that since the working class are "servants of the 1%" they must be kept from doing their jobs to punish the 1%. It's a very Leninist/Bolshevik mindset that the self-proclaimed leaders of the revolution know what's best for the lower masses so they can do whatever they want to them. If the lower classes don't like it, then they're just brainwashed and lack true consciousness. That's the kind of mindset I'm seeing from them right now.

Comparing this to Rosa Parks is silly as it was a socially accepted part of the South that they were seeking to overturn and they needed to fight white perspectives on the status quo as a whole. Here, they're just harassing the working class from engaging in their jobs. Not everybody has the luxury of living off mommy/daddy and running off to have adventures in New York, some people need to work each day. They don't seem to understand this unfortunately and it will be the death of the movement, which is a shame as behind the sheer idiocy of all of this the US would benefit from a Welfare state model with greater corporate restrictions.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 17, 2011)

protests shouldn't inconvenience anyone


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 17, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> protests shouldn't inconvenience anyone



Generally in a protest you shouldn't inconvenience those you claim to be protesting for, no. It will not help the movement much,

Moreover it isn't an issue of "inconvenience". If a server at Burger King is late, his livelihood could suffer. He doesn't have the luxury of skipping class and going off on these adventures. This is the precise kind of arrogance that's damaging the movement, the organizers and engagers are unable to relate to the working class so they're puzzled when the working class goes to work instead of goes to central park to get high in V for Vendetta masks.

There's a reason the protest to the rule of law being restored in downtown Manhattan was meant to attract tens of thousands but only got around 1,000 today. OWS must change radically if it is to survive, nevermind if it is to actually accomplish something.


----------



## iander (Nov 17, 2011)

Mael said:


> You work in NYC?  Where?  Last time I checked weren't you South of the Border?



I work at an immigrant law center in Queens.  I stopped living in Mexico more than 4 years ago. 

As for Occupy Boston, I know today hundreds marched to the Charlestown Bridge in solidarity with similar protest marches around the country to decaying bridges to highlight the need to put more funding for jobs and infrastructure.  Sounds like a good idea to me.

To your last point, fair enough. I apologize for insulting you.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 17, 2011)

Megaharrison said:


> Generally in a protest you shouldn't inconvenience those you claim to be protesting for, no. It will not help the movement much,
> 
> Moreover it isn't an issue of "inconvenience". If a server at Burger King is late, his livelihood could suffer. He doesn't have the luxury of skipping class and going off on these adventures. This is the precise kind of arrogance that's damaging the movement, the organizers and engagers are unable to relate to the working class so they're puzzled when the working class goes to work instead of goes to central park to get high in V for Vendetta masks.
> 
> There's a reason the protest to the rule of law being restored in downtown Manhattan was meant to attract tens of thousands but only got around 1,000 today. OWS must change radically if it is to survive, nevermind if it is to actually accomplish something.



what theoretical burger flipper is being hurt by protests that he can't explain as " i got delayed by protests, not my fault" ?  That's the excuse if u got to work late , "protests", it's perfectly reasonable.  some people will get inconvenienced by protest, it's a fact of life.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 17, 2011)

Don't know if this was posted here yet, but I honestly didn't check.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 17, 2011)

Anyone notice that reservists always bitch at protests.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 17, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> what theoretical burger flipper is being hurt by protests that he can't explain as " i got delayed by protests, not my fault" ?  That's the excuse if u got to work late , "protests", it's perfectly reasonable.  some people will get inconvenienced by protest, it's a fact of life.



It's an unnecessary inconvenience. Once again this whole protest is counter productive the way they are going about it. These occupy movements are occupying places of no real political power. Instead they are occupying places where the 99% work, and causing a slowdowns. Washington is the place that should be occupied, especially considering they are the ones who write the laws, implement legislation, and are supposed to regulate institutions that affect our lives and future. 

Occupying Broadway hurts businesses and the city. Is that your goal, to hurt business? To hurt employment?  Or is it merely viewed as collateral damage?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 18, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> It's an unnecessary inconvenience. Once again this whole protest is counter productive the way they are going about it. These occupy movements are occupying places of no real political power. Instead they are occupying places where the 99% work, and causing a slowdowns. Washington is the place that should be occupied, especially considering they are the ones who write the laws, implement legislation, and are supposed to regulate institutions that affect our lives and future.
> 
> Occupying Broadway hurts businesses and the city. Is that your goal, to hurt business? To hurt employment?  Or is it merely viewed as collateral damage?



get with the program lou, most governance people encounter is local, state's rights ensures that the "washington's" power over people is limited.  Unfortunately all power is currently being bought by corporations.  Protests are needed at all levels and are happening at all levels.  Today there were two rallies in my little shitty conservative town.  

As for megaharrison, 1000 participants?  NYC cops arrested 300 protestors today, ur saying 30% of Occupiers were arrested today?  that's an astounding percentage if true.

What a terrible mod.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 18, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> It's an unnecessary inconvenience. Once again this whole protest is counter productive the way they are going about it. These occupy movements are occupying places of no real political power. Instead they are occupying places where the 99% work, and causing a slowdowns. Washington is the place that should be occupied, especially considering they are the ones who write the laws, implement legislation, and are supposed to regulate institutions that affect our lives and future.
> 
> Occupying Broadway hurts businesses and the city. Is that your goal, to hurt business? To hurt employment?  Or is it merely viewed as collateral damage?



You're right, people may even have to...have to...leave for work 15 minutes early :amazed Oh no.

I'm amused at the ridiculous criticisms of the OWS movement I'm reading in this thread. Slight inconvenience? Oh, fucking no.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 18, 2011)

NSU said:
			
		

> get with the program lou, most governance people encounter is local, state's rights ensures that the "washington's" power over people is limited. Unfortunately all power is currently being bought by corporations. Protests are needed at all levels and are happening at all levels. Today there were two rallies in my little shitty conservative town.



If you mean local "representative", or "Senator" then yea, harassing them maybe a good idea, as far as I know OWS in New York hasn't done that.  The other local politicians, those in city halls and state assembly buildings don't have the power to change national laws concerning financial regulations, campaign finance reforms and national job creation. That's why you lobby Congress to get those things done like Wall street has to get what they want done. Any other demonstration, in whatever occupy this park or that park or this street, is pointless.





I don't think you understand that woeing your local politicians


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 18, 2011)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> You're right, people may even have to...have to...leave for work 15 minutes early :amazed Oh no.
> 
> I'm amused at the ridiculous criticisms of the OWS movement I'm reading in this thread. Slight inconvenience? Oh, fucking no.



Excuse me, but if commuted in New York City everyday like I do, and taken the 4 or 5 trains, you'd know a slight delay can cause tremendous crowding in the stations... That doesn't get rectified by "leaving for work 15 minutes early" dipshit. 

You need a smooth, and on time trains to make sure human traffic doesn't overflow.


----------



## MartyMcFly1 (Nov 18, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> Excuse me, but if commuted in New York City everyday like I do, and taken the 4 or 5 trains, you'd know a slight delay can cause tremendous crowding in the stations... That doesn't get rectified by "leaving for work 15 minutes early" dipshit.
> 
> You need a smooth, and on time trains to make sure human traffic doesn't overflow.



Wahh Wahh Wahhhh! 

Let's end this farce once and for all. Just answer me this question: 

"_Yes or no, do you think that civil rights protests never inconvenienced people who supported their cause?_"

If yes, then shut up. There are much bigger problems than the slight inconvenience you have to face. The next big protest will be about how LouDGreat, Mael and Megaharrison are annoyed at the slight inconveniences they have to face. Hopefully we can make it so that you're never even slightly inconvenienced again.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 18, 2011)

a person coming to a complete stop on a busy New york sidewalk can cause people upstream a delay. it's a crowded, dense city! civic demonstrations are gonna inconvenience lots of people, no matter what.

also, congress people only work like a week a month, they should be near in the state alot of time, that's why they represent the state.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 18, 2011)

> "Yes or no, do you think that civil rights protests never inconvenienced people who supported their cause?"



I don't think the people who took the subway this morning even give a shit about their cause, so your question is moot. And this movement isn't a civil rights protest, so end the comparisons to the 60s movements already.



			
				NSU said:
			
		

> a person coming to a complete stop on a busy New york sidewalk can cause people upstream a delay.



And that's what those people are assholes. Does  OWS seek to emulate assholes?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 18, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> I don't think the people who took the subway this morning even give a shit about their cause, so your question is moot. And this movement isn't a civil rights protest, so end the comparisons to the 60s movements already.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's what those people are assholes. Does  OWS seek to emulate assholes?



of course it's a civil rights protest! it's protesting that the 1% are able to buy greater access to and influence of the govt than the common people who are 99% of the population!

and people who stop on NYC sidewalks aren't assholes, it's not a single person's fault if a single person has to stop or turn around just because they happen to be among a river of people.  

in other words it's very easy to inconvenience people in NYC compared to less dense places like albany or portland , etc.


----------



## Mael (Nov 18, 2011)

MartyMcFly1 said:


> Wahh Wahh Wahhhh!
> 
> Let's end this farce once and for all. Just answer me this question:
> 
> ...



Oh shut up.  Do you even go anywhere near this?

You're not getting the whole message.  If you're going to crusade for the rights of the working man, why in the fuck are you going to harass them trying to keep their livelihoods?  Please tell me how that makes sense.  Please also tell me how this is a good idea when you have thousands of angry NYers who just watched Mark Sanchez the Superfail trying to get home via subway or car and being blocked by these clods?

For the record, I don't necessarily disagree with the statement behind the Occupy Movement.  I just don't like their tactics one bit.  They're annoying, currently ineffective, and if anything getting some people to really hate them.  Block a helipad or some shit, not 42nd Street or places were real working people try to get to, ya know, part of that 99% people talk about.

Accepted, iander.  We both got a little temperamental.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 18, 2011)

Mael said:


> Oh shut up.  Do you even go anywhere near this?
> 
> You're not getting the whole message.  If you're going to crusade for the rights of the working man, why in the fuck are you going to harass them trying to keep their livelihoods?  Please tell me how that makes sense.  Please also tell me how this is a good idea when you have thousands of angry NYers who just watched Mark Sanchez the Superfail trying to get home via subway or car and being blocked by these clods?
> 
> ...



yeah..no.  U go protest for your causes where absolutely nobody will see or care.

there's many rallies throughout the US that aren't disrupting people's workday, i attended one yesterday, we were on the street corners, completely out of the way of anybody except the few people crossing the sidewalk.  I don't live in a big dense city.

_Any_ protest in a dense major city is gonna inconvenience people.  there's no place to stand in nyc  with a sign and a number of people and not inconvenience alot of people.


----------



## Elim Rawne (Nov 18, 2011)

Mael says the same fucking everytime there's a protest about something. Doesn't matter if its Libya or NYC.#jarheadmentality


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 18, 2011)

NSU said:
			
		

> and people who stop on NYC sidewalks aren't assholes, it's not a single person's fault if a single person has to stop or turn around just because they happen to be among a river of people.



No, NSU, they are assholes, especially the ones who take their sweet time to walk two feet. Then there are people who walk in groups, chating, blocking you from moving around them. Then there's the people who stand right in the middle of the sidewalk, big shopping bags in hand, talking up a storm, not moving an inch so people can walk by.....assholes. However, sidewalk commuters are not in the same league of assholery as OWS people taking over trains. 

For a civil rights protest, these people sure are trying to attain their "rights" the wrong way. 



			
				NSU said:
			
		

> in other words it's very easy to inconvenience people in NYC compared to less dense places like albany or portland , etc.



That's why you limit inconvenience not increase it.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 18, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> No, NSU, they are assholes, especially the ones who take their sweet time to walk two feet. Then there are people who walk in groups, chating, blocking you from moving around them. Then there's the people who stand right in the middle of the sidewalk, big shopping bags in hand, talking up a storm, not moving an inch so people can walk by.....assholes. However, sidewalk commuters are not in the same league of assholery as OWS people taking over trains.
> 
> For a civil rights protest, these people sure are trying to attain their "rights" the wrong way.
> 
> ...



so tell me lou, where do u put 5000 people who are protesting for a long period of time?  i know nyc very well, where should they be allowed to protest?


----------



## Mael (Nov 18, 2011)

Tell you what, NSU.  If these attempts galvanize the people for OWS, you have a point.  If we see more complaints against them, well the evidence is clear what NOT to do in NYC.  Other cities?  Fine...whatever, since not every city is damn New York City, but over there it'd be wiser to go at it a different approach.



Elim Rawne said:


> Mael says the same fucking everytime there's a protest about something. Doesn't matter if its Libya or NYC.#jarheadmentality



Lollerskates, the Canadian Troll Turk student trying to lecture me on this. 

Show me evidence of the Libya gripes, big guy, and then I'll take you seriously.

/jarheadisUSMCgetitrightsmartguy


----------



## Coteaz (Nov 18, 2011)

If I had my way, we'd skip "Police brutality" and move right up to "Helicopter gunship brutality." 

Filthy beggars and miscreants, polluting my cities.


----------



## Mael (Nov 18, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> If I had my way, we'd skip "Police brutality" and move right up to "Helicopter gunship brutality."
> 
> Filthy beggars and miscreants, polluting my cities.



Sounds like jarhead talk there Coteaz. 

You'll also have to be specific.  Police brutality to some is actually getting arrested for breaking laws.  Shocking, I know.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 18, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> If I had my way, we'd skip "Police brutality" and move right up to "Helicopter gunship brutality."
> 
> Filthy beggars and miscreants, polluting my cities.



Gaddafi style, u can get promptly gaddafi'd talking like that.  
*Spoiler*: __ 



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FiYo0JU8jo[/YOUTUBE]




technically people in egypt have greater rights than new yorkers, egyptians could occupy there central spaces and shut down their city for months.  sure they got beaten and harrassed and even killed by security, but OWS'ers are getting beaten and harrassed, bombs thrown at them, heads cracked.


----------



## Mael (Nov 18, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> Gaddafi style, u can get promptly gaddafi'd talking like that.
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> ...



So getting killed was better than what you just mentioned, by sheer comparison?

Logic train just derailed...


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 18, 2011)

NSU said:
			
		

> so tell me lou, where do u put 5000 people who are protesting for a long period of time? i know nyc very well, where should they be allowed to protest?



Not in the subway, thats for sure. Stay in Zoocunti park, just don't bring tents and create unsanitary conditions. There really isn't many alternatives available. Every street is busy, bustling with activity.


----------



## Megaharrison (Nov 18, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> technically people in egypt have greater rights than new yorkers, egyptians could occupy there central spaces and shut down their city for months.  sure they got beaten and harrassed and even killed by security, but OWS'ers are getting beaten and harrassed, bombs thrown at them, heads cracked.




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15235212
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/13/egypt-damietta-clashes-idUSL5E7MD0AO20111113

Lol ok.


----------



## Coteaz (Nov 18, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> Gaddafi style, u can get promptly gaddafi'd talking like that.


The masses need to remember who is the ruler and who is the ruled.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 18, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> Not in the subway, thats for sure. Stay in Zoocunti park, just don't bring tents and create unsanitary conditions. There really isn't many alternatives available. Every street is busy, bustling with activity.



so u have no answer, only a laundry violation of their first amendment rights.



Mael said:


> So getting killed was better than what you just mentioned, by sheer comparison?
> 
> Logic train just derailed...



yeah brainiac, i don't think anybody said getting killed is ok.  True or false: egyptians could occupy their city for months on end, which is a far greater amount of time than the OWS had.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 18, 2011)

NSU said:
			
		

> so u have no answer, only a laundry violation of their first amendment rights.



I gave you Zoocotti park. That's an answer. 
Want other answers?

Union Square
Madison Park
Central Park
Columbia University Campus. 
Washington Square Park
Battery Park 

Hell, Jacob Javits Center or
MSG if they pay a fee for entry.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 18, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> I gave you Zoocotti park. That's an answer.
> Want other answers?
> 
> Union Square
> ...



for a protest against wall street, ur sure trying to screw them by putting them nowhere near wall street. maybe battery park, but not even.  yes, zucotti park was an excellent location to base their protest activities, cause many satellite protest took off from zucotti park.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 18, 2011)

NSU said:
			
		

> for a protest against wall street, ur sure trying to screw them by putting them nowhere near wall street. maybe battery park, but not even. yes, zucotti park was an excellent location to base their protest activities, cause many satellite protest took off from zucotti park.



Sorry, you can't get everything you want. City has plenty of alternatives, if you don't like them, too bad.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 18, 2011)

any of those places will inconvenience people, ur overarching goal seems to be to stifle the protestors


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 18, 2011)

Those are parks NSU, not streets or subway lines.  

The inconvenience factor goes do a bit in those places.

The city has a duty to the residents and businesses to ensure the normal flow of activity in the streets. That's more important to the city than these pricks getting a closer spot to Wall Street. 

From the looks of these protestors and from your apologizing of OWS actions, I'd say one of their goals is to slow the city down. To which I say, bring out the fucking clubs.


----------



## strongarm85 (Nov 18, 2011)

I saw several occupiers on campus today... All 7 of them.


----------



## Toby (Nov 19, 2011)

Some very thoughtful analysis by former New York Supreme Court Judge Karen Smith and Director Chuck Wexler of the Police Research Forum on the use of police force against the protestors. Apparently a New York City Councilman was also arrested and held for 12 hours without access to his lawyer. 

Now I can get several things but the following just fucking phase me:
- Pepperspraying an 84 year old woman
- Arresting a legally recognized neutral observer
- Arresting a NYC councilman?! What. 

Wexley gets into the really interesting analysis on 18 minutes in, followed by judge Smith. Watch it .

Consensus: Bad job.

Wexler argues that the police really don't want to be put in this position but that the public's need for legal representation forces them into the conflict. Judge Smith focuses on the failure of the cops on seen to respect a legally recognized neutral party. They also interview former Chief of police for Seattle Norm Stamper (who ran the Seattle police during the Battle of Seattle 1999) and Dorli Rainey, the 84 year-old lady who was pepper-sprayed by police during a protest. 

Pretty decent lineup in my opinion.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Nov 19, 2011)

Don't know if posted, but here are police pepper spraying students without any threat from the protestors.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 19, 2011)

Yeah, the police brutality is going overboard.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 19, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> Yeah, the police brutality is going overboard.



the brutality is always framed as necessarry, as if the protestors sitting in near fetal positions were a threat to police, police who have all the weapons in the world at their disposal and a license to commit violence.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 19, 2011)

I have my problems with how the OWS is going about this whole thing, but more and more it seems that law enforcement in various areas almost seem like private armed forces at the behest of those that have a problem with the protests rather than public servants...

Also, I wonder if Republicans are aware of how much they could be screwing themselves over with their rhetoric in describing the OWS?


----------



## NanoHaxial (Nov 19, 2011)

> Don't know if posted, but here are police pepper spraying students without any threat from the protestors.



So what would you suggest they do instead to remove protestors? Start physically trying to separate them? That's going to require a decent amount of force, includes a strong possibility of injury, and can be dangerous for police and protestors alike.

Pepper spray is a relatively simple, safe, and effective means to aid in dispersing protestors. It may not be painless or pretty, but it's better than the alternatives.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Nov 19, 2011)

NanoHaxial said:


> So what would you suggest they do instead to remove protestors?



Pull a Tiananmen Square and bring out some tanks. That'll get those protesters to scatter.


----------



## Toby (Nov 19, 2011)

Yeah same reports at UC Berkeley.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 19, 2011)

NanoHaxial said:


> So what would you suggest they do instead to remove protestors? Start physically trying to separate them? That's going to require a decent amount of force, includes a strong possibility of injury, and can be dangerous for police and protestors alike.
> 
> Pepper spray is a relatively simple, safe, and effective means to aid in dispersing protestors. It may not be painless or pretty, but it's better than the alternatives.



If you can't see what's wrong with treating people like that, then you are pretty much everything that's wrong with the United States of America.

Why is it that nearly every escalation of violence at an OWS protest is begun by the police?  I thought they were supposed to keep the peace.

Also the official explanation of the UC Davis events is bullshit if you watch the video.  The students only surrounded them after the officers sprayed protestors.


Here is an officer of the law defending himself against 20 violent student protestors.  Clearly his person is in danger.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 19, 2011)

I support the NYPD.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 19, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> I support the NYPD.



That almost came off as stupidly and childishly spiteful.

If you do support them, you should be troubled by the excessive force of some officers, despite your feelings on the OWS. The NYPD's reputation could become sullied (more than it is, if it is) by overzealous officers. The same goes for the PDs across the country.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 19, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> I support the NYPD.



To be fair to the NYPD, they've been one of the better behaved police departments in the whole OWS shebang.


----------



## Raiden (Nov 19, 2011)

Saw the LAPD beat the hell out of this Chinese lady .


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 19, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That almost came off as stupidly and childishly spiteful.



Cry fucking more Seto, cry fucking more. 



Seto Kaiba said:


> If you do support them, you should be troubled by the excessive force of some officers, despite your feelings on the OWS. The NYPD's reputation could become sullied (more than it is, if it is) by overzealous officers. The same goes for the PDs across the country.



You think the NYPD doesn't already have a bad reputation, and for using excessive force?  

People bitch about them every day. 



			
				President Goobang said:
			
		

> Saw the LAPD beat the hell out of this Chinese lady



Damn, hope she can still serve good chinese food.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 19, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> Cry fucking more Seto, cry fucking more.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's what I mean by "stupid and childish". 

I have my own problems with the OWS, but it seems a lot of your gripes against them are out of some kind of ridiculous spite. If you don't like it whatever, but letting that cause you to overlook the excessive actions of law enforcement across the country is just pure practicing pure ignorance. Again, it's like many are acting as a private arm of a select group rather than the public servants that they are supposed to be.

Every department gets its complaints, but the reactions by a lot of law enforcement has gotten out of hand. There are due reactions to violent outbursts, but it's increasingly so that you have otherwise peaceful protests met with harsh and unwarranted reactions.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Nov 19, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> Here is an officer of the law defending himself against 20 violent student protestors.  Clearly his person is in danger.












The abuse of power has been obvious for the police and those who send them.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 19, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:


> That's what I mean by "stupid and childish".
> 
> I have my own problems with the OWS, but it seems a lot of your gripes against them are out of some kind of ridiculous spite. If you don't like it whatever, but letting that cause you to overlook the excessive actions of law enforcement across the country is just pure practicing pure ignorance. Again, it's like many are acting as a private arm of a select group rather than the public servants that they are supposed to be.
> 
> Every department gets its complaints, but the reactions by a lot of law enforcement has gotten out of hand. There are due reactions to violent outbursts, but it's increasingly so that you have otherwise peaceful protests met with harsh and unwarranted reactions.



As a protestor, you've assumed the risk of getting the shit beat of you by a police officer. That's the way I've always looked at it. If you don't like officers beating the crap out of you, don't protest.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 19, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> As a protestor, you've assumed the risk of getting the shit beat of you by a police officer. That's the way I've always looked at it.



That says little about the competency of the police force in question. Especially as one that supports it, I'd expect more professional behavior from them. A protester should expect proper response from them (as a majority), as any citizen should. In the case of a peaceful protest that's NOT being maced/pepper-sprayed, pelted, battered, etc. Brutality should be the outlier. A possibility, but not the likelihood in the case of peaceful protest. 



> If you don't like officers beating the crap out of you, don't protest.



That's ridiculous.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Nov 19, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> *If you don't like officers beating the crap out of you, don't protest.*




We can all learn from water canon man.


----------



## Coteaz (Nov 19, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> If you don't like officers beating the crap out of you, don't protest.




Well said, Lou. Well said.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 19, 2011)

the right to protest without being abused by the authorities is the first right americans have, lou you are out of hand, nypd will sooner put 10 bullets in u after shooting 50 at u for holding a black wallet.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 19, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> That says little about the competency of the police force in question. Especially as one that supports it, I'd expect more professional behavior from them.



Doesn't matter, you've assumed the risk. Sometimes you get good officers, sometimes you don't.



			
				NSU said:
			
		

> the right to protest without being abused by the authorities is the first right americans have, lou you are out of hand, nypd will sooner put 10 bullets in u after shooting 50 at u for holding a black wallet.



And last I checked, city's have a right- *THE DUTY TO THEIR RESIDENTS*, to ensure the orderly fashion of society by keeping protestors in check. 

And, NSU, I'm not black, so I don't have to worry about that. Also, I haven't gotten beef with an officer before. And if they say something to me, I listen.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 19, 2011)

@Loudagreat
It seems to me that the use of violence by police officers only increases the risk of violence to their persons by crowds such as these.  Therefore for their own safety they ought not to use excessive force against individuals.

After all we saw what happened when the LAPD beat the shit out of that one rapscallion Rodney King.  They managed to spark riots that devastated Los Angeles & killed 53 people.  

Therefore it is a moral imperative that police officers refrain from using force as much as possible.  If they don't want to use force in a reasonable manner, they can always refrain from enforcing the law.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 19, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> Doesn't matter, you've assumed the risk. Sometimes you get good officers, sometimes you don't.



It should be acknowledged that overzealous or unscrupulous cops may get involved, but it should not be acceptable in any way. 



> And last I checked, city's have a right- *THE DUTY TO THEIR RESIDENTS*, to ensure the orderly fashion of society by keeping protestors in check.



Protesters don't count as residents now? In the case of non-violent protest, non-violent measures should be taken (as it's supposed to be), in the case of violent protest, appropriately forceful measures should be taken (as it's supposed to be). Unfortunately, violent measures have been used against non-violent protests. That's not keeping "protestors in check", that's simple brutality.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 19, 2011)

> @Loudagreat
> It seems to me that the use of violence by police officers only increases the risk of violence to their persons by crowds such as these. Therefore for their own safety they ought not to use excessive force against individuals.
> 
> After all we saw what happened when the LAPD beat the shit out of that one rapscallion Rodney King. They managed to spark riots that devastated Los Angeles & killed 53 people.
> ...



But that was like 10 White officers beating up one black guy. Race was the big factor there. There's no racial tinge in this situation.



			
				Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> Protesters don't count as residents now? In the case of non-violent protest, non-violent measures should be taken (as it's supposed to be), in the case of violent protest, violent measures should be taken (as it's supposed to be). Unfortunately, violent measures have been used against non-violent protests.



Of course they count, but are riot officers trying to keep rioters or non rioters in check?

Anyways, I have no problem with it.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 19, 2011)

> But that was like 10 White officers beating up one black guy. Race was the big factor there. There's no racial tinge in this situation.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 19, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> But that was like 10 White officers beating up one black guy. Race was the big factor there. There's no racial tinge in this situation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A riot can be a protest, but not all protests are riots. Having officers decked out in riot gear, and getting the tension high in response to nonviolent demonstrations is unnecessary when non-violent coercion would have probably reaped better results. Undue violence by officers has rarely ends well for all sides. Again though, that's my gripe with the law enforcement's response to the protests, it seems that they are more like a private security force now, not public servants. Public good isn't considered so much as acting at the behest of select groups.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 19, 2011)




----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 19, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> Don't know you can see them as a private army if the elected mayor and his police commissioner are directing them.



Why wouldn't one be able to? With enough power and influence, local PDs can pretty much be private security, or at least, provide preferential treatment. You don't think there are mayors and commissioners that can be swayed by dollars? You don't think there haven't cases where such a thing has happened?


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 19, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't one be able to? With enough power and influence, local PDs can pretty much be private security, or at least, provide preferential treatment. You don't think there are mayors and commissioners that can be swayed by dollars? You don't think there haven't cases where such a thing has happened?



Please explain. 

When you have thousands of people in protests where police officers are constantly on watch to keep them in check, of course the police will eventually be demonized and categorized as a private army. 

But, I'm unsure of where you are getting the "preferential treatment" idea. Whose being specially treated?


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 19, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> I'm sure it wouldn't have caused riots. But of course there'd be justifiable outrage.



The London Riots were also caused by the police using excessive force.  Clearly the problem here is that excessive uses of force by the police is incitement to riot, which happens to be a criminal offense.

Therefore in order to not incite the public to riot with their actions, the police must act in a manner as to not be perceived as using excessive force.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 19, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> The London Riots were also caused by the police using excessive force.  Clearly the problem here is that excessive uses of force by the police is incitement to riot, which happens to be a criminal offense.
> 
> Therefore in order to not incite the public to riot with their actions, the police must act in a manner as to not be perceived as using excessive force.



I'd say certain cities are more prone to riot than others.


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 19, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> Please explain.
> 
> When you have thousands of people in protests where police officers are constantly on watch to keep them in check, of course the police will eventually be demonized and categorized as a private army.



The severity and frequency of the accusations depends on the force's reactions in their area. Across the country, many reactions by law enforcement have been excessive. There's a threshold for reasonable doubt in the face of such accusations, but for many by the day, that's being broken. 



> But, I'm unsure of where you are getting the "preferential treatment" idea. Whose being specially treated?



The people that have an issue with the protestors, and the resources available to hold the influence over law enforcement and related officials to do something about it. Some people get hassled as protesters simply on appearances, and those with formal attire met with little or no response.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 19, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> The people that have an issue with the protestors, and the resources available to hold the influence over law enforcement and related officials to do something about it. Some people get hassled as protesters simply on appearances, and those with formal attire met with little or no response.



Got any names of people, companies special interests or corporations in particular who are holding influence over law enforcement? And could be that it's not the groups in particular who hold influence, but its that the city realizes that those people/entities are important to the cities economy and must make sure there is as little inconvenience to them as possible? 

As for "formal attire"... do you mean protestors in formal attire who get preferential treatment, or people who are just regular bystanders get preferential treatment?  

If you're in formal attire of course you'll be given preferential treatment. You are either working or you are seen as more "civilized".


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Nov 19, 2011)

I feel bad for civilians who happen to go by protests just when the police decide to use force on the peaceful protesters .


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 19, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> Got any names of people, companies special interests or corporations in particular who are holding influence over law enforcement? *And could be that it's not the groups in particular who hold influence, but its that the city realizes that those people/entities are important to the cities economy and must make sure there is as little inconvenience to them as possible?*



That means they DO hold influence then...

I think that's a pretty naive assessment. Protesting outside their property isn't going to disrupt their business. Marching across their streets isn't either, especially when one nonviolent measures police were practicing was making way for those that have jobs there to be able to get to work. The costs are being felt by the cities themselves, not the businesses or banks being protested against. 

The typical: JP Morgan, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs. There's also Bloomberg and his response to the OWS movement as well as Mayor Reed down here and his sudden turn against the Occupy Atlanta movement being thought of as influenced by prospective contributors through the Super PACs that have come about lately. 

You do know cops can be hired up there by private businesses, right? 



> As for "formal attire"... do you mean protestors in formal attire who get preferential treatment, or people who are just regular bystanders get preferential treatment?



Either or, but it's moreso bystanders. Depending on their choice of clothing, they either have gotten caught up in police response to the protest or assumed to be unsympathetic to the movement. 



> If you're in formal attire of course you'll be given preferential treatment. You are either working or you are seen as more "civilized".



That's stupid, and it's profiling.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 19, 2011)

Unlosing Ranger said:


> I feel bad for civilians who happen to go by protests just when the police decide to use force on the peaceful protesters .



I feel bad for cities who beat up on their own people, and then have huge property destroying riots.  Beat down peaceful protestors often enough, and they won't be so peaceful.


----------



## Mintaka (Nov 19, 2011)

Indeed.

Then we'll get a whole shitload of demonization by the media when some of them finally have had enough.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 20, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> That means they DO hold influence then...



Indirect influence. Their presence _alone _gives the city an inclination to protect them. Why wouldn't the city do that? Wall street jobs provides the bulk of New York City tax revenue. Why would you want to alienate your biggest revenue base? "Wall Street is just such an important part of the city's economy that protection is warranted. 



			
				Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> I think that's a pretty naive assessment. Protesting outside their property isn't going to disrupt their business. Marching across their streets isn't either, especially when one nonviolent measures police were practicing was making way for those that have jobs there to be able to get to work. The costs are being felt by the cities themselves, not the businesses or banks being protested against.



There have been threats from the Occupy Wall Street movement to delay the opening of the closing bell. If they do such a thing, they deserve all the excess force put on them. A threat like that needs to be taken seriously. 

Also, when you march across the street, you're blocking traffic. That shit is a hassle for many, especially for deliverymen, bus riders, cab riders and other people who need to get places. 



> You do know cops can be hired up there by private businesses, right?



I'm sure they can, but did JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and the other banks hire the police officers in this situation?



			
				Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> Either or, but it's moreso bystanders. Depending on their choice of clothing, they either have gotten caught up in police response to the protest or assumed to be unsympathetic to the movement.



Yea, whats wrong with that. You can tell what people's activities are with the clothes they wear. 
A person in rags: A bum 
A person in a suit: Wall Street/ business guy
A person in hipster/ environmentalist clothing: OWS people




			
				Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> That's stupid, and it's profiling.



No it isn't. Its fucking smart. Don't play into that p.c bullshit.


----------



## Daenerys Stormborn (Nov 20, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> To be fair to the NYPD, they've been one of the better behaved police departments in the whole OWS shebang.



Not really, actually.  So far, they've roughed up a _judge_ (and given that she told them she was a judge beforehand, they were doing so knowingly), and a retired Philadelphia police captain.  Assaulting a judge is a pretty serious crime, and it doesn't exactly look good to attack a fellow officer (even if a retired one).


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 20, 2011)

Was the judge and that Philadelphia police officer in the protest? Well, like the other protestors, they've assumed the risk to get their asses beat. Or are you suggesting because they are public employees they get treated differently from everyone else?


----------



## Seto Kaiba (Nov 20, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> Indirect influence. Their presence _alone _gives the city an inclination to protect them. Why wouldn't the city do that? Wall street jobs provides the bulk of New York City tax revenue. Why would you want to alienate your biggest revenue base? "Wall Street is just such an important part of the city's economy that protection is warranted.



It's never indirect when money is involved. It becomes a problem when a single entity or just a few hold that much sway over a city or some other area. 

Protection does not mean beating protestors. 



> There have been threats from the Occupy Wall Street movement to delay the opening of the closing bell. If they do such a thing, they deserve all the excess force put on them. A threat like that needs to be taken seriously.



No. What the hell is wrong with you? That really depends on the nature of the threat. If they mean it with violence, yeah, use force. If they mean by nonviolent demonstration, absolutely not. 



> Also, when you march across the street, you're blocking traffic. That shit is a hassle for many, especially for deliverymen, bus riders, cab riders and other people who need to get places.



Traffic is congested here like it is there. That's not really a legitimate reason to pursue the use of force against nonviolent protesters. 



> I'm sure they can, but did JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and the other banks hire the police officers in this situation?



They did actually. It's one of the reasons that there was such a rift caused between the OWS and the police when initially the protests tried to embrace them.



> Yea, whats wrong with that. You can tell what people's activities are with the clothes they wear.
> A person in rags: A bum
> A person in a suit: Wall Street/ business guy
> A person in hipster/ environmentalist clothing: OWS people
> ...



There's plenty wrong with that as there is far too wide a margin of error. It's not smart, it's lazy. Sweeping assumptions on appearance is simple profiling. Especially you know, considering the average citizen won't be wearing business suits...it becomes a problem even moreso when many among law enforcement jump to using forceful methods.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Nov 20, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> Was the judge and that Philadelphia police officer in the protest? Well, like the other protestors, they've assumed the risk to get their asses beat. *Or are you suggesting because they are public employees they get treated differently from everyone else?*



They do.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 20, 2011)

Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> It's never indirect when money is involved. It becomes a problem when a single entity or just a few hold that much sway over a city or some other area.
> 
> Protection does not mean beating protestors.



Its indirect Seto. Are you saying some Wall Street execs are going up to the mayor and bribing him to beat the OWS? Because that s direct influence. If the city is attempting to ensure that the activities of Wall street don't disrupted, then it's not direct influence from Wall street. Its the city protecting its patrons. Why does everything have to be seen from such a malicious conspiracy theory standpoint. Christ almighty. 



			
				Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> No. What the hell is wrong with you? That really depends on the nature of the threat. If they mean it with violence, yeah, use force. If they mean by nonviolent demonstration, absolutely not.



Yes, the New York Stock Exchange is an institution with importance beyond New York, it is an international institution with influence worldwide. To fuck with global finance by _attempting to delay the opening_ of the institution, you deserve a fucking beatdown. 



			
				Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> Traffic is congested here like it is there. That's not really a legitimate reason to pursue the use of force against nonviolent protesters.



I think it is. Coming from someone who WALKS THE STREETS, and SEES THE ZOOCCUNTI FUCKERS EVERYDAY. 



			
				Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> They did actually. It's one of the reasons that there was such a rift caused between the OWS and the police when initially the protests tried to embrace them.



Source please.



			
				Seto Kaiba said:
			
		

> There's plenty wrong with that as there is far too wide a margin of error. It's not smart, it's lazy. Sweeping assumptions on appearance is simple profiling. Especially you know, considering the average citizen won't be wearing business suits...



Its all probability. Considering what the protestors look, if a cop swings at someone in a business suit, they're not swinging at a protestor.


----------



## Daenerys Stormborn (Nov 20, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> Was the judge and that Philadelphia police officer in the protest? Well, like the other protestors, they've assumed the risk to get their asses beat. Or are you suggesting because they are public employees they get treated differently from everyone else?



The Philly officer was, but the judge was there as a legal observer--basically, she was there in her official capacity as a judge, to take down the names of people who were arrested or something like that.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 20, 2011)

Akatsuki no Tenshi said:
			
		

> The Philly officer was, but the judge was there as a legal observer--basically, she was there in her official capacity as a judge, to take down the names of people who were arrested or something like that.



Big mistake there. Did she wear some identification that distinguished her from protestors?


----------



## Mintaka (Nov 20, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> If you don't like officers beating the crap  out of you, don't protest.


Lou I am fucking disappoint.

Do we not have a right to peacefully assemble and protest?


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 20, 2011)

Mintaka said:
			
		

> Lou I am fucking disappoint.
> 
> Do we not have a right to peacefully assemble and protest?



Sure you do, but that don't mean you won't get a few bruises in the process. The city has rights too you know. It seems we focus so much on the poor poor protestors and not the cities.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 20, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> Please explain.
> 
> When you have thousands of people in protests where police officers are constantly on watch to keep them in check, of course the police will eventually be demonized and categorized as a private army.
> 
> But, I'm unsure of where you are getting the "preferential treatment" idea. Whose being specially treated?



hurricane katrina, police murdered residents of new orleans trying to cross a bridge that connected to an upscale neighborhood.  They were convicted of this crime.  Police give preferential treatment to the rich, or negative preferential treatment to the poor.



LouDAgreat said:


> Sure you do, but that don't mean you won't get a few bruises in the process. The city has rights too you know. It seems we focus so much on the poor poor protestors and not the cities.



all govt is at the will of the people, cities don't have rights except from the state or the federal govt's powers.  individuals have most rights of all.

u don't even make sense any more, just quit dude


----------



## NanoHaxial (Nov 20, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> If you can't see what's wrong with treating people like that, then you are pretty much everything that's wrong with the United States of America.
> 
> 
> Here is an officer of the law defending himself against 20 violent student protestors.  Clearly his person is in danger.



The officers have a job to remove protesters who have refused to leave and are violating the law. I never said that they were defending themselves or that they were in danger. I said that pepper spray was a better alternative (for both sides) than physically trying to push, pull, pry, or in some other way force the protesters apart.



> Why is it that nearly every escalation of violence at an OWS protest is begun by the police?  I thought they were supposed to keep the peace.
> 
> Also the official explanation of the UC Davis events is bullshit if you watch the video.  The students only surrounded them after the officers sprayed protestors.


They were told to leave. The majority did, while a small minority choose to remain behind and lock arms around their encampment. I'd say the protesters are the ones escalating the situation and forcing a confrontation with the police.

I sympathize with many of the aims of the Occupy protests, but I have no sympathy for those individuals.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 20, 2011)

NSU said:
			
		

> all govt is at the will of the people, cities don't have rights except from the state or the federal govt's powers. individuals have most rights of all.
> 
> u don't even make sense any more, just quit dude



lol, you speak as though the will of the people is the same. Idealist drivel. Don't be deluded by "We are the 99%". That's Class A propaganda right there. 

Tell me oh wonderful genius, whats New York State and the federal government saying to the NYPD and mayor of New York City on this matter? Last I checked, they are deferring the issue to the mayor. Whatever charter New York City has with New York State, New York City still has autonomy over the NYPD. So you're statements makes no sense. 

Continue smoking the shit OWS hipsters gave you.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 20, 2011)

cities don't have rights, people have rights.  it's constitution 101. get with the program


----------



## danicura (Nov 20, 2011)

This is really going worldwide. But I understand the reason for all these protests.. It's just us and our material needs..


----------



## Ra (Nov 20, 2011)

> If you don't like officers beating the crap out of you, don't protest.



We should never protest because that would block the streets and side walks. If your protest happens to be big enough to block streets and sidewalks then protesters right to protest and freedom of speech is thereby relinquished. 

Thus you shall never protest against corporate greed and you should allow corrupt thugs to rape you and the nation and speak nothing about it. Am I fucking right Lou?


----------



## Toby (Nov 20, 2011)

Aaaaactually

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmJmmnMkuEM[/YOUTUBE]

What happened at UC Davis was that a bunch of students demonstrated out of solidarity for their fellow students who were beaten and arrested by police, and due to tuition increases. This demonstration was encouraged by assistant professor at UC Davis school, Nathan Brown. The police were unlawfully brought onto campus property, as is the case with UC Berkeley as well. The person who called them in at UC Davis was apparently Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi. .

There was never any precedent for police to enter the campus area on either school. These universities have their own campus security, and they most certainly would not be required to be present either given that these protestors were not instigating a god damn fucking thing. As is the case with most universities, the only time a security team is required is when you have either two strongly ideologically composed factions meeting for a debate on campus, or when somebody with a criminal record is going to be attending an event that is open to the public. Otherwise, they make up BS requirements like "excess capacity". Basically, too many students in one area justifies the need for security.

In either case however, none of these protests have encouraged the use of violence among students. They are simply a bunch of students howling demands at their universities, and the universities responding by use of force. I see no attempt or part in the university making a peaceful statement or response to the movements.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Nov 20, 2011)

In other words Naziism right?


----------



## Toby (Nov 20, 2011)

No. I don't think this is done out of malice. I think the Chancellor and the others responsible are lazy, underqualified beasts of sloth that are responsible for the decline of American schools. If people took these positions seriously then maybe there wouldn't be so many tools in charge of schools and other important public institutions.

But it could also be that the chancellor just genuinely doesn't like students. I don't know. It's pathetic either way and she should stand trial for this.


----------



## Son of Goku (Nov 20, 2011)

Coteaz said:


> LouDAgreat said:
> 
> 
> > If you don't like officers beating the crap out of you, don't protest.
> ...



Of course Putin would agree. 

It's sad that people like that get to live in relatively free societies, whereas others who would really value that freedom and would fight to defend it, get slaughtered on the streets of e.g. Iran.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 20, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVHNlPimqfE[/YOUTUBE]

The march to DC, for the people who genuinely think OWS should protest in DC (which it did anyway)


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 20, 2011)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> cities don't have rights, people have rights.  it's constitution 101. get with the program



Time Place Manner restrictions. Learn your civil liberties cases son.


----------



## LouDAgreat (Nov 20, 2011)

Ra said:
			
		

> We should never protest because that would block the streets and side walks. If your protest happens to be big enough to block streets and sidewalks then protesters right to protest and freedom of speech is thereby relinquished.
> 
> Thus you shall never protest against corporate greed and you should allow corrupt thugs to rape you and the nation and speak nothing about it. Am I fucking right Lou?



First off, this movement is fucking meaningless the way its going now with decentralized protests across the country and not in a single unified protest in a place of real power.. WASHINGTON D.C Protesting in front of Wall Street is fucking meaningless and a waste of time. If they are serious about change and reform, then these people are clueless of how to exact it. 

I don't give a darn if they are the 99%, if you're not showing a coherent and cohesive message and are demonstrating a serious attempt to influence politicians to address your issues, then get the fuck out. 

I don't sympathize with hipsters wearing V for Vendetta masks, or people who want to uproot the capitalist system.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 20, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> First off, this movement is fucking meaningless the way its going now with decentralized protests across the country and not in a single unified protest in a place of real power.. WASHINGTON D.C Protesting in front of Wall Street is fucking meaningless and a waste of time. If they are serious about change and reform, then these people are clueless of how to exact it.
> 
> I don't give a darn if they are the 99%, if you're not showing a coherent and cohesive message and are demonstrating a serious attempt to influence politicians to address your issues, then get the fuck out.
> 
> I don't sympathize with hipsters wearing V for Vendetta masks, or people who want to uproot the capitalist system.



november 17 was a national day to action (national protests) which was followed thru on throughout the nation.  As decentralized as the OWS is , we sure seem to know who's doing what


----------



## Snipeee (Nov 20, 2011)

LouDAgreat said:


> First off, this movement is fucking meaningless the way its going now with decentralized protests across the country and not in a single unified protest in a place of real power.. WASHINGTON D.C Protesting in front of Wall Street is fucking meaningless and a waste of time. If they are serious about change and reform, then these people are clueless of how to exact it.
> 
> I don't give a darn if they are the 99%, if you're not showing a coherent and cohesive message and are demonstrating a serious attempt to influence politicians to address your issues, then get the fuck out.
> 
> I don't sympathize with hipsters wearing V for Vendetta masks, or people who want to uproot the capitalist system.



I sympathize with you on much of this post, but I do not understand why you are so angry about it. The Occupy movement has gotten mainstream and diluted. This is a fair point. However, you still sense that they are united against corporatism, income equality, and corruption. Everyone on the ground is expressing support for the protest in their own way, even if the authenticity of it is questionable. What matters is that we still hear an overarching leftist voice through the chaos. It takes time for change to happen, but they have already moved the conversation in the right direction. Seizing control of the policy agenda is an invaluable victory. If you were running the Occupy protests, then what would you do? What can you do?

To start off, I would return to the movement's roots and focus on financial regulation. I see the "We are the 99%" slogan as a message against the Wall Street executives who tore apart the economy for personal profit. I see it literally; capitalists and Marxists alike have reasons to oppose the corruption of our democracy and to rein in an industry that is riddled with fraud. This is a more narrow goal that is more easily defined with specific remedies available through public policy. With that accomplished, then perhaps they could focus on making the tax code more progressive by closing loopholes or demanding the top 1% pay more. Of course, the Occupy protests are organic and will take time to organize. It has not even been three months since they have started.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Nov 21, 2011)

Someone may find this interesting:


----------



## ovanz (Nov 21, 2011)

But i wanna be a greedy corporate, damn hippies protesting to appear on teh news =/


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 21, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> The London Riots were also caused by the police using excessive force.  Clearly the problem here is that excessive uses of force by the police is incitement to riot, which happens to be a criminal offense.
> 
> Therefore in order to not incite the public to riot with their actions, the police must act in a manner as to not be perceived as using excessive force.



Except that it wasn't that simple. That act of police brutality might have started the riots, but the rioters later used it as a general pretext to loot and vandalize without consequences. Most of the rioters weren't rioting because of the excessive use of police force. In fact, if anything the British police allowed the riots to spread because they were not forceful enough, and it was noted that they often preferred to stand by and watch rioters go wild rather than use force to put them down. However, this lead to the rioters not fearing the police, and the result was anarchy.


----------



## Ae (Nov 21, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnR7xET7Uo[/YOUTUBE]

I like how the video starts when they are about to start spraying them. I would like to see how "peaceful' it really was.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 21, 2011)

This article gives a pretty good article and what alot of people in NF and in the real world have a problem with the OWS protests.



> What Democracy Looks Like
> November 16th, 2011 ? 24 Comments
> 
> Almost everything about the execution of yesterday’s eviction of protesters from Zuccotti Park was an outrage, from the interference with reporters seeking to cover the event, to the needless destruction of protesters’ property, to Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s stunningly lawless disregard for a court order restraining the city. But on the underlying question of whether the city must allow any group to set up a tent city in public space indefinitely, I think Doug Mataconis gets it right: *There’s no First Amendment right to camp out in a park, and no reason to think that there’s anything constitutionally offensive about a content-neutral rule designed to ensure that public parks can continue to be used as, well, parks. People, of course, have every right to speak their mind in public (or, in this instance, quasi-public) space. But laying down dozens of tents and announcing that you and your friends intend to live there indefinitely always sounded suspiciously like an attempt to, in effect, privatize that public space.*
> ...


----------



## Ludwig The Holy Blade (Nov 21, 2011)

I'm a little confused here guys, so maybe you can help me out. The goal of OWS is to bring fat cat bankers to task for their crimes right?

I'm just wondering, how does blocking the side walk fit into this master-plan? Guess what, the fact that you are "protesting" does not give you the right to indiscriminately break laws without repercussion. Especially when breaking said law has NOTHING to do with your stated goals.

And if it sounds like I think the students were committing some kind of heinous act, I don't. Their offence was minor, which is why they were subjected to the lowest level of physical force. In the long video it's clear that they were made well aware of what was going to happen, and had plenty of time to move. There are some blatant lies floating around the internet, for example, it's being widely reported that some students had their mouths forced open and were sprayed in the throat. There is no sign of this in the full video of the incident.

Of course, I know it's not as simple as cops=good, protesters=bad. But in this case, all I'm seeing is a massive over-reaction to pepper spray being used for its intended purpose.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 21, 2011)

hcheng02 said:


> Except that it wasn't that simple. That act of police brutality might have started the riots, but the rioters later used it as a general pretext to loot and vandalize without consequences.



It was that simple.  The police threw a firebomb into a situation that was ripe to explode, and therefore bear ultimate responsibility for starting the London riots.  A forest may be full of flammable materials, but if someone sets fire to it and homes are destroyed, we prosecute the arsonist & not the trees.

People riot because the law loses legitimacy, and the unjust use of force does nothing to establish or reinforce the legitimacy of the rule of law since government is wholly by the consent of the governed.

@Doggie
There were plenty of choices that did not involve an improper use of force on the behalf of the police.  Spraying people in the face with caustic chemicals for committing the egregious crime of sitting on a sidewalk is not okay.  There wasn't even a law against what they were doing, and it wasn't even against University Policy.  You just presumed that there was.

How does assaulting peaceful protestors fit into the master plan of upholding the rule of law?  

@Others
I thought California was a liberal bastion, with a long history of protests & activism.  Why is it that most of the most egregious civil riots violations by the police seem to occur in Cali?  That makes no fucking sense whatsoever.  You'd think cops there would be trained regarding how to deal with peaceful protests.


----------



## Mael (Nov 21, 2011)

@Space: You really don't know Cali that well, do you?

This is the place that had riots over the Lakers and then let's not forget the Rodney King fiasco.  It's an socioethnic clusterfuck mixed with a grab-bag of social conservatives, social liberals, fiscal conservatives, environmental liberals, etc.  Everyone sees LA and San Fran and thinks that's California in a nutshell.  Yes and no.  The annoying "progressive" and passive-aggressive attitudes, contrary to NY and Boston's cold and bitter, are very much alive, but half the time the place is a societal tinderbox.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Nov 21, 2011)

> There wasn't even a law against what they were doing, and it wasn't even against University Policy.



That's not what I've read.



> However, we also have a responsibility to our entire campus community, including the parents who have entrusted their students to us, to ensure that all can live, learn and work in a safe, secure environment without disruption. We take this responsibility seriously. We are accountable for what occurs on our campus. Campus policies generously support free speech, but do include limited time, place and manner regulations to protect health, safety and the ability of students, staff, and faculty to accomplish the University mission. If an unfortunate incident occurs as a result of violations of these limited regulations, we are all responsible.
> 
> We are aware that many of those involved in the recent demonstrations on campus are not members of the UC Davis community. This requires us to be even more vigilant about the safety of our students, faculty and staff. While we have appreciated the peaceful and respectful tone of the demonstrations to date, the current encampment raises serious health, safety and legal concerns, and the resources we require to supervise this encampment cannot be sustained, especially in these very tight economic times. Our resources must support our core mission to educate all of our students.
> 
> I must now ask that all tents be peacefully removed by 3:00 p.m. today in the interest of safety, respect for our campus environment and in accordance with our Principles of Community.





> The group did not respond to requests from administration and campus police to comply with campus rules that exist to protect the health and safety of our campus community. The group was informed in writing this morning that the encampment violated regulations designed to protect the health and safety of students, staff and faculty. The group was further informed that if they did not dismantle the encampment, it would have to be removed.





> On Thursday, the group stayed overnight despite repeated reminders by university staff that their encampment violated university policies and they were requested to disperse.





> Ten students were arrested and cited for unlawful assembly and failure to disperse.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 21, 2011)

NanoHaxial said:


> That's not what I've read.



Where the hell in those university policies does it say that making non-exclusive use of a public thoroughfare warrants being assaulted by the police?  There are no tents in the video, just police officers making criminally bad decisions.  

The fact that people were arrested proves absolutely nothing about whether or not the eviction was carried out in an ethical manner.

I think I've figured out why some people don't understand why OWS types get so worked up over the use of excessive force.  They presume the police, as officers of the law, to be innocent until proven guilty.

Unfortunately the bill of rights and the tenth amendment do not work that way.  If you are in a position of leadership, including being a police officer, you must provide positive justification for any use of coercion--as the government's agent you cannot plead the 10th Amendment.

Officers involved in the incident and their Chief are all now on paid administrative leave pending review of the incident.  That's pretty much an implicit admission that they fucked up.


----------



## hcheng02 (Nov 21, 2011)

The Space Cowboy said:


> It was that simple.  The police threw a firebomb into a situation that was ripe to explode, and therefore bear ultimate responsibility for starting the London riots.  A forest may be full of flammable materials, but if someone sets fire to it and homes are destroyed, we prosecute the arsonist & not the trees.
> 
> People riot because the law loses legitimacy, and the unjust use of force does nothing to establish or reinforce the legitimacy of the rule of law since government is wholly by the consent of the governed.



No it wasn't. If the British police had used proper force then the rioters would not have done half as much damage. The rioters were not interested in the the victim of police brutality, but rather using it as an excuse to take what they want because they felt they were entitled to it, which is the essence of anarchy. 

Laws require both legitimacy and force to work. A law can be perfectly legitimate but if it is unenfoceable then it is good as dead. The British police is a picture perfect example of what happens if police are afraid to use force. Police brutality only hurts a few, but anarchy hurts all. Better a few crushed skulls then burned out buildings. 

And why shouldn't police be considered innocent until proven guilty? Last time I checked, that applies to any civilian which includes cops. And furthermore, the cops had reason to use coercion - to enforce the laws setting regulations on time, place, and manner of protests. The 1st Amendment doesn't ban demonstrations for their content, but it can certainly be curtailed depending on the manner of the said protest.


----------



## NanoHaxial (Nov 21, 2011)

> Where the hell in those university policies does it say that making non-exclusive use of a public thoroughfare warrants being assaulted by the police?


Nice strawman. University policy prohibits the tents and camping. The protesters were told they could continue the protest, but that the tents had to be removed. The vast majority complied, a small group did not but instead choose to try and force a confrontation. 



> There are no tents in the video, just police officers making criminally bad decisions.


The fact that you don't see the tents doesn't mean that they weren't there.



> Graduate student A.J. Morgan said dozens of police officers in riot gear used pepper spray on students who tried to protect the "Occupy UC Davis" camp by locking arms and forming a human chain around the tents.





> The fact that people were arrested proves absolutely nothing about whether or not the eviction was carried out in an ethical manner.


You stated the students weren't violating university policy or the law. That is clearly not true.



> I think I've figured out why some people don't understand why OWS types get so worked up over the use of excessive force.


Perhaps because I don't agree with the opinion that the officers used excessive force. They officers have a job to do, and it's not going to happen by asking nicely. They need to use some sort of force, and people will complain regardless of what that force happens to be. I personally think pepper spray is a better choice than batons or bean bags.



> They presume the police, as officers of the law, to be innocent until proven guilty.


And they aren't for some reason?



> Unfortunately the bill of rights and the tenth amendment do not work that way. If you are in a position of leadership, including being a police officer, you must provide positive justification for any use of coercion--as the government's agent you cannot plead the 10th Amendment.


The police have the right to use whatever force is reasonably necessary. These officers felt pepper spray was an appropriate amount of force. 



> Officers involved in the incident and their Chief are all now on paid administrative leave pending review of the incident. That's pretty much an implicit admission that they fucked up.


They are on paid leave because of the massive attention and uproar over the incident. That says nothing about whether they did anything wrong. Police officers are also routinely put on paid leave after shooting incidents, that doesn't automatically mean they've done something wrong.

More information on police policies:



> Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department's use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a "compliance tool" that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters.
> 
> "When you start picking up human bodies, you risk hurting them," Kelly said. "Bodies don't have handles on them."
> 
> ...


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 22, 2011)

Ron paul supports the 99%



> A handful of Occupy Wall Street activists disrupted a well-attended town hall hosted by Rep. Ron Paul at Keene State College Monday.
> 
> After a moderator announced Paul would be taking his last question, a man in the audience stood up and yelled "Mic check!"
> 
> ...





Despite some people slandering Ron  paul he has great appeal to many americans , and he's the only republican to state he stands with the 1%, even though I bet he'll qualify that later on.


----------



## Mael (Nov 22, 2011)

^Wow...that's awesome...now let's see if he'll pull a winning chance out of his hat. 

Ron Paul champions the very things that allow for corporate manipulation, the lazy fairy form of capitalism.  He can go suck a fat one.


----------



## The Space Cowboy (Nov 22, 2011)

NanoHaxial said:


> Nice strawman. University policy prohibits the tents and camping. The protesters were told they could continue the protest, but that the tents had to be removed. The vast majority complied, a small group did not but instead choose to try and force a confrontation.



Update:



> "I am here to apologize," were the first words Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi said through a microphone after climbing onto a small stage erected on the university's "quad" for Occupy supporters. "I really feel horrible for what happened on Friday."
> 
> Video of police pepper-spraying nonviolent demonstrators at a sitting protest Friday on the UC Davis campus has sparked widespread criticism, including calls for Katehi's resignation.
> 
> "If you think you don't want to be students in a university like we had on Friday," Katehi said, "I'm just telling you I don't want to be the chancellor of the university we had on Friday."



The boss of the police officers in question has just admitted that the use of pepper spray was wrong & excessive.  All else is immaterial.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Nov 23, 2011)

Occupy Vanocuver, Toronto, and Yukon have all been closed down. Occupy Edmonton was advised they would be closed down as of yesterday, but they are still standing. Occupy Montreal has not been closed down, and it looks like there is no plan to shut them down from the brace or public. All in all then, Occupy Canada was beaten by the weather. The same will probably occur in whatever states in the USA that are cold. it looks like the whole notion of Occupying was an unsustainable ideal from the start, and one that has made absolutely no chance in legislature. The movement my yet be young, but it seems all the more pressing with "in your face support" drying up that some kind of leader ( or at least a figure head) be nominated to push the occupy agenda. Once again then, I nominate Kayne West.


----------



## delirium (Nov 23, 2011)

Masterpiece said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjnR7xET7Uo[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> I like how the video starts when they are about to start spraying them. I would like to see how "peaceful' it really was.



Very peaceful. They were just sitting down the whole time. I work at UC Davis's radio station, KDVS. I was there and many of my friends were there as well.

That isn't the only video online, either. There's tons of them. Everyone had their phones out. It was pretty well documented.



> Their offence was minor, which is why they were subjected to the lowest level of physical force. In the long video it's clear that they were made well aware of what was going to happen, and had plenty of time to move. There are some blatant lies floating around the internet, for example, it's being widely reported that some students had their mouths forced open and were sprayed in the throat. There is no sign of this in the full video of the incident.



Pepper spray is not the lowest level of force. It is especially obvious when you're watching someone in front of you cough up blood after getting sprayed in the face twice. Then some of them were sprayed another time.

The problem is that even after they were sprayed, the police had no easier time picking them up from the ground and dragging them. And they did it anyway. So if they were just going to do that then they didn't need to pepper spray them multiple times.

Then the  reason that the police used the pepper spray was because, in their words, they felt "threatened" and were surrounded by the students. That they couldn't escape. But that couldn't be right since we can see Pike move freely. He even walks _over_ the students so he can be in front of them. After it had happened they back peddled and Katehi made a statement saying that the people who "threatened" the police were not students of UC Davis. That again was a lie though since the only ones protesting on Friday were students.


----------



## AmigoOne (Nov 24, 2011)

AmigoOne said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buovLQ9qyWQ[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> New one video, I felt like this one was important cause its pretty goddamn clear unlike most other ones. No visible provocation for a significant amount of time to cause the act of aggression seen from the police. This protest actually seems like a peaceful one.



No one commented on my video


----------

