#OccupyWallStreet. Why is this not getting major MSM attention?

[.blank cd]

There are hundreds of people marching on Wall Street right now. People are being illegally attacked by the NYPD. Why isnt this getting coverage like Tea Party events do? Is this too real for mainstream America to comprehend? Are we too busy sitting on the couch eating our McDonalds and Coke watching Nancy Grace's crazy ass on "DWTS"? Is it because they're shouting right wing rhetoric like "OBUMBA", "BIRTH CERTIFICATE", "GAYS SHOULDNT MARRY", "EVOLUTION IS A THEORY"? I'm not one to don the tin foil hat, but maybe Gil Scott Heron was right. The revolution will not be televised. This looks like revolution pt.1 to me

[ash7]

No, when/if there is a mass uprising, it will not make major news in order to isolate those people and make them lose heart. Surprisingly enough, the video game Mirrors Edge has a storyline based on what i believe to be this country's very near future - if it has not already come to pass.

Government is only interested in three things:

1) Self Preservation
2) Control
3) Expansion

-jonathan

[CSquared]

I jump on google news quite a few times throughout the day and have seen more than a few stories about it, so it's not like there is no coverage whatsoever. I don't particularly pay attention to television or traditional print media so I can't so much speak for that. None the less I think we have a long way to go before there is a straight uprising. That's asking a lot of fat lazy Americans like myself to get up off their ass and do something about the pointless democrat-republican dance doing absolutely nothing to help the country.

[cactusEG]

I posted some vids about this in the VID section. Some of the cops crossed the line. It was bad from what I saw.
All I know is alot of cops and the city is going to get the pants sued off them !

[bu villain]

Why should this receive a lot of attention? From what I've read it was only a thousand protestors on the opening days and the numbers decreased every day thereafter. Not exactly a revolution. Not to mention they seem not to have any specific goals they agree upon. If I'm wrong, I open to learning more.

[Browning151]

You'd be better served to "#OccupyCapitolHill" and protest the abysmal performance of our elected officials, no matter what side of the aisle you reside on. The United States Congress has become a huge joke, full of nothing more than political posturing and self preservation.

[.blank cd]

Why should this receive a lot of attention? From what I've read it was only a thousand protestors on the opening days and the numbers decreased every day thereafter. Not exactly a revolution. Not to mention they seem not to have any specific goals they agree upon. If I'm wrong, I open to learning more.There is an unofficial list of grievances. The number dwindled down for a bit, but its continued to rise. The pilots union and I think the transit union has pledged to join onboard. Why should it not receive a lot of attention? Well...why shouldnt it? Its people trying to get their voices heard. Its people trying to do something to change the way corporations are running the country

Grievances: http://www.scribd.com/doc/66751652/Grievances


You'd be better served to "#OccupyCapitolHill" and protest the abysmal performance of our elected officials, no matter what side of the aisle you reside on. The United States Congress has become a huge joke, full of nothing more than political posturing and self preservation.#OccupyDC is on Oct. 6th. Supposed to be bigger than Wall St.

[J. Jean]

wow i appreciate the op keeping us filled in. I know I try to stay current with things of this nature but unfortunately have been going through some personal issues. It just seems as though things are on a perpetual downfall in this country. I believe a lot more is happening than we realize

[.blank cd]

http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

[SampaGuy]

I was in NYC for work last week and walked through these clowns camping near wall st. Looked like just the typical potheads you see at every protest to me.

[.blank cd]

I was in NYC for work last week and walked through these clowns camping near wall st. Looked like just the typical potheads you see at every protest to me.Ignorance is bliss, huh?

[Browning151]

My girlfriend and I got a good laugh at this last night while watching the news. They interviewed a woman from Wisconsin or Minnesota, somewhere around there, that said "I've been unemployed for 2 years, having trouble paying my mortgage and providing for my 2 teenage sons and I'm not sure if I'll be able to send them to college now." So let me get this straight, you've been out of work for 2 years, you're struggling to make ends meet and yet you spend who knows how much money to get to NYC and waste 2 weeks to protest Wall Street, instead of putting that time into continuing to look for a job, and putting that money toward supporting your family? Logic fail.

[SampaGuy]

My girlfriend and I got a good laugh at this last night while watching the news. They interviewed a woman from Wisconsin or Minnesota, somewhere around there, that said "I've been unemployed for 2 years, having trouble paying my mortgage and providing for my 2 teenage sons and I'm not sure if I'll be able to send them to college now." So let me get this straight, you've been out of work for 2 years, you're struggling to make ends meet and yet you spend who knows how much money to get to NYC and waste 2 weeks to protest Wall Street, instead of putting that time into continuing to look for a job, and putting that money toward supporting your family? Logic fail.

Exactly. Yes, Wall street needs reform, but the people protesting are idiots that have no clue what they are talking about and are not going to change anything.

[.blank cd]

My girlfriend and I got a good laugh at this last night while watching the news. They interviewed a woman from Wisconsin or Minnesota, somewhere around there, that said "I've been unemployed for 2 years, having trouble paying my mortgage and providing for my 2 teenage sons and I'm not sure if I'll be able to send them to college now." So let me get this straight, you've been out of work for 2 years, you're struggling to make ends meet and yet you spend who knows how much money to get to NYC and waste 2 weeks to protest Wall Street, instead of putting that time into continuing to look for a job, and putting that money toward supporting your family? Logic fail.You can spin it however you want, or take a miniscule cross section of who's turning out and apply it to everyone if you want, but THAT is "logic fail"


Exactly. Yes, Wall street needs reform, but the people protesting are idiots that have no clue what they are talking about and are not going to change anything.Yes wall street needs serious reform, DC needs serious reform. What are you doing about it?

[2turbo4u]

Blank CD most people believe if it's not effecting me who give a damn, that's why you get some of these reponses. I have heard these protest are popping up in other states as well!

[SampaGuy]

Yes wall street needs serious reform, DC needs serious reform. What are you doing about it?

My friend and I were talking the other day how they should bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, and how that would affect things. That by itself is much more productive than the protesters, who are focused on complaining, not on coming up with real solutions. I was serious when I said it looked like a bunch of potheads and bums camping over there.

[Browning151]

You can spin it however you want, or take a miniscule cross section of who's turning out and apply it to everyone if you want, but THAT is "logic fail"

What exactly did I spin? She's taking time away from finding work and money away from supporting her family to travel half way across the country and walk up and down a street holding a sign. Sounds like poor decision making to me. Also, nowhere in my comment did I apply it to everyone that is protesting, but nice try.

[bu villain]

There is an unofficial list of grievances. The number dwindled down for a bit, but its continued to rise. The pilots union and I think the transit union has pledged to join onboard. Why should it not receive a lot of attention? Well...why shouldnt it? Its people trying to get their voices heard. Its people trying to do something to change the way corporations are running the country

Grievances: http://www.scribd.com/doc/66751652/Grievances

#OccupyDC is on Oct. 6th. Supposed to be bigger than Wall St.

I definitely think it deserves some attention (especially compared to some of the things the media spends so much time on) but it just doesn't seem like a big enough protest to warrant a huge amount of coverage either. Just remember that just because you agree with their greivances doesn't make it front page news.

That being said, it does seem to be growing and getting more attention. Just today I noticed several articles on my news listings about it.

[bu villain]

My friend and I were talking the other day how they should bring back the Glass-Steagall Act, and how that would affect things. That by itself is much more productive than the protesters, who are focused on complaining, not on coming up with real solutions. I was serious when I said it looked like a bunch of potheads and bums camping over there.

I completely disagree with this way of thinking. You and your friend discussing policy will never affect anything. You may even figure out the perfect solution but until you take some action, it doesn't matter. On the other hand, protesting can cause actual change even if the protestors don't have a solution themselves. It is much harder to ignore a thousand people in front of a major financial institution than two policy buffs talking on the phone.

[BLACK_EK9]

:goodjob:


I completely disagree with this way of thinking. You and your friend discussing policy will never affect anything. You may even figure out the perfect solution but until you take some action, it doesn't matter. On the other hand, protesting can cause actual change even if the protestors don't have a solution themselves. It is much harder to ignore a thousand people in front of a major financial institution than two policy buffs talking on the phone.

[BanginJimmy]

This should be fun.

The Grievances:

1: campaign Finance reform.

Take this to congress and have them write a bill that doesnt violate the constitution. The SC believes that institutions should be allowed the right to have their voices hear as well as the people.

2. True Shared Sacrifice.

This one was laughable. "Taxes on those that practice greed should be raised" HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH. I guess whoever wrote this is a bit jealous of people that make more money than him/her. I do agree with SHARED sacrifice though. I believe a 20% flat tax on ALL forms of income should be about right, at least until we can get the fair tax. So now you pay 20% of your income in fedral taxes whether you make 20k or 20 mil. Roughly speaking, the top 1% of income earners ear about 19% of income and pay about 39% of income taxes. So I wonder who ISNT paying their fair share.

BTW, can someone define greed?

3. Equality of Justice

Show me a case where people dont get equal treatment when considering the same quality of lawyer. Successful people can afford better things, this includes the services of a better lawyer.

4. End the Revolving Door
A fine goal, and one I agree with. The idiots portesting Wall St. are in the wrong city though. Shouldnt they be try going to DC with this instead of making traffic even worse for NYers?





http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

Another list of demands from these idiots.

Nothing to see here people. Just a bunch of whiners with nothing better to do.

[bu villain]

1: campaign Finance reform.

Take this to congress and have them write a bill that doesnt violate the constitution. The SC believes that institutions should be allowed the right to have their voices hear as well as the people.

How do you feel about putting limits on how much candidates can spend on a campaign or perhaps public financing? What do you think would be the downside of decreasing the influence of money in a campaign?


BTW, can someone define greed?

You hit on an important point here I think. There is no universal definition for greed. Same goes for fairness. You say fairness is based on how much someone pays in income tax, they seem to say it is based on what percentage of income someone pays on ALL taxes or perhaps on their ability to pay (they weren't clear). When we don't agree on what is "greedy" or "fair", these words only obfuscate the discussion.



3. Equality of Justice

Show me a case where people dont get equal treatment when considering the same quality of lawyer. Successful people can afford better things, this includes the services of a better lawyer.

Many people feel (myself included) that having more money should NOT give you an advantage in a court case. This is off topic but I noticed you equate "successful" with having lots of money.

[BanginJimmy]

How do you feel about putting limits on how much candidates can spend on a campaign or perhaps public financing? What do you think would be the downside of decreasing the influence of money in a campaign?

I would have no problems with that. I believe that removing money from the equation would allow people from all backgrounds to run for public office. Right now, you must be wealthy or have wealthy backers in place to run for a state wide or federal office. This limits the number of people with a chance to run to a very predictable few. One more advantage is that either limited finances or public financing would release the stranglehold that the 2 major parties have on American politics.

The downside is pretty obvious to me, it will prevent everyday people, who dont have time for the volunteer work, from entering the political arena.




You hit on an important point here I think. There is no universal definition for greed. Same goes for fairness. You say fairness is based on how much someone pays in income tax, they seem to say it is based on what percentage of income someone pays on ALL taxes or perhaps on their ability to pay (they weren't clear). When we don't agree on what is "greedy" or "fair", these words only obfuscate the discussion.

Lets face reality, the people that are currently throwing around the word are referring to anyone that has more money than they do. Its about wealth envy, nothing more.


To make things clear as to where I sit on this word. I believe that there is nothing wrong with making as much money as you can. I dont care if you take advantage of every tax loophole and 'receptive' politician there is to amass more money. As long as you dont cross that line and do something that is explicitly illegal I dont consider you greedy. I do consider the guy that refuses to take, and work hard at, a $10/hr job and robs a bank instead to be greedy.




Many people feel (myself included) that having more money should NOT give you an advantage in a court case.


This leads me to believe that you think all lawyers should be paid the same rate, no matter their skill. If you are in court for your life, do you want to Harvard grad or do you want to guy that went to community college to lead your defense? If both are going to charge $100/hr, what do you think your chances are that A. the Harvard grad will be available, and B. there will be a Harvard grad to start with?

Should this only extend to criminal law? What about business law, property law and civil law?


This is off topic but I noticed you equate "successful" with having lots of money.

Maybe a poor choice of words but still accurate. Being successful doesnt mean you have lots of money, but you will have more than the 30yo loser that works at McD's.

[bu villain]

The downside is pretty obvious to me, it will prevent everyday people, who dont have time for the volunteer work, from entering the political arena.

I think we agree in regards to it being better to limit moneys influence on elections. I understand with what you are saying about people sometimes having more money than time but I would argue that everyday people don't have enough money to sway the politcal arena much as it is now anyways.


Lets face reality, the people that are currently throwing around the word are referring to anyone that has more money than they do. Its about wealth envy, nothing more.

How did you determine all the protestors emotions and motivations? It sounds like an assumption to me unless you want to provide some meaningful evidence backing it up. Attacking motives just ignores the actual issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive


To make things clear as to where I sit on this word. I believe that there is nothing wrong with making as much money as you can. I dont care if you take advantage of every tax loophole and 'receptive' politician there is to amass more money. As long as you dont cross that line and do something that is explicitly illegal I dont consider you greedy. I do consider the guy that refuses to take, and work hard at, a $10/hr job and robs a bank instead to be greedy.

That is your opinion and that's fine but you have to accept that quite a few people would disagree. I don't think the legality of something has anything to do with someone being greedy or not. If someone had all the food while everyone else starved, I would consider him greedy even though the law says he can do whatever he wants with his food.

Pretty much everyone would agree with you on the bank robbery part though.

In the end, as I said before, "greed" and "fairness" do not have strict definitions so there is no point in arguing about what the words mean. Instead we should focus on whether the current laws are the best policies or not.


This leads me to believe that you think all lawyers should be paid the same rate, no matter their skill. If you are in court for your life, do you want to Harvard grad or do you want to guy that went to community college to lead your defense? If both are going to charge $100/hr, what do you think your chances are that A. the Harvard grad will be available, and B. there will be a Harvard grad to start with?

Should this only extend to criminal law? What about business law, property law and civil law?

No I am not saying all lawyers should be paid the same. I am not arguing about lawyers salaries at all. What I am arguing is that the justice system should treat all people the same and letting some people have great lawyers and others terrible ones is not an effective way of acheiving justice. Do you think OJ would have gone free if he had a terrible lawyer? Do you think justice was served in that case?


Maybe a poor choice of words but still accurate. Being successful doesnt mean you have lots of money, but you will have more than the 30yo loser that works at McD's.

It's not accurate in my opinion because my definition of successful does not require making money. I don't want to debate semantics, I just found it interesting how differently we define "successful".

[BanginJimmy]

How did you determine all the protestors emotions and motivations? It sounds like an assumption to me unless you want to provide some meaningful evidence backing it up. Attacking motives just ignores the actual issue.

I am basing it off the list of demands that I linked along with the other list that was posted.



I don't think the legality of something has anything to do with someone being greedy or not.

I think it does. There has to be a line to cross between being greedy and not being greedy. Without one, I can just as easily paint you as greedy as these protesters are painting Wall St.



If someone had all the food while everyone else starved, I would consider him greedy even though the law says he can do whatever he wants with his food.

So who determines how much food he is allowed to have?



Instead we should focus on whether the current laws are the best policies or not.

Of course they arent. They were drawn up by men and women whose first and only goal is re-election.




No I am not saying all lawyers should be paid the same. I am not arguing about lawyers salaries at all. What I am arguing is that the justice system should treat all people the same and letting some people have great lawyers and others terrible ones is not an effective way of acheiving justice.

So should everyone have a crappy, low budget lawyer or should everyone have an outstanding lawyer? If everyone is going to have these great, high priced, lawyers, who is going to pay for them when the defendant cannot?




Do you think OJ would have gone free if he had a terrible lawyer? Do you think justice was served in that case?

OJ got off because of a corrupt, racist detective forging evidence. Without the doubt that was created by Furman, OJ was toast. Back to your point though, I dont know that a cheap lawyer would have been able to find and take advantage of that forged evidence.




It's not accurate in my opinion because my definition of successful does not require making money. I don't want to debate semantics, I just found it interesting how differently we define "successful".


We dont differ as much as your think. Success doesnt require making money, money is a byproduct of success. It doesnt matter what your area of success is. A successful writer sells more books and makes more money. A successful firefighter gets promoted and makes more money.

[cyb593]

This is dumb, these corporations keep this economy going. Well whats left after this class warfare rhetoric bullshit. He is fundamentally transforming this country into another civil war. As the top 10% of income earners pay 69% of the taxes. Shit the top 50% pay 97 % of the taxes. These people on wall street are just looking for handouts. Thats all this is about. I don't make much but i strive for my money and excellence and one day i will earn my money like they did. The bottom 50 percent pay all of 2% of all taxes. Obviously these guys have nothing better to do then sit down there. Not to mention people that "live in poverty" have a lot more items than alot of people that dont meet the government standard of poverty.

"Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actu*ally own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV.

Only 6 percent of poor households are over*crowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions.

Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens; 67 percent have a DVD player; 73 percent have a VCR; 47 percent have a computer.

The average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals by poor children is indistinguishable from that of children in the upper middle class. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than middle-
class boys of similar age were in the late 1950s. They are a full inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy during World War II."

These are the people down there protesting. This country is taking care of plenty of people already especially when i am in the damn grocery store and some bitch in front of me is sliding a EBT card for candy, soda and whatever the hell she wants. Wearing name brand clothes and hops in a Lexus to drive off. These hippies need to go home and and let these companies do what they do best. This president needs to step out of the way of these businesses to let them do what they do best and leave them alone. Do you see the correlation here. Check this out someone making 4k a year makes more than i do. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/255012/why-work-veronique-de-rugy

Baraca Obama says - The rich aren't paying enough money, the stocks drop. Next speech The rich need to pay their fair share, market drops again and its a endless cycle. These businesses see they are under attack so they are hiding their money and not hiring. The more they hire the bigger they get the more they get attacked for being evil. If this president is smart he would back off. Think about the damage that would be caused if these corporations folded up shop all at once and left. What then? This country would collapse completely.

Also think about how they got all these Iphones and Macbooks down there on wall street if they are so poor. Sounds like a lot of bad spending when you cant afford it. Especially with these people obviously having no job.

The funny thing is big oil made all of 8% profit last year how much did mac? 23%. Big oil is making to much money? Yet they want to cut the tax cuts for big oil and want the gas prices to raise on people not getting hands out from the government? The people getting handouts will just get more money for gas while the oil companies will have to raise prices to keep the 8% profit they want. And without these "evil" corporations we wouldn't have the technology we have today. No competition = no innovations.

As for politicians they will always lie and cheat to get what they want. They have to take bribes to get into the office. We need to change the system so there is an election for any given office every year no matter what the position. This would keep politicians more in line with what the people want and not force through bullshit legislation.

As for the rich not "sharing the wealth", you want some of there wealth get hired by one of these corporations. They want to expand, they want to grow. They want more employees but instead of these protesters applying for a job they are yelling and screaming about them having millions of dollars.

[redpanda]

the government, which controls the media, isn't going to broadcast the protest because it doesn't want us to know whats going on. the news corporations show what they are told to show, same with the press. our government's always been this corrupted but we can't do shit about it because we've been spoon fed all of our lives with this bullshit (growing up during the tv and internet era we know NOTHING besides the shit entertainment on Youtube and FB.) America is more communist and fascist than old China and Russia.
At first i supported this movement. it's ridiculous how veterans and hard working citizens have to lose their homes. its crazy how people with MBAs can't make more than $20,000/yr and can't get any kind of insurance. and its ABSURD how much school is. im lucky enough to attend a cheap local college, but for kids in bigger institutions getting raped up the ass with bullshit charges on their tuition makes America the biggest scam artist in the world.
Then, I looked into other citizens' perspectives. the ones who aren't involved in the protest; the ones who don't want to be. The 53%. Their opinion is simple..if you're RESPONSIBLE from the start, you won't be graduating with a big debt on a student loan, you won't be living on friends' couches. It makes sense. http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/10/we_are_the_53_percent_tumblr.php
However, i'm not 100% agreeing with any side. I believe big corporations must be less GREEDY. because that's what this is all about: GREED.
Everyone and everything is selfish. some more than others.. i.e. CORPORATIONS and GOVT. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan.. stop trying to be our GOVERNMENT. stop subsidizing stupid politicians who don't know what they're doing. invest in the FUTURE. how will we survive in a 100years when our resources are gone? We can have billions of crazy looking computers and flying cars, but what good is that if we don't have clean air, no real food(govt also needs to stop regulating farms, let farmers grow what they want and how they want to), and no natural sunlight. where are we going to live?
stop investing in the military so much and stop making up bs excuses to spread our fucking nonexistent democracy in other countries, start wars and steal their resources. we dont belong there.
sorry im just blabbing about so much random shit but this is what i believe in. We need to start practicing Globalization on a positive note opposed to taking and abusing powers. Unite with different countries to actually SOLVE problems. Where's all our money going? Use it to better the world America. We're a super power. English is spoken almost everywhere in the world and we produce some of the brightest technological innovations worldwide. Let's stop being wasteful and stupid..

[BanginJimmy]

the government, which controls the media, isn't going to broadcast the protest because it doesn't want us to know whats going on. the news corporations show what they are told to show, same with the press. our government's always been this corrupted but we can't do shit about it because we've been spoon fed all of our lives with this bullshit (growing up during the tv and internet era we know NOTHING besides the shit entertainment on Youtube and FB.)

Wrong. The media is ideologically controlled. If it was govt controlled you would not see the disparity in reporting between Fox News and MSNBC.


America is more communist and fascist than old China and Russia.

CEO's and I believe it was the WSJ said the US had a more anti business environment than China does.



it's ridiculous how veterans and hard working citizens have to lose their homes.

At the start, the people that lost their homes are the ones that purchased homes they couldnt afford to start with. Now, its mainly people that lost their jobs and havent been able to find decent work.



its crazy how people with MBAs can't make more than $20,000/yr

They can make plenty of money if they chose a marketable area of study. Right now, I know 2 small business owners and a hiring manager that are in need of qualified IT people and they cannot find them.



and can't get any kind of insurance.

Insurance is not hard to get unless you fall into that small group of uninsurable people with serious pre-existing conditions.


and its ABSURD how much school is.

This is true. School tuitions have gone through the roof over the last decade.



im lucky enough to attend a cheap local college, but for kids in bigger institutions getting raped up the ass with bullshit charges on their tuition makes America the biggest scam artist in the world.

You arent lucky to goto a smaller, more affordable school, and the kids going to the larger universities are there because they want to be. No one forced either of you to go to the school you are currently at.



I believe big corporations must be less GREEDY. because that's what this is all about: GREED.

Can you define 'greed' and put it in context for us?



invest in the FUTURE. how will we survive in a 100years when our resources are gone? We can have billions of crazy looking computers and flying cars, but what good is that if we don't have clean air, no real food(govt also needs to stop regulating farms, let farmers grow what they want and how they want to), and no natural sunlight. where are we going to live?

If there was a viable alternative and a viable market for it, the private sector would take full advantage of it. The problem is, there are ZERO viable alternative energy sources today.

And to say that major energy corporations are not investing heavily into finding the next major energy source is inaccurate. They ALL want to be the one that takes it to market because the profits would dwarf current ones.



stop investing in the military

So you want to weaken the US military? You would want countries like China and Russia to catch, or even pass us by technologically? I have sad news for you, technology is the only advantage we have over those countries. Without that advantage, the world would be a MUCH more dangerous place than it is today.



so much and stop making up bs excuses to spread our fucking nonexistent democracy in other countries, start wars and steal their resources. we dont belong there.

Why should we stop trying to defend ourselves? Its pretty obvious you are an isolationist, where has that ever gotten us in the past?

I love this whole steal resources crap. It really does make me giggle when I hear it.


sorry im just blabbing

Everyone that tried to read this post knew that.



We need to start practicing Globalization on a positive note opposed to taking and abusing powers. Unite with different countries to actually SOLVE problems. Where's all our money going? Use it to better the world America. We're a super power. English is spoken almost everywhere in the world and we produce some of the brightest technological innovations worldwide. Let's stop being wasteful and stupid..

The largest hurdle to any kind of global problem solving is the United Nations. Another major hurdle is anti americanism. Time for you to face reality. The world is jealous of America. They hate everything we stand for and they never fail to criticize the US for our actions or lack of lack of action. Yet these same countries always seem to have their hands out when they get into trouble.

[.blank cd]

Another list of demands from these idiots.

Nothing to see here people. Just a bunch of whiners with nothing better to do.Where have I heard this before. I know I've heard this somewhere....


Another list of demands from these idiots. Nothing to see here people. Just a bunch of whiners with nothing better to do.Yep. The world would be better off without these whiners begging for equality and stuff...


Lets face reality, the people that are currently throwing around the word are referring to anyone that has more money than they do. Its about wealth envy, nothing more. To make things clear as to where I sit on this word. I believe that there is nothing wrong with making as much money as you can. I dont care if you take advantage of every tax loophole and 'receptive' politician there is to amass more money. As long as you dont cross that line and do something that is explicitly illegal I dont consider you greedy. I do consider the guy that refuses to take, and work hard at, a $10/hr job and robs a bank instead to be greedy.So let me get this straight: The guy that robs a bank is greedy, but the guys that orchestrated the subprime mortage crisis, and those that profited from it are not greedy because nothing illegal happend? You might wanna go look up the definition of greed. Its in the dictionary. So if I paid off congress and bribed enough judges to make grand larceny legal, I could get away with robbing a bank and not be greedy? ::Waiting for the "its not the same thing" argument::


Maybe a poor choice of words but still accurate. Being successful doesnt mean you have lots of money, but you will have more than the 30yo loser that works at McD's.You need to look up the word successful as well. Money is not always a by-product of success. Dr. Jonas Saulk was immensely successful when he developed, patented, and distributed the polio vaccine. He didnt make one single cent on it.


CEO's and I believe it was the WSJ said the US had a more anti business environment than China does.WSJ reported on what the CEO's were claiming


At the start, the people that lost their homes are the ones that purchased homes they couldnt afford to start with. Now, its mainly people that lost their jobs and havent been able to find decent work.Wrong. The people that lost their homes were the ones who were stuck in the bad mortgage loans. It wasnt that they couldnt afford their homes, its that they couldnt afford the balloon payments. Bad economy + Predatory lending = banks seizing homes, owners being upside down on properties. Not many people got more home than they could afford regularly. And the cycle of greed continues.



Insurance is not hard to get unless you fall into that small group of uninsurable people with serious pre-existing conditions.Insurance is still on the verge of unaffordable in the long run if you're making less than $15/hr. Im sure we'll get there one day, but the U.S. is a ways away from a decent socialized healthcare system. ::Waits for the "wait times too long" and the "it will be too expensive" argument::



Can you define 'greed' and put it in context for us?Here's what Merriam-Websters dictionary says (but how accurate can they be, huh?):

greed
noun \ˈgrēd\
Definition of GREED
: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed



Why should we stop trying to defend ourselves? Its pretty obvious you are an isolationist, where has that ever gotten us in the past?We're not defending ourselves anymore. We haven't had to for quite some time. We have the strongest most advanced military in the world, do you really think we're actually "defending" ourselves? Really? "Isolationism" would have saved plenty of lives in Vietnam and plenty of lives in Afghanistan


The largest hurdle to any kind of global problem solving is the United Nations. Another major hurdle is anti americanism. Time for you to face reality. The world is jealous of America. They hate everything we stand for and they never fail to criticize the US for our actions or lack of lack of action. Yet these same countries always seem to have their hands out when they get into trouble.No. The world is not jealous of the U.S. Far from it. Ask a few foriegn nationals, they'll tell you how jealous they are. LOL

[-EnVus-]

The US talks about how Russia,China or N.Korea don't let protest take place or dare to be televised. Yet we are doing the same and trying our best to keep it under raps before anyone notices to much. This is what we are not to far from being....

http://i51.tinypic.com/121psh2.gif

[.blank cd]

The US talks about how Russia,China or N.Korea don't let protest take place or dare to be televised. Yet we are doing the same and trying our best to keep it under raps before anyone notices to much. This is what we are not to far from being....

http://i51.tinypic.com/121psh2.gifOn this note, there was a report saying how many of the Arab Spring protests were handled more civilly than the OWS protests here in the United States. If things keep getting worse, it will probably come to that

[Vteckidd]

Its not getting any attention because its a bunch of hippie protestors that dont even know what they are protesting. Have you seen some of the interviews with the people down there? piercings, blue hair, chain smoking degenerates that dont want a job anyway.

They have no solutions, they just want to bitch about people having money

[.blank cd]

It's pretty irresponsible and uninformed to call them hippies, really. What you see is a small cross section of what's going on down there. I've seen just as many lawyers, factory workers, pilots, military, and well dressed people as you've seen younger people. And that's the whole point. You're not going to see too many well-to-do people out there because they already got theirs. And they have solutions. There's a list of grievances posted on the website

[Vteckidd]

It's pretty irresponsible and uninformed to call them hippies, really. What you see is a small cross section of what's going on down there. I've seen just as many lawyers, factory workers, pilots, military, and well dressed people as you've seen younger people. And that's the whole point. You're not going to see too many well-to-do people out there because they already got theirs. And they have solutions. There's a list of grievances posted on the website

Grievances? Gimme a fucking break. What do they want? They want the RICH to give to them because they cant provide for themsevles. PERIOD. They want other people to suffer because they feel they are entitled to something.

Have you been down to occupy Atlanta? i have. I engaged several people down here. "we are mad at corporate greed man!" what kind of corporate greed?

Its rediculous and brought on by a bunch of no thinkers that couldnt get a job if they wanted to. They have NO SKILLS, no education, no direction, no ambition.

These arent blue collar workers protesting for higher wages, these are ignorant kids protesting they want a free ride.

Hey Occupy Atlanta/Wallstreet people, What do you hope to accomplish? What is your goal? What is your solution? How about you protest Congress and Obamas inaction to provide an environment for you to get hired? how about you protest that.

"LETS PROTEST THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE JOBS BECAUSE WE DONT HAVE JOBS"- yeah makes sense

[Vteckidd]

This is dumb, these corporations keep this economy going. Well whats left after this class warfare rhetoric bullshit. He is fundamentally transforming this country into another civil war. As the top 10% of income earners pay 69% of the taxes. Shit the top 50% pay 97 % of the taxes. These people on wall street are just looking for handouts. Thats all this is about. I don't make much but i strive for my money and excellence and one day i will earn my money like they did. The bottom 50 percent pay all of 2% of all taxes. Obviously these guys have nothing better to do then sit down there. Not to mention people that "live in poverty" have a lot more items than alot of people that dont meet the government standard of poverty.

"Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actu*ally own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV.

Only 6 percent of poor households are over*crowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions.

Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens; 67 percent have a DVD player; 73 percent have a VCR; 47 percent have a computer.

The average intake of protein, vitamins, and minerals by poor children is indistinguishable from that of children in the upper middle class. Poor boys today at ages 18 and 19 are actually taller and heavier than middle-
class boys of similar age were in the late 1950s. They are a full inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy during World War II."

These are the people down there protesting. This country is taking care of plenty of people already especially when i am in the damn grocery store and some bitch in front of me is sliding a EBT card for candy, soda and whatever the hell she wants. Wearing name brand clothes and hops in a Lexus to drive off. These hippies need to go home and and let these companies do what they do best. This president needs to step out of the way of these businesses to let them do what they do best and leave them alone. Do you see the correlation here. Check this out someone making 4k a year makes more than i do. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/255012/why-work-veronique-de-rugy

Baraca Obama says - The rich aren't paying enough money, the stocks drop. Next speech The rich need to pay their fair share, market drops again and its a endless cycle. These businesses see they are under attack so they are hiding their money and not hiring. The more they hire the bigger they get the more they get attacked for being evil. If this president is smart he would back off. Think about the damage that would be caused if these corporations folded up shop all at once and left. What then? This country would collapse completely.

Also think about how they got all these Iphones and Macbooks down there on wall street if they are so poor. Sounds like a lot of bad spending when you cant afford it. Especially with these people obviously having no job.

The funny thing is big oil made all of 8% profit last year how much did mac? 23%. Big oil is making to much money? Yet they want to cut the tax cuts for big oil and want the gas prices to raise on people not getting hands out from the government? The people getting handouts will just get more money for gas while the oil companies will have to raise prices to keep the 8% profit they want. And without these "evil" corporations we wouldn't have the technology we have today. No competition = no innovations.

As for politicians they will always lie and cheat to get what they want. They have to take bribes to get into the office. We need to change the system so there is an election for any given office every year no matter what the position. This would keep politicians more in line with what the people want and not force through bullshit legislation.

As for the rich not "sharing the wealth", you want some of there wealth get hired by one of these corporations. They want to expand, they want to grow. They want more employees but instead of these protesters applying for a job they are yelling and screaming about them having millions of dollars.

+1

[Vteckidd]

This is truly funny



Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

$20/HR? They talk about being competitive GLOBALLY but want a $20 an hour MINIMUM WAGE SYSTEM? WTF ARE THEY SMOKING? You realize that means the average teenager would make $40,000 ish a year right? Flipping burgerss, serving slushies, etc. YOu know that would cause MASSIVE inflation right?

What they are basically saying is that they CANT or dont WANT a job that requires them to make that kind of money so they want their current shitty jobs (if they have one) to pay them that. 20$/hr is not hard to get. But most of these losers dont want to work hard, they want it given to them.


Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Clearly these boneheads have no idea how our healthcare system, which is one of the best in the world, works. I could write books on this.


Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

you realize what that is right? That means regardless of working, the govt pays them money. WHERE IS THE INCENTIVE TO WORK? Youll get a bunch of lazy fatass bastard sitting around collecting their govt checks because why work. This is the single most disturbing demand and shows just how truly lazy and ignorant these people are.


Demand four: Free college education.


FREE! I sense a pattern here. FREE EVERYTHING! Free housing, free money, free education, free everything! but they dont want to PAY for it. They just want it given to them


Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

hippie dream. Nice try, but if you want to end our dependency on oil, you better create something ASAP that is as economically viable and available. problem is THERE ISNT ANYTHING. I wonder what these dumbasses would do if gas went to $50/gallon because of their nazi green policies.


Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

sigh


Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

These people obvioulsy have no clue how our infrastructure works. They dont realize what would happen if any of their stupid demands were meant. Would they be happy living in the dark? Without power? I bet they want power for FREE too............


Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

uh they already have that .


Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

christ , fucking serious? What do they care they dont want to work anyway.


Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

WHAT IS THIS FIGHT CLUB? talk about world collapse. Oh so you ran up your credit card and dont want to be respnsible for it? shut the fuck up be an adult.


Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Nice so how are we supposed to know who is risky and who isnt? asshats


Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Unions is what has caused MOST of our jobs to go overseas folks. Sorry.

[.blank cd]

This is truly funny


$20/HR?Let me go ahead and stop you right here. I can clearly see that you don't understand how this whole movement thing works.

Every day you go into the for sale section in IA and see people selling curbed up Drag wheels for $1000 bucks. Do they think they'll get a stack for em? Hell no. They're playing the game. Someone will come down to the price set they're looking for. Same thing happens here. They're not stupid. They throw out a highball number so that when negotiating begins, they have a higher starting point. You can't really topple a system of greed by asking for a pittance.

Let me ask all the naysayers this: If you think this whole OWS thing is bogus, what do you make of the recent LARGE (several million dollar) cash "donation" by JP Morgan Chase to the NY City Police Department, and the subsequent aggressiveness by the department? Bunch of generous folks up there at Chase I guess

[Vteckidd]

Let me go ahead and stop you right here. I can clearly see that you don't understand how this whole movement thing works.

Every day you go into the for sale section in IA and see people selling curbed up Drag wheels for $1000 bucks. Do they think they'll get a stack for em? Hell no. They're playing the game. Someone will come down to the price set they're looking for. Same thing happens here. They're not stupid. They throw out a highball number so that when negotiating begins, they have a higher starting point. You can't really topple a system of greed by asking for a pittance.

Let me ask all the naysayers this: If you think this whole OWS thing is bogus, what do you make of the recent LARGE (several million dollar) cash "donation" by JP Morgan Chase to the NY City Police Department, and the subsequent aggressiveness by the department? Bunch of generous folks up there at Chase I guess

what basis does a 20/hr minimum wage have vailidity? Please, explain. Minimum wage is already high, minimum wage isnt for people to survive their entire lives on, its for people who start out and have a job at the bottom rung. Its for teenagers and college kids. Its not for some 45 year old or some 30 year old. its for 16-22.

TELL ME WHY THEY SHOULD GET ANY INCREASE IN THE MINIMUM WAGE?? LET ALONE 20$/HR. the fact they want $20/hr for the most menial jobs, AND free borders is just one big pile of laugh. Seriously? you think these no working kids will be able to compete against a flood of immigrants that are actually WILLING to do the work? No, they dont care , because they will have their LIVING WAGE which means who gives a shit if they get a job, theyll have free govt money.

Their argument for having a 20$/hr minimum wage is because they are INCAPABLE OF MAKING A DECENT LIVING BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN FAULTS. Thats it. I dont think i should subsidize someones inability to make a living.

These ARENT people slaving away at blue collar jobs being mistreated. Id be more sympathetic then. These are SLACKERS, IDIOTS, FREE LOADERS who havent worked a day in their life demending free shit on the backs of everyone else. They probably come from WEALTHY FAMILIES. I mean who protests corporate greed then says "im eating mcdonalds". Or is talking on their Iphone? These people had a moment of silence for Steve Jobs, the epitome of capitalism and corporations lol.

FYI I think Goldman Sachs is a big a cheat as there ever was, so are some of the other big banking systems out there. BUT WE COULD HAVE LET THEM FAIL , but who bailed them out? BUSH AND OBAMA. SO why arent we protesting Obama since he is in power?

Their list of demands shows who they are, they want to transfer all the wealth from the rich to them, the poor, because it would make them ..........rich. They want to take from people with money because they have none. its sad, its pathetic, and i hope they realize how stupid they are

[Browning151]

I mean who protests corporate greed then says "im eating mcdonalds". Or is talking on their Iphone?

This is what cracks me up about the whole thing. "Damn these evil rich people, corporations and banks. I'm going to protest them and post on facebook and twitter the whole time from my iPhone and iPad etc.etc." How do you think those devices ever came to be? They sure as hell didn't come from government, they were designed and produced because of the FREE MARKET.



You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

[bu villain]

Wow I haven't seen such polarization on this forum for a while. I don't care if it's the tea partiers or the occupy wall streeters. I'm glad when I see people protesting and standing up for what they believe in. You don't have to agree with someone to respect their convictions. I don't care if they are hippies, rednecks, or whatever. Ideas should be argued but it seems like people would rather attack each other and focus on every negative aspect they can than to actually debate ideas in a civil and intelligent way.

I'll jump back in when I don't have to wade through so many angry accusations to discuss actual issues and policies. It's like a fucking soap opera in here.

[alpine_aw11]

I just love the Tea Party supporters tearing the protestors down as ignorant/uninformed when the Tea Party was the dumbest group of slackjawed fucks I've ever seen in my life. Just sayin. Tea Party protestor=patriot, occupy WS protestor=anti-american communist stoner.

[redpanda]

Wrong. The media is ideologically controlled. If it was govt controlled you would not see the disparity in reporting between Fox News and MSNBC.

CEO's and I believe it was the WSJ said the US had a more anti business environment than China does.

At the start, the people that lost their homes are the ones that purchased homes they couldnt afford to start with. Now, its mainly people that lost their jobs and havent been able to find decent work.
They can make plenty of money if they chose a marketable area of study. Right now, I know 2 small business owners and a hiring manager that are in need of qualified IT people and they cannot find them.

Insurance is not hard to get unless you fall into that small group of uninsurable people with serious pre-existing conditions.

This is true. School tuitions have gone through the roof over the last decade.

You arent lucky to goto a smaller, more affordable school, and the kids going to the larger universities are there because they want to be. No one forced either of you to go to the school you are currently at.

Can you define 'greed' and put it in context for us?

If there was a viable alternative and a viable market for it, the private sector would take full advantage of it. The problem is, there are ZERO viable alternative energy sources today.

And to say that major energy corporations are not investing heavily into finding the next major energy source is inaccurate. They ALL want to be the one that takes it to market because the profits would dwarf current ones.

So you want to weaken the US military? You would want countries like China and Russia to catch, or even pass us by technologically? I have sad news for you, technology is the only advantage we have over those countries. Without that advantage, the world would be a MUCH more dangerous place than it is today.

Why should we stop trying to defend ourselves? Its pretty obvious you are an isolationist, where has that ever gotten us in the past?

I love this whole steal resources crap. It really does make me giggle when I hear it.

Everyone that tried to read this post knew that.

The largest hurdle to any kind of global problem solving is the United Nations. Another major hurdle is anti americanism. Time for you to face reality. The world is jealous of America. They hate everything we stand for and they never fail to criticize the US for our actions or lack of lack of action. Yet these same countries always seem to have their hands out when they get into trouble.

The media IS CONTROLLED by the govt. The press is also. Reporters on the battlefield are told STRICTLY what they can and can not report. Even MOVIES. Metropolis, a 1920s movie was cut of many relevant scenes before its release because the German and international govt's thought the message of the movie would raise too many questions that wouldn't be answered.

Yes it is financially smarter if a graduate student chose a RIGHT MAJOR to study. RIGHT as in guaranteeing a nice salary. But grad students go back to school to CONTINUE their previous area of study. The world would be a smarter and better place if students chose a career THEY DESIRED to study opposed to choosing one that they dont really prefer but guarantees good money. We need variety. Not everyone are into computers, law, health. If IT is so good for the future, integrate it in our early school systems(elementary/middle school..) oh yeah, we already do...

Insurance IS hard to get. I know plenty of people who have been living on their own since they were 18, even younger. they work 2-4 jobs and still cant afford the deductible because they have to pay off school, take care of sick family members, and pay rent and buy groceries; dont forget car payments.

I agree with your statement: Kids at bigger institutions arent forced to go there. However, have you checked you last tuition bill? Like i said, i attend a small commuter school and we're charged a $200 wellness fee, $300 lab fee, and a $250 recreational fee. I understand that we need a school nurse in case of something. I understand that we need to utilize the lab for science classes and intermural sports are beneficial to active students.. but I havent been in a lab class for 3 semesters, and most kids at commuter school go home directly after class. We dont use any of these services but are still charged for them. imagine the prices at bigger institutions. yes some kids are fortunate of having parents who pay for their tuition and the smarter ones have scholorships, but most of them are FULL TIME students who dont have time to work; so they take out a loan or pay for it themselves...the only way of achieving their degree...

GREED
noun
excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.
According to dictionary.com

In context: The fat American was so hungry that he ate everything in sight; however his GREED led him to have massive diarrhea.

NO ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY? Solar power our homes and parks to make the world more sustainable, wind power from turbines to better farmlands, and hydro power our harbor cities to lower our electricity usage. ALL of these methods are practiced and used all over the world, not widely but they still prove to be VERY effective; more than how we abuse our resources now.

I'm not saying to totally not fund the military. Yes technology is at our major advantage over other nations' military. But we have service member stationed around the whole world. Yes those bases need to be protected, but it is far better for us to protect our nation with our soldiers located INSIDE our country. Im just saying take a bit out of military funding and fund our space program to clear all the obsolete space junk floating around our orbit. Fix and advance our satellites and space exporation programs. or maybe just fund our science department to expand our ALTERNATIVE ENERGY studies.

America has invaded many countries for resources, if not then for interest. Guatemala, Panama, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq for WMD.... what have we benefited from this?

If America has the POWER to make other nations JEALOUS, we have a major INFLUENCE on the world. Why not use our influence to better the world instead of always competing? we're taking Capitalism to another level globally..imagine that popular jock who always puts up a front in highschool; do you keep wanting him to flaunt and boast about stuff that you dont want to hear? It'll make him more popular if he helped out others and used his power to better people around him.

[BanginJimmy]

Where have I heard this before. I know I've heard this somewhere....

Yep. The world would be better off without these whiners begging for equality and stuff...

Isnt that cute, you can use my quote and attach it to another, completely unrelated, subject.


So let me get this straight: The guy that robs a bank is greedy, but the guys that orchestrated the subprime mortage crisis, and those that profited from it are not greedy because nothing illegal happend?

Exactly.

BTW, the guys that orchestrated the subprime mortgage fiasco were Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Barney's boy toy, who just happened to be the CEO of Fannie Mae.



So if I paid off congress and bribed enough judges to make grand larceny legal, I could get away with robbing a bank and not be greedy? ::Waiting for the "its not the same thing" argument::

It isnt the same thing because bribing judges is illegal.


You need to look up the word successful as well. Money is not always a by-product of success. Dr. Jonas Saulk was immensely successful when he developed, patented, and distributed the polio vaccine. He didnt make one single cent on it.

Yes it is. Salk may not have been extremely rich, but I can assure you that he wasnt living pay check to pay check. As an MD and researcher I can assure you that he made good money in his day.

Fast forward to someone well known in sports today. Joe Paterno is the lowest paid head coach among the 'BCS' schools. I would say he is extremely successful in life even though he could be making 3 or 4x the money is he now.



WSJ reported on what the CEO's were claiming

I would say that a CEO of a multi national corporation would have a pretty reliable opinion in this area, dont you?




Wrong. The people that lost their homes were the ones who were stuck in the bad mortgage loans. It wasnt that they couldnt afford their homes, its that they couldnt afford the balloon payments.

I wonder who forced these people to buy all those 250k houses on a 40k salary?



Bad economy + Predatory lending = banks seizing homes, owners being upside down on properties. Not many people got more home than they could afford regularly.

Actually it was quite common. If these people could afford the homes, they wouldnt have defaulted. They wouldnt even be in those adjustable mortgages to start with. Dont give me that crap about predatory lending either. If you didnt read the terms of the mortgage before you signed it, you got exactly what you deserved.




And the cycle of greed continues. [/quotes]

Theres that word again. We will get back to that in a minute.


[QUOTE=.blank cd;39320431]Insurance is still on the verge of unaffordable in the long run if you're making less than $15/hr.

Not really. You can find a major medical plan for a healthy male for less than $100 a month.




Im sure we'll get there one day, but the U.S. is a ways away from a decent socialized healthcare system. ::Waits for the "wait times too long" and the "it will be too expensive" argument::

Since you already know the argument, you already know its true. You forgot to mention the lower quality care though. Not really a fan of Socialism, I mean, can you name a single place on earth that it has actually worked?



Here's what Merriam-Websters dictionary says (but how accurate can they be, huh?):

greed
noun \ˈgrēd\
Definition of GREED
: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

Now the fun part. Who determines what is selfish, excessive or needed? I can make a case that I need a 30mil a year salary to live the lifestyle I would like to live. I can also make a case that more than 1 vehicle per family is an example of greed according to Webster's definition.



We're not defending ourselves anymore. We haven't had to for quite some time. We have the strongest most advanced military in the world, do you really think we're actually "defending" ourselves? Really? "Isolationism" would have saved plenty of lives in Vietnam and plenty of lives in Afghanistan

Most of the lives lost in Vietnam were because of politicians not actually trying to win a war. The same is being played out in Afghanistan. I dont know how you can say eliminating the Taliban and al Qeada wasnt protecting ourselves though. In case you havent been told yet, they have been actively trying to kill any and all Americans since the '70's.


No. The world is not jealous of the U.S. Far from it. Ask a few foriegn nationals, they'll tell you how jealous they are. LOL

So why dont you explain all the hate for the US for me.

[Browning151]

Here's what Merriam-Websters dictionary says (but how accurate can they be, huh?):

greed
noun \ˈgrēd\
Definition of GREED
: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed




GREED
noun
excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.
According to dictionary.com


So who gets to decide what is considered excessive? Some bureaucrat in Washington? The President? What level do you have to cross for your wealth to be considered excessive, anyone with a net worth of $50k? $100k? $500k? $1m? $10m? $100m?


Edit: BanginJimmy beat me to it, but I still want to hear this explanation, should be interesting.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm glad when I see people protesting and standing up for what they believe in. You don't have to agree with someone to respect their convictions. I don't care if they are hippies, rednecks, or whatever. Ideas should be argued but it seems like people would rather attack each other and focus on every negative aspect they can than to actually debate ideas in a civil and intelligent way.


You might want to run over to Wall St. and let them know what they are protesting then. The people out there have no clue. Most are just there to say they were there.

[redpanda]

what do you consider excessive? i think everyone generally has the same concept of the word. having much more than sufficient power and wealth but using it in a way to better themselves rather than the people. This is fine if you're a business executive. Go ahead and use your money on what you want. However, we're talking about big corporations that get it easy. they get bailout money when theyre in trouble, they can use some of their wealth to promote sustainable living for all but use it to subsidize politicians who make matters worse.

[.blank cd]

Isnt that cute, you can use my quote and attach it to another, completely unrelated, subject.Ok. It's clear that you don't want an intelligent discussion, from this statement alone. In every language, at least in the English language anyway, protesting is the same word and means the same thing as protesting. I don't know how I could explain that any better. It doesn't matter if you do it in 1960 or in 2011. Protesting is protesting is protesting. Both subjects are related. That's it.




Exactly.LOL. Ok. I'll concede that one. I guess getting money is getting money, no matter how many people or nations you have to screw up in the process



Yes it is. Salk may not have been extremely rich, but I can assure you that he wasnt living pay check to pay check. As an MD and researcher I can assure you that he made good money in his day.

Fast forward to someone well known in sports today. Joe Paterno is the lowest paid head coach among the 'BCS' schools. I would say he is extremely successful in life even though he could be making 3 or 4x the money is he now.You completely overlooked my point, but ok, I'll address your new point. I sold lemonade for a living, and then patented a revolutionary new way to sweeten it, and then gave it away for free, I was successful in revolutionizing my industry and made zero dollars from it. This is aside from the success I had selling the lemonade.



You can find a major medical plan for a healthy male for less than $100 a month.

Since you already know the argument, you already know its true. You forgot to mention the lower quality care though. Not really a fan of Socialism, I mean, can you name a single place on earth that it has actually worked?
$70 seems to be about the going rate for a decent insurance plan. I would say I'm a person of average health. If I had this plan, I would spend about 900 bucks a year, and if I'm lucky I'll make one visit to the Gen. Practioner. $100. Then 5 years from now after I've spent $5000 on HI, my company decides to switch carriers, and a week later I take a nasty spill down some stairs and break my leg, some carriers don't cover major medical for a year, but what about what I've already paid? Where did that all go? Healthcare needs major revamping. I'll give it to the president for trying more than the previous presidents before him, but it's just not enough.

The quality of care is not lessened by a socialized system. Actually that's not true anywhere. Look it up, ask some people in Canada.

And I'm going to assume from your hostility to the word "socialism", that you actually mean "National Socialism", or you mean "communism". All of which are different concepts which conservatives and the Tea Party easily get mixed up. It is quite obvious that unbridled capitalism (which is where the US is heading) is not working out. "Socialism", which you and I benefit from every single day, whether you want to believe it or not, is a great idea, when it's balanced. Capitalism is also a great idea, when it's balanced. But as of late, that balance is becoming unchecked. This is where our problems lie. So to bluntly answer your question, socialism has worked for the United States. If it hasn't worked for you, feel free to stop using public highways, MARTA, US post offices, public schools, and public libraries.

[Vteckidd]

ok this is going to be a long post so READ EVERYTHING. Lets keep it as simple as possible.

Lets all agree that our Economy runs on the private sector. Lets also agree that the Government doesnt create wealth it only transfers it. It also doesnt create money, it COLLECTs it through taxes. It generates that through income taxes, lifestyle taxes (gas , sales, etc). It also collects taxes from "corporations" as well as individuals.

Ok so lets address this $20/hr minimum wage, free healthcare, free education notion. Lets pretend that tomorrow, all that gets passed. As a business owner you have the right to shut your operation down. So lets assume tomorrow ALL THE CORPORATIONS vanish, because the evil millionaires and billionaires decide "you know what, ill retreat with me millions and live a nice life" and shut everything down. Mcdonalds closes, starbucks, apple, etc they all decide you know what WE ARE THE 1% and we dont have to employ the other 99%.

Tax revenues drop because guess what theres no corporations anymore, and theres no more workers FOR those corporations. The cashiers, the stock people, the drivers, the cooks , all unemployed. Cause for every fatcat billionaire, there is 1000 people he employs. For every wall street financier there is 1000 stock traders trading his companies stock, who make commission.

Now, the govt collects ZERO in taxes. No corporations, no individuals working, less jobs, no revenue for the govt. So, how do they pay your healthcare and education?

Now you are asking that doctors, nurses, professors, etc teach people for free, out of the kindness of their heart. That is essentially what they are asking. That brain surgeons/heart surgeons etc should be educated to the highest standard for free, and then basically work for free. the govt remember has no money or very little at this point because you have made it impossible for anyone to operate under the $20/hr minimum wage rule. So where does the govt get this money from? it will print it. Which drives up inflation. What good is a ferrari if everyone owns one?

If everyone is a millionaire, then being a millionare is not what it used to be. Go to turkey, you can be a turkish millionaire for about $10 US.

First you have to realize the capitalistic system (which is the best in the world) is built upon personal success. Some people are BORN into wealth. Obama, Bush, Rockefellar, Hilton, Kardashian, etc were all born into wealthy families. YOu cannot stop that. Thats a privledge as old as time. You cant legislate people being born into life all the same. Its impossible. So except that some people are going to be better off than you at birth. That is just life.

For every person born INTO wealth there is a person not born into wealth. And those people still make it to the top. Richard Branson, Donald Trump, Steve Jobs , Bill Gates, any rapper in our lifetime, almost any sports figure etc was born into poverty and impossible to propser conditions, and made it in life. through work, through talent, through luck etc.

You also have to accept the fact that there are people that will NEVER make it. Luck, intelligence, work ethic, whatever the case may be, they will NEVER make a decent living, they will never be "rich". That is also life. Because to have a society that flourishes and grows, there has to be a top and a bottom.

Now the BOTTOM in the us isnt that bad. Our poor are the wealthiest individuals in the world and in most cases rank among the MIDDLE class of other countries (europe). Lets not confuse a HARD LIFE with a POOR LIFE. there is a difference and sometimes that line gets blurred.

What these occupy people are wanting is impossible to have. the banks taking the billions in bailout money, that was politicians offering it, they didnt have to take it. Blame Bush, Blame Congress, Blame Obama. The mortgage crises is just as much mainstreets fault as it is wall streets. TAKE RESPONSBILITY. Lost your house? that sucks, but it happens. You arent GUARANTEED HAPPINESS, only the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. you are guaranteed the ABILITY/OPPORTUNITY to acquire wealth, not wealth itself.

Once you understand these concepts, it makes it easier to see just how insane these protests are. If wall street "people" walked outside and offered any of those people a job they would join their ranks in a heartbeat. The fact there is no jobs is NOT WALL STREETS fault, its Politicians. Furthermore, you have to understand and except the economic system we have. i see people protesting about no jobs with blue hair, piercings, visible tattoos, etc. No one in life takes you serious looking like that. I have tattoos but they are hidden. I didnt pievrce my nise or ears because it looks unprofessional. I dont die my hair a fucked up color because its not acceptable. realize your decisions TODAY affect you tomorrow.

Would you rather have a economic system that is setup for anyone to succeed but some will fail or a system that legislates people to all be the same and doesnt incentivize work or perseverance or wealth.

I think herman cain said it best. "if you arent wealthy, blame yourself"

[.blank cd]

ok this is going to be a long post so READ EVERYTHING. Lets keep it as simple as possible.

Lets all agree that our Economy runs on the private sector. Lets also agree that the Government doesnt create wealth it only transfers it. It also doesnt create money, it COLLECTs it through taxes. It generates that through income taxes, lifestyle taxes (gas , sales, etc). It also collects taxes from "corporations" as well as individuals.

Ok so lets address this $20/hr minimum wage, free healthcare, free education notion. Lets pretend that tomorrow, all that gets passed. As a business owner you have the right to shut your operation down. So lets assume tomorrow ALL THE CORPORATIONS vanish, because the evil millionaires and billionaires decide "you know what, ill retreat with me millions and live a nice life" and shut everything down. Mcdonalds closes, starbucks, apple, etc they all decide you know what WE ARE THE 1% and we dont have to employ the other 99%.I'm having trouble assuming your fantasy scenario would actually happen. If an owner/founder of a corporation decided one day to say fuck it and take all his money and move to Fiji, the company wouldnt fold up. Im not sure if you understand how these corporations work. Unless of course you could get every single shareholder to divest their interests.


I think herman cain said it best. "if you arent wealthy, blame yourselfHerman Cain is delusional. Tell him to preach that nonsense to police officers, firefighters, EMT's, teachers, and other public workers who are wealthy and don't have a lot of money.

[Vteckidd]

I'm having trouble assuming your fantasy scenario would actually happen. If an owner/founder of a corporation decided one day to say fuck it and take all his money and move to Fiji, the company wouldnt fold up. Im not sure if you understand how these corporations work. Unless of course you could get every single shareholder to divest their interests.

No you obviously have no clue how our economic system works. Show me a law where any corporation HAS TO STAY OPEN? If you make costs HIGH enough for them, THEY WILL CLOSE THEIR DOORS VOLUNTARILY RIGHT? If you run a business and your Expenses are $1000 and you profit $1000, then all of the sudden your expenses become $1900, theoretcially you can close up shop right? liquadate everything, move on, close up , peace out.

So, you(and others) have to realize that when people (corporations) ARENT hiring, raising their COSTS (free healthcare, housing, education, minimum wage) isnt going to magically make them hire more people. You want to legislate them to their knees and what im saying is BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR. If every corporation tomorrow said adios they could, and they could cash out the share holders and leave (think ENRON). The shareholders could do NOTHING. They could get what the open market said their piece of paper was worth. So, IF that happened, WHERE WOULD YOU GET YOUR MONEY FOR YOUR FREE PROGRAMS FROM?

Which is more fantasy? The scenario i posted which would be a direct result of this groups demands, or yours, this utopian koombaya society where everything is free yet you have no idea how to pay for any of it.

Since you basically skipped over EVERYTHING of substance i posted, ill make it even simpler:

HOW DO WE PAY FOR FREE HEALTHCARE
HOW DO WE PAY FOR FREE EDUCATION
WHO PAYS FOR THE $20/hr minimum wage increase ($13 more an hour over what it is now).
DO YOU THINK A 16 YEAR OLD DESERVES $40,000 a year to work the drive thru at mcdonalds?
DO YOU REALIZE THAT ITS A MASSIVE DOSE OF INFLATION IF YOU RAISE THE FLOOR THAT HIGH?

Answer me those simple questions. I suspect youre young, never had a real job, prob dont have a lot of money, and dont want to work for it. Or you got a degree in something oversaturated like graphic design, or history and are angry there is no $100,000 jobs in your field. that sucks, but its not my fault, just like its not your fault i chose to work in the automotive industry for 7 years making $14,600 a year until i wised up.

I realized that field sucked and got out of it.

[Vteckidd]

Herman Cain is delusional. Tell him to preach that nonsense to police officers, firefighters, EMT's, teachers, and other public workers who are wealthy and don't have a lot of money.
No hes not delusional he is 100% right. You realize that those people who CHOOSE those fields KNOW their fields dont pay high right? Do you think ANY teacher in elementary school THINKS they will make BIG BUCKs when they go through their college career? Firefighters dont do it for the money. Do you think any cop said "hell yeah im gonna join the police so i can be rich!"

FUCK NO.

So THEIR life choices , which i am thankful for, is not MY BURDEN TO BEAR. If any of them WANTED to be doctors, or nurses, or go into IT or anything else THEY COULD HAVE. BUT THEY CHOSE NOT TO!

THAT IS NOT MY PROBLEM

[.blank cd]

You're stuck on this $20 an hr minimum wage thing. I'm looking all over the place and not seeing this as an official grievance. So we're gonna scratch this altogether. What I am seeing as a universal grievance is the end of the revolving door policy and the end of corporate personhood. Let me address this free education thing while I have a minute

We have spent over 1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS on "terror war" since the end of 2001. I'm not gonna include the war on drugs right now. That's taxes that you've paid, I've paid, everyone who lives here has already paid. Lets also say that the total cost of ONLY the operations finding and capturing/killing OBL and Sadam Hussein cost $200b. Might be over guesstimating but let's just use this.

Let's also assume that on average, it costs $20k to send a kid to an accredited state university for 4 years. Out of that remaining balance of 1 trillion dollars, you could send 50 MILLION kids to state universities, or HEAVILY subsidize 100 MILLION.

But this is really a grievance for DC.

[Vteckidd]

You're stuck on this $20 an hr minimum wage thing. I'm looking all over the place and not seeing this as an official grievance. So we're gonna scratch this altogether.

its on the page i believe YOU LISTED where their manifesto is posted


Let me address this free education thing while I have a minute

We have spent over 1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS on "terror war" since the end of 2001. I'm not gonna include the war on drugs right now. That's taxes that you've paid, I've paid, everyone who lives here has already paid. Lets also say that the total cost of ONLY the operations finding and capturing/killing OBL and Sadam Hussein cost $200b. Might be over guesstimating but let's just use this.

Let's also assume that on average, it costs $20k to send a kid to an accredited state university for 4 years. Out of that remaining balance of 1 trillion dollars, you could send 50 MILLION kids to state universities, or HEAVILY subsidize 100 MILLION.

But this is really a grievance for DC.

Ok great, that money is gone, spent, done with. You cant travel back in time and get it, and NEWSFLASH the money we HAVE SPENT has sunk us DEEPER in debt. So merely saying YOU think you ahve a better way of spending a trillion dollars doesnt make you the savior. The problems we face are NOW, not yesterday. So , you cannot get that 1.2 trillion dollars back, so again i ask you how do you intend to pay for all this?

We are running at 1.3 TRILLION DOLLARS A YEAR in deficits RIGHT NOW. so that 1.2 trillion you estimate we spent, that covers 1 YEAR OF OBAMA SPENDING. That makes us BREAK EVEN. think about that. So the 10 years of war amount to burying 2008s DEFICIT BY ITSELF then we are at zero. That doesnt wipe out the 9 trillion we had in debt before then, and the 1.3+ trillion PER YEAR we accrue now. So no, the war not happening doesnt even come CLOSE to solving your problem of money.

And, HOW IS THAT WALL STREETS FAULT????!!!! The Iraq/afghan war was DC NOT BANKERS ON WALL STREET. so why arent we protesting them?

I think you are starting to see the other side, keep walking into the light, youre almost there.

Also, college in this country is a PRIVLEDGE, not a right. High school education is where the states burden on education ends. College is not for everyone and MANY people choose NOT to go. So , if you get good grades in HIGH school you get the OPPORTUNITY to attend college. Now i agree that some kids may not have the finances to get to college and pay for it, for them there ARE govt loans EASILY accessible. Professors have to get paid, staff has to get paid, clerks, secretaries, phone systems etc have to get paid for. thats what your tuition goes to.

Why should the govt pay for anyones college education? For Free? Why? If your beef is with colleges CHARGING too much, then why arent we protesting THEM??? What does that have to do with Wall Street?

[BanginJimmy]

Ok. It's clear that you don't want an intelligent discussion, from this statement alone. In every language, at least in the English language anyway, protesting is the same word and means the same thing as protesting. I don't know how I could explain that any better. It doesn't matter if you do it in 1960 or in 2011. Protesting is protesting is protesting. Both subjects are related. That's it.

So relating my comments to a completely different situation is intelligent discussion, but calling you out on it is not?






LOL. Ok. I'll concede that one. I guess getting money is getting money, no matter how many people or nations you have to screw up in the process

If you dont like my definition of greed, where is yours? You failed to comment on that part of my response.



You completely overlooked my point, but ok, I'll address your new point. I sold lemonade for a living, and then patented a revolutionary new way to sweeten it, and then gave it away for free, I was successful in revolutionizing my industry and made zero dollars from it. This is aside from the success I had selling the lemonade.

You made zero dollars from the patent, but you made money off the sweetener by selling the lemonade. Your success was simply selling the lemonade. It is possible to be successful doing more than 1 thing you know.



$70 seems to be about the going rate for a decent insurance plan. I would say I'm a person of average health. If I had this plan, I would spend about 900 bucks a year, and if I'm lucky I'll make one visit to the Gen. Practioner. $100. Then 5 years from now after I've spent $5000 on HI, my company decides to switch carriers, and a week later I take a nasty spill down some stairs and break my leg, some carriers don't cover major medical for a year, but what about what I've already paid? Where did that all go? Healthcare needs major revamping. I'll give it to the president for trying more than the previous presidents before him, but it's just not enough.

employer run health coverage typically doesnt have the same pre-existing condition stipulations as individually purchased. Also, I have never heard of an employer provided coverage having any type of wait time for full coverage. just your typical 3 month probation period. You could also get your major medical plan and supplant it with a health savings account to further reduce your out of pocket costs.


The quality of care is not lessened by a socialized system. Actually that's not true anywhere. Look it up, ask some people in Canada.

the same Canadians that come to the US for major medical care, such as cancer, if they can afford it?

It seems cancer survival rates are FAR higher in the US than the socialized medical systems of Europe.
http://factcheck.org/2009/08/cancer-rates-and-unjustified-conclusions/




And I'm going to assume from your hostility to the word "socialism", that you actually mean "National Socialism", or you mean "communism". All of which are different concepts which conservatives and the Tea Party easily get mixed up. It is quite obvious that unbridled capitalism (which is where the US is heading) is not working out. "Socialism", which you and I benefit from every single day, whether you want to believe it or not, is a great idea, when it's balanced. Capitalism is also a great idea, when it's balanced. But as of late, that balance is becoming unchecked. This is where our problems lie. So to bluntly answer your question, socialism has worked for the United States. If it hasn't worked for you, feel free to stop using public highways, MARTA, US post offices, public schools, and public libraries.

Socialism is govt control over the means of production. Basicly a centrally planned economy where the govt selects winners and losers among businesses. I'm sure that wont lead to a bit of corruption.

Maybe you should recheck your definition, if you believe socialism has worked. As to your point about capitalism, the problem right now is crony capitalism. Business owners buying politicians for special breaks and no bid contracts.

BTW, I avoid the post office whenever possible and I wouldnt sentence my kids, if I had any, to public schools.



You never asnwered my point about greed though.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm having trouble assuming your fantasy scenario would actually happen. If an owner/founder of a corporation decided one day to say fuck it and take all his money and move to Fiji, the company wouldnt fold up. Im not sure if you understand how these corporations work. Unless of course you could get every single shareholder to divest their interests.

You are assuming that every corporation has stock holders. Chrysler Corp doesnt have a single share of common stock. What they offer for public trade are corporate bonds. They work much the same as a share of stock, but they dont offer voting rights.



Herman Cain is delusional. Tell him to preach that nonsense to police officers, firefighters, EMT's, teachers, and other public workers who are wealthy and don't have a lot of money.

Really? What is delusional about telling people that not everyone is going to be rich and you are to blame if you arent? It may not be good politics, but it is reality.

[-EnVus-]

Ok after watching all the News on the Occupy Atlanta ppl ive concluded they are all Hippies. Also all of them have no idea wtf is going on or why and are poor excuses for protesters.

[alpine_aw11]

Ok after watching all the News on the Occupy Atlanta ppl ive concluded they are all Hippies. Also all of them have no idea wtf is going on or why and are poor excuses for protesters.

If the government would decide to actually give a shit about this country instead of just their own interests, the uninformed wouldn't have to protest. You can't sit here and blame these people for not knowing the ins and outs of what's going on when we aren't included in our democracy anymore. The same thing happened a couple years ago......

That being said, I agree with you somewhat. Lots of idiots out there, however you can't sit here and say they're all dumb. That's ignorant.

[Total_Blender]

Nothing to see here in this thread, just selfish and petulant neocons grumbling about how they hate everybody and everything.

[Browning151]

Nothing to see here in this thread, just selfish and petulant neocons grumbling about how they hate everybody and everything.

Typical Blender. No constructive comment, just some petty name calling.

[Vteckidd]

i dont hate anyone. Im just pointing out the hypocrisy in their protests.

Ive yet to hear anyone reasonably justify why protesting wall street has anything to do with the govt bailing them out.

[bu villain]

i dont hate anyone. Im just pointing out the hypocrisy in their protests.

Ive yet to hear anyone reasonably justify why protesting wall street has anything to do with the govt bailing them out.

I think this is a common misconception about these protests. These protests are not just about wall street. The protestors are not really unified on any particular issue. The protestors seem hypocritical because they don't all agree with eachother on many issues. They are not a monolithical group rallying around an issue.

The only unifying theme seems to be that all these people feel disenfranchised. That no one is acting on their behalf and no one in power represents their views. Thus they are trying to be heard in the only way they know how. That's what I am seeing at least.

[BanginJimmy]

I think this is a common misconception about these protests. These protests are not just about wall street. The protestors are not really unified on any particular issue. The protestors seem hypocritical because they don't all agree with eachother on many issues. They are not a monolithical group rallying around an issue.

The only unifying theme seems to be that all these people feel disenfranchised. That no one is acting on their behalf and no one in power represents their views. Thus they are trying to be heard in the only way they know how. That's what I am seeing at least.


All I see is kids with no clue what they are talking about. This has been proven by both sets of grievances that have been posted in this thread.


I do find it odd that the same people ridiculing the Tea Party, which does actually have a set of realistic goals, are praising OWS. Outside of their political leaning, what is the difference? Other than the arrests and the mess they are making of course.

[BanginJimmy]

I just love the Tea Party supporters tearing the protestors down as ignorant/uninformed when the Tea Party was the dumbest group of slackjawed fucks I've ever seen in my life. Just sayin. Tea Party protestor=patriot, occupy WS protestor=anti-american communist stoner.

And I find the opposite quite entertaining. How all the OWS supporters, like yourself, were so quick to degrade the tea party, yet get all butt hurt then the tea party attacks the OWS hippies.


Quick question. How many tea partiers were arrested? How many tea partiers were shitting on American flags and police cars? How many tea party rallies required a massive cleanup effort?

[green91]

Do people not understand HOW these large corporations got to be as prosperous as they are? They offered goods/services that people wanted, EARNED business in a competitive market place, and continued to GROW their WILLING CUSTOMER base. THE VERY PEOPLE who are protesting likely have used the SERVICES/GOODS of these corporations! You can't make money out of thin air, and these corporations can't either. Now it is true that it generally takes money to earn money, and once youre at the top its easier to stay there and increase.

Education is another dumb argument. Yes, tuition is absurdly high. But its also an investment in YOUR LIFE. Like buying a property knowing it will earn you dividends throughout the course of owning it and hopefully paying for itself in short time. Plus nowadays a bachelor's or master's isn't even a dire neccesity to be prosperous as much as it was in the past. I am so tired of hearing people my age complaining about how the gov't should relieve them of their student loans, yet i see them buying a $2,000 macbook pro and eating fucking ramen noodles every day on these loans.

[bu villain]

All I see is kids with no clue what they are talking about. This has been proven by both sets of grievances that have been posted in this thread.

There is no official list of greviences. The list posted in this thread was proposed by a single individual. You can't say it represents everyone protesting in dozens of cities.


I do find it odd that the same people ridiculing the Tea Party, which does actually have a set of realistic goals, are praising OWS. Outside of their political leaning, what is the difference? Other than the arrests and the mess they are making of course.

I agree that there is hypocrisy with both sides ridiculing each other for passionately standing up for what they believe in. I'm noticing a lot of people these days have a hard time respecting those they disagree with.

[.blank cd]

http://i.imgur.com/FIZuV.png

[.blank cd]

All kidding aside. There is a clear message, these people sitting out there arent idiots, they're not "hippies". I dont know if you guys are looking at it, but seriously, they're chanting it all over the place. Whether its paraphrased or not, the message is "Get the money out of politics" plain and simple. Its the tie in of wall street and the white house. It doesnt matter if they're standing infront of wall street, or capitol hill, or boston, or seattle, or Atlanta. The message is the same all over the place. They want they're voices heard. Does anyone know how widespread the civil rights movements were? It was world wide. Their location is irrelevant. Their message is the same

[-EnVus-]

Damn i just saw the News tonight on the OWS movements across america. You cannot say they are not hippies or beatnicks they all have that look like the just came off the pineapple express.
I bet if you went within 30 miles of Wallstreet it must smell like ass and balls all around. At least have a better appearance damn ppl all over the world are watching.

[Browning151]

http://i.imgur.com/FIZuV.png

The biggest thing that stands out to me in this little "comic" is the "everyone you know drowning in massive debt" comment. Who's fault is it that ANYONE is drowning in "massive debt"? It's not mine, it's not yours, it's not the govts, debt accumulation and the consequences there of are a direct result of personal decision, period. Slice it, dice it, spin it any way that you want but debt is a personal decision. It's not that hard for someone to live within their means or below, although you may have to forgo some luxuries along the way. And before you blame the education costs that are required to get a "good job", there are many people that are smart enough to begin saving from their first job in high school to afford college, or those out there who are willing to work as much as it takes to get through school and better themselves. Why is that acceptable for some, but not all? The whole "free etc.etc.etc. for everyone" is what really gets me about this whole protest, whether it be education, healthcare, minimum wage, living wage etc.etc. Nothing is free for anyone, "what one person receives without working for, someone else must work for without receiving."

[.blank cd]

That'll teach that socialist hippie marine

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/26/occupy-oakland-veteran-critical-condition

[Vteckidd]

The cop was wrong, but sorry when they ask you to vacate public property and you refuse to listen, you choose your own fate.

These are the same people who stormed inside a chase bank branch disrupting that business then want to cry wolf when police have itchy trigger fingers? Sorry they incited violence first, they refused to be orderly , they refused to leave when asked politely. Cop should be reprimanded for tossing a smoke grenade into that crowd, but what did you expect was going to happen.

[.blank cd]

The cop was wrong, but sorry when they ask you to vacate public property and you refuse to listen, you choose your own fate.

These are the same people who stormed inside a chase bank branch disrupting that business then want to cry wolf when police have itchy trigger fingers? Sorry they incited violence first, they refused to be orderly , they refused to leave when asked politely. Cop should be reprimanded for tossing a smoke grenade into that crowd, but what did you expect was going to happen.LOL. There you have it folks. When you're peacefully assembling in a public place in accordance with the 1st amendment, you are, in fact, actually inciting violence. Leaving the local police NO CHOICE but to use non lethal ammunition, flashbangs, and smoke grenades. People who actually are employed to protect that amendment are obviously not exempt from this.

[-EnVus-]

#OccupyToilet....

[Vteckidd]

LOL. There you have it folks. When you're peacefully assembling in a public place in accordance with the 1st amendment, you are, in fact, actually inciting violence. Leaving the local police NO CHOICE but to use non lethal ammunition, flashbangs, and smoke grenades. People who actually are employed to protect that amendment are obviously not exempt from this.

Now youre just being delusional.

I wonder why the Tea Party never had police show up in riot gear and shoot tear gas..........................

They are occupying PUBLIC PROPERTY which has rules. Its for everyones use. When the cities and mayors got tired of the riff raff damaging, raping, looting, trashing the areas they told them they could protest, but they couldnt SQUAT overnight. The protesters refused to leave. Police took action. PERIOD.

They were PEACEFULLY protesting, they were breaking the law. They stormed inside a place of business and disrupted normal day to day operations. Did you even see the video? Theres no fucking BANK CEO at Chase Bank branch they stormed in! they are too stupid to even realize that. All they did was hurt the $10-15/hr teller that was working there trying to feed their family. You dont do that shit if you are being PEACEFUL.

Go read the reports from the mayors office of both REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT mayors. Reed asked the demostrators to leave after they tried to have a 1000 person concert without a permit and the necessary protection , they had generators that were fire hazards and refused to abide by the cities rules about their use, they had a guy wit han AK47 walking around the camp and refused to give up his weapon (brandishing). So he arrested them.

these people arent interested in peacefulyl protesting. They want to cause trouble and make a scene because they are being funded and pushed by radical left groups who have now been reported as ex ACORN members. They are paying HOMELESS people $10/hr to protest so the numbers are bigger than whats really down there.

So save me the "these are nice people protesting and they got picked on" bullshit. Ive been down there, you havent.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/2011/10/27/bill-oreilly-more-violence-occupiers

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/promoters-say-halt-festival-scare-tactic/nFLJq/

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/occupy-atlanta-march-georgia-pacific-building/nFMf4/


Since being kicked out of Woodruff Park, members of Occupy Atlanta are trying to figure out what to do next. They are promising to take another big action soon.

On Wednesday night, about 50 protesters marched around a now-closed Woodruff Park, chanting slogans at a dozen or so police officers who stood inside the park and watched.

A smaller group then broke off and headed to the Peachtree/Pine Homeless shelter.

About 100 protesters spent more than two hours in Centennial Olympic park Wednesday night, trying to come up with a plan on where to take the protest in the coming days.

One man said, "I think that we need to be back at the park tonight to demand to be let back in."



"I think that we should consider guerrilla occupations," another man said.
At times, a police helicopter flew overhead, shining a massive spotlight on the crowd, but overall, police officers kept their distance.

The calm came after police moved in on protesters camped out at Woodruff Park early Wednesday morning. More than 50 people were arrested and taken to the Atlanta City Jail. All have since bonded out on signature bonds.

Many of the protesters believe the police action helped their cause.

"Honestly, I think the mayor did damage to his own cause," said Occupy Atlanta spokeswoman Liliana Bakhtiari.

While protestors weren't happy with the police action, Atlanta's Police Chief George Turner praised his officers in an email, writing, "We planned for the worst and prayed for the best. Our officers really did a great job last night."

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/occupy-atlanta-looks-regroup/nFNSd/


Protesting is one thing, squatting and disrupting other peoples right to life , liberty, and the pursuit of happiness deserves to get arrested.

[Vteckidd]

These are mobs of people refusing to cooperate and are putting peoples safety at risk. The cops acted accordingly. Refuse to disburse , and they will employ anti riot tactics. Which involve tear gas in some cities. FYI the marine wasnt targeted, he was in the crowd they shot the canister into and he happened to get hit. I bet you $1000 he wouldnt have been injured had he left like they asked them to. The video you posted where they threw the canister into the crowd was after he was already injured. And they are instructed to throw the tear gas canisters into groups who are refusing to leave and are congregating. he was doing his job. Although i think he should probably have warned them more, or thrown the canister to the side. but while i feel sorry for his injuries, HE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS, and unfortunatley reaped the consequences

[Vteckidd]

Lets get a few things straight............

Protesting is not the same as SQUATTING.
Protesting is not the same as OCCUPYING.
Protesting is not supposed to infringe on other peoples lives/rights. (multiple business people were upset that they could not operate, were losing revenue from these people trashing and destroying the place.)

Look im for everyone to protest. Its their right. I am not for mass chaos, anarchy, etc which is what these people wanted.

They were using PUBLIC property in most cases that the cities were kind enough to allow them to sleep in, squat, etc when normally they would be kicked out. When the conditions got to the point that it was a safety hazard for the people there, the business around, and other people who wanted to use the park, streets, plazas, etc, the citiy officials asked the people to vacate. In MOST cases they were told they could protest during NORMAL operational hours (like in Woodruff park here in atlanta. They just couldnt SLEEP overnight and camp out for weeks on end and destroy the place).

They refused.

They got dealt with.

I dont think the cop who TOSSED the tear gas grenade or flashbank or whatever it was was right. Im not going to question why he did it because i wasnt there. But it looked like it was not necessary. The vet was injured BEFORE that grenade was tossed. he was in the crowd when they fired a tear gas grenade and it hit him in the face. That shit happens. I bet you $1000 it wouldnt have happened had they left, and abided by the rules of law.

I find it extremely disturbing that a group wants to argue that their "rights" are being violated while simultaneously not giving a shit about anyone elses rights.

They should protest, they should speak, they should get their message out, but they should do it legally, in accordance with city and state laws and statutes, and should cooperate with law enforcement when asked.

Barricading themselves into an area they were told to vacate is not cooperating.

[.blank cd]

The tea party movement isn't ruffling anyones feathers. They aren't making enough noise. The American population hates them. The government/wall street doesn't like the Occupy movement putting its dirty laundry out in the open, which is what it's doing, and the people are behind it and the government is resisting violently. This is just like what happened during the early 60s(civil rights movements). The people raised a legitimate grievance which was against what the government thought was best and the government resisted violently.

So guess what will eventually happen....

Yeah they did storm that bank, but you're not telling the whole story. Don't cherry pick, it's not good for your argument, and you tend to do it a lot. After the majority of them left, a few willingly stayed behind to clean up the mess, the police then stormed the bank and locked it down and arrested the ones that stayed to help. No tellers making $10-15 an hour were hurt in the process. They still got their paycheck on Friday.

Don't post any videos from Bill O'Reileys show. Lol. You're losing credibility, and I wont click it to give Faux news the page-views. It has been proven that Bill plays a character on TV. The O'Reiley Factor is an OPINION piece and only that. Not to be construed as actual fact.

[Vteckidd]

The tea party movement isn't ruffling anyones feathers. They aren't making enough noise. The American population hates them.

They hate them so much they overwhelming elected Tea party candidates in the 2010 election ousting democratic and GOP establishment incumbents. Yea, youre wrong , strike 1



The government/wall street doesn't like the Occupy movement putting its dirty laundry out in the open, which is what it's doing, and the people are behind it and the government is resisting violently.

yeah Mayor Reed is violently resisting.........:lmfao::screwy: Your just trying to twist the argument into what makes you right, which doesnt work for anyone else but people with your warped view of the world.

Police only act when someone is breaking the law. These protestors in every instance, broke the law, or disobeyed direct orders to vacate public land. They get to deal with the consequences.


This is just like what happened during the early 60s(civil rights movements). The people raised a legitimate grievance which was against what the government thought was best and the government resisted violently.

You cannot even begin to compare the civil rights movement with this movement. The Civil Rights movement had a message, it was non violent, it had and agenda, it was morally right. People were brutalized for it in the south. But dont sit on your high horse and compare racial inequality to a bunch of people who want free shit given to them on the backs of the people that they think owe them something.


So guess what will eventually happen....

My guess is that nothing will happen. The people will be put in jail, forced to pay fines, and they wont continue the movement because their movement is flawed. Protesting the banks accomplishes NOTHING. The problem is with washington, and washington wont do anything to change their ways because they are going continue to back the people who are protesting the wrong thing. Its a shadow game.

dont you think its funny Obama is sympathizing with the movement when he took 1 MILLION dollars in campaign donations from Goldman Sachs alone? The very evil corrupt wall street he embraces he now somehow is a man of the OWS movement? Gimme a break.



Yeah they did storm that bank, but you're not telling the whole story. Don't cherry pick, it's not good for your argument, and you tend to do it a lot. After the majority of them left, a few willingly stayed behind to clean up the mess, the police then stormed the bank and locked it down and arrested the ones that stayed to help. No tellers making $10-15 an hour were hurt in the process. They still got their paycheck on Friday.

Oh so the moral of the story is fuck shit up but as long as you clean it up its ok? that was the single worst response you have ever written. You are who you associate with. you cannot disrupt another persons life, business ,etc REGARDLESS if you clean up the shit storm your compatriots started. I want you to go into a bank with a friend, have him trash the place, then you stay behind an clean it up and see what happens.



Don't post any videos from Bill O'Reileys show. Lol. You're losing credibility, and I wont click it to give Faux news the page-views. It has been proven that Bill plays a character on TV. The O'Reiley Factor is an OPINION piece and only that. Not to be construed as actual fact.

yeah and the Huffington post is so newsworthy :thinking: Oreiley is prob the most center person on the airwaves, its not an opinion, did you even watch the video? How is he making up stuff that wsa videotaped being said?

Hannity is RIGHT , Oreilly is conservative. But he bashes both sides equally and 99% of the time he is right, sorry. Rest of America agrees too since he has the highest rated cable news show for the last 12 years

[.blank cd]

They hate them so much they overwhelming elected Tea party candidates in the 2010 election ousting democratic and GOP establishment incumbents. Yea, youre wrong , strike 1Cite your sources please. This should be good...





yeah Mayor Reed is violently resisting.........:lmfao::screwy: Your just trying to twist the argument into what makes you right, which doesnt work for anyone else but people with your warped view of the world.

Police only act when someone is breaking the law. These protestors in every instance, broke the law, or disobeyed direct orders to vacate public land. They get to deal with the consequences. so now law enforcement is not part of the government? And I'm twisting the story? I'm going off of facts here. The only reason they're breaking the law is because Reed is rescinding their permits. Come on man. Turn off the tv and do some research. It's all there




You cannot even begin to compare the civil rights movement with this movement. The Civil Rights movement had a message, it was non violent, it had and agenda, it was morally right. People were brutalized for it in the south. But dont sit on your high horse and compare racial inequality to a bunch of people who want free shit given to them on the backs of the people that they think owe them something.Lets see. I'm comparing non-violent protests to non-violent protests, movements which are morally right to movements which are morally right, and racial inequality to financial inequality. So yes. I am comparing the two. I think you need to sit down and read a little bit more on both movements and you'll see the similarities. .


dont you think its funny Obama is sympathizing with the movement when he took 1 MILLION dollars in campaign donations from Goldman Sachs alone? The very evil corrupt wall street he embraces he now somehow is a man of the OWS movement? Gimme a break.Obamas support of the movement hardly makes him the 'man of the movemnt'



yeah and the Huffington post is so newsworthy :thinking: Oreiley is prob the most center person on the airwaves, its not an opinion, did you even watch the video? How is he making up stuff that wsa videotaped being said?

Hannity is RIGHT , Oreilly is conservative. But he bashes both sides equally and 99% of the time he is right, sorry. Rest of America agrees too since he has the highest rated cable news show for the last 12 yearshaving the highest rated cable news show hardly makes him right. It is still an opinion piece and it is not news. Fox even came out and said he wasn't a news piece

[.blank cd]

The fact is you can't be arrested for being inside a building with a bunch of people, if that was the case, there's gonna be a serious problem come November 25th. You can be arrested for going inside a building and throwing deposit slips all over the place. Fine deal with that guy. You can't be held hostage and arrested for going inside a building and cleaning it up.

[Vteckidd]

well i would love to continue arguing with you but its really worthless at this point. I made my point

[Vteckidd]

really non violent

http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=554&vid=-660407781732785835#play

(chanting FUCK THE POLICE and all) LOL

[BanginJimmy]

Cite your sources please. This should be good...

How does USA Today work?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-11-03-RW_mainelection02_ST_N.htm





The only reason they're breaking the law is because Reed is rescinding their permits. Come on man.

I have been out of the country for the last week so I may be a little out of touch on this.

UGA rescinded the permits to protest, the City did not. From the little I know, the OWS people never had a permit to spend the night in Woodruff Park. Please cite a sourse saying they did have a permit to do so.






Lets see. I'm comparing non-violent protests to non-violent protests, movements which are morally right to movements which are morally right, and racial inequality to financial inequality. So yes. I am comparing the two. I think you need to sit down and read a little bit more on both movements and you'll see the similarities. .

Lets do some comparisons. Civil Rights movement had leaders like MLK who was vocally against any and all violent action. OWS, has Michael Moore saying its not time for violence against the rich, yet.
Moral inequality? Please explain this. Tell me what is morally wrong about working hard and legally attaining money. Now tell me what is morally right about saying I should make a living wage, whether I decide I want to work or not.
Financial inequality? Another one that needs an explanation. Of course not everyone has the money that Bill Gates has. Then again, no one here has half the intelligence and vision he had. If you did, you could create a computer operating system that dominates the market.




having the highest rated cable news show hardly makes him right. It is still an opinion piece and it is not news. Fox even came out and said he wasn't a news piece

Of course its an opinion piece. Its never been advertised as anything BUT an opinion show. That doesnt mean that he isnt reporting on real news, THEN giving his, and the opinons of his guests, airtime.

[Browning151]

I have been out of the country for the last week so I may be a little out of touch on this.

UGA rescinded the permits to protest, the City did not. From the little I know, the OWS people never had a permit to spend the night in Woodruff Park. Please cite a sourse saying they did have a permit to do so.


Reed extended his executive order to allow them to stay in Woodruff until Nov. 7, but then sent in police to remove the protesters, after they had already cost the city about $300k. By far doesn't give them any reason to go out and break the law. I think he made the right decision. There's nothing wrong with protesting, but living in a public park is a whole other story. He basically cut them off because he felt they were headed toward getting out of hand.


The mayor said an unauthorized hip-hop concert that created a "dangerous situation" was the reason, adding some people associated with the movement "were on a clear path to escalation."
http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/occupy-atlanta-police-arrest-1209963.html

[.blank cd]

really non violent

http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=554&vid=-660407781732785835#play

(chanting FUCK THE POLICE and all) LOL
LOL. I wasn't aware freedom of speech was the same thing as violence and justified the use of riot gear. Can you show me where that is in the constitution? Or is that only your opinion?

[.blank cd]

How does USA Today work?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-11-03-RW_mainelection02_ST_N.htmStill doesn't show me that the majority of the American population hates him, just talks about the 2010 elections



I have been out of the country for the last week so I may be a little out of touch on this.

UGA rescinded the permits to protest, the City did not. From the little I know, the OWS people never had a permit to spend the night in Woodruff Park. Please cite a sourse saying they did have a permit to do so.Let me do a little digging and I'll find the permit for you








Lets do some comparisons. Civil Rights movement had leaders like MLK who was vocally against any and all violent action. OWS, has Michael Moore saying its not time for violence against the rich, yet.
Moral inequality? Please explain this. Tell me what is morally wrong about working hard and legally attaining money. Now tell me what is morally right about saying I should make a living wage, whether I decide I want to work or not.
Financial inequality? Another one that needs an explanation. Of course not everyone has the money that Bill Gates has. Then again, no one here has half the intelligence and vision he had. If you did, you could create a computer operating system that dominates the market.I'm sorry, you still think the occupy movement is protesting rich, hard working people? So what about all the hard working people, and all the rich, hard working people that are in the movement? Are they just there for the free food? LOL






Of course its an opinion piece. Its never been advertised as anything BUT an opinion show. That doesnt mean that he isnt reporting on real news, THEN giving his, and the opinons of his guests, airtime."Tide comes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that"

- Bill O'Reiley on "The O'Reiley Factor" on how he thinks tides work.

That is the character he plays on television. The conservative spin host. Someone who doesn't know what's going on in the world around him, packaged as "entertainment" and sold as "news". Wanna stop selling it as news? Take it off the NEWS channel. Until he plays the smart educated man we know he is, he will remain just that: a "character"

So with that said, Fox news, nor Bill O'reileys own website will be getting any page-views from me, so if you foolishly want to quote him as factual news, find a corresponding video on YouTube.

And before you try and attack my statement by saying Colbert and Stewart on the Comedy Channel isn't news either, I've never quoted them and never tried to pass it off as news. Neither has their network.

[Vteckidd]

this is all that needs to be said.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c

[.blank cd]

this is all that needs to be said.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c

Now you're getting somewhere.

You can tell Peter went into that interview with the wrong intentions. Sounds like he's kinda trying to bash their reasons for being there rather than trying to understand them. You can tell when he states "Capitalism is the only way" and "Socialism is wrong". I've only watched 5 minutes of it, but Im interested in seeing the rest so I'll watch the rest of it when I get home.

[Vteckidd]

LOL. I wasn't aware freedom of speech was the same thing as violence and justified the use of riot gear. Can you show me where that is in the constitution? Or is that only your opinion?

freedom of speech is fine, but storming into a business trashing it isnt free speech unless you have the same backwards ass thinking you do.

Riot gear was justified when you have groups of people massing in a pulbic place, refusing to leave, not obeying the state laws, and holding rallies where they chant "fuck the police". So yeah, asshat, you act a certain way you get dealt with a certain way.

Go stand on a corner outside of a police station and chant FUCK THE POLICE with 100 of your closest friends and see what happens

[Vteckidd]

Now you're getting somewhere.

You can tell Peter went into that interview with the wrong intentions. Sounds like he's kinda trying to bash their reasons for being there rather than trying to understand them. You can tell when he states "Capitalism is the only way" and "Socialism is wrong". I've only watched 5 minutes of it, but Im interested in seeing the rest so I'll watch the rest of it when I get home.

Capitalism is the only way, socialism doesnt work.

when you run out of people to take wealth from, youre left with Greece.


but you wouldnt understand that

[.blank cd]

You're right. According to the right, Socialism doesn't work...

Unless it benefits the right....

Unless you're a bank CEO

Unless you're an auto manufacturer.

But in those instances, they don't call it socialism....

What do they call handouts in those situations? I'm interested in knowing....

[Vteckidd]

Then again i dont have anything in common with most of you, i make 6 figures and live a nice life, so i dont expect you to understand what it takes to get to a level of wealth that im at. cause you havent done it. Thats not me bragging although i bet youll think its that. Thats me saying , you better have some type of degree or good paying job before you start wanting to take wealth from other people cause you dont have it. I personally wont give you a dime if you dont earn it. so go look somewhere else.

Its easy to demonize 1 group when youve never been part of it.

Unlike you, i want to be rich, i want to be a millionaire, i want to have a yacht and a ferrari. And ill do whatever i have to do to get there. Its not going to be easy, but id rather earn my own wealth than demand someone else who worked hard for it give it to me. And if they didnt work hard for it (because they were born into it, or won the lottery) then i still dont want it because its not mine.

I dont demonize the rich, i want to be one of them. you should try it sometime

[Vteckidd]

You're right. According to the right, Socialism doesn't work...

Unless it benefits the right....

Unless you're a bank CEO

Unless you're an auto manufacturer.

But in those instances, they don't call it socialism....



and your comprehension skills rivals your intelligence level. Bailing out the banks and auto companies was socialism, and we should have let them fail, and we should have let those people lose their jobs.

that is the ONLY thing i agree with. Bailouts ISNT capitalism, and furthermore demonstrates my point. We tried socialism by saving the bank and auto companies and where did that get us:

2% points HIGHER unemployment and not going anywhere for AT LEAST 2 years, most likely higher
Auto companies still not viable
Millions of dollars in bad loans
LOWER housing prices
worse housing market than in 08
prices still deflating


Bailouts didnt work thats proven

[bu villain]

Capitalism is the only way, socialism doesnt work.

Those aren't the only two options. The US never has had a purely capitalist economic system anyways. There is no perfect system.

Also I think you are unfairly characterizing the OWS protests. I don't think they are demonizing the rich for being rich. They are demonizing certain rich people for the way they get/stay rich (e.g., speculating on stocks with middle class money and getting paid millions even when they lose). By the way, this is coming from someone who "makes 6 figures and lives a nice life".

[BanginJimmy]

You're right. According to the right, Socialism doesn't work...

Unless it benefits the right....

Unless you're a bank CEO

Unless you're an auto manufacturer.

But in those instances, they don't call it socialism....

What do they call handouts in those situations? I'm interested in knowing....


You also have to admit that most CONSERVATIVES, notice I didnt say republicans, were against the bailouts. I know I was and most of the conservatives I know were also.

[bu villain]

2% points HIGHER unemployment and not going anywhere for AT LEAST 2 years, most likely higher
Auto companies still not viable
Millions of dollars in bad loans
LOWER housing prices
worse housing market than in 08
prices still deflating


Bailouts didnt work thats proven

I'm not arguing that the bailouts were good or bad but your logic is flawed here. If you want to argue about the effectiveness of the bailouts, you have to compare the effects to the alternate universe 2011 in which there were no bailouts. You are comparing NOW to 2008. You make it sound like the bailout caused unemployment which obviously doesn't make any sense.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm not arguing that the bailouts were good or bad but your logic is flawed here. If you want to argue about the effectiveness of the bailouts, you have to compare the effects to the alternate universe 2011 in which there were no bailouts. You are comparing NOW to 2008. You make it sound like the bailout caused unemployment which obviously doesn't make any sense.


Since I havent visited that alternate universe and you have, why dont you tell us all what the US would look like without the bailouts.

[.blank cd]

Since I havent visited that alternate universe and you have, why dont you tell us all what the US would look like without the bailouts.Who really knows? Would there have been a global financial system collapse? Some models say yes. But it didn't happen. If there would have been conclusive evidence that would have said "maybe, but we'd come out of it stronger" I would have definitely said "Fuck Em". If there were conclusive evidence that said "global meltdown worlds colliding shitstorm for decades" the I wouldve said lets do this. There was a European country that had a bunch of banks fail a while back, I wanna say Denmark, who are coming out of it pretty strong, but they weren't a world power and their currency wasnt the international standard. So who knows.

The automakers on the other hand. We should've let them tank.

[.blank cd]

Seems that Oakland has a history of violating peoples 1st Amendmant rights. Comforting....

http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-11-06/bay-area/17453409_1_oakland-police-new-policy-protesters#.Tqm2Q5zQh9A.reddit

[.blank cd]

UGA rescinded the permits to protest, the City did not. From the little I know, the OWS people never had a permit to spend the night in Woodruff Park. Please cite a sourse saying they did have a permit to do so.Havent seen anything about UGA rescinding any permits...

"In Atlanta, around 50 protesters were arrested after Mayor Kasim Reed revoked his executive order allowing protesters to camp out in Woodruff Park, and police tried to clear them out."
Woodruff Park is a public place, so free speech is protected there.

Riot gear and tear gas, but theres no riot going on....
Source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/occupy-atlanta-baltimore-clash-with-police-over-use-of-public-space/2011/10/26/gIQADMSiIM_blog.html

More Source (I dont disappoint):

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20125634/occupy-atlanta-camp-cleared-dozens-arrested/

This is too easy. The google button is fantastic:

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/111024/occupy-atlanta-mayor-kasim-reed-revokes-park-permit

And just in case you thought all my other sources were biased, here's some "fair and balanced" coverage. LOL

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/26/atlanta-police-arrest-50-wall-street-protesters/

[Vteckidd]

You seem to really not understand the issue. You keep saying free speech is protected like it was violated. They aren't being kicked out or arrested for "protesting" they are being kicked out and arrested for squatting and being unruly and trashing the places they are "occupying."

They are trying to live in public places that have curfews for people's safety. When asked to respect that law they refuse to leave. When groups of people refuse to leave they get arrested for trespassing, etc

In the Oakland scenario they barricaded themselves in to the plaza and were hostile toward police so they used non lethal force to clear them out.

[Vteckidd]

Its kind of funny, because like the protestors, you don't even know what you're arguing about lol

[.blank cd]

Did you totally miss the pats that said Reed gave them permission to be there and reneged? Or did you selectively read it? Unruliness is your opinion. Civil disobedience is part of non-violent protesting. Always has been. Riot gear and tear gas are completely unnecessary. Period. It's violent force against non violent people and it's only making the cause stronger

[.blank cd]

Across the world, people, including our own presidential administration were OUTRAGED when we heard that Egypt was using teargas against their people during the Arab Spring protests. They screamed "Thats not democratic!" A few months later, a Marine gets shot in the head by a teargas grenade, then the same officer lobs a stun grenade in the middle of a group of people trying to help this fallen marine, The Dept. of Justice says they can file a complaint and they'll look into it.

Hmm....Are we to believe that an autocracy is enjoying more democratic freedoms than the United States? Really?

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” -Mahatma Ghandi

[.blank cd]

You're telling me I dont understand the movement, but you're sitting here still believing its a bunch of hippies begging for free stuff? Its ok to say you dont understand man. I dont mind educating you a little

Here's the case in Nashville where they basically tried to pass a curfew and the judge wasn't having it and released everyone arrested

http://www.nashvillescene.com/pitw/archives/2011/10/28/occupy-nashville-protesters-claim-victory-return-to-plaza

[Browning151]

Did you totally miss the pats that said Reed gave them permission to be there and reneged? Or did you selectively read it? Unruliness is your opinion. Civil disobedience is part of non-violent protesting. Always has been. Riot gear and tear gas are completely unnecessary. Period. It's violent force against non violent people and it's only making the cause stronger

Did you miss the part where there was an unauthorized concert held in the park and Reed also said that he felt the protesters were escalating and there was going to be trouble? He does have a duty to public safety as well, as in the safety of EVERYONE, not just these squatters living on public property. If he feels that things may get out of hand and there's a threat to public safety then he has a duty to remove them.

[Vteckidd]

Reed didn't "renege" , he resendid their permit to be there past curfew hours (a permit he granted them) because of the total disrespect and non compliance with the laws.

They broke their promise to him, he had no choice.

I live by woodruff park, I live in Atlanta, I know what happened.

[Vteckidd]

Wonder how many goals they accomplished? Tea party got elected and recognized in Congress with a caucus. Occupy will fade because its based on a bunch of people who want to take from others because they are too lazy to gett their own.

[.blank cd]

Wonder how many goals they accomplished? Tea party got elected and recognized in Congress with a caucus. Occupy will fade because its based on a bunch of people who want to take from others because they are too lazy to gett their own.

You still think that's what this movement is about? You obviously don't understand it. It's not what it's about at all actually.

The tea party got elected because they had money. Simple as that.

Funny, they said the civil rights movement would fade too. Hmm....

[.blank cd]

Reed didn't "renege" , he resendid their permit to be there past curfew hours (a permit he granted them)
He granted a permit, then rescinded it. You don't call that reneging(short for renegotiating)? What do you call it? Indian giving? Being a whiney little baby? I'm interested in knowing. Really.

[Vteckidd]

LOL occupy has far moe money behind it from liberal think tanks than the tea party had. Tea party never had to go recruit homeless people to falsely give out higher number either.

Reed revoked their permit because THEY refused to abide by the city laws HE asked them to respect.

Reed is a hard liberal and protester himself and even he saw how "mob rule" they were getting. He is responsible for all citizens safety and he did what he did to protect it.

This will fade, what they want is not possible and doesn't work. Sharing the wealth doesn't work. Socialism doesn't work.

If you think it does move to Europe.

This is a bunch of AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE people who want handouts, clearly the civil rights movements had much smarter and powerful forces behind it.

[Humphrizzle]

the protesters attack police officers.. this is non-violent behavior? i dont think so...

[.blank cd]

Sigh. Ok. If socialism doesn't work for you, please stop using public highways, public roads, don't ever call the police if you're in trouble, or the fire dept. if your place is burning down, don't call an ambulance. Stop using this website and stop using the Internet all together. Hate to have you be associated with socialism in any way

[.blank cd]

the protesters attack police officers.. this is non-violent behavior? i dont think so...Youve seen protesters attack police? Heard any news reports of any protesters attacking the police? Didn't think so. If there was thered be a shitstorm. It's a non-violent protest (from the protesters side anyway). Don't confuse civil disobedience with violence

[Vteckidd]

Sigh. Ok. If socialism doesn't work for you, please stop using public highways, public roads, don't ever call the police if you're in trouble, or the fire dept. if your place is burning down, don't call an ambulance. Stop using this website and stop using the Internet all together. Hate to have you be associated with socialism in any way

You don't even know what the definition of socialism is.........no point in arguing when you can't even comprehend your own opinion

[.blank cd]

Sure I do. All I had to do was look in the dictionary and the encyclopedia. If more conservatives used those, there wouldn't be conservatism. LOL. It makes you sound uneducated (at least, to educated people) when you say socialism is all about free free free handout handout handout hitler stalin, free. I could say capitalism is all about greed greed greed and stealing from poor people, but I wouldn't be correct, or sound very educated, would I? You see my point?

[Vteckidd]

Do you have a college degree? High school? We can see who is more educated if you want.

[Humphrizzle]

I've heard many reports of irrational protestors angrily rushing the police patrolling the mob of retards.

[Browning151]

Sigh. Ok. If socialism doesn't work for you, please stop using public highways, public roads, don't ever call the police if you're in trouble, or the fire dept. if your place is burning down, don't call an ambulance. Stop using this website and stop using the Internet all together. Hate to have you be associated with socialism in any way

You're about as brainwashed as they come.

[.blank cd]

Lol. Ok. Hard facts is "brainwashing". Got it.

[.blank cd]

Can any of you guys define socialism correctly? Without using the term handout?

[Vteckidd]

You want everyone to be police officers and teachers and construction workers......probably since you've never had a real job in your life anyway......got it

[Vteckidd]

Ill respond tomorrow when I have more time

[.blank cd]

You want everyone to be police officers and teachers and construction workers......probably since you've never had a real job in your life anyway......got itYou're still making things up! I dont think anywhere in this thread I advocated everyone being a police officer or a public worker. Anywhere. I never argued that you wanted everyone to be day traders and ceo's and whatever. When you respond, can you respond with facts, without making things up, trying to attack my credibility, and without cherry-picking? Or is that something conservatives just do?

[BanginJimmy]

Can any of you guys define socialism correctly? Without using the term handout?


I can, and have several times, but Webster does it better.

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2: a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done





Now, can you tell me how the police andfiremen are the govt ownership or control of a means of production? How does a highway end the notion of private property?

[.blank cd]

I can, and have several times, but Webster does it better.

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2: a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done





Now, can you tell me how the police andfiremen are the govt ownership or control of a means of production? How does a highway end the notion of private property?Alright! That's good. We can both agree that this is a standard definition of socialism, so we can both take def. number one--the various economic and political theories--and agree that socialism is an all-encompassing term, just as we can agree that capitalism is also an all encompassing term. Both have a bunch of theories within them. If we can agree that there are good and bad theories in capitalism, as well as good and bad theories in socialism, is it fair to market only the good parts of capitalism and only the bad parts of socialism?

One of its theories basically says, and conservatives can agree, that socialism is pretty much taxpayer money used on government programs for the betterment of society. Healthcare is a good example that conservatives hate. Government takes taxpayers money, puts it into a big account, and now less fortunate people can get their doctors visits taken care of.

Let's expand on less fortunate for a second. Some conservatives say there's no such thing as less fortunate people. Just lazy-asses. Let's get one thing straight--you're not gonna get rid of the working class, the lazy ass people they speak of. Simple as that. And that's a fact some have yet to come to terms with. Just as you need a CEO to run a big company, you need a waiter to run a restaurant. You need someone to assemble that Ferrari, you need someone to sell it to you, and you need someone to change its oil.

So with that said. Let's expand on another taxpayer funded program. The interstate highway system. Based off the German autobahn, a brainchild of the German Reich and the Weimar republic. You pay your taxes, the govt. puts that in a big account, and they pay for roads with it. Now you and the rest of the driving population can drive across the country conveniently. This idea was implemented by a republican president by the way.

So I could go on and on about police and the taxpayer funded United States military. But hopefully I've enlightened you to at the very least look at socialism objectively, as there are good and bad theories

[BanginJimmy]

That'd a cute little rant and all but make the jump from taxpayer funded infrastructure and services to govt controlling the means of production?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Vteckidd]

Alright! That's good. We can both agree that this is a standard definition of socialism, so we can both take def. number one--the various economic and political theories--and agree that socialism is an all-encompassing term, just as we can agree that capitalism is also an all encompassing term. Both have a bunch of theories within them. If we can agree that there are good and bad theories in capitalism, as well as good and bad theories in socialism, is it fair to market only the good parts of capitalism and only the bad parts of socialism?

I believe that this just comes down to a core belief of whether or not you believe you can achieve success with hard work.

Capitalism is survival of the fittest, the ability to achieve great success with hard work by being the best you can be.

Socialism doesnt believe you are capable of that, and that the only way you can truly achieve greatness is to have it given to you, provided to you, or taken from someone else because you arent smart enough or capable enough to achieve it on your own.

Capitalism is a system where the poorest of the poor, the most uneducated person, can achieve success by hard work. Look at any professional sports player , or many CEOs who came from nothing and achieved great wealth or social status , etc.

Socialism believes that the system is rigged in capitalism and isnt fair, so the govt must provide it to you.

In one instance (capitalism) you would have kanye west, Jay z, Lebron james, Michael jordan, Steve Jobs..........

In the other (socialism) by the very definition you would not.

Socialism by todays definition depends on a flawed view of the world IMO. It assumes that their are rich and wealthy to pillage in the first place. But what happens when all those people arent around? You get 1990s Russia. Where only govt officials have any real wealth. It destroys the middle class. Because once you eliminate everyone at the top, there is no reason to work to get there or stay there. Would kanye produce records if he couldnt make 12 million last year? Would A-Rod be the greatest baseball player if he couldnt make millions of dollars? Would steve jobs had invested billions if he couldnt MAKE billions?

First you have to understand that capitalism is driven by greed, want for wealth, success etc. You have to understand that in order for their to be a TOP there has to be a bottom. Not everyone can be rich, that is life. Do you agree with that?



One of its theories basically says, and conservatives can agree, that socialism is pretty much taxpayer money used on government programs for the betterment of society. Healthcare is a good example that conservatives hate. Government takes taxpayers money, puts it into a big account, and now less fortunate people can get their doctors visits taken care of.

Kinda. But see the problem is you guys dont understand the scope of the problem you are even trying to fix. all you see is "free helathcare is good!". What you dont understand is that the COST OF HEALTHCARE is 2 TRILLION DOLLARS AND CLIMBING, that is almost 4 times the cost of last years DEFENSE BUDGET. SO if you want to TAX people to pay for their healthcare..............it would be a massive increase something like 25-35% to BREAK EVEN. So why it sounds good when you say "people should have health care and it should be govt paid" you have to understand what that actually means. Who pays for it? Obviously you dont think the already "poor" should pay for it, so that leave the top income earners. I ask you this, should they provide the money for healthcare, will you be ok with NOT having a job? will you trade free healthcare for no job (because we both can agree that increasing a businesses taxes or a wealthy mans taxes 25-35% will see massive layoffs).

When those layoffs happen the govt tax revenues will decrease, which means they will have to borrow more. Which leads me to my next point, SOCIAL PROGRAMS ARE UNSUSTAINABLE.

Name me 1 social program that is solvent.......you cant. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaide, Foodstamps, Welfare, etc are all INSOLVENT because they dont work. Postal Service? Bankrupt.


Let's expand on less fortunate for a second. Some conservatives say there's no such thing as less fortunate people. Just lazy-asses. Let's get one thing straight--you're not gonna get rid of the working class, the lazy ass people they speak of. Simple as that. And that's a fact some have yet to come to terms with. Just as you need a CEO to run a big company, you need a waiter to run a restaurant. You need someone to assemble that Ferrari, you need someone to sell it to you, and you need someone to change its oil.

First of all no one said that so stop making up talking points. However i do believe that a ton of people in this country who cry foul are LAZY or they dont want to take responsibility for thier mistakes.

A person starts a business to make a profit. He employs people to make more profit. If the guy building the ferrari doesnt want to make $15/hr, he doesnt have to. there isnt a gun being held to his head. You can fix that through education, different trade skill, etc. If every person at wal mart quit tomorrow, wal mart would go under. But they dont , because they realize that their job payes what the rest of the market dictates. If you arent happy making $15/hr at wal mart, then its on YOU to change that, not the business, not the govt.

This is why i wonder why you have avoided the "what education level do you have, what is your job, do you have a college degree" question. Probably because that would circumvent your entire argument. Because if YOU dont possess the qualifications to be rich, then you dont DESERVE it, period. thats my point.



So with that said. Let's expand on another taxpayer funded program. The interstate highway system. Based off the German autobahn, a brainchild of the German Reich and the Weimar republic. You pay your taxes, the govt. puts that in a big account, and they pay for roads with it. Now you and the rest of the driving population can drive across the country conveniently. This idea was implemented by a republican president by the way.

Great, again you dont understand the shear size of the argument. We have 15-20million people out of work or underemplpoyed. On one hand you saiy that wages are too cheap, companies are evil, etc, but on the next hand you want to make everyone a construction worker and build highways? or do you think all those jobs are going to pay $50,000 a year? What do we do once the roads are built?

You agree we arent going to hire 10 million construction workers right? The govt doesnt create jobs, not sustainable ones. Because it cant create wealth. So you spend 400 billion on construction jobs and when all that work is done, then what? youre HOPING there will be other jobs for them to get hired to, but if not, we didnt fix the problem, we bandaided it.

If construction workers are out of jobs because theres no work to do, then does it make sense to arbitrarily hire them and invent jobs that dont exist anyway? The "roads and construction" stuff is not a solution, its a talking point that wont put a dent in unemployment, and is another waste of taxpayer money. Its something that probably does need to be done, but it doesnt address the problem of our stagnate economy. Sorry. Its something we should look at doing , for infrastructure reasons, but its way down on the totem pole. Also, the STIM 1 of 800 billion was supposed to be for ROADS AND BRIDGES, what happened to all that money? oh, it was wasted , and was mainly kickbacks. Govt cant spend money efficiently, that is proven.


So I could go on and on about police and the taxpayer funded United States military. But hopefully I've enlightened you to at the very least look at socialism objectively, as there are good and bad theories

See you guys like to do everything one way. I say socialism doesnt work and you say "OH SO YOU HATE POLICE THEN!". No, again, you simply dont understand the argument.

Police, Fire, Teachers, etc are all great aspects of state funded organizations (not federal). but they are volunteer. No one MAKES you be a police officer. But they are still a capitalistic part of society because they way that police/fire/teachers are funded is through the collection of state/county taxes, which come from the population living there. So an area must make it beneficial for people to live there, encourage good business environments, in order to collect revenue to pay for those services. It isnt the govt simply dictating "you must be a police officer" which is what a socialist/marxist society would do.

They are also in many cases BANKRUPT from state to state (from unions and other stuff) but many places need fed bailouts to keep their current police staff. So, EVEN if it is one of your socialist examples, it is another fact that they DONT WORK. They are not sustainable.

Also, we dont want people to be police officers and fire fighters and teachers , its nice that some people want to do that, and many of us greatly appreciate it, its a noble profession. But we cant have a country built on wanting to solely be that, we want people to generaly strive to be better, which is why MOST of those jobs DONT require a college degree :)

[Vteckidd]

You still think that's what this movement is about? You obviously don't understand it. It's not what it's about at all actually.

The tea party got elected because they had money. Simple as that.

Funny, they said the civil rights movement would fade too. Hmm....

Also here is a list of the events the city took against Occupy Oakland.......



ATTENTION DEMONSTRATORS
Date: October 20, 2011, 8:00 pm
NOTICE TO VACATE FRANK OGAWA PLAZA
The City of Oakland is committed to facilitating peaceful forms of expression and free
speech rights, and protecting personal safety and property.
From the outset of the demonstration on October 10, the City of Oakland has maintained its commitment
to facilitating the peaceful expression of First Amendment rights, balanced with the City’s equal
commitment to protecting and maintaining public safety, public health, and crowd control. While
demonstrators have a right to peaceful expression, the City has a responsibility to ensure a public health
and safety plan during such events.
During the past 10 days, City officials have provided written documentation—handed out in person and
posted on the City’s web site—outlining specific public health, safety, and crowd control issues to be
addressed by demonstrators.
We believe that after 10 days, the City can no longer uphold public health and safety. In recent days,
camp conditions and occupants’ behavior have significantly deteriorated, and it is no longer manageable
to maintain a public health and safety plan. These conditions, which have not been sufficiently addressed,
include:
�� Fire hazards: cooking with open flame, improper storage and disposal of propane tanks, storage of
grease, inadequate fire extinguishers, density of tents and flammable materials, smoking in tents, piles
of hay and wood
�� Safety hazards: increasing frequency of violence, assaults, threats and intimidation
�� Denial of access: to emergency personnel to treat injured persons and to police to patrol the Plaza
�� Sanitation hazards: public urination and defecation, litter, improper food preparation and storage
practices
�� Health hazards: existing rodent problem has been exacerbated and is endangering public health.
County vector control is unable to implement measures to control the rat population under current
conditions
�� Physical damage: graffiti, vandalism and other damage to Plaza infrastructure and the historic tree
�� Disruption of the Plaza for public use: some events for groups who have complied with City
regulations have been reprogrammed or relocated
As a result of these serious conditions, the Administration has determined that facilitating this expression
of speech is no longer viable, nor in the interest of public health and safety. Peaceful daytime assembly
will continue to be allowed between 6 am and 10 pm daily. No tents or overnight camping permitted.

So again, they were given warnings, they refused to respect the law and they can deal with the consequences. And thier "free speech" wasnt violated, it was their actions around their free speech that caused them to get booted out and arrested.

response to the Injured Marine:
This is a reaction to a video of the injured Marine:

Quote:

Additionally, the officers in the video were stationary, behind a barricade, and it was your "peaceful" protesters that chose to advance on the police position after being told to disperse. The injured guy was dropped within 10 feet of the barricade fence and directly in front of the officers. What was he doing there? The officers were a stationary group of targets holding a line against hundreds of rioters spanning distances of hundreds of yards and with a 180 degree field of view while taking incoming projectiles. The protesters chose the actions that led to the violence in the video.

Looks like they agree with me, go figure

[bu villain]

Since I havent visited that alternate universe and you have, why dont you tell us all what the US would look like without the bailouts.

No need for sarcasm. I'm simply saying you can't conclude "the bailouts have proven to have failed" just as someone can't conclude "they surely succeeded". The argument is mostly in the thoeretical domain so it is disengenuous to speak on such issues as if they are a matter of fact and that you know the truth while those who disagree with you are ignorant or dishonest.

I'm noticing the same pattern in almost all the arguments on this forum. Take the OWS protestors. The detractors on here won't even recognize that the protesters have even the slightest hint of a legitimate greivance. So much energy is poured into discredting their motives and perceived demands (there aren't any official demands) and absolutely no energy is put into identifying areas where we might actually be able to improve our financial and political system.

[Vteckidd]

No need for sarcasm. I'm simply saying you can't conclude "the bailouts have proven to have failed" just as someone can't conclude "they surely succeeded". The argument is mostly in the thoeretical domain so it is disengenuous to speak on such issues as if they are a matter of fact and that you know the truth while those who disagree with you are ignorant or dishonest.

False. The bailouts have failed. if they didnt, then unemployment wouldnt be 9+% , GDP wouldnt be at .0001% growth LOL

I mean i guess it depends on what your definition of success is. If you mean it prevented the overnight collapse of our financial system and propped up BAD businesses, then yes, that is true. But i dont view that as a success. I view it as a failure of capitalism.


I'm noticing the same pattern in almost all the arguments on this forum. Take the OWS protestors. The detractors on here won't even recognize that the protesters have even the slightest hint of a legitimate greivance. So much energy is poured into discredting their motives and perceived demands (there aren't any official demands) and absolutely no energy is put into identifying areas where we might actually be able to improve our financial and political system.

wrong again. the people who are protesting the horrible relationship between wallstreet and govt, who are against wall street buying votes and lobbying, i agree 10000000% with. I DISAGREE with protesting wall street over it, because its not their fault. Its Washingtons. they should be focusing on them, because that is where the policy changes need to be made.

[BanginJimmy]

No need for sarcasm. I'm simply saying you can't conclude "the bailouts have proven to have failed" just as someone can't conclude "they surely succeeded". The argument is mostly in the thoeretical domain so it is disengenuous to speak on such issues as if they are a matter of fact and that you know the truth while those who disagree with you are ignorant or dishonest.

Going by Obama's own words it was a failure. Remember when he said that passing it would keep unemployment below 8%? Yea, we havent even seen below 9% yet and have been close to 10%. Georgia is still above 10% and rising.


I'm noticing the same pattern in almost all the arguments on this forum. Take the OWS protestors. The detractors on here won't even recognize that the protesters have even the slightest hint of a legitimate greivance. So much energy is poured into discredting their motives and perceived demands (there aren't any official demands) and absolutely no energy is put into identifying areas where we might actually be able to improve our financial and political system.

I posted a list of greivences already. Remember the one that says all people should make a living wage, whether they work or not?

As far as getting the money out of politics, I agree 100%. I am a firm believer in 100% govt financed federal elections. I would even agree to an additional 1% tax on ALL forms of income to pay for it. The breakdown I would like would be simple. 47.5% goes to the RNC, 47.5% goes to the DNC, and 5% goes to independent candidates. Incumbent independents would get their money from the side of the aisle they caucus with.

This wont completely take th money out of elections because there will still be unions, trade groups, and the like that will spend money, but it would remove the direct line.

[.blank cd]

I posted a list of greivences already. Remember the one that says all people should make a living wage, whether they work or not?You posted an unofficial list of greivences already, yes. To this date there are still no official list of grievences, The main focus of this movement is getting money out of politics, which obviously we can all agree with.

[BanginJimmy]

You posted an unofficial list of greivences already, yes. To this date there are still no official list of grievences, The main focus of this movement is getting money out of politics, which obviously we can all agree with.

Since there is no official list of greivences why should we just assume that the point of the whole deal is getting money put of politics? Yes, I have seen that posted regularly but I have seen a lot of other less noble issues throw around just as often. The biggest of those being immediate forgiveness of student loans and a single payer healthcare system.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[bu villain]

False. The bailouts have failed. if they didnt, then unemployment wouldnt be 9+% , GDP wouldnt be at .0001% growth LOL

I mean i guess it depends on what your definition of success is. If you mean it prevented the overnight collapse of our financial system and propped up BAD businesses, then yes, that is true. But i dont view that as a success. I view it as a failure of capitalism.


That is exactly my point. Who defined success as being unemployment under 9%? It's certainly not my definition of success. To me, the purpose of it was to prevent the collapse of the financial system which as you admit, did not collapse. So that is a success under the terms of its primary goal. Should we ever let ourselves get in that position again? No, of course not.


wrong again. the people who are protesting the horrible relationship between wallstreet and govt, who are against wall street buying votes and lobbying, i agree 10000000% with. I DISAGREE with protesting wall street over it, because its not their fault. Its Washingtons. they should be focusing on them, because that is where the policy changes need to be made.

You don't think wallstreet (Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Behr Sterns etc) had anything to do with the financial collapse? You don't think people should be upset by that?

[bu villain]

Going by Obama's own words it was a failure. Remember when he said that passing it would keep unemployment below 8%? Yea, we havent even seen below 9% yet and have been close to 10%. Georgia is still above 10% and rising.

Why would you go by Obama's words? Bush is the one who bailed them out with the TARP program. By the way, neither Bush nor Obama has that much control over the economy. They can't dictate unemployment rates as much as they would like to.


I posted a list of greivences already. Remember the one that says all people should make a living wage, whether they work or not?

As far as getting the money out of politics, I agree 100%. I am a firm believer in 100% govt financed federal elections. I would even agree to an additional 1% tax on ALL forms of income to pay for it. The breakdown I would like would be simple. 47.5% goes to the RNC, 47.5% goes to the DNC, and 5% goes to independent candidates. Incumbent independents would get their money from the side of the aisle they caucus with.

This wont completely take th money out of elections because there will still be unions, trade groups, and the like that will spend money, but it would remove the direct line.

I responded to that list you posted. It was a list created by one guy and posted on an internet forum. He doesn't speak for everyone there. No one does.

I like your proposal. That's what the discussion should be about. Not about whether the protestors are hippies or hate rich people or whatever other bullshit distracts from the real issues.

[.blank cd]

You don't think wallstreet (Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Behr Sterns etc) had anything to do with the financial collapse? You don't think people should be upset by that?nope. They just wrote the govt the check, the govt. didn't have to take it. Lol

[bu villain]

Since there is no official list of greivences why should we just assume that the point of the whole deal is getting money put of politics? Yes, I have seen that posted regularly but I have seen a lot of other less noble issues throw around just as often. The biggest of those being immediate forgiveness of student loans and a single payer healthcare system.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

I can see you are starting to understand. The whole point isn't just getting money out of politics but it is one of the major themes. There are many others as you pointed out, some have smaller followings than others. The protests are simply a forum for people to speak out against corruption, abuses of power, or basically any other concern of those who feel disenfranchised. People want to oversimplify the protests because it's hard to wrap their heads around such disorganization and it also becomes easier to dismiss without actually thinking critically about any of it.

[Vteckidd]

nope. They just wrote the govt the check, the govt. didn't have to take it. Lol

so because i9lobbyist) offer the cop9govt) a bribe means he has to take it?

which do you think you have a greater chance of changing, the Corps lobbying and taking money, or elected officials?

ill give you a hint, only 1 category is someone we can vote out.

[.blank cd]

so because i9lobbyist) offer the cop9govt) a bribe means he has to take it?

which do you think you have a greater chance of changing, the Corps lobbying and taking money, or elected officials?

ill give you a hint, only 1 category is someone we can vote out.if you offer a cop a bribe, and someone higher up finds out about it, guess who gets punished.... Legally, both parties.

Both need to change. We can vote on both. One we vote with our ballots, the other we vote with our wallets

[BanginJimmy]

I can see you are starting to understand. The whole point isn't just getting money out of politics but it is one of the major themes. There are many others as you pointed out, some have smaller followings than others. The protests are simply a forum for people to speak out against corruption, abuses of power, or basically any other concern of those who feel disenfranchised. People want to oversimplify the protests because it's hard to wrap their heads around such disorganization and it also becomes easier to dismiss without actually thinking critically about any of it.


Yea, I understand there is no message behind the protests. It is just a massive whining session. These people have no clue what they want or how to achieve anything, they are just out there for the party.

[.blank cd]

Yea, I understand there is no message behind the protests. It is just a massive whining session. These people have no clue what they want or how to achieve anything, they are just out there for the party.
LOL. Even though we explained the message behind the protests, we've shown you how to see the message, you still don't believe there's a message.

Sigh. This is why shit doesn't get done in this country, too many people unwilling to look past the red and the blue of things

[BanginJimmy]

LOL. Even though we explained the message behind the protests, we've shown you how to see the message, you still don't believe there's a message.

Sigh. This is why shit doesn't get done in this country, too many people unwilling to look past the red and the blue of things


Are you the official spokesman for OWS now? Where is this vastly obvious message I am missing if I cant look at their lists of demands to get it? You say you keep telling us not to bother reading the posted lists of demands because there is no real set of demands, then in the next breath you tell us how we are ignoring the message. Which one is it? Should we only pay attention to the demands we like and simply ignore the rest like they arent even there?

[.blank cd]

They said "those hippie protesters wont change anything, this movement wont get anything done"

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/01/bank-of-america-dropping-planned-5-debit-card-fee/?hpt=hp_t2
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/31/news/companies/suntrust_debit_card_fees/index.htm

#Occupy - 1

Wall Street - 0

[Vteckidd]

They said "those hippie protesters wont change anything, this movement wont get anything done"

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/01/bank-of-america-dropping-planned-5-debit-card-fee/?hpt=hp_t2
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/31/news/companies/suntrust_debit_card_fees/index.htm

#Occupy - 1

Wall Street - 0

lol that has nothing to do with occupy wall street. it has everything to do with the customers

[.blank cd]

lol that has nothing to do with occupy wall street. it has everything to do with the customers

LMAO. Ok. You mean their customers, who were all sitting on wall street protesting this very thing? Who all stormed the BofA building to close their accounts? The customers across the country who are fed up with BofA's shadinesss that are closng there accounts in droves?You're telling me that had absolutely nothing to do with that? LOL
I have a feeling if there was a referendum tomorrow calling for complete and total campaign finance reform, and new regulation on wall streets risky investments, you would think it would have nothing to do with these people protesting. LOL. When my tire has a flat, I don't say "Well, that nail stuck in the side of it had nothing to do with it"

[Vteckidd]

LMAO. Ok. You mean their customers, who were all sitting on wall street protesting this very thing? Who all stormed the BofA building to close their accounts? The customers across the country who are fed up with BofA's shadinesss that are closng there accounts in droves?You're telling me that had absolutely nothing to do with that? LOL

come on man you know these dirty hippies dont have bank accounts LOL

Seriously the backlash was from customers , not the protestors, although there prob were SOME protestors that did hold bank accts. However, the numbers that fled BOA outnumber the size of people at the protest. Im sure you can say they somehow linked the protest motivating people to leave, or bringing the issue up, but it was never a core issue . I cant even find it listed in any of their so called DEMANDS. I thought this was about corp and finiancing with the govt, not debit card fees LOL

But i suppose you guys will cherry pick what you think should be attributed to the movement.



I have a feeling if there was a referendum tomorrow calling for complete and total campaign finance reform, and new regulation on wall streets risky investments, you would think it would have nothing to do with these people protesting. LOL. When my tire has a flat, I don't say "Well, that nail stuck in the side of it had nothing to do with it"

Yeah Schumer proposed an ammendment today to the constitution, and hes received MILLIONS from wall street. Pot meet kettle.

Tea PArty has been calling for campaign finance reform and more for years, but i suppose none of that will be attributed to them. More cherry picking.

Ill give the OWS some credit, they fired up some people , but i still dont see any major changes coming from them.

[Vteckidd]

A New York City cafe cut its staff by nearly 25 percent last week because of lost business due to the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests, the cafe's owner told FoxNews.com.

Marc Epstein, owner of the Milk Street Cafe at 40 Wall Street in lower Manhattan, said he had to cut 21 of the 97 members of his staff on Thursday and Friday after seeing sales plummet by 30 percent in the six weeks since the protests began. He's also been forced to slash the restaurant operating hours, moving up his closing time from 9 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. Mondays through Thursdays.

The incessant noise and police activity aside, Epstein said the biggest obstacle to his business has been the ubiquitous New York police barricades surrounding Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan.

"It's not only a physical impediment, it's a psychological impediment," Epstein told FoxNews.com. "You look down Wall Street now, and it looks like it's under siege. So, people who have to walk down Wall Street don't walk down Wall Street. It used to be a beautiful pedestrian mall, and now it's not -- it's ugly."

If the barricades are not removed, Epstein said he "cannot see" how his business could sustain itself. The eatery, which opened in June, is a $4 million venture and is an expansion of the Boston restaurant he and his wife opened decades earlier.

"It's my first venture in New York and my last venture in New York," he said.

Epstein said he has pleaded with city officials, the New York police and his landlord, Donald Trump, to get the barricades removed, but he has been unable to get a return call from the city and the New York police. He was told by Trump himself, however, that the real estate mogul would try to contact city officials in hopes of removing the barricades.

Marc LaVorgna, a spokesman for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, said city officials are discussing potential solutions with Milk Street Cafe and other businesses near the protests on an ongoing basis.

"We have been working with businesses and the community to address the issues caused by the protests and will continue to do so," he told FoxNews.com.

FoxNews.com's calls seeking comment from New York police officials were not returned on Tuesday.

Trump, who owns a 68-story skyscraper near the site, told FoxNews.com that Epstein is not the only business owner taking a severe hit since the protests began.

"It's a very sad situation," Trump told FoxNews.com by phone. "They opened up to rave reviews and now because of Occupy Wall Street, nobody's going down there. People are shunning the area; it's a very big problem."

Trump said he is "in the process" of discussing the potential removal of the barricades with city officials.

"I hope so," Trump said when asked if he thought city officials will be sympathetic to his request.

Prior to last week's terminations, Epstein told Bloomberg late last month that the police barricades surrounding Zuccotti Park have deterred shoppers and caused about a 20 percent drop in sales.

Asked if he felt the protesters realized they were hurting his business, Epstein replied: "I'm very afraid of getting into what they are thinking and whether it's the police or the protesters because I don't want to get mixed up in the battle between them. But everyone should understand the consequences of their actions and nobody is."



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/01/owner-occupy-wall-street-cost-restaurant-21-jobs-and-counting/?test=latestnews#ixzz1cYmEW7qv

but hey, they got what they wanted right, fuck weveryone else

[Skorcher]

That's what they get for opening a small business on/near the greedy wall street.


/sarcasm

[bu villain]

Yea, I understand there is no message behind the protests. It is just a massive whining session. These people have no clue what they want or how to achieve anything, they are just out there for the party.

Just because not everyone agrees on what they want doesn't mean none of them know what they want. You are right that it is a "massive whining session" just as the tea party rallies are a bunch of people whining about government spending. That's basically what all peaceful protests are. It doesn't make their concerns any less legitimate.

Why would you expect everyone to have clear answers to everything? We shouldn't expect everyone to be expert economists and policy experts. They are simply people trying to raise awareness about what they feel are major problems in society and government.

[bu villain]

but hey, they got what they wanted right, fuck weveryone else

So your priorities look like this:

1. Milk Street Cafe's revenue
2. Thousand's of peoples' ability to assemble in a public place to express their concerns with government and industry

Ask yourself if you would feel the same way if the protestors were protesting against government spending or raising taxes.

[.blank cd]

Lol. If Milk Street Cafe's business went down any other time of the year, he wouldn't be complaining. Now he sheds a tear cause the people protesting brought their lunch from home.

Survival of the fittest, bro. Capitalism at its finest. No one wants to eat there, so the stronger stores around him flourish. Let the weak fend for themselves. Capitalism....the only way.

You gonna go down there and give them a handout, buy a sandwich for a little extra to help em out?

[BanginJimmy]

So your priorities look like this:

1. Milk Street Cafe's revenue
2. Thousand's of peoples' ability to assemble in a public place to express their concerns with government and industry


They are not on public property. The park they are in is privately owned.



Lol. If Milk Street Cafe's business went down any other time of the year, he wouldn't be complaining. Now he sheds a tear cause the people protesting brought their lunch from home.

Survival of the fittest, bro. Capitalism at its finest. No one wants to eat there, so the stronger stores around him flourish. Let the weak fend for themselves. Capitalism....the only way.


Business is tanking BECAUSE of the protests. It was getting great reviews before they started.

[Vteckidd]

Jimmy they don't get it, I've resolved to just let them have their warped sense of the world. In 10 years when I retire they'll still be complaining

[.blank cd]

Jimmy they don't get it, I've resolved to just let them have their warped sense of the world. In 10 years when I retire they'll still be complaining

:facepalm:

[Browning151]

Even Bloomberg thinks these miscreants are in the wrong place:

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/11/3971362/bloomberg-plain-and-simple-congress-caused-mortgage-crisis-not-banks


"I hear your complaints," Bloomberg said. "Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I'm not saying I'm sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn't have gotten them without that.

"But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it's one target, it's easy to blame them and congress certainly isn't going to blame themselves. At the same time, Congress is trying to pressure banks to loosen their lending standards to make more loans. This is exactly the same speech they criticized them for."


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

If you want to fix the broken system, you need to look at the elected officials and the circus that they've created in DC.

[.blank cd]

Wait, did you just say what I think you said?


Even Bloomberg thinks these miscreants are in the wrong place:

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/culture/2011/11/3971362/bloomberg-plain-and-simple-congress-caused-mortgage-crisis-not-banks

If you want to fix the broken system, you need to look at the elected officials and the circus that they've created in DC.You said that Bloomberg, the 1%, thinks that they're in the wrong place? Even though theres general assemblies in more than 20 major cities in the US? And more across the world? LMAO! And then he says he thinks it was only congress' fault for the bad mortgages, even though thats false?

You do know Bloomberg is like the 1% of the 1% right? LOL.

[Vteckidd]

Why aren't they protesting Fannie and Freddie who paid CEO 13 million in bonuses last year while taking bailouts?

[.blank cd]

Why aren't they protesting Fannie and Freddie who paid CEO 13 million in bonuses last year while taking bailouts?Does that piss you off? those 13 million bucks was your money!

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/11/02/occupy-st-louis-protestors-rally-outside-fannie-mae-offices/

http://www.politicususa.com/en/occupy-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae

[Vteckidd]

Yeah it pisses me off I expect occupy people protesting them ASAP.

But I suspect they wont theyll continue protesting the wrong people and disrupting local business and continue raping, squatting, complaining, and generally being lazy slobs.

I got paid today, I'm happy. They aren't affecting me.

[Vteckidd]

so peaceful, yeah they arent doing anything wrong.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/02/occupy-oakland-protesters-target-busy-port/

[Vteckidd]

Totally non violent

http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=554&vid=979077702014889146

[bu villain]

They are not on public property. The park they are in is privately owned.

Yes it is privately owned but the zoning requires them to have it open to the public 24hrs a day. There was no rule against people staying there as long as they wanted until last month when they changed the rule. Now the owner of the park can remove them but is choosing not to enforce that rule. Why don't you blame the owner for not having them removed from the property?


Business is tanking BECAUSE of the protests. It was getting great reviews before they started.

Actually if you read the article you linked to, the owner said the biggest problem was the police barricades. How about just move the barricades so people can get to the restaurant easier. I don't really see your point in the end. Are you saying that people shouldn't protest if it is going to negatively affect any local businesses?

[bu villain]

Jimmy they don't get it, I've resolved to just let them have their warped sense of the world. In 10 years when I retire they'll still be complaining

What is the point of slinging insults?

[bu villain]

Why aren't they protesting Fannie and Freddie who paid CEO 13 million in bonuses last year while taking bailouts?

Fannie and Freddie did play a part absolutely, but they are not the ones primarily responsible. Also incompetence is not as infuriating as deceit.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/housing_markets_3

[bu villain]

Vteck, do you think the existence of the black panthers means that the civil rights movement was wrong. I won't condone the violence in Oakland as it is only distracting from the real issues which are legitimate.

[BanginJimmy]

Actually if you read the article you linked to, the owner said the biggest problem was the police barricades. How about just move the barricades so people can get to the restaurant easier. I don't really see your point in the end. Are you saying that people shouldn't protest if it is going to negatively affect any local businesses?

I wonder why the barricades are there?

[Vteckidd]

My point is they are protesting not having jobs by impeding other people's businesses. That's like protesting a bank while you use your debit card......

You seen any of the Oakland video from last night? Mass violence vandalism etc? Peacefully LOL

[.blank cd]

My point is they are protesting not having jobs by impeding other people's businesses. That's like protesting a bank while you use your debit card......

You seen any of the Oakland video from last night? Mass violence vandalism etc? Peacefully LOLIt was described by everyone OTHER than Fox news as scattered acts of vandalism. But we all know Fox is fair and balanced right?

[BanginJimmy]

NY post agrees with Fox news.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/occupy_oakland_protests_degenerate_u443e11zKyb0uKW Oue4qRL?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=

So does MSNBC.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45144941/ns/us_news-life/#.TrNUqLKa--U


I also checked huffington and there is no mention of it. That along gives fox news more credibility.

[.blank cd]

So, in light of the recent acts of civil disobedience, let me ask you regressives a little something.

In the 1960's, during the civil rights movements, it was AGAINST THE LAW for people black people to go to restaurants for white people or any kind of establishments for white people. It was also against the law for black people to sit in the front seats on public transportation vehicles. And, as today, the same rules apply for occupying public places. Do you think it was right back then to break the laws when they had the sit ins? What about when people broke the laws and sat in the front of buses? Was it not an outrage when you saw protesters and demonstrators being hosed down in the streets for standing up in something they believed in?

Alternatively, what would you think would have happened if all the blacks obeyed all of the laws? Didnt block off any streets, didnt take any seats on buses, didnt occupy any buildings, ate at their own restaurants, used their own toilets, their own water fountains, no strikes, obeyed curfews, and when the cops said disperse promptly at 11pm, everyone said "okay" and the streets were clear by 10:58. Where do you think society would be right now?

[Vteckidd]

So, in light of the recent acts of civil disobedience, let me ask you regressives a little something.

dont confuse personal responsibility with "regressive"


In the 1960's, during the civil rights movements, it was AGAINST THE LAW for people black people to go to restaurants for white people or any kind of establishments for white people. It was also against the law for black people to sit in the front seats on public transportation vehicles. And, as today, the same rules apply for occupying public places. Do you think it was right back then to break the laws when they had the sit ins? What about when people broke the laws and sat in the front of buses? Was it not an outrage when you saw protesters and demonstrators being hosed down in the streets for standing up in something they believed in?

The fact you could even try to rationally compare the two parties and events , neither warrants a response from me nor the inclination that its even in the REALM of a plausible discussion.

When you compare truly PEACEFUL sitins of the 1960s, with pepole vandalizing businesses like they are doing in Oakland (just go watch any of the 20 videos from yeterday where they shut down the ports, wrote STRIKE on the side of a building , etc) it demeans the 1960s civil rights movement IMO. Anyone with any sense of intellectual capacity can see that.

The Civil Rights movement wasnt asking for handouts, they were asking to be treated equally. the Occupy people are asking for SOCIAL justice, income equality. That is not what the 60s were about. If you can honestly sit here and compare the 60s movement of giving everyone the same RIGHTS , to giving everyone the same amount of MONEY , then that is just a sad commentary on our society. The Occupy people have ALL THE SAME RIGHTS as anyone else, they can thank the 60s for that


Alternatively, what would you think would have happened if all the blacks obeyed all of the laws? Didnt block off any streets, didnt take any seats on buses, didnt occupy any buildings, ate at their own restaurants, used their own toilets, their own water fountains, no strikes, obeyed curfews, and when the cops said disperse promptly at 11pm, everyone said "okay" and the streets were clear by 10:58. Where do you think society would be right now?

Whatever you are reading on wikipedia about the civil rights movement i dont think you really understand. In many cases they did disperse, they did operate within what the police told them to do. No matter how racist it was .in the cases where they didnt cooperate, they did were arrested peacefully.

Look what happened in Atlanta. they didnt have to use force to subdue any OCCUPY people, even though some were arrested. They stood their ground when asked to vacate, and were arrested without injury or force being used. In Oakland, when they were asked to disperse, they chanted fuck the police, through bricks and bottles at riot cops, and set off explosives (albeit it was fireworks).

You cannot compare the 2, no matter how bad you want to prove your point.

[.blank cd]

You cannot compare the 2, no matter how bad you want to prove your point.You can compare the two. Lol. A spade is a spade, a protest is a protest. This is apples and apples bro, regardless of what your opinion is on the two. Facts are facts.

Your answer tells me that you don't know much about either movement.

[Vteckidd]

You can compare the two. Lol. A spade is a spade, a protest is a protest. This is apples and apples bro, regardless of what your opinion is on the two. Facts are facts.

Your answer tells me that you don't know much about either movement.

Which one actually changed something? I will bet anyone any amount of money the Occupy thing doesnt turn into ANYTHING. It wont accomplish anything, it wont change any laws, etc

Ill bet you im more educated on the civil rights movement than you are, ive been to more monuments and historical sites than you have, and ive participated in far more discussions on the matter.

We stil ldont even know if you even have a high school education............

you cannot compare the two, its not even in the same universe. Thats like comparing Basketball in a North Dakota Elementary school to the NBA.

[Vteckidd]

The funny thing is youre so dumb youll compare a sit in of the 1960s to Occupy Oakland destroying or vandalizing a bank.

The People who did the SIT IN were still using the restaurant. They whole POINT was to get service at the establishment (IE PAY THEM) to use their goods and or services. Or to be able to sit at the same counter as another race.

The OCCUPY people want to put people OUT OF BUSINESS not based on race color or creed, purely based on ECONOMIC STATUS. "youre rich, we arent , down with you!"

Blacks were trying to assimilate into the culture and have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else (see constitution and bill of rights). Occupy doesnt want to assimilate, it wants to tear it down because they feel they cant achieve success on their own. they want free stuff. African Americans wanted the right to participate.

There is NO RIGHT TO A JOB, AND NO RIGHT TO WEALTH.

[.blank cd]

I still see you don't know much about either movements, and now you're slinging insults, possibly because I have a point and your principles won't let you acknowledge it. Would you like to know more about either of the movements?

It seems as if you do a lot of assuming. Do you know what happens when you assume?

[Vteckidd]

Not insults, facts. I know plenty more about both movements and i dont have to use Wikipedia

[.blank cd]

Hmmmm. Ok.

[j0nbunklah0m]

lol interesting

[Browning151]

lol @ comparing this to the civil rights movement.


Civil rights (those inalienable rights we all have as human beings) =/= social "rights".

Like I said before, if you want to fix the broken system, you need to be in DC protesting congress and all the sleazebags that are riding that gravy train. I still have yet to see a good explanation as to why these people are only protesting one half of the broken system. You want to blast the banks for lobbying and getting bailouts, yet you aren't blasting the politicians who are taking the kickbacks and going on this massive bailout spending spree.

[.blank cd]

lol @ comparing this movement to another movement.



Civil rights (those inalienable rights we all have as human beings) =/= social "rights".Rights are rights. Since times has changed, the setting is just a little different, thats all.

I keep seeing this reference to them being in the wrong venue. That they should be protesting in DC...

It only took me a few keystrokes to come up with these links. Why do you guys make these "claims" and then not do the research to see if what your saying is correct? I dont understand. This is why #Occupy is getting a bad rap. No one is taking the 2 seconds to look it up themselves. Is this what conservatives do? Can someone fill me in? Am I missing something? If you went to school and wrote a paper, and use any sources and cite them, they'd fail you out of the class.

http://occupydc.org/
http://occupydc.org/to-the-media-and-whoever-it-may-concern/#more-125
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/labor-unions-join-occupy-dcs-call/2011/11/03/gIQAFvWLkM_gallery.html#photo=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/occupy-dc-protesters-rally-in-freedom-plaza/2011/10/06/gIQATeeLQL_story.html

Since everything is usually wrong unless it comes from Faux news, here is a link from Faux news.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/19/radio-host-with-ties-to-npr-becomes-spokeswoman-for-occupy-dc/

[Browning151]

lol @ comparing this movement to another movement.
^per your own words.

That's nice that you classify the civil rights movement as just "another movement".

As far as "rights are rights" goes, a right to be treated as an equal person and given an equal opportunity to achieve success no matter race, sex, creed etc. (i.e. civil rights) is NOT the same as economic or social equality (i.e. social rights), no matter how you try and spin it.

Out of those links you posted I still don't see much of an outcry for removing the career politicians that have perpetuated the growing problems we've had for years, it's still a "tax the rich" message. Where are the people calling out against Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Schumer, Clyburn, Specter, Leach, McCain, Boehner or a host of others who just seem to be part of the establishment? The class warfare rhetoric seems to be working pretty well with the OWS crowd.

[.blank cd]

^per your own words.

That's nice that you classify the civil rights movement as just "another movement".Are you joking right now?

Did someone change the dictionary while I was asleep? Did you check the dictionary before you said "per your own words"? Would you like to define protest and movement for us out of your dictionary? Its cool. I'll wait.....

Nevermind, I'll take care of that....

move·ment
noun \ˈmüv-mənt\
Definition of MOVEMENT
1
a (1) : the act or process of moving; especially : change of place or position or posture (2) : a particular instance or manner of moving b (1) : a tactical or strategic shifting of a military unit : maneuver (2) : the advance of a military unit c : action, activity —usually used in plural
2
a : tendency, trend <detected a movement toward fairer pricing> b : a series of organized activities working toward an objective; also : an organized effort to promote or attain an end

1pro·test
noun \ˈprō-ˌtest\
Definition of PROTEST
1
: a solemn declaration of opinion and usually of dissent: as a : a sworn declaration that payment of a note or bill has been refused and that all responsible signers or debtors are liable for resulting loss or damage b : a declaration made especially before or while paying that a tax is illegal and that payment is not voluntary
2
: the act of objecting or a gesture of disapproval <resigned in protest>; especially : a usually organized public demonstration of disapproval
3
: a complaint, objection, or display of unwillingness usually to an idea or a course of action


As far as "rights are rights" goes, a right to be treated as an equal person and given an equal opportunity to achieve success no matter race, sex, creed etc. (i.e. civil rights) is NOT the same as economic or social equality (i.e. social rights), no matter how you try and spin it.Here are some accepted definitions of both:

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, sexual orientation, or gender identity; and individual rights such as the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement.

Social equality is a social state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or isolated group have the same status in a certain respect. At the very least, social equality includes equal rights under the law, such as security, voting rights, freedom of speech and assembly, and the extent of property rights. However, it also includes concepts of economic equity, i.e. access to education, health care and other social securities. It also includes equal opportunities and obligations, and so involves the whole of society.

Hope that helps


Out of those links you posted I still don't see much of an outcry for removing the career politicians that have perpetuated the growing problems we've had for years, it's still a "tax the rich" message. Where are the people calling out against Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Schumer, Clyburn, Specter, Leach, McCain, Boehner or a host of others who just seem to be part of the establishment? The class warfare rhetoric seems to be working pretty well with the OWS crowd.So are you saying you would be in complete solidarity with the movement if you saw more of an outcry for the removal of career politicians or enacting some term limits? Or are you saying you haven't dug far enough to see such an outcry, and that the extent of your knowledge of whats going on comes from Hannity and friends?

[Vteckidd]

LOL at you trying to wiggle out of a corner now

[.blank cd]

Huh? I'm just making sure we're on the same page, because I can't find his "definition" of protest or social equality anywhere, in any dictionary, so I'm inclined to believe he doesn't know exactly what it means...

[.blank cd]

http://www.fastcompany.com/1792056/occupy-wall-street-demographics-infographic

[Vteckidd]

yeah totally genius group of people here.

So they storm a chase bank and vandalize it.

now they go inside a BURGER KING? are you kidding me?

http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=554&vid=-866149229402258226

[Vteckidd]

dont skew the issue or the argument.

THe Civil RIGHTS protest was about RIGHTS. Rights outlined in our constitution. Rights like people have the RIGHT to ride the same bus, use the same restroom, vote in the same elections, etc.

These OCCUPY people want SOCIAL JUSTICE, which is not the way our society runs. Everyone protesting has the same chance at making wealth as anyone else. Everyone has the same right to PURSUE happiness without being held back due to race or creed. There is nothing that says that "personX DESERVES" to make $XXXXX. ANd thats what these people and people like you dont understand. None of their RIGHTS are being violated. YOure not a millionaire, sorry, no rights were violated. YOu dont have a job? sorry, you arent GUARANTEED one. Dont have an education, sorry, you arent promised one either.

They also confuse "RIGHTS" with "DOING WHATEVER THEY WANT". they have the right to exercise free speech. But when you start impeding on OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS (like the right to run a business) then they deserve all the tear gas and rubber bullets hell has to offer.

If youre such a big proponent of this movement where is your picket sign buddy? why arent you out there standing in unison?

bill has been dead on right the entire time

http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=556&vid=-493313767662615121

[.blank cd]

yeah totally genius group of people here.

So they storm a chase bank and vandalize it.

now they go inside a BURGER KING? are you kidding me?

http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=554&vid=-866149229402258226

I can't have a rational discussion with you because you keep using O'Reiley as your source for information. Lol. If you find the corresponding video in YouTube, I'll watch it. Lol

[Vteckidd]

Oreilly is just as center as ANYONE. YouTube is more relevant than bill LOL

Watch the video, those are occupy people he isntvfaking that.

Hannity I wouldn't use, rush I would use, Stewart i wouldn't use , but oreilly is pretty center, he reports.

[.blank cd]

You're saying the exact same video of bill oreiley on YouTube isn't as credible as it is on his website? Are you serious? I'm assuming you're in the IT field, don't you know what a mirror is?

[Vteckidd]

I'm saying ill take an award winning journalist post on his website over a random YouTube video which can be shot edited and depecited how they want.

I ACTUALLY watch oreilly and I'm telling you he's pretty fair and center. I wouldn't use videos from people like hannity or rush or Stewart because I don't consider them journalists.

Regardless you can search the video on YouTube if you want its not my joypto spoonfeed you.

The point is the video clearly shows so called occupy people attempting to shutdown a local business (IIRC BK is franchise). Shws a pattern.

Couple that with last nights "put the pigs in the sty we will occupy" chants covered by wsbtv at occupy Atlanta, and it shows how confrontational these people are.

They aren't just "exercising free speech"

But I don't expect you to get that point

[bu villain]

These OCCUPY people want SOCIAL JUSTICE, which is not the way our society runs.

Just wanted to mention that people usually don't protest when they like the way society runs.


They also confuse "RIGHTS" with "DOING WHATEVER THEY WANT". they have the right to exercise free speech. But when you start impeding on OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS (like the right to run a business) then they deserve all the tear gas and rubber bullets hell has to offer.

I know the rights of free speech and assembly are in the first amendment. Which amendment is the right to run a business in?

[Vteckidd]

Just wanted to mention that people usually don't protest when they like the way society runs.
Since you cant grasp my point, it was they arent protesting equal rights, they want special rights. They arent protesting the right to use the same bus, or eat at the same restaurant because their civil rights are being violated. they want social justice, which is not the way our society is made to run. If you want social justice move to Europe.



I know the rights of free speech and assembly are in the first amendment. Which amendment is the right to run a business in?
That whole pesky "pursuit of happiness" thing...........

So since you couldnt really argue with me based on merits, you decided to try and advocate that its ok to mess with someones business because it isnt in the constitution? awesome morals you have there. The right to free speech is being exercised. They also have the right to assembly, which they are exercising. They however dont have the right to disrupt other citizens day to day activities, confront police, break laws, etc.

Its simple, you can protest, you just cant disrupt other peoples businesses and lives. I mean you can, but be prepared to deal with the consequences. You guys fail to grasp that their free speech ISNT being violated. Its their actions that are being held accountable. YOu want to make excuses for them saying its ok when they are not just merely protesting big corporations, they are rioting and enciting violence, provking police, squatting in public places, and disrupting people that are trying to earn a living . Small business owners arent millionaries and billionaires.

They provoke police, and then when the police retaliate they play the "brutality" card.

Dozens of arrests have happened in Atlanta and usually without any problem because the protestors arent advancing on police. They are just refusing to leave woodruff park and the cops arrest them.

Now this weekend there was a bunch of people who stormed Peachtree Street and were shouting things like "put the pigs back in their sty, we are here to occupy" and they got arrested pretty easily. WSBTV covered it. IMO Atlanta has done a great job controlling the protestors without having any violence. But the OCCUPY Atlanta people havent been advocating violence and they have been policing their own pretty well. The issued a statement first thing sunday morning saying that people who were uncooperative with the police Saturday night were not part of the movements peaceful agenda and they denounced anyone who didnt cooperate with police. That goes a long way with me.

Oakland isnt doing that.

Look, if a riot breaks out, WHICH CLEARLY IT DID in Oakland, and you are standing peacefully in the middle like the marine did, and you get injured, thats just the breaks man. Police arent going to differenciate between the Marine standing there doing nothing and the people advancing, throwing bottles/grenades, and causing mayhem. Their tactics are to take everyone out in the area they are told to police and vacate. So if you are in it, you are guilty by association.

[Vteckidd]

you guys clearly think that "freedom of speech" and "right to assembly" means= the right to do whatever we want no matter what. any attempt to stop us is "brutality"

[.blank cd]

Stop using hyperbole. "Riots" are not going on.

And no protesters threw grenades.

[Vteckidd]

When they refused to leave, they used tear gas to break them up. Many protestors threw the "grenades" back at police.

Riots are going on, they have set stuff on fire, provoked and advanced on police, vandalized businesses, threatened people who haven't agreed with them, etc

Watch any of 100 videos covering Oakland occupy

[Browning151]

When they refused to leave, they used tear gas to break them up. Many protestors threw the "grenades" back at police.

Riots are going on, they have set stuff on fire, provoked and advanced on police, vandalized businesses, threatened people who haven't agreed with them, etc

Watch any of 100 videos covering Oakland occupy

No, those aren't riots, that's civil disobedience, just like they used to do during the civil rights movement ya know.


/sarcasm

[Vteckidd]

I see what you did there :ninja:

[bu villain]

Since you cant grasp my point, it was they arent protesting equal rights, they want special rights. They arent protesting the right to use the same bus, or eat at the same restaurant because their civil rights are being violated. they want social justice, which is not the way our society is made to run. If you want social justice move to Europe.

It's not that I don't get your point, it's that we are arguing different things. You are arguing that since their goals are misguided, we shouldn't support their right to protest. I am arguing that people should protest for what they believe in even if I don't agree with their goals. Further I disagree that if you don't like what is happening in your home country you should just move. Right now our government spends money it doesn't have and its been like that for years. That doesn't mean we should just accept that's how things are and move to another continent. Everyone should fight for what they think is right.



That whole pesky "pursuit of happiness" thing...........

So since you couldnt really argue with me based on merits, you decided to try and advocate that its ok to mess with someones business because it isnt in the constitution? awesome morals you have there. The right to free speech is being exercised. They also have the right to assembly, which they are exercising. They however dont have the right to disrupt other citizens day to day activities, confront police, break laws, etc.

Its simple, you can protest, you just cant disrupt other peoples businesses and lives. I mean you can, but be prepared to deal with the consequences. You guys fail to grasp that their free speech ISNT being violated...

Please refer where I said anyone's free speech was being violated or that I supported the violence in Oakland. I'm pretty sure I just posted a few days ago that I specifically disagreed with the violence in Oakland. Who are you arguing against because I never made such claims?

Also, it's quite a leap to get from "pursuit of happiness" to "don't do anything that negatively impacts a business or causes people commute to work to be longer". Aren't the protestors also pursuing their own happiness by trying to positively impact the country? Even if you disagree with what they want, you should see they are doing what THEY feel is right.

[Vteckidd]

you lose me when you storm a burger king and vandalize it and when you write STRIKE on the outside of a building (IIRC it was mens warehouse) , when you storm a rally in DC that has nothing to do with you and try to kick down the doors, use your children as human shields, vandalize a chase bank, set trash cans on fire, etc.

IE negatively impact businesses and dont protest peacefully.

[Vteckidd]

A rash of reports of sexual assaults at Occupy Wall Street protests across the country has both police and activists raising red flags.

Nearly a half-dozen assaults have been reported at Occupy camps, including three at the New York City protests, which have prompted protesters to set up a “women only” tent in Manhattan's Zuccotti Park to provide a safe haven.

“The concern would be the rapes and attacks that aren’t reported,” said Sgt. Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association, a police union in New York City. “We have no way of really knowing. If you have three or five crimes reported, you really don’t know if it’s eight or 10 that happened.”

He also noted how young many of the protesters are.

"They are in the lion’s den, so it’s not surprising that they are more susceptible to crimes,” he said.

The first reported incident occurred on Oct. 8, when a man was accused of sexually abusing a woman who was in a sleeping bag at Zuccotti Park. The victim did not report the incident until a few days later, when she saw the suspect, David Park, 27, at the protest site again.

Park, a Connecticut resident, had been arrested for disorderly conduct at a previous march, and he had numerous warrants out for him in both New York and his home state before the protests began.

Another incident was reported last week when a Brooklyn man, Tonye Iketubosin, 26, was arrested for allegedly sexually assaulting a woman in her tent at Zuccotti Park on Oct. 25.

Iketubosin, a volunteer at the Occupy Wall Street “kitchen,” was questioned about the alleged rape of a second woman on Oct. 29.

Reports of sexual abuse also surfaced in Dallas, where a 23-year-old man was accused of having sex with a 14-year-old runaway girl, and in Cleveland, where cops opened an investigation of a sexual assault that allegedly occurred on Oct. 15.

Organizers for Occupy Wall Street did not return messages seeking comment, but they released a lengthy statement addressed to the participants.

“As individuals and as a community, we have the responsibility and the opportunity to create an alternative to this culture of violence,” the statement reads. “We are working for an OWS and a world in which survivors are respected and supported unconditionally… We are redoubling our efforts to raise awareness about sexual violence. This includes taking preventative measures such as encouraging healthy relationship dynamics and consent practices that can help to limit harm.”

The incidents of sex crimes, reports of petty theft, assaults and general outbursts of violence have sprung up not only around Wall Street, but in Occupy camps across the country.

And many of the protesters have become more aggressive overall in recent days.

The most serious incident was reported in downtown Portland last night -- cops responded to calls of a Molotov cocktail being set off near the city's World Trade Center. Authorities had received unconfirmed information a week earlier that people within the Occupy Portland encampment were constructing the crudely made bomb, which is normally fashioned from a glass bottle filled with gas and a soaked rag or cloth sticking out of the opening as a wick.

At the site of the Occupy San Diego camp, street cart vendors were forced to close up shop Monday when protesters, angry that they stopped receiving free food, ransacked and vandalized the carts.

The angry mob not only scrawled graffiti on the carts, they reportedly splattered them with blood and urine as well.

In addition, the vendors received death threats, according to local radio station KNX 1070.

Last weekend, a man was walking through Zuccotti Park taking pictures of the Occupiers' camp when an unidentified man approached him and struck him in the face, leaving his victim with a laceration to the face, according to law enforcement reports.

Also in lower Manhattan, a business owner made claims that she has been terrorized and her well-being threatened by Occupiers after she prohibited them from using her store's restroom to bathe.

Stacey Tzortzatos, owner of Panini and Co., located across from Zuccotti Park, got fed up two weeks ago when demonstrators broke a bathroom sink causing flooding in the shop and leaving her with a bill of $3,000 in damages, according to the New York Post.

In Boston, homeless protesters were removed from Dewey Square after they were discovered to have knives and stashes of illegal drugs.

“Paralysis is occurring across law enforcement. It’s becoming a Catch 22,” Mullins said. Referring to the protests in New York, he said, “To go in there to clear the park is going to cause confrontation. To not do so is detrimental.”



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/09/rash-sex-attacks-and-violent-crime-breaks-out-at-occupy-protests/#ixzz1dDw432vR

[Vteckidd]

Molotov cocktail set off in downtown Portland, police suspect Occupy Portland protesters involved
Police said a Molotov cocktail was set off in an exterior stairwell at the World Trade Center in downtown Portland last night, and they believe protesters at Occupy Portland might be responsible. Someone called 9-1-1 to report the incident about 9:10 p.m., said Lt. Robert King, a spokesman for the Portland Police Bureau. No one was hurt, but a fire caused some damage to the stairs, which are between two escalators. "We're very fortunate that a larger fire didn't occur. These devices are completely unpredictable and destructive — we're very fortunate that no one was injured," King said. Police have been investigating reports since Oct. 31 that a person or group of people at the downtown Occupy Portland encampment has been making or storing Molotov cocktails, King said. Detectives didn't release the information to protect their investigation. But preliminary information received tonight suggested there was a link between the camp and the makeshift bomb thrown at the World Trade Center, King said. (The Oregonian)

[.blank cd]

Sigh.

A few weeks ago, an Oakland police officer used his tear gas launcher of in a method against department policy and hit a US Marine in the side of the head, then lobbed a flash bang next to his head to break up a group of people trying to assist him, also against department policy. The marine required brain surgery.

Aside from that, countless journalists and other non violent protesters have been shot point blank with less lethal ammunition. Zero charges have been filed.

The ONLY incidents of human on human violence is the police shooting citizens.

It's that easy to find the bad parts of the movement. Especially when we're talking about Fox news. The news conglomerate that has been documented saying they're extremely biased.

[Vteckidd]

so i guess the sexual assaults arent human on human violence?

[Vteckidd]

Fox news is the reporting source but feel free to investigate further as i have read tons of LOCAL reports from police and local magazines that are reporting the exact same thing. The Occupy people that are left are EXTREMELY volatile and hostile

[bu villain]

Does anyone here condone violence? If not, lets all agree that it's bad and get back to discussing the issues.

[Browning151]

The ONLY incidents of human on human violence is the police shooting citizens.



Really?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/11/woman-raped-at-occupy-philadelphia/

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_park_big_top_ilBy4VfYIwDGt2I1rM33vL

Yep, just the police creating "human on human" violence, nothing to see here.

[.blank cd]

Really?
Yep, just the police creating "human on human" violence, nothing to see here.I can play that game too...

kinda makes me wonder who's really inciting the violence....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I0pX9LeE-g8

Police cracked a students rib, then told him he had no rights. LOL
http://www.dailycal.org/2011/11/12/police-use-of-force-draws-nationwide-condemnation/

Then theres this. Cop says he got assaulted by a protester, video shows otherwise.
http://www.pixiq.com/article/youtube-video-exposes-dallas-cop-to-be-a-liar

Do I need to post again about the marine who needed brain surgery because he got shot in the face with a tear gas grenade deployed illegaly, and then grenaded with a flashbang? I think they're saying he still has speech problems.


Wonder how long its gonna be until the protesters realize they outnumber the police, usually 10:1....

[.blank cd]

Faux News says #Occupy protests are anti-democratic and un-american.

Who lets these people become major network commentators??? I think some of them need to go back to 9th grade US history class and learn what democracy means. LOL

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/13/367208/fox-panel-ows-bashing/

[Theycall_Metue]

Also, it's quite a leap to get from "pursuit of happiness" to "don't do anything that negatively impacts a business or causes people commute to work to be longer". Aren't the protestors also pursuing their own happiness by trying to positively impact the country? Even if you disagree with what they want, you should see they are doing what THEY feel is right.
when your pursuit of happiness is interfering with others pursuit of happiness than that's not right.

Vteckidd has said it all. These protest are retarded. So if they get what they wanted. everyone makes 20 bucks a hour and has a job, would that fix all the problems? Fuck no! it'll cause inflation and making that 20 bucks a hr pointless. Its call survival of the fittest, if your lazy and has no mind of competition than sorry, you're not going to survive.

[Vteckidd]

The protests are anti american and not indicitive of a democracy.

A deomcracy majority rules, these people ARENT the majority

Anti-american = anarchists, communists, socialists pushing an radical agenda for social justice.

All the major news organizations are now reporting that massive crime has started at these "camps". Theres sexual assault/rape charges at almost every Occupy city, Atlanta had a break out of TB, a man was shot and KILLED in Oakland Occupy and when paramedics arrived on scene to assisdt the Occupy people made it impossible for the paramedics to perform their duties.

Democrats and republicans across the state are vowing to remove all Occupy people, look for this to ramp up here soon as they try to restore law and order to a group thats become a bunch of thugs and criminals. Any rational people that were there that had a decent message have long vacated, only the thugs remain.

[Vteckidd]

Faux News says #Occupy protests are anti-democratic and un-american.

Who lets these people become major network commentators??? I think some of them need to go back to 9th grade US history class and learn what democracy means. LOL

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/11/13/367208/fox-panel-ows-bashing/

sorry they are right. I doubt anyone will agree with you. The Occupy Protestors are no longer protestors, they want violence and intimidation. the "cause" has long been adbondoned, we have said that for pages.

[.blank cd]

The protests are anti american and not indicitive of a democracy.

A deomcracy majority rules, these people ARENT the majority.

Anti-american = anarchists, communists, socialists pushing an radical agenda for social justice.
Over 80% of americans agree with the protests. That is the majority. But, yes I was correct on the other point to, that protesting against something you dont like is democracy at its roots. Plain and simple. There's not really an anarchy, there is no communists or communism (you really need to do some more research on the definition of communism. LOL)


All the major news organizations are now reporting that massive crime has started at these "camps". Theres sexual assault/rape charges at almost every Occupy city, Atlanta had a break out of TB, a man was shot and KILLED in Oakland Occupy and when paramedics arrived on scene to assisdt the Occupy people made it impossible for the paramedics to perform their duties.This is why you have to go to the source! Not Fox News! The outbreak was proven false by the health department, and they're saying the shooting may be unrelated.

[.blank cd]

Protesting is anti-american? Protesting against the government was how the US was founded! LMAO

Maybe fox news is funnier than I initially expected. LOL

[Vteckidd]

Over 80% of americans agree with the protests. That is the majority. But, yes I was correct on the other point to, that protesting against something you dont like is democracy at its roots. Plain and simple. There's not really an anarchy, there is no communists or communism (you really need to do some more research on the definition of communism. LOL)

I dont know what polls you are looking at but youre way off. The polls show that most americans arent in favor of the Occupy Movement anymore

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2011/occupy_wall_street_protesters_36_favorable_41_unfa vorable

Most of the polls show growing disapprovement for Occupy from respectable sources like Gallup or Rasmussen.

But regardless if 80% of the people were in favor of it like you say, then Occupy would be positioning themselves to be in congress, but they arent. wonder why? dont say its unfair media coverage lol



This is why you have to go to the source! Not Fox News! The outbreak was proven false by the health department, and they're saying the shooting may be unrelated.

I just read that on WSBTV friday night, if its false then so be it, doenst matter usually that happens iwth clustering of vagabonds stuff happens. but, the other stuff is true and i can post the videos if you wwant.

The "legitimate message" about being angry at CEOs is lost. Most normal thinking people are gone.

when youre storming businesses, setting trash cans on fire, inciting violence , i classify you as anarchists. Democracy is changing and working within the system , they arent.

Thats plain and simple.

You can try to justify it all you want, but like i always said, one movement actually got stuff done and got people elected to congress, i doubt youll see anyone running on an OCCUPY platform next year, and its because its a lunatic fringe movement that is full of anarchists now.

[Vteckidd]

Protesting is anti-american? Protesting against the government was how the US was founded! LMAO

Maybe fox news is funnier than I initially expected. LOL

protesting doesnt mean =destroying public/private property, infringing on the rights of others, vandalizing, raping, sexual assaulting, etc.

So yes, MY definition of protesting is different than yours. And what they are doing is unamerican. They arent exercising their "free speech", they are going far beyond that

[.blank cd]

when your pursuit of happiness is interfering with others pursuit of happiness than that's not right.
And that whole pesky pursuit of happiness thing, which ISN'T in the constitution or the first amendment by the way, it's in the declaration of independence, and it has nothing to do with owning a business

Butchering the constitution, thats not right

[Vteckidd]

And that whole pesky pursuit of happiness thing, which ISN'T in the constitution or the first amendment by the way, it's in the declaration of independence, and it has nothing to do with owning a business

Butchering the constitution, thats not right

wrong.

It was used inthe declaration of independence, but appears several times in the US Constitution:

5th Amendment

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"

14th Amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Life, liberty, property was a pseudonym for pursuit of happiness because they Franklin IIRC wanted to mention property specifically.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Also if you know history there were great discussions about Human Rights and what those were. Anytime RIGHTS were used in the constitution it was made to reflect the previous documents they worked on, including the declaration of independence.

Everyone has the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Protesting, as i have always said, is anyones right. ANd i would never tell someone they cannot do that.

But they are breaking many laws under the protection of this fallacy that they are "protesting" or "exercising free speech".

Rapes occuring in Occupy Tent cities? Free speech
Thefts occuring in Occupy Tent cities? Freedom of assembly
Retaliating against police? Freedom of Speech

i mean again, most of the civilized country (regardless of political party) sees it for what its worth. Its people that want to burn the system down, not fight to change it, or do anything meaningful. I mean BUSINESS owners are on the record saying how they have been threatened, told to give out free food, looted, vandalized, etc.

Occupy is demonstrating how to NOT get anything done, because they are too stupid to figure out how to change something. Any politician that runs on the OCCUPY platform it will be political suicide.

For as crazy racists as the media portrayed the TP, no one can figure out how they protested and actually got people elected and have a caucus in congress now with little to no civil disobediance, yet Occupy, no matter how much you want to sequester the bad press, its blatantly obvious these guys that are left are thugs and anarchists.

[.blank cd]

"Property" is not a pseudonym for "pursuit of happiness". In both the 5th and 14th amendment, it refers to your possessions. Franklin and Jefferson mentioned property in those amendments because they feared the protection of property wasn't brought up initially.

[Vteckidd]

The Supreme Court, Bill of Rights, Constitution, would all disagree with you.

The Inalieanble rights that were so often discussed preceeded all this.

Anyone has the right to life , liberty, and pursuit of happiness as well as life liberty and rights to property. There is very vague definitions of what property is. Like your business is techincally your property, you have a right to operate it in pursuit of happiness.

It doesnt matter how you spin it, youre trying to change the argument. the Person OPERATING A BUSINESS has a right to do so, when so called "protestors" infiltrate his business and vandalise it and destroy it, they are infringing on another person rights.

When they occupy a public park and refuse to let other people enjoy the same park, they are infringing on someone elses rights.

its very easy to understand this. In your world though people can do whateveer they want and have no rule of law to follow and dont care about their fellow man (as long as they arent in the same socio-economical class as them). I dont want to live in that world

[bu villain]

when your pursuit of happiness is interfering with others pursuit of happiness than that's not right.

Vteckidd has said it all. These protest are retarded. So if they get what they wanted. everyone makes 20 bucks a hour and has a job, would that fix all the problems? Fuck no! it'll cause inflation and making that 20 bucks a hr pointless. Its call survival of the fittest, if your lazy and has no mind of competition than sorry, you're not going to survive.

The reality is, a business doesn't have the right to say people can not assemble at someone else's property that's near their business. If the park owner (not the nearby business owner) wants to kick protestors out, that is up to him. You don't get to decide who's rights are more important just because you disagree with their message. And by the way, I agree that a $20/hr minimum wage is a retarded idea but that is irrelevant to the rights being discussed here.

[Vteckidd]

The reality is, a business doesn't have the right to say people can not assemble at someone else's property that's near their business. If the park owner (not the nearby business owner) wants to kick protestors out, that is up to him.
and no one ever said that was violating their rights. We were talking about the group that wrote STRIKE on mens warehouse, stormed Burger King and vandalised it and chanted inside the business, the group that stormed into Chase bank, or stormed into a rally at Washington DC and disrupted it.

We are talking about the report from the Occupy Plaza people that were saying their businesses were being intimidated into giving OCCUPY squatters free food or let them use the restroom. When they refused they were "protested" or intimidated. One store owner reported finding a Occupy person bathing in his retaurants sink and washing his clothes.

The point YOU are trying to make is they are protesting EVIL CEOs and not having a job, while forcing the local businesses out of work. Im sure if they were spending money at the small businesses the SB owners wouldnt be upset. But they arent.

the 99% is forcing other 99% people out of their jobs by protesting the 1%. Which is OUR point, they are too stupid to even know that the very actions they are protesting are hurting people that would be sympathtic to their movement, but they are alienating them.

[bu villain]

It doesnt matter how you spin it, youre trying to change the argument. the Person OPERATING A BUSINESS has a right to do so, when so called "protestors" infiltrate his business and vandalise it and destroy it, they are infringing on another person rights.

If the protestors are vandalising his business or refusing to leave his property they can rightfully be arrested but simply congregating in a park nearby is not an infringement on any right.


When they occupy a public park and refuse to let other people enjoy the same park, they are infringing on someone elses rights.

I wasn't aware they were preventing anyone from coming into the park. No person's right to use the park is any more valuable than another persons. A dog walker and a protestor have the same rights.


In your world though people can do whateveer they want and have no rule of law to follow and dont care about their fellow man (as long as they arent in the same socio-economical class as them). I dont want to live in that world

The police don't seem to be shy about arresting the protestors who are breaking the law. Breaking park rules are not law. I'm not going to deny that some people are acting like assholes, but don't generalize everyone protesting based on those who can't act responsibly.

[.blank cd]

The Supreme Court, Bill of Rights, Constitution, would all disagree with you.
Funny, the same documents, history, and an english language dictionary would agree with me.

Hmm....

[.blank cd]

I wasn't aware they were preventing anyone from coming into the park. No person's right to use the park is any more valuable than another persons. A dog walker and a protestor have the same rights.
.Fox News doesn't see it that way

[bu villain]

and no one ever said that was violating their rights. We were talking about the group that wrote STRIKE on mens warehouse, stormed Burger King and vandalised it and chanted inside the business, the group that stormed into Chase bank, or stormed into a rally at Washington DC and disrupted it.

We are talking about the report from the Occupy Plaza people that were saying their businesses were being intimidated into giving OCCUPY squatters free food or let them use the restroom. When they refused they were "protested" or intimidated. One store owner reported finding a Occupy person bathing in his retaurants sink and washing his clothes.

The point YOU are trying to make is they are protesting EVIL CEOs and not having a job, while forcing the local businesses out of work. Im sure if they were spending money at the small businesses the SB owners wouldnt be upset. But they arent.

the 99% is forcing other 99% people out of their jobs by protesting the 1%. Which is OUR point, they are too stupid to even know that the very actions they are protesting are hurting people that would be sympathtic to their movement, but they are alienating them.

Ah well that's not the situation you and I were originally discussing which was a business man who said business was down because people didn't want to come by the protestors to get to his business. That is just bad luck and not an infringement of any right. In the scenarios you are talking about above, I completely agree. Such vandalism and intimidation are deplorable. I have no problem with those people being arrested.

[Vteckidd]

If the protestors are vandalising his business or refusing to leave his property they can rightfully be arrested but simply congregating in a park nearby is not an infringement on any right.

they have been arrested, i posted videos and arresting reports. they were shot down by "police are not allowing free speech".

Congregating in a park is fine, i dont have a problem with that. But if that park has a open and close time (which most do) they have to abide by those laws or face the consequences.




I wasn't aware they were preventing anyone from coming into the park. No person's right to use the park is any more valuable than another persons. A dog walker and a protestor have the same rights.
when you occupy a tent and barricade yourself into the area, and basically take it over , you are keeping other citizens from using it. Come on dont patronize me go look at the videos and pictures.



The police don't seem to be shy about arresting the protestors who are breaking the law. Breaking park rules are not law. I'm not going to deny that some people are acting like assholes, but don't generalize everyone protesting based on those who can't act responsibly.

An they shouldnt be shy. Park Rules USUALLY are city ordinances which ARE LAWS. These arent like "pick up after your dog" laws. These are city maintained and operated parks which have opening an closing times mainly for public safety.

Im not generalizing, im merely reporting on what i see on all the media outlets across the nation , not just fox. There were some people with legitimate biefs, but those are long gone

[Vteckidd]

Funny, the same documents, history, and an english language dictionary would agree with me.

Hmm....

Wikipedia is your source for most knowledge. its blatantly obvious. You regurgitate info great, but you really dont UNDERSTAND it.

[Vteckidd]

Ah well that's not the situation you and I were originally discussing which was a business man who said business was down because people didn't want to come by the protestors to get to his business. That is just bad luck and not an infringement of any right. In the scenarios you are talking about above, I completely agree. Such vandalism and intimidation are deplorable. I have no problem with those people being arrested.

yeah a business cant bitch for people assembling and protesting, that is their right, and thats just bad luck if its driving people away or whatever. but the protestors shouldnt be interfering with him either.

[.blank cd]

Wikipedia is your source for most knowledge. its blatantly obvious. You regurgitate info great, but you really dont UNDERSTAND it.

If by "understand" you really mean twist information to suit my own political beliefs, then no, I don't "understand" it.

[bu villain]

they have been arrested, i posted videos and arresting reports. they were shot down by "police are not allowing free speech".

Congregating in a park is fine, i dont have a problem with that. But if that park has a open and close time (which most do) they have to abide by those laws or face the consequences.

So if people are being arrested (ie. facing the consequences) when they are breaking the laws, what is the problem? However, I was under the impression that since the park was privately owned, such rules did not have the force of law. I may be wrong on that and would be open to seeing documentation that you are correct on that issue. If that is the case though, the police could just drive them out the way it was done in Atlanta right?


when you occupy a tent and barricade yourself into the area, and basically take it over , you are keeping other citizens from using it. Come on dont patronize me go look at the videos and pictures.

I thought it was the police doing the barricading. I'm not sure why you took my comments as patronizing.


Im not generalizing, im merely reporting on what i see on all the media outlets across the nation , not just fox. There were some people with legitimate biefs, but those are long gone

You are generalizing if you are basing it off what you see in media outlets because media outlets are going to focus on the most extreme acts. A dozen people sitting peacefully aren't going to attract media attention like one guy shitting on a cop car.

A quick question for you though. The tea party (the original, not the new anti-tax one) was an illegal act destroying a private business's property. What is your take on the morality of such action? Was that action laudible because you agree with the motivations and goal or is it deplorable simply because it was illegal and violated property rights?

[.blank cd]

Citizen! It has recently come to our attention that you wish to exercise your first amendment freedoms. In order to ensure compliance with Free Speech Safety standards please obey the following rules to ensure that your protest in conducted properly:

-You can exercise your rights in a designated Free Speech Zone. Anyone who is caught outside specified zones participating in a free speech action will be beaten and jailed.

- You must apply for a permit to designate a Free Speech Zone. To apply for a permit please contact the Board of Permitting and Public Safety. It is expected that you will have your sanitation, safety, education, environmental impact and concessions permits before applying. Anyone found participating in a free speech action without a permit will be beaten and jailed.

-Free Speech Zones operate between the hours of 9am - 5pm, anyone caught participating in a free speech action outside of those times will be beaten and jailed.

-All citizens participating in free speech actions must be properly dressed to identify themselves to authorities, corporate representatives and interested third parties. These uniforms can be purchased at several Free Speech Distribution Authorities located throughout your community. Anyone caught participating in a free speech action without proper attire will be beaten and jailed.

- No items will be allowed to be carried into the Free Speech Zone. Anything that is not attached directly to your person or is out of compliance with the standard Free Speech Zone attire protocol will confiscated before entering the Free Speech Zone. Those caught with foreign items are subject to beatings and possible incarceration at the officers discretion. Any property confiscated will be promptly destroyed.

The first amendment is important to us, and we hope by obeying these simple rules you can make our community a safer and happier place.

Good luck with your free speech action!

[Vteckidd]

LOL spare us please, thats not what is happeneing even though its impossible to convince you otherwise.

[Vteckidd]

If this is true why is EVERY citiy official even from the MOST LIBERAL in Oakland, now Mayor Bloomberg done with the Occupy crowd? its because they arent protesting they are squatting , destroying, raping, and endagering the lives of others and themselves. PERIOD.

facts speak for themselves, when the LEft is starting to get tired of their own funded protests, then you know its bad

[.blank cd]

This is amusing. NYC Mayor Bloomberg tried to evict the protesters last night for "health and fire safety reasons"

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

http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fht ml%2F2011b%2Fpr410-11.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1

Judge trumps mayor, upholds 1st amendment. says LEO cant enforce new rules of the park established after occupation began. It is now (well, its kinda always been) unlawful to evict protesters from the park

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/266582-order-re-liberty-park/

[Browning151]

This whole thing is just laughable at this point. "Damn the health and safety of the general public, the First Amendment says I can do whatever the hell I want and you can't stop me." Give me a break, it doesn't give you free reign to go out and incite violence and destroy property.

[.blank cd]

This whole thing is just laughable at this point. "Damn the health and safety of the general public, the First Amendment says I can do whatever the hell I want and you can't stop me." Give me a break, it doesn't give you free reign to go out and incite violence and destroy property.Nope, you're right, and if everyone was destroying property and if ANYONE was inciting violence, then it would be an issue.

Someone should also tell the NYPD that "no inciting violence and destroying property thing" works both ways

[Theycall_Metue]

thought hippies has become instant?
You are wrong! they are back from the dead! Mindless and taking over the streets! Taking over small businesses during the days and raping each others during the nights!
Boobs slagging the streets!

stay toned, The Walking Hippies.

rated R, for mindless, jobless, hopeless hippies only.






http://i924.photobucket.com/albums/ad84/abysspker1/2986883237_83d87a4ed0.jpg

[Vteckidd]

And bloomberg is gonna fight it because the judge the offered the injunction is a moron. There are signs that clearly state the privately owned property allows NO CAMPING.

The Private business that owns Zucotti park cannot police the people inside, so they went to the city for help. The injunction wont stand, itll be struck down, and the people will be rightfully arrested if they violate the property they are being allowed to use. The more they continue to squat the worse the movement will be regarded.

They are orchestrating their own demise and ill just sit back and laugh as it all unravels

[Vteckidd]

“I have become increasingly concerned – as had the park’s owner, Brookfield Properties – that the occupation was coming to pose a health and fire safety hazard to the protestors and to the surrounding community. We have been in constant contact with Brookfield and yesterday they requested that the City assist it in enforcing the no sleeping and camping rules in the park. But make no mistake – the final decision to act was mine.

“The park had become covered in tents and tarps, making it next to impossible to safely navigate for the public, and for first responders who are responsible for guaranteeing public safety. The dangers posed were evident last week when an EMT was injured as protestors attempted to prevent him and several police officers from helping a mentally ill man who was menacing others. As an increasing number of large tents and other structures have been erected, these dangers have increased. It has become increasingly difficult even to monitor activity in the park to protect the protestors and the public, and the proliferation of tents and other obstructions has created an increasing fire hazard that had to be addressed.

“Some have argued to allow the protestors to stay in the park indefinitely – others have suggested we just wait for winter and hope the cold weather drove the protestors away – but inaction was not an option. I could not wait for someone in the park to get killed or to injure another first responder before acting. Others have cautioned against action because enforcing our laws might be used by some protestors as a pretext for violence – but we must never be afraid to insist on compliance with our laws.
“Unfortunately, the park was becoming a place where people came not to protest, but rather to break laws, and in some cases, to harm others. There have been reports of businesses being threatened and complaints about noise and unsanitary conditions that have seriously impacted the quality of life for residents and businesses in this now-thriving neighborhood. The majority of protestors have been peaceful and responsible. But an unfortunate minority have not been and as the number of protestors has grown, this has created an intolerable situation.

i bolded the part that proves this has NOTHING to do with free speech. This is not really a protest anymore as it is a rallying point for people who are lazy SOBs to congregate and cause trouble.

I do not like bloomberg but he is doing the right thing. THe judge that offered the injunction, it wont stand.

You cannot take over and assume control of a private park (that is used for public use) , refuse to follow their rules and expect them to be ok with it. Anyone that thinks otherwise is delusional.

[.blank cd]

If you think this was solely about moving the protesters and cleaning up the park, why did they kick out the media FIRST, then create a no-fly-zone, then call in NYPD Counterterrorism units? I mean, if what you're doing is really legal, why cover it up?

If you think this was just about keeping ONE EMT from getting injured, then why use excessive force, and INJURE MULTIPLE protestors? Is that supposed to be an acceptable trade off? Is one human more valuable than another?

[bu villain]

A quick question for you though. The tea party (the original, not the new anti-tax one) was an illegal act destroying a private business's property. What is your take on the morality of such action? Was that action laudible because you agree with the motivations and goal or is it deplorable simply because it was illegal and violated property rights?

Vteckidd, I was really hoping you would answer my question. By the way, please don't relate it to the OWS protests, I just want to hear your thoughts on the event in it's own historical context.

[Vteckidd]

Ill answer it tomorrow that's a question that takes time. I was busy at work today and I'm on my phone now. Two totally different events, two totally different contexts etc. Will expound later

[BanginJimmy]

Funny article from drudge about a month ago.


Here's The Real Reason Why Occupy Wall Street Protesters Aren't Getting Kicked Out Of Zuccotti Park--Coming on the heels of the Solyndra debacle, the Obama administration has just approved a $168.9 million loan guarantee for the Granite Reliable wind farm project owned by Brookfield Asset Management(BAM). Among its many holdings BAM owns Brookfield Renewable Power, which owns the Granite Reliable and it also owns Brookfield Office Properties, whose holdings include the now famous Zuccotti Park. The Department of Energy finalized the loan guarantee less than a week after Occupy Wall Street protesters took to Zuccotti Park, and with the Obama administration's Tuesday endorsement of the protests, rumors are starting to circulate that this could be the reason Brookfield is allowing protesters to remain on its property.

The Granite Reliable Power Project under construction in Coos Bay, New Hampshire is the state's largest wind farm and the New Hampshire Union Leader questionswhy Brookfield would need federal subsidies at all, particularly following the bankruptcy of Solyndra.

Mayor Bloomberg's announcement Monday that protesters could remain as long as they liked, also raised a few eyebrows and it turns out he has a personal connection to Brookfield as well. The mayor's longtime domestic partner Diana Taylor is on the Board of Directors at Brookfield Properties along with John E. Zuccotti himself.




Appears the Judge that signed the injunction was struck down in only a couple of hours.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/nyregion/police-clear-zuccotti-park-with-show-of-force-bright-lights-and-loudspeakers.html?hp

[Vteckidd]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-rules-city-bar-occupy-wall-street-tents-tarps-zuccotti-park-evictions-article-1.977674

Looks like I was right.

[BanginJimmy]

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-rules-city-bar-occupy-wall-street-tents-tarps-zuccotti-park-evictions-article-1.977674

Looks like I was right.

You were also late.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[.blank cd]

They let them stay without the tents and sleeping bags

[BanginJimmy]

They let them stay without the tents and sleeping bags

Yea. They upheld the right to assemble but asserted that they don't have the right set up a 'permanent' encampment.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Vteckidd]

Yea. They upheld the right to assemble but asserted that they don't have the right set up a 'permanent' encampment.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

x2 which is what Blank CD never got. That was our point all along. No one is against freedom of assembly or freedom of speech. But they were using that as covers to basically do whatever they want. They are allowed to assemble and protest, they cant setup permanent encampments.

One of the protestors was like "OMG THAT WAS MY HOME!" are you fucking kidding me?