PDA

View Full Version : Occupy Wall Street


Pages : [1] 2

FreakyLocz14
October 4th, 2011, 11:25 AM
I'm surprised that noone has made a thread about this yet.

Occupy Wall Street is a group of protesters occuying what they feel is corruption and Wall Street control of our political system.

I agree with that premise, but many of them lost crediblity when they called for the re-election of Obama (http://www.infowars.com/occupy-wall-street-protesters-call-totalitarian-government-re-election-of-obama/), who is a shill and a lap dog for Wall Street. Most of the politicians in Washington on both sides of the aisle are, though.

Your thoughts? Discuss.

Went
October 4th, 2011, 12:58 PM
Here is the movement's main page (http://occupywallst.org/), as well as BBC's coverage in case someone wants to look at some other source than Freaky's right-winged site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15160953

But again, I'm happy these movements happen through the world. We had this same thing here in Spain last Spring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Spanish_protests) (and, surprisingly, right-wing people said their only goal was to support our Social-democrat Government, even though they also were criticizing it). This shows that progressive citizenship can also start a movement to protest against the unfair system that favours the rich and makes it harder for the poorer people- I'm also positively surprised by the group of marines that joined the protesters to "shield" them from the police that had been arresting some for exercising their freedom of speech.

I personally hope this sprouts a similar bur mirror-opposite Tea Party- a progressive movement to get the politicians to control the casino Wall Street has become. And if it helps Obama and other politicians to realize that it is these people who vote them, well, the better for all.

FreakyLocz14
October 4th, 2011, 01:19 PM
Here is the movement's main page (http://occupywallst.org/), as well as BBC's coverage in case someone wants to look at some other source than Freaky's right-winged site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15160953

But again, I'm happy these movements happen through the world. We had this same thing here in Spain last Spring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Spanish_protests) (and, surprisingly, right-wing people said their only goal was to support our Social-democrat Government, even though they also were criticizing it). This shows that progressive citizenship can also start a movement to protest against the unfair system that favours the rich and makes it harder for the poorer people- I'm also positively surprised by the group of marines that joined the protesters to "shield" them from the police that had been arresting some for exercising their freedom of speech.

I personally hope this sprouts a similar bur mirror-opposite Tea Party- a progressive movement to get the politicians to control the casino Wall Street has become. And if it helps Obama and other politicians to realize that it is these people who vote them, well, the better for all.

Wall Street is an equal opportunity controller of politicians. Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives; Wall Streets owns most of them.

It would be dangerous for us to further polarize our political system. We need to be moving towards the middle and looking for compromise, not encouraging the propping up of extremist groups be them on the left or the right.

And Alex Jones is hardly a right-winger. He's even wrote for progressive publications. He's more known as a conspiracy theorist.

Eliminator Jr.
October 4th, 2011, 02:47 PM
I really hope this develops into something more. Unfortunately, I think Occupy Wall Street will be mostly ignored by the government, and as time goes on the media will stop covering their story, meaning they will mostly be ignored by the common people as well. That, (and my American politics isn't that up to scratch coming from Australia) and the media is controlled by corporate fat cats, right? They're more likely to not give OWS attention if it conflicts with their own money-making interests.

But yeah, I really hope this gets off the ground.

Lalapizzame
October 4th, 2011, 04:32 PM
They will broadcast it if they see no real harm from these protestors.

Having a group mirror the Tea Party only polarizes an already divided government, as Freaky has said. They couldn't even agree on a debt ceiling deal until the last moment, what makes it so likely a left-wing Tea Party will make them work any faster?

Otter Mii-kun
October 4th, 2011, 05:09 PM
I see, now we have yet another movement with good intentions has been hijacked-just like the Tea Party was hijacked by neocons like Sarah Palin.

Do these people not realize that they are now calling for the re-election of the very people put in office by the criminal banksters and elitists that put them in office in the first place?
How can a self-proclaimed Occupy Wall Street protester simultaneously support the man whose 2008 campaign was bankrolled by Wall Street, whose 2012 campaign is reliant on Wall Street to an even greater extent, and whose cabinet was filled with Wall Street operatives?
I'm sure there are many well-meaning Democratic voters who are disgusted by Wall Street's excesses, and IMO, they have been done a grave disservice by President Obama and his policies.
Obama said during his campaign that he would not appoint or hire Wall Street insiders to his administration, and then appointed such people as Tim Geithner (then-head of the New York Federal Reserve, the main driver of Wall Street's greed and excesses) to his administration anyway.
Obama and his ilk plan on taxing the life out of us through schemes such as Cap-and-Trade, which benefit Wall Street to great extent (since they will be the ones controlling and issuing the "permits", and getting the bulk of the income from the "permits").
People like Bernanke (who legendary commodities investment guru Jim Rogers has called "an idiot" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cbv-KQi_s)), Paulson, Geithner, and George Soros (who was a former partner of Rogers who co-founded the Quantum Investment Fund with him, but that was long ago) need to be exposed, not rewarded.

Here's a newly-launched movement targeting the very culprit of financial greed, inflation, debauchery, and erosion of the middle class, and making the poor poorer and rich richer:
http://www.infowars.com/occupy-the-federal-reserve-movement-launched/

That, (and my American politics isn't that up to scratch coming from Australia) and the media is controlled by corporate fat cats, right? They're more likely to not give OWS attention if it conflicts with their own money-making interests.Exactly. The American mainstream media is bought and paid for by Wall Street and their buddy big-government politicians. They have proudly and loudly claimed that the Fed's interest rate cuts were "necessary" to "reduce foreclosures and unemployment", but have instead put us well on the path to hyperinflation.

FreakyLocz14
October 4th, 2011, 05:14 PM
I see, now we have yet another movement with good intentions has been hijacked-just like the Tea Party was hijacked by neocons like Sarah Palin.

Do these people not realize that they are now calling for the re-election of the very people put in office by the criminal banksters and elitists that put them in office in the first place?

I'm sure there are many well-meaning Democratic voters who are disgusted by Wall Street's excesses, and IMO, they have been done a grave disservice by President Obama and his policies.
Obama said during his campaign that he would not appoint or hire Wall Street insiders to his administration, and then appointed such people as Tim Geithner (then-head of the New York Federal Reserve, the main driver of Wall Street's greed and excesses) to his administration anyway.
Obama and his ilk plan on taxing the life out of us through schemes such as Cap-and-Trade, which benefit Wall Street to great extent (since they will be the ones controlling and issuing the "permits", and getting the bulk of the income from the "permits").
People like Bernanke (who legendary commodities investment guru Jim Rogers has called "an idiot" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4cbv-KQi_s)), Paulson, Geithner, and George Soros (who was a former partner of Rogers who co-founded the Quantum Investment Fund with him, but that was long ago) need to be exposed, not rewarded.

Here's a newly-launched movement targeting the very culprit of financial greed, inflation, debauchery, and erosion of the middle class, and making the poor poorer and rich richer:
http://www.infowars.com/occupy-the-federal-reserve-movement-launched/

Exactly. The American mainstream media is bought and paid for by Wall Street and their buddy big-government politicians. They have proudly and loudly claimed that the Fed's interest rate cuts were "necessary" to "reduce foreclosures and unemployment", but have instead put us well on the path to hyperinflation.

:P EPIC POST!!!

The media is owned by Wall Street, and 99.9% of Congress is, as well as President Obama. I don't care if your Congressperson is a Democrat or a Republican... they're probably owned by Wall Street.

I'm pretty sure Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the only ones who are not owned by Wall Street.

Jarred0809
October 4th, 2011, 05:20 PM
They called for a re-election? I've been following the protest, but I didn't hear that.

Lalapizzame
October 4th, 2011, 05:25 PM
It would be interesting.

Speaking of re-election, I believe there should be term limits for Representatives and Senators. Maybe 2 terms for a Senator (12 years) and 3-4 terms for a member of the House (6-8 years). I think imposing a one term limit is a bit too strict for senators compared to other politicians, but 30-year terms are generally ridiculous and bordering on hugging a seat and denying it to younger, more energetic politicians. Allowing representatives to sit in power too long will corrupt them. No matter how great a few exceptions are, the majority are relatively lackluster, so we might as well prevent them from hogging seats out of legality, not good-will.

Livewire
October 4th, 2011, 07:52 PM
Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich

So everybody is in Wall streets' pocket except the politician you worship. I see.

I'm also going to leave this here.

Avoid generic or limited threads


When making threads in Other Chat, you should be making threads with the intent of creating a nice, broad, and long discussion. Basically, you want to make successful and intelligent threads. That being said, you should try to make a thread that appeals to a wide base - threads about what your hometown does in September, or something rather narrow and personal as that, should be avoided. While you may think it important, the forum as a whole probably won't, which tends to lead to problems. Threads like that, as well as heavily, heavily opinionated and narrow threads, are probably better off as blog entries. I'm not saying you can't discuss your opinions - just that sometimes the deliberate blatantly opinionated/partisan thread, usually mixed with offensive/sarcastic/inflammatory rhetoric towards a party/ideal you don't agree with, will lead to issues and possible disciplinary action from yours truly.

Zet
October 4th, 2011, 07:54 PM
I'm pretty sure Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the only ones who are not owned by Wall Street.

Someone is helping pay for their propaganda ads.

TRIFORCE89
October 5th, 2011, 07:19 AM
I agree with their premise and I like that the movement is growing.

But they've got to get their act together.

The Tea Party, whether you agreed with it or not, had a point, for about a week before it got hijacked and all loopy. The same could happen here. The Tea Party has people dressed up like Benjamin Franklin for some reason and the #OccupyWallStreet folks have topless ladies.

I don't see what either really has to do supporting with their root cause. Speaking of which, they got to make sure they don't deviate from that cause. Protest Wall St., the stock market, broken form of capitalism, economic policy, that companies exist that are too big to fail, bailouts that don't need to be paid back, stupid math mortgages that you can never pay off, private sector wages that haven't increased since the '70s, that 1% of the population takes 99% of the pie. Where re-electing Obama comes into this I don't understand. I like Obama and I want to see him re-elected, but he hasn't really done anything addresses any of that.

Keep it up with a focus on economics, not party-based or acting as an re-election committee. They'd do best to avoid the "we're angry about everything and... we don't know what we want to do about it" attitude of the Tea Party. Stick to your talking points.

FreakyLocz14
October 5th, 2011, 03:10 PM
They're doing an Occupy Chico here. I was invited to it. I invited them to speak to the campus GOP. Let's see how it goes.

Netto Azure
October 5th, 2011, 03:23 PM
Yeah, the closest one here in the UCLA Campus is the Occupy Los Angeles one in City Hall. Still it's nice to see the City Council President coming out to support the movement. TBH, a lot of movements start out demanding "random things" to broaden appeal. Plus it would be nice if this wasn't simply a Left vs. Right movement, but since we already have the Tea party well...they have their choice of movements.

Freaky: Sadly I agree with you, but such is the way of the 2 party system and electoral politics. Even if we do get a strong third party the voting would be thrown into the Supreme Court ALA 2000 if there are disputed states or the House of Representatives if it goes down into a plurality ALA 1824 or 1876 where backroom deals were done to finish the vote counting as per Congressional Committee.

Team Fail
October 15th, 2011, 10:25 PM
Well, the movement has gone global it seems. It's not just the US anymore. It's in Vancouver, Toronto... Hell, even Rome! It seems that people are starting to compare and contrast their own countries and the way it's run to other countries and are starting to make connections.

btw my sig was from a sign a protestor was holding in Occupy Montréal.

Went
October 15th, 2011, 11:41 PM
I was in the 15-M Madrid meeting, and I'm glad it's catched on in the US and several other European countries. I do hope this will become a somewhat stable movement. After all, we are "the 99%".

I didn't like the Rome fights though (and I loved how all the conservative Spanish newspapers put images of the Rome vandals in their front pages instead of the million of pacific people in the centre of our capital... heh).

Netto Azure
October 16th, 2011, 02:50 AM
I like how some critics are just waiting for the "Socialistic, and Communistic" movement to get violent because the demands are "impossible to achieve" and that they'll be "evicted soon" >_>

FreakyLocz14
October 16th, 2011, 09:47 AM
Some of the people seem to not bathe. Or are they trying to look dirty on purpose to emphasize they are poor or something?

Netto Azure
October 16th, 2011, 12:08 PM
Some of the people seem to not bathe. Or are they trying to look dirty on purpose to emphasize they are poor or something?

I don't know why people seem to focus on that a lot. But you do have to realize if they are "occupying" a space, there are no bathing facilities to take a bath on. :/

You really expect them to go back home and take a bath after dedicating to "stay here no matter what?"

Then what will happen when they do go home to take baths, they'll be branded as hypocrites. >_>

FreakyLocz14
October 16th, 2011, 12:34 PM
I don't know why people seem to focus on that a lot. But you do have to realize if they are "occupying" a space, there are no bathing facilities to take a bath on. :/

You really expect them to go back home and take a bath after dedicating to "stay here no matter what?"

Then what will happen when they do go home to take baths, they'll be branded as hypocrites. >_>

What about employment, or at least seeking employment?

Anyway, I agree with the group's main premise that there is too much special interest involvement with our government (to an extent), but their communistic/socialistic demands are what throw me off.

Netto Azure
October 16th, 2011, 06:03 PM
What about employment, or at least seeking employment?

Anyway, I agree with the group's main premise that there is too much special interest involvement with our government (to an extent), but their communistic/socialistic demands are what throw me off.

I'm not really sure, since for every available job out there 5 applicants are applying. Plus the whole geographical displacement thing comes into play.

FreakyLocz14
October 16th, 2011, 08:08 PM
I'm not really sure, since for every available job out there 5 applicants are applying. Plus the whole geographical displacement thing comes into play.

We are in tough economic times. There's no doubt about that. That is natural. No nation has a strong economy all of the time. We don't need to go about fundamentally changing our economic system just because we're going through some tough times.

TRIFORCE89
October 17th, 2011, 06:23 AM
We are in tough economic times. There's no doubt about that. That is natural. No nation has a strong economy all of the time. We don't need to go about fundamentally changing our economic system just because we're going through some tough times.
I don't think most of the people who are hurting and frustrated are proposing we abolish capitalism. I think they just want it to be fair again. That's where I stand.

For the 99%, wages on average are the same that they've been since the 1970s. And yet our bills and cost of life have gone up.

It used to be that the salary for head of company had a salary that was four times that of middle management. Today, it's 40 times.

My grandfather made a good and honest living in an automotive plant. And he had a small cleaning business on the side. They had a nice house. All three kids put through school. Three cars. He's now retired and travels all the time.

My dad works as a director for a large company. And life is certainly harder financially than it was for the generation before. And we have a smaller house. What's it going to be like for my kids when it gets to that point? Things shouldn't be getting worse every generation.

Minimum wage should raised. In my province, it's $10.25 and we're thinking of raising it. In the US, I think it's $7!? And they don't want to raise it. That's crazy. Minimum should be something that you can actually live on and get by with. Not living a huge life, but enough to have a roof over your head. It's not just supposed to be just summer change for high school students.

Taxes need to be fair. There can't be loop holes. Warren Buffet's secretary shouldn't be paying out more than he his.

Wages should be fair. If "times are tough", workers shouldn't see wages and benefits cut (or even their jobs cut altogether) when at the same time the top of the company is raising their pay.

The loss of jobs to other countries and mechanical replacement is a real problem.

There shouldn't be companies that are too big to fail.

Companies who are sitting on piles of cash should pay back the bailouts their received.

Cost of living increases should be mandatory.

Schemes like what caused this crisis in the first place should be prevented.

The stock market has stop being run like a gambling ring.

Capitalism worked. But right now it's broken. It needs to be fixed or we're going to get nowhere. I don't blame solely corporations. It's corporations, the government, and lobbyists. And us, the people, for being so damn complacent for so long.

FreakyLocz14
October 17th, 2011, 08:09 AM
I don't think most of the people who are hurting and frustrated are proposing we abolish capitalism. I think they just want it to be fair again. That's where I stand.

For the 99%, wages on average are the same that they've been since the 1970s. And yet our bills and cost of life have gone up.

It used to be that the salary for head of company had a salary that was four times that of middle management. Today, it's 40 times.

My grandfather made a good and honest living in an automotive plant. And he had a small cleaning business on the side. They had a nice house. All three kids put through school. Three cars. He's now retired and travels all the time.

My dad works as a director for a large company. And life is certainly harder financially than it was for the generation before. And we have a smaller house. What's it going to be like for my kids when it gets to that point? Things shouldn't be getting worse every generation.

Minimum wage should raised. In my province, it's $10.25 and we're thinking of raising it. In the US, I think it's $7!? And they don't want to raise it. That's crazy. Minimum should be something that you can actually live on and get by with. Not living a huge life, but enough to have a roof over your head. It's not just supposed to be just summer change for high school students.

Taxes need to be fair. There can't be loop holes. Warren Buffet's secretary shouldn't be paying out more than he his.

Wages should be fair. If "times are tough", workers shouldn't see wages and benefits cut (or even their jobs cut altogether) when at the same time the top of the company is raising their pay.

The loss of jobs to other countries and mechanical replacement is a real problem.

There shouldn't be companies that are too big to fail.

Companies who are sitting on piles of cash should pay back the bailouts their received.

Cost of living increases should be mandatory.

Schemes like what caused this crisis in the first place should be prevented.

The stock market has stop being run like a gambling ring.

Capitalism worked. But right now it's broken. It needs to be fixed or we're going to get nowhere. I don't blame solely corporations. It's corporations, the government, and lobbyists. And us, the people, for being so damn complacent for so long.

You're probably right in saying that most of the protesters don't want to abolish capitalism, but many of the organizers do... or at least make it seem like they do. You should see some of the signs people use during their picketing. One really stood out to me that said "Support Socialism. Abolish Capitalism."

Livewire
October 17th, 2011, 10:10 AM
but their communistic/socialistic demands are what throw me off.

And yet you're fine with the Tea Parties fascist and racist ones?

At least they haven't done this yet.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/assets_c/2009/08/IMG_0304-cropped-proto-custom_2.jpg

TRIFORCE89
October 17th, 2011, 10:44 AM
You're probably right in saying that most of the protesters don't want to abolish capitalism, but many of the organizers do... or at least make it seem like they do. You should see some of the signs people use during their picketing. One really stood out to me that said "Support Socialism. Abolish Capitalism."
They're not necessarily mutually exclusive. Here in Canada we have "socialized" medicine and a lot more social safety nets in place than you guys do.

Also, on a side-note... the Occupy movement went global over the weekend. I really support those folks down at Wall Street and in Washington, D.C. But... Occupy Toronto is kind of ridiculous. They have no coherent message. (Hence the name, Occupy *Toronto* instead of Bay Street, our Wall Street). It's just a big camping party. People are protesting native rights, there are 9/11 truthers, people who want their student loans paid off by strangers, just... way to not stay on point folks. How's it going in other parts around the globe? Are they sticking to message any better?

Netto Azure
October 17th, 2011, 10:57 AM
A lot of the European protests are targeted against the austerity measures that are reducing safety nets I believe. And also reigning in the banks and stuff like that.

FreakyLocz14
October 17th, 2011, 11:11 AM
They're not necessarily mutually exclusive. Here in Canada we have "socialized" medicine and a lot more social safety nets in place than you guys do.

Also, on a side-note... the Occupy movement went global over the weekend. I really support those folks down at Wall Street and in Washington, D.C. But... Occupy Toronto is kind of ridiculous. They have no coherent message. (Hence the name, Occupy *Toronto* instead of Bay Street, our Wall Street). It's just a big camping party. People are protesting native rights, there are 9/11 truthers, people who want their student loans paid off by strangers, just... way to not stay on point folks. How's it going in other parts around the globe? Are they sticking to message any better?

The ones here are the same way. They're camping out in the city plaza pretty much. It's starting to look like a homeless camp.

TRIFORCE89
October 17th, 2011, 12:04 PM
A lot of the European protests are targeted against the austerity measures that are reducing safety nets I believe. And also reigning in the banks and stuff like that.
That makes sense. That's relevant to that population.

Canada weathered the initial global downturn better than most. We had a small stimulus. The car manufacturers have paid us back already. Our financial system was just... on a better foundation. Our banks were sufficiently regulated. We already have more social safety nets in place than the States. So, we aren't in as bad a position, so I can somewhat see why the #OccupyTO folks aren't super heavy on these issues...yet. But I don't know why the domain of complaints is still so wide and off-topic XD It's weird. Especially, since with one more bad quarter, our country is officially in a recession.

Otter Mii-kun
October 17th, 2011, 05:56 PM
Saw this on the Michigan Democratic Party's Twitter feed (via the feedbox on the MDP website (http://www.michigandems.com)) MichiganDems Wall Street candidate Mitt Romney: of Wall Street, for Wall Street and now paid for by Wall Street http://t.co/U751nqyC via @AddThis
Do they care to explain the financial sector's huge payoff (to the tune of $3.9 MILLION this election cycle so far) to President Obama in both 2008 and this election cycle, as shown in the article the Twitter post linked to, as well as Obama's policies which benefit Wall Street at every turn (Cap and Trade, offshore drilling ban (both big payoffs to energy traders) financial reform, stimulus and jobs bills, the health care reform-which is a big payoff to insurance companies with its individual mandate)?

(A plausible reason for the huge contributions to Romney is because of his health care reform in Massachusetts with its individual insurance mandate, which is the crown jewel of both the Romney and Obama reform packages.)

Also: MichiganDems The Cain 9-9-9 plan: cutting taxes for the rich, raising taxes on the rest of us http://t.co/IENCT7ue via @TIME Do they care to explain the fact that Obama's energy policies, which include capping carbon emissions and trading allowances and permits on Wall Street exchanges (a big way for the rich to continue getting richer and the poor getting poorer), along with his offshore drilling moratorium, and proposed punitive taxes on oil companies, will raise energy costs to the point that only the super-rich will be able to afford gas, electricity, and food? (Obama himself admitted that his plan would make prices "necessarily skyrocket") Not too long ago, Democrats were complaining relentlessly about skyrocketing food and energy prices, yet at the same time supporting policies that will make the situation even worse (punitive taxes on oil companies, offshore drilling bans, etc.)!

ben cousins
October 21st, 2011, 11:36 PM
is it affecting the place you live? where i'm from yes,i wont say what country it is but i will say kangeroo and the riots over here are kind of pointless since australia is pretty erm..''wel off'' but i can understand why people in new york are pissed about poverty and wall street ''fat cats''

Zet
October 21st, 2011, 11:50 PM
I know that the Sydney protesters stopped protesting and went back to work :P Though I heard there was a bit of crowd control in Melbourne, and I haven't heard anything from any place in any other place in Australia.

So no, the protests aren't affecting me in my area.

Mr Cat Dog
October 23rd, 2011, 05:29 AM
The protests are affecting me in that it takes me about 5 more minutes to walk to law school... I have to walk past the London Stock Exchange to get there, and that's where the bulk of the protestors - and subsequent police presence - are located. However, St. Paul's Cathedral, who have been supporting the protest so far, are asking people to move to the other 'campsite' a few miles away. Hopefully, in an entirely selfish way, that'll mean I don't have to leave the house 5 minutes earlier! [/lack of priorities]

ben cousins
October 24th, 2011, 11:19 PM
these protesters are just jealous that there are wealthier people then them, if they wanna contribute something to society then they should go help the poor at a soup kitchen or something[especially in new york]

Reddit
October 25th, 2011, 11:24 PM
OKAY. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I AM POSTING THIS. THANKS POKECOMMUNITY. I WISH I COULD SHOOT YOU RIGHT NOW.

I wholeheartedly agree with this movement, and I hope it gets larger than it already is and spreads. And may I add that this is not a anti-capitalism movement, Occupy Wall Street is pro-capitalism and pro-democracy. They are protesting policies that are not capitalist nor democratic. While also protesting policies that have failed time and time again.

An example of this is the fact that the government bailed out multiple banks and corporations (through policies that were passed by President Bush and enacted by President Obama.) Capitalism calls for business, banks, and corporations to fail if their own failed policies and investments put them in that situation. While Socialism calls for them to fail..wait lolwut?

People saying that these people are just jealous of the wealthy are exceedingly ignorant. This movement is protesting many things, and I shall list some of them for you:

Government bailouts.
Policies on Wall Street that have pulled our economy into a recession (and close to one multiple times) and is about to yet again.
Money in politics. An example of this would be the fact that the oil industry collectively donated tens of millions of dollars to both John McCain and Barack Obama's campaigns to help influence their policies if they were to become president in favor of the oil companies.
Poor being a death sentence (referencing health care and is the only socialist idea and policy advocated within this protest)
Tax loopholes that are easily exploitable by the wealthy.
Low taxes for the rich (generally speaking.)
Politics being childish. Such as how Republicans and Democrats seem to be in a war for power and their objective is to screw the other party's policies.
Politicians, instead of representing the people, represent the corporations who fund their campaign.
Policies that encourage businesses to go out of the country.
The pay gap between CEO's and the average worker. In the US 475:1. I would post a list comparing a list of countries together but I can't. THANKS POKECOMMUNITY

This list really does go on and on. This is not a socialist, communist, democrat, republican, rich, poor, liberal, or conservative movement. It is a movement of the people, who support policies that encourage growth, and who are pro-democracy and pro-capitalist. Corporations having power, any at all, is not a capitalist economy or a democratic government.

ben cousins
October 28th, 2011, 03:54 AM
how many hobbo's are out there protesting? none! why dont these whining protesters become communists? oh yer they hate communists rigth? this whole occupy thing is so white yuppie middle class

TRIFORCE89
October 28th, 2011, 05:25 AM
how many hobbo's are out there protesting? none! why dont these whining protesters become communists? oh yer they hate communists rigth? this whole occupy thing is so white yuppie middle class
Yes it is the middle class. It's the quickly dissappearing middle class.

parallelzero
October 28th, 2011, 06:48 AM
if i where one of these so called ''protesters'' i'd just be thankful i wern't living in a 3rd world country like afghanistan or something i mean they are living in the world's wealthiest country that in it's self should call for celebration....then again they are more relevant then those ''tea party protest wankers''[the greed protests lol]

Are you taking your country's debt into account when you call it the "world's wealthiest country"? Likely not. Just because people don't live in a third world country doesn't mean they shouldn't have complaints about their own society. If something is obviously flawed, it's up to the people to start the movement to fix it. That's how societies evolve.

That said, I support this movement despite not living in the United States. You guys really need to make your system more fair and defend your rights.

Went
October 28th, 2011, 06:53 AM
if i where one of these so called ''protesters'' i'd just be thankful i wern't living in a 3rd world country like afghanistan or something i mean they are living in the world's wealthiest country that in it's self should call for celebration....then again they are more relevant then those ''tea party protest wankers''[the greed protests lol]

If you live under the poverty line, it doesn't matter if you are living in the United States or in Ghana. In fact, if you live under the poverty line in the US, "the richest country in the world", you are more likely to feel anger at the incredibly rich people, that 1% that owns more money than the other 99%- if that 1% of billionaires left the US, the country wouldn't be the richest one anymore.

I mean, I'd celebrate that the CEO of Goldman Sachs is obscenely rich, but... what does that mean for me? He's the one who has the money, not me.

I'm just going to leave this quote here:

Most Americans (58.5%) will spend at least one year below the poverty line at some point between ages 25 and 75.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

Yeah, let's celebrate that, shall we not?

Zet
October 28th, 2011, 07:13 AM
A woman has been raped in the Occupy Glasgow camp in George Square. The protesters have been told to pack up and leave.

I honestly think some of these protests are just getting out of control and need to stop.

Mr Cat Dog
October 28th, 2011, 07:51 AM
If anything, these protests are making it fun to come up with snazzy ways to satirize them, like these:

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/occupy-jupiter.jpg

AND

http://imgace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/occupy-sesame-street-99-percent-of-the-cookies-are-eaten-by-1-percent-of-the-monsters.jpg

Reddit
October 28th, 2011, 12:26 PM
A woman has been raped in the Occupy Glasgow camp in George Square. The protesters have been told to pack up and leave.

I honestly think some of these protests are just getting out of control and need to stop.

I don't see how one person doing something horrible to one other person is the fault of every protester at the camp.

But I know that's not the only thing to happen. But the majority of the bad things happening during the protests aren't being done by protesters but people taking advantage of the cover provided by the protests. Thieves, muggers, rapists, vandalisers (today I learned this isn't a word), and so on. And the protesters themselves are the ones being targeted by violence from people outside of the protest. The protesters aren't going to do these bad things, because it makes them look bad and makes it harder for their message to get across.

The same exact things were happening during other major protests (in the U.S.) including a majority of the protests around the Civil Rights Movement (both for and against.)

Amachi
October 28th, 2011, 02:54 PM
A lot of the European protests are targeted against the austerity measures that are reducing safety nets I believe. And also reigning in the banks and stuff like that.
Well yeah, but they want to have their cake and eat it too. All this time they've been living a life of fantasy, and now that someone has to foot the bill and sacrifices need to be made, they chuck a hissy fit. Stuff them.
OKAY. THIS IS THE THIRD TIME I AM POSTING THIS. THANKS POKECOMMUNITY. I WISH I COULD SHOOT YOU RIGHT NOW.

I wholeheartedly agree with this movement, and I hope it gets larger than it already is and spreads. And may I add that this is not a anti-capitalism movement, Occupy Wall Street is pro-capitalism and pro-democracy. They are protesting policies that are not capitalist nor democratic. While also protesting policies that have failed time and time again.

An example of this is the fact that the government bailed out multiple banks and corporations (through policies that were passed by President Bush and enacted by President Obama.) Capitalism calls for business, banks, and corporations to fail if their own failed policies and investments put them in that situation. While Socialism calls for them to fail..wait lolwut?

People saying that these people are just jealous of the wealthy are exceedingly ignorant. This movement is protesting many things, and I shall list some of them for you:

Government bailouts.
Policies on Wall Street that have pulled our economy into a recession (and close to one multiple times) and is about to yet again.
Money in politics. An example of this would be the fact that the oil industry collectively donated tens of millions of dollars to both John McCain and Barack Obama's campaigns to help influence their policies if they were to become president in favor of the oil companies.
Poor being a death sentence (referencing health care and is the only socialist idea and policy advocated within this protest)
Tax loopholes that are easily exploitable by the wealthy.
Low taxes for the rich (generally speaking.)
Politics being childish. Such as how Republicans and Democrats seem to be in a war for power and their objective is to screw the other party's policies.
Politicians, instead of representing the people, represent the corporations who fund their campaign.
Policies that encourage businesses to go out of the country.
The pay gap between CEO's and the average worker. In the US 475:1. I would post a list comparing a list of countries together but I can't. THANKS POKECOMMUNITY

This list really does go on and on. This is not a socialist, communist, democrat, republican, rich, poor, liberal, or conservative movement. It is a movement of the people, who support policies that encourage growth, and who are pro-democracy and pro-capitalist. Corporations having power, any at all, is not a capitalist economy or a democratic government.
Maybe everyone has been ignoring you due to your username? I know I stopped reading there.

Seriously though, not anti-capitalist? Not socialist? Get out. Here's a photo blog of the Occupy Oakland protests (http://zombietime.com/occupy_oakland_10-22-2011/). Have a look for yourself.


If you live under the poverty line, it doesn't matter if you are living in the United States or in Ghana. In fact, if you live under the poverty line in the US, "the richest country in the world", you are more likely to feel anger at the incredibly rich people, that 1% that owns more money than the other 99%- if that 1% of billionaires left the US, the country wouldn't be the richest one anymore.
What? There is relative poverty (compared to others) and there is absolute poverty (less than $1.25 a day). Americans may be relatively poor, but they're a hell of a lot better off than being poor in any third world country.

Anyway, the whole movement sucks. Not only isn't their any clearly defined leadership or goals, the protestors themselves are bunch of pathetic and hypocritical bums that just want an excuse to wank off and do nothing while acting like they are making a difference (man).

In addition, their proposed cure is worse than the disease. We got into this mess due to too much government intervention, and it seems the majority want EVEN MORE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION so they can pay for their poor decisions.

They are children. Drub abusing, lazy, dumb, and irresponsible children.

lx_theo
October 28th, 2011, 03:04 PM
I'd like to point out...

Socialism isn't anymore evil than capitalism, as it is the same the other way around.

Zet
October 28th, 2011, 03:29 PM
I don't see how one person doing something horrible to one other person is the fault of every protester at the camp.

But I know that's not the only thing to happen. But the majority of the bad things happening during the protests aren't being done by protesters but people taking advantage of the cover provided by the protests. Thieves, muggers, rapists, vandalisers (today I learned this isn't a word), and so on. And the protesters themselves are the ones being targeted by violence from people outside of the protest. The protesters aren't going to do these bad things, because it makes them look bad and makes it harder for their message to get across.

The same exact things were happening during other major protests (in the U.S.) including a majority of the protests around the Civil Rights Movement (both for and against.)

Oh sure, rape isn't a big deal so let's carry on like nothing happened.

They were told to pack up and leave to prevent more rape from happening. And saying the protesters haven't done anything but protest is just plain ignorance.

Amachi
October 28th, 2011, 04:23 PM
I'd like to point out...

Socialism isn't anymore evil than capitalism, as it is the same the other way around.

Yes but socialism actually doesn't work, because eventually, you run out of other people's money (see: Europe).

parallelzero
October 28th, 2011, 04:36 PM
Yes but socialism actually doesn't work, because eventually, you run out of other people's money (see: Europe).

And a minimal amount of the population getting the vast majority of the money works? Not really.

I honestly think a balance between capitalism and socialism needs to be hit in order to create the ideal society. A little something from column A, a little something from column B. It IS possible, but there are too many blind extremists in government parties everywhere for this to really happen.

lx_theo
October 28th, 2011, 04:58 PM
Yes but socialism actually doesn't work, because eventually, you run out of other people's money (see: Europe).

And capitalism actually doesn't work, because it will always lead to monopolies without external regulation of capitalism.

And what parallelzero said is basically the idea I was leading into with that statement. Any "best" solution to any issue is a compromise of the two sides (this case: capitalism and socialism) that takes advantage of as many upsides as possible while eliminating as many downsides. While this may seem like it should be obvious, most people ignore it. Instead people want to jump to one or the other treating it like a ongoing war rather than what it is.

Mario The World Champion
October 28th, 2011, 06:21 PM
And capitalism actually doesn't work, because it will always lead to monopolies without external regulation of capitalism.

And what parallelzero said is basically the idea I was leading into with that statement. Any "best" solution to any issue is a compromise of the two sides (this case: capitalism and socialism) that takes advantage of as many upsides as possible while eliminating as many downsides. While this may seem like it should be obvious, most people ignore it. Instead people want to jump to one or the other treating it like a ongoing war rather than what it is.
To some people, the word "compromise" is a dirty word that is left unsaid and not even thought of. Both sides most likely will not see eye to eye, even thought the scene all around them is crumbling, thus making everything worse. In their eyes, there is no middle ground.

lx_theo
October 28th, 2011, 06:24 PM
To some people, the word "compromise" is a dirty word that is left unsaid and not even thought of. Both sides most likely will not see eye to eye, even thought the scene all around them is crumbling, thus making everything worse. In their eyes, there is no middle ground.

Which is sad in itself, because often the case is that people believe that the war that causes your mentioned crumbling is also the answer, even as it burns the buildings around them.

Its hard to see a bright future along that course.

Mario The World Champion
October 28th, 2011, 06:56 PM
When people get influence and power, they over time forget that they were once members of the 99%. They could do something to help, but they want to stick with their "executive member" class, as I like to call it and don't want to talk with their opponents to make a difference.

Anyway, the whole movement sucks. Not only isn't their any clearly defined leadership or goals, the protestors themselves are bunch of pathetic and hypocritical bums that just want an excuse to wank off and do nothing while acting like they are making a difference (man).

In addition, their proposed cure is worse than the disease. We got into this mess due to too much government intervention, and it seems the majority want EVEN MORE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION so they can pay for their poor decisions.

They are children. Drub abusing, lazy, dumb, and irresponsible children.
Many of those "drug abusing, lazy, dumb, and irresponsible children" you mentioned are college graduates who have degrees, but cannot find any good paying jobs because of the economy. They have been saddled with trying to pay off their student loans that allowed them to attend college, but are having a hard time trying to deal with it. What would happen if you got a college degree and can work well in a high-paying job, but you can't find anything, no matter how hard you try, plus trying to pay off a student loan as well?

Amachi
October 28th, 2011, 08:17 PM
And capitalism actually doesn't work, because it will always lead to monopolies without external regulation of capitalism.

And what parallelzero said is basically the idea I was leading into with that statement. Any "best" solution to any issue is a compromise of the two sides (this case: capitalism and socialism) that takes advantage of as many upsides as possible while eliminating as many downsides. While this may seem like it should be obvious, most people ignore it. Instead people want to jump to one or the other treating it like a ongoing war rather than what it is.
Actually, we have monopolies now, without capitalism, and they are supported by the state. It's government intervention that encourages and supports monopolies, which is exactly what the protesters want more of.

Capitalism does everything that socialism does, but better. Why would I compromise? Never mind that compromise would just lead us back to the situation we have today, because socialism gives government power over its citizens, and you can never have enough power.
When people get influence and power, they over time forget that they were once members of the 99%. They could do something to help, but they want to stick with their "executive member" class, as I like to call it and don't want to talk with their opponents to make a difference.


Many of those "drug abusing, lazy, dumb, and irresponsible children" you mentioned are college graduates who have degrees, but cannot find any good paying jobs because of the economy. They have been saddled with trying to pay off their student loans that allowed them to attend college, but are having a hard time trying to deal with it. What would happen if you got a college degree and can work well in a high-paying job, but you can't find anything, no matter how hard you try, plus trying to pay off a student loan as well?

No, they can't find good paying jobs because they did worthless degrees like liberal arts and women's studies. Rather than taking the responsibility of looking for a degree that was in demand, they took the easy route. Now, because of their lack of foresight, they are without jobs because no one needs them. Maybe if they did something useful, like a trade, they'd be busy working instead of being worthless on the streets and doing drugs. Hell, it's their own fault they took out the loan, and now they want you, the hard working taxpayer who actually contributes to society, to pay off their debts because they were irresponsible.

TRIFORCE89
October 28th, 2011, 08:31 PM
No, they can't find good paying jobs because they did worthless degrees like liberal arts and women's studies. Rather than taking the responsibility of looking for a degree that was in demand, they took the easy route. Now, because of their lack of foresight, they are without jobs because no one needs them.
I do agree with this a lot.

But, with that said... you should be able make a decent living and actually live without having to be a business, economic, law, medical, or tech major. Not be rich, but just have enough to be secure.

At the same time, there is some personal responsibility to be had. Never mind the liberal arts... but the fine arts? I love the arts, but most likely you will not be able to make a living at it. And you shouldn't be surprised if you don't. If I had gone that route, I would have made that more of an "on the side" kind of thing.

Went
October 29th, 2011, 02:26 AM
No, they can't find good paying jobs because they did worthless degrees like liberal arts and women's studies. Rather than taking the responsibility of looking for a degree that was in demand, they took the easy route. Now, because of their lack of foresight, they are without jobs because no one needs them. Maybe if they did something useful, like a trade, they'd be busy working instead of being worthless on the streets and doing drugs. Hell, it's their own fault they took out the loan, and now they want you, the hard working taxpayer who actually contributes to society, to pay off their debts because they were irresponsible.

I'm so glad you bothered to ask every single one of them, including the doctors and teachers that are in the demonstrations here in Spain. And the old people, over 40- I'm sure they also are dumb children who do drugs- hell, even I have assisted to several demonstrations in that movement! I guess I should stop doing drugs.


In addition, their proposed cure is worse than the disease. We got into this mess due to too much government intervention, and it seems the majority want EVEN MORE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION so they can pay for their poor decisions.

I thought the crisis was caused by American banks selling derivatives based on unpayable mortgages that were given AAA status by risk measurement companies such as Moody's and Standard and Poor's. They used those worthless papers as a guarantee to ask for loans to other banks. When the mortgage bussiness went down once people happened to be unable to pay for them, the banks discovered that all the money guaranteed by these had disappeared. Then, the insurance companies realized that they had to pay billions to make up for those losses, which caused them to fall behind (hello Lehman Brothers?). And finally, banks became paranoid of lending money to anybody, including other banks and even countries, so the credit dried down, causing the capitalistic world, based on constant debt, to implode.

In short, the problem here was complete deregulation that allowed banks to play with mortgages and worthless derivatives as if they were secure investments. The crisis was created by private banks, not by Governments.

Capitalism does everything that socialism does, but better. Why would I compromise?

That's the problem in current world politics (and the problem that is destroying the US's political system): democracy was based in making compromises between the views of all citizens, even if you think they are wrong. Finding a middleground everybody is happy with.

But, if your motto is: "I'm absolutely right, whoever doesn't agree with me is absolutely wrong", the result is extremism and war between both sides- "if I don't win, the other side is going to make sure I don't get absolutely anything out of them, so I have to win by all means".

FreakyLocz14
October 29th, 2011, 09:35 AM
Liberal arts degrees aren't worthless. That's a common degree that teachers get before their credential programs.

Otter Mii-kun
October 29th, 2011, 12:06 PM
I thought the crisis was caused by American banks selling derivatives based on unpayable mortgages that were given AAA status by risk measurement companies such as Moody's and Standard and Poor's. They used those worthless papers as a guarantee to ask for loans to other banks. When the mortgage bussiness went down once people happened to be unable to pay for them, the banks discovered that all the money guaranteed by these had disappearedPolicies of the United States federal goverment, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve System, and agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac allowed this nonsense to take place. The federal government itself-along with Congress for writing the laws easing consumer access to mortgages and encouraging sub-prime lending, the Federal Reserve System for printing boatloads of money for the banks to loan out at unrealistically low interest, and Fannie and Freddie for guaranteeing those risky sub-prime mortgages, thereby burdened with the consequences once those mortgages failed. Yes, private companies are to blame in this also-such as those mortgage lenders offering stuff like JUMBO mortgages up to $1 million in which one can borrow up to 110% of the cost of the house, with no documentation needed (on the part of the borrower) whatsoever!

lx_theo
October 30th, 2011, 08:26 AM
Actually, we have monopolies now, without capitalism, and they are supported by the state. It's government intervention that encourages and supports monopolies, which is exactly what the protesters want more of.

Capitalism does everything that socialism does, but better. Why would I compromise? Never mind that compromise would just lead us back to the situation we have today, because socialism gives government power over its citizens, and you can never have enough power.


See, this is the sort of ignorance that is killing America.

Monopolies are only bad because private ones are solely their for profit. They screw over people everywhere because they can. Gov. based ones have a purposed to serve the people, or are regulated by the Gov. enough that they can't screw over people when ever. Capitalism is just as evil as socialism. One being more beneficial to you doesn't make it better. So get over yourself.

Zet
October 31st, 2011, 05:57 PM
So a news reporter got threatened by one of the protesters, it's an interesting story.

A protester, angered by the presence of a news crew inside Zuccotti Park Friday morning, threatened to stab Fox 5 News reporter John Huddy. Police arrested the protester.

What has been an otherwise violence-free period during his six weeks covering the Occupy Wall Street movement, took a turn for John Huddy. He explained what happened during Good Day New York.

"This is somebody I've come across several times for the last few days," Huddy said. "He threatened to stab me in the throat with a pen. He ripped the mic out of my hand."

"I have a meeting with Bloomberg," said the incoherent protester.

Cops arrested the man -- identified as Dustin Taylor, 34, of Millerburg, Ohio -- and charged him with grand larceny, menacing, criminal possession of a weapon, and harassment, the NYPD said.

Huddy had gone into the park to find out what protesters were doing to fight the significant drop in temperatures.

"I don't think this person represents the whole," Huddy said. "One of the media representatives asked me not to categorize this one person as representative of the whole group. Most of the folks I've dealt with have been accomodating. There is an element here that we've seen that has caused problems. Overall, it has been peaceful in the park."

Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/fox-5-news-reporter-assaulted-at-ows-20111028-KC#ixzz1cPmDjUVp

source (http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/fox-5-news-reporter-assaulted-at-ows-20111028-KC)

OWS is just getting worse and worse by the minute. First there were arrests, and then there was rape and then there was that marine getting a gas canister in the face, and now this.

I just wish it will end soon before something even worse happens.

Kura
November 2nd, 2011, 04:27 PM
I went downtown one of the nights there were a ton of people protesting in Dundas Square in Toronto. I didn't take any pics but I thought it'd be cool to share some:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/archives/sunnews/canada/media/2011/10/20111017-194825-g.jpg

http://journalistinajumpsuit.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/aaimg_1801.jpg?w=620&h=380&crop=1

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/01331/to_occupy2_1331_1331432cl-8.jpg

http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/24/4a/8a8e40424ca28c4a9051a870ae26.jpeg

Zet
November 2nd, 2011, 09:34 PM
#OccupyBrisbane did $30,000 worth of damage, some people were arrested because they didn't move to the parklands where all the other protesters have moved to.

I should go out there and take pictures and report back here with them.

parallelzero
November 3rd, 2011, 09:53 AM
Unfortunately, things will start getting worse and worse as the protestors start getting fed up with nothing happening. Though, by doing nothing about the issues they're protesting, governments allow things to get worse. You can't really pin the blame solely on one side or the other, but I can't see things getting better from here-on out.

FreakyLocz14
November 3rd, 2011, 11:18 AM
Unfortunately, things will start getting worse and worse as the protestors start getting fed up with nothing happening. Though, by doing nothing about the issues they're protesting, governments allow things to get worse. You can't really pin the blame solely on one side or the other, but I can't see things getting better from here-on out.

Why are they not doing what the Tea Party did, and actually run for office?

lx_theo
November 3rd, 2011, 12:03 PM
Why are they not doing what the Tea Party did, and actually run for office?

They aren't organized and funded by corporate monetary backing like the Tea Party. Not to mention, election are anywhere near soon enough for that to be an issue they would have to deal with.

Mr. X
November 3rd, 2011, 12:43 PM
Tea party ran for office. Guess what? Despite the rise of the Tea Party, things have only gotten worse.

Politics are ineffective. Sometimes, a protest/riot/war is the only effective answer.

Otter Mii-kun
November 3rd, 2011, 01:01 PM
They aren't organized and funded by corporate monetary backing like the Tea Party.The Tea Party was started by grassroots organizers fed up with big goverment, but then all of a sudden, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck took over and turned it into another neoconservative movement focusing now on waging war with Iran, and following the Republican Party in near lockstep.

Politics are ineffective. Sometimes, a protest/riot/war is the only effective answer. We may very well be heading towards a mass riot or civil war. Some people (e.g., Jim Bakker) are predicting something like that will happen soon.

FreakyLocz14
November 3rd, 2011, 01:08 PM
They aren't organized and funded by corporate monetary backing like the Tea Party. Not to mention, election are anywhere near soon enough for that to be an issue they would have to deal with.

The Tea Party began earlier in the last cycle than OWS did in this one.
The Tea Party actually won a considerable amount of seats in Congress and in state legislatures.

lx_theo
November 3rd, 2011, 02:49 PM
The Tea Party began earlier in the last cycle than OWS did in this one.
The Tea Party actually won a considerable amount of seats in Congress and in state legislatures.

I'm not saying they can't, but are there any real elections anytime soon that they could even consider having any bearing in? Thats the point I'm making. You suggest running for office, but its not anywhere near enough to make any difference until then. Thats plenty of time for the other deterioration mentioned to happened.

FreakyLocz14
November 3rd, 2011, 03:08 PM
I'm not saying they can't, but are there any real elections anytime soon that they could even consider having any bearing in? Thats the point I'm making. You suggest running for office, but its not anywhere near enough to make any difference until then. Thats plenty of time for the other deterioration mentioned to happened.

There are state legislative elections this month. They could have tried for those. The Tea Party began in 2009 with the VA and NJ elections, and continued in MA in January 2010.

Zet
November 4th, 2011, 12:58 AM
Why are they not doing what the Tea Party did, and actually run for office?

Alternatively they could dump tea in the ocean. That would actually be a more meaningful protest instead of sitting down and doing nothing all day.

TRIFORCE89
November 5th, 2011, 09:51 PM
I still like the idea of the Occupy movement. Or at least what I assume it is (see my longish post earlier in this thread), but I'm tired of the Occupy Toronto folks.

Today they held a musical protest at city hall. Let's go all Glee on people, that'll show them.

The park they're occupying is getting pretty damn messy too.

And I just don't understand why you would occupy a city or protest at the municipal level. The issue that I think are at hand, just can't be addressed at the municipal level. The economic hubs like Wall St. and Bay St. (which they still haven't really gotten to here in T.O.. The pictures above are basically our equivalent of Times Square which makes no sense to occupy) or capitals like Washington and Ottawa make sense. The local movements do not and now I'm tired.

Livewire
November 5th, 2011, 10:34 PM
There are state legislative elections this month. They could have tried for those. The Tea Party began in 2009 with the VA and NJ elections, and continued in MA in January 2010.

A group formed against the corruption within government and the bureaucracy isn't going to want to become part of the very thing they were created to oppose.

FreakyLocz14
November 5th, 2011, 10:54 PM
A group formed against the corruption within government and the bureaucracy isn't going to want to become part of the very thing they were created to oppose.
The only true way to change government is to become a part of it. Are they against all government, or just corruption in government?

Amachi
November 6th, 2011, 05:27 PM
I'm so glad you bothered to ask every single one of them, including the doctors and teachers that are in the demonstrations here in Spain. And the old people, over 40- I'm sure they also are dumb children who do drugs- hell, even I have assisted to several demonstrations in that movement! I guess I should stop doing drugs.
Yes. I am required to conduct a complete census of the OWS protesters for any conclusion I make about them to be valid.

http://theweek.com/article/index/220529/the-demographics-of-occupy-wall-street-by-the-numbers

Apparently, 64% of the protesters are under the age of 35. That said, it is interesting that a majority of them are employed - how do they get all that time off of work and remain employed? haha

Of course, this is all the US, so the demographics might be different in your part of the world.

In short, the problem here was complete deregulation that allowed banks to play with mortgages and worthless derivatives as if they were secure investments. The crisis was created by private banks, not by Governments.Yes, but the banks were able to influence the government, allowing them to dictate government decisions, including the decision to bail them out with billions of the taxpayers dollars when they eventually failed hard.

If something is supposed to fail, isn't it best to just let it fail, rather than prolonging the inevitable?

That's the problem in current world politics (and the problem that is destroying the US's political system): democracy was based in making compromises between the views of all citizens, even if you think they are wrong. Finding a middleground everybody is happy with.No, democracy is a tyranny of the majority. If 51% of the population want something, then despite the opposition of the 49% remaining, the 51% get what they want.

Not that the US is a democracy - it's a republic.

But, if your motto is: "I'm absolutely right, whoever doesn't agree with me is absolutely wrong", the result is extremism and war between both sides- "if I don't win, the other side is going to make sure I don't get absolutely anything out of them, so I have to win by all means".Why fight for something if you don't believe it to be the absolute truth? If you're so willing to compromise on your beliefs then you must not hold them very strongly.

Seriously, it's the principle of it. Stand by what you believe in if you think it is the truth.

Liberal arts degrees aren't worthless. That's a common degree that teachers get before their credential programs.
On their own they are worthless, particularly in America.


Monopolies are only bad because private ones are solely their for profit. They screw over people everywhere because they can. Gov. based ones have a purposed to serve the people, or are regulated by the Gov. enough that they can't screw over people when ever. Capitalism is just as evil as socialism. One being more beneficial to you doesn't make it better. So get over yourself.Believe it or not, the government does not care about you. In any case, you still would have a problem with the Federal Reserve, as they are not a government monopoly - they are a private monopoly SUPPORTED by the government (and here you thought they government was looking out for you, lol).

Tea party ran for office. Guess what? Despite the rise of the Tea Party, things have only gotten worse.

Politics are ineffective. Sometimes, a protest/riot/war is the only effective answer.
Well protests are worthless, but you might like this video.

3H0guC-2q4U

edit: found some interesting news to share
Woman dies at Occupy Vancouver, mayor vows to close camp (http://www.torontosun.com/2011/11/05/woman-dies-of-suspected-overdose-at-occupy-vancouver-reports)

Police cordoned off the area and called in the forensic squad. While her death is not considered suspicious, police wouldn’t speculate it was caused by a drug overdose.

The death comes only two days after a man survived a heroin overdose, leading officials to clamp down on the tent city, ordering the removal of unoccupied tents. However, the city continues to supply electricity and other services.While I know this doesn't prove that the majority use and abuse drugs, it does demonstrate that there is a problem with drugs in the protests, and perhaps a strong drug culture within them.

Mario The World Champion
November 6th, 2011, 05:57 PM
Tea party ran for office. Guess what? Despite the rise of the Tea Party, things have only gotten worse.
That is because many members of the Tea Party want to get Obama kicked out of the White House and they are willing to screw over the American people and our economy to do it. Unfortunately, Obama needed as many Republicans, establishment or Tea Party, to get the debt ceiling raised before we defaulted. I'm sure the Tea Party can be good for the United States, but not if they are sticking to their guns and have that willingness to screw the country over.

That is why Crocodile Dundee along with our enemies, are basically laughing at us because the Government is so inept right now.

Politics are ineffective. Sometimes, a protest/riot/war is the only effective answer..
Part of me really doesn't want to see that happen, but on the other hand...if the economy keeps getting worse, the anger of the American people is bubbling like a volcano. if something happens between now and the 2012 elections that causes that volcano to blow, I'll be glad I live in Western Massachusetts and not in Boston.

Mr. X
November 6th, 2011, 07:32 PM
Or it could just be a issue with Canada.

Either way, while I support protests even I think that that particular camp needs to be shut down by any means possiable, at least until the cause of death is determined.

Still, I'm willing to bet that the next president won't be able to fix our issues either. Despite what some people want to believe, all systems fail. Looks like ours is starting to.

FreakyLocz14
November 6th, 2011, 07:38 PM
Why are we talking about the Tea Party? The Tea Party is a force for good in our national conversation, but I only used them as an example or what real activism is.

Mr. X
November 6th, 2011, 08:01 PM
So, every person in the Tea Party always has the best interests of America at heart?

TRIFORCE89
November 6th, 2011, 08:24 PM
Why are we talking about the Tea Party. The Tea Party is a force for good in our national conversation, but I only used them as an example or what real activism is.
Real activism is dressing up like Ben Franklin?

Not that the bongos with the Occupy movement is all that effective either.

I think we've been complacent for so long that we don't remember how to do this properly.

FreakyLocz14
November 6th, 2011, 09:08 PM
Real activism is dressing up like Ben Franklin?

Not that the bongos with the Occupy movement is all that effective either.

I think we've been complacent for so long that we don't remember how to do this properly.

Real activism is taking control of the United States House of Representatives.

Amachi
November 7th, 2011, 01:18 AM
See, this is the sort of ignorance that is killing America.
I always laugh when folk call me ignorant. It's usually all you can say when someone disagrees with you - rather than something logical.

Monopolies are only bad because private ones are solely their for profit. They screw over people everywhere because they can. Gov. based ones have a purposed to serve the people, or are regulated by the Gov. enough that they can't screw over people when ever. Capitalism is just as evil as socialism. One being more beneficial to you doesn't make it better. So get over yourself.
Believe it or not, the government does not care about you. In any case, you still would have a problem with the Federal Reserve, as they are not a government monopoly - they are a private monopoly SUPPORTED by the government (and here you thought they government was looking out for you, lol).

Just to make it clear: the government is not your friend. They only ever pander to you to secure power and your money. Just because they aren't shooting you in the street (yet) doesn't mean they are "looking out for you".

All I can tell of you is that you're very one sided in your opinions and have a hard to match superiority complex. So it's hard to take your "facts"/opinions as seriously.
Pot calling kettle black, but I feel the same way about your posts.

And here my posts are being edited because I'm "rude".

Oh and for everybody's information, generalising isn't inherently bad. Don't be afraid to do it.

jpp8
November 7th, 2011, 04:05 PM
Oh wow. A lot less support for OWS than I thought there'd be on PC.

I'm not a guy who's big on politics, or someone who knows the ins and outs of the U.S. economic system, but it is quite evident that something is wrong with the way our country is being run right now. I don't know how we should go about fixing it, but is it not admirable that so many people worldwide are calling up to arms against this system that seems to mainly benefit the top 1% of wage earners?

Vampire://Krimm
November 7th, 2011, 04:39 PM
I agree with the above poster in a way. I personally don't necessarily agree with the ideas of the movement, but the fact that people are actually standing up for something is kind of amazing in itself. So I wouldn't exactly be out there with the protesters, but I think it could be a catalyst for something more crucial.

Bela
November 7th, 2011, 06:45 PM
Oh wow. A lot less support for OWS than I thought there'd be on PC.

I'm not a guy who's big on politics, or someone who knows the ins and outs of the U.S. economic system, but it is quite evident that something is wrong with the way our country is being run right now. I don't know how we should go about fixing it, but is it not admirable that so many people worldwide are calling up to arms against this system that seems to mainly benefit the top 1% of wage earners?

I agree with your observation, based upon the replies made here, that there seems to be very little support for this movement.

You will see members here cite isolated incidents, condemned by the overwhelming majority of occupiers and protesters themselves, of violence, vandalism, and even rape. To say that there exists a misunderstanding here of what this movement is about would be an understatement. There exists those who wish to vilify the movement, and it is they who you will commonly find on the news putting down and dismissing this movement. CNN's Erin Burnett, I'm looking at you--seriously!

You will see arguments made here which lend support to the wealthy, the powerful, the ruling classes of this country.

What you will not see, and what I hope changes, is a discussion about corporate personhood. This is what this is about. Corporations are NOT people. The Citizens United ruling is a travesty that must not be allowed to stand.

Corporations cannot be allowed to be given more and more control over our political discourse. They cannot be allowed to have a growing influence over our politicians. This is what the protesters are rallying for. The system is broken. It favors the rich, the wealthy, the powerful.

If you like your freedom to debate ideas as we do in our democratic society, then please support this movement, as it fights to save it.

Livewire
November 7th, 2011, 07:39 PM
I agree with your observation, based upon the replies made here, that there seems to be very little support for this movement.

You will see members here cite isolated incidents, condemned by the overwhelming majority of occupiers and protesters themselves, of violence, vandalism, and even rape. To say that there exists a misunderstanding here of what this movement is about would be an understatement. There exists those who wish to vilify the movement, and it is they who you will commonly find on the news putting down and dismissing this movement. CNN's Erin Burnett, I'm looking at you--seriously!

You will see arguments made here which lend support to the wealthy, the powerful, the ruling classes of this country.

What you will not see, and what I hope changes, is a discussion about corporate personhood. This is what this is about. Corporations are NOT people. The Citizens United ruling is a travesty that must not be allowed to stand.

Corporations cannot be allowed to be given more and more control over our political discourse. They cannot be allowed to have a growing influence over our politicians. This is what the protesters are rallying for. The system is broken. It favors the rich, the wealthy, the powerful.

If you like your freedom to debate ideas as we do in our democratic society, then please support this movement, as it fights to save it.


I agree.

People complain how the mass media misinterprets and misinforms most of the American populace, why should this be any different? The stereotyping and generalizing of this movement is nothing more than a pathetic smear tactic and sensationalism on part of those who oppose it. Are there some bad eggs in this bunch? Yes. However, the results of a incident in Oakland cannot logically be applied to dozens of other protests across the country.

Then again, the same approach was used about the rioters and protesters of the 60s and 70's. Something to ponder. Maybe the 2011-2020 decade will be my version of what my grandparents had in the 1960's.

TRIFORCE89
November 7th, 2011, 08:17 PM
Oh wow. A lot less support for OWS than I thought there'd be on PC.

I'm not a guy who's big on politics, or someone who knows the ins and outs of the U.S. economic system, but it is quite evident that something is wrong with the way our country is being run right now. I don't know how we should go about fixing it, but is it not admirable that so many people worldwide are calling up to arms against this system that seems to mainly benefit the top 1% of wage earners?
This is what I though at first. I do still support Occupy Wall Street and Occupy Washington. I don't know if there's an Occupy Ottawa, but that'd be good. If Occupy Toronto was more concentrated and actually Occupy Bay Street, I'd be for that too.

But all these local offshoots of the movement... They're just squatters now at this point. They've deviated from the message significantly. It's just a big camping slumber party. And it's costing money to police, monitor, and secure and will cost more money to cleanup and revitalize these areas afterwards. The local movements are just a platform for "the usual suspects" and have little to do with the economy, class divisions, jobs, etc. The Occupy Toronto folks are going on about native rights, seal fur, free tuition; they're just off-point and gotta go.

Bela
November 7th, 2011, 09:16 PM
But all these local offshoots of the movement... They're just squatters now at this point. They've deviated from the message significantly. It's just a big camping slumber party. And it's costing money to police, monitor, and secure and will cost more money to cleanup and revitalize these areas afterwards.

This is a rather unusual thing for me to see coming from you, as I thought you to be generally a supporter of these occupy protests.

Indeed, you will find arguments of "it costs the police so much money to deal with these protesters," or "it costs so much money to clean up after these protesters" for more than just Occupy Toronto.

Need I remind you that it was Occupy Wall Street which was threatened by Mayor Bloomberg to be cleaned? That was just a ruse by the Mayor to evict the protesters from Zucotti park. It was demonstrably untrue that the park was unclean (in fact, the protesters had been, are, and continue to keep the park clean).

And as for the police incurring costs--look again toward Occupy Wall Street. Did JP Morgan Chase donate $4.6 million to the NYPD Foundation (http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/Home/article/ny-13.htm?TB_iframe=true&height=580&width=850) out of the kindness of their heart? It's all about the money! We pay you, you protect us!

The local movements are just a platform for "the usual suspects" and have little to do with the economy, class divisions, jobs, etc. The Occupy Toronto folks are going on about native rights, seal fur, free tuition; they're just off-point and gotta go.
The concerns of the people in one area will not be the same as the concerns of the people in another. Let's take tuition for example. The rising costs of tuition for students forces students to either take on more debt in loans, or to not get their degrees. Without the skills necessary to get a high-paying job, these college dropouts cannot find work, and you find unemployment rising. And even with low-paying jobs, they will struggle to pay off their student loans.

You think this has nothing to do with economic woes? You think that students shouldn't be given assistance from the government to help pay off their student debt, while at the same time the government gives billions to corporations and bails out large financial institutions for their incompetency? Surely not!

This is why people are protesting--they are fed up with a government they feel no longer represents their interests.

TRIFORCE89
November 7th, 2011, 10:02 PM
This is a rather unusual thing for me to see coming from you, as I thought you to be generally a supporter of these occupy protests.

Indeed, you will find arguments of "it costs the police so much money to deal with these protesters," or "it costs so much money to clean up after these protesters" for more than just Occupy Toronto.

Need I remind you that it was Occupy Wall Street which was threatened by Mayor Bloomberg to be cleaned? That was just a ruse by the Mayor to evict the protesters from Zucotti park. It was demonstrably untrue that the park was unclean (in fact, the protesters had been, are, and continue to keep the park clean).

And as for the police incurring costs--look again toward Occupy Wall Street. Did Wells Fargo donate $4.6 million to the NYPD Foundation (http://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/Home/article/ny-13.htm?TB_iframe=true&height=580&width=850) out of the kindness of their heart? It's all about the money! We pay you, you protect us!


The concerns of the people in one area will not be the same as the concerns of the people in another. Let's take tuition for example. The rising costs of tuition for students forces students to either take on more debt in loans, or to not get their degrees. Without the skills necessary to get a high-paying job, these college dropouts cannot find work, and you find unemployment rising. And even with low-paying jobs, they will struggle to pay off their student loans.

You think this has nothing to do with economic woes? You think that students shouldn't be given assistance from the government to help pay off their student debt, while at the same time the government gives billions to corporations and bails out large financial institutions for their incompetency? Surely not!

This is why people are protesting--they are fed up with a government they feel no longer represents their interests.
Our park isn't a pig sty or anything, but it's not what it was. Our's too were pretty darn tidy at the beginning, but now they're kind of in a groove and not picking up after themselves. And they're bringing in fire logs now for heat. Live fire in an area full of dry leaves and tents just doesn't seem like the brightest idea to me. So safety then, if you don't like the cleanliness argument.

Lower tuition is one thing. That's a sound argument. But "I want free tuition, just because" is not.

At least here, the student loans are from the government. And here, the situation is different than it is in other countries. We didn't bail out any banks. We're not like the United States, Greece, or Italy. It's by no means rosy. Not at all. But the people just don't seem to watch the news a whole lot if they think we're in the same boat.

I do support the larger movement as a whole. There is a genuine anger out there that's growing and being manifested in different ways. But Occupy Toronto (and I'm assuming the other local spinoffs) consists of enough general off-topic protesters as to discredit the larger movement and disrupt its message. Honestly, what does protesting at the municipal level accomplish? The kinds of changes that are needed just are not handled by cities. It's falling on deaf ears.

It's not that I'm against the movement (I'm not) or that I don't respect their right to strike (they've been totally peaceful, so I have no issues there). It's just that they seem confused and misguided and that's a discredit to the Occupy movement as a whole.

Bela
November 7th, 2011, 11:02 PM
Our park isn't a pig sty or anything, but it's not what it was. Our's too were pretty darn tidy at the beginning, but now they're kind of in a groove and not picking up after themselves. And they're bringing in fire logs now for heat. Live fire in an area full of dry leaves and tents just doesn't seem like the brightest idea to me. So safety then, if you don't like the cleanliness argument.

Lower tuition is one thing. That's a sound argument. But "I want free tuition, just because" is not.

At least here, the student loans are from the government. And here, the situation is different than it is in other countries. We didn't bail out any banks. We're not like the United States, Greece, or Italy. It's by no means rosy. Not at all. But the people just don't seem to watch the news a whole lot if they think we're in the same boat.

I do support the larger movement as a whole. There is a genuine anger out there that's growing and being manifested in different ways. But Occupy Toronto (and I'm assuming the other local spinoffs) consists of enough general off-topic protesters as to discredit the larger movement and disrupt its message. Honestly, what does protesting at the municipal level accomplish? The kinds of changes that are needed just are not handled by cities. It's falling on deaf ears.

It's not that I'm against the movement (I'm not) or that I don't respect their right to strike (they've been totally peaceful, so I have no issues there). It's just that they seem confused and misguided and that's a discredit to the Occupy movement as a whole.
No, I get ya--Canada doesn't really have the problems that the United States and other countries face. I could definitely cede the point to you that Canadians don't have much to get angry aboot =P

With that said, I would caution taking the populist, perhaps misinformed, outrage of one Occupy Toronto, and then extrapolating and saying that the circumstances are the same for all other movements outside of Occupy Wall Street/Washington.

I don't know what it's like in Canada, but there are a lot of places in the United States that have been hurting due to the economy--and I would definitely not say that their outcry is misguided, off-point, or misinformed. They know exactly what a struggling economy means to them, and they know that the root of their problems lie in a broken system which for decades has favored the rich, wealthy, and powerful of this country.

TRIFORCE89
November 8th, 2011, 05:33 AM
No, I get ya--Canada doesn't really have the problems that the United States and other countries face. I could definitely cede the point to you that Canadians don't have much to get angry aboot =P

With that said, I would caution taking the populist, perhaps misinformed, outrage of one Occupy Toronto, and then extrapolating and saying that the circumstances are the same for all other movements outside of Occupy Wall Street/Washington.
Well, we have a problems - just not yet to the extent as other places. We are one bad quarter away from a recession and are having a problem selling our goods since all the other countries who were buying are now in trouble can't afford to do so or have activated "buy local" rules. International companies aren't expanding or hiring here like they were. We're getting the side effects and they're building up.

A lot of the points I put in my longish post on the front page do hold true here too. Pay rates are pretty much the same as they were 30 years ago and all that.

There are those in Occupy TO who stick to that message but there are lot of off-topic people. Like I said before, native rights, 9/11 truthers, anti-war, feed Africa, and some local groups who have just kind of hijacked the thing a bit. Opportunists. If not "a lot", then enough to bug me and make me thing it's time for Toronto's branch to close up shop as they're off point.

I would hope the other local movements aren't like this, yes. It's a discredit

Went
November 8th, 2011, 09:57 AM
Yes, but the banks were able to influence the government, allowing them to dictate government decisions, including the decision to bail them out with billions of the taxpayers dollars when they eventually failed hard.

The other option was an uncontrolled collapse of major companies that held most of the money own by the citizens. Again, look at Lehman Brothers. The Government didn't bail it out, and it single-handledly started the crisis. Hmm. Maybe bailing companies out IS good under certain circumstances.

No, democracy is a tyranny of the majority. If 51% of the population want something, then despite the opposition of the 49% remaining, the 51% get what they want.

Not that the US is a democracy - it's a republic.

Now what's the difference? I mean, I just checked the Merriam-Webster dictionary and they don't know either- they list "Democracy" and "Republic" as synonims.

Definition of DEMOCRACY
1
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Definition of REPUBLIC
1
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government

Also I'm just going to quote a random guy down the street:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except, of course, for all the others that have been tried."

Why fight for something if you don't believe it to be the absolute truth? If you're so willing to compromise on your beliefs then you must not hold them very strongly.

Seriously, it's the principle of it. Stand by what you believe in if you think it is the truth.

Sometimes you need to set out priorities. Fact is nobody is going to 100% agree with you, so if you believe something is good for people, you'd rather talk to the people who think that is not the best, find things you do agree about, and put them in motion. If more people agree with you, you can go ahead with your plan. But you can ask for everything all the time. It's called negotiation. Sometimes, to get what you think it's truly important, you have to concede some things you don't think are so good- but someone else thinks they are important.

You can do that or punch them into submission, of course.

FreakyLocz14
November 10th, 2011, 11:31 AM
A democracy is where the citizens of a nation vote directly on legislation. A republic is where said citizens elect representatives to enact legislation.

jpp8
November 10th, 2011, 12:47 PM
OK we all know definitions. That's real charming. Let's not dance around the point and instead discuss government's role and banks/big business which seem to be the main points of this movement.

FreakyLocz14
November 10th, 2011, 10:42 PM
OK we all know definitions. That's real charming. Let's not dance around the point and instead discuss government's role and banks/big business which seem to be the main points of this movement.

Banks and businesses have no business interfering with the government, and the government has no business interfering with the banks and businesses.

Otter Mii-kun
November 11th, 2011, 06:17 PM
Banks and businesses have no business interfering with the government, and the government has no business interfering with the banks and businesses.While I agree that banks and businesses have no authority to interfere with government, Government is supposed to regulate business, in order to prevent fraud. However, they've gone overboard to the point where it's impossible to run any kind of business efficiently without having to follow complex local, state, federal, and international laws to the letter.
Today's business regulations are written by and for mega-corporations such as Citigroup, BofA, General Electric (which Peter Schiff has called a "hedge fund masquerading as a company"), Goldman Sachs, Time Warner, and Walmart.
In the current status of governmental affairs, the United States government is the best government money can buy. Many regulatory agencies and departments such as the FDA (subject to extensive bribery by the drug companies), Department of Education (bought and paid for by the National Education Association, who has effectively proclaimed that union dues, not education, are its top priority (http%3a//blog.heritage.org/2009/07/09/nea-general-counsel-union-dues-not-education-are-our-top-priority/)), Department of Energy and the EPA (bought and paid for by radical environmentalists who want to wring our energy industry's neck through schemes such as Cap and Tax), the SEC and CFTC (both bought and paid for by institutional Wall Street investors and companies), and the Department of Labor (bought and paid for by major unions, who would like to outlaw Right To Work, effectively forcing every worker in America to join a union and pay dues to socialist causes against their will) have been corrupted by the very interests they are supposed to regulate.

Mr. X
November 11th, 2011, 06:45 PM
Banks and businesses have no business interfering with the government, and the government has no business interfering with the banks and businesses.

Tell that to all the companies that donate lots of money to candidates in hopes of their person being elected. And also tell that to the elected candidate that helps pass laws that are tipped in a companies favor.

This goes both ways. If we can't pass laws regulate businesses then we shouldn't be able to pass laws that favor them either.

If we get rid of all laws regulating them, then just to keep things fair, we have to get rid of all laws that support them as well.

lx_theo
November 11th, 2011, 08:28 PM
I always laugh when folk call me ignorant. It's usually all you can say when someone disagrees with you - rather than something logical.

Ignorance to compromise is still ignorance, no matter how small minded you wish to be.


People are arguing like we are at war against each other because there is two sides and if one gets the upperhand, it would somehow mean that the other side loses everything. People are fighting for no good reason, and you are proving yourself to be the perfect example of why the people are tearing the country apart. Bravo, you're setting America on its path on downfall.

And guess what? This has nothing to do with what side you agree with, its because you are promoting the infighting. Again, Brav-freaking-o.


Believe it or not, the government does not care about you. In any case, you still would have a problem with the Federal Reserve, as they are not a government monopoly - they are a private monopoly SUPPORTED by the government (and here you thought they government was looking out for you, lol).

Just to make it clear: the government is not your friend. They only ever pander to you to secure power and your money. Just because they aren't shooting you in the street (yet) doesn't mean they are "looking out for you".

The gov. is more my friend that capitalism. Tell me this, why would I put more trust in corrupt corporations with the sole purpose of gaining more profit and getting more money from us over government (even if corrupt)?

Because even if they're out for getting more power, they still have to serve the people (outside of when corporation get their foot in the door) in order to get it. We also have systems set up so they can't bypass the fact that they serve us.

And thats the difference with corporations. They serve the stockholders, they serve themselves, they serve profit. When they grab up power, it hurts the people for the most part. Its not like stuff like the trickle down effect work in any real life situation. Companies don't let the money trickle down. Why do you think competition is good? Its like checks and balances in capitalism. It forces them to help the people in order to get more power. But as it always inevitably does, markets without enough regulation grab enough power to crush the competition below them, creating monopolies. Which, if regulated, are okay because they can't simply screw everyone over for another grab of power.

And this is the biggest difference between gov. and captialism. The gov. grabs power through helping the people. Capitalism does not.

Capitalism is just as evil as Socialism. If you are too delved and blind to the downsides of your own side, then you should not be taken seriously.


Pot calling kettle black, but I feel the same way about your posts.

And here my posts are being edited because I'm "rude".

Oh and for everybody's information, generalising isn't inherently bad. Don't be afraid to do it.

You do realize I'm the one PREACHING COMPROMISE? I may believe in more liberal beliefs, but at least I can acknowledge its failings enough to see what really needs to be done. Where's the facepalm smiley when I need it?

FreakyLocz14
November 11th, 2011, 09:40 PM
Tell that to all the companies that donate lots of money to candidates in hopes of their person being elected. And also tell that to the elected candidate that helps pass laws that are tipped in a companies favor.

This goes both ways. If we can't pass laws regulate businesses then we shouldn't be able to pass laws that favor them either.

If we get rid of all laws regulating them, then just to keep things fair, we have to get rid of all laws that support them as well.

Political donations are an expression of political opinion, and to restrict it is unconstitutional. (Citizens United v. FEC (2010) 558 U.S. 08-205) When the government starts limiting how much we can participate in the political process, that's dangerous.

Netto Azure
November 12th, 2011, 02:24 AM
Political donations are an expression of political opinion, and to restrict it is unconstitutional. (Citizens United v. FEC (2010) 558 U.S. 08-205) When the government starts limiting how much we can participate in the political process, that's dangerous.

Oh jeez, Citizens United. The Plaintiffs for that case didn't even argue for outright declaration of unconstitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81)

But yeah until the balance of the Supreme Court is changed this 5-4 decision will still be quite controversial. >_>
Also you do have to realize that overturning this decision is totally possible as Most provisions of McCain-Feingold (And therefore much of the Political Donations restricions in this country) was upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._Federal_Election_Commission) until that is it was overturned by this very politicized Supreme Court.

And no, to me the concept of corporate personhood ends at the economic expediencies it is designed to promote. It has no place in trying to influence the political process in such difference of scale.

FreakyLocz14
November 12th, 2011, 03:14 AM
Oh jeez, Citizens United. The Plaintiffs for that case didn't even argue for outright declaration of unconstitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81)

But yeah until the balance of the Supreme Court is changed this 5-4 decision will still be quite controversial. >_>
Also you do have to realize that overturning this decision is totally possible as Most provisions of McCain-Feingold (And therefore much of the Political Donations restricions in this country) was upheld in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McConnell_v._Federal_Election_Commission) until that is it was overturned by this very politicized Supreme Court.

And no, to me the concept of corporate personhood ends at the economic expediencies it is designed to promote. It has no place in trying to influence the political process in such difference of scale.

I don't think that corporations are people, but the right to participate in the political process is not limited to individuals. The freedom to assemble is intended for like-minded individuals to form groups of people with common goals so that they can petition their government more effectively as a whole.

Mr. X
November 12th, 2011, 08:41 AM
Political donations are an expression of political opinion, and to restrict it is unconstitutional. (Citizens United v. FEC (2010) 558 U.S. 08-205) When the government starts limiting how much we can participate in the political process, that's dangerous.

Never said people can be limited. If you want to donate, donate in your own name and not in the name of a corporation.

But still, I consider it more dangerous to allow massive corporations to decide who gets elected. While a election is more then money, money is always a major factor in who gets elected.

jpp8
November 12th, 2011, 10:11 AM
Banks and businesses have no business interfering with the government, and the government has no business interfering with the banks and businesses.

Political donations are an expression of political opinion, and to restrict it is unconstitutional. (Citizens United v. FEC (2010) 558 U.S. 08-205) When the government starts limiting how much we can participate in the political process, that's dangerous.

I read this as: "Banks and business shouldn't interfere with government... But it's constitutional, so if they want to, they can because of free speech and all."

Isn't this is just basically allowing banks and businesses to project their interests in government over the interests of the whole? Why should their voices be louder than others? We did not elect the banks and businesses to represent us, we elected politicians. Why does government not have the interests of the whole at heart but instead that of the top 1% of wage owners?

Mr. X
November 12th, 2011, 11:38 AM
The banks and big corperations have enough money to line the pockets of politicians to get laws that will let them make more money passed. With more profits they can line more pockets and thus the cycle repeats itself.

We didn't elect them but still... Money talks and ******** walks.

TRIFORCE89
November 12th, 2011, 11:43 AM
Political donations are an expression of political opinion, and to restrict it is unconstitutional. (Citizens United v. FEC (2010) 558 U.S. 08-205) When the government starts limiting how much we can participate in the political process, that's dangerous.
The head of a company can donate out of their own personal funds if they wish. A company, however, should not. A company is not a person and it cannot have a political opinion.

Netto Azure
November 15th, 2011, 02:38 AM
Occupy Wall Street: New York police clear protest camp (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15732661)

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/56715000/jpg/_56715527_013341417-1.jpg
Police said most protesters left the park once the order was given


New York police have dismantled the Occupy Wall Street camp in Zuccotti Park following a late-night raid.

Protesters were woken at 01:00 (06:00 GMT) and ordered to leave, before police began dismantling tents and removing property.

Occupy Wall Street was set up in September to protest against economic inequality and had inspired dozens of similar camps around the world.

A camp in Oakland, California was cleared overnight on Monday.

Police in New York gave an announcement as their operation began, telling protesters: "The city has determined that the continued occupation of Zuccotti Park poses an increasing health and fire safety hazard."

Mayor Michael Bloomberg's office released a message on Twitter saying protesters should "temporarily leave and remove tents and tarps" but could return once the park was clear.
Leaflets were handed out telling occupants to "immediately remove all private property" and warning they would be arrested if they interfered with the operation.

Any belongings left behind would be put into storage, said the notice, and protesters would not be allowed to bring camping equipment back if they returned.

The protesters' live web stream from the park showed crowds chanting "all day, all week, Occupy Wall Street" and "the whole world is watching" as police moved into the camp, close to New York's financial district.

"They gave us about 20 minutes to get our things together," protester Sam Wood told Reuters. "It's a painful process to watch, they are sweeping through the park."

Police spokesman Paul Browne said most people had begun leaving the park once the order to vacate was given but that a small group of people had refused to leave.

At least 15 people were arrested, say reports.

Really? Doing this in the middle of the night and instituting a News/Press Blackout. Yes NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg you have just shown us how tactics used by dictators can be used here in the US. >_>

TRIFORCE89
November 15th, 2011, 06:29 AM
Occupy Wall Street: New York police clear protest camp (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15732661)

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/56715000/jpg/_56715527_013341417-1.jpg
Police said most protesters left the park once the order was given



Really? Doing this in the middle of the night and instituting a News/Press Blackout. Yes NYPD and Mayor Bloomberg you have just shown us how tactics used by dictators can be used here in the US. >_>
Well... I don't agree with the media blackout part. But, police raids are often at night or pre-dawn everywhere. Did they receive any notice?

This cleanup is happening throughout the globe right now. I don't think it is the 1% executing their power or influence on the police force or the politicians. Increasingly, the majority of the public (even if they fall within that 99%) want the occupiers out of their parks.

The first two weeks or so were good. They we marching. They earned news coverage. They were loud. Their message was coming across. And then they stopped marching and stopped making noise and just started camping. The news stopped conveying their message and basically went to "Yep, folks. They're still sitting there".

In the midst of all this last night, Michael Moore on Twitter said that now phase two will begin and that Wall St. will wish they left them in the park. Good, I say. Actually start protesting again. Start making noise. Get angry. Rile up the public and get them behind you. You took over the Brooklyn bridge once, do big things like that. Try to influence the politicians. Get.things.done.

Illegally occupying parks across the globe, preventing the rest of the public from accessing their parks, and negatively affecting small businesses in the surrounding area was not the correct way to do this.

I still agree with the cause and the movement as a whole, but the methods were getting stale and ineffective. Time to switch it up.

EDIT: So... apparently they were given notice and told that they can return to the park to protest, without camping gear so they stop camping, after they clean the park. They're allowed back. And they're already. So.... what's wrong?

EDIT2: Eviction notices handed out in Toronto. But, again, they're not being "kicked out". The by-law explicitly says to remove camping gear and that they are free to still use the park to protest every day, but not from 12AM-5:30AM.

jpp8
November 15th, 2011, 08:44 AM
"The revolution will not be televised."

This is a gross violation of our First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and our right to the press. Even if you felt the movement wasn't going in the right direction, they still had the right to do so and this event was indicative of how far those at the top would go to silence it.

EDIT: Also, it would be wise to mention that this was not a peaceful "everyone get out or we'll use force" evacuation. They brought bulldozers and police in riot gear. "Counter-terrorism" Forces. Does not following an eviction order, even though they were allowed to stay due to court orders and First Amendment rights, justify this kind of force used?

TRIFORCE89
November 15th, 2011, 01:05 PM
"The revolution will not be televised."

This is a gross violation of our First Amendment rights to peacefully assemble and our right to the press. Even if you felt the movement wasn't going in the right direction, they still had the right to do so and this event was indicative of how far those at the top would go to silence it.

EDIT: Also, it would be wise to mention that this was not a peaceful "everyone get out or we'll use force" evacuation. They brought bulldozers and police in riot gear. "Counter-terrorism" Forces. Does not following an eviction order, even though they were allowed to stay due to court orders and First Amendment rights, justify this kind of force used?
Well... I don't know the American laws. But, for here in Toronto

1) You can't be in parks between 12AM - 5:30AM. They are technically "closed".
2) You need a permit to setup camp in a park

They've violated both of those and the local government has let them continue for 31 days. This morning they were given eviction notices, which the occupiers then proceeded to burn and turn into paper airplanes. The city has offered to help the occupiers pack up if they require it. This offer has not been taken up on. Instead, the occupiers have decided to throw a party at midnight in the park, which is the deadline when the police are set to move in.

The city has said they can keep protesting in the park, but they need to do so during official open hours and remove the camp site. That is what they have the right to do.

So, who is in violation here exactly?

jpp8
November 15th, 2011, 01:35 PM
When you put it that way, yeah, the protestors. In any case though, do you agree with the brutal response that the protestors received? Being pepper sprayed and met with riot police?

Mr. X
November 15th, 2011, 01:47 PM
They refused the carrot so the stick had to be used.

FreakyLocz14
November 15th, 2011, 01:51 PM
The head of a company can donate out of their own personal funds if they wish. A company, however, should not. A company is not a person and it cannot have a political opinion.

If that company is a corporation, it is a person legally. Also, you are wrong in stating that companies don't have political opinions. I've already provided law that proves my point.

As for the protests, I'm sure they broke regulations that say you have to have a permit for a crowd of a certain size, as well as time, place, and manner restrictions. Courts usually uphold permit requirements when your protest is large enough to block off roads and sidewalks.

If the protesters felt that adamantly that such restrictions are wrong they have three options: 1) Petition their state legislatures, 2) a citizen's ballot initiative, or 3) allow themselves to be prosecuted for the purposes of challenging the constitutionality of their situation.

TRIFORCE89
November 15th, 2011, 01:59 PM
When you put it that way, yeah, the protestors. In any case though, do you agree with the brutal response that the protestors received? Being pepper sprayed and met with riot police?
No, of course not. The occupations have been largely peaceful.

jpp8
November 15th, 2011, 02:45 PM
They refused the carrot so the stick had to be used.
We condemned the brutal actions taken against protestors in Arab Spring. Why do we condone the use of brutal force domestically?
If that company is a corporation, it is a person legally. Also, you are wrong in stating that companies don't have political opinions. I've already provided law that proves my point.

As for the protests, I'm sure they broke regulations that say you have to have a permit for a crowd of a certain size, as well as time, place, and manner restrictions. Courts usually uphold permit requirements when your protest is large enough to block off roads and sidewalks.

If the protesters felt that adamantly that such restrictions are wrong they have three options: 1) Petition their state legislatures, 2) a citizen's ballot initiative, or 3) allow themselves to be prosecuted for the purposes of challenging the constitutionality of their situation.

And that's one of the things OWS is protesting: The legality of corporate personhood. A company is not a person. It should have no sway in how government runs or passes laws. Why are they allowed to "buy" their way into office and enable laws that allow them to make more money? Why is this considered "free speech", but protestors in a park isn't?

FreakyLocz14
November 15th, 2011, 03:19 PM
We condemned the brutal actions taken against protestors in Arab Spring. Why do we condone the use of brutal force domestically?


And that's one of the things OWS is protesting: The legality of corporate personhood. A company is not a person. It should have no sway in how government runs or passes laws. Why are they allowed to "buy" their way into office and enable laws that allow them to make more money? Why is this considered "free speech", but protestors in a park isn't?

Who said protestors in a park aren't free speech? The issue is whether they are following local ordinances regarding safety.

Also, people are just as free as coporations are to make camapign contributions.

jpp8
November 15th, 2011, 03:22 PM
The action of forcefully evicting them as well as preventing media, with proper media passes, to document the act sounds a lot like censorship of Free Speech and Press to me. Actions speak louder than words.

In the end though, Corporations are not people. Their contributions should have no sway in what legislation is passed especially if only serves to benefit them.

Mr. X
November 15th, 2011, 05:18 PM
They were given the opportunity the leave. They didn't. Force had to be used. If they want to protest, let them. Still doesn't exempt them from the various laws regarding the land that they have chosen to stay at.

As for the actions taken against them, they were all legal. Don't agree with them? Don't hate the people enforcing the laws, hate the laws.

As for the actions taken against the protesters being the same as those taken against the ones in Arab Spring... I must have missed a story somewhere because as far as I know the military hasn't been called out yet. You show me a picture of a soldier shooting at the protesters with his assault rifle, or a picture of a tank rolling right into the middle of a camp and back them up with news stories and then your comparison might be true. As it is, your trying to compare two completely diffrient protests with a series of diffrient goals.

jpp8
November 15th, 2011, 05:42 PM
It's legal to use that degree force against peaceful protestors? Welp, it can't be helped I guess. Although, that argument seems awfully similar to "But I was following orders".

And I may have been hasty in my comparison of OWS protests to Arab Spring. Apologies for that.

Oryx
November 15th, 2011, 05:54 PM
I was reading that the protestors were literally chaining themselves to immovable objects and linking arms to resist being evicted from the park temporarily. It seems like if the police don't use force, they have no choice but to allow protestors to break laws because the way the resistors reacted left them little choice but to force them to leave.

Although I can't condone keeping the media away.

Alley Cat
November 15th, 2011, 07:19 PM
The protesters are at fault here. They don't just have a free pass to ignore whatever laws they choose simply because the disagree with the government. No, you have to work with in the rules of the system, even if you intend to topple it. They are clearly breaking laws, and they still need to follow them. This is where the protest loses the peaceful part. It isn't an aggressive protest, but it isn't peaceful either as they are denying the requests to leave the park when they aren't supposed to be. But the officers are also turning to an extreme... . Fully geared riot squads for illegal camping...? Try again, America... =/

FreakyLocz14
November 15th, 2011, 07:40 PM
It's legal to use that degree force against peaceful protestors? Welp, it can't be helped I guess. Although, that argument seems awfully similar to "But I was following orders".

And I may have been hasty in my comparison of OWS protests to Arab Spring. Apologies for that.

The OWS protesters became criminals the minute they refused to disband. If you believe that the law that forces them to disband is unconstitutional, take it to court. The streets aren't the place for litigation.

And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.

Mario The World Champion
November 15th, 2011, 07:51 PM
How long before the Occupy Wall Street protests ends with the status quo enjoyed by the 1% still intact and the 99% go back to their low paying jobs and getting evicted from their homes? Do these people even have a second phase and what phase is that?

While I sort of defended these people in the beginning, their actions make me realize that the 99% have nothing. Our voices don't mean **** when the 1% can easily shut us up with their money and continue manipulating the rules to their advantage.

The 1% and their status quo are here to stay, OWS. It's over.

jpp8
November 15th, 2011, 07:57 PM
If you believe that the law that forces them to disband is unconstitutional, take it to court. The streets aren't the place for litigation.

And do you think it would get passed?

And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.
And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.
And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.
And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.
And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.
And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.
And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.
And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.


This is why we are protesting.

How long before the Occupy Wall Street protests ends with the status quo enjoyed by the 1% still intact and the 99% go back to their low paying jobs and getting evicted from their homes? Do these people even have a second phase and what phase is that?

While I sort of defended these people in the beginning, their actions make me realize that the 99% have nothing. Our voices don't mean **** when the 1% can easily shut us up with their money and continue manipulating the rules to their advantage.

The 1% and their status quo are here to stay, OWS. It's over.

99 to 1. Those sound like damn good odds to me. This is not the time to give up when we've already gained so much momentum. They may have won this one battle in Zucotti Park, but they have not won the war.

Thursday.

November 17th, 2011.

International Day of Action.

Shut Down Wall Street.

FreakyLocz14
November 15th, 2011, 08:13 PM
And do you think it would get passed?

And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.
And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.
And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.
And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.
And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.
And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.
And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.
And whether or not corporations are people, they have every right to influence our political process.


This is why we are protesting.



99 to 1. Those sound like damn good odds to me. This is not the time to give up when we've already gained so much momentum. They may have won this one battle in Zucotti Park, but they have not won the war.

Thursday.

November 17th, 2011.

International Day of Action.

Shut Down Wall Street.

That all depends on who the judge you are in front of is. If you're claiming that your civil rights were violated, you can even have a jury trial.

You can continue to protest, but don't be surprised if at the police responding to criminal activity.

Otter Mii-kun
November 15th, 2011, 08:21 PM
Our voices don't mean **** when the 1% can easily shut us up with their money and continue manipulating the rules to their advantage. With many of our government officials being bought and paid for by corporate interests, that's totally expected. Especially when supported by a ruthless central bank busy printing shiploads of money to the point that our currency is worthless to help their buddies that is essentially our fourth branch of government.

jpp8
November 15th, 2011, 08:27 PM
Does it even matter who the judge is as long as wall street is in control? Lucy Billings. Issued a restraining order against NYPD that would allow protestors back into the park. But within hours, she was off the case as court administrators chose a new judge — and excluded Billings’ name from the list of candidates. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/judge-lucy-billings-signed-occupy-wall-street-order-aclu-veteran-article-1.977725)

Also, I wish I had paid attention and noted links more often so I could show that banks and big business are pretty guilty of criminal acts as well instead of just laying out a baseless claim as I am now.

Livewire
November 15th, 2011, 09:28 PM
Does it even matter who the judge is as long as wall street is in control? Lucy Billings. Issued a restraining order against NYPD that would allow protestors back into the park. But within hours, she was off the case as court administrators chose a new judge — and excluded Billings’ name from the list of candidates. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/judge-lucy-billings-signed-occupy-wall-street-order-aclu-veteran-article-1.977725)

Also, I wish I had paid attention and noted links more often so I could show that banks and big business are pretty guilty of criminal acts as well instead of just laying out a baseless claim as I am now.

That's.... nuts. I can't believe they actually did that. Bloomberg should be ashamed of himself. He's only giving them more ammunition.

jpp8
November 15th, 2011, 10:22 PM
Did someone say "ammunition"? (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/judge-rules-city-bar-occupy-wall-street-tents-tarps-zuccotti-park-evictions-article-1.977674)

“They pulled me out by the stethoscope, white coat and all as I was telling them I have a patient in there. One girl has a heart condition and wasn’t feeling well. They manhandled her and threw her on the ground.”Attack on a clearly marked medical facility. This is what is known as a War crime

Mr. X
November 15th, 2011, 10:36 PM
How can it be a war crime if their is no deceleration of war against OWS?

Legally the police were allowed to remove the medical tent. But still, they should have transported all the people within to proper medical facilities.

Edit

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/bravo-bloomberg-s-occupy-wall-street-eviction-zuccotti-park-finally-reclaiming-public-space-unsanitary-shantytown-article-1.977734

I'll sum this article up.

[quote]
The amorphous agglomeration known as Occupy Wall Street had transformed a space intended for open community access into a round-the-clock shantytown — and they claimed that the First Amendment guaranteed their right to do as they pleased.

This is not constitutional wisdom. This is a self-important, self-indulgent bilge.

As cops moved in, the occupiers chanted, “Whose park? Our park!”

Whose park? Not theirs. The ground is privately owned space dedicated to public use

Occupy Wall Streeters are welcome to return to state their pieces but not to squat on every available inch

“The law that created Zuccotti Park required that it be open for the public to enjoy for passive recreation 24 hours a day. Ever since the occupation began, that law has not been complied with.”
[quote]

FreakyLocz14
November 16th, 2011, 12:30 AM
Does it even matter who the judge is as long as wall street is in control? Lucy Billings. Issued a restraining order against NYPD that would allow protestors back into the park. But within hours, she was off the case as court administrators chose a new judge — and excluded Billings’ name from the list of candidates. (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/judge-lucy-billings-signed-occupy-wall-street-order-aclu-veteran-article-1.977725)

Also, I wish I had paid attention and noted links more often so I could show that banks and big business are pretty guilty of criminal acts as well instead of just laying out a baseless claim as I am now.

That makes perfect sense. A restraining order keeps the cops from doing their job.

jpp8
November 16th, 2011, 04:32 AM
How can it be a war crime if their is no deceleration of war against OWS?

Legally the police were allowed to remove the medical tent. But still, they should have transported all the people within to proper medical facilities So because there was no formal "declaration of war", that gives NYPD the ability to violate the Geneva Conventions? Serious question. I'm not sure if it's a loophole or not.

I will not argue that the protestors may have overstayed their welcome though. I've been convinced enough.

That makes perfect sense. A restraining order keeps the cops from doing their job. What is their job? Protecting and serving our health and safety? Seems (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-111115-ows-da-12.photoblog900.jpg) legit (http://www.seattlepi.com/mediaManager/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=1758708&width=628&height=471). (Trigger warning for violence)

FreakyLocz14
November 16th, 2011, 05:04 AM
So because there was no formal "declaration of war", that gives NYPD the ability to violate the Geneva Conventions? Serious question. I'm not sure if it's a loophole or not.

I will not argue that the protestors may have overstayed their welcome though. I've been convinced enough.

What is their job? Protecting and serving our health and safety? Seems (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/pb-111115-ows-da-12.photoblog900.jpg) legit (http://www.seattlepi.com/mediaManager/?controllerName=image&action=get&id=1758708&width=628&height=471). (Trigger warning for violence)

Their job is to enforce the law. The protesters were not compliant with the law.

jpp8
November 16th, 2011, 06:07 AM
The economic system is against the 99 percent. The law is against the 99 percent. The judicial system is against the 99 percent. And now, the enforcers are against the 99 percent.

All of these institutions now serve for the benefit of the top 1 percent of wage earners. This. is why why we are protesting.
“Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient allover the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.” - Howard Zinn

EDIT: https://twitter.com/?photo_id=1#!/AdamGabbatt/status/136529537851858946/photo/1

Mr. X
November 16th, 2011, 06:36 AM
If your going to be practicing civil disobedience then you have no right to ***** and moan when the police do their jobs, which in this case is enforcing the laws that you are disobeying.

As I said earlier, if they want to protest fine. Protest all you wish. Just don't break any laws while doing so.

I'll leave you with this though. The difference between a protest and rebellion? A protest is done within the bounds of the law. A rebellion disregards laws.

Edit - Also your statement about the law being against the 99% is a complete load of crap. The law is against criminals, aka, those who break the law.

jpp8
November 16th, 2011, 06:46 AM
Illegal extended occupation in a park with the use of tents = Pepper spray, sound cannons, and otherwise excessive force. If you feel OK to the extent of which these officers are "enforcing" the law, then I can't change your mind.

If refusing to leave an area because you are making a statement for what you believe in and using a tent to do so is a rebellion in your view, so be it. Occupy is not a simple 1-day, in and out protest though. "The power of this symbolic speech is that it’s a 24-hour occupation. This conveys a special message." - OWS lawyer

EDIT: Again, that was my hasty generalization. Apologies for that.

EDIT 2: Electric Bugaloo:
FeLLR3LWtv4
Relevant to OWS. (language warning obviously)

Mr. X
November 16th, 2011, 07:07 AM
Are they giving the police any other option besides having the use this kind of force? No.

But if you'd rather police only be able to tell criminals to 'stop breaking the law, please' then go and change the laws to make it so thats all they can do.

As I've said earlier, don't hate the people enforcing laws. Hate the laws.

And you know what their message conveys? We know we are breaking laws, and we don't care.

jpp8
November 16th, 2011, 07:26 AM
These protestors are non-violent. Pepper gassing and fisticuffs are surely the ONLY option available. And if they are, then so be it. I concede.

I never said that officers should just passively tell the protestors to leave, but they could've used only the bare minimum amount of force needed. In my view, pepper gas, sound cannons, etc. seem like excessive force, but, again, if that was the minimum, then I concede.

I would if I could sympathize with the officers. But what do they do? Issue media blackouts to ensure that they can't be held liable by the press for their methods. Now they just seem like tools of the system.

Valid argument. I concede.

Mr. X
November 16th, 2011, 08:28 AM
If the protesters refuse to comply, some form of force has to be used. I'll list other options though. Guns, Tasers, Attack Dogs, Nightsticks, SWAT team deployment. Out of all these options, pepper spraying and fists seem to be the options that pose the least chance of causing lasting harm to the protesters. Personally, i'd rather be pepper sprayed then shot, tased, beat up with a stick, or attacked by a attack dog.

That said, some police stations have policies that require them to issue blackouts when raiding a area. Its a preventive measure to ensure that the raid target doesn't know about a possible raid and is therefor unable to take measures that would cause harm to the officers conducting the raid. But I agree with you on that, the blackout was a pretty stupid move.

jpp8
November 16th, 2011, 10:28 AM
I was hoping there could be less forceful methods than painful pepper spray and fists, but I can't think of any. I still don't like it, but the NYPD may have been justified in their methods of dispersing the protesters in Zucotti. I still absolutely loathe the notion that you all are labeling them as if they were hardened criminals just for tents.


In other news: Homeland security behind numerous Occupy raids. (http://wonkette.com/456282/surprise-homeland-security-coordinates-ows-crackdowns-nationwide)

I'm not entirely sure what this means or entails, but I whatever I'm thinking right now is probably completely wrong and the dispersing of these occupy movements is a great victory for our justice system. Let's stick it to those campers instead of addressing the massive corruption in our political and economic system.

Mr. X
November 16th, 2011, 11:22 AM
Im not labeling them. They labeled themselves when they decided to break laws.

http://occupywallst.org/article/poster-n17-mass-direct-action-print-and-post-freel/

Poster for their occupy event tomorrow. As for the poster design and one aspect of what they intend to do, this comment sums up my thoughts.


Agreed. The look of the poster is a direct appropriation of propaganda posters in Russia around 1917. (Go to the Museum of Modern Art to see examples, or Google "russian propaganda posters".) I don't think that taking the graphic style associated with Socialist revolution and Stalin is going to win over many supporters in this country.

I am a big supporter of OWS, (and I think the poster is beautiful, too) but I think this is inappropriate and self-defeating.

I feel the same way about Occupy the Subway. I am absolutely certain that it is a harmful, counterproductive thing to do. We want to gain support, not harm and alienate our fellow workers. This will CLEARLY do the latter,


Edit - Another comment that I agree with. It has also changed my views on this movement slightly as well.


OWS is really when you think about it a Marxist style movement. Any movement that cries for equality and equal and fair distribution of wealth is communist based whether they realize it or not.


Im kinda saddened that I never made this connection. I support aspects of Marxism, as does anyone supporting this movement, so this has caused me to have a little more respect for the movement.

Oryx
November 16th, 2011, 11:28 AM
I think the idea is to gather more support by bringing the movement to the rest of the working people so they can't just say "not my problem" and go on passively with their lives. It might not work but since the numbers are slightly dwindling due to cold weather and length of time, they would obviously want to fire up some fresh blood.

That poster is gorgeous though.

Netto Azure
November 16th, 2011, 01:34 PM
To be quite honest this legacy trope of the Cold-War that Communism = Socialism = Hippies = Evil is a very misleading straw-man argument that simply wishes to magically wave away proper debate on the underlying issues that OWS is trying to bring to light.

It's been used so many times (to great effect btw) that I sometimes despair that the "average American" should at least be treated to a proper debate of the issues rather than running away from it with pre-digested sound bites and the like.

And seriously to me the Occupy movement is a modern version of Hoovervilles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville) that constantly reminded the American Public of the real economic problems of the day.

Heck the same issues brought up in the Great Depression bubbles up in today's debates.

FreakyLocz14
November 16th, 2011, 03:33 PM
Vagrancy laws and squatting laws are what are being violating. Homeless people also go through them. You can't just live outside.

jpp8
November 16th, 2011, 04:08 PM
May as well with all the homes that were foreclosed.

Mr. X
November 16th, 2011, 05:15 PM
She means you can't live on land unless you have the owners permission to do so, or if there are specific laws that prevent you from doing so.

FreakyLocz14
November 16th, 2011, 05:53 PM
She means you can't live on land unless you have the owners permission to do so, or if there are specific laws that prevent you from doing so.

Yes. Mostly all land is owned by someone. You can't just trespass on someone's property. Protesting on public land is one thing, but establishing long-term residence there is another thing.

TRIFORCE89
November 17th, 2011, 05:48 AM
So, I hear that today the Occupy Wall Street folks are actually Occupying Wall Street.

FreakyLocz14
November 17th, 2011, 08:54 AM
Evidently shots were fired at the White House and the accused shooter was apprehended.

A man who fired shots at the White House from an assault rifle on Nov. 11 was obsessed with President Barack Obama and the date 11/11/11, investigators and the man's father said.

U.S. Secret Service agents caught up with Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez in Pennsylvania on Wednesday after a four-day search.
Police arrested the 21-year-old Idaho man at a hotel after a desk clerk recognized his picture.

Ortega was scheduled to make his first appearance at 2 p.m. Thursday in federal court in Pittsburgh and many questions remained about his motive and background.

Authorities are investigating the man's mental health and say there are indications he believed attacking the White House was part of a personal mission from God, according to two different law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press. There are also indications the man had become obsessed with Obama.

“He hates the president, he hates Washington, he hates society,” one official told The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/oscar-ramiro-ortega-arrested-after-shots-fired-near-white-house/2011/11/16/gIQA6lznRN_blog.html).

The man's father, Jose, who lives in Idaho Falls, Idaho, told NBC's Telemundo Spanish News Network that his son was obsessed with the date 11/11/11 (http://msnlatino.telemundo.com/informacion_y_noticias/Noticiero_Telemundo/video_player?uuid=f981be48-65d2-4980-af6d-1c4e82310065). Ortega believed the world might end on that day, the father said.

jpp8
November 17th, 2011, 10:15 AM
Instead of focusing on the faults of the system that the protesters are trying to bring attention to, let's focus on the actions faults and actions of certain protesters. Yeah! Damn those freedom of speech hating hippies, trying to kill our president and use this movement as a pretext to commit crimes and do drugs (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html).

In other news, from the now arrested former chief of police of Philadelphia, Ray Lewis:
“You should, by law, only use force to protect someone’s life or to protect them from being bodily injured OK? If you’re not protecting somebody’s life or protecting them from bodily injury, there’s no need to use force. And the number one thing that they always have in their favor that they seldom use is negotiation–continue to talk, and talk and talk to people. You have nothing to lose by that,” Mr Lewis said. “This bullrush–what happened last night is totally uncalled for when they did not use negotiation long enough.”

“They complained about the park being dirty. Here they are worrying about dirty parks when people are starving to death, where people are freezing, where people are sleeping in subways and they’re concerned about a dirty park. That’s obnoxious, it’s arrogant, it’s ignorant, it’s disgusting,” Mr. Lewis said.

“They’re trying to get me arrested and I may disappear OK?” Mr. Lewis said. “As soon as I’m let out of jail, I’ll be right back here and they’ll have to arrest me again.”

Mr. Lewis clearly doesn’t think the NYPD likes him, but he told the protesters he doesn’t think cops are their enemy. “All the cops are, they’re just workers for the one percent and they don’t even realize they’re being exploited,” Mr. Lewis said.

Edit: TRIGGER WARNING FOR VIOLENCE
http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/12937413149/1/tumblr_lutqa0rbhI1qc6lf3
http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/12937459922/1/tumblr_lutqbpyNBF1qc6lf3
Image of protester hit in the face with a police baton by NYPD officers. Eyewitnesses then say what happened next was that the officers repeatedly “stomped” on him when he was on the ground. Inexplicably, NYPD officers stripped him of his pants and shoes and arrested him.
Splendid display of how our police force handles criminals who break the law. How dare these criminals protest without a permit? Should know better than to oppose corporatis- I mean capitalism.

Edit 2: Cops injured and taken to the hospital. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/17/occupy-protestors-march-on-new-york-stock-exchange/) Bunch of law breakers these occupyers. Why don't they just get a job? Why don't they just vote the system better? Why do they insist on being such radical hippies?

Edit 3:
More images of our great police force enforcing the law.
http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/12957020964/1/tumblr_luua9gXFCv1qbqnxl
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luv9q1rJGY1qc6lf3o1_500.jpg

Edit 4:negatively affecting small businesses in the surrounding area.

Interesting perspective on this:
[B]Occupy being damaging to small businesses is just propaganda

The mainstream media with the worst track record of biased reporting - in essence, printing political position statements rather than objective news - have been repeatedly going back to the story of “the protests are hurting business.” From what I had seen, nothing could be further from the truth.

Zuccotti Park was ringed with mobile stall vendors selling coffee, pastries, pizza, and street meats. These were mobile vendors - by definition, they could go anywhere their permit allows them to be. Yet they stayed around the park because there was money to be made. (Duh!)

Mayor Bloomberg falsely claimed that the protests were hurting tourism. Zuccotti Park is in a neighborhood in lower manhattan that I had only been to once despite living in the city for almost 12 years. I never had reason to go down there until the protests began. It had become a destination in its own right - and the people weren’t coming to see the park (which is architecturally interesting) but were coming specifically to see the protesters.

Alternatively:
At Occupy Oakland, businesses around the (formerly occupied) Oscar Grant plaza have surged or remained the same. A lot of local cafes have expressed solidarity with the movement and gained tons of business during protests. There was a Tribune article where the square’s local businesses said that the Occupy movement had no negative effect on their business. Even my company, a local corporation with 17 locations, hasn’t suffered too much. Our City Center store half a block away from the plaza has seen its sales remain largely the same, and bear in mind that our customer base is majority business professionals and city workers. We’ve even gotten a couple catering orders for Occupy.

The City of Oakland will be quick to point out that the Oakland Chamber of commerce condemns the movement and is reporting huge losses in revenue. What they won’t be so quick to point out is that more than 90% of the members of the Oakland Chamber of Commerce are national or international banks. The city is mad because large corporate banks are losing business due to Occupy. Basically, they’re backing up their illegal police brutality with the fact that the movement is WORKING and doing exactly what it’s supposed to do.

Esper
November 19th, 2011, 07:28 AM
Evidently shots were fired at the White House and the accused shooter was apprehended.

A man who fired shots at the White House from an assault rifle on Nov. 11 was obsessed with President Barack Obama and the date 11/11/11, investigators and the man's father said.

U.S. Secret Service agents caught up with Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez in Pennsylvania on Wednesday after a four-day search.
Police arrested the 21-year-old Idaho man at a hotel after a desk clerk recognized his picture.

Ortega was scheduled to make his first appearance at 2 p.m. Thursday in federal court in Pittsburgh and many questions remained about his motive and background.

Authorities are investigating the man's mental health and say there are indications he believed attacking the White House was part of a personal mission from God, according to two different law enforcement officials who spoke to The Associated Press. There are also indications the man had become obsessed with Obama.

“He hates the president, he hates Washington, he hates society,” one official told The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/oscar-ramiro-ortega-arrested-after-shots-fired-near-white-house/2011/11/16/gIQA6lznRN_blog.html).

The man's father, Jose, who lives in Idaho Falls, Idaho, told NBC's Telemundo Spanish News Network that his son was obsessed with the date 11/11/11 (http://msnlatino.telemundo.com/informacion_y_noticias/Noticiero_Telemundo/video_player?uuid=f981be48-65d2-4980-af6d-1c4e82310065). Ortega believed the world might end on that day, the father said.
Why are you posting something that has nothing to do with OWS? I mean, I know that Fox news tried to associate this crazy person with OWS in order to discredit it, but it should be clear to anyone that it's not related.

jpp8
November 19th, 2011, 08:43 AM
It's part of Fox News' fair and balanced coverage on Occupy Wall Street.

http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/11323205664/1/tumblr_lswzurW0dG1qg43xk

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/fnc-ff-20111115-owsgoodrid.png

http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_luu2u6Wl5l1qg43xko1_500.png

Of course major news networks are never going to give the full story since they're paid for by the big corporate fat cats on Wall Street. They always talk about these movements and how people get arrested at them, but they always make it seem like they're isolated incidents and in no way related to each other. They make the occupiers seem to be some sort of nuisance somehow and those who don't know any better are likely to believe them. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html) The people want someone they can identify with. An excerpt blog post can sum it up better than I.
Why? My theory is that the powers that currently enjoy things as they are want the public to remain divided, to regard the protests as discrete, unconnected events in each city - not as part of a global uprising against systematic corruption. By misdirecting the media coverage onto peripheral issues or by manufacturing news (“hey, let’s have the police drop off mentally unstable and aggressive people into the camp, and then let’s use the fights which follow as an excuse to call the camp unsafe!”) it keeps people thinking of the protesters as fringe individuals, rather than as people like themselves, fighting for each other’s rights.

Edit: This is a prime example of why we are protesting: Lobbyists plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street and supporting politicians (http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8884405-lobbying-firms-memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street).

[...]

CLGC’s memo proposes that the ABA pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct “opposition research” on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct “negative narratives” about the protests and allied politicians. The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.

According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”

The memo also suggests that Democratic victories in 2012 should not be the ABA’s biggest concern. “… (T)he bigger concern,” the memo says, “should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies.”

[...]

It may be within legal boundaries to run campaigns like this, but nonetheless, this, along with the police brutality common at the protests, shows how far Wall Street and lobbyists will go to maintain the status quo that suits and benefits them.

TRIFORCE89
November 21st, 2011, 01:18 PM
So, on the OccupyToronto front, I think it was last Wedneday that the eviction notices were handed out. They had a fair bit of leeway time as a judge didn't make their decision until this morning.

Following the judge's decision (which also said, like the city, you can come back to the park and protest - just stop camping), the city said they weren't going to come in immediately (even though they could).

Some of the campers have left (the ones, I'd argue, who actually support the OWS cause and aren't just there for a camping party), but a great deal of them have not. And instead, they're asking for a further extension and for a "peaceful resolution". I'm seriously questioning their intelligence now. The eviction notice (and almost a week's worth of time for you to leave), is the peaceful resolution.

If you're not taking that peaceful offer, don't be surprised when the police come in and it is much less than peaceful. Don't let the ship sail, people.

EDIT: Additional eviction notices have been handed out on Church letterhead from the Church that owns part of the park they're occupying.
EDIT2: The campers asking the police not to come tonight, but to come tomorrow night because they're inviting the city down for a party tonight. Just @__@

Also, jpp8, as for your response to my small business comment - most of my comments lately focus on the Toronto sect. I support the movement as a whole, I love the idea of OccupyWallStreet and Washington. And maybe the negative effect doesn't apply to those, but I was talking about here.

FreakyLocz14
November 21st, 2011, 01:51 PM
I saw the OWS protest in SF get raided with my own two eyes yesterday.

jpp8
November 21st, 2011, 05:23 PM
If you do not support the "occupying" aspect of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, I feel that you've missed the point.

Keiran
November 21st, 2011, 06:36 PM
With the actions of our government and police in the past few months, I can no longer say I am proud to be American. This movement needs to succeed, and the people who are supposed to protect us are trying their hardest to keep as many people ignorant as they can. I cannot wait to rejoin the protests in NYC after the holidays this week.

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/373924_2724626797785_1320592106_33192108_1241669087_n.jpg

TRIFORCE89
November 22nd, 2011, 05:47 AM
With the actions of our government and police in the past few months, I can no longer say I am proud to be American. This movement needs to succeed, and the people who are supposed to protect us are trying their hardest to keep as many people ignorant as they can. I cannot wait to rejoin the protests in NYC after the holidays this week.

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/373924_2724626797785_1320592106_33192108_1241669087_n.jpg
I hated that video with the students. I can't believe campus security could do that. Heck, at my school, the unwritten rule is that you can ignore their parking tickets - and yet I guess they have the authority to pepper spray you

Esper
November 22nd, 2011, 11:26 AM
The pepper spray thing is pretty vicious. Just because it's a non-lethal weapon doesn't mean it's not still a weapon. Police aren't supposed to use more force than they are met with. Students sitting on the ground - yeah, not exactly a danger.

Sephiroth2009
November 22nd, 2011, 12:30 PM
Thoe movement as a whole is a joke. A lot of the events have been hijacked and payed for. The rest of the pitiful zombies(99%) don't know what the heck to protest. They should be protesting "End the Fed" not protesting the cover man on Wall Street.

TRIFORCE89
November 22nd, 2011, 01:58 PM
The pepper spray thing is pretty vicious. Just because it's a non-lethal weapon doesn't mean it's not still a weapon. Police aren't supposed to use more force than they are met with. Students sitting on the ground - yeah, not exactly a danger.
Not even real police. They were campus security. Glorified mall cops.

Anyway... update on Occupy Toronto...

They haven't been kicked out yet. Some police were there earlier today helping to take down the tents of those who wanted to leave, otherwise no large scale force yet.

However, the campers are getting angry now and taking it out on reporters - on both sides of the aisle and those who supported them. The last couple of days the campers have been putting out a list of "douchebag reporters". Today the list now includes people who were on their side. I think they just want to alienate everybody now.

A reporter was also in the park today asking a camper who was taking down their tent what they were going to do next. The reporter was then called a ***** and spit on.

In the judge's statements yesterday some of the voices of the residents in the area were revealed. The campers actually think they own the park. For residents of the area who were still trying to make use of their park, a "park moderator" from the group who approach these people and verbally accost them.

And so, my belief still holds still that the actually #OWS supporters left long ago. Those who actually cared about the movement, those who were protesting, those were getting the message out - they left weeks ago. All that's left are campers and squatters who don't protest and think they own the park.

It's just shameful and has completely undermined the movement and its legitimacy. Once the campers leave and the real protesters return... who is going to take them seriously now?

EDIT: They're being cleared out. Totally peaceful so far. The police didn't show up in riot gear or anything. No confrontations. The campers are just standing around and the police are taking down their tents. The police are emphasizing that they can come back later today without tents. I love Canada. Everyone's so polite XD But, yeah. No evilness behind the scenes it looks like. No corporate control of the government or police force or anything. They're being encouraged to keep protesting later today - just without the tents.

jpp8
November 23rd, 2011, 12:00 PM
EDIT: They're being cleared out. Totally peaceful so far. The police didn't show up in riot gear or anything. No confrontations. The campers are just standing around and the police are taking down their tents. The police are emphasizing that they can come back later today without tents. I love Canada. Everyone's so polite XD But, yeah. No evilness behind the scenes it looks like. No corporate control of the government or police force or anything. They're being encouraged to keep protesting later today - just without the tents.

Dawwwwwwww. Why is Canada so perfect? Police enforced action without violent confrontation. To those who say force and riot gear is the only option against these protestors, I want to bring up this peaceful example from Canadian officers.

TRIFORCE89
November 23rd, 2011, 01:12 PM
Dawwwwwwww. Why is Canada so perfect? Police enforced action without violent confrontation. To those who say force and riot gear is the only option against these protestors, I want to bring up this peaceful example from Canadian officers.
Its a very slow process. They're going around from little group to little group and negotiating till they leave. The main groups remaining are stuff like some native groups who now say that they own the park (see? I told you they went waaaay off base here) and few stragglers who insist they need more time (they've already had a week) and few people held up in a gazebo protecting the "sacred library" of old national geographic magazines.

They showed up in their traffic enforcement garb. I don't think they're looking for a fight. Minimal arrests too.


In other news, the movement as a whole has a vision statement now:
We Envision: [1] a truly free, democratic, and just society; [2] where we, the people, come together and solve our problems by consensus; [3] where people are encouraged to take personal and collective responsibility and participate in decision making; [4] where we learn to live in harmony and embrace principles of toleration and respect for diversity and the differing views of others; [5] where we secure the civil and human rights of all from violation by tyrannical forces and unjust governments; [6] where political and economic institutions work to benefit all, not just the privileged few; [7] where we provide full and free education to everyone, not merely to get jobs but to grow and flourish as human beings; [8] where we value human needs over monetary gain, to ensure decent standards of living without which effective democracy is impossible; [9] where we work together to protect the global environment to ensure that future generations will have safe and clean air, water and food supplies, and will be able to enjoy the beauty and bounty of nature that past generations have enjoyed.

I think it needs to be more specific - with numbers and proposals. Less Kumbayah. I'm not a fan of points 2 and maybe 7.


EDIT: My favourite clip of the day was the camper who ran the "library" (which was a gazebo that was already in the park to begin with), bawling his eyes out because they were bringing down what he was working on for three weeks. He said that there was no good reason to do so and that all he wanted to do was create a space where people could meet and learn. He, creatively, called his gazebo a "library" as if he had coined the term. Dude, we pay taxes to support community centres and libraries. Toronto has 99 of them. You don't need to hijack a gazebo to meet up and read national geographic. Grow.up.

Oryx
November 25th, 2011, 09:36 AM
I don't really keep up with OWS that much but I thought you guys might like this article (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/254139/20111122/house-democrat-introduces-occupied-constitutional-amendment-ban.htm) on the bill proposed that's directly influenced by OWS, OCCUPIED (Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy).

Netto Azure
November 25th, 2011, 05:09 PM
Apparently the limit on democracy is 57 days more or less. Congress can go endlessly without balancing the budget, which is illegal, but a legal protest gets 2 months.

Occupy LA protesters given Monday deadline to evacuate City Hall park (http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/11/25/30061/occupy-la-protesters-have-monday-deadline-evacuate/)

http://a.scpr.org/i/8b5e1bdab018a5abb498cef30be1db02/27104-lead.jpg
Occupy L.A. protesters were given a deadline of Monday to evacuate their encampment outside City Hall.


Occupy LA will be forced to vacate the land in front of City Hall by Monday November 28 at 12:01 AM, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Friday.

Villaraigosa and Police Chief Charlie Beck officially issued an evacuation deadline of next Monday at a press conference at City Hall Friday.

"From the start we've said that a long-term encampment is not sustainable in City Hall Park," said Villaraigosa from the top of the City Hall steps as cars passed in the background and the occupiers looked on. "It is time to close the park and repair the grounds."

At the official announcement, Occupy LA members began to read the first paragraph of their own statement, submitted yesterday to City Hall. In it, members vow not to move from the park.

"What happened to the 72 hour notice?" shouted one protester.

"[The encampment] is no longer sustainable and must end," Police Chief Charlie Beck later added. "This does not mean that the message of Occupy LA must end. [...] They must expand their message in a different medium."

"To facilitate a peaceful and orderly departure" officers will walk the encampment this weekend handing out bilingual flyers about the closures, while social workers inform campers about what services are available to them. Fifty shelter beds will be made available for homeless Occupy members.

The Spring Street steps of City Hall will be kept open while the rest of the park is closed, since they have "traditionally been the place that Angelinos have gathered to exercise their right to free speech."

Otter Mii-kun
November 26th, 2011, 02:17 PM
Apparently the limit on democracy is 57 days more or less. Congress can go endlessly without balancing the budget, which is illegal, but a legal protest gets 2 months.
If that isn't the definition of corruption, then I don't know what is! When our own government officials-doesn't matter if it's legislators, the President, or judges-believe they're above the law, you know something is seriously wrong.

Thoe movement as a whole is a joke. A lot of the events have been hijacked and payed for. The rest of the pitiful zombies(99%) don't know what the heck to protest. They should be protesting "End the Fed" not protesting the cover man on Wall Street. The Fed prints boatloads of money, their friends on Wall Street get it and bid up stocks and commodities, while claiming that the economy is doing so good (despite unemployment at 9-10%, and soaring inflation, the latter taken advantage of to claim a "recovery").

FreakyLocz14
November 26th, 2011, 09:45 PM
Congress doesn't have to balance the budget. The Balanced Budget Amendment was never passed, unfortunately.

Anyway, what little support I had in the past for OWS has faded as they continue their criminal actions of vagrancy and trespassing. Perhaps the use of force by the police is excessive, but I support the evictions.

jpp8
November 27th, 2011, 06:15 PM
Tsk tsk Occupy movement. How DARE you exercise your rights to peacefully assemble in order to make your grievances known? You should be assembling the GRAND OLD AMERICAN WAY by pitching tents for Twilight and Black Friday! Those support corporati- capitalism and are A-OK!

FreakyLocz14
November 27th, 2011, 07:05 PM
Tsk tsk Occupy movement. How DARE you exercise your rights to peacefully assemble in order to make your grievances known? You should be assembling the GRAND OLD AMERICAN WAY by pitching tents for Twilight and Black Friday! Those support corporati- capitalism and are A-OK!

Is disrupting schoolchildren, blocking people from entering places of business, making public land their permanent residence diminishing the ability for taxpayers to enjoy it, and several episodes of assault, and even deaths, peaceful assembly?

jpp8
November 27th, 2011, 08:17 PM
First three are peaceful assembly. Causes inconvenience, but is still, nobody's health or safety isn't being put into immediate threat. Last two aren't obviously.

Of course that would mean that those conditions exist. On what grounds do you assume they are present? My father manages a small business two blocks from Occupy Philadelphia. He just says that sometimes they go marching and that there were some homeless there, but that's it. He also told me that business has been relatively same regardless of the protestors; no blocking or anything. The majority, if not all, of assaults are those from the violent police raids and the only death I've heard of so far was an accidental death caused by misuse of a portable heating system.

Additionally, those midnight movie and Black Friday people were allowed to trespass and make public land their residence, thus diminishing the ability for the taxpayers to enjoy it. Anti-choicers can disrupt abortion clinics by blocking entrances and not allowing people to enter their institutions. I don't see them being evicted. Why does this double standard only exist when protesting big banks and business? Because injustice. And that's why we're protesting.

TRIFORCE89
November 27th, 2011, 08:31 PM
Additionally, those midnight movie and Black Friday people were allowed to trespass and make public land their residence, thus diminishing the ability for the taxpayers to enjoy it. Anti-choicers can disrupt abortion clinics by blocking entrances and not allowing people to enter their institutions. I don't see them being evicted. Why does this double standard only exist when protesting big banks and business? Because injustice. And that's why we're protesting.
Because those other examples are short-term. Nobody is inconvenienced by people lining up over night for Twilight. Heck, the place there are lining up at is going to make a bunch of money. Why would they toss them out?

All of those examples you listed last about a night, maybe *maybe* a week. People can tolerate that. Three weeks? No, they can't.

And even then, all of those examples are on private property (or at least, not open public spaces). The public gets bothered when its a public space and they can't use what they're paying for over an extended period of time, that they then also have to pay to clean up and police. It plays out as the occupiers taking it out on the public. What they should do is actually Occupy Wall Street (and Bay Street here), as that is who they are targeted. Camping out in a park a couple of blocks away hurts the wrong people.

jpp8
November 27th, 2011, 09:29 PM
Because those other examples are short-term. Nobody is inconvenienced by people lining up over night for Twilight. Heck, the place there are lining up at is going to make a bunch of money. Why would they toss them out?My point of injustice exactly. "These events are not a threat and even profitable! Let's let them stay," said big business.

All of those examples you listed last about a night, maybe *maybe* a week. People can tolerate that. Three weeks? No, they can't.Sorry for the inconvenience, we are trying to make a better world. EDIT: Another thing. People get injured in Black Friday rushes, yet they're less criminal than OWS?

And even, all of those examples are on private property (or at least, not open public spaces). The public gets bothered where its a public space and they can't use what they're paying for over an extended period of time, that they then also have to pay to clean up and police. It plays out as the occupiers taking it out on the public. What they should do is actually Occupy Wall Street (and Bay Street here), as that is who they are targeted. Camping out in a park a couple of blocks away hurts the wrong people.

Zucotti Park is a public area funded by a private company, and, correct me if I'm wrong, City Hall in Philadelphia as well. If it hurts the wrong people, then why do lobbyists, one of the many reasons why we are protesting, see them as such a big threat? (http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8884405-lobbying-firms-memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street) Who exactly are these occupations inconveniencing here? Certainly not small businesses or commuters. Speaking from experience. I haven't seen (m)any people go, "OH MAN, THOSE PROTESTORS IN THE PARK/CITY HALL JUST RUINED MY PLANS. I AM SO INCONVENIENCED." Just people go, "Yup. Those protestors. Yeah, I heard about them. Still there."


I will never understand why so many people in this thread just want to find fault in the protestors themselves rather than finding fault with the very institutions that they are protesting.

"They want to vote Democrat. All respect lost." "Oh, they do drugs, screw those hippies." "Reddit is stupid therefore Occupy is stupid." "Oh, police attacked them, so they must be criminals." "They're hurting the 99% they claim to represent."

Nobody wants to talk about how big banks and big business get away with, as well as profit from ruining the economy? Nobody wants to talk about how our democratic rights are being violated through legal bribery, silencing of the media, and diminishing rights to peacefully assemble? Nobody wants to talk about how party-blind this movement is and that this movement is not one driven by bipartisanship? Nobody wants to talk about how unattainable the American Dream is now due to debts and lack of jobs for a generation that was taught that getting into college (with rising tuition) and getting the (nonexistent) job was all that mattered? Nobody wants to talk about how we would rather discuss euphemised topics domestically thus shortening our world view? (http://imgur.com/gallery/W2Y5ue) ITT: Everybody would just rather point fingers at the occupy people for being such despicable "criminals".

TRIFORCE89
November 27th, 2011, 09:58 PM
My point of injustice exactly. "These events are not a threat and even profitable! Let's let them stay," said big business.

Sorry for the inconvenience, we are trying to make a better world.



Zucotti Park is a public area funded by a private company, and, correct me if I'm wrong, City Hall in Philadelphia as well. If it hurts the wrong people, then why do lobbyists, one of the many reasons why we are protesting, see them as such a big threat? (http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8884405-lobbying-firms-memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street) Who exactly are these occupations inconveniencing here? Certainly not small businesses or commuters. Speaking from experience. I haven't seen (m)any people go, "OH MAN, THOSE PROTESTORS IN THE PARK/CITY HALL JUST RUINED MY PLANS. I AM SO INCONVENIENCED." Just people go, "Yup. Those protestors. Yeah, I heard about them. Still there."
Again, my complaints are mainly centred on the Toronto group.

The park they occupied was city-owned, not privately owned. They really didn't hurt "big business" at all. They didn't protest. They just camped and drove the local small businesses and the residents in the area nuts. They basically took up the backyard of those living in the apartments that surrounded the park. They didn't send out a message. They had no message. It was crazy people camping. The actual true occupiers were there the first week and then left once all the usual suspects hijacked it.

By usual suspects, I mean that the campers were funded by seven unions to continue camping there. They paid for their lawyers, they supplied them with food like fresh oysters, gave them structures to erect that the unions supplied to them. A lot of money thrown there. The union leaders here like to talk it up like they're all for the poor. The leaders make some big bucks. Some very big bucks. So, really what was the motive here?

So, yeah, I have no qualms that they were told to stop camping. They were told they can come back and protest though, without the camping gear, and they haven't. Why? Because they weren't protesting to begin with.

All those things you mentioned. I think they should be discussed. And I'm glad that Occupy Wall Street exists and is trying to put out that message. They just recently put out their formalized goals and they're hoping to expand those and possibly start influencing the politicians.

FreakyLocz14
November 27th, 2011, 10:24 PM
Blocking people from entering a business and harassing schoolchildren are illegal where I come from.
Such extreme behavior must not be tolerated.

jpp8
November 27th, 2011, 11:12 PM
[FONT="Tahoma"]
Again, my complaints are mainly centred on the Toronto group.and I was talking aboot american occupy. Sheesh.
Blocking people from entering a business and harassing schoolchildren are illegal where I come from.
Such extreme behavior must not be tolerated.I agree entirely. But this is a thread on occupy wall street Not anti-choicers.

FreakyLocz14
November 28th, 2011, 07:37 AM
I agree entirely. But this is a thread on occupy wall street Not anti-choicers.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. When pro-lifers do it, it's criminal. When OWS does it, it's just an "inconvenience". It's illegal no matter who does it, and it should not be tolerated.

HarrisonH
November 28th, 2011, 03:21 PM
Is disrupting schoolchildren, blocking people from entering places of business, making public land their permanent residence diminishing the ability for taxpayers to enjoy it, and several episodes of assault, and even deaths, peaceful assembly?

Could you provide us with any sources?

jpp8
November 28th, 2011, 05:17 PM
This is exactly what I'm talking about. When pro-lifers do it, it's criminal. When OWS does it, it's just an "inconvenience". It's illegal no matter who does it, and it should not be tolerated.
My bad. I pulled a Mitt Romney and flip/flopped my stances.

Let's not discuss bipartisanship since OWS is a partyblind movement and just say that it is not the case in our current justice system. Those who are actively disrupting business and harassing children (certainly not OWS; at this point, your accusations are just baseless lies with the intention of undermining the OWS movement) are not being brought to justice. Again, injustice is one of the many reasons why OWS is protesting.
Could you provide us with any sources?

And if you can please do. I can provide many more articles citing brutality and injustice against the protestors than those where protestors are actively being violent and "disruptive to the very people they claim to represent".

Lalapizzame
November 28th, 2011, 05:41 PM
Those who deliberately obstruct through occupation do not deserve my support.

Those who protest against the maddening incompetence and lack of progress in getting this economy moving again without pandering to the monied interests who bit the hand that fed them deserve my sympathy. I may disagree on how to implement stimulative policies, but they have my sympathy. Such is the fate of populism!

I find my sympathies toward OWS diluted because of their lack of organization; the protesters pride themselves on their diversity and decentralization but they're useless if they can't unify behind one or a small bunch of platforms. The Tea Party was able to rip a hole in the Republican Party through primaries and sweeping across Tea Part strongholds in elections and that gives them power, but what does OWS have?

OWS seems to think occupying public and private areas is going to do anything; it's not. All they do is annoy everyone who uses that area or has to traverse through it. What these protesters need to do is rally and consolidate their grip in small areas first, like moderate and liberal areas of economic distress, particularly more densely-populated and important places like cities. Then, they need to weed out which policies are politically palatable and choose which ones can rely on populism. They need to run a campaign like Huey Long of Louisiana, not protest all over the place and hope for change; it is easier to change a system from within than from outside.

Now, that does not mean I agree with their actual proposals or their backers, but I will give them my respect. They will no longer be a public disturbance; they will be a smart faction, one that understands practicality. If these people are truly wise populists, they will garner something along the lines of Huey Long and remain a strong fire like the Tea Party. If not, they will be like the Gracchi brothers and left to peter out. This occupation cannot last forever with winter delivering its usual blows; they must shelter and plan. They have to filter out extremists and hoodlums and portray themselves as the "new but civilized and realistic" people. You can't just apologize and deny any connection to these people; you have to squash them and give a clear example to the bad boys. Sweeping reform, yes, but conservative presentation. How else will they convince the essential moderates and fence sitters?

jpp8
November 28th, 2011, 07:26 PM
I find my sympathies toward OWS diluted because of their lack of organization; the protesters pride themselves on their diversity and decentralization but they're useless if they can't unify behind one or a small bunch of platforms. The Tea Party was able to rip a hole in the Republican Party through primaries and sweeping across Tea Part strongholds in elections and that gives them power, but what does OWS have?

OWS seems to think occupying public and private areas is going to do anything; it's not. All they do is annoy everyone who uses that area or has to traverse through it. What these protesters need to do is rally and consolidate their grip in small areas first, like moderate and liberal areas of economic distress, particularly more densely-populated and important places like cities. Then, they need to weed out which policies are politically palatable and choose which ones can rely on populism. They need to run a campaign like Huey Long of Louisiana, not protest all over the place and hope for change; it is easier to change a system from within than from outside.

Now, that does not mean I agree with their actual proposals or their backers, but I will give them my respect. They will no longer be a public disturbance; they will be a smart faction, one that understands practicality. If these people are truly wise populists, they will garner something along the lines of Huey Long and remain a strong fire like the Tea Party. If not, they will be like the Gracchi brothers and left to peter out. This occupation cannot last forever with winter delivering its usual blows; they must shelter and plan. They have to filter out extremists and hoodlums and portray themselves as the "new but civilized and realistic" people. You can't just apologize and deny any connection to these people; you have to squash them and give a clear example to the bad boys. Sweeping reform, yes, but conservative presentation. How else will they convince the essential moderates and fence sitters?

"Maybe, if Occupy Wall Street was more like the Tea Party, I'd take them more seriously and they might get stuff done."

1. The Tea Party receives funding from big business since their interests overlap. Thus, they can afford to campaign in a formal fashion and get candidates into office.
2. Not sure if relevant, but still interesting. (http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/occupywallstvsteapartyinfographic.jpg)

Tea Party protests big government. OWS protests big business. "Same thing, right?" Nope. The main reason our government is so corrupt is because of the influence that big business has with lobbyists and campaign funds. In turn, politicians represent their interests allowing them to make more money which allows them to buy more lobbyists so they can keep making more money. That's the very act that OWS is protesting. It's not as simple as "OWS, become a political movement like the Tea Party."

"They should have an organized list of demands/be more organized in general."

Occupy Wall Street may not have a formal list of demands, but anyone who’s been paying attention understands the core problems that occupiers are protesting—that corporations have far too much power in our political system, that Wall Street banks crashed our economy but were never held accountable, and that the richest 400 Americans have more wealth than half of all Americans—156 million people—combined.4

"Occupying does nothing and nobody wants them there."

Tell that to their approval rating which is currently higher than that grand old tea party. I'm not sure about everyone else, but if this movement was just a day in, day out thing, I don't think many people would be aware/committed to/supporting of the movements. "Oh, just a bunch of radical liberals with signs who want handouts." I actually did not support the movement, because I thought they were a bunch of bullies who will do anything to get what they want. Now, I'm supportive of unconventional methods because they've revealed the ugliest part of our country with their police brutality that only serves to protect the interests of the 1% and violation of first amendment rights to peacefully assemble. If that's not enough to convince you that Occupy has done something, they managed to wave the $5 fees for use of debit cards, changed the national conversation, and made Wall Street scared (http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/19/8884405-lobbying-firms-memo-spells-out-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street).



If people are so hellbent on sympathizing with yet criticizing Occupy's method of protesting big business and injustice, why don't you all go get together and use the methods that you're telling OWS to use? I mean, if there are that many people that are both pissed off at Wall Street and Occupy Wall Street, then it should be no problem making Tea Party: Big Business branch. At least these "criminal/hippies/unfocused protestors/other term used to defame them" are doing something to raise awareness of the problems in our country's economy and will continue to want a better world

TRIFORCE89
November 28th, 2011, 10:25 PM
Tea Party protests big government. OWS protests big business. "Same thing, right?" Nope. The main reason our government is so corrupt is because of the influence that big business has with lobbyists and campaign funds. In turn, politicians represent their interests allowing them to make more money which allows them to buy more lobbyists so they can keep making more money. That's the very act that OWS is protesting. It's not as simple as "OWS, become a political movement like the Tea Party."
I don't like the Tea Party. I much prefer the OWS cause. But, I don't think the corporations are the only cause of the problem. I would say the government is at fault too..

Lalapizzame
November 28th, 2011, 11:35 PM
Then primary the hell out of these incumbents. If they have such high approval ratings, they will get the vote. Money cannot be automatically transmitted into votes. And this money for the OWS cause will come from small parties and private citizens if these high approval ratings have any substance. You assume people cannot organize and form their own monied groups any more than corporations can if provoked. At the very least, the bigger fish will say, "Hey, we need those guys to win so...get to them?"

I will not comment on police brutality. It's too blurred a subject to touch right now.

If that's not enough to convince you that Occupy has done something, they managed to wave the $5 fees for use of debit cards, changed the national conversation, and made Wall Street scared.

You mean wave a fee that lots of people were probably annoyed at anyway? It does not take a movement to tick off people by asking for more of their money for a basic function. You mean changing the national conversation by simply flipping over the populist card and relying on the average American's resentment of Wall Street? That is not changing the national conversation; that is relying on an easy target already on people's minds.

And you think spending that means Wall Street is scared? If Wall Street is as powerful as you claim, then it would not care that much or pay that little if it was truly scared. And notice here how it was CLGC that proposed the offer, not ABA. I am highly skeptical that the CLGC wasn't fearmongering as best as it could to get $850,000 worth of revenue. What happened? It failed; they got no deal.

If people are so hellbent on sympathizing with yet criticizing Occupy's method of protesting big business and injustice, why don't you all go get together and use the methods that you're telling OWS to use? I mean, if there are that many people that are both pissed off at Wall Street and Occupy Wall Street, then it should be no problem making Tea Party: Big Business branch. At least these "criminal/hippies/unfocused protestors/other term used to defame them" are doing something to raise awareness of the problems in our country's economy and will continue to want a better world

People are working, some people are too young, some people have better things to do / can't afford it etc. Not everyone has the time or money to go protest aside from if they're lazy. You and I may despise Wall Street and post on this forum about this, but are we protesting? No. People have families to take care of and work to do, especially when they're young but already married. The people on the young end don't have an entire family to sustain while the older people have a financial pillow to fall back on and their children off to take care of themselves. Those are the two pillars of the two movements.

You speak as if "unfocused protesters" is used to defame them; it is not. I am suggesting that they organize and consolidate so that they may put their policies into practice rather than cry that they cannot rely on the funds of corporations. We have something in politics called grass-root movements and grass-roots funding, the ones these two movements want to be.

Isn't the Tea Party striving for a better world? Isn't everyone striving for a better world? Isn't "striving for a better world" such a bendable and partisan little term? Everyone knows the problems in the United States; in the name of Bill Clinton, I invoke his almighty phrase, "it's the economy, stupid." We disagree on response, but agreement on the goal is satisfactory.

EDIT: http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/28/9067808-fed-lent-banks-nearly-8-trillion-during-crisis-report-shows?chromedomain=openchannel

Just thought I'd share. The government is, by all accounts, a mess and the original hundreds of billions number was enough, but sweet Jesus...

Mr. X
December 6th, 2011, 06:31 PM
So now the Occupiers are commiting a whole other list of crimes. Namely disturbing the peace, squatting, tresspassing, and breaking and entering.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2011/12/06/occupy_protests_move_to_foreclosed_homes/

(Edit) Here's another story. Same thing, just more details.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gWcle9q5nU31rFWA7-32meZUlwCg?docId=802d11d6b5d643de8f33ed887264917c

(Edit 2) Im a idiot. Didn't see that there was a 2nd page on the first story. *facedesk*

While I agree that these homes should be used instead of just being left to set empty, its usually best for them to be used legally instead of illegally.

Remember what I said earlier? About protests and rebellions? Well, tis official. OWS has moved clearly out of working within the law and into blatant disregard for the law. Oh wait... I think they already did that.

Anyway, I can't really find sympathy for the ones who's homes were foreclosed on. While it is sad that they are effectively rendered homeless when it happens, the fact is this. You don't pay your electric bill. Guess what? Your electricity gets cut off. Don't pay your water bill? Water gets cut off. Gas bill? Yep, gas gets cut off too. You got a new car and are making monthly payments and don't pay for a couple months? Yep, you guessed it. Your car gets repossessed. Get a house and pay monthly and miss a few payments? If you can't guess what happens then you must be slow. But in case you are, i'll spell it out. Y O U L O S E T H E H O U S E. If your going to crucify the banks for repossessing a house that you are no longer paying for then in all fairness you have to go after the utility companies and car dealerships since they are doing the exact same thing, which is denying a person something because they can no longer afford to pay for it.

jpp8
December 6th, 2011, 07:09 PM
Not trying to justify the actions of the protestors, but what about the actions of banks that lead to the subprime mortgage crisis in the first place? I'm not entirely familiar with the legality of the whole situation (or the concept of subprime mortgages in the first place), but if the people shouldn't have bought housing they couldn't afford, then why did banks push so many people to get subprime mortgages (which apparently only benefit themselves) with the premise that their homes would increase in value? Educate me, please (mostly because I'm too unfamiliar with the WHOLE picture).

http://i.imgur.com/KYDp7.jpg

TRIFORCE89
December 6th, 2011, 07:30 PM
Not trying to justify the actions of the protestors, but what about the actions of banks that lead to the subprime mortgage crisis in the first place? I'm not entirely familiar with the legality of the whole situation (or the concept of subprime mortgages in the first place), but if the people shouldn't have bought housing they couldn't afford, then why did banks push so many people to get subprime mortgages (which apparently only benefit themselves) with the premise that their homes would increase in value? Educate me, please (mostly because I'm too unfamiliar with the WHOLE picture).

http://i.imgur.com/KYDp7.jpg
Effectively, while the various markets tend to function based on expecting or predicting success... it was discovered that through some funky mathematics and offering bad mortgages, that you could stand to make money on predicting (and causing) failure.

jpp8
December 6th, 2011, 07:51 PM
Makes sense when banks are effectively the ones in control of mortgages and loans with interest. That might be something that differentiates all those utility companies from banks; that they mostly profited from these foreclosures of subprime mortgages since those people were paying off interest and their mortgage. I don't think those car companies or utilities would make much of a profit from repoing a depreciated car or cutting off service permanently.

TRIFORCE89
December 6th, 2011, 08:06 PM
Makes sense when banks are effectively the ones in control of mortgages and loans with interest. That might be something that differentiates all those utility companies from banks; that they mostly profited from these foreclosures of subprime mortgages since those people were paying off interest and their mortgage. I don't think those car companies or utilities would make much of a profit from repoing a depreciated car or cutting off service permanently.
Perhaps not a profit, but they are utility companies; not charitable organizations. There's no financial benefit for them in not cutting the cord if they can't get paid.

The utilities and car and such I don't see a huge problem with. Yes, it's sad. But those are the rules. The faulty mortgages I see as a legitimate problem because that played out almost like a prank.

Mr. X
December 6th, 2011, 08:16 PM
And for once, the posting played out just like I intended it to.

The mortgages that these people signed up for were faulty due to lack of regulation. You know how this problem could have been prevented? More regulation.

Had the mortgages been legit, odds are this never would have happened in this large of scale. You'll still see a couple of foreclosures a day overall but those will most likely be the fault of bad money management on part of the customer instead of a bad business model on part of the bank.

The sad thing is that a lot of politicians are saying that less regulation will be better. Short term, yes. But how long do you think it will be before these same events play out again?

lx_theo
December 6th, 2011, 08:37 PM
Not trying to justify the actions of the protestors, but what about the actions of banks that lead to the subprime mortgage crisis in the first place? I'm not entirely familiar with the legality of the whole situation (or the concept of subprime mortgages in the first place), but if the people shouldn't have bought housing they couldn't afford, then why did banks push so many people to get subprime mortgages (which apparently only benefit themselves) with the premise that their homes would increase in value? Educate me, please (mostly because I'm too unfamiliar with the WHOLE picture).


The banks pushed so much because the Reagan administration had the bright idea that every had to have their own little home for a nuclear family. They pushed the banks to start that trend.

Though I'm not familiar with how the other parts of it work.

FreakyLocz14
December 7th, 2011, 12:36 AM
There's a sizable Occutard camp on my college campus. As an elected official, it was my duty to talk to them to see what their purpose and concerns are. Apparently, they are protesting the latest tuition increase. I asked if they'd be willing to repeal the California DREAM Act, which is a major factor in why the latest increase occurred. One of the occupation's leaders said "No".

It appears that these people really think that they can have their cake and eat it too. -__-

jpp8
December 7th, 2011, 04:53 AM
Did you even ask them how they wanted to alleviate their tuition costs? Or did you just try to use them to advance your own political agenda akin to a certain mammal-like news network? Next thing you know, you'll be telling them to vote for Ron Paul so he can deregulate the market entirely because that's what's good for them.

"They’re not just saying 'don’t cut' – they’re saying that the banks and the 1% are the culprits here, and we’ll no longer let them off the hook while our schools, our jobs, and our communities suffer" (Eaton (http://www.makebankspaycalifornia.com/movement_to_make_banks_pay_to_refund_higher_education_grows))

TRIFORCE89
December 7th, 2011, 06:29 AM
There's a sizable Occutard camp on my college campus. As an elected official, it was my duty to talk to them to see what their purpose and concerns are. Apparently, they are protesting the latest tuition increase. I asked if they'd be willing to repeal the California DREAM Act, which is a major factor in why the latest increase occurred. One of the occupation's leaders said "No".

It appears that these people really think that they can have their cake and eat it too. -__-
I'd comment if I knew what the dream act entailed.

jpp8
December 7th, 2011, 06:35 AM
DREAM - Development, Relief, and Education for Undocumented Minors. Allows undocumented immigrants who came to America under the age of 16, met GPA requirements, and attended school regularly to be qualified to apply for financial aid should they choose to move onto higher education.

TRIFORCE89
December 7th, 2011, 09:31 AM
Local landscapers have volunteered to repair the park the #OccupyTO campers had control of. Costing the city nothing. Awesome. The #OccupyTO people also seem to have vanished off the face of the Earth. They didn't take up the city's invitation to come back and protest during operational hours.

jpp8
December 7th, 2011, 10:02 AM
What good would it do them to protest without their tents? But I digress. According to their site, they still have general assembly meetings and mic checks, so I think that rather vanishing from the face of the earth, they vanished from the viewpoint of the media.

TRIFORCE89
December 7th, 2011, 11:27 AM
What good would it do them to protest without their tents? But I digress. According to their site, they still have general assembly meetings and mic checks, so I think that rather vanishing from the face of the earth, they vanished from the viewpoint of the media.
It would do them a lot of good. O_o Protesting, marching, getting the word out, being seen by people and media. They can do all of that without tents. Get loud and have their voices heard. Not that they were doing it before anyway after the first week while they had tents, but still.

They have had some general assembly meetings though, yes. But mostly trying to decide where to camp next. They're considering Queen's Park (Ontario's legislative assembly) as that's provincial territory instead of municipal and that makes a whole lot more sense to me. But... still, the focus seems to be camping (they're taking the occupy part of this a little too seriously I think) instead of protesting and getting their message out.

FreakyLocz14
December 7th, 2011, 11:46 AM
Local landscapers have volunteered to repair the park the #OccupyTO campers had control of. Costing the city nothing. Awesome. The #OccupyTO people also seem to have vanished off the face of the Earth. They didn't take up the city's invitation to come back and protest during operational hours.

It's basically giving illegal immigrants free college while our tuition keeps going up. They'll only further drain the public university system.

jpp8
December 7th, 2011, 12:03 PM
yeah man.. darn those illegals getting a free ride.. because we should totally not allow students who have shown that they are able the ability to receive an affordable education.. disregard the free ride the middle class has given wall street.. deporting all the illegals will fix everything..

My earlier comment was in jest, TRIFORCE. Just commenting how hellbent the protestors are on keeping their tents. :V But yeah, I myself am starting to doubt the effectiveness of occupying and nothing but. I mean, they got the media's attention initially, but then it got stagnant.

Mr. X
December 7th, 2011, 01:16 PM
We should care for our citizens first. If these people want to be a citizen, then they should apply for citizenship just like a normal law abiding person does.

We really need to add to the part about 'if your born here, your a citizen' some extra words. Know what those are? Only if your parents are legal citizens.

jpp8
December 7th, 2011, 01:45 PM
True, but after reading accounts of Latino stories of discrimination from firsthand accounts, I can't help but sympathize with those seeking an education. (Also, it's not like DREAM doesn't help them attain citizenship either.)

But how I feel is beside the point. Is denying those who are willing to learn an affordable education really within the goals of Occupy LA? Sounds like the exact opposite of their cause to me.

FreakyLocz14
December 7th, 2011, 01:56 PM
True, but after reading accounts of Latino stories of discrimination from firsthand accounts, I can't help but sympathize with those seeking an education. (Also, it's not like DREAM doesn't help them attain citizenship either.)

But how I feel is beside the point. Is denying those who are willing to learn an affordable education really within the goals of Occupy LA? Sounds like the exact opposite of their cause to me.

How about someone who is Latina?

I find is offensive that we are all blanketed as immigrants of that advancing the interests of illegal immigrants will somehow benefit those who are legal citizens of the United States that happen to be of Hispanic decent. I don't get free college.

Mr. X
December 7th, 2011, 01:59 PM
(Slow typer I am, this is @ jpp8's post)
I'm not saying deny them education. If they want it then they can either pay for it themselves or get a private scholarship.

But still, forcing citizens to pay for a service that will be used mainly/only by illegal immigrants? No. The fact is that DREAM harms legal citizens who are students. Are you saying that we should hold our own people back to better someone who isn't a person of this country? If were going to give free education to someone, give it to a citizen not a illegal. Essentially, Tax money should be used to better citizens of our country. Not citizens of another.

Also, I'm not singling out Mexicans with the above statements. That goes for all illegal immigrants, not just the most common.

Lastly, you know something I find funny? The US took away Mexican lands a long time ago after a war. Guess what? The Mexicans are taking it back.

jpp8
December 7th, 2011, 03:13 PM
Nope, just mostly illegal Latinos for the most part. (http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Home-Field-Paul-Cuadros/?isbn=9780061120282) Additionally, this occutard is I'm apologizing for my previous blanketing. I just wanted to avoid the usage "illegals", an even more marginalizing term than Latinos or Latinas.

I'll admit that this act does impose a burden upon other citizens, but should a high school graduate, who have spent most of their life in the U.S. illegally, not by their own choice be denied the ability to apply for some financial aid to help alleviate their costs (not free college)? Plus, if they're pursuing a higher education, it's more likely than not that they wish to become citizens and this program could help them on their way. Why should these people be striped of their personhood by not being able to have an affordable education while corporations are still considered persons (trying to get back to the topic of OWS here)?

FreakyLocz14
December 7th, 2011, 03:19 PM
Nope, just mostly illegal Latinos for the most part. (http://www.harpercollins.com/books/Home-Field-Paul-Cuadros/?isbn=9780061120282) Additionally, this occutard is I'm apologizing for my previous blanketing. I just wanted to avoid the usage "illegals", an even more marginalizing term than Latinos or Latinas.

I'll admit that this act does impose a burden upon other citizens, but should a high school graduate, who have spent most of their life in the U.S. illegally, not by their own choice be denied the ability to apply for some financial aid to help alleviate their costs (not free college)? Plus, if they're pursuing a higher education, it's more likely than not that they wish to become citizens and this program could help them on their way. Why should these people be striped of their personhood by not being able to have an affordable education while corporations are still considered persons (trying to get back to the topic of OWS here)?

Have you seen the state that California's public universities are in? The CSU regents just enacted a 9% tuition increase in anticipation of the CA DREAM Act.

Illegal immigrants do have personhood. They have the same rights as everyone else. They have due process rights, freedom of speech rights, search and seizure rights, etc. Higher education is not a right.

I think these Occupiers, at least the ones here, are confused if they really believe we can decrease tuition while at the same time allow illegals a free ride.

jpp8
December 7th, 2011, 04:47 PM
Can you cite a source that states it was explicitly because of the DREAM act? All the articles I've seen on their tuition hikes cite a budget gap as the main source of the hikes.

Nobody's giving those illegals a "free ride". Last I checked DREAM only gave them the ability to apply for financial aid, not get free tuition.

And don't be so arrogant as to think that you're the only person with political background or knowledge on your campus. Occupy is not a bunch of hippies socialists who want everything for free. Nor are they "confused and misguided liberals". This is a diverse group of people who are fed up with the system and can collectively come together to figure out their grievances. Clearly, repealing the DREAM act is not in their interests. Instead of wasting your time and energy here whining about how those meanies didn't like your idea, how about you go back down to that camp, talk to the leader who said "no", and tell him why he's wrong/have him tell you why it's not in their interest to repeal the DREAM act. Certainly, they can do it better than I.

donavannj
December 7th, 2011, 05:33 PM
Have you seen the state that California's public universities are in? The CSU regents just enacted a 9% tuition increase in anticipation of the CA DREAM Act.

Illegal immigrants do have personhood. They have the same rights as everyone else. They have due process rights, freedom of speech rights, search and seizure rights, etc. Higher education is not a right.

I think these Occupiers, at least the ones here, are confused if they really believe we can decrease tuition while at the same time allow illegals a free ride.

The universities gain money by having these students come to their schools on financial aid because the schools themselves get the money from the federal government. The CSU system is benefiting from the DREAM Act by allowing more students to apply for financial aid to attend their schools. Does the DREAM Act treat those it makes eligible as residents of California and therefore have the state government there subsidize some of their costs if they do get financial aid and get admitted?

I'm hoping to see some Occupy sympathizers or protestors in office this time next year.

FreakyLocz14
December 7th, 2011, 06:10 PM
The universities gain money by having these students come to their schools on financial aid because the schools themselves get the money from the federal government. The CSU system is benefiting from the DREAM Act by allowing more students to apply for financial aid to attend their schools. Does the DREAM Act treat those it makes eligible as residents of California and therefore have the state government there subsidize some of their costs if they do get financial aid and get admitted?

I'm hoping to see some Occupy sympathizers or protestors in office this time next year.

Incorrect.

Federal law does not allow illegal immigrants to receive federal financial aid. The aid is purely state aid. (Cal Grant, BOG Free Waivers, etc.) It also gives them in-state tuition discounts, meaning that the state will collect even less revenue from these students.

Netto Azure
December 8th, 2011, 01:20 AM
Incorrect.

Federal law does not allow illegal immigrants to receive federal financial aid. The aid is purely state aid. (Cal Grant, BOG Free Waivers, etc.) It also gives them in-state tuition discounts, meaning that the state will collect even less revenue from these students.

Ah yes, those horribly atrocious "illegal immigrants." Sucking off the welfare teat and taking university seats from American citizens.

Seriously though, blaming the CA Dream act for that 9% tuition increase? I thought it was because the CA Legislature is cutting $600 Million off higher education funding?

http://www.sanmatean.com/cuts-force-another-csu-tuition-increase-1.2726592#.TuCCgWO5P1Q

The California State Universities were forced to raise tuition by another nine percent starting fall 2012 due to an increased drop in state funding.
The decision, finalized by CSU trustees on Nov. 16, will affect undergraduate and graduate students.

Then again until the Passage of the California Dream Act a few months ago these "illegal immigrants" were forced to pay out of pocket for much of their tuition, you know what they are called right? AB 540 students, who were able to get in-state tuition rates. That was the only recourse they had until recently when they could apply for Cal Grants. And even then in order to obtain said grants they have to qualify within the income bracket.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/09/local/la-me-brown-dream-act-20111009

The California Department of Finance estimates 2,500 additional students will qualify for Cal-Grants as a result of the Dream Act, at a cost of $14.5 million.

The Cal-Grant program costs $1.4 billion, so about 1% of all Cal-Grant funds could be affected

A lot of these "illegal immigrants" work as hard as other college students sometimes even more since the lack of financial aid makes them lean towards multiple jobs and private high interest loans. (Since as you point out they can't apply for Federal Financial Aid)

Bela
December 9th, 2011, 05:11 PM
Ah yes, those horribly atrocious "illegal immigrants." Sucking off the welfare teat and taking university seats from American citizens.

Seriously though, blaming the CA Dream act for that 9% tuition increase? I thought it was because the CA Legislature is cutting $600 Million off higher education funding?

http://www.sanmatean.com/cuts-force-another-csu-tuition-increase-1.2726592#.TuCCgWO5P1Q



Then again until the Passage of the California Dream Act a few months ago these "illegal immigrants" were forced to pay out of pocket for much of their tuition, you know what they are called right? AB 540 students, who were able to get in-state tuition rates. That was the only recourse they had until recently when they could apply for Cal Grants. And even then in order to obtain said grants they have to qualify within the income bracket.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/09/local/la-me-brown-dream-act-20111009



A lot of these "illegal immigrants" work as hard as other college students sometimes even more since the lack of financial aid makes them lean towards multiple jobs and private high interest loans. (Since as you point out they can't apply for Federal Financial Aid)

This is a wonderful post that perfectly clears up the issue of California State University tuition increases. =)

To get back on topic,

they're taking the occupy part of this a little too seriously I think

I don't see what the problem is with peacefully assembling in public spaces. There's a lot that's wrong with this country, and indeed the world. It seems many will be quick to turn to distractions related to the movement. Distractions such as "they're breaking the law," "they're being off-topic (wtf, are they posting in a thread?)," "Look there's a purported statistical anomaly of human behavior that I don't like happening within a group of people--now stop protesting!" It seems like this all gets away from the main point of all of this--that the system is broken.

Focus on what the _real_ issue is: corporate money in politics! It's been suggested several times in this thread that we should seek to remove our elected officials by voting for somebody else, but it doesn't seem to occur to anybody that people have already been doing this--to no avail. You remove one corporate-controlled candidate only to install another one.

Until you get the corporate money out of politics, your elected officials are not going to represent you! Instead, you're going to have the few anomalies like Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul who have their own popular followings.

Mr. X
December 9th, 2011, 07:53 PM
The system is broken yes. Does that mean that this protest should be exempt from the law? No.

If they want to protest, they can. But they need to do so in a legal manner, unless they want to give the 1% a way to downplay the movement. The media coverage from them breaking various laws? Thats run by the 1%. Want to stop that? Stop giving the 1% ammo to use then.

Phantom
December 9th, 2011, 08:21 PM
I don't see what the problem is with peacefully assembling in public spaces.


I work with the police a lot. And people seem to have a misunderstanding by what a public place is. Not everywhere you think is a public space is indeed public. Even a park can be closed come night time. At when it is closed it you can, and hopefully will, get arrested for tresspassing. Even a street can be closed.

jpp8
December 9th, 2011, 08:35 PM
The system is broken yes. Does that mean that this protest should be exempt from the law? No.

If they want to protest, they can. But they need to do so in a legal manner, unless they want to give the 1% a way to downplay the movement. The media coverage from them breaking various laws? Thats run by the 1%. Want to stop that? Stop giving the 1% ammo to use then.

Funny thing about media coverage is that the one percent blacked them out when it was their turn to commit illegal acts (the very act of media blocking itself). The table is tilted folks. The game is rigged. Nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care.

Not justifying illegal actions. Not "two wrongs make a right". Just pointing out that while we're being portrayed as a bunch of goalless, lawbreaking bums, our first amendment rights to a free press are being violated.

FreakyLocz14
December 9th, 2011, 08:42 PM
Ah yes, those horribly atrocious "illegal immigrants." Sucking off the welfare teat and taking university seats from American citizens.

Seriously though, blaming the CA Dream act for that 9% tuition increase? I thought it was because the CA Legislature is cutting $600 Million off higher education funding?

http://www.sanmatean.com/cuts-force-another-csu-tuition-increase-1.2726592#.TuCCgWO5P1Q



Then again until the Passage of the California Dream Act a few months ago these "illegal immigrants" were forced to pay out of pocket for much of their tuition, you know what they are called right? AB 540 students, who were able to get in-state tuition rates. That was the only recourse they had until recently when they could apply for Cal Grants. And even then in order to obtain said grants they have to qualify within the income bracket.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/09/local/la-me-brown-dream-act-20111009



A lot of these "illegal immigrants" work as hard as other college students sometimes even more since the lack of financial aid makes them lean towards multiple jobs and private high interest loans. (Since as you point out they can't apply for Federal Financial Aid)

Yes. Let's cut higher education funding yet think we're going to somehow afford giving illegals a free ride. We're not the Feds. We can't just print money.

The DREAM Act also creates "special" grants and loans for the undocumented.

Back on topic, a lot of Occupy encampments have been getting raided and arrested lately. And rightly so.

jpp8
December 9th, 2011, 08:55 PM
So instead of protesting the cuts to educational funding, you just want to take away the aid and further burden students who have met the criteria necessary to receive help from the system to take the first step in improving their lives? In other words, big banks and big business take jobs and opportunities away, and you believe that marginalizing a group of people in America and blaming them for all of our problems will solve everything? Make do with what we get and let our owners continue screwing us over? You really have absolutely no fraking clue what this movement is about, do you?

Also, while it does not sit well with me that Occupy was being evicted, the "occupation" did begin to become stagnant. It pleases me to see though that Occupy is starting to organize a lot more direct action protests in steed of the evictions.

FreakyLocz14
December 9th, 2011, 09:07 PM
So instead of protesting the cuts to educational funding, you just want to take away the aid and further burden students who have met the criteria necessary to receive help from the system to take the first step in improving their lives? In other words, big banks and big business take jobs and opportunities away, and you believe that marginalizing a group of people in America and blaming them for all of our problems will solve everything? Make do with what we get and let our owners continue screwing us over? You really have absolutely no fraking clue what this movement is about, do you?

Also, while it does not sit well with me that Occupy was being evicted, the "occupation" did begin to become stagnant. It pleases me to see though that Occupy is starting to organize a lot more direct action protests in steed of the evictions.

Why protest without substance? In order to protest the cuts properly, which I have been doing, there needs to be a plan to save money so the cuts aren't necessary. Big banks and big businesses have nothing to do with this. This is a result of trying to run a nanny state.

The Occupiers here where whining the other day with no plans on what to do. We should end corporate welfare, end welfare, move towards a personalized Social Security and Medicare system, cut defense spending, and less regulations on banks and businesses.

jpp8
December 9th, 2011, 09:16 PM
From what I've read so far, even if you get rid of illegals, the cuts would still be there. I honestly wonder what could be causing this drop in state funding then. Hm... Couldn't possibly be the banks and businesses that are resting easy and continuing to make huge profits from the Bush tax cuts (this means that they're not nearly giving back to the government what they should be). Nope.

Bela
December 9th, 2011, 09:23 PM
The system is broken yes. Does that mean that this protest should be exempt from the law? No.

If they want to protest, they can. But they need to do so in a legal manner, unless they want to give the 1% a way to downplay the movement. The media coverage from them breaking various laws? Thats run by the 1%. Want to stop that? Stop giving the 1% ammo to use then.

I work with the police a lot. And people seem to have a misunderstanding by what a public place is. Not everywhere you think is a public space is indeed public. Even a park can be closed come night time. At when it is closed it you can, and hopefully will, get arrested for tresspassing. Even a street can be closed.

I don't understand why your allegiances to the law supersede the rights of the people they were made for to express their views and to peacefully assemble in an area that is, yes, intended for public use.

The "human microphone" that these occupy protests use is due to them not being granted the permission to get a megaphone. The fact that Zucotti park was evicted was because Mayor Bloomberg decided to disregard a judge's injunction which specifically stated that he could NOT do that. Injunctions have been successfully granted in several other protests, which means they cannot be evicted by the police until they have a hearing.

Now think what this means. You mean a judge thought the protesters should be able to stay, pending a hearing? You mean the NY mayor disregarded this and evicted Zucotti Park anyway? Do you read no disdain for the occupy movement into this at all? Do you think Bloomberg did so in the name of discouraging tresspassing?

You can argue that you agree with what these protesters are saying and that what these protesters are doing is unlawful, but I will contend that your legal objections lend timid, disingenuous support to these protesters. This isn't just some special interest protest. This is literally the most important thing you could be protesting in this country at this time. Do you really think that these accusations of "breaking the law" are REALLY about the littering, or are REALLY about the tresspassing? Do you think Bloomberg REALLY was concerned about Zucotti Park being cleaned when he wanted to evict the protesters? When a people are in desperation, have voted time and again and see no change, when all they have left in this country is the ability to physically occupy space, and your government wants to infringe upon you your ability to do even that, I find myself alarmed that there are people who are not alarmed by this.

Consider an old law against wearing masks that led to some arrests, for example. This was the legal thrust the police were working with initially at Zucotti park, and tells me that these "lawbreaking" arguments are as much a distraction as the fabrications about littering, drug use, and RAPE that have been cried by those whose real problems are with that of the Occupy movement itself.

I would rather have a discussion about income inequality, a deregulated Wall Street, corporate money in politics, and all the effects this has on us, than I would about whether or not the people trying to bring light to this issue should be allowed to occupy a public space. It's mostly because I find saying no to that a stupid argument to make, one that is only made by somebody who either isn't aware of the context for which such accusations are being made, or somebody who would rather avert their eyes from the context and wish not to think that the law is being used here as a convenient way to quash a genuine, well-intentioned protest.

Just pointing out that while we're being portrayed as a bunch of goalless, lawbreaking bums, our first amendment rights to a free press are being violated.

Not to mention the first amendment rights of free speech and peaceful assembly, which seems to be held in equal disdain.

But to get to what I really want to talk about here: income inequality, Wall Street's deregulation, and corporate money in politics.

Ah hell. I'm too tired now and I'm sure you've all heard it before.

FreakyLocz14
December 9th, 2011, 09:33 PM
From what I've read so far, even if you get rid of illegals, the cuts would still be there. I honestly wonder what could be causing this drop in state funding then. Hm... Couldn't possibly be the banks and businesses that are resting easy and continuing to make huge profits from the Bush tax cuts (this means that they're not nearly giving back to the government what they should be). Nope.

The Bush tax cuts are federal. They have nothing to do with STATE colleges. California has some of the highest state taxes in the nation.

The Bush tax cuts are necessary to keep people's taxes low. They stimulate the economy by encouraging consumer spending and job growth.

Also "income inequality" is not the government's problem. There are some people who are less fortunate than others. We're not a communist state.

jpp8
December 9th, 2011, 10:06 PM
Banks making record profits while record tuition hikes are happening. Must be no correlation at all.

http://i.imgur.com/Gcgla.jpg
WHAT RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT? WOW. JUST LOOK AT ALL THE JOBS GROWTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!ONE-BILLION ONE-HUNDRED--ELEVEN-MILLION ONE-HUNDRED-ELEVEN-THOUSAND ONE-HUNDRED-ELEVEN
Trickle down theory and supply side economics are retarded and have been shown to be ineffective. Nothing trickled down from the tax cuts and the economic situation only got temporarily better just like what will happen if we deregulate businesses and banks; good for short term, bad for long term (see: Great Depression).

"Some people are less fortunate than others". Yep. If people are poor, it's because luck or they were lazy. While the richest, some of whom may have been born into it, got there because of hard work. Certainly not because of a system that favors them immensely.

FreakyLocz14
December 9th, 2011, 10:17 PM
Banks making record profits while record tuition hikes are happening. Must be no correlation at all.

http://i.imgur.com/Gcgla.jpg
WHAT RECORD UNEMPLOYMENT? WOW. JUST LOOK AT ALL THE JOBS GROWTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!!ONE-BILLION ONE-HUNDRED--ELEVEN-MILLION ONE-HUNDRED-ELEVEN-THOUSAND ONE-HUNDRED-ELEVEN
Trickle down theory and supply side economics are retarded and have been shown to be ineffective. Nothing trickled down from the tax cuts and the economic situation only got temporarily better just like what will happen if we deregulate businesses and banks; good for short term, bad for long term (see: Great Depression).

"Some people are less fortunate than others". Yep. If people are poor, it's because luck or they were lazy. While the richest, some of whom may have been born into it, got there because of hard work. Certainly not because of a system that favors them immensely.

The poor need to go to school, work hard, and rise above their situation. They should not expect others to take care of them.

TRIFORCE89
December 9th, 2011, 10:35 PM
The poor need to go to school, work hard, and rise above their situation.
Yes, but that's easier said than done. Even if you work hard and go to school, that's no guarantee. Increasingly so as jobs continue to leave.

jpp8
December 9th, 2011, 10:36 PM
They shouldn't. So why do rich white guys in business suits get that privilege? "You wrecked the economy? Shame. Here's a bailout. And have some tax cuts while you're at it. Just continue to supply us with $$$, kay? -Love, Bought System." Do you honestly believe the whole "bootstraps" argument will fly in today's education and job environment? YOU. HAVE. NO. CLUE. WHAT. THIS. MOVEMENT. IS. ABOUT. (http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/)

Keiran
December 9th, 2011, 10:54 PM
The poor need to go to school, work hard, and rise above their situation. They should not expect others to take care of them.

Are the poor supposed to magically be able to afford the ever rising costs of education? Do you know what poor means?

I know many people with 2 or even 3 jobs that can still barely afford college education ALONE, yet still have to pay for that AND their bills, and even with 3 paychecks they are unable to keep up on everything.

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 08:54 AM
Are the poor supposed to magically be able to afford the ever rising costs of education? Do you know what poor means?

I know many people with 2 or even 3 jobs that can still barely afford college education ALONE, yet still have to pay for that AND their bills, and even with 3 paychecks they are unable to keep up on everything.

It's not that expensive. Annual tuition is here is $6,890. Community colleges are less than $1,000 for annual tuition. There are also scholarships out there for assistance. If there's a will, there's a way.

jpp8
December 10th, 2011, 09:32 AM
oh. my. god. ARE YOU REALLY THIS DENSE, FREAKY? Listen. Let me make this clear for you since you clearly don't understand:

1. There are VERY LITTLE jobs out there. Saying "just get a job" is not that simple.
2. Higher education tuition rates are at an all time high. When one is paying off a house, a car, bills, debt, and other necessities, sometimes tuition and grants just aren't enough for some families. ESPECIALLY since, most of the time, going to school means giving up a full time job.
3. Unemployment is at an all time high. Again, people can't find work.
4. Meanwhile, banks are making record profits after causing the financial crisis in America.
5. Banks and Business can continue to do so because they BOUGHT our government through supporting politicians who share their interests. We are sick and tired of this injustice caused by this bought system and how the top one percent of wage owners benefit from it, while the bottom 99 percent are expected to pay for the damage they caused and be content with it.

G9qZZVqSQdo

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 10:04 AM
oh. my. god. ARE YOU REALLY THIS DENSE, FREAKY? Listen. Let me make this clear for you since you clearly don't understand:

1. There are VERY LITTLE jobs out there. Saying "just get a job" is not that simple.
2. Higher education tuition rates are at an all time high. When one is paying off a house, a car, bills, debt, and other necessities, sometimes tuition and grants just aren't enough for some families. ESPECIALLY since, most of the time, going to school means giving up a full time job.
3. Unemployment is at an all time high. Again, people can't find work.
4. Meanwhile, banks are making record profits after causing the financial crisis in America.
5. Banks and Business can continue to do so because they BOUGHT our government through supporting politicians who share their interests. We are sick and tired of this injustice caused by this bought system and how the top one percent of wage owners benefit from it, while the bottom 99 percent are expected to pay for the damage they caused and be content with it.

G9qZZVqSQdo

You should be looking for a job. A job hunt is always competitive. You have to market yourself and convince employers why they should hire you and not one of those other 3 people. There is no right to a job. There is also no right to take money from banks because you demonize them for being rich.

Jarred0809
December 10th, 2011, 10:15 AM
Sorry Freaky, I'm gonna have to side with jpp8 on this one.

jpp8
December 10th, 2011, 10:26 AM
But does one person getting a job fix the problem of rampant unemployment and lack of jobs in this country? No it does not.

I'm not demonizing them for being rich. I'm demonizing corporations for being overly greedy in a time when there are so many people without. Greed that caused the housing crisis. Greed that shut down many businesses. Greed that made them "too big to fail". Greed that allows them to buy our system, pushes for deregulation, and continues business as usual.

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 10:39 AM
But does one person getting a job fix the problem of rampant unemployment and lack of jobs in this country? No it does not.

I'm not demonizing them for being rich. I'm demonizing corporations for being overly greedy in a time when there are so many people without. Greed that caused the housing crisis. Greed that shut down many businesses. Greed that made them "too big to fail". Greed that allows them to buy our system, pushes for deregulation, and continues business as usual.

If we want to create jobs, we need to lower taxes on the top income earners, cut regulations on job creators, and allow people to spend money to stimulate the economy.

jpp8
December 10th, 2011, 10:49 AM
Cool concept. Bush did that. Obama extended them And look at our situation? JOBS. EFFING. EVERYWHERE. RIGHT? Do I even need to point you back to my previous post, oh my god.

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 10:50 AM
Cool concept. Bush did that. Obama extended them And look at our situation? JOBS. EFFING. EVERYWHERE. RIGHT? Do I even need to point you back to my previous post, oh my god.

Obama has increased regulations and made our economy worse with the Dodd-Frank Act.

Keiran
December 10th, 2011, 11:01 AM
It's not that expensive. Annual tuition is here is $6,890. Community colleges are less than $1,000 for annual tuition. There are also scholarships out there for assistance. If there's a will, there's a way.

Okay, and going to a community college for nearly everyone is a waste of time. And those are the people I'm talking about. Those who went to a community college for a few years, got nothing from it, and moved on to something better- and in capitalist America better only means it's more expensive, even if it's the same thing.

If we want to create jobs, we need to lower taxes on the top income earners, cut regulations on job creators, and allow people to spend money to stimulate the economy.

I really hope you're trolling.

jpp8
December 10th, 2011, 11:05 AM
I don't know much about Dodd-Frank, but if business as usual is still going on in this country despite it, then clearly, Dodd-Frank did not enforce regulation strictly enough or is too full of loopholes to be truly effective. What we need to do is get corporate money and their lobbying interests out of our government.


And unfortunately, she's not trolling.

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 11:06 AM
Okay, and going to a community college for nearly everyone is a waste of time. And those are the people I'm talking about. Those who went to a community college for a few years, got nothing from it, and moved on to something better- and in capitalist America better only means it's more expensive, even if it's the same thing.

Those who go need to be focused and dedicated. I finished community college in 2 years. For some, the tuition is completely waived by the state if your income is low enough. There are scholarships from the school to cover the cost of books. The truly poor would be going for free.

Keiran
December 10th, 2011, 11:16 AM
Those who go need to be focused and dedicated. I finished community college in 2 years. For some, the tuition is completely waived by the state if your income is low enough. There are scholarships from the school to cover the cost of books. The truly poor would be going for free.

Okay, and I'm going to quote you when I say this... A job hunt is always competitive. You have to market yourself and convince employers why they should hire you and not one of those other 3 people.

Why would a company hire someone who went to a "free" (in your terms) college rather than one who went to a college worth 20+ years of debt?

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 11:42 AM
Okay, and I'm going to quote you when I say this... A job hunt is always competitive. You have to market yourself and convince employers why they should hire you and not one of those other 3 people.

Why would a company hire someone who went to a "free" (in your terms) college rather than one who went to a college worth 20+ years of debt?

That depends on the kind of job you are looking for. Also, there are a number of reasons. One is that those who go to expensive universities usually go straight out of high school, so they have little or no job experience versus someone who has plenty of job experience and went back to school later in life. Many go just to advance in the field they are already working in.

Also, those who begin at the free community college can transfer to a 4-year university afterwards and they will have completed the first half of a 4-year degree program. Someone who didn't do very good in high school or has been out of school for awhile can redeem themselves by performing well at the community college, making them excellent scholarship candidates.

You also have to think of if the higher school is worth it. Even if you get a job that pays more, are you really keeping more of your income or is it going to pay off your school loans?

jpp8
December 10th, 2011, 11:54 AM
The problem with the OWS generation is that we were told, "if you don't want to flip burgers for the rest of your life, get into a 'good college'". Now that many did that, are buried in debt, and unable to find jobs, they're being called lazy and entitled because they didn't want to flip burgers.

AGAIN. Does one person getting a job fix the problem of rampant unemployment and lack of jobs in this country? I don't want to hear any of that tax cuts for the rich, trickle down theory crap either. Bush tax cuts created 6 million jobs and then we lost 8 million BEFORE Dodd-Frank. It doesn't work.

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 11:56 AM
The problem with the OWS generation is that we were told, "if you don't want to flip burgers for the rest of your life, get into a 'good college'". Now that many did that and are buried in debt and unable to find jobs, they're being called lazy and entitled because they didn't want to flip burgers.

AGAIN. Does one person getting a job fix the problem of rampant unemployment and lack of jobs in this country? I don't want to hear any of that tax cuts for the rich, trickle down theory crap either. Bush tax cuts created 6 million jobs and then we lost 8 million BEFORE Dodd-Frank. It doesn't work.

I agree that tax cuts only for the rich don't work. Taxes need to be cut across the board. I'm in favor of the FairTax plan or a flat income tax rate. We do; however, need to cut regulations on the banking industry and large corporations so that they can create jobs.

donavannj
December 10th, 2011, 12:19 PM
It's not that expensive. Annual tuition is here is $6,890. Community colleges are less than $1,000 for annual tuition. There are also scholarships out there for assistance. If there's a will, there's a way.

That is ridiculously low compared to what most people pay. My annual tuition at a technical college on the same level as local community colleges for a full course load happens to be in the ballpark of $6000, which also happens to be the vicinity of the limit of the financial aid I receive, even though that financial aid is supposed to be able to be used to fund my transportation costs of going to and from school. And with the exception of a couple public universities here, the university tuitions are almost twice that even before housing is factored in! And this is still all while the state of Minnesota pays about half of the tuition.

It's not so simple to just "go to college" and "get a job" anymore. College grads are competitng with a legion of more experienced people in their fields for limited jobs, and every single job I've seen posted in my field (and in many other fields I checked out while looking) while doing some early scouting of jobs is looking for at least 3-4 years of experience in addition to the degree and thousands of dollars in certificates college students can't afford to pay for. Heck, fast food joints can even afford to have higher standards for their hires because so many are still jobless.

Tax cuts for the rich do not work in the slightest because essential public services they don't want to admit they rely on provide those extra dollars (such as public transport allowing people to commute further than they could by bike or on foot) that they're trying to get a hold of by having their taxes cut, when they wouldn't have those extra dollars ever enter their hands in the first place if those services didn't exist.

These regulations in and of themselves "create" jobs in the same way that deregulation would, as they have to spend money on services other companies provide in order to proactively and effectively ensure compliance to the regulatons.

Mr. X
December 10th, 2011, 01:48 PM
Haha, lots of crap for me to respond to. This post will also be my once a year wall o text post.


Also "income inequality" is not the government's problem. There are some people who are less fortunate than others. We're not a communist state.


Don't knock communism till you try it. I'll agree that its not perfect, but neither is the type of government we have. All forms of government have perks and flaws, some more then others. Communism's flaws are its lack of certian freedoms. Ours? I'm not going to bother with a list so i'll just say this. While our form of government was great in theory and in practice, early on, it has slowly come more corrupt due to human greed. While the same thing can happen in Communism, at least then you'd know who to kill/overthrow. With ours we have to idea just who is responsable for the mess we are in. You say the Liberials, I say most Republicans and Democrats. In this case, you are close minded in your ideals. I see the bigger picture, which is our government has **** coming at it from both sides, while you only see one side.


Trickle down theory and supply side economics are retarded and have been shown to be ineffective. Nothing trickled down from the tax cuts and the economic situation only got temporarily better just like what will happen if we deregulate businesses and banks; good for short term, bad for long term (see: Great Depression).


+1. It would be great if everyone could realize this. While I believe that some aspects are not needing of large scale regulation, there are a lot more aspects that need regulations crammed down the throat.

As for trickle down, it's really a idealist view made by people that foolishly believe that everypme people can suppress their darker natures for the betterment of all. While SOME do, the sad fact is that most of the ones who can make a difference don't. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but from my experience most of the people who believe this are those raised to be religious.


The poor need to go to school, work hard, and rise above their situation. They should not expect others to take care of them.


Agree to a extent, but if the poor deserve no special privileges then neither do the rich. While I agree that they don't need to be lead by the hand to a better life we DO need to give them the means to reach a better life. After that, its up to them to use those means to reach a better life.

(And that last sentence reminds me of Rite of Passage for some reason.)


Yes, but that's easier said than done. Even if you work hard and go to school, that's no guarantee. Increasingly so as jobs continue to leave.


+1. While I agree with this, another reason is because some people choose dead-end majors. While jobs exist for dead-end majors, those are usually life long jobs, kept until the person is physically no longer able to do work in that field. I can see the use in some of them, but they are (in this economy) more suited to be a minor to supplement another major field.


They shouldn't. So why do rich white guys in business suits get that privilege? "You wrecked the economy? Shame. Here's a bailout. And have some tax cuts while you're at it. Just continue to supply us with $$$, kay? -Love, Bought System." Do you honestly believe the whole "bootstraps" argument will fly in today's education and job environment? YOU. HAVE. NO. CLUE. WHAT. THIS. MOVEMENT. IS. ABOUT.


You forgot one. "We gave you money to fix our system, but feel free to use it for your golden parachutes despite the fact that you caused this mess."


It's not that expensive. Annual tuition is here is $6,890. Community colleges are less than $1,000 for annual tuition. There are also scholarships out there for assistance. If there's a will, there's a way.


You are forgetting the arm, leg, and first born child cost for everything else. Sure ~7k pays for the year, but everything else is what screws a person over.

Also, where there's a Will... Theres relatives. Sorry, couldn't resist.


1. There are VERY LITTLE jobs out there. Saying "just get a job" is not that simple.
2. Higher education tuition rates are at an all time high. When one is paying off a house, a car, bills, debt, and other necessities, sometimes tuition and grants just aren't enough for some families. ESPECIALLY since, most of the time, going to school means giving up a full time job.
3. Unemployment is at an all time high. Again, people can't find work.
4. Meanwhile, banks are making record profits after causing the financial crisis in America.
5. Banks and Business can continue to do so because they BOUGHT our government through supporting politicians who share their interests. We are sick and tired of this injustice caused by this bought system and how the top one percent of wage owners benefit from it, while the bottom 99 percent are expected to pay for the damage they caused and be content with it.


2-5 are all +1's.

As for 1, some times the found job doesn't pay enough to cover expenses or the hours don't cover the expenses. I know a couple people who got cut hours and quit because of that since the pay for those hours wouldn't have covered the gas used to get to and from the job.


You should be looking for a job. A job hunt is always competitive. You have to market yourself and convince employers why they should hire you and not one of those other 3 people. There is no right to a job. There is also no right to take money from banks because you demonize them for being rich.


Agreed on the jobs part. But still, with how bad the economy is even you should realize that something is wrong with the fact that banks are still posting record profits while just about everything else is posting record losses.

You want trickle down economics? Take some of the banks, most likely, ill gotten profits and use them to boost the economy.


I'm not demonizing them for being rich. I'm demonizing corporations for being overly greedy in a time when there are so many people without. Greed that caused the housing crisis. Greed that shut down many businesses. Greed that made them "too big to fail". Greed that allows them to buy our system, pushes for deregulation, and continues business as usual.

+1

My thoughts exactly. You just worded them a lot better then I ever could.


If we want to create jobs, we need to lower taxes on the top income earners, cut regulations on job creators, and allow people to spend money to stimulate the economy.


So we need to do what caused this mess in the first place? We need to do this and pray that what caused this mess, will now fix it? Despite what you think, the cure for lung cancer is not smoking more.

This is a complex problem but your answer is not one that would work. You solution is more money spent will cause jobs to come back.

How can a person spend money if they don't have a job to make money from? Unless your saying that everyone should max out their credit cards, I don't really see how your solution would work.


[quoteOriginally Posted by FreakyLocz14
If we want to create jobs, we need to lower taxes on the top income earners, cut regulations on job creators, and allow people to spend money to stimulate the economy.

I really hope you're trolling.


Sadly, she's not.


I don't know much about Dodd-Frank, but if business as usual is still going on in this country despite it, then clearly, Dodd-Frank did not enforce regulation strictly enough or is too full of loopholes to be truly effective. What we need to do is get corporate money and their lobbying interests out of our government.


Freaky : TeH rEGulTiOnS R ruINeN tEh EcoNOmiEz!
Me and You : Then how are corporations still making profit?
Everyone else : +1
Freaky : YoUZ aLL lIbTarDs!
You to me: Lets not feed the troll anymore
Me to you : Aww. But its fun!
You to Me : Grow up.
Me : *sadface*


I agree that tax cuts only for the rich don't work. Taxes need to be cut across the board. I'm in favor of the FairTax plan or a flat income tax rate. We do; however, need to cut regulations on the banking industry and large corporations so that they can create jobs.


Tax cuts for *insert group here* don't work? How about tax cuts don't work at all?

But yes, a flat tax would be better then what we have. But sadly the Dems and Repubs would proably spend years aruging about what that flat rate should be. Democrats would say 10% and Republicans would say 1% and cut all spending by 75%.

While the party system was good at first, its reached the point where its more of a hindrance rather then a help. I'd like the see the party system gone and let people take their own stances instead of them having to conform to a specific group's views.

Anyway, the start of this downfall was when all the middle class factory jobs started going oversea's because the greedy corporations knew that they could make more money due to the cheaper labor and lack of regulation.

As for labor and regulation, you know what labor their is in area\s with no regulation and/or poorly enforced regulation? Sweat shops, child labor, slavery in all but name, and whatever type of labor that someone thinks most profitable.

Another was the automation of certain work. Its more profitable to buy a robot to work and to pay a person to repair it when it breaks down then it is to hire whatever number of workers the robot replaces. In this case, more profitable can either mean its cheaper or product is assembled quicker and able to be sold quicker.

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 02:17 PM
Exactly! The countries with less regulations are where all the jobs are going. This shows that regulations kill jobs.

Mr. X
December 10th, 2011, 07:54 PM
Yes, it DOES.

But lets not forget about just what some of them entail.

Regulations against child labor? Thats a regulation that raises cost of labor. Should be get rid of it and put children back into factories like they were a hundred or so years back?

Regulations that ensured sanitation on food processing. This raises the cost of the product. I suppose we could get rid of this, after all, E. Coli has never killed anyone... Right?

Lets not forget the regulations that are to ensure the safety of certain products... Say, baby cribs. Are you REALLY sure that you want to purchase a crib that hasn't been tested, at all, for safety? Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we had cases of defective cribs that ended up killing babies? I'll bet that without regulation, that would happen a lot often. Those events occurred mostly due to regulations about product testing not being properly enforced.

Ohh, another favorite. Lets get rid of those regulations that require testing of certian electronics. Afterall, so what if your T.V suddenly goes boom and burns your house down? And so what if your hair dryer shoots out air so hot that it makes your hair catch fire? After all, who needs hair?

Your coming off as all regulation is bad and all should be gotten rid of. Regulation isn't bad. Regulation is good. Regulation ensures (Or, at least tries to) ensure safety. Something that I think is, at least, somewhat important.

Also, shall I name some of those countries that jobs are being sent to?

Mexico. If you think regulation is bad then drink a lot of Mexican water. When you recover from the pain that it could put you in, then try saying regulation regarding food sanitation is bad.

Africa. Where the children starve to death by the hundreds, and the women have few rights, and proper medical care is (usually) 50 or so miles away by the people who need it, yet can't reach it.

China. Lead paint. That is all I need to say. So go ahread, chew on that cheap toy. At least in this country, with all its regulation, you don't have as large of chance of getting lead poisoning.

Regulation aside, Mexico/Africa/*Insert poor country here* is where the jobs are being sent to because the people there are willing to work for poor wages. You want to keep them factory jobs here? Start accepting the crap hours, very low pay, and lack of safety regulations pertaining to the workplace. Things will go good. Until you get your leg stuck in the machinery, get it ripped off, and get fired since you are unable to work, and have no pension/retirement/SSI making you poor for life.

But you completely MISSED my point about regulations. Yes, they drove jobs away. But those jobs, even WITH your so called 'massive economy killing regulations' were still posting large profits. But greedy corporations always want a little more profit even if there actions to gain that profit completely screw over the average person. So in this case, it was more of a greed problem, not a regulation problem.

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 07:57 PM
Yes, it DOES.

But lets not forget about just what some of them entail.

Regulations against child labor? Thats a regulation that raises cost of labor. Should be get rid of it and put children back into factories like they were a hundred or so years back?

Regulations that ensured sanitation on food processing. This raises the cost of the product. I suppose we could get rid of this, after all, E. Coli has never killed anyone... Right?

Lets not forget the regulations that are to ensure the safety of certain products... Say, baby cribs. Are you REALLY sure that you want to purchase a crib that hasn't been tested, at all, for safety? Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we had cases of defective cribs that ended up killing babies? I'll bet that without regulation, that would happen a lot often. Those events occurred mostly due to regulations about product testing not being properly enforced.

Ohh, another favorite. Lets get rid of those regulations that require testing of certian electronics. Afterall, so what if your T.V suddenly goes boom and burns your house down? And so what if your hair dryer shoots out air so hot that it makes your hair catch fire? After all, who needs hair?

Your coming off as all regulation is bad and all should be gotten rid of. Regulation isn't bad. Regulation is good. Regulation ensures (Or, at least tries to) ensure safety. Something that I think is, at least, somewhat important.

Also, shall I name some of those countries that jobs are being sent to?

Mexico. If you think regulation is bad then drink a lot of Mexican water. When you recover from the pain that it could put you in, then try saying regulation regarding food sanitation is bad.

Africa. Where the children starve to death by the hundreds, and the women have few rights, and proper medical care is (usually) 50 or so miles away by the people who need it, yet can't reach it.

China. Lead paint. That is all I need to say. So go ahread, chew on that cheap toy. At least in this country, with all its regulation, you don't have as large of chance of getting lead poisoning.

Regulation aside, Mexico/Africa/*Insert poor country here* is where the jobs are being sent to because the people there are willing to work for poor wages. You want to keep them factory jobs here? Start accepting the crap hours, very low pay, and lack of safety regulations pertaining to the workplace. Things will go good. Until you get your leg stuck in the machinery, get it ripped off, and get fired since you are unable to work, and have no pension/retirement/SSI making you poor for life.

If people are not willing to accept the pay and hours, they won't take the job. No one forces them to take a certain job. We need to eliminate the minimum wage so that the free market can create more jobs. As to the water thing, people in Mexico drink the water just fine. We poison our water just as much with fluoride.

Mr. X
December 10th, 2011, 08:14 PM
If people are not willing to accept the pay and hours, they won't take the job. No one forces them to take a certain job. We need to eliminate the minimum wage so that the free market can create more jobs. As to the water thing, people in Mexico drink the water just fine. We poison our water just as much with fluoride.

Yeah. Now that I think about it, the water thing isn't really the best example. The human body is a wonderful thing, able to adapt. We've adapted to all the added chemicals in our water. The Mexicans? They've adapted to the water full of bacteria and... um, crap. (Literally. Crap. As in ****.) Personally, I can't stand the tap water, nor regular filtered water. Me? I like the waters that have added magnesium to it. (Don't know why, but I prefer the slight metallic taste that it has.)

Are you willing to take a job for $4 an hour? How about 5? or 6? 7?

Corporate greed would cause the pay to crash like a jet full of fat people. Know why? Because they can deny a job to a person if they want. As long as they don't deny them based on gender, race or (in some states) sexual orientation. Corps would drive down pay and the people would be forced to accept it, otherwise, they won't have a job. But on the plus side this COULD drive the prices of stuff down... Hmm, damn. You've got me reconsidering this now.

I know, I see the negative in everything first but still, at the very least, I'll never be disappointed unlike people who only see positives. Know why? If I only see the negative, if it doesn't happen then I can be happy. If it does happen, no matter, I foresaw it. Positive people, however, if the negative happens well, they are going to get sad and depressed. If the positive happens, no matter, they foresaw it happening.

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 08:35 PM
Yeah. Now that I think about it, the water thing isn't really the best example. The human body is a wonderful thing, able to adapt. We've adapted to all the added chemicals in our water. The Mexicans? They've adapted to the water full of bacteria and... um, crap. (Literally. Crap. As in ****.) Personally, I can't stand the tap water, nor regular filtered water. Me? I like the waters that have added magnesium to it. (Don't know why, but I prefer the slight metallic taste that it has.)

Are you willing to take a job for $4 an hour? How about 5? or 6? 7?

Corporate greed would cause the pay to crash like a jet full of fat people. Know why? Because they can deny a job to a person if they want. As long as they don't deny them based on gender, race or (in some states) sexual orientation. Corps would drive down pay and the people would be forced to accept it, otherwise, they won't have a job. But on the plus side this COULD drive the prices of stuff down... Hmm, damn. You've got me reconsidering this now.

I know, I see the negative in everything first but still, at the very least, I'll never be disappointed unlike people who only see positives. Know why? If I only see the negative, if it doesn't happen then I can be happy. If it does happen, no matter, I foresaw it. Positive people, however, if the negative happens well, they are going to get sad and depressed. If the positive happens, no matter, they foresaw it happening.

I'd take a $4 an hour job if I wan dirt poor and was currently making $0 an hour. If nobody wants to work at those wages, the free market will force employers to provide higher wages or they won't have any employees.

Mr. X
December 10th, 2011, 08:48 PM
I'd take a $4 an hour job if I wan dirt poor and was currently making $0 an hour. If nobody wants to work at those wages, the free market will force employers to provide higher wages or they won't have any employees.

The free market works both ways. It will either conform to the people, or force the people to conform to it.

But your statement is exactly my point. People WOULD accept the dirt poor pay only because making $4 dollars an hour is better then making $0 dollars an hour.

But still, I'm not talking about the poor. I'm talking about the average American person... You know, house and car payments and all that stuff?

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 10:38 PM
The free market works both ways. It will either conform to the people, or force the people to conform to it.

But your statement is exactly my point. People WOULD accept the dirt poor pay only because making $4 dollars an hour is better then making $0 dollars an hour.

But still, I'm not talking about the poor. I'm talking about the average American person... You know, house and car payments and all that stuff?

That's what contract law is for. Many companies deal with labor unions. They negotiate wages, benefits, work conditions, etc. and enter into legally binding contracts. These are regulations that the private parties agree to, not regulations that the government forces on them.

Mr. X
December 10th, 2011, 11:15 PM
And without regulations that force the corporations to work with the labor unions?

Unless we have those, then the corps can just disregard unions completely.

TRIFORCE89
December 10th, 2011, 11:16 PM
If we want to create jobs, we need to lower taxes on the top income earners, cut regulations on job creators, and allow people to spend money to stimulate the economy.
I can see an argument for lowering corporate taxes or reducing red tape to be competitive on the foreign market (well... for those who are presently legitimately paying taxes instead of jumping through loop holes to pay nothing anyway). But not for individual top income earners.

The middle class is where the tax cuts should be. They're the ones who buy stuff. They're the ones who haven't seen their incomes raised in thirty years. Top income earners need their taxes raised. They buy expensive things, but they don't buy frequently. The middle class does. So, lowering the top earner's taxes won't get the real purchasers out buying things. All it would accomplish is giving the top earners more money that they don't need and that money comes out of the system that could go to things like infrastructure projects that would create jobs.

I'd take a $4 an hour job if I wan dirt poor and was currently making $0 an hour.
I would too. But, you can't survive on that. It's a bit like working to get nowhere.

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 11:17 PM
And without regulations that force the corporations to work with the labor unions?

Unless we have those, then the corps can just disregard unions completely.

They can't if they require skilled workers that organize. They won't be able to hire anybody if nobody is willing to work for them.

P.S.
Your new emblem creeped me out when I first saw it.

TRIFORCE89
December 10th, 2011, 11:24 PM
They can't if they require skilled workers that organize. They won't be able to hire anybody if nobody is willing to work for them.
They won't hire anyone in North America anyway.

I don't think the current problems are easily fixable. So long as its possible for a company to up and leave and move to China because they don't have to pay employees there a fare wage, then there's no hope. Increasingly jobs will disappear. There is no incentive for companies to stay and no penalty if they leave. The cycle will continue until they hit the point that people in North America just have crap jobs can't afford to buy the products being made in China. That's when the companies wallets will be hit, but then it will be too late.

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 11:27 PM
They won't here anyone in North America anyway.

I don't think the current problems are easily fixable. So long as its possible for a company to up and leave and move to China because they don't have to pay employees there a fare wage, then there's no hope. Increasingly jobs will disappear. There is no incentive for companies to stay and no penalty if they leave. The cycle will continue until they hit the point that people in North America just have crap jobs can't afford to buy the products being made in China. That's when the companies wallets will be hit, but then it will be too late.

What we need to do is deregulate so that we're just as cheap to hire workers as China. That way, it won't be worth the costs to move operations there.

Mr. X
December 10th, 2011, 11:28 PM
They can't if they require skilled workers that organize. They won't be able to hire anybody if nobody is willing to work for them.

P.S.
Your new emblem creeped me out when I first saw it.

Morphing Jar #2. (If I remember right...) The ha ha ha isn't related to it, but thats the first thing that came to mind when I looked at that picture. I was orginally thinking "I see you." or "Look deeply into my eye." but I figured ha ha ha would be... slightly creepier.

I had another in mind, much... nicer (It was mostly pink) but it refused to upload. It was a mudkip with a valantine in its mouth, the background was pink with red hearts, and it said I liek you too.

But back to topic.

And that is where the attrition starts. What side do you think has the connections, means, and resources needed to outlast the other? I dislike most corps, but my vote goes to them for this.

Edit - Read my post a couple above. The one that lists some regulations that other countries might not/don't have.

FreakyLocz14
December 10th, 2011, 11:33 PM
And that is where the attrition starts. What side do you think has the connections, means, and resources needed to outlast the other? I hate most corps, but my vote goes to them for this.

Jobs that don't require skilled workers will be able to just hire the next person in line who's willing to play along, but jobs that require certain skills are quite different. They may have difficulty finding workers since the people who have those skills likely invest considerable time, energy, and often money attaining said skills.