Occupy Wall Street

[Guest123_x1]

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]

[SIZE="a"]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.[/SIZE]

 

[jpp8]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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? 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? ITT: Everybody would just rather point fingers at the occupy people for being such despicable "criminals".

 

[TRIFORCE89]

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? 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]

Blocking people from entering a business and harassing schoolchildren are illegal where I come from.
Such extreme behavior must not be tolerated.

 

[jpp8]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.



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]

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]

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:

https://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_n...-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]

So now the Occupiers are commiting a whole other list of crimes. Namely disturbing the peace, squatting, tresspassing, and breaking and entering.

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

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

https://www.google.com/hostednews/a...ZUlwCg?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]

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).

 

[TRIFORCE89]

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).

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.