Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter vici10
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wall
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
1,111 replies · 129K views
gravenewworld said:
The only people whining are those criticizing the protestors that are exercising their right to assemble according to the Constitution. Sure it may appear disorganized because the media is only focusing on the gutter kids, punks, and hippies there, but there are many other people there, and they DO have legitimate complaints AND have the right to organize and protest about it. So get over it.

Indeed.

If anything, the alleged incoherence is a strength. It shows that osw is comprised of a diverse group of people, bound together only by their awareness of the true culprits of the economic collapse.

This is in stark contrast to the tea party, who were primarily angry over the election of an african american president.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What's really disturbing is how the mainstream media is responding to the protests. Even the supposedly liberal msnbc is critical of the protestors because many of them reject democratic politicians. These same anchors and talking heads have speant the better part of a year telling Americans how wonderful it is that Arabs and North Africans are speaking out against their governments, when we have absolutely no conception of what their goals are.

Truly pathetic.
 
TheCool said:
Indeed.

If anything, the alleged incoherence is a strength. It shows that osw is comprised of a diverse group of people, bound together only by their awareness of the true culprits of the economic collapse.

This is in stark contrast to the tea party, who were primarily angry over the election of an african american president.

That's not true, the tea party was protesting the bailouts before it was the cool thing to do.
 
falc39 said:
That's not true, the tea party was protesting the bailouts before it was the cool thing to do.

I'd like to remind everyone the TEA Party protests were held BEFORE the 2010 election. This inconvenient fact will help keep comments made by left wing pundits and a few Democrat leaders (such as Charlie Rangel) in context when they make comparisons between the 2 groups.

We might also keep flip-flops in context - a multi-term Congressional leader should not be allowed to point fingers at Washington - he is Washington.
http://rangel.house.gov/about/
"Accomplishments
Elected in 1970 after unseating the legendary Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., Congressman Charles Rangel, a son of Harlem, has compiled a stellar record of accomplishments on behalf of his constituents in.."

"Committees and Caucuses
In 2007, Congressman Charles Rangel became the first African American to chair the oldest and arguably the most powerful Commitee in the House of Representatives, the Ways and Means Commitee."

**
http://communities.washingtontimes....-street-protesters-should-question-authority/

"For example, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has been trotting himself out in the media as a sympathizer with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Yet Rangel voted for both versions of TARP, and has engaged in such corrupt practices that even his fellow politicians had to slap him on the wrist. Fortunately, the protestors in New York had the sense to chase Rangel away when he tried to address them directly."
**
Rangel also gave this statement.
http://empire.wnyc.org/2011/10/rangel-issues-statement-of-support-for-protest/

"“Today, the American people are angry and frustrated: In addition to the 14 million who are out of work, many people have lost their homes, health insurance, money for college and are losing hope. The wealthiest few should pay their fair share instead of enjoying the record profits on the backs of the middle class. The American people have had enough. They’re mad as hell, and I agree. This is not a political issue, it’s a moral issue.

I lived through the Civil Rights movement, marched fromSelmatoWashington, and have witnessed what happens when people unite. That’s why I was glad to visitLibertyPlazaon Saturday to lend my support. I encourage more of my Collegues in Congress and the religious community to stand with the people on Wall Street to help occupyAmerica. Together, we can take back our country.”"
****
More from Rangel.
http://newsone.com/nation/washington-watch/crangel/charles-rangel-occupy-wall-street-editorial/

"These days in our country, people are mad as hell. And I don’t blame them: They are frustrated that millionaires and billionaires in our country are not paying their fair share. They are upset that we bailed out the banks yet have failed them. They are angry that they can no longer pay for their housing, healthcare, education, and have to live with constant fear. Today nearly 14 million Americans are unemployed yet we’re unable to take action to help them because some in Congress are more concerned with cutting vital programs than creating jobs and hopes for the American people. This is morally wrong and cannot continue.

I am very glad I visited Liberty Plaza this past Saturday to lend my moral support to the Occupy Wall Street protesters and witness firsthand the growing movement by the people in America who are “getting kicked out of [their] homes,” “forced to choose between groceries and rent,” and are “denied quality medical care,” ” suffering from environmental pollution,” “working long hours for little pay and no rights,” and are “getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything.” In sum, I met the 99 percent of Americans who are bearing the brunt of the recession caused by tax breaks and loopholes for millionaires and corporations, two unfunded wars, and the financial meltdown due to Republican deregulation."

***

Unfortunately, I can't find any statements by Rangel that supported the TEA Party when they spoke out against bailouts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheCool said:
Indeed.

If anything, the alleged incoherence is a strength. It shows that osw is comprised of a diverse group of people, bound together only by their awareness of the true culprits of the economic collapse.

This is in stark contrast to the tea party, who were primarily angry over the election of an african american president.

This comment needs support - my bold.

I'll help you out - the word "Primarily" cannot be supported by showing a single sign in a crowd of 10,000 - or this video by Charlie Rangel.


Please post definitive support for your definitive comment - or retract - or label opinion (please).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
gravenewworld said:
Again, I don't know why you are singling out another dem president? Obama and Clinton are just as dirty as bush and bush? Don't you understand? Banks like Goldman Sachs have infiltrated our entire government from justice dept members like the one I posted above all the way up to the president. They have far, far too much influence over the entire system regardless of who is president.


So what happened with etoys?

President Obama can't have it both ways. He took money from Wall Street to get elected, participated in bailouts, and owns this economy after serving 3 years in office. President Obama and the Democrats controlled the Presidency, House, and Senate in 2009 and 2010 - the Republicans have had a majority in the House for less than a year. Why didn't President Obama understand and accept the TEA Party protesters were (and still are) frustrated?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20116707-503544.html
"President Obama on Thursday called the "Occupy Wall Street" protests a reflection of a "broad-based frustration about how our financial system works" and pledged to continue fighting to protect American consumers.

The president, speaking at a press conference, said he had heard about and seen television reports on the recent protests on Wall Street, and noted that "I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel."

"We had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression - huge collateral damage throughout the country, all across main street. And yet, you are still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to crack down on abusive practices that got us in the situation in the first place," Mr. Obama told reporters. "I think people are frustrated.""
 
WhoWee said:
The unions have benefited from the type of bailouts they are now protesting. The GM bailout is closer to $50 Billion - if it wasn't for the unions - GM would have proceeded through a normal Chapter 11 reorganization where a federal bankruptcy judge would have decided their fates.

Occupy Wall Street isn't a protest of bailouts in general. It's a protest of the extreme uber-rich walking away with the money when the working people get nothing.

I don't see how the 2.5 billion dollars plus the 6.5 billion dollars in preferred stock equals the 50 billion dollar bailout.

Yes, the unions benefited from the bailout on the order of 9 billion dollars divvied up between at least 61,000 people. But I don't think that's what the wall street protests are about. I think the wall street protestors are more about wherever that other 41 billion dollars went.
 
I'm just glad to see we have a left. I was starting to wonder.

It's about time we saw some social consciousness again. We need an extreme left for balance and to contrast against the extreme right.
 
WhoWee said:
This comment needs support - my bold.

I'll help you out - the word "Primarily" cannot be supported by showing a single sign in a crowd of 10,000 - or this video by Charlie Rangel.


Please post definitive support for your definitive comment - or retract - or label opinion (please).




I don't know if the Tea Party in general can really be said to be racist, but there are many among their ranks who appear to be greatly misinformed, mean, and dumb.

Obama's Plan: White Slavery

The American Taxpayers are the Jews for Obama's ovens

Barack Hussein Obama: The New Face of Hitler

Obama was not bowing: He was sucking saudi Jewels

Stand idle while some kenyan tries to destroy America? (WAP!) I don't think so! Homey don't play dat!

Speak for yourself Obama: We are a Christian nation.

Hey big brother... show us your real birth certificate! Constitution: Article 2 Section 1

(Obama talking to terrorists: "Whoa Boys! I'll take it from here.")

Confederate Flag.

Congo = Slave Owner Tax Payer = Niggar

(Photoshopped to say "Work 4 u")

Save White America!

Sieg Heil Herr Obama

Wake up America, your muslim President Bowed to his Muslim King.

We need a Christian President.

Obama is the Anti-Christ. Oust Obama.

Obama Terrorist to America in God we Trust

Impeach Osama Obama AKA Hussein

Obama spends like a woman

Obama Care (in a picture with Obama dressed up in full pygmy witch doctor attire, and the C is replaced with the hammer and sickle from the old Russion flag.)

Obama Nomics: Monkey see, monkey spend.

"Cap" congress and "Trade" obama back to kenya!

Beware of Dog (Picture of Obama with lips enlarged.)

Oh S#!t It's 1939 Germany all over again Obama's HR 3200 = Hitlers T4

Don't Tax Me Bro!

OK, Joke's over. We know socialized health care doesn't work. (Obama dressed as the Joker.)

Obama's change: Slavery for all Americans!

Impeach the Muslim Marxist

We've hit "Barrack" bottom.

The zoo has an African (picture of lion) and the White hous has a lyin' african.

This sign is the brownest thing on this entire block. (I wonder whether this guy is being ironic; He may be protesting the protest.)

No Socialism

Free Market Not Free Loaders

For the first time in my life I am ashamed of my country.

The anti-Christ is living in the white house: Obama.

Obama listens to Mao. I listen to Fox News.

Stop him now before its to late. It's not about Obamacare, it's about power. When we smell the burning flesh from the ovens it will be to late for us all. SOCIALISM.

Impeach the Kenyan

I want America Back

Gimme yo Change: (Obama dressed up as B.A.Barrackus from the A-Team)

Obama is a destructive unpatriotic black muslim

Thank U Glenn & Rush

God Bless Glenn Beck

God Bless Glenn Beck & USA

The first question in debate is which if any of these statements is genuinely racist, and which is just stupid and misinformed, and which are neither.

The sign that says "I want America Back" could easily be slid into virtually any protest, so I wouldn't say it is racist.

As far as whether Obama is the antichrist, just ask him:

2 John 1:7 "I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist."

This could have a couple of interpretations depending on whether you interpret it to mean Jesus ever lived, or Jesus came back from the dead in the flesh?

So according to John 1:7 about 25% or 80% of the people I know are the anti-christ Who is going to acknowledge something as being true that they didn't personally experience? I can see why it's valid to believe such a thing, but to acknowledge it? And to claim that someone who won't acknowledge something they never saw is a deceiver? That's bogus. It's much greater a deception to claim to have knowledge when you really only have a belief based on hearsay. It's even a greater deception when you refuse to give starving people food unless they pretend to go along with it.

I also don't think it's a helpful sort of rubric for testing people about whether they believe something they can't verify. If you are living a life that is consistent with Jesus' teachings, but don't happen to believe that he ever actually existed, I will give you a lot more credit than somebody who actively believes in the life and resurrection of Jesus Chist but spends their time trying to maximize their profit at other people's expense.

Who is really the antichrist, I think, is the author of 1John, 2John, 3John, who introduced the idea of anti-christ, and who teaches the opposite of Jesus; how to be uncharitable and cruel to those who do not share your cultish beliefs. How to treat people differently not based on their acts and NEEDS but on what they claim to believe.

There are so many other things to go into, here. The claim that Obama is in some way like Hitler? Oh, because he sends tanks into warfare? How is that different from any American president since tanks were invented?

And then there's all the Kenyan talk. I guess this could be ascribed to overt racism. Nobody cares if the parents of our president were from some white country, but if his parents are from a black country, then the Tea Party gets upset.

But most of these signs aren't really overtly racist; There are several related to religious bigotry. Many of them are anti-socialist. Some are concerned about having Obama in charge during a war; but these mostly compare him to Hitler, who was white.

I see a few signs that are overtly racist, but mostly I just see dumb, frightened people, with mean, dumb, misinformed signs.

(By the way, even if there are a few dumb misinformed people with signs, the video I've linked is, of course, anecdotal rather than statitistical. WhoWee claimed that not even 1 in 10,000 signs was racist. I would have to see the other 300,000 nonracist, or non-stupid signs that would balance out these 30. Of particular interest, though, is the last few signs, blessing Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. If the ranks of the Tea Party have swelled with Limbaugh "ditto-heads" that's kind of the definition of being mean, dumb, fascist, and racist.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TheCool said:
What's really disturbing is how the mainstream media is responding to the protests. Even the supposedly liberal msnbc is critical of the protestors because many of them reject democratic politicians. These same anchors and talking heads have speant the better part of a year telling Americans how wonderful it is that Arabs and North Africans are speaking out against their governments, when we have absolutely no conception of what their goals are.

Truly pathetic.

Just saw an hour on Friday or Saturday, but I enjoyed Keith Olberman's coverage of the rallies on Current TV.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
It's about time we saw some social consciousness again. We need an extreme left for balance and to contrast against the extreme right.

Even from outside of the US, I agree with you. Problem is, I think it is just too late.

Neo-liberalism has managed to ship production outside of the country, make the gap between the rich and the poor larger, while also eating away at the future by creating enormous debt holes in the public wallet and in the US's international debt.

What you see now is politics trying to fix all these holes with other holes. I think the US has gone down the road they took for too long; I doubt it's fixable by hitting the brakes hard now. What are you going to do? Close the import borders, hit inflation at 10%, and decrease spending while increasing taxes with 20%? It won't happen.

IMO, it will be inevitable that the US will keep on going down the current road, and then go bust. There's nothing else left to do.

Then again. Five years after that, everything will be probably be back to normal, so, whatever. And I am not an economist.

[ Oops, sorry to everyone. I thought this was the anti-socialism thread. ]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can we get back to discussing the Occupy Wall Street protests? All this Tea Party crap is off-topic.
 
MarcoD said:
[ Oops, sorry to everyone. I thought this was the anti-socialism thread. ]

That's weird! So did I!
 
WhoWee said:
President Obama can't have it both ways. He took money from Wall Street to get elected, participated in bailouts, and owns this economy after serving 3 years in office. President Obama and the Democrats controlled the Presidency, House, and Senate in 2009 and 2010 - the Republicans have had a majority in the House for less than a year. Why didn't President Obama understand and accept the TEA Party protesters were (and still are) frustrated?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20116707-503544.html
"President Obama on Thursday called the "Occupy Wall Street" protests a reflection of a "broad-based frustration about how our financial system works" and pledged to continue fighting to protect American consumers.

The president, speaking at a press conference, said he had heard about and seen television reports on the recent protests on Wall Street, and noted that "I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel."

"We had the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression - huge collateral damage throughout the country, all across main street. And yet, you are still seeing some of the same folks who acted irresponsibly trying to crack down on abusive practices that got us in the situation in the first place," Mr. Obama told reporters. "I think people are frustrated.""

Seriously, what is your fixation with President Obama and Clinton? Where have I ever mentioned any of them in my posts? The Wall Street protests transcend partisan politics and address the fundamental issue that is a plague and scourge on our society-special interest group's money running our government. The US hasn't been a democracy for a while and has been transformed into a plutocracy through shady backdoor mechanisms and big businesses running things by having politicians in their pockets (both dems and repubs!). We live under a facade of freedom, a Potemkin Village of democracy. This needs to go beyond Occupying Wall Street, this needs to be an Occupy America movement. I want my country back.

What exactly are we supposed to do when the level of corruption and conflicts of interest go to the level of complexity and depth like the example I provided in the Goldman Sachs and eToys case? They own the ENTIRE system from top to bottom. The system has started to fall apart, our country now faces huge deficits, high unemployment, and a very bleak outlook. Exactly where was the government BEFORE the meltdown happened? Why weren't they monitoring the activities on the derivatives market? Where was the government BEFORE companies like Enron melted down? Why did the government allows big banks 19 exemptions from hedging rules over the past 20 years that allowed them to increase their odds of being able to manipulate commodities markets? The government was no where to be found because the head hanchos running the agencies that were supposed to be monitoring big business have people running them that used to work for the very companies they are supposed to be reprimanding and regulating. It's ridiculous and I'm glad the American public finally woke up. It's about time we started a movement like Iceland did after their corrupt banking system put their country on the verge of collapse.
 
Char. Limit said:
Can we get back to discussing the Occupy Wall Street protests? All this Tea Party crap is off-topic.

I took a few notes from a PBS broadcast about it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec11/wallstreet_10-05.html

A surprisingly clean, well-organized and well-stocked community has emerged, with its own library, plentiful supplies of food, even blankets and ponchos from well-wishers nation-wide, and a house-keeping and security system that impressed even the city police.

The goals are noticeably less well-organized.

Childhood labor, international labor issues, sweatshops. They should not be talking about

I do not want to be groped on in the airport, I do not want to give my children bad water, artificial flavors, pesticides. i do not want to

Behind the profit motive is Greed, and this greed has become a disease across the planet.

What I gather from my careful and insightful interviews, there is no central message, and that's okay; groups like the tea-party are created through messaging. Being in the boardroom and figuring out how they can finance a political movement and come up with slogans which are catchy. Here, people are coming from all over the country, try to figure out something to do. So their message is that they want to provoke discussion about financial injustice.

One frequent theme, though young people, out of work, even with college degrees, but financed by debt.

"I went to school, and now that we're out completely and we can't pay those loans back, and all we hear from the creditors is 'you're lazy' 'you're not doing your part' but we're looking for work, we can't go on unemployment. We're pre-unemployed."

The economic system is being run for the few at the expense of the many. As American's we're about fairness ; about fair play. But there's a sense now that some people are not given a chance to compete.

I know a lot of people in general out of work for two or three years, and it's hard for them to feed their families. All our jobs are overseas. The companies are moving overseas where they can pay slave labor.

George Carlin: "The American Dream: You have to be asleep to believe it"

Is the American dream over? "Bingo"

My generation is going to be the first who's children aren't better off than we are.

"It's not just about the American dream. It's about the world dream. We're here because there are economic issues that are linked throughout the whole entire world."

This is only going to spread, and its all kinds of people. It's the 99% who have a boot on their neck from the 1% who occupy the buildings surrounding this plaza.

There were drum circles, debate circles, and throughout, a festive atmosphere, which reminded people of the age of Aquarius.

147 occupation protests across the united states, 136 last night, 117 th night before that, 71 the night before that, it's accelerating.

The future of this occupation, like the futures of the lives of the people who are compelling it, is in limbo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I realize media's bias always plays a role in the news, but for a story like this one, that role seems magnified.

Note: the following is from a blog, but it demonstrates how a Libertarian-leaning pol sees the gap between what he sees with his own eyes, and what the media portrays.

Dan Halloran, a New York City councilman from Queens with an affinity for libertarians like Republican U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, waded into the crowd and kept people interested in his views on the economy’s failings and the need for markets.

“From what I saw on TV I would have thought that everyone here would be a communist, under 30, never held a job,” he said, describing that media image as cartoonish. He said people with whom he had spoken, including those with whom he disagreed fundamentally, were both eager to work and afraid, not knowing what happened exactly, but insistent that they needed work and that their elected leaders seemed not to care.

Bolding mine.

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2011/10/07/occupy-wall-street/
 
I'm starting to think this movement should be taken seriously. And I mean not dismissing them as "communist hippies who can't find any jobs that will accept their degree in art history". Maybe I'll nip on down to Occupy Spokane and find out for myself?
 
Char. Limit said:
I'm starting to think this movement should be taken seriously. And I mean not dismissing them as "communist hippies who can't find any jobs that will accept their degree in art history". Maybe I'll nip on down to Occupy Spokane and find out for myself?

Right on.

hippie.jpg
 
Char. Limit said:
I'm starting to think this movement should be taken seriously. And I mean not dismissing them as "communist hippies who can't find any jobs that will accept their degree in art history". Maybe I'll nip on down to Occupy Spokane and find out for myself?
Oh, c'mon - today on the radio, I heard two clips:

-One of them chanting "workers of the world, unite" (where have we heard that before?)
-Another of a guy saying he was looking for a job (no you're not)

...and yesterday, it was an interview of a woman who'se dog was wearing a t'shirt that said "down with fat cats"...
 
russ_watters said:
Oh, c'mon - today on the radio, I heard two clips
Do you ever question the radio you listen to ? We know it is not hard to make anything or anybody look foolish.
 
russ_watters said:
Oh, c'mon - today on the radio, I heard two clips:

-One of them chanting "workers of the world, unite" (where have we heard that before?)
-Another of a guy saying he was looking for a job (no you're not)

...and yesterday, it was an interview of a woman who'se dog was wearing a t'shirt that said "down with fat cats"...

humanino said:
Do you ever question the radio you listen to ? We know it is not hard to make anything or anybody look foolish.

Exactly my point in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3548966&postcount=166".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
russ_watters said:
Oh, c'mon - today on the radio, I heard two clips:

-One of them chanting "workers of the world, unite" (where have we heard that before?)
-Another of a guy saying he was looking for a job (no you're not)

...and yesterday, it was an interview of a woman who'se dog was wearing a t'shirt that said "down with fat cats"...

And perhaps the wealthy should learn from this and conclude that too much concentration of wealth is not conducive to stability.
 
mheslep said:
Way back in Ye Olde times most everyone seemed to know that the rational decision path in buying a home came about from i) buying with a payments vs savings ratio that easily carried the home should the income vanish for a year, ii) buying with 20% down so that the chance of the property value falling below the balance due on the loan was small even in disastrous times, and iii) expecting the only "investment value" one got out of a home was the ability to live in it for free for some decades after the note was paid off.

More recently the notion was that one could buy a house with nothing down and with no income on an exploding ARM loan that was acquired for the purpose of flipping the house which was expected to double in value every two years. Even more recently such notions have vanished (poof), but the Ye Olde decision path remains rational.

Why do you think this happened? Do you think people's expectations changed, or do you think the business of mortgage lending changed? When two people sit down in a room, home-buyer and mortgage lender, to negotiate a mortgage only one of those people is claiming to be an expert. Which one?
 
humanino said:
Do you ever question the radio you listen to ? We know it is not hard to make anything or anybody look foolish.
The interviews of individuals, maybe, but with an entire group chanting, it's a little tougher to cherry-pick.

Besides, which: what is the basis for the idea that we should take them seriously? How is it any better?
 
russ_watters said:
what is the basis for the idea that we should take them seriously?
How stupid would it be to talk about them for 11 pages otherwise ? Either your radio is a serious news organization reporting worthy events, hence you quote it here; or your radio wastes your time with useless hippy slogans, in which case you should question the media you listen to.
 
Char. Limit said:
I'm starting to think this movement should be taken seriously. And I mean not dismissing them as "communist hippies who can't find any jobs that will accept their degree in art history". Maybe I'll nip on down to Occupy Spokane and find out for myself?

I hope it is taken very seriously. Maybe there was no "central message" from that list, but the gist of it, I think, is correct.

Personally, I think the main central message of Occupy Wall Street is that we don't have a shortage of resources. But we do have a shortage of jobs.

I'd like to suggest that we open up the topic of Bastiat's "Broken Window Fallacy."

In particular, how is this argument being used to trick Republican voters into voting against their pocketbook and the country's economic health?

For instance, is the government spending on education, scientific research, post offices, high-speed rail, maintenance on roads and infrastructure, building new infrastructure, museums, parks, stadiums, etc, being cast as "breaking windows?" or are they classified as "earmarks?"

I should also put the bailouts on that list. The question then becomes. "When the window breaks, should the shopkeeper fix it, should the boy who broke the window fix it, or should he just do without windows, or close up shop?" I mean, it's obvious that breaking windows is not good policy. But what about fixing windows when they do break, (as they inevitably will.) And instead of worrying about whether we're going to replace the window, shouldn't we take that for granted, but worry about replacing the window with something less breakable?

I really can't figure out what Bastiat's stance on breaking windows is. When a boy breaks a window, and the shopkeeper has to pay for the window, and the glazier gets a job for fixing the window. C'est la vie. The glass is broke. The boy can't pay for it. Take it out of his hide. The glazier isn't going to make a new window for free. So what IS the point of this stupid parable? Don't break windows? Duh!
 
Last edited:
I think much of the reason many Democratic politicians support OWS (regardless of whether or not they previously did things in direct opposition to the things being protested) is because the politicians see how effective the Republicans were in utilizing the TEA Party to get elected in 2010, and are hoping to capitalize upon this movement to get reelected in a similar manner.
 
russ_watters said:
Oh, c'mon - today on the radio, I heard two clips:

-One of them chanting "workers of the world, unite" (where have we heard that before?)
-Another of a guy saying he was looking for a job (no you're not)

...and yesterday, it was an interview of a woman who'se dog was wearing a t'shirt that said "down with fat cats"...

I had a post earlier to this effect.

If the "Occupy Wall Street" protest ever had a point, it's long gone now. It's become stale and nonsensical at times. I tried to post some pictures earlier but they got deleted for content and I got an infraction (that should give you a strong indication of how constructive the protests are).

Protests are a FANTASTIC form of civil disobedience, and a great way to promote social change. But, this protest has failed in every way; there is no message and there are no ideas being generated! Seriously, take two seconds out from knee-jerk posting, and look at some of the signs: (http://www.google.com/search?q=occu....,cf.osb&fp=8b758d2393131806&biw=1397&bih=750).

Those pictures are from Google image search. They are the definition of non-partisan. Let's all admit that the protest was a fantastic and incredibly important thing! But that it's way over-ripe now and that the protesters themselves don't have any more answers than anyone else.
 
gravenewworld said:
Seriously, what is your fixation with President Obama and Clinton? Where have I ever mentioned any of them in my posts? The Wall Street protests transcend partisan politics and address the fundamental issue that is a plague and scourge on our society-special interest group's money running our government. The US hasn't been a democracy for a while and has been transformed into a plutocracy through shady backdoor mechanisms and big businesses running things by having politicians in their pockets (both dems and repubs!). We live under a facade of freedom, a Potemkin Village of democracy. This needs to go beyond Occupying Wall Street, this needs to be an Occupy America movement. I want my country back.

What exactly are we supposed to do when the level of corruption and conflicts of interest go to the level of complexity and depth like the example I provided in the Goldman Sachs and eToys case? They own the ENTIRE system from top to bottom. The system has started to fall apart, our country now faces huge deficits, high unemployment, and a very bleak outlook. Exactly where was the government BEFORE the meltdown happened? Why weren't they monitoring the activities on the derivatives market? Where was the government BEFORE companies like Enron melted down? Why did the government allows big banks 19 exemptions from hedging rules over the past 20 years that allowed them to increase their odds of being able to manipulate commodities markets? The government was no where to be found because the head hanchos running the agencies that were supposed to be monitoring big business have people running them that used to work for the very companies they are supposed to be reprimanding and regulating. It's ridiculous and I'm glad the American public finally woke up. It's about time we started a movement like Iceland did after their corrupt banking system put their country on the verge of collapse.

There's an old saying "be careful what you wish for as it just might come true". I'm not hearing any serious solutions to fix problems. "Revolution" doesn't guarantee positive change - total collapse MAYBE - what are the stated goals of this movement? What is the plan to achieve these goals?
 
FlexGunship said:
take two seconds out from knee-jerk posting, and look at some of the signs
I did and I did not find the majority of them "stupid"

I think there are few people as qualified as Elizabeth Warren to know what she is talking about here
 
Last edited by a moderator: