# Please tell me someone on here has heard about "OCCUPY WALLSTREET"



## Fabrizi0

This thing is huge. its happening now in NYC. No major broadcasting station has done a single report on it. Ive told all my friends and none of them have seen whats going on.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Yeah I've heard about it, lot of police brutality going on it seems.


----------



## Fabrizi0

Thats good to hear. Just reading up on all the nonsense on corporations actually controlling congress more than the people. I want to do something but the only thing i could think of was share it on a guitar forum.


----------



## ZEBOV

I saw something about it in the P&CE section of SSO, but I try to stay away from such topics. I didn't read anything about it.
I see a lot of pressure building up over people getting angry at corrupt government/greedy corporations, like a volcano getting ready to blow up. I hope it doesn't just explode uncontrollably like it has in other parts of the world.


----------



## renzoip

Yes, I've been following it in the new. I support them!


----------



## The Munk

Yeah, it is a very under covered event.


----------



## pink freud

But, but, the mainstream media has a _liberal bias!!!_


----------



## renzoip

pink freud said:


> But, but, the mainstream media has a _liberal bias!!!_



Maybe... but if anything, they are more interested in "establishment" liberals. These people seem a bit more progressive than Obama and Pelosi.

I'm sure if this would have been a tea party rally, it would have gotten more coverage, and police would have acted in a more rational manner.


----------



## pink freud

renzoip said:


> Maybe... but if anything, they are more interested in "establishment" liberals. These people seem a bit more progressive than Obama and Pelosi.
> 
> I'm sure if this would have been a tea party rally, it would have gotten more coverage, and police would have acted in a more rational manner.



I was being entirely facetious. There is one, _maybe _two, actual liberals in the elected government. And the President is not one of them. Or perhaps he wishes he was but can't seem to pull it off...


----------



## The Reverend

HOLY SHIT. I didn't know this happened, at all. 

Just goes to show how dependent people can be on mainstream media, and how sad that dependency is.


----------



## Explorer

I've been following this, and I haven't really seen much of substance emerge. Could someone state succinctly what the protesters are protestings, beyond "corruption" and "lack of jobs?" 

The reason I'm asking is because it seems rather unfocused. If someone protests outside of Walmart, saying that they are unfair to women or minorities, then I get it. You're protesting in front of the business you feel is in the wrong.

To protest in front of your local bank because you don't agree with international banking principles, though, seems a little misguided. Similarly, to protest "corporate greed" without actually offering examples of the specific corporations, much less picketing those actual companies and their management, seems a little weak. 

Anyway, I'm hoping someone can clarify what exactly is going on. That clarification could wind up being, "Even the protesters have no idea what specifically they want to accomplish, and they're just fodder for pictures to be posted on the website _Look at This Fucking Hipster_."

Whatever the case, I jam just hoping that something coherent emerges soon....


----------



## rythmic_pulses

This Wall Street stuff has been going on for years, every time a riot or protest goes down there the Police respond with Police Brutality and arrest people for absolutely no reason and the Stock Exchange remains intact, I don't think this issue will ever be resolved if the protesters start getting violent and start shouting at the Police like that, This isn't a case of Corruption at all it is just that the U.S government is at an all time low with this insane amount of debt and everyone else is pretty much paying the price, it isn't just the U.S, it is the entire world that is unfortunately screwed.


----------



## renzoip

pink freud said:


> I was being entirely facetious. There is one, _maybe _two, actual liberals in the elected government. And the President is not one of them. Or perhaps he wishes he was but can't seem to pull it off...




My bad!


----------



## Fabrizi0

Explorer said:


> I've been following this, and I haven't really seen much of substance emerge. Could someone state succinctly what the protesters are protestings, beyond "corruption" and "lack of jobs?"
> 
> The reason I'm asking is because it seems rather unfocused. If someone protests outside of Walmart, saying that they are unfair to women or minorities, then I get it. You're protesting in front of the business you feel is in the wrong.
> 
> To protest in front of your local bank because you don't agree with international banking principles, though, seems a little misguided. Similarly, to protest "corporate greed" without actually offering examples of the specific corporations, much less picketing those actual companies and their management, seems a little weak.
> 
> Anyway, I'm hoping someone can clarify what exactly is going on. That clarification could wind up being, "Even the protesters have no idea what specifically they want to accomplish, and they're just fodder for pictures to be posted on the website _Look at This Fucking Hipster_."
> 
> Whatever the case, I jam just hoping that something coherent emerges soon....


What it boils down is this. The Government can take in money from these corporations to help promote whoever candidate they choose. What happens in effect is congress tends to vote in their favor. Whether it be tax cuts for the super rich or something as huge as the bailing out of huge banks who were about to fail back in 2008 with tax money paid by the working class of america. And its just a huge snowball effect of debt that just makes the 99% pay the consequences. Im sure there is more fucked up bullshit going on, but either way its corrupt as corrupt can be.

The Fed Audit - Newsroom: Bernie Sanders - U.S. Senator for Vermont

Occupy Wall Street | Facebook


----------



## Demiurge

Fabrizi0 said:


> What it boils down is this. The Government can take in money from *these corporations* to help promote whoever candidate they choose. What happens in effect is congress tends to vote in their favor. Whether it be tax cuts for the super rich or something as huge as the bailing out of huge banks who were about to fail back in 2008 with tax money paid by the working class of america. And its just a huge snowball effect of debt that just makes the 99% pay the consequences. *Im sure there is more fucked up bullshit going on*, but either way its corrupt as corrupt can be.



Quoted with emphasis added, actually helps Explorer's point. The problem is when people kvetch about "corporations" and "corruption" as blanket terms, it's ultimately unhelpful for the cause. Name names. Identify and discuss causes. Acting like everything within the boundaries of Wall Street is the core of all evil is unhelpful. 

Also, it should be added that anyone can donate money to a politician- even private citizens, and anybody can invest money in securities. Those two points seem to go unacknowledged.


----------



## Fabrizi0

Maybe this guy can anwser you better than i can. i dont know everything, i really dont.
something is just not right.


----------



## troyguitar

Demiurge said:


> Acting like everything within the boundaries of Wall Street is the core of all evil is unhelpful.



What if it's true?


----------



## Explorer

Assuming it's true... then be specific. If there are specific corrupt things happening, then be specific.

If they were, then the hipsters who selected the footage for youtube managed to avoid it. That's probably a factor as to why they can't find jobs in the news editing business. *laugh*


----------



## Demiurge

troyguitar said:


> What if it's true?



What if the sky is green? What is the accuseds' responsibility in pacifying every single criticism made against them? These people are holding the whole financial system in contempt when in truth there might be some (hey, maybe many) bad apples. The problem is, if you don't name names and you make glib, blanket generalizations, you come off at best a protestor-for-the-sake-of-protesting or at worst a know-nothing just as bad as the people who are allegedly part of the alleged problem.

There is nothing wrong on calling out companies that could be said to have wronged the general citizenship, but there needs to be more to it than an empty protest. For example, there's a company up in my state that took state money (lent-out with the expectation that the money would be used to grow the business in the state and maintain jobs), and that company instead used the money to help set up a factory in China that within a few months will host all of the jobs that the state-side company once held. Almost a thousand people out of jobs, assisted by the company manipulating the system; sure, they'll pay back the money but they already got their nut. Didn't happen on Wall Street. I don't see any of these protestors up here to address a very-much-tangible instance of betraying the citizenship- no, just a bunch of people pulling-down the low hanging fruit, shrieking generalizations hundreds of miles away from where the actual carnage is happening.


----------



## Setnakt

What if journalists have been explaining this situation for years?

Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail? | Politics News | Rolling Stone


----------



## avenger

About time people stood up for themselves. Maybe they don't know every detail of what's wrong with the system but they know something is horrible wrong and they are standing up saying enough is enough.


----------



## UnderTheSign

There was some coverage on this on the Dutch news. I remember some random guy running into a group of policemen, trying to grab a policeman mounted on a horse... When the guy got taken down, people were screaming "POLICE BRUTALITY!" all over the place. What? 



> Maybe they don't know every detail of what's wrong with the system but they know something is horrible wrong and they are standing up saying enough is enough.


I'd rather see them actually read up about what they're protesting for before they run to the streets just to act rebellious. I'm not up to date on this at all so can't provide an opinion on the situation, but protesting against the banks "just because... Ehmmm, I think they did something evil!" is nonsensical.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Fabrizi0 said:


> No major broadcasting station has done a single report on it.


 
I'm a bit skeptical of that. I knew about it, and I don't go out of my way at all to get the news.


----------



## Xaios

I find it interesting, but the thing that escapes me is what any of these protesters actually expect accomplish. Do they somehow expect to uncover corruption simply by standing around and waving signs? Something tells me that, if Wall Steet IS guilty of the... vagaries that they're being accused of, they'll probably be able to hold out longer than the protesters. Not to mention, these things traditionally don't stay static. It'll either erupt into violence and people will only remember it for its negative connotations, or it will simply peter out and people won't remember it at all.

The other questions is: how many of these people are living on social assistance because they're not working? It seems kind of hypocritical to stand around accusing Wall Street of corruption whilst simultaneously sucking the teet of the State when you could be out actually looking for employment.


----------



## Xaios

Doublage Postage.


----------



## The Reverend

Xaios said:


> I find it interesting, but the thing that escapes me is what any of these protesters actually expect accomplish. Do they somehow expect to uncover corruption simply by standing around and waving signs? Something tells me that, if Wall Steet IS guilty of the... vagaries that they're being accused of, they'll probably be able to hold out longer than the protesters. Not to mention, these things traditionally don't stay static. It'll either erupt into violence and people will only remember it for its negative connotations, or it will simply peter out and people won't remember it at all.
> 
> The other questions is: how many of these people are living on social assistance because they're not working? It seems kind of hypocritical to stand around accusing Wall Street of corruption whilst simultaneously sucking the teet of the State when you could be out actually looking for employment.



I think the thought process is mostly to get the attention of as many as people as possible, and to get the common man to stop and ask, "What inherent ability do these people possess that I don't?"


----------



## Xaios

The Reverend said:


> I think the thought process is mostly to get the attention of as many as people as possible, and to get the common man to stop and ask, "What inherent ability do these people possess that I don't?"



That could very well be, but if that's the case, isn't "life's not fair" simply the most viable argument? It certainly wouldn't be the first time in history that two equally qualified people have ended up in entirely different living situations.


----------



## The Reverend

Xaios said:


> That could very well be, but if that's the case, isn't "life's not fair" simply the most viable argument? It certainly wouldn't be the first time in history that two equally qualified people have ended up in entirely different living situations.




Well the question serves as a perspective checker. You see that they _generally_ aren't doing anything you're not capable of doing, and you wonder how they got to that position of power and wealth. Then you see that it's over the bodies of dead children in diamond mines and whole indigenous populations being wiped out for logging interests, and you say, "Hey, is there a limit to how far we can go in pursuit of profit?"

I agree with you that being well-informed trumps acting out, but a wake-up call is almost as good.


----------



## Setnakt

Xaios said:


> I find it interesting, but the thing that escapes me is what any of these protesters actually expect accomplish. Do they somehow expect to uncover corruption simply by standing around and waving signs?


This is no different from any other kind of protest then. We usually don't hear these kinds of criticisms about them.



> Something tells me that, if Wall Steet IS guilty of the... vagaries that they're being accused of, they'll probably be able to hold out longer than the protesters.


If by "vagueries" you mean "destroying and stealing billions of dollars in wealth" and "insider trading and bribing law enforcement officials," then maybe you're right. So what?



> Not to mention, these things traditionally don't stay static. It'll either erupt into violence and people will only remember it for its negative connotations, or it will simply peter out and people won't remember it at all.


Oh, so they're just supposed to keep their heads down and not respond to having their lifestyles destroyed by the wealthiest people in history?



> The other questions is: how many of these people are living on social assistance because they're not working? It seems kind of hypocritical to stand around accusing Wall Street of corruption whilst simultaneously sucking the teet of the State when you could be out actually looking for employment.


Yes, I guess they are. Way to go, ignoring the biggest thieves in world history and blaming their victims for having the nerve to be upset about them. How pathetic they are for having the nerve to spend any of their valuable job-searching time after 3 years trying to actually address the cause of their own unemployment.


----------



## ZEBOV

The protests were on CNN yesterday. I'm surprised CNN wasn't bashing them saying they were a bunch of idiots protesting without a particular goal set to achieve.


----------



## Explorer

The Reverend said:


> Well the question serves as a perspective checker. You see that they _generally_ aren't doing anything you're not capable of doing, and you wonder how they got to that position of power and wealth.



Okay, so I've commented before on how great my workplace is.

Here's what's funny: I'm considered to be a pretty bright guy. I know I'm intelligent.

My CEO and CFO are brilliant in different ways. As a team, they've managed to create sustainable growth. They've managed to keep us in the black even during the recession. We managed to avoid laying anyone off. We've given wage increases to where we're more than competitive in our industry. 

It's amazing being in discussions with them and to hear them bring something up which just completely blindsides me, and which is amazingly effective. 

So, when people don't believe that there is ever any effort in making a successful business run, I think of my CEO and CFO, and of how shrewd, intelligent and resourceful they are... and I have to call bullshit on that.

We're not breaking laws. We're the greenest company of our kind. Our sustained growth over the last 11 years corresponds to the time we've had our current CEO and CFO. 

In the same way I don't think a lot of people understand what it is to work in the sciences, or to be a good cop, I don't think a lot of people understand what it is to work at the upper levels of management.

And so, because they don't know, they think they're just as capable as those who trained to do all those jobs, and play Monday morning quarterback, without really having a clue. 

Just some thoughts....


----------



## Setnakt

It sounds like, even in your own words, your company is pretty unique. This means your observations cannot necessarily be carried over to most other firms.

The businesses in question here are the financial firms anyways. And I don't think anyone on the planet thinks that Tim Geithner is a "bright" guy, not to mention any of the other successful Wall Street tools.


----------



## Xaios

Setnakt said:


> This is no different from any other kind of protest then. We usually don't hear these kinds of criticisms about them.



Or maybe you just haven't been listening. For my part, I've yet to see a protest in a western country in the past 10 years that's amounted to more than "Wah, I'm mad about something! Listen to me whine!"



Setnakt said:


> If by "vagueries" you mean "destroying and stealing billions of dollars in wealth" and "insider trading and bribing law enforcement officials," then maybe you're right. So what?



Again, the proof in the pudding. So far, nearly all the accusations are based on "well it looks wrong to me, so it must be wrong."  No one on the outside seems to be able to give any concrete reasoning. Does corruption exist? Oh, probably. But these protestors are painting the entire institution of Wall Street with the same brush, when the actual misdeeds are probably restricted to a select few. It's akin to blaming an entire religion for the actions of one fundamentalist zealot nutjob. A few bad apples spoils the barrel, eh?



Setnakt said:


> Oh, so they're just supposed to keep their heads down and not respond to having their lifestyles destroyed by the wealthiest people in history?



Again, you keep saying "this is how it is," while failing to present any real proof of this widespread corruption you keep going on about. It seems to fly right over your head that most of the people who've become wealthy on Wall Street are *really fucking smart*. They know how to use their wealth and where to put their money in order for it to work for them. And even then, plenty of princes have been turned into paupers with all the financial crises of the past few years.



Setnakt said:


> Yes, I guess they are. Way to go, ignoring the biggest thieves in world history and blaming their victims for having the nerve to be upset about them. How pathetic they are for having the nerve to spend any of their valuable job-searching time after 3 years trying to actually address the cause of their own unemployment.



Ever seen the movie "Other People's Money?" It's not a great movie by any means (heck, it's hardly a good movie), but considering it came out in 1991, it was practically prophetic. It's about a factory that's under the threat of takeover and immediate liquidation. It spends most of its running time making you feel bad for Joe Average who's about to lose his job when the factory closes it's door and will be unable to feed his family, while painting Mr Stuffed Suit as the bad guy, which he ostensibly is. Near the end though, it does a face heel turn and points out that, during all the years in which employees have been demanding higher salaries and making more and more, the value of the stocks who's income pays their wages has remained static. Ultimately, it makes a very compelling point: why should the investors and venture capitalists be forced to foot the bill when an industry goes belly-up? They shouldn't. Ultimately, if they don't like what they're seeing, they can take their ball and go home.

The point is two-fold: the people with the money are the people with the power. If you can't prove to them that you're going to make THEM a boatload of money, they're well within their rights to pull the rug out from under you. And even if you are making them money, they're still within their rights to pull their funding if they can find a way to make that money grow faster, so be vigilant. Be aware of the conditions surrounding your industry and don't wait until you're out of a job to nurture other options.

The second is that many of the people who are out of work simply do not have marketable skills in this current day and age, which means they're ultimately useless as they are unless they want to do manual labor. Guess what? I went through this myself. I went through college to get into computer science and then discovered that I couldn't get a decent job in the field. I still take a few small jobs on the side now and then, but I work in a completely different industry now. It sucks to go through that process, but that's just life. It shouldn't come as a surprise either. It's been a well known fact for a long time now that most people will have 5 to 7 different careers in their lifetime.


----------



## Loomer

Well, speaking as a European, I can only say that I'm glad to see someone actually going against drawing attention towards the fact that completely unchecked, ruthless capitalism isn't necessarily such a good idea. Now, I am a capitalist at heart, but I still believe that leaving heartless plutocrats at the top of the litter can only lead to the downfall of the rest of society. 

Viewing the situation in the US from an outward perspective is profoundly depressing, along with the greeks. The way the middle class has disappeared more or less entirely, to make room for a staggering divide between the poor, the mildly impoverished and the ludicrously rich is a seriously scary thing to behold. Especially when one considers how the media handles it, and how much smokescreening there's going on to divert attention from the real problems.

And the worst part is... Us "rest of the world"-people will be affected by it too, negatively.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

These protests are a bunch of angry jobless left wing scum, deport them to siberia where they belong 










Just kidding, but really I think this whole thing should have established clearer goals beforehand.


----------



## Loomer

It seems to me the clearest goal is just to get the common man and society at large to actually cast a critical eye on Wall Street, and what's being done there, rather than just ignoring it. That can only be positive in my book, and I don't think really think you need a better reason than that. 

Protests are just as effective for raising awareness, and the police crackdowns and media non-coverage to me just smell a little funny. Maybe this is an issue certain people don't want the population at large to think about.


----------



## Demiurge

Xaios said:


> The other questions is: how many of these people are living on social assistance because they're not working? It seems kind of hypocritical to stand around accusing Wall Street of corruption whilst simultaneously sucking the teet of the State when you could be out actually looking for employment.



Bingo. And how is it that the government is able to pay for social assistance when they're disgustingly over-budget? Selling bonds, securities that are traded where? Wall Street! And working members of my generation will not have Social Security when we retire so we'll have to rely on our own investments in securities that are traded where? Wall Street!

Maybe there is a tragedy to be spun out of that reality, but it doesn't appear to be the topic of this protest.


----------



## renzoip

I've heard that Occupy Miami is starting Oct 15 here in FL!


----------



## Setnakt

I'm just deaf, everyone in the western hemisphere is a whiny scumbag and should accept whatever they're given, fraud isn't fraud if it makes you enough money, everyone can and should do what has worked for one middle-class American regardless of other circumstances, unemployed people should never be seen in public until a job magically materializes for them (and not the millions of other unemployed people), might(/money) makes right (and intellect), and money launderers are the smartest people on the planet.


----------



## murakami

we are sitting on a powder keg.

check out this vid. very well spoken view of how this shit is going down




despite a lot of the losers we see in this protest e.g. the dumbass woman who're topless claiming they're too poor to purchase a shirt(the point they're getting across is respectable, however, their action to express is WHY a lot of us do not respect or even care for the protest) they're people who have a legitimate concern for the economy because it involves all of us really.


----------



## pink freud

Stealthtastic said:


> Just kidding, but really I think this whole thing should have established clearer goals beforehand.



What we are seeing is the result of a pacified society that is discontent with the current paradigm. They know something is wrong, know generally what they want changed but are entirely clueless as to what methods they need to use to accomplish their goals. The ecopolitical relationship is too big and self-perpetuating to be brought down by mere protesting. There are two options: Violence or a keeping the current paradigm, albeit a bit more jaded and self-interested. This is a change that won't come through peaceful means.


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ

Until we see some Project Mayhem-style shit combined with an old-school general strike, nothing will change. Fat chance of either of those happening in the USA. There are far too many false memes clogging the collective consciousness (and a staggering lack of critical thinking) for the general population to be able to accept reality.


----------



## chimp_spanner

I think there's a risk that the real argument/message could get swallowed up by a class war. I'm seeing a lot of vitriol aimed at 'rich people' like they're just one type of person now. Even I don't think that, and I pretty much despise money. Still, within the framework we have to live and work in, I can appreciate that a skilled, resourceful manager or CEO can really make a difference if they know what they're doing. So I certainly don't begrudge anyone for being well rewarded for having shit loads of responsibility (even if the work they do is perceived to be easier than that which people below them do).

The real focus of the protests is/should be taking the money out of politics. It's not ALL rich people that are dangerous and reckless. It's a very small number of incredibly powerful individuals who are able to buy politicians to do things like scrap environmental regulations to save money on anti pollution measures, or strip away financial regulation so they can take bigger risks with our money. That's the stuff that makes me mad. I've no desire to have as much money as these people. I'm quite happy for clever, responsible individuals to build successful businesses that create jobs and new products and services.

But for some, that's just not enough. They'll subvert our democracy and risk pollution, war, death, financial collapse just to line their pockets. And as long as the system enables this to happen, it'll keep happening.

Taking away the corporation's status as a person would go a long way to doing this. Either that, or apply the same rules to the 'person' as they would to any of us. Fraud = jail. Death by willful negligence = jail (or death depending where you are in the States  ).

If the Occupy Wallstreet movement can really bring as much attention as they can to that aspect of the argument, maybe we can start to have some real discussion!

Maybe.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Michael Moore may be a bit of a tool, but fuck, top marks for caring.


----------



## vampiregenocide

They may lack direction, they may be made up of clueless kids who don't really know what they're doing but join in to look cool, however events like this are important in this day and age. They push buttons and provoke reactions, and that is important for both society and governments to test their boundaries. It also sheds light on how protesting and the public are dealt with in these events. We've seen a fair few cases of police brutality and false arrests, which add more evidence to the claim that there is corruption that needs to be dealt with. Ironically, while the police acted out of paranoia and tried to keep these people quiet, the fact they have made these arrests and poor judgements has only highlighted the protests even more.

The problem is the political and social issues that people are frustrated with here are so huge and integral to society, that it's difficult to know how to approach them, especially considering the vast majority of the public don't really understand what is going on. It's all above our heads, and that is why governments and corporations can get away with what they do. Unless people know what they're uniting and protesting against, it's merely a statement of 'erm...I'm angry about stuff!'.


----------



## USMarine75

Setnakt said:


> What if journalists have been explaining this situation for years?
> 
> Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail? | Politics News | Rolling Stone


 
I had a feeling this was a Matt Taibbi article before I even clicked on it. 

+1

("The Great Derangement" is a phenomenal book.)

Taibbi on the 'Occupy Wall Street' Protests | Lauren Lipsay | Rolling Stone

'Occupy Wall Street': Drawing the Battle Lines | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone


----------



## Sofos

Via PCMag:


> Anonymous declared "war" on the New York Stock Exchange this weekend and vowed to "erase" the NYSE from the Internet on Oct. 10 as the Occupy Wall Street protest entered its third week in New York City after a weekend that saw hundreds of protesters arrested during a planned march across the Brooklyn Bridge.
> 
> "On Oct. 10, NYSE shall be erased from the Internet. On Oct. 10, expect a day that will never, ever be forgotten," intoned a computer-generated male voice common to many Anonymous videos, in a warning posted on TheAnonMessage YouTube channel (video below).
> 
> The AnonMessage channel has been used to post several Occupy Wall Street-related video messages since the protest against lax regulation of the financial sector and growing economic inequality began on Sept. 17. Those messages include Anonymous' initial "official" video regarding Occupy Wall Street and a warning sent last week to the New York Police Department that threatened retaliation if "the brutality does not stop" against Occupy Wall Street protestors.
> 
> Anonymous, until recently known mostly for wreaking havoc on the Internet through blunt-force takedowns of websites and opportunistic hacking attacks, has lent its help to low-tech street protests of late. Prior to its participation in Occupy Wall Street, the initiation of which is credited to the Canadian activist group Adbusters, Anonymous also had a large role in a string of live protests against actions taken by the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) authority's police force.
> 
> The threat to "erase" the NYSE from the Internet was not explained, though in comments on the YouTube video, some speculated that Anonymous was planning a Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) attack on the public-facing NYSE.com website, similar to DDoS attacks the group has used to take down websites in the past.
> 
> Others felt that would only be a minor setback for the NYSE and guessed that Anonymous was planning a larger attack, perhaps even an attempt to actually disable trading on the exchange.


----------



## Demiurge

Wow, you know you're onto something with regard to rhetorical accuracy when Anonymous jumps on the pig pile. 

Great way to protest the big baddies by destroying a forum that is also used by honest citizens to invest and for smaller companies to do business. 

10 minutes on Google, and you'll find the names of the companies that took bailouts, the brokers that sold the mortgages that people couldn't afford, the banks that sold toxic mortgages as securities and the rating agencies that looked the other way and over-rated them, and the other banks that created bets against those securities that profited while everyone else was plundered. But no- it looks cooler to say that you want to "shut down Wall Street" and to "erase" the NY Stock Exchange; it sounds ambitious and sanctimonious, but it's ultimately empty and will do little to fix anything. We're sick of politicians' empty grandstanding, so shouldn't activists be ready to do better?


----------



## Michael T

All this sounds like some V for Vendetta stuff. 

"The only verdict is vengeance, a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain." 

"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."


----------



## Explorer

Regarding my company, a lot of us did come from other places... but the point is, we were all over the place, and there are more people like us at other companies. 

I just can't rule out there being intelligent people who are in business, and that there are intelligent people who have studied business in order to excel in the field. To say that a few people typify upper management, and to naively believe that one understands how to successfully run a company, is like those people who play Call of Duty and who then believe they understand how to successfully engage in a firefight... or, even better, avoid that firefight entirely. 

----

It's not such a good thing when a group takes action which could wipe out the money of an average citizen, but for me, Anonymous crossed the line a while ago. I wonder if any civil lawsuits will be filed against any of the members, should they cause a person to lose money. 

I'm glad my mom isn't at risk from their vandalism. She would have a hard time recovering from something like that, assuming she could....


----------



## Xaios

Michael T said:


> All this sounds like some V for Vendetta stuff.
> 
> "The only verdict is vengeance, a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain."
> 
> "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."



That movie makes me facepalm until my skull fractures.


----------



## Alimination

Yeah I've been followin it. I know there has been frequent protests in the past, but this appears to be the largest and longest one so far. Media couldn't ignore it further I guess.

It's about time America


----------



## Scar Symmetry

brutalwizard said:


> i think were all seeing this from a poor person's point of view haha.
> 
> if any of you were given millions, i cant imagine you would let anyone take if from you, for any reason at all.
> 
> i would love to see your decision between helping people you don't know, get jobs.
> 
> or opening your own ibby custom shop specifically to make guitars for yourself



Most astute. You have to remember that a lot of those in Wall Street/Government (same thing) feel that they have worked hard to earn what they now have. Ever seen Inside Job? I highly recommend it.


----------



## Daggorath

brutalwizard said:


> i think were all seeing this from a poor person's point of view haha.
> 
> if any of you were given millions, i cant imagine you would let anyone take if from you, for any reason at all.
> 
> i would love to see your decision between helping people you don't know, get jobs.
> 
> or opening your own ibby custom shop specifically to make guitars for yourself



It depends whether you'd rather drive the latest sports car or help your fellow man, people that have arbitrarily been dealt a worse hand than yourself. Why should there be such waste and decadence in this world, yet so much poverty and suffering? People who feel justified in their wealth are either ignorant of the suffering, or just don't care. In this case, ignorance is no excuse. But y'know, bad people are bad. People lie to themselves and keep their distance/ignorance in some matters consciously because they'll be happier that way. Ignorance is bliss, n' all that.


----------



## murakami

Daggorath said:


> It depends whether you'd rather drive the latest sports car or help your fellow man, people that have arbitrarily been dealt a worse hand than yourself. Why should there be such waste and decadence in this world, yet so much poverty and suffering? People who feel justified in their wealth are either ignorant of the suffering, or just don't care. In this case, ignorance is no excuse. But y'know, bad people are bad. People lie to themselves and keep their distance/ignorance in some matters consciously because they'll be happier that way. Ignorance is bliss, n' all that.


 

awesome post.

i think it just depends on your character though. i mean, the people who are after money and are poor are pretty transparent. the people who are after money and then get money pretty much still have the same attitude; e.g. wanting more, greed etc...

if you want an example, look at the chinese. there is soooo many rich people there and even more poor. apparently the middle class over there are still fucking millionaires.... it's ridiuclous. (please don't take offence to this comment, but this is a huge problem over there and it's quite sickening to be honest for so many people to be suffering and the other half to live a gluttonous life)

i used to give food and money to people on the street but they just don't give a shit about anyone but themselves so i started giving food to the food bank. i mean, i make descent money and all i seem to be doing is buying fucking amp after amp and i am not even that good... ~ i think we should all sort of chip in it. i don't want to volunteer because my wife just drains me of energy making me do shit i dont even want to do, so the least i can do is donate food since i am such a lazy ass.

i will never donate money anymore though; i have no idea where the fuck it's going. i'd donate 200 dollars worth of grocery a month than give any money to the red cross. fucking scamming pieces of shit.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

I'm sure if you do your research it wouldn't be all that hard to find a worthwhile charity that lets you know exactly where the money is going. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are companies/websites whose sole purpose is to evaluate charities based on financial transparency and stuff like that. Just look around, duderpants.


----------



## Daggorath

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'm sure if you do your research it wouldn't be all that hard to find a worthwhile charity that lets you know exactly where the money is going. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure there are companies/websites whose sole purpose is to evaluate charities based on financial transparency and stuff like that. Just look around, duderpants.



This ^

I hear this attitude of "I don't know where my moneys going" quite regularly. But just because there are bad charities, doesn't mean charity is bad. It's like saying just because someone got hurt in a car accident, then auto-mobiles in general are bad. You have to put the research in, and really make sure your money is going to those who need it most. Whether that be mosquito nets, which stop malaria in Africa, or Amnesty and the fight to give every man a voice and basic human rights. In a world where business has no honest eye on ethics, it's down to individuals to sacrifice.

Not that I'm some smarmy do-gooder who goes without everything as an example. There's nothing wrong with enjoying things, it's just when there are people that take it to extremes, and dip their hands in blood to do so.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Daggorath said:


> Not that I'm some smarmy do-gooder who goes without everything as an example. There's nothing wrong with enjoying things, it's just when there are people that take it to extremes, and dip their hands in blood to do so.


 
Yeah, it sucks that not everyone cares enough to do anything. It's also annoying that some people don't quite realize that different people choose to help in different ways or to different degrees. A person might still spend plenty of money on keeping himself entertained, but even dropping a bag of toys off at Toys for Tots every Christmas is better than nothing at all.

When I was in the military, a coworker called me out for never going to any of the volunteer events that the Navy set up in the community, which pissed me off a bit because I had a portion of my paycheck set up to automatically withdraw a percentage every month and send it to a charity I had chosen. To her, "Money you can get back, but time volunteering is a real sacrifice!" Because I didn't spend any time earning that money, apparently.

Grumblegrumblegrumble. Dif'rent strokes, and all that.


----------



## murakami

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Yeah, it sucks that not everyone cares enough to do anything. It's also annoying that some people don't quite realize that different people choose to help in different ways or to different degrees. A person might still spend plenty of money on keeping himself entertained, but even dropping a bag of toys off at Toys for Tots every Christmas is better than nothing at all.
> 
> When I was in the military, a coworker called me out for never going to any of the volunteer events that the Navy set up in the community, which pissed me off a bit because I had a portion of my paycheck set up to automatically withdraw a percentage every month and send it to a charity I had chosen. To her, "Money you can get back, but time volunteering is a real sacrifice!" Because I didn't spend any time earning that money, apparently.
> 
> Grumblegrumblegrumble. Dif'rent strokes, and all that.


 

yeah, i dont like that condescending attitude people give others when they feel they're doing more. we all have lives but if we do something for others in our own way, i think it makes up for it. only if everyone does their share i mean, it will be a world of a difference.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

i really hope i dont get negged for this. but my feelings of Occupy Wall Street have essentially been this "what the hell are they protesting exactly?" i keep searching but i have yet to come across a good solid argument that isn't painted with a broad brush. are they protesting investment bankers? investment firms? venture capitalists like Bloomberg? the small investors (like myself)? because that all makes up Wall Street... 

then i found this Who Is Behind Occupy Wall Street? - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast they folks behind ADBUSTERS apparently registered Occupy Wall Street back in June. 

then there's adbuster's anti-Semitic angle Follow Up To The Adbusters Warsaw Ghetto-Gaza Photo Essay | The Propagandist which now makes more sense why i keep "jews run the country" drek from Occupy supporters 

im sorry if i can't take this seriously anymore


----------



## murakami

Ibanezsam4 said:


> i really hope i dont get negged for this. but my feelings of Occupy Wall Street have essentially been this "what the hell are they protesting exactly?" i keep searching but i have yet to come across a good solid argument that isn't painted with a broad brush. are they protesting investment bankers? investment firms? venture capitalists like Bloomberg? the small investors (like myself)? because that all makes up Wall Street...
> 
> then i found this Who Is Behind Occupy Wall Street? - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast they folks behind ADBUSTERS apparently registered Occupy Wall Street back in June.
> 
> then there's adbuster's anti-Semitic angle Follow Up To The Adbusters Warsaw Ghetto-Gaza Photo Essay | The Propagandist which now makes more sense why i keep "jews run the country" drek from Occupy supporters
> 
> im sorry if i can't take this seriously anymore


 

haha, i was the same to be honest. there is legitimate reason for them to be there. it's getting to the point where corporate controls government more than the actual people. now a lot of people there are angry at the amount of money that is going towards certain things and not paying off debt.

other people are angry at not having jobs or money. and then there are the people who don't know why they are there, but they're just angry because they don't want to blame themselves for a the short comings of their endeavors. 

and lastly, a lot of peopel are angry of the ponzi scandal.

The Bernard Madoff scandal: what is a Ponzi scheme? - Times Online


----------



## The Reverend

brutalwizard said:


> i think were all seeing this from a poor person's point of view haha.
> 
> if any of you were given millions, i cant imagine you would let anyone take if from you, for any reason at all.
> 
> i would love to see your decision between helping people you don't know, get jobs.
> 
> or opening your own ibby custom shop specifically to make guitars for yourself



I hate this post. Have none of you ever helped someone out? I'm assuming we're all fairly broke, and I'm sure if I asked, each of you would have a story about helping someone in need, regardless of the fact that it wasn't financially practical.

The 1% could do that, too. 

We're not talking about the small business owners who got lucky. We're talking about the CEOs of companies who fuck shit up all day everyday to improve the bottom line.


----------



## Guitarman700

The Reverend said:


> I hate this post. Have none of you ever helped someone out? I'm assuming we're all fairly broke, and I'm sure if I asked, each of you would have a story about helping someone in need, regardless of the fact that it wasn't financially practical.
> 
> The 1% could do that, too.
> 
> We're not talking about the small business owners who got lucky. We're talking about the CEOs of companies who fuck shit up all day everyday to improve the bottom line.



Were it not for my volunteer work with Lost Boys, I wouldn't be who I am today. Their stories really opened my eyes to the realities of human suffering, and how fortunate most of us really are.


----------



## Randy

brutalwizard said:


> i think were all seeing this from a poor person's point of view haha.
> 
> if any of you were given millions, i cant imagine you would let anyone take if from you, for any reason at all.
> 
> i would love to see your decision between helping people you don't know, get jobs.
> 
> or opening your own ibby custom shop specifically to make guitars for yourself



The purpose of the government is to provide the "commons", as there are basic things that help everybody or are essential for individuals and industry to survive. At it's most basic, it's streets and police departments and in it's more complex, it's social security, unemployment INSURANCE, educations, etc.

With regard to the "rich" or corporations paying taxes at a rate comparable to (or even above) the middle class, remember that the government and it's commons provided them the ability to make their profit/wealth and those things being in place play a VASTLY larger part in their success than they do in the success of us individually. 

Elizabeth Warren touching on it here 50ish onward)



EDIT: And beyond where she goes here, your factory stays open because your workers (and customers) haven't become ill and died because of rampant disease or infections, so on and so forth. The wealth of a REALLY wealthy individual or of a corporation is much larger than the sum of it's parts.


----------



## ArkaneDemon

...Randy's back?


----------



## Guitarman700

Holy Christ on a cracker....


----------



## The Reverend

Guitarman700 said:


> Holy Christ on a cracker....



And on that note...

There's an Occupy Austin protest going on tomorrow at the city hall here in Austin, Texas, that I will be attending. I'm not happy about Anonymous backing this string of protests (I hesitate to call it a "movement") because I don't respect some of their values or any of their methods, but I intend to show up. 

I've rewritten this post a dozen times, trying to both preemptively answer any questions or refute arguments, and explain why I decided to do this, but it keeps amounting to a novella of text, so I'm going to try to be as concise as possible.

I feel like something's wrong with the financial sector, and those in charge of it, both on the private and governmental side.

I can't change it myself, and this series of protests certainly won't change anything, but if you don't try, what's the point of having the right? Imagine if our founding fathers just didn't give enough of a shit to start raising some shit of their own. We'd all have a regular tea time, and would have a lot more religious freedom, especially among atheists. We'd have cool accents, and Canadian women would want to fuck us. Score.

Even if you feel like I'm just railing out my ingrained sense of entitlement (my generation's a bitch, I know), you have to be able to see that the totally unrestrained capitalism/socialism hybrid we have know is going to implode. The problem is too big to name names, and to point fingers. It's in every business plan, and the motive behind every big corporation: Profit, at any cost. Explorer, I don't think your CEO and CFO are subscribers to that notion. I'm sure they love rolling in their hard-earned pools of gold coins rofl: just kidding), but they are the exact opposite of the kind of institutionalized greed I'm talking about. The American Dream has mutated into lust for wealth unimaginable, at any price, by any means. That's not right.

So that's why I'm going to waste my Thursday evening. I could be BMXing, or playing guitar, or trying to pan-fry steak correctly, but I've decided to stop talking shit about things when I'm drinking with my friends and go to a protest that realistically will have no effect on the problems it's protesting. If only everybody who was dissatisfied with the current way things are would do the same.


----------



## murakami

brutalwizard said:


> well in my town there is not a burger king, because McDonalds pays enough money to the city to make sure one is never permitted to be built.
> its not even a secret haha.
> 
> i guess i can go scream nonsense angrily about how i need some flame broiled goodness, and see if i end up in jail or not.


 

no burger king?! those. mother. fuckers.


----------



## The Reverend

brutalwizard said:


> well in my town there is not a burger king, because McDonalds pays enough money to the city to make sure one is never permitted to be built.
> its not even a secret haha.
> 
> i guess i can go scream nonsense angrily about how i need some flame broiled goodness, and see if i end up in jail or not.



Brother, I will never understand you. 
I can never tell if you're kidding or being serious in your posts! 

I'll tell you this: You need to go get mad about that shit, because while McDonald's will always be my first love, Burger King is the fucking shit, too. If you're lucky, Anon will come back you up by shutting down your city's website.


----------



## Xaios

Randy said:


> The purpose of the government is to provide the "commons", as there are basic things that help everybody or are essential for individuals and industry to survive. At it's most basic, it's streets and police departments and in it's more complex, it's social security, unemployment INSURANCE, educations, etc.
> 
> With regard to the "rich" or corporations paying taxes at a rate comparable to (or even above) the middle class, remember that the government and it's commons provided them the ability to make their profit/wealth and those things being in place play a VASTLY larger part in their success than they do in the success of us individually.
> 
> Elizabeth Warren touching on it here 50ish onward)
> 
> EDIT: And beyond where she goes here, your factory stays open because your workers (and customers) haven't become ill and died because of rampant disease or infections, so on and so forth. The wealth of a REALLY wealthy individual or of a corporation is much larger than the sum of it's parts.



I enjoyed that video and I think it's a decent point of a view to live by, but it also creates a chicken versus egg argument: if the factories stay open because the taxes of the individual pays for people to be able to get to and from work safely, then it can also be argued that people are able to pay those taxes in the first place because they're receiving employment from the factory.

Ultimately, industry and infrastructure go hand in hand, and trying to say that one follows the other or one is more important than the other is foolish. Each one is utterly useless without the other.


----------



## right_to_rage




----------



## Xaios

You know what's really funny? That guy could have either been on the extreme left or a Tea Party member.

Well, maybe not REALLY funny...


----------



## Explorer

Ibanezsam4 said:


> then i found this Who Is Behind Occupy Wall Street? - The Dish | By Andrew Sullivan - The Daily Beast they folks behind ADBUSTERS apparently registered Occupy Wall Street back in June.



Given the huge distrust of and belief in conspiracies in that crowd of protestors, it's sad that they fell for that kind of manipulation themselves....


----------



## Demiurge

Explorer said:


> Given the huge distrust of and belief in conspiracies in that crowd of protestors, it's sad that they fell for that kind of manipulation themselves....



While there's no doubt that many attendees are completely earnest in their convictions, the organizers teach a good lesson on capitalism- _everything_ can be packaged and sold as a commodity, even endeavors to protest the process itself.


----------



## Randy

Xaios said:


> I enjoyed that video and I think it's a decent point of a view to live by, but it also creates a chicken versus egg argument: if the factories stay open because the taxes of the individual pays for people to be able to get to and from work safely, then it can also be argued that people are able to pay those taxes in the first place because they're receiving employment from the factory.
> 
> Ultimately, industry and infrastructure go hand in hand, and trying to say that one follows the other or one is more important than the other is foolish. Each one is utterly useless without the other.



Not quite "chicken and egg" because the part you're leaving out is that demand feeds supply... not the other way around. Just because I make 100,000 MORE flat screen televisions, doesn't mean 100,000 MORE people are going to buy them. Thus, the factory can't produce without the efforts of the consumer-class (factory workers) nor do they have a reason/funds to make their products without the demand (via extra discretionary income) of people like the workers in those factories. I get your point but I think it's a little more "cut and dry" than that. 

To the current economic situation, the blaming of Wall Street or "greed" in general, I look at it like this... Forgetting the "rich" giving to the "poor" out of charity for a second, and even forgetting the "rich" giving to the "poor" out of recognition of the role they play in acquiring their wealth. 

If the rich took their money and either reinvested the BULK of it into their businesses (domestically, of course) or fuck, even used it for living wildly extravagant lifestyles, we'd be fine. Buying a few mansions (jobs for construction, jobs for real estate, money through the banks and money to the municipalities via property taxes, etc.), expensive sports cars (money to shipping, import fees to the government, repair/upkeep from an auto garage, sales tax on registration with the DMV,etc.)... You get the point.

Instead, there's a pretty well proven track record that the "rich" are only spending up to a certain point, then stashing the money away or investing overseas. Hell, even investing in the stock market in industries that barely have any effect on the general public is an extension of that. Whatever the method, the money they've been saving in "tax breaks" is being hoarded instead of recirculated. That's a problem and getting back to the original point, yes, there's a great responsibility to them to reinvest _in us_.


----------



## Loomer

It's a fucked up world when the hyper-rich need persuading to do extravagant shit like gold-plate their toilets or build 5-storey palaces for their cat.

If you have the dough, fucking live a little!


----------



## pink freud

Gold standard, what a joke. Want to talk about simple math? Well, here's some simple math: Even with a gold standard the worth of X grams of gold is still nothing but a coefficient. The nifty thing about coefficients is that they can (usually) be any number you want them to be. These gold standard fellas are just to chickenshit to realize their idea to the natural result: "let's go back to the bartering system!" Because, face it, gold has no more intrinsic value than anything else when you talk about actual usefulness. You want to base currency around the physical existence of a materiel? Maybe try something other than a material that historically has only had the purpose of showing off to the poor how rich the rich are, and has only in recent times actually shown industrial purpose. Maybe try rare earth metals. THOSE have value.


----------



## Xaios

Randy said:


> Not quite "chicken and egg" because the part you're leaving out is that demand feeds supply... not the other way around. Just because I make 100,000 MORE flat screen televisions, doesn't mean 100,000 MORE people are going to buy them. Thus, the factory can't produce without the efforts of the consumer-class (factory workers) nor do they have a reason/funds to make their products without the demand (via extra discretionary income) of people like the workers in those factories. I get your point but I think it's a little more "cut and dry" than that.



Yes, but then we're just digging into the most basic of business sense. Of course people aren't going to buy something that there's no demand for. Building a factory to produce a product that no one wants is just insane on a whole other level. But people are always going to want or need SOMETHING. What makes a businessman good at what they do is identifying the demand in the first place.

The most recent example is the Ipad. Other tech companies had tried building tablet computers in the past, and it was an embarassing failure, because no one really wanted them. But along comes Apple, who designs a more refined product that is simpler to use, even though it sacrifices functionality compared to its forerunners, and it basically creates a demand for a product that no ever really cared about before, mostly because it was being produced by Apple. They managed to manufacture demand for a product simply because of their brand name.

So yes, supply follows demand, but in this day and age, demand can be created.


----------



## Randy

And point well taken.

I strayed a little bit from my original point in that bit, so I'll try to re-sharpen it. The general complaint that's being uses as an indicator of the economy being "bad" is unemployment. Not to make this "one side versus the other" but the argument I've seen given by "that side", so far, is "High minimum wages, high taxes and red tape are to blame. Companies are either sick of the United State or those that are here, can't afford to hire anybody." Alright, and that'd be a credible argument if productivity wasn't up, but it is. As long as store shelves don't sit empty, companies have no reason to "create" a single job.

Again, venturing into the hypothetical... overnight, the government brings corporate taxes to 0%, makes minimum wage $3 and puts zero regulations into effect. Cost of "doing business" plummets and all of the sudden, all these companies have fuck-tons of cash. Do they hire more workers? Why would they. Forgetting for a second that the price they're able to sell their products at would take a steep nosedive (since people are making $3
an hour now), does it drive up production? I own Charmin... do people need more toilet paper , now that I have the capacity to buy more machines or hire more people? I own Apple (doesn't totally work, because they're made in China but we'll pretend they're made here)... most Americans already own a computer or a laptop but now that it's cheaper to produce them, all of the sudden everybody's going to own three or four? No, probably not. Maybe at first but it's a success with diminishing returns. 

My point is, this meme that the problem with the economy is that corporations aren't getting *enough* money back is ludicrous. Taking the tax burden off (and I'd argue, the burden of overpricing goods and utilities) of "working class" people and freeing up more money for them to buy goods is pretty much the only way you "create" growth, unless we go back to manufacturing and exporting but that's a discussion for another day.


----------



## Septor

Boogie2988 posted a really interesting video on this, guys should check it out.


----------



## AxeHappy

Randy said:


> Again, venturing into the hypothetical... overnight, the government brings corporate taxes to 0%...



It's worth pointing out that do to various things many of the largest corporations already actually pay 0% tax.


----------



## F0rte

*mod edit: we are not in off topic so knock off the pointless posts*


----------



## Fabrizi0

Im just going to leave this here.


----------



## Fabrizi0

also this three part video for those who want more specifics.
Hedge Funds and the Global Economic Meltdown (Part 1) - YouTube


----------



## the fuhrer

This pretty much sums it up. I am really glad to see Sage get involved. These people need a voice. They need guidance. Maybe nobody has a solution right now but we all know there is a problem. I respect these people for taking a stand.


Sage Francis to OWS.
A Message to &#8220;OCCUPY&#8221; Organizers & Participants - Sage Francis


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr-

I was researching President's Eisenhower's farewell address, his final public address broadcasted.

American Rhetoric: Dwight D. Eisenhower -- Farewell Address

His predictions for the future woes of America were; The military industrial complex expanding it's power base after it's creation to fulfill the demands of the first and second world wars, science advancing beyond the public sphere in secrecy and other prophetic comments. I recommend giving it a careful listen.


After the massive government bail outs to banks, ponzi schemes, corporation collapses and civil liberties being lost (such as the right to own fruit bearing crops, possess liberty dollars or similar gold or silver coins... The list goes on and on) it's important to study the economic activity of the national super powers and private entities with the understanding that economics is warfare.




Reggie Middleton&#39;s Control Wall Street Project: How the Common Man Can Control Wall Street Banks! - YouTube


I find interesting the rhetoric of the "haves" condemning the "have nots" for their failures, when the reality is capital is no measure of a human being and very few know the truth of the economic power structure, which I expect will be revealed in the coming years.

With talks of bank runs and the like, perhaps to usurp in grandeur the depression of the 1930's, those very "haves" who have been casting condemnation will realise their true position.

Enjoy!



_Alessio Rastani, an independent trader, had an eye opening interview with BBC where he stated Goldman Sachs and not governments rule the world..._

Be glad that those who have less to lose in their youth have the courage to stand where wiser men would quail.

No one has posted the brutality pictures, but they are easy to find. Let's see how the prosecution deal with these cases in months to come.

If you don't yet understand the process of peacful protest, sit back and get the pop corn. All facets of the system will be displayed for all to see in the treatment applied to free citizens peacefully demonstrating their constitutional rights. They are forcing a display, let's see what happens.

I would strongly recommend NOT attending these events under any circumstances as your future may be prejudiced by the association.

Interestingly, they have no leader or central force, which protects them from subterfuge and infiltration as is the case with many movements. It is a master stroke of counter-espionage. It also protects them legally, as they are a group of individuals which protects them from precident. 

Forcing a reaction is their sole purpose and the value of their sacrifice will be measured by the result.


----------



## Explorer

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> I was researching President's Eisenhower's farewell address, his final public address broadcasted.
> 
> 
> (V)ery few know the truth of the economic power structure, which I expect will be revealed in the coming years.
> 
> 
> 
> from the interview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *No one has posted the brutality pictures, but they are easy to find.* Let's see how the prosecution deal with these cases in months to come.
> 
> *If you don't yet understand the process of peacful protest*, sit back and get the pop corn. All facets of the system will be displayed for all to see in *the treatment applied to free citizens peacefully demonstrating* their constitutional rights. They are forcing a display, let's see what happens.
> 
> I would strongly recommend NOT attending these events under any circumstances as your future may be prejudiced by the association.
> 
> ...*Forcing a reaction is their sole purpose* and the value of their sacrifice will be measured by the result.
Click to expand...


Good call on the Eisenhower speech. 

Weird mixed message from your talking head. Secret conspiracies which will be revealed, "peaceful" demonstrations with a goal of "forcing a reaction"... The news stories I've seen have protestors attacking police, which isn't the definition of "peaceful" unless one is using Orwellian NewSpeak. Double plus ungood repurposing/redefining of the word "peaceful."


----------



## atimoc

A great article that aims to quantify the whole shitstorm:
CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...


----------



## K3V1N SHR3DZ

atimoc said:


> A great article that aims to quantify the whole shitstorm:
> CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...



I actually came here to post that same link!


----------



## The Munk




----------



## Randy

Not sure I totally get the relevance, with regard to the "99 percenters". A downgrade of the US credit rating only has relevance (well, directly) to the same 1% those people are protesting infront of. 

Maybe I'm missing something...?


----------



## The Munk

Randy said:


> Not sure I totally get the relevance, with regard to the "99 percenters". A downgrade of the US credit rating only has relevance (well, directly) to the same 1% those people are protesting infront of.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something...?




This is exactly why we need to close tax loopholes and get the 1% to pay their fair share.


----------



## Randy

Ah, now I gotcha. That I can definitely agree with.


----------



## The Munk

This is getting pretty nutz now.....


----------



## murakami

... the people who had the right mind to protest are starting to attract the absent minded ones
who are fighting for something that was never fucking free in US to begin with.


----------



## synrgy

No, it was never free, and yes, that guy is a tool, _however_:

A fair point is made in drawing light to income vs tuition costs historically speaking. Our parents generation and those before them were able to pay their way through school working part time jobs. Now we can't pay for school working a full time _and_ a 2nd part time job on top of schooling without also taking on tens of thousands in debt.

This is just one school, but take a look:
IAS Historical Data: Tuition and Fees

In 1970, you could get through a year at that school on $330. In 2010 it was almost $8,000.


----------



## murakami

synrgy said:


> No, it was never free, and yes, that guy is a tool, _however_:
> 
> A fair point is made in drawing light to income vs tuition costs historically speaking. Our parents generation and those before them were able to pay their way through school working part time jobs. Now we can't pay for school working a full time _and_ a 2nd part time job on top of schooling without also taking on tens of thousands in debt.
> 
> This is just one school, but take a look:
> IAS Historical Data: Tuition and Fees
> 
> In 1970, you could get through a year at that school on $330. In 2010 it was almost $8,000.


 

oh, i definitely agree with that 

my problem with this crowd is that there is no focus on one subject that everyone is angry about. sure enough it is about money, however, a lot of these people are blaming the government for things that is just ignorant to blame them for. shit like, "i cant afford clothing" so they strip infront of everyone. i saw a video of a dope heads saying, "i have spoken to god and he says you must give me a dollar so i can get drunk tonight!" or something along those lines. all these knuckleheads are paroding this protest and making it look completely irrational in what they are fighting for. basically, a lot of these losers that showed have no one to blame but themselves for their short comings but it's just easier to blame the government for it.

with that said, the people with their head screwed on right are the ones i will walk behind and encourage to fight on because it is a shame with all these money scams and money problems etc... 

it's really pathetic when this protest should be a step foward to change things for the hard working man/woman and dumbasses like this are making it seem everyone in that crowd is a dumbass as well.

Wall Street trader becomes a monk - Telegraph

this article speaks volumes i felt.


----------



## groph

(totally forgets if he already posted in this thread)

Seems to me that the movement is really aimless but I'll always support the idea of protesting against some kind of injustice as long as it stays peaceful. Yeah, there might be "police brutality" but what's to say the police aren't being taunted by demonstrators, a grainy cellphone video isn't necessarily telling of the entire altercation. The media is going to pick up on certain aspects of the demonstrations, making it look like some big wonderful, concerted effort to end inequality while ignoring the whackjobs, and surely the demonstrators don't really represent "the 99%" of whoever.

Of course, protest away, I thought it was really cool when I first heard about what was going on but it would help if the protestors were on the same page or if the protests were more guided and less of a huge rabble of people.

I was just in Halifax earlier this afternoon to check out the Occupy Nova Scotia protest and I liked what I saw. There weren't any police in uniform (there might have been a few there in public service outfits so they blend in) and the whole thing was just maybe 100 or so people gathered in peaceful discussion. Not really a huge demonstration and nothing was getting done but at the very least people are getting together in person and discussing how they're getting financially boned. Never a bad thing to talk these issues out.

Apparently shit has hit the fan in Rome, protests have turned into violent riots. Not sure where I stand on that. It almost seems like you have to start rioting and setting shit on fire to get anyone to really pay attention to you. In Halifax, the cops *handed demonstrators copies of their legal rights to protest* so it's like they knew beforehand that the protests weren't going to start getting dicey. Maybe it was a preventative measure, maybe they were just covering their asses in case something does go down but my point is, how effective is peaceful demonstration really? Especially in a society like Canada, even moreso in a city like Halifax?


----------



## UnderTheSign

groph said:


> Seems to me that the movement is really aimless but I'll always support the idea of protesting against some kind of injustice as long as it stays peaceful. Yeah, there might be "police brutality" but what's to say the police aren't being taunted by demonstrators, a grainy cellphone video isn't necessarily telling of the entire altercation. The media is going to pick up on certain aspects of the demonstrations, making it look like some big wonderful, concerted effort to end inequality while ignoring the whackjobs, and surely the demonstrators don't really represent "the 99%" of whoever


This.

There were protests in The Hague and Amsterdam as well. Wonder how this'll continue to go down.


----------



## Explorer

I wonder how companies normally manage astroturf events. It seems that Adbusters managed to motivate people to take part in the protests... but due to how they organized things, they can't really control the protesters.

It's also strange to see the lack of transparency in the flow of money from George Soros to Adbusters. 

Given that some protesters want things spelled out, and others don't, I'm nt holding my breath for a unified vision to emerge.


----------



## synrgy

I'm torn. I kind of like that it's still somewhat vague, because the very moment 'they' come up with a list of specific demands, the subversion will begin, and life will go right back to where it was, as though this never even happened.

IE, "Here's what they want, now let's figure out how to trick them into thinking they're getting it without actually giving it to them.."


----------



## UnderTheSign

synrgy said:


> I'm torn. I kind of like that it's still somewhat vague, because the very moment 'they' come up with a list of specific demands, the subversion will begin, and life will go right back to where it was, as though this never even happened.
> 
> IE, "Here's what they want, now let's figure out how to trick them into thinking they're getting it without actually giving it to them.."


Yeah, but how will being vague get you anywhere? "there's something wrong, we just can't tell you what it is!"

Also, this is how NOT to protest, along with not knowing what you're talking about (hipster-protests, whoo!).


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Nation Waiting For Protesters To Clearly Articulate Demands Before Ignoring Them | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


----------



## The Reverend

Man, I feel really bad about all you guys sitting behind computer screens, some of whom are clearly well-informed on the bullshit going on in the world economy and not spreading that shit around.

You're missing the point. This isn't some bullshit Adbusters (sorry, Explorer) plotted to take over the world. Consider it like the Civil Rights Movement: Rosa Parks didn't give two shits about changing the segregation laws in the South, she was just tired as fuck and didn't want to give up her seat. You take what you get, any momentum whatsoever, and you fucking run, because you won't get this chance again.

The point is not to show up with a list of demands and say, "Look, Mr. 1%, this is the problem I'm having with you." Donald Trump (although I believe he's more in debt than I will ever be) will not listen to what I have to say. My Congressional representative will not listen to me. No one's in politics to represent their constituents anymore, I think we can all agree on that, liberal, conservative, capitalist or communist. I'm pissed off about my taxes being used to kill kids in Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't want to work knowing that for every .000225 of a cent I pay in taxes, someone on either side of the conflict is injured. It's not a lot, I know, but still. I'm pissed off that to graduate with a degree that's required to get the job I want, I HAVE to put myself into debt, and I'm not even attending a great school. I'm pissed off about a lot of other shit, and so are the other thousands of people protesting. the only words to describe this problem is "economic injustice."

For those of you who want an explanation of that, Google it. Look up government scandals, on the local, state, and federal level. I'm paying for the Austin ISD board members to have lunch catered to them? Really? Taxes are necessary for that? We're protesting everything that falls under that umbrella. Are there fringe elements? Yes. On both sides, in fact. Do they devalue or somehow minimize the sincerity of the movement? Not at all. In a situation as dire as the one the world is slipping into, even crazy fucking ideas have merit if they could possibly help.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Sounds more like venting than protesting.


----------



## AxeHappy

Protesting is largely just a group of people organising a public venting...


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Then the point is completely lost on me .


----------



## The Atomic Ass

The Reverend said:


> HOLY SHIT. I didn't know this happened, at all.
> 
> Just goes to show how dependent people can be on mainstream media, and how sad that dependency is.


So, add some alternative media to your information diet?


----------



## The Reverend

The Atomic Ass said:


> So, add some alternative media to your information diet?



I am, now. Or rather, actually visiting the ones I knew about. A lot of shit is too obviously skewed for me, and instead of doing the whole "the truth is in the middle" thing where I compare and contrast, I'd rather just read shit for what it is, when possible.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Video: 1 Marine vs. 30 Cops: Marine Punks NYPD Cops!


----------



## Explorer

The Reverend said:


> You're missing the point. This isn't some bullshit Adbusters (sorry, Explorer) plotted to take over the world. Consider it like the Civil Rights Movement: Rosa Parks didn't give two shits about changing the segregation laws in the South, she was just tired as fuck and didn't want to give up her seat. You take what you get, any momentum whatsoever, and you fucking run, because you won't get this chance again.
> 
> The point is not to show up with a list of demands and say, "Look, Mr. 1%, this is the problem I'm having with you."



I'm not offended about your dismissing Adbusters or Soros being involved, although I'm hopeful I'm misunderstanding you on that. 

Your example is a little weird, though. Taking that second point first, you have protesters protesting the Man and saying, "Look, this is the problem I'm having... but I refuse to present my thoughts in anything but very vague terms." 

Taking that example of Rosa Parks... she didn't go somewhere else to talk about segregation. She refused to give up her seat on that same bus where they wanted her to move. She didn't go to some other place distinct from where the problem was happening. 

So, what happened on Wall Street in the same concrete way as what happened to Rosa Parks? I know that a lot of vague claims have been made about "corruption" and such... so if someone has something specific, then present the evidence and ask why there haven't been prosecutions. Press on that. Don't just protest without getting into particulars.

The civil rights movement was about something specific: people weren't treated as equal under the law. Be just as specific about what ever the protesters want where the law is being applied unequally, and you'll see movement. 

Momentum... really? Momentum sounds like movement in one direction which keeps moving in one direction. So far, it just sounds like swirling around aimlessly. 

And, sadly, I'm not the only one with that perception, and even the protesters are fighting among themselves about whether or not they want to articulate anything they might want. Is it really such a surprise that nothing is really happening?

----

At some point, a head will probably emerge. And at that point, those who argue against any defined probably lose out. 

It will be interesting to see where this goes in the next two weeks, if anywhere.


----------



## The Reverend

The analogy was supposed to represent a seemingly meaningless or miniscule action being the catalyst for major change. Adbusters and Soros don't mean shit to me, or to anyone I know who supports this. Does that mean my dissatisfaction with "economic injustice" is any less sincere? I think not. It's not like this character is pouring money in my pocket telling me to do shit. The Civil Rights movement is a good analogy still, because there were a lot of varying thoughts on how and what to change, if anything. I'm sure there were plenty of black people sitting back saying, "I wish this thing was more focused. There's student sit-ins with those damn hippies and confused whites, and then God-fearing folk like Rev. King out there." There were pacifists, and those with a more militant approach, and some who wanted a more ideological freedom than legal freedom. 

So we have:

An action or first cause that sparks something much bigger and largely unrelated.
Varying schools of thought on what the problem was, and how to solve it.
Calls for legal reform, as well as social reform.

See the similarities? 

The point is that THE ENTIRE SYSTEM is fucked. Not just one thing, and not just in terms of the laws being violated. This, for me at least, is more about changing the perception of capitalism. Consider it a wish for a cultural redefinition. I want society to think, instead of, "How can I make obscene profits, at any cost" something more along the lines of "How can I make profits, and keep my company sustainable?" We're a nation that recognizes no limits; while this pushed us from powered flight to the moon in less than a century, it also resulted in mass rates of obesity and heart disease. Diabetes, the wealthy man's disease, is now frighteningly common. Can you not see what the root cause of this is? It's over-hyping our "American ideals." 

I can't understand why more people don't want to be a part of this.


----------



## murakami

The Reverend said:


> The analogy was supposed to represent a seemingly meaningless or miniscule action being the catalyst for major change. Adbusters and Soros don't mean shit to me, or to anyone I know who supports this. Does that mean my dissatisfaction with "economic injustice" is any less sincere? I think not. It's not like this character is pouring money in my pocket telling me to do shit. The Civil Rights movement is a good analogy still, because there were a lot of varying thoughts on how and what to change, if anything. I'm sure there were plenty of black people sitting back saying, "I wish this thing was more focused. There's student sit-ins with those damn hippies and confused whites, and then God-fearing folk like Rev. King out there." There were pacifists, and those with a more militant approach, and some who wanted a more ideological freedom than legal freedom.
> 
> So we have:
> 
> An action or first cause that sparks something much bigger and largely unrelated.
> Varying schools of thought on what the problem was, and how to solve it.
> Calls for legal reform, as well as social reform.
> 
> See the similarities?
> 
> The point is that THE ENTIRE SYSTEM is fucked. Not just one thing, and not just in terms of the laws being violated. This, for me at least, is more about changing the perception of capitalism. Consider it a wish for a cultural redefinition. I want society to think, instead of, "How can I make obscene profits, at any cost" something more along the lines of "How can I make profits, and keep my company sustainable?" We're a nation that recognizes no limits; while this pushed us from powered flight to the moon in less than a century, it also resulted in mass rates of obesity and heart disease. Diabetes, the wealthy man's disease, is now frighteningly common. Can you not see what the root cause of this is? It's over-hyping our "American ideals."
> 
> I can't understand why more people don't want to be a part of this.


 
yeah, we're in the pooper alright.

this is how i see it. the big guys are bailed out. even when they have their hands in the cookie jar and can afford to lose millions, they still get bailed out. i am pissed, the people are pissed, everyone is pissed.

now ideally, we all want justice. we want those fucking people to not be favored, but also, get that money back that was used to bail them and use it ourselves.

this is when shit hits the fan; people see the rich taking advantage of what they can get by buying off the government, politicians etc...

not the middle class and poor want a piece of that same pie. i dont see this as a, "i want justice!" anymore. i see this as, "i want some free shit too" kind of deal(not from everyone, but it is attracting those kinds of people who feel they deserve something when they don't do shit)

and this kind of ordeal i do not want to be apart because i dont want anything. i just want things to be fair(haha, like that'll happen). a flat tax rate can help in my country i know because apparently the rich in canada are paying less percentage wise than the middle or poor class.

now i can scream bloody murder and say i want this and that, to benefit my life... but i live very comfortably. i eat out with my wife sometimes, we go out and bowl. i buy expensive gear knowing that my potential cannot tap that shit  ~ however, i work my FUCKING ASS OFF. i am serious, i work really fucking hard. now i am not the smartest guy here... hell, i am probably in the middle interms of education, probably even lower, but i work hard to compensate. and i make enough to live and buy the things i like. i never over spend nor live above what my budget can handle.

sometimes i see things that i want to buy, but if i don't to dip into my savings, i think to myself, "do i really need it?" and the answer is no. the vancouver occupy whatever protest i saw on saturday, sunday, yesterday and today... they look people who have no money or are in fucking debt... BUYING THE LATEST IPOD SHIT AND MACS(i saw a lot these people going in and out of starbucks when i though they were fighting BIG BUSINESSES... and also whats with the iphones, itouch, ipads, ifuck whatever? you guys have money or don't you? how can you afford that shit if you're in debt?) they don't know what they want. my government hasn't bailed out any banks or rich people. i definitely see a reason for the nyc protest to be going on though, but not here. my people here are just trying to mooch.

with that said, the good people who are fighting a legitimate battle; i support you. they're brave and altruistic people. however, their group will always attract the people who feel they can benefit from their actions. and the majority of that group are those people now; the selfish... so its kind of funny seeing both parties have their greed sinking in.


----------



## Ibanezsam4

The Reverend said:


> I can't understand why more people don't want to be a part of this.



a lot of it has to do with this: 
Howard Stern Exposes Occupy Wall St. Morons. - YouTube 

^as a human being who values intelligence i would rather there be an intelligent, sanitary, and non-confrontational and actually grass roots. than be associated with these people 

then as a person of Jewish heritage this is bad news: 
 

and: 
http://bigjournalism.com/files/2011/10/Screen-shot-2011-10-17-at-10.35.11-AM.png 

and then Occupy DC is getting media help to craft their image. "oh but you got that from Brietbart he's a racist!" say what you want about him, but here are the emails exposing it OWS ORGANIZING EMAILS 

this "protest" is going to very conveniently sync up to Obama's re-election campaign. he's already come out saying he's for it.... of course he would be, this story has been completely distracted the media from his falling approval numbers, is bad jobs plan that his own party doesn't like. 

there's maybe one good point being made by OWS, they dont like bailouts.. ok awesome, but 
1) the Tea Party has covered that since its inception, either these morons just never followed the news or just accepted the movement as a right wing movement without looking at the actual protest points 
2) yeah sure blame the banks for taking free money, go right ahead. but what about the politicians still in office who gave them that money? cuz they in-fucking-love with this movement right now because they get off easy. they're wringing their "go right on and attack the free market, we'll just be here in Washington making your lives miserable, because you are so the most useful idiots we've had to date." 

the other reason this is a joke is because this movement is filled with people from my generation. my generation in america is fucking stupid. seriously... my generation has been shown to be the most conceited, narcissistic and has the biggest sense of entitlement of any other american generation. the was a news story about how we were worse than 2nd generation baby boomers. im sorry, but these kids can't cope and were told all their lives by their educators that there would be jobs waiting for them in their field after college. 

they honestly should looking for jobs outside of their specialty, cuz *gasp* most employers dont actually care what kind of degree you have, because they train you to do the work within the first 90 days. also, they should try applying to jobs outside of their home state 

EDIT: just found out that my last shot towards the OWS protesters about employment was not true http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html if you read through that you find out that most of them have jobs. begging the question WHY THE FOOKIN HELL ARENT YOU WORKING?????? then i started thinking.. perhaps they have union jobs.. and since there is heavy union backing of these protests it would make sense why they aren't punching in.. but that might make me sound like a conspiracy theorist who thinks this movement is not in any way organic........... wait i already am one.


----------



## The Reverend

Ibanezsam4 said:


> Depression-inducing post.



Are you kidding me? A few rotten apples, and the whole thing is anti-semitic? Yeah, my black ass is out there pounding the streets, getting pissed about Jews "running the world." 

That's like disavowing the Civil Rights movement because the Black Panthers were racist. Think on that, for a good long while. 

As far as the bailouts, that's only one aspect. Nobody seems to understand what this "economic injustice" thing means. Everyone from the CEOs to the banks to our politicians are fucked up. They're essentially the same people now, anyways, right? Instead of coming from the military, our national leaders are coming from the corporate world now. I guess you can see where that lack of discipline's taken us?

And honestly, if you think you this is some ploy by Obama, you are too misinformed to really be taken seriously. I like the guy, but he's still part of the problem. 

All people like you do is look for ways to cheapen this movement. Calling our generation spoiled, when we want to fix a system we didn't break? Telling us we were stupid for listening to those in control tell us what we would need, and trusting them? You're not mad because you weren't raised to "chase your dreams" only to find out that you'd need six years of school and you'll never reach them. Is it our fault, or is the culture that raised us? Have some balls, man. Yes, we're not the greatest generation, but I didn't see the young adults in the 80s (our parents) doing this.

I'm going to infer from your last sentence that you have absolutely no experience in any very specialized field, or the job market in general.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

The Reverend said:


> You're not mad because you weren't raised to "chase your dreams" only to find out that you'd need six years of school and you'll never reach them.


 
I pretty much always knew if I wanted a "real" job I'd have to go to college. Even with being taught about the American Dream, I was always taught I'd have to _work_ for it. Wasn't that sort of the point?

Then again, I may just be out of the loop. I've got a good decade on most of the kiddos around here, so the school system may have changed significantly since I was in corduroys.


----------



## murakami

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I pretty much always knew if I wanted a "real" job I'd have to go to college. Even with being taught about the American Dream, I was always taught I'd have to _work_ for it. Wasn't that sort of the point?
> 
> Then again, I may just be out of the loop. I've got a good decade on most of the kiddos around here, so the school system may have changed significantly since I was in corduroys.


 
no, you're right. it's pretty much common sense to understand that you have to go through years of schooling, and taking meaningless credits to get your papers. i am not being sarcastic by the way 

anyways, we can't just say times are tougher now... that is complete bullshit. right now, we have more options. you can go to a technical school and learn to weld, become an electrician etc... what really matters to the employer is experience and you can't get your fucking papers and say, "i am over qualified for this position because the pay isn't good" basically, take what you can get for the moment and build off of that. experience is absolutely valuable and when your next interviewer sees you stuck with a company for 3 to 4 years and have built a credible portfolio and good references then you're set. you can't just whine and say theres no jobs because there is. they may not pay as great or what you expect, but it's still pay you can probably live off it if you budget yourself.

i am not downing anyone here... but seriously, it takes a lot of work and effort to get that 50 to 100grand job you want. it wasn't easy for me, but i had to work my way up and i make a descent living now.

i am in no way saying i am better than anyone, but i think we have to be a bit better with are decision making because going to school doesn't necessarily mean we'll get the job we want. even in these so called shit times, certain jobs will always be in demand and not everyone will be viable... PLUS, i'd rather have a person who wants that profession than a person who just wants that job because of the title or amount of pay they get. those people can screw off. so many people in vancouver, shit doctors, don't give a fuck about their patients and get paid tons. -_-

i want a COMPETENT WORKER not some dick with papers.


----------



## synrgy

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I pretty much always knew if I wanted a "real" job I'd have to go to college. Even with being taught about the American Dream, I was always taught I'd have to _work_ for it. Wasn't that sort of the point?



Time spent in academia and time spent in the work force aren't the same thing. I mean, at least half of the people I used to share the floor with when I was waiting tables were advanced-degree holders, and several of them are *still* waiting tables as their primary source of income now, roughly 4.5 years after I got a better job without owning a degree. 

I'm getting annoyed at the bite-backs on this topic using "hard work" as some form of argument against OWS. I put in my 40+ hours a week, and I'm now earning more than double what I was 10 years ago. Despite that, I'm having a more difficult time making ends meet now than I was then, without having added any additional expenses to my budget. Just food alone kicks my wallet's ass these days.

I had a freak-out moment once a few years ago, when - as a single dude living alone, being used to a carton of eggs lasting me 1-2 full weeks - I made breakfast for my family (Dad, step-Mom, Sister, Bro-in-Law, Niece) and realized that ONE breakfast was a whole carton of eggs gone in an instant. *POOF*, just like that. That moment made me realize how expensive it is to support a family. I started thinking about the money I spend on groceries, and then imagined how much more I'd be spending when I was buying groceries for upwards of 3-5 people at a time, and that's when despair kicked in to full gear.

After some recent adventures with my "good" health insurance related to some dental work I had done, I find myself wondering how anyone can afford to live any more.

I realize this post is all over the place. I'm not really sure what my point is.


----------



## Randy

Speaking of insurance, my girlfriend has both insurance through her employer's plan (which she pays handsomely for) and through her father's plan (which he pays handsomely for). Had a small episode and had to go to the ER for two hours. They ran an IV and took some X-rays. AFTER what her insurance took care of, that visit cost her $2,600. What the actual fuck?!

The overall issue here is the increased cost of living being artificially high, as costs have skyrocketed in direct correlation with profit margins/CEO pay skyrocketing. It's hard as fuck to make a living now, it doesn't need to be and the only people who claim we're "all complaining" are the people either too young or stupid or rich to remember what it _used to _be like.

Anybody here old enough to remember when having a spouse work or a second income was _optional_? Anybody remember when getting laid off or having a catastrophe (ie. death in the family, car breaks down, roof needs to be repaired, etc.) just meant you had to tighten your belts for a little while or put in a few extra hours instead of meaning you WILL lose your house or you WILL lose your car because YOU WILL NOT be able to make your payment?

To the the post above mine... it's all over the place, yeah but that's the point. It's hard to exactly diagnose WHEN the "change" happened, but the Occupy Movement and (at the grassroots level) the Tea Party thing are a symptom of everyone simultaneously scratching their head and saying "Wait a minute... I don't remember things being this hard before" but the cause and the solution have become so convoluted, we don't quite know what we're supposed to do or who's directly to blame.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

synrgy said:


> Time spent in academia and time spent in the work force aren't the same thing. I mean, at least half of the people I used to share the floor with when I was waiting tables were advanced-degree holders, and several of them are *still* waiting tables as their primary source of income now, roughly 4.5 years after I got a better job without owning a degree.
> 
> I'm getting annoyed at the bite-backs on this topic using "hard work" as some form of argument against OWS. I put in my 40+ hours a week, and I'm now earning more than double what I was 10 years ago. Despite that, I'm having a more difficult time making ends meet now than I was then, without having added any additional expenses to my budget. Just food alone kicks my wallet's ass these days.
> 
> I had a freak-out moment once a few years ago, when - as a single dude living alone, being used to a carton of eggs lasting me 1-2 full weeks - I made breakfast for my family (Dad, step-Mom, Sister, Bro-in-Law, Niece) and realized that ONE breakfast was a whole carton of eggs gone in an instant. *POOF*, just like that. That moment made me realize how expensive it is to support a family. I started thinking about the money I spend on groceries, and then imagined how much more I'd be spending when I was buying groceries for upwards of 3-5 people at a time, and that's when despair kicked in to full gear.
> 
> After some recent adventures with my "good" health insurance related to some dental work I had done, I find myself wondering how anyone can afford to live any more.
> 
> I realize this post is all over the place. I'm not really sure what my point is.


 
Oh, I wasn't trying to make some sort of statement about the state of the economy or anything like that. I was just commenting on Rev's seeming surprise at the notion of needing to go to college to get that dream job or whatever, since I was raised being told I'd have to. I'll add that I _am_ upset that it's increasingly hard to make a living wage without a degree, but I just always assumed I'd have to go to college to get the job I "want" as opposed to the job I "need."

If that makes sense .


----------



## AxeHappy

I graduated from College twice. On the Dean's and President's honour roll the first time. 

I teach guitar and drive a school bus. And am making a better living than the majority (not all though) of my graduating class.

Between the two jobs I work over 40 hours a week. I start work in the morning (6:00) and finish at nights (9:00...there is obviously some breaks in there). I work my ass off, doing a fairly dangerous job (have you seen the way Honda drivers drive!!!) and I got the education and I don't have any sort of criminal record. I started working 2 months after my 16th birthday (have to be 16 to work in Ontario) and did well at them.

I did exactly what you were supposed to do. 


And I still make less than $20 000 a year. Don't feed us that America dream bullshit.



It's actually funny that I managed to climb the ladder more at McDonald while I was in high school than I ever have since graduating from College.


----------



## murakami

AxeHappy said:


> I graduated from College twice. On the Dean's and President's honour roll the first time.
> 
> I teach guitar and drive a school bus. And am making a better living than the majority (not all though) of my graduating class.
> 
> Between the two jobs I work over 40 hours a week. I start work in the morning (6:00) and finish at nights (9:00...there is obviously some breaks in there). I work my ass off, doing a fairly dangerous job (have you seen the way Honda drivers drive!!!) and I got the education and I don't have any sort of criminal record. I started working 2 months after my 16th birthday (have to be 16 to work in Ontario) and did well at them.
> 
> I did exactly what you were supposed to do.
> 
> 
> And I still make less than $20 000 a year. Don't feed us that America dream bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually funny that I managed to climb the ladder more at McDonald while I was in high school than I ever have since graduating from College.


 
i think the american dream can only be met through connections like how the chinese let their friends and family in on corrupted money etc... i assume it's no different in western culture just possibly hightened or lowered to a degree in different cultures. 

you and i know that canada is a mess haha  ~ you and i can keep working at it, but the government will always try to tax are ass' off.
if you have a drivers license to drive a bus, is that a level 8? are you able to drive a rig? good money in that my friend  ~ though lonely travels i assume.

is your job related to the school board or have they seperated? i've heard that the public servants get paid quite well, yet the teachers in vancouver seem to go on strike every year... i see teachers driving freakin' corvettes and mustangs! also, because you live in ontario, i thought the cost of living would be less because of the high population.

how did you feel about the hst raise in tax???


----------



## murakami

> Uploaded by TheMigalito on Oct 16, 2011
> 
> Occupy Yourself Movement
> Oct 28th 2011
> 
> PLEASE SHARE THIS WITH AS MANY AS POSSIBLE...WE DO NOT HAVE MUCH TIME!
> 
> A momentum is occurring
> People are uniting across the world
> They are sending a message
> The next step is fast approaching
> 
> On Oct 28th 2011
> WE SHUT THE SYSTEM DOWN.
> 
> For one day we peacefully protest in a symbol that will be felt across the globe.
> 
> We step out of the system and step back into ourselves.
> 
> Turn off all lights
> Unplug all electrical devices
> Abstain from using TV, radio and internet or phone.
> Abstain from making any purchase of any kind
> Choose that morning to cancel any services you feel you no longer need
> That morning call in sick to work
> 
> Do NOTHING that generates money into THE SYSTEM.
> 
> We will send a message
> We will unite
> 
> Most importantly, for one day...
> We live without distraction
> Read a book
> Meditate
> Play
> Sing
> Dance
> Create
> Frolic in nature
> Love
> 
> On Oct 28th 2011
> Step out of the system and get back to yourself
> 
> Spread the word!
> SHUT IT ALL DOWN!
> 
> Join us on facebook:
> Welcome to Facebook - Log In, Sign Up or Learn More...


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

AxeHappy said:


> Don't feed us that America dream bullshit.


 
What bullshit is that? That people should be able to work hard and achieve their dreams? There's nothing wrong with that, there's something wrong with the fact that it doesn't work anymore. Your story doesn't prove that people shouldn't go to college to get the job they want, it just demonstrates that for whatever reason that's no longer a viable option. The problem isn't the American Dream, the problem is whatever's causing it to be ineffective.


----------



## The Munk

Randy said:


> Speaking of insurance, my girlfriend has both insurance through her employer's plan (which she pays handsomely for) and through her father's plan (which he pays handsomely for). Had a small episode and had to go to the ER for two hours. They ran an IV and took some X-rays. AFTER what her insurance took care of, that visit cost her $2,600. What the actual fuck?!
> 
> The overall issue here is the increased cost of living being artificially high, as costs have skyrocketed in direct correlation with profit margins/CEO pay skyrocketing. It's hard as fuck to make a living now, it doesn't need to be and the only people who claim we're "all complaining" are the people either too young or stupid or rich to remember what it _used to _be like.
> 
> Anybody here old enough to remember when having a spouse work or a second income was _optional_? Anybody remember when getting laid off or having a catastrophe (ie. death in the family, car breaks down, roof needs to be repaired, etc.) just meant you had to tighten your belts for a little while or put in a few extra hours instead of meaning you WILL lose your house or you WILL lose your car because YOU WILL NOT be able to make your payment?
> 
> To the the post above mine... it's all over the place, yeah but that's the point. It's hard to exactly diagnose WHEN the "change" happened, but the Occupy Movement and (at the grassroots level) the Tea Party thing are a symptom of everyone simultaneously scratching their head and saying "Wait a minute... I don't remember things being this hard before" but the cause and the solution have become so convoluted, we don't quite know what we're supposed to do or who's directly to blame.




I completely agree. Inflation has been completely out of control for a long time.
I still remember sitting in long lines of cars waiting to get gas in the 70's, back when fuel was under a buck!
I noted the other day at the grocery store that an avocado was 99centts! 
99 cents for a piece of fruit?
My neighbor has a tree full of them and used to have a layer of rotting ones on the ground. I don't buy avocados any more. I've arranged with my neighbor to trim her tree for her when needed, ( she's elderly) and I can take all the avocados I want.
Nothing is free.

Then there are lopsided situations out of our control. For example, I have a child from a previous marriage. I am required by the court to provide medical/ dental insurance for my child. My child's mother has insurance of her own and has never once used the insurance I pay for. It's money that is 'thrown out the window', so to speak, that could be going towards my household and be of more benefit to my child. Hell, it could be going into a college fund. As it stands, I will have 'thrown away' about $35k by the time my kid turns 18, because the courts say I have to provide it regardless of it not being necessary.
Multiply that by how many fathers are tied up in the Family court system in my similar situation. The only ones making out on that deal are the insurance companies.
Further it amazes me that these laws are built on percentages. The more you make, the more they take. Generally 50% of your gross income. You pay income tax on the gross amount plus other deductions. The receiving parent gets that lump sum tax free. wtf!?
I literally saw a guy in court get reemed for 10K per month in child support. That mom gets the 'Golden Diaper' award and a free ride for 18 years!
Top that off with the fact that the financial end of things, i.e. Support, are completely unrelated to Visitation with the child. Separate subject. Separate court dates. Twice as many court dates as should be needed.
I'm aware that many states have adopted California's child support laws. 

Seems like one place to start as far as actually identifying one system of injustice.


----------



## AxeHappy

> I think the American dream can only be met through connections like how the Chinese let their friends and family in on corrupted money etc... i assume it's no different in western culture just possibly heightened or lowered to a degree in different cultures.
> 
> you and i know that Canada is a mess, haha  ~ you and i can keep working at it, but the government will always try to tax our asses' off.
> if you have a drivers license to drive a bus, is that a level 8? are you able to drive a rig? good money in that my friend  ~ though lonely travels i assume.
> 
> is your job related to the school board or have they seperated? i've heard that the public servants get paid quite well, yet the teachers in vancouver seem to go on strike every year... i see teachers driving freakin' corvettes and mustangs! also, because you live in ontario, i thought the cost of living would be less because of the high population.
> 
> how did you feel about the hst raise in tax???



It's who you know, not what you know. Definitely. I think a lot of the problem is also people want minimum 5 years experience to do any job. Do I really need 5 years experience to be a brick layer? Also, if you don't hire new people know when all the older people with experience quit, retire or die you're going to be pretty fucked. But no company wants to spend the time getting an employee up to par anymore.

The Graduated system in Ontario is different (similar) than Vancouver. I'm only licensed for bus up to 24 people, which Qualifies as an 'E' class license. I can drive any bus up to 24 seats, and stuff like limos and ambulances (I think...that might be 'D' I'm too lazy to check). I hope to upgrade to a 'B' (72+ seat buses and anything that's not a tractor trailer or motorcycle) Class this summer or the next, than get my 'Z' (air brake endorsement) and drive for the public buses. Whom make just under $30/hour. But that'll take at least 5 years if I'm lucky. I'd also like to tack an M on there at some point. So Eventually the plan is to have a BMZ license. I had 2 uncles who were truckers. I have no interest in that life! It is a lot of money if you do it right though.

I one of those crazy pro-tax people. Did you know you can track how well the economy is doing by how well the richest 20% are being taxed? The more they're being taxed the better the economy does. Not an opinion. You can chart and graph it. Sad that society hates taxes. Taxes are good. Government misspending is bad. I like services. I like being able to go to the Doctor, and I can remember when schools provided journals and textbooks and shit. I remember field trips. I remember OHIP covering some glasses and Dentistry stuff. 


My job is with Stock Transportation. Who gets contracts from Student Transportation Services, which is a government run organisation, I believe. We get paid jack shit. The fucking "construction" "worker" holding the fucking stop sign up all day makes more than we do. Bullocks. No respect for the bus driver. We should unionise and strike. 

I am quite tired of seeing teacher strike though. You work 192-8 days a year. Collect 4ish grand a month in pay (after taxes) at the top of the pay scale, get great benefits, great pension, every holiday off, and apparently aren't even expected to actually teach kids anything anymore. Fuck off already.

Cost of living in Ontario is much less than BC but $20 grand a year still isn't much. Plus, I had...issues...with an ex...that have left me more in debt than I would like to be, so I'm working extra hard to pay that shit off.



Grand Moff Tim said:


> What bullshit is that? That people should be able to work hard and achieve their dreams? There's nothing wrong with that, there's something wrong with the fact that it doesn't work anymore. Your story doesn't prove that people shouldn't go to college to get the job they want, it just demonstrates that for whatever reason that's no longer a viable option. The problem isn't the American Dream, the problem is whatever's causing it to be ineffective.



Semantics much? The bullshit is just what you said. The American dream doesn't come true. Even if you do everything perfectly.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Not to mention you can molest kids and get away with it!


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

AxeHappy said:


> Semantics much? The bullshit is just what you said. The American dream doesn't come true. Even if you do everything perfectly.


 
All I was saying is that it isn't the American Dream that's bullshit, it's the obstacles currently in place the limit its effectiveness. I suppose that could be arguing semantics, but sometimes semantics need clarification. 

I'll also admit that seeing non-Americans throw around stuff like "American dream bullshit" just automatically puts me on the defensive .


----------



## decypher

Considering the US economy right now, I'd say there is no such thing as the "American Dream".

(considering their past politics, it wasn't a dream either)


----------



## Ibanezsam4

The Reverend said:


> Are you kidding me? A few rotten apples, and the whole thing is anti-semitic? Yeah, my black ass is out there pounding the streets, getting pissed about Jews "running the world."



Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements (Updated) | The Gateway Pundit 

Organizer Behind Occupy Wall Street Has History of Anti-Jewish Writing « Commentary Magazine 





> As far as the bailouts, that's only one aspect. Nobody seems to understand what this "economic injustice" thing means. Everyone from the CEOs to the banks to our politicians are fucked up. They're essentially the same people now, anyways, right? Instead of coming from the military, our national leaders are coming from the corporate world now. I guess you can see where that lack of discipline's taken us?



this is all very good and general. now can you pinpoint a very specific injustice? some component of the machine to rage against? simply saying "they're all corrupt" doesn't say much. where's the thesis? where's the body of evidence? where's the citations? when you treat something like a term paper you can judge its merit. 



> And honestly, if you think you this is some ploy by Obama, you are too misinformed to really be taken seriously. I like the guy, but he's still part of the problem.



NBC&#039;s Gregory: Occupy Wall Street Will &#039;Dovetail Nicely&#039; With Obama&#039;s Campaign Message | NewsBusters.org 

couldn't get the video to embed, article is not important. Basically its suspicious when the AFLCIO has thrown its shoulder behind the movement (huge Obama contributor) as well as other large DNC donors (George Soros). 

coupled with this:Democrats Tap Into Occupy Wall Street Protests, Attack Republicans For Bank Ties - Business Insider 

organic or not, its now officially been co-opted 



> All people like you do is look for ways to cheapen this movement.



Occupy Wall Street Protester Wants College Paid For Because That&#39;s What He Wants - YouTube 
^ that guy cheapened it for you. 



> Calling our generation spoiled, when we want to fix a system we didn't break?



Study finds college students most narcissistic generation - News - Daily Nebraskan - University of Nebraska - Lincoln : News, Husker Sports, Opinion, and Video 

not spoiled for protesting by any means, simply spoiled. 50 some years ago if you had a problem you tightened you belt and dealt with it. some protestors have said that corporations dont pay them enough... well its hard to make 60k right out school, you kinda of have to earn it. something this generation has never truly had to do; earn something.



> Telling us we were stupid for listening to those in control tell us what we would need, and trusting them? You're not mad because you weren't raised to "chase your dreams" only to find out that you'd need six years of school and you'll never reach them.



Did you miss the link to WSJ poll that revealed that over 3/4ths of the protesters have jobs. so what are they protesting again? they have been shown to be employed. we have 70% of the movement saying "educated and out of work" yet the majority are educated and have work (granted they seem to have the best job in the world allowing them to take a month off). does this at all smell fishy to you? 




> Is it our fault, or is the culture that raised us? Have some balls, man. Yes, we're not the greatest generation, but I didn't see the young adults in the 80s (our parents) doing this.



Reagan economy. Look up the GDP, it was pretty decent



> I'm going to infer from your last sentence that you have absolutely no experience in any very specialized field, or the job market in general.



you also have seem to have missed my edit, which was a disregard to my last sentence. oddly enough the WSJ link was there... so may i infer from your last sentence that you neglected to pay attention?


----------



## Miek

Ibanezsam4 said:


> Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements (Updated) | The Gateway Pundit
> 
> Organizer Behind Occupy Wall Street Has History of Anti-Jewish Writing « Commentary Magazine


How is co-opting proof of anti-semitism? Secondly, bogeyman communism, red scare OOOOOoooo 



> Reagan economy. Look up the GDP, it was pretty decent


please tell me you are not advocating trickle down economics, a theory that could be debunked by anyone with access to wikipedia


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Cause ketchup is a vegetable.


----------



## Miek

Basically everything about Reagan's presidency was a sham.


----------



## Miek

Occupy Wall Street: Why Baby Boomers Don't Understand the Protests - The Daily Beast

I think everyone should read this.


----------



## The Reverend

If I wasn't already writing three midterms, Ibanezsam4, I'd take you up on your offer. I already posted what the requirements to find proof of corruption in the 1%: Open your preferred web browser, and search for corporate scandals. 

I'm not going to respond to your most recent post, because I feel like I've said all that can be said in regards to the issues involved in it. 

And to TheMoff Grander than All Moffs, Tim- I wasn't clear enough. What I meant to convey about the American Dream is that it doesn't work anymore, and people like me are only now developing first-hand knowledge of that fact. 

I've worked hard. I was a shaver in an exotic animal hide tannery in Houston. I was paid by each piece I did in a day, aka piecework. I made good money, but I felt I was wasting my potential, and ignoring my talents. I'm not cut out for physical work. I'm clumsy, too curious, and horrible at fixing shit. I stuck it out as long as I could, and then decided to go to college. Chasing the dream, and all that, right? Only to put myself $12K into debt for my first year, as well as being homeless from August to two weeks ago. 

So yes, I feel entitled. I feel entitled to the results of my hard work and many, many sacrifices.


----------



## AxeHappy

Grand Moff Tim said:


> All I was saying is that it isn't the American Dream that's bullshit, it's the obstacles currently in place the limit its effectiveness. I suppose that could be arguing semantics, but sometimes semantics need clarification.
> 
> I'll also admit that seeing non-Americans throw around stuff like "American dream bullshit" just automatically puts me on the defensive .



It seemed to me more like you said, 'It's not bullshit," then went on to list many reasons why it is bullshit!


----------



## Ibanezsam4

Miek said:


> How is co-opting proof of anti-semitism? Secondly, bogeyman communism, red scare OOOOOoooo



i believe the "co-opting" part you're lifting from my post and attaching to the antisemitism was in fact a row of quote down and had its own links. nice try. 




> please tell me you are not advocating trickle down economics, a theory that could be debunked by anyone with access to wikipedia



wasn't actually advocating. simply stated that in that time GDP was good, and the middle class started seeing money and growing until the late 90s GDP-Real (Adjusted) United States 



murakami said:


>


 

wowwww. that sounds exactly like a combo of the Buy Nothing Day and the Digital Detox Week adbusters tried to pull a while ago but failed miserably at on both occasions.


----------



## pink freud

Saw this gem on HCAF


----------



## synrgy

The nerd in me is bummed that they spelled Harkonnen incorrectly.


----------



## Miek

David Graeber: On Playing By The Rules


----------



## vampiregenocide

What this movement lacks in direct ideals, it makes up for in the responses it provokes, both on a social, media and governmental level. The police brutality, the extremist protesters, the public and media response, it's all shown real flaws that need to be dealt with.

I for one am of the belief that we need a revolutionary, someone to speak for these people who recognise there are issues but lack the articulation to go about dealing with them. Throughout history, the greatest change has come about of the few standing for the many. A group of people are two divided and opinionated to effectively deal with an issue, which is why it takes one very special person to get things done on their behalf. I back a lot of the ideas behind these protests, things are very fucked and socially unbalanced at the moment. A lot of change needs to happen and at least showing the public cares enough to go out and get involved is a start.


----------



## synrgy

I just hope the media doesn't succeed in making it a political/left-vs-right issue, as they've clearly been attempting to do so far.


----------



## Randy

vampiregenocide said:


> What this movement lacks in direct ideals, it makes up for in the responses it provokes, both on a social, media and governmental level. The police brutality, the extremist protesters, the public and media response, it's all shown real flaws that need to be dealt with.
> 
> I for one am of the belief that we need a revolutionary, someone to speak for these people who recognise there are issues but lack the articulation to go about dealing with them. Throughout history, the greatest change has come about of the few standing for the many. A group of people are two divided and opinionated to effectively deal with an issue, which is why it takes one very special person to get things done on their behalf. I back a lot of the ideas behind these protests, things are very fucked and socially unbalanced at the moment. A lot of change needs to happen and at least showing the public cares enough to go out and get involved is a start.



While not being steered by the exact same people, the "Get Money Out" thing has been targeting much of the same "root causes" that the Occupy folks have. The fact a few different movements that are hinting to the same things have sprung up in different places, by different people is the main reason why I believe this has potential but with that, it's most effective BECAUSE it doesn't have a singular message or entity to claim control of it. 

Dylan talks about that around 5:34-> in here:



I understand the tendency for people to seek a leader but in this case, I think being "faceless" suits the movement better.


----------



## vampiregenocide

I see his point, but I don't think it's realistic to expect people to come up with a collective idea on how to solve these issues. It'd be wonderful, man I'd love that to happen so much, but people have too different opinions. As he says in that video, people are angry and understand that others feel the same, but it's turning that anger into a direct, cohesive attack on the things that are causing those feelings. This is a brilliant start don't get me wrong, but if people want to start making change they need to be more pragmatic about it. I think the faceless crowd and the single figurehead are symbiotic to one another, so I don't think the people are useless at all, I just don't think they're everything we need to see this through.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

vampiregenocide said:


> I see his point, but I don't think it's realistic to expect people to come up with a collective idea on how to solve these issues. It'd be wonderful, man I'd love that to happen so much, but people have too different opinions. As he says in that video, people are angry and understand that others feel the same, but it's turning that anger into a direct, cohesive attack on the things that are causing those feelings. This is a brilliant start don't get me wrong, but if people want to start making change they need to be more pragmatic about it. I think the faceless crowd and the single figurehead are symbiotic to one another, so I don't think the people are useless at all, I just don't think they're everything we need to see this through.



My sentiments exactly.


----------



## synrgy

The thing is, I think we've just spent the last few years seeing exactly what happens when we choose someone as a spokesperson for 'change'. 

I mean, honestly, those of us who were following Obama's 2008 campaign should remember pretty vividly that much of what OWS is complaining about is the same stuff he platformed on.

When there's a figurehead, said figurehead either gets swallowed (or corrupted, or both) by the system upon or shortly after entry.

I'll admit: During the first few days of OWS I was among those who believed the message was too vague. The word 'corporations' was being used so much, I couldn't help but be reminded of this:






(Alec Baldwin from Team America)

As the week (or weeks, now) wore on, though, I found that my perspective shifted. I know I'm just repeating a basic idea I've already posted here, but I think that, essentially, the moment the movement chooses a figurehead, scapegoat, or list of specific demands, will be the precise moment of complete deflation and a return to the status quo. That's just the nature of the beast -- in my estimation, anyway.


----------



## vampiregenocide

synrgy said:


> The thing is, I think we've just spent the last few years seeing exactly what happens when we choose someone as a spokesperson for 'change'.
> 
> I mean, honestly, those of us who were following Obama's 2008 campaign should remember pretty vividly that much of what OWS is complaining about is the same stuff he platformed on.
> 
> When there's a figurehead, said figurehead either gets swallowed (or corrupted, or both) by the system upon or shortly after entry.
> 
> I'll admit: During the first few days of OWS I was among those who believed the message was too vague. The word 'corporations' was being used so much, I couldn't help but be reminded of this:



That's why I'm not talking about a politician, but someone who isn't a member of any party and has no political affiliation. Politician's are as you say either tied down by the system or they become corrupt, which is why we need an 'outsider'. Obama was never going to solve the issues he spoke about in the timeframe people expected, it was unrealistic. Change doesn't happen overnight and people must realise that. We need someone who can put forward the ideas of the people to the places that matter. A politician without all the bullshit as it were.


----------



## synrgy

vampiregenocide said:


> That's why I'm not talking about a politician, but someone who isn't a member of any party and has no political affiliation. Politician's are as you say either tied down by the system or they become corrupt, which is why we need an 'outsider'. Obama was never going to solve the issues he spoke about in the timeframe people expected, it was unrealistic. Change doesn't happen overnight and people must realise that. We need someone who can put forward the ideas of the people to the places that matter. A politician without all the bullshit as it were.



I guess what I'm getting at is that it doesn't matter if the figurehead is a politician or not. Any outsider will get folded in just like a politician would. When it's 'the people' as opposed to 'that guy/gal', we still have a chance at scaring those in power. When it gets boiled down to one person or organization, that person/organization can be easily subverted. It's happened countless times in our recent history already.

Also, as a slightly off topic side note, you mentioned that Obama's platforms were unrealistic, but I'd put that onus on the voting populous' misunderstanding of his platforms, not on the platforms themselves. I remember clearly Obama's speeches stating in no uncertain terms that (quoted, but paraphrased) "change won't happen overnight. It might not happen in 4 years, or even 8 years, but we can get there.. blah blah blah yes we can". It's not his fault we collectively have the patience of a 4 year old hopped up on Snickers and Kool-Aid. [Disclaimer: None of this is intended to be any defense of him or his Presidency to-date]


----------



## vampiregenocide

synrgy said:


> I guess what I'm getting at is that it doesn't matter if the figurehead is a politician or not. Any outsider will get folded in just like a politician would. When it's 'the people' as opposed to 'that guy/gal', we still have a chance at scaring those in power. When it gets boiled down to one person or organization, that person/organization can be easily subverted. It's happened countless times in our recent history already.
> 
> Also, as a slightly off topic side note, you mentioned that Obama's platforms were unrealistic, but I'd put that onus on the voting populous' misunderstanding of his platforms, not on the platforms themselves. I remember clearly Obama's speeches stating in no uncertain terms that (quoted, but paraphrased) "change won't happen overnight. It might not happen in 4 years, or even 8 years, but we can get there.. blah blah blah yes we can". It's not his fault we collectively have the patience of a 4 year old hopped up on Snickers and Kool-Aid. [Disclaimer: None of this is intended to be any defense of him or his Presidency to-date]



Yeah of course every person has a chance of being corrupted, that's why it has to be a really special person to be able to do it, not just any old fuck. Every individual throughout history who has made great change did so by refusing the option of self-profit and success and instead turning towards bettering the world in some way. That's the kind of person we need, and they are far and few between. It's an idealist thing really, but sometimes an idealist is what you need.

On your second point, I think you misread my post. I agree, Obama is not at fault on that matter, but it is the people who expected change sooner than realistically possible. I didn't say his ideas were unrealistic, but that the time people expected them to come to fruition was. America is pretty fucked, and that doesn't change in a short time. I think Obama has the makings of a great politician he's just held back by the system. If he had the power to really get what he wants done, I think America would be a better place.


----------



## Miek

vampiregenocide said:


> I see his point, but I don't think it's realistic to expect people to come up with a collective idea on how to solve these issues. It'd be wonderful, man I'd love that to happen so much, but people have too different opinions. As he says in that video, people are angry and understand that others feel the same, but it's turning that anger into a direct, cohesive attack on the things that are causing those feelings. This is a brilliant start don't get me wrong, but if people want to start making change they need to be more pragmatic about it. I think the faceless crowd and the single figurehead are symbiotic to one another, so I don't think the people are useless at all, I just don't think they're everything we need to see this through.


But this is exactly what the general assemblies are doing.


----------



## vampiregenocide

That's what they _aim_ to do, but so many people disagree over the demands. I just don't see the root problems being dealt with.


----------



## Miek

I have to ask, have you been to any of the GAs?


----------



## vampiregenocide

Not myself no.


----------



## Miek

Ah, I see you're in england, actually. My bad. I was going to suggest you go to one, because your voice would definitely be heard and appreciated.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Miek said:


> Ah, I see you're in england, actually. My bad. I was going to suggest you go to one, because your voice would definitely be heard and appreciated.



Cheers for the recommendation. I have definitely been thinking about getting involved in things a bit more, but I have some figuring out to do before I do.


----------



## Miek

Yeah, I think I'm the same way.


----------



## ZEBOV

The Reverend said:


> There's an Occupy Austin protest going on tomorrow at the city hall here in Austin, Texas, that I will be attending.



I'll take a guess that Alex Jones was there. He's so far off the deep end. Someday I'll go to one of his stupid fucking protests that he goes to, eat a whole box of Fiber Plus bars, and make him smell my farts until he fucking leaves. I'm not fucking kidding. I. WILL. MAKE. HIM. SMELL. MY. FARTS!

EDIT: I changed my mind. I'll spray Liquid Ass in his face.


----------



## The Reverend

ZEBOV said:


> I'll take a guess that Alex Jones was there. He's so far off the deep end. Someday I'll go to one of his stupid fucking protests that he goes to, eat a whole box of Fiber Plus bars, and make him smell my farts until he fucking leaves. I'm not fucking kidding. I. WILL. MAKE. HIM. SMELL. MY. FARTS!
> 
> EDIT: I changed my mind. I'll spray Liquid Ass in his face.



I just remembered that I have a spray bottle of Liquid Ass. IIRC, you're the one who made the tread about it that made me buy it!

But yeah, had you made the trip out here, you would've had the chance. 

EDIT: 900th post, and it's about Liquid Ass. Holy hell.


----------



## The Munk

So the 'Occupy Wallstreet' movement is seeing some backlash now.

What Gives Bank Of America The Right To Not &#8216;Let&#8217; You Close Your Account? | MoveOn.Org


----------



## vampiregenocide

What do you mean backlash? That video and a lot of the comments seem to support the movement?


----------



## The Munk

By backlash, I'm speaking more to B of A's method of handling that situation.
It is just crazy to me that B of A would deny their customers the right to close their accounts.


----------



## Demiurge

The Munk said:


> By backlash, I'm speaking more to B of A's method of handling that situation.
> It is just crazy to me that B of A would deny their customers the right to close their accounts.



It's kind of a murky situation. It's your account, and you should be able to do what you want with it, but the banks might be permitted to restrict withdrawals and closures if there is an expectation of a high volume of them. Like that bank-run scene from It's a Wonderful Life- everybody in town wants to withdraw their account balances, but they're told that their money is tied-up in loans made-out to other people. 

Perhaps the point of that protest wasn't to expect the closures to happen but to capture BoA's unflattering response. As the financial crisis showed, not every asset is as liquid as one might think.


----------



## Explorer

I saw a huge, volatile crowd outside a bank with bullhorns, demanding to be let in. 

Regardless of what the crowd was demanding, I think that any bank or business would be within their rights to prevent a large, volatile crowd from entering. I showed the video to a cop friend of mine, and he said that if he was on a call like that, they'd disperse the crowd. It's not a public place, and if a business can look and anticipate trouble, as even a glance at the video let my cop friend anticipate, then it's unlikely they'll find a business which will agree with allowing such a crowd inside, or a court which will find that the volatile crowd was wronged. 

(Why do people keep putting up videos which they hope will prove that the other side was wrong, but in which their side is being aggressive? What's the deal with finding poor examples to prove certain cases, instead of finding better ones? Do they not exist? It just makes those who don't see the problem with the vids look wacky. I suppose it stems to a lack of insight....)


----------



## The Munk

Demiurge said:


> It's kind of a murky situation. It's your account, and you should be able to do what you want with it, but the banks might be permitted to restrict withdrawals and closures if there is an expectation of a high volume of them. Like that bank-run scene from It's a Wonderful Life- everybody in town wants to withdraw their account balances, but they're told that their money is tied-up in loans made-out to other people.
> 
> Perhaps the point of that protest wasn't to expect the closures to happen but to capture BoA's unflattering response. As the financial crisis showed, not every asset is as liquid as one might think.




I can completely understand that the particular branch may not have been prepared to handle that kind of volume. Just seems that it could have been handled in a better way.
I've been to many banks plenty of times and seen as many people standing in line.
It would have been better service, imo, had they taken care of everyone that wanted to close their account. They could have let them inside in small groups if security was a concern.
If the banks concern was not having enough cash on hand for that crowd, closing the account does not necessarily equate to walking out of there with a fist full of cash. They could be issued cashiers checks or wire transfer the funds to another bank.
Bottom line is that group was denied their property. 

I'd be pissed if I needed to retrieve a deed or something important from their safe deposit box!

Some of those people may not have even arrived with that group or that purpose. Every one there was there to do business. Some were there to let BofA know that they were no longer going to do business with them.

People get funny with their money. For being denied, that crowd was pretty calm. 

Had everyone showed up quietly and individually, I'm sure they would have been helped. Because they showed solidarity, they were denied. That kind of action does nothing to help the public's view of large corporations.

Netflix lost 800K subscribers in one quarter over their recent actions. I wonder what situations like this will do for BofA.


----------



## groph

A Critical Discussing of the Occupy Movement | Halifax Media Co-op

Dunno if this thread is totally dead or not yet, but I just came across this. It's an interview with one of my professors (my thesis advisor actually) done by a local radio station. Articulate guy, crazy smart. Feel free to disagree with him though, he's definitely a "leftist nutbar." I like what he has to say though.


----------



## Treeunit212

What's the first amendment?

Apparently he's out already as of 9:00pm last night, and no one's even sure if he was charged of anything. Still pretty fucked up if you ask me.


----------



## renzoip

I'm telling you, right now cops are being part of the problem, not part of the solution.


----------



## Demiurge

It's an unusual position for the police to be in. They are called-upon to manage the crowds in these scenarios, but it doesn't go unnoticed that law enforcement is one of the most prominent unionized professions, where collective bargaining has a fellow-traveler relationship with the values behind these protests.


----------



## Treeunit212

Here are some of his quotes about Occupy Wall Street (taken from a New York Observer article):

&#8220;You should, by law, only use force to protect someone&#8217;s life or to protect them from being bodily injured OK? If you&#8217;re not protecting somebody&#8217;s life or protecting them from bodily injury, there&#8217;s no need to use force. And the number one thing that they always have in their favor that they seldom use is negotiation&#8211;continue to talk, and talk and talk to people. You have nothing to lose by that, but this bullrush&#8211;what happened last night is totally uncalled for when they did not use negotiation long enough.&#8221;

&#8220;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&#8217;re concerned about a dirty park. That&#8217;s obnoxious, it&#8217;s arrogant, it&#8217;s ignorant, it&#8217;s disgusting,&#8221;

Mr. Lewis said the police want to get rid of him, but he vowed to keep coming back to the protests.

&#8220;They&#8217;re trying to get me arrested and I may disappear OK? As soon as I&#8217;m let out of jail, I&#8217;ll be right back here and they&#8217;ll have to arrest me again.&#8221;

Mr. Lewis thinks some officers might appreciate his presence, but not top brass.

&#8220;I&#8217;m their worst enemy, especially with the white shirts, the bosses OK? Some of the fellow cops they might be thinking, you know, &#8216;That guy, he&#8217;s got a point,&#8217; but the bosses, i&#8217;m their number one enemy,&#8221;

Mr. Lewis clearly doesn&#8217;t think the NYPD likes him, but he told the protesters he doesn&#8217;t think cops are their enemy.

&#8220;All the cops are, they&#8217;re just workers for the one percent and they don&#8217;t even realize they&#8217;re being exploited,&#8221;


----------



## Blind Theory

I know a lot of law enforcement as my dad has worked for our sheriff's department for 10 years. I am here to say that there are a LOT of DAMN GOOD men and women out there patrolling the streets. This is why it is extremely disappointing and saddening to see all of the senseless violence coming from people who are supposed to protect the streets. It's a damn shame when headlining stories are "Former Police Chief Arrested For No Fucking Reason" or "War Veteran Badly Beaten For No Fucking Reason." It's a damn shame.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone

Blind Theory said:


> I know a lot of law enforcement as my dad has worked for our sheriff's department for 10 years. I am here to say that there are a LOT of DAMN GOOD men and women out there patrolling the streets. This is why it is extremely disappointing and saddening to see all of the senseless violence coming from people who are supposed to protect the streets. It's a damn shame when headlining stories are "Former Police Chief Arrested For No Fucking Reason" or "War Veteran Badly Beaten For No Fucking Reason." It's a damn shame.





People aren't realising, as well, the most officers aren't choosing to do this, like others have already said in this thread. It's their job, and they want to keep it. I don't understand how the whole of them get shit for it for the minority. Down here they're going through the same shit that the Occupiers are going/went through, and the unions are the only things keeping them from being layed off.


----------



## Explorer

Demiurge said:


> ...(C)ollective bargaining has a fellow-traveler relationship with the values behind these protests.



It's interesting that the right to work is at issue, and yet some of the proposed principles of OWS under discussion are against cheaper labor, like from undocumented workers here in the US. 

The PETA crowd has also managed to get something in the principles under discussion as well. 

It will be interesting to see how they reconcile the right of a worker to earn money with their proposal to limit how much a medical specialist can earn after more than a decade of medical training. 

In other words... it's only fair for someone to earn money if the madding crowd allows it, regardless of stated principles regarding someone being free to choose their own destiny. 

Ah, the proposals that doctors be under some kind of servitude to the community... the very definition of freedom. *laugh*

----

What's interesting is that a lot of what I've been hearing about what is wanted coincides with a lot of collectivist principles I learned about while studying Soviet history, with all kinds of enforcement, but with a faith in those who profess to follow the movement that will leave them vulnerable. I'm hopeful that there won't be the same opportunities for corruption in the OWS movement.

What's interesting is, the American Founding Fathers went with the opposite idea, that one must guard against corruption.


----------



## SenorDingDong

What happened to respectable police officers? I know this isn't all officers, but I believe that the majority these days has gotten out of hand. They all believe that they are above the law.


It was a peaceful sit down protest, and the officer just walks by and pepper sprays the students. 


Whatever happened to "Protect and Serve?"
In equal measures, what happened to freedom of assembly?




Planned rally against UC Davis pepper spraying - WFSB Channel 3



I find it harder and harder to respect police officers, especially since most of the ones I know are punk kids who were bullies in high school, and now as officers they get hard on's by pulling things like this.


It's disgraceful.


----------



## kevdes93

the students were given multiple warnings that force was to be used if they didnt move, but i still agree taht it totally shouldnt have been done. if i was there i woulda been furious.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

-John F. Kennedy


----------



## USMarine75

^ I couldn't possibly disagree more. 

You're extrapolating <1% and referring to them as the majority. All jobs have that "F'ing 1%" and some are more like 10%. But, to use universalisms like _most_ or _all_ is downright wrong. And saying that cops get hard ons from beating innocent kids is just silly and uninformed. Spend an hour shadowing a cop for a day and you'll have your eyes opened to the reality of the world you actually live in.

Not knowing any of the specifics other than what I just read in that link... these are not _regular_ law enforcement officers, they are two UC Davis campus cops and an administrator. Hardly representative of the 800,000+ other cops that are properly doing an exceptionally hard job every day.

And the other thing that really grinds my gears about your post is you state "Whatever happened to 'Protect and Serve?' ... In equal measures, what happened to freedom of assembly?". This is answered in the article you posted. The two cops are on admin leave pending due process. They will probably lose their jobs. If so, this also means they can never work in law enforcement again. The administrator might lose her job. There could even be legal/criminal ramifications. The school committee is investigating their polices and procedures to prevent future incidents. The Chancellor has even promised to speed up due process and make a determination within 30 days instead of the normal 90. So... what else do you want???


----------



## USMarine75

Oh and FYI... I work in an aspect of federal law enforcement and I support OWS (as do most of my coworkers)... I just hate hippie anarchist all-cops-are-pigs screw-the-man types... makes me want to OC spray someone right about now... 






Yes... "I'm" stereotyping


----------



## SenorDingDong

USMarine75 said:


> ^ I couldn't possibly disagree more.
> 
> You're extrapolating <1% and referring to them as the majority. All jobs have that "F'ing 1%" and some are more like 10%. But, to use universalisms like _most_ or _all_ is downright wrong. And saying that cops get hard ons from beating innocent kids is just silly and uninformed. Spend an hour shadowing a cop for a day and you'll have your eyes opened to the reality of the world you actually live in.
> 
> Not knowing any of the specifics other than what I just read in that link... these are not _regular_ law enforcement officers, they are two UC Davis campus cops and an administrator. Hardly representative of the 800,000+ other cops that are properly doing an exceptionally hard job every day.
> 
> And the other thing that really grinds my gears about your post is you state "Whatever happened to 'Protect and Serve?' ... In equal measures, what happened to freedom of assembly?". This is answered in the article you posted. The two cops are on admin leave pending due process. They will probably lose their jobs. If so, this also means they can never work in law enforcement again. The administrator might lose her job. There could even be legal/criminal ramifications. The school committee is investigating their polices and procedures to prevent future incidents. The Chancellor has even promised to speed up due process and make a determination within 30 days instead of the normal 90. So... what else do you want???





While I respect your opinion, I completely disagree. This isn't the first time peaceful demonstrators have been attacked, nor is it the first ten thousandth time. 


However, when you are in a law enforcing job, no matter your position, you represent _every_ law enforcing job.

You are only as good as your weakest link, and in this case, it isn't a mere one percent. I have family members who are police officers. I'm not a hippie; I just know that your estimations are a bit modest. In fact, they are _very_ modest.

I believe you should also tone down a bit on the hippie jargon, because as far as I see from your posts, anyone who believes that America is anything less than perfect is wrong. It isn't the case.


----------



## USMarine75

^ There is no argument against someone who argues with generalizations, slippery slope arguments, and ad-hominem.

Abuse happens, especially where power over others is involved. But again you act like any one example means there's many tens of thousands. You're overstating reality without any research.

Per a Toledo University study:


"In its post-Sept. 11 reorganization, the FBI listed police misconduct as one of its highest civil rights priorities to keep pace with an anticipated increase in police hiring through 2009." = It's not like law enforcement agencies deny that it's happening or don't try and prevent it from happening.
The study states that around 50 cases were prosecuted in 2007. There were 256 successful prosecutions from '01-'07.
Even if you estimate that 96% of cases are not prosecuted for various reasons (e.g. no evidence, contrary evidence, fear of reprisal, etc) = if every one of those charged were guilty you would have 1,000 violators over 7 years = 0.125% of the workforce.
^ None of this sounds like the many 10,000s of cases you grossly misrepresent.

And I'll bet if I did an investigation of whatever you do for a living, there's just as many (%) or more pieces of shit that do what you do for a living, too.

The whole problem is you don't have an appreciation for the 99% that are doing a proper job, instead you point out the 1% that are doing a shitty job. Kind of fitting for an OWS thread, huh? It only takes one person to F it up for everyone... I work with quite a few dickheads that fit your description, but that isn't the majority.

Lastly, you didn't answer me as to what changes you would have made? They're probably fired, maybe jail, can't ever work in law enforcement, and changes in policy to prevent further instances.


----------



## Randy




----------



## murakami

Jstring said:


> While I respect your opinion, I completely disagree. This isn't the first time peaceful demonstrators have been attacked, nor is it the first ten thousandth time.
> 
> 
> However, when you are in a law enforcing job, no matter your position, you represent _every_ law enforcing job.
> 
> You are only as good as your weakest link, and in this case, it isn't a mere one percent. I have family members who are police officers. I'm not a hippie; I just know that your estimations are a bit modest. In fact, they are _very_ modest.
> 
> I believe you should also tone down a bit on the hippie jargon, because as far as I see from your posts, anyone who believes that America is anything less than perfect is wrong. It isn't the case.


 
sorry dude, but i agree with marine 100%

i think these protests are passive aggressive in the worst way. they're not physically attacking anyone, but they're hindering the lives of others by blocking them(causing people to lose time) and the people who they're blocking are the ones who are not involved or the enemies of these protesters.

for example; we have occupy vancouver, a bunch of drugged up people(apparently all the original members were chased out by these aggressive, homeless and drug addicted individuals) walking the streets to clog up traffic. throw urine at people trying to clean up the addicts own shit and get cussed at when walking by these addicts.

now not all protesters are like that, but the people who walk the streets to block traffic? you guys want to be heard yet you're doing it in the worst possible way by angering people in their cars. you want people to listen, don't force them by containing them like that; it's no better than the government forcing their rules on others.

the protesters may feel they're helping the people, but some people just dont believe in what they believe in. you can't force them like that. if you wish to make a paint, then don't go to the school. don't give them your money.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

OWS shouldnt even be in Canada. We have free healthcare: what more could you possibly want?


----------



## USMarine75

Whoaaa... It freaked me out when I clicked on this and there's now 8 pages... thread merge, huh?

Does Canada even have a Wall Street?


----------



## murakami

Stealthdjentstic said:


> OWS shouldnt even be in Canada. We have free healthcare: what more could you possibly want?


 

you've seen them, right?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Nope.

Seriously though, if anyone bitches about our HC system being shitty that's not really even a valid arguement.

I have a chronic pain condition that effectively squeezes and severes nerves in my back over time and while the healthcare system may not be the best and you sometimes have to know someone or be a little aggressive I'm glad I'm not in the US otherwise I'd be dropping like 1k+ each time for an MRi.


----------



## murakami

USMarine75 said:


> Whoaaa... It freaked me out when I clicked on this and there's now 8 pages... thread merge, huh?
> 
> Does Canada even have a Wall Street?


 

i think they have something similar in toronto.

the dumbass' in canada who are doing this shit are just retarded. stealth can even tell you that the demands of the people who are occupying vancouver were not even in sync. they don't even know what the fuck they wanted as a collective group...


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Not to mention Heroin Cocaine party time err day everyday.


----------



## vampiregenocide

There is enough conflict going on in the world without making broad generalisations based on the actions of the few. In order to deal with a problem you have to attack it realistically and respectfully.


----------



## Treeunit212

Explorer said:


> It's interesting that the right to work is at issue, and yet some of the proposed principles of OWS under discussion are against cheaper labor, like from undocumented workers here in the US.
> 
> The PETA crowd has also managed to get something in the principles under discussion as well.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how they reconcile the right of a worker to earn money with their proposal to limit how much a medical specialist can earn after more than a decade of medical training.
> 
> In other words... it's only fair for someone to earn money if the madding crowd allows it, regardless of stated principles regarding someone being free to choose their own destiny.
> 
> Ah, the proposals that doctors be under some kind of servitude to the community... the very definition of freedom. *laugh*
> 
> ----
> 
> What's interesting is that a lot of what I've been hearing about what is wanted coincides with a lot of collectivist principles I learned about while studying Soviet history, with all kinds of enforcement, but with a faith in those who profess to follow the movement that will leave them vulnerable. I'm hopeful that there won't be the same opportunities for corruption in the OWS movement.
> 
> What's interesting is, the American Founding Fathers went with the opposite idea, that one must guard against corruption.



What's interesting is how none of that has anything to do with why he got arrested. 

I didn't post this to start a discussion of the consequences and/or demands of OWS are, I posted it to shed some light on how out of control this is getting.

Like the Captain said; He's their worst enemy. Someone like him who represents power and authority siding with the protesters is all it's going to take to get people to realize what it's really about.

Edit: I also posted it to get some taking points about OWS for extra credit in my Sociology class. 

ZANG.


----------



## Explorer

So, I've been thinking specifically about the OWS demands to come.

And I realized... I don't want any group to be able to issue demands. I want the normal rule of law, with citizens voting for candidates and legislators who will work to pass laws. I don't want anyone to make an end run around democracy. 

If any group can't muster a candidate who believes as they do, and if they can't muster the votes to get such a candidate in, then that's just the way things go. Lots of people think their viewpoint is best. In a democratic republic, it's necessary to find approval (and votes) outside your little community.

And, for those who would try to claim that all candidates are corrupt except those of their own party... really? Just because they don't agree with you, that makes them corrupt, and your group has the monopoly on virtue? I doubt it. 

----

Short version: I don't want laws put in place which short circuit the American electoral and legislative processes. A group which uses bullying to get its way seems anti-American at its core.


----------



## daemon barbeque

renzoip said:


> I'm telling you, right now cops are being part of the problem, not part of the solution.



That's nothing new. We pay them to beat us, spray pepper gas into our faces, and telling us whatever they want us to do. How can we so stupid to give our right to speak our minds or the right to protest to their hands?

That's why that Police Officer is unique. He doesn't craving for Primate power with primate base level IQ. He understood the problem, and his "ideal" position in the system, not the forced one. Funny enough, corporate money never reaches a police officers pocket if they ever pay. The money they get payed from is the tax of the common men. And they are exactly who get the gas and the stick. Funny system!


----------



## vampiregenocide

brutalwizard said:


> i think i am going to go sit in the road cause its unfair I or nobody I will know will ever be earning as much as .1% of certain individuals of my countries population or .000004 of the world's population
> 
> i am not going to have any clear goals on what i want either, i just know i am grumpy about it.
> 
> makes sense right?
> 
> or
> 
> i am going to sit in the road because there are to many metal bands, and i nor anyone i know has a chance making money in metal music unlike the .1% called metallica.
> 
> its there fault they become a popular product and use there name to monopolize the giant stadium sold out show business



...really?


----------



## USMarine75

^ The 99% isn't upset because they're jealous... that's the fallacy the 1% is spreading to explain the rationale behind OWS. Matt Taibbi says it better than I can:
[Herman] Cain said he believed that the protesters are driven by envy of the rich. "I find the one thing [the protesters] have in common revolves around the human emotions of envy and entitlement," he said. "What you have is more than what I have, and I'm not happy with my situation."

Cain seems like a nice enough guy, but I nearly blew my stack when I heard this. When you take into consideration all the theft and fraud and market manipulation and other evil shit Wall Street bankers have been guilty of in the last ten-fifteen years, you have to have balls like church bells to trot out a propaganda line that says the protesters are just jealous of their hard-earned money.

Think about it: there have always been rich and poor people in America, so if this is about jealousy, why the protests now? The idea that masses of people suddenly discovered a deep-seated animus/envy toward the rich  after keeping it strategically hidden for decades  is crazy.

And we hate the rich? Come on. Success is the national religion, and almost everyone is a believer. Americans _love _winners. But that's just the problem. These guys on Wall Street are not winning  they're cheating. And as much as we love the self-made success story, we hate the cheater that much more.​Wall Street Isn't Winning It's Cheating | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

Also read:

Woman Gets Jail For Food-Stamp Fraud; Wall Street Fraudsters Get Bailouts | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone


----------



## groph

What we need is a second Earth that we can make for all of the people who think that it might actually be possible to run a direct democracy, value philosophers and the arts without putting them over science, run an economy in a non-hierarchical way that prevents large corporations forming monopolies, destroying any hope of an actual free, competitve market as well as avoiding short-sighted bandaid measures in favor of long-term stability and organizing societies in non hierarchical ways so as to end racism, sexism and whatever other isms exist that prevent people from having true equality of opportunity. I'd totally give this second Earth a shot.

The most poignant part of the interview that I posted a page ago in case anyone hasn't taken the time for it was that a main problem with Occupy is that it's a spectacle, and spectacles create spectators. Not to be against the movement, I think it's great that people are pissed off and voicing it (much better than taking it laying down), but if anything it's probably not radical enough if they're expecting to literally change the world.

No, the "99%" doesn't represent me or in fact most other people who seem to have ambivalent opinions about Occupy and neither do elected "representatives," especially if they're dependent on corporate financing (this is especially bad in the US so they have a bit of a right to be more pissed off about this than Canada where it is *relatively* cheap to run a campaign) and where the "democracy" has turned into partisan posturing, stupid attacks on the other side (Canada is bad for this, our Parliament is rowdy and moronic). It all sounds broken to me, and the logics of capitalism and the ideology that supports it seems (eg consumerism, work ethic will always pay off - rags to riches) to stifle real change. We're locked into old notions of what "progress" is (like affirmative action, redistribution to try to close income gaps, liberal feminism, etc), "change" is liberal reforms so we're just bending the rules of the system a tiny bit for the benefit of some and the detriment of others. Thatcher (?) declared the "end of history" some time ago and many people seem pretty convinced that the world is impossible to change. It's also quite the paradigm that young people are supposed to expect the world to change, it appears.

I still think the time is coming very soon that we need to start relating to the world in a fundamentally different way. Tons of people understand the basic nature of our problems but nobody has any real solutions thus far. I don't think Occupy is one of them but on the other hand part of me feels pretty crappy when people denouce it as a stupid protest.

And Canada has plenty to protest about, rising tuition, Harper's prison expansion (private prisons), indigenous issues, and basically anything else that is common to developed capitalist nation states since we're all tied together today anyway.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Work ethic does always pay off. My dads family was dirt shit poor and he grew up here during the 70's/80's and that's when racism was pretty rampant. Now there's a ferrari in the garage.

If some brown kid that had the shit kicked out of him for being brown growing up and has no education past high school there really are no excuses.


----------



## USMarine75

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Work ethic does always pay off. My dads family was dirt shit poor and he grew up here during the 70's/80's and that's when racism was pretty rampant. Now there's a ferrari in the garage.
> 
> If some brown kid that had the shit kicked out of him for being brown growing up and has no education past high school there really are no excuses.


 
Everyone knows that Canadian Rules only apply in Canadia.


----------



## Necris

brutalwizard said:


> i am going to satire the idea, i wouldn't call it a movement because i have no clear goals.
> 
> i am considering tenting it out in boise, cause they have food and wifi.



To you it's satire, to me it's some idiot tenting out on the sidewalk. Satire doesn't work when no-one gets the joke.


----------



## jam3v

I've been watching the reactions to OWS closely since the beginning... 

I'll never understand why the poor and lower middle-class are the first people to defend the interests of the super-super-rich. 

OWS is about economic inequality at its roots. Don't focus on 'those lazy students who don't want to pay their student loans back and get jobs.' 

The media has been trying to make OWS look like a joke since the beginning because there are obviously a few bad apples in the bunch. Take the time to research what exactly is being protested and how it pertains to _you_ - because there's a 99% probability that it does.

If you're not making $1,000,000/year, then I'm not sure why this _doesn't_ bother you..
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph


----------



## UnderTheSign

brutalwizard said:


> imagine if everyone of these people volunteered 5 hours a day cleaning stuff, or writing a book or something THE POSSIBILITIES


You mean... Instead of sleeping 16 hours a day and living on internet messageboards?


----------



## jam3v

Randy said:


>




How does this NOT enrage people?

or this?



_We_ pay these people to protect us..


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

USMarine75 said:


> Everyone knows that Canadian Rules only apply in Canadia.





All of the family's business is US based anyways sooo... 

I think he's getting a US passport as well soon.


----------



## Randy

jam3v said:


> How does this NOT enrage people?
> 
> or this?
> 
> 
> 
> _We_ pay these people to protect us..




Occupy Seattle protester claims police caused her miscarriage | World news | guardian.co.uk


----------



## Necris

I'm beginning to think it is inevitable that these protesters will turn to violence against the police as time goes on. As a group they've shown incredible restraint so far but it can only last for so long.


----------



## highlordmugfug

brutalwizard said:


> so i occupied my curb today looking grumpy with a sign that said 99% *for a couple hours.*
> i listened to new aal and vidjaharta while i did it.
> 
> i found standing/sitting there not very helpful in proving any points, maybe i just need more people that have that much free time
> 
> i am going to satire the idea, i wouldn't call it a movement because i have no clear goals.
> 
> i am considering tenting it out in boise, cause they have food and wifi.



http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/off-topic/177862-need-ideas-make-200-month.html

1. No surprise you still don't have a job.
2. Your opinion means nothing in this thread since you bitch constantly about trying to find a job and are apparently incapable of doing so, and yet you're ragging on people who are upset about income disparity and the filthy-rich rigging the system in their favor.
3. Why don't you take your own advice:


brutalwizard said:


> these occupy wall street folks should spend there time inventing things i want to buy instead of wasting away at parks, for a cause they aren't to sure on.
> 
> sure its for a cause, but they could all be doing community service or something?
> 
> imagine if everyone of these people volunteered 5 hours a day cleaning stuff, or writing a book or something THE POSSIBILITIES


http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/2749420-post6.html
And do something productive instead of acting snide and condescending while not being able to spell or properly punctuate sentences.


----------



## Necris

Not to mention the majority of the OWS protesters _do_ have jobs. So it stands to reason they are actually contributing more to society.

Edit: Updated with supporting articles! http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2011/...-are-employed-compared-to-56-of-tea-partiers/


----------



## Randy

Necris said:


> I'm beginning to think it is inevitable that these protesters will turn to violence against the police as time goes on. As a group they've shown incredible restraint so far but it can only last for so long.



My assessment as well. That video of the methodical pepperspraying made me so sick and so anxious that I seriously felt like "I need to do something". Like, a real call to action. I'd personally like to see the officer involved arrested for assault and to see everyone else involved fired as well, but I'm sure *other* people out there saw this and really wanted to fuck that dude up.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Yeah it's not like BW is blaming the government for his problems. I don't see any issue in him saying what he said. 

If he said something like, "I cant get a job, fuck the gov", then that would be a fair criticism.


----------



## Necris

highlordmugfug said:


> 3. Why don't you take your own advice:
> 
> 
> brutalwizard said:
> 
> 
> 
> imagine if everyone of these people volunteered 5 hours a day cleaning stuff
Click to expand...





brutalwizard said:


> i picked up a can off the street today lol



Nice to see you can be counted on for the bare minimum in all of your endeavors.


----------



## Necris

Brutal Wizards point, as stated by him in the chatroom. 



> [brutalwizard] 5:35 pm: lol necris the satire is once i allege myself to the
> nonsense occupy stuff doing the same stuff there doing, members bash me and
> the ideals that are occupy wallstreet. its bassically using myself as example of
> how dumb it is and watching the hilariousness of everyone getting all mad



Eloquently stated, as always.


----------



## Randy

Stupid black people. Expecting to get equal treatment and respect from people by getting in their way and just pissing them off. What a vague and futile demand that is, anyway.


----------



## Randy

Are the cops beating them or the people like you chastising them in the 99%? Yes? Then no, they don't.

During the civil rights movement, if you were black and you kept your mouth shut and did as you were told, then you were left alone. If you spoke up for yourself and other people like you who were too afraid to do it themselves, this is the kinda treatment you endured. Notice that there are two white people in this picture who are getting shit dumped on them by PEOPLE EXACTLY LIKE THEM, for taking a stand simply by sitting next to a black person.

This is nothing new.


----------



## Randy

brutalwizard said:


> and if we started giving everyone a super fair communism like economy and oppurtunites
> who are you going to trick to be a docter for the same wage as a musician?



If you think that's what it's about then there's literally no reasoning with you.


----------



## murakami

jam3v said:


> How does this NOT enrage people?
> 
> or this?
> 
> 
> 
> _We_ pay these people to protect us..





we cant just single out all police like that. walk a mile in a policeman's shoes and you'll find it very difficult as well to control yourself.

the thing is, is that the police aren't the enemy. they have to earn money as well to pay for their shit, but unfortunately, their bosses happen to be the government. they have to do this otherwise their ass' are gone.

its easy to just say, "quit then. they're working for a corrupt blah blah".
it's completely different when you have a family to support. the protesters see the police as the enemy and get shit thrown at them... the thing is, the police are getting shit on the other end as well from their boss' pushing them to take out the protesters. and when they do, guess who the scapegoat is???


----------



## Necris

I'd say it's fairly easy to single out a policeman who pepper-sprays a group of sitting college students who pose no immediate threat as well as the policeman in that video who pulls that girl almost completely unprovoked. If anything the girl appeared to be attempting to rejoin the crowd before she was pulled. But that's just how I interpreted it.


----------



## murakami

Necris said:


> I'd say it's fairly easy to single out a policeman who pepper-sprays a group of sitting college students who pose no immediate threat as well as the policeman in that video who pulls that girl almost completely unprovoked. If anything the girl appeared to be attempting to rejoin the crowd before she was pulled. But that's just how I interpreted it.


 

i hear ya, man. but theres still two sides of the story. the video is only showing the badside of the cop. who knows what kind of shit she was pulling earlier. just saying. she could be innocent, but from what i gather, some of these protesters really make it hard for some of these cops to just escort them away. 

but who knows really. each side likes to throw dirt on each other


----------



## vampiregenocide

I'm sorry BW, but you have a narrow view of what these protests are about and what people are actually protesting. People know they're getting fucked, and they know who are doing it. Yes, the movement lacks direction, but how do you take on the corporate behemoth that has America and the rest of the world under it's thumb? People are angry and have no idea how to change things because most people aren't politicians or in finance. So they do what their human rights allow them to do: they assemble and show their outrage at the vast injustice that is happening.

That act of assembly is a statement in itself. We know there are issues, and these protests have created a huge wave of media debate in the past couple of months as a result. You say they lack direction? We're here talking about the issues aren't we? We're debating this movement and the issues it is frustrated with. It has got people talking, and that is it's biggest success so far and the first step in dealing with an issue is to get people talking. 

You're picking apart a movement that is an attempt at taking on the foundation of all evil in human civilisation at the moment. Of course there will be flaws and lack of direction in their protests, you're taking on the entire finance system. 

You're saying your opinion and that's fine I respect that, but it has no real weight or valid content to it, or a suggestion at viable alternatives. You're just criticising something that you're demonstrating a lack of understanding of.


----------



## Necris

Mass gatherings of people doing community service would be great, but I fail to see how that would help the movement at all.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

This is no basis to be compared to racial intolerance. Completely different thing.


----------



## Phil-Centralia

I will get flamed and trolled because of this.

I didnt read the thread, nor is it important. I only saw the video above.

The only thing i can say is that the poblem with people doing this kind of thing is that they dont have smart and inteligent ideas to solve the problems or protest, if gathering people and standing on the street would be effective it would be used more.

And about the police, everyone criticize them, but you dont have a goddamn idea how they are feeling or the pressure they are bearing by standing against the population, and recieving orders to not fall back on the first movement, it is human nature to act reckless in case of high psychological pressure.

To a bystander it is easy to critisize, but it beign the side of the protestants or police, neither one will win by acting like idiotic cave-men.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Also, I realize its terrible that woman had a miscarriage but what kind of moron goes to a protest while pregnant?

On a scLe of stupid I think that would be an 11.


----------



## Randy

Stealthdjentstic said:


> This is no basis to be compared to racial intolerance. Completely different thing.



That wasn't what I meant. Most of what's being lobbed at these people is "WTF? How do you consider standing around and in the way of everybody to be getting your message out?" and I simply provided an example of another time when a very similar tactic was used and people said "WTF? Useless" as well.


----------



## murakami

i am assuming she miscarried from someone else and blaming the police to get some sort of comfort from the media.


----------



## murakami

Randy said:


> That wasn't what I meant. Most of what's being lobbed at these people is "WTF? How do you consider standing around and in the way of everybody to be getting your message out?" and I simply provided and example of another time when a very similar tactic was used and people said "WTF? Useless" as well.


 

i have to agree and disagree. in your picture it showed a white person sitting beside a black person in a bar. that by it self is a powerful image, saying, "it's ok to sit beside this guy because he's alright. he's done nothing wrong"

with the protesters... meh, i don't know... because they aren't just standing around. some of them are just acting like dumbass' where as the guy in your picture; i see a real respectable person, you know what i mean? not these new age clowns.

i take in account that there is good people in that crowd as well, the legit ones... but in a fight like this, you'll always get assholes to take advantage of this shit, where as the race one; people will fight for another race because it's just plain wrong to be racist. not saying it's plain wrong with what the bankers are doing... but with the race thing, the blacks were innocent. some of those people who're protesting are greedy, jealous or made poor decisions with their money.

fuck... i just completely lost track of what i am talking about now. nevermind


----------



## Randy

Through the rose-colored kaleidoscope of half a century, maybe. But even back then, there were people perverting the movement for their own reasons... some groups (I'd say the Black Panthers or Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam, but I honestly am too rusty on my history in enough detail to say those groups were all guilty of it) who were using the civil rights movement as a vehicle to empower a "black supremacist" movement. Not so noble a cause and that did a lot to damage as well as dirty the original message.

Back to what (I believe) the Occupy Movement is about. The 1%, through their wealth, own our government and over a period of several decades, have ensured that we work full time to settle for a mediocre life built on working ourselves to death, living in debt and straddling the line between "making it" and "poor" until we're dead. This, as far as I've understood, was never about "hate them for the fact they have money!" but about the entire system being shifted to serve the people on the tippy-top at the expense of literally everyone else underneath them. Wanting a fair tax structure and wanting fairer compensation for services rendered is a pretty noble cause, no? 

It'll be interesting how that same kaleidoscope views the times we live in.


----------



## jam3v

Randy said:


> My assessment as well. That video of the methodical pepperspraying made me so sick and so anxious that I seriously felt like "I need to do something". Like, a real call to action. I'd personally like to see the officer involved arrested for assault and to see everyone else involved fired as well, but I'm sure *other* people out there saw this and really wanted to fuck that dude up.



I totally felt that as well. I literally wanted to punch my monitor while I was at work, and I never feel that way when I'm detached from the situation watching YouTube.

The scary reality is there's a movement of people (which you can see in the YouTube comments section) who are congratulating these guys for "doing their jobs."


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Randy said:


> That wasn't what I meant. Most of what's being lobbed at these people is "WTF? How do you consider standing around and in the way of everybody to be getting your message out?" and I simply provided an example of another time when a very similar tactic was used and people said "WTF? Useless" as well.



My bad, I've been posting off my phone and it isn't the greatest idea when posting in P&CE.


----------



## jam3v

Phil-Centralia said:


> I will get flamed and trolled because of this.
> 
> I didnt read the thread, nor is it important. I only saw the video above.
> 
> The only thing i can say is that the poblem with people doing this kind of thing is that they dont have smart and inteligent ideas to solve the problems or protest, if gathering people and standing on the street would be effective it would be used more.
> 
> And about the police, everyone criticize them, but you dont have a goddamn idea how they are feeling or the pressure they are bearing by standing against the population, and recieving orders to not fall back on the first movement, it is human nature to act reckless in case of high psychological pressure.
> 
> To a bystander it is easy to critisize, but it beign the side of the protestants or police, neither one will win by acting like idiotic cave-men.



You make a very valid point. But I'm a firm believer in doing the *right* thing, and when it comes to violence that's usually a pretty black and white issue.

Pepper spraying people who are _sitting down_ peacefully, because they won't get out of the way? Jabbing people in the stomach with batons because they're standing in a crowd? 

There's absolutely no excuse for that.


----------



## Randy

Stealthdjentstic said:


> My bad, I've been posting off my phone and it isn't the greatest idea when posting in P&CE.



Nah, it's cool. I've drawn a few other parallels since then, so I guess you still make a fair point. I certainly don't believe there's nearly the same level of unfairness (surprised that's a word ) but there's still some parity. An inherited disparity, protests that fall on deaf ears to the public at large, an overarching message but not a lot of specifics on how to attain it and lastly, figures of authority using violence against "an annoyance" along with widespread support for such acts.

As the child of a woman who lived the life of a "colored person" in the US in the '60s (in an interracial relationship, at that), believe me I know it's not COMPLETELY apples-to-apples, but I'm hoping some people get the gist.


----------



## jam3v

murakami said:


> we cant just single out all police like that. walk a mile in a policeman's shoes and you'll find it very difficult as well to control yourself.
> 
> the thing is, is that the police aren't the enemy. they have to earn money as well to pay for their shit, but unfortunately, their bosses happen to be the government. they have to do this otherwise their ass' are gone.
> 
> its easy to just say, "quit then. they're working for a corrupt blah blah".
> it's completely different when you have a family to support. the protesters see the police as the enemy and get shit thrown at them... the thing is, the police are getting shit on the other end as well from their boss' pushing them to take out the protesters. and when they do, guess who the scapegoat is???



If _every single police offer_ decided, right now, that they'd always do the right thing, even when ordered to do the wrong one, you really think they'd all get fired for not following ridiculous orders they don't think are right?

It's really _that_ simple.


----------



## Explorer

@USM - Having heard some of the rhetoric about how medical specialists are overpaid for their decade or more of training, I don't know if I can explain that rhetoric in terms of those oncologists and others being engaged in fraud. It *does* sound like jealousy, and the inability to understand how much education it really takes to treat certain illnesses, to be a surgeon, and so on. 

@groph - Is it really impossible for someone to run who isn't part of a political machine? I've *personally* known great people who have decided to run, and who found support because of their ideas. They've made it to Congress. 

If there really is a discontent with the current politicians, is it really so impossible to vote someone else in? Look at the Tea Party. I think some of their ideas are misguided, but a original core Tea Party value is not being beholden to the interests, no? 

Incidentally, keeping in mind that the Tea Party forgot about their anger about corporate bail-outs fairly quickly, I'd say that it will be just as hard for OWS voters to really be able to vet their "candidates." I'm sure they'll get a few in, but I think OWS will be duped the way most Big Idea groups wind up with candidates who claim to follow the values in public, but who don't really believe. The problem is, most Big Idea groups are ready to point out the flaws in others, but can't really be critical towards their own "members"... or those claiming to be so. 

@whoever said that the protesters know who has been breaking the law - In that case, report that lawbreaking to the authorities.

If not, if there is no actual lawbreaking involved, then what needs to be done is to vote in those who will change the laws which are felt to be bad. Don't make false claims of lawbreaking if there is no law being broken. 

There's a difference between not liking how a law is written, and claiming that a law is being broken. Pointing to a bailout passed by legislators and claiming it was illegal is incorrect. Don't like what those legislators did? Then get out the vote, especially if you claim that you represent lots of people.

And, if you can't get out the vote, then you don't really represent all those people, do you?


----------



## highlordmugfug

brutalwizard said:


> yeah it isnt a surpise people that stand around doing nothing, being mad for reasons without goals dont have jobs like me and my fellow occupiers. or the ones with jobs arent getting promotions for more money
> 
> 
> 
> how does that negate my opinion?
> MOST occupiers are mad cause they cant find a job, and blame it on there economic leaders
> so the ones without jobs bitching have no right to harass public by sitting in roads and sleeping in there parks?
> i dont personally blame them i am just "mad" about the situation, and have no clear goals
> 
> 
> i picked up a can off the street today lol


Well actually...


Necris said:


> Not to mention the majority of the OWS protesters _do_ have jobs. So it stands to reason they are actually contributing more to society.
> 
> Edit: Updated with supporting articles! We Party Patriots » Blog Archive » Get a What? A Job? 70% of Occupy Wall Streeters are Employed, Compared to 56% of Tea Partiers


70% of OWS people have jobs, so no, the majority of them are not unemployed like yourself.

And it sounds like your attempt at community service received about as much effort as you showed us that your job/school search did: bare minimum.

The point of OWS (and this has been pointed out many many times in this thread is corruption of the financial and political sectors, the influence of corporate money in politics and the rigging/gaming of the system by banks and the superrich. It doesn't have anything to do with people being jealous of rich people (as you seem to be insisting with the whole "MOST occupiers are mad cause they cant find a job, and blame it on there economic leaders" [sic] crap).


Stealthdjentstic said:


> Yeah it's not like BW is blaming the government for his problems. I don't see any issue in him saying what he said.
> 
> If he said something like, "I cant get a job, fuck the gov", then that would be a fair criticism.


True, but he insists it's impossible to find a job, and seems to think he's better/smarter than the protesters because unlike those big dummies going out and protesting and trying to raise awareness of corruption and stand up for what they believe in, he's doing the intelligent thing by criticizing them for being unproductive while being immensely so himself and sitting at home asking people on the internet how to make $200 a month (but not by really applying himself to the search and getting a job) and trying to go to a really really expensive school for free by having the government pay for him to sit and take classes at home(that if anything else he's ever posted here is any indication of his work ethic/attitude: he won't put enough effort into to actually get anything out of it). Criticizing them for not having jobs (when the majority of them do) while he himself hasn't gotten one and has shown us through his posts that he isn't working that hard to get one.

And that's not to mention him being an ass and mocking them while having only the vaguest (and apparently uninformed/mislead) idea of what the people are really upset about.




Randy said:


> Back to what (I believe) the Occupy Movement is about. *The 1%, through their wealth, own our government and over a period of several decades, have ensured that we work full time to settle for a mediocre life built on working ourselves to death, living in debt and straddling the line between "making it" and "poor" until we're dead. This, as far as I've understood, was never about "hate them for the fact they have money!" but about the entire system being shifted to serve the people on the tippy-top at the expense of literally everyone else underneath them. Wanting a fair tax structure and wanting fairer compensation for services rendered is a pretty noble cause, no? *



This is what it's about brutalwizard, not just being upset at unemployment, being lazy, and being unproductive (hmm, who do we know who _has _displayed all of those traits though?).


----------



## daemon barbeque

The police guy who yanks the woman's hair can't be accepted as law enforcement. He can't even be accepted as human being. She is unarmed, she is half the weight of the guy, she did not attack the police, she is not equpied either. How someone with all the muscle, training and equpiment can't understand the situation and try to "force" her to move with only his physical presence. 
I really wanted to go there and smack him in the face. He is not doing his job well, and I don't care who orders what. It seems like other 20 policemen around wasn't taking the same orders, or where reacting different to those same orders.


----------



## USMarine75

Taibbi posted this on the 22nd regarding his thoughts on UC Davis...

UC Davis Pepper-Spray Incident Reveals Weakness Up Top | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone


----------



## Scar Symmetry

I'm intrigued as to whether the Occupy Movement can change anything. There are naysayers everywhere saying that they are just hippies and that it will change nothing. However, history tells us this is not the case. But we live in a different world today, so I'm skeptical of any change. I believe that the only way that true change can come is through instigating overwhelming violence. That's what makes people sit up and listen.


----------



## USMarine75

Explorer said:


> @USM - Having heard some of the rhetoric about how medical specialists are overpaid for their decade or more of training, I don't know if I can explain that rhetoric in terms of those oncologists and others being engaged in fraud. It *does* sound like jealousy, and the inability to understand how much education it really takes to treat certain illnesses, to be a surgeon, and so on.


 
Hey you wont hear me arguing there... I'm trying to go from government to medicine and I hate the argument that doctors are "overpaid" or "greedy". The cost of both me and my wife's med degrees will total $1.2M with interest. Three 20 year loans = having 3 mortgages plus our _actual_ house mortgage. Then, because we make _so much money_ we don't qualify for any tax benefits... (we didn't get the first time homebuyer credit, we can't write off interest on student loans, etc...) we pay the highest rate possible under US tax code, yet we then have to pay all our loans for 20 years... so often it becomes an issue of WTF did I work so hard for? *You work harder to earn more but your hard work doesnt pay off which violates the whole concept of the "American Way". *Plus, the average doctor gives up having any kind of life due to school until he's 30-ish (or older in my case)... and then you still work your ass off (unless you're a dermatologist).

So yeah, I'm sure there is an element of jealousy for those that see the benefits but don't realize the cost. But I agree with Taibbi that the real larger issue is that most citizens are upset that the elite are "getting over" on them. He often refers to the "Let them have cake" moments of these elite and I think that speaks to the utter disconnect between the 1% haves and the 99% have-nots. IMO the biggest problem with OWS is it is starting to turn into the Tea Party - forgetting its original complaints or getting bogged down with too many issues and a lack of leadership (The Tea Party had similar roots to OWS and now look at it)

Read these blogs from Taibbi and tell me that this isn't one of the biggest internal threats to our nation:

Why Isn't Wall Street in Jail? | Politics News | Rolling Stone

Another Weapon for OWS: Pull Your Money Out of BofA | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

Woman Gets Jail For Food-Stamp Fraud; Wall Street Fraudsters Get Bailouts | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

These fucks nearly caused the complete collapse of our economic system (and likely the world economy) and not one of them has paid a substantial fine or gone to prison? Most of the fines levied against corporations were paid with investor's money or with bail-out funds? Sigh... 

tl;dr Canadia isn't looking so bad right now even if their hockey players are flopping crybabies...


----------



## murakami

jam3v said:


> If _every single police offer_ decided, right now, that they'd always do the right thing, even when ordered to do the wrong one, you really think they'd all get fired for not following ridiculous orders they don't think are right?
> 
> It's really _that_ simple.


 

as much as i want the protesters to succeed(the legit ones), i do not approve of the police force disbanding to join the protesters cause.
maybe i am a nut, but if the police force just decides to stop what they're doing, then wouldn't that encourage the protesters(the bad ones) to go full blown bonkers? worst case scenario the military moves in, in the place of the police and marshall law goes into effect.


----------



## jam3v

brutalwizard said:


> who is to decide what is the ultimately fair compensation the person trying to get money (99%) or the people paying them? (1%)
> 
> it seems the Ultimate solution leads towards marxist ideas of equality, ran through the goverment, regulating pay to be fair.



I'll tell you what _isn't_ fair...







We've increased productivity by 80% since 1979, yet our wages have only increased by 10%.

Yet the wages of the top 1% have increased by _240%_.


----------



## vampiregenocide

brutalwizard said:


> i suggested an alternative actually
> 
> occupy the streets to clean them, just community service acts in general look better and more reasonable.



I was asking for a viable alternative. If you think litter picking is going to get international recognition, you must think there's not much going on it the world. 



brutalwizard said:


> protesters need to realize economics dont change overnight.
> 
> i dont expect a MAJOR change in the next 40 years towards econmic equality and even then without strong socialist ideals for the country, we will still have social class disparity.



Again, you're showing a lack of understanding of this movement. Most of these protesters are very well aware that the world isn't going to change over night, but you have to put it the ground work and get things moving. Doing nothing means nothing changes, and these protests have not only got the world talking about them but are raising key issues with the financial sector and authorities not just in the US, but globally. The movement lacked direction originally I agree, but it has found purpose and while may not change anything directly, I believe it has got the ball rolling and paved the way for a real solution to the problems we face.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be missing the main point of this protest.

Huge companies are making bigger profits than ever, but paying little to no tax. Often, then even get millions or billions in rebates from the government. The government as a result has less money, and is forced to make massive cuts to public spending etc causing services and businesses to collapse, unemployment to rise and the general financial stability of the common person to be put at risk. All because a few fat cats wanted higher profits. The governments are too scared to tackle these businesses, as they could just move elsewhere and leave the government high and dry. So they have to tolerate them, while trying to make up for their greed by putting the load on the common people.

That is what these protesters have a problem with, and that is perfectly understandable in my opinion.


----------



## jam3v

murakami said:


> as much as i want the protesters to succeed(the legit ones), i do not approve of the police force disbanding to join the protesters cause.
> maybe i am a nut, but if the police force just decides to stop what they're doing, then wouldn't that encourage the protesters(the bad ones) to go full blown bonkers? worst case scenario the military moves in, in the place of the police and marshall law goes into effect.



I think you missed my point. I'm saying the police simply shouldn't pepper spray / physically assault innocent peaceful protestors, even if they are ordered to for fear of losing their jobs. I'm not saying they drop their gear and join the protest... but imagine the impact that would have!

The riot squad wasn't called into UC Davis to arrest "bad protestors." They were called in there because tents were set up on an area of campus where overnight camping isn't usually allowed. The group there got written agreement from not only the student body, but the chancellor herself to allow camping for that specific night. 

The next morning the chancellor sent a letter demanding they remove the tents from the area for safety reasons, even though NO reasons were given in the letter. So the group replied more or less: look, we understand we're in violation of the camping code. But we believe that this is superseded by our first amendment rights.

Then another letter was sent, with huge bold lettering, which wasn't on letterhead of any type, or signed by anyone, saying "at 3PM YOUR TENTS WILL BE TAKEN DOWN."

Then the riot squad showed up. No one was causing any trouble.

People were sprayed at _point blank_ range by _military grade_ pepper spray that says ON THE BOTTLE to spray from at a minimum of 15 feet away. People were thrown into cruisers shortly after without receiving medical attention. One girl with asthma had an attack and was rushed to the hospital.

How can _anyone_ stand up for these police officers?

Maybe a direct account from someone who was physically there will help soften your heart:
http://boingboing.net/2011/11/20/ucdeyetwitness.html


----------



## murakami

jam3v said:


> I think you missed my point. I'm saying the police simply shouldn't pepper spray / physically assault innocent peaceful protestors, even if they are ordered to for fear of losing their jobs. I'm not saying they drop their gear and join the protest... but imagine the impact that would have!
> 
> The riot squad wasn't called into UC Davis to arrest "bad protestors." They were called in there because tents were set up on an area of campus where overnight camping isn't usually allowed. The group there got written agreement from not only the student body, but the chancellor herself to allow camping for that specific night.
> 
> The next morning the chancellor sent a letter demanding they remove the tents from the area for safety reasons, even though NO reasons were given in the letter. So the group replied more or less: look, we understand we're in violation of the camping code. But we believe that this is superseded by our first amendment rights.
> 
> Then another letter was sent, with huge bold lettering, which wasn't on letterhead of any type, or signed by anyone, saying "at 3PM YOUR TENTS WILL BE TAKEN DOWN."
> 
> Then the riot squad showed up. No one was causing any trouble.
> 
> People were sprayed at _point blank_ range by _military grade_ pepper spray that says ON THE BOTTLE to spray from at a minimum of 15 feet away. People were thrown into cruisers shortly after without receiving medical attention. One girl with asthma had an attack and was rushed to the hospital.
> 
> How can _anyone_ stand up for these police officers?
> 
> Maybe a direct account from someone who was physically there will help soften your heart:
> Interview with a pepper-sprayed UC Davis student - Boing Boing



i am not saying you're wrong or anything. i actually respect your opinion and think for the most part, it's right.

but i just don't see it working. having a police force there, who asked repeatedly for them to leave, which they didn't, will always result in the police force to enforce whatever job they're told to enforce.

i mean come on, it was most definitely a VERY peaceful protest. but the officers asked them to leave and they wouldn't, right? 

anyways, didn't marine mention that the person doing the pepper spraying wasn't even a police officer but campus police/security or something? thats completely something else altogether.(correct me if i am wrong)

and not to be a jerk, but i didn't read the article because it's the viewpoint of the student. it's going to be biased. an article of a person who watched the shit go down, i will read 

edit: i read the article, and you're right. does give me a different perspective on the issue


----------



## Randy

brutalwizard said:


> it seems the Ultimate solution leads towards marxist ideas of equality, ran through the goverment, regulating pay to be fair.





EDIT: Didn't notice that we finally got that smiley. Thanks Alex!


----------



## groph

Explorer said:


> @groph - Is it really impossible for someone to run who isn't part of a political machine? I've *personally* known great people who have decided to run, and who found support because of their ideas. They've made it to Congress.
> 
> If there really is a discontent with the current politicians, is it really so impossible to vote someone else in? Look at the Tea Party. I think some of their ideas are misguided, but a original core Tea Party value is not being beholden to the interests, no?



IF the "1%" own the government by funding campaigns and making shady business deals then it doesn't matter who gets into politics because the game is rigged from day one. Doesn't matter what the agenda is, it all changes once you're in office, it all appears to turn into a huge power play, things aren't going to magically change next election when someone from X party takes office. If corporations really do own government, then governments are virtually useless to anybody who isn't a corporate owner.

Here are some videos to disagree with 





EDIT: Brutalwizard, Marx's ultimate wet dream was a classless, stateless society IE no government for anything to be run through. Pure capitalism, or socialist anarchism I guess. Historically, Marx's ideas have been warped into authoritarian super-states like the Soviet Union and China under Mao. His ideas themselves aren't the pure evil that western capitalism fears so much, but how they've been interpreted and implemented. I think a lot of people support moving past these old ideas and re-thinking pretty much everything, which is the basic arc of the second video there, which is an incredibly hopeful thought in my mind.

EDIT EDIT: And aren't the richest portion of the population the ones who pay the most tax? I've heard that the 1% is either taxed like hell already (though they're not exactly in poverty, them being taxed is more of a matter of principle under capitalism) and I've heard that the middle and lower classes shoulder most of the tax. Both can't be true.


----------



## Explorer

I like that someone complained to me privately that I'm a conformist, for wanting change through rule of law rather than mob rule. *laugh*



jam3v said:


> I'll tell you what _isn't_ fair... We've increased productivity by 80% since 1979, yet our wages have only increased by 10%.


 
This is an interesting thing, in that it sounds like people are working 80% harder. That's not what the productivity jump means at all, though. 

For example, my company has a thorough audit every year, and we do much better than most other companies. We have everything available and transparent, and pay and received more efficiently than many companies... and we do it with a staff a tenth the size of comparable companies. How? We use automation to aid us in doing it efficiently. We made the investment 10 years ago to bring our infrastructure backbone up to snuff, and we do quie a bit to stay current. That includes other departments than accounting, of course. 

I've read several studies about how technology is making workplaces more efficient. It definitely had that effect with us. 

The other possible interpretation which leaps out at me from that is: If Americans were previously making 10 widgets an hour, and are now making 18, if it's not the technology driving the increases forward, then it's that the workers are finally working up to their potential... and they were slacking before. *laugh* 

----

So, those weren't cops on that video? That's too bad it's being used as an example of police if it actually isn't the police. 

On the plus side, it's been posted here that the security guard(s) are now facing consequences for their actions. I think consequences for one's negative actions is a good thing, and to be expected...

...which is why I always wonder some expect and hope for consequences on one side, and not the other.


----------



## Randy

brutalwizard said:


> i would love to here other solutions lol, that were i see it going



THIS ISN'T RICH V. POOR, for like, THE MILLIONTH TIME. This is about BIG money (read: lobbyists) BUYING influence. 

The Declaration:



> They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
> They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
> They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of ones skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
> They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
> They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
> They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
> They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
> They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers healthcare and pay.
> They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
> They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
> They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
> They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
> They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
> They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
> They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
> They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
> They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save peoples lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
> They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
> They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
> They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
> They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
> They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
> They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*


Declaration of the Occupation of New York City | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street

I didn't read "we're pissed off because people that work at McDonald's make less than brain surgeons" in there. We're not talking about duking it out between average people, actually working a job. We're talking about BIG money buying the ability to do all the things listed above.

Solution? How about outlawing corporate or lobbyist money and super PACs from contributing to campaigns? How about outlawing private meetings between lobbyists and politicians away from the public eye? How about making things transparent so that people KNOW their representatives are voting on legislation based on the WILL OF THE PEOPLE WHO PUT THEM THERE and not their sugar daddy?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Not to mention vehicles for multiplying your wealth once you've started to make money are much easier to access and use.

Also I keep forgetting this pertains to the US


----------



## Randy

groph said:


> IF the "1%" own the government by funding campaigns and making shady business deals then it doesn't matter who gets into politics because the game is rigged from day one. Doesn't matter what the agenda is, it all changes once you're in office, it all appears to turn into a huge power play, things aren't going to magically change next election when someone from X party takes office. If corporations really do own government, then governments are virtually useless to anybody who isn't a corporate owner.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Brutalwizard, Marx's ultimate wet dream was a classless, stateless society IE no government for anything to be run through. Pure capitalism, or socialist anarchism I guess. Historically, Marx's ideas have been warped into authoritarian super-states like the Soviet Union and China under Mao.



 and


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

Yeah apparently Obama has raised over 1b already for his campaign, which is pretty intense.


----------



## vampiregenocide

brutalwizard said:


> randy after reading you list i have less hope for there cause then before.
> 
> any group that thinks they can take on farming, education, oil, medical, and general product and labor industrys, by standing around and harassing the public though protests has totally lost me.



So by your logic, if it's too hard and the odds are against you, why bother? Well it's that kind of thinking that has allowed these companies and governments to get away with what they're doing. Inaction changes nothing, so until you have a better alternative other than 'giving up' then it's probably unfair to criticise them.


----------



## Randy

That's a list of examples of how they (corporate money and lobbyists) have been able to do things contrary to either the law or the common good. That's not a hit list of industries they're after... it's simply saying "Here's example of how they've been fucking us". 

Taking private money and influence out of governance dries up pretty much all of those things, if you accept that it's corruption that's allowed those practices to go unstopped.


----------



## Explorer

Now this is big news, and it&#8217;s surprising that the ACLU hasn&#8217;t jumped on the cases where the military and the police were used to stop freedom of the press.

Hmm&#8230; murdering criminals without due process. Also surprising, given that the death penalty is something imposed by the judicial branch, not decided by a corporation. 

Could you provide any examples? 

Education as a human right? I don&#8217;t remember reading that in the Constitution, although the US does do a lot to encourage universal education. Is there some US law I&#8217;m not aware of which states that a free university degree is a right? 

I also like the idea that they are creating weapons to force someone to give them contracts, as opposed to them being awarded contracts to develop and create those weapons. 

----

The problem with rhetoric is that anything not true in that rhetoric tends to undermine one&#8217;s whole point. I don&#8217;t want to have to winnow out bits of truth from a list which may or may not have bits of truth in it, or to accept things as true from a source which has already been unreliable.

I know that one current political party has fought hard to prevent easy release of information regarding what lobbyists and corporations are contributing what money and benefits to whom. Don&#8217;t like it? Vote against them. Vote in people who will do what you want to accomplish legislatively. 

Here's the thing: Corporations can't vote. Only people can. That means, for all the talk about how corporations and lobbyists are influencing the politicians, that the voters are leaving those politicians in office who are doing questionable things.

And now people are complaining because they didn't vote them out. 

*sigh*

The corporations and lobbyists didn't vote in those politicians. The voters either voted for them, or didn't rouse themselves out of their apathy enough to vote them out. Whose fault is that? What corporation? What lobbyist influenced people to not cast a vote?

Or, is the blame elsewhere?

I say, elsewhere.


----------



## The Munk

Randy said:


> That's a list of examples of how they (corporate money and lobbyists) have been able to do things contrary to either the law or the common good. That's not a hit list of industries they're after... it's simply saying "Here's example of how they've been fucking us".
> 
> Taking private money and influence out of governance dries up pretty much all of those things, if you accept that it's corruption that's allowed those practices to go unstopped.




That is a key point right there.
I'm sure there are plenty of viable candidates out there, but unless they have similar levels of financing a campaign, they will go unnoticed.
The amount of money driving a campaign makes a lot of difference. It's what influences the way that people will vote. 
Granted, it is really the job of the individual voter to asses the truthfulness, effectiveness, and qualifications of any given candidate. That said, general voters research is impacted by what they see. This is directly related to the amount of money spent on candidates campaigns. 
Properly researching through the mud slinging, skewed perspective non-sense, is almost a full time job, that few if any voters have time to dissect to cast a truthfully informed vote. 

The voters vote , and the electoral college does whatever they want.
Every voter in the country could vote for candidate 'A', and the electorate votes could all go to candidate 'B', simply because the elector has a different agenda than the voters (like supporting their buddy on capital hill).

That's where a lot of votes are 'bought'.


----------



## Guitarman700

brutalwizard said:


> well it seems the only way to fix this is becomes heathen's and renounce money and jobs
> 
> and whine in the street similar to that of children.
> 
> 
> to be honest i cant think of a better solution now that i am aware of the problem
> 
> sorry for arguing with you fella's



I can't decide whats worse, your ignorance or your apathy.


----------



## JamesM

While I'm far too apathetic to even enter a legitimate discussion about this, let me just say one thing...

Dear Occupier,

Tweeting about your economic struggles via your iPhone's 4G Network in your Urban Outfitters t-shirt (all things you'd not have without the very Capitalism you protest) is quite possibly a perfect definition of irony. 

Sincerely,
Go fuck your own face for completely ruining something that has incredible potential to do good in the United States economic climate. 



Oh, and if I wanted to make a splash, I wouldn't be in NYC, I'd be in Washington... Just saying...


----------



## jam3v

The Armada said:


> While I'm far too apathetic to even enter a legitimate discussion about this, let me just say one thing...
> 
> Dear Occupier,
> 
> Tweeting about your economic struggles via your iPhone's 4G Network in your Urban Outfitters t-shirt (all things you'd not have without the very Capitalism you protest) is quite possibly a perfect definition of irony.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Go fuck your own face for completely ruining something that has incredible potential to do good in the United States economic climate.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and if I wanted to make a splash, I wouldn't be in NYC, I'd be in Washington... Just saying...



They're not protesting capitalism. They're protesting economic inequality. How many times does this need to be said?

Here's the link I'm sure no one will click, for the 2nd time
It&#039;s the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones

FYI, there is an Occupy movement in Washington D.C., and many other places.


----------



## renzoip

And even if they were protesting capitalism, what's wrong with that? People all over the world have been protesting it since the beginnings of the industrial revolution, and rightly so. 

Again, consumer goods are just that. They are not the gifts of the market gods. Idk how many times it has to be said that they are not protesting consumer goods here anyways. So, if they want to use the latest Iphone to spread their message more efficiently, then they should. All capitalism provides is the profit motive by which individuals, governments, and corporations decide to provide good and services. 

So the whole argument that without capitalism there would be no consumer goods is just market fundamentalism IMO, which has lost much of it's self-evidence. Perhaps there would be less profit motive to make things, but the materials and the knowledge to invent things has been around much longer than capitalism has and that the mass production of goods has. 

So, I don't see any irony here. Monarchies around the world were brought down by people who were products of their time and utilized the product available to them within the feudal society. So anti-capitalism is by default a by product of capitalism and it is only natural for anti-capitalists to make use of the consumer good available to them in order to expand their message.


----------



## Explorer

Since there's been a lot of talk about appearances, people should note that the level of consumerism which the OWS people demonstrate is greater than the average Americans.

So, when middle America sees people dressing in more upscale clothing, using a fancy telephone and carrying one of those newfangled touch computers, and whining on the news about corruption and big money, most of them *are* seeing people with money complaining about how bad things are.

I understand that a certain segment of the population accepts iPhones and iPads as the norm, but that's not the majority of Americans. They're not as common as some might think, in the same way that those who use social media for advertising and in their personal life are also assume that everyone is on-line. 

To dismiss the perception of the majority of people in the country, and to talk about the "haves" and the "have nots" while constantly demonstrating the possessions of the haves, is why the average American might not feel like the OWS people might not really be blue collar, and might not really represent them. 

So, it's not that consumer goods are a bad thing necessarily, but owning something which most people never have, like the top tier of telephone or computer, and casually flaunting it on TV (or, even better, not even recognizing that they're flaunting something which demonstrates their "wealth") strikes most people like a slick politician talking about really understanding the common folk... while wearing fancy tailored suits and riding around in a Hummer limo.


----------



## Daggorath

Since when did you have to be oppressed to speak out against oppression? Do you have to be racially abused to understand that racism is wrong? Or in the bottom 1% to see the economic inequality? It's entirely warped logic. Granted some people are greedy and just want to be the top 1%, but others campaign against the injustice towards people other than themselves.


----------



## AxeHappy

It's supposed to be the 99 vs. the 1. The top 10% are still going to have a fuckload of money and things. 

I've always though the 99 vs. 1 was stupid and that a 80 vs. 20 would be significantly more accurate with regards to economic problems but I suppose the top 5-10% are stupidly out of proportion when compared to the next highest percentage.


----------



## renzoip

If I remember correctly, historic revolutionaries such as those of the enlightenment were not peasants, but rather wealthy/educated members of the upper middle classes who fought against the nobility. Fidel Castro was a law student in a country where a most were illiterate at the time. Che guevara was a medicine student. And i'm sure the people behind wikileaks have more money and education than the average folk. So I don't think your income/education level or material possessions would necessarily delegitimize neither the message nor the messenger in a case like this. 

EDIT: I'm just using the above mentioned characters as examples. Not saying I support them.


----------



## vampiregenocide

brutalwizard said:


> well it seems the only way to fix this is becomes heathen's and renounce money and jobs
> 
> and whine in the street similar to that of children.
> 
> 
> to be honest i cant think of a better solution now that i am aware of the problem
> 
> sorry for arguing with you fella's



You've saying comments that have no real weight and then ignoring everyone's points when you're called out on them. Perhaps if you actually read and responded to replies to your own comments, you might actually learn something about this topic and be able to formulate a more factual opinion.



Explorer said:


> Since there's been a lot of talk about appearances, people should note that the level of consumerism which the OWS people demonstrate is greater than the average Americans.
> 
> So, when middle America sees people dressing in more upscale clothing, using a fancy telephone and carrying one of those newfangled touch computers, and whining on the news about corruption and big money, most of them *are* seeing people with money complaining about how bad things are.
> 
> I understand that a certain segment of the population accepts iPhones and iPads as the norm, but that's not the majority of Americans. They're not as common as some might think, in the same way that those who use social media for advertising and in their personal life are also assume that everyone is on-line.
> 
> To dismiss the perception of the majority of people in the country, and to talk about the "haves" and the "have nots" while constantly demonstrating the possessions of the haves, is why the average American might not feel like the OWS people might not really be blue collar, and might not really represent them.
> 
> So, it's not that consumer goods are a bad thing necessarily, but owning something which most people never have, like the top tier of telephone or computer, and casually flaunting it on TV (or, even better, not even recognizing that they're flaunting something which demonstrates their "wealth") strikes most people like a slick politician talking about really understanding the common folk... while wearing fancy tailored suits and riding around in a Hummer limo.



Without social networking and those fancy techs, this movement wouldn't have the international recognition it deserves. OWS gained the success it has done because the protesters used the internet to defy the media and authorities. This in itself is a admirable thing, because the public needs to show them how to do things once in a while. Keeps them on their toes. Now political bias in the media and brutality in the police force are being looked at thanks to the protesters and their skills with technology and social networking. 

I do see what you mean, it could put out a negative image to some people, but it's a necessary evil.


----------



## Explorer

Daggorath said:


> Since when did you have to be oppressed to speak out against oppression? Do you have to be racially abused to understand that racism is wrong? Or in the bottom 1% to see the economic inequality? It's entirely warped logic. Granted some people are greedy and just want to be the top 1%, but others campaign against the injustice towards people other than themselves.



First off, I like the assumption that someone wanting to do well means they are "greedy and just want to be the top 1%." Although you might not be directing that against those who are not in the top 1% and yet still don't embrace the hipsters with iPhones in the OWS movement, it sounds like, "If you don't agree with the OWS, then you're one of the corrupt, even though you don't make much." If someone were campaigning for me, but calling me greedy, I'd tell them to fuck off.

Now, moving to what is being proposed... there are lots of movements where people joined with the oppressed to bring about change. 

What I'm talking about is the perception that people who are *not* oppressed are not joining with the oppressed... but are seen as privileged, demonstrating their privilege, and just whining and claiming they're the ones who are being oppressed. 

Many Jewish organizations joined up to support the black civil rights movements (although the Nation of Islam really downplayed such involvement later, and was the source of a lot of current black antisemitism). However, no white Jews ever talked about how they were being oppressed as a black person. 

If they had, would that have seemed asinine? I would imagine so.

Just as I imagine people with the latest gadgets sound when talking about economic oppression. Wouldn't you agree?

Or would anyone argue that the average citizen is just greedy if they don't accept someone like that as representing *them*?

(Incidentally, many people were amazed at the comments of the head of the Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan, and his ignorance, as he talked about the black being the true Jew. Anyone else remember that from the Million Man March?)

----

A few arguments have been made that, if an honest person is elected, then they immediately are made part of the corrupt conspiracy. That sounds like classic tin-foil hat theory. 

I don't buy it.


----------



## Daggorath

Explorer said:


> First off, I like the assumption that someone wanting to do well means they are "greedy and just want to be the top 1%." Although you might not be directing that against those who are not in the top 1% and yet still don't embrace the hipsters with iPhones in the OWS movement, it sounds like, "If you don't agree with the OWS, then you're one of the corrupt, even though you don't make much." If someone were campaigning for me, but calling me greedy, I'd tell them to fuck off.
> 
> Now, moving to what is being proposed... there are lots of movements where people joined with the oppressed to bring about change.
> 
> What I'm talking about is the perception that people who are *not* oppressed are not joining with the oppressed... but are seen as privileged, demonstrating their privilege, and just whining and claiming they're the ones who are being oppressed.
> 
> Many Jewish organizations joined up to support the black civil rights movements (although the Nation of Islam really downplayed such involvement later, and was the source of a lot of current black antisemitism). However, no white Jews ever talked about how they were being oppressed as a black person.
> 
> If they had, would that have seemed asinine? I would imagine so.
> 
> Just as I imagine people with the latest gadgets sound when talking about economic oppression. Wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Or would anyone argue that the average citizen is just greedy if they don't accept someone like that as representing *them*?
> 
> (Incidentally, many people were amazed at the comments of the head of the Nation of Islam Louis Farrakhan, and his ignorance, as he talked about the black being the true Jew. Anyone else remember that from the Million Man March?)
> 
> ----
> 
> A few arguments have been made that, if an honest person is elected, then they immediately are made part of the corrupt conspiracy. That sounds like classic tin-foil hat theory.
> 
> I don't buy it.



First of all, I never said wanting to "do well" makes you greedy. It's rather devious of you to try to manipulate my words to justify your own. I was just referring to jealousy in terms of material possessions being a drive for some people. It depends on your definition of "doing well" or what you think a "successful career" is. I take issue with people whose main drive is money, or superficialities. 

Again you display a warped logic in comparing this situation with black civil rights. The two things may have things in common, but using one as an analogy for another in an argument makes no sense. 

I share your bitterness for the whining middle class who really have nothing to complain about, but equally that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be listened to. Discounting someone's views because of who they are is pretty fucked up. You judge what they're saying, not who is saying it. As far as I can see, the income of the top 1% has inflated many many times that of the rest in recent years, and as such this needs to be dealt with. This is true regardless of which annoying hipster is saying it, and regardless of which bourgeois technology is used to say it.


----------



## The Reverend

Explorer, you are kind of totally discounting (or arguing on the side of those who would) everyone who espouses opinions that seem contradictory to their appearance. There is nothing smart about that, sorry, friend. Like it's been pointed out, the majority of OWS has jobs, and anyone who thinks an iPhone is a marker of wealth must either be broke or uninformed. Cell phones are pretty much a necessity now, and iPhones, all things considered, aren't the Lamborghini's of the phone world; they're more like Ford Mustangs. 

Anyways, I also have to take issue with your assertion that honest people CAN make it into politics and not become corrupted. There's enough biographies from former politicians on every level about how things REALLY get done, so either I believe you, and your inexperienced opinion, or I believe people who participated in that world, but are just creating conspiracy theories? I know which way I'm likely to go. 

Also, you can't just vote the problem away. There's people like you, Explorer, who are detracting from everything OWS stands for on what I call the Grandfather Platform: These kids are spoiled, they just want free money, they don't even deserve it. You ignore every part of the message immediately, without considering any part of it to see if you may agree with anything. I haven't seen you agree with anything OWS has a problem with, Explorer, and I find it hard to believe that you of all people would have no problem with any of this. Our candidates on the national level are backed by corporate sponsors; who should I vote for? 

Brutalwizard, I wish our mods didn't make us conform to high standards on this board so I could be really rude to you sometimes. 

You're pulling the Grandfather Platform thing too. just talking shit when in reality you agree with the points and just want to be contrarian. You're the worst kind of internet badass; the kind who's too cool and smart to do anything, yet when pressed you can't think of anything else more practical or effective, so you again resort to shit-talking. Quit posting horseshit and start posting smart stuff. Disagree all you want, but when pressed, you better have a reason besides

so should i then go whine as children
or maybe if i went and picked up trash and the moon is out

so the world is green and i have a job interview

i don't know whether to where a windsor knot 

or should i wear a four n hand knot in my tie. big boy pants.


----------



## Randy

The Reverend said:


> Brutalwizard, I wish our mods didn't make us conform to high standards on this board so I could be really rude to you sometimes.



I cannot be held responsible for what happens when my back is turned. Ahem.


----------



## Randy

The Reverend said:


> Brutalwizard, I wish our mods didn't make us conform to high standards on this board so I could be really rude to you sometimes.



I cannot be held responsible for what happens when my back is turned. *ahem*


----------



## daemon barbeque

Randy said:


> I cannot be held responsible for what happens when my back is turned. Ahem.


----------



## Guitarman700

Randy said:


> I cannot be held responsible for what happens when my back is turned. *ahem*



:Looks around, unzips pants:


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

He said it twice so now hes facing you again


----------



## Treeunit212

This seems fitting.


----------



## Explorer

The only dog in this fight I have is that I hate processes which attempt to subvert democratic republicanism. 

So, to be clear, I *personally* don't care about the gadgets and gizmos carried by the OWS people, anymore than I care about what technology is possessed by the Lyndon Larouche supporters.

However... since the point came up, about the OWS people talking about economic oppression, and their supporters here didn't understand why others didn't think that the OWS people were good spokespeople for that cause, I thought I'd mention the biggest factors in making it hard to take them seriously in that role. 

----

Again, the only objection I have to any group which tries to subvert the legal process is that I'm a huge fan of the rule of law. That could be just me, though.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Are we looking at civil war here? Is peaceful protest enough? Does brutalwizard have a point? These are all critical questions.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

brutalwizard said:


> my point is we watch as peaceful protest does absolutely nothing yet it seems to some that continuing efforts of the same variety will yield different results somehow. i just think its goofy and pointless is all.
> 
> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein



Now we're talking. 

So let's get talking further. Agree or disagree: The Occupy Movement...
A) ...is legitimately pissed off (for the most part)?
B) ...have a basic right to voice their opinion?
C) ...are striving for change in something that is fundamentally "good", "right" and "just"?
D) ...may eventually achieve something with the right strategy which may take a while to develop?

Biased questions I know, but I feel they are at the core of this entire issue.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

I feel like they have valid points with regards to over the top lobbying and a crumbling education and healthcare system. Nothing else really, maybe the whole war thing but I think it's important to keep in mind that war is what has traditionally fueled the American economy.


----------



## AySay

Stealthdjentstic said:


> I think it's important to keep in mind that war is what has traditionally fueled the American economy.



That is more than enough of a reason to be protesting in itself.


----------



## AxeHappy

It's also a complete load of bullocks as war does not have a positive effect on an economy.


----------



## highlordmugfug

brutalwizard said:


> A) i agree they are mad probably
> 
> B) I agree they have a basic right to a voice, but i know you asked a broad question on purpose. do i think a basic right to speech encompasses the abilty to just bypass fundamental park curfew and city camping laws, NO!!
> Do i think it encompasses the ability to go around and harass and be a bother both by being in the way and screaming at the uncaring general who have the BASIC right to go to work, without being yelled at by some hooligan. Nor do i think its a basic freedom of speech right to cost taxpayers 3.4 million ever 3 weeks to to be contained because there a unmaintained uncontrollable mass gathering with no direction.
> (How much does Occupy Wall Street cost New York City each day? - Quora)
> 
> C) i do agree at one point they have STRIVED to bring light to the issue. i disagree that they continue to strive by proving to be a public nuisance without the power to fix any of the things they have problems with.
> 
> D) as a hypothetical question as in THEY MAY do something, is pointless. they might just give up 3 months from now
> 
> but even if they do get a good strategy, it will have very little to do with protesting anything. BESIDES THE FACT THAT THE FIRST COUPLE WEEKS OF "PROTEST" BROUGHT NATIONAL LIGHT TO THE SUBJECT"
> 
> 
> i meant how does occupy fix the problems they strive to fix


A) He wasn't asking if you thought they were really mad you numbskull: he's asking if you think the things they're mad about are things that are truly worth being upset about.

B) You actually have something resembling a point here BUT: not all of the protestors are doing things like harassing people and blocking people getting to work. Of course there are going to be bad apples, but that comes with any collective anything EVER. As for "do i think a basic right to speech encompasses the abilty to just bypass fundamental park curfew and city camping laws, NO!!" looking at what the people they're upset with have done/gotten away with (buying politicians, betting against peoples mortgages, making millions if not billions of dollars in bonuses while screwing workers they keep and laying off many more, doing their damndest to not have to actually do anything about massive natural disasters they've caused, completely screwing the economy and then taking the bailouts they received to hold retreats/vacations for their board members and pay themselves huge bonuses, etc.) I don't think a victimless crime like camping somewhere for too long is really worth enforcing with things like pepper spray, rubber shotgun and rifle rounds, arrest, being pulled around by your hair, being punched in the face, etc. 

The fact that the wrongdoings of the corporations and banks have been basically ignored by those that are supposed to enforce laws, while the ones trying to really call attention to it have been treated as they've been getting treated for such minor transgressions should show that there is most definitely something wrong with the system and selective enforcement.

C) So they haven't completely fixed these huge overarching issues they find reprehensible in a few months time, so they should probably just give up? 

Considering your other threads and posts and how you seem to have treated finding a job for so long, I am not surprised to see that thought process coming from you.

It takes time to fix things, especially ones on as grand a scale as the ones the OWS protestors are upset about.

D) Yeah, and the world could get blown up soon, or terrorists could launch nuclear weapons at every major city in the world before I can finish typing this response, or aliens could come and make us all cattlepeople in a few days: you're the one using hypotheticals to avoid answering the question, which is: Do you think that they may accomplish some of their goals eventually, using some strategy that evolves out of what they are currently doing now?


EDITBECAUSEIMISSEDSOMETHING: Martin Luther King Jr. protested, Ghandi protested, people in Libya protested, the Americans under the rule of the British protested etc. So if you don't think that protesting can lead to other things and make changes I suggest you read a history book or twenty.

Or hell, even just this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2...ts-that-changed-history/Boston-Tea-Party-1773


And for christs sake: capitalize and use proper sentences when you post on here. I could have sworn that was a rule of the site.

[/me_channeling_the_spirit_of_orb451]


----------



## Necris

Trying to explain anything to you is a waste of time because it seems you are completely unable to process the information that is presented to you.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Protesters aren't necessarily trying to solve these problems, most common folk don't have the capability of doing that, they're simply saying there are problems that need solving and putting pressure on those who can change things to actually do something. You can't change things without someone suggesting it, and protest is a good way of doing so.


----------



## Necris

brutalwizard said:


> sounds like a neat excuse to not explain the correlation between protesting and solving there outlined problems.


Actually I was trying to tell you that you're an idiot who doesn't even appear to understand what you are being asked to address. I wasn't even going to bother with an explanation.


----------



## highlordmugfug

Necris said:


> Actually I was trying to tell you that *you're an idiot *who doesn't even appear to understand what you are being asked to address. I wasn't even going to bother with an explanation.


This. 

And I reported him for trolling after his one sentence response and the 40something-ith post where he showed that he didn't understand the topic and was unable to process information well enough to respond to people. Let's just ignore him and let the mods handle it if they see fit, because trying to explain it to him or act like he actually has an informed-or-well-thought-out-enough-to-be-valid opinion on the subject isn't getting us anywhere.


----------



## vampiregenocide

What am I wasting my breath?  I've responded to your points several times and you've not replied to them.


----------



## vampiregenocide

brutalwizard said:


> i dig your point on how you think that protesting puts pressure on the government to make changes.
> 
> i just simply watch as those politicians use force instead of caring.
> 
> Is it crazy to think that continued protest will lead to more police violence instead of resolution?
> and thus making a futile effort?



Things get worse before they get better inevitably. Change only comes out of fear because humanity has a habit of pushing things and leaving it till last minute, and then everything blows up in their faces and they exclaim 'QUICK! MAKE IT BETTER!'. 

Futile though? Never. People died for women's rights, black rights, the right to vote, the right to a free press. Feeling as though things are futile is exactly what a government wants. They want the people to feel like they have to just accept the way things are because change is out of reach.


----------



## vampiregenocide

brutalwizard said:


> as i quoted before
> 
> Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Albert Einstein
> 
> they keep protesting continuously (over and over again) and expect some sort of resolve instead of police beat downs (different results).
> 
> i guess i just see things as different lol.
> i would still love necris's thoughts one the subject



I don't think that quote is applicable here. I would say perseverance instead, though it seems you are more content with allowing things to stay the same instead of seeking change. You have to poke and push buttons in society if you want to expose flaws in the system, and that is what these protesters are doing.


----------



## Necris

I think I've figured out BrutalWizards issue, I'll admit to being far too irritated by him to see it. The OWS protesters have brought some flaws in the system to light and may uncover more, but then what? They can protest all they want but at a certain point there needs to be a more directed effort instead of simply sitting in a park holding signs. The Ideals of OWS have merit, and with direction this movement could lead to actual changes but first a change in strategy needs to take place.



brutalwizard said:


> i would love to know your personal theory on how standing in the street screaming =reform of the entire business system.



Just to get this one out of the way. I never expressed a belief that protest alone would change the system.


----------



## The Reverend

*The Reverend's Theory of "whining outlandish behavior to farms" 
or
The Process and Goals of Protesting* *for Those Unwilling or Perhaps Incapable of Abstract, Long-Term Thinking, or the Benefits to be Gained from the so-called "Outlandish" Behaviors*



People meet in a group to draw attention to an issue, or several, that they have a problem with.
The media will cover the protests, in the process raping the issues with hyperbole and sensationalism. The issues will be talked about, at least.
The average citizen will decide if they agree or disagree with the protests.
If a large enough number of citizens agree with the protests, politicians will start reflecting the same opinions in a bid to stay, well, politicians.
Legislature is passed that limits, promotes, or codifies some ideal, practice, or law.
The first three aren't debatable. It will happen, has happened, and is happening now. The second two are what I would consider to be the goal of nonviolent protesting. As a goal, it's not a certainty, but I don't think anyone would argue that when it comes to OWS, that's probably the best outcome.


An alternative to numbers four and five would be violent insurrection and revolution. Probably not extremely likely when those protesting are mostly students or young professionals, but still a possibility. The average middle-class citizen could decide to take a part of the cake by force of arms. After all, if that never happened, America wouldn't exist in the form it does today.


Brutalwiz, before you post again, you need to read Chapter 17 of Gandhi's "Hind Swaraj". I'm linking you to it so there is no chance or good reason not to read it. I don't like a lot of shit Gandhi did or said, but it's a good introduction to where this shit comes from. As you read his fairly fruity words, consider that for him, this wasn't just an idea. He'd already created change in South Africa using this method, so he's describing something that _works_. As you know (or should) MLK was a fan of his, and we all know what happened with that movement, right?



I'm also linking you to Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience". Where I come from, both of those guys are considered hippies (and I'm none too fond of Transcendentalist thought myself), but the ideas they espoused may just open your seemingly narrow perspective on what exactly protesting peacefully is/does, and what your duty as a citizen is. Thoreau is particularly interesting to me, as he's asking something I'd like to ask you: *What is one to do when faced with legislated injustice*?



Here's the Gandhi link:
Reader


And the link to the proto-hippie Henry David Thoreau:
Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1


I want you to think about that shit for a second, although hopefully more than just that. Protesting works, and it's generally not up to the actual protesters to change things. I believe you said it yourself, B-Wiz, that they can't actually change shit? *That's kind of the point.* *It's up to everyone, even those who are apathetic, to change the world.* The argument's been made that only kings and gods can change the world, but I'm a believer in the little man. It wasn't a king who came up with algebra, or a river-god who came up with steam engines. It was little guys, sometimes unknown to history, sometimes well-known. If anything, it's kings and gods who've fucked us over throughout the last 10,000 years or so. If anything, us little guys (figuratively for myself, literally for the whiz) are the true movers and shakers, and the more of us get that point, that urge or inspiration to do something, anything, the better for us all, as a whole. 



I think I'm done posting in this thread. I put less effort into my damn mid-terms than I did trying to reason with the unreasonable. 




​


----------



## Explorer

There was once an effective tool which helped balance out the power of those with dollars.

The Fairness Doctrine. 

Reagan and conservatives worked to overturn it, in the same way conservative politicians have fought to prevent open records and information regarding whom politicians are meeting with. 

You might not be able to stop a politician from meeting with a group which is corrupting him or her, but you can definitely make the possibility of a connection between a politician and a corporation known. 

To be honest, I'm surprised that this transparency of government hasn't yet been proposed by someone in the OWS groups. Given that they claim to want to limit the influence of money alone, I would have hoped they'd have come up with this idea by now....


----------



## jam3v

Watching people try to reason with brutalwizard is incredibly frustrating. Sadly, he's representative of the overwhelming resistance to change that I see in most people. 

He adamantly believes in something, but he's not sure why, and even though he's presented with a laundry list of solid information, he's still incapable of processing it.

Ignorance is a powerful force.


----------



## vampiregenocide

Explorer said:


> To be honest, I'm surprised that this transparency of government hasn't yet been proposed by someone in the OWS groups. Given that they claim to want to limit the influence of money alone, I would have hoped they'd have come up with this idea by now....



I'm sure I've seen it mentioned, it's certainly a rising concern in the UK as it is what with the expenses scandal, though I think the U.S really needs to push for it.


----------



## hereticemir

I'm with brutal wizard on the whole protest movement issue. I used to think it would get legistration past but its waterdown and the media puts some bs spin on it and the crowd disapates. look at civil rights african americans worked so hard for the right to vote and be treated equally. well in my eyes they get to vote and are targeted as demographic and they still aren't treated equally. the only protest that has gotten something done are the ones with violence hence the many world revolutions and civil wars. when the people in power know their physical lives are on the line things change real quick. Great example greece they where doing the progressive peace movement for a while and their politicians where still srcewing them over now the contry has collapse. But this all my opinion.


----------



## Treeunit212

!

*This man is my hero.*


----------



## vampiregenocide

U.N. Envoy: U.S. Isn't Protecting Occupy Protesters' Rights - The Huffington Post


----------



## Manticore

if over the last 10 years, you worked , kept your mouth shut, paid your own way and didn't borrow money, right now, you would be in fine shape and be the victim of no one.


----------



## synrgy

Manticore said:


> if over the last 10 years, you worked , kept your mouth shut, paid your own way and didn't borrow money, right now, you would be in fine shape and be the victim of no one.



Wow. Have you ready _anything_ in this thread? 

Several exceptions to that theory (myself included) have already posted here. Welcome to the conversation.


----------



## Scar Symmetry

Manticore said:


> if over the last 10 years, you worked , kept your mouth shut, paid your own way and didn't borrow money, right now, you would be in fine shape and be the victim of no one.



You have a point, I'll give you that. I've been working full-time for the past 7 years and yeah, I've not kept my mouth shut a few times. However, your hard-and-fast rules don't apply to everyone so don't get too smug because your solution doesn't answer every problem.


----------



## Treeunit212

I'm wondering what everyone thinks about the constitutionality of pepper spraying peaceful protesters to get them to move. I just wrote a paper in politics class and cited this supreme court case.

No.

Basically here's my breakdown of the incident (taken from the essay):

"...a small group of seven Environmental activists who, on three separate occasions, strapped themselves together with locking cylinders called Black Bears in protest of deforestation in northern California. In response, two officers, Dennis Lewis and Gary Philip, repeatedly pepper sprayed the activists in six minute intervals and refused to stop until they either submitted to arrest or unhinged themselves from the devices."

"...Not only did the two officers repeatedly pepper spray the activists at the potentially lethal distance of less than three feet, they also refused to provide the protesters water to wash their eyes out for over twenty minutes, listening to them plead and beg in agonizing pain."

Edit: I don't know why the title of that link is "No" but I'm okay with it.


----------



## Explorer

If you look at the title of the window your hyperlink opens, you'll see it begins with a case number. If you don't supply your own text for your hyperlink, the SS.org software will grab at least part of that title. The period after "No." in "No. 98-172..." told the software to stop at that point. 

And you're correct in your assertion, in that the courts have ruled that police can't just pepper-spray non-violent protesters. 

You seem to be making an insinuation which hasn't been ruled on in court, whether those protesters who have been pepper-sprayed were non-violent. It doesn't help that people associated with certain Occupy groups are lying and thereby damaging the credibility of those who embrace their stories. Here's one story (be sure to read the updates):

Occupy Seattle Woman Who Alleged Miscarriage Due to Pepper Spray Unwilling to Provide Proof of Story, Had Previously Made Similar Accusations Against Police a Few Weeks Prior to Widely Reported Incident


Anyway, I've seen lots of video where the vid starts right before the cops supposedly acted excessively. I'm interested in seeing what happened prior to that on the video, before the clips were edited for maximum emotional impact before posting to YouTube.

----

In case all that was too long for some attention spans:

*I'm not saying that any given cops or protesters are guilty or innocent.

I'm saying that accusations like that are rightfully examined in a court of law.

And, I'm *still* opposed to any group which hopes to circumvent the rule of law, whether it's cops using illegal force or protesters hoping to do an end run around the democratic process. *

Hopefully you all agree with me regarding the rule of law.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic

At any rate, like I said earlier, how stupid do you have to be to attend a protest where you know violence could occur _while_ pregnant?

On a scale of irresponsibility that's an 11/10. I don't think I'd even risk taking my dog to a protest let alone attending a protest while my unborn kid it inside of me, it's just asking for trouble.

Good god maybe it's better she didn't have a kid, who knows how he/she would have been treated.


----------



## Explorer

I do agree that someone would have to be pretty stupid to endanger their unborn child... but only if that unborn child was their priority. 

A woman miscarrying twice in just a month, though? That's pretty shrewd from a media and lawsuit standpoint.


----------



## Treeunit212

I have actually had a video referred to me showing the incident in it's entirety and arguing that the amount of times the police warned the protesters to evacuate the premise justifies the amount of force used.



I also ended that paper (which focused heavily on the history of civil disobedience and protest as a form of progress and change), that every movement encounters resistance. These things are inevitable and necessary to the success or failure of any idea. Let's just hope it's the success and doesn't turn into total anarchy like these Anonymous dipshits are pushing for.


----------



## UnderTheSign

Like I said before, this is what bothers me. I hope/assume not all protesters are dense like this, but like the example shown on Dutch TV where a guy tried to run into a police blockade and protesters called it "police brutality" when they batted him to keep him away, it doesn't really help their case.


----------



## bob123

a year later, these morons still think they are doing something constructive. I enjoy how its now hundreds of protestors in isolated areas, vs thousands and thousands of hipster morons. 



p.s. this still makes me laugh.




Neg rep away, don't give a shit if you disagree with me.


----------



## The Reverend

My stance hasn't changed.

Shit's broken, and we need to fix it. Cynicism, disdain, and apathy are just as bad as hipster bandwagon kids, if not worse, and for all those who want to snort derisively, I challenge you to come up with a way to unite thousands of people behind even a loose set of ideals.


----------



## Semichastny

The Reverend said:


> My stance hasn't changed.
> 
> Shit's broken, and we need to fix it. Cynicism, disdain, and apathy are just as bad as hipster bandwagon kids, if not worse, and for all those who want to snort derisively, I challenge you to come up with a way to unite thousands of people behind even a loose set of ideals.



My issue with Occupy was that it came across more as an expression of frustration then a legitimate attempt to push reform.


----------



## flint757

The motive, originally, was legit and the problem does exists, but kids, like in that video, are the reason the movement never garnered any real respect from the country as a whole. So many people just joined the bandwagon making a mockery of it all.

A better reason the kid from the video should have given (if there is a good reason at all) is taxes (not corporations by default) should pay for college. Logic being that even though there would be more competition for jobs, at least for companies, the majority of people would be well educated (better base to pick employee's from). It wouldn't by default cure unemployment problems though. 

In any case the perception was that they had no goals (whether that is true or not).


----------



## bob123

The Reverend said:


> My stance hasn't changed.
> 
> Shit's broken, and we need to fix it. Cynicism, disdain, and apathy are just as bad as hipster bandwagon kids, if not worse, and for all those who want to snort derisively, I challenge you to come up with a way to unite thousands of people behind even a loose set of ideals.




I was part of a machine that had over 400,000 people aligned toward a constructive set of ideals. 

Kids crying about equalization in the streets with out any structure is bound for failure. If there was a strong leadership base behind this, even just a small group of people focused on getting change to occur (think martin luther king jr, malcom x in the 60's, think ghandi even!), I would at least have RESPECT for these clowns.

the reason WHY it doesnt work is because "I heard about this on twitter" is hardly a constructive basis to begin political protest. 

Yes change needs to happen, but its not gonna happen by sitting in the streets, acting like a bunch of hypocritical morons. 



There needs to be some accountability for yourself. I didnt get a free lunch, why should you? Its TOO EASY to go to school on your own. Ill be damned if my taxes are gonna go pay for Johnny P. Hipster's liberal arts degree in uselessness....


edit: I must say, my BIGGEST beef is the absolute hypocrisy of the movement babies. The absolute ignorance of what they were doing...


----------



## Semichastny

bob123 said:


> Kids crying about equalization in the streets with out any structure is bound for failure. If there was a strong leadership base behind this, even just a small group of people focused on getting change to occur (think martin luther king jr, malcom x in the 60's, think ghandi even!), I would at least have RESPECT for these clowns.


I agree with you on this, but I wouldn't call them clowns.



bob123 said:


> the reason WHY it doesnt work is because "I heard about this on twitter" is hardly a constructive basis to begin political protest.


Except in Mexico and the Middle East where social media has played a important role in political happenings due to the unreliable and biased nature of the media present there.



bob123 said:


> Yes change needs to happen, but its not gonna happen by sitting in the streets, acting like a bunch of hypocritical morons.


I agree nothing will happen by just sitting in the streets, but what Is so hypocritical about the movement? 




bob123 said:


> There needs to be some accountability for yourself. I didnt get a free lunch, why should you? Its TOO EASY to go to school on your own. Ill be damned if my taxes are gonna go pay for Johnny P. Hipster's liberal arts degree in uselessness....


I don't think you really understand what OWS is about. I'm getting the sneaking sensation you saw one of the bad apples and wrote of the entire movement without actually attempting to understand what they want. This is straight from the wiki page and I am not seeing anything about handouts or any of the other reactionary insults/claims people make about them... 

"OWS's goals include a reduction in the influence of corporations on politics, more balanced distribution of income, more and better jobs, bank reform (especially to curtail speculative trading by banks), forgiveness of student loan debt or other relief for indebted students, and alleviation of the foreclosure situation."


----------



## Randy

brutalwizard said:


> NecroBump I know.
> 
> Occupy movement a year old - CNN.com
> 
> Its been a year since all those people took to the streets with unclear goals. I would love to know everyones thoughts on the topic a year later. I still hold the same stance as last year, as it seemed to prove true.
> 
> How does a group of people violating state camping laws for months on end, fighting with state officials, and disrupting their peers solve economic disparity? (besides bringing light to the subject which I concede it did briefly) Simply, it doesn't. It seems to hold true by how this situation played out.
> 
> Also Does anyone have any articles that shows any kind of accomplishments in any way towards helping solve these folks problems as listed by randy.
> 
> 
> Cause I imagine at least 1 small thing had to have changed. I just cant personally find link stating something like that yet.



The movement was co-opted by vagrants, agent provocateurs, and ultimately fell flat because of the difficulty in establishing a united goal/message. I've spoken and worked closely with a lot of people who were involved with Occupy across the country and there was a disconnect between people who wanted to figure out ways of changing the system using what's in place (putting up candidates, etc.), people who were apathetic and people who were anarchists (both of the latter were very condescending toward the former). The damage done by that disconnect was furthered by the police breaking up demonstrations/camps and ultimately the media losing interest, so apathy grew. As somebody who's been involved in both party and movement based politics, taking the wind out of the sails is quickest way of killing a movement.

It's not fair to just characterize Occupy as "a group of people violating state camping laws for months on end" when that wasn't the actual message. 'Occupying' was originally done with the intention of being visible, showing commitment and being easily accessible (as was seen with all of the crowds that showed up causally during normal hours). Then the police/local municipalities say "okay, we won't infringe on your right to picket but just, you know... no tents" or "you can protests but it can't be here, it has to be over there" and lots of little nitpicky things that were designed to deliberately make it either more difficult to protest or to stick the protesters somewhere they were less likely to get exposure. The meme that it was all about "violating state camping laws" came from the fact a lot of protesters knew full well that those little laws were being written or dusted off just to disenfranchise them. I absolutely disagree with making the whole movement and the press about setting up tent cities and _some_ Occupiers wanted to make that their Waterloo (again, some just for confrontations sake and some because they knew they were being marginalized). I think the movement had a lot more potential than that but that battle is what killed it. \

With regard to things they accomplished, it depends on how broadly you want to open it up. I agree things missed their mark, partially because of the lack of focus but again.... I've been into party/movement politics for a while and trust me, when you're talking about corruption and a deeply rooted power structure, Occupy didn't do any more/less than the Progressive movement has been able to do inside of the Democratic Party. Whether you demand or ask politely, these things aren't just going to voluntarily change themselves.By compromising with the same 'powers that be' on the little shit they're using to chip away at you, you're equal parts showing you can be worked with and equal parts showing you're willing to continue accepting things on their terms.

Anyway, I moved off topic so back to the accomplishment thing. In the small, I know there was some success with the "Occupy The Ports" push; the Longshore workers reached a settlement EGT they credited heavily thanks to Occupy. "Occupy Our Homes" successfully blocked several foreclosures on people who were victims of robo-signing and several other ILLEGAL banking practices. There are a lot more I'm forgetting.

In the big, they missed their mark on getting structural change or legislation passed that favored their populist message but they _did_ effect the national dialogue with regard to powerful/wealthy and the rest of the population. There are a lot of quotes and themes that originated with Occupy and I still hear them used today with more mainstream arguments about inequality (99% v. 1%, for example).


----------



## Sang-Drax

Randy said:


> Solution? How about outlawing corporate or lobbyist money and super PACs from contributing to campaigns? How about outlawing private meetings between lobbyists and politicians away from the public eye? How about making things transparent so that people KNOW their representatives are voting on legislation based on the WILL OF THE PEOPLE WHO PUT THEM THERE and not their sugar daddy?



I know this is rather old, but wow. Well said and quoted for truth.


----------



## The Reverend

bob123 said:


> There needs to be some accountability for yourself. I didnt get a free lunch, why should you? Its TOO EASY to go to school on your own. Ill be damned if my taxes are gonna go pay for Johnny P. Hipster's liberal arts degree in uselessness....





bob123 said:


> Its TOO EASY to go to school on your own.





bob123 said:


> Its TOO EASY to go to school on your own.





bob123 said:


> Its TOO EASY to go to school on your own.



You fucked up there, buddy. I'm currently putting myself through school, and when I'm done paying for it, I'll likely owe enough for a decent-sized house in a nice gated neighborhood (in Texas, at least) before I'm thirty. 

Remind me again how easy it is to pay for school?


----------



## MFB

I'm in the same boat as Rev, albeit in a different state and school. I attend an Ai school, you know - The Art Institutes which people are a "for profit" school which is a lie because EVERY college is a "for profit" university. If it's not then it's not a proper business and won't be around much longer. I'll be honest about the cost, it's about $120K for 3 years of school, if I remember correctly, and that's with housing I believe but again it's been a while since I've looked at numbers. 

I'm 22, currently jobless (applying at the moment) and the loans are all in my name PLUS I've already attended community college to get an associate's degree while I had no clue what I wanted to do with my life. 

That's somewhere in the region of $135K when said and done for all my educating, and the starting salary for animation/game designers? 40-70K a year, but that's still over the horizon, and doesn't take into account rent/groceries/car payments/insurance/gas, etc... so I'll be paying it off for a WHILE. 

I don't think I've currently got it "easy" with all that looming overhead


----------



## flint757

bob123 said:


> I was part of a machine that had over 400,000 people aligned toward a constructive set of ideals.
> 
> Its TOO EASY to go to school on your own. Ill be damned if my taxes are gonna go pay for Johnny P. Hipster's liberal arts degree in uselessness....



Not everyone believes in the military or wants to join the military dude. Of course it was "easy" for you, you didn't have to pay for it (you did time wise both in class and with the military, but not financially). The ironic bit is while yes you did a job so by no means do I discredit that, tax dollars paid for your college (assuming you took advantage of that since you've said you were in the Navy at some point). Constructive ideals is debatable as well, that is just your opinion (and a completely valid one, but an opinion nonetheless).

People shouldn't HAVE to join the military, risking the lives possibly for ideals they do not hold just for an education. If you are not wealthy going into the military or suffering through it financially (years and years of debt) are the only 2 options and neither are "easy".

That kid in the video I'd be willing to bet isn't even paying for his own college as it is obvious he is a moron. The video title even says No. 1 idiot, not that ALL of them are idiots. Perspective my friend. To further assume that if someone who participated in the OWS movement is going to get a "useless" degree on "your" tax dollars is quite the exaggeration. Pell grants, military college funding, federal loans, scholarships and general school funding (which leads to scholarships most of the time) are all funded by EVERYONE'S tax dollars as is.


----------



## SirMyghin

flint757 said:


> People shouldn't HAVE to join the military, risking the lives possibly for ideals they do not hold just for an education. If you are not wealthy going into the military or suffering through it financially (years and years of debt) are the only 2 options and neither are "easy".



There is an important question here. Are your ideals worth more than the quality of your future? Sure it is nice to believe they are, but really they aren't and it is a silly opportunity to pass up. The world won't care if you cling to your ideals and you sacrifice your future accordingly, and they shouldn't have to.

As a guy who put himself through school, I only had minimal debt (see a decent cars worth), which I have paid more than 1/2 of in a 9 months by choosing the right career field. School was costing me 25k a year, and I have 7 years of it... I didn't join the military either. Sure there were a few lean times but it builds character and wasn't all that hard.


----------



## flint757

SirMyghin said:


> There is an important question here. Are your ideals worth more than the quality of your future? Sure it is nice to believe they are, but really they aren't and it is a silly opportunity to pass up. The world won't care if you cling to your ideals and you sacrifice your future accordingly, and they shouldn't have to.
> 
> As a guy who put himself through school, I only had minimal debt (see a decent cars worth), which I have paid more than 1/2 of in a 9 months by choosing the right career field. School was costing me 25k a year, and I have 7 years of it... I didn't join the military either. Sure there were a few lean times but it builds character and wasn't all that hard.



Well pending on the branch you are risking a little more than your ideals (like your life) and I'm adamantly against killing people so yes my ideals are important enough.

That is awesome that you were able to drop 100k on your debt in such a short amount of time, you must have a very good job. Again, something being missed, is that everything is circumstantial. Going to college, for me, is relatively easy, but that does not directly imply that the same can be said for everyone. Hell I even have the ability to get a descent job (right now) on top of that, but my good fortune doesn't blind me to the fact that not everyone is so lucky.

You shouldn't discount the fact that you are very lucky. Not everyone, even when they pick the "right field", gets a job right out of college and everyone, in general, has very different circumstances (married, single, children, other important obligations). That could apply to the military paying for college as well as joining can have negative ramifications on someones life (if you have a child and don't feel like missing the important years or sick family, etc.).

Point being is that not everyone has it bad and of course it is doable (as you can see 2 people commenting here ARE doing it), but not everyone has it good either. Life is all about good timing, the right connections and the right circumstances.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

flint757 said:


> The ironic bit is while yes you did a job so by no means do I discredit that, tax dollars paid for your college (assuming you took advantage of that since you've said you were in the Navy at some point).


 

A bit less Ironic when you consider that military servicemen get college money through the Montgomery GI Bill, which isn't funded by tax dollars, but rather by the servicemembers themselves. Upon enlisting, the soldier/sailor/airman/marine is given the opportunity to sign up for the MGIB, and if they do, then money is deducted from their paycheck every month for a year (or two, I forget). If you don't sign up for it, you don't give any money from your salary, but you also don't get the MGIB benefits. It's the pool of money from all servicemen contributing to the MGIB every month that pays for college, not your tax dollars.

That's the barebones version, at any rate, because different states actually have different education programs for veterans, in which case your STATE tax dollars may very well be paying for someone's education.


----------



## bob123

The Reverend said:


> You fucked up there, buddy. I'm currently putting myself through school, and when I'm done paying for it, I'll likely owe enough for a decent-sized house in a nice gated neighborhood (in Texas, at least) before I'm thirty.
> 
> Remind me again how easy it is to pay for school?




Student loans are your choice.

I know people that worked through college to pay their tuition, I joined the military to earn my GI Bill. 

edit: I forgot about pell grants, scholarships, federal aid, and other non-loan grants you can receive... 

No pity here, so in my opinion, you fucked up there buddy.

Working in any branch of the military is about as dangerous as driving on the highway... except highways kill FAR more people then die in the military.


----------



## The Reverend

Don't they get paid by the government, though?


----------



## bob123

The Reverend said:


> Don't they get paid by the government, though?



Who the fuck cares? Its money YOU dont pay back (directly).

Zero sympathy from me dude, my sister completed her doctorate in physics by working 2 jobs, getting scholarships, work study programs, and pell grants.

Because you felt the need to take the easy way out with student loans is no skin off my ass. (btw, those student loans are from the government, so you're pretty much arguing a moot point with circular logic)


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

The Reverend said:


> Don't they get paid by the government, though?


 
If we're going to stretch it that far, then everything every government employee has ever spent money on was paid for by tax dollars. The only way to avoid tax dollars paying for their education (or their food, skin mags, booze, cars, beanie babies, etc etc etc) would be for the government to stop paying its employees. Seems like stretching the point because you don't want to concede it.


----------



## bob123

Im honestly waiting for the circular logic to begin, Tim.


----------



## bob123

Semichastny said:


> I agree with you on this, but I wouldn't call them clowns.
> 
> 
> Except in Mexico and the Middle East where social media has played a important role in political happenings due to the unreliable and biased nature of the media present there.
> 
> 
> I agree nothing will happen by just sitting in the streets, but what Is so hypocritical about the movement?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you really understand what OWS is about. I'm getting the sneaking sensation you saw one of the bad apples and wrote of the entire movement without actually attempting to understand what they want. This is straight from the wiki page and I am not seeing anything about handouts or any of the other reactionary insults/claims people make about them...
> 
> "OWS's goals include a reduction in the influence of corporations on politics, more balanced distribution of income, more and better jobs, bank reform (especially to curtail speculative trading by banks), forgiveness of student loan debt or other relief for indebted students, and alleviation of the foreclosure situation."




1) sure. when they stop acting like clowns, I will refrain from referring to them as such.
2) We're in America, I could honestly not care less about other countries political movements. 
3) the movement stems from a GOOD idea. However, people took that GOOD idea and twisted it to their own potential financial and political gains. "1%'ers have a good life and dont have to worry about money", instead of asking for an equalization from the rich, they ask the rich to merely pay for their shit. 

4) most importantly, no I have a VERY understanding of what this was about. As I stated earlier, very very few of them have any real clue as to why they were actually there in the first place. "DOWN WITH CORPORATE GREED!" is hardly a premise for anything. I formed my opinion after reading countless articles on their ridiculous ideas, statments, and interviews, not just one person. I can't take this seriously because of this :


----------



## flint757

Grand Moff Tim said:


> A bit less Ironic when you consider that military servicemen get college money through the Montgomery GI Bill, which isn't funded by tax dollars, but rather by the service members themselves. Upon enlisting, the soldier/sailor/airman/marine is given the opportunity to sign up for the MGIB, and if they do, then money is deducted from their paycheck every month for a year (or two, I forget). If you don't sign up for it, you don't give any money from your salary, but you also don't get the MGIB benefits. It's the pool of money from all servicemen contributing to the MGIB every month that pays for college, not your tax dollars.
> 
> That's the barebones version, at any rate, because different states actually have different education programs for veterans, in which case your STATE tax dollars may very well be paying for someone's education.



Well based on your bare bone description it sounds a lot like Social Security where you pay in, but that does not mean it is exclusively funded by soldiers (as even SS isn't funded just by your paycheck either). If it does in fact function similarly to SS then the military would cover the differences and the military is funded through tax dollars.

It is a moot point as you can look at it similarly to a tax (just to the exclusive benefit of servicemen if that is the case) in which case he (the person I was responding too) probably did fund someones "liberal art degree".

If it was strictly funded by soldiers I highly doubt this would be the case though.

GI Bill falling short of college tuition costs - The Boston Globe



> "Funding the GI Bill as Senator Webb proposes it for one year would cost this country what it spends in Iraq in 36 hours," he said.



I don't doubt that they take some money out of the paychecks of service men, but it doesn't cover it all especially in such a short time frame (the funding amount wouldn't fluctuate so much either). If it functioned solely as a pool it is one I don't see people opting out of later down the road either and the idea of a pool is that not everyone who pays actually uses it (which would be retarded after investing the money/time). Based on what I'm reading the GI Bill covers a lot more than just college as well which again I don't see enough money being put in by the individual to actually cover it all, some of it has to come from tax dollars. I don't personally care if it does, but the person I was responding to clearly did.

[EDIT]

More direct facts.

G.I. Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> The "Buy-Up" option allows active duty members to forfeit up to $600 more toward their MGIB. For every dollar the service member contributes, the federal government contributes $8. Those who forfeit the maximum ($600) will receive, upon approval, an additional $150 per month for 36 months, or a total of $5400. This allows the veteran to receive $4,800 in additional funds ($5400 total minus the $600 contribution to receive it), but not until after leaving active duty. The additional contribution must be made while still on active duty. It is available for GI Bill recipients using either Ch. 30 or Ch. 1607, but cannot be extended beyond 36 months if a combination of GI Bill programs are used.



Here it actually says that this just adds to the benefits and the government adds money to it as well per so many dollars. So there you go it isn't completely funded by soldiers exclusively.

That wasn't my point of bringing it up though, merely pointing out the hypocrisy of his position.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate

MFB said:


> I'm in the same boat as Rev, albeit in a different state and school. I attend an Ai school, you know - The Art Institutes which people are a "for profit" school which is a lie because EVERY college is a "for profit" university. If it's not then it's not a proper business and won't be around much longer. I'll be honest about the cost, it's about $120K for 3 years of school, if I remember correctly, and that's with housing I believe but again it's been a while since I've looked at numbers.
> 
> I'm 22, currently jobless (applying at the moment) and the loans are all in my name PLUS I've already attended community college to get an associate's degree while I had no clue what I wanted to do with my life.
> 
> That's somewhere in the region of $135K when said and done for all my educating, and the starting salary for animation/game designers? 40-70K a year, but that's still over the horizon, and doesn't take into account rent/groceries/car payments/insurance/gas, etc... so I'll be paying it off for a WHILE.
> 
> I don't think I've currently got it "easy" with all that looming overhead



In all fairness, you have to be being supported by your folks, which i would assume are people of means, other wise you would qualify for finical aid.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

flint757 said:


> If it functioned solely as a pool it is one I don't see people opting out of later down the road either and the idea of a pool is that not everyone who pays actually uses it (which would be retarded after investing the money/time).


 
That actually happens all the time, and I agree, it is stupid. The MGIB was one of the main reasons I joined, so it always seemed silly to me that some people would pay into it and then never use it, but it _does_ happen.




flint757 said:


> Based on what I'm reading the GI Bill covers a lot more than just college


 
That sorta depends on the version of the MGIB the servicemember signs up for. There's the one I signed up for, which sends that servicemember a check once a month while they're in school that they then use for tuition _or_ housing _or_ what the hell ever, at their discretion, as long as they're still in school and not failing their classes. 

The newer version, commonly called the "Post 9/11 GI Bill," pays full tuition _up to_ _but not exceeding_ the cost of the most expensive *public* school in the state where the serviceman lives, plus they send a monthly stipend check based on the Cost of Living in the serviceman's area to help with things like rent and food.



flint757 said:


> More direct facts.
> 
> G.I. Bill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> Here it actually says that this just adds to the benefits and the government adds money to it as well per so many dollars. So there you go it isn't completely funded by soldiers exclusively.


 
Fair deuce. Can't really argue with that, can I ? So it isn't entirely funded by servicemen, but it isn't entirely funded by government money, either. So there, that's all out in the open, and we can move on, haha.


----------



## flint757

Indeed


----------



## The Reverend

Grand Moff Tim said:


> If we're going to stretch it that far, then everything every government employee has ever spent money on was paid for by tax dollars. The only way to avoid tax dollars paying for their education (or their food, skin mags, booze, cars, beanie babies, etc etc etc) would be for the government to stop paying its employees. Seems like stretching the point because you don't want to concede it.





I don't think it's very circular, or is stretching the point at all? If you say, "My schooling was NOT paid for by tax dollars," and the money did in fact, you have lied. If the world worked by your logic, then laundering money would be incredibly easy. 

So my options are: work a second job, get more scholarships somehow, and just tighten my belt. All the while paying tuition that's nearly twice as much a year as I make working 40+ hours a week.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

The Reverend said:


> I don't think it's very circular, or is stretching the point at all? If you say, "My schooling was NOT paid for by tax dollars," and the money did in fact, you have lied. If the world worked by your logic, then laundering money would be incredibly easy.


 
I didn't say it was circular, first off.

Lied? Really? I suppose it could be viewed as my fault for not specifying that when I say "paid for by tax dollars" i mean "paid for by tax dollars earmarked for that specific purpose," and not "indirectly paid for by tax dollars because it's taken from a salary that's paid by the government." The money was earmarked for government employee salaries, and nothing more. After that, EVERYTHING the employees spend that money on is technically "paid for by tax dollars," but it's isn't anywhere near the same as tax dollars paying for, say, interstate highways or national parks. To me, that makes it seem like a bit of a stretch to say that their education is paid for by tax dollars in the (admittedly only implied) same way that tax dollars directly pay for other things, and to say it isn't isn't lying at all.

On the other hand, I _have_ conceded that I was *wrong* about the extent to which it's paid for by servicemen rather than tax dollars after Flint pointed out that the gov't matches every $1 paid in with $8 of their own. However, that's being mistaken, not lying.


----------



## flint757

It was Bob who said circular.


----------



## The Reverend

I was replying to both you and bob123, hence the circular logic comment. It also took a very long time to send, making it look like I'm beating a dead horse. 

I'm aware that some people can make it work. But I'm also forcibly reminded of the conservative response to Obama claiming that we all need help.

Come down to Crosby's Construction, in Chappell Hill, Texas, where I work 10-12 hour days 5-6 days a week(not counting the two hour drive time!) picking up debris from highways and tell me I need to pick up another fucking job. Tell me that I'm eligible for the Pell Grant (I'm not) and tell me that there's more scholarships I could get (my GPA is far from stellar now). Tell me I'm not doing enough, and that a student loan wasn't necessary to afford the extra $320 bill a month I pay on my payment plan. 

I know that there are plenty of people who were able to pay their way through school. I know that there are plenty of people who are willfully trying to cheat the system. I am neither, and shit, I could use a fucking break, man.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Honestly, I would rather it were easier for people to get jobs that make a comfortable living wage without needing a degree to begin with, instead of making it easier for people to get a degree. I suppose that just seems to be the way of things in developed nations as their economies shift from production to service bases.


----------



## flint757

Grand Moff Tim said:


> Honestly, I would rather it were easier for people to get jobs that make a comfortable living wage without needing a degree to begin with, instead of making it easier for people to get a degree. I suppose that just seems to be the way of things in developed nations as their economies shift from production to service bases.



This isn't entirely relevant to the thread, but according to the few business classes I have taken companies are starting to build/assemble in the States so they can respond better to demand and crisis situations.

There are also a descent amount of jobs in welding and other such things, however, without experience a degree is useful in such fields. Not necessarily a bachelor degree, but trade school or something like that.

We have definitely made a huge switch to service industry, but there are still jobs out there that don't require a degree. That being said, despite whether relevant to job or not, you seem to get paid more if you have one. I've been told countless times the knowledge isn't what the companies care about it is the commitment. All I can say is that is one expensive, pointless investment under that kind of mentality.


----------



## bob123

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not "glad" you are going through a difficult time, Im not "happy" that people have to pay for state level schools at all really. Thats one thing I would be all about, cut some defense spending, and put it into school tuition costs.  A subsidy based program based on your grades would work quite nicely 




"So my options are: work a second job, get more scholarships somehow, and just tighten my belt. All the while paying tuition that's nearly twice as much a year as I make working 40+ hours a week."

As I said, I've directly seen people fund their own way through college without loans, I've seen people completely fuck themselves over with loans. My wifes sister did NOT work at all during 5 years at U of M, got tuition and stafford loans for the entire thing... she now works for ~25$ an hour, 
and pays about 75% of that in student loans.... for several years. It sucks, but it was ultimately her choice....


that said, why are you not eligable for a pell grant?


----------



## flint757

bob123 said:


> that said, why are you not eligable for a pell grant?



Not sure of his circumstance, but it is greatly exaggerated how easy they are to get even when you qualify.


----------



## Randy

bob123 said:


> Everything



With all due respect, I think you've got just as shitty an attitude as the supposed people you're condemning. All I keep hearing from you is "I did this" or "my sister did this" etc. like, because you were lucky/postioned well/intelligent enough then the same opportunities are available to everyone else. We're talking about decisions being made by high school aged people about their future; specifically referring to an age group where their life experience is so narrow, they can't entirely grasp what responsible planning for their future means.

I remember when I was in school. Always scored well into the 90s on my standardized tests but I flunked classes year after year because I couldn't be bothered with homework. I was lucky to graduate and, to be honest, I didn't give a shit whether or not I did. Now I know that was a mistake but a lot of good that does me at 26. Hindsight, 20/20, etc.

Do you think a kid is locked in enough to know from the day they walks into high school at 14 years old, they need to apply themselves, their future, their family and their way of life all depend on how they handle their next FOUR years? That's not even taking into account unpredictable bumps in the road like life issues, shitty teachers, etc. We'll just assume every kid either knows themselves or has parents/counselors who know them well enough to keep them on task, make sure they pick the right major, take the right high school courses, apply themselves well enough that they score well, fill out all the grant/scholarship applications and they're lucky enough to 'beat out' all of the other (literally millions of kids) going after the same money? I call bullshit. Some kids are lucky/smart enough to fit into that category but not all or not even most. Student loans are inevitable.

Likewise, you keep assaulting "liberal arts degree in uselessness" or similar jabs. For the most part, liberal arts degrees or General Studies degrees, etc. are a function of undecided students. I have lots of family, lots of friends that don't/didn't know what they wanted to do when they started college and two years in, still didn't know. Like, the overwhelming majority of them. Again, you're initially talking about kids and young adults. I've sat down with guidance counselors on multiple occasions, hammered and hammered away on the importance of just continuing education even if you don't know what you want to do and figure it out later. My larger point being, there are a *lot* of people out there who were not adequetly informed of what the real world job market is like and what realistic opportunities are out there. Even if they were told, I'm not sure how realistic it is that someone can grasp it without experiencing it...?

I have my own personal feelings on the state of academia and how it's primary goal is to stay self sustaining, and little to do with giving their students a practical path to jobs in the real world. Maybe "liberal arts degree in uselessness" shouldn't even be a something you can major in if it's so useless? Different argument for a different day, though.

Last point for now is the constant insulting of the Occupiers.

1. Not all Occupiers are 'hipsters students protesting the fact tax payers haven't given them a free education and guaranteed them a $1,000,000/yr job'. A lot of schools dishonestly pad their 'number of students who find employment after graduating', which is something even the most responsible would-be students look at. Likewise, a fair number of those protesters are intelligent and graduated with very practical degrees but the market wasn't what they were led to believe (imagine that, an institution which thrives on getting money from you for teaching you specific stuff not cluing you into how dead that market is... nope, no chance of a conflict there ) and they are saddled with mountains of debt (see previous paragraphs for where that comes from).

2. Not all Occupiers are even concerned with education at all. See all my previous posts on the subject.

3. Pointing out 'oh, they're using foreign this and foreign that' is silly. If the actual point is the lack of financial equality and the fact the number of decent jobs are lacking due to corporate-governmental leg-humping, it's redundant to assert that the only way to 'not hypocritically protest' is by not having any foreign/corporate produced materials with you. That's actually the point, you can't. You know, unless everyone shows up naked, with no signs and no cameras. Nope, no way that'll impact the likelihood of average people to turn out.


----------



## bob123

Randy, I lived in a trailer as a child, emancipated at 16, homeless for about 6 months before I pulled my head out of my ass. Im NOT speaking from generalities, Im NOT speaking from stuff "I've heard" or "Seen". Im speaking from DIRECT life experience. 


Im well aware that not "everyone" in the OWS movement is a tweenage hipster. Im purely going by the largest demographic. 

I was also speaking about the reports and claims they made as a unit, not on a well spoken, individual level. Your entire group is made up to support a common goal, that goal was "fiscal equality" and "down with capatilism". Either through a showing in the media, or popularity of certain individuals, this group seems to be predominantly 18-21 year olds without much clue or experience in their life. *Have you seen their proposed plans? THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY ABSURD! 
*


I make the jabs about liberal arts degrees, because people seem to correlate 'a degree' with 'a job'. People want whats in demand, a casual 4 year general studies is ultimately a waste of time and money usually. Its an EASY degree, thats why people do it. Thats why they dont get hired out of college to make reasonable livings either.


Theres also the matter of which college you attend. If you're too proud to take cheaper, transferable community college classes (my engineering program had a direct trasnfer over from several community colleges in the area, 2 years of cheap school, wind up getting the SAME degree...). My wifes sister would NOT go to ANY other school but U of M. It was the only option. She also sat on her ass and didnt work too much the whole time she went. I have no pity for her either...


----------



## Randy

bob123 said:


> Randy, I lived in a trailer as a child, emancipated at 16, homeless for about 6 months before I pulled my head out of my ass. Im NOT speaking from generalities, Im NOT speaking from stuff "I've heard" or "Seen". Im speaking from DIRECT life experience.



Well, credit where credit is due that you were able to pull that off but most people can't/don't.




bob123 said:


> I make the jabs about liberal arts degrees, because people seem to correlate 'a degree' with 'a job'. People want whats in demand, a casual 4 year general studies is ultimately a waste of time and money usually. Its an EASY degree, thats why people do it. Thats why they dont get hired out of college to make reasonable livings either.



And if somebody told them that when they applied for college, they probably wouldn't have done that. Again, if it's so useless then maybe it shouldn't be made available.




bob123 said:


> Theres also the matter of which college you attend. If you're too proud to take cheaper, transferable community college classes (my engineering program had a direct trasnfer over from several community colleges in the area, 2 years of cheap school, wind up getting the SAME degree...). My wifes sister would NOT go to ANY other school but U of M. It was the only option. She also sat on her ass and didnt work too much the whole time she went. I have no pity for her either...



Not all college credits are transferable. In my experience, I've seen 3 out of 3 times (my best friend, my girlfriend and then my next girlfriend) where zero or next to zero of their credits were transferable.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Randy said:


> And if somebody told them that when they applied for college, they probably wouldn't have done that. Again, if it's so useless then maybe it shouldn't be made available.



True... And I see where you're coming from, but I also see where bob is coming from and I'm not sure that what was on the surface of his statement is the entirety of what he meant (although I haven't read the rest of his posts to confirm).

There are a LOT of degrees that are seemingly worthless--almost an excuse to just shut up parents that are pressuring you to go. That or there are a ton of people who simply have NO CLUE what the hell they wanna do so they just pick something they think they'll be able to make it through just to say they've done it.

The problem--in my eyes--is that the media sells to you that going to college and working hard is all you need to live the life you want. You see the commercials all day every day. And now we have places like ECPI giving people this undeserved sense of entitlement "I want classes *I* control... I don't wanna land some job; I want a career..."

Awesome ideals, but they're just that--ideals.

A lot of ppl get out and realize that just going to college didn't get them the career that afforded them the lifestyle they envisioned pre college.

However, that doesn't mean that a 4 year degree is worthless. It's a valid path for many. And if your plan is to go into certain fields of work it's a prerequisite. I just think a lot of ppl go for bullshit, or manage to make it w/o it and become jaded to the idea.


----------



## Randy

Konfyouzd said:


> There are a LOT of degrees that are seemingly worthless--almost an excuse to just shut up parents that are pressuring you to go. That or there are a ton of people who simply have NO CLUE what the hell they wanna do so they just pick something they think they'll be able to make it through just to say they've done it.




This happens for a lot of reasons. Being a "full time student" was (might still be?) the only way to stay on your family's employee healthcare plan, and also helps in having them declare you dependent on their taxes. Also, guidance counselors tell you that if you don't know what to do, you get a 'general studies' degree because you need the basic credits in a specialized degree anyway, so when you_ do_ decide, you only have to take specialized classes part time. I've sat through that sales pitch before.

I don't think this "going to school just to go to school" thing has as much weight as you're giving it. And even in scenarios where that is happening, it's because, once again, students are being ill-prepared for the real world and they think they can live their high school years on repeat. That's not just a totally self-conceived concept on their part, that's a conclusion based on what they're being told. What I've been saying this whole time is, fix what they're being told.


----------



## Konfyouzd

Then how can they sell you the American dream? (Obviously I kid)

I honestly pretty much NEVER sat down with my guidance counselor except when the senior class was required to do so. By the time I met with him, though I'd already decided wht I wanted to do which I imagine gave me a bit of an advantage as far as being influenced by what the guidance counselor had to say. But I know of many people like you who were told to just get a general studies degree and decide what they wanted to do at the last minute. It didn't ever seem to work out very well bc general studies is like highschool 2.0 then you suddenly have to get serious in your junior year. I can't tell you how many people I knew that made it to junior year only to drop out when it was time to get real.

So in short, I agree that we need to change what the kids are being told. A large part of that falls on the parents though and the parents were sold the same dream. And the ones that ended up doing well for themselves will tell their kids to do the same in most cases. For me college wasn't an option unless I planned to move out upon graduating highschool. I wasn't really all that prepared for that so I took the college route (not to mention someone else was willing to pay so if I failed I really didn't "lose" anything).

Again, I haven't read this entire thread, but I think a great deal of responsibility falls on the parents first and foremost but that might just be a result of my own experiences. I've known a lot of my peers to be more influenced by what school officials tell them than what their parents say and I've always been the exact opposite so much of what the school tried to tell me I'd discussed with my parents well in advance.

At the same time, I don't think it'd hurt for guidance counselors to not give every kid the same song and dance about college. But what I'm wondering is if they do it to avoid catching hell from parents for telling their kid that college might not be the best way.


----------



## Randy

Well, I mean, the job of the guidance councilor is to fill the gap between what kids are missing between their own goals and responsible input from parents. You can't count on every kid knowing what they want to do, you can't count on every parent to have the best idea for the kids and (what I'd consider most likely) you _can_ count a large percentage of kids being rebellious and not wanting to do what their parents did/tell them to do. Granted, you can't necessarily expect kids to follow what a councilor tells them either.

If I had my druthers, all high school kids would attend some vocational type courses where they work hands-on in different industries to get a better feel for what they like doing but they'd also be given very real and very blunt facts on what the opportunties and income are like if they go that route. This would be in addition to the basic education, obviously. In this scenario, I can see kids making better decisions for themselves, and would set them better to digest what their parents/peer/teachers tell them (good, bad or otherwise). 

As it stands (in the US, at least) the high school experience has fuck-all to do with knowing what actually working a job is like.


----------



## Konfyouzd

That's fucking brilliant... It does kind of seem like we get an awful lot of time to make a decision that still ends up being like picking a career out of a catalog based on a description and hoping for the best.


----------



## flint757

For the life of me I don't know why schools and even parents discredit vocational schools and mentor type programs. Welding, as an example, is a great paying job. 

We are fed the bullshit that college is the absolute end-all-to-be-all solution and I'll say unless you are lucky or incredibly talented most really high paying jobs will require some degree so in a way for the majority "the american dream" is probably only achievable through college with the appropriate drive and direction. Aimless college is only good for an entry level job that pays mediocre considering your debt for going in the first place.

I mean if you want to be a mechanic, driver, welder, carpenter, plumber, etc. (all jobs that pay fairly well and don't require bachelors degree) you'd either become an apprentice or get vocational training/certificates. This is something I rarely see parents or councilor's advocating. From what little I know Europe seems to do better with getting people lined up for jobs that they are appropriate for.

I think the most bizarre thing is that schools advocate military over vocational training and in many cases you are learning the same thing (not all or always obviously, military needs welders, mechanics and electrician's too).

I do agree that going to community college is a good idea as a first step, however, transferring gets complicated (especially if out of state). As an example if I went to community college locally and then tried to transfer to a UC school I wouldn't get in at all as transfers only happen locally like 99% of the time. If you are going out of state and need to live on campus then obviously community college won't work and yes obviously you can just keep it all local, but some schools suck bad enough that while yes you can get a job with your degree it may not be the one you wanted. Before anyone says it yes I know first world problems, but we only live once I'd think doing what we want for the rest of our lives is rather important.


----------



## Randy

flint757 said:


> For the life of me I don't know why schools and even parents discredit vocational schools and mentor type programs. Welding, as an example, is a great paying job.
> 
> We are fed the bullshit that college is the absolute end-all-to-be-all solution and I'll say unless you are lucky or incredibly talented most really high paying jobs will require some degree so in a way for the majority "the american dream" is probably only achievable through college with the appropriate drive and direction. Aimless college is only good for an entry level job that pays mediocre considering your debt for going in the first place.
> 
> I mean if you want to be a mechanic, driver, welder, carpenter, plumber, etc. (all jobs that pay fairly well and don't require bachelors degree) you'd either become an apprentice or get vocational training/certificates. This is something I rarely see parents or councilor's advocating. From what little I know Europe seems to do better with getting people lined up for jobs that they are appropriate for.
> 
> I think the most bizarre thing is that schools advocate military over vocational training and in many cases you are learning the same thing (not all or always obviously, military needs welders, mechanics and electrician's too).
> 
> I do agree that going to community college is a good idea as a first step, however, transferring gets complicated (especially if out of state). As an example if I went to community college locally and then tried to transfer to a UC school I wouldn't get in at all as transfers only happen locally like 99% of the time. If you are going out of state and need to live on campus then obviously community college won't work and yes obviously you can just keep it all local, but some schools suck bad enough that while yes you can get a job with your degree it may not be the one you wanted. Before anyone says it yes I know first world problems, but we only live once I'd think doing what we want for the rest of our lives is rather important.



These are my thoughts, exactly.

When I was a kid, not to be offensive, but the meme was that vocational schools (BOCES up here) were for mentally challenged kids. I had *no* idea what it actually was until... maybe senior year? And I was no longer eligible at that point.

Hell, who says a vocational program has to be the last step? The way I see it, you teach kids a trade and they can either go that route as a career or take that information and apply it to their chosen career and education. Welding is a decent trade but if it's not for you, you get experience understanding the strength and use of welds, general metalworking skills etc. and if you pursue structural engineering, you've got firsthand experience with how the designs are implemented. Apply that example to whatever other trades that can be offered at that level.

And the military thing is a great point, which I've been harping on for a while. Somebody in the armed forces could chime in with more details but I've been under the impression that for all the training you get in the military, none of that applies as credit/experience when you go to school and it doesn't get noticed enough on a job application. I'm not 100% on how accurate that one is but I've heard of issues there before.

Totally with you on the credit transferring thing. A nightmare trying to transfer credits across state borders and almost as much trouble transferring credits across county borders, or CC to state or CC to private university; with some exceptions.


----------



## MFB

7 Strings of Hate said:


> In all fairness, you have to be being supported by your folks, which i would assume are people of means, other wise you would qualify for finical aid.



Right now I have zero support. I have $1100 in the bank, which will slowly be used up between paying cell phone, car insurance, and so on in the next upcoming months until I get a job. Since they're student loans they don't require being paid off until six months after I graduate (Spring 2014) so that's why I'm trying to get a job now and immediately start paying it off.

Bob, in regards to your Pell Grant comment, do you realize how little you have to make to qualify? I make $16K my last year of working retail, and on my own applying for it without any of my mother's information - I STILL didn't qualify. That's a little over $1000/month which was eaten up by a car payment, insurance payment, cell phone bill, gas for the car, and groceries so very little of it was actually left over for me to "play with." No one WANTS to take out a loan with any type of interest rate and now that they'll have to pay it back. It's not like we did it for shits and giggles to go "teehee I have a loan, isn't this cool?!" 

It's a necessity. Sure, there's scholarships and grants, but there's also millions of other college kids fighting for them that might have better sob stories than me; to which case, I'm fucked because they'll get before me so what can I do then? Take dozens of years off to accumulate the money to pay for the start of my education, and then what? What do I do for the next years worth of payment? Stop and do it all over again? There's no WAY you can work long enough to entirely cover the cost of a full college tuition and everything as a kid, and parents have other things to cover so they can't be expected to cover all of it either.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim

Randy said:


> And the military thing is a great point, which I've been harping on for a while. Somebody in the armed forces could chime in with more details but I've been under the impression that for all the training you get in the military, none of that applies as credit/experience when you go to school and it doesn't get noticed enough on a job application. I'm not 100% on how accurate that one is but I've heard of issues there before.


 
It may depend on what the person does in the military, but I'm 100% positive that some Military training absolutely does provide transferrable college credits. Hell, just being in the military gets _everyone_ a transferrable physical education-type credit. Personally, my training was at the Defense Language Institute and entailed 18 months of intensive Arabic language training, and at the end of it all I was left with enough transferrable credits to be a couple of Gen Ed courses away from a degree in Middle Eastern Studies. In fact, were it not for being able to use some of the 300-level course credits I got from my training as 300-level elective credits when I finally went on to University, I likely wouldn't have been able to graduate in four years. They were a real time-saver (except, you know, for all the time I spent in the military ).

Bob was a nuke, and their training is long and arduous too, so I'd be pretty shocked if he didn't get some credits out of the deal as well, but I won't put words in his mouth.


----------



## flint757

Yeah as I said before there is a lot of misinformation towards Pell grants. Even if you qualify financially you run into similar problems where you are competing against other low income individuals. They only offer so many a year and things will vary state-to-state.

And Randy that's a good point about the stepping stone factor. I'd say engineers, architects, and even business majors would benefit greatly from the hands on knowledge.

As for military, I have heard some horror stories as well. When I was in High School I made $8 an hour at Baskin Robbins and a guy, who came from Alaska and just got out of the military, got hired on making less than I did as a 16 year old high school kid. It's definitely not a guarantee for a good life either, but obviously it doesn't have to work out that way.


----------



## SirMyghin

SirMyghin said:


> As a guy who put himself through school, I only had minimal debt (*see a decent cars worth*), which I have paid more than 1/2 of in a 9 months by choosing the right career field.





flint757 said:


> That is awesome that you were able to* drop 100k on your debt* in such a short amount of time, you must have a very good job.



This is completely OT, but I really want what you consider a decent car..


----------



## The Reverend

bob123 said:


> Don't misunderstand me. I'm not "glad" you are going through a difficult time, Im not "happy" that people have to pay for state level schools at all really. Thats one thing I would be all about, cut some defense spending, and put it into school tuition costs. A subsidy based program based on your grades would work quite nicely
> 
> As I said, I've directly seen people fund their own way through college without loans, I've seen people completely fuck themselves over with loans. My wifes sister did NOT work at all during 5 years at U of M, got tuition and stafford loans for the entire thing... she now works for ~25$ an hour,
> and pays about 75% of that in student loans.... for several years. It sucks, but it was ultimately her choice....
> 
> 
> that said, why are you not eligable for a pell grant?



I see that we finally agree on something!  Although, to be fair, at my school you lose eligibility for financial aid, including Stafford loans, if you don't maintain at least a 'C' average.

I'm not eligible because my parents made too much money both last year and this year, though my mom was laid off and we've been in the bankruptcy process. 

As an interesting side note that will provide some insight into my perspective: My mother worked at Hewlett Packard for 23 years, earning a B.A. in Business (that they paid for, coincidentally) before she was laid off. For most of my life, she made more than my dad did. He's been in the oil industry for 20-something years, until he became an operations manager for T3 Energy, running a multimillion dollar shop in Mexico. He never graduated or got his G.E.D., and hates that young guys will get hired on at positions he had to work for, and get paid more. I have direct evidence of where both paths lead in my life, and to be honest, I'm going to stick to college. My dad was a grunt for half his life, and had to work in shitty conditions, with shitty hours, for shitty pay. Being a blue-collar worker is fine if survival is all you require, but I'd like to enjoy my life a bit more than he was able to. He missed out on a lot of things in his kid's lives, because he had to work overtime to make ends meet. 

OWS wasn't strictly about something-for-nothing, rather, that's what the media and those not willing to be open-minded and considerate wanted it to be. It's about receiving more than debts and low pay for trying to be a productive member of society. It's about regulating corporations who have fetishized the bottom line, and would rather fire my mother two years from retirement than pay her. It's a call for a change in the social attitude of America and a call for more balanced economic policies. If anyone thinks that the American system is not broken/breaking, then we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## flint757

SirMyghin said:


> This is completely OT, but I really want what you consider a decent car..





> I have paid more than 1/2 of in a 9 months by choosing the right career field. School was costing me 25k a year, and I have 7 years of it...



You said 25k a year for 7 years which comes out to 175k and half of that is 87.5k. I rounded a bit , but unless you meant something different than what you said or I interpreted that wrong I wasn't far off. 

Since your saying I was off I'll just assume I misread your post as that first part seemed to contradict the second.

[EDIT]

Never mind I just misread your post upon further looking. That being said if you did have 175k invested into school how'd you keep your debt so low by the time you left?


----------



## bob123

Grand Moff Tim said:


> It may depend on what the person does in the military, but I'm 100% positive that some Military training absolutely does provide transferrable college credits. Hell, just being in the military gets _everyone_ a transferrable physical education-type credit. Personally, my training was at the Defense Language Institute and entailed 18 months of intensive Arabic language training, and at the end of it all I was left with enough transferrable credits to be a couple of Gen Ed courses away from a degree in Middle Eastern Studies. In fact, were it not for being able to use some of the 300-level course credits I got from my training as 300-level elective credits when I finally went on to University, I likely wouldn't have been able to graduate in four years. They were a real time-saver (except, you know, for all the time I spent in the military ).
> 
> Bob was a nuke, and their training is long and arduous too, so I'd be pretty shocked if he didn't get some credits out of the deal as well, but I won't put words in his mouth.




96 credits for me, 42 applied towards my engineering degree + dantes/clep + education at sea. Took me a year to get my engineering degree.




The Reverend said:


> OWS wasn't strictly about something-for-nothing, rather, that's what the media and those not willing to be open-minded and considerate wanted it to be. It's about receiving more than debts and low pay for trying to be a productive member of society. It's about regulating corporations who have fetishized the bottom line, and would rather fire my mother two years from retirement than pay her. It's a call for a change in the social attitude of America and a call for more balanced economic policies. If anyone thinks that the American system is not broken/breaking, then we'll have to agree to disagree.



Im merely going by their list of proposed demands. To eradicate credit agencies, to start everyone at zero debt, to equalize pay of janitors with heart surgeons, etc etc.... This is a dog-eat-dog world my friend. Its not always meant to be "Fair" and "Equal" to everyone. That would be a nice utopia, but it wont happen. I agree, some socio-economic reform would be prudent, but I do not believe a complete lather-wash-rinse of the whole thing is the answer either. Change must be slow and painful, or it will simply fail and revert to previous state.


----------



## flint757

Just out of curiosity was there ever an official list? Proposed sounds more like a group of people got together and just started spit balling to see what sticks.

Equalizing pay to that extreme would be quite ridiculous, no doubt about it, but I feel like as a whole you are oversimplifying things. Change doesn't "have" to be slow and painful to work, it does make going back seem less desirable (leading to better retention), but it isn't impossible. There is no such thing as easy change either as someone is always getting a shorter stick.


----------



## bob123

flint757 said:


> Just out of curiosity was there ever an official list? Proposed sounds more like a group of people got together and just started spit balling to see what sticks.
> 
> Equalizing pay to that extreme would be quite ridiculous, no doubt about it, but I feel like as a whole you are oversimplifying things. Change doesn't "have" to be slow and painful to work, it does make going back seem less desirable (leading to better retention), but it isn't impossible. There is no such thing as easy change either as someone is always getting a shorter stick.



Change is always slow and painful. The very nature of change is to BE slow and painful. 

Anyway, heres their demands 








And heres a list of income demands... which is even MORE hilarious. 

Bankers $20,000
Lawyers $27,500
Realtors $25,000
Doctors $28,000
Nurses $27,500
Teachers/Librarians/Train Engineers/Bridge Maintenance/Ship Pilots, etc. $35,000
Police $36,000
Public Servants $28,500
Laborers $20,000
Other public sector $30,000
Other private sector $29,000
Technical/Research/Academic $36,000
Entrepreneurs/Business Owners $10,000
Congress $30,000
President 40,000
Soldiers N/A
Defense workers $25,000

Read more: TRR: Occupy Wall Street Demands: Cap Banker Salaries at $20,000, pay Academics $36,000 - Washington Times TRR: Occupy Wall Street Demands: Cap Banker Salaries at $20,000, pay Academics $36,000 - Washington Times 
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


​






This is why I dont take them seriously. Its not asking for "Change" its asking for impossible scenarios and getting all bitched up when it doesnt happen.


----------



## Fiction

bob123 said:


> Doctors $28,000
> Teachers/Librarians/Train Engineers/Bridge Maintenance/Ship Pilots, etc. $35,000
> President 40,000
> Soldiers N/A



LOL.jpg

(Goes for the whole thing, but those are my favourites)


----------



## bob123

Fiction said:


> LOL.jpg
> 
> (Goes for the whole thing, but those are my favourites)



And that's why I don't take those clowns seriously.... yeah I called them clowns again.... oh well.


----------



## Demiurge

bob123 said:


>



I wonder if the creator of that list is willing to give me his house in Vineyard Haven ($$$$$$) if I agree to keep paying-down my student loans.


----------



## flint757

I sincerely doubt that was everyone's goals as parts of that just sound like they were written by a teenager.

I disagree with 1 and 3, where did they come up with a trillion for 6 and 7 , isn't 8 already the case , 10 sounds like people subscribing to election conspiracies, and whether 11 and 12 are good idea or not it will never happen. That list is way overly ambitious. The rest I can see where they are coming from. Closing financial borders and opening country borders is about as contradictory as it gets too. Eliminating all debt is a terrible idea, credit is cash, if you paid with a credit card you determined you were going to pay it off. Now, if for whatever reason you get overwhelmed you can file bankruptcy to forgive some debt and consolidate into a single payment (albeit while destroying your credit). Eliminating credit reporting makes credit unreliable as no one can be held accountable.

As I said before I have my doubts that this was the completely decided upon list for the OWS movement. There is a problem, they have shed some light on it and it does need resolution. However, if this indeed was the majority agreed upon goals then it is no surprise things didn't go anywhere much like the "Zeitgeist Movement" (people need to ground themselves more in reality instead of unreachable ideals)

[EDIT]

Upon further inspection that list of wages was written by 1 individual and was buried in a list of documents. Fits with my spit balling theory honestly. All that aside there were many self inflicted wounds for the movement.


----------



## bob123

These are documented lists supported by OWS. Where does the accountability begin????


----------



## The Reverend

bob123 said:


> These are documented lists supported by OWS. Where does the accountability begin????



Accountability? 

Bob, if I reposted every vile, ignorant post on stormfront.org regarding military removal of minorities, would you take that as indicative of the entire community of soldiers and ex-soldiers? I'd hope not.

Again, if you subscribe to the notion that in America, profiting off the suffering of others is just good business, than we'll have to end this discussion. I don't believe in the kind of 'power' you believe in on a philosophical basis. I'm physically capable of doing almost whatever I want, and sans weapons and/or martial training of some sort, most people wouldn't be able to stop me. Is it okay for me to take what I want? It is, after all, a dog-eat-dog world. 

No, the reason we have laws like we do, and rights, is to make everything equal and fair to a certain extent. There are a lot of ways in which the very rich, and the companies that made them that way, as well as banks, take advantage of loopholes and people in an effort to capitalize in every which way. Unbridled greed should not be rewarded like it is, when it comes on the backs of American citizens. Social Darwinism, or rather, corporate Darwinism, exists purely to the exclusion of an entire sector of Americans, like my family. A certain practical measure of reform and progressive lawmaking is needed to make sure there will be a healthy balance in the economy.


----------



## flint757

bob123 said:


> These are documented lists supported by OWS. Where does the accountability begin????



Then why are they proposed goals and not official goals? I mean the radical left and right in our government propose a lot of crazy things, do we then go on to assume that they were taken for the whole party without question?

What/who are you referring to about accountability???


----------



## Explorer

flint757 said:


> The motive, originally, was legit.. .



Interesting assertion. 

I'm not arguing that people didn't have legitimate concerns... but AdBusters was the company which started this. It wasn't a grassroots movement. It wasn't a non-profit. It was a foreign company spending its money to alter American politics, not even American but Canadian, based in Vancouver BC. 

Best disguised astroturf ever, no? *laugh*

----

The other aspect of this whole thing which has always bothered me is... I like the Constitution. As soon as a group starts with demands, instead of trying to bring about legitimate change through legitimate Constitutional means, it immediately becomes anti-American. 

Some don't care about the Constitution, and there's no requirement that someone should respect and believe in the core of American politics and society. However, that doesn't clear them of being anti-American, just as Bush and others were anti-American when they tossed out the importance of the Constitution with the famous Ashcroft assertion about exercise of free expression, "Dissent is terror."

"I make this demand. If you don't agree, I'll act out." Blackmail, not the American way. Embrace that sentiment and strategy if you will, the way of terrorists, hostage-takers and others, but don't make it out to be American.


----------



## flint757

Well I was more referring to the people's original motive for protesting. I mean companies like CREDO use politics to further their interest, but the politics they support (even if only for profit) are something people can still agree with. But I see we are not arguing this point as you said the people had legitimate concerns most likely.

I do agree making outright demands (no compromise approach) is counterproductive and some of the demands were quite ridiculous. They needed to start with actual achievable goals (much like my opinion of Zeitgeist as I have said before). I wouldn't say making demands is anti-american though. Unions do this all the time and most people like unions and unions, in a way, are at the core of our country when we were developing into an industrialized nation. When people boycott a product or company they are also making demands basically (change your product/policy or I'm not shopping here anymore). That being said I don't think anyone claimed that this approach is the american way.

The movement failed for a reason; it lacked direction, demands were out there, there were no baby steps (that's the way it seemed at least), the media trivialized the movement, people who like to just cause trouble slowly joined in on the fun (like that idiot kid from that video posted earlier). That doesn't change the fact that something needs to change and things need fixing (something that they arguably achieved, check out the Democrat's political position) whether or not the company involved had ill intent or not.

As an aside the Constitution is a living breathing document that was designed to evolve and change, not a list of hard facts. The constitution has included/excluded things and people that would be seen as wrong in today's time so it is not infallible and therefore doesn't necessarily mean someone is acting anti-american either. I will agree though that some of the things that Bob listed earlier of the OWS demands were quite ridiculous and juvenile so I could see how one might take that as anti-american. I see it more as ignorance though.


----------



## Xaios

Explorer said:


> Best disguised astroturf ever, no? *laugh*



When I was a teenager, I worked as a gas jockey for a little while. At one point, the owner of said station was looking for a slogan. I, _quite_ jokingly, came up with "We'll Freeze For You" as a possibility, based on the fact that, because it was a full serve station, we did more business the colder it got during the winter. The owner overheard me and promptly told me that he'd pay me $200 to use it. The deal was made, and to this day it's still their slogan, they even use it in radio ads (you know it's a small town when gas stations have radio ads ).

My point being that a good idea should never be dismissed out of hand simply because of where it came from and the motives behind it (although knowing the source of an idea could potentially merit closer scrutiny to determine whether or not it really is a good idea). I've been quite critical of the Occupy movement ever since its inception, and they definitely go overboard. However, fair and balanced wages, good healthcare and the right to access a good education at a reasonable price are still things worth fighting for, as they are some of the hallmarks of a proper civilized country.


----------



## Explorer

flint757 said:


> The movement failed for a reason; it lacked direction, demands were out there, there were no baby steps (that's the way it seemed at least), the media trivialized the movement, people who like to just cause trouble slowly joined in on the fun (like that idiot kid from that video posted earlier). That doesn't change the fact that something needs to change and things need fixing (something that they arguably achieved, check out the Democrat's political position) whether or not the company involved had ill intent or not.


 
I remember reading the Seattle stories about how their Occupy Seattle movement went from having support from churches, community groups and so on, to having zero support due to their having voted to embracy any means deemed necessary, including violence. 

I have nothing against unlawful protest, incidentally. I very much admire those who have the courage of their convictions, willing to pay the price for breaking the law.

That's quite a distance from those who dress in black in large groups so they can vandalize without getting caught individually. I think the same Seattle stories said that a members of such a group, as a protest, had destroyed the car of some Canadian tourists. (Almost on target, but not owned by AdBusters. *laugh*



Xaios said:


> My point being that a good idea should never be dismissed out of hand simply because of where it came from and the motives behind it (although knowing the source of an idea could potentially merit closer scrutiny to determine whether or not it really is a good idea).


 
And I think we both agree that just because a group espouses a good idea publicly, it and its motives shouldn't be exempt from scrutiny. 

Most extreme example? Hitler not an ideal poster child for vegetarianism. 

*laugh*


----------



## flint757

I agree overall. Their approach was way off and they expected too much.

I've considered starting a grass root movement myself, but lack the free time. Some of the things I'd do though are inspired from this movement, just toned down by a thousand degrees and an overall more active approach. 

As an example, people should buy things based on how the manufacturers/distributors manage their company (internally, externally and politically). If a company does not treat their employee's or customer's right then people shouldn't buy their products. Assuming anyone could get enough people to agree to do so (unlikely as apple would be one of those companies that doesn't treat employee's fairly ), we can force the stockholders to take care of the stakeholders or risk losing their profit margin. 

I'd prefer to revert back to when stakeholders were more important to the company than stockholders. IMO stockholders are no different than someone gambling at a sporting event; if I bet on a football team I don't get to then coach the damn team so the same should be the case in a company. However, I'm well aware that this will not happen and even if it were to happen it would take a very long time to achieve (probably involve new laws as well and since government is in big businesses back pocket it'd be easier to pull someone's teeth out). 

That is why exercising buying power is the only way to achieve these goals IMO, but people are far too concerned with convenience and cheap products to do so it seems, so if I go through with this I have my work cut out for me. In other words my idea is dead in the water, but I'm still willing to give it a shot.

I have other ideas as well like education reform, upward mobility inside a company (a lot of companies hire externally for positions nowadays), finding a way to overturn citizens united, repealing GLB act, and much more. Some of these ideas I imagine OWS embraced, but an all or nothing approach won't work, baby steps are a must.

This is a poor example, but when everyone got worked up about Chick-Fil-A and many began boycotting over their financial practices in politics it forced Chick-Fil-A to not only rewrite their policies, but they agreed to stop funding these organizations as well. Boycotts are successful regularly when executed in a uniform manner and publicly embraced. We have more control than we give ourselves credit for (when the public supports an idea, politicians usually follow suit as well which is what helped achieve Chick-Fil-A's reform).

Windows has redefined what we expect from products as well. We have gone from a society that expects things to work to a society that gets a BSOD and reboots (many companies now follow suit). The truth is even in terms of just product satisfaction (ignoring the political/economical aspect) that shouldn't be okay. If you pay an arm and a leg for something it should work, simple as that.


----------



## ddtonfire

That is a poor example, since Chic-Fil-A did not change their policies and still give money to those organizations. As best as I can tell, they didn't feel any effects of a boycott, either.

Chick-fil-A Sets the Record Straight | CitizenLink


----------



## flint757

ddtonfire said:


> That is a poor example, since Chic-Fil-A did not change their policies and still give money to those organizations. As best as I can tell, they didn't feel any effects of a boycott, either.
> 
> Chick-fil-A Sets the Record Straight | CitizenLink



Well I said that.  and that sucks that the reports I had heard were bogus. It is a shame. 

Why do they insist so much...I'm sure they feel it, to what magnitude I do not know.

In any case that was an example not my actual point and despite the overall failure does not prove that boycotting can't work because it does.


----------



## vampiregenocide

I've seen the list of OWS's demands before, and that doesn't look like the list that I saw. Seems more like a mockery.


----------

