# Operation Occupy Wall Street - Peaceful protest heats up



## Kamatz (Sep 26, 2011)

So there's this protest that's been going on since September 17th originally organized by a group called Adbusters. They've got a number of goals, chief among them is to bring awareness of the corporate interests influencing Washington. And according to some of the articles I've read the news won't touch it.

I've found little blurbs about it on Fox and CNN's websites but it seems to me like they're downplaying the whole thing; not surprising considering these organizations are part of the "big financial institutions" the group is trying to fight.

Anonymous seems to have endorsed it, which might be part of the reason why the police are getting antsy with the mace. It's getting pretty brutal in some cases. Watch the video. There are a lot of arrests, some questionable.

Part of the inspiration for this march on wall street was the collective protests that have been going on in the middle east.  Arab Spring.

It's funny how the government endorses this kind of thing when it's happening over there, but as soon as it happens here the police whip out the pepper spray. What are your thoughts? It's hard to judge the intentions of the protestors and the police from such a short video clip, but I think it was excessive force.

I don't watch the news on television. Has anyone seen this mentioned or covered at all? Most of what I've seen on the internet is coverage from independent sites.

Relevant links:
Main site
CNN
Opinion in The Daily Reveille
The Guardian


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 26, 2011)

*SON OF A BITCH!*

I'm getting sick, first of all they don't mention the protest at all, then they mace the protesters.


----------



## ArielMT (Sep 26, 2011)

This is indeed going very underreported in the mainstream press.  All I've seen (which I can't find now) is an article in the Wall Street Journal.  I've seen more reports of what's happening on the streets of Athens, Greece, than what's happening on the streets of Lower Manhattan.


----------



## SnowyD (Sep 26, 2011)

After watching half the videos of people getting tazed and pepper sprayed for just standing on the sidewalks and talking. I kinda wished somebody woulda just busted out a gun and finally taken out half the police officers who are engorged power hungry pawns in the system. The only way to change a law is to break it, time for the people to step up. :l

Long story short, Fuck the police.


----------



## Kamatz (Sep 26, 2011)

SnowyD said:


> After watching half the videos of people getting tazed and pepper sprayed for just standing on the sidewalks and talking. I kinda wished somebody woulda just busted out a gun and finally taken out half the police officers who are engorged power hungry pawns in the system. The only way to change a law is to break it, time for the people to step up. :l
> 
> Long story short, Fuck the police.



That's just about the worst way to accomplish the intended goal which is financial reform. Part of the problem I see is that the protestors are a little too unorganized and haphazard. Apparently they didn't bother getting permits to protest.

If they had, I don't think they would have gotten permission to protest in front of Wall Street, so maybe this was a tactic to get as much publicity as possible? Whatever the reason, the lack of professionalism is shooting their cause in the foot.


----------



## SnowyD (Sep 26, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> That's just about the worst way to accomplish the intended goal which is financial reform. Part of the problem I see is that the protestors are a little too unorganized and haphazard. Apparently they didn't bother getting permits to protest.
> 
> If they had, I don't think they would have gotten permission to protest in front of Wall Street, so maybe this was a tactic to get as much publicity as possible? Whatever the reason, the lack of professionalism is shooting their cause in the foot.



You don't need permission to protest bro, it's an amendment right. And all I gotta say is, if the police think its cool to slam kids faces on the ground for stepping off the curb in a "possibly dangerous protest" I think it's time people actually fight back. Injustice is injustice, no matter how you candy coat it.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 26, 2011)

Strange that I'm just hearing of this now if it's been going on for nearly a week.  *curses American media*


----------



## Kamatz (Sep 26, 2011)

SnowyD said:


> You don't need permission to protest bro, it's an amendment right. And all I gotta say is, if the police think its cool to slam kids faces on the ground for stepping off the curb in a "possibly dangerous protest" I think it's time people actually fight back. Injustice is injustice, no matter how you candy coat it.



Don't get me wrong, I totally support the cause, and I'm against the unrestrained police brutality. But some of the protestors do look rather aggressive.



Telnac said:


> Strange that I'm just hearing of this now if it's been going on for nearly a week.  *curses American media*



Yea, I find it really bizarre too. It's a big deal. They're blocking traffic and making a lot of noise, but the news is deaf.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 26, 2011)

*CannonFodder has gained status "*ENRAGED!*"*
I officially fucking hate the news and that, I mean they make months and months of news about situations in other countries for good popcorn flicks cause of the fact that situations like Libya and such is people shooting at others.  Yet the thing is with this protest it's fairly intelligent, cause the american's economy really does rely on boom bust cycles.  Shit like the recession and the 2007 market crash will continue to happen in the future so long as the stupidity in system and political pandering continues.  The police officers who arrested them may be doing their job, but if I was one of the police officers I would give the person giving me orders a big old, "fuck you" and walk off.  You know how many people's lives were ruined by the market crash?  A shit ton, the media could just bring this up and help further this cause to help fix the system, but no they're too busy talking about "news" about sarah jessica parker's kids or some pointless shit.  Regardless of which side of the political system you are on you have to agree wall street is fucked up and someone needs to do something, but we're too busy getting news about pointless shit that doesn't even matter.  I'd have to say either way this protest was either going to end up with them getting arrested or not even being allowed to protest in the first place.


----------



## Kamatz (Sep 26, 2011)

More fuel for the fire: Yahoo was caught censoring emails about the rally.

So Yahoo is playing political censorship games now?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 26, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> More fuel for the fire: Yahoo was caught censoring emails about the rally.
> 
> So Yahoo is playing political censorship games now?


Okay is there any group out there that could get word out?  I mean seriously it's like the entirety of the news companies and companies like yahoo and shit are pandering to politicians.


----------



## Kamatz (Sep 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Okay is there any group out there that could get word out?  I mean seriously it's like the entirety of the news companies and companies like yahoo and shit are pandering to politicians.



The internet is a great thing. Repost the news everywhere and reach as many people as possible.

In reality nobody is pandering to anyone else. All of the groups that have an interest in something like this are out to protect their own hides. Yahoo for example, probably doesn't want to be used as a platform for the protest because it could reflect poorly on them. There's a thousand different interests pulling in every direction, not just one big ominous man pulling all the strings. Is it right? Of course not, but everyone in a position of power is going to do what they can to keep themselves there.

It's 2AM and I really want to continue this discussion but I have class tomorrow. I'll be on then.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 26, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> Apparently they didn't bother getting permits to protest.



WTF? That sounds more reminiscent of places like Syria, not the USA.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 26, 2011)

SnowyD said:


> The only way to change a law is to break it, time for the people to step up. :l



That is literally one of the stupidest things I've ever heard someone say.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 26, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> The internet is a great thing. Repost the news everywhere and reach as many people as possible.
> 
> In reality nobody is pandering to anyone else. All of the groups that have an interest in something like this are out to protect their own hides. Yahoo for example, probably doesn't want to be used as a platform for the protest because it could reflect poorly on them. There's a thousand different interests pulling in every direction, not just one big ominous man pulling all the strings. Is it right? Of course not, but everyone in a position of power is going to do what they can to keep themselves there.
> 
> It's 2AM and I really want to continue this discussion but I have class tomorrow. I'll be on then.


I vote just go apeshit, cause all those groups may have a interest in squashing the news about, but the protest was something anyone could get behind regardless of political ideology.


----------



## Telnac (Sep 26, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> WTF? That sounds more reminiscent of places like Syria, not the USA.


I ran into this when ppl at my high school wanted to protest the 1st Iraq War.  Police came out and warned everyone protesting that they could be attested & fined for protesting w/o a permit.  The protestors didn't disperse as commanded, but they remained peaceful so the cops didn't do anything.

But yeah, the whole notion of needing a permit to protest is about as American as the Nazi Party.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 26, 2011)

These are the same cops that let teabaggers walk in to Democrat-led town halls with guns strapped to their legs bearing signs with thinly veiled threats of violent uprising.

Fuck the police.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Sep 26, 2011)

How about a Wall Street Undie Run?


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 26, 2011)

News companies make money primarily based on how many people come to see what they show. Thus as a rule they show what they think people will want to see. 

Point is the viewer (or at least the perception of the viewer) may have a less than passive role here.


----------



## BlueIceHusky (Sep 26, 2011)

Why didn't this news report reach Wisconsin? I didn't hear about this untill today. The government is deciding that taking what rights we have left to keep us weak and unimportant 97% compared to the rest of the 3% in power.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 26, 2011)

Xenke said:


> That is literally one of the stupidest things I've ever heard someone say. (RE: change the law by breaking the law)



You may disagree with the methods (and as much as I want to see people willing to fight for something as important as this) but this is the crux of civil disobedience.  Just laws, unjust laws, and the duty to resist.  Dr. King wrote extensively about this as he himself was locked away in jail in Birmingham for protesting without a permit.

He advocated nonviolent resistance, but resistance nonetheless.  Not trying to equate Occupy Wall Street directly with the Civil Rights movement, but there are some parallels, and many of the same criticisms are being made.  Unfortunately, these days "filling the jails" is much harder because there are a lot more of them- and they're increasingly privately owned.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 26, 2011)

and my family wonders why I have anger issues.


----------



## Aden (Sep 26, 2011)

The first I heard of this was on Colbert. Go figure.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 26, 2011)

Because good and honest citizens that make a lawful protests are boring according to the media.


----------



## Rasly (Sep 26, 2011)

Aden said:


> The first I heard of this was on Colbert. Go figure.


 I heard about it on daily show, they made a small jocke about it, it is like those people just sitting here like some hippies ) kind of pointless, they could at least demand something.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

This isn't so much a protest as it is people camping out in a privately owned and operated park.

BTW kids, before you start trying to overthrow the cops, the media, and the government, this was front-page news on the New York Daily News and the only reason why this even became a big deal was because the protestors left their designated area by marching to Union Square in the middle of the street blocking mid-day traffic.

This is a regional story with little to no national newsworthiness because nothing is really going on aside from those arrests on Saturday.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 26, 2011)

Unless they're TEABAGGERS in which case HOLY SHIT LOOKIT THAT PATRIOTISM IN ACTION WOOOOOW


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Unless they're TEABAGGERS in which case HOLY SHIT LOOKIT THAT PATRIOTISM IN ACTION WOOOOOW



Not really.

Apparently there was a tea party rally five days ago in Florida in support of stricter immigration laws.

I just learned about this because I went looking for it.

Did any one else outside of Florida know about this or am I just living under a rock?


----------



## Maisuki (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> or am I just living under a rock?



Icwatudidthar.

On topic: I didn't know about it, and I have family in florida. Although it's probably not something worth bringing up over the phone. I am surprised I didn't hear about the wall street thing, though.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Not really.
> 
> Apparently there was a tea party rally five days ago in Florida in support of stricter immigration laws.
> 
> ...



I didn't, but I'm not a good measure.

I would be interested in knowing what the rally's thoughts were, though. Whether it was the same stupid "build a fence" mantra that most of the candidates have been repeating, or if it's actually something more intelligent.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 26, 2011)

*"It's totally a basic human right to protest what you believe to be immoral or wrong!*


*unless you're saying we're wrong*" ~usa


----------



## Xenke (Sep 26, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> *"It's totally a basic human right to protest what you believe to be immoral or wrong!*
> 
> 
> *unless you're breaking the law and protesting without a permit from the city*" ~NYC



Fixed for ya.

You're smarter than that.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 26, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Fixed for ya.
> 
> You're smarter than that.



Okay, I keep hearing about this.

Since when do you need a fucking _permit_ to protest? I'm not denying that the law does exist, but only admitting that this is honestly the first I've heard of it. And in that case, it comes off to me as extremely fishy and full of corporate bologna. In which case, let me amend my own quote. 



CoyoteCaliente said:


> *"It's totally a basic human right to protest what you believe to be immoral or wrong!*
> 
> 
> *as long as we approve of your protest and you go through the paperwork first*" ~usa



That... that doesn't seem within the spirit of a proper protest. :I


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Not really.
> 
> Apparently there was a tea party rally five days ago in Florida in support of stricter immigration laws.
> 
> ...



To be fair, lots of protests for both anti- and pro- immigration happen a lot in Florida (the latter in south, the former in north) so it may have just been like "Oh another one of those things."


----------



## Kamatz (Sep 26, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Since when do you need a fucking _permit_ to protest?



Imagine you were trying to get to work on those days when the protest was at its peak. You would be extremely pissed if all of traffic was blocked and you couldn't get through. It's a hazard. What if a firetruck or an ambulance needed to get through? This is why the city requires you to get a permit and stay in designated areas.

They're not saying you can't protest, they're saying do it without fucking everything up for the rest of us.

The title *Occupation* of Wall Street makes me think they planned to do this on purpose, in which case they kind of deserve the disorderly conduct charges. Honestly the more I read into this the more I see a bunch of stupid kids with no real agenda and no formal grievances they want to have addressed. It's all "Hey man, the government is screwing us over! Down with big businesses! Fuck the man!" London riots, in my NYC? It's more likely than you think!

That's not how you bring about change, you're just asking to get arrested.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 26, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Okay, I keep hearing about this.
> 
> Since when do you need a fucking _permit_ to protest? I'm not denying that the law does exist, but only admitting that this is honestly the first I've heard of it. And in that case, it comes off to me as extremely fishy and full of corporate bologna. In which case, let me amend my own quote.
> 
> That... that doesn't seem within the spirit of a proper protest. :I



City planning.

Imagine if people decided one day to protest in the subways and horribly halted commuter traffic. If people were allow to protest whenever and wherever they wanted, NYC would just be screwed and they couldn't do much about it. With the permits, they can legally filter out protests which would be detrimental to several aspects of the city.

Additionally, it's a measure to have people be more mindful of what they are doing. If people actually have to _plan_ a protest, don't  you think it would be more effective? As cute as unorganized, poorly thought out protests are, they're more of a nuisance than an instrument of change.

Requiring people to get a permit serves it's purpose. As far as I know, and I honestly don't know that much about it, you can protest about whatever you want, considering it's actually a protest and not just a hate speech, considering that you stay peaceful, considering you obtain a permit, and considering you're doing it in an appropriate location.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Okay, I keep hearing about this.
> 
> Since when do you need a fucking _permit_ to protest? I'm not denying that the law does exist, but only admitting that this is honestly the first I've heard of it. And in that case, it comes off to me as extremely fishy and full of corporate bologna. In which case, let me amend my own quote.



Say what you will about extremist groups like the National Socialist Movement and the Westboro Baptist Church, whenever they go to protest, they always make sure to get the proper protesting permits with the local government.  They're never hauled away by cops because they never overstep the boundaries agreed upon with the town.

Most of the kids who showed up to the protest in NYC and the previously mentioned Lemonade stand in the middle of the national mall both had college-aged kids who refused to take simple steps to have their protest not encroached upon by the cops.  Instead, they're inviting police intervention because I believe they want the press and want to make it seem like they're as noble as the participants in the Arab Spring protests that someone in this thread mentioned.  Truth is, a lot of these people are privileged individuals overstepping their boundaries whilst claiming anything the police does to do their job is suddenly police brutality.

PROTIP: Resisting a cop putting cuffs on you is a sure-fire way to start eating concrete.



			
				Gavrill said:
			
		

> To be fair, lots of protests for both anti- and pro- immigration happen a lot in Florida (the latter in south, the former in north) so it may have just been like "Oh another one of those things."



It's really no different than people in their early to mid-20s complaining about the establishment in places like New York.  But that's not the point.  Lobar implied that Tea Party protests always get national coverage.  I offered an example of one that happened just this week that hardly anyone here has heard about.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Not really.
> 
> Apparently there was a tea party rally five days ago in Florida in support of stricter immigration laws.
> 
> ...


 
Have you really forgotten the period where every news outfit, including the supposedly "liberal media," fell all over each other to provide the most coverage to the growing tea party fever sweeping the nation?  It's died down now, but just about everything they did was given coverage.  Every town hall meeting they disrupted, every rally they had, the entire political discussion is framed in terms of "the tea party." Even worse is that the entire tone taken with the tea party, whether CNN, ABC, CBS, even MSNBC outside of people like Maddow and Olbermann was deferential and respectful.  At best, you'd have a question like "Should we really have people angry at the president showing up at rallies with firearms strapped to their backs?" from some marginalized liberal caricature only to be shouted down with "YES AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN THEY HAVE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH WHEN THEY HAVE GRIEVANCES WITH THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU."  For any "liberal" cause, whether it's this, or the anti war protests that routinely took place and drew tens of thousands of people in the run up to the war in Iraq, the only coverage is to say "look at these liberal hippy nuts speaking treason and getting what they deserve- maced, tazed and beaten with batons!"

The reason you had to go looking for it is because the tea party had a permanent place in the the news cycle from mid 2009 to mid 2010.  The coverage, while still as friendly as ever, has focused to so called tea party candidates, rather than the individuals on Rascal scooters holding signs about being armed and dangerous.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Have you really forgotten the period where every news outfit, including the supposedly "liberal media," fell all over each other to provide the most coverage to the growing tea party fever sweeping the nation?  It's died down now, but just about everything they did was given coverage.  Every town hall meeting they disrupted, every rally they had, the entire political discussion is framed in terms of "the tea party." Even worse is that the entire tone taken with the tea party, whether CNN, ABC, CBS, even MSNBC outside of people like Maddow and Olbermann was deferential and respectful.  At best, you'd have a question like "Should we really have people angry at the president showing up at rallies with firearms strapped to their backs?" from some marginalized liberal caricature only to be shouted down with "YES AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN THEY HAVE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH WHEN THEY HAVE GRIEVANCES WITH THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU."  For any "liberal" cause, whether it's this, or the anti war protests that routinely took place and drew tens of thousands of people in the run up to the war in Iraq, the only coverage is to say "look at these liberal hippy nuts speaking treason and getting what they deserve- maced, tazed and beaten with batons!"
> 
> The reason you had to go looking for it is because the tea party had a permanent place in the the news cycle from mid 2009 to mid 2010.  The coverage, while still as friendly as ever, has focused to so called tea party candidates, rather than the individuals on Rascal scooters holding signs about being armed and dangerous.



A lot of that fanfare was because the Tea Party was a juicy story about a group of people, not within a region, but around the entire nation that was building and making these kinds of protests in rapid succession.  THAT was an actual political movement with force.  If you or anyone else is trying to compare what was going on in New York this past weekend to the surge of Tea Party activities ALL OVER THE NATION, then, speaking as a moderate, there truly is no hope for any liberal in this country, since they equate sleeping over in a park and walking in the middle of the street to enacting societal and political change.

The anti-war protests which were a fixture of the early 2000s around 2002-2004 were very much covered and regardless of how personal you took the Fox News spin of it, it was given its fair share of coverage.  Likewise, the teachers union of Wisconsin's fight against the Republican-controlled state was HUGE on all fronts both for and against.  And that wasn't even a national event, but a regional issue.

To say that the Tea Party has been completely free of scathing from other media outlets is a complete over-exaggeration, especially during your mentioned span of 2009-2010.  A lot of outlets dismissed them as a crazed special interest group, extremely disrespectful of actual politics.  However, the strangest thing happened and they actually managed to enact change by getting their people elected to key offices around the country.  They're getting press because they've actually done something and continue to influence politics.  Whether or not you perceive that as manufactured by Fox News, I think is irrelevant, because I think they're movement is much bigger than a cable news channel's self-interests, and has been shown as much by Bill O'Reilly's own criticisms of the party and commentators who have fanned the flames of their ideology like Glenn Beck.

No, the reason I had to go looking for that article was because it was a regional issue that had absolutely no interest to people in the New York/New Jersey market.  What Florida decides to do about their immigration legislation doesn't affect anyone north of Atlanta, Georgia as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 26, 2011)

_A permit?_ Here you need to give a heads-up to the police at least six hours before a demonstration and alles klar.

So socialist!



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> there truly is no hope for any liberal in this country, since they equate sleeping over in a park and walking in the middle of the street to enacting societal and political change.


Next time we bring guns, honey. :V


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Next time we bring guns, honey. :V



You're bringing 403 errors?  :V


----------



## Bliss (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You're bringing 403 errors?  :V


A golden uzi or something that has D&G inscribed on it.


----------



## Kamatz (Sep 26, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> A golden uzi or something that has D&G inscribed on it.



We don't have permission to access those weapons.


----------



## Xeno (Sep 26, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> We don't have permission to access those weapons.


Maybe we don't but I still want one.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 26, 2011)

You may be insane, but there's no reason why you shouldn't be stylish.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 26, 2011)

Permits are a tool of the state for marginalizing protesters and safely sequestering their message away from public view.  If they had obtained a permit and stayed within its constraints to the letter, they wouldn't have even gotten the meager coverage they have so far.  In circumstances like these, where the state itself is firmly a part of the opposition, civil disobedience becomes necessary.


----------



## SnowyD (Sep 26, 2011)

Xenke said:


> That is literally one of the stupidest things I've ever heard someone say.



Tell that to all the people who were put in jail (and died in jail) for self medicating their terminal illnesses with illegal substances.

Gotta break the laws to change them. If enough people stand up together, create socially acceptable practices. (IE Drinking and tobacco. Both illegal at one point in time.) Laws don't change because people decide one day "Lets completely change our way of thinking!" It's from people who already adopted the practices in their life.

Look at most Supreme Court cases, Laws change because somebody broke a law, and disagreed.


Therefore, The only way to change a law... Is to break it. 



Boom.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 26, 2011)

SnowyD said:


> Tell that to all the people who were put in jail (and died in jail) for self medicating their terminal illnesses with illegal substances.
> 
> Gotta break the laws to change them. If enough people stand up together, create socially acceptable practices. (IE Drinking and tobacco. Both illegal at one point in time.) Laws don't change because people decide one day "Lets completely change our way of thinking!" It's from people who already adopted the practices in their life.
> 
> ...



Nice save, but let me go back to your original post so I can grab some ~context~



SnowyD said:


> I kinda wished somebody woulda just busted out a gun and finally taken out half the police officers who are engorged power hungry pawns in the system. The only way to change a law is to break it, time for the people to step up. :l



Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

What you just described is breaking a law you disagree with, and then using the system to try and change that. What you originally posted was to break laws unrelated to whatever law you disagree with.

Hell, these arrested protesters can fight the case against them, even if they're not being locked up for very long. It might even do some good if they try, but suggesting shooting cops in order to change this?

Why, that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard, unless you're trying to change the law to forbid _all_ protests.


----------



## SnowyD (Sep 26, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Nice save, but let me go back to your original post so I can grab some ~context~
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just hate cops, if I was watching some girls sitting on the curb taking pictures and a cop came up and sprayed pepper spray into this group of girls for standing on the curb taking pictures. I'd probably be ready to throw down. Cops tend to forget that they are the law,_ not above it._ Somebody better step up, unless everybody is ok with being thrown in jail for nothing.

But hey, I just like my rights. So when I see the peoples rights broken by the ones who are supposed to protect those rights. The trust stops instantly, and seeing shit like this just re-enforces my hopes for revolution.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 26, 2011)

killing cops isn't a terrible idea, but you're well beyond a simple protest at that point :3


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

SnowyD said:


> I just hate cops, if I was watching some girls sitting on the curb taking pictures and a cop came up and sprayed pepper spray into this group of girls for standing on the curb taking pictures. I'd probably be ready to throw down. Cops tend to forget that they are the law,_ not above it._ Somebody better step up, unless everybody is ok with being thrown in jail for nothing.
> 
> But hey, I just like my rights. So when I see the peoples rights broken by the ones who are supposed to protect those rights. The trust stops instantly, and seeing shit like this just re-enforces my hopes for revolution.



So if these protestors were infringing on my right to drive my car to a scheduled shoot I had and they were making me late, am I within my rights to run them over?


----------



## Lobar (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> So if these protestors were infringing on my right to drive my car to a scheduled shoot I had and they were making me late, am I within my rights to run them over?


 
Completely irrelevant analogy to the problem of police corruption and abuse of authority.


----------



## SnowyD (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> So if these protestors were infringing on my right to drive my car to a scheduled shoot I had and they were making me late, am I within my rights to run them over?


 Driving a car isn't a right, it's a privilege. Learn the difference.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Completely irrelevant analogy to the problem of police corruption and abuse of authority.





SnowyD said:


> Driving a car isn't a right, it's a privilege. Learn the difference.



I'd say they're abusing their rights by keeping me from doing my job.  They're using their right of free speech to argue about financial inequality whilst effectively putting my financial and job situation in jeopardy by walking in the middle of streets whose maintenance I pay for with my tax dollars, as they do with theirs.  We both have equal right for usage of those roads, except I'm using them for their designated purpose whilst they are not and do not have the approval to use those streets as such.

Ergo, since they are blocking my way, I should be able to use my car to force a path through them.

Again, I don't see the so-called "abuse of authority" here.  What I am seeing are a bunch of 20-something rebels without a cause walking down the street protesting about...something.  Considering the extreme lack of organization with this thing, there's really no telling what exactly this crowd is actually complaining about, and if they are making a message it's broad and undefined.  I've seen reports saying that some of the people in the protest were protesting because they wanted to know who was going to pay for their student loans.  You can't make this shit up.


----------



## SnowyD (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'd say they're abusing their rights by keeping me from doing my job.  They're using their right of free speech to argue about financial inequality whilst effectively putting my financial and job situation in jeopardy by walking in the middle of streets whose maintenance I pay for with my tax dollars, as they do with theirs.  We both have equal right for usage of those roads, except I'm using them for their designated purpose whilst they are not and do not have the approval to use those streets as such.
> 
> Ergo, since they are blocking my way, I should be able to use my car to force a path through them.
> 
> Again, I don't see the so-called "abuse of authority" here.  What I am seeing are a bunch of 20-something rebels without a cause walking down the street protesting about...something.  Considering the extreme lack of organization with this thing, there's really no telling what exactly this crowd is actually complaining about, and if they are making a message it's broad and undefined.  I've seen reports saying that some of the people in the protest were protesting because they wanted to know who was going to pay for their student loans.  You can't make this shit up.



Well of course there are people there that don't know what it's about but want to be part of something. There are people like that in everything, but to disregard an entire movement because of a few people who don't comprehend it. That is called ignorance.


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 26, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> Imagine you were trying to get to work on those days when the protest was at its peak. You would be extremely pissed if all of traffic was blocked and you couldn't get through. It's a hazard. What if a firetruck or an ambulance needed to get through? This is why the city requires you to get a permit and stay in designated areas.
> 
> They're not saying you can't protest, they're saying do it without fucking everything up for the rest of us.
> 
> ...



Alright, okay. I guess I can see-



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Say what you will about extremist groups like the National Socialist Movement and the Westboro Baptist Church, whenever they go to protest, they always make sure to get the proper protesting permits with the local government.  They're never hauled away by cops because they never overstep the boundaries agreed upon with the town.
> 
> Most of the kids who showed up to the protest in NYC and the previously mentioned Lemonade stand in the middle of the national mall both had college-aged kids who refused to take simple steps to have their protest not encroached upon by the cops.  Instead, they're inviting police intervention because I believe they want the press and want to make it seem like they're as noble as the participants in the Arab Spring protests that someone in this thread mentioned.  Truth is, a lot of these people are privileged individuals overstepping their boundaries whilst claiming anything the police does to do their job is suddenly police brutality.



Okay. Cool. Permits make sense now. Guess coming from a two-horse town, this escaped me at first. But not-



Xenke said:


> City planning.
> Imagine if people decided one day to protest in the subways and horribly halted commuter traffic. If people were allow to protest whenever and wherever they wanted, NYC would just be screwed and they couldn't do much about it. With the permits, they can legally filter out protests which would be detrimental to several aspects of the city.
> 
> Additionally, it's a measure to have people be more mindful of what they are doing. If people actually have to _plan_ a protest, don't  you think it would be more effective? As cute as unorganized, poorly thought out protests are, they're more of a nuisance than an instrument of change.
> ...



OKAY I GET IT :V

But to be more on topic, yeah, I guess if Westboro can fairly get a permit, then Anon probably could... _if_ they had a general sense of leadership to begin with. I guess since there's a distinct lack of that, it might be hard to try and organize more than what they're already doing (if it can even be _called_ 'organized')


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

SnowyD said:


> Well of course there are people there that don't know what it's about but want to be part of something. There are people like that in everything, but to disregard an entire movement because of a few people who don't comprehend it. That is called ignorance.



What "movement" are we talking about here?

This isn't a "movement", it's a VERY loose collection 20-somethings either in college or recently graduated who decided to camp out in a park and suddenly, without notice decided to march up to Union Square and quickly found out that they're impromptu protest wasn't going to be tolerated if they were going to start blocking traffic without a permit.

Placing this protest up on the pedestal of a "movement" is an insult to anyone who's ever been a part of a real movement, especially those most recently in the Middle East.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'd say they're abusing their rights by keeping me from doing my job.  They're using their right of free speech to argue about financial inequality whilst effectively putting my financial and job situation in jeopardy by walking in the middle of streets whose maintenance I pay for with my tax dollars, as they do with theirs.  We both have equal right for usage of those roads, except I'm using them for their designated purpose whilst they are not and do not have the approval to use those streets as such.
> 
> Ergo, since they are blocking my way, I should be able to use my car to force a path through them.


May be wishful thinking but you, sire, seem to have a log up in your ass. <:I



> What I am seeing are a bunch of 20-something rebels without a cause walking down the street protesting about...something.


What I am seeing is disregard.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Placing this protest up on the pedestal  of a "movement" is an insult to anyone who's ever been a part of a real  movement, especially those most recently in the Middle East.


Oh? Now there is some criteria to say which cause is worthy?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Oh? Now there is some criteria to say which cause is worthy?



You can call turd a rose, but that doesn't mean it won't smell like shit.


----------



## SnowyD (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> What "movement" are we talking about here?
> 
> This isn't a "movement", it's a VERY loose collection 20-somethings either in college or recently graduated who decided to camp out in a park and suddenly, without notice decided to march up to Union Square and quickly found out that they're impromptu protest wasn't going to be tolerated if they were going to start blocking traffic without a permit.
> 
> Placing this protest up on the pedestal of a "movement" is an insult to anyone who's ever been a part of a real movement, especially those most recently in the Middle East.



I guess once the cops smash some more heads in and kill some more people, then we can call it a movement I guess. Hell, lets just ask the military to crush some skulls with tanks, and then we'll call it a movement. :V

A movement is a movement, even if you disagree with it.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 26, 2011)

SnowyD said:


> I guess once the cops smash some more heads in and kill some more people, then we can call it a movement I guess. Hell, lets just ask the military to crush some skulls with tanks, and then we'll call it a movement. :V
> 
> A movement is a movement, even if you disagree with it.



Yeah no.

The Tea Party was a movement and I disagree with practically everything they stand for.

This is a bunch of kids in Manhattan pretending to be adults, and I support the alleged main idea of financial reform.

Please, find me a link to someone who was in the protest above the age of 25.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 26, 2011)

I'd like to hear what their plans are for after they overthrow Wall Street.


----------



## SnowyD (Sep 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Yeah no.
> 
> The Tea Party was a movement and I disagree with practically everything they stand for.
> 
> ...



Here is one from a reporter who was maced on the streets.
http://bostonreview.net/BR36.5/jeanne_mansfield_occupy_wall_street.php

And this one just has general updates each day.
https://occupywallst.org/

But I'm done arguing.  No hard feelings, it's just fun to argue. <3


----------



## Bliss (Sep 26, 2011)

Xenke said:


> I'd like to hear what their plans are for after they overthrow Wall Street.


I will be named the Federal Chancellor.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 26, 2011)

One of the reasons I get my news solely from the web. TV and dead-tree  media are in the grip of whatever special interest group owns it today  and only online there's enough freedom left for straight talking.



Xenke said:


> I'd like to hear what their plans are for after they overthrow Wall Street.


Asking the Scandinavians how you can stay rich with this thing called "socialism?"


----------



## Bliss (Sep 26, 2011)

Gryphoneer said:


> Asking the Scandinavians how you can stay rich with this thing called "socialism?"


Id est: I will be named the Federal Chancellor. :3c


----------



## Kamatz (Sep 26, 2011)

SnowyD said:


> I guess once the cops smash some more heads in and kill some more people, then we can call it a movement I guess. Hell, lets just ask the military to crush some skulls with tanks, and then we'll call it a movement. :V
> 
> A movement is a movement, even if you disagree with it.



How many people have gotten killed in the protest? This is tame compared to the things done by police in a lot of foreign countries.

You're speaking as though the state had an interest in denying the permit, which they didn't. If the permit was denied, you can sure as hell bet it would get way more media attention. They would have to give a valid reason for denying the permit otherwise the public and the media would be so far up their ass we would never stop hearing about it.

Just to put this all in perspective: You're advocating killing law enforcement officers in an attempt to bring the powers that be to their knees so that they see the error of their ways. Ignoring the absurdity for just a moment, how does this course of action get you what you want?

My big remaining concern here is that there is still very little coverage of the event from what I gather. I would like to see more news stations at least acknowledge that something is happening.

I can't believe I have to resort to youtube videos to get decent summaries of the events.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 26, 2011)

Lobar said:


> killing cops isn't a terrible idea, but you're well beyond a simple protest at that point :3


 How did this post get overlooked? What in the world is wrong with you that you even begin to think taking life for your monetary notions is not a terrible thing? I hope you are merely a terrible troll, as otherwise I think you would be in sore need of psychiatric assistance. 


Gryphoneer said:


> One of the reasons I get my news solely from the web. TV and dead-tree  media are in the grip of whatever special interest group owns it today  and only online there's enough freedom left for straight talking.
> 
> 
> Asking the Scandinavians how you can stay rich with this thing called "socialism?"


You're going to mention freedom and then immediately glorify socialism? Does anyone else see a problem with this?


----------



## Bliss (Sep 26, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> You're going to mention freedom and then immediately glorify socialism? Does anyone else see a problem with this?


No, unless I'm brainwashed by the 'gobment'! :V


----------



## Xenke (Sep 26, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> How did this post get overlooked?



Tired, old, and overstated opinions aren't worth arguing over, that how.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 26, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> You're going to mention freedom and then immediately glorify socialism? Does anyone else see a problem with this?



Is this really your first encounter with democratic socialism and the paradoxes of freedom and money as speech?


----------



## Bliss (Sep 26, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Is this really your first encounter with democratic socialism and the paradoxes of freedom and money as speech?


Pleeeaaase remember: it's 'social democracy' (most of the time). D:


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 27, 2011)

Oh wow it's like the Madison protests all over again. 

Well, just in the media-failing-to-catch-on-for-a-week part. The Madison protests weren't violent at all. Although FOX tried to make it look violent by using footage from an older protest from elsewhere, _with palm trees in the background_. (Original footage, Colbert just explains FOX's excuse.)


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 27, 2011)

Onnes said:


> democratic socialism



That's always a good one.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 27, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> Imagine you were trying to get to work on those days when the protest was at its peak. You would be extremely pissed if all of traffic was blocked and you couldn't get through. It's a hazard. What if a firetruck or an ambulance needed to get through? This is why the city requires you to get a permit and stay in designated areas.
> 
> They're not saying you can't protest, they're saying do it without fucking everything up for the rest of us.


 


Xenke said:


> Imagine if people decided one day to protest in the subways and horribly halted commuter traffic. If people were allow to protest whenever and wherever they wanted, NYC would just be screwed and they couldn't do much about it. With the permits, they can legally filter out protests which would be detrimental to several aspects of the city.



I can't help thinking that there's a bit of a double-standard going on here. I mean, if the governments of Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Libya et al pulled this kind of "you don't have a permit to protest" shit with the protesters of the "Arab Spring", the USA would be quite rightly condemning these regimes as denying the people their voice. But when it comes to protests _inside_ the USA... "_you have to have a permit and protest in the appropriate permitted place_"? I though disruptive protests were a proud tradition in the USA ever since a bunch of costumed protesters dumped cases of perfectly good tea into Boston Harbour...

I also recall reports of the so-called "free speech areas" for anti-government protesters during Dubya's regimeadministration, where protesters were carefully cordoned off from anywhere near Dubya might actually have to see or hear them. _This_ is supposed to be free speech - you can have it as long as the person you're addressing isn't actually exposed to them?

Being considerate of other people in the area where you're protesting is one thing, but having "approved permitted protests" smacks of the old Soviet Union to me.


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 27, 2011)

bunch of posters in here don't seem to realize that the modern american police force (not service, force) is _the_ domestic enemy, though the indirect violence of the courts should not be overlooked


----------



## Perception (Sep 27, 2011)

Maybe its just america? (No offence) Cause that kinda stuff dosent happen where i live... I guess that's what you get from being the largest socialist society, if you dont discipline people hard, society could just collapse from the inside. Its one of those confusing questions, weather too much freedom is a bad thing?

Also having Anonymous isn't always a good thing... I mean in the end, (Again, no offence) they are just cyber criminals, and most people just see them as a group of criminals. Thats the way the Media Portray them.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 27, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> I can't help thinking that there's a bit of a double-standard going on here. I mean, if the governments of Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Libya et al pulled this kind of "you don't have a permit to protest" shit with the protesters of the "Arab Spring", the USA would be quite rightly condemning these regimes as denying the people their voice.



No they didn't pull any sort of permit card on them.

Instead they just started shooting, because they wanted to stop the message instead of making sure the protestors weren't interfering in mid-day traffic.



> I also recall reports of the so-called "free speech areas" for anti-government protesters during Dubya's regimeadministration, where protesters were carefully cordoned off from anywhere near Dubya might actually have to see or hear them. This is supposed to be free speech - you can have it as long as the person you're addressing isn't actually exposed to them?



They're pulling the same card for the WBC who's been protesting funerals.  So it's going both ways here.



> Being considerate of other people in the area where you're protesting is one thing, but having "approved permitted protests" smacks of the old Soviet Union to me.



That's not what this is.

The protestors have stayed now for over 10 days in a privately-owned park near the financial district of Wall Street, without permission or a permit to do so.  Thus far, the police have not broken this up because there's been no formal complaint about their presence in the park, and instead have just hung around it to make sure everyone's safe and no trouble is being caused.  When the protest decided to move down to Union Square, again, the police didn't disperse or try to drown-out people's messages, instead they were trying to keep them off the street and on the sidewalks.  In all the videos you see of people getting arrested or pulled from cops they're all attempting to break police barricade and walk through the street outside of the designated crosswalks.  That's jaywalking, and endangers the person walking the street and motorists.  That's the reality here.



			
				Bobskunk said:
			
		

> bunch of posters in here don't seem to realize that the modern american police force (not service, force) is the domestic enemy, though the indirect violence of the courts should not be overlooked



I wish there was a phrase for what I want to say...


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 27, 2011)

What a lovely chap this guy is (~1:17)

Spoiler: Cop walks up to some protesters, maces them, then walks off again. Even the other cops seem shocked.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 27, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> What a lovely chap this guy is (~1:17)
> 
> Spoiler: Cop walks up to some protesters, maces them, then walks off again. Even the other cops seem shocked.


Uhm, what the fuck?  Seriously why would a cop just walk up to a protester and unprovoked mace them?


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 27, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> What a lovely chap this guy is (~1:17)
> 
> Spoiler: Cop walks up to some protesters, maces them, then walks off again. Even the other cops seem shocked.



There was no reason for that; they weren't even being the least bit aggressive.

Talk about abusing your fucking power there.  Jesus; mace hurts like no other, there was no active threat for it to be even used upon them.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 27, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> There was no reason for that; they weren't even being the least bit aggressive.
> 
> Talk about abusing your fucking power there.  Jesus; mace hurts like no other, there was no active threat for it to be even used upon them.


Trust me getting tazered to the nuts hurts worse.... I'd rather not go into how I know this.


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 27, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Trust me getting tazered to the nuts hurts worse.... I'd rather not go into how I know this.



I've never been hit there; but in a wide variety of other areas, so I know what you mean. (sort of/ Nut taze; WTF)


----------



## Lobar (Sep 27, 2011)

Xenke said:


> I'd like to hear what their plans are for after they overthrow Wall Street.


 
The first step is getting America to admit it has a problem.



Kamatz said:


> You're speaking as though the state had an interest in denying the permit, which they didn't. If the permit was denied, you can sure as hell bet it would get way more media attention. They would have to give a valid reason for denying the permit otherwise the public and the media would be so far up their ass we would never stop hearing about it.


 
They don't have to deny the permit, because they can assign the constraints of the permit such that it won't actually get any real attention.  This is the real function of the permit, it legally prevents the protestors from doing what it takes to get their message heard if the state doesn't want it to be heard.



Rilvor said:


> How did this post get overlooked? What in the world is wrong with you that you even begin to think taking life for your monetary notions is not a terrible thing?


 
At that point it's an open revolt, which, ideally, the police would all resign their commissions in the face of such an event.  After that, they're making a choice to out their own lives at risk to restore the state's control over the people.

The Revolutionary War was fought over "monetary notions" too.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Instead they just started shooting, because they wanted to stop the message instead of making sure the protestors weren't interfering in mid-day traffic.



The police absolutely want to stop the message, because the state wants to stop the message and the police are the domestic arm of the state's power.  Hence the macing video between your post and mine.

Shooting isn't effective here because it would draw much more attention to it.  American society is still much more stable than anywhere in the Middle East.  When and if that changes...


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Sep 27, 2011)

Well, time to bring the Arab Spring and the Anti-bureaucratic revolutions to the Americas.

I don't necessarily endorse the beliefs of many of the persons protesting, but when our government is responsible for this financial monster, it's our job to clean it up.


----------



## Xenke (Sep 27, 2011)

Lobar said:


> The first step is getting America to admit it has a problem.



It's easier if you present an alternative.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Instead they just started shooting, because they wanted to stop the message instead of making sure the protestors weren't interfering in mid-day traffic.
> 
> The protestors have stayed now for over 10 days in a privately-owned park near the financial district of Wall Street, without permission or a permit to do so.  Thus far, the police have not broken this up because there's been no formal complaint about their presence in the park, and instead have just hung around it to make sure everyone's safe and no trouble is being caused.  When the protest decided to move down to Union Square, again, the police didn't disperse or try to drown-out people's messages, instead they were trying to keep them off the street and on the sidewalks.  In all the videos you see of people getting arrested or pulled from cops they're all attempting to break police barricade and walk through the street outside of the designated crosswalks.  That's jaywalking, and endangers the person walking the street and motorists.  That's the reality here.


Then again, what is a protest that doesn't cause commotion?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 27, 2011)

Lobar said:


> The police absolutely want to stop the message, because the state wants to stop the message and the police are the domestic arm of the state's power.  Hence the macing video between your post and mine.



The police don't want to stop the message.  The message is fighting for them as much as the people there.  Do you realize how many cops' pensions have been pretty much stolen by the banks and government?  Or how the government is still dragging their feet on providing care for the cops who are still suffering effects of the contaminated air that surrounded Ground Zero 10 years ago?  Even Michael Moore said on one of the talk shows recently that when he was shooting one of his most recent movies and expected police presence to come down on him when he tried to make a demonstration outside of the stock exchange.  According to him, the cops patted him on the back and said he could stay as long as he wanted with or without a shooting permit for the reasons I listed above.

No, the reason why the cops are macing these people is because the crowd is provoking and antagonizing them.  These are cops, they should be able to hold their composure.  But they're also human beings who will tolerate people ignoring their orders and shouting at them so much.  As far as any of us are aware, that video is an isolated incident and on Monday, another march took place with little to no reported issues.  When you do the simple things the cops ask, like stay on the goddamn sidewalk, things like that don't happen.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 28, 2011)

Warning police brutality:
[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgr3DiqWYCI&feature=feedf[/YT]
This is fucked up, they smashed in his face cause of the fact the guy had a camera and was filming.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The police don't want to stop the message.  The message is fighting for them as much as the people there.  Do you realize how many cops' pensions have been pretty much stolen by the banks and government?  Or how the government is still dragging their feet on providing care for the cops who are still suffering effects of the contaminated air that surrounded Ground Zero 10 years ago?  Even Michael Moore said on one of the talk shows recently that when he was shooting one of his most recent movies and expected police presence to come down on him when he tried to make a demonstration outside of the stock exchange.  According to him, the cops patted him on the back and said he could stay as long as he wanted with or without a shooting permit for the reasons I listed above.
> 
> No, the reason why the cops are macing these people is because the crowd is provoking and antagonizing them.  These are cops, they should be able to hold their composure.  But they're also human beings who will tolerate people ignoring their orders and shouting at them so much.  As far as any of us are aware, that video is an isolated incident and on Monday, another march took place with little to no reported issues.  When you do the simple things the cops ask, like stay on the goddamn sidewalk, things like that don't happen.



They didn't come down on Michael Moore because he's Michael Moore.  You think they want to make it into the cast of his next movie as "Asshole Cop #1", "Asshole Cop #2" etc.? He has the ability to actually fuck with them.  The cops are cracking down on these protesters because it's an outlet for their innate aggression.  "Fuck these dumb kids, crack a few skulls.  Not like they can do shit.  NYPD shits bigger than any damn Anonymous whatever, we're all fucking heroes after 9/11."


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 28, 2011)

Tycho said:


> They didn't come down on Michael Moore because he's Michael Moore.  You think they want to make it into the cast of his next movie as "Asshole Cop #1", "Asshole Cop #2" etc.? He has the ability to actually fuck with them.  The cops are cracking down on these protesters because it's an outlet for their innate aggression.  "Fuck these dumb kids, crack a few skulls.  Not like they can do shit.  NYPD shits bigger than any damn Anonymous whatever, we're all fucking heroes after 9/11."



I don't think they give a shit whether or not they make it into his movie because they'd be doing their job.  You honestly think a cop is scared of Moore's fat ass?  Really?

And yes, of course, whenever a cop is dealing with a huge mob of people, the only thing they should do when their orders are ignored is hold their hands up and speak softly "Um, excuse me.  Angry mob?  Yeah, you mind just sticking to the sidewa-hey!  C'mon now guys I'm just asking to stay over to the side for your safe-oh well darn looks like another one walked on by.  And the name calling?  Well, maybe you're right, but it's still not nice you guys."

Honestly, for once put yourself in the shoes of any of those cops there.  You're assigned to keep people on the sidewalks and not blocking traffic.  Instead they're ignoring your simple requests, breaking the law by walking in the middle of the street, heckling you, and if you even so much as sneeze in their direction they start screaming "POLICE BRUTALITY!!!!!!!!!111!!!"  Are they aggressive?  I'd say more irritated by a bunch of people who don't have a clue what real police brutality is.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Sep 28, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Strange that I'm just hearing of this now if it's been going on for nearly a week.  *curses American media*



If people were getting shot, murdered, or going on a mass-killing spree and making violent protests, this would have been reported sooner, because our news loves to accentuate the negative about the world.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I don't think they give a shit whether or not they make it into his movie because they'd be doing their job.  You honestly think a cop is scared of Moore's fat ass?  Really?
> 
> And yes, of course, whenever a cop is dealing with a huge mob of people, the only thing they should do when their orders are ignored is hold their hands up and speak softly "Um, excuse me.  Angry mob?  Yeah, you mind just sticking to the sidewa-hey!  C'mon now guys I'm just asking to stay over to the side for your safe-oh well darn looks like another one walked on by.  And the name calling?  Well, maybe you're right, but it's still not nice you guys."
> 
> Honestly, for once put yourself in the shoes of any of those cops there.  You're assigned to keep people on the sidewalks and not blocking traffic.  Instead they're ignoring your simple requests, breaking the law by walking in the middle of the street, heckling you, and if you even so much as sneeze in their direction they start screaming "POLICE BRUTALITY!!!!!!!!!111!!!"  Are they aggressive?  I'd say more irritated by a bunch of people who don't have a clue what real police brutality is.



Just because it isn't fucking Iran and the cops aren't gunning down protesters like rubber ducks in a carnival game doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as misconduct and brutality.  And yes, I do think Moore gave the cops pause, they know this guy LIVES to cause a big fucking stink about whatever pisses him off and he has fucking lawyers and an eager audience that would foam at the mouth to have them kicked from the force if they smacked that lard-ass around.  Fucking celebrities, how do they work?



Digitalpotato said:


> If people were getting shot, murdered, or going on a mass-killing spree and making violent protests, this would have been reported sooner, because our news loves to accentuate the negative about the world.



"If it bleeds, it leads"


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 28, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Just because it isn't fucking Iran and the cops aren't gunning down protesters like rubber ducks in a carnival game doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as misconduct and brutality.  And yes, I do think Moore gave the cops pause, they know this guy LIVES to cause a big fucking stink about whatever pisses him off and he has fucking lawyers and an eager audience that would foam at the mouth to have them kicked from the force if they smacked that lard-ass around.  Fucking celebrities, how do they work?



Smacked him around?  He was one guy with a camera.  The procedure, as I've personally experienced when filming something without a permit, is to give a warning to stop filming, and if you continue your camera is confiscated and you're either fined or taken into custody.  If Moore resisted then he'd face basic levels of force to make him comply.  His celebrity status be damned.  Those cops faced more retribution internally from NOT doing anything than they would have from doing something.

So far the only misconduct I've seen is the mace.  And that's it.  And as I said before, as far as any of us are aware, that is an isolated incident and is not a representation of everything else that is going on in the protests.  To claim otherwise without evidence of this kind of conduct being wide-spread would simply be applying one's own predisposed opinions of cops to make assumptions on the whole rather than the individual.

To put this in perspective, it'd be like saying all furrys at a convention are fucking stuffed animals when one is found to be doing it.


----------



## Aden (Sep 28, 2011)

I think a bigger problem (that I'm gleaning from that post) is that personal filming in a public setting warrants disapproval in the first place.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Smacked him around?  He was one guy with a camera.  The procedure, as I've personally experienced when filming something without a permit, is to give a warning to stop filming, and if you continue your camera is confiscated and you're either fined or taken into custody.



Oh, now you need a permit to film stuff in public? "Land of the free", my arse.

I assume you're still allowed to walk the streets of NYC unaccompanied without a permit... 



CannonFodder said:


> Warning police brutality:
> [...]
> This is fucked up, they smashed in his face cause of the fact the guy had a camera and was filming.



The cop probably did it because the protesters didn't have a permit with a "cops can't beat us up" clause


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 28, 2011)

Occupy Wallstreet just released this statement:



> This was an attempt to make us weak, this was an attempt to destroy or  derail our message, our conversation. It has not succeeded. We have  grown, we will grow. *Today we received unconfirmed reports that over one  hundred blue collar police refused to come into work in solidarity with  our movement.* These numbers will grow. We are the 99 percent. You will  not silence us.



It's here, near the bottom. They're only singling out the actions of one police officer (Anthony Bologna) and one of his superiors, not the force as a whole. 

All cops are pigs, rah rah.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 28, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Oh, now you need a permit to film stuff in public? "Land of the free", my arse.
> 
> I assume you're still allowed to walk the streets of NYC unaccompanied without a permit...


 
The front steps of the New York Stock Exchange is not considered public space.  Owners of financial buildings, hospitals, police stations, offices, sports teams, etc. don't want people filming outside a building without knowing what the hell they're filming it for.  The only time you get a pass on this is if you're part of a news organization with press credentials.  After that, if the owners of a building notify the authorities that you're taping collecting footage of the building specifically, they will warn you to move along.

Let's put it this way, if someone stood outside of your house for 20 minutes shooting different angles of it, would you be concerned about what the hell they're doing there?


----------



## RedSavage (Sep 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Let's put it this way, if someone stood outside of your house for 20 minutes shooting different angles of it, would you be concerned about what the hell they're doing there?



Yeah, but if I go out and can their ass with little to no warning, then I'd probably get in trouble. More so if they weren't even technically on my property, but in the road or sidewalk, which I daresay is more or less fair game for walking down and carrying a camera, no matter whose technical property it is.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 28, 2011)

CoyoteCaliente said:


> Yeah, but if I go out and can their ass with little to no warning, then I'd probably get in trouble. More so if they weren't even technically on my property, but in the road or sidewalk, which I daresay is more or less fair game for walking down and carrying a camera, no matter whose technical property it is.



Considering that I'm talking about the police being called in and dealing with a disturbance, you personally going out there is out of the question of the situation I'm presenting.

And even if they weren't specifically on your property, if they're filming your building specifically, and if the officer in question does go through the footage to see what you were filming, then you're still in trouble.

This is not to say that walking down a street and holding a camera is illegal, but prolonged presence outside of a building with a recording device is prohibited unless give authorization to do so.


----------



## Onnes (Sep 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> This is not to say that walking down a street and holding a camera is illegal, but prolonged presence outside of a building with a recording device is prohibited unless give authorization to do so.



In practical terms, this means that it is, first, illegal to film anything that the police don't want you to film, and second, illegal to carry a camera at all if you appear too middle-easterny.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 28, 2011)

Onnes said:


> In practical terms, this means that it is, first, illegal to film anything that the police don't want you to film, and second, illegal to carry a camera at all if you appear too middle-easterny.



It's not illegal because there's no law on the books saying you can't film what's within public view.  However, prolonged periods of time filming a specific building constitutes suspicious activity which, if a complaint is made by a private party, police will intervene.  Color of your skin need not apply.  Again, I had this happen to me.

As far as police are concerned, three states have actually outlawed the taping of a uniformed officer on-duty because they are not consenting to the recording.  Again, the press can do this because whenever they're around it's always assumed that recording is going on.  In New York, this law does not exist, hence why you see so many cops doing nothing about people in their faces with cameras while at their stations.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 28, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> All cops are pigs, rah rah.



They are.

Some are nice pigs.

But pigs.


----------



## Aden (Sep 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> three states have actually outlawed the taping of a uniformed officer on-duty



what in the hell


----------



## Kamatz (Sep 28, 2011)

Aden said:


> what in the hell



It's true. I don't know how many states or which ones, but the law does exist.

It's complete bullshit. If you're an officer you are performing a public service and you are subject to being filmed for the same reason that people in any other public space are film-able. You give consent by stepping outside of the privacy of you property.

If the media is allowed to trail celebrities anywhere they go, the average citizen should be able to film a police officer as evidence against misconduct.


----------



## Commie Bat (Sep 28, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> It's true. I don't know how many states or which ones, but the law does exist.



Twelve stated banned the filming/recording of the police and it's illegal in three.
I'll try to find a link.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 28, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> It's true. I don't know how many states or which ones, but the law does exist.



I just said three.

And for reference, it's Colorado, Illinois, and Maryland.

EDIT: Correction on the state.  Washington tried to get the law on the books, but the courts ran it out.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Sep 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> As far as police are concerned, three states have actually outlawed the taping of a uniformed officer on-duty because they are not consenting to the recording.  Again, the press can do this because whenever they're around it's always assumed that recording is going on.  In New York, this law does not exist, hence why you see so many cops doing nothing about people in their faces with cameras while at their stations.



I think a couple of federal court rulings have likely struck down those statues:
http://www.mvtimes.com/marthas-vineyard/article.php?id=7435
http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/new...l-Ruling-on-Videotaping-Police-20110830-pm-pk

However, even if videotaping police isn't a crime, you can still get collared for engaging in suspicious activity.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 28, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> I think a couple of federal court rulings have likely struck down those statues:
> http://www.mvtimes.com/marthas-vineyard/article.php?id=7435
> http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/new...l-Ruling-on-Videotaping-Police-20110830-pm-pk
> 
> However, even if videotaping police isn't a crime, you can still get collared for engaging in suspicious activity.



Those rulings only hold precedent over the circuit in question.  Until it reaches the Supreme Court there's no overarching precedent to be followed within the country.  The District Courts don't hold that kind of influence.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 28, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> It's not illegal because there's no law on the books saying you can't film what's within public view.  However, prolonged periods of time filming a specific building constitutes suspicious activity which, if a complaint is made by a private party, police will intervene.  Color of your skin need not apply.  Again, I had this happen to me.


 
Thanks to post-9/11 hysteria and the passage of the PATRIOT act, which has always been about massively broadening police power for domestic purposes and had little or nothing to do with actual terrorism.

Cops hate being filmed because it causes them to run the risk of being held accountable for their actions (which if they were GOOD COPS, wouldn't even be an issue).  When they control all the records of what took place, they have complete power to reinvent the timeline of events in any police action.

There's been a lot of incidents lately of police using force against law-abiding witnesses to seize and destroy their cameras after a big fuck-up on their part.

Take this incident in Miami where cops have a car driven by the suspect surrounded.  A cop's gun discharges, and they all empty their magazines at the car, killing the suspect and hitting four bystanders, and injuring three officers as well.  The cameraman, Narces Benoit, is obviously uninvolved and outside the police's operation.  He is then accosted by police with a weapon drawn as he attempts to _leave_ the vicinity:

[yt]RXpMzT5yGp8[/yt]

After the end of the video, Benoit says an officer grabbed the phone and stomped on it, shouted, "You wanna be the fucking Paparazzi?!" then shoved the broken phone back in his pocket and handcuffed him and his girlfriend and set them on the curb with other handcuffed witnesses.  The video only survived because he was able to stealthily remove the SD card and conceal it in his mouth throughout his processing, which involved having his broken phone seized yet again, being photographed in a mobile command center and taken to HQ for a recorded interview, and finally released, SD card still in his mouth.

More details in the article here.


----------



## Kamatz (Sep 28, 2011)

What happened there was terrible, and police had no right to take away  the man's phone or to wave a gun in his face. But you're making huge  blanket accusations based on single incidents.



Lobar said:


> Cops hate being filmed because it causes them to run the risk of being held accountable for their actions.



I  doubt every single cop, or even the majority, hates being filmed to the  point of taking away your camera. You really think that every cop is  out to get you and make a clean getaway? Believe it or not, they're  humans with consciences too, and they can distinguish right from wrong  as well as you or I. When you see videos like this, you're only seeing  the worst of the worst. Of course there are instances of horrible  judgement and abuse, but it isn't the norm.

That said, the cops responsible here clearly showed a lack of judgement. It was unnecessary for every one of them to unload into the car. As a result a whole bunch of people got hurt. Heads need to roll, people need to be fired.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 29, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> What happened there was terrible, and police had no right to take away  the man's phone or to wave a gun in his face. But you're making huge  blanket accusations based on single incidents.



I am using a single incident to illustrate a larger emerging pattern of police abuse.



Kamatz said:


> I doubt every single cop, or even the majority, hates being filmed to the  point of taking away your camera. You really think that every cop is  out to get you and make a clean getaway? Believe it or not, they're  humans with consciences too, and they can distinguish right from wrong  as well as you or I. When you see videos like this, you're only seeing  the worst of the worst. Of course there are instances of horrible  judgement and abuse, but it isn't the norm.



Police culture is one of trepidation, rife with a tribal mentality where "the enemy" is out to get _them_, and walks amongst the very people they're supposed to serve and protect.  They feel that every check on their power and authority makes them more vulnerable to the enemy, and they bend the rules as much as possible to limit the "threat" to them and "get the job done".  So any time you fully exercise your rights, or record police activity, or do anything that puts them in a situation where they may be held accountable if they take the (illegal) steps they feel are necessary to protect themselves from this enemy, you're putting _them_ at risk, or maybe even going so far as to side with the enemy.  After all, why wouldn't you just cooperate unless you've got something to hide?

This attitude is responsible for the bulk of corrupt police practices today, from the phrasing they use to get people to waive their rights without realizing it, to the Blue Wall of Silence where no cop will ever incriminate another cop, and may even lie to "cover their back", to harassment of witnesses against them, to these incidents where phones and cameras containing incriminating footage must be destroyed, to outright police brutality, and so on.  They feel such a tribal obligation to protect themselves and each other that the people's safety and rights now come second or not at all.

To further illustrate the degree of fear of harm in police culture, this comes from actual police training video:

[yt]TFr30p0aZl0[/yt]

I mean, fucking razorblade hats, really?
yeah I know after the two minute mark they dub music in and start editing stuff for fun, but the original footage is real


----------



## Bobskunk (Sep 29, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> When you see videos like this, you're only seeing the worst of the worst.



When you see videos like this, you're only seeing situations where there was a video camera present, and that video camera/footage wasn't discovered, confiscated and or destroyed.  They've been waging a war on photo and video cameras for ages, since that has proved to be the one thing that can actually get through to many people; going back to Rodney King, an article that says "Black man fled from cops, chased down and wrested into custody, excessive force is alleged by one or two bystanders" does not have the same impact as the video of the incident.

This sort of abuse happens all the time, if not every day.  In many high profile cases the department investigates and finds there was nothing wrong, that everything depicted followed normal procedure.  At worst, most police officers including ones with histories of abuse will find little more than paid leave as "punishment," a means of putting a rug over them for a few weeks just to make the news and public outcry go away.  You're far less likely to get fired for beating "civilians" for no reason, or worse, reasons you are responsible for creating and escalating than for anything that runs counter to your "brotherhood."  A crooked cop is not as bad as a cop that tries to bring a crooked cop to justice.

The fact that they know they won't face sanctions or punishment for this behavior, even if it violates the law they're supposed to be enforcing, leads to situations where they will flagrantly abuse the power.  They're not out to get people specifically, unless there's some sort of grudge at play.  They look for reasons to ruin people's days/lives because they can, and what are you going to do about it?  What can you do about it?  Nothing, so you'll just sit there and take the abuse because they can do whatever they want, and the moment you do ANYTHING that isn't letting the cop do whatever he wants, even if there was no actual charge, the charge becomes resisting arrest.  You can be arrested for resisting arrest and no other charge, and that has stood.

_Some people_ feel that they should be given a break because they're only human.  That standards should be lower for them because they're just doing a job to make ends meet.  I reject that wholeheartedly and I really hope you don't actually believe this.  They have the power to assault, kill (some would say murder, considering how easy it is for them to get away with it), arrest and search as they please, something that started going bad at the start of the War On Drugs and got worse since the War On Terror and the PATRIOT Act.  Because of this enormous power, abuse should be unacceptable and not tolerated in the least, but that is what saying "that's just an isolated incident" effectively does.  It simultaneously ignores absolves this pattern of behavior of abuse and unaccountability.  What will you say when the follow up to this is "three officers found to have violated some standards but mostly followed department policy and have been placed under paid administrative leave"?

[yt]meT8CJgEBQw[/yt]

Surprisingly good segment on MSNBC.


----------



## Half-Priced Pregnancy (Sep 29, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> .


Sickening. My respect for police just fell considerably.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 29, 2011)

I love the sweeping statements in this thread, it's brilliant.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 29, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> I love the sweeping statements in this thread, it's brilliant.



This is not a "few bad apples" scenario, this is a problem rooted in a pervasive tribalistic mentality amongst cops that you will find in every metropolitan area in the country.

Or perhaps it is, in the original sense of that clichÃ©, wherein a few bad apples lead the rest to support the side of corruption and brutality rather than breach their pact of brotherhood, ergo _spoiling the bunch_.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 29, 2011)

Lobar said:


> This is not a "few bad apples" scenario, this is a problem rooted in a pervasive tribalistic mentality amongst cops that you will find in every metropolitan area in the country.


Not in Madison, not even during the protests when there were huge fears about violence breaking out. (It never did.) The bill being protested exempted police and firefighters, so that's not why they were being friendly, either. 

I've had quite a few experiences with cops and none of them were bad. We had a bunch taking self-defense courses at our dojo, too, and they were all great guys. Many cops have even come out to speak against the brutality in NYC, yet you refuse to discuss that even when it was brought up. Certainly there are some police officers, and some police forces, that are bad; certainly there are issues that need to be addressed and worked out (like the camera thing, and lack of accountability). But you're doing yourself and your message a real disservice by making these sweeping generalizations. I cannot believe what you are saying and it throws everything else you say in question as well. 

Now growl and grumble about me drinking the Kool-Aid or some shit, but you sound like a conspiracy lunatic.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 29, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Not in Madison, not even during the protests when there were huge fears about violence breaking out. (It never did.) The bill being protested exempted police and firefighters, so that's not why they were being friendly, either.



Of course when you protest in support of something the cops also support, they get a lot friendlier, hence how teabagging protesters with automatic rifles slung over their shoulders were allowed anywhere near Presidential town hall events from a few years back.  Cops in general are strongly right-wing, except when it comes to their own budget.  And the way Scott Walker went after the state payroll and union rights with a hatchet, I'm sure the police felt that that exemption was only made to temporarily buy their complacency for the duration of the unrest, and that they may well be on the chopping block next year regardless.  It would be a very reasonable assumption.  They also know that good education prevents crime, making their jobs safer and easier.



Ad Hoc said:


> I've had quite a few experiences with cops and none of them were bad. We had a bunch taking self-defense courses at our dojo, too, and they were all great guys.



Off-duty cops at the dojo doesn't qualify as a police encounter.  Provided you don't run into a jerk-ass, you're usually not going to have a problem as long as as they don't have a reason to think you're not on "their side" (which can be as little as exercising your constitutional rights, or even simply being poor, a minority, or just in the wrong place at the wrong time).  Usually, because even "good" cops do make mistakes, and when that happens, they go into strictly self-preservation mode.

I've had good experiences with cops too.  I got pulled over last month, so I did everything I could to put the cop at ease with the situation: I pulled over in a lit area, turned my dome light on, got my registration out ahead of time, waited with my hands on the steering wheel, and made sure to remain cordial and make no sudden movements.  I also have a clean record, and was subsequently let off with a warning.  Another time, in a small town a mile long and a police force of four officers, one of them helped me get a friend of mine home who had gotten too drunk to maoe the walk back from the bar.  These experiences were good experiences because they were decent individuals and at no point did the situation become adversarial.  They don't refute the existence of a widespread problem.



Ad Hoc said:


> Many cops have even come out to speak against the brutality in NYC, yet you refuse to discuss that even when it was brought up.



I missed your link earlier, and it only has unconfirmed reports of cops not coming into work, which is far from a public statement of support (an alternative motivation that comes to mind is they may just be taking vacation to avoid getting involved).  It also mentions something else, that the NYPD engaged in some victim-blaming, claiming that video of the macing leaves out antagonistic actions by the protestors that warranted the use of nonlethal force (countered by additional angles of the incident that clearly demonstrate the contrary).  This is a boilerplate Blue Wall response that you see all the time whenever a bad cop does something dumb on video that gets out to the public.



Ad Hoc said:


> Certainly there are some police officers, and some police forces, that are bad; certainly there are issues that need to be addressed and worked out (like the camera thing, and lack of accountability). But you're doing yourself and your message a real disservice by making these sweeping generalizations. I cannot believe what you are saying and it throws everything else you say in question as well.



I have no doubt that many officers join the force with the best intentions, and fulfill them throughout their routine duties.  But this tribalist culture goes all the way to the top, and even the best cops are required to become complicit with the acts of the worst or be drummed off the force altogether, and this problem obviously compounds on itself over time.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Sep 29, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Off-duty cops at the dojo doesn't qualify as a police encounter.


I've had a dozen encounters with on-duty cops not counting the protests. I mentioned the dojo as an aside.

Other than that clarification, I've said my piece. You're overgeneralizing and it's discrediting you. Are there issues? Yes, and they need to be addressed and corrected. This "all cops are pigs" business is ridiculous though. You sound like an animal rights activist who has some truly horrific videos that of course deserve investigation, but don't actually represent the whole situation.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 29, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> This "all cops are pigs" business is ridiculous though. You sound like an animal rights activist who has some truly horrific videos that of course deserve investigation, but don't actually represent the whole situation.



Again, it's a _culture_ issue, and even the most well-intentioned cops have limited ability to change it without risking their careers.  It's cultivated from the top down, and adherence to it has become the primary qualification for promotion.  The system simply does not support good cops, and bending constitutional rights as much as they can get away with has become routine police procedure as a result.  And when a bad cop pushes the line too far, or mistakes are made simply through shoddy police work, videos like that show how that system is _most likely_ to react in a last-ditch attempt to cover their asses.

It's extremely unlikely for a cop to ever face accountability for his actions, and this is why.  The only time a cop is ever fired is when he breaks the law so flagrantly and it gets enough exposure that the department is left with no other options without putting itself at risk.  When's the last time you ever heard of a cop incriminating another cop in an investigation into a police action?

It's certainly possible to have a police department comprised of good cops that act within the confines of the law and respect the rights of the people, but not until this culture changes, and change won't come from within.


----------



## Valence (Oct 1, 2011)

I just washed a few pieces of chewed up bread out of my wisdom teeth holes with a plastic irrigation syringe.  It was pretty gross.  But also kind of cool.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 1, 2011)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44742659/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.TofF54bqUxA
500 protesters were arrested by the police.


----------



## Kamatz (Oct 1, 2011)

Arrest count goes up, so does press coverage. No big surprise.

I'd like to see someone step up and say "Here's a list of items we think Washington needs to work on. We, the people, want to see xyz happen in order to better our lives and this country's economy."

Otherwise what's the point of it all? To protest for the sake of protesting?


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 1, 2011)

I'm an anarcho-capitalist.
Those who understand the situation our country is currently in don't like it.
If they choose to live in this society, but do not choose to live with our government, then it is the right of all individuals who are frustrated to protest and strike against this system.

But it's a large system to change.

Corruption in the markets of this nation were not the result of free market economic policies, but corporatist and protectionist policies passed around the turn of the century (the same time Anti-trust legislation came into play) that has let our country grow into the shithole it is today.

Food Libel laws prevent critique of our nation's agricultural producers and were passed to "protect the common farmer and working man."
Trade limitations were placed on American companies to protect American farms and agricultural aggregates.

Our government is responsible for price fixing in many parts of our stock market, for the sake of "protecting American products and jobs", and it has done nothing but bolster corporations and lower the quality of American products over the years.

It is these protectionist policies that must be changed. Our corporations must be open to critique, and their monopolies on different markets must be shaken off and subjected to legitimate competition.

No more bailouts for failing companies, and no more subsidies for obsolete jobs and technologies.

Do not stand for the protection of the Americas. Do not let the federal government rob all individuals, citizens or not, in this country of their incomes for the sake of American industry and the American worker.

I do not like the fact that my income is being taken to prop up failing companies, failing social programs, failing politicians, and failing military campaigns. 

Give me my money for me to spend it as I will, on capital goods, and on security, and on goods on the free market. Let me spend it on a doctor or a nurse, or let me donate it to open up a library or fire department with other volunteers. Let me use it to buy land to live on. Let me reap the grains I have sewn, and do with them what I will.

End of rant.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 2, 2011)

^JesusFish, the fundamental problem is that the stock market runs on emotions not logic.
When everyone is excited it causes booms, when everyone is worried it causes busts.


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 2, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44742659/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.TofF54bqUxA
> 500 protesters were arrested by the police.



http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/occupy-wall-street-protest?q=occupy-wall-street-protest
Revised up to about 700.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 2, 2011)

ArielMT said:


> http://www.breakingnews.com/topic/occupy-wall-street-protest?q=occupy-wall-street-protest
> Revised up to about 700.


...The NYPD is telling them they can't use umbrellas *facedesk*

Can someone ask them about the student loan bubble?  I can't seem to chat cause they're having to keep closing it cause of how many people there are.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 3, 2011)

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fockzr7rXys&feature=player_embedded[/YT]
Turns out the people that were arrested were corralled onto the bridge by the police in order to give a reason for the police officers to arrest them....
*facepalm*
So that means the police forced the protesters into breaking the law.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> ...The NYPD is telling them they can't use umbrellas *facedesk*



Don't tell me you need a permit for publicly carrying a goddamn umbrella in NYC as well as for taking photos of public buildings from a public space?

I suppose they're gonna claim there's a risk a protester will do a Georgi Markov on some unsuspecting banker...


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 3, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Don't tell me you need a permit for publicly carrying a goddamn umbrella in NYC as well as for taking photos of public buildings from a public space?
> 
> I suppose they're gonna claim there's a risk a protester will do a Georgi Markov on some unsuspecting banker...


Okay I know this is a peaceful protest, but I'd want to see something like that.  Does that make me a bad person?
Like the banker survives, but on one side the umbrella handle, on the other a opened umbrella.


Back on topic, I know there's no such thing as entrapment, but isn't it illegal that the police corralled the protesters onto the bridge to make them break the law and then arrest them?


----------



## Vega (Oct 3, 2011)

NYC is getting a little crazy huh?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 3, 2011)

Vega said:


> NYC is getting a little crazy huh?


Crazy is a understatement.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 7, 2011)

Dammit Bloomberg, unleash the cossacks to take care of this peasant rabble! >:V


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 7, 2011)

As much as I find the protestors to be a bunch of lazy hippies looking for a free handout, I respect their right to protest and I respect that they are exercising their freedoms. Not entirely sure if it'll be something "revolutionary" as they claim it'll be until it beats Woodstock. It looks like there's only a few thousand protesting out there.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 7, 2011)

Vega said:


> NYC is getting a little crazy huh?



what the fuck do you mean, "getting"

maybe the Occupy Wall Street folks should start getting really fucking rowdy.  Hey media, let's see you ignore/poo-poo molotov fire-bombings, overturned cars, National Guard deployment on home soil, maybe a bona fide bomb taking a bite out of Goldman-Sachs' HQ (It is in NYC right?).  You practically cheer for that kind of shit to happen overseas.  

Libyan people raise holy hell because they're sick of being shat on, THEY'RE REVOLUTIONARIES.  Americans get miffed and demonstrate/engage in mild civil disobedience on Wall Street, they're just aimless idiots, rebels without a cause, low-life criminals, America-haters.  Fuck you.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 7, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Libyan people raise holy hell because they're sick of being shat on, THEY'RE REVOLUTIONARIES.  Americans get miffed and demonstrate/engage in mild civil disobedience on Wall Street, they're just aimless idiots, rebels without a cause, low-life criminals, America-haters.  Fuck you.



A bunch of lazy people sleeping on the streets is not exactly a revolutionary protest. 

They'll all probably give up anyways once the cold winter sets in.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 7, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> A bunch of lazy people sleeping on the streets is not exactly a revolutionary protest.
> 
> They'll all probably give up anyways once the cold winter sets in.



They have fucking obscene double-standards about this kind of thing.  These people are behaving remarkably well and are getting plenty of shitty press.  They have been fucked over six ways from Sunday by asshole bankers and other unscrupulous rich folk, they are voicing their discontent in a relatively civil fashion.  Nothing short of serious violence seems to get the point across that "these are angry people who can and will punish you for hurting them".

I mean, shit, we have people who are bathing in Benjamins sitting in their towers, looking down upon the rest of the populace, saying "I am not afraid of you little people.  You cannot touch me." I think that needs to change.  If it doesn't change the civil way, maybe it should change in a more violent fashion.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 7, 2011)

They'd probably be working if there were a fair number of decent jobs available. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/19/business/economy/19grads.html

FAIR AND BALANCED CAPITALISM RIGHT HERE:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/09/02/2574344/bank-of-america-layoffs-could.html


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 7, 2011)

Tycho said:


> They have fucking obscene double-standards about this kind of thing.  These people are behaving remarkably well and are getting plenty of shitty press.  They have been fucked over six ways from Sunday by asshole bankers and other unscrupulous rich folk, they are voicing their discontent in a relatively civil fashion.  Nothing short of serious violence seems to get the point across that "these are angry people who can and will punish you for hurting them".
> 
> I mean, shit, we have people who are bathing in Benjamins sitting in their towers, looking down upon the rest of the populace, saying "I am not afraid of you little people.  You cannot touch me." I think that needs to change.  If it doesn't change the civil way, maybe it should change in a more violent fashion.



It's the rich that are stimulating this economy =I 

I don't think we should tax the shit out of them. I think rich people get too much shit, they EARN that money with a good education, and work hard pretty much 24/7. They actually earned that and I believe they deserve to do whatever they want with that money. 

And, yeah, I believe a protest won't get any real attention until people actually take real action and get violent. Sorry to say, but it's true.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 7, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> It's the rich that are stimulating this economy =I



BULLSHIT. 



Darkwing said:


> I don't think we should tax the shit out of them. I think rich people get too much shit, they EARN that money with a good education, and work hard pretty much 24/7. They actually earned that and I believe they deserve to do whatever they want with that money.



First: I don't think we should "tax the shit out of them".  I think we should tax them proportionately to their massive fucking incomes.  The wealth gap needs to be substantially fucking smaller than it currently is.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 7, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> It's the rich that are stimulating this economy =I


It's actually more complicated than that, but not really. Hookers and blow aren't really stimulating the economy.



> I don't think we should tax the shit out of them. I think rich people get too much shit, they EARN that money with a good education, and work hard pretty much 24/7. They actually earned that and I believe they deserve to do whatever they want with that money.


It's actually more complicated than that. Working hard doesn't mean shit and neither does your education. If a rich guy can hire an international worker on an H-1B to do your job for half the price they will and they do. And everything they earned is because society makes it stable for them to prosper and shit like that costs money which is funded through taxes. That and a solid workforce that is burning out and is expendable because unemployment is so high. How low will you be willing to go just to have a job? How long will you be willing to work at twice the expected productivity for your position at a below standard pay rate? 



> And, yeah, I believe a protest won't get any real attention until people actually take real action and get violent. Sorry to say, but it's true.


Except that that's not true.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 7, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> It's the rich that are stimulating this economy =I
> 
> I don't think we should tax the shit out of them. I think rich people get too much shit, they EARN that money with a good education, and work hard pretty much 24/7. They actually earned that and I believe they deserve to do whatever they want with that money.
> 
> And, yeah, I believe a protest won't get any real attention until people actually take real action and get violent. Sorry to say, but it's true.



What about the rich that got that way by cutting corners. The mining companies that kept two sets of books to hide the fact they were cutting corners in safety. A lot of companies make a lot of profit by cutting corners, and that has hurt a hell of a lot of people. It's more than simply "the rich make more, we don't like that" It is that there have been practices that make the rich more rich and hurt the middle class. It's more than "let's tax them" but wanting to give rights to the middle class. 

I think the protest is doing a lot, it's just really slow. The longer it goes on, the more attention it gets, and the more serious is. The problem is people want results now. People want to be treated fairly now, but that isn't going to happen. It isn't that the protest won't get real attention, it's that it will take time, and it will hurt. 
As soon as you turn violent, you're ignored. Not in the media, but in ideology. You'll have all the cameras, but people are going to say "Why would we listen to violent punks?" 
How much good came from the london riots? All you heard was "what fucking morons. They protest lack of jobs then burn down the businesses"
Peaceful protest takes forever, but more people are seeing it, more people are recognizing a serious problem, and eventually the politicians will see the people are more powerful than the corporations.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 7, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> It's the rich that are stimulating this economy =I
> 
> I don't think we should tax the shit out of them. I think rich people get too much shit, they EARN that money with a good education, and work hard pretty much 24/7. They actually earned that and I believe they deserve to do whatever they want with that money.



You don't seriously believe this do you


----------



## Ben (Oct 7, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> It's the rich that are stimulating this economy =I
> 
> I don't think we should tax the shit out of them. I think rich people get too much shit, they EARN that money with a good education, and work hard pretty much 24/7. They actually earned that and I believe they deserve to do whatever they want with that money.



The impression I'm getting is that you think the people of the Wall Street movement want to tax the rich to the point where the amount of taxes they pay eliminates social classes completely, which isn't what anyone's asking for. Basically, there's a massive debt on the shoulders of America, and the rich are barely doing anything to fix it. The thing is though, rich fat cats aren't even opposed to paying more taxes-- a survey done by American Express by people making more than 100,000 a year showed that 65 percent of the people surveyed would be fine with increased taxes on the wealthy. The Republicans are essentially those snively kids in grade school that no one likes, who try to buy favoritism with the "cool kids." 

The richest of the rich aren't necessarily asking to have super low taxes, the Republicans just kind of volunteer the privilege because they think they'll be super best friends if they do. It's pathetic, and seriously hurting the country.



> And, yeah, I believe a protest won't get any real attention until people actually take real action and get violent. Sorry to say, but it's true.



Uh, not really. A good way to get attention is if you parade around the streets. At Occupy Philly here, the cops are actually standing with the protesters, and closed off the streets around City Hall so they could march around it while chanting "WE, ARE, THE NINETY-NINE PERCENT!" It was amazing.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 7, 2011)

Fay V said:


> What about the rich that got that way by cutting corners. The mining companies that kept two sets of books to hide the fact they were cutting corners in safety. A lot of companies make a lot of profit by cutting corners, and that has hurt a hell of a lot of people. It's more than simply "the rich make more, we don't like that" It is that there have been practices that make the rich more rich and hurt the middle class. It's more than "let's tax them" but wanting to give rights to the middle class.
> 
> I think the protest is doing a lot, it's just really slow. The longer it goes on, the more attention it gets, and the more serious is. The problem is people want results now. People want to be treated fairly now, but that isn't going to happen. It isn't that the protest won't get real attention, it's that it will take time, and it will hurt.
> As soon as you turn violent, you're ignored. Not in the media, but in ideology. You'll have all the cameras, but people are going to say "Why would we listen to violent punks?"
> ...


On the plus side the rate at which they movement is growing it's earlier enough and far enough away from the presidential election that by the time the presidential election comes round it will become a political force to reckon with.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 7, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I think the protest is doing a lot, it's just really slow. The longer it goes on, the more attention it gets, and the more serious is. The problem is people want results now. People want to be treated fairly now, but that isn't going to happen. It isn't that the protest won't get real attention, it's that it will take time, and it will hurt.
> As soon as you turn violent, you're ignored. Not in the media, but in ideology. You'll have all the cameras, but people are going to say "Why would we listen to violent punks?"
> How much good came from the london riots? All you heard was "what fucking morons. They protest lack of jobs then burn down the businesses"
> Peaceful protest takes forever, but more people are seeing it, more people are recognizing a serious problem, and eventually the politicians will see the people are more powerful than the corporations.



Good point FayV C: 



ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> It's actually more complicated than that.  Working hard doesn't mean shit and neither does your education.



Okay, soooo it doesn't make a difference if you have a High School diploma, and if you have any work experience and a good record? 

A boss is more likely to pick the guy with a diploma and lots of work experience than the drop-out. Keep your record clean, get a good education and work hard. It'll keep you from living off the streets and you'll feel good knowing that you're actually earning your living.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 7, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Good point FayV C:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you fucking HIGH? Do you think that there aren't thousands of people with diplomas or COLLEGE DEGREES, clean records, etc. out there still looking for a job? Explain to them this charmed little view of yours on how employment works.  They're not getting hired because employers are slashing jobs, large corporations are opting for overseas workforces, and IRONICALLY the longer you're unemployed the HARDER it is to get a job again.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 7, 2011)

Not to mention taxes have been historically low.  If the brackets aren't comparable to those of the time before the great depression, then certainly the concentration of wealth is comparable.

Middle class is shrinking, the rich have more tax relief than ever, these "job creators" as you supply-side nutjobs call them are flush with cash.  What are they doing?  Laying people off and making remaining workers pick up the slack, doing twice the work they were doing before for the same pay.  If they don't like it?  Fine, they'll get fired and hire one of the many unemployed that are begging for jobs and will do three times as much work for half as much pay (and inevitably burn out.)  That's without even considering employer-tied health insurance programs, what happens when you lose a job with one and get sick, what happens when many people are kept as part timers and working 39 hours so no benefits are owed.  Or the downward spiral of what is really a demand-driven economy: lay off workers?  less people to buy products because they don't have secure income.  other companies then lay off their workers for the same reason.

you have bought into the lie that hard work + education = success, and that anybody who is poor can only possibly be poor because they're lazy.  you wanna know something about how best to determine how successful someone might be?  the simple luck of being born into a wealthy family.  there is no upward class mobility: upper class stumbles? they have loads and loads of safety nets and handshakes.  middle class stumbles?  good luck clawing your way out of that debt ever: it's a thin line between stability and poverty in these modern times, and many of those stumbles can come from incidents that are in no way their fault.

jesus


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 7, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> A boss is more likely to pick the guy with a diploma and lots of work experience than the drop-out. Keep your record clean, get a good education and work hard. It'll keep you from living off the streets and you'll feel good knowing that you're actually earning your living.


 
Again. It's more complicated than that. You've never heard of being overqualified, meaning that if a boss has a guy that is worth way more than the position is willing to pay, you won't be hired. SHOCKING, I KNOW. Let's not forget other factors, a good credit report, heaven forbid your burdensome student loans from that "good" education go into forbearance at some point cause that lowers your credit score and makes you a less desirable candidate. Oh, and don't forget that you have to be likable in the interview too. Plus you don't seem to have a grasp of competition of scale, I and the high school drop out ARE, in fact, competing for jobs that we respectively qualify for. No the highschool drop out won't out qualify me for my position, but my position DID have 124 applicants and I had to compete with 30 people that interviewed for two available jobs and that was after a year of applying for positions that I overqualified, under qualified, and qualified for.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 7, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Are you fucking HIGH? Do you think that there aren't thousands of people with diplomas or COLLEGE DEGREES, clean records, etc. out there still looking for a job? Explain to them this charmed little view of yours on how employment works.  They're not getting hired because employers are slashing jobs, large corporations are opting for overseas workforces, and IRONICALLY the longer you're unemployed the HARDER it is to get a job again.



I've honestly never had problems myself finding a job, and I live in a small town =P 

I've heard most of these protesters quit their own jobs to protest, pretty dumb if you ask me, but I'm not complaining  More jobs for others who actually want them.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 7, 2011)

Ewwww the anti-war demonstrators joined, who in the fuck invited them?


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 7, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Ewwww the anti-war demonstrators joined, who in the fuck invited them?



Oh lawl. 

This will be amusing.


----------



## Perception (Oct 7, 2011)

I dont really get what there protesting about in the first place, the news that im getting over here in Australia says that they are protesting about financial equality? But i dont think this is true, maybe the media is putting some sort of spin on it... Cause financial equality cant exist in a capitalist society, that's how capitalism works unfortunately, the company's run the government, not the other way around. Anyways, im sure that there protesting about something else, but that's what it sounds like to me from the news bulletins that ive been hearing...


----------



## Rasly (Oct 7, 2011)

Ajsforg said:


> Cause financial equality cant exist in a capitalist society, that's how capitalism works unfortunately


 I dont think so, capitalism basically means that you can collect capital, it dosnt meant that you can go around buying laws for you and akt like a king.


Ajsforg said:


> the company's run the government, not the other way around.


 thats the problem.


----------



## Rilvor (Oct 7, 2011)

These people wish to fight control by establishing more control.

A government's duty is to protect the people and nothing more.

Antisemitism comments reaching the media is not helping their cause, if they want to do anything they need to be thrown out.

I do not agree with these people at all.


That is all.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 7, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I've honestly never had problems myself finding a job, and I live in a small town =P
> 
> I've heard most of these protesters quit their own jobs to protest, pretty dumb if you ask me, but I'm not complaining  More jobs for others who actually want them.


You live in a small town, chances are the number of jobs available versus people in town isn't a huge discrepency. You're not fighting hundreds of other applicants, some that are applying below their level (middle aged adults getting the "teenager" fast food jobs) Small towns are usually bubble economies, so good for you, but your case doesn't mean shit. 

By the by there are times when people with no education are hired for jobs. It's long been known that it is more dependent on your connections than your education. I've never had a problem finding work either, and every job I have had I have gotten by social connections. That is a bitch to the poor and unemployed that don't have those connections and are in competition with either foriegn labor, teenagers, or even thousands of unemployed workers with their own skill level and education. 

The rich that are "stimulating" the economy and "creating" jobs are looking to profit and are creating jobs out of america because it's dirt cheap, and the cheaper the better. 

The world is not so simple as "work hard, get rich". God help anyone that wants to have a family. Both my parents worked, lived within their means, had good jobs and raised us 4 kids. My dad did some math a few years ago, taking into account insurance, mortgage, food and basic living expenses. He and my mother would need to work all day, and the last hour of work was any extra money they would earn. That was when the economy was actually doing well.  
It's great that your life isn't a bitch, but like I said it's not just "work hard, get rich" and that is what this protest is about. Worker's rights. It's not just "give me money" it's "give me a fair chance"


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 7, 2011)

Oh goddamn it, I know I'm kinda late to this news but apparently someone is trying to make a fake anonymous operation telling them to DDOS wallstreet that way Occupy Wall Street can be dismissed as "thugs".


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 7, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh goddamn it, I know I'm kinda late to this news but apparently someone is trying to make a fake anonymous operation telling them to DDOS wallstreet that way Occupy Wall Street can be dismissed as "thugs".



House Republicans have already dismissed them as thugs.  They don't need DDoS attacks to do that.

This is also all apparently an elaborate conspiracy perpetuated by the Dems.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 7, 2011)

First they ignore you
then they laugh at you
then they fight you
then you win. 

Overused ghandi quote but very applicable. Let the media ignore and mock. So long as people are serious and continued to meet. more people will be curious about that is really going on. Lies might spread faster than the truth, but the truth has more stamina.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 7, 2011)

Fay V said:


> First they ignore you
> then they laugh at you
> then they fight you
> then you win.
> ...


I agree, the media and republicans can mock all they want, but the pessimism about the economy is directly fueling the protest.  The problem facing those trying to discredit the protest is the vast majority of americans are pessimistic about the economy.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 7, 2011)

[yt]pzpOg8APiBo[/yt]

1:13, a rich person talking about "stimulating the economy"

Eager to see things crash and shorting everything they can.  Cashing out at the expense of everyone else when they already have loads of money.

What is it, top 10% controlling 80% of wealth, top 1% controlling 42%?  It's not enough that they've "got theirs," the "fuck you" is an equally integral part of it.  They don't just want to be on top, they want to see everyone below them end up WAY below them, to take their shit and leave them with nothing.  Success means less to these people if their failed competition don't end up worse.  Game theory + sociopathy = horrible people with money, and money = power.

And people like Darkwing have bought into their nonsense and are chomping at the bit to carry water for them.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 7, 2011)

I think that the best summary of this thread is:


FUCK THA POLICE

COMIN STRAIGHT FROM THE UNDERGROUND

YOUNG N-*-*- GOT IT BAD CUZ I'M BROWN

AND NOT THE OTHER COLOR SO POLICE THINK THEY

HAVE THE AUTHORITY

TO KILL A MINORITY.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 7, 2011)

Can't wait for what happens 20 years down the road.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 7, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> [yt]pzpOg8APiBo[/yt]
> 
> 1:13, a rich person talking about "stimulating the economy"
> 
> ...


That guy pretty much admitted what everyone already knew, and it makes sense if you can see a economic meltdown coming and your opponent ends doesn't then you can make a killing when it happens.


----------



## Bambi (Oct 8, 2011)

You know, if there was just some way for me to travel back in time to remove the rhetoric spouting crazies in the crowd for the whole Operation Wall Street thing, I would heartily sign myself on to whatever device could get me there _and do it._ 

Oh, and the whole anarchism thing needs to go, because while it may have been a cool idea to throw around in high school, it's no longer credible to argue among your fellow countrymen who have an invested interest in the capitalistic model.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 8, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That guy pretty much admitted what everyone already knew, and it makes sense if you can see a economic meltdown coming and your opponent ends doesn't then you can make a killing when it happens.



Understandable but the issue is that he is both gleeful for it, wants it to happen, and doesn't care that any gains will come at the expense of many, many people struggling with the crash that will be.  Being frank isn't the problem, being happy about it because he already has money and will come out of another recession/depression with even more money is what makes him a scumbag.  Many traders feel the same way this guy does, and I'm pretty sure over half the trader outrage is because he said what they're all thinking and make them look even worse in the eyes on the public- it's appearances and PR, not because they disagree with what he's saying.

If things go to shit and even more people lose their jobs and lose their cash (keep in mind that profiting from a market crash will only benefit a few people while hurting far, far more people whether they see it coming or not) while people like him make out like the bandits they are, they should be dragged out into the streets by angry mobs and lynched.  Enough of these financial vultures who profit from human suffering.

You say "if you see an economic meltdown and your opponent doesn't," keep in mind that the opponent in your scenario is either some insulated scumbag, or working families and people trying to get by in an economy where there aren't enough jobs for people looking for work, what jobs exist are continually being trimmed down because fear of layoffs and outsourcing keep the remaining workforce working harder for less pay.  You're talking about playing games with economies for profit at the expense of actual productive work- derivatives trading and slicing off commissions produce nothing of value and are built on lies- this is like allowing trading of oil futures, where you have an essential commercial good without which the economy cannot function allowed to be bought and held to drive the price up at huge cost to things like price of food, transportation costs, the ability for people to get to and from work (their paycheck certainly isn't going up with every other cost, and has come unglued from actual productivity since 1979.)

These people produce only positive value for themselves, everything they do considering the huge risk of fallout from their actions on everyone else, directly involved or no, is negative; financial trade is a load of externalities.  Yet Darkwing would think they're hard workers, they deserve all this money from their pillaging, and that it's their right to pursue wealth at the expense of everyone else in the country, if not world.  With such a wonderful track record of being on the wrong side of any position, I wonder what he thinks of that EBSW fellow's opinions over in Rants and Raves.


----------



## Azure (Oct 8, 2011)

This thread reminds me that I am STILL not lovin' police, or republicans, or anything right wing at all. DOWN WITH THE WHITE MAN AND HIS GREEN GRASS CULTURE!!! DOWN WITH WHITEY!!


----------



## Rilvor (Oct 8, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> they should be dragged out into the streets by angry mobs and lynched.  Enough of these financial vultures who profit from human suffering



Let me pull something from another thread...



> When you people choose to sound like extremists with deranged logic, you drive away those that would associate with and help you.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 8, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> Let me pull something from another thread...



THIS THIS THIS THIS 

Especially to Bobskunk, death threats and such only make you lose credibility IMO =I


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 8, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> Let me pull something from another thread...


 
abloo abloo

EDIT: "you drive away those that would associate with and help you." people like you and Darkwing would never associate with or help this- everything you've said equated to "fuck you hippies get a job stop complaining"  If you had the ability, you'd try to put an end to these demonstrations.  (Side note Darkwing if you have a problem with anti-war protests fucking join the army and fight and die for the wars you so love :V)



Darkwing said:


> THIS THIS THIS THIS
> 
> Especially to Bobskunk, death threats and such only make you lose credibility IMO =I


 
Darkwing, you never had credibility in the first place and there is no possible way anyone or anything can get through to you- don't even think you're taking the high road, you're just taking the easy way out.  If I'm wrong, tell me what was wrong with what I said, rather than hang up this debate on fluff and bullshit.

OH NO I'M UNCIVIL HEAVEN HELP ME BECAUSE I'M SPEAKING IN AN OVER THE TOP TONE AND IT OFFENDED THE DELICATE SENSIBILITIES OF A GUY THAT SAYS EVERYONE'S HARD ON JOB CREATORS AND THAT THEY'RE TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY_!!_

More like convenient excuse to ignore everything else that was said just to focus on the one thing that wasn't even an argument and say it's all wrong.  Please, let's have a talk about the merits of everything else that was said, if you're even capable of anything but weak copouts.

EDIT: darkwing, rilvor and arielmt i hope financial sector malfeasance renders all three of you homeless :v


----------



## jeff (Oct 8, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> THIS THIS THIS THIS
> 
> Especially to Bobskunk, death threats and such only make you lose credibility IMO =I



I don't know how you could get by in the political world with everyone being Hitler, pinheads, zogs, people clapping for executions, people saying let people without healthcare die, and an assortment of other things. People are angry, they say angry, crazy, passionate things. You shouldn't just let that overpower a message.

i mean gosh guys dont be retardos c:

I feel both the Tea Party and Occupy have conflicting goals and really confused ideas behind them. I still respect that they're doing what they're doing. If the Right would've shit on cars, left garbage, etc. that wouldn't change the general message they were proposing. I just don't like the idea.
Both groups are ultimately fucked because there are a lot of diverging ideas in this country; the people in Occupy represent a large swathe of ideas including anarchists and communists who want things above accountability and the ejection of corporate control. They want absolutely no regulation (with no government to captivate the market) or 100% regulation [the only agreement: no more corporate control of govt]. The Tea Party has paleocons and libertarians, people who want to maximize spending for war and moral law and people who despise war and any moral laws [the only agreement: no new taxes].


----------



## Rasly (Oct 8, 2011)

After seen some videos on youtube, it looks like those people want same as we all want, to be treated fairly, real democracy and they actualy do something about it. Still i think your only real chance is Ron Paul, i wish we had politican like this in germany, i would totaly vote for him, i dont agree with maybe half of stuff that he say but he is the only real deal in this monkey show (imho).


----------



## Bliss (Oct 8, 2011)

Rasly said:


> Still i think your only real chance is Ron Paul, i wish we had politican like this in germany, i would totaly vote for him, i dont agree with maybe half of stuff that he say but he is the only real deal in this monkey show (imho).


I don't think most Germans agree with you. 

(Christian) Right-wing was hit hard. :3c


----------



## Rasly (Oct 8, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I don't think most Germans agree with you.
> 
> (Christian) Right-wing was hit hard. :3c


Why ? Left Party is not realy liberals and FDP are douchebags, actualy there is only one liberal party that is active and it is called Pirate Party =) but nobody is taking them realy serious because of the name. Also SPD and CDU are the only two main parties and actualy i dont see much difference between them, they are like those two clone candidats from futurama, they basically say whatever is popular and then do whatever they want.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 8, 2011)

Rasly said:


> After seen some videos on youtube, it looks like those people want same as we all want, to be treated fairly, real democracy and they actualy do something about it. Still i think your only real chance is Ron Paul, i wish we had politican like this in germany, i would totaly vote for him, i dont agree with maybe half of stuff that he say but he is the only real deal in this monkey show (imho).


And yet politicians and pricks are demonizing the protestors cause
1)if you are a politician this could mess up your chances to get re-elected if you've been sleeping with companies for money.
2)If you are a skumbag that profits off of recessions this could destroy your chances at making money.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 8, 2011)

jeff said:


> I feel both the Tea Party and Occupy have conflicting goals and really confused ideas behind them. I still respect that they're doing what they're doing. If the Right would've shit on cars, left garbage, etc. that wouldn't change the general message they were proposing. I just don't like the idea.
> Both groups are ultimately fucked because there are a lot of diverging ideas in this country; the people in Occupy represent a large swathe of ideas including anarchists and communists who want things above accountability and the ejection of corporate control. They want absolutely no regulation (with no government to captivate the market) or 100% regulation [the only agreement: no more corporate control of govt]. The Tea Party has paleocons and libertarians, people who want to maximize spending for war and moral law and people who despise war and any moral laws [the only agreement: no new taxes].



This. 

I'm a little confused with the occupy protest TBH, some of the protesters just want the rich taxed a little more to balance the playing field, others want total socialist reform =P 

I'm okay with the rich getting taxed a little more, doesn't affect me, even though I believe it's the people's freedom to do with their money as they please. 



Bobskunk said:


> darkwing, rilvor and arielmt i hope financial  sector malfeasance renders all three of you homeless :v



Keep hoping because that won't happen, I know how to get a job and I can get off my ass and apply the effort to do so ;3c


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 8, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> This.
> 
> I'm a little confused with the occupy protest TBH, some of the protesters just want the rich taxed a little more to balance the playing field, others want total socialist reform =P
> 
> I'm okay with the rich getting taxed a little more, doesn't affect me, even though I believe it's the people's freedom to do with their money as they please.


I wish America had a progressive tax honestly.
If we had a tax system where the more money you made the higher tax rate, it would take some of the financial burden off the low and middle income bracket, reinvigorating the middle class and undoing the evergrowing gap between the rich and everyone else.  One of the major problems facing america that has been going on for since before I was born is that over time the middle class has shrunk, if left unchecked then 20-30 years from now we'll all be poor except the top 1%.
In short the rich are becoming richer, and everyone else is becoming poorer.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 8, 2011)

I dunno about you guys but





This is one of the greatest images I've ever seen. Ahahaha!


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 8, 2011)

*1Re: Operation Occupy Wall Street - Peaceful protest heats up*



Darkwing said:


> This.
> 
> I'm a little confused with the occupy protest TBH, some of the protesters just want the rich taxed a little more to balance the playing field, others want total socialist reform =P
> 
> ...


 
And that freedom would be fine if it that money couldn't and wouldn't be used to slant the playing field toward their end.  The more money they have, the more they can use it to gain more money; it's an accelerating cycle.  There is a clear move towards cracking down on all unions, cutting wages, cutting regulations to protect safety or against externalities such as pollution- you keep trying to frame it as a matter of jealousy, when the real problem is when that money is used to make life more difficult for everyone who isn't in the top 1%, or even 5%.  When it's harder to earn an honest living, that hard work you think pays off in these modern times, something is wrong.  Wages are stagnant, prices for everything are rising, many jobs are disappearing and being left with garbage service sector jobs, and people are having to work two and three jobs just to make ends meet.  You don't know this reality.  You are insulated from it to the point where you don't think this could possibly be the case.  You have written off everybody who is struggling as lazy, or welfare bums, or people who need to stop buying dozens of TVs, or any other garbage justification.  I'll bet you ten dollars over Paypal, right now, that your parents still claim you as a fucking dependent on their taxes- not that I should really trust a kid like you to be honest about a bet.

It's also not that easy with your last line; see what Fay V wrote earlier.  Even moreso when most of it is luck and parents- you've had and have a lot of advantages.  Don't for a second think that your stability, especially at your age, has anything to do with how hard you work or your own merits.  Don't buy into that Horatio Alger bullshit, it's never really been true, but as of the past few decades the only real class mobility is downward.

I also wonder how well you'd succeed with your naivety without any form of nepotism guiding you along.  Maybe you'd be thought as a novelty, just one of many of the poor laughing at others struggling in poverty and applauding the people whose interests involve making it more difficult for the impoverished to end up on stable footing.  I bet you love that shit- serves those people right for being born in a poor household in a poor region with no practical options to make things better, huh?  No jobs available because they're underqualified and underexperienced and nobody's hiring?  Fucker had better starve before he even thinks about providing even more entertainment jumping through all the continuous hoops of welfare.  Maybe if they think they need assistance, why not just put them in prison?  Place to sleep, food every day?  Paradise, they should be grateful.

I still don't understand how you came to think the way you do, unless you really are a spoiled kid who's never felt hardship and spent his entire childhood stuck in a pod with nothing but Ayn Rand's writings.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I wish America had a progressive tax honestly.
> If we had a tax system where the more money you made the higher tax rate, it would take some of the financial burden off the low and middle income bracket, reinvigorating the middle class and undoing the evergrowing gap between the rich and everyone else.



Creating a tax system that is effectively progressive, as opposed to theoretically progressive, is actually quite difficult. The problem is that wealth will always be moved to where it will be taxed the least. Many US corporations are able to pay nothing in taxes because they have moved their profitable operations to other countries. If you look at what many European countries have done, they have imposed a large VAT on top of income taxes. A VAT is absolutely not progressive, but many countries use the additional tax revenue to provide services and income to the poor.


----------



## Rilvor (Oct 9, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> EDIT: darkwing, rilvor and arielmt i hope financial sector malfeasance renders all three of you homeless :v



The only thing you have is my pity. I would never try to stop you, really. I merely disagree with you. I grew up very poor myself. I'm not going to attempt to pretend either one of us is an authority on the subject at hand.

As I said, you only hurt yourself and yours who would help you by acting like this.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 9, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Keep hoping because that won't happen, I know how to get a job and I can get off my ass and apply the effort to do so ;3c


Oh yes, because when there's people with master's degrees who were born into the middle class and who have held many jobs who now can't find any job any where at any hour for anything "applying" themselves many hours a day to just seeking jobs and they cannot find jobs I'm sure you're 15 year old ass is BOUND to find an AWESOME WELL PAYING JOB full time!

You don't even know what applying yourself means. You're cushy little life isn't going to last forever. It must be nice to be so sheltered and so utterly naive. 

Don't even post in this thread again until you know what it's like to choose hunger over having your electricity turned off or getting evicted.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 9, 2011)

I think too many people equate teen jobs to careers. Sure it's not that hard to get a teen job. There's lots of places that are designed to turn and burn employees, letting kids quit every other year to go to school or something. 
People learn young that, yes if you try you can get a job, and buy things you want...then they get older, and think it's the same for a career. 
This is the job where you can't just make enough to buy an xbox. you're buying a home, your furniture, car, food, electricity, and everything, not just now but in your future when you retire. 
When you have to get a career to survive, and the companies are creating fewer jobs, as well as cutting benefits and wages, expecting people to pick up more slack with less cash. It's no surprise people are pissed.


----------



## Perception (Oct 9, 2011)

We have a progressive tax here in Aus. That is the reason why we are soooooooo awesome.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2011)

What Occupy really needs is for a neo-Left faction to form within it, and come to the forefront of this movement, distinguishing itself from the Paulites and teabaggers with a clear platform based on reversing Reaganism in favor of Keynesian and post-Keynesian economic ideals.  That's the best shot for making an actual positive impact on economic policy and the political landscape.




Darkwing said:


> I know how to get a job and I can get off my ass and apply the effort to do so ;3c


 
this is cute


----------



## Onnes (Oct 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> What Occupy really needs is for a neo-Left faction to form within it, and come to the forefront of this movement, distinguishing itself from the Paulites and teabaggers with a clear platform based on reversing Reaganism in favor of Keynesian and post-Keynesian economic ideals.  That's the best shot for making an actual positive impact on economic policy and the political landscape.



Protest movements don't seem particularly effective in making precise policy recommendations. For one thing, this kind of economic legislation tends to be built on details, and getting a room full of people to agree on those details is remarkably hard. Also, only a small handful of protesters are going to understand what the policy arguments are in the first place, which leads to messaging conflicts. This doesn't matter in something like an anti-war protest, where the policy implications are obvious, but that isn't really the case here when you're talking about engineering a new system of economic policy.

In this case I think the protest is a good way to shape overall public sentiment towards more progressive policies, but I doubt it will be useful in pushing for anything specific.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 9, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> It's also not that easy with your last line; see  what Fay V wrote earlier.  Even moreso when most of it is luck and  parents- you've had and have a lot of advantages.  Don't for a second  think that your stability, especially at your age, has anything to do  with how hard you work or your own merits.  Don't buy into that Horatio  Alger bullshit, it's never really been true, but as of the past few  decades the only real class mobility is downward.
> 
> I also wonder how well you'd succeed with your naivety without any form  of nepotism guiding you along.  Maybe you'd be thought as a novelty,  just one of many of the poor laughing at others struggling in poverty  and applauding the people whose interests involve making it more  difficult for the impoverished to end up on stable footing.  I bet you  love that shit- serves those people right for being born in a poor  household in a poor region with no practical options to make things  better, huh?  No jobs available because they're underqualified and  underexperienced and nobody's hiring?  Fucker had better starve before  he even thinks about providing even more entertainment jumping through  all the continuous hoops of welfare.  Maybe if they think they need  assistance, why not just put them in prison?  Place to sleep, food every  day?  Paradise, they should be grateful.
> 
> I still don't understand how you came to think the way you do, unless  you really are a spoiled kid who's never felt hardship and spent his  entire childhood stuck in a pod with nothing but Ayn Rand's  writings.





Lacus said:


> Oh yes, because when there's people with master's degrees who were born into the middle class and who have held many jobs who now can't find any job any where at any hour for anything "applying" themselves many hours a day to just seeking jobs and they cannot find jobs I'm sure you're 15 year old ass is BOUND to find an AWESOME WELL PAYING JOB full time!
> 
> You don't even know what applying yourself means. You're cushy little life isn't going to last forever. It must be nice to be so sheltered and so utterly naive.
> 
> Don't even post in this thread again until you know what it's like to choose hunger over having your electricity turned off or getting evicted.



I apologize for posting that. I was outright trash talking and not even taking the thread seriously at the time. 


I understand how people are struggling these days, I know it's really not THAT easy to get by. But I believe there are workforce programs and such that were made specifically to give people jobs. If anyone here's desperate for a job I suggest looking for a workforce or jobcorps program nearby. They might be able to help. If there isn't any of that you can try doing some volunteering, that shit always looks good in a resume. 

I just don't believe in the government stepping in and taking care of us like babysitters. Some may call me too optimistic, but I believe we can handle ourselves just fine.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 9, 2011)

Government is us if you make it be so. :V


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Protest movements don't seem particularly effective in making precise policy recommendations. For one thing, this kind of economic legislation tends to be built on details, and getting a room full of people to agree on those details is remarkably hard. Also, only a small handful of protesters are going to understand what the policy arguments are in the first place, which leads to messaging conflicts. This doesn't matter in something like an anti-war protest, where the policy implications are obvious, but that isn't really the case here when you're talking about engineering a new system of economic policy.
> 
> In this case I think the protest is a good way to shape overall public sentiment towards more progressive policies, but I doubt it will be useful in pushing for anything specific.


 
I'm really just hoping for an economically-progressive reverse Tea Party, based on reason instead of crazy.  Right now the Paulsies and the leftovers of the Tea Party that weren't subverted into the GOP are muddling the message of even having a specific direction to go from here.    Lolbertarians are all on-board with pushing Austrian economics; I think something similar could happen here with Keynesianism/MMT/etc.  If not though, maybe "undo Reagan" is a simple enough message to rally progressives around.



Darkwing said:


> I understand how people are struggling these days, I know it's really not THAT easy to get by. But I believe there are *workforce programs and such that were made specifically to give people jobs*. If anyone here's desperate for a job I suggest looking for a workforce or jobcorps program nearby. They might be able to help. If there isn't any of that you can try doing some volunteering, that shit always looks good in a resume.
> 
> I just don't believe in the *government stepping in* and taking care of us like babysitters. Some may call me too optimistic, but I believe we can handle ourselves just fine.



cognitive dissonance detected


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 9, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I think too many people equate teen jobs to careers. Sure it's not that hard to get a teen job. There's lots of places that are designed to turn and burn employees, letting kids quit every other year to go to school or something.
> People learn young that, yes if you try you can get a job, and buy things you want...then they get older, and think it's the same for a career.
> This is the job where you can't just make enough to buy an xbox. you're buying a home, your furniture, car, food, electricity, and everything, not just now but in your future when you retire.
> When you have to get a career to survive, and the companies are creating fewer jobs, as well as cutting benefits and wages, expecting people to pick up more slack with less cash. It's no surprise people are pissed.



And that is precicely what's happening on both sides of the border.  Employers favour part-time jobs because they don't have to invest money in benefits and insurance that comes with full time employment, _but_ they will give you juuuust enough hours to keep you hooked.  But more and more people, college and university educated people are only finding jobs like this. Whenever I hear that unemployment percentages have gone down and that such and such a number of more jobs have been created, I always ask myself "how many of those are full-time career jobs?"   I guarantee that number is very small.

People are pissed off.  And I hear all the time that this movement has no direction - that the anger is unfocused and they don't have an idea as to why they're marching or what they want out of this.  But that's complete bunk.  In both countries we're tired of only finding part-time jobs that have no future.  We're tired of there being no jobs at all that will meet our needs while the cost of bread keeps going up.  We're tired of the taxes that get thrown on top of it so that most of us have to choose between paying utilities and getting groceries.   The middle class is disappearing.  It's an endangered species.  And the policies favour the Lobbyists, CEOs, and top shareholders.  People who have enough and yet aren't satisfied until they have EVERYTHING.  I say that's plenty of reason for people to march in New York, in Toronto, and now apparently in Boston.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> cognitive dissonance detected



There's a difference between the government handing out jobs, and the government just giving away free handouts.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> If not though, maybe "undo Reagan" is a simple enough message to rally progressives around.


Reagan is a curse word for me.

Clinton is underrated. :3c



CAThulu said:


> And that is precicely what's happening on both  sides of the border.  Employers favour part-time jobs because they don't  have to invest money in benefits and insurance that comes with full  time employment, _but_ they will give you juuuust enough hours to keep you hooked.


Tying health care to employment was a stupid thing to begin with.

Then again, what could you do if private sector started to hand out 'favours' to those who didn't belong to a union decades ago...



Darkwing said:


> There's a difference between the government  handing out jobs, and the government just giving away free  handouts.


There is not. :V


----------



## Rasly (Oct 9, 2011)

I hate it when people mix liberals with anarchists, it is like you go to a doctor and "I scratched my hand" and hes like "oh, you want me to chÐ¾p your hand off", it is typical political defence, people ask for something then politicans extremise it to rediculous scale and say that this is impossible.


----------



## Rilvor (Oct 9, 2011)

Like I said earlier, the people who want to see reasonable change need to separate themselves from the extremists. Unity is power sure, but not when you allow people within that sabotage your efforts.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 9, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I apologize for posting that. I was outright trash talking and not even taking the thread seriously at the time.
> 
> 
> I understand how people are struggling these days, I know it's really not THAT easy to get by. But I believe there are workforce programs and such that were made specifically to give people jobs. If anyone here's desperate for a job I suggest looking for a workforce or jobcorps program nearby. They might be able to help. *If there isn't any of that you can try doing some volunteering, that shit always looks good in a resume.*
> ...


I hate to burst your bubble but I was told this in high school and required to volunteer in order to get "work experience" and I have made one of the nicest resumes you will ever look at with all my volunteering details and it doesn't count unless you got paid for it. Even though I worked harder there than at places where you get paid to essentially slack off.


----------



## Rilvor (Oct 9, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I hate to burst your bubble but I was told this in high school and required to volunteer in order to get "work experience" and I have made one of the nicest resumes you will ever look at with all my volunteering details and it doesn't count unless you got paid for it. Even though I worked harder there than at places where you get paid to essentially slack off.



Nevermind I would disagree with volunteering for that reason alone, and not because you genuinely care for the cause.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 9, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> Nevermind I would disagree with volunteering for that reason alone, and not because you genuinely care for the cause.


I genuinely care for the cause and that's why I volunteered beyond my high school requirements. I got to work in a place that was hard work but I enjoyed and I thought as an added bonus that employers would think I'm a hard worker.

It's bullshit that they don't count volunteer experience and you know it. They can call your volunteer supervisor if they want to know if you worked hard, but they are too lazy and just assume. 

If one person had called my reference from the places I've volunteered they would have heard that I was one of their hardest workers. Except in this day and age when they have hundreds of resumes and applications to go through they will not bother to call one reference.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I genuinely care for the cause and that's why I volunteered beyond my high school requirements. I got to work in a place that was hard work but I enjoyed and I thought as an added bonus that employers would think I'm a hard worker.
> 
> It's bullshit that they don't count volunteer experience and you know it. They can call your volunteer supervisor if they want to know if you worked hard, but they are too lazy and just assume.
> 
> If one person had called my reference from the places I've volunteered they would have heard that I was one of their hardest workers. Except in this day and age when they have hundreds of resumes and applications to go through they will not bother to call one reference.


Eeyup

I've learned something from trying to find work, possible employers are far more likely to look at your facebook than your references.


Also here in Texas the whole, "we're doing the greatest out of all the states, just look at our unemployment percentage" is utter bullshit.  The only reason why our unemployment is low is cause the number of people in poverty is so high.
In short don't come to Texas, you may be able to find a job, but more than likely it will be a crappy minimum wage job.
I have a idea for a drinking game, every time Rick Perry says something about Texas' unemployed being low take a drink.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Eeyup
> 
> I've learned something from trying to find work, possible employers are far more likely to look at your facebook than your references.
> 
> ...


[headdesk]

That's it. I'm occupying where there is a protest in my state tomorrow. Fuck tha police.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Lacus said:


> [headdesk]
> 
> That's it. I'm occupying where there is a protest in my state tomorrow. Fuck tha police.


*HIGHFIVE!*

I plan on handing out fliers myself actually for the occupy protests, hopefully that'll get the word out here.


----------



## Itakirie (Oct 9, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> But I believe there are workforce programs and such that were made specifically to give people jobs. If anyone here's desperate for a job I suggest looking for a workforce or jobcorps program nearby.



They don't even have something like that in some citys. Mine included apparently.



CannonFodder said:


> Also here in Texas the whole, "we're doing the greatest out of all the states, just look at our unemployment percentage" is utter bullshit.  The only reason why our unemployment is low is cause the number of people in poverty is so high.
> In short don't come to Texas, you may be able to find a job, but more than likely it will be a crappy minimum wage job.
> I have a idea for a drinking game, every time Rick Perry says something about Texas' unemployed being low take a drink.



The people who play that game would be drunk pretty fast. Or if not drunk, then their cup of juice would be empty pretty fast. :V
The incredibly horrifying thing is, some people _genuinely want him to be our president._


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 9, 2011)

Itakirie said:


> The people who play that game would be drunk pretty fast. Or if not drunk, then their cup of juice would be empty pretty fast. :V
> The incredibly horrifying thing is, some people _genuinely want him to be our president._



I've always asked myself if the people that really want him to be are ignorant of the political corruption that surround him and Texas or are simply ignoring it.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 9, 2011)

Soooo all mocking aside, what are you people expecting from this protest? Honestly I don't get what the protesters specifically want =/


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Itakirie said:


> They don't even have something like that in some citys. Mine included apparently.
> 
> The people who play that game would be drunk pretty fast. Or if not drunk, then their cup of juice would be empty pretty fast. :V
> The incredibly horrifying thing is, some people _genuinely want him to be our president._


I'd want him to become president, because he'd become unpopular so incredibly fast that by the time next election hits he becomes the single most hated president in history and a complete reversal of everything he would try to pass.
Four years with Perry as president would be a small price to pay for the complete destruction of Reagonomics, DOMA, Tea Party, etc.

As it stands now all Obama has to do is keep the economy from crashing again and get re-elected, then when the economy eventually recovers(normally is jittery after recessions and then slowly recovers) he'll be able to do anything he wants.  Right now Obama's approval rating is low, but all he has to do is keep the economy from tanking again to regain his popularity.

Also Obama could use the Occupy Wall Street protest to his advantage, 85% of americans feel negatively about the economy, he could use this to his gain.


Darkwing said:


> Soooo all mocking aside, what are you people  expecting from this protest? Honestly I don't get what the protesters  specifically want =/


For Obama to become buddies with the protesters to use it for political gain.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Soooo all mocking aside, what are you people expecting from this protest? Honestly I don't get what the protesters specifically want =/



I'm expecting them to make one dumb move, and then the hammer falls down on them.  Hard.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Oct 9, 2011)

vote dd for pres. I will make congress get a pay cut, increase the military pay and make cops go to anger management classes and knitting sessions 

all people who protest for a cause i applaud you... those who are the few that shit it up for the rest, you should die in a fire...you are a lost cause fucking up the protest for the rest. Though Ive seen some videos released lately and they are pretty bad. For no reason cops went out of their way and attacked people just walking down the sidewalk >:C

why does obama not address this issue? why does he not get the big picture? WHY DEMOCRACY ARE YEW DUMBZ


----------



## Unsilenced (Oct 9, 2011)

Apparently there is one of these protests in San Diego. My dad went down there. 

He say's they're kinda just hanging out in the street. Some of them were wearing Guy Fawkes masks. Go figure.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> why does obama not address this issue? why does he not get the big picture? WHY DEMOCRACY ARE YEW DUMBZ



Obama doesn't address the issue, because he is too much of a pacifist to take a stand.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Obama doesn't address the issue, because he is too much of a pacifist to take a stand.


Cause if he does something about it the republicans can go, "See we told you, he hates our police officers".


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Oct 9, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Obama doesn't address the issue, because he is too much of a pacifist to take a stand.



Only change ive ever seen since he got elected is the change now in my bank account... thanks obama. Also apparently they are threatening the mil with not getting paid on the 15th. If they arent careful then the mil might occupy machines of war and go about protesting a whole nother way.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Cause if he does something about it the republicans can go, "See we told you, he hates our police officers".



Not just the republicans; apperently it's the cool thing these days, for everyone to bash Obama.  Though I do agree it's mostly the republican side, since it's a two party system, each side must bash the other accordingly.



dinosaurdammit said:


> Only change ive ever seen since he got elected is the change now in my bank account... thanks obama. Also apparently they are threatening the mil with not getting paid on the 15th. If they arent careful then the mil might occupy machines of war and go about protesting a whole nother way.



Rule of thumb: never threaten the military's pay and benefits.  Cause If you get them mad enough, a whole new world of pain just opened up for you.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 9, 2011)

Itakirie said:


> They don't even have something like that in some citys. Mine included apparently.



That's unfortunate. It got me hooked with a nice minimum wage job. I'm going to get another job from them once I get my license in February.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Oct 9, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Not just the republicans; apperently it's the cool thing these days, for everyone to bash Obama.  Though I do agree it's mostly the republican side, since it's a two party system, each side must bash the other accordingly.



Personally the whole system is a fuck up. Dems and Repubs are the same... they are both acting spineless and hoarding money and benefits. Wall street just enables them.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> That's unfortunate. It got me hooked with a nice minimum wage job. I'm going to get another job from them once I get my license in February.


 Good fucking luck trying to find a non-minimum wage job, fulltime once you turn 18 though.


dinosaurdammit said:


> Personally the whole system is a fuck up. Dems and Repubs are the same... they are both acting spineless and hoarding money and benefits. Wall street just enables them.


 Which is why I hope the another party comes out of this.  Like how the tea party grew to the point it took over the republicans, except this time with the dems.
The Occupy protesters can take control of the democrats and rewrite them if they take notes from the tea party.
Meaning we can actually change the bullcrap in washington, if the protesters get popular enough to be a political force.


dinosaurdammit said:


> Only change ive ever seen since he got elected is the change now in my bank account... thanks obama. Also apparently they are threatening the mil with not getting paid on the 15th. If they arent careful then the mil might occupy machines of war and go about protesting a whole nother way.


Oh dear, if the budget argument causes the military to not get paid that'll seriously fuck up shit.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Oct 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh dear, if the budget argument causes the military to not get paid that'll seriously fuck up shit.



They keep threatening it and have caused us to get delayed on getting paid. But of course if it didnt cause harm to their money congress wouldnt do shit about it but because their pay is at steak they actually feel the need to do something.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Good fucking luck trying to find a non-minimum wage job, fulltime once you turn 18 though.



I know it's hard for many people, but i'm a foreign college student that hasn't even been here for half a year, and I have three jobs.
Maybe it's the state people live in; I don't know.


CannonFodder said:


> Which is why I hope the another party comes out of this.



TMP-The Middle Party.  They believe in all the benefits of republicans and democrats, with less idiocracy and more rights.



CannonFodder said:


> Oh dear, if the budget argument causes the military to not get paid that'll seriously fuck up shit.



It would be interesting to say the least.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I know it's hard for many people, but i'm a foreign college student that hasn't even been here for half a year, and I have three jobs.
> Maybe it's the state people live in; I don't know.
> TMP-The Middle Party.  They believe in all the benefits of republicans and democrats, with less idiocracy and more rights.
> It would be interesting to say the least.


 What state do you live in then?
Oh god, they would just kill all the politcal crap going on in washington.
Some countries actually do have political parties like that, and nobody can even remotely compete with them.  They're also the most effective.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What state do you live in then?
> Oh god, they would just kill all the politcal crap going on in washington.
> Some countries actually do have political parties like that, and nobody can even remotely compete with them.  They're also the most effective.



Indiana.
Exactly, we should rise up and create the TMP.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Obama doesn't address the issue, because he is too much of a pacifist to take a stand.



The economy wasn't politically relevant to the 2008 election until about two months before the general election.  The problem with Obama is that he was elected primarily on social issues and as an anti-establishment candidate, and then we found ourselves suddenly needing an economic progressive and he is not it.  Obama has shown himself to be moderate-conservative and weak economically, and I think his advisors are giving him entirely too-conservative advice as well.

This is the frustrating thing about current political discourse, that Obama's economy is underwhelming because he's been entirely too conservative, yet the right-wing-dominated media has been blasting him as a _liberal_ and pushing for driving the nation further right _still_.  This, when we were still a conservative nation under Clinton, then thrown hard to the far right by Bush, had that failed hyperconservatism maintained by Obama, they still push _harder_ right.  It drives me crazy.



Commie Bat said:


> Indiana.
> Exactly, we should rise up and create the TMP.


 
Today's Democrats _are_ the middle party; this is precisely the problem, there is no Left anymore, only staying the course or moving further Right.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> The economy wasn't politically relevant to the 2008 election until about two months before the general election.  The problem with Obama is that he was elected primarily on social issues and as an anti-establishment candidate, and then we found ourselves suddenly needing an economic progressive and he is not it.  Obama has shown himself to be moderate-conservative and weak economically, and I think his advisors are giving him entirely too-conservative advice as well.
> 
> This is the frustrating thing about current political discourse, that Obama's economy is underwhelming because he's been entirely too conservative, yet the right-wing-dominated media has been blasting him as a _liberal_ and pushing for driving the nation further right _still_.  This, when we were still a conservative nation under Clinton, then thrown hard to the far right by Bush, had that failed hyperconservatism maintained by Obama, they still push _harder_ right.  It drives me crazy.


 All he really has to do is keep the economy from collapsing again, which isn't a highbar though.
All I expect and want out of Obama is for him to keep the economy from collapsing.


Commie Bat said:


> Indiana.


That explains it.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> The economy wasn't politically relevant to the 2008 election until about two months before the general election.  The problem with Obama is that he was elected primarily on social issues and as an anti-establishment candidate, and then we found ourselves suddenly needing an economic progressive and he is not it.  Obama has shown himself to be moderate-conservative and weak economically, and I think his advisors are giving him entirely too-conservative advice as well.
> 
> This is the frustrating thing about current political discourse, that Obama's economy is underwhelming because he's been entirely too conservative, yet the right-wing-dominated media has been blasting him as a _liberal_ and pushing for driving the nation further right _still_.  This, when we were still a conservative nation under Clinton, then thrown hard to the far right by Bush, had that failed hyperconservatism maintained by Obama, they still push _harder_ right.  It drives me crazy.



 You know if you keep going right, you will have a fascist country on your hands.


Lobar said:


> Today's Democrats _are_ the middle party; this is precisely the problem, there is no Left anymore, only staying the course or moving further Right.


 
What do you mean "no left"?
What sort of leftist party do you want to see in the future?



CannonFodder said:


> That explains it.



Is Indiana, some miracle state, even though it's lead by republicans.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Is Indiana, some miracle state, even though it's lead by republicans.


No, it just wasn't as hard hit by the housing bust compared to other states like California.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Today's Democrats _are_ the middle party; this is precisely the problem, there is no Left anymore, only staying the course or moving further Right.



LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> What Occupy really needs is for a neo-Left faction to form within it, and come to the forefront of this movement, distinguishing itself from the Paulites and teabaggers with a clear platform based on reversing Reaganism in favor of Keynesian and post-Keynesian economic ideals.  That's the best shot for making an actual positive impact on economic policy and the political landscape.



You better hope that seriousness comes quick.

More and more reports are apparently coming in of people taking advantage of the protest for the free food, clothes, and finding people to hook up with.  A dude OD'd last night on Robitussin and alcohol and had to be taken to the hospital according to The New York Post.

Granted the paper has a conservative slant, but even the liberal slanted New York Times is reporting issues with protestors damaging private property and leaving trash everywhere around the park and local businesses.  You're not going to win over people by waking them up at two in the morning with chanting and dancing around topless.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 9, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> What do you mean "no left"?
> What sort of leftist party do you want to see in the future?



Consider that if the Democrats suddenly found themselves in European politics, they would be a right-wing party.
That being said, the left in Europe seem to have been quite ineffective during the economic crisis. Austerity measures run counter to pretty much every progressive value imaginable, yet they have become the norm for struggling economies. Countries like Ireland, which was running a budget surpluses prior to the crash and was praised as an economic role-model, now face years of crippling adjustments and debt payments.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Consider that if the Democrats suddenly found themselves in European politics, they would be a right-wing party.
> That being said, the left in Europe seem to have been quite ineffective during the economic crisis. Austerity measures run counter to pretty much every progressive value imaginable, yet they have become the norm for struggling economies. Countries like Ireland, which was running a budget surpluses prior to the crash and was praised as an economic role-model, now face years of crippling adjustments and debt payments.



See I was thinking about adding in the European comparison to it, but it's quite hard to compare politics of completely different countries to another.
Kind of like an apple to orange comparison.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> See I was thinking about adding in the European comparison to it, but it's quite hard to compare politics of completely different countries to another.
> Kind of like an apple to *microsoft* comparison.


fix'd

I hope there does become a political movement out of this rather than fizzle, that's how low my bar on my hopes for this protest is.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 9, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL



I'll echo a previous post of mine: You really have no idea what you're reading, do you, Darkwing?  You have absolutely no context or understanding for things, and your justification is "I have a nice minimum wage job!"  What bills do you have to pay, if that's not all disposable income for you to save up for an Xbox, staying rent-free (or being charged a comparative pittance) at your parents' house?  Could you cover your own insurance on a wage like that and have anything left over?  Because the trend is the elimination of full time, career-supporting jobs with insurance packages and partially replacing that number with part time, benefit free jobs, mostly in the service sector.  Oh wait, you're against single payer health insurance, aren't you?  One of the biggest fundamental changes to the way healthcare operates and is paid for in this country that overwhelmingly benefits employees and employers alike, and you're against it.  If harsh reality doesn't kick you out of your bubble of applying pre-1980, pre-loss-of-manufacturing-sector thoughts of hard work = fair shake = livable wages by the time you're 26, no longer being covered by your parents' plan (if they still have one) will probably help you see the true cost to someone like you, and to many, many others.

Also, you could get a decent career back then with a high school diploma.  Now, unless you know somebody who knows somebody and get picked up because of friend/family connections rather than merits, you often need to go thousands of dollars into debt before you even have a shot at the workplace, and that's with many other desperate people who are similarly in debt.  Believe me, when hundreds of people are desperate for jobs and resumes are flooding everywhere because people WANT to work, and multiple jobs are taken up by single people just to make ends meet, I'd have a hard time thinking you'll go anywhere thinking you'll just waltz into a job and do fine for yourself.  Don't kid yourself.

God damn.  The Democrats are not left at all, and there has been an unyielding rightward shift to this country that has accelerated since the mid-seventies.  Labor power, up until Wisconsin, was all but crushed since the late 70s.  The balance of power is fundamentally tipped, and it's not in your or my favor at all.  You, yourself, are an example of this constant shift to the right: You don't even understand what you're saying, you're parroting things like "But the rich create jobs and drive the economy :I" because you heard it somewhere and it just sounds right.

Do you also believe that people with jobs should feel grateful that they're getting anything more than pennies and a kick in the ass?


----------



## Fay V (Oct 9, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> That's unfortunate. It got me hooked with a nice minimum wage job. I'm going to get another job from them once I get my license in February.


This is the difference I was talking about. This shows that you clearly don't understand the monetary demands on people. Job corp and work programs are great if you're a kid and need a minimum wage job. But minimum wage doesn't pay for car, food, housing, health insurance, dental, utilities, and all that other stuff. 
When was the last time you bought furniture? When was the last time you had to buy toilet paper and laundry soap? 
When I lived in the dorm I could live on 100$ a month. Now I'm lucky if that lasts 2 weeks. 

There is something to be said about living within your means. I despise college students that whine for money after a night out of boozing. There are people that certainly do live beyond their means...then there are people that don't. 
A hard working college kid can live alright on minimum wage, picking up a few spare jobs here and there, but what about a family? You can't raise a family on mimimum wage without being in poverty. 

Can you see the difference? We're not all talking about McDs jobs. Those a turn and burn and always available. It is the job that will make sure you're not starving. However, it won't pay for everything. There comes a time when  you need to move out and make something of yourself. Get into a career and make enough to pay for you needs, as well as save for retirement. 
There are fewer and fewer of these career jobs. 

So by all means be happy with your minimum wage job. It's good for young people to work, but don't for a second try to equate that to the struggles of a family of three. It's not the same. It's not that people are too fucking lazy to go out and get a fry cook job. It's that there are not enough jobs to make an honest living off of when you get past the teenage/college level of life. 

So either the answer is, something needs to change, or everyone starts living like a poor college kid and no one has families.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 9, 2011)

Onnes said:


> That being said, the left in Europe seem to have been quite ineffective during the economic crisis. Austerity measures run counter to pretty much every progressive value imaginable, yet they have become the norm for struggling economies.


I don't see this. Exactly half of austerity measures here were done by tax increases such as rising capital gains tax and making it progressive, while at the same time increasing social benefits.

Granted, our new 'centre-right' led cabinet in practice leans by majority to the left because it could not be, strenuously, formed without dragging the Social Democrats, the Left Alliance and the Green League there (and Christian Democrats, their social conservatism notwithstanding).


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 9, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Consider that if the Democrats suddenly found themselves in European politics, they would be a right-wing party.
> That being said, the left in Europe seem to have been quite ineffective during the economic crisis. Austerity measures run counter to pretty much every progressive value imaginable, yet they have become the norm for struggling economies. Countries like Ireland, which was running a budget surpluses prior to the crash and was praised as an economic role-model, now face years of crippling adjustments and debt payments.



Ireland was praised as an economic role model because of its incredibly corporate friendly tax structure, last I recall.  They moved in, bled the place dry, and fled; I never understood this.  There is an almost pathological need to give every possible concession to businesses.  I live in PA and the Marcellus shale thing illustrates it perfectly: loads of tax breaks and waivers and basically an encouragement for a bunch of gas companies to roll in, provide maybe two thousand jobs, destroy local drinking water and basically get it all for free.  Everyone else is left to deal with the fallout of ruined land, and they don't even get the benefit of, say, extra state tax revenues for fixing roads or paying for classes: in fact, with the breaks specifically given to such gas exploration companies, there is even less revenue to be had, and more state expense in dealing with that mess.  They're parasites, and shouldn't be rewarded with a more favorable tax code just to do what they do already.  "Please, please, come here and fuck everything up for us, we WANT to pay you to come here and wreck shit up!"

Fuck the IMF.  They who have pushed privatization and austerity measures onto every struggling nation it's dealt with, an enduring symbol of Euro-centric "post"-colonialism making the living situations of third world countries even worse are now trying to push the same shit in Europe.  As easy as it is to say "Now you fuckers are getting a taste of the same economic poison you've fostered worldwide," the solution is less austerity and more debt forgiveness, fewer giveaways to private-sector vultures and greater investment in infrastructure and sustainability.  The IMF wants to maintain serfdom while they pay themselves loads and rape the housekeeping staff in expensive hotels.

Interestingly, I know Ireland is partly due to corporate exploitation and Greece is certainly a matter of very low tax revenue, combined with a history of well paid jobs supported by the younger generations disappearing and an overall lack of employment for what would have apparently been the most capable and educated workforce yet betrayed by a sudden collapse of the usual societal structure- study hard, work hard, you'll get a good job and be able to support yourself.  That no longer is the case, they're stuck unemployed and even worse they are the ones who have to suffer austerity for the previous generations that sucked the thing dry by taking and never paying back- and called lazy by those same people who got theirs while fucking them.  What's the situation for Portugal, Spain and Italy?  I won't be surprised if again, they're revenue problems that are being framed as expense problems, and the only solution being offered is to starve everyone like they're Palestinian, sell off utilities so people can get worse service for a higher price, and ensure that they'll always be paying interest.  Even worse is that austerity itself crushes growth and demand, which is the only thing that could possibly get these economies moving again- lack of recovery means lack of debt payback means further austerity measures and further depressed economies.  A cycle that should be termed nation-slavery, it's not about recovery at all.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 9, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Ireland was praised as an economic role model because of its incredibly corporate friendly tax structure, last I recall.  They moved in, bled the place dry, and fled; I never understood this.


Google uses Ireland as a tax loophole.



> The IMF wants to maintain serfdom while they pay themselves loads and *rape the housekeeping staff in expensive hotels.*


I don't know how it is in the US&A, but I'm rather fond of the French "innocent until proven guilty" ... which happens to be the status quo. Well, actually New York _already dropped the charges_ since the housekeeper lost all credibility.

The 'perp walk' photographs of Strauss-Kahn would have been illegal in France.



> What's the situation for Portugal, Spain and Italy?


Nicht so gut.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 9, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I don't see this. Exactly half of austerity measures here were done by tax increases such as rising capital gains tax and making it progressive, while at the same time increasing social benefits.



Just look at the situation with Greece. Everyone has known from the beginning that Greece would need to default on a large portion of its debts in order to remain a functioning economy. Yet European policy seems to be to keep Greece afloat as some kind of disfigured zombie state, and what dysfunctional economy remains must be enslaved to the purpose of paying off debt. Really, the longer Greece goes without a default, the further downward its economy spirals and the more extreme its politics becomes. It's almost as if politicians would rather watch Greece elect a batshit insane government that unilaterally defaults than some sort of orderly restructuring.

Prior to the recession, both Ireland and Spain had low debt/GDP and budget surpluses; they were being responsible by the normal standards of government budgets. This is in contrast to Greece, which was always spending well outside of its revenue base.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> You know if you keep going right, you will have a fascist country on your hands.



We're not far off; only Anthony Kennedy stands in the way.




Commie Bat said:


> What do you mean "no left"?
> What sort of leftist party do you want to see in the future?



The "middle party" idea has already been used by the Dems before.  Reagan and George H. W. Bush had three consecutive terms between them shredding government programs and labor rights while simultaneously running up the debt with military strategy in order to use the debt as a talking point for further cuts to social programs (a strategy called "Starve the Beast").  To get back in power, the Clinton campaign pursued a "Third Way" platform that sacrificed many of their economic principles to seize the middle.  While it worked short-term, the long term result is that Reaganism has defined our economy ever since, and the Democratic Party has been saddled with moderate conservatives that cripple any proposals of real reform before the Republicans even take their shot at it.

I want to see a Left party with the balls to declare that principles come before power, isn't satisfied with just collecting the detritus of the Right's ideological purges, and is willing to censure party members that act contrarian to the party's ideals.  I want those principles to reflect social justice and the Keynesian strategy of stable economic growth over time through firm control of the market.  I want them to take on Wall Street and break up the huge financial firms through reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall protections put in place after the Great Depression, and investigate everyone involved in the housing bust for fraud, and punish the guilty by arresting the executives and seizing their assets, and forcing the firms to forgive all debts they hold.  I want full employment to be the top priority of the country, with stiff tax penalties for businesses that don't create and maintain American jobs (and incentives for those that do), and for labor standards to be adjusted to reflect the level of productivity per employee needed to make that happen with no wasted labor.  That would be a good start.



Darkwing said:


> LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL


 
Trite dismissal isn't very effective when you're a teenaged idiot who displays no critical thinking capacity of his own.  Show me _any_ economically-left steps taken by the Democrats in this century.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 9, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Just look at the situation with Greece. Everyone has known from the beginning that Greece would need to default on a large portion of its debts in order to remain a functioning economy. Yet European policy seems to be to keep Greece afloat as some kind of disfigured zombie state, and what dysfunctional economy remains must be enslaved to the purpose of paying off debt. Really, the longer Greece goes without a default, the further downward its economy spirals and the more extreme its politics becomes. It's almost as if politicians would rather watch Greece elect a batshit insane government that unilaterally defaults than some sort of orderly restructuring.


We naturally prefer to keep the problem down South, you could say. Understand that the alternative may be even worse!



> Prior to the recession, both Ireland and Spain had low debt/GDP and budget surpluses; they were being responsible by the normal standards of government budgets. This is in contrast to Greece, which was always spending well outside of its revenue base.


Never should've let Greece into the eurozone... They literally lied their economic statistics. 



Lobar said:


> To get back in power, the Clinton campaign pursued a  "Third Way" platform that sacrificed many of their economic principles  to seize the middle.


And it worked fabulously! Except for the health care reform... I am just reading his autobiography. <3 :3c


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> And it worked fabulously! Except for the health care reform... I am just reading his autobiography. <3 :3c


 
It did bring some economic prosperity back for a while, but it gave up trying to regain political territory taken by Republicans during the Reagan terms.  As a result, our entire political spectrum has been reduced to merely different flavors of conservatism for the last thirty years, and it's pushed the working class to the breaking point.

We literally can't afford another Republican president, not only would it be disastrous for the economy, they'll likely get to appoint a replacement for Justice Ginsburg and then what's left of our basic rights and freedoms will come crashing down as well.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 9, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL


I told you not to fucking post in this thread again until you understood what it was like to choose hunger over not paying your bills. You clearly did not get the message. This is about much more than petty party labels and their stupid bickering. This is about _your future_ where _you're_ being called *the lost generation* and you don't even give a fuck.

Stay out of this thread you ignorant spoiled shit. You are digging your own grave on FAF with tactless, unintelligent responses like this, and I would quit now while you are ahead.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> We're not far off; only Anthony Kennedy stands in the way.



 Hopefully it never reach that point.




Lobar said:


> The "middle party" idea has already been used by the Dems before.  Reagan and George H. W. Bush had three consecutive terms between them shredding government programs and labor rights while simultaneously running up the debt with military strategy in order to use the debt as a talking point for further cuts to social programs (a strategy called "Starve the Beast").  To get back in power, the Clinton campaign pursued a "Third Way" platform that sacrificed many of their economic principles to seize the middle.  While it worked short-term, the long term result is that Reaganism has defined our economy ever since, and the Democratic Party has been saddled with moderate conservatives that cripple any proposals of real reform before the Republicans even take their shot at it.



Hey, thanks for giving me another reason why I dislike Reagan.



Lobar said:


> I want to see a Left party with the balls to declare that principles come before power, isn't satisfied with just collecting the detritus of the Right's ideological purges, and is willing to censure party members that act contrarian to the party's ideals.  I want those principles to reflect social justice and the Keynesian strategy of stable economic growth over time through firm control of the market.  I want them to take on Wall Street and break up the huge financial firms through reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall protections put in place after the Great Depression, and investigate everyone involved in the housing bust for fraud, and punish the guilty by arresting the executives and seizing their assets, and forcing the firms to forgive all debts they hold.  I want full employment to be the top priority of the country, with stiff tax penalties for businesses that don't create and maintain American jobs (and incentives for those that do), and for labor standards to be adjusted to reflect the level of productivity per employee needed to make that happen with no wasted labor.  That would be a good start .



This actually would be a good start.  Though the time and support they would need to create it, will not happen in the near future.  Is it possible; maybe.  I haven't looked at America politcally until Bush came to power and started screwing things over.
Though I like your system you propose. So let us start at step one.  How/what would the protesters need to do, in order to garner support, and reflect this ideology?


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 9, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I told you not to fucking post in this thread again until you understood what it was like to choose hunger over not paying your bills. You clearly did not get the message.
> 
> Stay out of this thread you ignorant spoiled shit. You are digging your own grave on FAF with tactless, unintelligent responses like this, and I would quit now while you are ahead.



An entire post dedicated to insulting me is really not making your argument any more valid. 



Lobar said:


> Trite dismissal isn't very effective when you're a  teenaged idiot who displays no critical thinking capacity of his own.   Show me _any_ economically-left steps taken by the Democrats in this century.



Aren't the people generally in favor of this protest democrats themselves? 

I just find it ridiculous how you think that democrats are a "middle party". Sure it might be perceived that they have a right leaning, but that's because they have no balls to do shit because they're afraid of pissing off the republicans for some reason.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> This actually would be a good start.  Though the time and support they would need to create it, will not happen in the near future.  Is it possible; maybe.  I haven't looked at America politcally until Bush came to power and started screwing things over.
> Though I like your system you propose. So let us start at step one.  How/what would the protesters need to do, in order to garner support, and reflect this ideology?


 
Earlier on I posted that a neo-Left faction needs to arise within the Occupy Wall Street movement and distinguish itself from the Paulites and teabaggers that have been showing up to the protests as well.  This platform is antithetical to those ideologies, making a purge necessary before a clear message like this can be put forward.  It then needs to grow through some smart marketing and communicating economics education to the masses.  With luck, they keep Obama alive in 2012 and are enough of a legitimate political force to field a presidential candidate by 2016.



Darkwing said:


> Aren't the people generally in favor of this protest democrats themselves?
> 
> I just find it ridiculous how you think that democrats are a "middle party". Sure it might be perceived that they have a right leaning, but that's because they have no balls to do shit because they're afraid of pissing off the republicans for some reason.


 
People can't advance policy.  Again, show me _any_ policy changes the Democratic Party has actually implemented that can reasonably be considered economically Left.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Earlier on I posted that a neo-Left faction needs to arise within the Occupy Wall Street movement and distinguish itself from the Paulites and teabaggers that have been showing up to the protests as well.  This platform is antithetical to those ideologies, making a purge necessary before a clear message like this can be put forward.  It then needs to grow through some smart marketing and communicating economics education to the masses.  With luck, they keep Obama alive in 2012 and are enough of a legitimate political force to field a presidential candidate by 2016.



With "luck" is such a key word for this new leftist party.  As you know as well as I, in politics you eliminate/purge the opposing side; knowing the right they will fear this party as being "communist, and agains traditional American values.  As such they will try to elminate it, at any and all possible moments.  They will need more than luck.  Though it is still possible to say the least.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Earlier on I posted that a neo-Left faction needs to arise within the Occupy Wall Street movement and distinguish itself from the Paulites and teabaggers that have been showing up to the protests as well.  This platform is antithetical to those ideologies, making a purge necessary before a clear message like this can be put forward.  It then needs to grow through some smart marketing and communicating economics education to the masses.  With luck, they keep Obama alive in 2012 and are enough of a legitimate political force to field a presidential candidate by 2016.


You do realize Obama is better at campaigning than being a politician right?
Without a doubt he's probably aware of this face and will us it as political force in the upcoming election.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> We literally can't afford another Republican president, not only would it be disastrous for the economy, they'll likely get to appoint a replacement for Justice Ginsburg and then what's left of our basic rights and freedoms will come crashing down as well.


If she retires in near future Obama has a chance to appoint his third associate judge. Though, she's planning to stay on board at least until 2012, maybe 2015. I'm furious how some lowlifes insult her a 'communist' or a 'radical feminist'! >:C

_Fortunately_ we've got Sotomayor and Kagan.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> If she retires in near future Obama has a chance to appoint his third associate judge. Though, she's planning to stay on board at least until 2012, maybe 2015. I'm furious how some lowlifes insult her a 'communist' or a 'radical feminist'! >:C
> 
> _Fortunately_ we've got Sotomayor and Kagan.


What is Ginsberg's political ideology anyhow?

As I've said before, all Obama has to do is get re-elected and not fuck up the economy, cause mainstream tea party formed as a reactionary party to oppose  Obama.  If Obama doesn't fuck up then they can't keep their hate boner  for much longer.
If Ginsberg does retire that'll make the third judge.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> People can't advance policy.  Again, show me _any_ policy changes the Democratic Party has actually implemented that can reasonably be considered economically Left.



Couldn't find anything real useful. Though I found this to be a tad insightful, not sure if it's a good source or anything because I was googling shit: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-30-post-truth-politics 

Basically, you need a party that, like the republican party, will be united, firmly and strongly stand by it's ideals and will strongly oppose Republican policy. Democrats really don't stand strongly for anything much it seems. Only if the protesters formed a political party similar to the tea party but with opposite ideals of course, the democratic party might have some hope. 

It's more of a wait and see thing for now, but honestly I doubt this protest will result in anything major.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Couldn't find anything real useful. Though I found this to be a tad insightful, not sure if it's a good source or anything because I was googling shit: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-30-post-truth-politics
> 
> Basically, you need a party that, like the republican party, will be united, firmly and strongly stand by it's ideals and will strongly oppose Republican policy. Democrats really don't stand strongly for anything much it seems. Only if the protesters formed a political party similar to the tea party but with opposite ideals of course, the democratic party might have some hope.
> 
> It's more of a wait and see thing for now, but honestly I doubt this protest will result in anything major.


We'll have to see how this turns out, they're only in the first stages of a political movement.
The tea party had financial backing to jumpstart it as well as FOXNews and politicians, the occupy protesters don't have as many resources to do so, so it'll take longer than the tea party.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 9, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> An entire post dedicated to insulting me is really not making your argument any more valid.


I have nothing more to say to a child that does not understand the weight of a situation where he is included in a term like the lost generation and chooses to argue about what is left and what is right with no concern to his well being in the future when those minimum wage crap jobs won't cut it. I mean you're so cool and apathetic for discouraging political activism because it "just won't make a difference." You think you're so hard and that you won't have regrets about not standing up for yourself.

I'm not waiting until I regret that I stayed silent.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 9, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Basically, you need a party that, like the republican party, will be united, firmly and strongly stand by it's ideals and will strongly oppose Republican policy. Democrats really don't stand strongly for anything much it seems. Only if the protesters formed a political party similar to the tea party but with opposite ideals of course, the democratic party might have some hope.



Do we really want a left-wing party that is as rabid and ideologically stunted as the tea party? We're talking about what is basically a bunch of angry old white men that put as much thought into their political positions as most people do deciding what to eat for lunch. One usual advantage of the left is that reality has a liberal bias, and that advantage disappears once you enter the realm of fake grass-roots movements fueled by blind anger and incivility.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Do we really want a left-wing party that is as rabid and ideologically stunted as the tea party? We're talking about what is basically a bunch of angry old white men that put as much thought into their political positions as most people do deciding what to eat for lunch. One usual advantage of the left is that reality has a liberal bias, and that advantage disappears once you enter the realm of fake grass-roots movements fueled by blind anger and incivility.


It's called fighting fire with fire.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

I've two songs that always come to mind when I venture onto this thread.  One has to do with a protest that the police come down on, violently.  While the other has to deal with a socialist revolution.



CannonFodder said:


> It's called fighting fire with fire.


Then what will happen when someone gets burned?
Fight fire with fire.  Good song.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What is Ginsberg's political ideology anyhow?



Old guard liberal, if she goes without a suitable replacement, so does Roe and a whole bunch else.



Lizzie said:


> If she retires in near future Obama has a chance to appoint his third associate judge. Though, she's planning to stay on board at least until 2012, maybe 2015. I'm furious how some lowlifes insult her a 'communist' or a 'radical feminist'! >:C
> 
> _Fortunately_ we've got Sotomayor and Kagan.


 
She's in poor health, she may not have the luxury of choosing a politically expedient time to pass on (she'd never willingly retire with her seat threatened, she's a fierce old lady).

Retiring now would be a bad move, Republicans would block all nominations and it would dominate all other political considerations, and rob Obama of what little political capital he has to push his jobs plan.  Replacing Ginsburg would then become the focus of the 2012 election.



Darkwing said:


> Couldn't find anything real useful. Though I found this to be a tad insightful, not sure if it's a good source or anything because I was googling shit: http://www.grist.org/article/2010-03-30-post-truth-politics
> 
> Basically, you need a party that, like the republican party, will be united, firmly and strongly stand by it's ideals and will strongly oppose Republican policy. Democrats really don't stand strongly for anything much it seems. Only if the protesters formed a political party similar to the tea party but with opposite ideals of course, the democratic party might have some hope.


 
I think you just repeated what I've been saying, but a lot more vaguely.



Commie Bat said:


> I've two songs that always come to mind when I venture onto this thread.  One has to do with a protest that the police come down on, violently.  While the other has to deal with a socialist revolution.
> 
> Then what will happen when someone gets burned?
> Fight fire with fire.  Good song.


 
This is my song for the thread:
[yt]Xq5Uvaint3w[/yt]


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 9, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I have nothing more to say to a child that does not understand the weight of a situation where he is included in a term like the lost generation and chooses to argue about what is left and what is right with no concern to his well being in the future when those minimum wage crap jobs won't cut it. I mean you're so cool and apathetic for discouraging political activism because it "just won't make a difference." You think you're so hard and that you won't have regrets about not standing up for yourself.
> 
> I'm not waiting until I regret that I stayed silent.



I know those minimum wage jobs won't cut it, I'm not lost, I have my career planned out, and I have a backup plan in case shit goes wrong. I also have connections with businesses and stuff, which helps me a lot too and I also have a family business I do work for, and can take over when my dad retires. You don't know anything about me, or what I have planned for my own future, so kindly fuck off.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Old guard liberal, if she goes without a suitable replacement, so does Roe and a whole bunch else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well fuck, here's hoping 2012 election goes well for obama otherwise whatever her replacement is we're fucked.


Darkwing said:


> I know those minimum wage jobs won't cut it, I'm  not lost, I have my career planned out, and I have a backup plan in  case shit goes wrong. I also have connections with businesses and stuff,  which helps me a lot too and I also have a family business I do work  for, and can take over when my dad retires. You don't know anything  about me, or what I have planned for my own future, so kindly fuck  off.


Uh dude, I had 27 backup plans all in place if my finances fell through, ALL the backup plans fell through.  Just cause you have a plan doesn't mean shit can't hit the fan.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What is Ginsberg's political ideology anyhow?


She is female, Jewish and appointed by Bill Clinton, duh. :V

Seriously; she's a liberal, if that's the word you want to use. Pro-choice and has been advocating for gender equality, and she has this "anti-American" way to consider foreign laws and norms in ruling, unlike the conservatives in the Supreme Court who are usually 'originalists' or textualists. I think she might be for a Living Constitution.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> It's called fighting fire with fire.



..and as we know, fire always leaves destruction in its midst...


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> ..and as we know, fire always leaves destruction in its midst...



...and out of the ashes a new day is born.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 9, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> ...and out of the ashes a new day is born.



Lets stop this before this becomes a cheesy movie headline :V

Bet anyone 20 dollars Republicans gain even more seats in the house.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Lets stop this before this becomes a cheesy movie headline :V
> 
> Bet anyone 20 dollars Republicans gain even more seats in the house.


 It's possible however whatever seat gains they'll make will be mediocre.


Commie Bat said:


> ...and out of the ashes a new day is born.


Coming this summer directed by Michael Bay.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 9, 2011)

I was just on my state's political forum with a bunch of job secured republicans telling me to shut up because I was just one of the "lazy, mindless, no nothing college students that just wants to get high."

So I posted several image links to stories about back up plans that fell through, tragedy striking at the least opportune times, many older people pointing out how things have changed, people who are well off and who do understand that this is not just asking for a hand out.

And all I got in response is, "I don't have to care about those people's poor planning because it was all their fault for not being secured or having enough plans. They are definitely not the 99% of America and you are stupid for implying as much."

I don't even know what to say anymore.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I was just on my state's political forum with a bunch of job secured republicans telling me to shut up because I was just one of the "lazy, mindless, no nothing college students that just wants to get high."
> 
> So I posted several image links to stories about back up plans that fell through, tragedy striking at the least opportune times, many older people pointing out how things have changed, people who are well off and who do understand that this is not just asking for a hand out.
> 
> ...


And people wonder why I speak of Reagon on the same level as satan.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 9, 2011)

Now my tea party friend posted about a random anti-semite that attended the occupy protests and he said he's going to copy the people making fun of "teabaggers" and collectively call all people who occupy "racists"

I told him to go fuck himself because there are plenty of people on both sides occupying the streets.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Now my tea party friend posted about a random anti-semite that attended the occupy protests and he said he's going to copy the people making fun of "teabaggers" and collectively call all people who occupy "racists"
> 
> I told him to go fuck himself because there are plenty of people on both sides occupying the streets.


Your friend is late to the party, the media's already been trying to demonize the occupy protesters using any means necessary.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 9, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Now my tea party friend posted about a random anti-semite that attended the occupy protests and he said he's going to copy the people making fun of "teabaggers" and collectively call all people who occupy "racists"
> 
> I told him to go fuck himself because there are plenty of people on both sides occupying the streets.



Sounds just like my extended family.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> And people wonder why I speak of Reagon on the same level as satan.



Now that's just dumb CF.  I refer to Satan a lot higher than Reagon.  Just stop and think about it for a moment.



Lacus said:


> I told him to go fuck himself



That's the key to survival in politics; to tell the opposition go F yourself.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 9, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> That's the key to survival in politics; to tell the opposition go F yourself.


I realize it's not the most mature response but I'm not giving much of one when he throws out a tactic like, "Teehee! I'm going to call all my friends that occupy racists because of one lunatic!" without realizing how quickly the protest is shaping up to be people from both sides wanting the same thing.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 9, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I don't even know what to say anymore.



Maybe because there is some truth to that. 

I mean, the ones who are struggling, what is the government supposed to do about it? Increase taxes and hand over more of the people's money? I just don't believe in that, I've been hearing WAAAYYY too many stories about lazy asses mooching off welfare/unemployment checks coming from hard working taxpayer's pockets when they are well capable of getting a job themselves. 

What we really need to do is figure out how to get more jobs out there for people. Especially considering the ever-increasing population. If you're gonna protest, protest the fact that we need more jobs.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 9, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Maybe because there is some truth to that.
> 
> I mean, the ones who are struggling, what is the government supposed to do about it? Increase taxes and hand over more of the people's money? I just don't believe in that, I've been hearing WAAAYYY too many stories about lazy asses mooching off welfare/unemployment checks coming from hard working taxpayer's pockets when they are well capable of getting a job themselves.
> 
> What we really need to do is figure out how to get more jobs out there for people. Especially considering the ever-increasing population. If you're gonna protest, protest the fact that we need more jobs.


What the fuck dude THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM PROTESTING.

I am protesting that there are people on wall street sitting on trillions of dollars in bail out and not injecting that money into jobs in order to "trickle down" like they are always so fond of saying when they take the money and run.

I am also protesting the Government refusing to comment or even look at the student loan bubble about to pop. 

What else would I be protesting? Just that some meanies get a tax cut? Not likely.

Also have you ever known anyone on welfare or unemployment? Welfare is NOT THAT MUCH MONEY AND WELFARE QUEENS DO NOT EXIST. Period. Unemployment means that you must actively show that you search for jobs with the agency or you will not get your check.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

Here is one of my favorite quotes about politcs.  "The word 'politics' is derived from the word 'poly', meaning 'many', and the  word 'ticks', meaning 'blood sucking parasites'."* -- Larry Hardiman
*


Crusader Mike said:


> Sounds just like my extended family.



Half my family, firmly believes in communism.  I don't know if you, or I, have it worse.



Lacus said:


> I realize it's not the most mature response but I'm not giving much of one when he throws out a tactic like, "Teehee! I'm going to call all my friends that occupy racists because of one lunatic!" without realizing how quickly the protest is shaping up to be people from both sides wanting the same thing.



Maturity in politics is almost non existant to begin with.  And I also tell people that quite often.  Maybe I'm immature for my age, I'm not really sure anymore.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 9, 2011)

"Dear Poor people, stop being so poor" 

-Love, Wall Street



Commie Bat said:


> Half my family, firmly believes in communism.  I don't know if you, or I, have it worse.



Beats "Tea Party Patriots" that think Obama is a Muslim : /


----------



## Onnes (Oct 9, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I don't even know what to say anymore.



Welcome to cynicism? Some people simply lack the ability to think beyond their own circumstances. It's usually best not to dwell on them, lest one begin to wish all of humanity be consumed in a nuclear holocaust. You could also view them as afflicted by some variety of mental disorder--it's hard to consider this view as entirely wrong.

Just as a further note, there is no such thing as welfare in the US. The closest you get is TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which is highly limited and obviously temporary. Usually what people call welfare are really food stamps, which are intended to only be used on food; good luck covering all your expenses with those things.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 9, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Welcome to cynicism? Some people simply lack the ability to think beyond their own circumstances. It's usually best not to dwell on them, lest one begin to wish all of humanity be consumed in a nuclear holocaust. You could also view them as afflicted by some variety of mental disorder--it's hard to consider this view as entirely wrong.



Or they're in dire circumstances themselves and they're pointing the finger at the wrong culprit. Yeah, maybe a new regulation is killing their business but they failed to see it was the representative that they elected who authored the new regulation on behalf of "x" business.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 9, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> "Dear Poor people, stop being so poor"
> 
> -Love, Wall Street



haha are you kidding, they would much rather prefer that we are poor as dirt, they LIKE being able to sit safely atop their towers and shit on peasants far below as they shuffle about looking for one of those near-mythical bootstraps to pull themselves up with


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> "Dear Poor people, stop being so poor"
> 
> -Love, Wall Street
> 
> Beats "Tea Party Patriots" that think Obama is a Muslim : /



Well if there racist then yeah.  Also communism has awesome symbolism, case in point â˜­.
What's with the republicans and people's religion?  They're on Obama and are now all pissy at Romney since he's Mormon. WTF.

Anyway, here is another quote that is also true.  "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river".  - ÐÐ¸ÐºÐ¸Ñ‚Ð° Ð¥Ñ€ÑƒÑ‰ÐµÐ².


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I've been hearing WAAAYYY too many stories about lazy asses mooching off welfare/unemployment checks coming from hard working taxpayer's pockets when they are well capable of getting a job themselves.


 
Yeah, "stories", exactly.  The term "welfare queen" originated in the Reagan campaign, in an attempt to court the old George Wallace segregationist voter base by selling them tales of lazy negroes living comfortably off of government money.  Like everything else about the Reagan campaign, it had little to nothing to do with reality.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 9, 2011)

Tycho said:


> haha are you kidding, they would much rather prefer that we are poor as dirt, they LIKE being able to sit safely atop their towers and shit on peasants far below as they shuffle about looking for one of those near-mythical bootstraps to pull themselves up with



Nothing explains that better than this picture.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Nothing explains that better than this picture.


 
So tempting to go and start launching shit into the balconies.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 9, 2011)

To Darkwing: Most people on government assistance of some kind would like nothing more than to get off it somehow because the $1,000+ you'll earn a month from a full time minimum wage job is more than the $300-$900 assistance you'll receive with such programs. Any "welfare queen" or "unemployment leech" who has luxuries they should not be able to afford are probably abusing credit to do so.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 9, 2011)

Lobar said:


> So tempting to go and start launching shit into the balconies.



if you're gonna launch something into the balconies you might as well make it firebombs

there's an idea, someone with one of those crazy ex-military relatives could hit them up for some willie-pete grenades.  Boy howdy, those would cause a ruckus


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 9, 2011)

Lacus said:


> What the fuck dude THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM PROTESTING.
> 
> I am protesting that there are people on wall street sitting on trillions of dollars in bail out and not injecting that money into jobs in order to "trickle down" like they are always so fond of saying when they take the money and run.
> 
> ...



It's hard to figure out exactly what the main point is to this protest when some protesters are like, "more tax for the rich" which I think is fair, if the money goes strictly to providing us more jobs, when other protesters, who look like they haven't showered in months are like "Fuck capitalism, all rich people are greedy, etc." while smoking and dancing to obnoxious music, those people kinda keep me away from opening my mind to what these people actually want TBH <=/


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Well if there racist then yeah.  Also communism has awesome symbolism, case in point â˜­.
> What's with the republicans and people's religion?  They're on Obama and are now all pissy at Romney since he's Mormon. WTF.


I'd hate to derail it for a second, however I've changed denominations, denominations that are far right like southern baptist convention have all their eggs in one basket, aka the republican party.  If there ever comes a point at which the republican party became unfavored by america it'll hit the denominations in the nuts membership increase and as a result a reduction in membership.  Over the last twenty years the percentage of americans that identify as those denominations has reduced even though their membership is slowing growing(mainly through population increase), they know it's a problem.  The religious right is directly fueling the decline of christianity in america, however they've been in bed with the republican party for so long that the only way to get away from them is for a divorce.  So they have no easy way to get out of politics and keep preaching political messages without looking even worse and subsequently destroying their membership numbers, the only way to stop that is by telling everyone they'll go to hell if they vote democrat.  By using christianity as a weapon they can keep the republican party popular so long as they keep telling everyone, "you're only christian if you vote republican", they can prevent a reduction in membership.  However this has only made it worse, with the majority of americans disliking tea party, they're putting all their hopes and dreams into Rick Perry.  So basically if Rick Perry loses badly they're fucked.

In short some denominations put all their chances into the republican party and they know what will happen if america goes blue.

And yes I was in the SBC, I'm just so fucking sick of how political they were that I said, "screw it" and just went to another church.

tl;dr: the religious right got in bed with republican party and are now married out of wedlock and can't get out of it without making the situation worse for themselves.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 9, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Also have you ever known anyone on welfare or unemployment? Welfare is NOT THAT MUCH MONEY AND WELFARE QUEENS DO NOT EXIST. Period. Unemployment means that you must actively show that you search for jobs with the agency or you will not get your check.


 
Yes they do.

I work as a caddy on the side and the older dudes are beating the system.

They collect unemployment checks while working as caddies.  Because caddying isn't technically considering a "job" as the caddy is not employed by the golf club, all the money they make is straight cash and they're not taxed on any of it.  Meanwhile, all they have to do is just show "proof" that they've been looking for work and they can still collect.

So the blanket statement that no one cheats the system is null.  People do it all the time.  This is not to say that welfare or unemployment benefits are bad, but to think there's no one out there working the system would be as naive as thinking the bankers on Wall Street care about anything other than their bottom line.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 9, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Yes they do.
> 
> I work as a caddy on the side and the older dudes are beating the system.
> 
> ...


Fair point, but I think I did just want to say that the abuses in the system are pretty innocuous ones like that. Also a lot of this would be better if to collect unemployment or welfare you had to do community service I realize there are problems and hurdles in implementing such a system but if the issue is that they don't work well...hand em a snow shovel and tell them to work for the check.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 9, 2011)

Unemployment benefits are of limited duration. It's difficult to use them as a long-term income. 

I still want to know what welfare payments people are managing to collect in the US. The only thing that even comes close at this point are food stamps.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 9, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I know those minimum wage jobs won't cut it, I'm not lost, I have my career planned out, and I have a backup plan in case shit goes wrong. I also have connections with businesses and stuff, which helps me a lot too and I also have a family business I do work for, and can take over when my dad retires. You don't know anything about me, or what I have planned for my own future, so kindly fuck off.



You do realize that this is what I've been saying all along: your only chance of success is nepotism.  It has nothing to do with what merits you may or may not have, the main part is you were born to a set of fortunate parents whose connections are going to help you.  YOUR problem is that you assume that this situation is the same for everyone else; after all, why didn't these people complaining about poor job outlooks just work for the family business?  Why didn't they just use their family's connections to land a good job?

That's not the norm, and just reinforces how insulated from reality you are- yet you continue to speak like you know how it is.  None of that has anything to do with how hard you work or how qualified you are.  You are destined to be the manager everyone hates because you don't know what you're doing yet you have skilled people working under you and the only reason you have a job and still have a job is that your parents knew the guy that owns the place.

"Kindly fuck off" yourself.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Unemployment benefits are of limited duration. It's difficult to use them as a long-term income.
> 
> I still want to know what welfare payments people are managing to collect in the US. The only thing that even comes close at this point are food stamps.


The only ones here are food stamps.


Bobskunk said:


> You do realize that this is what I've been  saying all along: your only chance of success is nepotism.  It has  nothing to do with what merits you may or may not have, the main part is  you were born to a set of fortunate parents whose connections are going  to help you.  YOUR problem is that you assume that this situation is  the same for everyone else; after all, why didn't these people  complaining about poor job outlooks just work for the family business?   Why didn't they just use their family's connections to land a good job?
> 
> That's not the norm, and just reinforces how insulated from reality you  are- yet you continue to speak like you know how it is.  None of that  has anything to do with how hard you work or how qualified you are.  You  are destined to be the manager everyone hates because you don't know  what you're doing yet you have skilled people working under you and the  only reason you have a job and still have a job is that your parents  knew the guy that owns the place.
> 
> "Kindly fuck off" yourself.


Bobskunk kinda does have a point Darkwing, you were born into that situation.  On contrast take me for example, I was born with jack shit, grew up with jack shit, have jack shit and I'm more of a hard worker than you will probably ever be Darkwing to the point the last job I had I was doing the work for 2/3 of the staff and I still had jack shit.  The reason why I have jack shit is because I wasn't born into a family where I'd end up getting a job from from "daddy".
If you were right Darkwing considering how hard I work to try and better my conditions I should be a millionaire by now.
tl;dr: I'm a living example of the "durr hurr poor are just lazy" is bullshit.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Yes they do.
> 
> I work as a caddy on the side and the older dudes are beating the system.
> 
> ...


 
Nobody said nobody cheats the system, we said that this talking point that there's a significant portion of the population that makes enough of a comfortable and sustainable living off of government assistance to be a drain on the system is absurd.  You're describing a situation where people are committing fraud and receiving money illegally.

Fraud is always a problem anywhere, but the fraud we need to be concerned about the most isn't a handful of people taking meager government benefits while being paid under the table from someone else, but fraud perpetrated as a matter of standard practice by the deregulated financial sector, such as the fraud that directly caused the financial disaster of 2008.  Hence, the protests on Wall Street.


----------



## Rilvor (Oct 9, 2011)

Lacus said:


> To Darkwing: Most people on government assistance of some kind would like nothing more than to get off it somehow because the $1,000+ you'll earn a month from a full time minimum wage job is more than the $300-$900 assistance you'll receive with such programs. Any "welfare queen" or "unemployment leech" who has luxuries they should not be able to afford are probably abusing credit to do so.



It's around 500-600 for a household of four adults, if two of them have jobs.

What many of you appear to be forgetting is that it isn't just about having a real faction pull out of this embarrassing mess they call a protest, but also about having the ability to sway the American people to their side.

I remember there being complaining here that the protest was getting no media coverage. What a foolish thing to hope for. You got it, and look what happened to no-one's surprise.

Get rid of the 4channers, get rid of the people making anti-semite comments, get rid of the idiot anarchists. Cut off the cancer before it destroys these protests if you really hope to help.

They're going to have to look respectable while attempting to convince at least a part of a nation to agree with them.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 9, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Unemployment benefits are of limited duration. It's difficult to use them as a long-term income.



Again, they have a system.

It's my understanding that during the late spring to late summer all they do is work at the course, since those are the busiest times and you can easily make $1000+ a week, straight cash.  They don't need to collect because working at the course makes more than they need.

When things slow down, some go to temp agencies where they don't plan on working at very long.  Often the work they're given anyway doesn't need them.  While looking for "work," they can collect while still caddying and making, again, close to $1000 a week up until it starts snowing.



Lobar said:


> Nobody said nobody cheats the system, we said that this talking point that there's a significant portion of the population that makes enough of a comfortable and sustainable living off of government assistance to be a drain on the system is absurd.  You're describing a situation where people are committing fraud and receiving money illegally.



Lacus' statement that I quoted implied that people don't cheat the system.  I just wanted to make a point that people do take advantage of the system.  That extra unemployment money certainly isn't going towards their utilities.  That I can tell you for a fact.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 9, 2011)

You are implying that they don't report their income earned from caddying, i.e. that they are breaking the law in order to avoid taxes and remain eligible for benefits. This sounds more like an issue of law enforcement than of systemic failure.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 9, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> Get rid of the 4channers, get rid of the people making anti-semite comments, get rid of the idiot anarchists. Cut off the cancer before it destroys these protests if you really hope to help.
> 
> They're going to have to look respectable while attempting to convince at least a part of a nation to agree with them.



You forgot all the _Interesting_ looking hippies blaring there music with their dance parties while smoking and what not.  Do you not find this respectable Rilvor?  :v


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 9, 2011)

Another thing: this complaint that welfare should be abolished because some people abuse it is ridiculous.  It helps a lot of people, and in many cases what little help is to be had at the expense of time and effort spent maintaining compliance (the myth that Darkwing believes in that it's just "show up to welfare office, yell at someone, receive thousands of dollars a week with which to buy Cadillacs" is just that, a myth) is the only available option...  to take that away from honest people who are trying to keep their head above water, and need to get back on their feet, is terrible.  Just like complaints about unemployment payments- you don't get those until you've paid in in the first place from working, and the problem with some situations where some people would make more money staying on unemployment rather than getting work is not because unemployment benefits are too much, it's because wages and available jobs are too little.  Or complaints about, what half of people don't pay federal income tax (ignoring the fact that they pay payroll taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, etc.): reasonable people think "shit, that means 50% of this country doesn't even make enough to pay taxes" whereas sociopaths think "those 50% are slackers and they aren't paying their fair share we need to raise taxes on them immediately (and offset any possible revenue gains with some tax breaks for the top 5%)"

It's no coincidence that the people who want to abolish welfare because some people might cheat it are against abolishing the death penalty because some people might be innocent.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 9, 2011)

Onnes said:


> You are implying that they don't report their income earned from caddying, i.e. that they are breaking the law in order to avoid taxes and remain eligible for benefits. This sounds more like an issue of law enforcement than of systemic failure.



That income is easily hidden and they don't exactly have any reason, nor do the people at the unemployment office have any reason to investigate them when they meet all their other requirements.  It's all considered "tips".  However, unlike if you were working at a restaurant where you have an employer who would usually try to take out taxes from your tips, hence having a record of it, the caddy is technically employed by the individual player on a day-to-day basis.  Not quite an employee, not quite a freelancer.  It's a gray area that is a problem with column A and column B based on what you've submitted.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> That income is easily hidden and they don't exactly have any reason, nor do the people at the unemployment office have any reason to investigate them when they meet all their other requirements.  It's all considered "tips".  However, unlike if you were working at a restaurant where you have an employer who would usually try to take out taxes from your tips, hence having a record of it, the caddy is technically employed by the individual player on a day-to-day basis.  Not quite an employee, not quite a freelancer.  It's a gray area that is a problem with column A and column B based on what you've submitted.


At which point they are committing a crime.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> At which point they are committing a crime.



Considering some of these dudes are spending their money on drugs, I don't believe breaking the law is high up on their concerns.

And the problem with where the system comes into play is that there's no real way to enforce those laws since the people at the unemployment office don't have any reason to investigate them.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Considering some of these dudes are spending their money on drugs, I don't believe breaking the law is high up on their concerns.
> 
> And the problem with where the system comes into play is that there's no real way to enforce those laws since the people at the unemployment office don't have any reason to investigate them.


So let me get this straight you want to completely abolish a system which millions of working poor rely on to survive, just because there's some druggies out there?


----------



## Onnes (Oct 9, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Considering some of these dudes are spending their money on drugs, I don't believe breaking the law is high up on their concerns.
> 
> And the problem with where the system comes into play is that there's no real way to enforce those laws since the people at the unemployment office don't have any reason to investigate them.



You're talking about a problem inherent in how we handle income and taxes. Society has generally concluded that it's better to ignore these relatively minor cases of criminality than to enact the tracking and record-keeping necessary to catch them. Especially in this day and age, we have the capability of tracking cash flow with much greater resolution than we actually do; however, this kind of monitoring would be rather costly and goes against many privacy concerns.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 9, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Another thing: this complaint that welfare should be abolished because some people abuse it is ridiculous.  It helps a lot of people, and in many cases what little help is to be had at the expense of time and effort spent maintaining compliance (the myth that Darkwing believes in that it's just "show up to welfare office, yell at someone, receive thousands of dollars a week with which to buy Cadillacs" is just that, a myth) is the only available option...  to take that away from honest people who are trying to keep their head above water, and need to get back on their feet, is terrible.  Just like complaints about unemployment payments- you don't get those until you've paid in in the first place from working, and the problem with some situations where some people would make more money staying on unemployment rather than getting work is not because unemployment benefits are too much, it's because wages and available jobs are too little.  Or complaints about, what half of people don't pay federal income tax (ignoring the fact that they pay payroll taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, etc.): reasonable people think "shit, that means 50% of this country doesn't even make enough to pay taxes" whereas sociopaths think "those 50% are slackers and they aren't paying their fair share we need to raise taxes on them immediately (and offset any possible revenue gains with some tax breaks for the top 5%)"
> 
> It's no coincidence that the people who want to abolish welfare because some people might cheat it are against abolishing the death penalty because some people might be innocent.


 
Not to mention that _any_ money directed towards the bottom is gonna help the economy, regardless of whether they've "deserved" it or not.  The real reason that businesses aren't hiring is that they're already producing as much as they can sell with the workforce they've got, because there's a severe shortage of people with enough money for them to sell goods and services to.  No tax break is going to get a business to hire employees to produce an unsellable surplus, our economy has a _demand_ problem.  You could literally just start launching sacks of money into the ghettos and have a positive impact on the economy.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 9, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> So let me get this straight you want to completely abolish a system which millions of working poor rely on to survive, just because there's some druggies out there?



lol lrn2read CF.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> So the blanket statement that no one cheats the system is null.  People do it all the time.  *This is not to say that welfare or unemployment benefits are bad,* but to think there's no one out there working the system would be as naive as thinking the bankers on Wall Street care about anything other than their bottom line.



C'mon man.  I never said anything there about abolishing the system, but ignoring that shit goes wrong is just as much of a problem as thinking that nothing goes right.



Onnes said:


> You're talking about a problem inherent in how we handle income and taxes. Society has generally concluded that it's better to ignore these relatively minor cases of criminality than to enact the tracking and record-keeping necessary to catch them. Especially in this day and age, we have the capability of tracking cash flow with much greater resolution than we actually do; however, this kind of monitoring would be rather costly and goes against many privacy concerns.



Which is all pretty much what I was saying to Lacus in the context of the idea that no one takes advantage of government aide, which I felt was being implied by her post.  So we square?


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 10, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> C'mon man.  I never said anything there about abolishing the system, but ignoring that shit goes wrong is just as much of a problem as thinking that nothing goes right.



Please tell me how someone who is somehow eligible for welfare can possibly cause as much monetary harm to an economy as a single destructive trader (such as the kind of known-bad deals that should really amount to fraud or primarily earning money by short-selling and causing destruction of value), or how the relative harm between welfare cheats and malevolent financial types stack up.  Hell, even relative to itself: what percent of welfare dollars go to fraudulent recipients?  Knowing that any system will endure inevitable abuse, 0% is clearly unrealistic: what percent is too high, realistically?  How much would it cost to seek out and deal with welfare abusers- and if the cost is more than that lost to fraud, is it still worth it?  In other words, is your concern related to the lost money more or less than it relates to punishing welfare cheats?  Do you advocate making it more difficult to obtain and keep welfare?  That would be one readily apparent way of going about getting that result, but is that very likely to affect scammers?  Or is it more likely to affect people who genuinely need the aid?

Shit, that's a lot of questions, but I really am looking to hear more about what you think about the problem and its solution, or how much it's based on punitive desires and making cheaters pay versus cost savings.  It's like people objecting to single payer healthcare because ILLEGAL MEXICANS might somehow obtain free service when they're sick, ignoring the fact that treatment for disease = less incidents and outbreaks of disease, or that they'll just go to the ER and get treated anyway (at great cost that gets passed to everyone else), or somehow start advocating that the ER should perform credit and citizenship checks before even looking at a broken leg, all this time and money and nonsense that is less about saving money (and in fact it's more about wasting money, wasting time, putting up more roadblocks between someone and the care they need at that point in time) and more about punishing people.

Besides, you're seeing it happening, and you even know they're buying drugs.  If it bothers you so much, drop the dime.  Otherwise, you're ignoring the shit that goes wrong, right- you see fraud that the government doesn't know about, and you're facilitating their fraud by keeping quiet.  Or do you want the added expense of federal agents roaming golf courses, grilling caddies about their 1099s so you can say "I'm no rat but finally SOMEONE stepped in to give those dirty cheats what they deserve"?  I mean, really.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 10, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Fraud is always a problem anywhere, but the fraud we need to be concerned about the most isn't a handful of people taking meager government benefits while being paid under the table from someone else, but fraud perpetrated as a matter of standard practice by the deregulated financial sector, such as the fraud that directly caused the financial disaster of 2008.  Hence, the protests on Wall Street.



And frankly, the biggest welfare queens out there are corporations, even down here.

(WARNING: the following quotes are tongue-in-cheek.)


> The Left must accept that, in a country where two credit agencies have downgraded us, where the sharemarket seems munted, where a recent survey showed we have some of the worst managers in the world, a corporate welfare safety net is essential.
> 
> If the Government didn't subsidise the large inefficient private part of our no-growth economy, then it would collapse. The reality is that commercial radio simply can't survive in a commercial environment, so needs a state lifeline to top up its meagre income. It's the same with our banking, insurance and finance companies. New Zealand has an exciting new generation of financial experts who simply couldn't exist without the generous government payouts, as Treasury's recent $13m handout to consultants showed.
> [...]
> In these tough times, many left- wing commentators are engaging in corporate beneficiary bashing. But I have a lot of sympathy for this burgeoning overclass. Some CEOs are third-generation corporate-welfare recipients. Their grandfathers received generous state payouts under Muldoon's export incentive scheme, their fathers profited from the massive tax cuts that Roger Douglas(1) introduced for the wealthy, and they themselves have benefited from the raft of corporate handouts that this and the previous government have introduced. If these CEOs were thrown on to a true level playing field, it would be like Georgia(2) versus the All Blacks.



(1) Our version of Ronald Reagan, though Roger was just the Finance Minister and not the PM.

(2) That's Georgia as in "next door to Ukraine", not "US South". Though there's probably not that much difference in context with respect to rugby.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 10, 2011)

First off Bob, you're doing exactly what CF was doing and taking what I was saying out of context and trying to apply it to something much bigger than what it was meant for.  My statements were specifically contrary to the notion implied that there are no such things as people taking advantage of the system.  You're seriously over analyzing what I'm saying for whatever reason, but it's seriously a waste of effort.

Never did I bring up percentages.  Never did I imply that welfare was bad because I SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT IT WASN'T IN MY ORIGINAL POST ON THE SUBJECT.  You're trying to argue with me on the merits of welfare when I agree that it's a worthwhile system, which I can attest to it actually helping people as well as I can attest to it being abused by others.  I'm identifying a problem where abuse happens.  Do I have the best way to fix it?  Of course not, in fact any solution someone is going to come up with is going to have adverse affects in some way or isn't plausible given human error.  As Onnes already pointed out, the best solutions for tracking fraud ultimately would invade personal privacy, and if I've been a proponent of anything on here, it's privacy.

And again, in your last paragraph you're raising this notion out of nowhere that I'm suddenly trying to bang up some caddy cartel here.  Reality is I know these guys and I work with them.  I'm in no rush to throw myself into the fray because these guys are going over how they make some extra scratch in the winter or lighting up out on the course.  I personally find what they're doing ethically objectionable.  I think I'm allowed that much, aren't I?  I mean really.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 10, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> First off Bob, you're doing exactly what CF was doing and taking what I was saying out of context and trying to apply it to something much bigger than what it was meant for.  My statements were specifically contrary to the notion implied that there are no such things as people taking advantage of the system.  You're seriously over analyzing what I'm saying for whatever reason, but it's seriously a waste of effort.
> 
> Never did I bring up percentages.  Never did I imply that welfare was bad because I SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT IT WASN'T IN MY ORIGINAL POST ON THE SUBJECT.  You're trying to argue with me on the merits of welfare when I agree that it's a worthwhile system, which I can attest to it actually helping people as well as I can attest to it being abused by others.  I'm identifying a problem where abuse happens.  Do I have the best way to fix it?  Of course not, in fact any solution someone is going to come up with is going to have adverse affects in some way or isn't plausible given human error.  As Onnes already pointed out, the best solutions for tracking fraud ultimately would invade personal privacy, and if I've been a proponent of anything on here, it's privacy.
> 
> And again, in your last paragraph you're raising this notion out of nowhere that I'm suddenly trying to bang up some caddy cartel here.  Reality is I know these guys and I work with them.  I'm in no rush to throw myself into the fray because these guys are going over how they make some extra scratch in the winter or lighting up out on the course.  I personally find what they're doing ethically objectionable.  I think I'm allowed that much, aren't I?  I mean really.


 
Did you really have no larger point or argument to be made other than to assert that a non-zero number of cheats exist?  Why even post then, it should have been fairly obvious that Lacus's statement wasn't meant to be read literally as an absolute and if you're that interested in splitting hairs then it should be pointed out that she specifically said "welfare queens" which is a concept that is different from "golf caddies with sustainable income fraudulently hitting up the government for some cash on the side" ugh.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 10, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Did you really have no larger point or argument to be made other than to assert that a non-zero number of cheats exist?  Why even post then, it should have been fairly obvious that Lacus's statement wasn't meant to be read literally as an absolute and if you're that interested in splitting hairs then it should be pointed out that she specifically said "welfare queens" which is a concept that is different from "golf caddies with sustainable income fraudulently hitting up the government for some cash on the side" ugh.



Because I can.

It was on-topic and corrected an assertion that I saw was factually wrong using a piece of anecdotal evidence to back-up my point.

Don't like it?  Don't read it, brah.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 10, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Did you really have no larger point or argument to be made other than to assert that a non-zero number of cheats exist?  Why even post then, it should have been fairly obvious that Lacus's statement wasn't meant to be read literally as an absolute and if you're that interested in splitting hairs then it should be pointed out that she specifically said "welfare queens" which is a concept that is different from "golf caddies with sustainable income fraudulently hitting up the government for some cash on the side" ugh.



Come on, Lobar.  He's "just sayin'"  :V

But seriously, I don't understand why he brought it up either.  It's like interjecting "Sometimes people who drive cars drive like assholes!" into a conversation about people driving cars (Oh no, a car analogy!)  Without a further point to be made, why even say something that *everyone knows already*, let alone act surprised when such a non-directional statement is taken as driving-negative?

EDIT: i'm also pretty sure welfare queens by mythical definition don't work outside of walking to pick up a check and walking to the store to buy shit with free money- isn't the popular notion of welfare abuse all about being too lazy to get a job? :v


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 10, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Welfare is NOT THAT MUCH MONEY AND WELFARE QUEENS DO NOT EXIST. Period. Unemployment means that you must actively show that you search for jobs with the agency or you will not get your check.



Just real quick Bob and Lobar, please point out where in that statement that what's being said isn't supposed to be taken literally.  Look, she even spells out "period" to further emphasize the that there is no such thing as someone who takes in welfare money through manipulation or fraud.

Apparently not everyone knows what I brought to the table.  :V


----------



## Onnes (Oct 10, 2011)

A welfare queen is not some generic term for anyone who lies on their tax forms. It is a very specific myth about families that don't work and somehow make mega-bucks off of the now defunct US welfare system. The idea is even more absurd today because there's really no welfare system from which welfare queens could originate.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 10, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Just real quick Bob and Lobar, please point out where in that statement that what's being said isn't supposed to be taken literally.  Look, she even spells out "period" to further emphasize the that there is no such thing as someone who takes in welfare money through manipulation or fraud.
> 
> Apparently not everyone knows what I brought to the table.  :V


 
This is becoming an increasingly stupid derail, but the fact that the statement was blatantly untenable taken literally as written, coming from someone that was otherwise writing intelligently and cogently, should have been enough context to infer that she meant there was an insignificant number as opposed to literally zero.

I'd come to expect better than this from you.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 10, 2011)

Onnes said:


> A welfare queen is not some generic term for anyone who lies on their tax forms. It is a very specific myth about families that don't work and somehow make mega-bucks off of the now defunct US welfare system. The idea is even more absurd today because there's really no welfare system from which welfare queens could originate.


 
The term has also over the years been applied to those who, as I mentioned, work the system through manipulation and fraud.  Language has a tendency to evolve like that.



Lobar said:


> This is becoming an increasingly stupid derail, but the fact that the statement was blatantly untenable taken literally as written, coming from someone that was otherwise writing intelligently and cogently, should have been enough context to infer that she meant there was an insignificant number as opposed to literally zero.
> 
> I'd come to expect better than this from you.



This is also the same person we're talking about who's response to opponents is to go fuck themselves and, in my eyes, has shown to become a tad hysterical over the subject of this thread.

Given that we're dealing with written words and not speech which allows for more inflection, there was no reason for me to assume anything about her intention or hidden meaning behind what she wrote.  Usually when you write to someone you don't say "I love you" when you really mean "Go fuck yourself."

Love derailments.

Also bro, you're getting way too upset over nothing.  I think you need to try and back off for a bit.  You're attacking every little thing you're seeing as a dissenting opinion like I just called out your mom.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 10, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Just real quick Bob and Lobar, please point out where in that statement that what's being said isn't supposed to be taken literally.  Look, she even spells out "period" to further emphasize the that there is no such thing as someone who takes in welfare money through manipulation or fraud.
> 
> Apparently not everyone knows what I brought to the table.  :V



They're not saying welfare cheats do not exist, the use of the term welfare queen is a direct reference to Reagan-types who believe that welfare is mostly made up of these mythical welfare queens who sit around and don't work and eat all the time and have 12 children with another on the way receiving thousands of dollars to spend on fast food and chrome rims and big screen TVs.  It is a grossly exaggerated and in many instances overtly racist poster model for the idea of tearing down any and all welfare.  The "welfare queen" image is like posters of Germans raping American women: an inspirational icon to further a specific cause.  In the former case, it's the destruction of welfare, in the latter, it's to get people to sign up to go over to war in Europe.  Welfare queens means this specific thing; yes, Lacus is literally saying the concept of welfare queens doesn't exist in reality.  The image of welfare queen IS necessarily a welfare cheat, but a welfare cheat IS NOT necessarily a welfare queen.  What you describe are welfare cheats, and everyone understands they exist.  The people who did commit fraud that was later used as the basis for this stereotype were arrested, charged, and served years in prison, as an aside.

Also, you repeatedly say they make $1000+ dollars a week: How much of that is from the job, and how much of it is from outright welfare checks?  How sure are you that they're telling the truth?  How do I know you're telling the truth?  A thousand a week except in the winter is about $40k: there is simply no way welfare + caddy adds up to that much unless you've got 1%ers throwing around fuck you money for tips.  How sure are you that if they are committing welfare fraud that there aren't further embellishments- like a single dude claiming child dependents for extra payments?  Again, $40k.  Do you REALLY think it can possibly be that much?  Because this is really starting to sound like some garbage you're just coming up with.

$40k caddies.  Haha.  You won't see $1k/wk earnings outside of the PGA Tour. :V

EDIT: If you're referring to me about "go fuck yourself" the only reason I put that in was to echo the end of Darkwing's post.  I may have gotten heated at times but I don't recall telling anyone outright to go fuck themselves.  Please show me where I've done this.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 10, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Also, you repeatedly say they make $1000+ dollars a week: How much of that is from the job, and how much of it is from outright welfare checks?  How sure are you that they're telling the truth?  How do I know you're telling the truth?  A thousand a week except in the winter is about $40k: there is simply no way welfare + caddy adds up to that much unless you've got 1%ers throwing around fuck you money for tips.  How sure are you that if they are committing welfare fraud that there aren't further embellishments- like a single dude claiming child dependents for extra payments?  Again, $40k.  Do you REALLY think it can possibly be that much?  Because this is really starting to sound like some garbage you're just coming up with.
> 
> $40k caddies.  Haha.  You won't see $1k/wk earnings outside of the PGA Tour. :V



Guess again.

Let's say you're a caddy and you work six days a week.

Bag rates for a caddy at the course I work at is $60 plus tip.  So roughly you end up with $65-80 a bag.  You also have "forecaddie" fees for those riding a golf cart but still using a caddy.  Often you make about $30 for that.  A normal caddy day will have you working for a foursome with two walkers and two guys on a cart.  So using simple math a single round of golf (about 4 hours of work) constitutes a payday of give or take $190.  Multiply that by 6 days and you have give or take $1140 for one week.  This is not taking into account tournaments where payouts can be much higher.  That $1000/week figure is all caddy money.

You don't know much about golf do you?  :V



> EDIT: If you're referring to me about "go fuck yourself" the only reason I put that in was to echo the end of Darkwing's post.  I may have gotten heated at times but I don't recall telling anyone outright to go fuck themselves.  Please show me where I've done this.



I was not referring to you.


----------



## Rilvor (Oct 10, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You don't know much about golf do you?  :V



George Carlin (RIP) said we could use them all to build a place for the homeless, what more do you need to know? :V


----------



## Lobar (Oct 10, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> words


 
 w/e

I really just couldn't see any reason for your posts other than those that you emphatically denied, and I'm just left wondering what your point ever was.  I'm actually just laying back in bed right now killing time before I turn in for the night.  Really, all appearances point to you becoming hysterical with a sudden emotional attachment to this argument, and I think it stems from finding yourself without a safe position to backpedal to.  Anyone not emotionally invested in their position in the debate would likely have stopped trying to make something of that argument three posts or so ago and given a mea culpa.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 10, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> If you're referring to me about "go fuck yourself" the only reason I put that in was to echo the end of Darkwing's post.  I may have gotten heated at times but I don't recall telling anyone outright to go fuck themselves.  Please show me where I've done this.


He was referring to me. I personally just don't have the patience to deal with Darkwing in a more articulate and intelligent way and I've started to ignore him because he isn't worth ruffling my feathers over and making myself look overreactive.

And anyway they are right I was pretty much thinking of the exaggerated overblown bullshit that most people think of when they hear that term. I am even fairly certain I've known of a person or two like you do Term that has cheated the system in some pretty insignificant innocuous way. But this is all terribly beside the point and getting pretty off-topic.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 10, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Guess again.
> 
> Let's say you're a caddy and you work six days a week.
> 
> ...



So this isn't applying for food stamps and SSI and every other possible form of welfare and working under the table, this is taking existing unemployment benefits (that will eventually run out and couldn't be earned in the first place without a prolonged stretch of work in a UI-qualifying job) while working in a job that doesn't qualify as employment, and most of the money they're taking in is earned wages?  The only real problem I see here is if that actually qualifies as a real job, and those wages aren't reported as income.  But, you said it technically doesn't count, and you're not actually saying anything about not reporting income.  Yes, I'd prefer them to not get UI because that money needs to go to people who have lost their job and can't find new employment, but this is hardly comparable to welfare queens.  As far as issues go, this is leaning heavily toward the non side of the scale.

No, I don't know much about golf bag toter wages, sorry.  It's never come up as relevant before this conversation and probably won't be relevant afterward.  Please, tell me more about carrying large, heavy, phallic purses around a well-trimmed lawn. :V


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 10, 2011)

Lobar said:


> w/e
> 
> I really just couldn't see any reason for your posts other than those that you emphatically denied, and I'm just left wondering what your point ever was.  I'm actually just laying back in bed right now killing time before I turn in for the night.  Really, all appearances point to you becoming hysterical with a sudden emotional attachment to this argument, and I think it stems from finding yourself without a safe position to backpedal to.  Anyone not emotionally invested in their position in the debate would likely have stopped trying to make something of that argument three posts or so ago and given a mea culpa.



We just be havin' a conversation here bro.

I do what I can to not be dismissive of points which glare out at me, same as you.



			
				Bobskunk said:
			
		

> No, I don't know much about golf bag toter wages, sorry. It's never come up as relevant before this conversation and probably won't be relevant afterward. Please, tell me more about carrying large, heavy, phallic purses around a well-trimmed lawn. :V



We'll share stories as you tell me moar about the mean ol' policeman.  :V


----------



## Neuron (Oct 10, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Please, tell me more about carrying large, heavy, phallic purses around a well-trimmed lawn. :V


someone needs to sig this pretty bad.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 10, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> We'll share stories as you tell me moar about the mean ol' policeman.  :V



you fukken dork

EDIT: Oh yeah before this gets lost



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> First off Bob, you're doing exactly what CF was doing and taking what I was saying out of context and trying to apply it to something much bigger than what it was meant for. My statements were specifically contrary to the notion implied that there are no such things as people taking advantage of the system."



i took what you said out of context (negative statement about welfare abuse) and tried to apply it to something much bigger than what it was meant for (negative statement about welfare in general)
you said took what Lacus said out of context (denial of a specific stereotype of welfare abuse) and trying to apply it to something than what it was meant for (denial of any welfare abuse of any kind)

That's about where the similarities stop, in any case.

you fukken dork


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 10, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l7r216hStM1qabz2jo1_500.jpgWe'll share stories as you tell me moar about the mean ol' policeman.  :V


Tell us more about Anthony Bologna :V
The police really are clamping overaggresively down on the protesters, they're taking up space on the sidewalk so fucking what?


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 10, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Tell us more about Anthony Bologna :V
> The police really are clamping overaggresively down on the protesters, they're taking up space on the sidewalk so fucking what?



I said it once, and I'll end up saying it multiple times.

Conservatives marching with guns and numerous posters declaring their readiness for "second amendment solutions" and "watering the tree *of liberty with the blood of tyrants*" and all but announcing "we would like to use these guns to shoot and kill our liberal scumbag opposition" get favorable media coverage and to my knowledge haven't been met with violence except for I think that one dude they said was with a union and started a fight but you never know with these people.  In fact, I'm pretty sure tea partiers have assaulted more people than they have been assaulted, especially if you count rallies of self-described tea party candidates like Rand Paul.

Liberals marching with no guns and an explicit adherence to non-violence (even more important to the aims and goals of a movement when police beatings begin) and there's cordoning off, pepper spraying, kettling, and depending on what you've heard an apparent intentional misleading of a crowd in order to arrest them en masse.  Police hostility is overt, but even then it's a matter of top-down commands, and it's the white shirts that are most enthusiastic about crushing people.  Not saying the lower ranked force isn't also looking for any excuse for a little nightstick action, but, yeah.  I shudder to think what's being said in cop forums about OWS and how those people are apparently fit to carry a gun and baton and the legal force to use them at their discretion.

I may hate the tea party and the misguided anger those people hold and the sheer effort and hatred channeled into working against their own interests, but I don't wish for a horde of riotcops to crack their heads open and arrest them for resisting arrest (because blunt trauma + unhealthy middle aged person = seizure or heart attack = not calmly putting hands behind back,) yet I'm seeing a whole lot of comments along the lines of "please cops just rush forward and cave their skulls in spray them with mace until they choke to death"

Darkwing laughed at the idea that the left is basically nonexistent in this country: certainly there is no political power, the closest guy in any kind of power is Bernie Sanders.  Conservatives can protest openly, carrying firearms, disrupting meetings and the entire time they will be humored by everyone up to the president; liberals get arrested forcefully for being quiet and wearing shirts.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 10, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> I shudder to think what's being said in cop forums about OWS and how those people are apparently fit to carry a gun and baton and the legal force to use them at their discretion.


 
officer.com, a cop forum

Thread: Dirty stinky hippies in NY dont like how theyre treated when they azz up..



			
				crass cop said:
			
		

> Theres a few videos on the link. man I LOVE how OC *(pepper spray)* works wonders at clearing a sidewalk!!!
> 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...1_lnk3|98743





			
				Renske said:
			
		

> They probable have had some warnings about leaving the area. Everybody that was there should have left so there should be no complaining about being peppered or arrested or hit by a baton.





			
				JasperST said:
			
		

> Those are great, the creaming kids are a hoot. I'm going to watch some more during football breaks. I'd love to see fire hoses employed, it would clean them up and clear the streets and sidewalks for traffic. We'd miss out on the entertainment though.





			
				crass cop said:
			
		

> Yeah...I love how the chick just falls to her knees and starts screaming! I saw a guy do that when I went through the OC instructors course...it wasnt pretty





			
				mikeymedic said:
			
		

> LOL, those POOR protesters....i'll lite a candle.





			
				Marine0083 said:
			
		

> Hopefully the scent of OC covers up that pachuli oil crap.
> 
> WTF is up with that stuff anyway?





			
				reils49 said:
			
		

> I thought that NYPD Lt. did a nice takedown on that kid in the orange shirt.





			
				Jiu-Jitsu Cop said:
			
		

> I havent dropped to my knees and cried like that since the last time my Dept told me I had to work OT on a Friday night.



etc. etc. etc.


----------



## Perception (Oct 10, 2011)

Lobar said:


> officer.com, a cop forum
> 
> Thread: Dirty stinky hippies in NY dont like how theyre treated when they azz up..
> 
> etc. etc. etc.



Loael, these guys are completely nuts, just look at some of the the comments further down the page. Im actually surprised that people enjoy tackling & macing protesters... But idk if these guys are actual police, maybe they are all just wanabees?


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 10, 2011)

Ajsforg said:


> Loael, these guys are completely nuts, just look at some of the the comments further down the page. Im actually surprised that people enjoy tackling & macing protesters... But idk if these guys are actual police, maybe they are all just wanabees?



Believe me this is how cops on the internet talk amongst themselves.  Also look out for them any time an indefensible video of police brutality surfaces. The disdain for non-cop citizens drips from their every word.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 10, 2011)

I like Darkwing. Can we keep him, _pleeeaaase?_ :V



Darkwing said:


> I mean, the ones who are struggling, what is the government supposed to do about it? Increase taxes and hand over more of the people's money? I just don't believe in that, I've been hearing WAAAYYY too many stories about lazy asses mooching off welfare/unemployment checks coming from hard working taxpayer's pockets when they are well capable of getting a job themselves.
> 
> What we really need to do is figure out how to get more jobs out there for people. Especially considering the ever-increasing population. If you're gonna protest, protest the fact that we need more jobs.


What you *really* need to figure out is that equality of opportunity doesn't make itself out of nothing.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Usually when you write to someone you don't say "I love you" when you really mean "Go fuck yourself."


I love you even if you're a heartless, obnoxious scumbag. Wanna roleplay? :3c


----------



## Neuron (Oct 10, 2011)

It boggles my mind. People so fond of shouting about "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" have fallen into delusion and are not concerned that there are no longer any "bootstraps" to pull yourself up with.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Oct 10, 2011)

^ Ever hear that Joe Republican strawman? 
"His water's clean because some bleeding heart liberal fought for standards to be set", "His car is running because some PC liberal wanted cars to undergo safety ratings", "His food is labeled because some dumbass liberal didn't trust the producers to not lie to them about what's in the food", etc, then ending with him saying "I'm a self-made man"? 



Bobskunk said:


> Believe me this is how cops on the internet talk amongst themselves.  Also look out for them any time an indefensible video of police brutality surfaces. The disdain for non-cop citizens drips from their every word.



They do that because on the internet, they can get away with it. If they spoke like that where people can hear them and attach a name and a face to that voice...then they'd more likely find themselves working as a traffic guard if not flat-out fired and disbarred.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 10, 2011)

Lacus said:


> It boggles my mind. People so fond of shouting about "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" have fallen into delusion and are not concerned that there are no longer any "bootstraps" to pull yourself up with.



There was never any such goddamn thing.  The whole "bootstraps" thing is equivalent to hocus-pocus folk medicine idioms and shit, kinda like saying "feed a cold, starve a fever" or other such nonsense.  At least the "American Dream" had some basis in reality at some point in our nation's history, before it was turned into a carrot-and-stick by the wealthy to pacify and distract the lower classes from the whips at their backs.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 10, 2011)

Tycho said:


> There was never any such goddamn thing.  The whole "bootstraps" thing is equivalent to hocus-pocus folk medicine idioms and shit, kinda like saying "feed a cold, starve a fever" or other such nonsense.  At least the "American Dream" had some basis in reality at some point in our nation's history, before it was turned into a carrot-and-stick by the wealthy to pacify and distract the lower classes from the whips at their backs.


What's also pissing me off is I'm trying to point out to these middle class fucktards that maybe their kids paid their way through school, sure, but they were presented with more opportunity and economic luck to do so. They putz about calling anyone who has taken in a large student debt even for a science degree "irresponsible" and say it's all THEIR fault, they deserve it! 

The kids now can't get fucking 36,000 saved up at 2 or 3 jobs for one year at a decent college let alone fucking four. We're slowly turning back into the days where there isn't much class climbing via education and they sit there with thumbs up their asses failing to realize the middle class kids have nowhere to go when that collapses, but the fat cats' children can just up and go to another country or pay their way if they so please.

I will wring the neck of the next baby boomer that tells me about how they kicked their kids out at 18 and THEY were responsible and THEY paid for college all by themselves even though that is probably not entirely accurate or true and the examples they give me are from adults much older than I am that went to college when jobs actually existed. Also, they were probably a lot like Darkwing over there and just GIVEN a job by some family connection and feel entitled to shit.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 10, 2011)

Tycho said:


> There was never any such goddamn thing.  The whole "bootstraps" thing is equivalent to hocus-pocus folk medicine idioms and shit, kinda like saying "feed a cold, starve a fever" or other such nonsense.  At least the "American Dream" had some basis in reality at some point in our nation's history, before it was turned into a carrot-and-stick by the wealthy to pacify and distract the lower classes from the whips at their backs.


If I had to take a guess of when the american dream actually existed, I'd say... when the richest person in america didn't have megacorporations large enough to squash any competition.... So early colonial america


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 10, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> If I had to take a guess of when the american dream actually existed, I'd say... when the richest person in america didn't have megacorporations large enough to squash any competition.... So early colonial america


 
Not even then, since the people with more resources and knowledge (the colonists) used it to squash the hopes and aspirations of the lower class (the natives) for their own gain. :V


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 10, 2011)

Digitalpotato said:


> They do that because on the internet, they can get away with it. If they spoke like that where people can hear them and attach a name and a face to that voice...then they'd more likely find themselves working as a traffic guard if not flat-out fired and disbarred.


 
Sounds oddly like everyone who's ever been on the internet.  :V


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 10, 2011)

Digitalpotato said:


> They do that because on the internet, they can get away with it. If they spoke like that where people can hear them and attach a name and a face to that voice...then they'd more likely find themselves working as a traffic guard if not flat-out fired and disbarred.



You sure about that?  I would think direct violence and abuse would be more likely to harm a police officer's job than words (at least, words that don't amount to attempting to turn in a corrupt cop; Frank Serpico wasn't a fictional character) and that rarely results in termination except in extreme cases.  Like, getting caught on camera being drunk in a bar beating up and tossing around a female bartender half his size, and even then they were wavering about whether or not to fire him.  They get caught outright laughing about cracking down on people and nothing happens but MAYBE a non-apology.  Police police police, and cops never turn on a brother cop; one of the first lines in any release about a new incident coming to light is "we stand by our man."  The only thing that would happen if a cop started talking in public like they do on their psychotic message boards is someone in their department saying, "You're saying what we're all thinking!  How courageous of you, I can't wait to hear those hilariously whiny civilians cry about it now."

Also another point about that strawman paragraph is that the dude hates liberals and thinks that liberals and environmentalists and labor unions have done nothing positive for him, only made his life worse, etc. etc.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 10, 2011)

And now they're mocking the protesters :\
http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Z...1_percent_chicago_occupy_thg_111007_wmain.jpg


----------



## Lobar (Oct 10, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Not even then, since the people with more resources and knowledge (the colonists) used it to squash the hopes and aspirations of the lower class (the natives) for their own gain. :V



This seems like a perfect opportunity to link Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 10, 2011)

Oh hey http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...in-Provoking-Police-Action-in-DC-?via=siderec

A conservative "journalist" wrote a column bragging about how he was behind the Air and Space Museum stunt (that other conservative "journalists" are already pointing to as a reason OWS is a bunch of dangerous hooligans despite also being worthless hippies who do nothing but bang on drums)


----------



## Aetius (Oct 10, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> And now they're mocking the protesters :\
> http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Z...1_percent_chicago_occupy_thg_111007_wmain.jpg



Hahahhaha! Love it!

Edit: This made me lol very much.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 10, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Hahahhaha! Love it!
> 
> Edit: This made me lol very much.


On the plus side that means the opposition is starting to dig their own hole.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 10, 2011)

Holy damn, Chavez really doesn't sound that crazy.


----------



## Valence (Oct 10, 2011)

And the moral of the story is: Don't be poor.

That's all I'm getting from this anyways.

EDIT: And Bobskunk should be appointed to the office of Chief News Czar.  And I demand a career where my job title is "Ultra Janitor" just because.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 10, 2011)

Valence said:


> And the moral of the story is: Don't be poor.
> 
> That's all I'm getting from this anyways.
> 
> EDIT: And Bobskunk should be appointed to the office of Chief News *Czar*.  And I demand a career where my job title is "Ultra Janitor" just because.



what are we, a bunch of communist tsars in russia????


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 10, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> What are we, a bunch of communist tsars in *R*ussia????



Fix'd.

Also: oxymoron much?


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 10, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Fix'd.
> 
> Also: oxymoron much?



Can't find it but i remember the tea partiers making a lot of poorly spelled signs about Obama 'having more czars than the soviet union!!!'.  Never mind that 'czars' is just a nickname for cabinet advisors and that nickname has been around since, what, Nixon?  Or the minor little detail that the Communists KILLED the tsars, unless it was the same liberal plant with every one of those racist tea party signs trying to undermine the credibility of the tea party with irony.  etc.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 10, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Fix'd.
> 
> Also: oxymoron much?


Nope, tsesarevich.


----------



## Valence (Oct 10, 2011)

I'd elect Bobskunk to be my communist tsar overlord anyday.  And I could be his sidekick and "clean house" in washington.  Vote Bobskunk/Valence in 2012!  Dictator/Janitors for LYFE!

EDIT: the nice thing about these protests is that they kind of get people thinking about stuff, even if the actual protests aren't very substantive.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 10, 2011)

Off Topic: These images of Imperial Russia are really turning me on!

On Topic: To be honest, this is perhaps of the of the few protests that I actually in a way respect. Reason being is that they are: Civil, not rampant with vandals, and have at least some logic that is being used. 

This is coming from someone who is considered ultra-right on most political tests.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 10, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Off Topic: These images of Imperial Russia are really turning me on!
> 
> On Topic: To be honest, this is perhaps of the of the few protests that I actually in a way respect. Reason being is that they are: Civil, not rampant with vandals, and have at least some logic that is being used.
> 
> *This is coming from someone who is considered ultra-right on most political tests.*


I thought you were moderate. What on Earth are you holding up? D:


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 10, 2011)

Valence said:


> I'd elect Bobskunk to be my communist tsar overlord anyday.  And I could be his sidekick and "clean house" in washington.  Vote Bobskunk/Valence in 2012!  Dictator/Janitors for LYFE!


 
And I'll shall take power of the Duma and we can have ourselves the second "cold war".


Crusader Mike said:


> Off Topic: These images of Imperial Russia are really turning me on!



Do you want a picture of me, in uniform?  :V



Crusader Mike said:


> On Topic: To be honest, this is perhaps of the of the few protests that I actually in a way respect. Reason being is that they are: Civil, not rampant with vandals, and have at least some logic that is being used.
> 
> This is coming from someone who is considered ultra-right on most political tests.



Yeah but the problem with being this respectable hippy protest; is when there is ever confrontation, they're quick to back down.


----------



## Valence (Oct 10, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Yeah but the problem with being this respectable hippy protest; is when there is ever confrontation, they're quick to back down.



Haha, is that some kind of challenge?  Come on, just admit you want to see a whole crowd of people take on an impossible fight for your own amusement.

EDIT: In b4 someone gets the bright idea to "Occupy the Wealthy Suburbs".  Oh boy.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 10, 2011)

Valence said:


> Haha, is that some kind of challenge?  Come on, just admit you want to see a whole crowd of people take on an impossible fight for your own amusement.



I already saw stuff like that in Moscow, what will the difference be?  I just think _democrats_ need to grow a pair, and step up to the plate.


Valence said:


> EDIT: In b4 someone gets the bright idea to "Occupy the Wealthy Suburbs".  Oh boy.



Done and done.  I live right by, one of the wealthiest places in the Midwest.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 10, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Do you want a picture of me, in uniform?  :V


Only if I get another... in a dress. C:


----------



## Aetius (Oct 10, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Yeah but the problem with being this respectable hippy protest; is when there is ever confrontation, they're quick to back down.



At least they aren't burning cars and breaking into electronic stores. 



Commie Bat said:


> Do you want a picture of me, in uniform?  :V



There better be some fucking epaulettes >:V



Lizzie said:


> I thought you were moderate. What on Earth are you holding up? D:



I just like draconian methods when it comes to Law and Order :3c
The test marked me as far right for that : ( 

I believe in Keynesian economic models, and when it comes to most social issues I am in the middle. 
I don't align with any political party >


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 10, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Only if I get another... in a dress. C:



I don't cross-dress  >:C



Crusader Mike said:


> At least they aren't burning cars and breaking into electronic stores.



Yeah this is true.  We don't want New York to turn into London.



Crusader Mike said:


> There better be some fucking epaulettes >:V



Sorry champ.  They weren't standard issue, or part of my ceremonial outfit.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 10, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> I just like draconian methods when it comes to Law and Order :3c
> The test marked me as far right for that : (


You're horrible. >:C



> when it comes to most social issues I am in the middle.
> I don't align with any political party >


Oh, we will change that. Yes, we will...



Commie Bat said:


> I don't cross-dress  >:C


Fine, just give the uniform one. :V


----------



## Aetius (Oct 10, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> You're horrible. >:C



Damn straight, I love me a hippie beating.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 10, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Damn straight, I love me a hippie beating.


You wouldn't _dare_ to try to beat me. 

You'd "haul ass" as I've heard them say.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 10, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> You wouldn't _dare_ to try to beat me.



He's got connections now.  I've just dropped a friendly tip to OMON, they be here any minute.  :V


----------



## Aetius (Oct 10, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> He's got connections now.  I've just dropped a friendly tip to OMON, they be here any minute.  :V


Yay Secret Police! Just what this country needs!



Commie Bat said:


> Yeah this is true.  We don't want New York to turn into London.


Ohoho, I see what you did there. Then again I gotta say these protests seem booorring. 



Commie Bat said:


> Sorry champ.  They weren't standard issue, or part of my ceremonial outfit.


You said it was imperial >:V


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 10, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Yay Secret Police! Just what this country needs!


Yeah I don't think America could deal with them at the moment, nor are they secret.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h59zX_9u0b8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r5zj6wPUWU
Sad part is, they're our riot police as well.


Crusader Mike said:


> Ohoho, I see what you did there. Then again I gotta say these protests seem booorring.


 
Though do you honestly think that a violent protest is what they need at the moment?  It won't be pretty, nor will it help them spread their message.


Crusader Mike said:


> You said it was imperial >:V



Fine!  Let me get ahold of my great great great grandfather.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 10, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Though do you honestly think that a violent protest is what they need at the moment?  It won't be pretty, nor will it help them spread their message.



They make amazing TV ratings, its the reason why the Occupy protest had so much little media coverage to begin with.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 10, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> They make amazing TV ratings, its the reason why the Occupy protest had so much little media coverage to begin with.


 
Violence would hurt the movement, which is why right-wing agent provocateurs have been trying to incite it as evidenced by Bobskunk's link.

The ridiculous part is that over the past three years, literally all the horrible and embarrassing things conservative protestors have said and done have been dismissed as "false-flag attacks", despite them having no evidence of such and not having to face any real repercussions for their bad behavior anyways.  Here you have a protest that's been around for three weeks with only one incident, and it turns out it really was some conservative asshole trying to get peaceful protestors arrested or injured by police and there's fucking proof of it.  Dumbest of all, the bullshit narrative of liberal false-flag attacks being perpetrated against conservatives and not the other way around will in all likelihood continue unabated.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 10, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Violence would hurt the movement, which is why right-wing agent provocateurs have been trying to incite it as evidenced by Bobskunk's link.
> 
> The ridiculous part is that over the past three years, literally all the horrible and embarrassing things conservative protestors have said and done have been dismissed as "false-flag attacks", despite them having no evidence of such and not having to face any real repercussions for their bad behavior anyways.  Here you have a protest that's been around for three weeks with only one incident, and it turns out it really was some conservative asshole trying to get peaceful protestors arrested or injured by police and there's fucking proof of it.  Dumbest of all, the bullshit narrative of liberal false-flag attacks being perpetrated against conservatives and not the other way around will in all likelihood continue unabated.



  Yeah, Its been a pretty clean protest, and from there it might even be successful in a way.  I also love how the right keeps on calling it another "Class warfare movement" lol


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 10, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> I also love how the right keeps on calling it another "Class warfare movement"



Especially when the class war that's _actually_ been waged has been *by the rich* - and so far, they've won.



> The charge of class war is particularly obtuse. Consider simply these two facts. First, at the end of the second world war, for every dollar Washington raised in taxes on individuals, it raised $1.50 in taxes on business profits. Today, that ratio is very different: for every dollar Washington gets in taxes on individuals, it takes 25 cents in taxes on business. In short, *the last half century has seen a massive shift of the burden of federal taxation off business and onto individuals.*
> 
> Second, across those 50 years, the actual shift that occurred was the opposite of the much more modest reversal proposed this week by President Obama; over the same period, the federal income tax rate on the richest individuals fell from 91% to the current 35%. Yet, Republicans and conservatives use the term "class war" for what Obama proposes â€“ and never for what the last five decades have accomplished in shifting the tax burden from the rich and corporations to the working class.
> 
> ...


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 10, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Yeah, Its been a pretty clean protest, and from there it might even be successful in a way.  I also love how the right keeps on calling it another "Class warfare movement" lol


The protesters need to keep their cool, cause if they actually do something the right will be all over that shit, not to mention FAUXNews would be running reruns of it 24/7 for a entire month, even if it would be only one person.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 10, 2011)

see title
<-------





Mayfurr said:


> Especially when the class war that's _actually_ been waged has been *by the rich* - and so far, they've won.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Oct 10, 2011)

I feel this sums up everything now.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2011)

http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/10/8255698-new-ice-cream-flavor-fat-cat-fudge-ripple
Ben and Jerry's is making a icecream flavor in response to the protests.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 11, 2011)

The kind folks on my state's political forum are crying for the blood of hippies that break the law by camping in front of the capital.

I bit my tongue over the fact there were numerous reports of Tea Partiers in my state illegally carrying guns at protests and no one did anything and the media stayed silent about it.

I can only pray the police force does not listen to the right wingers advocating actions that seem akin to starting a civil war against those smelly hippies. I'm serious. People are asking that the police beat and mace even those who are not belligerent and plan on going home.

I'm terrified. 

But I will still go. If I get beaten or tear gassed, it only makes me stronger. I will not be silenced by brutality. I will only speak louder.

Also my police force seems a little more liberal than most. I can only hope it remains that way.

All it takes is one person who secretly disagrees with the protest to make a fool of himself for tear gas and night sticks to start flying...


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 11, 2011)

This says it all, really.


----------



## Rilvor (Oct 11, 2011)

Two pages or more of no real discussion, just angry frothing and circle-jerking. How about we keep it to updates on the protest and discussion of those events.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2011)

Here's another thing that pisses me off about how the stock market works, the stock market hasn't even opened yet and they're going, "Stocks tumble after three day rally".  Dumbass, how can it even begin tumbling before they're open for the day?
If it does it only goes to show that the media is trying to get it to fall.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Here's another thing that pisses me off about how the stock market works, the stock market hasn't even opened yet and they're going, "Stocks tumble after three day rally".  Dumbass, how can it even begin tumbling before they're open for the day?
> If it does it only goes to show that the media is trying to get it to fall.



Anything for ratings these days, its pretty sad : /


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Oct 11, 2011)

Rilvor said:


> Two pages or more of no real discussion, just angry frothing and circle-jerking. How about we keep it to updates on the protest and discussion of those events.



[yt]6cNnG8xfy20[/yt]

Compared to... 
[yt]Iu63e7QD_5k[/yt]

Welp this sums Boston up.

You know furries are shit at political discussion.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2011)

^Arresting veterans? That's just low.
The Occupy protesters need to use this their advantage on put this on the website.
The media can scoff at "hippies" protesting, but they can't get do that veterans.


Crusader Mike said:


> Anything for ratings these days, its pretty sad : /


 Before even opening bell, "Stocks slide as fear grips the nation about another recession caused by european recession".
And now that it's only 20 points only you can't even find the stories that were being ran in the morning.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 11, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> Compared to...
> 
> 
> Welp this sums Boston up.
> ...



Echoes.  I don't think any police department today would dare have a serious repeat of Bloody Sunday lest riots break out, but the same mentality that pervaded police forces then is still seen now.  Contempt and thuggery.  Also, fuck Alabama.


----------



## Itakirie (Oct 11, 2011)

One second whilst I compare America to ancient Rome. :^
Ancient Rome had class wars, America has class wars in the form of protests. In a way, I almost wish that they could go around lighting the fat cats homes up. Keyword there is _almost._ 

Okay, comparison done.



Rilvor said:


> Two pages or more of no real discussion, just angry frothing and circle-jerking. How about we keep it to updates on the protest and discussion of those events.



You should know by now that that's impossible. 

Also...that cop forum. *shudder*
That's just sickening.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2011)

Itakirie said:


> One second whilst I compare America to ancient Rome. :^
> Ancient Rome had class wars, America has class wars in the form of protests. In a way, I almost wish that they could go around lighting the fat cats homes up. Keyword there is _almost._
> 
> Okay, comparison done.
> ...


Rome fell for multiple reasons, trying to pin it on one single cause for the reason of rome falling would be inaccurate.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 11, 2011)

Last night, cops raided and arrested protesters in Boston, just a bunch of riot cops moving in immediately when it was dark, kicking everyone out, arresting everyone, with big garbage trucks to throw out all tents and signs and supplies.  Huge crackdown going on there, hearing stuff about Seattle and St. Louis raids with apparent coordination- it all went down Monday night.

http://gothamist.com/2011/10/11/videos_mass_arrests_at_occupy_bosto.php Video autoplays, fair warning.  Also the "veterans for peace" people that joined up got beaten down and arrested too.

Boston is the one with clear confirmation, and Kitstaa already covered that with an earlier video.

EDIT: don't forget rome's overextension w/r/t wars and using mercenaries to control those wars and not even bothering to maintain the bread and circuses that had otherwise distracted the poor of the state from being screwed

fart


----------



## Itakirie (Oct 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Rome fell for multiple reasons, trying to pin it on one single cause for the reason of rome falling would be inaccurate.



Wasn't trying to. Just stating a really random comparison there.



Bobskunk said:


> Last night, cops raided and arrested protesters in Boston, just a bunch of riot cops moving in immediately when it was dark, kicking everyone out, arresting everyone, with big garbage trucks to throw out all tents and signs and supplies.  Huge crackdown going on there, hearing stuff about Seattle and St. Louis raids with apparent coordination- it all went down Monday night.
> 
> http://gothamist.com/2011/10/11/videos_mass_arrests_at_occupy_bosto.php Video autoplays, fair warning.  Also the "veterans for peace" people that joined up got beaten down and arrested too.
> Boston is the one with clear confirmation, and Kitstaa already covered that with an earlier video.



That is wrong.
Humanity, what the hell is wrong with you? And what the fuck is wrong with the police department?
I saw a picture of someone with a sign saying "you know, the people who killed the Jews in the holocaust were just following orders." 
They don't have to do that. And personally, if I was a cop, I think I'd quit my job right then and there.

Wait, I forgot. Most cops don't seem to have morals or ethics. Nor do they seem to become cops so they can actually do what they are supposed to and protect people.

Herpderp.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 11, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Last night, cops raided and arrested protesters in Boston, just a bunch of riot cops moving in immediately when it was dark, kicking everyone out, arresting everyone, with big garbage trucks to throw out all tents and signs and supplies.  Huge crackdown going on there, hearing stuff about Seattle and St. Louis raids with apparent coordination- it all went down Monday night.
> 
> http://gothamist.com/2011/10/11/videos_mass_arrests_at_occupy_bosto.php Video autoplays, fair warning.  Also the "veterans for peace" people that joined up got beaten down and arrested too.
> 
> ...



Sounds like shit is getting down.


----------



## Itakirie (Oct 11, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> EDIT: don't forget rome's overextension w/r/t wars and using mercenaries to control those wars and not even bothering to maintain the bread and circuses that had otherwise distracted the poor of the state from being screwed
> 
> fart



OH YEAH I FORGOT ABOUT THAT.
Thanks for reminding so I don't fail my history test this week. :V


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 11, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Sounds like shit is getting down.



Because the solution to a protest is to send a wall of hundreds of cops to move in and apply some wood shampoo.  It's especially bad when they try to cut it off at the start, so they can have riot coprotestor ratios akin to that of public school student:teacher :v  For all my rhetoric about hanging every wall street tycoon in the entrails of every cop sworn to defend them over everyone else, I really hope they maintain non-violence.  The more cops beat on non-violent, non-resisting protesters, the stronger the cause gets, despite this image appealing sexually to the many sociopaths that occupy and distort the structure of this country.

This never happened to the tea party, bootlicking authoritarian sycophants they are (except when it comes to paying taxes)


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Sounds like shit is getting down.


Oh shit! Lacus was going to join one of these Occupy protests!
Anyone know how to message her quick?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh shit! Lacus was going to join one of these Occupy protests!
> Anyone know how to message her quick?



No word of a raid on Occupy Denver yet that I'm aware of.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh shit! Lacus was going to join one of these Occupy protests!
> Anyone know how to message her quick?



She's got contact info and on her FA page she said she wanted to go yesterday but couldn't.  That journal was posted before the crackdown, so I think she missed that (unless she snuck out and got out there anyway)

On the other hand, no activity on FAF or FA since around 2 AM last night.  Let's hope all is well.  ALSO: What Lobar said.  I didn't hear anything about Denver.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 11, 2011)

Occupy STL is missing out on all this gratuitous violence.  Spare a CS grenade or two?


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 11, 2011)

Everything in Texas has been quiet. Last I've heard is that Austin and Dallas are still going, Houston might be too. I'm not sure about San Antonio and El Paso. Word is that police have been fairly diplomatic in all those cities.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> She's got contact info and on her FA page she said she wanted to go yesterday but couldn't.  That journal was posted before the crackdown, so I think she missed that (unless she snuck out and got out there anyway)
> 
> On the other hand, no activity on FAF or FA since around 2 AM last night.  Let's hope all is well.  ALSO: What Lobar said.  I didn't hear anything about Denver.


Let's hope everything is alright cause considering the police have been trying to keep a media blackout, for all we know this shit may have gone down in other cities that we don't know about yet.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 11, 2011)

Damn you shity media!  I want to know what's going on around, not about random crap no one cares about, which isn't even news to begin with.
Stop making crap up, to fill in your time-slot, show us the truth.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Damn you shity media!  I want to know what's going on around, not about random crap no one cares about, which isn't even news to begin with.
> Stop making crap up, to fill in your time-slot, show us the truth.


"Tonight on CNN you wanted to hear about the occupy protests?  We got something even better, something mind blowing!  Snooki is now even more tan!"


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 11, 2011)

If anyone's in STL I got a video feed from an observation truck so I'll keep you up to date if I can.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 11, 2011)

From what I heard Occupy Los Angeles is pretty peaceful, but there have been a few arrests mostly due to trespassing on bank property.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> "Tonight on CNN you wanted to hear about the occupy protests?  We got something even better, something mind blowing!  Snooki is now even more tan!"



Exactly, and it's F-ing annoying.

I got an e-mail from my sister, saying I better not be in those protests.
I'm like; how in the Hell do you get all this information, and I'm left in the dark.  It's just pissing me off.

So pardon, If i'm acting quite immature.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 11, 2011)

fucking hell

my mother asks me "why do you let this stuff get you so angry"

I want to yell HOW DOES IT *NOT* MAKE YOU FURIOUS to know that this shit is happening, how can you be CALM when you see and hear this shit

any decent person with a pulse should be mad as hell about this, dammit


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 11, 2011)

Tycho said:


> fucking hell
> 
> my mother asks me "why do you let this stuff get you so angry"
> 
> ...



Because it doesn't directly affect them in a way they can perceive, and they feel that that's just the way the world is and should be.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 11, 2011)

Google 53%, all you will find is pictures of people who are apparently in love with the bars of their cages.  Jesus christ.


----------



## Littlerock (Oct 11, 2011)

I literally only just heard about this entire fiasco _yesterday_, when my local news station did a ten-second blurb about '...those silly hippies are planning to stay their protest down to the very second! Hahaha'.


----------



## KaelenWolf100 (Oct 11, 2011)

Most of the protesters were for real being attacked but 20% of them were wanting to get arrested and exagerating the 'assults'


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Oct 11, 2011)

KaelenWolf100 said:


> Most of the protesters were for real being attacked but 20% of them were wanting to get arrested and exagerating the 'assults'


 
[citation needed]


----------



## Neuron (Oct 11, 2011)

I went and the cops did not bother me, but you guys must have been worrying up a storm and I can see why! Holy shit! The raids on Denver will probably happen tonight or tomorrow night. I'm technically not camping but I could easily get in trouble for defending one of the many friends I made today that are camping. I'm so worried about this now because I was going around giving out food and talking to people and meeting all kinds of people. I gave a few campers my number, so if Toshi gets sent to jail he'll probably find a way to tell me.

What they have been doing is they have been ripping off the stashes of all medical marijuana patients that are in compliance with the under two ounces law here and saying that their papers don't matter. Even those not blatantly smoking at all. If you're in Cali or Colorado, DO NOT BRING THAT SHIT EVEN IF YOU'RE TECHNICALLY LEGAL. They don't care anymore.

I heard rumors of some scuffles with police officers happening today. There is also a couple of creepy men harassing young women around there and I want the cops to pay more attention to them and not the campers.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2011)

Hey Lacus I got a idea, rather than stay with the people in protest, just kinda be off to the side secretly blending in with the non-protesters and if the police do a crackdown record it secretly off in the distance and put it on youtube and link us to it.
If you know a crackdown is coming you can avoid it and get proof of police brutality.
Is there anywhere you can stake out inconspicuously?


----------



## Onnes (Oct 11, 2011)

How high do you have to be to think that it's a good idea to bring weed to a possible police confrontation?


----------



## Neuron (Oct 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Hey Lacus I got a idea, rather than stay with the people in protest, just kinda be off to the side secretly blending in with the non-protesters and if the police do a crackdown record it secretly off in the distance and put it on youtube and link us to it.


You'll see it if it happens. A lot of people other than me already had that idea, including all the local media. They're hovering around the area like blood thirsty attention starved sharks. Lots of photographers looking for local fame that was there, I met one of the local musicians that's kinda well known around here that they were looking for. He's getting annoyed because he's avoided them for awhile and today they started to catch on to him.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 11, 2011)

May America's police forces overreact as they always do, and accidentally recreate Kent State, and plunge this nation into sheer, unadulterated rebellion.

There is dissent on the Right, and on the Left. And then the Centrists would be pissed, too.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 11, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> May America's police forces overreact as they always do, and accidentally recreate Kent State, and plunge this nation into sheer, unadulterated rebellion.


 
The fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 11, 2011)

Lobar said:


> The fuck is wrong with you?



I assume he's an anarchist.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I assume he's an anarchist.


You're close.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> You're close.



Anarcho-capitalist then?


----------



## Neuron (Oct 11, 2011)

If they arrest those old veterans tonight I am going to be so fucking angry.

They are the sweetest old men ever and they were so cool to me.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2011)

Lacus said:


> If they arrest those old veterans tonight I am going to be so fucking angry.
> 
> They are the sweetest old men ever and they were so cool to me.


 Hopefully the media will capture footage of it, nobody no matter their political views can defend arresting old veterans.
If they do make sure you capture that shit on camera.


Commie Bat said:


> Anarcho-capitalist then?


Tea Party


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 11, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Google 53%, all you will find is pictures of people who are apparently in love with the bars of their cages.  Jesus christ.


 
Oh man, the pathological reasoning behind it is even worse.  "We are the 53% that PAYS TAXES and we are against the 47% WHO ARE FREELOADERS" when it's really "We are the 53% who make enough to qualify to pay federal income taxes* while 47% don't make enough to do so!"  Those lucky duckies, having such low income and living high on the hog..  Maybe they should raise the tax rate on the lowest bracket to 100% and lower it to 0% for the highest bracket: that will certainly motivate people to stop being poor, as well as make sure everyone pays their fair share!

Just more of the same from the people who seem to choose their positions out of spite or whether or not it "pisses off some libruls" or whatever.  Such a waste.

*Note, fairly good chance of a decent number of these people being part of the 47% that don't make enough to pay income tax (though they, and everyone else, certainly pay other taxes, most of them regressive)


----------



## Rex Aeterna (Oct 11, 2011)

i heard about this all over fox like couple nights ago and i thought hippies died in the 70's? i guess not.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 11, 2011)

Rex Aeterna said:


> i heard about this all over fox like couple nights ago and i thought hippies died in the 70's? i guess not.



get out nerd


----------



## Aleu (Oct 12, 2011)

Rex Aeterna said:


> i heard about this all over fox like couple nights ago and i thought hippies died in the 70's? i guess not.



like, it's not the time period, but the state of mind myaaaaan.


----------



## Valence (Oct 12, 2011)

Aleu said:


> like, it's not the time period, but the state of mind myaaaaan.



We are safe from the houligans in our FAF forgress together.  :V


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 12, 2011)

KaelenWolf100 said:


> Most of the protesters were for real being attacked but 20% of them were wanting to get arrested and exagerating the 'assults'


 


HyBroMcYenapants said:


> [citation needed]



Going by this article, if that 20% exist at all they'll be conservative _'agents provocateurs'_ intending to deliberately stir up confrontation in order to discredit the protesters...



			
				The Guardian said:
			
		

> *A conservative US news magazine has come under fire after one of its journalists boasted of being an agent provocateur at a clash between protesters and security guards in Washington.*
> 
> The incident, in which guards used pepper spray on protesters trying to enter the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, was widely reported to be linked to the Occupy Wall Street protests.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lobar (Oct 12, 2011)

so I registered on the OWS forum to talk some Keynesian sense, I'm "pinardilla" there, if anyone else registers there to help out post itt


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 12, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Hopefully the media will capture footage of it, nobody no matter their political views can defend arresting old veterans.
> If they do make sure you capture that shit on camera.
> 
> Tea Party



The Tea party started out as a libertarian movement, and became filled with christians and fascists in much the same way that the Occupy Wall Street movement started out as a libertarian socialist protest that was inundated with Communists of the worst variety (maoists and social democrats).

I don't want anybody to be hurt by the police, but if it happens, it justifies action by the people to work to punish or abolish the police. The protests started out against corporate influence in our government, and thus they should focus on berating the government and the agents responsible for passing laws which favour corporations and politicians. Once you've taken on the government, and you've won, then the snake has been beheaded, and shall soon wither and die.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, because it's the only form of anarchy that could possibly be attained without attempting to change human nature, and because anarcho-syndicalist and anarcho-communist systems could also exist within the framework of an anarcho-capitalist society (think worker's cooperatives in Yugoslavia and China).


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 13, 2011)

Bunch of graphs and honest insight from Business Insider, of all places

It's starting to be taken seriously, and most of the remaining people who still say "get a job hippies," aside from being part of the 99% of victims that OWS is ultimately fighting for, are either paid to be shrill and unyielding opposition (FNC) or just goddamn crazy (Victoria Jackson)


----------



## Lobar (Oct 13, 2011)

I saw an article about a meeting to start up a local Occupy movement in my small city, so I went last night to check it out.  I was concerned because I was by far the youngest to show up out of about 30, but they turned out be mainly a group of cool old-guard liberals and unionizers and not teabaggers.  One of the local news stations showed up and we got a few minutes of coverage on last night's news, so hopefully we have even more turnout at the next meeting.

A lot of guys were aware of the Glass-Steagall Act that kept all the financial sector's bullshit in check before its protections started being broken down by Republican legislation, which gives me hope that that is going to be a key rallying point in the future.  On the other hand, in some history-of-the-movement materials the main organizer had printed out and provided, there was a list of seven key points, one of which was abolishing the Federal Reserve (bleh), restoring its powers to the Department of the Treasure (that makes it OK I guess), and pegging the Dollar to a commodity (uh-oh).  I'm going to research and study economics, particularly MMT, a post-Keynesian model that looks into the advantages of a fiat currency, and then try to bring some people around on it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 13, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I saw an article about a meeting to start up a local Occupy movement in my small city, so I went last night to check it out.  I was concerned because I was by far the youngest to show up out of about 30, but they turned out be mainly a group of cool old-guard liberals and unionizers and not teabaggers.  One of the local news stations showed up and we got a few minutes of coverage on last night's news, so hopefully we have even more turnout at the next meeting.
> 
> A lot of guys were aware of the Glass-Steagall Act that kept all the financial sector's bullshit in check before its protections started being broken down by Republican legislation, which gives me hope that that is going to be a key rallying point in the future.  On the other hand, in some history-of-the-movement materials the main organizer had printed out and provided, there was a list of seven key points, one of which was abolishing the Federal Reserve (bleh), restoring its powers to the Department of the Treasure (that makes it OK I guess), and pegging the Dollar to a commodity (uh-oh).  I'm going to research and study economics, particularly MMT, a post-Keynesian model that looks into the advantages of a fiat currency, and then try to bring some people around on it.


I'm trying to get something started on my end as well, I've been handing out fliers, but Waco views Reagan greater than God and would sooner believe the bible to be incorrect than reagonomics :\


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 13, 2011)

Bloomberg's trying to shut it down, evicting everyone so the park can be cleaned up with added regulations to ban sleeping bags, tarps, etc.  In response, the movement is going to clean up the park for NYC, if cleanliness is the real issue.  We'll see how that goes.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 13, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Bloomberg's trying to shut it down, evicting everyone so the park can be cleaned up with added regulations to ban sleeping bags, tarps, etc.  In response, the movement is going to clean up the park for NYC, if cleanliness is the real issue.  We'll see how that goes.


Player ID:
Bloomberg
Username:
P00rsux0rs
*achievement unlocked: "Digging your own hole"*

Well now we know wallstreet doesn't run on brainpower, if Bloomberg does this he's just going to end up causing the Occupy protests to gain support.  Especially considering it's New York, that shit will be all over the internet.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 13, 2011)

Yeah, it's a backdoor runaround kind of way to shut down the protest.  "Oh,we're not preventing you from protesting!  We're just, you know, trying to keep the park clean!"

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/10/12/occupy.wall.street/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Defending the bankers, too, since he is after all one of them.  Wonderful guy. :V

EDIT: http://www.observer.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-responds-to-bloombergs-eviction-notice/ The eviction notice is posted here.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 13, 2011)

There's an Occupy Norfolk meetup that has been going on for awhile now. They've had marches, some rallies, and camp-outs in the financial district. Most of them are many people that I know that are doing it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 13, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Yeah, it's a backdoor runaround kind of way to shut down the protest.  "Oh,we're not preventing you from protesting!  We're just, you know, trying to keep the park clean!"
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/10/12/occupy.wall.street/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
> 
> ...


What bloomberg doesn't realize is that the protesters have set up cameras to use for livestreams and that, it'll fucking destroy the opposition to have the police arresting everyone and tearing shit up while the cameras are rolling.  So that'd be a fucking stupid move on his and the police's part.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 14, 2011)

The Governor of my state dropped by the occupy protests to say hi and what the hell can I do to get you the hell off my lawn?

I would be mad about people peeing in my bushes too.

They set a deadline for 11 PM last night. I was still sleeping and woke up around 12 AM. Shit may have gone down.

Toshi can probably only call me if he gets arrested and I think he was aware of the information circulating around that raids are coming. I wanted to go and warn him to think about getting out but he was gone when I got there. Everyone told me he was missing since the previous night and I was all freaking out and worried, luckily I found out from someone else that he was just acquiring his backpack from somewhere. If he gets arrested his stuff might get taken, so we'll see if he can or not.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 14, 2011)

Lacus said:


> The Governor of my state dropped by the occupy protests to say hi and what the hell can I do to get you the hell off my lawn?
> 
> I would be mad about people peeing in my bushes too.
> 
> ...



Just saw on CNN that Denver riot police did come in and start dismantling tents.  They didn't mention arrests.

Stay safe, Lacus.


----------



## TreacleFox (Oct 14, 2011)

I heard on the news about this stuff spreading to Australia.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 14, 2011)

TreacleFox said:


> I heard on the news about this stuff spreading to Australia.


 It's Occupy Brisbane if I'm not mistaken.


Lobar said:


> Just saw on CNN that Denver riot police did come in and start dismantling tents.  They didn't mention arrests.
> 
> Stay safe, Lacus.


Yeah Lacus, the police are cracking down at night to try and avoid a media frenzy.  Don't camp there though, otherwise you might wake up with a police baton in your face.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Yeah Lacus, the police are cracking down at night to try and avoid a media frenzy.  Don't camp there though, otherwise you might wake up with a police baton in your face.


It sounds like they just dismantled a lot of tents and told the original group, which is the part my friend Toshi is in to get out. Toshi was one of the ones that was arguing when it was suggested he get out the first time though so I am concerned about him. 2 missed calls this morning from a number I don't recognize, going to check my voicemails now. If someone got sent to fucking jail I would imagine they'd leave me a voicemail. Denver police are saying they only made arrests for a second group of protestors that only showed up recently, and I think I know who they were talking about, bunch of skin heads and no good radicals...


----------



## Neuron (Oct 14, 2011)

Lots of people arrested at the Denver area protests be careful and write numbers you need on your body. They take all your belongings when they arrest you and no one could call me because of that.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 14, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Lots of people arrested at the Denver area protests be careful and write numbers you need on your body. They take all your belongings when they arrest you and no one could call me because of that.


There's talks of NYPD might do this as well in New York.
I hope they caught the arrests on camera to end up on the media.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> There's talks of NYPD might do this as well in New York.
> I hope they caught the arrests on camera to end up on the media.



According to CNN, many of the arrests were due to people sitting in the middle of roadways to block traffic, overturning trash bins, and hurling bottles.

And the one demonstrator who stuck his legs underneath a police motorcycle to make it seem like he'd been purposely run over, only to lift his legs up and try to kick it over.

Great jorb.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 14, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> According to CNN, many of the arrests were due to people sitting in the middle of roadways to block traffic, overturning trash bins, and hurling bottles.
> 
> And the one demonstrator who stuck his legs underneath a police motorcycle to make it seem like he'd been purposely run over, only to lift his legs up and try to kick it over.
> 
> Great jorb.



Link to the article please? I'd like to read it.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 14, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Link to the article please? I'd like to read it.


 
The CNN article.

Best part is the the guy, Ari Douglas, who faked the injury is part of the National Lawyers Guild advising OWS.

Someone apparently didn't give this guy the memo that maybe you shouldn't try to frame a police officer the day after your movement is gaining some real legitimacy.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 14, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Link to the article please? I'd like to read it.



Completely unsurprising that this is what brought you back to this thread.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 14, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Completely unsurprising that this is what brought you back to this thread.


And as predictable as the deficit.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 14, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The CNN article.
> 
> Best part is the the guy, Ari Douglas, who faked the injury is part of the National Lawyers Guild advising OWS.
> 
> Someone apparently didn't give this guy the memo that maybe you shouldn't try to frame a police officer the day after your movement is gaining some real legitimacy.



I was expecting a story like this to come up. 



Lobar said:


> Completely unsurprising that this is what brought you back to this thread.



Look, right now, I'm neutral about the protest. I think how a few of the protesters want the rich to get taxed a little more, going to getting us more jobs, is well-intentioned. However I dislike that it appears that the majority want some sort of socialist, communistic or anarchist reform. If the protesters have a bad image don't expect to NOT get criticized.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 14, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> However I dislike that it appears that the majority want some sort of socialist, communistic or anarchist reform. If the protesters have a bad image don't expect to NOT get criticized.


It's physically impossible for someone to be socialist and communist.
Also hate to break it to you, but the USA has had socialist laws in place for well over a hundred years.
For example, free education, that technically falls under socialism.
The reason why the USA has socialist laws is that sometimes the alternative to socialist laws is horrifying that it keeps politicians up at night hoping nobody repeals it.
For example to continue the free education bit, Japan doesn't have free education, as a result most people there are hesitant to have kids cause of the costs to put them through school, and as a result their birth rate has gone to utter shit and their civilization is getting older with fewer and fewer young people to work in the workforce.
*psst* sometimes socialism isn't a bad thing when the alternative will destroy your country eventually *psst*


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> It's physically impossible for someone to be socialist and communist.



I never combined the two >.> Note the comma and the or, setting all three terms seperately because they are all indeed different. 

"socialist*,* communistic *or* anarchist reform"



CannonFodder said:


> Also hate to break it to you, but the USA has had socialist laws in place for well over a hundred years.
> For example, free education, that technically falls under socialism.
> The reason why the USA has socialist laws is that sometimes the  alternative to socialist laws is horrifying that it keeps politicians up  at night hoping nobody repeals it.
> For example to continue the free education bit, Japan doesn't have free  education, as a result most people there are hesitant to have kids cause  of the costs to put them through school, and as a result their birth  rate has gone to utter shit and their civilization is getting older with  fewer and fewer young people to work in the workforce.
> *psst* sometimes socialism isn't a bad thing when the alternative will destroy your country eventually *psst*



Good point. But free Education isn't technically free though I think, considering that it comes out of our taxes. But yeah, education is free here in the US to give everyone an opportunity to pursue a job. I assume that's why people from other countries immigrate here. 

I could go into healthcare and shit with the whole socialism thing. Buuut tbh I remain neutral about it in most aspects. Socialism has good intentions, but America has grown by self-sufficiency, and I don't believe in government taking care of every aspect of our lives.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 14, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I Good point. But free Education isn't technically free though I think, considering that it comes out of our taxes. But yeah, education is free here in the US to give everyone an opportunity to pursue a job. I assume that's why people from other countries immigrate here.



Possibly, but  usually not, aka economy, social, or to leave because thay have to.  They immigrate for a lot of complex reasons, but education isn't always that high on the list.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 14, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I never combined the two >.> Note the comma and the or, setting all three terms seperately because they are all indeed different.
> 
> "socialist*,* communistic *or* anarchist reform"
> 
> ...


Good thing you didn't combine the three, cause far too many times I've seen people not understanding the differences.

I know it comes from our taxes, but using taxes in order to fund a program that people can get in other places as well falls under socialism.  By using our taxes to fund education, when a student can go to a private school though falls under the socialism umbrella.

Alot of countries that don't have free education are in the shitter, so yeah that's one of the times that socialism is a good thing.

Using blanket democracy or blanket socialism or blanket communism for any policy in a country is just stupid.  America compared to most other countries have a hard on when it comes to democracy, but take for example the stock market fundamentally people are emotional beings and the stock market functions on primal instict of greed, yet they rationalize it as, "well people are rational with their money" in order to justify less regulations.  But look at the shit hole that got us into, the fundamental problem is the people trading stocks want money and will fuck anybody and everybody over for that money, often times taking absurd risks like during the housing bubble.

In a perfect world pure democracy would work, but just like pure socialism and pure communism it doesn't work that well as a blanket policy.


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 14, 2011)

TreacleFox said:


> I heard on the news about this stuff spreading to Australia.



Canada is joining the movement tomorrow.  Confirmed cities are Vancouver, and Toronto.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 14, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> Canada is joining the movement tomorrow.  Confirmed cities are Vancouver, and Toronto.


Woot, it's becoming a international societal movement.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Good thing you didn't combine the three, cause far too many times I've seen people not understanding the differences.



Same here, I see that a lot from Republicans and it's aggravating >.< 



CannonFodder said:


> I know it comes from our taxes, but using taxes in order to fund a  program that people can get in other places as well falls under  socialism.  By using our taxes to fund education, when a student can go  to a private school though falls under the socialism umbrella.
> 
> Alot of countries that don't have free education are in the shitter, so  yeah that's one of the times that socialism is a good thing.
> 
> ...



That's a good point Cannon and I agree with you how people take absurd risks to make money, I've seen that a lot with housing and gold/metals and stuff. As with stocks, I know people from the stock exchange, they are all rich as fuck lol. Never met a person who went broke from it, not saying that's not possible though. 

But what kind of regulations do you think we need to help our country become more financially stable?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 14, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Same here, I see that a lot from Republicans and it's aggravating >.<
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Honestly I don't have a fucking clue cause the vast majority of the people not giving a fuck if they destroy someone's lifesavings for a quick buck are all united together cause more regulations even if it's easy shit would mean less ability for them to take absurd risks.
You'd have to ask a behavioral economist, but the problem is for the last half century we've relied on mathematical economists to make our laws for us.
It'd be the equivalent of having the KKK make what the law qualifies as a hate crime.
And not to mention behavioral economists are outright demonized by their peers, if we had a behavioral economist in charge of the FED you would see the entirety of Wall Street throw themselves on the floor and having a fucking tantrum like a child and screaming profanities and calling the FED satan, hitler and everything imaginable.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 14, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> But what kind of regulations do you think we need to help our country become more financially stable?



Number one reason for most countries; foreign adventurism and military budget.  Stop it and lowering it, generally helps immensely.

Other prominent reasons include;
1 ) Managing of resources.
2 ) Distributing of money (not in a communistic sense).
3 ) Corruption.
4 ) Social spending.
5 ) Ridiculous spending plans.
6 ) Industrial strength.
7 ) Self-sufficiency.
8 ) Massive projects that serve no purpose. 
 9 ) Terrible politcians that have their own agenda.

These all need to be taken care of, and managed effectivley for you to see any change in the economy.
The list can go one for a lot longer, but those are the main issues for most countries anyway.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Honestly I don't have a fucking clue cause the vast majority of the people not giving a fuck if they destroy someone's lifesavings for a quick buck are all united together cause more regulations even if it's easy shit would mean less ability for them to take absurd risks.
> You'd have to ask a behavioral economist, but the problem is for the last half century we've relied on mathematical economists to make our laws for us.
> It'd be the equivalent of having the KKK make what the law qualifies as a hate crime.
> And not to mention behavioral economists are outright demonized by their peers, if we had a behavioral economist in charge of the FED you would see the entirety of Wall Street throw themselves on the floor and having a fucking tantrum like a child and screaming profanities and calling the FED satan, hitler and everything imaginable.



That's true. 

Though I meant what do *you* think would make our country financially stable, not what everyone else would think. 

I'm just trying to get an idea what regulations specifically these protesters want. I mean I know the protest is about the lacking of jobs, and how shit our economy is, but what actions would be taken if this protest succeeds?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 14, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Number one reason for most countries; foreign adventurism and military budget.  Stop it and lowering it, generally helps immensely.
> 
> Other prominent reasons include, managing of resources, distributing of money (not in a communistic sense), corruption, social spending, ridiculous spending plans, industrial strength, self-sufficiency massive projects that serve no purpose.  These all need to be taken care of, and managed effectivley for you to see any change in the economy.
> 
> The list can go one for a lot longer, but those are the main issues for most countries anyway.


The problem with the military is we're in what the military calls a, "death spiral".  We keep spending more and more on more expensive weapons.
We can get out of the death spiral by developing UAV's and unmanned aircraft to the point we no longer need pilots and we can further reduce spending with unmanned tanks.
Further money can be saved if we have light unmanned ground support vehicles for our soldiers, so that instead of having to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers in a war, we can send only a couple ten thousand soldiers with most of them being support units for mechanical maintenance.
Further money can be saved with brain machine interfaces between the soldiers and light ground support vehicles to effectively remove the need for the soldiers to even do anything.
Further money can be saved with support vehicles to transport and reload the ammunition that are autonomous.
Also the wars can be cut shorter with having facial recognition in the warzone so that if a enemy combatant runs and later on soldiers run into the person and don't know it, the machines will give a redflag to detain said person.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 14, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> That's true.
> 
> Though I meant what do *you* think would make our country financially stable, not what everyone else would think.
> 
> I'm just trying to get an idea what regulations specifically these protesters want. I mean I know the protest is about the lacking of jobs, and how shit our economy is, but what actions would be taken if this protest succeeds?


Mainly what I want out this protest is for Obama to get his act together and prevent the economy from going downhill again.  That's all I expect out of Obama is for him to keep it from going downhill again.
In all probability the next recession will be over growing tuition rates, so if I had to pick one single thing it would be for him to increase government funding towards public colleges.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The problem with the military is we're in what the military calls a, "death spiral".  We keep spending more and more on more expensive weapons.
> We can get out of the death spiral by developing UAV's and unmanned aircraft to the point we no longer need pilots and we can further reduce spending with unmanned tanks.
> Further money can be saved if we have light unmanned ground support vehicles for our soldiers, so that instead of having to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers in a war, we can send only a couple ten thousand soldiers with most of them being support units for mechanical maintenance.
> Further money can be saved with brain machine interfaces between the soldiers and light ground support vehicles to effectively remove the need for the soldiers to even do anything.
> ...



Sounds good to me, more unmanned units means less casualties as well. Though I'm wondering if that's feasible.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 14, 2011)

I made a cleaner version.



CannonFodder said:


> The problem with the military is we're in what the military calls a, "death spiral".  We keep spending more and more on more expensive weapons.
> We can get out of the death spiral by developing UAV's and unmanned aircraft to the point we no longer need pilots and we can further reduce spending with unmanned tanks.
> Further money can be saved if we have light unmanned ground support vehicles for our soldiers, so that instead of having to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers in a war, we can send only a couple ten thousand soldiers with most of them being support units for mechanical maintenance.
> Further money can be saved with brain machine interfaces between the soldiers and light ground support vehicles to effectively remove the need for the soldiers to even do anything.
> ...



Okay,  UV's are nice to have in the field, but the cost to develop them, and use them is astronomical.  Currently they ground versions are quite ineffective, and are prone to mechanical breakdowns.  The terrain and climate also pose a huge disadvantage to them.

Though a lot of this technology is still far off; I meant in terms of, reduction of force size, removal of military installations, and finally, trying not to get involved in affairs that don't affect you nor your allies.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Mainly what I want out this protest is for Obama to get his act together and prevent the economy from going downhill again.  That's all I expect out of Obama is for him to keep it from going downhill again.
> In all probability the next recession will be over growing tuition rates, so if I had to pick one single thing it would be for him to increase government funding towards public colleges.



Oh yes. I've been hearing a little here and there about another recession rearing it's ugly head again. I'm worried about weather or not businesses will be affected.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 14, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I made a cleaner version.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I know this, the problem is the government needs to pop the clutch from normal speed of military technology development to ludicrous speed, we've done it in the past but that's cause it was either adapt to new fields of combat or lose.


Darkwing said:


> Sounds good to me, more unmanned units means less casualties as well. Though I'm wondering if that's feasible.


As of right now no.


Darkwing said:


> Oh yes. I've been hearing a little here and  there about another recession rearing it's ugly head again. I'm worried  about weather or not businesses will be affected.


The problem is it's a artificial recession created by the republican party arguing with about the budget in order to reduce Obama's popularity to the point he will lose the election and then they'd be able to do whatever the hell they want.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 14, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Oh yes. I've been hearing a little here and there about another recession rearing it's ugly head again. I'm worried about weather or not businesses will be affected.


 
Err, that's kinda the definition of a recession, brah.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I know this, the problem is the government needs to pop the clutch from normal speed of military technology development to ludicrous speed, we've done it in the past but that's cause it was either adapt to new fields of combat or lose.



The only time military technology was seriously looked out, was during large scale wars.  The last one being WW2, the exception being the "cold war", since we kept trying to "one up" each other.  

Here's my question for you.  Sense technological research costs money, where will the American governmet get said money?

EDIT;  You do understand that having the technology doesn't mean you'll win.  Generally the most simple weapons perform better compared to their advanced counterparts.  Look at Nazi Germany for example.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> The only time military technology was seriously looked out, was during large scale wars.  The last one being WW2, the exception being the "cold war", since we kept trying to "one up" each other.
> 
> Here's my question for you.  Sense technological research costs money, where will the American governmet get said money?
> 
> EDIT;  You do understand that having the technology doesn't mean you'll win.  Generally the most simple weapons perform better compared to their advanced counterparts.  Look at Nazi Germany for example.


I know that, it'd be a investment that would save us money in the end though.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 15, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> EDIT;  You do understand that having the technology doesn't mean you'll win.  Generally the most simple weapons perform better compared to their advanced counterparts.  Look at Nazi Germany for example.



Or Vietnam. Or Iraq - IEDs in particular. 

But the worrying thing about UAV technology is that it drastically lowers the bar for military aggression - because if you don't have to worry about incurring flesh-and-blood casualties as a result of attacking someone, what have you got to lose with a little "incursion", a little "shock and awe"? Just a replaceable machine if you're really unlucky... and of course the people you kill don't count as they're either your intended targets or "collateral damage".

Not to mention the whole "Rise of the Machines(tm)" thing - you don't want your battle droidsUAVs getting _too_ smart for their own good.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 15, 2011)

Remember, the main solution to a recession is to cut government spending, reduce programs, lower taxes, and let the Market Provide.

EDIT: No, wait... my bad. That's the main solution to a recession when your goal is to have an even bigger one follow the first. I wonder where I ever got the idea that this was how to fix a recession. Everyone knows that the real solution is focusing on national debt.

EDIT 2: Odd, my sources are telling me that this is wrong too. Well, at least it's only me making this mistake, and the majority know enough to see the inanity of such a belief.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 15, 2011)

Really? More military spending? We already spend more than most other countries combined, and it keeps our technology level and preparedness consistently ahead of the curve.

While we need a large, temporary increase in spending, that increase should be in areas which actually benefit the American public. Obvious choices are infrastructure, clean and renewable energy technologies, and of course social safety-net programs.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 15, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Really? More military spending? We already spend more than most other countries combined, and it keeps our technology level and preparedness consistently ahead of the curve.



"more than most countries combined". Uhh, how about 47% of the worlds global military expenditures; and that's without  NATO included.

Techonolgy =|= preparedness. It revolves around training.

Your technology level is ahead of the curve?  No, it's really not. Actually no country with a modern military is.   In combined warfare, technology level means nothing in the grand scheme of things.  Show me the best technology, and I'll show you how to destroy it, using simple tools at my disposal.

OT: Anyway, I'm betting in the coming days, you'll see a lot more violence and confrontation coming from the protests.  Which will either give them support, or hurt their standing.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Commie Bat said:
			
		

> Anyway, I'm betting in the coming days, you'll see a lot more violence and confrontation coming from the protests.  Which will either give them support, or hurt their standing.


If the protesters don't fight back it'll gain them support, if they do it'll hurt their support.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Oh, oh! Guess who showed up to Occupy Wall Street?
[YT]iNQL0z9XSc4[/YT]
Omg! Omg!


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh, oh! Guess who showed up to Occupy Wall Street?



Oh hey!

A sellout!  

Maybe if Anti-Flag shows up again they can make a new soundtrack for another heavily sponsored edition of Madden!


----------



## Neuron (Oct 15, 2011)

The park where the protests were is now closed. Everyone has shoved off to another location and all the tents were thrown away into a huge dump truck. That really blows for people that have nowhere else to go and the tent was their only means of shelter. There are people giving away new tents though I guess for people that really need them.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 15, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> OT: Anyway, I'm betting in the coming days, you'll see a lot more violence and confrontation coming from the protests.  Which will either give them support, or hurt their standing.



Looks like your prediction is coming true. 

http://news.yahoo.com/protesters-rally-worldwide-against-greedy-rich-040550468.html

Was expecting this to happen at some point.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 15, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Looks like your prediction is coming true.
> 
> http://news.yahoo.com/protesters-rally-worldwide-against-greedy-rich-040550468.html
> 
> Was expecting this to happen at some point.



Lol Europe, why must they be so violent


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 15, 2011)

Yeah Europeans don't fuck around.


----------



## Kamatz (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> ...We keep spending more and more on more expensive weapons...



Wait, so your solution to this is to spend even more money on developing military technology? How about not fighting wars and reducing the size of the military?

I've posted this before but I think it's worth mentioning again. Do you think this is money well spent?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Lacus said:


> The park where the protests were is now closed. Everyone has shoved off to another location and all the tents were thrown away into a huge dump truck. That really blows for people that have nowhere else to go and the tent was their only means of shelter. There are people giving away new tents though I guess for people that really need them.


 Well on the bright side the cops haven't been successful in disbanding the protesters, I doubt they'll remove them from wherever they are now.  Maybe they'll try it one more time, but that'll probably be not effective either.


Kamatz said:


> Wait, so your solution to this is to spend even more money on developing military technology? How about not fighting wars and reducing the size of the military?
> 
> I've posted this before but I think it's worth mentioning again. Do you think this is money well spent?


 Oh please, you know how long people have been talking about reducing the military?


Crusader Mike said:


> Lol Europe, why must they be so violent


In of itself burning cars and throwing rocks in windows is Rome's way of saying hello.
"Hi I'm visiting your wonderful country, where can I find the nearest hotel?"
*Molotov gets thrown into taxi window*
"WHY DID YOU DO THAT?  IF SOMEONE WAS IN THERE THEY'D BE DEAD!"
"This is how we say hello, so welcome American to Rome"


----------



## Neuron (Oct 15, 2011)

http://youtu.be/JTzMqm2TwgE <---- Everyone needs to watch this. Everything you need to know about the economy and why it's tanked in less than 2:15

They also released a list of all those arrested. People I knew personally were not on there but I think their shit got taken and also destroyed which is why I have no communication with anyone right now. 

Want some photos of police dragging people away?

Glad I was not around for this show down.

I think one sign I saw on the gallery said it best, "The ease with which you dismiss us will be your downfall."


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Lacus said:


> http://youtu.be/JTzMqm2TwgE <---- Everyone needs to watch this. Everything you need to know about the economy and why it's tanked in less than 2:15
> 
> They also released a list of all those arrested. People I knew personally were not on there but I think their shit got taken and also destroyed which is why I have no communication with anyone right now.
> 
> ...


That sign is so true it's sad.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 15, 2011)

Citi Bank is arresting people for closing their bank accounts.

This is not an exaggeration. It was captured on their live broadcast awhile ago.

"When they were asked to leave, they went to the exit but bank security  blocked them inside.  When the cops arrived, security went outside to  grab two people that had exited.  The group was then arrested.  "

Discussed possible closure of my account with my bank and they have flipped shit and called me trying to convince me to please stop. I am not going in physically to do anything, no sir. It's a trap.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Citi Bank is arresting people for closing their bank accounts.
> 
> This is not an exaggeration. It was captured on their live broadcast awhile ago.
> 
> ...


HOLY CRAP! IS THIS EVEN LEGAL?
Thanks for telling me I was going to close my citibank account, but that's because the nearest branch is wayy to fucking far for me to walk.

Welcome to america, where if you close a bank account you get put in a cell with a serial rapist or murderer.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> HOLY CRAP! IS THIS EVEN LEGAL?


Locking people already in the bank is questionable, but potentially legal.

Stepping outside to grab the people that left the bank after doing their business? Illegal. Kidnapping. I will be outraged if there are no repercussions and if bank security is not fired for such actions.

Looking into the legalities of the situation a group of people setting out to close bank accounts or such actions might be some kind of federal offense called creating a "run." Essentially it's either going in and abruptly canceling accounts and withdrawing funds or just withdrawing everything in times of economic depression. There are however tens of thousands of people across the united states closing their bank accounts for this specific portion of the protest which is closing a good percentage of their business by November 5th (my birthday!) So unless they want to bring up tracking down and arresting every single person doing this thereby wasting more money they might want to care about the bigger issues. Anyone closing their bank accounts right now be warned.

I'm not sure what they plan on doing. People are outraged at 20+ people being locked in a bank and arrested, how could they get away with arresting potentially thousands of people doing this?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Locking people already in the bank is questionable, but potentially legal.
> 
> Stepping outside to grab the people that left the bank after doing their business? Illegal. Kidnapping. I will be outraged if there are no repercussions and if bank security is not fired for such actions.


Uhm hello, more than likely the people are going to be held in prison with no charges.
It's been done before.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Uhm hello, more than likely the people are going to be held in prison with no charges.
> It's been done before.


Thousands of people are closing their bank accounts and they don't even have to go in. Some of the bigger ones are conspiring against those who choose to by calling it a national run on their business which is illegal. I don't see anything good coming out of this really.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 15, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Thousands of people are closing their bank accounts and they don't even have to go in. Some of the bigger ones are conspiring against those who choose to by calling it a national run on their business which is illegal. I don't see anything good coming out of this really.



Fuck them.  More closures the better.  We've found a way to make them squirm, for fuck's sake let's USE it.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 15, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Fuck them.  More closures the better.  We've found a way to make them squirm, for fuck's sake let's USE it.


Close em now. Ask questions later. Don't go into physical locations though guys if you can avoid it for god's sake don't get trapped.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Thousands of people are closing their bank accounts and they don't even have to go in. Some of the bigger ones are conspiring against those who choose to by calling it a national run on their business which is illegal. I don't see anything good coming out of this really.


Hope this ends up on the news.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 15, 2011)

And since when is being a discerning consumer and choosing to give or deny your business to whomever the fuck you wish ILLEGAL? Boycotting is ILLEGAL? Shopping smart is ILLEGAL? Hell, wouldn't this line of thought mean advertisements that take direct shots at opposing brands in an effort to take business from them are ILLEGAL?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Tycho said:


> And since when is being a discerning consumer and choosing to give or deny your business to whomever the fuck you wish ILLEGAL? Boycotting is ILLEGAL? Shopping smart is ILLEGAL? Hell, wouldn't this line of thought mean advertisements that take direct shots at opposing brands in an effort to take business from them are ILLEGAL?


Atleast Lacus told me about this, otherwise I would've been thrown in jail for closing my bank.


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Hope this ends up on the news.



The only news source that could remotely come near this would be Al Jazeera.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 15, 2011)

GAO Federal Investigation of bailout funds being given to most large banks in the U.S. and many foreign banks as well.

Here is a detailed list of which banks received what from the Federal Reserve, much of it more than you were told about.

It seems like the Citi Bank protestors were being kinda boisterous, but they still beat the crowd of protestors, donned suits and sported nice hair cuts, looked ready to do some legit business. Guess banks will just make a rule like don't fucking go in all at once or something.


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 15, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Fuck them.  More closures the better.  We've found a way to make them squirm, for fuck's sake let's USE it.



Friday marked the 79th and 80th bank failures of 2011, just this one year.



CannonFodder said:


> Hope this ends up on the news.



ABC Radio News reported it briefly, but they called the arrest of customers an arrest of protesters.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

ArielMT said:


> Friday marked the 79th and 80th bank failures of 2011, just this one year.
> 
> ABC Radio News reported it briefly, but they called the arrest of customers an arrest of protesters.


The media and politicians can scoff at the protesters all they want, but at the rate the protesters are getting support the opposition will be in some deep shit by the time election swings by.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The media and politicians can scoff at the protesters all they want, but at the rate the protesters are getting support the opposition will be in some deep shit by the time election swings by.



How exactly are they going to be in "deep shit"?

Seriously.  You're proposing that one group of corporate/union-backed politicians is going to radically change what other corporate/union-backed politicians have fucked up.  And as long as the Supreme Court holds that corporations are people, there's virtually no difference between the people's say and the corporation's say, except the corporation has more money.

Meet the new management, same as the old management.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 16, 2011)

Apparently the people in the NYC CitiBank were being dumbasses and rushing the tellers. Guys, if you're going to close your bank accounts as a group, you gotta be smarter about it come on. The locking of the doors was more so out of fear of the crowd of 1000 or more outside the doors screaming and banging to let the people close their accounts. That's terrifying but all the same I would have let those people leave instead of slowing down business for everyone and making themselves look terrible which will result in more screaming angry groups of thousands which freaked them out in the first place.

Idk, I feel sorry for the workers that have to put up with these protests, but I don't feel sorry for the enablers that rule the banks that were largely responsible for this mess in the first place. I don't think the tellers appreciate their higher ups either though.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 16, 2011)

Wow, saw a OWS protest going on at a small town in New Jersey. They were peaceful about it and I didn't see any cops. Though I saw some people holding random signs that have nothing to to with the economy like "Abolish torture" and whatnot, most of them seemed to be mad at the banks. Didn't see them the day after though, I wonder if they gave up or something. 

Though I had the opportunity to discuss this with my dad and he brought up a good point, 

I mean I see how taxing the rich might benefit the economy and whatnot, however, isn't it only gonna discourage the rich from providing more jobs if they are getting more taxes and regulations from the gov't?


----------



## Onnes (Oct 16, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I mean I see how taxing the rich might benefit the economy and whatnot, however, isn't it only gonna discourage the rich from providing more jobs if they are getting more taxes and regulations from the gov't?



One current issue with the world economy is that the wealthy aren't spending their money; instead, they are hoarding it in low or no interest securities. Since they aren't providing jobs in the first place, there is relatively little job loss from the increased taxation. Always keep in mind that the increased tax revenue is then spent by the government, which itself provides jobs.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 16, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I mean I see how taxing the rich might benefit the economy and whatnot, however, isn't it only gonna discourage the rich from providing more jobs if they are getting more taxes and regulations from the gov't?



The rich have realized they can get by on an understaffed workforce and force them to hold more responsibilities for low pay.  They can effectively burn out an entire generation of workers and quickly turn over on more workers eager to work for as little or less than the amount they were paying the previous burn outs.

Not taxing the rich continues to let the middle class fight amongst itself for the scraps of the rich.  The only trickle down we've seen from the historic low taxes in this country has been in the form of breadcrumbs.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 16, 2011)

Onnes said:


> One current issue with the world economy is that the wealthy aren't spending their money; instead, they are hoarding it in low or no interest securities. Since they aren't providing jobs in the first place, there is relatively little job loss from the increased taxation. Always keep in mind that the increased tax revenue is then spent by the government, which itself provides jobs.



Still, it would affect businesses that have cash flowing. The ones that hoard are probably a minority (I'm assuming this unless you can prove me wrong). 

For example, my dad owns an automotive business, he's constantly spending on supplies for the shop, parts for cars, rent and bills for both shop and home, etc. Plus he has two employees working for him on the books and he has to pay stuff for them. So I doubt that businesses hoard much cash.

So the question is would taxing businesses and the rich more be doing more damage on the economy than helping it? Might it make people lose jobs because their boss couldn't keep paying for them anymore (That's an issue for most businesses today actually)?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Onnes said:


> One current issue with the world economy is that the wealthy aren't spending their money; instead, they are hoarding it in low or no interest securities. Since they aren't providing jobs in the first place, there is relatively little job loss from the increased taxation. Always keep in mind that the increased tax revenue is then spent by the government, which itself provides jobs.


Speaking of which my grandma is in the top 1%, she's never had to work a day in her life and she hordes the money, has never helped her children financially to the point where when me and my mom were homeless once she didn't.  Also now that she's probably in the last few years of her life she's wasting it on drugs, partying and all sorts of shit to the point when she eventually dies my mom isn't going to be left with anything.
In short fuck the rich for sitting on their money.


Darkwing said:


> Still, it would affect businesses that have cash  flowing. The ones that hoard are probably a minority (I'm assuming this  unless you can prove me wrong).
> For example, my dad owns an automotive business, he's constantly  spending on supplies for the shop, parts for cars, rent and bills for  both shop and home, etc. Plus he has two employees working for him on  the books and he has to pay stuff for them. So I doubt that businesses  hoard much cash.
> So the question is would taxing businesses and the rich more be doing  more damage on the economy than helping it? Might it make people lose  jobs because their boss couldn't keep paying for them anymore (That's an  issue for most businesses today actually)?


The top 1% incomes are over 300x their base workers and that's after paying for stuff business wise.
Also nope.
Taxing the rich puts money into the government which in turns uses the money for jobs.
Taxing the rich wouldn't hurt the economy because the business can not legally pay their employees below minimum wage and most businesses are already working with bare minimum number of employees.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 16, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The top 1% incomes are over 300x their base workers and that's after paying for stuff business wise.



I doubt that <=/ 

Any statistics to prove that if you can find any?


----------



## Onnes (Oct 16, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Still, it would affect businesses that have cash flowing. The ones that hoard are probably a minority (I'm assuming this unless you can prove me wrong).



The economy is currently suffering from a lack of demand--that is, people in general are not spending. Now think about the distribution of wealth and who in society can actually spend more money: it certainly isn't the deeply indebted middle and lower classes. We need more money going towards employment, and if the private sector won't provide it then the government has to. If the government must borrow additional money to provide jobs then it will eventually have to pay that money back, and the best source of revenue for those payments is taxation of wealthy, who can actually afford it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I doubt that <=/
> 
> Any statistics to prove that if you can find any?


http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 16, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I doubt that <=/
> 
> Any statistics to prove that if you can find any?


 
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over

:V


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/t...-class-warfare---the-poor-s-free-ride-is-over
> 
> :V


Inb4 Darkwing stops listening at 1:46


----------



## Iudicium_86 (Oct 16, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I doubt that <=/
> 
> Any statistics to prove that if you can find any?



Look here



> The gap between CEO and average U.S. worker pay rose from 263-to-1 in 2009 to * 325-to-1* last year.



[edit]
Also, anyone who says the top holders are the 'job makers' and that any higher taxes would discourage them from making new jobs is entirely inaccurate. Companies have had the lowest taxes for a long time now, and are still _not_ producing jobs. In addition, just last year, the companies reported record-breaking profits, but yet _still_ aren't creating jobs. 

They have low taxes+record profits..... but aren't producing jobs.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 16, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10



I see why they are angry, and these charts show there is a problem. But would taxing the rich, and less gov't spending necessarily make this all better?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 16, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I see why they are angry, and these charts show there is a problem. But would taxing the rich, and less gov't spending necessarily make this all better?


 
Yes.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I see why they are angry, and these charts show there is a problem. But would taxing the rich, and less gov't spending necessarily make this all better?


Eeyup.
Think about it this way Darkwing, when you inherit your dad's business you may have to pay higher taxes, but that's so we don't fucking end up like africa, HIV ridden and countless starving children.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 16, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Still, it would affect businesses that have cash flowing. The ones that hoard are probably a minority (I'm assuming this unless you can prove me wrong).
> 
> For example, my dad owns an automotive business, he's constantly spending on supplies for the shop, parts for cars, rent and bills for both shop and home, etc. Plus he has two employees working for him on the books and he has to pay stuff for them. So I doubt that businesses hoard much cash.
> 
> So the question is would taxing businesses and the rich more be doing more damage on the economy than helping it? Might it make people lose jobs because their boss couldn't keep paying for them anymore (That's an issue for most businesses today actually)?



Your dad's little sole proprietorship with two employees represents neither the rich nor the type of business that makes up the bulk of American jobs.  So don't think of your dad's business when thinking of job-creating policy.

The reason that raising income taxes won't kill jobs is because the businessowners are taxed on the _net_ profits they take.  So the marginal tax burden an employee places on the owner is a percentage of the revenue generated by that employee's productivity _minus_ his compensation.

Do you see the implications here?  The marginal income tax burden an employee generates for the owners is always a portion of the marginal profits, therefore it is always _less_.  Ergo, income taxes cannot limit the number of employees a business can "afford" because the owners are always making more money off those employees than the additional taxes they now owe on it.

The real limit of how many employees a business can afford is how much productivity they can translate into revenue.  That's a _demand_ problem.  They need more customers that actually have money that they can sell to before they can justify additional hiring.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 16, 2011)

Uh, we want more government spending, not less. Less government spending means less government jobs and higher unemployment, and unemployment is exactly what needs to be fixed at the moment.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Uh, we want more government spending, not less. Less government spending means less government jobs and higher unemployment, and unemployment is exactly what needs to be fixed at the moment.


And there's the problem with the budget.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 16, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> And there's the problem with the budget.


Any stimulus program would be temporary, funded through extremely low interest debt, and easily paid off over time, especially when one accounts for the increased GDP due to job creation. Our budget problem arises from long-term spending commitments which build debt year after year.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 16, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Uh, we want more government spending, not less. Less government spending means less government jobs and higher unemployment, and unemployment is exactly what needs to be fixed at the moment.



Unfortunately most state governments spend more during times of prosperity... 

It really fucks up the system.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Unfortunately most state governments spend more during times of prosperity...
> 
> It really fucks up the system.


Just do what Texas did, balanced budget.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 16, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Just do what Texas did, balanced budget.



Unfortunately California still doesn't get the idea : /


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Unfortunately California still doesn't get the idea : /


"Escape from LA", all I gotta say.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 16, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Any stimulus program would be temporary, funded through extremely low interest debt, and easily paid off over time, especially when one accounts for the increased GDP due to job creation. Our budget problem arises from long-term spending commitments which build debt year after year.


 
The biggest contributor to our budget deficit is the huge shortfall of revenue caused by the financial crisis itself.  Our tax code is a system of percentages, when the economy shrinks, so does tax revenue.  There actually hasn't been any huge jump in discretionary spending by the government in this crisis.  It's not a spending problem.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 17, 2011)

Just a update, apparently even the top 1% has people supporting the occupy wall street movement.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/...tumblr_lt1h3eUdzU1r4cz2xo1_500.jpg?1318887899
From what it seems alot of the support is coming from people that were born into wealth and realize in america it's who you are born to and where that determines your life.
So woot.
Also apparently there's nearly a thousand cities with occupy protests.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Oct 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Just a update, apparently even the top 1% has people supporting the occupy wall street movement.
> http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/...tumblr_lt1h3eUdzU1r4cz2xo1_500.jpg?1318887899
> From what it seems alot of the support is coming from people that were born into wealth and realize in america it's who you are born to and where that determines your life.
> So woot.
> Also apparently there's nearly a thousand cities with occupy protests.


 
Commie Traitors


----------



## Foedus (Oct 17, 2011)

See, every time I try to find out more information on the movement by asking the livestream chats 'what's going on', I get banned.  I can't even ask for a website that gives me the info without being called a troll.  (wtf)

So I kinda gave up on trying to figure out what it was about....


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 17, 2011)

Foedus said:


> See, every time I try to find out more information on the movement by asking the livestream chats 'what's going on', I get banned.  I can't even ask for a website that gives me the info without being called a troll.  (wtf)
> 
> So I kinda gave up on trying to figure out what it was about....



Honestly unless you have not paid attention to anything at all in the past three years, you'd have some idea of why the protests are occurring.  Glenn Greenwald wrote something along these lines, and part of the reason you're being accused of trolling is, no offense intended, how obvious the reasons for protesting have been- poor economy because of a few rich shitfucks gambling to get richer, those people getting checks cut to them to stay in business and get even richer while everyone else gets laid off, austerity measures put into place, etc.  All while being told that the sacrifice has to be shared, even though the only people who seem to be suffering from the economic recession are the people who are being asked to pay to fix it.

Another thing is how "these protestors don't have any reason to protest/i don't see why they're so angry/aimless hippies need to get a job" has been and still is a way for people and the media to smear these protests, when there are reasons behind these demonstrations, and there are goals in mind to resolve what is seen to be serious problems with the system.  These are people who have played by the rules, done everything right, yet now they have no jobs available, crippling debt, and a future of menial/service jobs at ever-decreasing real wages.  The system is rigged, and the people who have rigged the system are telling everyone with the short end of the stick that "equal opportunity" still exists (if it even existed in the first place) and that the only reason they have a hard time is because they're dumb and lazy.

I'm sure you were genuinely interested in finding out what the whole thing was about, but you sound like you were using the same line of questioning as a concern troll or something.


----------



## DingosHalberd (Oct 18, 2011)

I get that these people are unhappy with thier situation, but they're sitting in a park screaming how the rich have stolen from them and 'things have got to change'. They don't really have any suggestions, or even a defined message to send, and so thier stance can seem weak to some. Infact, thier protest is costing New York millions a day in police overtime and they would of gotten violent if they were cleared for over-due park upkeep. There's better ways to go about things, and this really doesn't seem like one of them. It's like a tantrum, to an outside like me, and it's annoying because these people actually think what they are doing will change things. No, it will absolutly not - if poorly plotted stuff like this did, you'd of gotten out of Vietnam in the '60s. Expressing annoyance is fine, but there's better and - more effective - ways then sitting in a park. I can see this devolving into a riot if things aren't careful, with the still much integral Wall Street the target.


----------



## Aden (Oct 18, 2011)

DingosHalberd said:


> I get that these people are unhappy with thier situation, but they're sitting in a park screaming how the rich have stolen from them and 'things have got to change'. They don't really have any suggestions, or even a defined message to send, and so thier stance can seem weak to some. Infact, thier protest is costing New York millions a day in police overtime and they would of gotten violent if they were cleared for over-due park upkeep. There's better ways to go about things, and this really doesn't seem like one of them. It's like a tantrum, to an outside like me, and it's annoying because these people actually think what they are doing will change things. No, it will absolutly not - if poorly plotted stuff like this did, you'd of gotten out of Vietnam in the '60s. Expressing annoyance is fine, but there's better and - more effective - ways then sitting in a park. I can see this devolving into a riot if things aren't careful, with the still much integral Wall Street the target.



Their discontent wouldn't really be heard otherwise, it seems. You have suggestions on what would be a better way?


----------



## Attaman (Oct 18, 2011)

So, peaceful protest in parks = inevitable riots, preaching about 2nd Amendment Solutions and walking into council meetings with barely concealed firearms = not worthy of commentary?


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 18, 2011)

Not to mention there were a number of successful and non-violent protests.  Sit-ins of the Civil Rights era, Gandhi's struggle for Indian independence from the British, even most of the Arab Spring: the violence was almost entirely coming from the State.  Yet, in each of those cases it started with a small group of people refusing to return the blows they were dealt whether with clubs, guns, water hoses, or modern tasers, pepper spray, CS gas and rubber bullets, and the movement grew.

What else would DingosHalberd suggest be done?  Nothing?


----------



## Antonia (Oct 18, 2011)

I can't attend the protests due to my claustrophobia, but I definitely support the message. I don't have a thought-provoking post to add. I just hope the message of the protesters isn't lost on the government. 
...Even though that's exactly what seems to be happening. "Get a job" indeed.


----------



## Darkwing (Oct 18, 2011)

Foedus said:


> See, every time I try to find out more information on the movement by asking the livestream chats 'what's going on', I get banned.  I can't even ask for a website that gives me the info without being called a troll.  (wtf)
> 
> So I kinda gave up on trying to figure out what it was about....



Lol. They shouldn't have a problem explaining it though =/ Everyone I talk about the protest to is like, "Yeeeah I really don't know what they're protesting about". 

It's no surprise that the media slams on the protesters for "protesting without a cause" or whatever. They need to get a clearer message out there with a set of demands instead of holding random signs saying "fuck capitalism" or something totally unrelated to the economy like "abolish torture"


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 18, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Lol. They shouldn't have a problem explaining it though =/ Everyone I talk about the protest to is like, "Yeeeah I really don't know what they're protesting about".
> 
> It's no surprise that the media slams on the protesters for "protesting without a cause" or whatever. They need to get a clearer message out there with a set of demands instead of holding random signs saying "fuck capitalism" or something totally unrelated to the economy like "abolish torture"



Everyone you talk to about the protest needs to read a book or something.  I mean, really.  I'm sorry they're too dumb to understand what's going on, or have lived under a rock for the past 3 years, or have somehow become insulated from the fallout that everyone else in this country is experiencing (and if this is the case, it's not because *bootstraps* or anything like that)

The reasons for the protest are clear, the grievances are clear, and while the demands/desired outcome are less clear and not concrete, they generally have to do with corporate tax and regulation structure that practically encourages outsourcing and risky financial instruments, as well as wanting to cut down on lobbying and the revolving door of public/private favors- work for the government crafting favorable policy for a given industry, get hired by that same industry as a "thanks for your help" gesture.  Not to mention now that money = speech, as ruled in Citizens United, it seems that it's now no longer even hidden that the wealthy are more equal than everyone else, and that corporate personhood has been taken way too far in terms of political interference.  It makes sense to shield employees/owners from liability (while still holding individuals accountable for criminal acts in rare cases like Kenneth Lay) but it does not make sense to say their speech is being infringed by not allowing them to make unlimited political contributions and pay for campaign ads.  This works against us all.

Do you really think the "media slam" is really about unclear messaging?  They covered the tea party extensively from the outset, and that was even coopted and coordinated by the biggest news station out there, yet the biggest worldwide simultaneous protest in human history, the February 2003 march to protest the invasion of Iraq, was never mentioned- only to show a few photos of a few signs to say how crazy these people are for not standing behind the president in bombing the shit out of a country without cause.  Also one of the photos making the rounds re: "fuck capitalism" was from 2007, and while signs like "ABOLISH TORTURE" aren't related to OWS, I don't see how it's a bad or stupid sign to hold up.  It also goes without saying that a station like NBC is not going to provide favorable coverage of a group that has a problem with GE not paying any taxes last year when GE owns NBC.  The tea party was covered because they were a bunch of rubes protesting conservatively for the status quo.  They were against Obama for mild, almost token "liberal" reforms and mild giveaways and favors to private business and cutting taxes across the board and instead protest in support of candidates who want to get rid of all taxes (or want ill-conceived flat tax systems like Cain) and repeal all regulation and make it easier for everyone who has been victimized by reckless financial brokers to get victimized again.

lol but theyr just a bunch of dumb hippies look "abolish torture" doesnt have anything to do with wall street also its a dumb sign anyway


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 18, 2011)

You want to know what it's about?  Here you go 

http://english.aljazeera.net/progra...011101672419294658.html#.TpsFZ_cpEVg.facebook


> _Inside Story_, with presenter Mike Hanna, discusses with Mark Bray, an organiser and media team member of 'Occupy Wall Street'; Alessio Rastani, an independent stock broker; and Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy research.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 18, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> You want to know what it's about?  Here you go
> 
> http://english.aljazeera.net/progra...011101672419294658.html#.TpsFZ_cpEVg.facebook


 
There's again, also http://www.salon.com/2011/10/17/what_are_those_ows_people_so_angry_about/singleton/  I posted that earlier and I doubt Darkwing ever checked it out.

Way to steal my Business Insider link a page or so after I posted it by the way, CANNONFODDER.  You dumb fucking sharkface. >:I


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 18, 2011)

I am the 53%!  *dies of heart disease*

Quit stalin and use your bootstraps!


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 18, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> I am the 53%!  *dies of heart disease*
> 
> Quit stalin and use your bootstraps!



I'm in debt, have no hope, I'm a lawyer and working at Wal Mart AND McDonalds at the same time to barely make ends meet, and I'm not complaining about a thing!  I don't want things HANDED TO ME!!!

what the fuck is with this stockholm syndrome, or assuming that "if i say 'i don't want handouts' maybe the ones with all the money will reward me"?  If anything, OWS is about saying "jesus fuck you're working hard, you're playing along with the system in all the ways you've been told to do (and so have we), you should be successful and stable, not struggling to eat ramen!"

what they're really saying is PLEASE PLEASE DEPRESS MY WAGES AND CUT EVERY BENEFIT I COULD POSSIBLY GET, MAKE ME WORK FOR PENNIES JUST SO LONG AS EVERYONE ELSE BUT YOU BRILLIANT TITANS OF INDUSTRY IS ALSO MAKING PENNIES, I NEED TO LICK ALL OF YOUR BOOTS BEFORE YOU REINSTATE WORKHOUSES AND DEBTOR'S PRISONS

I mean really, is it just me or are these people reading Dickens and getting it wrong just the same way people got the character of Gordon Gekko wrong in Wall Street?  That these things are positive and desirable?  They probably got angry at The Jungle because the meat packing industry has an inherent, god-given right to profit, especially if it involves adding rats and fingers to the product and keeping it a secret from the public.

EDIT: ugh that smug fucking bitch.  It's not like whenever anything pops up that says "NOW HIRING", dozens and sometimes hundreds of people camp out just for the possibility of getting a minimum wage job.  Minimum wage jobs that don't pay enough or give enough hours to make ends meet, forcing some people to take multiple jobs.  Wouldn't the ideal solution be to have jobs that pay living wages?  I mean, imagine a scenario of 2000 people and 2000 jobs.  None of the jobs cover rent on their own, which makes multiple jobs necessary to pay bills.  That becomes a fight between those 2000 people to get two or three of those 2000 jobs- some are working endlessly while others can't get a job no matter how much they want to, when increasing minimum wage would go a long way to preventing this friction.  With living wages, a greater number of those 2000 people can actually get jobs, and the ones with multiple jobs won't have to go from one job to the next and barely break even.

This isn't a handout thing, the way people like Darkwing like to paint it.  It's getting an opportunity to work, and work for a fair wage that allows one to actually live life, and buy the products and services that drive the economy.  Again, like Darkwing doesn't understand, it's not the "JOB CREATORS" that lead the economy, it's the consumers.  It's a demand-driven system of economics, and so far the "job creators" with their lowest tax rates since the mid 20s have just held that money, borrowed more from the government at an interest rate of practically zero percent, and have not created jobs because there's no demand for products (WHICH COMES FROM THE 99%)  Even Henry Ford understood that paying your workers enough to afford your products made sound business sense, and he was a complete scumbag.  Now we have scumbags that are engaged in a race to the bottom to plunge everyone into poverty while reaping record profits.

Americans, and the rest of the world, are working harder than ever.  Production has risen steadily for ages, but wages stopped going up around 1980 and have even decreased in inflation-adjusted real dollars.  Because of a pervasive layoff mentality, fewer people are doing more work for less compensation- these layoffs which might seem rational to a given company in the given circumstance become irrational when it's the industry/economy as a whole, interestingly and perversely enough.  People are scared to remove themselves from exploitation because then they'll be dropped in a heartbeat for some unemployed and qualified person who would work longer hours for less pay because they haven't eaten a full meal in months, and again that's not even getting into employer-tied healthcare.  It's looking even more likely that if you have a job with a good health insurance plan now, you won't ever get another job with comparable benefits, you'll be stuck paying several times more for worse coverage.  Don't you dare say "you're just lazy."


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 18, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> I'm in debt, have no hope, I'm a lawyer and working at Wal Mart AND McDonalds at the same time to barely make ends meet, and I'm not complaining about a thing!  I don't want things HANDED TO ME!!!
> 
> what the fuck is with this stockholm syndrome, or assuming that "if i say 'i don't want handouts' maybe the ones with all the money will reward me"?  If anything, OWS is about saying "jesus fuck you're working hard, you're playing along with the system in all the ways you've been told to do (and so have we), you should be successful and stable, not struggling to eat ramen!"
> 
> ...



*â€‹Fuck you got mine!*


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 18, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> *â€‹Fuck you got mine!*



That's the THING THAT MAKES IT SO INSANE TO ME.  They DON'T have theirs!

They are getting screwed extra hard, and their first reaction to resistance against this shit is to come to the noble aid of those exploiting them!
guaguahh


----------



## Fay V (Oct 18, 2011)

+10000 for _The Jungle_ reference. 

But yeah, nothing makes me happier than to see protesters that do have good lives and a solid foundation, but are fighting for the rights of others. Hell I'm pretty damn scared to graduate this fall, but I'm sure my family will support me even if everything goes to hell. That doesn't mean I think that people without this support aren't pulling their weight and trying.

It often feels like those that go "I got mine, bootstraps" live with this "American dream" ideal that they two will be a billionare soon, and don't want to hurt their future self...except with the way the system is, that isn't happening.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 18, 2011)

Fay V said:


> +10000 for _The Jungle_ reference.
> 
> But yeah, nothing makes me happier than to see protesters that do have good lives and a solid foundation, but are fighting for the rights of others. Hell I'm pretty damn scared to graduate this fall, but I'm sure my family will support me even if everything goes to hell. That doesn't mean I think that people without this support aren't pulling their weight and trying.
> 
> *It often feels like those that go "I got mine, bootstraps" live with this "American dream" ideal that they two will be a billionare soon, and don't want to hurt their future self...except with the way the system is, that isn't happening.*



See my sig quote.  It's also part of what Joe the Plumber's deal was, besides not understanding tax brackets AT ALL.  "I want to start a plumbing business, but if I do that I'll make more than $250K and end up paying more taxes!"

Hey, Fay, would you prefer making $15K and paying no tax, or making $250K and paying 30%?  Also, OWS is partly about making sure everyone can earn an honest living.  While taking those with loads of money and influence down a peg for using that money and influence to gain more money and influence at the expense of the vast majority of people is a central part of it, the movement is less about "GRRR PUT ALL BANKERS IN JAIL" and more "hey let's have our turn to succeed."  They use Horatio Alger mythology and hippie smears through the media to convince people like Darkwing to act against their own interests, just like they think labor unions are universally terrible and that every worker should take what they're given and be thankful that they even have a job- completely disregarding the two sided transaction of negotiating exchange of cash for work performed.  They want a race to the bottom because they think they will one day benefit in any way whatsover.

I'm pretty well off and I don't have any fears of failure; I know that if I were born to other circumstances, some of my screw ups would have resulted in serious hardship, even homelessness.  I have absolutely no illusion that my success (or lack of failure) has anything to do with hard work, just as others' failures may very well be borne of harder work than many, and that simple bad luck both in the genetic lottery and in the course of life is a huge determinant.  I can take risks that may pay out hugely if they work out, if they fail they will go nowhere but I will not suffer much.  A poor person with a genuinely good idea for a product or business may not ever get to put their idea into practice because of the huge risks- if it doesn't work out, they could end up hugely in debt and homeless over it, and simple luck has a lot to do with entrepreneurial dealings as well.  They can get sick because of a rare genetic disorder and spend the rest of their life with huge hospital bills and an inability to work- yet that counts as laziness and being a leech to some of these people.

People against OWS and similar movements/sentiments basically say either "fuck you, got mine," "fuck you, will get mine," or "it sucks for me and i deal with it, it should suck for you too and you should deal with it."  The supporters either say "I've done everything I was supposed to and I've been left holding the bag" or "The game is rigged and we were all lied to while a select few profit from our collective misery" or "I am successful and everyone should also be able to be successful, but it's currently set up to be practically impossible."

Bill Gates started Microsoft because he had wealthy parents and no real personal risk if he failed- he also bluffed as much as Trump, going into meetings and getting contracts before he even had something to sell.  That doesn't stop people from using him as an example of the American Dream myth, and applying the standards that allowed him to succeed to everyone else.  In some ways, it would have been hard for Gates to fail, which makes applying that standard to people who weren't born in the top 1%, or even 5%, make even less sense.

ugh barf


----------



## Fay V (Oct 18, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> clipped for length



Exactly. Hell half the things I've done are due to the support of my family. I made a lot of money transcribing, but I wouldn't have without the help of my father. I had no risk in started that up and made major bank because there was no fallback. Had I had to start from ground level I never would have gotten anywhere. 
 The whole mess reminds me of that quote "those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" it's the same stupid ideas from when child labor was banned, when unions were first invented, and every single issues where laborer's rights were formed and protected. 
Big business is an inherently selfish beast. If it can make money it will.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 18, 2011)

The puritan work ethic gets nasty, yo.  Really, though, you'd be surprised at the mental gymnastics most people do, because being wrong is worse than death.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 18, 2011)

I think much of the oddity found in these â€œanti-protestersâ€ might be attributed the more libertarian bent of the US population. Inherent in any highly libertarian worldview is the idea that you deserve whatever your current circumstances happen to be. Were this not true, then it would signal a failure in individual reasoning and the market and automatically imply a role for government intervention. The obvious corollary is that if you are a superior individual then you will necessarily find success. Since most people consider themselves to be above average, they also assume they will one day be successful under a libertarian outlook.

  Itâ€™s interesting to consider two different varieties of libertarian then, based on the level of delusion involved.
  The first kind believes that in a libertarian society, relatively positive outcomes are realized for all individuals through the magic of the free market. Under this belief, there are simply no worries about the homeless dying in the streets or the ill going without healthcare because such things cannot be any worse under a libertarian regime. You cannot easily say they lack compassion because they actually believe that the free market will provide the best of everything for everyone.

The far scarier second kind of libertarian understands the consequences of a libertarian society and accepts them. They know that they support policies which would lead to rising levels of poverty and suffering, and they donâ€™t see anything fundamentally wrong with that. Itâ€™s like looking at sociopathy as a form of political organization.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 18, 2011)

Just World phenomena needs to be stamped out.  Unfortunately, it only seems to get dislodged from people's heads the moment they go from doing well for themselves to barely surviving, through no fault of their own.

And like the scourge of the court said, many people will cling to this even after it's been shown to be absolutely false, because their world will come crashing down if they admit that such a fundamental and damaging belief was wrong.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Just World phenomena needs to be stamped out.  Unfortunately, it only seems to get dislodged from people's heads the moment they go from doing well for themselves to barely surviving, through no fault of their own.
> 
> And like the scourge of the court said, many people will cling to this even after it's been shown to be absolutely false, because their world will come crashing down if they admit that such a fundamental and damaging belief was wrong.


On the plus side Libertarianism isn't the majority, whereas the OWS protesters are from both sides of the political specturm.  The OWS protesters are a actual threat to libertarians and big business tycoons, because even with the media demonizing the protesters it's continuing to gain support.
The only reason why the OWS protests aren't a firestorm is because the average american who doesn't support it can be broken down into either A)They don't know what it's about B)Haven't heard of it C)Because the media is trying to squash public support by demonizing them D)Are republican/libertarian/etc.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 18, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Lol. They shouldn't have a problem explaining it though =/ Everyone I talk about the protest to is like, "Yeeeah I really don't know what they're protesting about".
> 
> It's no surprise that the media slams on the protesters for "protesting without a cause" or whatever. They need to get a clearer message out there with a set of demands instead of holding random signs saying "fuck capitalism" or something totally unrelated to the economy like "abolish torture"


You have obviously not been reading any posts directed at you. 

Since you are so ADHD, here is a very short video explaining everything in a simple way you can understand. 

Also I went to the protest again today, they have had to move across the street from the park they were originally stationed in and the cops are lurking around across the street and watching like hawks. I received news from a first account witness that on Saturday there was a 10 year old black kid that got sprayed in the face for holding his sign for his mom. Don't bring your younguns folks.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 20, 2011)

A Bunch of Bologna: Indiscriminate pepper spraying cop's punishment is ten fewer days spent not pepper spraying people sans cause.

EDIT: Oh and this shit.  "You struggle to put food on your family and can only afford hamburger helper while working three minimum wage jobs, and these protestors are eating good tasty organic food!!!!!!  never mind that they struggle against your difficult economic reality, they're IN THE LAP OF LUXURY and AREN'T WORKING HARD and FILTHY GODDAMN HIPPIES please be good crabs and pull each other back into the pot."  Apparently that's called "last place aversion"

Anyway


----------



## Lobar (Oct 20, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> 7Oh and this shit.  "You struggle to put food on your family and can only afford hamburger helper while working three minimum wage jobs, and these protestors are eating good tasty organic food!!!!!!  never mind that they struggle against your difficult economic reality, they're IN THE LAP OF LUXURY and AREN'T WORKING HARD and FILTHY GODDAMN HIPPIES please be good crabs and pull each other back into the pot."  Apparently that's called "last place aversion"


 
God the tone of that piece is infuriating.  HOW DARE THEY DONATE DECENT AND HEALTHY FOOD TO PROTESTORS.

Reminds me a lot of this article from the National Review (a righty-rag for rich fucks) decrying a couple soup kitchens doing much of the same thing for the homeless instead of just supplying them with stale donuts.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 20, 2011)

Lobar said:


> God the tone of that piece is infuriating.  HOW DARE THEY DONATE DECENT AND HEALTHY FOOD TO PROTESTORS.
> 
> Reminds me a lot of this article from the National Review (a righty-rag for rich fucks) decrying a couple soup kitchens doing much of the same thing for the homeless instead of just supplying them with stale donuts.



It just makes it that much more plain what this is ultimately all about: hatred of the poor.  They don't just want the poor folks' money, they don't just want to tell them to bugger off, they want the poor to HURT.  They want SUFFERING AND DESPAIR.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

http://www.newscientist.com/article...e-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html
Just throwing that out there, turns out the economy is controlled by a small number of corporations that pretty much run the show.
So yeah, we need to fix this shit cause they are tied up all in each other.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 20, 2011)

Tycho said:


> It just makes it that much more plain what this is ultimately all about: hatred of the poor.  They don't just want the poor folks' money, they don't just want to tell them to bugger off, they want the poor to HURT.  They want SUFFERING AND DESPAIR.



I don't think it's particularly noteworthy that the wealthy hate the poor. What really matters here is that they want everyone else to hate the poor. You don't form an electoral majority with just the top 10% --you have to get the middle class to go along for the ride.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 21, 2011)

http://www.observer.com/2011/10/cit...ndercover-infiltration-in-occupy-wall-street/

Citibank withdrawal protest was instigated by undercover police to give impetus to arresting everyone involved.

EDIT: by instigate I don't mean caused, I mean a few paid dudes went in to yell and disrupt things so the real protestors who weren't yelling and disrupting things have cause to be arrested

Kinda like that one piece of shit conservative blogger in the Air and Space museum


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 21, 2011)

Onnes said:


> I don't think it's particularly noteworthy that the wealthy hate the poor. What really matters here is that they want everyone else to hate the poor. You don't form an electoral majority with just the top 10% --you have to get the middle class to go along for the ride.



The best analogy I've see for this:

A rich person, a middle-class person, and a poor person are sitting around a table with twelve apples on it.

The rich person grabs eleven apples, then immediately tells the middle-class person: "That leeching poor person next to you wants to steal your apple."


----------



## Fay V (Oct 21, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> http://www.observer.com/2011/10/cit...ndercover-infiltration-in-occupy-wall-street/
> 
> Citibank withdrawal protest was instigated by undercover police to give impetus to arresting everyone involved.
> 
> ...


Isn't that stupid fucking illegal?


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 21, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Isn't that stupid fucking illegal?



At this point this country is so fucked up with laws and enforcement it's impossible to tell, and even if it is all we have to wait for is a 5-4 decision saying that it is more than acceptable.  I think in some ways it definitely is, especially the locking people in part.  The difference between agents provocateur in the civil rights and vietnam protest era was that COINTELPRO was generally an FBI-targeting-liberals thing, while these are local police departments-targetting-liberals thing.

For as much as I'm truly about non-violence despite my 'kill all cops' catchphrases, it almost feels like there needs to be a branch of OWS where everyone is armed.  If the tea party can carry guns and get away with it, why can't people who aren't status quo-supporting rubes?  An army of 99%ers hoping that they'll never have to fire a single shot but will defend themselves if necessary- contrast that with the tea partiers that are always basically itching for an excuse to legally murder someone.  (Admission: reading some discussions about OWS with conservative trolls makes me want to see them filleted with bayonets, but the feeling passes once I stop reading their gross and bootlicking bullshit)

Not that such a thing would be even remotely positive or helpful right now...  I just have a feeling there will eventually be an event at least as traumatic as Kent State.  And that's going from the national guard, which is generally composed of people who rebuild levies, rescue people and such rather than shooting conflicts with citizens, to a heavily paranoid and heavily armed and quick to violence and short tempered and "ungrateful civilian"-hating police force.  So many psychotic motherfuckers posting everywhere about how they'd like to see anyone involved in OWS rot in prison for life if not receive summary execution, or what happens when Darkwing grows up without ever reevaluating any positions against reality and instead doubles down on his naivety.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 21, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Isn't that stupid fucking illegal?


 
Who exactly would hold the police accountable if it is? (And it is, or at the very least was until recently and damn well should be again.)


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 21, 2011)

[yt]H13VkHE3UTQ[/yt]

No warnings, no opportunities to leave, just locked doors and everyone arrested.

Hey Darkwing, notice how everyone's cooperating?  Questioning the grounds of the arrest, but not resisting?

Don't think that fits in with your "all these dirty commies are agitating and forcing the police to step in and arrest them because they act up, otherwise they wouldn't be arrested!" line

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2011/10/marshall_garrett_citibank.php interview with one involved


----------



## TreacleFox (Oct 21, 2011)

Need more guys like this:
http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/10/18/1-us-marine-makes-30-nypd-cops-back-down/


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

TreacleFox said:


> Need more guys like this:
> http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2011/10/18/1-us-marine-makes-30-nypd-cops-back-down/


You could see the cops crapping their pants, nypd would have to bring 30 more cops for it to be a fair fight.

OWS needs to bring more veterans and soldiers, the cops wouldn't fuck with them then.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 21, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> You could see the cops crapping their pants, nypd would have to bring 30 more cops for it to be a fair fight.
> 
> OWS needs to bring more veterans and soldiers, the cops wouldn't fuck with them then.



They were performing a risk/reward evaluation.  You know, like hyenas circling around a wounded rhino.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 21, 2011)

Oh my God guys, I am scared.

There was this skeezy guy at the protests wearing a bandana around his neck, and I took my boyfriend to the protests yesterday. The guy came up to us and outright said he was an undercover cop and if we smoked weed, amused because an undercover would not say he is one we asked why and he said because he could get pot for us, and we pulled a what the fuck moment and told him no, and just to make sure he didn't bother us again we informed him that we did not bring money to the protests ever. We were perplexed, and my theory is that he is an informant but saying he's an undercover makes him feel cool.

So he goes away, I get on my bus to go home after awhile and he decides he'll stay for awhile, although it was around 5:30 and I think they are supposed to clear out in the evening, I don't know. If they stay they are supposed to leave by 11 PM.

He hasn't been online and he hasn't called me.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

Tycho said:


> They were performing a risk/reward evaluation.  You know, like hyenas circling around a wounded rhino.


 Probably what was going on in their head.
29 other cops-
Is it enough to take him in?
No-
Solution:
Get 30 more cops-
Problem:
Everybody videotapping 60 cops taking down one guy would cause shit storm.
Solution:
Back the fuck away.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 21, 2011)

No one of them wants to be the first one in, no one of them wants to deal with the ugly PR.  "You go first." "No, you go first." "I am not going in first."

They expose soldiers to tear gas and pepper gas in training, so this ex-Marine probably knows what that stuff is like.

Honestly, 3-4 cops could take him in, but it would be messy and painful.  Just because he's a Marine, doesn't mean he was an ace in CQB.  He's a big guy but he's not a superhero.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

Some more news tonight as well.
Anonymous stole all of the Boston policemen and posted it online in revenge for the police brutality against the occupy protesters.
I kinda have mixed feelings about this; on one hand a ton of police officers had their personal information leaked for everyone to see; on the other those police officers beating up veterans are fucking dirtbags.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Some more news tonight as well.
> *Anonymous stole all of the Boston policemen and posted it online* in revenge for the police brutality against the occupy protesters.
> I kinda have mixed feelings about this; on one hand a ton of police officers had their personal information leaked for everyone to see; on the other those police officers beating up veterans are fucking dirtbags.



Whoa, cool, so I guess this means pirating a police department means we get to use them to crack the heads of those we don't like without having to "donate" millions of dollars to do so?
brb loading up 2011.Boston.PD.All.Cops.Every.Cops.yourownpersonalgoonsquad.KEYGENCRACK.ANON_LEAK.(RAZOR1911.Repacked)..[Demonoid.com].torrent

COINTELPRO tactics involve the very same thing and, just like I can't feel sympathy for "fallen hero police officer :eaglecry: :memorialprocessionshuttingdowneverystreet:" because of all the people slain and beaten by cops.  If something happens as a result of this information, and I sincerely doubt it because of the non-violent nature of this protest.  Part of why the armed and armored are so aggressive in the first place is that they're nonviolent- it's almost a sport to crack the skulls of unarmed protestors because of the low risk, high reward involved, just as it's far easier to raid many people who smoke weed but aren't hardcore drug dealers because users (and I don't mean meth, crack, heroin, I mean pot) are more likely to be lazed out on couches while dealers and gang members are more likely to shoot back.

As an aside, I'm not sure if this handy chart was ever linked in this thread.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 23, 2011)

okay so crisis averted apparently he had just stayed pretty long and it was all right. Still, we've definitely got the knowledge now that there are informants and undercovers everywhere in Colorado.

Looking at the Denverpost slamming us so hard, and how many people hate us and tell us to go home, it feels hopeless and like we're losing the fight here. There's cartoonists and people in the news talking about how the tea partiers got slammed and the occupy protestors don't and that's NOT true.

They accused a protestor of groping some frazzled old gray haired grumpy journalist when the whole damn thing is filled with nubile, hot young college guys. They're making up shit at this point and trying to do anything to keep us down.


----------



## RiskyFrisky (Oct 23, 2011)

Just means I get to see the cops beat the living hell out of more people. Which means my news gets filled up with shit I don't care about. Which means I'm unhappy, because I'd rather see North Korea nuke some random country than hear about Wallstreet protesters! Why? Because they're going to achieve nothing! It's a worthless cause!

We already know everything they're stating, even though they're all after something diiiferent and not behind one exact plaaan.

Besides? Who does hte government side with? The company that brings revenue to the country!? Or the individual inside that company that is easily replaced!? OMG THE WORLD MAY NEVER KN...oh wait.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

RiskyFrisky said:


> Just means I get to see the cops beat the living hell out of more people. Which means my news gets filled up with shit I don't care about. Which means I'm unhappy, because I'd rather see North Korea nuke some random country than hear about Wallstreet protesters! Why? Because they're going to achieve nothing! It's a worthless cause!
> 
> We already know everything they're stating, even though they're all after something diiiferent and not behind one exact plaaan.
> 
> Besides? Who does hte government side with? The company that brings revenue to the country!? Or the individual inside that company that is easily replaced!? OMG THE WORLD MAY NEVER KN...oh wait.


What are you 15?  You sound like a child that thinks they know everything.


Lacus said:


> okay so crisis averted apparently he had just  stayed pretty long and it was all right. Still, we've definitely got the  knowledge now that there are informants and undercovers everywhere in  Colorado.
> 
> Looking at the Denverpost slamming us so hard, and how many people hate  us and tell us to go home, it feels hopeless and like we're losing the  fight here. There's cartoonists and people in the news talking about how  the tea partiers got slammed and the occupy protestors don't and that's  NOT true.
> 
> They accused a protestor of groping some frazzled old gray haired grumpy  journalist when the whole damn thing is filled with nubile, hot young  college guys. They're making up shit at this point and trying to do  anything to keep us down.


The media is fighting back as hard as they can, the problem for them is if they don't nip the protest in the butt otherwise face the consequences.


----------



## RiskyFrisky (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What are you 15?  You sound like a child that thinks they know everything.



I sound more like a person with an opinion.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

RiskyFrisky said:


> I sound more like a person with an opinion.


Well for one you can't even spell basic words properly.

And two this is a societal movement, not a politically backed movement.

The tea party got so big cause it was planted by fringe politicians, FOXNews and big business.
Occupy protests started with nothing and no money and the rate at which they are growing is going to endanger a bunch of current politician's political future.
They have no money, no politicians, no news corporations to fling money at them.
The reason why so many news corporations are demonizing them is if the news companies don't, then by the time the presidential election swings by it will basically dickslap the current politicians' political power in the face and then teabag them.


----------



## RiskyFrisky (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Well for one you can't even spell basic words properly.



Or I just type fast and don't care to spell check everything I write. Nice to see we're already at attacking others characteristics instead of their arguments.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

RiskyFrisky said:


> Or I just type fast and don't care to spell check everything I write. Nice to see we're already at attacking others characteristics instead of their arguments.


I type at 100wpm.

And yes I replied to your point.
This story is more important than a ton of things going on in the news.
The news' job is to make money, they have become like a popcorn flick with no substance.
The Occupy protests are all substance, the media hates news stories like this because any story that takes actual thinking can't be streamed on the airwaves for five seconds and scare the crap out of old people who vote.


----------



## RiskyFrisky (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I type at 100wpm.
> 
> And yes I replied to your point.
> This story is more important than a ton of things going on in the news.
> ...



I don't find much importance in it, I do agree with the rest of your post.

And I can tell that you type at 100wpm, the rate you post at is fantastic. I envy you.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

RiskyFrisky said:


> I don't find much importance in it, I do agree with the rest of your post.
> 
> And I can tell that you type at 100wpm, the rate you post is fantastic.


And how the news reports on Snooki being more tan is more important?


----------



## RiskyFrisky (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> And how the news reports on Snooki being more tan is more important?



(Edit) Meh.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

RiskyFrisky said:


> Can we just say she got skin cancer and keeled over? I don't like Snooki very much, she hurts my ears.
> 
> Also, derailing threads is fun.


I was going to post, then realized it further would derail the topic.

The Occupy protesters are like the egyptian protests meet the tea party.
A societal movement starting by going against a group with far more resources that you would think could stomp out the protesters under their thumb.  However like the egyptian protests, they are gaining popularity exponentially even without political backing.
It's only a matter of time until the occupy protesters take over the democratic party, like the tea party took over the republican party.


----------



## Kamatz (Oct 23, 2011)

I'm not sure I'd call it a full blown societal movement yet. The civil rights movement was a societal movement. Right now Occupy Wall street is still just a whole lot of angry people without much of a unified cause.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> I'm not sure I'd call it a full blown societal movement yet. The civil rights movement was a societal movement. Right now Occupy Wall street is still just a whole lot of angry people without much of a unified cause.


Right, so a group of people in thousands of places are doing it just because :V


----------



## Aden (Oct 23, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> I'm not sure I'd call it a full blown societal movement yet. The civil rights movement was a societal movement. Right now Occupy Wall street is still just a whole lot of angry people without much of a unified cause.



I would venture that the whole "they don't know what they stand for" point is becoming less and less on the mark as time goes on


----------



## Kamatz (Oct 23, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Right, so a group of people in thousands of places are doing it just because :V



Well no, but everyone's in it for a different reason. As far as I can tell they haven't put forward a list of actionable items for congress. See the section under Demands and Goals. People are upset, and rightfully so, but without that list they're shouting into the void.

I don't think wanting change is enough of a cause to get anything done.



Aden said:


> I would venture that the whole "they don't know what they stand for" point is becoming less and less on the mark as time goes on



I haven't been keeping up on the most recent developments. Do you guys know something that I don't? Is the movement more unified now than it was a couple weeks ago?


----------



## Onnes (Oct 23, 2011)

Kamatz said:


> Well no, but everyone's in it for a different reason. As far as I can tell they haven't put forward a list of actionable items for congress. See the section under Demands and Goals. People are upset, and rightfully so, but without that list they're shouting into the void.
> 
> I don't think wanting change is enough of a cause to get anything done.



A protest movement is never going to be able to offer specific proposals with regard to economic policy, nor would you want it to. Protests are about drawing attention to a given issue and swaying public opinion; it's up to the relevant policy makers, with both experience in politics and necessary expertise, to come up with remedies. You don't have to have a background in economics to realize that both inequality and the influence of money in politics have rocketed upward in a kind of perverse feedback loop. You do however need some extensive knowledge in order to make sane policy recommendations that won't fail horribly or even make the problem worse.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 23, 2011)

Onnes said:


> You do however need some extensive knowledge in order to make sane policy recommendations that won't fail horribly or even make the problem worse.


 
Financial executives have pushed so many self-interested policy decisions on America over the last thirty years that it doesn't even take particularly extensive knowledge to make huge improvements, all you really need is to have paid attention for a while.



Kamatz said:


> Well no, but everyone's in it for a different reason. As far as I can tell they haven't put forward a list of actionable items for congress. See the section under Demands and Goals. People are upset, and rightfully so, but without that list they're shouting into the void.


 
Here, I'll give some demands, all of which are in line with the goals of the Occupiers I've worked with and not just my own personal views:

1. Reinstate all the regulations of the Glass-Steagall Act, and break up all banks "too big to fail".

2. Investigate and prosecute the banks responsible involved with the sub-prime mortgage securities fraud that brought down our economy.  Penalize those responsible by imprisoning the executives, seizing their profits, and forgiving domestic debts held by the banks.

3. Pass legislation that overturns the legal fiction of recognizing corporations as people with constitutional rights, but preserves the ability to sue them.

4. Restructure or eliminate the Federal Reserve and return its powers to the Department of the Treasury.

5. Reform campaign finance laws and lobbying regulations to minimize corporate influence in the political process.

6. Make full employment the top priority of our economic policy from this point forwards.  Further prioritize asset creation over wealth accumulation.

7. No more bailouts, at least not without stiff penalties to offset their cost, namely debt forgiveness and full cooperation in investigations for financial malfeasance.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 23, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Financial executives have pushed so many self-interested policy decisions on America over the last thirty years that it doesn't even take particularly extensive knowledge to make huge improvements, all you really need is to have paid attention for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know what? I don't see anything about these demands that the republicans in my state could REALLY disagree with this, there were members of the tea party I recall that bitched about things like this essentially.

It's funny though, if you take a real close look at Democrats and Republicans at the people level they agree on quite a few things and are arguing over minor differences or nothing really.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 23, 2011)

Lacus said:


> You know what? I don't see anything about these demands that the republicans in my state could REALLY disagree with this, there were members of the tea party I recall that bitched about things like this essentially.
> 
> It's funny though, if you take a real close look at Democrats and Republicans at the people level they agree on quite a few things and are arguing over minor differences or nothing really.


 
They're committed to keeping this a nonpartisan movement, even though our local group is primarily composed of old guard liberals.  If I was going to list out my personal political platform there's a lot more I'd include, particularly about taxation and social programs.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 23, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Financial executives have pushed so many self-interested policy decisions on America over the last thirty years that it doesn't even take particularly extensive knowledge to make huge improvements, all you really need is to have paid attention for a while.



As you've no doubt noticed, many libertarians show up these protests as well, and they've certainly been paying attention. But their proposed remedies would involve further deregulating financial institutions and eliminating funding for a large portion of the federal government. Just watching the news every night is not going to give one a coherent framework for thinking about policy.




> 4. Restructure or eliminate the Federal Reserve and return its powers to the Department of the Treasury.



This point here is quite illustrative. Unlike the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve is designed to be politically independent. The reason for this is that any given administration faces the temptation of creating an economic boom within their limited time in power. This boom is then inexorably followed by a bust, hence giving rise to a continuous boom and bust cycle as parties rotate in and out of power. The relative independence of the Reserve allows it to do things like raise interest rates, and potentially slow temporary economic growth, without facing political repercussions.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

Lacus said:


> You know what? I don't see anything about these demands that the republicans in my state could REALLY disagree with this, there were members of the tea party I recall that bitched about things like this essentially.
> 
> It's funny though, if you take a real close look at Democrats and Republicans at the people level they agree on quite a few things and are arguing over minor differences or nothing really.


Welcome to america, where the vast majority of political conflict is made up for a cheap popcorn flick.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 23, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Here, I'll give some demands, all of which are in line with the goals of the Occupiers I've worked with and not just my own personal views:
> 
> 1. Reinstate all the regulations of the Glass-Steagall Act, and break up all banks "too big to fail".
> 
> ...



You forgot one.

8. Fuck the Jews.

:V

BTW, while I was down in DC I got to see the protests going on in Freedom Plaza.  Extremely small turnout considering it was the nation's capital.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 23, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You forgot one.
> 
> 8. Fuck the Jews.
> 
> :V


 


Notice how nobody else is anywhere near that guy.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 23, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You forgot one.
> 
> 8. Fuck the Jews.
> 
> ...



http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/12/anti_semite_gets_called_out_at_occupy_wall_st/singleton/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/stanleyrogouski/6238977117/in/photostream

Nobody supports these assholes, yet you're asserting that this Loose Change/Zeitgeist bullshit has permeated the movement and painting supporters as anti-Semitic.  If this was really the case, I don't think Jewish people would be anywhere near this protest because of that hatred, but they are.  I'm reminded of the EBSW guy: he posted some really shitty, neo-Nazi conspiracy racist shit, yet nothing was done because he hadn't broken any rules and his anti-Semitic posts weren't recognized as such.  It wasn't until he clearly broke the rules of the forum with a racist cartoon that he was booted- just as these assholes can't really be booted because a) the movement is leaderless and can't get rid of him b) as much as this shit should never be spoken, he has the right to say it leaving everyone else with the responsibility of challenging it and shaming it and denouncing such words.

Because of the open nature of the protest, these people unfortunately come in and take advantage of that openness to spread their hate.  Just like it's been very easy for undercover cops and informants and agents provocateurs to infiltrate and cause or start just about every confrontation.  The Air and Space museum protest was supposed to be a sit in in front of the military drone exhibit, but when the crowd was told they could not enter, they did not enter.  They were upset, but they did not push through- only that conservative "journalist" did, and he freely admitted to doing it to embarrass and discredit the movement, and people fell for it when reading.  The Citibank account closing protest was accompanied by at least one undercover officer that was loud and disruptive and helped provide a reason for arrest of the others involved.

Compare that to Tea Party's "Obama witch doctor" "Obama = White Slavery" posters in the midst of a lot of other non-complaining, non-reacting and possibly supportive protesters (until they realized it made them look bad and started making accusations that these photos were from liberal plants making the tea party look bad)

Hey Term, I know you're a curmudgeonly grump who pooh-poohs everything (you're quite, dare I say, _crabby_?) but you're not an idiot, because I've read some very good posts from you elsewhere, but what do you think of the "53%" possibly-astroturf "movement" of Stockholm Syndrome via cheap webcam and tumblr?  Do you feel those people are right and reasonable and that OWS is just a bunch of neo-hippies begging for handouts?

Speaking of hippies, the original hippies were babby boomers who grew up, sold out, and are the root of what's been going on since ~1980.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 23, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> words.



I guess the ":V" got lost on you somewhere.

Allow me to make it bigger for you.

*:V*


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 23, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I guess the ":V" got lost on you somewhere.
> 
> Allow me to make it bigger for you.
> 
> *:V*



please pardon me for mistaking this as one of your occasional dumb posts, especially considering the pattern of crustacean negativity elsewhere in the thread.  especially when your post was "don't forget fuck the jews" and straight up had a photo of someone with an anti-semitic sign ostensibly attaching himself to the OWS protests- how was that to be seen as not critical of the movement?  besides, :v is often used to mock the one being addressed for saying something dumb (which you may very well have considered Lobar/his post to be), it doesn't mean "don't take my post seriously at all" all the time.

Or are you really that dumb, yourself? :V

just playing with you, let's fuck


----------



## Lobar (Oct 24, 2011)

you can advance any argument as long as you put :V in front of it


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 24, 2011)

And here's another example of the banks shafting us, they're now going to hike the fee for a debit transaction to $5 a swipe and a monthly fee of $5.


----------



## Aden (Oct 24, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> And here's another example of the banks shafting us, they're now going to hike the fee for a debit transaction to $5 a swipe and a monthly fee of $5.



Aside from how obviously this is bullshit (five bucks _per swipe_? Even banks know that's a death warrant), exactly which banks are covered under "they"? Sounds like some BoA shit.

\Join a credit union, kids


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 24, 2011)

Aden said:


> Aside from how obviously this is bullshit (five bucks _per swipe_? Even banks know that's a death warrant), exactly which banks are covered under "they"? Sounds like some BoA shit.
> 
> \Join a credit union, kids


Let's see chase, bank of america, possibly shitibank.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 24, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> And here's another example of the banks shafting us, they're now going to hike the fee for a debit transaction to $5 a swipe and a monthly fee of $5.



I believe you misread something or another. The $5 fee is charged only once in a given month if you use your debit card to make a purchase. It isn't charged at all if you simply withdraw money from an ATM.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 24, 2011)

Not directly OWS related, but funny in relation to the "Marine speaks out against Police Brutality". Sacred Cow starts having funding cuts... and guess which parts / who's footing the cuts?

Austerity! Austerity! :V


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 24, 2011)

Aden said:


> Aside from how obviously this is bullshit (five bucks _per swipe_? Even banks know that's a death warrant), exactly which banks are covered under "they"? Sounds like some BoA shit.
> 
> \Join a credit union, kids



Yes, BofA, and very yes, join a credit union.

You have until the Fifth of November to take your money out of the major banks.  Don't forget to file new forms with your employer if you get paid by direct deposit. *EFG face*



CannonFodder said:


> And here's another example of the banks shafting us, they're now going to hike the fee for a debit transaction to $5 a swipe and a monthly fee of $5.



There are two facets to this.  First, the Dodd-Frank Bill limits card transaction fees to about half of what banks were charging, so any amount over roughly a quarter a swipe is now illegal under federal law.  Second, Bank of America is using the same Dodd-Frank Bill to justify the $5.00 monthly fee in order to make up the losses from their inability to shaft their customers everywhere they go, and other banks are entertaining the same idea.


----------



## Cain (Oct 24, 2011)

I still don't see the point of all this "Oooh corporate greed is ruining our world maaaan"

I'd like to see the US try to get itself out of the debt crisis it's in, without corporations supporting the government and country's economy. It's pointless to even think country's economies can take off or even sustain by using small, private businesses.

Idiots.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 24, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> I'd like to see the US try to get itself out of the debt crisis it's in, without corporations supporting the government and country's economy.


 Raise taxes and increase government spending? I would have thought it was sort-of obvious by now that "Austerity" and "Free Will of the Market" are only harming the process, but apparently to some raising taxes to what they were in post-War US [and not even their highs during that time] is crazy talk.



Jagged Edge said:


> It's pointless to even think country's economies can take off or even sustain by using small, private businesses.


 Which makes it funny that many measures taken to draw money from larger corporations are decried because they might also impact small, private businesses. Or, in other words, media portrayal that paints small businesses as unwilling meatshields (which, if one's familiar with the policies proposed, they would know is blatantly false with the proposed policies) so that the corporations can keep on chuggin'.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 24, 2011)

ArielMT said:


> Yes, BofA, and very yes, join a credit union.
> 
> You have until the Fifth of November to take your money out of the major banks.  Don't forget to file new forms with your employer if you get paid by direct deposit. *EFG face*


 That's my 20th birthday man. Also I don't get using guy fawkes as the symbol, because he was trying to put in an equally authoritarian and shitty government. Although I GUESS conservatives argue that we're doing that by asking corporations to pay their fair share of taxes and jailing people who committed massive credit fraud.



Jagged Edge said:


> I still don't see the point of all this "Oooh corporate greed is ruining our world maaaan"
> 
> I'd like to see the US try to get itself out of the debt crisis it's in, without corporations supporting the government and country's economy. It's pointless to even think country's economies can take off or even sustain by using small, private businesses.
> 
> Idiots.


Actually you're absolutely correct, we can't get out of the debt crisis without the corporations. The problem is that they don't pay their fair share of taxes and they are stomping their feet and plugging their ears like 3 year olds screaming that it's SOCIALISM! OH DEAR GOD NO.

In any other country they would not be so catered to like fucking BABIES.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 24, 2011)

Jagged Edge said:


> I still don't see the point of all this "Oooh corporate greed is ruining our world maaaan"
> 
> I'd like to see the US try to get itself out of the debt crisis it's in, without corporations supporting the government and country's economy. It's pointless to even think country's economies can take off or even sustain by using small, private businesses.
> 
> Idiots.



Nobody's out to eliminate large businesses, _idiot_, we're seeking to break their control over the political process that they use to shunt their tax burden onto everyone else, get corporate welfare earmarks, and push legislation squeezing labor rights.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 24, 2011)

ArielMT said:


> There are two facets to this.  First, the Dodd-Frank Bill limits card transaction fees to about half of what banks were charging, so any amount over roughly a quarter a swipe is now illegal under federal law.  Second, Bank of America is using the same Dodd-Frank Bill to justify the $5.00 monthly fee in order to make up the losses from their inability to shaft their customers everywhere they go, and other banks are entertaining the same idea.


Looks like from now on I'll just withdraw my money from the bank.
And I think Chase has already begun doing this, cause I keep a very close eye on my bank account and I found $5 fee labeled, "transaction fee".
Not sure what else it could be other thank what you described.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 24, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Also I don't get using guy fawkes as the symbol, because he was trying to put in an equally authoritarian and shitty government.



Nitpick: "Guy Fawkes" himself isn't the symbol, just the use of the "Guy Fawkes" mask thing from the film "V for Vendetta".

The real-life historical Guy Fawkes was part of a plot to assassinate the English King James I by blowing up Parliament Buildings with around a ton of gunpowder, with the ultimate aim of restoring a Catholic king to the English throne. Hardly a person fighting against an "authoritarian and shitty government", Fawkes was essentially involved in the equivalent of a 9/11 terrorist attack, which it it had succeeded would have killed everyone within 100 metres of the blast centre.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 24, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Looks like from now on I'll just withdraw my money from the bank.
> And I think Chase has already begun doing this, cause I keep a very close eye on my bank account and I found $5 fee labeled, "transaction fee".
> Not sure what else it could be other thank what you described.


 
Just _ditch your damn bank_.

Taking your business to a small local credit union both takes a bit of money and power away from Wall Street and alleviates your worries about bullshit fees.  It's a win-win.

Literally everybody should do their banking at a credit union, it was smart advice before it became a political statement to boot.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 24, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Just _ditch your damn bank_.
> 
> Taking your business to a small local credit union both takes a bit of money and power away from Wall Street and alleviates your worries about bullshit fees.  It's a win-win.
> 
> Literally everybody should do their banking at a credit union, it was smart advice before it became a political statement to boot.


I'm with a pretty good bank, only a $10 yearly fee for debit card use and I get an essentially free account for being a student

But reading into how Credit Unions work, I like the way they do things.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 24, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Just _ditch your damn bank_.
> 
> Taking your business to a small local credit union both takes a bit of money and power away from Wall Street and alleviates your worries about bullshit fees.  It's a win-win.
> 
> Literally everybody should do their banking at a credit union, it was smart advice before it became a political statement to boot.


Holy fuck, there's one literally right down the street.
I may do this week.


OWS should start telling everyone to switch to credit unions.


----------



## Ikrit (Oct 24, 2011)

i'm gonna ask a question that no body has answered me

what is the point of this in layman's terms


----------



## Neuron (Oct 24, 2011)

Ikrit said:


> i'm gonna ask a question that no body has answered me
> 
> what is the point of this in layman's terms


We've answered this literally DOZENS OF TIMES.



Lobar said:


> Here, I'll give some demands, all of which are in  line with the goals of the Occupiers I've worked with and not just my  own personal views:
> 
> 1. Reinstate all the regulations of the Glass-Steagall Act, and break up all banks "too big to fail".
> 
> ...


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 24, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Looks like from now on I'll just withdraw my money from the bank.
> And I think Chase has already begun doing this, cause I keep a very close eye on my bank account and I found $5 fee labeled, "transaction fee".
> Not sure what else it could be other thank what you described.



If you want to fight the fee, then call up your bank and ask what it is.  Be sure to calmly insist on a straight answer if they give you any PR spin on it.

Still, most people shouldn't be using big banks anyway, because the fees they charge and the processes they use to charge those fees exceed the worth of the services they offer that most people actually use, not just the interest accounts earn.



Lobar said:


> Just _ditch your damn bank_.
> 
> Taking your business to a small local credit union both takes a bit of money and power away from Wall Street and alleviates your worries about bullshit fees.  It's a win-win.
> 
> Literally everybody should do their banking at a credit union, it was smart advice before it became a political statement to boot.



This, all of it.  The three hardest parts are making sure you can join the CU you want, resisting the bank's customer retention department, and waiting on new checks and a new ATM or debit card from the CU.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 24, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> The real-life historical Guy Fawkes was part of a plot to assassinate the English King James I by blowing up Parliament Buildings with around a ton of gunpowder, with the ultimate aim of restoring a Catholic king to the English throne. Hardly a person fighting against an "authoritarian and shitty government", Fawkes was essentially involved in the equivalent of a 9/11 terrorist attack, which it it had succeeded would have killed everyone within 100 metres of the blast centre.



This so much, and he was fighting to bring in an even more authoritarian government.

I love the irony so much.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 24, 2011)

I've had a non-shitty bank since... well, let's put it this way, I've been with them since I was in middle school.

No funny business, pleasant support, I don't have any sort of fees (or at least, on the stuff that I do) except from other banks when I use an off-bank ATM.

Rule of thumb: research is your friend. Know who you're doing business with.


----------



## ArielMT (Oct 24, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Rule of thumb: research is your friend. Know who you're doing business with.



Also know why you're still doing business with them.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 24, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I'm with a pretty good bank, only a $10 yearly fee for debit card use and I get an essentially free account for being a student
> 
> But reading into how Credit Unions work, I like the way they do things.



That's still 10bux a year you don't have to pay.

I joined my credit union when I was still a minor, and I got free savings and checking accounts, the only requirement they asked of me was to keep $5 (yes, just five dollars) total minimum balance between the two accounts.  When I turned 18 I got a debit card with no annual or usage fees ever and a VISA credit card with a fixed 9% APR, also with no extra fees.  The only fees I've ever paid to this credit union are a couple late fees because I was dumb about getting the check in the mail on time, 100% my fault.

My CU is nothing special amongst CUs, this is about par for the course.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 24, 2011)

I found a rather interesting article earlier today by Peter Orszag that examines one of the long term trends leading to lower wages and unemployment. In previous decades, the percentage of business income that went into wages and compensation stayed roughly constant. However, since 1990 it has dropped by roughly 5%, which corresponds to a $500 billion deficit compared to 1990 spending levels. That is a huge amount of cash which has been moved from wages to other forms of spending. Orszag largely attributes the change to pressures due to globalization and technological advances, neither of which are going away any time soon.

This is essentially another way of looking at how the economy is being restructured to provide fewer jobs at lower wages. The worst part is that the trend is going to continue well into the future. Unless something is done to change how we approach employment and the distribution of wealth then the job market will continue to look grim even after the effects of the current recession fade away. Good luck figuring out how to actually combat something like the negative effects of globalization without completely breaking the world economy.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 24, 2011)

Onnes said:


> I found a rather interesting article earlier today by Peter Orszag that examines one of the long term trends leading to lower wages and unemployment. In previous decades, the percentage of business income that went into wages and compensation stayed roughly constant. However, since 1990 it has dropped by roughly 5%, which corresponds to a $500 billion deficit compared to 1990 spending levels. That is a huge amount of cash which has been moved from wages to other forms of spending. Orszag largely attributes the change to pressures due to globalization and technological advances, neither of which are going away any time soon.
> 
> This is essentially another way of looking at how the economy is being restructured to provide fewer jobs at lower wages. The worst part is that the trend is going to continue well into the future. Unless something is done to change how we approach employment and the distribution of wealth then the job market will continue to look grim even after the effects of the current recession fade away. Good luck figuring out how to actually combat something like the negative effects of globalization without completely breaking the world economy.



There's also the growing expectation in the United States for mostly part time workers working at 39 hours a week, yielding all of the lower costs/ties of part timers (such as not providing benefits) while getting about the same amount of work per person, if not just hiring loads of people and giving each of them just a few hours a week, leading them to take up a new job on their own.  With full time, you are expected to work more and more unpaid overtime, with some places pushing 60.  With a salary, whether you work 40 hours or 60 hours, you get paid the same.  Yet if you don't work that extra bit, or burn out because you're doing the work of two or more people in an understaffed department, the job market is such that they would have no problem firing you and having some desperate person who hasn't been able to work in ages do the same work or more for a lower wage, since they're just grateful to have a job.  Good luck to you finding a new one, especially if you had benefits like health insurance.

If there wasn't such exploitation by management as there is in this country it would not be as bad- people working reasonable hours and not being forced to do the job of multiple people at once and, I dunno, having actual vacation time like the rest of the industrialized world.  The wage/productivity ratio won't be as good as it has been, but as it stands that ratio is completely off and is harmful in the longrun to those who actually buy the product in the first place.

The trend is more work for less pay by fewer workers.  That depresses wages, makes it more difficult for everyone, keeps people from getting jobs, and is counterproductive.  Fair wages and fair hours are not incompatible with profits, which everyone knows is necessary to the operation of a business.  Profits derived from out and out exploitation, however, is not acceptable.  Fair hours and fair wages and fair work expectations will keep people from needing to have multiple jobs just to barely stay above water, meaning more people can take those jobs, they'll have disposable income to drive the economy.  All people want is an opportunity to work, yet some characterize this as a handout.  It's ridiculous.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 24, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> The trend is more work for less pay by fewer workers.  That depresses wages, makes it more difficult for everyone, keeps people from getting jobs, and is counterproductive.  Fair wages and fair hours are not incompatible with profits, which everyone knows is necessary to the operation of a business.  Profits derived from out and out exploitation, however, is not acceptable.  Fair hours and fair wages and fair work expectations will keep people from needing to have multiple jobs just to barely stay above water, meaning more people can take those jobs, they'll have disposable income to drive the economy.  All people want is an opportunity to work, yet some characterize this as a handout.  It's ridiculous.



It's one thing to note the problem and entirely another to fix it. The trend away from fair employment is a natural consequence of the world's booming population and the productivity increases constantly provided through technological progress. Any remedy would require a fundamental reexamination of how we approach employment and the relatively free market. This isn't a case of merely tightening regulations or imposing stricter work hour rules, this is a case of having to provide jobs that have no economic reason for existing. While we have done such things in extraordinary times it is hardly a normal occurrence, especially in the US. The role of government in society and the market would no longer be the same.


----------



## ADF (Oct 25, 2011)

Whenever I see the BBC talk about this movement, they refer to them as anti capitalist protesters. I usually see anti capitalist signs as well.

These people do realize that what they are angry about isn't capitalism right?

The housing bubble occurred because of an artificially low central bank set interest rate, making credit and mortgages cheap. What burst the bubble was 'collateralized debt obligation' investment products going boom, because they had fraudulently graded the mortgages backing them AAA; when they should have been graded junk. The reason this posed systemic risk is because the government repealed Glassâ€“Steagall, which prevented the savings and investment side of banking from operating under one roof. A crash in the investment banking system risked the entire banking system itself, which the government responded to with bail outs. Central banks also cut interest rates down to next to nothing, in the hope of avoiding a recession.

So what do we have here? We have central bank and government manipulation creating bubbles that shouldn't exist, socialization of private losses by the government, and then further central bank manipulation by effectively giving banks access to unlimited cheap credit. Making it so banks don't need to loan to businesses for profit, or reward savings on deposits, because they can loan from the central bank for next to nothing. Why give a customer inflation busting interest rates to leave their deposits in the bank, when the Fed is loaning at 0.25%? A rate a monkey could make money with. Why risk money by loaning it to a business, when the stock market just keeps going up because of QE stimulus?

Where is the capitalism in all this? If they want someone to blame, blame the central banks and governments. If free market capitalism was actually practised, none of these conditions could have occurred. And even if they somehow did, the banks wouldn't have been bailed out. They would have lost on their bets, there would have been a big ass recession/depression, and those that survived would have their activities curtailed by the risk of destroying themselves.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2011)

It's cause the media recognizes the protest as a threat, cause even with them hitting the "these people are communists who hate amurica" button constantly so hard that it's perpetually stuck on, the protest is still continuing to gain popularity.
Pretty much no matter what the media is trying to do it's ineffective.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 25, 2011)

ADF said:


> These people do realize that what they are angry about isn't capitalism right?



Yes.  Just like they aren't looking for "handouts" and equal outcome as is similarly attributed to them, but fair and equal opportunity.

Doesn't stop the media and people like you from thinking they just want free shit and to tear down everything capitalism is.  Some of the, what, 2000? members of the CPUSA have shown up and as a result they are part of the movement, but in no way do they represent it. Other people have come in to push their causes, too, but even if it's agreeable to many people it's irrelevant to the problem of business buying off government, shielding themselves from risk and making off scot-free with a load of money while everyone else, referred to as the 99%, is being forced to bear the burden of that economic ruination- austerity for the lower and middle classes while the wealthy maintain some of the most favorable tax rates in the first world outside of tax-shelter nations.

The "where's my bailout" sort of sign that's been around even in the tea party is often viewed as a demand for free money to alleviate the consequence of bad decisions when they should suck it up, when the real mentality behind it is that wealthy people got...  free money to alleviate the consequences of bad decisions, and even people who haven't made bad decisions are the ones paying for it.  Even worse because considering the marginal utility of dollars, the wealthy are the least in need of monetary assistance- especially when the result is hoarding.

The regulations to prevent this were in place, and it was the government ultimately preventing this from happening.  The causes and consequences of the Great Depression were forgotten, wealthy businessmen lobbied heavily for the dismantling of "choking, job-killing regulations" and ultimately the government that had been keeping a lot of this risk in check (because you cannot ever trust the private sector to act positively when left to police itself, which was the hope of a pared down and "business-friendly" appointee-stuffed SEC) had been bought off by these companies.

Government was, for over 50 years, was the entity keeping the financial sector in check.  Then economic neoliberalism and outright celebration of greed came into vogue, and "captains of industry" were invited to help write friendly legislation.  The problem isn't government itself, it's businessmen in government.

Personally, I say seize their assets.  Should have bailed out and carved up the banks and taken some of that cash to help fix the damage they caused.  Instead, they're stepping up the exploitation and these leeches are sucking everything dry.  And that's not even getting into the problems labor faces today.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 25, 2011)

ADF said:


> The housing bubble occurred because of an artificially low central bank set interest rate, making credit and mortgages cheap. What burst the bubble was 'collateralized debt obligation' investment products going boom, because they had fraudulently graded the mortgages backing them AAA; when they should have been graded junk. The reason this posed systemic risk is because the government repealed Glassâ€“Steagall, which prevented the savings and investment side of banking from operating under one roof. A crash in the investment banking system risked the entire banking system itself, which the government responded to with bail outs. Central banks also cut interest rates down to next to nothing, in the hope of avoiding a recession.



A bubble cannot occur without irrational behavior in the private sector.  You can't simply blame the government when private lenders make  outrageous loans that are guaranteed to fail. And this was the work of private lenders: they represented around 90% of subprime loans. The fact that private actors were capable of this level of irrational behavior, to the extent that they wiped out their own longstanding businesses, is absolutely evidence that unfettered capitalism cannot function.



> So what do we have here? We have central bank and government manipulation creating bubbles that shouldn't exist, socialization of private losses by the government, and then further central bank manipulation by effectively giving banks access to unlimited cheap credit. Making it so banks don't need to loan to businesses for profit, or reward savings on deposits, because they can loan from the central bank for next to nothing. Why give a customer inflation busting interest rates to leave their deposits in the bank, when the Fed is loaning at 0.25%? A rate a monkey could make money with. Why risk money by loaning it to a business, when the stock market just keeps going up because of QE stimulus?



If you knew anything about the numbers  involved you'd know that the stimulus programs implemented in the US  were lesser in magnitude to the cuts in states' budgets. What you seem to be advocating is liquidationism, wherein you allow the economy to completely collapse like in the great depression. There is, of course, a large body of literature on why the great depression was an avoidable disaster.



> Where is the capitalism in all this? If they want someone to blame, blame the central banks and governments. If free market capitalism was actually practised, none of these conditions could have occurred. And even if they somehow did, the banks wouldn't have been bailed out. They would have lost on their bets, there would have been a big ass recession/depression, and those that survived would have their activities curtailed by the risk of destroying themselves.



Here's a hint: it isn't the banks that would suffer the most in another great depression; the actors involved there have more than enough money in savings to last the rest of their days. The real losses would be felt by the legions of unemployed who had nothing to do with the crisis but find themselves in poverty all the same. This was not the first financial crisis we've ever faced; the same patterns of risk taking are repeated decade after decade despite the lessons of history. You yourself mentioned the Glass-Steagall act, which is an act of government regulation. As soon as you admit that markets are irrational enough to require regulation then you have to drop the idea of perfectly rational actors that can be trusted to know what they are doing.


----------



## ADF (Oct 25, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> and people like you from thinking they just want free shit and to tear down everything capitalism is.



The only thing I have accused them of doing is misplacing the blame. Capitalism didn't cause this crisis like they are suggesting. Businesses influencing government decisions isn't capitalisms fault either, as that is crony capitalism. Real capitalism wants as little government involvement as possible. It wasn't capitalism that cause the great depression either, as that had to do with a deflationary spiral brought on by a credit contraction.

If people are going to protest what's going on, they have to protest the actual causes. Crony capitalism, corporate socialism, deregulation of the banks, government and central bank manipulation are just some of the things they should be looking at.


----------



## ADF (Oct 25, 2011)

Onnes said:


> A bubble cannot occur without irrational behavior in the private sector. You can't simply blame the government when private lenders make outrageous loans that are guaranteed to fail. And this was the work of private lenders: they represented around 90% of subprime loans. The fact that private actors were capable of this level of irrational behavior, to the extent that they wiped out their own longstanding businesses, is absolutely evidence that unfettered capitalism cannot function.



I'm not saying the the private sector wasn't at fault. But what they did was enabled by government and central bank policy, and so was the resulting damage.

No artificially low interest rate, no housing bubble. No deregulation of banks, no systemic risk.



Onnes said:


> If you knew anything about the numbers involved you'd know that the stimulus programs implemented in the US were lesser in magnitude to the cuts in states' budgets. What you seem to be advocating is liquidationism, wherein you allow the economy to completely collapse like in the great depression. There is, of course, a large body of literature on why the great depression was an avoidable disaster.
> 
> Here's a hint: it isn't the banks that would suffer the most in another great depression; the actors involved there have more than enough money in savings to last the rest of their days. The real losses would be felt by the legions of unemployed who had nothing to do with the crisis but find themselves in poverty all the same. This was not the first financial crisis we've ever faced; the same patterns of risk taking are repeated decade after decade despite the lessons of history. You yourself mentioned the Glass-Steagall act, which is an act of government regulation. As soon as you admit that markets are irrational enough to require regulation then you have to drop the idea of perfectly rational actors that can be trusted to know what they are doing.



The housing bubble bursting was just the most recent in a long line of kicking the can down the road by central banks. The dot-com bubble burst, they cut interest rates to avoid a recession. 9/11, they cut rates. They have been leap frogging over recessions time and time again, until finally they reached a point where the same old trick no longer works. You cannot cut rates below zero, but that doesn't stop them from trying via inflation.

Recessions rebalance economies, they're part of the boom and bust cycle, and we have been putting one off for a long long time. Even now, we are not actually experiencing a proper recession, because in an effort to keep the music going; central banks are doing the opposite of what they should be doing with policy right now. Rates need to go up, they are keeping them at historical lows.

At what point are we supposed to take our medicine? Are we supposed to just keep putting it off again and again, making the next disaster worse than the last? We're stuck in limbo right now, because we're still trying to prop up burst bubbles and keep people in houses they cannot afford.

The economy needs a reset, all this bad debt has to be wiped out; and we need to encourage savings and sound investment again with healthy interest rates. All we are doing right now is financing a speculative bubble while the real economy stagnates, and when that bubble bursts; we're not going to know what hit us. The idea of too big to fail is killing us, because what was a banking crisis in 2008 has now become a sovereign debt crisis in 2011, as the problem was simply transferred from the banks balance sheets to an already over burdened public balance sheet.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 25, 2011)

ADF said:


> I'm not saying the the private sector wasn't at fault. But what they did was enabled by government and central bank policy, and so was the resulting damage.
> 
> No artificially low interest rate, no housing bubble. No deregulation of banks, no systemic risk.



This is completely wrong. The only way the government could have made the subprime backed securities unprofitable would be to set interest rates at such a level that all investment would cease. Through ridiculously shortsighted rating algorithms, financial institutions were able to quite literally create money from nothing. 



> The housing bubble bursting was just the most recent in a long line of kicking the can down the road by central banks. The dot-com bubble burst, they cut interest rates to avoid a recession. 9/11, they cut rates. They have been leap frogging over recessions time and time again, until finally they reached a point where the same old trick no longer works. You cannot cut rates below zero, but that doesn't stop them from trying via inflation.



So we should have deflation instead? When debts are high, you want inflation because over time it lowers that real magnitudes of those debts. Deflation would instead cause widespread bankruptcy as debts became unmanageable.



> Recessions rebalance economies, they're part of the boom and bust cycle, and we have been putting one off for a long long time. Even now, we are not actually experiencing a proper recession, because in an effort to keep the music going; central banks are doing the opposite of what they should be doing with policy right now. Rates need to go up, they are keeping them at historical lows.



You have said nothing that implies that a boom and bust cycle is necessary. Following the great depression we put in place a large number of measures, both in terms of government regulations and institutional knowledge, designed to end the boom and bust cycle. Economists from both conservative and liberal backgrounds came to the conclusions that the cycles were not inevitable and could be prevented and countered through proper policy. Only the Austrians, who reject empirical knowledge, and the loonier laissez-faire types actually believe a cycle is necessary.



> At what point are we supposed to take our medicine? Are we supposed to just keep putting it off again and again, making the next disaster worse than the last? We're stuck in limbo right now, because we're still trying to prop up burst bubbles and keep people in houses they cannot afford.
> 
> The economy needs a reset, all this bad debt has to be wiped out; and we need to encourage savings and sound investment again with healthy interest rates. All we are doing right now is financing a speculative bubble while the real economy stagnates, and when that bubble bursts; we're not going to know what hit us. The idea of too big to fail is killing us, because what was a banking crisis in 2008 has now become a sovereign debt crisis in 2011, as the problem was simply transferred from the banks balance sheets to an already over burdened public balance sheet.



You can't simply say that the world should burn without providing some justification. We learned many things from the great depression, the foremost among them that it was unnecessary. This is the view espoused by the great economists of the 20th century, including both Keynes and Friedman; it completely spans the political divide. Suffering should not be demanded purely for sufferings sake, and that is exactly what you are asking for here. Finally, if you are going to argue from the Austrian position then please either provide sources or explanation, because Austrian economics is fucking hilarious.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2011)

Obama just got my vote, and apparently he's been listening to OWS.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-acts-ease-burden-student-loans-001017820.html


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 25, 2011)

Onnes said:


> ... Austrian economics is fucking hilarious.



Boy howdy.  Gotta love these conflicting assertions, too.  "These investment banks fucked up because regulations were taken away, and my position is that regulation is bad and the free market will behave on its own!  The fact that there were still SOME regulations in place means anything that goes wrong is 100% the fault of the government!"

Credit where credit's due, some similar guy on SA was making these kinds of arguments and, turns out, there WAS a period where banks were allowed to do whatever the fuck they wanted without government intervention!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking (notice nearly all of the proponents of such a system are either Austrian or Chicago school economists or very sympathetic to that theory? One dude's Wiki portrait even has him speaking at Cato, lol)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...tes#1837.E2.80.931862:_.22Free_Banking.22_Era
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1991023

HELL YES NO CENTRAL BANKING NO FED NO RULES NO FEAR GOLD SILVER WOOT YES wait fuck all my money's gone

EDIT:


ADF said:


> If people are going to protest what's going on, they have to protest the actual causes. Crony capitalism, corporate socialism, deregulation of the banks, government and central bank manipulation are just some of the things they should be looking at.



hi this is exactly what many of the people of OWS are looking at

by all means keep asking why they're not taking a look at these things, keep asserting that they should be doing something that they are already doing, this in no way makes you look like a concern troll


----------



## Lobar (Oct 26, 2011)

OWS isn't anti-capitalist, despite hostile media characterizing it as such.  You can stop pushing that argument right there.

Low interest rates also had nothing to do with it.  The bulk of the mortgages involved in the securites fraud were subprime loans at higher interest rates, often ARMs.  From the banks' perspective, these were actually the better loans to push, since they could sell them as having a higher rate of return than prime fixed-rate mortgages.  All the risk was being concealed regardless.

What's left is government deregulation, and while that was a critical mistake, it can't be argued that the government "caused" the bubble through deregulation anymore than parents cause their children to misbehave by having their backs turned.  You don't fix the children behavior by removing the parents entirely, you need the parents to take control and supervise them again.  The banks are children, they wholly own responsibility for directly causing this crisis and they need a spanking.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 26, 2011)

I prefer to think of this sarcastic post whenever the subject of the Austrian Free Market comes up:


			
				MJ12 Commando: Free Market As Computer: Can It Run Crysis? said:
			
		

> The Austrians appear to think so. And if it can, then you can program it.
> 
> 
> The papers linked above is probably going to be very hard to understand if you don't have at least a moderate economics and computer science background, so I'll summarize.
> ...



Remember, sarcastic, but drives the point home of the absurdity.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 26, 2011)

Jesus.  Occupy Oakland is getting pounded.

[yt]bytMNoKNeRA[/yt]

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/18100259

I think this is this is live: http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/livenow?id=8405688

EDIT: apparently every time the police would start firing teargas the chopper would cut the video feed and say they need to head back for refueling.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Jesus.  Occupy Oakland is getting pounded.
> 
> [yt]bytMNoKNeRA[/yt]
> 
> ...


And so it descends into chaos.
Way to fucking go Oakland, there's going to be a media frenzy over this like a shark to chum.
If the police keep clamping down hard like this eventually there's going to be another Kent State.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 26, 2011)

Oh, and it seems there was a second dosage of tear gas applied. You know, because the crowd didn't understand the intent the first. "Maybe they thought we wanted to fire the happy gas?"


----------



## Lobar (Oct 26, 2011)

Fucking inexcusable for handling a peaceful protest.  Tear gas should be reserved for actual riot control.

I guess this is an opportune time to ask if that vinegar-soaked bandanna over the face trick actually helps at all or if it's just Anarchist's Cookbook bullshit.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

It's only a matter of time until all these harsh crackdowns result in a cop taking it too far.
All it's going to take to delve the country into chaos is one bullet and one bullet alone.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> And so it descends into chaos.
> Way to fucking go Oakland, there's going to be a media frenzy over this like a shark to chum.
> If the police keep clamping down hard like this eventually there's going to be another Kent State.





CannonFodder said:


> It's only a matter of time until all these harsh crackdowns result in a cop taking it too far.
> All it's going to take to delve the country into chaos is one bullet and one bullet alone.



There's a blackout, news chopper keeps leaving to "refuel" every time the police open up with another round of teargas and flashbangs.  Plenty of opportunity for people to go on and say "well clearly the protestors started with unprovoked violence and brought this on themselves" and other lies.  Agents and undercover cops around, COINTELPRO never ended.

As for your second post, there was an earlier (though unrelated to OWS) protest at UC San Francisco over tuition hikes and downsizing.  Protest in a parking garage (I think) with a line of riot cops blocking the entrance where the board was meeting to determine how much to raise tuition turned into one cop lunging into the crowd and beating every skull he could with his baton.  Someone grabbed onto it and threw it away, cop draws gun and waves it around.  That eventually calms down (with that officer who looks like he'd got hit with a mix of "So help me I would execute you all" and "I might have gotten caught on several cameras at once executing them all! That would not look good!") and he slinks away, shoving other protesters in the face and chest.

I still can't help but wonder what the hell is up with NYC white shirts, though.  They're described as senior officers/supervisors, but they're the most brutal of all.  Usually that kind of violence is passed off on the rank and file, but now it's being perpetuated higher up in the chain.  Would not be surprised if they were taking extra money from the banks to act as overzealous security guards.

EDIT: added link for documentation of camera turnoff and chopper pullback; reported by a weather news website of all things!


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 26, 2011)

Honestly until I was older and actually studied America, I though Oakland was it's own country.  Whenever I heard something about it, it was always police brutality, racial riots, and burning building.  So all in all this really doesn't surprise me considering what Oakland is.  Though it still is excessive force.



Lobar said:


> I guess this is an opportune time to ask if that vinegar-soaked bandanna over the face trick actually helps at all or if it's just Anarchist's Cookbook bullshit.



It doesn't do shit, except get vinegar on your face, in your mouth, and up your nose.  Which is a lot worse than tear gas.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> There's a blackout, news chopper keeps leaving to "refuel" every time the police open up with another round of teargas and flashbangs.  Plenty of opportunity for people to go on and say "well clearly the protestors started with unprovoked violence and brought this on themselves" and other lies.  Agents and undercover cops around, COINTELPRO never ended.


When all major news companies and countless more local news companies, riot police, and enough cops to stop a revolution can't even stop a group and the group is only continuing to grow exponentially that only makes it too obvious of what's going to happen.
Literally at this point the only way anybody can stop OWS is if they execute everyone involved.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 26, 2011)

... 

You all will excuse me, if I'm at a lack of words. While I'm aware of ye ol' "Affairs of other boards do not concern us", that I just looked on a few of said "Other boards" and the general consensus is "These protests are against the Obama administration" and "Look at how the media moves to protect Obama"... I can't help but feel that we're already in the middle of a swing that'll lead to a bunch of people going "Wait, what? The protest isn't about business, it's that damn Obama who's at fault! Less government regulation, look at what they're doing with the police!" 

So, to sum up what OWS has been claimed to be a movement of:
Hippies
Handout Wanters
Anti-Semites
Anti-Capitalists
Anti-Obama-tyranny
Bored young adults

Why is it that seemingly, of all the things that it's being called, _what it's actually about_ is going over so many people's heads?


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Oct 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> It's only a matter of time until all these harsh crackdowns result in a cop taking it too far.
> All it's going to take to delve the country into chaos is one bullet and one bullet alone.



And off course it will be blamed on the protestors. Just piss them off until an incident happens, then point to that and say "See? They're violent anarchists!".


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 26, 2011)

Attaman said:


> ...
> 
> You all will excuse me, if I'm at a lack of words. While I'm aware of ye ol' "Affairs of other boards do not concern us", that I just looked on a few of said "Other boards" and the general consensus is "These protests are against the Obama administration" and "Look at how the media moves to protect Obama"... I can't help but feel that we're already in the middle of a swing that'll lead to a bunch of people going "Wait, what? The protest isn't about business, it's that damn Obama who's at fault! Less government regulation, look at what they're doing with the police!"
> 
> ...



The same reason people can take photos of themselves holding I AM THE 53% papers describing how shafted they're getting and how grateful they are to be shafted and "i don't take handouts (except for welfare, food stamps, scholarships, the money of my parents, etc.) suck it up hippies"


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

Hakar Kerarmor said:


> And off course it will be blamed on the protestors. Just piss them off until an incident happens, then point to that and say "See? They're violent anarchists!".


Uh, Kent state?
They tried what you are describing back then... It didn't work.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Uh, Kent state?
> They tried what you are describing back then... It didn't work.



http://www.ktvu.com/video/29587714/index.html This whole video is bad, but the last 20 or so seconds... Jesus.

EDIT: The aerial footage puts it into worse perspective, but...  This is one of the medics who was trying to drag that woman away.

[yt]ilUDHtxkfbo[/yt]

They opened fire with rubber bullets at close range and threw two flashbangs directly at the small crowd trying to remove the woman.

Later footage on that ktvu site shows that woman left bleeding on the street in front of that police line- apparently she was unable to be removed, and the police are more than happy to leave her bleeding on the pavement.

I hope she pulls through, but if that's the same person from the end of that first video..  to take at least three close range flashbangs, at least one in close proximity to the head, and any number of rubber bullets, and to be LEFT there...  Jesus.

LATEEDIT: it's a guy, photos of his rescue http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2011/10/25/18695124.php he could be okay.  Looks like he might have been a veteran.  Reporter describing it said "there was someone seriously injured and bleeding" and didn't mention the deliberate police targeting of people trying to evacuate them.

Fuck.  At least Darkwing's not here to shit up the thread.  This article's visuals are meant to appeal specifically to that kind of thinking.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

^I noticed that too, seriously how fucked up is it that they put a police officer petting a cat?
"Well I may have killed a person, but petting a cat makes me a good person"
Also did you notice that the police officers were claiming the protesters were throwing rocks? BULLSHIT!

If those two people died, there's going to be serious shit going down.

The only good thing to come out of this is the media blackout was ineffective, the national news still got footage of the police brutality.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Also did you notice that the police officers were claiming the protesters were throwing rocks? BULLSHIT!



You have proof they didn't?


----------



## Xenke (Oct 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Also did you notice that the police officers were claiming the protesters were throwing rocks? BULLSHIT!



Well, in the first link, I did specifically see one person run up, grab something, and throw it at the police when they were lobbing flash-bangs.

Can't really talk about anyone else though.


----------



## Aden (Oct 26, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Fuck.  At least Darkwing's not here to shit up the thread.  This article's visuals are meant to appeal specifically to that kind of thinking.



Hahaha, they're going the "the people we don't like _hate kittens_!" route, really?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You have proof they didn't?


 You have proof they did?


Xenke said:


> Well, in the first link, I did specifically see one person run up, grab something, and throw it at the police when they were lobbing flash-bangs.
> 
> Can't really talk about anyone else though.


Even if they did that's after the police started beating the shit out of the protesters.
Police spin: Well we had to start 'defending' ourselves, because they were throwing rocks  before we started throwing flash-bangs.


----------



## ADF (Oct 26, 2011)

Onnes said:


> This is completely wrong. The only way the government could have made the subprime backed securities unprofitable would be to set interest rates at such a level that all investment would cease. Through ridiculously shortsighted rating algorithms, financial institutions were able to quite literally create money from nothing.



Financial institutions are always creating money from nothing, that's practically their job. But that's a different subject.

You're essentially looking at me saying government/central banks are to blame, and then saying I'm wrong; because how was government to blame for subprime backed securities failing? Only I haven't argued governments are responsible for that, I'm arguing they are responsible for creating the environment in which such things could occur. Government enabled this situation to become systemic, by deregulating the controls that prevent banking from becoming systemic.



Onnes said:


> So we should have deflation instead? When debts are high, you want inflation because over time it lowers that real magnitudes of those debts. Deflation would instead cause widespread bankruptcy as debts became unmanageable.



Artificially low interest rates enable the propping up of things that otherwise wouldn't have been propped up. It only makes sense that should you remove this cheap credit, they would fail, and they should.

Let's take this family as an example. Keep in mind that mortgages "on the knife edge" are used by government to argue to keep rates down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dps9ME-wl4

This family used the artificially low rates to buy a bigger house. They didn't need one, they just fancied one, and the low rates made it affordable. Now here's an example of people "getting closer to the knife edge" because of the low rates. if rates were to go up, they would undoubtedly lose their new home. So what do you do? Keep rates at historical lows until they pay off their possibly 30 year mortgage? Surely they are going to inevitably lose their home, because rates have to go up at some point.

In the meantime, savers are getting destroyed in this relationship. They're effectively creating a wealth transfer from savers to borrowers, rewarding debt and punishing being responsible with money. Pensioners, being savers, are also being affected. Are you really going to tell pensioners that it's ok that their living standards have fallen, because we have to keep people in houses they cannot afford at any healthy interest rate? That it's ok to sacrifice people's life savings, because the debtors are "too big to fail"? Keeping in mind the longer this is allowed to go on, the more debt that will be created.

Everyone's living standards are tied to the buying power of currency, including debtors. Inflation is eroding those living standards. 



Onnes said:


> You have said nothing that implies that a boom and bust cycle is necessary. Following the great depression we put in place a large number of measures, both in terms of government regulations and institutional knowledge, designed to end the boom and bust cycle. Economists from both conservative and liberal backgrounds came to the conclusions that the cycles were not inevitable and could be prevented and countered through proper policy. Only the Austrians, who reject empirical knowledge, and the loonier laissez-faire types actually believe a cycle is necessary.



The job of central banks has sometimes been regarded as taking the punch bowl away just as the party gets started. The way to prevent busts is to prevent bubbles from being created in the first place, you cannot burst a bubble that isn't there. But despite the Bank of England and other central banks claiming their role is to control inflation, they've been doing the exact opposite.

Every time interest rates should go up, to take away the booze of cheap credit, they put them down even more. Effectively spiking the punch so that the party keeps going. But they have done this so many times now, that the punch is basically just cheap booze at this point; and the partiers are totally off their heads. Didn't Bush suggest Wall Street was drunk? Well who gave them all that booze in the first place?

If you want to get rid of busts, then tell central banks to do what is supposed to be their job, make government keep their regulations in place. In the meantime, we are due a very bad recession/depression because of their neglect. This one cannot be avoided, we have been avoiding it for too long; and the number of bankruptcies are just a testament to what happens if you keep kicking the can down the road.



Onnes said:


> You can't simply say that the world should burn without providing some justification. We learned many things from the great depression, the foremost among them that it was unnecessary. This is the view espoused by the great economists of the 20th century, including both Keynes and Friedman; it completely spans the political divide. Suffering should not be demanded purely for sufferings sake, and that is exactly what you are asking for here. Finally, if you are going to argue from the Austrian position then please either provide sources or explanation, because Austrian economics is fucking hilarious.



I'm sorry but the idea that we shouldn't have a recession now is outright loony. If not now, then when? I'm not demanding a recession and bankruptcies for the sake of it, this is simply the consequences of our decisions. And right now because of these historically low interest rates, even more consequences are being created. What do you think is going to happen to all these banks that are gorging themselves on 0.50/0.25 interest rates, when that interest rate is increased to an inflation busting 6%? What's going to happen to governments bonds, when they put their rates up?

The longer this goes on, the deeper the hole we dig ourselves into, and the more reasons you will have to argue rates shouldn't go up. But they will go up, they have to go up, they have never been this low in history. And when they do, all the things that were propped up by this cheap credit is going to collapse. But if we don't let that happen, if we need rates this low forever, the biggest credit bubble of them all will be created; and we won't survive the next one.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> You have proof they did?



"Guilty until proven innocent"

inb4 "That's how it should be with the police"



> Even if they did that's after the police started beating the shit out of the protesters.
> Police spin: Well we had to start 'defending' ourselves, because they were throwing rocks  before we started throwing flash-bangs.



"The world may never know~"


----------



## Onnes (Oct 26, 2011)

ADF said:


> This family used the artificially low rates to buy a bigger house. They didn't need one, they just fancied one, and the low rates made it affordable. Now here's an example of people "getting closer to the knife edge" because of the low rates. if rates were to go up, they would undoubtedly lose their new home. So what do you do? Keep rates at historical lows until they pay off their possibly 30 year mortgage? Surely they are going to inevitably lose their home, because rates have to go up at some point.



You give an example of private individuals acting irrationally. You want us to enter a crippling deflationary spiral just so some family will be less tempted to do something stupid?



> In the meantime, savers are getting destroyed in this relationship. They're effectively creating a wealth transfer from savers to borrowers, rewarding debt and punishing being responsible with money. Pensioners, being savers, are also being affected. Are you really going to tell pensioners that it's ok that their living standards have fallen, because we have to keep people in houses they cannot afford at any healthy interest rate? That it's ok to sacrifice people's life savings, because the debtors are "too big to fail"? Keeping in mind the longer this is allowed to go on, the more debt that will be created.
> 
> Everyone's living standards are tied to the buying power of currency, including debtors. Inflation is eroding those living standards.



Except that most people, including the federal government, are borrowers, not savers. In a recession the basic flow of business slows to a crawl because people would rather put their money in negative interest securities than actually spend it or invest it. Keeping interest rates at zero is designed to encourage investment. The economy absolutely needs more demand: GDP is below trend and there's a huge amount of unused capacity available. Without that demand, there are no jobs so personal debts keep growing and tax revenues are lower so public debts keep growing. The short term budgetary problems faced by the US consist almost entirely of the loss in GDP due to the recession. Simply put, your view of the economy appears to exist in some sort of bizarro world where everyone has significant savings and economic activity is irrelevant to savings and debt.



> I'm sorry but the idea that we shouldn't have a recession now is outright loony. If not now, then when? I'm not demanding a recession and bankruptcies for the sake of it, this is simply the consequences of our decisions. And right now because of these historically low interest rates, even more consequences are being created. What do you think is going to happen to all these banks that are gorging themselves on 0.50/0.25 interest rates, when that interest rate is increased to an inflation busting 6%? What's going to happen to governments bonds, when they put their rates up?
> 
> The longer this goes on, the deeper the hole we dig ourselves into, and the more reasons you will have to argue rates shouldn't go up. But they will go up, they have to go up, they have never been this low in history. And when they do, all the things that were propped up by this cheap credit is going to collapse. But if we don't let that happen, if we need rates this low forever, the biggest credit bubble of them all will be created; and we won't survive the next one.



You're still parroting the long ago discredited concept of "liquidationism" without providing even a shred of reasoning as to why the great economists and economic historians of the 20th century were wrong to view the great depression, and hence similar events, as avoidable. The entire point is that it's better to keep economic activity moving than to let the economy slip into a decades long deflationary trap of underutilized capacity and persistent unemployment. Really, you want economics to be a morality play instead of a science.

Also, here's a brief history of the great depression which notes the policy failures of various governments.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

Some news on the news front.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...cupy-wall-street/?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.1
Even with the major news corporations slamming their heads against the propaganda button going, "why isn't this working", the number of americans that support OWS clearly outnumber those that don't.
If I had to take a guess of why the people that don't know is even greater than the people opposed, is that even still not all americans have heard of the protests yet.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 26, 2011)

About time the Police devolved to good ole fashioned hippie beating.

I was becoming deathly bored.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Some news on the news front.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...cupy-wall-street/?tag=cbsnewsSectionContent.1
> Even with the major news corporations slamming their heads against the propaganda button going, "why isn't this working", the number of americans that support OWS clearly outnumber those that don't.
> If I had to take a guess of why the people that don't know is even greater than the people opposed, is that even still not all americans have heard of the protests yet.


Misleading title, that. People will see "43% agree" and think "57% disagree."


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 26, 2011)

Please read this article on wealth concentration
http://www.newscientist.com/article...e-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html


----------



## ADF (Oct 26, 2011)

Onnes said:


> You give an example of private individuals acting irrationally. You want us to enter a crippling deflationary spiral just so some family will be less tempted to do something stupid?


 
These families are being used as a justification for keeping the rates down, and the longer the rates remain down; the more of them there will be. These people will and must lose their homes, because their artificially high quality of life is being funded through a damaging interest rate. The only question is whether they lose their homes now, or a few years in the future. The longer it takes, the more damage these historically low interest rates will inflict on the economy. 



Onnes said:


> Except that most people, including the federal government, are borrowers, not savers. In a recession the basic flow of business slows to a crawl because people would rather put their money in negative interest securities than actually spend it or invest it. Keeping interest rates at zero is designed to encourage investment. The economy absolutely needs more demand: GDP is below trend and there's a huge amount of unused capacity available. Without that demand, there are no jobs so personal debts keep growing and tax revenues are lower so public debts keep growing. The short term budgetary problems faced by the US consist almost entirely of the loss in GDP due to the recession. Simply put, your view of the economy appears to exist in some sort of bizarro world where everyone has significant savings and economic activity is irrelevant to savings and debt.


 
Except of course you only have to look at any credit card to know that these near zero rates are not being passed on to the public. Consumers do not have access to these rates, businesses do not have access to these rates, even the mortgage market has reported that these rates aren't being thoroughly passed on. The only people who benefit from these rates is the banks, no one else can access them. Whether they benefit the economy is dependant on whether the lower rates are passed on, which they aren't. Governments are having to try to force banks to loan to businesses, because they have minimal interest in doing so. Why should they? Why risk investing in businesses, when you can gamble with it in the stock market? Which is currently undergoing a speculative bubble, enabled by this cheap credit. Why give any respect to your customers, when you can access the central banks discount window?

You're effectively arguing that savers are a minority, and hence it is ok to plunder them for the benefit of debtors. Never mind anyone with a pension is effectively a saver. But savers aren't the only people being hit here, this hurts everyone; including debtors. If you adopt inflationary policies when interest rates are against the floor, you're destroying everyone's buying power. Last I checked, everyone uses currency. Me, you, the savers and the debtors to. We all relay on the value of our countries currency in order to buy what we need. How is the economy supposed to recover, when inflation has eaten so much of consumers buying power away; that they have no disposable income to spend any more? When the cost of living takes up the majority of their expenses? The RPI inflation rate in the UK is now at 5.6%. With frozen wages because of the recession, that soon adds up year on year. That is a measurable reduction in the standard of living of everyone, whether they be debtor or saver.

So where is the growth going to come from, when banks aren't lending to businesses because of central bank discounts; and consumers are spending increasingly less because of inflation eating at their buying power? The policies we are adopting protects debtors in the short term, but in the long term we are destroying our economies. Keynesian economics, which these governments claim to follow, says we should save during the boom; and spend from savings during the bust. But because of government and central bank manipulation, we had a giant credit binge during the false boom; and now we are destroying the economy supporting savings during the bust. 

There isn't going to be anything to recover the economy with if this keeps up.



Onnes said:


> You're still parroting the long ago discredited concept of "liquidationism" without providing even a shred of reasoning as to why the great economists and economic historians of the 20th century were wrong to view the great depression, and hence similar events, as avoidable. The entire point is that it's better to keep economic activity moving than to let the economy slip into a decades long deflationary trap of underutilized capacity and persistent unemployment. Really, you want economics to be a morality play instead of a science.
> 
> Also, here's a brief history of the great depression which notes the policy failures of various governments.



Feel free to demonstrate to me at what point in the entirety of human history has what we are doing now worked. They call them historically low rates for a reason, this has never been tried before; especially at this scale. So the idea that near 0% interest rates is the right idea is absurd, because it has never been demonstrated before that rates this low will get economic activity moving. All they've achieved so far, is creating a speculation bubble in the stock market. Because financial institutions have unlimited interest free money to play with, they don't need depositors or loan customers any more, they don't need the rest of the economy; so long as they can access unlimited interest free credit. 

Let me say again. The only people who can access central bank loans are banks. They are the only people benefiting from these historically low rates on loans.  

Even if a 0.25% (US) interest rate were to help the economy move forward, the banks actually have to pass it on; and last I checked they haven't. And let's not forget, the response to every crisis has been to cut rates to avoid a recession. They are out of ammunition now, because rates cannot be cut any lower. So all they can do now is print, to intentionally create inflation that is further hindering our ability to recover. No one benefits from intentional currency devaluation at this scale, as while the value of the debts diminish; so does the buying power of our wages. Unless wages go up, printing money does not improve the average Joe's ability to repay debts. It does however empower financial institutions, as they are effectively stealing buying power from everyone holding currency via diluting the currency supply; and handing it to themselves.

Good luck selling government debt denominated in that countries currency, when investors figure out the plan is the halve the pounds/dollars value over 10+ years to reduce debts.

These are short term antics that are going to have long term damage, they aren't helping economies to grow, just continue to stagnate.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 26, 2011)

ADF said:
			
		

> Stuff



I'm not going to help further derail this thread with Austrian nonsense. Economics is not a fucking morality play. You want to throw out a century of work in the field of economics just so you can watch people suffer.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 26, 2011)

ADF, trying to say the government's plan is to halve debts via inflation, or implying it's Keynesian Economic's fault things go bad in the same breath as saying people went directly opposite that policy model, is a bit pants-on-head stupid. Also, you totally need to learn how to keep your posts more concise.

 Now can we please get this topic back on track to the protests? Thanks.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 26, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> You have proof they didn't?



The police reported rocks and bottles, but the interim police chief's press conference (the previous chief resigned suddenly) eggs and paint but mentioned nothing about rocks/bottles- in this, they are inconsistent.  The protesters admitted that some were throwing eggs and paint, but again stated that there were no rocks or bottles- in this, they are consistent.  Even if there were rocks or bottles thrown by a few people, that in no way excuses the response- not even the Oakland riots over the murder of Oscar Grant received this much of a crackdown, and that involved actual property damage and violence.  The Occupy protest is non-violent, even if a handful of people join up just to throw water-soluble paint around, and that is met with beatings, crowd control, kettling and "non-lethal" projectiles used with reckless abandon because they're falsely considered "non-lethal."

The police reported that loud bangs were simply the sound of the teargas cannons going off, that any explosions were firecrackers thrown by protesters at police, that no rubber bullets were fired, and the only ordinance fired were four shotgun beanbags.  Video, particularly from ABC7's helicopter in Oakland, disproves all of this as the multiple explosions occurred only in the crowd at the same time as the tear gas was being deployed, and such grenades were lobbed directly into a crowd trying to drag a fallen veteran away from the police line.  Numerous rubber bullets were found, the paintball guns firing them is the source of the 'clicking' sound in any ground-level video recordings. Video exists of OPD riot shotguns firing over and over again into the crowds, photos of injuries from these projectiles.  They make public statements that are easily and immediately proven false, but it's these statements you choose to believe.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2011...law_has_shielded_oakland_police_violence.html This is what Oakland Police Department tolerates.  There is a concerted effort to lie and crush these protests- if these police want to be trusted when they make these statements, they should remember that a pattern of dishonesty, coverup and blame-shifting will eventually stop people from believing it.

In short, no, you can't trust cops with reports like these, especially when it's the Oakland Police Department.


----------



## Mr PyroCopter (Oct 26, 2011)

(We have signs your augment is invalid) :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

And only to further prove how biased the news is towards OWS, within only a couple hours the Oakland violence is being swept under the carpet.
I can't even find the news stories on several of the major news media.  It's like they're pretending it never happened.

Also hot damn, the tea party may be getting into some deep shit cause 37% of americans support OWS, whereas only 26% support the tea party.


Mr PyroCopter said:


> (We have signs your augment is invalid) :V


But I'd want to get augmented, and how awesome would it be to have sunglasses that pop out of your skull?


----------



## ADF (Oct 26, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> ADF, trying to say the government's plan is to halve debts via inflation, or *implying it's Keynesian Economic's fault things go bad* (never said in thread) in the same breath as saying people went directly opposite that policy model, is a bit pants-on-head stupid. Also, you totally need to learn how to keep your posts more concise.
> 
> Now can we please get this topic back on track to the protests? Thanks.





Onnes said:


> I'm not going to help further derail this thread with *Austrian nonsense* (not mentioned in thread). Economics is not a *fucking morality play* (arguments made have not been morally based). You want to *throw out a century of work in the field of economics just so you can watch people suffer* (nonsense accusation).


 
Well that little discussion has been pretty much what I have come to expect from FA. 

I never actually mentioned Austrian economics or blamed Keynesian economics for anything in this thread, I welcome anyone to point out where I said such thing in here. I criticised the government for not actually following Keynesian economics like they claim to, and Austrian economics was just not mentioned anywhere, but they were brought up as effectively straw men because I've spoke about such things in *'other'* threads. Not in this thread, other threads. 

But as I said, I've come to expect such things from FA discussion. Attempting to refute arguments by bringing up, sometimes completely unrelated, criticisms against arguments made in the past/other threads is a common theme on here for whatever reason.

Regardless, there are some things I can say about our governments inflationary policy; but you want to get back on topic.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> And only to further prove how biased the news is towards OWS, within only a couple hours the Oakland violence is being swept under the carpet.
> I can't even find the news stories on several of the major news media.  It's like they're pretending it never happened.
> 
> Also hot damn, the tea party may be getting into some deep shit cause 37% of americans support OWS, whereas only 26% support the tea party.



Every story lede is "Protestors clashing/struggling/fighting with police" with no mention of any of the brutality.  Even the one ABC7 guy at the scene, while video was playing of the crowd trying to evac the vet and getting grenaded multiple times, mentioned that someone went down to the ground, bleeding, and he didn't know what happened there.  That was it, just that "something unclear happened and someone was hurt" even though it's abundantly clear what happened the first time anyone sees video of that incident, whether from their helicopter (and CBS's helicopter) that kept leaving to "refuel" just when the cops escalated their one-sided riot.  Not a single mention of the further attacks on that downed protester.

That support is stronger than the astroturfed Tea Party (with its numerous stories and focus in the GOP primary with FNC backed events) despite what few spots of coverage OWS gets between long stretches of blackout is entirely negative.



> But I'd want to get augmented, and how awesome would it be to have sunglasses that pop out of your skull?



So does this mean you DO ask for that?

EDIT: okay ADF I commend you for no longer turning every thread you post in into a gold and silver bonanza but now you gotta stop turning every thread you post in into a federal reserve fiat currency let-the-totally-unrestrained-free-market-bring-us-to-paradise fapfest


----------



## Onnes (Oct 26, 2011)

ABC World News did have a short bit on the Oakland crackdown. They showed the wounded veteran getting dragged off, as well as the tear gas and arrests. Unfortunately, they also misreported the statistic that 39% of Americans support OWS by implying that the remaining 61% were against it. Now they're doing a bit on rising income inequality.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Every story lede is "Protestors clashing/struggling/fighting with police" with no mention of any of the brutality.  Even the one ABC7 guy at the scene, while video was playing of the crowd trying to evac the vet and getting grenaded multiple times, mentioned that someone went down to the ground, bleeding, and he didn't know what happened there.  That was it, just that "something unclear happened and someone was hurt" even though it's abundantly clear what happened the first time anyone sees video of that incident, whether from their helicopter (and CBS's helicopter) that kept leaving to "refuel" just when the cops escalated their one-sided riot.  Not a single mention of the further attacks on that downed protester.
> 
> That support is stronger than the astroturfed Tea Party (with its numerous stories and focus in the GOP primary with FNC backed events) despite what few spots of coverage OWS gets between long stretches of blackout is entirely negative.
> 
> ...


If I had to take a guess of what's going through every republican politicians' mind when reading about the OWS is, "OH SHIT!"

If I had to take a guess about Occupy Wallstreet, by the time elections swing by next year supporters will have taken over the democrat party, like how the tea party took over the republicans.


Hell yeah I'd get augmented!


Onnes said:


> ABC World News did have a short bit on the Oakland  crackdown. They showed the wounded veteran getting dragged off, as well  as the tear gas and arrests. Unfortunately, they also misreported the  statistic that 39% of Americans support OWS by implying that the  remaining 61% were against it. Now they're doing a bit on rising income  inequality.


Welcome to the obvious party, tonight's topic is, "news corporations are they biased?".


----------



## ADF (Oct 26, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> EDIT: okay ADF I commend you for no longer turning every thread you post in into a gold and silver bonanza but now you gotta stop turning every thread you post in into a federal reserve fiat currency let-the-totally-unrestrained-free-market-bring-us-to-paradise fapfest



It's incredible even now how you are criticising me for things I have not said anywhere in the thread, effectively supporting criticisms of the sort of debating tactics I've seen commonly used on FA 

Things I have not mentioned anywhere in this thread.

-Austrian economics
-Blaming Keynesian economics for problems
-Gold & Silver
-End the fed/central banking
-Fiat currency
-Free market capitalism*

I put a * next to the bottom one, because it was only brought up in the argument that capitalism wasn't the cause. I didn't actually make a big argument for free market capitalism, I even criticised the government for de-regulating the banks.

It's interesting how often I get blamed for things I haven't brought up, that includes the vast majority of the times gold & silver are brought up. It's usually some random person posting it in a completely unrelated thread, trying to make fun of me over it.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 26, 2011)

ADF said:


> It's incredible even now how you are criticising me for things I have not said anywhere in the thread, effectively supporting criticisms of the sort of debating tactics I've seen commonly used on FA
> 
> Things I have not mentioned anywhere in this thread.
> 
> ...



Of course you didn't mention gold and silver.  If you were capable of reading comprehension beyond twitterbot level keyword spotting, you'd read it as me complimenting you for NOT mentioning gold and silver as you have in the past.  Stuff like



> If they want someone to blame, blame the central banks and governments. If free market capitalism was actually practised, none of these conditions could have occurred.



is what makes myself and Onnes and others roll our eyes, because this is what you talk about all the time.  You exclusively blame the federal reserve and the government.  Then, you try to defend yourself by saying "I even criticized the government!"  Yes!  We know!  That is what you do all the time, with no criticism of those in the private sector who actually tanked the economy by intentionally approving bad mortgages to bundle up, have the junk rated as the safest investment by _other_ private sector rating agencies, and purposely committed widespread fraud!  Then you vacillate between "government creates all of these problems" implying that the private sector is blameless, and then take the contradictory position that the government did not regulate these institutions strongly enough, allowing them to cause such harm!  If that was the case, why would you then argue for government to back completely out, as implied by most interpretations your ilk seem to have of a truly free market, if regulations are needed to prevent large banks from eating themselves and shitting over everyone else?  Are you blind to history?  Do you know what the consequences of "let them all fail" would be, and why a lot of the reforms and institutions were created after the great depression?  They're ALWAYS choking, strangling, business innovation and job killing burdensome rules of government until they're repealed and the very thing they were enacted to prevent happens AGAIN!  Then you turn around and say "well of course that happened that was a GROSSLY NEEDED REGULATION on business, no matter what was said before.

MOREOVER THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THAT, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU ASSERT IT IS, BUT YOU ROUTINELY TRY TO HIJACK ANY REMOTELY POLITICAL THREAD INTO YOUR PERSONAL CENTRAL BANKING AND GOVERNMENT GRUDGEWANK.  IT'S TIRESOME AND AS MUCH A PATTERN FOR YOU AS RELIGIOUS CONDESCENSION AND BIGOTRY IS FOR RUKH.  STOP.

On topic: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...-Blogger-caught-and-punked-at-Occupy-Wall-St- I don't recall the Tea Party getting infiltrated like this- though they did start claiming that any sign that made them look bad after the fact was clearly a liberal plant.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> On topic: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/...-Blogger-caught-and-punked-at-Occupy-Wall-St- I don't recall the Tea Party getting infiltrated like this- though they did start claiming that any sign that made them look bad after the fact was clearly a liberal plant.


Honestly I knew something like this was going to happen, cause calling people hippies is one of the wet match in a dark cave tactics conservatives always try to attempt to make the opposition look bad in comparison.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Welcome to the obvious party, tonight's topic is, "news corporations are they biased?".



Overall I thought ABC's news coverage was positive. They showed the guy, who they did identify as a veteran, with a graphic bloody hole in his head. Even if they don't say outright that it was unjustified police brutality, they certainly imply it by actually airing such imagery. And later in the program they actually covered some statistics on rising income inequality. It's appears that they've decided that the topic is worth pursuing at this point.

Of course now my local news is doing a bit on that anti-Semitic sign asshole at the OWS protests.


----------



## ADF (Oct 26, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> MOREOVER THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT THAT



So you are going to bitch at me for going off topic (while doing so yourself of course), but felt the need to write a paragraph-less wall of text I'd inevitably feel the need to justify myself against? Not that all the straw man BS in this thread wasn't irritating enough, there is plenty more in this post to dissect. But then of course, I'd get bitched at for going off topic again. Not without another bit of bait demanding a counter argument of course.

Very few people in here seem capable of having an honest debate without using these petty tactics. But given this is off topic, I have no choice but to leave it.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 26, 2011)

ADF said:


> Very few people in here seem capable of having an honest debate without using these petty tactics. But given this is off topic, I have no choice but to leave it.



Great, thanks.


----------



## Attaman (Oct 26, 2011)

The dude who people were trying to pull out of the press. Is in critical but stable condition. Name's Scott Olsen, served two tours in Iraq.

Inb4 "Jobless liberal hippy".


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

Attaman said:


> The dude who people were trying to pull out of the press. Is in critical but stable condition. Name's Scott Olsen, served two tours in Iraq.
> 
> Inb4 "Jobless liberal hippy".


 I'm so glad he survived, the last thing america needs is a vet being killed by the police.


Onnes said:


> Overall I thought ABC's news coverage was positive. They showed the guy, who they did identify as a veteran, with a graphic bloody hole in his head. Even if they don't say outright that it was unjustified police brutality, they certainly imply it by actually airing such imagery. And later in the program they actually covered some statistics on rising income inequality. It's appears that they've decided that the topic is worth pursuing at this point.
> 
> Of course now my local news is doing a bit on that anti-Semitic sign asshole at the OWS protests.


Finally at least one major news company that is taking the OWS side.
I was thinking OWS would be perpetually fighting a uphill battle.

Hopefully CBS will continue to pursue the income inequality news story.


Also apparently the media is taking a 90 degree turn since the vet was injured, If I had to take a guess it's cause nobody wants to defend the harming of a war vet.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 27, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> stuff



According to the Associated Press as of 7 minutes ago, the line is that is was "rocks, bottles, and utensils" from the camp's kitchen area.  I do tend to trust AP.

At the end of the day you're still dealing with protesters agitating the police by throwing objects at them.  Regardless of whether this is "a reckless few", the police don't exist so as to have protestors hurl objects at them.  Where is the line drawn exactly as to what is and what isn't acceptable to throw at cops and expect nothing to happen?  As you can witness in the video, the protestors were given a very clear warning that usage of force and chemical agents would be applied in order to break-up the protest.  What happened with the Iraq War vet is unfortunate, but if you are specifically told, "expect us to use force if you don't cooperate" and fail to comply, who's liable, really?



			
				Canon said:
			
		

> And only to further prove how biased the news is towards OWS, within only a couple hours the Oakland violence is being swept under the carpet.
> I can't even find the news stories on several of the major news media. It's like they're pretending it never happened.



Cut the shit, CF.

This was news all day on MSNBC, is currently the top story on the NY Daily News website, and is the first "Latest Headline" on CNN.com as of this post, not to mention the Associated Press article I mentioned which went live 7 minutes ago.

There's no media blackout occurring with this.  You're just not bothering to look.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> At the end of the day you're still dealing with protesters agitating the police by throwing objects at them.  Regardless of whether this is "a reckless few", the police don't exist so as to have protestors hurl objects at them.  Where is the line drawn exactly as to what is and what isn't acceptable to throw at cops and expect nothing to happen?  As you can witness in the video, the protestors were given a very clear warning that usage of force and chemical agents would be applied in order to break-up the protest.  What happened with the Iraq War vet is unfortunate, but if you are specifically told, "expect us to use force if you don't cooperate" and fail to comply, who's liable, really?



So you think the force used in the Oakland crackdown was appropriate? They fired tear gas canisters and rubber bullets directly into a crowd of peaceful protesters. Since there is nothing stopping agitators from entering any protest group and throwing bottles, you are claiming that every protest should in fact be met with lethal force.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 27, 2011)

Onnes said:


> So you think the force used in the Oakland crackdown was appropriate? They fired tear gas canisters and rubber bullets directly into a crowd of peaceful protesters. Since there is nothing stopping agitators from entering any protest group and throwing bottles, you are claiming that every protest should in fact be met with lethal force.



Especially when cops love these protests because they can send undercover officers in to start shit and give an excuse for riot marches and mass arrests.

How dare they speak up.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 27, 2011)

Onnes said:


> So you think the force used in the Oakland crackdown was appropriate? They fired tear gas canisters and rubber bullets directly into a crowd of peaceful protesters. Since there is nothing stopping agitators from entering any protest group and throwing bottles, you are claiming that every protest should in fact be met with lethal force.



When objects are being hurled at police, you're no longer considered "peaceful protestors".

And where did I say that these people should be shot?  Otherwise I don't know where you got "lethal force" from.

The Occupy Protestors have taken it upon themselves to try and police themselves in regards to behavior towards cops, illegal drug use, etc.  So far they've done a pretty lousy job of doing it.  As I've posted and others have pointed out, the open nature of the protest is it's own worst enemy, and if the protestors aren't willing to discipline agitators or single them out to police, then what exactly do you expect the cops to do?

People here don't want the cops doing anything about agitators, yet say "well we aren't responsible for people who join our protest and cause a problem."  Given that there have been SOME confirmed reports of people attempting to sabotage the protest, that doesn't excuse those who've actively gone out of their way in order to not only egg on the cops, but as I've previously mentioned, out-and-out attempting to frame them.

You want my honest opinion?  Neither side is clean here, but it's easier to play the victim when you're not the one in authority.  Does anyone deserve having a rubber bullet shot into their head?  No, but if you put yourself in a dangerous situation after being clearly warned to disperse I'm dumbfounded as to anyone can be shocked at the result.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 27, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> And where did I say that these people should be shot?  Otherwise I don't know where you got "lethal force" from.



A tear gas canister fired at the head is certainly a lethal projectile, and rubber bullets are commonly associated with death and permanent injuries.



> The Occupy Protestors have taken it upon themselves to try and police themselves in regards to behavior towards cops, illegal drug use, etc.  So far they've done a pretty lousy job of doing it.  As I've posted and others have pointed out, the open nature of the protest is it's own worst enemy, and if the protestors aren't willing to discipline agitators or single them out to police, then what exactly do you expect the cops to do?



There is nothing protest organizers can do to stop someone from coming in and throwing a missile at the police. Protesters are not cops, they don't even have the legal powers to police themselves. The implication of your argument is that any protest can be met with a lethal crackdown at any time because it is impossible to stop a small number of agitators from moving against the police.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 27, 2011)

Onnes said:


> A tear gas canister fired at the head is certainly a lethal projectile, and rubber bullets are commonly associated with death and permanent injuries.



Contrary to Bob's assertion, these are trained people who've been taught to use these things to limit how these less-than-lethal munitions are used.  But no amount of training can 100% make something completely accident proof.  It's the nature of things and again, after being clearly warned about the force that was going to be used, as per the video, you don't believe that the protestors assume the risk?



> There is nothing protest organizers can do to stop someone from coming in and throwing a missile at the police. Protesters are not cops, they don't even have the legal powers to police themselves.



"Policing yourself" doesn't require legal powers, you must realize.  If Protestor A sees Protestor B lobbing objects at cops and makes it a point with his/her fellow protestors to single out the person responsible so that cops know who the instigator is, that's policing yourself.  If Protestor A does nothing then how is this not to be assumed acceptable behavior within the group if not complete anarchy amongst the protestors where no one holds someone else accountable for the greater good of the message?



> The implication of your argument is that any protest can be met with a lethal crackdown at any time because it is impossible to stop a small number of agitators from moving against the police.



My implication is that if the larger group of protestors who can take simple steps to do something about the small number of agitators within the collective and do nothing about said agitators, then the collective is asserting that this is an acceptable protest action amongst them and the cops will more than likely be forced to act on it with varying degrees of force which more often than not are clearly outlined to protestors onsite if they haven't already after the month of protests we've already seen.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 27, 2011)

iraqi vet takes a cs canister to the head from point-blank

accidents happen


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 27, 2011)

There are no riots at Occupy protests until the cops start them.

[yt]QqNOPZLw03Q[/yt]

Flashbangs can cause serious burns at close range, to say nothing about eardrum rupturing and concussions.  This is the kind of way these devices are trained _not_ to be used because of these risks.  Should the injured and bleeding man have been left there?  Or the paraplegic whose electric wheelchair stopped working in the midst of teargas?  I don't get your angle, here, especially calling any of this accidental or unintended.  Training in proper use of a given set of equipment or tactics doesn't mean that training will be followed correctly, if at all.  Even then, the real policy that matters is the one where almost every incident resulting in investigation results in a verdict of "properly followed procedure" and a punishment of paid administrative leave.

It's like you don't accept the possibility that the cops could have acted wrong and that, at any time, a demonstration can and should expect to be beaten down.  What would stop police from having a few plainclothes infiltrators moving in to throw bottles at their heavily armored friends to let them come in with clubs?  Why do you think the vast majority of protestors that are committing themselves to non-violence should be beaten because of a few actors that nobody is supporting? Whatever, Term, I know your only goal here is to downplay and insult this protest no matter what happens.  If an instigator is masked, acts quickly and then runs away before anyone can do anything, what exactly can be done?  Video earlier in the day showed one guy throwing paint at cops from between some observing protesters (who were staying behind the drawn lines and on the sidewalk.)  He immediately ran away, and the police started beanbagging and clubbing the people who had been standing on the sidewalk.  What could possibly justify that action of collective physical punishment?

There's a fucked up dynamic going on here, and you love it.


----------



## Perception (Oct 27, 2011)

Goddammit, why did this even have to start? Now we have a copycat group which has started in Melbourne called 'occupy Melbourne' which is really just being a nuisance, half the people there dont actually know whats happening and they just seem to be protesting for the sake of protesting...


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 27, 2011)

San Fran is about to get raided tonight, photos taken of amassed police on twitter, one guy broke radio silence on the police scanner to say backup from Oakland was being sought, was immediately told "keep that off the air" and all related traffic is to be sent over cell phone text messages.

http://klulz.com:8000/sfscanner.mp3 is a stream of the SFPD police scanner
http://occupythehub.com/ is apparently the only livestream up at the moment


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 27, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> San Fran is about to get raided tonight, photos taken of amassed police on twitter, one guy broke radio silence on the police scanner to say backup from Oakland was being sought, was immediately told "keep that off the air" and all related traffic is to be sent over cell phone text messages.
> 
> http://klulz.com:8000/sfscanner.mp3 is a stream of the SFPD police scanner
> http://occupythehub.com/ is apparently the only livestream up at the moment


Well fuck, looks like the cops are cracking down hard and not just in Oakland.


Welcome to america, where the police's enemy is the people they were sworn to protect.


Hey Term are you a cop?
Cause there's no other explanation for, "Vet gets sent to hospital? Oops accident.  Cops beat the shit out of people?  Oops accident.  Cops use teargas and flashbang grenades? Oops accident."

It won't surprise me if with how hard the cops are cracking down there will eventually be a death and your response will be, "Oops accident".
Honestly I bet your opinion on what happen in Kent State decades ago is, "Oops accident".

Police brutality=/=Oops accident


----------



## Aetius (Oct 27, 2011)

You guys are really making this sound like we are in Syria. 

The Protestors violated several city codes on public sanitation that include:

Poor food storage exacerbated a rat infestation 
Public urination and defecation
Public marijuana use

The city also gave out DAILY warnings to the protestors, telling them to vacate the area due to these violations. 
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca/groups/cityadministrator/documents/procedure/oak031803.pdf
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2011/10/21/occupyoakland_arrestwarning_oak031873.pdf
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2011/10/22/occupyoakland_arrestwarning-ogawa_102211_oak031875.pdf
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2011/10/23/occupyoakland_arrestwarning-snow_102311_oak031877.pdf
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2011/10/24/occupyoakland_arrestwarning-ogawa_1024411_oak031895.pdf

Hell, they even said a daytime protest was alright but an overnight one could not happen. 

Last but not least, as Term said, If there is multiple that either assaults or attempts to assault an officer, a peaceful protest is not peaceful anymore. 

It is a great shame though that the soldier was wounded.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 27, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Hey Term are you a cop?
> Cause there's no other explanation for, "Vet gets sent to hospital? Oops accident.  Cops beat the shit out of people?  Oops accident.  Cops use teargas and flashbang grenades? Oops accident."
> 
> It won't surprise me if with how hard the cops are cracking down there will eventually be a death and your response will be, "Oops accident".
> ...



This post is the epitome of why half the opinions in this thread are so utterly retarded.

Let's of course ignore all other facts. Let's ignore that in most cases I've seen, protesters are simply being asked to disassemble after certain times, with the implication that they can regroup the next day. It's not that difficult a request, after all, other people are trying to sleep. Let's ignore that everyone and their mom in the OWS protests have a camera and seem to be trying to capture "police brutality", and will see it even where it doesn't exist. Let's ignore how quickly the protest changes from "fix the economy" to "fuck the police". Let's ignore that in all cases protesters are warned again, and again, and again, and again, what the consequences of not following instructions will be. Let's ignore that despite the fact that by in large these are unlawful assemblies, the police a showing to be fairly lenient.

Let's ignore all of that. Sure.

VVV All posts complaining about how wrong I am go here VVV


----------



## Attaman (Oct 27, 2011)

Lemme just put out a quick question real fast: How do most of you define Civil Disobedience? As, what I'm seeing right now, most definitions seem to be "Obeying the law 100% until someone tells you 'Oi, cut that out' to go 'Yes sir :c', at which point your CD is over and everything goes back to normal'. What, exactly, is that supposed to accomplish? That basically just makes it a glorified rally.

EDIT: Also, Xenke, I hope you're not implying that throwing a flash-bang near a downed, bleeding person when people are trying to help them up is not an "inappropriate" response, nor the press then telling people "Oh no, we used no flash bangs at all, it was all protestor firecrackers meant to throw off observers".


----------



## Calemeyr (Oct 27, 2011)

I think the protests would be going a lot better if the smelly basement dwellers stayed in their basements, where they belong. It's these guys who give the protests a bad name, deliberately disobey police, and have no personal hygiene. It seems like the 99% has it's own 1% (+/- margin of error).

Why is it that in any public gathering there's always an asshole that ruins (or almost ruins) the whole thing for everyone?


----------



## Xenke (Oct 27, 2011)

Attaman said:


> EDIT: Also, Xenke, I hope you're not implying that throwing a flash-bang near a downed, bleeding person when people are trying to help them up is not an "inappropriate" response, nor the press then telling people "Oh no, we used no flash bangs at all, it was all protestor firecrackers meant to throw off observers".



Do you want my honest opinion?

The last thing that that guy needed was a mob of observers to surround him. Yes, there will have been people trying to help, but I can say with pretty good certainty that several people in that group were there simply so they could involve themselves with the apparent police brutality. Furthermore, I do not think that the sizable group that had rushed over to him would have been the only people to have been there if nothing had been done, and given the whole exercise was to -vacate people-, I don't think a huge mob of people was desirable that close to the line of police.

Shout all you want, but keeping legions of people away from an injured man is a good thing. They didn't do it PROPERLY, but I seriously doubt protesters would have listened to "EVERYONE BACK AWAY FROM THE INJURED MAN".


----------



## Attaman (Oct 27, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Do you want my honest opinion?
> 
> The last thing that that guy needed was a mob of observers to surround him. Yes, there will have been people trying to help, but I can say with pretty good certainty that several people in that group were there simply so they could involve themselves with the apparent police brutality.


 OWS: A Hive Mind dedicated to their acts making the police look bad at the detriment of their fellow protestors?




Xenke said:


> Furthermore, I do not think that the sizable group that had rushed over to him would have been the only people to have been there if nothing had been done, and given the whole exercise was to -vacate people-, I don't think a huge mob of people was desirable that close to the line of police.


 So lob a flash bang right next to the downed person, within about 1-2 meters?



Xenke said:


> Shout all you want, but keeping legions of people away from an injured man is a good thing. They didn't do it PROPERLY, but I seriously doubt protesters would have listened to "EVERYONE BACK AWAY FROM THE INJURED MAN".


 Which is why the protestors wound up being the people who had to carry him away? Your argument may have had merit if it were the police or police-summoned responders that took him to the hospital. _It was the goddam protestors that you're saying were making things difficult for him_.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 27, 2011)

Attaman said:


> OWS: A Hive Mind dedicated to their acts making the police look bad at the detriment of their fellow protestors?



Obviously we haven't been watching the same videos linked in this thread.



> So lob a flash bang right next to the downed person, within about 1-2 meters?



Preferred alternative?

Again, I didn't say it was proper.



> Which is why the protestors wound up being the people who had to carry him away? Your argument may have had merit if it were the police or police-summoned responders that took him to the hospital. _It was the goddam protestors that you're saying were making things difficult for him_.



And you know what this indicates to me?

The protesters came back after that flash bang and carried him off, nothing more. It does not indicate that "lol the police left him there to die", simply that they did not get to him before the protesters managed to.

EDIT: But whatever. I'm generally disinterested in discussions where neither side will change their position. I'm going back to just being a reader is this mixture of insight and drivel.


----------



## ADF (Oct 27, 2011)

Thought this clip may interest people.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPR4vJYlrpc

Guy walks into the occupy wall street crowed and declares he is the 1%, arguing in defence of people like him.

I'm familiar of Peter Schiff's arguments, and while he talks a lot of sense; his arguments are primarily in favour of people such as himself. He's anti union, anti minimum wage and would have business self regulated.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 27, 2011)

^ That man pays _*only*_ 35% tax rate of his income?

If the top 1% earns, like, 250.000 $ a year in the US that means that someone here making a _fourth_ of that would already pay 40% income taxes. D:


----------



## ADF (Oct 27, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> ^ That man pays _*only*_ 35% tax rate of his income?
> 
> If the top 1% earns, like, 250.000 $ a year in the US that means that someone here making a _fourth_ of that would already pay 40% income taxes. D:



Just to correct you, he pays half his wages in tax, 50%. He says it at 1:31.

Let me just add that I'm having a lot of difficulty locating the US income tax information online, to see what that tax bracket means he is earning. In the UK, a 50% tax rate means you are earning over Â£150,000. Of course, then you have a further 20% VAT added on to everything you buy; regardless of your tax bracket.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 27, 2011)

ADF said:


> Just to correct you, he pays half his wages in tax, 50%. He says it at 1:31.


Well, he better!



> Of course, then you have a further 20% VAT added on to everything you buy; regardless of your tax bracket.


Our is 23%. *smug* :V


----------



## Onnes (Oct 27, 2011)

ADF said:


> Just to correct you, he pays half his wages in tax, 50%. He says it at 1:31.
> 
> Let me just add that I'm having a lot of difficulty locating the US income tax information online, to see what that tax bracket means he is earning. In the UK, a 50% tax rate means you are earning over Â£150,000. Of course, then you have a further 20% VAT added on to everything you buy; regardless of your tax bracket.



I don't believe there is a 50% income tax bracket, and even if there were it would be a marginal tax rate. Even when you add together federal, state, and local taxes you'd have a hard time arriving at a 50% effective tax for any individual, and by saying he pays half his wages in tax he is talking about the effective rate and not the marginal one. It's hard to find numbers for average effective rates including state and local taxes, however federal taxes alone are usually under 25% for top earners.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 27, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Preferred alternative?
> 
> Again, I didn't say it was proper.
> 
> ...


Xenke, apparently you don't know shit about flash bangs.
Even though a flash bang is described as nonlethal, if it goes off next to someone's head too close the concussive force can rupture eardrums, burn skin, possibly blind a person.  Also if it's right next goddamn to someone's head, it may be a flashbang, but it *can* kill a person.
If the flashbang went off any closer to the vet he probably would've died.
So yes it may be nonlethal, but people have died from them.  Just cause something has, "nonlethal" slapped on the side of it, doesn't mean it's 100% incapable of killing someone.

And secondly medics don't go into hot areas, they wait until the cops have a situation under control to move in.
Had the protesters not grabbed him the police and medics would've have, BUT hours later.
You know why?  It's against emergency personnel procedure to have gone into the area until after the police had clamped down.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 27, 2011)

The problem I see with this is it appears that police and protesters are two mobs working against one another. Does that make it right? no, hell no, but it does explain a lot of the action and how the protests could be done better. 
Earlier in the thread someone posted the vet that just tore into the cops, everyone sees a hero telling of people for righteous justice...I saw a man in a uniform jacket with a few ribbons (ribbons are not medals mind you) tearing into police and it really bothered me. I respect the hell out of soldiers and what they do, but it isn't a free pass and that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of dicks in the service. It would be one thing if he wore his uniform correctly and went up to the cops and talked to them, but he was disheveled and yelling, which does not come off as "hero" to everyone. 
Police will show up to large groups just in case something happens. Police are also nervous as hell about large groups, understandably because it takes one yelling asshole to have a group go from large group to angry mob. So in the end of that video I just say a lot of nervous looking policemen unsure if they'd have to actually protect themselves and a really pissed off guy. 

There isn't an excuse for the police brutality. I see a lot of cops that are viewing the large groups and jumping the gun on controlling it harshly as if it were an angry mob. This is clearly not right. 
It is also not right to have protesters throwing things at police. Term was right in that protesters have to police themselves. ANY violence, what so ever, is too much violence in a large group. It takes one and it all can fall like a stack of dominoes. Imagine you're an officer, sent out to deal with the protest. You don't expect to have to do anything, but you are standing with a sea of angry people facing you. At any moment that crowd can go from angry to mob and if they rush they can kill you. Someone could be in there with a gun. Then someone throws something. You're not really sure what it was, and you can't see who it was that threw it. More stuff is thrown, it could be rocks, this could be escalating, the crowd all looks the same. 
No wait. The crowd is pointing out a person. This person threw the stuff, it was paint, everyone is okay as you go arrest the one person. no one got hurt today.

Yes, what the police are doing is wrong, having plants is wrong, police brutality is wrong, and this is just a big us vs. them playout. Those that are violent will act violent, those that are not may have to join up anyway, or face the wrath of the mob. 

It is the same for the protesters in a way. Those that are non-violent back those throwing things or causing a ruckus instead of working with police. Despite the police being so wrong, the protesters need to step up before they turn violent. If someone is throwing shit the crowd should admonish them. If someone is causing a huge stir they should be told to calm the fuck down. Maybe then the plants won't work and things will be a little better. This won't fix everything, but the less us. vs. them with police, the more the violent offenders can be removed on both sides.

Both sides need to step up.


----------



## ADF (Oct 27, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Our is 23%. *smug* :V



You seem to be let off a lot in regard to income taxes though

UK: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm
Finland: http://totallyexpat.com/news/finland-2011-social-security-personal-income-tax-rates/


----------



## Onnes (Oct 27, 2011)

Fay V said:


> It is the same for the protesters in a way. Those that are non-violent back those throwing things or causing a ruckus instead of working with police. Despite the police being so wrong, the protesters need to step up before they turn violent. If someone is throwing shit the crowd should admonish them. If someone is causing a huge stir they should be told to calm the fuck down. Maybe then the plants won't work and things will be a little better. This won't fix everything, but the less us. vs. them with police, the more the violent offenders can be removed on both sides.



But both you and Term are assuming that protesters are not trying to work with police, and that the police want to work with protesters instead of clearing them out of the area. However, the cities involved want the protesters gone and simply arresting lone individuals is not going to make that happen. There is nothing requiring the police to attempt to work with protesters, and if their aim is to clear the area then it is to their advantage to use agitators as a justification for an all-out crackdown. All one has to do is look to the news to see that police departments are preparing in advance to try and end the protests; they aren't looking to let them continue peacefully.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 27, 2011)

ADF said:


> You seem to be let off a lot in regard to income taxes though  UK: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/it.htm Finland: http://totallyexpat.com/news/finland-2011-social-security-personal-income-tax-rates/


We got our first right-wing led government in 20 years (if you don't count the 'sorta' situation last 4 years). :C


----------



## Holsety (Oct 27, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Xenke, apparently you don't know shit about flash bangs.
> Even though a flash bang is described as nonlethal, if it goes off next to someone's head too close the concussive force can rupture eardrums, burn skin, possibly blind a person.  Also if it's right next goddamn to someone's head, it may be a flashbang, but it *can* kill a person.
> If the flashbang went off any closer to the vet he probably would've died.
> So yes it may be nonlethal, but people have died from them.  Just cause something has, "nonlethal" slapped on the side of it, doesn't mean it's 100% incapable of killing someone.
> ...



All of this is stuff that has already been posted or is common knowledge.

why do you post


----------



## Fay V (Oct 27, 2011)

Onnes said:


> But both you and Term are assuming that protesters are not trying to work with police, and that the police want to work with protesters instead of clearing them out of the area. However, the cities involved want the protesters gone and simply arresting lone individuals is not going to make that happen. There is nothing requiring the police to attempt to work with protesters, and if their aim is to clear the area then it is to their advantage to use agitators as a justification for an all-out crackdown. All one has to do is look to the news to see that police departments are preparing in advance to try and end the protests; they aren't looking to let them continue peacefully.



It isn't an all or nothing Onnes different groups of different people react differently. Not all officers refuse to work with protesters, not all protesters are trying to work with police. I referenced the vet that yelled at police. That was not working with them, that was just yelling at random officers, that isn't helpful even if people have been attacked by officers. 

I said both sides were in the wrong, and I said it wouldn't fix everything. I have seen protesters allow others to be more of a grievance than they should because it's against cops just standing there so no I don't think that all protesters don't want to work with police, but there's certainly some that don't and some is too many. 
It won't make things magically go away. Protesting is hard and it hurts, but if protestors step up they have more of a leg to stand on when they say it is all one sided. The police have nothing to back themselves up. 

Again, both sides are in the wrong, and both sides need to step up. Police need to be better, but protesters also need to quash any violent activity in the group. I have said this from the beginning, as soon as you do anything violent, it is an excuse to ignore you. Even if it's so much as yelling at a person face to face.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 27, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> ^
> If the top 1% earns, like, 250.000 $ a year in the US that means that someone here making a _fourth_ of that would already pay 40% income taxes. D:


Well I guess my family is part of the 1%....

Still, I sympathize heavily with those that are protesting at wall street.

The one's at Oakland seriously fucked up.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 27, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Well I guess my family is part of the 1%....


You rich bitch! >:V


----------



## Aetius (Oct 27, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> You rich bitch! >:V


Lol useless luxury goods that do nothing but eat up credit.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 27, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I said both sides were in the wrong, and I said it wouldn't fix everything. I have seen protesters allow others to be more of a grievance than they should because it's against cops just standing there so no I don't think that all protesters don't want to work with police, but there's certainly some that don't and some is too many.
> It won't make things magically go away. Protesting is hard and it hurts, but if protestors step up they have more of a leg to stand on when they say it is all one sided. The police have nothing to back themselves up.
> 
> Again, both sides are in the wrong, and both sides need to step up. Police need to be better, but protesters also need to quash any violent activity in the group. I have said this from the beginning, as soon as you do anything violent, it is an excuse to ignore you. Even if it's so much as yelling at a person face to face.



You still seem to be implying that both sides are equally to blame, but the situation is inherently asymmetrical. The protest leaders have no involuntary authority over anyone who chooses to show up; they cannot actually quash violent activity without the help of the police. There are no rules which state that the police must work with the protesters; if the police force in question is interested in dispersing the protest then they always have the option of using the inevitable agitators as an excuse to crack down on the entire protest. While violence against the police is never justified, violence against peaceful protesters is in that manner always justified.

On the other hand, a police force is a highly trained and well equipped organization with additional legal powers and top-down control. In the Oakland case someone with a good deal of authority made the decision to deploy potentially lethal weapons against a large group of peaceful protesters. This was not the case of one random officer on the front lines making a bad judgement call. The Oakland police department also knew that what they did was wrong, as evidenced by the laughable attempt to deny that flashbangs and rubber bullets were deployed.

 There is quite a long history of nonviolent protesters in the US being met with extreme force at the hands of the police and even the military and an equally long history of people attempting to downplay the chilling effect this has on the exercise of democracy. True protests are by their very nature acts of civil disobedience: no city makes it technically legal for a large group of people to assemble in public indefinitely. They also are inherently unruly, as no one involved has anything but voluntary authority over anyone else. The fact that a large protest can't be legal and orderly makes it ever so easy to justify violent crackdowns, but we should not allow that justification. Every incident through history, now including the Oakland protest, should at least serve as some reminder that it must be unacceptable to take violent measures against largely peaceful protests.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 27, 2011)

Onnes said:


> You still seem to be implying that both sides are equally to blame, but the situation is inherently asymmetrical. The protest leaders have no involuntary authority over anyone who chooses to show up; they cannot actually quash violent activity without the help of the police. There are no rules which state that the police must work with the protesters; if the police force in question is interested in dispersing the protest then they always have the option of using the inevitable agitators as an excuse to crack down on the entire protest. While violence against the police is never justified, violence against peaceful protesters is in that manner always justified.
> 
> On the other hand, a police force is a highly trained and well equipped organization with additional legal powers and top-down control. In the Oakland case someone with a good deal of authority made the decision to deploy potentially lethal weapons against a large group of peaceful protesters. This was not the case of one random officer on the front lines making a bad judgement call. The Oakland police department also knew that what they did was wrong, as evidenced by the laughable attempt to deny that flashbangs and rubber bullets were deployed.
> 
> There is quite a long history of nonviolent protesters in the US being met with extreme force at the hands of the police and even the military and an equally long history of people attempting to downplay the chilling effect this has on the exercise of democracy. True protests are by their very nature acts of civil disobedience: no city makes it technically legal for a large group of people to assemble in public indefinitely. They also are inherently unruly, as no one involved has anything but voluntary authority over anyone else. The fact that a large protest can't be legal and orderly makes it ever so easy to justify violent crackdowns, but we should not allow that justification. Every incident through history, now including the Oakland protest, should at least serve as some reminder that it must be unacceptable to take violent measures against largely peaceful protests.



I don't believe that I implied it's equal. Both are to blame, but the blame is not the same. I believe I made it very clear, several times, police brutality is very wrong. What the police are doing right now is wrong. 
I still think things would go better if protesters did focus on showing solidarity against non-violence and ousting those that throw things or are nasty. 
Does this mean the police are justified? fuck no! But you can't even spin that there was a threat when all the protesters were just standing and singing a song. 

Do the police need reformation of protocols, yes, but the way that is done is different, with a top down hierarchy which I assumed people could do. So I focused on what people can do, like going to protests and showing they are not aligned with people throwing things. By not encouraging people to go an yell at police, etc. 

The blame is present on both sides, but not equal, the more interesting solution lies in talking about what protesters can do, so I'm doing that.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 27, 2011)

Anarchists will always be attracted to large protests, and their sole aim is to cause trouble by provoking a police response. The most the peaceful protesters can do is attempt to distance themselves, which is often impossible due to the size of the crowd and the fact that the anarchists will attempt to retreat into the crowd when threatened. I guess one might therefore encourage vigilante justice towards agitators, but that would probably erupt into chaos. In the end, it is up to the police force to deal with anarchists, as only they have the legal authority to do so.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 27, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Anarchists will always be attracted to large protests, and their sole aim is to cause trouble by provoking a police response. The most the peaceful protesters can do is attempt to distance themselves, which is often impossible due to the size of the crowd and the fact that the anarchists will attempt to retreat into the crowd when threatened. I guess one might therefore encourage vigilante justice towards agitators, but that would probably erupt into chaos. In the end, it is up to the police force to deal with anarchists, as only they have the legal authority to do so.



They really derail protests in most cases.

It's a good thing occupy wall street hasn't really had too many of them, or I think they don't.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 27, 2011)

ADF said:


> Thought this clip may interest people.
> 
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPR4vJYlrpc
> 
> ...


 
Wow, Peter Schiff is a dickbag, and is either too dumb to know that the 1% is figurative for the very wealthy that use their wealth to enrich themselves at the expense of others, SUCH AS HIMSELF, rather than the very wealthy that don't try to exploit others.  And a lying cunt: there is absolutely no way, NO WAY that he is paying half of his income in taxes.  The top marginal tax bracket (kicking in right around $380k) is 35%, that first $380k is taxed lower than 35%, and if a significant part of his income is in realizations from capital gains, that drives it down even further to 15% if he waits a year to cash in any stocks and bonds.  And THAT'S not even including deductions and offshore banking that a man with such disdain for paying for the parts of society that enabled his success!

"How many people do you employ?" "I don't employ any, it would be NICE if-" "Then go do it!  Quit your job and go do it!  Why aren't you doing it?"  Jesus Christ you fucking idiot, why do you think she's not?

And that argument of "IF I RIGHT NOW GAVE YOU ENOUGH MONEY TO BE A PART OF THE 1%..." ...she probably wouldn't mind giving up a significant portion of it because she actually believes in a social contract, and doesn't seek to exploit others to make sure that share grows while other competition shrinks.  He wants to make it easier to stay wealthy, while making it harder to actually become wealthy.  He wants socio-economic stratification.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 27, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Well I guess my family is part of the 1%....
> 
> Still, I sympathize heavily with those that are protesting at wall street.
> 
> The one's at Oakland seriously fucked up.


 
You're in the top 10%, but not the top 1%.  To be in the top 1% in 2008, you would have had to make at least $368,268 that year, but on average, the top 1% made $1,137,683 that year.

edit: 





Onnes said:


> Anarchists will always be attracted to large protests, and their sole aim is to cause trouble by provoking a police response. The most the peaceful protesters can do is attempt to distance themselves, which is often impossible due to the size of the crowd and the fact that the anarchists will attempt to retreat into the crowd when threatened. I guess one might therefore encourage vigilante justice towards agitators, but that would probably erupt into chaos. In the end, it is up to the police force to deal with anarchists, as only they have the legal authority to do so.


 
Which doesn't even factor in _agents provocateurs_ that are opposed to the protestors and masquerade as such to deliberately force an incident with the police.  A couple of shitheaded conservatives have already been caught doing such.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 27, 2011)

Lobar said:


> You're in the top 10%, but not the top 1%.  To be in the top 1% in 2008, you would have had to make at least $368,268 that year, but on average, the top 1% made $1,137,683 that year.



Yeah, it seemed pretty low.
(Curse you lizzie >:V)
Still being in the top anything doesn't fit very well with me for some reason.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 27, 2011)

It was inevitable, but collegehumor made a short-
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6633406/we-are-the-1


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 28, 2011)

ADF said:


> Of course, then you have a further 20% VAT added on to everything you buy; regardless of your tax bracket.


 


Lizzie said:


> Our is 23%. *smug* :V



I don't feel so bad about our 15% GST now


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 28, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> It was inevitable, but collegehumor made a short-
> http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6633406/we-are-the-1



how the fuck did collegehumor get so good at original videos, both in production values, acting and content?  for that matter, how does the onion do it, too?  i remember when "we moved onto making our own videos!" resulted in awful bullshit like fark tv

how is it so good

how
how
how


----------



## Bliss (Oct 28, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Yeah, it seemed pretty low.
> (Curse you lizzie >:V)
> Still being in the top anything doesn't fit very well with me for some reason.


Is your family still using 100â‚¬ banknotes as toilet paper? :V


----------



## Aetius (Oct 28, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Is your family still using 100â‚¬ banknotes as toilet paper? :V


Pfft what are we? Peasants?

500 :V


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 28, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> how the fuck did collegehumor get so good at original videos, both in production values, acting and content?  for that matter, how does the onion do it, too?  i remember when "we moved onto making our own videos!" resulted in awful bullshit like fark tv
> 
> how is it so good
> 
> ...



Corporate sponsors, merchandise sales, and video production equipment is getting cheaper all the time.

You can put out high quality 1080i video from consumer-grade cameras costing around $300.  Plus however many years they spent making money off of advertising on web videos/articles/what have you gave them the ability to purchase editing rigs and hire quality editors/camera men.  Their offices are pretty nice.



Bobskunk said:


> There are no riots at Occupy protests until the cops start them.



There haven't been riots in the US.  And the Rome Occupy Riot was 100% started by the protestors when they started picking up cobblestones and throwing them into shop windows, throwing molotov cocktails at cars, just to name a few.



> Flashbangs can cause serious burns at close range, to say nothing about eardrum rupturing and concussions.  This is the kind of way these devices are trained _not_ to be used because of these risks.  Should the injured and bleeding man have been left there?  Or the paraplegic whose electric wheelchair stopped working in the midst of teargas?  I don't get your angle, here, especially calling any of this accidental or unintended.  Training in proper use of a given set of equipment or tactics doesn't mean that training will be followed correctly, if at all.  Even then, the real policy that matters is the one where almost every incident resulting in investigation results in a verdict of "properly followed procedure" and a punishment of paid administrative leave.



First I'd have to ask who's bright idea it was to put or allow a paraplegic or a man in an electric wheel chair in front of protest lines.  Regardless of any sort of police action, this is just stupid.  If something happens, be it a police action, protestors getting out of line, or God forbid there's an attack of some sort, there's virtually no way to get those people out safely.  Your hypothetical scenario here paints the protestors as negligent.

Second, we can't make the assumption that the police wouldn't have gotten the man medical attention if the protestors left him alone and didn't crowd around him.  Xenke or whoever said it is 100% right that the worst thing those people could have done was crowd around him to see what happened.  

Third, flashbang technology has improved and threats of any sort of serious burns and what have you are minimal.  The possibility may be there, but just because there's a small possibility of an injury related to flashbang use doesn't automatically rule them out of police use just as the possibility of getting in a car crash shouldn't keep police from transporting suspects in automobiles.  This isn't to say that flashbangs have never been misused, but again, it's a better alternative to use a flashbang to disperse a crowd than something more forceful.



> It's like you don't accept the possibility that the cops could have acted wrong and that, at any time, a demonstration can and should expect to be beaten down.



I've only brought up the arguments I have because no one here seems to want to accept the possibility that protestors could have acted wrong, and that when they do, nothing should apparently be done about it because no one within the movement wants to hold anyone accountable for their actions and apparently every cop in the US should be brought up on charges for doing their job when a non-violent protest begins to turn violent.



> What would stop police from having a few plainclothes infiltrators moving in to throw bottles at their heavily armored friends to let them come in with clubs?  Why do you think the vast majority of protestors that are committing themselves to non-violence should be beaten because of a few actors that nobody is supporting?



Apparently nothing can stop them, because OWS doesn't even want to bother stopping its own protestors from throwing bottles at heavily armored cops.  Maybe if OWS were better organized and found a way to designate people within the protests to help act as security to help identify and remove trouble causing protestors, or conspirators since you apparently refuse to believe any of the protestors would throw something at cops, this would be less likely to happen.  If OWS can get enough organization to get protestors to clean Zuccotti Park, then they can find a way to prevent violent protestors from hijacking the protest.



> Whatever, Term, I know your only goal here is to downplay and insult this protest no matter what happens.  If an instigator is masked, acts quickly and then runs away before anyone can do anything, what exactly can be done?  Video earlier in the day showed one guy throwing paint at cops from between some observing protesters (who were staying behind the drawn lines and on the sidewalk.)  He immediately ran away, and the police started beanbagging and clubbing the people who had been standing on the sidewalk.  What could possibly justify that action of collective physical punishment?



My goal is to put this in perspective and not sit here and suck the collective dick of OWS as if this were the second-coming of Christ himself.  I've said continually in this thread that I agree with the main idea of issues with a disproportion of wealth in this country.  I've explained how businesses are refusing to hire on workers and are burning out generations of people because they realize they can still turn over products and services short-staffed and for less pay.  I have nothing against the ideology of OWS.  I do however, take exemption to this protest becoming a slight on cops doing their jobs to keep the peace.  There have been instances of cops doing the wrong things or maybe could have made better decisions, and people have highlighted them.  But the general consensus of this thread has become a "Fuck the Police"-fest and undermining the high amount of patience the hundreds, if not thousands of cops have shown to these protestors throughout the country, despite the nearly daily onslaught of insults and taunts by protestors because many of these men and women are simply doing their jobs.



> There's a fucked up dynamic going on here, and you love it.



To insinuate I'm loving anything about this protest is ridiculous.



CannonFodder said:


> Hey Term are you a cop?
> Cause there's no other explanation for, "Vet gets sent to hospital? Oops accident.  Cops beat the shit out of people?  Oops accident.  Cops use teargas and flashbang grenades? Oops accident."



Awesome deflection.  Instead of attacking the issue, try and label me in order to explain why anyone may have a different opinion than you.

Frankly I've mentioned time and time again that I'm a video producer/freelance videographer and editor.  Though I hardly see the relevance of how my profession plays into my opinions.  You're grasping at straws here, CF.  I don't know why you've taken on this victim complex with the protestors.  As far as I'm aware you've never bothered to get off your ass and attend one of these protests and seem to be taking every thing that happens as a personal slight against you, even if that thing is totally imagined like your assertion earlier that no one was reporting about Oakland.  Seriously, get over yourself.

And yes, I do believe that what happened with the vet getting hit in the face with a CS canister/rubber bullet/whatever is an accident.  Prove to me otherwise that police are trained to go for headshots with non-lethal munitions and I will eat my crow.



> Honestly I bet your opinion on what happen in Kent State decades ago is, "Oops accident".



I don't know why you keep bringing up something that happened 41 years ago that involved National Guardsmen trained to deal with enemy combatants and not cops who are more inclined to deal with rioters.  Your analogy is flawed.  If you want to talk about the Kent State Shooting, talk about it in another thread, because bringing it up here is irrelevant.



Attaman said:


> Lemme just put out a quick question real fast: How do most of you define Civil Disobedience? As, what I'm seeing right now, most definitions seem to be "Obeying the law 100% until someone tells you 'Oi, cut that out' to go 'Yes sir :c', at which point your CD is over and everything goes back to normal'. What, exactly, is that supposed to accomplish? That basically just makes it a glorified rally.



I think it's fair to ask, with this protest going on over a month now, what exactly has been accomplished by the OWS-brand of civil disobedience?  The student loan actions Obama's taking can be tossed-up to a campaign manuever moreso than trying to appease the 99%, and is more in line with stuff he's already done in the past such as extending the amount of time someone can stay on their parent's medical insurance to 26.  The only thing that's happened is that it's inspired other protests around the world, one of which turned extremely violent because of protestor actions, and has generally just acted as people saying "I'M MAD AS HELL" with very little effect on Washington or the business world aside from politicians attempting to "own" the movement by offering wolf-in-sheep's-clothing level of support in order to ascertain votes on both sides of the aisle.

We don't have to paint OWS as a glorified rally.  That's exactly what it is.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 29, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Second, we can't make the assumption that the police wouldn't have gotten the man medical attention if the protestors left him alone and didn't crowd around him.  Xenke or whoever said it is 100% right that the worst thing those people could have done was crowd around him to see what happened.



Yes, we can make the assumption. As has already been mentioned, paramedics are by policy absolutely not going to go in until the police stop firing tear gas, flashbangs, and rubber bullets. Either his fellow protesters were going to drag him out or he was going to lie there bleeding.



> Third, flashbang technology has improved and threats of any sort of serious burns and what have you are minimal.  The possibility may be there, but just because there's a small possibility of an injury related to flashbang use doesn't automatically rule them out of police use just as the possibility of getting in a car crash shouldn't keep police from transporting suspects in automobiles.  This isn't to say that flashbangs have never been misused, but again, it's a better alternative to use a flashbang to disperse a crowd than something more forceful.



Citation needed; at point blank flashbangs are notoriously lethal. The flashbang was used at close range range to stop people from helping someone who was critically injured by improper police use of a tear gas launcher. I mean come on, just how much hate do you have to have of OWS to even try and justify that?



> Apparently nothing can stop them, because OWS doesn't even want to bother stopping its own protestors from throwing bottles at heavily armored cops.  Maybe if OWS were better organized and found a way to designate people within the protests to help act as security to help identify and remove trouble causing protestors, or conspirators since you apparently refuse to believe any of the protestors would throw something at cops, this would be less likely to happen.  If OWS can get enough organization to get protestors to clean Zuccotti Park, then they can find a way to prevent violent protestors from hijacking the protest.



So the protesters should have vigilantes in charge of subduing any anarchists that show up? Do you realize the legal ramifications of that and the kind of chaos which would ensue? How the heck are protesters supposed to act as police?



> I think it's fair to ask, with this protest going on over a month now, what exactly has been accomplished by the OWS-brand of civil disobedience?



Currently the protests have more name recognition anyone in the Republican primaries. If these protests have any point then it is to bring attention to the majority of Americans who are unsatisfied with the current state of economic inequality and injustice. And in fact, they've gotten even major media sources to actually report on those topics, something that probably wouldn't have happened otherwise. Of course, this is only the beginning, since election season is coming up and that is where any real effects will become apparent. Hopefully by then the OWS protests will represent a full political movement; it's practically inevitable if shithole police departments try killing any more of them.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 29, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Third, flashbang technology has improved and threats of any sort of  serious burns and what have you are minimal.
> 
> 
> And yes, I do believe that what happened with the vet getting hit in the face with a CS canister/rubber bullet/whatever is an accident.  Prove to me otherwise that police are trained to go for headshots with non-lethal munitions and I will eat my crow.


They were firing the rubber bullets AT the protesters, not near them or around them or above them, or below them, AT the protesters.  How the hell is directly firing at someone a accident?
"Well I don't know what happened, I just kinda aimed for his skull and fired it, and I didn't know it was going to hit him"

Secondly oh my fucking god you know absolutely jack shit about flash bangs, they have a warning label on the side of them for a reason.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 29, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Second, we can't make the assumption that the police wouldn't have gotten the man medical attention if the protestors left him alone and didn't crowd around him.  Xenke or whoever said it is 100% right that the worst thing those people could have done was crowd around him to see what happened.



As long as you continue to make huge unsubstantiated assumptions like the police lobbing flashbangs at the guy _probably_ were going to make sure he got timely medical attention, while his fellow protestors were _probably_ just wanting to be gawky looky-loos, you're failing to be objective, you're just out to rationalize your Just World hypothesis any way you can.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Apparently nothing can stop them, because OWS doesn't even want to bother stopping its own protestors from throwing bottles at heavily armored cops.  Maybe if OWS were better organized and found a way to designate people within the protests to help act as security to help identify and remove trouble causing protestors, or conspirators since you apparently refuse to believe any of the protestors would throw something at cops, this would be less likely to happen.  If OWS can get enough organization to get protestors to clean Zuccotti Park, then they can find a way to prevent violent protestors from hijacking the protest.



Because spontaneous populist demonstrations are so fucking regimented that this would be a simple task for them.  And because they have absolute authority and ability to forcibly remove other people from the area.  By not doing so they're clearly begging to have their skulls cracked open.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Prove to me otherwise that police are trained to go for headshots with non-lethal munitions and I will eat my crow.



Because cops always act according to their training.  A cop that just felt like being an asshole and beaning a protestor with a CS canister wouldn't even know how, he wasn't trained to do that, dummy!



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I think it's fair to ask, with this protest going on over a month now, what exactly has been accomplished by the OWS-brand of civil disobedience?  The student loan actions Obama's taking can be tossed-up to a campaign manuever moreso than trying to appease the 99%, and is more in line with stuff he's already done in the past such as extending the amount of time someone can stay on their parent's medical insurance to 26.  The only thing that's happened is that it's inspired other protests around the world, one of which turned extremely violent because of protestor actions, and has generally just acted as people saying "I'M MAD AS HELL" with very little effect on Washington or the business world aside from politicians attempting to "own" the movement by offering wolf-in-sheep's-clothing level of support in order to ascertain votes on both sides of the aisle.
> 
> We don't have to paint OWS as a glorified rally.  That's exactly what it is.


 
It's only been _six weeks_.  I think the student loan reform is already more than what was expected by anyone at this point.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 29, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Yes, we can make the assumption. As has already been mentioned, paramedics are by policy absolutely not going to go in until the police stop firing tear gas, flashbangs, and rubber bullets. Either his fellow protesters were going to drag him out or he was going to lie there bleeding.



In which case if they were going to drag him out it shouldn't take 15 people to crowd around him. If we're going to sit here and suggest that absolutely no one will see someone throwing objects at cops, then we must also accept the possibility that whoever threw the flashbang may not have noticed the man on the ground and instead just saw a bunch of people bolt to and huddle in front of the line.



> Citation needed; at point blank flashbangs are notoriously lethal. The flashbang was used at close range range to stop people from helping someone who was critically injured by improper police use of a tear gas launcher. I mean come on, just how much hate do you have to have of OWS to even try and justify that?



Study conducted by Sandia National Laboratories back in 2003.  Below is the Conclusion.



			
				Less-than-lethal â€œFlashbangâ€ Diversionary Device said:
			
		

> There are many advantages of this new Flashbang diversionary device device.
> â€¢ Due to the reduced near-field peak overpressure, the possibility of permanent
> damage to subjects exposed to the near-field pressure wave is greatly reduced.
> â€¢ The acceleration of any near-field objects produced by the overpressure should be
> ...



So the overall possibility of permanent damage is reduced with only the possibility of burns being apparent, which are treatable.  Examples of lethality as you may find them are more attributed to someone having a heart condition and dieing because of that, with one example I can think of off the top of my head where an police officer died because he was still holding the flashbang close to his person when it discharged.  And by close I mean less than a foot away from him.

Also why does any of this automatically mean I have hate for the protestors?  Should I be asking why you hate America for supporting an anti-corporate movement?  Would that be fair or even close to your true opinions?  Stop insinuating that I MUST hate these people because I have a different opinion than you.  It's childish.



			
				Onnes said:
			
		

> So the protesters should have vigilantes in charge of subduing any anarchists that show up? Do you realize the legal ramifications of that and the kind of chaos which would ensue? How the heck are protesters supposed to act as police?





			
				Lobar said:
			
		

> Because spontaneous populist demonstrations are so fucking regimented that this would be a simple task for them.  And because they have absolute authority and ability to forcibly remove other people from the area.  By not doing so they're clearly begging to have their skulls cracked open.



Onnes, do you consider bouncers to be vigilantes?  Or stadium/event security?  If someone starts a fight in a bar and they're forcefully removed, the legal ramifications are slim and none.  Frankly with all the lawyers running around the OWS protest, they should be able to have representation on hand who will attest to the claim that these people were forcefully removed for their safety as well as the safety of those around him or her.  The protestors should have people there at the front lines who people can easily designate as help on their side in case they see something so they can say something.  They have their own people designated as medics, they can organize a clean-up of an entire park, but apparently it's impossible to ask for volunteers to keep an eye out for possible infighting and those assaulting police and who may be capable of taking away these protestors.  Lobar you don't know that they don't have people there who would be more than willing to help keep the protest peaceful by acting on protestors who are violent.  And let's get this straight, violent protestor =/= anarchist.  It does however mean violent protestor = asshole.

I'm throwing this idea out there to at the very least show that he protest wants to do something to remain peaceful.  Sending out a flyer asking "please don't throw things at cops" isn't even trying.  You don't just tell people at a ballpark not to lean over the railings in the upper deck, you make the railings higher so people can't easily do that.



CannonFodder said:


> They were firing the rubber bullets AT the protesters, not near them or around them or above them, or below them, AT the protesters.  How the hell is directly firing at someone a accident?
> "Well I don't know what happened, I just kinda aimed for his skull and fired it, and I didn't know it was going to hit him"



POLICE DON'T GO FOR HEADSHOTS.  Apparently this is too hard of a concept for you to grasp.  Rubber bullets, are meant to be shot at the body or at the ground to hit them in the legs, not in the face.  Neither are CS canisters meant to be shot into someone's face.  To insinuate that since someone got hit by a projectile in the head because he MUST have been aiming for it is absurd to me.  To completely rule out the possibility that this specific incident was an accident with the CS Canister is absurd and further falls down the path of this lame "Us vs Them" mentality that Fay was talking about earlier.



> Secondly oh my fucking god you know absolutely jack shit about flash bangs, they have a warning label on the side of them for a reason.



OMG IT HAS A WARNING LABEL BAN IT.  



Lobar said:


> As long as you continue to make huge unsubstantiated assumptions like the police lobbing flashbangs at the guy _probably_ were going to make sure he got timely medical attention, while his fellow protestors were _probably_ just wanting to be gawky looky-loos, you're failing to be objective, you're just out to rationalize your Just World hypothesis any way you can.



Watch the video again.  I count at least 14 people who moved up to the front of the line, some of whom just stood there and looked before the flashbang was tossed.  Why does it take 14 people to assess a situation and remove someone?  But no, I'M the only unobjective person in this thread.  C'mon Lobar, really?



> It's only been _six weeks_.  I think the student loan reform is already more than what was expected by anyone at this point.



And that's only assuming that the protest had anything to do with that.  In fact, Obama's been working on a student loan plan at least since August of this year, more than a month before the protests started.  This seems more like trying to capitalize politically on a protest rather than something spawned from populist demands.  Can't blame him for being an opportunist.


----------



## DingosHalberd (Oct 29, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Can't blame him for being an opportunist.


  Nor anyone who'se going around selling T-Shirts, caps and badges in support. Irony right there. Whilst the American one might have a purpose in showing disatisfaction with how overtly-Capatalistic their economic systems have become (even if that's not really clear in a message or that), the 'protest' in Australia - Melbourne - doesn't need to be at ALL. It's litterally a crowd of dole bludgers flinging slogans from peace in the middle east to gay marriage support to aboriginal land rights calling themselves the '99%' when they don't know what that even means. It's an American economic situation; there is no 1% majority who earns more than others over here. Infact, our economic situation is the best in the western world at the moment, with continued growth. These people are either sitting in a park all day or blocking the street for an hour or two before returning to aforementioned park because they don't know what to do. That is when they are litterally not breaking off to duck into McDonnalds or KFC for lunch. It's astounding, and apparently from comments everyone not in the crowd wishes they'd just fuck off. And in the end, they will, and nothing will change. Why would they bother when they don't seem to even give a shit?


----------



## ADF (Oct 29, 2011)

I wonder if the Active Denial System is going to be brought out at any point.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 29, 2011)

ADF said:


> I wonder if the Active Denial System is going to be brought out at any point.



LRAD's been out in Oakland during the daytime raid with all the riot shotguns, not the nighttime one with all the flashbangs and teargas.

Which is interesting, since I remembered a month or so earlier a G-20 bystander hit by one was progressing with a lawsuit.

EDIT: Term, the vet was standing about 10 feet from the barricade, as many people were at the time.  Tear gas canisters fired from 37mm cannons are usually arced into crowds, this had to have been fired directly.  The issue becomes whether the cop who shot that projectile had no idea of the tactics involved (unlikely, since someone who isn't trained in using those cannons would be on baton line duty) or shot it straight into the crowd, deliberately at that angle, deliberately flaunting training.  Maybe they weren't deliberately aiming at anyone's head, because as long as they fire forward it will end up in the crowd- but considered the prospect of hitting someone in the head an added bonus.  Maybe that cop actually was deliberately trying to bank it off Olsen's skull.  None of that is a good excuse for what happened.  There was no threat, there was no violence, there was no felony, and now someone is in a coma.  Your "police don't shoot for the head!" applies to threat neutralization, like someone charging with a weapon- they fire for center mass so they have a better chance of hitting and stopping someone.  Riot control is different, and you don't really "miss" with a teargas canister unless you're firing it straight up into the air.  You dumb boner.

The flashbang (or possibly stinger grenades, which might account for the two types of rubber bullets found- one purple and misshapen, possibly launched from the paintball guns, one black with a more regular rounded appearance) is not an effective open area device, and it was thrown onto/into the small crowd trying to get the vet out of there.  Yet you seem to think this is appropriate.

EDIT AGAIN: Also what's ironic about selling things, it's only ironic if it was an anti-capitalist movement, which it isn't, or if you equate the incestuous mess of crony capitalism and rent seeking and revolving doors between regulators and regulated actually being protested with real capitalism and actually support that status quo.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 29, 2011)

ADF said:


> I wonder if the Active Denial System is going to be brought out at any point.



*flails arms* "No!"

I want one.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 29, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> In which case if they were going to drag him out it shouldn't take 15 people to crowd around him. If we're going to sit here and suggest that absolutely no one will see someone throwing objects at cops, then we must also accept the possibility that whoever threw the flashbang may not have noticed the man on the ground and instead just saw a bunch of people bolt to and huddle in front of the line.



Gee, maybe cops should pay attention when they deploy potentially lethal weaponry. Indiscriminate use of force should not be tolerated.



> Study conducted by Sandia National Laboratories back in 2003.  Below is the Conclusion.



Did you even read what you linked? This study is about some sort of prototype device, it says nothing about the kind of flashbangs actually used. The guidelines for flashbang deployment usually suggest a minimum range of five feet, which you aren't going to meet if you chuck one into a crowd of people.



> Onnes, do you consider bouncers to be vigilantes?  Or stadium/event security?  If someone starts a fight in a bar and they're forcefully removed, the legal ramifications are slim and none.  Frankly with all the lawyers running around the OWS protest, they should be able to have representation on hand who will attest to the claim that these people were forcefully removed for their safety as well as the safety of those around him or her.



You realize there is a difference between a public and private venue, right? Bouncers and private security are given their authority by the owner of the property; these protests of course occur on public property, and no private citizen can claim additional powers there to work as security personnel unless those powers are granted by the local government.



> POLICE DON'T GO FOR HEADSHOTS.  Apparently this is too hard of a concept for you to grasp.  Rubber bullets, are meant to be shot at the body or at the ground to hit them in the legs, not in the face.  Neither are CS canisters meant to be shot into someone's face.  To insinuate that since someone got hit by a projectile in the head because he MUST have been aiming for it is absurd to me.  To completely rule out the possibility that this specific incident was an accident with the CS Canister is absurd and further falls down the path of this lame "Us vs Them" mentality that Fay was talking about earlier.



The canister was fired directly into the crowd at face level. This is absolutely not how police are trained to deploy these weapons, and hence the resulting severe injuries are not the result of an accident but of misconduct. An accident would only be implied if the weapon were used properly.



> Watch the video again.  I count at least 14 people who moved up to the front of the line, some of whom just stood there and looked before the flashbang was tossed.  Why does it take 14 people to assess a situation and remove someone?  But no, I'M the only unobjective person in this thread.  C'mon Lobar, really?



When you are under attack you typically don't have time to carefully select who is going to drag away the dying man. Having 14 people rush forward is far better than having none; they all knew that that veteran wasn't going to get help unless they acted.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 29, 2011)

Onnes said:


> When you are under attack you typically don't have time to carefully select who is going to drag away the dying man. Having 14 people rush forward is far better than having none; they all knew that that veteran wasn't going to get help unless they acted.


 
IIRC, I saw one person already there, then three or so people run forward (one of which was a woman who only seemed interested in standing there crying or something), and then a large wave of people just moseyed on over, with little apparent urgency.

Now if all people these people at least seemed alarmed in the slightest, I'd be willing to accept this argument.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 29, 2011)

Xenke said:


> IIRC, I saw one person already there, then three or so people run forward (one of which was a woman who only seemed interested in standing there crying or something), and then a large wave of people just moseyed on over, with little apparent urgency.
> 
> Now if all people these people at least seemed alarmed in the slightest, I'd be willing to accept this argument.



Never mind that they did manage to evacuate the guy despite being targeted by an inappropriate use of force. You're seriously expecting these protesters to act like trained paramedics while under fire.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 29, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Never mind that they did manage to evacuate the guy despite being targeted by an inappropriate use of force. You're seriously expecting these protesters to act like trained paramedics while under fire.



Oh please.

Bottom line common sense dictates "don't mob the injured".

The fact that they were trying to play paramedic was bad enough.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 29, 2011)

Xenke said:


> The fact that they were trying to play paramedic was bad enough.



So you really would just leave him on the ground dying until the police finished dispersing the protesters and the paramedics were able to go in?


----------



## Xenke (Oct 29, 2011)

Onnes said:


> So you really would just leave him on the ground dying until the police finished dispersing the protesters and the paramedics were able to go in?



Yes.  Believe it or not, trying to help an injured person without any knowledge of the extent of their injuries and without the knowledge on what procedures should be taken in an emergency for these injuries is quite detrimental 9/10 times.

Thank god he survived this whole ordeal, but the actions of the protesters could have actually killed him.

Yes paramedics would have not been able to get to him as quickly, but then again who's fault is that really? And furthermore, paramedics actually know how to perform emergency treatment on the injured, and know how to take preventative measures the keep the injuries from getting worse.

Ignoring the risk taken by the protester on behalf of this man is egregious, regardless of intent, and I fail to see how the circumstance that they've created for themselves in any way excuses this behavior.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 29, 2011)

Unless the protesters carried him off he was going to lie there in a cloud of tear gas indefinitely. The Oakland police department created a situation where actual paramedics could not respond within any reasonable time frame. Without knowing what kind of injuries he had suffered--and no one could know them at that point since tear gas is blinding--not carrying him off would risk his death due to blood loss or suffocation.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 29, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Yes.  Believe it or not, trying to help an injured person without any knowledge of the extent of their injuries and without the knowledge on what procedures should be taken in an emergency for these injuries is quite detrimental 9/10 times.
> 
> Thank god he survived this whole ordeal, but the actions of the protesters could have actually killed him.
> 
> ...


While the protesters acted inappropriately and didn't know what to do, there is one clear fact: The police didn't give a shit about the injured vet.  Had the protesters not acted then in all probability we would be hearing about a killed vet on the news, instead of a injured vet.

Think about it for a second, the police fired the tear gas canister directly at him.  The fact the police officer fired it directly at the protesters instead of at a angle clearly tells what the officer's intent was, to send someone to the hospital and not to just stop the protesters.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 29, 2011)

The lengths some people will go to to try to justify police brutality...


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 29, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Gee, maybe cops should pay attention when they deploy potentially lethal weaponry. Indiscriminate use of force should not be tolerated.



And maybe protestors who want to help someone injured in front of a police line should realize that a mob charging at it can be perceived in the wrong way.  A serious injury doesn't give people the go ahead to play medic or stand around a body gawking.



> Did you even read what you linked? This study is about some sort of prototype device, it says nothing about the kind of flashbangs actually used. The guidelines for flashbang deployment usually suggest a minimum range of five feet, which you aren't going to meet if you chuck one into a crowd of people.



I did actually, and this flashbang studied has been liscensed and sold to military and law enforcement agencies since 2008.



> You realize there is a difference between a public and private venue, right? Bouncers and private security are given their authority by the owner of the property; these protests of course occur on public property, and no private citizen can claim additional powers there to work as security personnel unless those powers are granted by the local government.



I also realize that a public protest of this magnitude tends to change the rules a bit.  And if a dialogue were opened between police and the protestors in order for police to identify who protest security was, let's say in bright orange jackets, you could effectively telegraph to police that when one of these orange-jacketed people is moving through a crowd that he's taking care of a singular situation within the crowd and that the situation is under control, as opposed to a large mob starting to hurl things at cops.  As far as I know, nothing like this has been proposed or even looked into by the protest, possibly due to the defeatist attitude that "there's nothing we can do" or following within the same "Us VS. Them" mentality that they can't work hand-in-hand with police to not only protect protestors but everyone else involved.



> When you are under attack you typically don't have time to carefully select who is going to drag away the dying man. Having 14 people rush forward is far better than having none; they all knew that that veteran wasn't going to get help unless they acted.


 
I'll give you that someone within the protest could have tried to carry him out.  Perhaps 2 or 3 people.  Having 14 people rush in is NEVER a good idea, especially if those people have no intention to help and instead stand around like idiots or falling in front of them to cry.



			
				Bobskunk said:
			
		

> Maybe they weren't deliberately aiming at anyone's head, because as long as they fire forward it will end up in the crowd- but considered the prospect of hitting someone in the head an added bonus. Maybe that cop actually was deliberately trying to bank it off Olsen's skull. None of that is a good excuse for what happened. There was no threat, there was no violence, there was no felony, and now someone is in a coma. Your "police don't shoot for the head!" applies to threat neutralization, like someone charging with a weapon- they fire for center mass so they have a better chance of hitting and stopping someone. Riot control is different, and you don't really "miss" with a teargas canister unless you're firing it straight up into the air. You dumb boner.



Your language continually attempts to insinuate that whoever fired the canister was deliberately trying to cause as much collateral damage as possible.  I'm glad you've got the power of telepathy to know exactly what was going on in that dude's head or that you were actually there to see him aim specifically for Olsen's body/head.  There was a threat when people start throwing things at cops.  It's a sign that the situation is getting out of hand and either the perpetrator needs to be arrested or the crowd needs to be broken up before things get completely out of hand and we have another Rome situation.  You ignorant boob.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 29, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> **mindpolice argument**


Term, even the most wet under the ears of a cop knows not to fire a teargas canister directly AT someone.
If there really are cops out there that untrained god help us.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 29, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I also realize that a public protest of this magnitude tends to change the rules a bit.  And if a dialogue were opened between police and the protestors in order for police to identify who protest security was, let's say in bright orange jackets, you could effectively telegraph to police that when one of these orange-jacketed people is moving through a crowd that he's taking care of a singular situation within the crowd and that the situation is under control, as opposed to a large mob starting to hurl things at cops.  As far as I know, nothing like this has been proposed or even looked into by the protest, possibly due to the defeatist attitude that "there's nothing we can do" or following within the same "Us VS. Them" mentality that they can't work hand-in-hand with police to not only protect protestors but everyone else involved.



You are still arguing that the protesters should set up a technically illegal power structure in order to act as effective police. If their relationship with the real police turns sour then those protesters playing cop would suddenly find themselves the targets of prosecution. There's also the issue of allowing people with little or no training to attempt to subdue or disperse agitators; if anyone gets injured then the whole situation is going to explode into chaos. The idea that random people should be taking on the duties of police officers is quite simply absurd.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 29, 2011)

Onnes said:


> You are still arguing that the protesters should set up a technically illegal power structure in order to act as effective police. If their relationship with the real police turns sour then those protesters playing cop would suddenly find themselves the targets of prosecution. There's also the issue of allowing people with little or no training to attempt to subdue or disperse agitators; if anyone gets injured then the whole situation is going to explode into chaos. The idea that random people should be taking on the duties of police officers is quite simply absurd.


 
Well then I'd love to hear your solution to the issue then.

What do you propose is to be done about people who are getting violent?  What do you propose to do about the infighting within the protest?  About those who toss objects at the police?

Because the only thing I seem to be getting out of you or anyone else is "let the cops handle it" except you don't want the cops to handle it because their procedure doesn't fly with you.  And certainly you don't want uniformed officers walking in the middle of the protest.  What do Onnes?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 29, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Well then I'd love to hear your solution to the issue then.
> 
> What do you propose is to be done about people who are getting violent?  What do you propose to do about the infighting within the protest?  About those who toss objects at the police?
> 
> Because the only thing I seem to be getting out of you or anyone else is "let the cops handle it" except you don't want the cops to handle it because their procedure doesn't fly with you.  And certainly you don't want uniformed officers walking in the middle of the protest.  What do Onnes?


Term do you even understand what, "nonviolent protest" means?


Secondly the violence within the OWS is conservatives trying to plant the groups with pot and that to make it seem like the protesters are hippies.
So the protesters should just let pot into the protests?


----------



## Aetius (Oct 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Secondly the violence within the OWS is conservatives trying to plant the groups with pot and that to make it seem like the protesters are hippies.
> So the protesters should just let pot into the protests?


Sounds like the dastardly work of the brotherhood? is it? :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 29, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Sounds like the dastardly work of the brotherhood? is it? :V


I don't think Ian McKellen actually controls the strong magnetic force.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I don't think Ian McKellen actually controls the strong magnetic force.



I wasn't referring to THAT brotherhood >_>
(1984 lol) 

and you are right, he only has power over the arcane.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 29, 2011)

Onnes said:


> You are still arguing that the protesters should set up a technically illegal power structure in order to act as effective police. If their relationship with the real police turns sour then those protesters playing cop would suddenly find themselves the targets of prosecution. There's also the issue of allowing people with little or no training to attempt to subdue or disperse agitators; if anyone gets injured then the whole situation is going to explode into chaos. The idea that random people should be taking on the duties of police officers is quite simply absurd.



But it's perfectly ok for them to be taking the duties of paramedics.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 29, 2011)

Xenke said:


> But it's perfectly ok for them to be taking the duties of paramedics.



When the real paramedics have no access to the area and the alternative is leaving the person to die, yes.  You can't actually be this dense.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 29, 2011)

Lobar said:


> When the real paramedics have no access to the area and the alternative is leaving the person to die, yes.  You can't actually be this dense.



Yes he would have died. Totally.

Oh wait, would he have? I'm not so sure.

I will tell you this though, there's a reason you're not supposed to move people with head/neck injuries. Whoops.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Term do you even understand what, "nonviolent protest" means?
> 
> 
> Secondly the violence within the OWS is conservatives trying to plant the groups with pot and that to make it seem like the protesters are hippies.
> So the protesters should just let pot into the protests?



Your rose-colored glasses towards the protests are especially thick today.

CF, do you understand that "nonviolent protest" doesn't automatically mean that everyone involved is or is going to continue to be "nonviolent"?

[yt]1UTePrdIcm8[/yt]

Skip to 2 minutes.

[yt]mOqo7YHrD0c[/yt]

ABC reporters in Oakland were threatened that they'd have their cameras stolen and broken if they entered the commune.

An article about fights going on within Zuccotti Park.  Fun side note, The New York Daily News, who's been very supportive of the demonstrations, were the first to report the story and have since rescinded it.

Of course, all of those incidents and others are secret conservative agents attempting to thwart the protestors from within.

When you run out of tin-foil, CF, let me know.  I wouldn't want your head to get cold, or the satellites to keep beaming subliminal messages into your head.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 29, 2011)

Xenke said:


> But it's perfectly ok for them to be taking the duties of paramedics.



You do realize there are trained EMTs volunteering, just as there are lawyers and such, right?  It also doesn't look like he was being moved away, he was being checked out up until the point of flashbangs being thrown directly at him- because he was unresponsive and there was teargas around and could not be examined further and treated there.  Paramedics don't go in when teargas and rubber bullets are flying, if there were any in the area, he wouldn't have been checked out and taken to the hospital, he would have laid there bleeding.  I wouldn't be surprised if the first instinct was "arrest this melodramatic actor" once left to the police line, but either way..  The "injured person immobile in a fire/potentially explosive situation" exception is partly in effect, especially when calling and waiting for an ambulance to come to "14th and Broadway, right in front of all the heavily armored cops" isn't really going to work.

Your deference to authority is hilarious, whether something as trivial as FA or as major as this; anyone not respecting the status quo set up to benefit only our "betters" is scum.  Literally nothing is ever done wrong by an authority of any kind, and anybody who has a problem with it is a whiny baby who has absolutely no reason to complain. :V


----------



## Onnes (Oct 29, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Yes he would have died. Totally.
> 
> Oh wait, would he have? I'm not so sure.
> 
> I will tell you this though, there's a reason you're not supposed to move people with head/neck injuries. Whoops.



Yeah, if someone ever finds me unconscious, covered in blood, and surrounded by tear gas I really hope they'll pull me to safety instead of risking the quite large probability that I'll die due to untreated injuries.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 29, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Yes he would have died. Totally.
> 
> Oh wait, would he have? I'm not so sure.
> 
> I will tell you this though, there's a reason you're not supposed to move people with head/neck injuries. Whoops.


As someone who has *basic* EMT training, he would've died.
The protesters acted inappropriately, but the injuries the vet suffered would've been lethal.


----------



## Aden (Oct 29, 2011)

Guys, guys. Can't we just agree that people getting shot in the head is bad, getting people out of harm's way is good, and there are dumb people on both sides? 

\So many wasted words for so little won ground


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 29, 2011)

Aden said:


> Guys, guys. Can't we just agree that people getting shot in the head is bad, getting people out of harm's way is good, and there are dumb people on both sides?
> 
> \So many wasted words for so little won ground


We're arguing about whether or not it's police brutality.
It's not really a argument of whether or not the cops were being dumb, but whether or not the person who fired the tea gas grenade wanted to fuck up someone's day.

Nobody has called the officers dumb or such.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 29, 2011)

Occupy Denver was just raided today.  Hopefully Lacus and her friends there are alright.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 29, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Occupy Denver was just raided today.  Hopefully Lacus and her friends there are alright.


If I remember correctly she doesn't camp there, hopefully she's alright.

What the police don't realize is that even if they arrest everyone more protesters will show up, arrest them and more protesters show up, the police can't stop the protesters cause when the enemy is the populace your side is fucked.
The only way the police can possibly stop the protests is to jail every last person in america.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What the police don't realize is that even if they arrest everyone more protesters will show up, arrest them and more protesters show up, the police can't stop the protesters cause when the enemy is the populace your side is fucked.
> The only way the police can possibly stop the protests is to jail every last person in america.



Believe it or not, not at all.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 29, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Believe it or not, not at all.


I know the protesters don't all get arrested all at once, but they recuperate the numbers fast enough that it doesn't matter if the police begin going on a arresting spree.

If the OWS protesters all got the boot the second the police would drop the barricades they'd retake the park.

The police can't stop them.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What the police don't realize is that even if they arrest everyone more protesters will show up, arrest them and more protesters show up, the police can't stop the protesters cause when the enemy is the populace your side is fucked.
> The only way the police can possibly stop the protests is to jail every last person in america.



This isn't a massive thing like the Iranian revolution where 10% of the population took part in national protests. 

They reason you usually see more protestors in the field is that the police usually let them go after a day or so in holding.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 29, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> This isn't a massive thing like the Iranian revolution where 10% of the population took part in national protests.
> 
> They reason you usually see more protestors in the field is that the police usually let them go after a day or so in holding.


The reason for that is there's a law that police can't hold a person for more than 24 hours without any real evidence or such of a committing a crime that would justify holding them for more than 24 hours or such( I know there's a name for this, just can't remember it right now )
If the police officers hold a person in the protests for more than the time frame that'd open a massive can of worms that we wouldn't see the end of for months.
So the cops are covering their asses otherwise some serious legal shit would go down.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 29, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What the police don't realize is that even if they arrest everyone more protesters will show up, arrest them and more protesters show up, the police can't stop the protesters cause when the enemy is the populace your side is fucked.
> The only way the police can possibly stop the protests is to jail every last person in america.



The police can easily control this protest if they wanted to or need to.  While the total number of people is quite low to be a "huge" event.  And numbers do not mean much, in a lot of situations.  More often than not, the smaller force succeeds.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> The police can easily control this protest if they wanted to or need to.  While the total number of people is quite low to be a "huge" event.  And numbers do not mean much, in a lot of situations.  More often than not, the smaller force succeeds.


They could control the protests, but if they tried that it would lead to media hayday.
The Oakland police force is covering their asses with the news of the vet being injured, what do you think would happen if they tried to shut down ALL the protests?

The OWS protesters' success is almost assured, because they may be the smaller force, but 43% of americans support the protests.
When the presidential election swings by OWS is going to be the thing they talk about during the debates.  As well all know politicians know not to piss of the voters lest they lose election.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> They could control the protests, but if they tried that it would lead to media hayday.
> The Oakland police force is covering their asses with the news of the vet being injured, what do you think would happen if they tried to shut down ALL the protests?



A bunch of crackpots would cry censorship and the world would forget about it in a couple days.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> They could control the protests, but if they tried that it would lead to media hayday.
> The Oakland police force is covering their asses with the news of the vet being injured, what do you think would happen if they tried to shut down ALL the protests?



No matter what the police do, it will be a media storm.

Police take control of protests. Media- "why are they over ruling our rights and using excessive force. Hurpa durp"

Police don't control protests. Media- " I can't believe the police are letting this, get this out of hand.  They need to do something about it.  Hurr Durr"

And the Oakland police are probably one of the worse forces in America.  "probably"


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

Xenke said:


> A bunch of crackpots would cry censorship and the world would forget about it in a couple days.


Except it's now international, this isn't going away.
The american police may try stomping the protest out, but I highly doubt EVERY last country with protests are going to simultaneously do the same.


Commie Bat said:


> No matter what the police do, it will be a media storm.
> 
> 
> Police take control of protests. Media- "why are they over ruling our rights and using excessive force. Hurpa durp"
> ...


The police are fucked either way, damned if they do, damned if they don't.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 30, 2011)

I don't think that the Police force is all "DESTROY THOSE DISSIDENTS" as are their counterparts in Syria.

Sure there may be some mistakes committed, but I don't think that their common and final goal is to destroy protests as you make it seem like.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

^(because the quote button is being a bitch and not letting me click)
I know that, what I was getting as is that what Xenke is proposing doesn't make a lick of sense.
The protests certainly aren't going away.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> ^(because the quote button is being a bitch and not letting me click)
> I know that, what I was getting as is that what Xenke is proposing doesn't make a lick of sense.
> The protests certainly aren't going away.



You seem to think these protests are a universal constant.

Ok then.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

^( Why the hell isn't the quote button working? )
You do realize there's nearly a thousand occupy protests right?
It's not just New York and Oakland.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 30, 2011)

Also for any of you that haven't been on the other side of a protest, let me tell you.  It is literally one of the scariest things you can do.  All it takes is for you to make one mistake and an entire world of hurt just opened up.  With all the tension I'm surprised there hasn't been nearly as many accidents.

EDIT: I can stand half a meter away when a flash goes off, and I'll be fine.  Along with that, are you entirely sure they are flashers?  As bangers are quite similar looking but are two completely different non-lethals.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

^(Okay seriously the quote button is starting to piss me off)

It's possible it was that instead of a flash grenade, we don't really know if it was a flash grenade or such cause the police is covering their ass.
If they did fire one instead of a flash grenade there's going to be so much more media frenzy than there is already.  I can imagine it now, "Tonight on MSNBC, investigations reveal the Oakland police were using lethal weaponry in cracking down on the Occupy protesters, resulting in injuring one of the men sworn to protect america only to come home being injured by those sworn to protect the citizens from criminals."


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> ^(Okay seriously the quote button is starting to piss me off)
> 
> It's possible it was that instead of a flash grenade, we don't really know if it was a flash grenade or such cause the police is covering their ass.
> If they did fire one instead of a flash grenade there's going to be so much more media frenzy than there is already.  I can imagine it now, "Tonight on MSNBC, investigations reveal the Oakland police were using lethal weaponry in cracking down on the Occupy protesters, resulting in injuring one of the men sworn to protect america only to come home being injured by those sworn to protect the citizens from criminals."



(man this quote button is working perfectly on my mobile). :v

Well bangers are non lethal, just insanely loud.  They sound like an RGD going off, though the downside is the cause a concussion shock wave that does pose a danger, if near head or unprotected appendages.


----------



## Inciatus (Oct 30, 2011)

There is also one in Orlando that I have recently heard about.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> (man this quote button is working perfectly on my mobile). :v
> 
> Well bangers are non lethal, just insanely loud.  They sound like an RGD going off, though the downside is the cause a concussion shock wave that does pose a danger, if near head or unprotected appendages.


(goddamnit finally the quote button is working)

I know that, that's actually what I said a couple pages ago.

Hey CB, do you think firing a bang grenade directly at the protesters was excessive force by the police?


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> (goddamnit finally the quote button is working)
> 
> I know that, that's actually what I said a couple pages ago.
> 
> Hey CB, do you think firing a bang grenade directly at the protesters was excessive force by the police?



Depends upon the trajectory, landing zone, and the fps (unless thrown) so I would have to see some videos.
Though if someone just chucked it randomly at someone, then of course it was excessive force.

Also I am not, nor have I ever been part of any police force, but we have worked with them.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Depends upon the trajectory, landing zone, and the fps (unless thrown) so I would have to see some videos.
> Though if someone just chucked it randomly at someone, then of course it was excessive force.


That's what I was thinking as well, cause a cop firing a bang grenade directly at a protester makes it obvious the cop wanted to fuck up someone's day.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> That's what I was thinking as well, cause a cop firing a bang grenade directly at a protester makes it obvious the cop wanted to fuck up someone's day.



Which will make it hard to determine what happened, who was right and who was wrong, until there is some clear cut facts.  Though in all honesty most media will agree with the police 9/10 times for obvious reasons.

There is so many variables that go with protests, it's not even funny.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Which will make it hard to determine what happened, who was right and who was wrong, until there is some clear cut facts.  Though in all honesty most media will agree with the police 9/10 times for obvious reasons.
> 
> There is so many variables that go with protests, it's not even funny.


What's worse is that the investigation will probably be swept under the carpet and we'll probably never know what actually happened.


----------



## Iudicium_86 (Oct 30, 2011)

Marine Says Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones

I thought force and control was necessary when a crowd becomes a riot. And I haven't seen any riots lately, just gatherings and protests.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

Iudicium_86 said:


> Marine Says Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones
> 
> I thought force and control was necessary when a crowd becomes a riot. And I haven't seen any riots lately, just gatherings and protests.


Oh fuck, shit is about to go down.


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Oct 30, 2011)

Oh look, now they're killing pets.

After a dog fight, they executed one of them pretty horribly =/

EDIT: Actually, it doesn't even say there was a fight, just that one went for the other... which a lot of dogs do.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 30, 2011)

Iudicium_86 said:


> Marine Says Oakland Used Crowd Control Methods That Are Prohibited In War Zones
> 
> I thought force and control was necessary when a crowd becomes a riot. And I haven't seen any riots lately, just gatherings and protests.



Well there you have it.  Oakland police will have the media hammer fall on them.

I recommend watching for new information about this.



ramsay_baggins said:


> Oh look, now they're killing pets.



The fuck Oakland?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

Lacus, have you been able to contact the other protesters?


----------



## Aetius (Oct 30, 2011)

It's the Oakland police department, I am not really surprised to be honest.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 30, 2011)

Police killing pets is nothing new, it's pretty much standard practice in any raid to shoot any dogs present on sight.  Though this is the first time I've seen it in a protest situation.


----------



## Aden (Oct 30, 2011)

ramsay_baggins said:


> Oh look, now they're killing pets.
> 
> After a dog fight, they executed one of them pretty horribly =/
> 
> EDIT: Actually, it doesn't even say there was a fight, just that one went for the other... which a lot of dogs do.



Oakland PD: We love cats, hate dogs, and are generally bad at PR

\throwing a dog down stairs. what in the holy fuck is that


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Police killing pets is nothing new, it's pretty much standard practice in any raid to shoot any dogs present on sight.  Though this is the first time I've seen it in a protest situation.


The irony is they were showing a police officer petting a kitten after cracking down on Oakland protest.

*edit*
Ruh-roh, I just realized PETA is going to have a hayday with this.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 30, 2011)

I've only been going for short periods to help move tarps and sleeping bags and dry them out. The bad weather was killing me and I didn't find my proper winter clothes until JUST recently.

I wasn't arrested or anything, but my friends were. There have been sketchy people fucking this up for all of us. I suspect conservative plants at this point. 

And then of course there are the heroin junkies and rapists. Didn't need to forget about those! Ugh. They might have picked a better place to do this.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> *edit*
> Ruh-roh, I just realized PETA is going to have a hayday with this.


PETA has a hayday about everything, including keeping fish as pets and dogs for blind people. 

Kinda surprising that they would put down the dog though.



Lacus said:


> There have been sketchy people fucking this up for all of us. I suspect conservative plants at this point.



I suspect more IRL trolls than conservative infiltrators.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

Lacus said:


> I've only been going for short periods to help move tarps and sleeping bags and dry them out. The bad weather was killing me and I didn't find my proper winter clothes until JUST recently.
> 
> I wasn't arrested or anything, but my friends were. There have been sketchy people fucking this up for all of us. I suspect conservative plants at this point.
> 
> And then of course there are the heroin junkies and rapists. Didn't need to forget about those! Ugh. They might have picked a better place to do this.


 Good to hear you're safe, the police will probably release them soon, cause in Tennessee they kept a protester for more than 24 hours and a judge basically went, "why the fuck are you trying to keep him?  You have no grounds to hold him".


Crusader Mike said:


> PETA has a hayday about everything, including keeping fish as pets and dogs for blind people.
> Kinda surprising that they would put down the dog though.
> I suspect more IRL trolls than conservative infiltrators.



Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if there's tea party infiltrators cause there's people that crazy out there and as Lobar linked a couple pages ago, they did catch a conservative blogger trying to give people pot in new york to try and label the protesters as hippies.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Honestly it wouldn't surprise me if there's tea party infiltrators cause there's people that crazy out there and as Lobar linked a couple pages ago, they did catch a conservative blogger trying to give people pot in new york to try and label the protesters as hippies.


Damn, that is pretty low of them to do that.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Damn, that is pretty low of them to do that.


No, low was how the tea party was smashing in people's faces for voting democrat in 2010.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 30, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Damn, that is pretty low of them to do that.


 
The guy who got the Air and Space Museum closed was a conservative blogger type, too, who explicitly wrote about his desire to infiltrate and embarrass and discredit the movement.  He wrote a (since edited and possibly removed) column bragging about what he did and how bad it probably makes the movement look (and yes that incident was seized on by other conservatives) even though literally nobody followed him in, it was just him.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> No, low was how the tea party was smashing in people's faces for voting democrat in 2010.


Woah, this is news to me.

That sounds almost as bad as when that McCain campaign worker carved a backwards B (She did it in a mirror) on her forehead and then said some black guy did it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> The guy who got the Air and Space Museum closed was a conservative blogger type, too, who explicitly wrote about his desire to infiltrate and embarrass and discredit the movement.  He wrote a (since edited and possibly removed) column bragging about what he did and how bad it probably makes the movement look (and yes that incident was seized on by other conservatives) even though literally nobody followed him in, it was just him.


 The reason why his plan failed is the tea party members are far less intelligent and every last OWS supporter realizes how stupid that was.

Remember how conservatives were trying to get anonymous to attack wallstreet?
It didn't work, cause anonymous didn't fall for that shit.


Crusader Mike said:


> Woah, this is news to me.
> 
> That sounds almost as bad as when that McCain campaign worker carved a backwards B (She did it in a mirror) on her forehead and then said some black guy did it.


There's a reason why I hate the republican party, they use violence against the opposition.
Since it's news to you here's the video from 2010, most of us have seen it, but you said it's news to you.
[YT]txU55iFG9UA[/YT]


----------



## Aetius (Oct 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> There's a reason why I hate the republican party, they use violence against the opposition.
> Since it's news to you here's the video from 2010, most of us have seen it, but you said it's news to you.
> [YT]txU55iFG9UA[/YT]


Damn, I really want to know why I haven't seen this video before. I'm pretty disgusted that such an event took place.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> There's a reason why I hate the republican party, they use violence against the opposition.
> Since it's news to you here's the video from 2010, most of us have seen it, but you said it's news to you.



Almost all modern political parties use some sort of shady practices.  It all boils down to who can be more discreet.
I would most likely would have gotten arrested, for beating thst curb stomp fuck into a pulp.  Vigilantism....maybe????

EDIT:  CF, I watched a video about the Oakland police and they were using bangers.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Almost all modern political parties use some sort of shady practices.  It all boils down to who can be more discreet.
> I would most likely would have gotten arrested, for beating thst curb stomp fuck into a pulp.  Vigilantism....maybe????
> 
> EDIT:  CF, I watched a video about the Oakland police and they were using bangers.


Holy shit, I thought it was bad enough they were using tear gas and that, but no wonder why the police is trying to sweep this under the carpet.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Holy shit, I thought it was bad enough they were using tear gas and that, but no wonder why the police is trying to sweep this under the carpet.



Well on the positive side they are landing on the ground. as they are supposed to.

On the negative side; if one goes off in the air, your fucked over quite nicely.


----------



## ADF (Oct 30, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdDE5lS9wcA

Video response regarding Peter Schiff confronting the OWS crowd.

They have a point. People need to differentiate between the business owner who got rich selling products and services the public actually want, and the banker/wall street speculator that make money from money, sometimes fraudulently. 

A lot of the 99% are being employed by the 1% they claim to hate, and they should really recognise that. They need to differentiate between the super rich that became rich through their contributions to society, and those that got rich by exploitation and plundering.

This is the enemy, not the business owner employing tens/hundreds of people.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 30, 2011)

ADF said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdDE5lS9wcA
> 
> Video response regarding Peter Schiff confronting the OWS crowd.
> 
> ...


Easy response, these people-
http://www.butyourelikereallypretty.com/


----------



## ADF (Oct 30, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Easy response, these people-
> http://www.butyourelikereallypretty.com/



There are going to be a lot of varied people in the 10%/1%, including people who were just born into inheritances and have contributed nothing to society.

I'm talking about hating 'everyone' in the top earner category, even if they got there through legitimate means; and contribute back to society. The attitude seems to be that everyone who is rich is automatically evil and got there through illegitimate means.


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 30, 2011)

I hate oil companies and their CEOs.  Does this make me evil, or just average?


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 30, 2011)

ADF said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdDE5lS9wcA
> 
> Video response regarding Peter Schiff confronting the OWS crowd.
> 
> ...



yes we understand that, just like I explained earlier that 1% doesn't represent the 1% with the most money so much as it represents the people with the most money exploiting others and committing financial violence against everyone else.  Shitty business practices, fraud, huge deferences re: the law that they've bought and paid for..

This is the 1%  Stop conflating "I hate Goldman Sachs for ruining the economy and getting away with it" and "I hate WalMart for contributing massively to the decline of American manufacturing and the conversion of those lost jobs into low paid, menial retail service jobs" with "I hate anyone with more money than me because they think they're so good and I'm jealous"

Small business owners are getting screwed by the same people and aren't part of the 1%, no matter how much they think they are or want to be.


----------



## ADF (Oct 31, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> yes we understand that, just like I explained earlier that 1% doesn't represent the 1% with the most money so much as it represents the people with the most money exploiting others and committing financial violence against everyone else.  Shitty business practices, fraud, huge deferences re: the law that they've bought and paid for..
> 
> This is the 1%  Stop conflating "I hate Goldman Sachs for ruining the economy and getting away with it" and "I hate WalMart for contributing massively to the decline of American manufacturing and the conversion of those lost jobs into low paid, menial retail service jobs" with "I hate anyone with more money than me because they think they're so good and I'm jealous"
> 
> Small business owners are getting screwed by the same people and aren't part of the 1%, no matter how much they think they are or want to be.



Posted about that in the mini rants thread.

Looking back, you didn't concern yourself with checking what Peter Schiff did; before accusing him of amassing wealth illegitimately. The fact that he was wealthy seemed to be all that was required for you to say "SUCH AS HIMSELF". So I of course get the impression that a business man hiring 150 people is deemed amongst the enemy, just because he's wealthy. Granted, his ideology is more in line with a pre-welfare state business operation, but getting angry at the way he thinks isn't evidence he has fraudulently acquired wealth.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 31, 2011)

Occupy Austin got raided, 38 were arrested.
No injuries.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 31, 2011)

Occupy New Hampshire just got more sketchy.

23-year old woman who attended the protest attempts to pimp 16-year-old protestor.

According to police, she was going to train the kid to become a prostitute.


----------



## ramsay_baggins (Oct 31, 2011)

In case this wasn't mentioned, Occupy Glasgow is shutting down after a woman was raped.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 31, 2011)

ramsay_baggins said:


> In case this wasn't mentioned, Occupy Glasgow is shutting down after a woman was raped.


 


Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Occupy New Hampshire just got more sketchy.
> 
> 23-year old woman who attended the protest attempts to pimp 16-year-old protestor.
> 
> According to police, she was going to train the kid to become a prostitute.


What the fuck folks?
This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 31, 2011)

ADF said:


> Posted about that in the mini rants thread.
> 
> Looking back, you didn't concern yourself with checking what Peter Schiff did; before accusing him of amassing wealth illegitimately. The fact that he was wealthy seemed to be all that was required for you to say "SUCH AS HIMSELF". So I of course get the impression that a business man hiring 150 people is deemed amongst the enemy, just because he's wealthy. Granted, his ideology is more in line with a pre-welfare state business operation, but getting angry at the way he thinks isn't evidence he has fraudulently acquired wealth.



His mentality is poisonous, his figuring was full of lies, and he is an investment banker who views the movement with contempt and as children.  He feels persecuted and the only reason he was down among the "rabble" was to make a video that makes them all look like worthless peasants.

Don't conflate dislike of Peter Schiff with disliking him for saying "I employ 150 people," and then conflating that with disliking anybody who is an employer.  Type of work this guy does aside, he is asserting that employing others is a clear determination of human worth and that the woman is inferior for not employing that many- which makes me wonder just what he thinks of his employees who don't employ others but instead work for him.  With that, his "more money = better than" mentality probably kicks in to save him from cognitive dissonance, or he really does view his employees as underlings.

The act of going to confront and lecture protesters and choosing only the most embarrassing video to display shows that he had absolutely no interest in engaging with people, that was an opportunity for gloating and shows his complete ignorance of what about the "1%" that upsets people- others struggle, and he's telling someone who works (imagine that, another hole in the 'shiftless lazy hippies who don't work' narrative) that she's not rich because she doesn't want to be rich.  Funny, do you think he is reasonable in wanting life to be easier for him and the other wealthiest individuals?  Fewer taxes, fewer regulations like that pesky Glass-Steagall (arguing that the main failing was not destroying FDIC too,) the desire to have wages even further below minimum wage...  Why is his self-interest-at-the-expense-of-others okay if the less wealthy are demonized for unionizing, fighting for higher wages, wanting access to more affordable healthcare?  Even more when you consider the ability to bear costs; the wealthy can easily stand to lose a lot of money without even worrying about the impact to quality of life, while a relatively tiny amount of money to some people can mean the difference between staying above water and drowning.  The poor are far less able to bear the excesses of the rich, yet with current policy and this worldwide obsession with austerity, that is exactly what happens.

He's also someone who is eager for the United States to go tits-up and has been speaking in accordance with that because he is aching to make a short sell and profit in foreign markets; like that one trader speaking on the BBC, I think, he is admitting a few things that aren't flattering to him.  First, that the only reason he spoke negatively of the housing/mortgage bubble is that everyone else making money on the game knew it would come to an end, they wouldn't slay the goose that keeps laying the golden eggs, so to speak.  Instead, he has built up credibility using an action that, like the dot com boom and subsequent crash, anyone could have seen and said, "This won't last forever."  The only difference is, the securities behind it all was less obvious so the major effect was obscured, a fact that to this day still has people blaming "poor people with too much house" for the _entire_ recession.  Now, like that other trader, they both have a vested interest in the failure of large scale economies because they feel they will be insulated from all of the effects, and because they stand to make a lot of money.

"Who cares about the ethics of large scale profit, possibly even spurred further by my doomsaying, while lots of people are suffering?  They should have tried to screw each other too, then they wouldn't be in bread lines!  Ha Ha!"  This is what is awful about Peter Schiff, as well as his assumption that everyone can become rich if they decide to become rich, and that everyone has money they can use at any time to start trading stocks themselves- that people should diminish their ability to make rent or utilities or other expenses for a possible but far from certain long term gain, even for middle class families trying to shore up their retirement portfolio.  He has no concept of what it means to be poor, yet this lack of reference is what drives his criticism- despite his father's many convictions and defraudings (as in he was the victim of fraud, not the perpetrator) he had millions.

His attitude is not evidence that Peter has committed fraud, no, but it's INTERESTING that you're seizing on others "SUCH AS HIMSELF" to mean "people who employ other people" instead of "investment brokers and others working in the financial sector."  It takes a certain kind of person to make it big in the financial sector, and that kind of person generally isn't honest, and rarely if ever think beyond the steps of "Will this make me money?" and "Will I get away with it?"

For all your complaining about the destruction and exploitation of the economy via inflation and regulation (even though your problems seem to relate more to DEregulation!) you sure do love carrying water for the financial class despite the lead they took in destroying the economy with their reckless, sociopathic gambling, and the lead they took in the cultural shift from long term investment to short term exploitation.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/study-psychopaths-less-impulsive-and-manipulative-than-stockbrokers/ Here, have a link that helps underscore why I think this way about Peter Schiff and other investment brokers like him.  The other articles on Der Spiegel and HuffPost didn't emphasize (or really even mention) the energy spent destroying their competitors, and I figured someone like you would be more willing to accept it from Glenn Beck's own site.

EDIT: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/peter-schiff-was-wrong.html haha oh wow sure he was right about the housing bubble even though anyone could have realized it would never last, but his other claims not only never materialized, but he REALLY fucked up for his clients!  The economic downturn wiped out a lot of wealth, including that which he claimed to be hedging against- he seems to be doing alright for himself, in any case.  Wonder how he still has anyone going to him for portfolio management...


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 31, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What the fuck folks?
> This is why we can't have nice things.



Hey they're just following Occupy Wall Street's example.

Seriously need to reconsider that model society and inclusion/generosity thing they've been preaching in regards to their encampment.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 31, 2011)

Yeah, I think it is about time that they have some sort of central leadership as well as set some standards for attendees.


----------



## ADF (Oct 31, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> snip


 
He's not an investment banker, he's a broker-dealer. He helps other people invest their money, he has no banker privileges whatsoever. That said, he isn't in stocks right now either. He argues against stocks and investment products, favouring inflation adjusted assets, because he's expecting a big crash in the future.

Honestly... that wall just demonstrates your own idealogical hate. You're taking anything he says to an extreme exaggeration so you can invent more reasons to hate him, a great deal of your accusations just now are made up on your part; reading into things far too much. Accusing him of wanting Glass-Steagall gone is just completely made up, so is the attitude that anyone can become rich. He was told to contribute his fair share, so he pointed out he was hiring 150 people; and asked how many she was hiring. Basically saying if she thinks it is so simple, go do it herself.

I'm surprised you didn't call him a nazi, just to complete the demonisation of his character. I don't agree with everything he says, but there are aspects of his arguments I do agree with. Adopting black and white vision, he's good or he's evil, is just an extremist mentality.



Bobskunk said:


> First, that the only reason he spoke negatively of the housing/mortgage bubble is that everyone else making money on the game knew it would come to an end, they wouldn't slay the goose that keeps laying the golden eggs, so to speak. Instead, he has built up credibility using an action that, like the dot com boom and subsequent crash, anyone could have seen and said, "This won't last forever." The only difference is, the securities behind it all was less obvious so the major effect was obscured, a fact that to this day still has people blaming "poor people with too much house" for the entire recession.



This is a gross misrepresentation of his argument. He didn't just say "this won't last forever", he was giving specific warnings as to why a crash was coming as early as 2006. Pretty much the only thing he predicted wrong was that interest rates would go up, because he didn't think central banks would be crazy enough to put them down even further.



Bobskunk said:


> For all your complaining about the destruction and exploitation of the economy via inflation and regulation (even though your problems seem to relate more to DEregulation!) you sure do love carrying water for the financial class despite the lead they took in destroying the economy with their reckless, sociopathic gambling, and the lead they took in the cultural shift from long term investment to short term exploitation.



I think very few of you people actually understand my arguments, because you were too busy trying to demonise and straw man them to pay attention to anything I actually said. That, and making up false consensus and living in lah lah land were the boom can go on for all eternity. The fact that you are suggesting here that I'm arguing in favour of the financial class, shows my position has not been gotten across. Of course, this is all off topic, right? 

I think if people paid more time actually listening to each other, they would realize there is more common ground. But everyone is trying to categorize everyone else into left/right wing extremists, with the other side being satan's brood.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 31, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I hate oil companies and their CEOs.  Does this make me evil, or just average?



They do wonders for the economy where I live.

And they are wonderfully philanthropic.

I like them.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 31, 2011)

Xenke said:


> They do wonders for the economy where I live.
> 
> And they are wonderfully philanthropic.
> 
> I like them.



"fuck you, got mine" mentality detected


----------



## Holsety (Oct 31, 2011)

Xenke said:


> They do wonders for the economy where I live.
> 
> And they are wonderfully philanthropic.
> 
> I like them.


shut up texas


----------



## Xenke (Oct 31, 2011)

Lobar said:


> "fuck you, got mine" mentality detected



*says two facts and gives my opinion based on those*

Why do you have a problem with that. Like honestly.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 31, 2011)

Xenke said:


> *says two facts and gives my opinion based on those*
> 
> Why do you have a problem with that. Like honestly.


 
You gave two facts of how oil companies benefit you personally by luck of proximity

and zero of their detrimental impact on the nation as a whole

giving rise to the notion that only the former is important to you

ergo "fuck you, got mine".


----------



## Xenke (Oct 31, 2011)

It's ok Lobar, I don't expect you to understand.


----------



## ADF (Oct 31, 2011)

You get a lot of people in the UK bitching about oil company profits and the price of fuel. But what these people don't get is it's the government that is making fuel prices so high in the first place.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4219/fuelj.png


----------



## Neuron (Oct 31, 2011)

ramsay_baggins said:


> In case this wasn't mentioned, Occupy Glasgow is shutting down after a woman was raped.


Story time! There is a new regular at my protests and we'll call him The Guy with the Eyepatch. Now the Eyepatch Guy, as he's called, doesn't really seem to do a whole lot other than spout nonsense, hold weird signs with egyptian symbols on them, and try to go around bumming cigarettes and asking if he can get high with someone. I believe he is both mentally ill and homeless, so it really sucks that he doesn't have anyone to speak up for him since he doesn't do a very good job at it, but he is also crazy enough to where I think he doesn't even know what the hell he's supposed to be doing at a protest.

Anyway, he was arrested for sexual assault and I noticed him staring at me, asking my age and what not. Then the other day he was out holding his weird egyptian Ankh sign that means... nothing, and he was dancing around talking about inequality and etc. Anyway I finally just kinda stand around, stare off into space for a minute cause there wasn't anything to do and no one was asking me to help yet, and he starts saying, real loud in my direction, "Mmm, whatever is going on over there, *I want going on over here.*"

And now you know why I will never spend the night and why I haven't been going very much anymore.

Going to have to agree with a set of standards and proper leadership. We used to have more of that and then the media took it away and 4chan found out and invaded the protests. The 4chan troll kiddies looove wearing masks, intentionally insulting the police and getting arrested, stealing stuff, and burning flags in a violent fashion and calling anyone who doesn't want to loan a lighter for flag burning a "fuckin' hipster."


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 31, 2011)

ADF said:


> You get a lot of people in the UK bitching about oil company profits and the price of fuel. But what these people don't get is it's the government that is making fuel prices so high in the first place.
> 
> http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/4219/fuelj.png


You do realize here in america we tax gasoline as well right?


----------



## Commie Bat (Oct 31, 2011)

Xenke said:


> They do wonders for the economy where I live.
> 
> And they are wonderfully philanthropic.
> 
> I like them.



They helped our economy get back on track, but now they're just evil dead-weight.




CannonFodder said:


> You do realize here in america we tax gasoline as well right?



I don't have to pay a fuel tax and our price of gas is/was 52 kopecks.  Though now in America, it's a whole other story.


----------



## ADF (Oct 31, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> You do realize here in america we tax gasoline as well right?



Doesn't everyone? I'm just pointing out the cause of high fuel prices isn't necessarily always the oil companies.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 31, 2011)

ADF said:


> Doesn't everyone? I'm just pointing out the cause of high fuel prices isn't necessarily always the oil companies.


So we should repeal all taxes?


----------



## Xenke (Oct 31, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> So we should repeal all taxes?



I don't think you understand the point ADF is trying to make.


----------



## ADF (Oct 31, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> So we should repeal all taxes?



Wow, what is it with people in this thread?

I say what these protesters are protesting against isn't technically capitalism, I get accused of wanting to scrap all regulation.

I say a bad recession is to be expected after kicking the can down the road this many times, I get accused of wanting to inflict pain for no good reason.

Now all I say is oil companies aren't solely to blame for high fuel prices, and I get accused of wanting to repeal all taxes.

Can people look at what I am actually saying?


----------



## Onnes (Oct 31, 2011)

ADF said:


> Doesn't everyone? I'm just pointing out the cause of high fuel prices isn't necessarily always the oil companies.



Their absurd profitability certainly isn't lowering prices any. Not to mention they blow huge amounts of money to influence politics and public opinion. After the BP gulf clusterfuck you couldn't go 30 minutes here without some oil lobby advertisement popping up on the TV.


----------



## ADF (Oct 31, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Their absurd profitability certainly isn't lowering prices any. Not to mention they blow huge amounts of money to influence politics and public opinion. After the BP gulf clusterfuck you couldn't go 30 minutes here without some oil lobby advertisement popping up on the TV.



Let them have their absurd profits, the price they are charging people is more than reasonable. What makes it expensive is all the taxes thrown on top, which more than doubles the price. The only other products that I have seen taxed to this extent is cigarettes and alcohol, the government is abusing their population who simply need to get to work and keep the economy running.

They can have a piece of the fuel profits with taxes, but do they really need that big a piece?

As for the pollution, that isn't relevant to the point I was making.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 31, 2011)

I'm starting to think CF might be an intern at Fox News given his "jump to conclusions" line of questioning.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 31, 2011)

ADF said:


> Let them have their absurd profits, the price they are charging people is more than reasonable. What makes it expensive is all the taxes thrown on top, which more than doubles the price. The only other products that I have seen taxed to this extent is cigarettes and alcohol, the government is abusing their population who simply need to get to work and keep the economy running.



Roads do not just get built magically when people start buying automobiles; they are expensive as fuck and require a massive revenue stream for construction and maintenance. And the cost of cars goes far beyond the simple infrastructure of roads: licensing, accident coverage, and other assorted costs all add up. Plus many areas want to discourage car ownership to combat congestion and promote alternate transportation options; taxes and fees fill this role nicely.



> As for the pollution, that isn't relevant to the point I was making.



My point is that oil companies are not honest hardworking corporate citizens but instead political and highly manipulative entities wielding massive amounts of cash. They represent one of the greatest threats to democracy in any sort of capitalist system.


----------



## ADF (Oct 31, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Roads do not just get built magically when people start buying automobiles; they are expensive as fuck and require a massive revenue stream for construction and maintenance. And the cost of cars goes far beyond the simple infrastructure of roads: licensing, accident coverage, and other assorted costs all add up. Plus many areas want to discourage car ownership to combat congestion and promote alternate transportation options; taxes and fees fill this role nicely.



We've already got road tax in the UK which goes towards maintaining the roads. You're also assuming that the entirety of the taxes from fuel would go towards road maintenance, and the government isn't simply milking a necessity that people cannot do without. The problem is fuel prices are killing businesses dependant on transport, as a recent Horizons report demonstrated.

Fuel prices in the UK are now so high that new crimes are starting to appear that we didn't used to have, fuel is now a commodity worth stealing by criminal gangs. Red fuel is fuel that hasn't had its taxes paid, because it only goes through the additional process that removes the colour after taxes have been paid. Fuel robbery and fake petrol stations selling red fuel are now an increasing problem costing tax money.

Artificially high fuel prices because of taxes costs both the economy and the government. 



Onnes said:


> My point is that oil companies are not honest hardworking corporate citizens but instead political and highly manipulative entities wielding massive amounts of cash. They represent one of the greatest threats to democracy in any sort of capitalist system.



Your point is you want 'something' to complain about, so you bring up stuff that isn't relevant to the subject being discussed. The subject I was referring to was consumers complaining about fuel pricing, not pollution or any of the above. They're not relevant to the topic I was discussing, which is fuel pricing.

I get the impression you are trying to make me look bad, by attempting to make it look like I'm defending companies for those things when I'm not. What I am discussing I've made clear.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2011)

It's been a week since the last post, but looks like the London police got the go ahead to use plastic bullets against the protesters.
The reason they gave is, "to prevent chaos".

This is not going to end well.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 8, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> It's been a week since the last post, but looks like the London police got the go ahead to use plastic bullets against the protesters.
> The reason they gave is, "to prevent chaos".



It's not London without a riot.  :V


Though who the hell authorized/would use plastic bullets. Those are worse than rubber since they have a tendency to explode sending shrapnel everywhere.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> It's not London without a riot.  :V
> 
> 
> Though who the hell authorized/would use plastic bullets. Those are worse than rubber since they have a tendency to explode sending shrapnel everywhere.


Not to mention it's very easy to accidentally injure someone if you buy the wrong type.

Inb4 a cop accidentally loads his gun with the wrong round and seriously fucks up someone's day.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 8, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Not to mention it's very easy to accidentally injure someone if you buy the wrong type.
> 
> Inb4 a cop accidentally loads his gun with the wrong round and seriously fucks up someone's day.



I'm sure they're using government/military standard.  So buying isn't the issue.

More of; loads live round and hits a minor.  Then gives BS excuse on how it all went down.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 8, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I'm sure they're using government/military standard.  So buying isn't the issue.
> 
> More of; loads live round and hits a minor.  Then gives BS excuse on how it all went down.


If that happens it'll make the london riots of last year look mild in comparison.


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 9, 2011)

The Occupy protest in London, Ontario Canada is currently being disbanded.  The cops are there now and have been restrained.  The tents are being taken down by the Public Works, and protesters are cooperating.  London has a by law that no one is allowed to stay in the park between 10 pm and 6 am.  So what's going to happen after this is anyone's guess.


----------



## Aden (Nov 9, 2011)

CAThulu said:


> London has a by law that no one is allowed to stay in the park between 10 pm and 6 am.  So what's going to happen after this is anyone's guess.



They'll come back at 6am?


----------



## CAThulu (Nov 9, 2011)

Aden said:


> They'll come back at 6am?



Probably.  What happened is that the protesters have been occupying a small corner of the city's park for 2 weeks.  They were served an eviction notice Tuesday morning and were told to clear out by 6 pm.  That time came and went.  10 pm was when everyone was expecting cops to show up, but nothing happened until about 12:45 - nearly 3 hours after the time when the by-law is enforced.   What makes this interesting is that this is the first Canadian city that has acted on forcing out protesters, and likely not the last.  It's being done peacefully which is excellent.  If they can continue to occupy the park between 6 am and 10 pm then they can skirt around that by-law and keep going.


----------



## Neuron (Nov 9, 2011)

I went back to the protests after bringing my boyfriend around to scope out the guy with the eyepatch and other miscellaneous creeps and they seem to have vacated or been permanently arrested as far as we can tell.

The cops are getting rather bored with babysitting a bunch of protesters, I noticed when I stayed later than I usually do last night that the cops were not around and watching the protest anymore, they were just occasionally driving by.

So I sat down and talked with a black fellow who was rather brilliant, worked for Delta airlines and also for IBM as a computer scientist. He was responsible for working on many of the innovations concerned with magnetic computer technology, like swiping cards. He's the one who enlightened me to the fact that the thought of being kept track of isn't actually that paranoid, because he was the one who worked on projects that had the purpose of keeping track of personal information digitally. He also told me a lot about the history of Wall Street, I learned that the Wall part was because they were keeping native people out of the settlement, and the first commodity traded on wall street was probably slaves. 

Quite a history of oppression and separation from the "lesser" people that place has.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 9, 2011)

^The police have probably gotten bored of bullying the protesters.
Also I've known about the history of wallstreet and that, honestly Wall Street's slogan should be, "Capitalism with a iron fist".


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 10, 2011)

Another news story coming out on the Occupy Wallstreet Protests-
*broken link*Protesters crashed Bachmann's meeting speech and then were promptly removed.
In case you are wondering what the protesters are shouting it's-
"This will only take a minute"
"You capitalize on dividing American claiming  people that disagree with you are unpatriotic socialist and you  promote discrimination."


----------



## Traven V (Nov 10, 2011)

I think it's awesome, there's a gathering in my city, I've actually marched with them a few times, just to see what it was like.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 10, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Another news story coming out on the Occupy Wallstreet Protests-



your YT is broken, dicksmurf.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 10, 2011)

Hey CF, I can't view your video.
Do you happen to have another?



CannonFodder said:


> "This will only take a minute"
> "You capitalize on dividing American claiming  people that disagree with you are unpatriotic socialist and you  promote discrimination."



As it stands; that sounds like a murder line, and a death speech.  :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 10, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Hey CF, I can't view your video.
> Do you happen to have another?
> 
> 
> ...


[YT]jCOJFN_3fNg[/YT]
Working now?


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 10, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Working now?



Yep. 
That's fucking amazing; she looked dumbfounded and about ready to cry.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Yep.
> That's fucking amazing; she looked dumbfounded and about ready to cry.


She probably doesn't have enough intelligence to comprehend what was going on :\

Also if I was one of the protesters at the end I would've screamed at the top of my lungs at the end, "U MAD?!"


----------



## Tycho (Nov 11, 2011)

Oh hell yes, delicious.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Oh hell yes, delicious.


What I want to see is a whole bunch of occupy protesters go to a republican debate with every last candidate and do this.
Bachmann's supporters may be able to drown them out by screaming, but not if a hundred OWS in the front seats do this.
The OWS should do this from now on in every last republican debate.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 11, 2011)

Meanwhile on the other side of the Pacific Ocean from the "Occupy Oregon" police fracas, New Zealand police are actually _refusing_ to evict "Occupy Dunedin" protesters from Dunedin's CBD - stating that the trespass notices issued by the Dunedin City Council "_...did not meet 'the test of balancing the rights and freedoms of all parties'_" under the NZ Bill of Rights Act, specifically the right to peacefully assemble. 

US police, take note.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Meanwhile on the other side of the Pacific Ocean from the "Occupy Oregon" police fracas, New Zealand police are actually _refusing_ to evict "Occupy Dunedin" protesters from Dunedin's CBD - stating that the trespass notices issued by the Dunedin City Council "_...did not meet 'the test of balancing the rights and freedoms of all parties'_" under the NZ Bill of Rights Act, specifically the right to peacefully assemble.
> 
> US police, take note.


America: Where protesting dead soldiers' funeral saying they went to hell is legal, but peaceful protesters are got in the head with a tear gas canister by a cop hoping to fuck up someone's day.

OWS really should do what they did to Bachmann to all the republican candidates, cause if the candidates are constantly being "human microphoned" then maybe even with their heads up their ass it'll be so loud they'll still hear it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Are you fucking shitting me?!

A man was shot to death near Occupy Oakland, no word yet on whether or not the victim was part of the Occupy protests.  Cause if he was then it just got a whole lot more dangerous to be a protesters.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Are you fucking shitting me?!
> 
> A man was shot to death near Occupy Oakland, no word yet on whether or not the victim was part of the Occupy protests.  Cause if he was then it just got a whole lot more dangerous to be a protesters.



...and this is why the police want to close it down.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> ...and this is why the police want to close it down.


I'm keeping a eye on the news story, cause if the victim really was a part of OWS then people be fucking crazy.


----------



## Kinuki (Nov 11, 2011)

http://gawker.com/5858608/second-fatal-shooting-near-an-occupy-protest-wont-be-good-for-pr

The perfect fodder for the right-wing propaganda machine.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Are you fucking shitting me?!
> 
> A man was shot to death near Occupy Oakland, no word yet on whether or not the victim was part of the Occupy protests.  Cause if he was then it just got a whole lot more dangerous to be a protesters.


 


Kinuki said:


> http://gawker.com/5858608/second-fatal-shooting-near-an-occupy-protest-wont-be-good-for-pr
> 
> The perfect fodder for the right-wing propaganda machine.



Not surprised about this at all.  I thought it would have happened sooner, but later is better.

The domino effect has been started; there will be more shootings, violence, injury, and death.


----------



## Kinuki (Nov 11, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> The domino effect has been started; there will be more shootings, violence, injury, and death.





			
				Gawker said:
			
		

> Now, with two shootings, media outlets can spin out a "people are  getting shot at protests! MAYHEM DANGER DEATH" angle and stir up the  public fear and outrage.
> 
> Oh hey, that's already happening: The _New York Daily News_ has just given one of its protest reports the headline,  "Shootings rock Occupy Wall Street encampments in Oakland, Vermont."  *This frames the two incidents, which occurred on opposite sides of the  country, for totally different reasons, as related orâ€”oh no!â€”signs of an outbreak/growing epidemic/trend.*



l


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Not surprised about this at all.  I thought it would have happened sooner, but later is better.
> 
> The domino effect has been started; there will be more shootings, violence, injury, and death.


Fucking shit, soon they'll be labeled as martyrs.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 11, 2011)

Kinuki said:


> l


 
Please enlighten me, on what that line is supposed to represent.



CannonFodder said:


> Fucking shit, soon they'll be labeled as martyrs.



I'm talking about the police as well; though I won't doubt the fact, that they will be labeled as every negative thing imaginable.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Please enlighten me, on what that line is supposed to represent.
> I'm talking about the police as well; though I won't doubt the fact, that they will be labeled as every negative thing imaginable.


I'm half expecting utter chaos sometime, in the future, to break out now.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I'm half expecting utter chaos sometime, in the future, to break out now.



Places with an edgy police force , I agree.

Though it depends upon how many anarchists, are within the protest.  If there is a fair amount, I'm expecting a spreading riot.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Places with an edgy police force , I agree.
> 
> Though it depends upon how many anarchists, are within the protest.  If there is a fair amount, I'm expecting a spreading riot.


If Oakland cracks down again then without a doubt riots are going to break out.


----------



## Kinuki (Nov 11, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Please enlighten me, on what that line is supposed to represent.


Your lack of reading comprehension.

I linked that article because it spells out the obvious: nobody knows if this murder got something to do with the protests, so even if mouthpieces of the right-wing propaganda machine like Fox News tout it as the sign for upcoming outbreaks of violence, riots or a Second Civil War you should be clever enough to pick up on the ludicrousness of this doom 'n' gloom rhetoric.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 11, 2011)

Kinuki said:


> Your lack of reading comprehension.
> 
> I linked that article because it spells out the obvious: nobody knows if this murder got something to do with the protests, so even if mouthpieces of the right-wing propaganda machine like Fox News tout it as the sign for upcoming outbreaks of violence, riots or a Second Civil War you should be clever enough to pick up on the ludicrousness of this doom 'n' gloom rhetoric.



I read your article, I just put myself in the shoes of the police/military since that's what I have the most relation and experience with.

That being said; most protests that have things like this pinned on them or happen to them, will turn aggressive.  I've seen it time and time again.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 11, 2011)

OWS is already becoming a potentially lucrative business opportunity.

Jay-Z needs moar protestor money so he can cut up more Maybachs.

[yt]BoEKWtgJQAU&ob[/yt]

STOP HATIN' HATERS.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> OWS is already becoming a potentially lucrative business opportunity.
> 
> Jay-Z needs moar protestor money so he can cut up more Maybachs.
> 
> ...


-_-
It doesn't' fucking surprise me in the least.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 11, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> OWS is already becoming a potentially lucrative business opportunity.
> 
> Jay-Z needs moar protestor money so he can cut up more Maybachs.
> 
> STOP HATIN' HATERS.



Oh, fuck him in the eye.  Smug bastard.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Oh, fuck him in the eye.  Smug bastard.


If someone actually buys his shirt I will fucking rip it right off their backs then lite it on fire.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> If someone actually buys his shirt I will fucking rip it right off their backs then lite it on fire.



No, don't do that.  Just tell him he's an idiot and move along.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Tycho said:


> No, don't do that.  Just tell him he's an idiot and move along.


It's Jay-z, his popularity alone will cause it to sell.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> It's Jay-z, his popularity alone will cause it to sell.



The only people buying the things will be the people who would never show up at an Occupy for any other reason than to be obnoxious "FUCK THE MAN" provocateurs towards police and non-Occupiers.  Mindless little hip-hop drones.

IT'S A GODDAMN PROTEST, NOT A FASHION STATEMENT.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Tycho said:


> The only people buying the things will be the people who would never show up at an Occupy for any other reason than to be obnoxious "FUCK THE MAN" provocateurs towards police and non-Occupiers.  Mindless little hip-hop drones.


"This just in Hip Hop is dead, in another story the national average IQ in a single day jumped 5 points"


----------



## Tycho (Nov 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> "This just in Hip Hop is dead, in another story the national average IQ in a single day jumped 5 points"



Hip Hop =/= stupid

dumbass motherfuckers who are obsessed with "fuck bitches get money" and are the epitome of the "temporarily embarrassed millionaire" mentality that Bobskunk's signature refers to are the problem.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 12, 2011)

Latest casualty of the OWS movement: anyone who could have ever thought Frank Miller wasn't a terrible person.

Welcome to the club that includes such greats as Orson Scott Card, Dennis Miller, Victoria Jackson, David Zucker and others that originally had some neat work they were doing that is now utterly tainted by reactionary conservative lunacy.  I think he (and all these other asshats) always held these kinds of believes, but there was some moment that crystallized their new insanity, such as 9/11, and another moment which invariably broadcasts that to the world like this little blog entry of his.  I guess John K counts too because of his neanderthal beliefs about women, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Anyway fuck that clown.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 12, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Latest casualty of the OWS movement: anyone who could have ever thought Frank Miller wasn't a terrible person.



Wow, just wow. I guess I can at least be thankful that he conveniently crammed all of that crazy into a short blog post instead of a full psychotic manifesto.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 12, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Latest casualty of the OWS movement: anyone who could have ever thought Frank Miller wasn't a terrible person.



Have you not seen or heard of "300"?  "The Dark Knight Returns"?

Didn't need a blog post to know where he stood on this.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 12, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Latest casualty of the OWS movement: anyone who could have ever thought Frank Miller wasn't a terrible person.
> 
> Welcome to the club that includes such greats as Orson Scott Card, Dennis Miller, Victoria Jackson, David Zucker and others that originally had some neat work they were doing that is now utterly tainted by reactionary conservative lunacy.  I think he (and all these other asshats) always held these kinds of believes, but there was some moment that crystallized their new insanity, such as 9/11, and another moment which invariably broadcasts that to the world like this little blog entry of his.  I guess John K counts too because of his neanderthal beliefs about women, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
> 
> Anyway fuck that clown.



Well, fuck.  At least I was never a huge comic/graphic novel fan.

Dennis Miller going into reactionary cockbite mode kinda broke my heart a little bit, I used to be fond of his unabashed snark and dry wit.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Nov 12, 2011)

What's funny is Miller's attempt to separate the military from the movement despite military veterans having had a very visible showing at OWS. Oh Frank, you used to be cool.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 13, 2011)

Are you fucking shitting me?!
Oakland police department are yet again are firing tear gas canisters and that at protesters.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 13, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Are you fucking shitting me?!
> Oakland Denver police department are yet again are firing tear gas canisters and that at protesters.



Fix'd.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 13, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Are you fucking shitting me?!
> Oakland police department are yet again are firing tear gas canisters and that at protesters.



Seriously, why does this surprise you?

You should really expect these sort events, so when it happens it's not as big of a shock.  When it doesn't, well you should feel better, because you knew what could have happened.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 13, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Seriously, why does this surprise you?
> 
> You should really expect these sort events, so when it happens it's not as big of a shock.  When it doesn't, well you should feel better, because you knew what could have happened.


Not surprised, just disappointed.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 13, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Not surprised, just disappointed.



On the accounts of the police action?

Don't be.  You weren't there so you won't know the whole situation and what went down.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 13, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> On the accounts of the police action?
> 
> Don't be.  You weren't there so you won't know the whole situation and what went down.


If only those live choppers didn't need to stop to refuel so often. And at the worst timing, too! At least we have the day-after photos of pet kittens to help put together the pieces.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 13, 2011)

Attaman said:


> If only those live choppers didn't need to stop to refuel so often. And at the worst timing, too! At least we have the day-after photos of pet kittens to help put together the pieces.


I gotta ask what could the police do if they recorded it?


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 13, 2011)

Portland seems to be successfully resisting the police-enforced removal deadline.  There was an instance a few hours ago where the cops rode horses into the crowd, but after that...  They've retreated, come back, retreated, come back.  The cops, I mean, not the protesters.


----------



## Neuron (Nov 13, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Fix'd.


Yeah Denver is being evicted and I'm quite glad I'm not around right now.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 13, 2011)

Lacus said:


> Yeah Denver is being evicted and I'm quite glad I'm not around right now.


 Fifty dollars says protesters are just going to retake the spot after the police take down the barricades.
You can't keep up a police barricade forever and even if the cops do the protesters will just find a new spot.


Bobskunk said:


> Portland seems to be successfully resisting the police-enforced removal deadline.  There was an instance a few hours ago where the cops rode horses into the crowd, but after that...  They've retreated, come back, retreated, come back.  The cops, I mean, not the protesters.


I think the protesters realize the cops are bluffing with the horse, cause if the horse tramples a protester that's a massive lawsuit.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Nov 13, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> "This just in Hip Hop is dead, in another story the national average IQ in a single day jumped 5 points"


 
I bet 100$ if lady gaga or some other "obscure" musician did the same, you'll be sucking on their dicks.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 13, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> I bet 100$ if lady gaga or some other "obscure" musician did the same, you'll be sucking on their dicks.


Seriously? You're going to turn this into a discussion about hip hop?  I don't even like lady gaga, I can't take someone seriously that wears a steak for clothing.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Nov 13, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Seriously? You're going to turn this into a discussion about hip hop?



No, im going to turn this into"I wonder why OWS has few/dwindling support from minority groups"

GFY


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 13, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> No, im going to turn this into"I wonder why OWS has few/dwindling support from minority groups"
> 
> GFY


*[CITATION NEEDED]*

What does, "GFY" mean?  I don't speak l33t speak.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 13, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> No, im going to turn this into"I wonder why OWS has few/dwindling support from minority groups"
> 
> GFY



I'm going to hazard a guess and say that they view this as a bunch of white college kids and nutty Tea-Party bigots making a mild ruckus.  "Bunch of whites hoppin' on the 'fuck da police/fuck da man' wagon, not our problem, we got other fish to fry."

Just my guess.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Nov 13, 2011)

Tycho said:


> I'm going to hazard a guess and say that they view this as a bunch of white college kids and nutty Tea-Party bigots making a mild ruckus.  "Bunch of whites hoppin' on the 'fuck da police/fuck da man' wagon, not our problem, we got other fish to fry."
> 
> Just my guess.



Not at all. Mixed with the Oakland OWS drama and the bawwing over Kanye WestxRussel Simmons support of the movement.

Oh and this 



> Saturday,  two sisters were called Niggers by two of the volunteers at Occupy Philadelphia at the cell-phone charging stations.  They were also told to go back to Africa, and that each white man should own a slave. When the sistaâ€™s called security, security asked them to leave the premises because they thought they were apart of the UHURU movement.  Even if they were a part of that movement, they should not have been asked to leave. Especially  without any mention of their verbal and spiritual abuse.
> 
> So a small collective formed a drummerâ€™s circle on Sunday and started a rally, only to be met with on-lookers who didnâ€™t understand why there was a Pan-African flag at an â€œAmericanâ€ event.  We were called racist.  Many of the people there to support Occupy Philadelphia came to us to tell us that all of us are people and that race is behind us! They told us that we were being divisive.



http://complex-brown.tumblr.com/post/11275788186/black-out-at-occupy-philadelphia-we-had-a-black


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 13, 2011)

^Blame the anarchists that are joining the protests directly cause of the conflict with the police.
Anarchists always do this kind of garbage, whenever a protest starts clashing with the police anarchists run to it like flies to food.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Nov 13, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> ^Blame the anarchists that are joining the protests directly cause of the conflict with the police.
> Anarchists always do this kind of garbage, whenever a protest starts clashing with the police anarchists run to it like flies to food.


Paultards
Clueless "New Agers"
White People
Radiohead

Maybe im just mad.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 13, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> Oh and this
> 
> http://complex-brown.tumblr.com/post/11275788186/black-out-at-occupy-philadelphia-we-had-a-black



Charming.  Does Philly usually have that kind of hatecrap, or is it just some rotten apples finding their way into the Occupy basket amidst the fuss?


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 13, 2011)

HyBroMcYenapants said:


> Paultards
> Clueless "New Agers"
> White People
> Radiohead
> ...


If I had to take a guess about what's going to happen, it's going to upset the 2012 election.  It's going to bite a ton of politician's in the ass cause of the rate at which support for OWS is growing in the general populace and in 2014 a potentially violent showdown with the tea party as both groups try and steal the super majority in both houses.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 13, 2011)

Attaman said:


> If only those live choppers didn't need to stop to refuel so often. And at the worst timing, too! At least we have the day-after photos of pet kittens to help put together the pieces.



Yeah cause the police control the apparent free media now, don't they?  :V

Anyway I would like to knoe what a video recording from 400 feet in the air will show you.  Please tell me.


----------



## Neuron (Nov 13, 2011)

This is so true


----------



## Lobar (Nov 13, 2011)

I've been pretty busy for about a week, so I hope this hasn't already been posted yet, but I dare any of the police apologists hanging around this thread to defend this:

[yt]I0pX9LeE-g8[/yt]


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 13, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I've been pretty busy for about a week, so I hope this hasn't already been posted yet, but I dare any of the police apologists hanging around this thread to defend this:
> 
> [yt]I0pX9LeE-g8[/yt]


Lobar, there's no point, the police apologists even if a cop went apeshit and just started mowing down protesters would still defend them.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 14, 2011)

I watched the video, but I didn't get any audio.  What was said, if anything was?

I better not be labeled a police apologist.  >.>
(if I am; seriously I'm not.)



CannonFodder said:


> Lobar, there's no point, the police apologists even if a cop went apeshit and just started mowing down protesters would still defend them.



Rah rah rah; the protestor deserved worse, he crossed that invisible line, only the police can see.  And for that, death is the only punishment acceptable for the crime.  :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I watched the video, but I didn't get any audio.  What was said, if anything was?
> 
> I better not be labeled a police apologist.  >.>
> (if I am; seriously I'm not.)
> ...


"Is this okay?"
"Is this okay?"
*background yelling*
*bang*
"OW! OW! HE SHOT ME!"


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> "Is this okay?"
> "Is this okay?"
> *background yelling*
> *bang*
> "OW! OW! HE SHOT ME!"



Well then.  This proves one of two things.

A) The police were bored and wanted to bag 'em a protestor.
B) something went down before the ball was fired.

There was a mistake on one's own side whatever that maybe.  I won't know, as I wasn't there, and the media have yet to release anything.  Until then, the police look heavily at fault.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 14, 2011)

Looks like the police finally B&hammered Oakland.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Looks like the police finally B&hammered Oakland.


Pretty much, a ton of protesters moved out before the cops came cause nobody wants to get whacked in the head twice.


----------



## thewall (Nov 14, 2011)

Peaceful?  ROFLMAO.

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2905582/
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2888467/
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2852388/

I mean, the only thing that the OWS movement is powered by is entitlement.  Freaking entitlement.  What these morons don't realize is that the only two things people are entitled to is birth and death.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 14, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Peaceful?  ROFLMAO.
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2905582/
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2888467/
> ...



Your sources have the same amount of credibility as Stalinist Media.


----------



## thewall (Nov 14, 2011)

What can I say?  I'm a conservative.  An evil conservative.  >:3


----------



## Onnes (Nov 14, 2011)

mike37 said:


> What can I say?  I'm a conservative.  An evil conservative.  >:3



You just outsourced your opinions to a FurAffinity journal. I'm pretty sure the other conservatives are now slowly backing away from you.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Your sources have the same amount of credibility as Stalinist Media.


Which is a little bit more credible than foxnews.

Mike37, if you are going to use citations, fa does not count.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 14, 2011)

mike37 said:


> What can I say?  I'm a conservative.  An evil conservative.  >:3



And I'm the angry person with the skill set to dismantle your oppressive imperialistic regime, as the proletariat shall rise, you will fall my friend.

I am your closest friend, your mind, your soul, your conscious, you love & hate; I am your greatest fear and enemy.....


----------



## thewall (Nov 14, 2011)

Onnes said:


> You just outsourced your opinions to a FurAffinity journal. I'm pretty sure the other conservatives are now slowly backing away from you.



What about HIS sources?

And yes, I am an evil son of a bitch for believing in limited government, the idea that government is the servant, not the master.  I am also a bastard because I believe people are not entitled to anything but the things that they work for.  I am a monster for believing that the government shouldn't spend so much or that the government should stop putting out handouts because it is not helping people get back on their feet.  It only makes them dependent.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 14, 2011)

mike37 said:


> What about HIS sources?



 Foxnews is a BAD BAD BAD BAD and I mean BAD! source to use as it is known for political bias.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2011)

mike37 said:


> What about HIS sources?


You should've just linked to his sources then.
By linking to Fa you just proven to us that you get your news from furries.


----------



## thewall (Nov 14, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Foxnews is a BAD BAD BAD BAD and I mean BAD! source to use as it is known for political bias.



Through my years of research, I have concluded that everything has a bias, both liberal and conservative.  I like to take both into consideration, but I tend to lean toward the right.  Does it offend you when I link to people I agree with?

read the edit in my last post, ok?


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Through my years of research, I have concluded that everything has a bias, both liberal and conservative.  I like to take both into consideration, but I tend to lean toward the right.


Years of research?
Cool story bro.


----------



## thewall (Nov 14, 2011)

It's kind of sad, really.  The last thing people in this forum should discuss is anything of real importance.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 14, 2011)

There is a movement going on in Indy now; I'm debating on going, but nothing is happening.  Seems too mellow for me, I'm sure I could help but I don't know how.



mike37 said:


> Through my years of research, I have concluded that everything has a bias, both liberal and conservative.  I like to take both into consideration, but I tend to lean toward the right.



Can you enlighten me on why you lean to the right?  You should also take in your surroundings and parents before you give me your reasoning.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 14, 2011)

Haha, Fox News. Might as well read The Onion instead, at least it would be entertaining.


----------



## thewall (Nov 14, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Haha, Fox News. Might as well read The Onion instead, at least it would be entertaining.



Have you actually WATCHED fox news?  If you are going to dismiss them as insane instead of disagreeing with them in a mature matter, you sound no more intelligent than you profess fox news sounds.

I lean to the right because I actually stand for principles, not for a political party.  I'm not a big fan of the republicans.  I actually take both sides into consideration instead of being a closed minded douche.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Have you actually WATCHED fox news?  If you are going to dismiss them as insane instead of disagreeing with them in a mature matter, you sound no more intelligent than you profess fox news sounds.


We've seen foxnews before, hell my brother had it airing 24/7 in his house.
The Onion is more accurate.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 14, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Have you actually WATCHED fox news?  If you are going to dismiss them as insane instead of disagreeing with them in a mature matter, you sound no more intelligent than you profess fox news sounds.



Yes I have.


----------



## SnowFox (Nov 14, 2011)

I'm detecting unsafe levels of Cyberfox in this thread. It might need decontaminating before long.


----------



## thewall (Nov 14, 2011)

I disagree with some things they have said.  But I was mature about it.  Everyone makes mistakes.  What about all the things that the other media outlets choose to ignore?  Like the rape, drugs, and vandalism occurring in the OWS?  Or the tea party movement?  The only thing the OWS is is a bullshit excuse for a tea party.  Also, the media outlets are bitching and moaning about how we are so politically incorrect and how conservatives are such meanies and racists, and so much more bullshit.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 14, 2011)

Anonymous says they're going to shut down the internet in Toronto if the occupy protestors there are kicked out


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 14, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Have you actually WATCHED fox news?  If you are going to dismiss them as insane instead of disagreeing with them in a mature matter, you sound no more intelligent than you profess fox news sounds.



You must be watching a different Fox News, because the Fox News I've seen is laughably stupid scare-mongering bullshit on a level that even the Daily Mail would be proud of. Yes, I will dismiss them as insane, because every single thing I have seen of them is pants-on-head retarded. I will no more listen to them than I would an unmedicated schizophrenic wearing a tin-foil hat and inspecting his house plants for tracking devices. These are not mistakes, they are systematically lying and making up absurdities on a regular basis.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 14, 2011)

mike37 said:


> I disagree with some things they have said. * But I was mature about it...*


 
Nope.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Nov 14, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Peaceful?  ROFLMAO.
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2905582/
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2888467/
> ...


 
>Cigarskunk

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA

Fuck you niqqa get the fuck out of here.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 14, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Anonymous says they're going to shut down the internet in Toronto if the occupy protestors there are kicked out



can they actually do that? That would be funny.  Would also make people scream things like "ANONYMOUS R TERRISTS" and stuff.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2011)

Tycho said:


> can they actually do that? That would be funny.  Would also make people scream things like "ANONYMOUS R TERRISTS" and stuff.


If they attack the internet providers it's possible.


----------



## Volkodav (Nov 14, 2011)

Tycho said:


> can they actually do that? That would be funny.  Would also make people scream things like "ANONYMOUS R TERRISTS" and stuff.


I don';t know, I just want my internet in peace


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 14, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Peaceful?  ROFLMAO.
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2905582/
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/2888467/
> ...



So you assert that it's driven by entitlement.  You back this up with...

FA journals?
You idiot.

CIGARSKUNK FA journals?
You _fucking_ idiot.

THREE CIGARSKUNK FA journals???
_YOU FUC-_ *PLEASE JUST STOP POSTING.*

mike37: reinforcing the idea that autism and politics do not mix


----------



## Attaman (Nov 14, 2011)

mike37 said:


> I am also a bastard because I believe people are not entitled to anything but the things that they work for.


 Huh, so how do you feel about the food and shelter you received growing up? The clothes put on your back? The roads you use(d) daily to go to School / Work. The public transportation / ride from parents / sidewalks that took you there? The street lights and signs that keep such passage safe? The daily protection you receive from law enforcement? The electricity that powers your devices? The...

Oh, wait, I forgot, it's "That doesn't count, what I really mean is people worse off than me are only that way because they suck and are poopy heads. Why should I be a decent human being and try to help people?"



mike37 said:


> I am a monster for believing that the government shouldn't spend so much or that the government should stop putting out handouts because it is not helping people get back on their feet.  It only makes them dependent.


 Yeah! I mean, look at them soup kitchens. Waste of money, I say! And homeless shelters? Bah, you're encouraging people to be homeless! Why bother having a home when the government just _throws_ one at you. Fuck, I bet you right now those handout grabbing schmucks could get a house, and even buy a fridge for it, those fiends.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 14, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Have you actually WATCHED fox news?  If you are going to dismiss them as insane instead of disagreeing with them in a mature matter, you sound no more intelligent than you profess fox news sounds.
> 
> I lean to the right because I actually stand for principles, not for a political party.  I'm not a big fan of the republicans.  I actually take both sides into consideration instead of being a closed minded douche.



You suck


----------



## Trpdwarf (Nov 14, 2011)

Clayton said:


> Anonymous says they're going to shut down the internet in Toronto if the occupy protestors there are kicked out



Source? This gets me curious.

That said I've met a lot of people who have said rather cruel and selfish things in regarding to the people and the principle involving the whole Occupy Protestors. Usually it's fuckwits who are doing well off that are too uncomfortable to look other people's suffering in the eye and admit something uncomfortable.

Maybe there is something wrong with how things are going. Can't we all admit it is a little bit messed up how a few people in high up corporate positions take huge pay raises, let people go, and influence the way things are going as some things continue to go to shit. Maybe there is something wrong with how deeply these people who only look out for their own luxuries influence the government, and just maybe...people just need to be better informed.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 14, 2011)

Trpdwarf said:


> Source? This gets me curious.



http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/1...o-from-the-internet-if-it-evicts-occupy-camp/

Who knows


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 14, 2011)

Knowing Anonymous it will be 500 people on an IRC channel cheerleading 5 people who actually hack.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Nov 14, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/1...o-from-the-internet-if-it-evicts-occupy-camp/
> 
> Who knows



Interesting, this should be fascinating to watch if the threat is legit.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/1...o-from-the-internet-if-it-evicts-occupy-camp/
> 
> Who knows


Toronto is already calling them terrorists, I say go for it anonymous.  Teach the cunts trying to remove freedom of speech a lesson.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 14, 2011)

Oh yeah, and that old lady fell because security guards were shoving protesters.  If you shove someone else into me, I wouldn't get mad at the person you pushed; I'd get mad at you for causing it.  To say protesters are going out and assaulting old ladies is just...  What are you even thinking?

What next, "Occupy" protesters eat babies?  "Here is a video shot by a conservative that has a bad vantage point, then moves around behind a big car or utility box, and suddenly look- a half eaten baby!  The only possible outcome is that some protester came up and ate that baby because they like eating babies."

Even with the shitty video they're passing around you can see security guards in pale, gray-ish shirts shoving the crowd down the stairs.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Toronto is already calling them terrorists, I say go for it anonymous.  Teach the cunts trying to remove freedom of speech a lesson.



No Internet?

Remember what the Egyptians did to Mubarak after he took away facebook :V


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 14, 2011)

I really hate Anonymous because they fail in my expectations for a real radical group.  It's frustrating to watch the Koch brothers walk around without looking over their shoulder, and instead worrying about a few e-mails or some petty bullshit being hacked.  Maybe if they had any coherence... haha just kidding y'all.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> No Internet?
> 
> Remember what the Egyptians did to Mubarak after he took away facebook :V


You're forgetting that Toronto is a western civilization city, our idea of a protest is signing a online petition on facebo- oh wait.
The only real thing we'll see if anonymous takes down toronto's internet connection is a facebook petition afterwards asking anonymous to disband or such.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> You're forgetting that Toronto is a western civilization city, our idea of a protest is signing a online petition on facebo- oh wait.
> The only real thing we'll see if anonymous takes down toronto's internet connection is a facebook petition afterwards asking anonymous to disband or such.



First world protests never progress beyond harsh language.  Suckers!


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Toronto is already calling them terrorists, I say go for it anonymous.  Teach the cunts trying to remove freedom of speech a lesson.


 
Freedom of Speech in Canada is limited by law, where expression may cause some harm.  Hurting the local economy, poor hygiene, public urination and defecation, and being a public disturbance via noise complaints among others forfeits freedom of assembly.

So basically you're telling them to shut down the internet because they're following their own laws.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Freedom of Speech in Canada is limited by law, where expression may cause some harm.  Hurting the local economy, poor hygiene, public urination and defecation, and being a public disturbance via noise complaints among others forfeits freedom of assembly.
> 
> So basically you're telling them to shut down the internet because they're following their own laws.


What about in the case of Oakland though?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What about in the case of Oakland though?



What does that matter?

You're comparing the United States and Canada.  Two different countries with two different laws.

You have to do better than that.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> What does that matter?
> 
> You're comparing the United States and Canada.  Two different countries with two different laws.
> 
> You have to do better than that.


I guess you missed-



Lobar said:


> I've been pretty busy for about a week, so I hope this hasn't already been posted yet, but I dare any of the police apologists hanging around this thread to defend this:
> 
> [yt]I0pX9LeE-g8[/yt]


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I guess you missed-



Just as other people have continually missed my posts of protestors acting out.

Again, what does any of this have to do with Canada?


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2011)

*edit*
^Lobar explained it better.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 14, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Just as other people have continually missed my posts of protestors acting out.



There's no real proof clearly documenting the whole story, y'know, so you have to assume all protestor actions were appropriate and warranted.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 14, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The police are cracking down to harshly to the point it's not justifiable.
> 
> Also I highly doubt that guy was doing anything to provoke the police, what you are proposing is, "guilty until proven innocent".



I'm sorry, are you still talking about Oakland?

CF, you do realize that if someone says "I don't think chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream" the response to that statement shouldn't be "well yeah, but a Volvo has good safety features."

This is essentially how you're trying to talk to me right now.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'm sorry, are you still talking about Oakland?
> 
> CF, you do realize that if someone says "I don't think chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream" the response to that statement shouldn't be "well yeah, but a Volvo has good safety features."
> 
> This is essentially how you're trying to talk to me right now.


I said Lobar explained it better, essentially what I was getting at is, "innocent until proven guilty".

You keep saying the protesters are acting violently, but show us one video where they are smashing in someone's skull/curb stomping someone/etc and I'll believe you.
Cause the opposition to OWS has been going, "the protesters are violent" and there hasn't been any video evidence of it.

tl:dr; pics or it didn't happen.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 15, 2011)

Lobar said:


> There's no real proof clearly documenting the whole story, y'know, so you have to assume all protestor actions were appropriate and warranted.


 


CannonFodder said:


> I said Lobar explained it better, essentially what I was getting at is, "innocent until proven guilty".
> 
> You keep saying the protesters are acting violently, but show us one video where they are smashing in someone's skull/curb stomping someone/etc and I'll believe you.
> Cause the opposition to OWS has been going, "the protesters are violent" and there hasn't been any video evidence of it.
> ...



Video of protestors attacking police motorcycle in Atlanta.  Protestors yell "shame" to the cops for responding.

[yt]X6zsR6MQSMI[/yt]

Protestors counting down, then attempt to force their way through a police line with some grabbing at cops.  Cops defend themselves and attempt to force the protestors back.  One protestor yells that a cop is a "son of a fucking bitch" for trying to resist protestors, en mass, attempting to physically overwhelm cops.

[yt]xpNRuTx19RE[/yt]

Reporter attacked by protestor's dog in response to media presence within the camp.  When asked about Occupy's hypocrisy of claiming First Amendment rights while not allowing freedom of the press within the camp, answers remain wishy washy.

Of course none of this brings up my previous mentioning of rapes, prostitution of minors, and other stories coming out of the camps which have mentioned names of individuals.

But of course none of this is "real" proof because you'll say it's "conservative conspiracy", "only anarchists", or some other excuse in order to distance those people who do not act peacefully during these protests in order to maintain the claim that this is a peaceful protest.  Likewise, to assume that stories have not gone unreported or video which compromises the "peaceful protest" montra shot by protestors hasn't been deleted is the same kind of illogical reasoning as "well I don't see government corruption in front of me, so it must not exist."

To assume that all protester actions have been appropriate and warranted is you all doing the exact same thing you've been criticizing me for, attempting to justify or dismiss behavior in order to maintain that only one side of this whole deal is just and unwaveringly uncompromisable.  I REALLY expect better from you all, considering this is the same crowd who would condemn someone for reading the Bible and saying "well I have to believe this is all true" and now you're listening to all the news coming out of OWS and saying "well this is clearly the only true side of the story."

C'mon now.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2011)

The second video they didn't show the dog attacking.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I said Lobar explained it better, essentially what I was getting at is, "innocent until proven guilty".


 
Actually I was kinda parodying the way Term has been dismissing all evidence of police brutality with a blanket assumption that unseen events must have justified all such cases.  As long as he's making a _tu quoque_ though everything can apparently be taken at face value.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The second third video they didn't show the dog attacking.


 
fix'd.

[yt]BtGdNnZvHa4[/yt]

Skip to 3:09

In this clip, a protestor claims a cop picks up his (the cop's) bicycle and throws it at the protestor with no footage provided.  This video also makes the claim that a cop was shoved into a moving bus by protestors.

If I submitted this video to you 2 hours ago, which story would you be more likely to believe?  I doubt you wouldn't take the protestor's claim as complete fact while calling bullshit on the cop situation.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 15, 2011)

As I recall Term, you were willing to even defend the cops who shot a gas canister at someone's head. At what point do you seriously consider that your bias falls far within the extremes?

To avoid unnecessary replies, let me lay out what I find lacking about arguments seemingly against the existence of Occupy protests--although I'm fairly sure I've said something identical some ten pages ago. Protests involve large groups of individuals, united under a relatively common cause but in many cases not common leadership. If we are to use the actions of isolated individuals and crowds as sufficient reason to clear all protesters everywhere then we are effectively revoking the legality of large-scale protests in general and reverting to a state where protest are in active confrontation with the police. There should be some avenue for a group of people to protest legally without fear of being shot in the face with less-lethal weaponry, as extremism surely breeds when protesters are forced to fight for the right to assemble.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 15, 2011)

Non sequiturs abound.


----------



## Bambi (Nov 15, 2011)

Let's not act like everyone, on their own side, isn't provoking this to some degree when they have the opportunity. On one hand, we have the buffoon anarchists who want to turn Occupy Wall Street into a full scale riot, which they're succeeding. I've warned people about that, we all knew it was coming, but once again another good movement gets reigned up and hijacked by people who enjoy property damage more than legitimacy. Smart Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians alike; citizens, atheists, and whatever, need to take this movement back and restructure it's credibility.

On the other hand, we have politicians running up the corporate ladder trying to find ways to disable the very best this movement has to offer. And their plans are working. So, I am sure some people are wondering what the Occupy Wall Street position used to be -- well, it involves increasing taxes on the wealthy to stimulate the American middle class, thus the economy out of it's present recession, and from that all, to efficiently grow the middle class in order to create jobs. And guess what? With half the shit people have been doing at these protests for the past two weeks, "corporatist" now have more than enough ammo to not only discredit the movement as the Democratic Tea Party, but put the movement down HARD regardless of it's social and political fallout. We should not be letting this happen. 

For people's education: The Truth About the Economy in Under Two Minutes.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 15, 2011)

Occupy Wall Street at Zucotti Park is getting demolished as we speak.  People are being barricaded in their homes, press passes are being revoked (???), CBS helicopter was grounded, everyone was kicked out and everything is being thrown into dumpsters.

EDIT: And by revoked I mean if you are reporting on this, you are allowed nowhere near anything that's going on- you are not allowed to observe or report on this.  Not saying there are press passes like that of events, but credentials are being ignored.

EDITEDIT: Can't tell what's going on now.  Mixed reports.  I'm hearing "two dead" a whole lot: so far I think that's an unconfirmed rumor.  Yeah, ignore that, I'm not seeing shit.  LRAD has been used.  Many arrests.


----------



## Bambi (Nov 15, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Occupy Wall Street at Zucotti Park is getting demolished as we speak.  People are being barricaded in their homes, press passes are being revoked (???), CBS helicopter was grounded, everyone was kicked out and everything is being thrown into dumpsters.
> 
> EDIT: And by revoked I mean if you are reporting on this, you are allowed nowhere near anything that's going on- you are not allowed to observe or report on this.  Not saying there are press passes like that of events, but credentials are being ignored.
> 
> EDITEDIT: Can't tell what's going on now.  Mixed reports.  I'm hearing "two dead" a whole lot: so far I think that's an unconfirmed rumor.  LRAD has been used.


Two dead? Unconfirmed. /hillary

"Raid"
Police Reinforce Barricade
Woman making a statement

Since our posts are going to be the first on this page, I've decided to keep this one updated with more information:

Kitchen Raid in Zuccotti Park @3:57AM EST


----------



## Onnes (Nov 15, 2011)

The media blackout is pretty obvious given the lack of footage and information from the raid. There are reports that a NYC Council Member was among those arrested.

The feeds from The Guardian and Reuters both contain statements from reporters about being forcibly removed from the area.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 15, 2011)

The CBS helicopter had cops shining spotlights at them to keep them away.

Also that kitchen gassing was apparently a fire, because the livestream was full of people saying it was a fire extinguisher.  Still, rough arrests.

All streams having trouble, it seems.

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Occupy-Protests  Al-J has a stream, or a link to a stream.  That's the best one I've found so far.

EDIT: wow it's the one working stream and it's being run by a complete and inconsiderate asshole :V
DOUBLEEDIT: never mind I didn't realize what was going on but it was easy to take "*shoves camera with bright LED light in faces at 5 AM after talk about how everyone is tired* 10,000 PEOPLE ARE WATCHING *ME*" as 100% negative and how poorly he handled himself otherwise


----------



## Bambi (Nov 15, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Occupy-Protests  Al-J has a stream, or a link to a stream.  That's the best one I've found so far.


FUCKING GODDAMN ANARCHISTS DONT WANT OTHER PROTESTORS TO FILM FUCK YOU

FUCK YOU DOLPHIN AND WHALE @4:51AM

EDIT: Draining police tires warrants silencing other members of the protest? UGGGGHHHHHHHHH

*EDIT:* Jess Schiff, one of the girls recently seen in the USTREAM @ 5:00AM was talking about this: http://yfrog.com/10xrqz

*EDIT:* *@Bobskunk@5:17AM*: He  might seem like that, but he's certainly got more backbone than the  other degenerate fucks that were trying to be little Revolutionaries. I  like him. Also? Cops in his area are amazingly civil. Asian cop dude @5:14 asking for press pass? One smoking guy, just sayin'.

BTW, thanks for everyone who found the USTREAMs.

Final Edit: 6:23. Watching sun rise in New York City. Awesome! <3 Onnes and Bobskunk


----------



## thewall (Nov 15, 2011)

Attaman said:


> Huh, so how do you feel about the food and shelter you received growing up? The clothes put on your back? The roads you use(d) daily to go to School / Work. The public transportation / ride from parents / sidewalks that took you there? The street lights and signs that keep such passage safe? The daily protection you receive from law enforcement? The electricity that powers your devices? The...
> 
> Oh, wait, I forgot, it's "That doesn't count, what I really mean is people worse off than me are only that way because they suck and are poopy heads. Why should I be a decent human being and try to help people?"
> 
> Yeah! I mean, look at them soup kitchens. Waste of money, I say! And homeless shelters? Bah, you're encouraging people to be homeless! Why bother having a home when the government just _throws_ one at you. Fuck, I bet you right now those handout grabbing schmucks could get a house, and even buy a fridge for it, those fiends.



Sorry if I implied that.  I'm sure there's plenty of people who are genuinely down on their luck.  Unfortunately, long term welfare just makes people dependent.  If we are going to have welfare, lets just make it long enough for people living off of it to not need it anymore.  If we are going to actually HELP people, we shouldn't make them dependent on the government as well.

And the comment "autism and politics don't mix?"  There are more liberal, atheistic autistic people than there are conservative autistic people.  You suck, man.  More like, "FAF and politics don't mix."


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Sorry if I implied that.  I'm sure there's plenty of people who are genuinely down on their luck.  Unfortunately, long term welfare just makes people dependent.  If we are going to have welfare, lets just make it long enough for people living off of it to not need it anymore.  If we are going to actually HELP people, we shouldn't make them dependent on the government as well.


I'll use myself as a example, it's no secret that economically I'm down on my luck.  What I've observed firsthand it doesn't fucking matter how much of a hard worker you are, all the places I've worked at I've done as much work as half the staff to the point every time I came home I was about ready to pass out from exhaustion, have never complained about the amount of work while on the job, and the only times I have ever gotten promoted was when someone that was higher up got fired and the only other people in line for the position were teenagers on part time.
It does not matter how hard you work, how long you work, how much you work, in america it's who you know and who you are born too.

The reason why I take help and that isn't because I'm dependent on it, it's because even though whenever I have a job I bust my ass I still would starve to death without financial help.

Let me put it another way, if it wasn't part of your job description and it was someone else's job to clean the toilets and bathroom and a ton of other stuff would you do it simply cause it needed to be done and the other person wasn't doing it?  Would you stay four hours late finishing up other people's work simply cause it wasn't done?  Would you cut your break short simply cause someone needs help?  Would you work late even though you knew you were going to miss the bus and as a result have to walk home? If not, then in my book you are lazy in comparison.

So before you spout more of this entitlement crap, what do you think is going to happen when your parents are going to kick you out?  If you aren't going to college than you're in for a big surprise.
And before you say something the only reason why I'm not working is the person in charge of the student services, I live out in the middle of nowhere you HAVE to find a job at the college or none at all, is cause she was hired into that spot cause of who she knows, not cause she worked to get the position, not cause is qualified, it's cause she knew someone and got hired.

In short you literally pissed me off, cause nothing on the planet gets under my skin more than a lazy fuck who isn't a hard worker complaining about hard workers who need financial help.

tl:dr; fuck people who spout the entitlement argument.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 15, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Sorry if I implied that.  I'm sure there's plenty of people who are genuinely down on their luck.  Unfortunately, long term welfare just makes people dependent.  If we are going to have welfare, lets just make it long enough for people living off of it to not need it anymore.  If we are going to actually HELP people, we shouldn't make them dependent on the government as well.
> 
> And the comment "autism and politics don't mix?"  There are more liberal, atheistic autistic people than there are conservative autistic people.  *You suck, man.*  More like, "FAF and politics don't mix."



No, you suck.

So do I for what I wrote here before, but you suck more.

And you're a dependent who deludes himself- you're not pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, you're being propped up by others and taking the credit while yelling at others who you think are being propped up but actually are trying to get ahead.

FYGM37, get out.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 15, 2011)

It figures that a British paper would have some of the best coverage of the raid. The Guardian reports that at least seven credentialed journalists were arrested and names each of them.

Media blackouts like this should absolutely not be tolerated. It is only through credible evidence and media reports that the city and the police department can ever be held accountable for their actions in any situation. Having to simply take the word of the police as truth is never acceptable given the long history of incidents and cover-ups.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 15, 2011)

Well that's one way to channel anger from peaceful protests into something less pacifist.  Thanks everyone it was great good job NYPD you guys are the best.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Well that's one way to channel anger from peaceful protests into something less pacifist.  Thanks everyone it was great good job NYPD you guys are the best.


At least it didn't become a blood bath.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 15, 2011)

Onnes said:


> It figures that a British paper would have some of the best coverage of the raid. The Guardian reports that at least seven credentialed journalists were arrested and names each of them.
> 
> Media blackouts like this should absolutely not be tolerated. It is only through credible evidence and media reports that the city and the police department can ever be held accountable for their actions in any situation. Having to simply take the word of the police as truth is never acceptable given the long history of incidents and cover-ups.



Did it say -why- they were arrested? (can't look at article ATM). It's not like reporters are completely unable to do something that'll get them arrested.

Also, why would being arrested prevent them from reporting what happened? Couldn't they just, like, post bail and then write whatever the shit they wanted? Sure it'll take more time, but it's not exactly censorship.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 15, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Did it say -why- they were arrested? (can't look at article ATM). It's not like reporters are completely unable to do something that'll get them arrested.
> 
> Also, why would being arrested prevent them from reporting what happened? Couldn't they just, like, post bail and then write whatever the shit they wanted? Sure it'll take more time, but it's not exactly censorship.



Reporters were not allowed anywhere near the park, which is to say they could not observe and film whatever was occurring. Even the news helicopter was disallowed from filming the raid. Those reporters still in the park when the police moved in, and those that stayed with the protesters as they retreated, were subsequently arrested regardless of their press credentials. This was an obvious and systematic attempt to keep the general public from knowing what happened during the police operation.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 15, 2011)

Xenke said:


> Did it say -why- they were arrested? (can't look at article ATM). It's not like reporters are completely unable to do something that'll get them arrested.
> 
> Also, why would being arrested prevent them from reporting what happened? Couldn't they just, like, post bail and then write whatever the shit they wanted? Sure it'll take more time, but it's not exactly censorship.



There's a video here of one such arrest.  Just like the 2008 RNC arrests of journalists, it wasn't what they did, it was who and where they were.

Also journalism isn't "writing whatever the shit they want," are you crazy?  That's the point of observation and being close to report it.  The "safety" element is played up to distract from the real goal of keeping eyes away from what's going on.

EDIT: also uh, seven credentialed reporters (not self described bloggers or livestreamers, but people with NYPD press passes and a UN press pass in one instance) are arrested and your first assumption is "well they must have done something to get arrested!!"  Really?  Is this what you're going for?

"They probably threw a microphone windscreen at cops to get a story!  They rushed a police barricade with their video cameras!  Brandishing their notepads threateningly!"

How far are you going to go in sticking to your unwavering "police actions are justified" stance?


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> There's a video here of one such arrest.  Just like the 2008 RNC arrests of journalists, it wasn't what they did, it was who and where they were.
> 
> Also journalism isn't "writing whatever the shit they want," are you crazy?  That's the point of observation and being close to report it.  The "safety" element is played up to distract from the real goal of keeping eyes away from what's going on.


tl:dr; legit freedom of speech is dead.

Maybe the protesters should call it expressing their religious freedom and tie it into christianity, that's to absurd levels of protected.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 15, 2011)

QQ Bloomberg.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2011)

A court judge just motioned that the protesters are allowed to protest, just not camp.
The opposition just got a kick in the teeth, because from now on the protesters legit and legally can protest.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> A court judge just motioned that the protesters are allowed to protest, just not camp.
> The opposition just got a kick in the teeth, because from now on the protesters legit and legally can protest.


Appeals court could overturn the decision if I am correct.  Anyways party's still on!


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Appeals court could overturn the decision if I am correct.  Anyways party's still on!


Even if a appeal's court got started right away, unless the opposition bought out the judge and everyone involved, it would take months.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 15, 2011)

Apparently the string of recent crackdowns may be have been coordinated with the help of federal agencies. Not exactly a solid source, but the author of this article claims to have spoken to someone in the Justice department about it. It would make sense, given that it was already known that officials from different cities were trying to work together to confront the protests.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Apparently the string of recent crackdowns may be have been coordinated with the help of federal agencies. Not exactly a solid source, but the author of this article claims to have spoken to someone in the Justice department about it. It would make sense, given that it was already known that officials from different cities were trying to work together to confront the protests.


Even if they did, with nearly a thousand cities with occupy protests they can't win.
That's why being leaderless was a good move by the occupy protesters, they can't cut the head off with something that has no head.
It's like trying to grab smoke with your bare hands.


----------



## thewall (Nov 15, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> No, you suck.
> 
> So do I for what I wrote here before, but you suck more.
> 
> ...



So what?  I intend to get out on my own as soon as I graduated from high school.  Besides, the only problem I have with this is the fact that if the government owes them entitlements, they have more control over them because people are dependent on the government.  Did you guys know that income tax didn't exist before the 16th amendment, because the government had to be kept down so that it didn't have too much power over people?  And what is compassionate about taking what someone else earned and giving it to another guy?  That isn't compassion, because it wasn't their own money to begin with.

I don't hate poor people and say "it's their own fault".  I think it is hurting yourself to expect a check in the mail instead of helping yourself.  I'm sure there's plenty of people who are plunged into poverty through no fault of their own.  Wouldn't it be better to actually HELP them instead of simply giving them a handout and saying "good luck"?


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2011)

mike37 said:


> I don't hate poor people and say "it's their own fault".  I think it is hurting yourself to expect a check in the mail instead of helping yourself.  I'm sure there's plenty of people who are plunged into poverty through no fault of their own.  Wouldn't it be better to actually HELP them instead of simply giving them a handout and saying "good luck"?


*FUCKING EXCUSE ME?!*
Welfare is to help people, there's also government funded programs to help people find jobs as well, also programs to help feed starving children! If you fucking had your goddamn way there'd be millions of starving children in america.
Just cause you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth doesn't mean everyone else is.
Before you say anything about "entitlements", go help at your local soup kitchen or shelters for abused woman before spouting anything else and get a goddamn reality check.

tl:dr; get a reality check before you complain about a entitlement check.


Programs to help abused women get out of their abuser's households, programs to take away sexually abused children from their abuser, etc are all government funded.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 15, 2011)

mike37 said:


> I don't hate poor people and say "it's their own fault".  I think it is hurting yourself to expect a check in the mail instead of helping yourself.  I'm sure there's plenty of people who are plunged into poverty through no fault of their own.  Wouldn't it be better to actually HELP them instead of simply giving them a handout and saying "good luck"?



You sir have reached a whole new level.

For all of the down and struggling people in the world.  I want to bitch-slap you so hard, that it may knock some sense into you.


----------



## thewall (Nov 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> *FUCKING EXCUSE ME?!*
> Welfare is to help people, there's also government funded programs to help people find jobs as well, also programs to help feed starving children! If you fucking had your goddamn way there'd be millions of starving children in america.
> Just cause you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth doesn't mean everyone else is.
> Before you say anything about "entitlements", go help at your local soup kitchen or shelters for abused woman before spouting anything else and get a goddamn reality check.
> ...



Look, calm down.  My only point is that the government goes too far and takes too much money to fund unnecessary programs.  Socialism/communism isn't the answer to these problems.  Government should ideally stay out of it.  I have no problem with short term welfare to help those back on their feet, but if we are going to confiscate more of the people's paycheck to do it, that doesn't sound compassionate.  Why not try to help everyone up instead of helping some at the expense of others?  Taking from others to give to another isn't compassionate.  Socialism isn't freaking compassionate at all.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Look, calm down.  My only point is that the government goes too far and takes too much money to fund unnecessary programs.  Socialism/communism isn't the answer to these problems.  Government should ideally stay out of it.  I have no problem with short term welfare to help those back on their feet, but if we are going to confiscate more of the people's paycheck to do it, that doesn't sound compassionate.  Why not try to help everyone up instead of helping some at the expense of others?  Taking from others to give to another isn't compassionate.  Socialism isn't freaking compassionate at all.


Don't tell me what socialism is, I'm democratic socialist.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 15, 2011)

Mike37, just stop. You are only hurting your own side.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 15, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Look, calm down.  My only point is that the government goes too far and takes too much money to fund unnecessary programs.  Socialism/communism isn't the answer to these problems.  Government should ideally stay out of it.  I have no problem with short term welfare to help those back on their feet, but if we are going to confiscate more of the people's paycheck to do it, that doesn't sound compassionate.  Why not try to help everyone up instead of helping some at the expense of others?  Taking from others to give to another isn't compassionate.  Socialism isn't freaking compassionate at all.



The government can't both stay out of it and render help. Either you think the government should stay out of social affairs and even more Americans should be left homeless on the streets, or you believe in some form of government intervention. It is not enough to simply want conditions to improve for the impoverished--everyone wants that--you have to have some plan to actually improve said conditions.


----------



## thewall (Nov 15, 2011)

The welfare program I would promote would be a short term welfare on the state level, as opposed to the federal level.  Maybe minimal governmental intervention.  Just redistributing wealth forcefully doesn't help.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 15, 2011)

Political Cartoon: Pee Pee Doo Doo big government is bad something something


----------



## Bambi (Nov 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> tl:dr; legit freedom of speech is dead.
> 
> Maybe the protesters should call it expressing their religious freedom   and tie it into christianity, that's to absurd levels of   protected.


Chin up.  :wink:

Legitimate freedom of speech is not dead. It's common for movements like   these to encounter social and political shunts and bumps. Let's just   hope that the people close to the movement start accepting the present   systems dynamic and attempt to grow themselves like the Tea Party. Don't   hate, let me explain my position: while they were controversial,   unfair, etc., every other point I have to attach in order to seem like a non-apologist, they still managed to  get broad political  representation. People need to find an ethical way to emulate the success of that  example.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 15, 2011)

mike37 said:


> The welfare program I would promote would be a short term welfare on the state level, as opposed to the federal level.



With this current recession we are looking at a decade of less than full employment. What of those who necessarily cannot find a job within any short time frame? Then of course there is the issue of families where minimum wage puts them below the poverty line; the parents have jobs but the kids still face poverty. Finally, there is the widespread problem of disability and illness which can potentially render someone unemployable for years or even life. 

Remember that we are looking at a society where a veteran is more likely to be homeless than a member of the public at large. For many the opportunity for a living wage simply does not exist, through no fault of their own. It might be valuable to consider why Social Security was first implemented: those who were too old to work often had no way to provide for themselves, leading to extreme poverty among the elderly. We recognized that this state was unacceptable and implemented a program to ensure that those most at risk due to age were not simply forgotten by society. The same principle that justified Social Security can be applied to many other groups and situations that lead to inescapable unemployment or insufficient wages, and other countries have successfully improved the average well-being of their populations through such measures.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Chin up.  :wink:
> 
> Legitimate freedom of speech is not dead. It's common for movements like   these to encounter social and political shunts and bumps. Let's just   hope that the people close to the movement start accepting the present   systems dynamic and attempt to grow themselves like the Tea Party. Don't   hate, let me explain my position: while they were controversial,   unfair, etc., every other point I have to attach in order to seem like a non-apologist, they still managed to  get broad political  representation. People need to find an ethical way to emulate the success of that  example.


They're already doing that, the main difference between the two is OWS isn't backed by big businesses or major news companies or such.
The only reason why the tea party grew so fast is it was backed by a major news corporation.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 15, 2011)

mike37 said:


> The welfare program I would promote would be a short term welfare on the state level, as opposed to the federal level.  Maybe minimal governmental intervention.  Just redistributing wealth forcefully doesn't help.



http://www.businessinsider.com/new-charts-about-inequality-2011-11?op=1

Look at the historical income and wealth gap data.  The system's natural tendency over the last 30 years (that is, since Reagan forwards) has been to continuously accumulate wealth in the pockets of the upper crust in greater concentrations every year.  It should be exceedingly obvious that the economy cannot function with the poor getting poorer indefinitely.  Redistributing wealth forcefully absolutely does help, not just by providing immediate relief to poor families, but by generating the consumer demand that increases businesses' need to provide more jobs.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 15, 2011)

Lmao NY branch has a full unit with detail dedicated to OWS.  Those terrorists!  Protesting and shit, how dare they interrupt Mike Bloomberg's Magnificent City of Great Success.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2011)

Lobar said:


> http://www.businessinsider.com/new-charts-about-inequality-2011-11?op=1
> 
> Look at the historical income and wealth gap data.  The system's natural tendency over the last 30 years (that is, since Reagan forwards) has been to continuously accumulate wealth in the pockets of the upper crust in greater concentrations every year.  It should be exceedingly obvious that the economy cannot function with the poor getting poorer indefinitely.  Redistributing wealth forcefully absolutely does help, not just by providing immediate relief to poor families, but by generating the consumer demand that increases businesses' need to provide more jobs.


Easiest solution increase the minimum wage and increase taxes on the rich.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Easiest solution increase the minimum wage and increase taxes on the rich.



Denmark has a negotiated minimum wage of $20


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Denmark has a negotiated minimum wage of $20


Stuff like this is one of the cases where compromise is not a option.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Stuff like this is one of the cases where compromise is not a option.


Tell that to, uh, well, you know, everyone.  Discover the true meaning of apathy.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Easiest solution increase the minimum wage and increase taxes on the rich.



Those both help, but the lower and middle class need money to spend _right now_ to alleviate the consumer demand slump.  Businesses only hire as many people as they need to meet their demand, no demand = no jobs.

As I said in another thread, you could literally just launch sacks full of cash into the ghettos with a catapult and it would improve the economy right now.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2011)

The protesters are already back.


----------



## Bambi (Nov 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> They're already doing that, the main difference between the two is OWS isn't backed by big businesses or major news companies or such.
> The only reason why the tea party grew so fast is it was backed by a major news corporation.


Not trying to challenge your position, as I am sure there were more reasons than just that. For example, the Tea Party was able to network their political ideas very successfully to politicians who shared some of the same ideas and thoughts. What Occupy Wall Street needs to do is advance the popularity of candidates, Democrat or Republican, who share an envisioning of a change to this countries tax code. And the people in support of economic reform need to support those individuals as the push for policy change.

However while Fox News may have played a very big part, think of them as just preaching to the converted. The Tea Party was able to generate so much success because everyone opposed to them did their part in giving them a spotlight. I know that might sound wrong, but bear with the example if there's any concern. CNN gave the movements controversial signs a great deal of notice. In turn, this added to advancing the groups social force.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 16, 2011)

Just wanted to make this quick point before I turned in for the night.

The mentality of this thread again rears its head when suddenly everyone's concerned about a media blackout and journalists not being able to do their jobs because of police actions, but when I post about protestors, claiming they have a First Amendment right to protest, threatening and attacking reporters who attempt to exercise their right of the press to cover what's going on within the camp no one raises any kind of concern for journalistic freedom.

Well done gentlemen.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 16, 2011)

At this point, is it even worth acknowledging Term any more?  Or Xenke, for that matter?

Every post follows the pattern of "Oh, you say there are tea partiers holding up racist signs with threads of anti-government violence?  Seems SOMEONE forgot all the Democrats in the KKK!  Now you guys are the REAL violent racists."

Just like how one (alleged?) incident of pooping on a cop car became the one thing conservative article comments brought up for weeks.  Now it's a laundry list of allegations including bestiality, child rape, murder..  This has been going on for over a month in many cities, and aside from cop riots there have been very few incidents and instances of damage for so many people for so long.  The pro-child rape riots at Penn State did more damage and lasted a night.  Pieces of shit will infiltrate any sufficiently large and cause problems.  The trick is how to find and remove them.  at least the human microphone keeps the really crazy ones from talking.  Numerous times I've seen live footage where someone pulled a mic check to spew some hate and after the second or third line everyone caught on and started booing.  Another group that draws some comparison usually seeks these kinds of people out to give a microphone.

Anyway..  They're just looking for any possible reason to discredit the organization under the guise of "concern."  Their quick reflexes to gloss over any abuses _toward_ the protesters only underlines this.  Something is said to have happened to protesters?  Rumors, unconfirmed, radical agitprop by the anarchists making up the movement.  Something is said to have happened to cops?  100% true, undeniable facts, it happened.  I don't think there's any good faith discussion to be had with people who are hell bent on wasting the time of others sorting through all their chaff.

fart


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 16, 2011)

^Welcome to the party Bobskunk.

I'm wondering if Term actually works for the news or a tabloid.  Then again nowadays the two are synonymous.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 16, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The mentality of this thread again rears its head when suddenly everyone's concerned about a media blackout and journalists not being able to do their jobs because of police actions, but when I post about protestors, claiming they have a First Amendment right to protest, threatening and attacking reporters who attempt to exercise their right of the press to cover what's going on within the camp no one raises any kind of concern for journalistic freedom.



I'm sure you realize the difference between one asshole with a dog and a police operation orchestrated by the mayor of New York City. If no reporters were able to access the encampment due to an apparent policy of OWS then the situation would be more comparable, but that is clearly not the case.


----------



## thewall (Nov 16, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> At this point, is it even worth acknowledging Term any more?  Or Xenke, for that matter?
> 
> Every post follows the pattern of "Oh, you say there are tea partiers holding up racist signs with threads of anti-government violence?  Seems SOMEONE forgot all the Democrats in the KKK!  Now you guys are the REAL violent racists."
> 
> ...



If liberals were willing to condemn other liberals who take it too far, his wouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Aden (Nov 16, 2011)

mike37 said:


> If liberals were willing to condemn other liberals who take it too far, his wouldn't be a problem.



what.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 16, 2011)

Mike, you anger the ghost of Ronald Reagan when you post.

Now can that be enough for you to stop?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 16, 2011)

Aden said:


> what.



"If only liberals had as much irrational loathing for themselves as we do of them, our own irrational loathing wouldn't seem so bad!"


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 16, 2011)

A guy in my apartment building who's the complex's village idiot (no, this guy is STUPID, like 50 IQ stupid) was listening to some radio show that I could tell was right wing. The guy was ranting and raving that all the Occupy Wall St protesters wanted to burn down all of New York and everything else and destroy society. It sounded like it may have been Rush Limbaugh, but I'm not sure.

Good to know the right is trying to smear Occupy as something evil. Paranoia is FUN!


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 16, 2011)

mike37 said:


> If liberals were willing to condemn other liberals who take it too far, his wouldn't be a problem.



This is said by conservatives about muslims too, and then ignore it when it DOES happen (and often) because it's a convenient out to justify your hate with a veneer of reasonableness.

Also what Mojotech said.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 16, 2011)

98% of the world's population has an IQ of less than 132.  I AM THE two PERCENT


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 17, 2011)

Onnes said:


> I'm sure you realize the difference between one asshole with a dog and a police operation orchestrated by the mayor of New York City. If no reporters were able to access the encampment due to an apparent policy of OWS then the situation would be more comparable, but that is clearly not the case.



In one of the videos I posted earlier it was clearly noted by a reporter from Occupy Oakland that the media was forbidden to go into the encampment on threat of having their equipment broken or worse.  Is it any wonder that whenever you watch a news report from any of the OWS protests that almost all the B-Roll is either of these people marching or the outside of the camp?  If you're inside the camp, you're not a member of the protest and you have a camera, you're to be evicted.  This is their policy.



Bobskunk said:


> At this point, is it even worth acknowledging Term any more?  Or Xenke, for that matter?
> 
> Every post follows the pattern of "Oh, you say there are tea partiers holding up racist signs with threads of anti-government violence?  Seems SOMEONE forgot all the Democrats in the KKK!  Now you guys are the REAL violent racists."
> 
> ...



Citation needed for the bolded part.  Financially speaking, the black hole of police overtime that's being paid alone is damage enough to cover financial damage around the Penn State campus.  As of October 18th, New York owed cops $3.4 million in overtime.  Assuming the same increase has continued, that figure should now be near $7 million.  Again, this is just New York, and not touching property damage claims, loss of business to local economies, clean-up for these parks which has either started or bound to happen at some point, etc.  There's more to this than just people standing around for two months playing drums.

But it's also not surprising to hear that you'd like to just dismiss someone because they aren't buying into this thing 100%.  Really I don't understand how anyone has any real confidence about this thing achieving anything at this point.  We're two months in and what has been accomplished in that time?  People have been seriously injured, a few have died, at least two major riots have broken out worldwide, and politics around the world have marched on as normally as ever.  Aside from a brief hiccup where politicians first demonized, then tried to reconcile with OWS, there's been no immediate threat to current policies.

OWS crashes a Michelle Bachmann rally?  Really?  What exactly was that supposed to accomplish, considering she's so far down in the polls she might as well be in Antarctica.  The Rupert Murdoch business was just as ridiculous, considering he's already double-chin deep in shit for the stuff he's pulled.  It seems whenever these people try to get creative it's a "kick em' while they're down" approach.  I would be more impressed if they started sprouting up at Mitt Romney rallies and challenged his firm belief that corporation are people, or Rick Perry rallies to challenge his liberal use of the death penalty.  THAT would be something I could get behind, not people camping out in a public park for another two-three months acting as if anyone of any real importance is paying attention to them aside from local governments.  Discredit OWS?  As I've said before, I don't need to.  They've done that enough themselves.  I can certainly appreciate their dedication, but like the War on Drugs or the War on Terror, this is quickly becoming a quagmire of wasted tax-payer money with a lot of innocent and not-so-innocent people being caught in the crossfire.

Otherwise, if what these people of OWS want is to influence policy and say with one voice, we've had enough, I'd say show it in the next election.  Find volunteers, give them flyers to hand out, and if someone says "I'm not registered to vote," give them one that tells them where and how to do it, or have people there that can help them.  According to Huff Po, 41.5% of all people eligible to vote in this country showed up to vote in 2010 when the Republicans retook the House.  And the scary part is that the 41.5% figure is the HIGHEST IT'S BEEN IN 30 YEARS FOR A MIDTERM.  In 2008 when Democrats took the reigns, the turnout was 61.6%.  Coincidence?  I think not.

If recent history has been any indication of what happens when people don't turn out to help play their part to shape policy in the most effective way they can, then shit often times hits the fan.  In any case this will probably be my last post on this at least until something substantial happens with this.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 17, 2011)

Really?  You're comparing overtime for cops (who were not needed as there was no riot nor threat to the public) with the costs of direct damage of property?

How hilariously dishonest.  The metric of money spent to combat OWS is not the same as the metric of damage caused by OWS.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 17, 2011)

With how large and popular the protest is becoming internationally it's not going away, so deal with it Term.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 17, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> At this point, is it even worth acknowledging Term any more?  Or Xenke, for that matter?
> 
> Every post follows the pattern of "Oh, you say there are tea partiers holding up racist signs with threads of anti-government violence?  Seems SOMEONE forgot all the Democrats in the KKK!  Now you guys are the REAL violent racists."



It's amazing how you can take posts with no political charge to them, and then insert that context into them.

No, I just happen to take a stance other than "all cops are bad, and every protester is a dainty angel". This thread just seems to have a mass aversion to logic (Cops involved when illegal activities are happening? Holy shit those bastards), among other problems, and the fact that my fairly benign posts seem to bug you so much is a pretty good litmus of this.


----------



## Darkwing (Nov 17, 2011)

Xenke said:


> It's amazing how you can take posts with no political charge to them, and then insert that context into them.
> 
> No, I just happen to take a stance other than "all cops are bad, and every protester is a dainty angel". This thread just seems to have a mass aversion to logic (Cops involved when illegal activities are happening? Holy shit those bastards), among other problems, and the fact that my fairly benign posts seem to bug you so much is a pretty good litmus of this.



FINALLY a logical, non-emotionally charged post, you've brought some hope to this thread!  

Protestors are getting arrested because they are breaking the law. I've seen all of the videos and all I see is cops doing their job keeping the protest under control. They are arresting the people that are fucking up peaceful protests and making the OWS movement look bad, so if anything, thank them. 

Though I've been hearing that hundreds are getting arrested today with the 2 month anniversary thing going on. I honestly saw that coming when I saw the date yesterday on the OWS website. Didn't hear of any violence yet though they're just blocking traffic.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 17, 2011)

^Oh god, it's the cop apologist trio.

The thing to remember though Darkwing, the protest by a judge has been deemed legal.  The police can arrest them for blocking traffic, but they CAN'T arrest them for protesting though.  If a cop arrests someone just for protesting from now on there's three words for that, illegal, violating a judge's order and umm I can't think of the third, I'm going to have to go with EPA.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 17, 2011)

The protest is legal.

The campout isn't.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> ^Oh god, it's the cop apologist trio.
> 
> The thing to remember though Darkwing, the protest by a judge has been deemed legal.  The police can arrest them for blocking traffic, but they CAN'T arrest them for protesting though.  If a cop arrests someone just for protesting from now on there's three words for that, illegal, violating a judge's order and umm I can't think of the third, I'm going to have to go with EPA.



Though, can't they arrest-fine you for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, harassing/disobeying the police, and making threats?  I'm not to familiar on this subject.


----------



## Darkwing (Nov 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The thing to remember though Darkwing, the protest by a judge has been deemed legal.  The police can arrest them for blocking traffic, but they CAN'T arrest them for protesting though.  If a cop arrests someone just for protesting from now on there's three words for that, illegal, violating a judge's order and umm I can't think of the third, I'm going to have to go with EPA.



Yes. The protest itself is legal but that doesn't mean that the protesters are completely immune to the law. If a protestor refuses to follow orders from a cop or begins starting trouble, the cop has every right to arrest them. They're just doing their job and keeping the protest under control, they're not "bullying" the protestors, I'm sure they would MUCH rather go home to their families than to deal with crap from a bunch of angry protestors all day.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 17, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> Yes. The protest itself is legal but that doesn't mean that the protesters are completely immune to the law. If a protestor refuses to follow orders from a cop or begins starting trouble, the cop has every right to arrest them. They're just doing their job and keeping the protest under control, they're not "bullying" the protestors, I'm sure they would MUCH rather go home to their families than to deal with crap from a bunch of angry protestors all day.


See Commie Bat's post.


----------



## Darkwing (Nov 17, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Though, can't the arrest-fine you for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, harassing/disobeying the police, and making threats?  I'm not to familiar on this subject.



I think so. Probably for not ALL of those offenses unless you actually did all of that. 

But you really wouldn't be arrested in these protests if you weren't a dumbass in the first place and truly stood by your cause.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 17, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I think so. Probably for not ALL of those offenses unless you actually did all of that.
> 
> But you really wouldn't be arrested in these protests if you weren't a dumbass in the first place and truly stood by your cause.


But the problem is the disorderly conduct and that aren't serious crimes and the police are letting the protesters go after 24 hours.
Pretty much police wise they can keep you for 24 hours, but if they don't have a serious case against you they can get in some serious legal shit for keeping longer than that.
In short if the police had a actual case they wouldn't be holding the protesters for only 24 hours.

tl:dr;The police don't have enough of a case.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> See Commie Bat's post.



I'll assume I'm right then.  I'm just wasn't familiar to the US laws regarding the subject, I was just using common sense.



Darkwing said:


> I think so. Probably for not ALL of those offenses unless you actually did all of that.
> 
> But you really wouldn't be arrested in these protests if you weren't a dumbass in the first place and truly stood by your cause.



That's why anarchists blaring songs like Fuck the Police, Burn the Word, and Kill 'em All; are extreamly dumb.  Along with threating the cops/government and planning to cause harm, crossing the police line; then they wonder and bitch about police brutality and can't contemplate why they are under arrest.

Gee, I wonder why?  They deserve it anyway though.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 17, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I'll assume I'm right then.  I'm just wasn't familiar to the US laws regarding the subject, I was just using common sense.


The difference though, like I've said several times, the police can only hold you for less than 24 hours without serious evidence of you breaking the law.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The difference though like I've said several times the police can only hold you for more than 24 hours without serious evidence of the person breaking the law.



I understand where your coming from, but haven't most people been released within that time-frame?

I haven't really been keeping up nationally, since the Indy protests are being forced to leave.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 17, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I understand where your coming from, but haven't most people been released within that time-frame?
> 
> I haven't really been keeping up nationally, since the Indy protests are being forced to leave.


It was a typo.


----------



## Darkwing (Nov 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> But the problem is the disorderly conduct and that aren't serious crimes and the police are letting the protesters go after 24 hours.
> Pretty much police wise they can keep you for 24 hours, but if they don't have a serious case against you they can get in some serious legal shit for keeping longer than that.
> In short if the police had a actual case they wouldn't be holding the protesters for only 24 hours.
> 
> tl:dr;The police don't have enough of a case.



Hmmm, I see where you're getting at. 

Though that doesn't necessarily mean they are arresting people for no reason. That would be stupid to think so. All the videos I've seen so far looked like they were doing their job fairly. 

You have any videos of them arresting people for no reason? I'd like to see some proof.


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> It was a typo.



It?

I can't seem to understand what you mean, unless I'm misunderstanding you someplace.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 17, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> It?
> 
> I can't seem to understand what you mean, unless I'm misunderstanding you someplace.


I meant the police can't keep a person for longer than 24 hours without reasonable cause.


Darkwing said:


> Hmmm, I see where you're getting at.
> Though that doesn't necessarily mean they are arresting people for no reason. That would be stupid to think so. All the videos I've seen so far looked like they were doing their job fairly.
> You have any videos of them arresting people for no reason? I'd like to see some proof.


Welcome to the longest running controversy about whether or not a police officer can arrest someone without a real cause.
A woman was arrested in the New York protest for moving the gate off her foot.
The police officer jammed it on her foot and when she removed it they arrested dragged her off to arrest her under the premise of, "confronting the police".
I'd have to find the video again, cause it was posted already.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 17, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> I've seen all of the videos and all I see is cops doing their job keeping the protest under control.





Darkwing said:


> All the videos I've seen so far looked like they were doing their job fairly.



Really, all of them? Even this one?



Lobar said:


> I've been pretty busy for about a week, so I hope this hasn't already been posted yet, but I dare any of the police apologists hanging around this thread to defend this:
> 
> [yt]I0pX9LeE-g8[/yt]



(now watch Darkwing not post for four or five pages again)


----------



## Darkwing (Nov 18, 2011)

Lobar said:


> (now watch Darkwing not post for four or five pages again)



Haven't seen that one yet. Very insightful Lobar. 

I suppose neither side is entirely innocent, despite the occasional police brutality, there are videos out there of the protestors starting shit with police as well. You really can't say the protestors (Nor the police) are entirely innocent.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 18, 2011)

Two New York City Council Members were arrested in the last 24 hours for being part of the protest.

http://manhattantimesnews.com/2011/...roper-and-calls-for-a-full-investigation.html - Ydanis Rodrigues in the eviction of Zuccoti Park overnight

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ores-more-arrested-at-foot-of-brooklyn-bridge - Jumaani Williams at the foot of Brooklyn Bridge.


----------



## Bambi (Nov 18, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Just wanted to make this quick point before I turned in for the night.
> 
> The mentality of this thread again rears its head when suddenly everyone's concerned about a media blackout and journalists not being able to do their jobs because of police actions, but when I post about protestors, claiming they have a First Amendment right to protest, threatening and attacking reporters who attempt to exercise their right of the press to cover what's going on within the camp no one raises any kind of concern for journalistic freedom.
> 
> Well done gentlemen.


Well, they're attacking journalists to protect the flaws of the Occupy Wall Street Protests from becoming public knowledge. For example, some people *are* using the relative anonymity that these camps create to conduct drug deals, or orchestrate ways to resist and provoke police officers, and if journalists film some of the protest organizers doing so, than the movement appears to be less about economic reform, and more about starting trouble for the sake of trouble. Which unfortunately is a fact of life people inside the protests don't want others outside of them knowing.

And let's face it: economic reform is not as exciting as complaining about police brutality, or watching people throw stones and stun grenades at each other. See, OWS isn't so much about being mad at big 'gubment, but about needing a strong middle class that can only become strong with a change in basic taxation policy; but as we'll also see, the conversation is no longer about this issue, but about the efficacy of trouble makers and those who abuse the law. We know the movement exists, we know the rhetoric, but the legitimacy is now wasted on the crowds. People should be taking OWS initial point to Capital Hill, not necessarily back to Zuccotti Square so immediately.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 18, 2011)

Okay I gotta ask, if there's any tea party member on here, why does the tea party keep telling the OWS protesters to join the tea party?  Is it cause the tea party is despised so much and so unpopular with the general public, with in contrast a fair percentage of americans support the occupy protests, that they're just trying to get a boost in popularity?
Cause I am getting sick of all the tea party members going, "Well why don't they join us?"


----------



## Darkwing (Nov 18, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Okay I gotta ask, if there's any tea party member on here, why does the tea party keep telling the OWS protesters to join the tea party?  Is it cause the tea party is despised so much and so unpopular with the general public, with in contrast a fair percentage of americans support the occupy protests, that they're just trying to get a boost in popularity?
> Cause I am getting sick of all the tea party members going, "Well why don't they join us?"



No idea. I've read about that though. It's awfully strange that a rightwing party wants to join up with a leftwing party, something to do with them having similar ideals. 

I'm not complaining though. I suppose it's a good thing that the right wing actually wants to work together at something for once with the left wing.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 18, 2011)

Darkwing said:


> No idea. I've read about that though. It's awfully strange that a rightwing party wants to join up with a leftwing party, something to do with them having similar ideals.
> I'm not complaining though. I suppose it's a good thing that the right wing actually wants to work together at something for once with the left wing.


If I had to take a guess it's cause the percentage of americans that support the occupy protests and the support internationally is far greater than the support for the tea party.

The problem with the mainstream tea party it's a reactionary group that sprung up only recently in response to the Obama presidency, after Obama's second term it's going bye bye.

The Occupy supporters is from long standing anger towards the increasing gap between the poor and rich, and there's literally no goddamn way the OWS is going away anytime soon.


----------



## ADF (Nov 19, 2011)

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

What the fuck is wrong with these police officers? Those people posed no threat whatsoever.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 19, 2011)

ADF said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi_kkETzyNA
> 
> What the fuck is wrong with these police officers? Those people posed no threat whatsoever.


STOP RESISTING


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 19, 2011)

ADF said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi_kkETzyNA
> 
> What the fuck is wrong with these police officers? Those people posed no threat whatsoever.


This has got to be one of the most disgusting things I've ever seen.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 19, 2011)

[yt]nyKttwMtRnE[/yt]

It's catchy stuff! KILL THE POLICE

[yt]KogNznCiBZg[/yt]

[yt]SofBrp4U7JM[/yt]

this is pretty awesome stuff \m/

[yt]TsTs4KKugCs[/yt]


----------



## Aetius (Nov 19, 2011)

ADF said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi_kkETzyNA
> 
> What the fuck is wrong with these police officers? Those people posed no threat whatsoever.



Wow, what a cheap shot.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 19, 2011)

ADF said:


> [YT]Wi_kkETzyNA[/YT]
> 
> What the fuck is wrong with these police officers? Those people posed no threat whatsoever.


Holy fucking shit?

If someone defends this then they deserve to burn in hell.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 19, 2011)

I'm just going to leave this here, but to be fair is anyone surprised by it?


----------



## Bliss (Nov 20, 2011)

Cain: "We need a leader not a reader." :V


----------



## Commie Bat (Nov 20, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Cain: "We need a leader not a reader." :V



Sad part is; look at the the poll results, from the article.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 20, 2011)

Attaman said:


> I'm just going to leave this here, but to be fair is anyone surprised by it?


Not really, it was obvious that big business doesn't want to get fucked with and will do anything needed.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 20, 2011)

Why's everyone upset with the pepper spraying?



> After reviewing the video, Kelly said he observed at least two cases of "active resistance" from protesters. In one instance, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second instance, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques.
> 
> "What I'm looking at is fairly standard police procedure," Kelly said.



It's okay because it fits with police policy!


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 20, 2011)

Tycho said:


> It's catchy stuff! KILL THE POLICE
> this is pretty awesome stuff \m/


You forgot the most famous one
[yt]WiX7GTelTPM[/yt]


----------



## Bambi (Nov 20, 2011)

Oh, thread.

At least the issue of the OWS needing political credibility has been addressed. Starting to note some discussion in the world about Democrats and Independents wanting to carry the issue with more force.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 20, 2011)

But seriously Bambi there is nothing good about cops.

I hope all cop apologists get killed in no knock raids for not complying and resisting by asking "What is going on here?"

If anyone makes excuses for cops, I want them to die violently along with the real thugs they fellate.  I hate them so much that I want them to fill mass graves, never to be identified, forgotten because of their rationalizing and defense of mass abuse.


----------



## Bambi (Nov 20, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> But seriously Bambi there is nothing good about cops.


Sorry you think that Bobskunk.

Guess I'll have to die in a violent, no knock raid for not complying and resisting by asking, "Why is your hatred of cops borderline irrational?" C'mon, you know I am not in the business of defending police brutality, and people looking more closely at the issues present does not constitute them being apologists either. I think what you are is just afraid. I am afraid too. We all are, but at what point does our fear control us and what we see as relative humanity?


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 20, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Sorry you think that Bobskunk.
> 
> Guess I'll have to die in a violent, no knock raid for not complying and resisting by asking, "Why is your hatred of cops borderline irrational?" C'mon, you know I am not in the business of defending police brutality, and people looking more closely at the issues present does not constitute them being apologists either. I think what you are is just afraid. I am afraid to. We all are, but at what point does our fear control us and what we see as relative humanity?



Borderline irrational?  It's based on a long history of abuse and a growing paramilitary mutation brought on by the wars on drugs and terror, such that the common police force in this country when not acting as simple revenue generators, are unaccountable instruments of state terror.  The "higher standard" applied to cops with their additional powers up to and including a practical license to kill is not a guard against abuse of their unique privileges, some of which being necessary to act as law enforcement, but a complete shielding from punishment when they are acting reprehensibly.  The pattern of conduct has become "outrageous abuse is shown, police spokesperson declares it in line with department procedure, office acquitted/given a week of paid administrative leave."

Sure, I'm afraid.  I'm afraid that I (and anybody) can be detained, maimed or killed just because an officer feels like he can, without any hope of justice, without any accountability.  More and more there are wide latitudes of judgment granted to the police, an increasingly dangerous mindset that reduces whatever checking influence the (lying-cop-biased) courts can have when one is charged, convicted and punished on-site.

Police brutality is the norm, and that won't change until there are consequences.


----------



## Bambi (Nov 20, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Borderline irrational?
> 
> ...
> 
> Police brutality is the norm, and that won't change until there are consequences.


Alright, you answered honestly and I was a dick. I was a dick, because I found it rather dickish for you to suggest that we needed to start digging mass graves for the people that had just as much an interest in the sociological effects of police brutality as you did.

I reacted to that, accused you of smoking weed in an insulting manner, and it wasn't fucking necessary. Yes, I am admitting to that, because I have a personal problem with me unnecessarily being a snot when I'm provoked. Thank you for being honest with me about how you feel, because I know EXACTLY where you're coming from in the area of police brutality.

However, allow me to grant you a specific word of caution: fear kills.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 20, 2011)

Bambi said:


> Alright, you answered honestly and I was a dick. I was a dick, because I found it rather dickish for you to suggest that we needed to start digging mass graves for the people that had just as much an interest in the sociological effects of police brutality as you did.
> 
> I reacted to that, accused you of smoking weed in an insulting manner, and it wasn't fucking necessary. Yes, I am admitting to that, because I have a personal problem with me unnecessarily being a snot when I'm provoked. Thank you for being honest with me about how you feel, because I know EXACTLY where you're coming from in the area of police brutality.
> 
> However, allow me to grant you a specific word of caution: fear kills.



It's alright, and like I said in private I wasn't actually addressing YOU with that mass-grave line.  The very idea that you know EXACTLY where I'm coming from puts you squarely outside of that group- that group would have reacted with incredulity, or relentless assumption of guilt of some crime, or some other smug authoritarian line.  I do not believe they have just as much interest in the sociological effects of police brutality, unless the effect you're referring to is a violence boner at the sight of harmless, expressive Dirty Fucking Hippies having their skulls cracked for not showing proper deference to the authority of the police.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 20, 2011)

I too didn't particularly like Bobskunk's choice of language here, however I think the point he is trying to make is not unreasonable. Police brutality and the use of unnecessary force has a long and storied history in the US. Just look at the current buzz surrounding the use of pepper spray on protesters practicing passive resistance. This is absolutely nothing new; police have been using pepper spray to torture such protesters into compliance for decades already. In fact, this practice has been brought to courts before and been upheld by judges. Perhaps seeing it happen to college students instead of minorities and tree huggers hits a nerve for more Americans; all the same, this kind of police response is not a one off error but instead of continuation of longstanding, abusive, and ultimately widespread policies.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 20, 2011)

The other part is that citizen journalism (i.e. privately held video cameras, and the recent "viral video" sensation of mass-audience self-publishing) has helped expose it further.  It has caused greater exposure and awareness of an existing problem in the same way that 24/7 news networks have reported more frequently and forcefully on instances of crime.  However, crime is on a downward trend, especially since the early nineties, while police abuse has gotten worse.

Minorities have always faced police abuse, and it was disbelieved until videos like the Rodney King beating came out- the difference between that and prior instances of minority abuse is that there was no video camera present, and that footage was not widely viewed.  It went from "that's ridiculous, it couldn't possibly be that bad" to "oh wow i guess it really is that bad, thank goodness i am a white person."  Now that it's middle class white kids getting abused, that "police brutality happens, but i don't have to worry because i'm white" mentality is also being shaken.

That's part of the demonizing- warding off the possibility that it could happen to them and that if someone's being abused by cops they have done something to deserve it.  Victim blaming is a hallmark of the ignorant and the cowardly.

Disagree with my original outburst for its tone all you like, but I have good reasoning behind my anger.  I stopped making cop threads because they all got threadshitted by the same clueless apologists for state terror.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 21, 2011)

As intellectually stimulating as talking about generalized police brutality is, can we maybe get back to talking about the OWS protests and such? You know, like, what progress they're making, if any, the status of OWS and where it has been raided, etc etc? It's a big enough problem that the protests are getting muddled up with police brutality, that doesn't mean that discussions about OWS need to suffer the same fate.

So anyway, apparently OWS Oakland has rebounded from their scuffle with the police, and are now planning to shut down ports along the West Coast. I understand that they are trying to hurt big and greedy business and such, but really a move like this seems like it mostly hurts the workers who need to be working that day. We'll just have to wait and see what appens on 12/12 though, to see just how this goes down, and what the response will be from the populace and the reaction from law enforcement.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 21, 2011)

Xenke said:


> So anyway, apparently OWS Oakland has rebounded from their scuffle with the police, and are now planning to shut down ports along the West Coast. I understand that they are trying to hurt big and greedy business and such, but really a move like this seems like it mostly hurts the workers who need to be working that day. We'll just have to wait and see what appens on 12/12 though, to see just how this goes down, and what the response will be from the populace and the reaction from law enforcement.



Really occupy Oakland? They are all such dumbfucks.....


----------



## Aden (Nov 21, 2011)

The problem with trying to "hurt" big businesses is that they _all_ have a front line made up of the common folk, and ultimately, they're the first (and likely the only) people to suffer if a big business finds itself in a slump. You can't bluntly attack them from the outside without being a colossal asshole to a lot of working-class people.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 21, 2011)

Dockworkers have gone on strike a few times- including in solidarity with Wisconsin, anti-war protesting as well as earlier Occupy action.  The "we can screw you back, you know" response to being screwed in the first place.  I don't know how people can be in favor of one and not the other as well, in the current system they need each other.  Strikes and work stoppage are ways to say "That's too far, your terms are unacceptable, let's renegotiate."  The exchange of work for labor is a two way street, after all, and the only way to enact meaningful change is to do it en masse.  Otherwise you just get fired and another guy is brought on to be exploited, if the rest of your coworkers are not simply forced to take up your workload at the very same pay or else face the same punishment.

Striking/work blockage is one of the strongest tools in labor's arsenal, if not THE tool- the biggest hope of reminding capital just who and what enables them to turn their profits.  It tilts the already heavily slanted bargaining table back in their favor a bit.  It's hard on the workers but it's also hard on the business, and financial pain is often the only thing that can make businesses reexamine their actions.  A short but intense strain rather than the slow suffering and whittling down of workers while the business entirely benefits.  Also, there's usually a strike fund for this sort of thing- that's part of what dues are about, providing some income during protracted strikes.  Shutting down the docks isn't a "oh, those dockworkers won't be able to earn an honest living!" happening when those dockworkers join in- they're already getting screwed like everyone else.

Judging by the press release, this is Occupy working in solidarity with dockworkers facing a labor dispute, not just going "hey let's be dicks and shut things down just for laughs."  Protesting a grain exporting consortium?  Pretty sure that's part of what has killed a lot of small time farming around the world- there's simply no competing with subsidized American grain.

The rich are getting richer while the rest of us are struggling harder and harder.  Support unions because we should all be making more for the value we produce, don't tear them down out of jealousy and anger because you don't want any of those other crabs getting out of the bucket you're in.  There's a concerted effort to bring labor back to 1910, including open disdain for child labor laws by presidential candidates, and labor has been weakening incredibly since the 70s.

This race to the bottom while a small, exploiting group remains completely stable is the crux of the Occupy movement.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 21, 2011)

^I gotta agree with Bobskunk on this one, it's far to unlikely that the occupy protesters just up and decided to block the decks.
It's more likely the dock workers are in on it at some level.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 21, 2011)

Xenke said:


> As intellectually stimulating as talking about generalized police brutality is, can we maybe get back to talking about the OWS protests and such? You know, like, what progress they're making, if any, the status of OWS and where it has been raided, etc etc? It's a big enough problem that the protests are getting muddled up with police brutality, that doesn't mean that discussions about OWS need to suffer the same fate.



Hey guys let's change the subject to whichever aspect of the topic looks the least bad for my side of the argument right now.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Hey guys let's change the subject to whichever aspect of the topic looks the least bad for my side of the argument right now.



Not to mention whichever aspect looks the most bad to people who don't know what labor struggles are like or how it's hard to shut down any dock without the cooperation of willing dockworkers.

"So, hey!  Looks like OWS just wants to keep people from working and make shit inconvenient for people!  What monsters!"

The concern trolling is completely transparent.


----------



## Xenke (Nov 22, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Hey guys let's change the subject to whichever aspect of the topic looks the least bad for my side of the argument right now.



Hey guys, let's change the topic to the actual topic.

Geez.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 22, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Not to mention whichever aspect looks the most bad to people who don't know what labor struggles are like or how it's hard to shut down any dock without the cooperation of willing dockworkers.
> 
> "So, hey!  Looks like OWS just wants to keep people from working and make shit inconvenient for people!  What monsters!"
> 
> The concern trolling is completely transparent.


As you said before, it's far too unlikely that OWS is working on this on their own.

Ten bucks says that, when Occupy Oakland blocks the port, the dockworkers announce they are striking as well.
The dockworkers have probably been for a while planning on striking, but saw their chance and took it.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> As you said before, it's far too unlikely that OWS is working on this on their own.
> 
> Ten bucks says that, when Occupy Oakland blocks the port, the dockworkers announce they are striking as well.
> The dockworkers have probably been for a while planning on striking, but saw their chance and took it.



Did you even read what I had written

They (the longshoremen et al.) had previously been the initiators of dock striking even in the past year for various reasons, whether their own disputes or to show support with the earlier Wisconsin protests and OWS in general.  The Occupy decision to shut down the docks was formulated in support of the dockworkers specifically, because of the dockworkers' disputes.  There is recent history and reasoning for this, it's not coincidences and happenstance.  OF COURSE OWS ISN'T WORKING ON THIS ON ITS OWN.  Augh :V

Hey Xenke you brought it up in the typical "So, an Occupier pooped on a cop car, what do you guys feel about that?" means of shaming an action.  Though I do applaud you that you merely took the most negative interpretation of an act ("look at them claiming to fight big business but really this will hurt workers!") instead of painting the movement a a bunch of raping murdering drug dealing and using anarchists who are set on burning everything down, it's still pretty lame.  The next few posts got exactly the reaction you were looking for, in the same way that anyone not familiar with the case of Stella Liebeck that hears "Someone burned themselves with coffee and sued for 2.7 million dollars!" will react.

As an aside, it's in neither labor nor capital's interest to go back to the dynamics of the 20s and earlier, which some are eager to make happen- and in some respects we're getting there.  People take for granted things such as child labor laws and what had nominally become the 40 hour standard work week that people literally died for, or that combating labor organization was one of the primary uses of the National Guard (and had a bit of a lull in activity until the 60s student movements, particularly Kent State.)


----------



## ADF (Nov 23, 2011)

Pepper spray cop is a meme now.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 23, 2011)

ADF said:


> Pepper spray cop is a meme now.


I feel bad that I laughed at some of those, except the rebecca black one, I don't feel bad for laughing at that.


----------



## Foedus (Feb 5, 2012)

Regardless of whether or not I sounded like a 'concern troll', I'm pretty sure the people who were spamming LOL SOLIDARITY should have had a spot ahead of me in the banning phase.  I was asking legitimate questions about the movement.

And the fact you're assuming that I've not been paying attention is amusing.  The reason why I was asking 'what is going on', was because half of the time I visited, it was usually on the Auto-Run and people were spamming the same thing over and over again.


----------



## Cain (Feb 5, 2012)

This is borderline necro.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Feb 6, 2012)

Jagged Edge said:


> This is borderline necro.



Thread that has been dead for a couple of months is beyond borderline.


----------

