Occupy Wall Street Baloney

[Socrates]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1318437447' post='2320177']
i'm still confused at what they are protesting against...wealthy corporations or wealthy people in general? and when does all this end?
[/quote]
It seems to me more against "the wealthy" in general - it's all based in generalized envy and class warfare - rather than being focused specifically on those banks and corporations that were bailed out, and the government that actually bailed them out (whom most of them seem to look to as the solution, rather than the problem).


[quote] are they against conservatism or do they criticize the present administration for all the bail outs?[/quote]
Seems most of them are only against left-wing or Republican politicians. The present administration and other left-wing Washington politicians are alternatively helpless victims and saviors who will somehow rescue us all from Corporate Greed. (According to our Canadian friend, the current President was somehow not aware of or responsible for the bailouts.)


[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1318438002' post='2320181']
another question...


why were some occupiers chanting over and over "you can have sex with animals?"
[/quote]
That's the Left for ya . . . classy bunch.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1318614185' post='2321226']
But let's not discuss what causes inflation. Let's use the word "capital", later, confusing it with "money" and also leaving off that inflation explanation. Then we will discuss income inequality. That's always good for some outrage directed at the corporations.



[size=3]Let's not mention easy credit, though.[/size]

[size=3]Segue into tax talk, then. Because higher taxes without increasing output will result in even more enrichment of the upper classes as prices rise and we resort to using credit even more.[/size]

[size=3]Then let's get upset at the banks not lending the money. Of course, the increased money supply will lead to inflation, and that amounts to a tax. [/size]

[size=3]Basically, this article will inspire people to demand an increase in the money supply through easy credit and loans, thus increasing inflation, thus increasing the use of that credit. Note not a single mention of the mechanics of inflation or what "capital" really means. Just the song and dance about corporations while government, who protects and enables these business practices through special privileges to banks totally escapes mention.[/size]
[/quote]
. . . and thus the entire process will repeat, perpetuate and compound itself, as the mindless dope-sucking leftist mobs will demand ever more "free money" and easy lending, as well as increased government spending on just about everything.

As our bankrupt nation sinks ever deeper into debt. . . .

And the leftist politicians will continue to deflect blame to corporations, political conservatives, and other unpopular groups, while hailing themselves as saviors.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1318647288' post='2321439']


that doesnt sound very anti american to me, or even anti semetic. one can easily declaim Israel as a country that has many human rights abuses without hating them for being Jewish. In fact, there is a large number of Jewish people that speak out against the actions of Israel. And neocon politicians do pander very heavily towards Israel in general, which gets them the support of alot of evangelical america.[/quote]
You know beaver dam well if such remarks had come from Tea Partiers or Republicans or other "right-wingers," the media and yourself would be all over it, denouncing them as racists, Nazis, and the whole nine yards.


[quote]Fox news had an interesting piece on OWS as well. partially because of the article, but mostly because of where it came from.

[url="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/10/14/understanding-occupy-wall-street/"]http://www.foxnews.c...py-wall-street/[/url][/quote]
Oh please, you can't trust anything out of FOX News . . . remember?


[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1318652167' post='2321473']
Why is anything about Adbusters relevant? seriously.
[/quote]
They're only the group that originally organized the protests, that's all. I know they don't necessarily reflect the view of all at the protests, but if this were a "right wing" protest, I'm sure you'd at least consider the views of the organizing group somewhat relevant.

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1318661046' post='2321495']
it is also alot of an ad hominem attack. i doubt you know much about Adbusters as a magazine, but the personal views of its owner have very little to do with occupy wall street, especially as those views are not related to the protest.[b] I bet i can find prolife people making extremely racist remarks, how much should that affect my opinion of a unrelated issue they support?[/b]
[/quote]
If they were, the media would be all over it (particularly if they were people involved with organizing a major protest). Who do you think you're kidding?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1318713265' post='2321740']
. . . Seems most of them are only against right-wing or Republican politicians. . . .
[/quote]
Fixed.

[BG45]

[img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/293929_274056692627906_100000707312207_915319_1900939267_n.jpg[/img]

[Amppax]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1318712708' post='2321736']
So, do you think it would help pro-life protesters or right-leaning groups like the Tea Party movement if they took to taking dumps on police cruisers, public urination, nudity ,drug use and sex, deliberately provoking policemen into violence, wanton littering of public property, and the rest of the lovely actions of the Wall Street "Occupiers"?

(As one who's attended many of the March for Life protests at Washington D.C. over the past 20 or so years, I can say you see absolutely nothing of that kind of behavior from the pro-lifers. The contrast is day and night. And from all I've heard, you don't see that kind of behavior either from the Tea Party protesters so strongly loathed and scorned by the same phatmass crowd that has such respect and love for the "Occupier" mob.)

Of course, such vulgarity and barbarism is fully to be expected from those on the Left, for whom contempt for any minimal standards of human decency and civilized behavior has long been a hallmark.

But, I think we all know that if pro-lifers or conservatives engaged in such behaviors, the media would be all over it, unequivocally denouncing it along with movements sponsoring the protests - as I'm sure would most of the trendy Phatmass crowd.

You certainly would not have the President or a major political party voicing support for movement as with the "Occupy Wall Street" movement.

But, oh well, I suppose childish tantrums and vulgar "shock tactics" trump coherently reasoned positions peacefully voiced in today's "progressive, enlightened" world. At least the protesters aren't those awful right-wingers.
[/quote]

You're right! that's totally what he was saying! A+ for reading comprehension!

You know, instead of automatically assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you holds opinions that are diametrically opposed to your own, you could try discuss things with people, and try and reach a common understanding.

Then again, it is fun to read your rants.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Amppax

[Maximilianus]

bah, that was trollish of me.


Carry on.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Maximilianus

[Winchester]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1318693376' post='2321598']

The article is not comprehensive. It never says that the government bears no fault. Are you just making this up for kicks and giggles?
[/quote]
It never mentions at all monetary policy or the mechanisms for empowering corporations. Does it mention deregulation?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1318736070' post='2321919']

You're right! that's totally what he was saying! A+ for reading comprehension!

You know, instead of automatically assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you holds opinions that are diametrically opposed to your own, you could try discuss things with people, and try and reach a common understanding.

Then again, it is fun to read your rants.
[/quote]
I won't criticize your reading comprehension, since I probably should have made myself clearer, but the intent of my post was actually not to argue with or oppose Arfink at all, but to raise some points regarding some things he brought up.

My opening question, "So, do you think it would help pro-life protesters or right-leaning groups like the Tea Party movement if they took to taking dumps on police cruisers, public urination, nudity, drug use and sex, deliberately provoking policemen into violence, wanton littering of public property, and the rest of the lovely actions of the Wall Street 'Occupiers'?" was a rhetorical one not directed so much at Arfink, as to everyone in general. Obviously, the only sane answer to the question would be, "No."

I certainly was not under the impression that Arfink actually approved with the vulgar and disgusting actions of the "Occupier" crowd. However, I thought his post brought up an interesting point in that it appears the vulgar behavior and "shock" tactics appear to have worked to the "Occupier"'s advantage in garnering widespread attention to their cause. And they do not appear to have done much to hurt sympathy for their cause both on Phatmass and elsewhere.

My point was to draw attention to the huge and glaring double standard regarding such things. Obviously, such disgusting shock tactics would not work to the advantage of pro-lifers, conservatives, or other politically incorrect groups. It seems in our current culture, we're willing to accept and tolerate all sorts of behavior from the left that would never be tolerated from those on the right. For instance, many of the same Phatmassers who seem to have nothing but respect and empathy for the "Occupy Wall Street" movement were quick to condemn and dismiss the "Tea Party" movement as a bunch of violent racist crazies on account of much less.

I'm not saying anyone must necessarily agree or disagree with either, but the extreme double standard is something to think about.

And it seems to me the liberals on here are not answering alot of very legitimate questions concerning the bailouts and government brought up in this thread, but are engaging in rather shallow emotional appeals.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Socrates

[kamiller42]

Let's get those banks! Shut them down! Let's start with the two biggest banks at the heart of the collapse, the dealers who were sitting at the Wall St. casino table...

[img]http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/img/fannie_mae_logo.gif[/img]

[img]http://www.freddiemac.com/images/site/fm-home-logo.png[/img]

Oh wait.. they're government run banks. "You are absolved of your sins my feds."

Protesters imported from Canada eh?

[img]http://thepeoplescube.com/red/gallery/supercommissar-maksim-a34/filth-fury-tpc-i3081.jpg[/img]

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1318798536' post='2322212']
It never mentions at all monetary policy or the mechanisms for empowering corporations. Does it mention deregulation?
[/quote]
"not comprehensive"

Nothing that you said is wrong. It is also not wrong for an article to be focused on one small part of a large problem.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1318802848' post='2322269']

Protesters imported from Canada eh?

[img]http://thepeoplescube.com/red/gallery/supercommissar-maksim-a34/filth-fury-tpc-i3081.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

What the hell is that supposed to mean, anyway? That Canadians are responsible for the OWS movement? Really?

The fact is, most people are missing the point here. OWS is neither all good nor all bad. There are some really significant things going on here, and some important discussions to be had for those who care to set aside a partisan knee-jerk reaction to critically review the underlying arguments and positions. I'll elaborate with my personal opinion.

1. I'm glad that the protests are happening. It shows that people can still be engaged and display their anger in a non-violent way.
2. I am very sorry that what could have been a productive discussion seems to have been co-opted by Marxist hippie types who seem to be more interested in bongo playing and selling Che Guevara flags. That isn't the protest...that is a parody of the protest. Unfortunately the parody gets much more media play, because it's so much more entertaining and reaction-inducing to show people peeing all over Wall Street and complaining about not having their pizza subsidized, or whatever it is they're saying. I pretty much tuned those people out.
3. Since the protest is fond of using percentages, I'll play along. It seems that the 99% of protesters have missed a large segment of the point. This should not be a discussion about wealth. Being wealthy isn't wrong. What is wrong is the fact that we have bypassed democratic process and instead are engaged in a corporatist government model. Protesting those companies who use immoral, unethical and illegal means to gain footholds to exploit the people for profit and power? Excellent. Protest away. However, many of those who are on Wall Street should also be camping on the Mall and the White House lawn. The government is largely to blame for this corporatist state of affairs. It's a vicious cycle, because the government that people want regulating these companies is the same entity that is responsible for them having the legal loopholes, tax breaks and other avenues that have enabled this situation to continue. It's just a matter of two organizations (corporations and government) having a mutually enriching arrangement that is built solely on the exploitation of those who provide the capital (i.e., the people).

The fact is, no matter what pundits or talking heads want to make it seem, there is a part of this movement that is based on very legitimate anger over very legitimate complaints. The fact that the movement has been co-opted by a bunch of hippies doesn't make the underlying arguments less valid. However, the position of most of the OWS protesters doesn't go far enough in addressing the fullness of the problem. Honestly, the Tea Party wasn't originally intended as a Republican mouthpiece movement...it was based on a grassroots collaboration of people who wanted to argue the constitutionality of government actions. The fact that it has become synonymous with the Republican party doesn't make the initial, underlying points less legitimate, in the same way that the goofy hippie, Marxist-spouting idiots who have glommed onto the newest protest trend don't make the initial argument some lib[acronym=''][/acronym]eral pipe dream.

This protest is a symptom of a larger issue--the growing discontent of the people with a government who no longer even pretends to be constitutional, or a democratic republic, but instead chooses to make alliances with large corporate entities to reinforce a circular, oligarchical power structure. If more people looked beyond politics to the root of the issue, examined it critically for its positives and negatives, and then advanced the discussion, this protest could be the roots of significant change.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1318806008' post='2322280']
"not comprehensive"

Nothing that you said is wrong. It is also not wrong for an article to be focused on one small part of a large problem.
[/quote]
If that problem can only exist because of the government, then yes, it is wrong. It didn't inform, it misdirected.

It's like saying lots of buildings in Dresden suddenly burned up and failing to mention the bombs dropped to start the firestorm.

[KnightofChrist]

The OWS is an example of how just how much power the Media still has over the minds of people. The Media says the Tea Party is racist and extreme and people believe it. The Media says the Arab Spring would lead about a democracy in Egypt/Middle East. Instead it's still ruled by the Military and Christians are being slaughtered. Yay Democracy! Now the Media says this movement just like the Arab Spring is good.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' timestamp='1318807648' post='2322296']
What the hell is that supposed to mean, anyway? That Canadians are responsible for the OWS movement? Really?[/quote]
Yes, really, eh? It's related to the adbusters story. They set the date and promoted it. They even created the popular promotions poster. Read it for yourself at the very Canadian newspaper [url="http://www.vancourier.com/Adbusters+sparks+Wall+Street+protest/5466332/story.html"]The Vancouver Courier[/url].

[quote]The fact is, most people are missing the point here. OWS is neither all good nor all bad. There are some really significant things going on here, and some important discussions to be had for those who care to set aside a partisan knee-jerk reaction to critically review the underlying arguments and positions. I'll elaborate with my personal opinion.

1. I'm glad that the protests are happening. It shows that people can still be engaged and display their anger in a non-violent way.[/quote]

[url="http://yhoo.it/o8XwLY"]All we are saying is is give peace a chance.....[/url] <all together now!>

[img]http://rt.com/files/news/brooklyn-bridge-occupy-wallstreet-859/affiliated-occupy-street-movement-853.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.mynews.in/dailyimage/news/1318659738_US_anti-corruption_protests.jpg[/img]

[quote]2. I am very sorry that what could have been a productive discussion seems to have been co-opted by Marxist hippie types who seem to be more interested in bongo playing and selling Che Guevara flags. That isn't the protest...that is a parody of the protest. Unfortunately the parody gets much more media play, because it's so much more entertaining and reaction-inducing to show people peeing all over Wall Street and complaining about not having their pizza subsidized, or whatever it is they're saying. I pretty much tuned those people out. [/quote]
The Marxists, Communists, and anti-Semites have been there since day 1.

[media='']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMjm4LxFa1c[/media]

[quote]3. Since the protest is fond of using percentages, I'll play along. It seems that the 99% of protesters have missed a large segment of the point. This should not be a discussion about wealth. Being wealthy isn't wrong. What is wrong is the fact that we have bypassed democratic process and instead are engaged in a corporatist government model. Protesting those companies who use immoral, unethical and illegal means to gain footholds to exploit the people for profit and power? Excellent. Protest away. However, many of those who are on Wall Street should also be camping on the Mall and the White House lawn. The government is largely to blame for this corporatist state of affairs. It's a vicious cycle, because the government that people want regulating these companies is the same entity that is responsible for them having the legal loopholes, tax breaks and other avenues that have enabled this situation to continue. It's just a matter of two organizations (corporations and government) having a mutually enriching arrangement that is built solely on the exploitation of those who provide the capital (i.e., the people).[/quote]

I would issue a challenge to a Wallstocker (Woodstock on Wall St... groovy.). I would ask them to list all charges against corporations, specifics, not generalities like "corporates exploit the people man." Then, I would tell them I would give $100 for each mildly provable charge. OR, they could choose to list every immoral, unethical, and illegal activity the government has done and receive $100 for each mildly provable charge. You can't list both; you have to choose one or the other. Which would they choose?

[quote]This protest is a symptom of a larger issue--the growing discontent of the people with a government who no longer even pretends to be constitutional, or a democratic republic, but instead chooses to make alliances with large corporate entities to reinforce a circular, oligarchical power structure. If more people looked beyond politics to the root of the issue, examined it critically for its positives and negatives, and then advanced the discussion, this protest could be the roots of significant change.[/quote]
The democratic republic voted a statist into office. The Wallstockers were some of his most ardent supporters. What you are seeing is an awakening to the results of their delusional "change" dream. And now, they demand more of the same. Masochistic or insane?

Edited October 17, 2011 by kamiller42