Occupy Wall Street protests not valid?

Is it ok for police to pepper spray peaceful protesters and then walk away?



Oh, and the media hardly covers the protests themselves, much less this so there's only youtube.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Like a fucking idiot, I went back to find where Fanfaron specifically asked what's wrong with Socialism (not Marxism) Very different things.

Of all the times you, mac, and few others have argued with me about socialism, i think you had a blond moment

You may want to go back and check if you actually understood what he wrote

Mac he state he was going on about Marxism. Not Socialism... which i still dont see how both are the same

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

but a conservative who disagrees with a liberal is a bigot?

Now whose playing the victim card. A person, liberal or conservative or something in between, that makes derogatory comments about a person based on his or her sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation can be considered a bigot. It's not simply disagreeing that causes it. In this case, you made a derogatory comment against Representative Frank based his sexual orientation. It was fair to criticize his campaign contributions, but to attack him based on sexual orientation. Do you guys understand that comments like this tend to turn people against you?

Hell, I criticize him a further real quick He was the one that said Freddie and Fannie were in great shape and "successfully" opposed President Bush's efforts to regulate the GSEs. Now Fanfaron will is thinking something to the dumbass effect of "Make up your mind? Is eeeeevil banks or the government?" despite the fact that I said they both share blame (but pointed out some the dodgy financial products were unrelated...)

Now, could I be called homophobic for criticizing Rep. Frank for disagreeing with him and his foolish positions on the issue? No, I didn't attack his sexual orientation like you did. See how this works, now? No? Didn't think so. You're too busy playing the victim card because I pointed out the homophobia in your comments to see it. Halfway sensible people can discern the difference, however.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Of all the times you, mac, and few others have argued with me about socialism, i think you had a blond moment

Hardly. In that particular instance I was reminding him of what he actually said. Other times, I was trying unsuccessfully to get to him to demonstrate that he knows anything about Socialism, the various forms of it, etc. He can't do that, because he doesn't know. I wonder if he even knows what he had for breakfast this morning, probably not.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Mac he state he was going on about Marxism. Not Socialism... which i still dont see how both are the same

Good, now please read the rest of his post.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

....how the hell do opinions=fact, how the fuck does that work AT ALL?.....

Opinions are expressions or interpretations of prospective fact(s).

Opinions can become fact only when enough people can collectively agree those opinions are true & verifiable.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Opinions can become fact only when enough people can collectively agree those opinions are true & verifiable.

how.
does.
that.
make.
any.
sense.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

In this case, you made a derogatory comment against Representative Frank based his sexual orientation.

Nope, that interpretation was hatched within your own mind. My expression was on how he speaks (he does lisp--not because he's gay, but because he has a legitimate speech impediment), & he uses certain hand gestures when he speaks--or haven't you ever noticed--not because he's gay but because it's simply what he does. You made it a derogatory, I didn't.

Matter-in-Factly, I crossed it out & replaced it with another adjective you silly savage!

I simply left it there to see how long it would take before you got your panties all in a wad!

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Opinions can become fact only when enough people can collectively agree those opinions are true & verifiable.

how.
does.
that.
make.
any.
sense.

In other words, he thinks lies become truer the more people believe them ( now where did we hear that before? ). Somebody better tell him that reality doesn't give a flying rat's ass about what people believe or how many people agree on whatever nonsense.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Opinions can become fact only when enough people can collectively agree those opinions are true & verifiable.

how.
does.
that.
make.
any.
sense.

In other words, he thinks lies become truer the more people believe them ( now where did we hear that before? ). Somebody better tell him that reality doesn't give a flying rat's ass about what people believe or how many people agree on whatever nonsense.

You're worse than 'Coon....does the word VERIFIABLE mean anything to you????? Or don't you read either???

What's considered true must be verified true before it can be considered a fact, & more than mere opinion.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

What's considered true must be verified true before it can be considered a fact.

undeniable solid proof that cant be refuted.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Other times, I was trying unsuccessfully to get to him to demonstrate that he knows anything about Socialism, the various forms of it, etc. He can't do that, because he doesn't know.

If he was the few it was we ALL tried (failed) to show him the subtle differences.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

What's considered true must be verified true before it can be considered a fact.

undeniable solid proof that cant be refuted.

Exactly, just like....just like Global Warming.........oooppps..........Climate Change---------settled science,,I think, well it is, isnt it?!

Thread over. Smiley and Fanfaron fail, without even realizing it. If only it was that simple. Fanfaron said it wasn't as simple as the "evil banks" and I agreed, but gave the name of why it wasn't that simple (crony capitalism as well has how it works) and said it was idiotic* and SF was kind enough to show how Rep. Frank was getting massive donations from Wall Street, thus helping to prove the crony capitalism.

Let me repeat this as simply as I can for simple-minded with poor memories like Fanfaron. Yes, the CRA (the link is the full text of the law) did happen. However, unsound loans were a violation of the Act, note Section 802 (B). Therefore, the unsound loans were, in fact, in violation of the law. Breaking the law was the bank's fault. The GSEs were required to absorb the bad loans, so the financial institutions didn't collapse - the government's fault. The GSEs themselves were not properly regulation and backed derivatives with the poor loans, again the government's fault. In 1999, the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed as President Clinton and Congress give into pressure from the financial institutions - the government's fault. This opened the floodgates to other unsound financial practices by Wall Street that had nothing to do with CRA (and was rounded criticized by many economists.) ** In 2008, the whole thing collapsed like a deck of cards. In response, President Bush and Congress bailed out the banks - the government's fault. What they were trying to do is advert Great Depression 2. The banks still tightened credit and didn't do what they were supposed to do with the money, hence the economy continued to deteriorate- the banks' fault. How is this hard?

I do have experience working for JP Morgan Chase, and this gives a little more insight into this; however, the chain of events is not hard to follow by anyone with at least average intelligence and it's clear that bad decisions from both the Federal Government and the Financial institutions led to the collapse.

* apparently he doesn't remember this, either.
** I just fucking showed this to you, Fanfaron

96% of campaigns in the US with more funding than the opposition win elections, check it.

And look at this quaint confession of the revolving door side of cronyism some like to call american government on the msm:



OUTRAGEOUS! U SEE HOW SHOCKED THE LADIE IZ? CAN I HAZ DEMOCRACIE? YES! NOW IT'S TIME TO GET THAT DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN OUT OF OFFICE BY BOTING!DERPDERPDERPDERP DERP

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

it's clear that bad decisions from both the Federal Government and the Financial institutions led to the collapse.

That is a redundant distinction today. it's like saying fire and hot fire both burn.

Originally posted by xyzoneon:

And look at this quaint confession of the revolving door side of cronyism some like to call american government on the msm:

Clearly that isn't the problem. It's just government regs getting in the way of business

Originally posted by xyzoneon:

That is a redundant distinction today. it's like saying fire and hot fire both burn.

I know, but Fanfaron doesn't seem to understand this.

Just a little more on Fed (talked about from 5:50 in the video), real quick. The banks, do, in fact own the Federal Reserve. The banks invest 3 percent of their capital as stock into the Federal Reserve banks (there are 12 of them) and receive a 6% dividend for their investment per year. They also have five of the twelve voting positions in the Federal Open Market Committee, which regulates the nation’s money supply and sets targets for short-term interest rates. Yes, Righties, it's not "Obama printing money" (quantitative easing, if those words aren't too big for you, which they are ) it's the Fed heavily under the influence of the financial industry. Do you not think the seen remaining voting positions are persuaded by the five held by the banks to get their way?


ps, what now Fan? Obama shits a sufficient quantity of money out his "marxist" ass to cause those imaginary inflationary pressures that Sarah Palin cried wolf about. You probably did forget about ranting about hyperinflation even as the economy contracted, since can't remember from one day to the next. It doesn't occur to you that each and every one of your icons turns out to be wrong beyond comprehension.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Thread over. Smiley and Fanfaron fail, without even realizing it. If only it was that simple. Fanfaron said it wasn't as simple as the "evil banks" and I agreed, but gave the name of why it wasn't that simple (crony capitalism as well has how it works) and said it was idiotic* and SF was kind enough to show how Rep. Frank was getting massive donations from Wall Street, thus helping to prove the crony capitalism.

Let me repeat this as simply as I can for simple-minded with poor memories like Fanfaron.

You're hilarious. Here's why OWS and their supporters are built on a foundation of simple-mindedness:

To the extent that people were merely describing the grisly details of living through what has been the first- or second-lousiest economy since the Great Depression, most of us can empathize (even those of us who made the conscious decision to never incur student debt or buy a house). There is a growing body of economic literature suggesting that higher education is experiencing a price bubble at a time when the job market for graduates is more difficult than usual—though still exponentially better than that for nongraduates. But when unhappiness over the disappointing results of freely made choices spills into policy recommendations, the putative libertarian-progressive alliance breaks down—and the logic of the Occupy Wall Street movement eats its own tail.

The biggest point of commonality between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party is opposition to the federal government’s 2008 bailout of the financial industry. “They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity,” the Declaration complains. “They socialized their own losses on our taxpayer dollars and on our currency and dumped that onto us,” one Occupy Boston protester told video journalist Garrett Quinn. But at the same time, activists are demanding free college educations, holding up “Debt Is Slavery” signs, and asking the rest of us to socialize their losses in the higher education market. All to the applause of a left-of-center commentariat desperate for a Tea Party of its own.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman suggested that “debt relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests” because “such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover.” Salon’s Alex Pareene went further: “My immodest proposal is simply this: Individuals and households in the bottom 99 percent who owe debt to any large financial institution that received federal government support during and after the 2008 crisis should see their debt forgiven.…Let’s wipe the debt of the 99 percent off the books, tell the financial sector to eat it, and get on with our lives.” Wiping out banks’ consumer loan portfolios—including those of banks that did not want but were forced to accept bailout money—would have one guaranteed result: Banks would stop lending money to consumers, which no doubt would trigger a new cycle of activist agitation for more lending to lower-income citizens.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Like a fucking idiot, I went back to find where Fanfaron specifically asked what's wrong with Socialism (not Marxism) Very different things.

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=10721852

Originally posted by fanfaron:

What's wrong with socialism? Why object to being called a "socialist" if you pretty much agree with that viewpoint?

The man doesn't even know what he said two days ago, but less has any knowledge of the subject matter

And you still didn't answer in what ways you specifically disagree with socialism. Going on about the differences between Marxism and socialism is a deflection. Anyway, as the old saying has it, a Marxist is a socialist in a hurry.

(edit)By the way, here's another cold, hard dose of reality:

It’s not the greedy Wall Street bankers who destroyed these people’s hopes. It’s the virtueocracy itself. It’s the people who constructed a benefit-heavy entitlement system whose costs can no longer be sustained. It’s the politicians and union leaders who made reckless pension promises that are now bankrupting cities and states. It’s the socially progressive policy-makers in the U.S. who declared that everyone, even those with no visible means of support, should be able to own a home with no money down, courtesy of their government. In Canada, it’s the social progressives who assure us we can keep on consuming all the health care we want, even as the costs squeeze out other public goods.

The Occupiers are right when they say our system of wealth redistribution is broken. But they’re wrong about what broke it. The richest 1 per cent are not exactly starving out the working poor. (In the U.S., half all income sent to Washington is redistributed to the elderly, sick and disabled, or to those who serve them, and nearly half the country lives in a household that’s getting some sort of government benefit.) The problem is, our system redistributes the wealth from young to old, and from middle-class workers in the private sector to inefficient and expensive unions in the public sector.

Among the biggest beneficiaries of this redistribution is the higher-education industry. In Canada, we subsidize it directly. In the U.S., it’s subsidized by a vast system of student loans, which have allowed colleges to jack up tuition to sky-high levels. U.S. student debt has hit the trillion-dollar mark. Both systems crank out too many sociologists and too few mechanical engineers. These days, even law-school graduates are having trouble finding work. That’s because the supply has increased far faster than the demand.

The voices of Occupy Wall Street... are the voices of the downwardly mobile who are acutely aware of their threatened social status and need someone to blame.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

By the way, here's another cold, hard dose of reality:

A very irrelevant source

Originally posted by fanfaron:

And you still didn't answer in what ways you specifically disagree with socialism.

And why should, when you still don't even know what socialism is nor told me the type of socialism I'm meant to be in agreement with

Originally posted by fanfaron:

(edit)By the way, here's another cold, hard dose of reality:

Huh, unsurprisingly, the article can't can't keep up with what's really happening:
From the Reason Article:

Unintended, consumer-unfriendly consequences are the norm whenever anti–Wall Street sentiment is translated into public policy. The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, for example, required banks to reduce the debit card swipe fees they charge retailers from an average of 44 cents to 24 cents per swipe. The totally predictable result: Bank of America in September announced that it would begin charging its customers $5 a month for the privilege of using a debit...

Ooooops, the banks had to back down from that, so the consumer wins and the small businesses win The banks can go lament their failure and get zero sympathy from anyone. It's not as simple as regulations go into effect and bad things happen. Welcome to a cold, hard dose of reality.

Now clearly, we can't simply wipe the debt of the 99% off the books, but as I've pointed out to you, from the specific examples in my neighborhood, the banks could be more willing to work with consumers. Bank of America is profitable again, posting billions in profit. They can afford to work with people having problems, especially in areas such as this that still have 13% + unemployment. Hell, this will even help them earn back the goodwill of the people, instead of hundreds of thousands leaving them in a single day.

As a fellow 99 percenter summed it up, “I did everything i was supposed to do: went to college, got good grades, participated in sports and clubs, graduated on time. 3 years later i have nothing to show for it.”

Precisely. (In fact, polls show that the protesters, far from being communist bums, are better educated than general public. Is it anyway wonder they're pissed because they did all the right things and get nothing back? Few but the 1% can go to university anymore with aid. Being middle class, one doesn't qualify for Pell Grants and scholarships don't cover everything, so that leaves students. A cartoon posted by SF showed a "good" college student flipping burgers at McDonald's or whatever and apparently is able to open his own business very shortly after leaving college. No. Tuition, books and room and board will eat up the entire 7.25 an hour, part-time paycheck and than some.

Overall, though, the article was pretty fair and even in the video, most of the OWS people were coherent (which a couple exceptions, of course). It does mention an official "declaration" but provides no source for it. However, the quoted preamble is well knowledge fact:

"“Corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth,” the preamble read, “and…no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.” " It's called corporate lobbying

Originally posted by fanfaron:

(edit)By the way, here's another cold, hard dose of reality:

Now this article is irrelevant and stupid.

It’s the people who constructed a benefit-heavy entitlement system whose costs can no longer be sustained. It’s the politicians and union leaders who made reckless pension promises that are now bankrupting cities and states

The entitlement system might need reforming and is adding to the debt, but funny how no economist from the Left, Right nor Center blames entitlements for the economic meltdown. It's a distraction from the core issues.

Now then, you have no answer to my posts on the causes of the meltdown? I'll take that as a white flag of surrender. It's about time you came to your senses

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Now this article is irrelevant and stupid.

Already stated

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Already stated

I know, but he needs things said five or six times before it even begins to penetrate his skull, which I'm being to suspect is constructed of lead.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

A very irrelevant source

More poisoning the well, as in...

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Now this article is irrelevant and stupid.

Calling it so doesn't make it so. OWS is irrelevant and stupid. Can't you people ever do anything to bolster an argument besides trotting out every logical fallacy in existence?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

The entitlement system might need reforming and is adding to the debt

"might"...

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

but funny how no economist from the Left, Right nor Center blames entitlements for the economic meltdown.

Really, I suggest you brush up on your reading skills. The point isn't entitlements per se, but the entitlement mentality.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Now then, you have no answer to my posts on the causes of the meltdown?

What, was it another 20-paragraph copy and paste festival? I must've missed it. Yeah yeah, eeeeevilllle bankers and bonuses screwing over the Little Guy rahrahrah.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Precisely. (In fact, polls show that the protesters, far from being communist bums, are better educated than general public. Is it anyway wonder they're pissed because they did all the right things and get nothing back? Few but the 1% can go to university anymore with aid. Being middle class, one doesn't qualify for Pell Grants and scholarships don't cover everything, so that leaves students.

Precisely. They bitch and moan about their own accumulated debt and want the taxpayers to bail them out while bitching and moaning about banks getting bailouts...which the banks have paid back. It's called "incoherence".

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

"“Corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth,” the preamble read, “and…no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.” " It's called corporate lobbying

Pure moonbat drivel. You cheer this sort of stuff and get your panties all in a bunch when someone calls you a socialist? Oh, that damn "cash nexus"... Which brings me to...

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

And you still didn't answer in what ways you specifically disagree with socialism.

And why should, when you still don't even know what socialism is nor told me the type of socialism I'm meant to be in agreement with

Give it your very best shot. Come on. Let's see....you are in favor of private ownership of business but with very stringent governmental controls in place. There's a word for that, too.

Here I'll change what I said, so my post isn't as redundant to what Virusboy said

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Now this article is irrelevant and stupid.

The author of the post is such a fuckwit that she didn't notice (from numerous sources) that the percentage of the nations wealth held by the richest one increased to a record high, possibly as high 70% according to sources and not to the public sector unions. She's just another asinine random blogger whose posts are totally out of sync with what pretty much every economist would tell. Did you notice, Fanfaron, that I post information from eminent economists from both sides of the political spectrum and you post fanciful bullshit by bloggers? No, there hasn't been massive wealth redistribution to public unions Her only salient point is that our universities don't crank out enough engineers and such, but in this economy most those wouldn't be working in their fields, either.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

The author of the post is such a fuckwit that she didn't notice (from numerous sources)...

And you're a poopoo head! Teehee...

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

that the percentage of the nations wealth held by the richest one increased to a record high, possibly as high 70% according to sources and not to the public sector unions.

How is that relevant when it comes to government spending and debt? It. Isn't. So what percentage would you suggest? That all levels of wealth should be equal? Come on, I want some specifics. I want some sense of limit.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

No, there hasn't been massive wealth redistribution to public unions.

You have GOT to be kidding me. Do a little research and tell me how many millionaires actually earned their money. Then tell me exactly how SEIU gets the money it does.

Bud, you are totally clueless. You don't know what "redistribution" means.

(edit) I did a little quick research for you.

Roughly 80 percent of millionaires in America are the first generation of their family to be rich. They didn't inherit their wealth; they earned it. How? According to a recent survey of the top 1 percent of American earners, slightly less than 14 percent were involved in banking or finance.

Roughly a third were entrepreneurs or managers of nonfinancial businesses. Nearly 16 percent were doctors or other medical professionals.

Lawyers made up slightly more than 8 percent, and engineers, scientists and computer professionals another 6.6 percent.

Sports and entertainment figures — the folks flying in on their private jets to express solidarity with Occupy Wall Street — composed almost 2 percent.

By and large, the wealthy have worked hard for their money. NYU sociologist Dalton Conley says that "higher-income folks work more hours than lower-wage earners do."

Because so much of their income is tied up in investments, the recession has hit the rich especially hard. Much attention has been paid recently to a Congressional Budget Office study that showed incomes for the top 1 percent rose far faster from 1980 until 2007 than for the rest of us. But the nonpartisan Tax Foundation has found that since 2007, there has been a 39 percent decline in the number of American millionaires.

Among the "super-rich," the decline has been even sharper: The number of Americans earning more than $10 million a year has fallen by 55 percent. In fact, while in 2008 the top 1 percent earned 20 percent of all income here, that figure has declined to just 16 percent. Inequality in America is declining.

As for not paying their fair share, the top 1 percent pay 36.7 percent of all federal income taxes. Because, as noted above, they earn just 16 percent of all income, that certainly seems like more than a fair share. ...

And let us not forget the fact that the rich provide the investment capital that funds ventures, creates jobs and spurs innovation. The money that the rich save and invest is the money that companies use to start or expand businesses, buy machinery and other physical capital and hire workers.

It has become fashionable to ridicule the idea of the rich as "job creators," but if the rich don't create jobs, who will? How many workers have been hired recently by the poor?

No doubt dishonest or unscrupulous businessmen have gotten rich by taking advantage of others. And few of us are likely to lose much sleep over the plight of the rich.

But shouldn't public policy be based on something more than class warfare, envy and stereotypes?

Here.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Pure moonbat drivel. You cheer this sort of stuff and get your panties all in a bunch when someone calls you a socialist? Oh, that damn "cash nexus"... Which brings me to...

Oh I see. Those corporate lobbyists are the figment of everyone's imagination, including our "Representatives" that receive the money. Smiley said as much when he posted donations that Rep. Frank received. I guess he's a Leftist Moonbat (tm) as well.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

.you are in favor of private ownership of business but with very stringent governmental controls in place. There's a word for that, too.

And it isn't Socialism. See? I told you you didn't know what Socialism is Is ownership of means of production an unfamiliar concept to you?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

which the banks have paid back.

Actually no. Some of the higher profile banks such as Bank of America and Chase have paid the money back, but most of them have not

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Really, I suggest you brush up on your reading skills. The point isn't entitlements per se, but the entitlement mentality.

Oh I stand corrected. Just having the mentality caused the problems, instead the actual actions of the banks and government, regardless of the actual data. It makes so much more sense now

Originally posted by fanfaron:

t has become fashionable to ridicule the idea of the rich as "job creators," but if the rich don't create jobs, who will? How many workers have been hired recently by the poor?

No doubt dishonest or unscrupulous businessmen have gotten rich by taking advantage of others. And few of us are likely to lose much sleep over the plight of the rich.

But shouldn't public policy be based on something more than class warfare, envy and stereotypes?

It's not the rich in general that are under such harsh criticism. It's the Wall Street bankers. I don't fault somebody that built up a business and works hard and becomes rich as a result.

Oh yeah, from the article:

If you listen to President Obama, the protesters at Occupy Wall Street, and much of the media, it's obvious. They're either "trust-fund babies" who inherited their money, or greedy bankers and hedge-fund managers. Certainly, they haven't worked especially hard for their money. While the recession has thrown millions of Americans out of work, they've been getting even richer. Worse, they don't even pay their fair share in taxes: Millionaires and billionaires are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.

In reality, each of these stereotypes is wrong.

Not mention Warren Buffet noticing his secretary's paycheck...

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Pure moonbat drivel. You cheer this sort of stuff and get your panties all in a bunch when someone calls you a socialist? Oh, that damn "cash nexus"... Which brings me to...

Oh I see. Those corporate lobbyists are the figment of everyone's imagination, including our "Representatives" that receive the money. Smiley said as much when he posted donations that Rep. Frank received. I guess he's a Leftist Moonbat (tm) as well.

Yes, he's a moonbat but more than that he's a hypocrite, as is much of the Democratic party with their populist tripe.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

.you are in favor of private ownership of business but with very stringent governmental controls in place. There's a word for that, too.

And it isn't Socialism. See? I told you you didn't know what Socialism is Is ownership of means of production an unfamiliar concept to you?

No, you see, that's more like "fascism". Ever heard of it?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

which the banks have paid back.

Actually no. Some of the higher profile banks such as Bank of America and Chase have paid the money back, but most of them have not

Actually, yes. Maybe you should look at that chart you posted and tell me who heads the list.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Oh I stand corrected. Just having the mentality caused the problems, instead the actual actions of the banks and government, regardless of the actual data.

WHAT data?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Yes, he's a moonbat but more than that he's a hypocrite, as is much of the Democratic party with their populist tripe

I always knew we could agree on something (on the bit about the Democrats. I'm not sure Smiley is actually a moonbat, if you can extend the term beyond "over-zealous" Leftists. He does get carried away a lot. Yeah, I see liberal proposals that I think are out there...like a plan on Commondreams.org to raise gas prices to 4.20 beyond the market price. Jesus, how badly to they want to introduce inflation and.or layoffs into the economy, and personally, I don't want to pay double for gas as I drive 45 minutes down the freeway to get to work. 80 bucks a week to fill up my smallish crossover SUV, no thanks )

Originally posted by fanfaron:

No, you see, that's more like "fascism". Ever heard of it?

Yup. Like Mussolini said, it's a collusion of state and corrupt power... But in true fascism, the state usually doesn't known the means of production. (No, I'm not saying the US is a Fascist state, but the corruption has created elements of fascism-lite)

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Actually, yes. Maybe you should look at that chart you posted and tell me who heads the list.

I bloody well know the GSEs do. What's the point? I criticized them worse than I did specific private banks. In fact, the question has to be begged, should those GSEs exist at all. Ending them all at once would add more to the economic chaos, but perhaps they can be wound down. On that question, I really don't know. That's something I'll need to look into.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

WHAT data?

There's your memory issue, again. Go see a neurologist, not for me, but for yourself. Or maybe you just don't get enough sleep?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Yup. Like Mussolini said, it's a collusion of state and corrupt power... But in true fascism, the state usually doesn't known the means of production. (No, I'm not saying the US is a Fascist state, but the corruption has created elements of fascism-lite)

No, you see, economic fascism is private ownership, government control. Much like you advocate. It has nothing to do with red-herring "corruption", but with control.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

I bloody well know the GSEs do. What's the point?

The point is that TARP funds were paid back.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

There's your memory issue, again. Go see a neurologist, not for me, but for yourself. Or maybe you just don't get enough sleep?

Nope, everything's hunkydory.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

No, you see, economic fascism is private ownership, government control.

Ah, back to liberals are fascists rubbish. I'm not saying government control. I'm saying bring back those measures such as Glass-Steagall that have worked well for decades. Wise regulation does not equal fascism.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

The point is that TARP funds were paid back.

Yes, some were. I told that myself when discussed the auto industry in the Teaparty thread. The point is that you keep saying the banks paid back their TARP money and strictly speaking, that isn't true (in fact, much of what was "paid back" was done so in equities, not actual money returned to the taxpayers.) So far, the outflow is 586,000,000,000 and $279,000,000,000 has been returned. Your article is either deceptive or the author has poor journalism skills (but what do you expect from a site whose main job is to sell you credit scores and get you signed up for credit cards )

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I offer no apology for what I own, or how much I'm worth on paper,

What's that? A dime?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

OWS can kiss my scrawny lil butt-----& like it!

Yup, scrawny because you can't afford food, being worth a dime. Troll on.

Why can't we all get along? RK

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Why can't we all get along? RK

I agree - this feuding is beyond funny now.

Let's have a bit more and less

Originally posted by string:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Why can't we all get along? RK

I agree - this feuding is beyond funny now.

Let's have a bit more and less

Leave them be, they provide an interesting case study of Americanism for us from across the pond.

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

Leave them be, they provide an interesting case study of Americanism for us from across the pond

I always knew we were useful somehow Now allow to be some strident at this time.

Burn, GOP, burn!

The Hangover: One Year After Electing GOP, Voters Reject Their Ideas

Dateline 2010. People are frustrated with two plus years of economic stagnation. Washington is a fractious place that seems to be ensnared in an endless fight with a broken record of the stale talking points.

That business in Ohio of stripping public workers of their collective bargaining rights, struck down by 22 percent.

In Arizona, state Sen. Russell Pearce, the architect behind the strict new Arizona law that allows law enforcement to ask citizens about their immigration status, appears to have lost in a recall election to a fellow Republican who has a less stringent position on the issue.

And perhaps the most surprising result of last night on its face is the vote on the “personhood” question in Mississippi, which put the spotlight on abortion in a deeply red state. Yet, the inititiative failed by 16 points. But there was also a blatant political effort within the proposal as well — as TPM’s Eric Kleefled wrote, the idea was clearly in conflict with Roe v. Wade, setting up an all but certain constitutional challenge. So Mississippi may have taken the cake by proposing both a politically charged idea along with aiming it at the Supreme Court during an election year.

Election day 2011 said one thing. The keys to government in the midst of a sharp economic decline have focused Americans tightly on jobs and the economy, which pols purport to know. But it seems that some Republicans thought Americans could take a mixture of partisan politics with messaging about jobs. It seems that thesis failed

Seems to the tide has turned away from the GOP.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-buzz/post/occupy-the-highway-occupy-wall-street-travels-to-occupy-dc-on-foot/2011/10/31/gIQAXaGl5M_blog.html

‘Occupy the Highway’: Occupy Wall Street travels to Occupy D.C. on foot



Yup, the Occupy movement is marching from New York to DC on foot.

The timeline is as follows:

11/9/11: Liberty Square to Elizabeth, NJ
11/10/11: Elizabeth, NJ to New Brunswick, NJ
11/11/11: New Brunswick, NJ to Trenton, NJ
11/12/11: Trenton, NJ to Andalusia, PA
11/13/11: Andalusia, PA to Occupy Philly
11/14/11: DAY OFF AT OCCUPY PHILLY
11/15/11: Occupy Philly to Wilmington, DE
11/16/11: Wilmington, DE to Newark, DE
11/17/11: Newark, DE to Rising Sun, MD
11/18/11: Rising Sun, MD to Bel Air, MD
11/19/11: Bel Air, MD to Occupy Baltimore
11/20/11: DAY OFF AT OCCUPY BALTIMORE
11/21/11: Occupy Baltimore to Laurel, MD
11/22/11: Laurel, MD to Occupy DC
11/23/11: Occupy DC to The White House for Super Committee meeting

Now why end at the Super Committee meeting? Some have given feedback to go occupy Congress, so they are

Protesting outside the business deal called the super committee is a nice touch, just too bad those obese, pink animals in top hats are going to sell whatever is left of the country, anyway.

Oh, and the bank transfer day was nice, as well. So nice that banks are starting to create banks exclusive to rich people. People only go to jail when they steal from the rich, so a mass bernie madoff episode would be a great outcome. Well, we can hope, for now.

Originally posted by string:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Why can't we all get along? RK

I agree - this feuding is beyond funny now.

Let's have a bit more and less

It's the forum section name that's causing the problems. Change it to Stepford.

Originally posted by xyzoneon:

Protesting outside the business deal called the super committee is a nice touch, just too bad those obese, pink animals in top hats are going to sell whatever is left of the country, anyway.

Just a little about the Super Corruption Committee:

The Money Behind the Mediators: Profiles of the Debt Supercommittee

In August 2011, President Barack Obama signed into law the Budget Control Act, which raised the debt ceiling of the United States and called for the creation of a new congressional committee tasked with producing legislation to reduce the national deficit by $1.5 trillion. This new group is officially known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. Unofficially, it's been dubbed the "super Congress" or "Supercommittee." Whatever you call it, it's going to be the target of a lobbying bonanza, as special interest groups work to keep their pet projects off the chopping block. Below, OpenSecrets.org helps you explore the money-in-politics connections that each of the 12 members of this Supercommittee bring to the table. And go here to learn more about the call for transparency in the supercommittee's work.

From here, you can click each member to their top contributers by industry and specific contributers.

OWS protesters interrupted a speech by Bachmann. Ironically, in that speech she said one of the few intelligent things to come out of her mouth this campaign season:

Originally posted by Michelle Bachmann:

"There are those in this race who will pander and say that they will reduce spending in every part of the budget, but the military," Bachmann said.

"But I am here to tell you the truth that even our military's budget must be examined for places where we can do more or at least the same with less."

Oh crap, I said the same thing She wants the 600 Billion in military cuts to stay in place, but those are threatened by the Super Corruption, which, in theory, is supposed to find ways to reduce the deficit or at least keep it from growing as fast.

We need that fucking revolution right about now.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

My hatred burns through the cavernous deeps. The world heaves with my torment. Its wretched kingdoms quake beneath my rage...
But at last...
The whole of Azeroth will break...
...And all will burn beneath the shadow of my wings...

Nah, just feed the current bunch in Washington to Deathwing.



Either that or have campaign finance reform, reduce corporate influence in Washington, better regulations (Of course, doing that would make us socialists or fascists, Fanfaron can't decide which)

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by Michelle Bachmann:

"There are those in this race who will pander and say that they will reduce spending in every part of the budget, but the military," Bachmann said.

"But I am here to tell you the truth that even our military's budget must be examined for places where we can do more or at least the same with less."

Oh crap, I said the same thing

If it happens less than once a month it's stopped clock syndrome. If it happens more often you better see a doctor, or an exorcist

It seems the military is sacrosanct. There is no need for such an intolerable burden on resources except a false assumption that it must be everywhere in the world to protect America. It has been the biggest financial con landed on the American people and there is no practical defence of it at all. It is gross and ridiculous. How anyone can rationally argue for 200 odd military places around the globe borders on meglamania and and over indulgent glorification. If they redcued that massive millstone round the nation's neck the country wouldn't be any less protected. Considering many terrorists these days often turn out to be citizens emphasises we are in a different world. Indeede the more the military is allowed to run around as wars and situations are created to show that "we need massive defence" the more trouble is brought onto the country.

It is time to start thinking nearer home and stop conjuring up fears and excuses to spend half the world's military expenditures whe things are sto trying and fifficult for many people. Even many of the ex-veterans are caught up in the financial meltdown so this only emphaises the situation all round. Just think how shrinking that un-needed budget could help the economy and millions of people who have done their bit and supported the country with their taxes, work and loyalty. Its is a toss up as to whether the military nonsense or the financial barons are the danger to America.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Nah, just feed the current bunch in Washington to Deathwing.

Nah just send Slyvanas or even better, Arthas......

That's gotta hurt

By Russia Today? - It's payback time.

The original video is floating on youtube but I couldn't find a version that wasn't worse quality or didn't have "nazi pigs" in the title, and I don't really like that. And I think these students should just keep their mouth shut and take the beating. Personally hating on these grunts is pointless and counterproductive.

Why is it that so many of us outside of the USA see so much of your police giving the impression they look for a fight and relish doing what is in the video clip?

Most of NYPD have the view of OWS as terrorism.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

It seems the military is sacrosanct. There is no need for such an intolerable burden on resources except a false assumption that it must be everywhere in the world to protect America.

It doesn't occur to the big penis guns people that it truly isn't necessary for us to spend double as percentage of GDP on the military. It would be disruptive to slash the military by half all at once, but ease it down over a period of years. How much of the military budget actually goes to crony capitalism as opposed to actually protecting the soldiers anyway (like the price of Navy submarines tripling in the three years, etc)

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Nah just send Slyvanas or even better, Arthas......

Lady Slyvanas would be more fun. She's more creative with her torture.

Deep down, most cops are decent. In this video, the protesters come in to close their accounts. One is holding a sign, but is otherwise sitting quietly in the lobby waiting for her turn. The manager calls the cops. At 3:11 the manager locks the door. Around 3:15 the cop arrives and seems a little baffled about why he was called.


Of course, the meantime, the banks actions give the protesters more ammunition to protest with. The banks are scared.

Part of SF's sig is "When the people fear the government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people there is liberty." Which is true, just old Tom Jefferson couldn't foresee all this shit going down. He was trying to create a republic, not a crony capitalism infested Plutocracy. *


*Hyperbole? No, here's the leaked Citibank memo on how to protect the plutonomy, a word coined by Citibank itself. Yes, Citi was bailed out by the taxpayers x_x

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Lady Slyvanas would be more fun. She's more creative with her torture.

Or we we could just send Garrosh, then everyone will be to scared to be greedy.

Hrmmm, Garrosh will probably just be violent. He lacks the devious intellect of the Banshee Queen. I still think she'll be more fun.

Yep. she would be the best. Then just to screw with everyone we'll have alexstraza mingle in DC

True:

Originally posted by Alexstraza :

This is my gift: compassion for all living things. A drive to protect and nurture them. And the ability to heal that which others cannot, birth what others may not, and love even the unlovable--who surely need such grace more than any other souls. - Blessing of the Red Aspect

Since our "leaders" are clearly zombies, there's little reason for her to have compassion for them over us.

Meanwhile, police in Portland threaten protesters:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/police-occupy-protesters-head-for-ore-showdown-nearly-2-dozen-arrested-elsewhere/2011/11/13/gIQAuAp7GN_story.html

Some officers used nightsticks to push people away from the encampment and used loudspeakers to warn that anyone who resisted risked arrest and “may also be subject to chemical agents and impact weapons.” Demonstrators chanted “we are a peaceful protest.”

Police could be seen carrying at least one protester away from the park. Another man was taken away on a stretcher; he was alert and talking to paramedics, and raised a peace sign to fellow protesters, who responded with cheers. There was no immediate word on arrests.

“We were talking about what we were going to do and then they just started hitting people. Seems like a waste of resources to me,” protester Mike Swain, 27, told The Associated Pres.

A complete timeline of the incident can be be found here

Now for people SF, yes in the timeline the protesters started throwing things at the people, but that was after the threats.

There had been a couple deaths in Occupy Oakland, including a shooting (near the protests, so it's still unclear how much that had to with it) and apparent drug overdose, but as what was said in Occupy Salt Lake City, here

Representatives of the ACLU of Utah were in the park to observe the activities of police as the park was cleared. Acting legal director Joe Cohn said the ACLU had concerns about "unnecessary restrictions on First Amendment activities."

While he understood the health and safety concerns raised by the police chief and city officials, Cohn said, "We must ask, if someone died of an overdose at the homeless shelter, would they be closing the homeless shelter?

The overdose in OO seems like an excuse. Interestingly enough, a councilman in Salt Lake City said he was disappointed to see the park cleared.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Now for people SF, yes in the timeline the protesters started throwing things at the people, but that was after the threats. ...

There had been a couple deaths in Occupy Oakland, including a shooting (near the protests, so it's still unclear how much that had to with it) and apparent drug overdose...

Representatives of the ACLU of Utah were in the park to observe the activities of police as the park was cleared. Acting legal director Joe Cohn said the ACLU had concerns about "unnecessary restrictions on First Amendment activities."
... The overdose in OO seems like an excuse. Interestingly enough, a councilman in Salt Lake City said he was disappointed to see the park cleared.

In other words, the thing is dissolving into the predicted farce. The political influence of this junk will be practically nil.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

In other words, the thing is dissolving into the predicted farce. The political influence of this junk will be practically nil.

Nah. Maybe the should take a break for a while, though. The real political influence is already there, ie getting a strong turnout on Tuesday to defeat strident tp/GOP measures. The real political influence is getting the public aware of issues and out to vote, not more crony politics such as the tp giving "conservative" pols the thumbs up or down. Farce is the wrong word. It's not funny at all to have the police show up and threaten a peaceful crowd with tear gas and "impact weapons."

One thing I've been interested in for a few days is the actual crime rate among the protesters vs the general population. You get this many people in one place and you will have crime and therefore the MSM has something to report to make the protesters look bad. But where's the actual data?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Farce is the wrong word. It's not funny at all to have the police show up and threaten a peaceful crowd with tear gas and "impact weapons."

The answer itself is farcical. You have rapes, shootings and overdoses in these fetid tent cities and then you blame the cops.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

One thing I've been interested in for a few days is the actual crime rate among the protesters vs the general population. You get this many people in one place...

You never judged the TP by that standard.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

The answer itself is farcical. You have rapes, shootings and overdoses in these fetid tent cities and then you blame the cops.

Yes, you have the cops telling people that if the wish to be arrested, keep sitting peacefully. Clearly it's the protesters' fault... (read the full article if you hadn't already. The cops actually said that x_x )

Originally posted by fanfaron:

You never judged the TP by that standard.

Of course not. The TP was always boasting about its influence on particular candidates and claiming victory if that candidate happened to win, so that's the standard for success they set up form themselves. If I did judge the TP by same standard, they would come off as horrible failures given recent electoral events. If you really want me to judge to the TP by the same standard, you'll wish to God you hadn't.

I'll solidify my post real quick. Right now, the press has become about the clashes with the police, which are negative and cause a negative impact in popular opinion. Therefore, the OWS should pull up their tents, at least in areas that have been occupied for a long time, such as Oakland. The overall positive message is being lost. Hence, why I said to take a break from actual occupying. Instead, keep the message alive through social media and occupy occasionally but for a day or two.

However, the police showing up in riot to deal with peaceful protests and threating to tear gas the crowd (or actually doing that in Oakland and other places) sounds more like what you would expect out of Red China and other totalitarian nations than the US, where we have free speech and the right to assemble.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

The answer itself is farcical. You have rapes, shootings and overdoses in these fetid tent cities and then you blame the cops.

Yes, you have the cops telling people that if the wish to be arrested, keep sitting peacefully. Clearly it's the protesters' fault... (read the full article if you hadn't already. The cops actually said that x_x )

Yeah, right. The heavy hand of The Man was on those poor Occupiers from Day One. Get outta here. There weren't clashes with police until the protesters started crossing the line.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

You never judged the TP by that standard.

Of course not. The TP was always boasting about its influence on particular candidates and claiming victory if that candidate happened to win, so that's the standard for success they set up form themselves. If I did judge the TP by same standard, they would come off as horrible failures given recent electoral events. If you really want me to judge to the TP by the same standard, you'll wish to God you hadn't.

No, you see, you and your moonbat brethren were going on about how utterly lawless and antisocial the TP was, even when evidence of actual wrongdoing was non-existent. Now that there is ample evidence of beyond-the-pale behavior on the part of those sacred Occupiers, it's the cops' fault. See how that fundamental dishonesty works?

Now as for electoral politics, if those Occupiers can get a Congress AND statehouses loaded with fellow travelers, you'll be onto something. Until then it's just a bunch of overgrown adolescents wallowing in their own filth in public parks. And their numbers are actually fairly small. I've seen it first hand in various places.

OK
Fanfaron, grow up. while yes the protesters are demostrating peacefully The majority have no idea why they are there.


Also, from a very smart writer.

Originally posted by The Economist:

WOULD a Mitt Romney administration register any differently on the conservatism meter than a Rick Perry administration, or for that matter a Herman Cain administration? Peter Beinart argues that it wouldn't, and I agree. My colleague argues that it would, and I agree too. How's that? Well, here's Mr Beinart's key paragraph: “It doesn’t matter all that much what Romney really believes, or whether he believes much of anything. Romney will be a very conservative president because that’s the only kind of president a Republican can be these days. Once upon a time, there was a species in Washington called the moderate Republican. Such creatures served in the administrations of Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon. A few hung on long enough to serve under George H.W. Bush. They backed abortion rights and environmental regulation. They thought government spending on infrastructure was good for business. They believed labor unions were a legitimate part of America’s capitalist system. They supported raising taxes if that’s what balanced budgets required. If you look hard, you can still find such beings. They’re like typewriters, fun to look at, but too antiquated to be of much use. Even if Mitt Romney wanted to stock his government with moderate Republicans who believe in seriously regulating the industries that their agencies oversee, he wouldn’t be able to find them.” I can't find much to disagree with here. One of the more amusing scenes in the generally excellent HBO movie version of Andrew Ross Sorkin's "Too Big to Fail" comes when Hank Paulson, the Treasury secretary, and Neel Kashkari, his assistant secretary, try to explain the too-big-to-fail financial institution problem to the department's press secretary, Michele Davis, who exclaims, "Then why weren't they regulated?!" The funny part is that it's impossible to imagine a senior Republican staffer at such a meeting in 2008 saying something like that. The press secretary speaks the line because she's a stand-in for the audience, who are supposed to be wondering the same thing, but it's politically implausible. My colleague, however, writes: “Surely Messrs Romney and Perry would call upon some of the same people, especially in cases in which personnel decisions are outsourced to the GOP apparatus. But this is a big country, and Messrs Romney and Perry are very different kinds of conservatives with very different backgrounds from very different places. I would expect a Perry administration (as unrealistic as that now seems) to teem with Texans, supply-side ideologues, and socially conservative GOP apparatchiks with southern accents. I would expect a Romney administration to abound in private-sector paladins, go-getting Mormon McKinsey types, and more academically mainstream conservative economic advisers. Messrs Romney and Perry surely have very different Rolodexes, and the most-called-upon people in their Rolodexes also probably have very different Rolodexes. The "real" Mitt Romney is constituted by his extended network of political allies and advisers. It seems to me just bizarre to think that Mr Romney's network is so similar to Mr Perry's or Mr Cain's that there would be no politically meaningful difference in the culture or content of their administrations.” I can't find much to disagree with here either. But I also don't really think there's much of a clash between these two views. A Romney administration would likely involve a significantly different flavour of conservatism from a Perry administration, and would entail different alliances, recruit different people, and focus on different issues; but I doubt it would be any less conservative along a simple single-axis measurement. By way of analogy, a Republican president elected in 2000 who wasn't a Southern evangelical like George W. Bush might not have launched a multi-billion-dollar global effort to fight HIV/AIDS that involved massive funding for faith-based organisations and strict mandates for increased abstinence promotion and anti-prostitution campaigns. But it's hard to argue that the PEPFAR programme wasn't "conservative". My colleague cites Daniel Larison's claim that Mr Bush "presented himself as a conservative while arguably governing farther to the left than anyone, including his father, in the previous thirty years." There's a big difference between "arguable" and "convincing". Mr Larison pins his characterisation of Mr Bush as a leftist on his "expansion of the federal role in education", presumably through the "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) law, and his expansion of the "welfare state", presumably with Medicare Part D. Neither of these moves were particularly non-conservative, unless you come from Mr Larison's emphatically anti-federalist branch of conservatism: NCLB is based on a traditionally conservative emphasis on test scores and teaching "the basics", while Medicare Part D was a massive government giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry. Most conservatives themselves didn't see them as non-conservative until Mr Bush became unpopular in 2006 and the self-serving narrative began to coalesce that his failure was due to insufficient ideological purity. Mr Larison might justifiably consider the dramatic expansion of the security state over the past decade to be a violation of conservative principles, but the majority of self-described conservatives in America don't see it that way. Anyway, if Mr Larison's point boils down to a claim that, pace Mr Beinart, a Romney administration might prove no more conservative than that of George W. Bush, then I think Mr Beinart would consider his point taken.

Honestly, fanboy, you need to stop supporting people who sense cause of the amount of money they "gave" the poor. i didn't see any of it.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

OK
Fanfaron, grow up. while yes the protesters are demostrating peacefully The majority have no idea why they are there.

Honestly, fanboy, you need to stop supporting people who sense cause of the amount of money they "gave" the poor. i didn't see any of it.

I'm trying to figure out what both those sentences mean.

OK since thinking is not for you Ill dumb it down.


The protesting supporters have no idea yea the OWS are protesting for.
Stop acting like the billionaires ideas are better due to the amount of money they have. Bandwagon jumping seems to be your thing...

Originally posted by fanfaron:

No, you see, you and your moonbat brethren were going on about how utterly lawless and antisocial the TP was, even when evidence of actual wrongdoing was non-existent.

It seems that Virusboy and myself play the same game Maybe you can sign up as a troll

Originally posted by Virusboy:

One of the more amusing scenes in the generally excellent HBO movie version of Andrew Ross Sorkin's "Too Big to Fail" comes when Hank Paulson, the Treasury secretary, and Neel Kashkari, his assistant secretary, try to explain the too-big-to-fail financial institution problem to the department's press secretary, Michele Davis, who exclaims, "Then why weren't they regulated?!"

Because government regulation is fascism. Just ask Fanfaron, unless he forgets saying that, which is very likely. The funny thing is that the Economist veers Conservative, itself, but being British based, it's more genuinely conservative than the moonbats we have here.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Most conservatives themselves didn't see them as non-conservative until Mr Bush became unpopular in 2006 and the self-serving narrative began to coalesce that his failure was due to insufficient ideological purity.

Now they're considered liberal by "conservatives" who would likely would have called Reagan himself a socialist or fascist, if they can make up their "minds" on what "liberals" are.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Now that there is ample evidence of beyond-the-pale behavior on the part of those sacred Occupiers, it's the cops' fault. See how that fundamental dishonesty works?

See how a timeline works? The protesters sit peacefully, the police show up, the protesters continue to sit peacefully, the police threaten them with tear gas, than some of the protesters act-out a response to police aggression. That is the running timeline. It has nothing to with protesters being "sacred" and everything to do with the facts.

Wanna know something funny? According the Wall Street Journal 68% of millionaires support increasing taxes on themselves. Even so, the pseudo-conservative tea party types call such a tax "class warfare." It's like they're more pro-millionaire than the millionaires themselves are. Maybe the millionaires know that the decision to hire somebody or not depends more on business needs than it does on taxes. The common derogatory term for tax increases on the wealthy is "soak the rich." It seems most the rich want to take a good soaking themselves.

lol @ people clinging to the notion that the MSM will continue dictating the narrative upon public opinion. Maybe it will, but certainly not in the long run. The viewers of those news acts, old people will eventually die out. And as far as old lapdogs teaching their pups to be true believers in the establishment, that's going to fall apart when the economy doesn't improve and maybe even gets worse after the next collapse. "Wait a minute, dad, I should vote out leeberals because they're socialists? what does that make the party of cronies of corporations and wall street?" My dad was a Limbaugh listener and I probably would have been parroting this right wing fluff, but then I went to college.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-buzz/post/occupy-the-highway-occupy-wall-street-travels-to-occupy-dc-on-foot/2011/10/31/gIQAXaGl5M_blog.html

‘Occupy the Highway’: Occupy Wall Street travels to Occupy D.C. on foot



Yup, the Occupy movement is marching from New York to DC on foot.

The timeline is as follows:

11/9/11: Liberty Square to Elizabeth, NJ
11/10/11: Elizabeth, NJ to New Brunswick, NJ
11/11/11: New Brunswick, NJ to Trenton, NJ
11/12/11: Trenton, NJ to Andalusia, PA
11/13/11: Andalusia, PA to Occupy Philly
11/14/11: DAY OFF AT OCCUPY PHILLY
11/15/11: Occupy Philly to Wilmington, DE
11/16/11: Wilmington, DE to Newark, DE
11/17/11: Newark, DE to Rising Sun, MD
11/18/11: Rising Sun, MD to Bel Air, MD
11/19/11: Bel Air, MD to Occupy Baltimore
11/20/11: DAY OFF AT OCCUPY BALTIMORE
11/21/11: Occupy Baltimore to Laurel, MD
11/22/11: Laurel, MD to Occupy DC
11/23/11: Occupy DC to The White House for Super Committee meeting

Now why end at the Super Committee meeting? Some have given feedback to go occupy Congress, so they are

Well, I wonder if they will.

They started out with a band of between 614-663 (counts from 3 independent sources---people I know who are closely monitoring the protesters, but who are totally unknown to each other, so I know the numbers are valid +/- about 50).

Within 50 miles the numbers dropped by over 70% to less than 140.

When they eventually hit Philly they were all but pressing to hit over 100 (exactly how many was unknown because they split up into 5 small groups outside of Philly---prior to that the numbers were moving up & down erratically, but never totaling more than 120-125 when they were 10 miles out).

They met about 200+ in Philly.



Let's see how many actually make the walk 50 miles out of Philly when the march continues to D.C.

Me thinks Spring would have been a better time to take the hike, but they never were cohesively intelligent anyway, why should they be now.

Smarts never was an OWS strong suit.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Me thinks Spring would have been a better time to take the hike, but they never were cohesively intelligent anyway, why should they be now.

That's difference between the TP and OWS. Spring would be a better hiking time, but unlike the TP, the OWS protests when it needs to be done and not when their fat, suburban asses feel comfy as they bitch about non-existent tax hikes (on the Federal level anyway, in the TP thread it was already pointed out the crises has caused state and local governments to raise taxes and fees, in some cases quit substantially because we have to protect millionaires from the tax hikes that most of them are calling for) .

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

They met about 200+ in Philly.

Yup, lose some, pick some up :shrug: If a group does make it to DC, they'll probably pick up a bunch. Do you even know why they're hiking? Hint: It's something TP seems to agree with and what Sarah Palin herself grew some brains and, in part, spoke against. The OWS, unlike the TP, has some gumption. You mad, bro?

Here's some fuel for the fire. *tosses and runs away*

http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/12700096714/prediction-from-greg-sargent

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Do you even know why they're hiking?

Nope, & neither do they....They think they do, but they don't even have a bloody clue...Mindless zombies!

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

You mad, bro?

Angry, yes, but how did you know?????

At the beach I stayed out too long in the sun, & now I got a freekin' burn on my back.

My fault I know, but it pisses me off to no end---I hate sunburn!

You mad, bro?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Nope, & neither do they....They think they do, but they don't even have a bloody clue...Mindless zombies!

Didn't think you did. You keep saying they don't know they protest, meanwhile your tp protested tax hikes that didn't happen even as most of them received tax cuts under Obama. Mindless zombies.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

At the beach I stayed out too long in the sun, & now I got a freekin' burn on my back.

I see. Here we have plenty experience with sun. Yeah, always drink plenty of water and use sunscreen, otherwise you'll wind up posting things that don't begin to make sense on online forums as your brain cooks

Oh my. Now the New York police have taken to arresting journalists covering the Occupy movement

http://online.wsj.com/article/AP7788a68e595d4722950196f35c6d4e5b.html

Associated Press writer Karen Matthews was taken into custody Tuesday along with AP photographer Seth Wenig and Daily News reporter Matthew Lysiak while covering protests hours after police cleared a park of the main Occupy encampment.

Wall Street Journal reporter Alison Fox saw Matthews and Lysiak being placed in handcuffs. Another AP reporter later saw Matthews and Wenig being removed in a police van.

Freelance radio journalist Julie Walker says she was arrested on disorderly conduct.

Police didn't have a count of how many journalists were arrested and didn't immediately comment.

I'll bet those journalists were being violent and "crossed the line", eh, detractors?

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Here's some fuel for the fire. *tosses and runs away*

http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/12700096714/prediction-from-greg-sargent

Originally posted by Wil Wheaton:

“The greatest hoax of the last couple of decades has been the ability of the right wing to co-opt members of the struggling lower middle class and lower class and pretend they speak for them while enacting policies that enable the super-rich.

Exactly. Distract them with bullshit so they wind up voting against their own self interest. Vote for X Presidential candidate because he's "pro-life?" The president doesn't have much at all do with abortion laws.

Originally posted by Wil Wheaton:

And not that it matters, but the same thing can largely be said of Democrats since the election of 2000. I strongly believe that if Obama and the Democrats had behaved like the populists they claimed to be when they had majorities in both houses of congress, and actually done something to hold these Wall Street criminals accountable, #OWS wouldn’t be necessary.

Instead of being held accountable, the Wall Street criminals got multi-million dollar bonuses for nearly destroying the their firms and taking the rest of the economy down with them. I wonder why people are pissed again?

This is scary, now even Fox is agreeing that You Can't Evict an Idea , after Mayor Bloomberg and police showed up in riot gear to evict sleeping protesters.

This bit of the article might be special interest to our tp friends...

Think what you will about the protests. Maybe they weren’t your cup of tea. But do know that our forefathers who destroyed private property by dumping crates of tea into the Boston Harbor were not initially praised as heroes but attacked as criminals

Yup, that's right. Your role models were considered criminals at the time

Our system is broken. Government serves the interest of big business and big business only serves the interest of a very few, wealthy elites. It’s time to make our economy and our politics work for working people.

Time will tell if the end of occupy camps is upon us, but without a doubt, the larger movement for opportunity in America is just beginning. You can evict hundreds of protesters, but you cannot evict an idea whose time has come.

ZUCCOTTI PARK




All the "protestors" either left peacefully or were removed forcibly---they made the choice.

In the end ALL people "living" &/or "protesting" in Zuccotti Park were gone.

The entire park was washed down & sanitized. The vermin were exterminated. All refuse & remaining debris (tents, blankets, crapster buckets, signs, etc..etc..) was removed & carted to an undisclosed landfill.

Zuccotti Park was deemed clean again.

When people return to the park they will be allowed to freely re-enter via the single, designated entrance.

Anyone wishing to enter the park must enter through this entrance.

There were conditions put on entrance into Zuccotti Park.

No blankets, sleeping bags, cots, etc.. are permitted in the park.

Anyone bringing banned items used for sleeping will have them confiscated.

Public urination & deification will not be permitted in or around the park.

Littering will not be permitted in the park.

Sleeping in the park will not be permitted.

ALL People will be able to come & go at their pleasure.

Police squads will be permanently stationed in & around the park insuring free access to all.

I've been told that officials have decided that if any violence erupts, the park will be immediately cleared, & closed completely until further notice.

I think, if these conditions are enforced, everyone's First Amendment Rights will be preserved, while the health, safety, & property of all citizens will be protected.

Sanity returns.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

All the "protestors" either left peacefully or were removed forcibly---they made the choice.

You missed it, not all those arrested were not even protesters, but were reporters neither living in nor protesting in Zuccotti Park

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/15/officials-journalists-among-those-arrested-during-zuccotti-park-raid/

NEW YORK (CBSNewsYork/AP) – Officials say several journalists were arrested while covering the raid and eviction of Occupy Wall Street protesters from Zuccotti Park on Tuesday.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said the journalists were among 200 who were arrested following the raid.

But the arrest of journalists doesn't seem to be accidental.

The city says police normally keep the press at a distance to protect them.

“The police department routinely keeps members of the press off to the side when they’re in the middle of a police action. It’s to prevent the situation from getting worse and it’s to protect the members of the press,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg said.

So they were arrested for their own protection, yeah I buy that story

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer said he disturbed by the arrests.

“I believe that part of what makes our city great is the tolerance of different opinions and the press’ ability to cover major events,” said Stringer.

Also, it turns out that a city councilmen was picked up in the arrested. This is not sanity. This indiscriminate arrests and infringement of the freedom of the press.

Here we have a cop arresting a journalist, even as the reporter informs of that fact at 2:13

http://gothamist.com/2011/11/15/video_police_arrest_ows_reporter_sc.php

That the NYPD was arresting clearly accredited journalists has pissed off many, and has added fuel to the fire alleging that the police's aggressive anti-media stance was "completely deliberate." Beyond arresting them, it seems that a number of journalists were abused this morning (though "Paul J. Browne, the Police Department’s chief spokesman, said he saw 'nobody' who was manhandled."). Talking to the Times, NY1 reporter Lindsey Christ described the shoving she and others suffered at the hands of the police: "Those 20 minutes were some of the scariest of my life."

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

You missed it, not all those arrested were not even protesters, but were reporters neither living in nor protesting in Zuccotti Park

Wrong place, wrong time I guess.

In the end all will be ironed out.

The park is clean now, & the Occupy is no longer permitted to Occupy.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Wrong place, wrong time I guess.

And you would be wrong. The arrests were deliberate. It doesn't concern you one bit when the police start inventing reasons to arrest journalists? If it doesn't, there's not a constitutional conservative bone in your body. And no, it was just the "liberal media", journalists from the Wall Street Journal were arrested simply for being there.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The park is clean now, & the Occupy is no longer permitted to Occupy.

Oh yeah, almost forget. What part of protest do you understand? Think they really care what they're permitted to do?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

The park is clean now, & the Occupy is no longer permitted to Occupy.

Oh yeah, almost forget. What part of protest do you understand? Think they really care what they're permitted to do?

My point exactly, thank you 'Coony for your brilliant clarification.

They never intended to respect the rule of law as you so boastfully admit.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

When the people fear the government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people there is liberty.

They are in fear of us indeed.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

When the people fear the government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people there is liberty.

They are in fear of us indeed.

Not fear at all.

Compliance with the rule of law does nor require fear.

you of all should know better. they don't arrest journalists for writing lies. So laws are made to keep tyranny, not liberty.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

They never intended to respect the rule of law as you so boastfully admit.

And the NYPD never intended to respect the First Amendment, a somewhat more serious law than "No sleeping in the park." Which is the worse harm, civil disobedience or journalists arrested for reporting the real story of what's happening? I think constitutional liberties being undermined is a little more serious than people sleeping in the park.

Surely you agree, since your Tea Party is all about the Constitution. After all, you guys are so upset that the Affordable Health Care for America Act might have provisions that are unconstitutional so I can only imagine how up in arms you must be over journalists being arrested to prevent then from exercising their First Amendment rights.

It says something negative when journalists are arrested for repoorting on the evnts. However it is not the first time as several months ago I watched a reporter from a foreign tv network being escorted away when doing her report! Can't recall which city but there is something at stake in this issue.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

It says something negative when journalists are arrested for repoorting on the evnts.

Nobody's going to care about clean park. This was not clever move on the part of the NYPD. Bloomberg's term was supposed to expire in 2009, but he campaigned successfully for an amendment to the 2 term law, so he was able to run for a third term. Now I wouldn't be supposed to see him forced to resign.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

They never intended to respect the rule of law as you so boastfully admit.

And the NYPD never intended to respect the First Amendment, a somewhat more serious law than "No sleeping in the park." Which is the worse harm, civil disobedience or journalists arrested for reporting the real story of what's happening? I think constitutional liberties being undermined is a little more serious than people sleeping in the park.

Two wrongs (sleeping, publicly defecating, publicly urinating, injuring a first responder--an EMT trying to help someone in the park, or arresting Journalists) do not make a right. Neither is right.

Sleeping in the park is not a protected right. It's Freedom of Speech, not freedom to exclusively freeload.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

not freedom to exclusively freeload.

How the deuce is protesting int he park overnight freeloading? They bring their own tents, food, etc leaving the comforts of their home behind and not taking any of your precious money. I don't know if the OWS will defy the eviction or not for sure, but maybe they should obey it. Too much energy is being spent holding a symbolic piece of ground instead of the next step.

At 1:30 in the video, Bloomberg says the guaranteeing the protesters first amendment right was a goal. Liar. He had been sending police in riot gear against peaceful protesters from the word go.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

It says something negative when journalists are arrested for repoorting on the evnts....

I agree, when reporting on events in compliance with officials who are responsible for the safety of ALL those located in the vicinity. They, according to my information, were asked to move elsewhere....not stop reporting.....so the park can be cleared & cleaned.

Earlier they were all informed--on more than one occasion--that anyone remaining in the vicinity after being explicitly warned to vacate--would be subject to arrest. They decided to ignore the warning. Like I said earlier wrong place definitely at the wrong time.

Their right to report was not in question, but their right to stay there & ignore the order probably did not extend past that point.

The Freedom of Speech is extremely broad & covers many things, but it is not unlimited.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

How the deuce is protesting int he park overnight freeloading?

Sleeping in the park, & setting up house is way past the Freedom of Speech, or right to protest.

They say they are the 99%, well they are just the 30% at best. The other 70% have rights to use that property too!

The mayor had been extremely generous to the OWS protesters letting them break the law for over 50 days, at the expense of all the other generous citizens who may have wanted to use that park as it was intended.

That is freeloading.

Freeloading: to live off somebody else's generosity.

The City was right & just in enforcing the law---better late than never---they had full right to enforce at any time prior to the 'eviction'.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

that anyone remaining in the vicinity after being explicitly warned to vacate--would be subject to arrest. They decided to ignore the warning. Like I said earlier wrong place definitely at the wrong time.

And that's a huge problem and set an extraordinarily bad precedent.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Sleeping in the park, & setting up house is way past the Freedom of Speech, or right to protest.

Nope. The Constitution does not specify nice 9-5 hours

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

They say they are the 99%, well they are just the 30% at best. The other 70% have rights to use that property too!

Ah, I see you don't even know what the 1% or the 99% even refers to. You attack and criticize what you don't understand:)

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Freeloading: to live off somebody else's generosity.

Right and you can't demonstrate they're freeloading. They pay taxes, which pays for the parks...

Well, as always NYC usually leads the way.....all across America local Governments are successfully going to their courts & getting approval to evict the stinkin', obnoxious, foulmouthed Pond-Scum from America's parks & public places, places where these FREELOADERS have 'TEMPORARILY' been using as their personal toilets for weeks on end without any respect for others.

From here on in this OCCUPY MOB will have to express their ideas respecting the rights of the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of American Citizens who have put up with enough.

It's about time the MAJORITY of American Citizens stood up for their American values, & spanked these unruly urchins to show them they need to respect real American values, & the American way of life they so desperately wish to change to their own selfish ends.

They're sucking off the hind tit of a dead cow.

More Americans Oppose Occupy Wall Street Than Support It

A new poll from Quinnipiac University finds that more Americans view the Occupy Wall Street protests unfavorably than positively.

Just 30 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the protests......

We say-----Good riddance!

Go home to your mothers, that is if they will still have you, actually that is if they really ever did want you in the first place.

So it's begun. Police state rears it's head to shut down these protests.

Judge orders the park evictions reversed and the mayor says park must remain closed because judge gave a court order? LOLWUT

And apparently mayors are conspiring to shut down these protests all around the country, most of them democrats. lol good luck with that voting thing.

Originally posted by Frenzie:

Here's some fuel for the fire. *tosses and runs away*

http://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/12700096714/prediction-from-greg-sargent

This seems kind of moot. OWS isn't sponsored by any political capital alliance such as the Tea Newscorp GOP party. Why run ads against non-existent candidates? Democrats are against these protests and I doubt Independents are any sort of threat to the Washington establishment. Certainly, if any rogue candidate becomes a threat they will get pummeled by big money such as Alan Grayson was in 2010, but it's been that way for decades. Let's not forget that 96% of campaigns with more funding than the opposition win elections in this country.

Look xyzoneon, democracy and rights along with freedom of expresion have never really existed. They were brained into people to keep them from questioning the right of the financial barons to run the place. Practicing such is a nuisance for them. Kind of bemusing that over 2 centuries ago the elite and money men in the 13 Colonies broke from one aristocracy only to be replaced by a local one! Seems to have taken a long time to have been realised?

It seems fitting in this thread.

Ode To The Welfare State
1949 NY Daily News

Father, must we work to eat?
Oh no my lucky son,
We’re living on easy street with dough from Washington.
We’ve left it up to Uncle Sam; now don’t get exercised.
Nobody has to give a wham, we’ve all been subsidized!

But if Sam treats us all so well, and feeds us milk and honey,
Please tell me, Daddy, where oh where he’s going to get the money?

Don’t worry, son, there ain’t no hitch in this here noble plan;
He simply soaks the filthy rich and helps the common man!

But Daddy, won’t there come a time if we take all their cash,
When they’ll be left without a dime and things will go to smash?

My faith in you is shrinking, son you nosey little brat;
You do too much thinking, boy, to be a Democrat!

Since Obama & the democrat party has embraced the OCCUPY Mobment, rather than calling one location Occupy LA, and another Occupy Portland, and another Occupy San Francisco, and another Occupy Denver, or another--the smallest of the lot--Occupy Las Vegas we should only be calling all these places by a generic name:

OBAMATOWN

After all, Hoover had his Hoovertowns, so being that Obama is climbing steadily up to Herbert Hoover stature, he will always be known as the father of his Class Warfare spawned OCCUPY MOBment, it would only be fitting that he have something named after him to celebrate his prowess.

Noting their amazing architectural genius, to be known from this day forward, forever as OBAMATOWNS.

Originally posted by xyzoneon:

And apparently mayors are conspiring to shut down these protests all around the country, most of them democrats. lol good luck with that voting thing.

Of course, I saw a news story on news.google.com where they deny collusion. I'm not arsed to dig it up now, but I'm sure those stories are easy enough to find.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Of course, I saw a news story on news.google.com where they deny collusion. I'm not arsed to dig it up now, but I'm sure those stories are easy enough to find.

The next Ten years will be bloody

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Look xyzoneon, democracy and rights along with freedom of expresion have never really existed.

If you're correct, than it's high time somebody had the balls to take the rights enshrined in the First Amendment

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

OBAMATOWN

I see what happened. Now nobody gives your establishment sponsored "anti-establishment" rallies any press. You mad, bro?

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

You do too much thinking, boy, to be a Democrat!

Yup, think and you'll never vote GOP, at least this bunch of them anyway. Glad you noticed that, too

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Noting their amazing architectural genius, to be known from this day forward, forever as OBAMATOWNS.

Cute, but what is embracing policies that guarantee the continued flow of capital from the middle-class to the richest 1% but class warfare? Financial equality in society is impossible and not even desirable, but no society has survived this much inequality without a revolution. Not that I'll start it, or even want it; but we're at powder keg moment in our history. Will our "leaders" begin listening to the people before something worse than a bunch of folks camping in the park happens?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Financial equality in society is impossible and not even desirable,

WHAT??? Why not?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

but no society has survived this much inequality without a revolution.

Oh, give me a break with the idiotic hyperbole.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

If you're correct, than it's high time somebody had the balls to take the rights enshrined in the First Amendment

If we ever did who ever fought for such.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

After all, Hoover had his Hoovertowns, so being that Obama is climbing steadily up to Herbert Hoover stature, he will always be known as the father of his Class Warfare spawned OCCUPY MOBment, it would only be fitting that he have something named after him to celebrate his prowess.

Noting their amazing architectural genius, to be known from this day forward, forever as OBAMATOWNS.

arrogance now equals ignorance?

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Oh, give me a break with the idiotic hyperbole.

you french?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by xyzoneon:

And apparently mayors are conspiring to shut down these protests all around the country, most of them democrats. lol good luck with that voting thing.

Of course, I saw a news story on news.google.com where they deny collusion. I'm not arsed to dig it up now, but I'm sure those stories are easy enough to find.

I'm sure 'relevant' 'news' are all over newsmax, free republic, wingnut daily and the like. I'm sure OWS is just another step in Obama's plan to outlaw christianity, install the new world order and become dictator of the UN

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Will our "leaders" begin listening to the people before something worse than a bunch of folks camping in the park happens?

Some day the teabaggers who aren't religious nutjobs or on the GOP payroll ( all three of them, just give them time ) will find out they have more in common with OWS than with the Koch brothers.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

you french?

I don't think he is. Most French and read and understand English better than he does Him even saying that indicates that he not only fails to understand English, but doesn't know history either.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

I don't think he is. Most French and read and understand English better than he does Him even saying that indicates that he not only fails to understand English, but doesn't know history either.

But to deny it is needed and happens sounds very french-like. Its that mentality that i had to ask.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Some day the teabaggers who aren't religious nutjobs or on the GOP payroll ( all three of them, just give them time ) will find out they have more in common with OWS than with the Koch brothers.

Strip anyway the nonsense parts of of TP and OWS and it's very apparent there's discontent across the political spectrum, often about the same issues. Of course, people like Fanfaron manage to miss both the forest and trees for the moss. To be fair, he might be sleep posting; here's help for his sleep disorder. I'm so helpful

Originally posted by Macallan:

I'm sure OWS is just another step in Obama's plan to outlaw christianity, install the new world order and become dictator of the UN

You forgot establishing a Communist state along the Stalinist model. Or maybe, in his confusion, establish a Fascist state along the Mussolini model; since Fanfaron managed to equate Democrats with Fascists.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by Macallan:

I'm sure OWS is just another step in Obama's plan to outlaw christianity, install the new world order and become dictator of the UN

You forgot establishing a Communist state along the Stalinist model. Or maybe, in his confusion, establish a Fascist state along the Mussolini model; since Fanfaron managed to equate Democrats with Fascists.

Too late, we're already there:

Originally posted by Benito Mussolini:

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

Oh goodness, Fanfaron isn't alone is the Democrats=Fascist idiocy. here's another one.

This is why he had to learn his lesson the hard way. Herman Goering was in charge of the Reichswirtschaftministerium (Reich Economics Ministry). The Soviets had 5-year plans. The Nazis went one better and came up with 4-year plans. (Günter Reimann, The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism, New York: Vanguard Press, 1939, pp. 125-127).

Oh my, having kind of plan makes one a Fascist or a Communist

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

[

I agree errors have been made in the past, but this Administration is the only Administration currently occupying the White House, & the only one that has the ability to affect the polices necessary to change this recessions course.

So yes, I agree with your statement, but today's problems, & why there hasn't been a recovery actively under way, is primarily because of the failed economic policies of today's Administration. The past can't correct squat.

I certainly hope you agree that the bailouts, the stimulus, & the TARP monies were a horrible mistake.

Well this Administration is asking for more of the same.

This Administration's jobs bill was never really taken seriously---by either side---it can't pass because the Senate Majority can't muster up enough votes.

The policy is wrong--throwing good money after bad only succeeds in proving again that the original policy was wrong originally--besides putting each American deeper in debt.

Do you honestly think doing more of the same will resolve the problems, & create jobs?

It's already a proven failure.

Protesting the banks will change nothing, except further entrench the status quo.

The banks will never change their policies voluntarily, you must surely know this.

In order to effectively force the banks to change, you must get the Administration, along with the Congress, to correct the mistakes of the past, & design legitimate policy that will.

That is the only viable option.

Focus all your movement's strengths on the capitol down in Washington D.C., because it is only there that policy to change the status quo exists, & because it is there where present day policy is horribly wrong.

As a citizen of the UK I know much of what you say of events in the US is also true of my country, and I agree with much of your opinion. But I disagree that influencing law makers is a viable way of ending the tyranny of the banks, as politicians, in the UK, US and elsewhere have been bought by big business. Here in Britain they all get given 'jobs' with business that require no work or time and pay rather large sums, making sure politicians run the country for the benefit of the vested interest of those at the top of big business. All politicians are either on the corporate gravy train or hoping to board it, so it's pointless to expect them to ever represent the people.
However, there is another way, look at what happened in Holland,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/27/dutch-bankers-bonuses-axed-by-people-power

“ING customers mobilised on Twitter and other social networks to protest at bonuses paid to bosses at the bank, one of the biggest in the country. The threat of direct action raised the spectre of a partial run on ING, terrifying the Dutch establishment”

And because of that, Boardroom bonuses were stopped, the people who threatened to withdraw their money having got a result,

I'm one of those trying to organise the same thing in the UK, to make the banks afraid of so many withdrawing our money the banks will be made insolvent by a run on their funds, and that would make them negotiate with us, the public. About bankers pay, loans to small businesses, and anything else that concerns us. If you want to choose a name for this, how about capitalism?

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by Benito Mussolini:
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

Yup, and Fanfaron was silly enough to call regulations to get business out of government Fascism and he he's not alone with that politically and economically retarded notion.

Originally posted by jo15d:

I'm one of those trying to organise the same thing in the UK, to make the banks afraid of so many withdrawing our money the banks will be made insolvent by a run on their funds, and that would make them negotiate with us, the public.

I'm sure that you know we a withdraw your money day here. It didn't make the banks insolvent, but scared the shit out of them to the point where some banks were locking their doors. It did get them to reverse some of their latest round of abuses upon the consumers.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Oh goodness, Fanfaron isn't alone is the Democrats=Fascist idiocy. here's another one.

This is why he had to learn his lesson the hard way. Herman Goering was in charge of the Reichswirtschaftministerium (Reich Economics Ministry). The Soviets had 5-year plans. The Nazis went one better and came up with 4-year plans. (Günter Reimann, The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism, New York: Vanguard Press, 1939, pp. 125-127).

Oh my, having kind of plan makes one a Fascist or a Communist

Obviously odd years are communist, even years are nazi

Originally posted by Macallan:

Obviously anyone who has a plan is a dirty commie

were in the 60's again. time for nuke drills and 15 minutes gov't fed fear

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Obviously anyone who has a plan is a dirty commie

were in the 60's again. time for nuke drills and 15 minutes gov't fed fear

In case of a nuclear attack hide under the table.

Originally posted by Macallan:

In case of a nuclear attack hide under the table.

Sir that table doesn't exist.

Originally posted by jo15d:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

[

I agree errors have been made in the past, but this Administration is the only Administration currently occupying the White House, & the only one that has the ability to affect the polices necessary to change this recessions course.

So yes, I agree with your statement, but today's problems, & why there hasn't been a recovery actively under way, is primarily because of the failed economic policies of today's Administration. The past can't correct squat.

I certainly hope you agree that the bailouts, the stimulus, & the TARP monies were a horrible mistake.

Well this Administration is asking for more of the same.

This Administration's jobs bill was never really taken seriously---by either side---it can't pass because the Senate Majority can't muster up enough votes.

The policy is wrong--throwing good money after bad only succeeds in proving again that the original policy was wrong originally--besides putting each American deeper in debt.

Do you honestly think doing more of the same will resolve the problems, & create jobs?

It's already a proven failure.

Protesting the banks will change nothing, except further entrench the status quo.

The banks will never change their policies voluntarily, you must surely know this.

In order to effectively force the banks to change, you must get the Administration, along with the Congress, to correct the mistakes of the past, & design legitimate policy that will.

That is the only viable option.

Focus all your movement's strengths on the capitol down in Washington D.C., because it is only there that policy to change the status quo exists, & because it is there where present day policy is horribly wrong.

As a citizen of the UK I know much of what you say of events in the US is also true of my country, and I agree with much of your opinion. But I disagree that influencing law makers is a viable way of ending the tyranny of the banks, as politicians, in the UK, US and elsewhere have been bought by big business. Here in Britain they all get given 'jobs' with business that require no work or time and pay rather large sums, making sure politicians run the country for the benefit of the vested interest of those at the top of big business. All politicians are either on the corporate gravy train or hoping to board it, so it's pointless to expect them to ever represent the people.
However, there is another way, look at what happened in Holland,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/27/dutch-bankers-bonuses-axed-by-people-power

“ING customers mobilised on Twitter and other social networks to protest at bonuses paid to bosses at the bank, one of the biggest in the country. The threat of direct action raised the spectre of a partial run on ING, terrifying the Dutch establishment”

And because of that, Boardroom bonuses were stopped, the people who threatened to withdraw their money having got a result,

I'm one of those trying to organise the same thing in the UK, to make the banks afraid of so many withdrawing our money the banks will be made insolvent by a run on their funds, and that would make them negotiate with us, the public. About bankers pay, loans to small businesses, and anything else that concerns us. If you want to choose a name for this, how about capitalism?

I don't know about UK, but Americans aren't Dutch. American culture is ravaged by decades of non-education and complacency (and not necessarily by accident). This is why many here believe the only way forward for this country is to get money out of politics. I can tell you that at least half the population is going to believe OWS went away after TV stops mentioning it. Many of these people also thought Dumbya was a good vote. This is the U.S.

Originally posted by By BRETT ZONGKER and JESSICA GRESKO | AP – 1 hr 21 mins ago:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A man with an apparent obsession with President Barack Obama has been arrested in Pennsylvania after the U.S. Secret Service, the presidential bodyguards, discovered two bullets had struck the White House while the president was away, authorities said Wednesday. One bullet smashed into a window of the living quarters of the executive mansion but was stopped by ballistic glass. The arrest of Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, 21, came days after reports of shots fired on Friday night near the White House while Obama and his wife Michelle were on a trip to California and Hawaii. The president has since traveled on to Australia, second stop on a nine-day Asia-Pacific tour, and the White House had no comment on the unfolding events. The Secret Service said it discovered Tuesday that two bullets had hit the White House. U.S. Park Police had earlier linked Ortega, a 21-year-old man from Idaho Falls, Idaho, to the reports of gunfire. A U.S. Park Police crime bulletin issued before Ortega's arrest said he is known to have mental health issues, adding "Ortega should be considered unstable with violent tendencies." Authorities are investigating his mental health and say there are indications he believed his attack on the White House was part of a personal mission from God, according to a law enforcement official. There also are indications the man had become obsessed with Obama and the White House, according to two officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation was continuing. Authorities said the bullets discovered Tuesday by the Secret Service have not been conclusively connected with the reports of gunfire near the White House on Friday night. On Friday, authorities found an abandoned vehicle with an assault rifle inside. Ortega, 21, was arrested Wednesday afternoon at a hotel near Indiana, Pennsylvania, northwest of Washington and some 55 miles (88 kilometers) east of Pittsburgh, the Secret Service said. He was in Pennsylvania State Police custody. A tip from someone who saw and identified Ortega led to his arrest, Secret Service spokesman George Ogilvie said. Ortega did not resist arrest, said Pennsylvania State Trooper Lt. Brad Shields. State troopers said Ortega had visited the hotel in recent days, and investigators believed he was back in the area Wednesday. The Secret Service passed out photographs, and a desk clerk recognized his picture and stalled him while notifying police. Ortega's first court appearance is scheduled Thursday afternoon in Pittsburgh, according to the staff of U.S. Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy. Ortega was reported missing Oct. 31 by his family. On Friday morning, he was stopped by police in the Washington suburb of Arlington, Virginia, during an investigation of a report of a suspicious person. Police took photos of him but had no reason to arrest him, Arlington police Lt. Joe Kantor said. A message left for Ortega's mother Wednesday at an Idaho Falls restaurant where she works was not returned. Phone listings for family members in Idaho were disconnected. Ortega has an arrest record in three states but has not been linked to any radical organizations, U.S. Park Police have said. Witnesses on Friday reported hearing shots and seeing two speeding vehicles on Constitution Avenue near the White House. Authorities said they found an abandoned car, with the assault rifle inside, near the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge, which crosses the Potomac River to Virginia. The bullet that hit the White House window was stopped by ballistic glass. The Secret Service didn't disclose the location of the second bullet, saying only that it "was found on the exterior of the White House." Obama and the first lady had traveled without daughters Malia and Sasha on Friday to San Diego, California, en route to Hawaii for a summit, prior to flying to Australia. The White House had no immediate comment on the shooting or who may have been home at the time. On Wednesday, officials took photographs of a window on the executive mansion's south face. The window is in front of the so-called Yellow Oval Room, according to the White House website. That room is in the middle of the family's living quarters on the floor that includes the president's bedroom and the Lincoln Bedroom. In 2010, there were a series of pre-dawn shootings at military buildings in the Washington area, including the Pentagon and the National Museum of the Marine Corps. Police charged a Marine Corps reservist with those shootings early this year. The suspect, Yonathan Melaku of Alexandria, Virginia, remains in custody. In the last shooting at the White House in October 1994, a Colorado man sprayed the mansion with at least 27 semiautomatic rifle bullets from Pennsylvania Avenue in an attempt to assassinate then-President Bill Clinton, who was home at the time. Bystanders subdued the suspect, and no one was injured. Francisco Martin Duran was convicted and sentenced to 40 years in prison for that shooting. The next year, Pennsylvania Avenue was closed to traffic to bolster security. ___ Associated Press writers Jessie Bonner in Boise, Idaho, Joe Mandak in Pittsburgh, Kevin Begos in Indiana, Pa., Matt Apuzzo in Washington and AP photographer Haraz Ghanbari in Washington contributed to this report.

Damn I love our country, when innocent people are accused of not fearing the politicians enough.

Meanwhile, here in Vegas, we continue to show the way In economically ravaged Vegas, Occupy movement remains peaceful as violence spreads elsewhere

The good behavior in Las Vegas and other Occupy efforts across Nevada is even more noteworthy because Nevadans may have the most cause to rage against the machine. The state tops the nation in foreclosures and unemployment and entire neighborhoods have been overtaken by vacant homes and storefronts.

But while protesters in other cities riot and rage, the Vegas group is hosting a series of free foreclosure mediation workshops for homeowners who are underwater on their mortgages.

Organizers insist their anti-greed message has a better chance of spreading if they aren’t labeled violent anarchists.

“It’s a combination of respect for the police and the general public, and it’s a safety issue as well,” said Jim Walsh, an unemployed truck driver volunteering as Occupy Las Vegas’ self-appointed chief of security. “As a group we had voted that we were going to do this with non-violence and so far, not one person in our group has been arrested or sent to the hospital.”

....

To avoid similar showdowns or violent outbreaks in Las Vegas, protesters have met weekly with police. They forwarded their plans to police for review, and then tweaked their efforts when police suggested changes. One weekend, police asked if the occupiers could cancel a proposed protest on the Las Vegas Strip because city officials were expecting a large number of visitors. In a rare act of defiance, protesters went forward with the protest anyway — sort of. They moved it to Fremont Street, a smaller tourist haven in downtown Las Vegas.

“It’s the mentality of that group that, ‘we can make a point without being arrested,’” said Lt. Jason Letkiewicz, the staff liaison between the protesters and the Las Vegas police department. “They don’t want to be known as thugs.”

What the article doesn't mean is that MetroPD are notoriously gun-happy, shooting first and asking questions later

Fear that an ugly protest could further hurt Nevada’s wounded economy has also restrained protesters.

“We don’t want to chase tourists away from our city because that’s where a lot of people’s jobs come from,” said David Peter, a union worker active in the Las Vegas movement.

Yup, mindful of not hurting the city's economy further.

But it’s unclear whether the peace pushers will be able to tame the more aggressive voices within the movement forever. A local militant group tried last week to convince the protesters in Las Vegas to arm themselves. Others have simply urged organizers to take a more forceful stand and stop being so darn nice.

Yup, black bloc types rebuffed

Now that our style is finally getting publicity, it can be exported as successful model of protest that keeps public goodwill

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Originally posted by jo15d:

I'm one of those trying to organise the same thing in the UK, to make the banks afraid of so many withdrawing our money the banks will be made insolvent by a run on their funds, and that would make them negotiate with us, the public.

I'm sure that you know we a withdraw your money day here. It didn't make the banks insolvent, but scared the shit out of them to the point where some banks were locking their doors. It did get them to reverse some of their latest round of abuses upon the consumers.

I saw the video here of two women who tried to close their accounts at Bank of America and got thrown out, and the cops were called. But have there been any attempts to organize a full blown run on a bank in the US? I'm in need of of advice on how to get something like that going in the UK, as a run is the only thing that frightens banks.

Originally posted by Virusboy:

arrogance now equals ignorance?

Only from your lips, 'boy, only from your lips!

Originally posted by jo15d:

I saw the video here of two women who tried to close their accounts at Bank of America and got thrown out, and the cops were called. But have there been any attempts to organize a full blown run on a bank in the US? I'm in need of of advice on how to get something like that going in the UK, as a run is the only thing that frightens banks.

Don' t know how it went on 5th of November, but prior to that almost a million people moved their accounts out of the big banks to alternative banks & credit unions.

See my post here.

To be effective, it would have had to be over 25% of all accounts---between 50 to 90 million transfers.

Personally, I don't have more than a few dollars in any bank.

Hard currency (precious metals) is the way to go.

I do cash only (well mostly 98%+) on face to face transactions.

Always have, always will.

Don't want high gas prices, get 25+% of your neighbors, fellow citizens, acquaintances, friends not to buy any except on one day a week.

Don't like the price of anything, just withhold purchases in large numbers, things will change....guaranteed.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

To be effective, it would have had to be over 25% of all accounts---between 50 to 90 million transfers.

Another arbitrary number pulled out the GOP's ass? Guess what, it WAS effective and caused banks to reverse their policies.

Now to be fair, those weren't the only customer Bank of America lose, as reported here .

"What is not being reported," the insider says, "is that this consideration is not due to the Occupy movements throughout the US, but rather a mass exodus of existing customers coupled with a significant drop in new account openings. A good amount of execs were sequestered into a conference room for a couple of days last week, and it resembled a war room preparing for a mini Armageddon."

All told, BofA is on track to lose 10.3% of its customers in the next 12 months.

Originally posted by jo15d:

But have there been any attempts to organize a full blown run on a bank in the US?

There haven't been any full-on 1930's style run-ons that I know about, instead it was individuals and small groups going in at once. It was organized through the social networks and in the communities.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

.....caused banks to reverse their policies.

Before you accuse anyone of pulling anything out their ass, bend-over sonny & start grabbin'.....


Ok, now what caused what banks to reverse what policies?

Were these rumored or so called 'policy reversals' you speak of policies that were to be implemented, & now won't be implemented, or ones that were already in existence, & because of OWS's extreme pressures were fearfully withdrawn?

Let's take Bank of America for example (your example).

Which, if any, of these numerous Bank of America account fees were reversed----again, if any?

'Coon.......Where's the Beef?

The only fee I can find that was somewhat alluded to was a proposed debit card fee?

Again 'Coon, which, if any, of these numerous account fees were reversed----again, if any?


.....................................



So, 'Coon......WHERE's the BEEF?

You seem to want to claim that some extraordinary OWS effort---which if it is that what your are claiming, it would be a blatant lie & total distortion of facts--- or some OWS incited actions to bring the big banks to their trembling little knees that was EFFECTIVE?.

Without straying from the facts as you have so often, how can you legitimately rate OWS's effectiveness in reversing any bank policies whatsoever?????

CUNA had said that more than 650,000 consumers opened new accounts at credit unions in the weeks leading up to Bank Transfer Day and that 40,000 more did Saturday, accounting for $80 million in new savings deposits that day alone.

Not exactly a groundswell, but a fair start.

Oh, & none of it was due to any OWS action at all.

Now, as I stated earlier, if 70,000,000 consumers would do the same as the 700,000 did earlier (about 25%) then that would really have an affect on bank policy.

Somehow I doubt shitting on the side of a police car will have that motivating affect on 70,000,000 people---but hey, continue by all means---ya might be on to something earth-shattering!


................................................................


............................................................

^^^



The violent face of Occupy Seattle!

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

There haven't been any full-on 1930's style run-ons that I know about, instead it was individuals and small groups going in at once. It was organized through the social networks and in the communities.

Due to the "credit crisis" there won't be one.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Ok, now what caused what banks to reverse what policies?

Were these rumored or so called 'policy reversals' you speak of policies that were to be implemented, & now won't be implemented, or ones that were already in existence, & because of OWS's extreme pressures were fearfully withdrawn?

Let's take Bank of America for example (your example).

Which, if any, of these numerous Bank of America account fees were reversed----again, if any?

'Coon.......Where's the Beef?

The only fee I can find that was somewhat alluded to was a proposed debit card fee?

Again 'Coon, which, if any, of these numerous account fees were reversed----again, if any?

now your talking out the ass. no one mention any fee not being removed. (Fail 1)

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

You seem to want to claim that some extraordinary OWS effort---which if it is that what your are claiming, it would be a blatant lie & total distortion of facts--- or some OWS incited actions to bring the big banks to their trembling little knees that was EFFECTIVE?.

Without straying from the facts as you have so often, how can you legitimately rate OWS's effectiveness in reversing any bank policies whatsoever?????

CUNA had said that more than 650,000 consumers opened new accounts at credit unions in the weeks leading up to Bank Transfer Day and that 40,000 more did Saturday, accounting for $80 million in new savings deposits that day alone.

It has been stated by both sides that the real reason for OWS is unclear, so being smart, one would understand that the group responsible would tell everyone they know, then those people would pass it on. (Fail 2)

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Not exactly a groundswell, but a fair start.

Oh, & none of it was due to any OWS action at all.

Now, as I stated earlier, if 70,000,000 consumers would do the same as the 700,000 did earlier (about 25%) then that would really have an affect on bank policy.

Somehow I doubt shitting on the side of a police car will have that motivating affect on 70,000,000 people---but hey, continue by all means---ya might be on to something earth-shattering!

OWS never was given true credit, so misplacing such would be rude. (Fail 3)
What and where are you getting the figures from. How does 700,000 of 70,000,000 = 25%? (Doing the math 25% of 70,000,000 = 17,500,000, Fail 4)
Some how I doubt making figures up makes, so by all means, be an accountant.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by jo15d:

I saw the video here of two women who tried to close their accounts at Bank of America and got thrown out, and the cops were called. But have there been any attempts to organize a full blown run on a bank in the US? I'm in need of of advice on how to get something like that going in the UK, as a run is the only thing that frightens banks.

Don' t know how it went on 5th of November, but prior to that almost a million people moved their accounts out of the big banks to alternative banks & credit unions.

See my post here.

To be effective, it would have had to be over 25% of all accounts---between 50 to 90 million transfers.

Personally, I don't have more than a few dollars in any bank.

Hard currency (precious metals) is the way to go.

I do cash only (well mostly 98%+) on face to face transactions.

Always have, always will.

Don't want high gas prices, get 25+% of your neighbors, fellow citizens, acquaintances, friends not to buy any except on one day a week.

Don't like the price of anything, just withhold purchases in large numbers, things will change....guaranteed.

It's a start, I hope withdrawals increase. I've seen instances where such action by ordinary people has worked in the UK. Like the Poll Tax at the beginning of the nineties, a tax deliberately designed to tax average earners to an extroadinary degree. It had to be repealed as so many refused to pay it there wasn't enough prisons to put them all in, so end of tax. And here in Yorkshire, when the water company announced it would cut the water supply, area by area, on a rota, to save it money, so many of us said we wouldn't pay our water tax, they gave in.
So community action can get results, if enough people do it.

You seem to have overlooked that there was a run on Northern Rock jo15d.

In Glasgow we had about 2 dozen campoing out (well in daylight hours!) in George Square outside the City Chambers building but didn't stir up much. Although a woman got sadly raped. The City Council negoiated with the wee handful of protestors who agreed to get up sticks and move somewhere else. They agreed on Kevingrove Park. In due course they were allowed to march the mile or so and pitch there. Then the nice City Council put a fence up round the place, provided portable lavatories and arc lights (costing £160 a week to run). However now local residents are complaining about the eye-sore in their area and formed an ant-camp lot and objected to taxes being used!

Originally posted by jo15d:

It's a start, I hope withdrawals increase..........So community action can get results, if enough people do it.

I completely agree, providing the action is properly organized, & the follow up results are displayed with vivid credibility so those that need to take notice completely understand the power behind the action(s), & the ramifications of any future ill conceived policies.

Good Luck!

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

I completely agree, providing the action is properly organized, & the follow up results are displayed with vivid credibility so those that need to take notice completely understand the power behind the action(s), & the ramifications of any future ill conceived policies.

Good Luck!

Yeah. The bank said basically "Well that's what happens with government interference "and tried blame it on it on Congress. That ship don't sail if you get enough informed customers to say "No..." People (except Fanfaron) now understand that when the banks behave badly, it's the banks responsibility and you can't just be blame everything on the "gubberment."

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Somehow I doubt shitting on the side of a police car will have that motivating affect on 70,000,000 people---but hey, continue by all means---ya might be on to something earth-shattering!

You say this and mock even as BofA shit its pants, dude. The "war room preparing for a mini Armageddon" was to prevent those types of numbers from happening. You don't have to generate those kinds of numbers, you just need the threat and potential for it. That's what your right-wing talk radio doesn't tell you and you don't have the brains to figure out. on your own. I guess radio or some other other right-wing media is where you came up with those numbers from, since you don't have any way to back it up. Anyway, all the trolling in the world can't change what's happened and what will continue to happen.

I know what happened, I don't even have to ask it anymore. You're mad, bro. The TP devolved into something for obsequious GOP politicians to grub to and was never able to pull anything like a bank transfer day or anything else useful.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

In due course they were allowed to march the mile or so and pitch there. Then the nice City Council put a fence up round the place, provided portable lavatories and arc lights (costing £160 a week to run). However now local residents are complaining about the eye-sore in their area and formed an ant-camp lot and objected to taxes being used!

Just have the Occupiers pay for their own lights and what not like we do in Vegas. They can come up 160 a week, no worries. Like the article said, we pay rent on our vacant lot near the airport and have no problems with the locals, tourists, nor even MetroPD. About the eye-sore bit, there was somebody trolling you some months back that claimed you were some kind of alderman or something (as he viciously personally attacked you, even if most of the time you have a pretty thick skin about that sort of thing.) If that's true, maybe there's a vacant lot that can be suggested for them. They don't need to be a residential neighborhood.

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

You say this and mock even as BofA shit its pants, dude. The "war room preparing for a mini Armageddon" was to prevent those types of numbers from happening. You don't have to generate those kinds of numbers, you just need the threat and potential for it. That's what your right-wing talk radio doesn't tell you and you don't have the brains to figure out. on your own. I guess radio or some other other right-wing media is where you came up with those numbers from, since you don't have any way to back it up. Anyway, all the trolling in the world can't change what's happened and what will continue to happen.I know what happened, I don't even have to ask it anymore. You're mad, bro. The TP devolved into something for obsequious GOP politicians to grub to and was never able to pull anything like a bank transfer day or anything else useful.

Nothing, no nothing that the OWS band of scruffy lil unwashed malcontents did or didn't do had any effect on the banking decisions made or actions taken, & no matter how hard you wish it, it can never be so.

But your so entranced with your own hyperbole, entrails, & crayon signs to see that!

Now, off to your lil room to sulk sonny,

-- AND --


...


http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-16-2011/occupy-wall-street-divided?xrs=share_copy

Good thing the didn't originate bank transfer day, oh, wait, they did .

Listen to the Wall Street Journal Cry, Credit Unions Poach Clients Oddly, the little video by Fox has it right at about 1:30, consumers have been paying the exchange fee this whole time with a little extra added to the cost of each purchase. The banks were overcharging the merchants (studies have found that it certainly does not cost the banks 44 cents per debit card transaction, hence why there can be a cap. The money the banks would be "losing" was just extraneous profit), therefore the merchants had to pass on the costs to consumers. Whose side are you on anyway, Smiley? The banks or the consumers or are merely a reactionary against anything the OWS gets involved in? If it's the later, I can pull your strings just like a puppeteer just like I can Fanfaron.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-16-2011/occupy-wall-street-divided?xrs=share_copy

You do understand The Daily Show is a political satire show, right? Didn't think you did. The GOP does have issues like that Like you, yourself said, if you think to much you won't vote GOP. Thanks for the comedy break, though Samantha, of course, was playing the part of the clueless MSM that didn't understand the Deutsche Bank was being occupied. :pets SF on the head:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Whose side are you on anyway, Smiley? The banks or the consumers or are merely a reactionary against anything the OWS gets involved in?

I'm neither for the banks or the consumers.

I don't believe in the trash being spewed by the OWS who want to do anything, except work hard, for what they want handed to them as if they might have a right to what somebody else earned. Income redistribution is the equivalent of thievery.

I believe in a free market.

Those too stupid to invest properly, follow up on their investments, & protect themselves, deserve what they end up with. That's part of adulthood, & personal responsibility.

I find it better to lock my front door, rather than leaving it wide open to thieves.

A thief is a thief is a thief, & will always be a thief.

If the government allows the banks to be thieves, then they will be thievish.

It's a part of human nature that can't be overlooked. It must be kept in check. You hire a Government to do that for you.

If the government has given the keys to your front door to the banks, then it's up to you to make sure you either change the locks, or force the government to get your keys back.

After all they work for you. You make the government change it's policy on how it hands out keys & to whom.

That's called personal responsibility.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Whose side are you on anyway, Smiley? The banks or the consumers or are merely a reactionary against anything the OWS gets involved in?

I'm neither for the banks or the consumers.

Bingo.

By the way, a PR guy weighs in:

The movement’s PR efforts drew derision from Fraser P. Seitel, managing partner of Emerald Partners and author of The Practice of Public Relations. OWS, he says, has “botched an opportunity to capture public opinion and achieve something. Americans, by every measure, distrust the politicians who run Washington and lead major institutions. So public opinion was ripe for the plucking.”

However, the movement blew it by having no overriding purpose, stated goals, or visible leadership, he says, and it is increasingly perceived as a bunch of publicity-hungry complainers intent on disrupting others who are making a living.

“Occupy Wall Street is right about one thing,” he says. “The whole world is watching. And it’s generally repulsed by what it’s seen.”

Yep. Bingo again. And I toooooold ya so.

But this guy is no doubt a tool of corporations and one of the 1% and should be ignored.

Well yes I do hold a public office Sanguinemoon and equally a thick skin (needed here!), but you are right about these people depositing themselvs in a nice west end park in a nice area. People don't go into a park to see a misfit dump paid for from their City council taxes. Even more so as these are graded. The same Council likes to moan about costs from groups they don't like. It is a ridculous situation. Bad enough in the city centre but also now in a distinctive park at Kelvingrove next the world famous Kelvingrove Art Galleries & Musem, etc.

no comment:

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

It seems fitting in this thread.

Ode To The Welfare State
1949 NY Daily News

Father, must we work to eat?
Oh no my lucky son,
We’re living on easy street with dough from Washington.
We’ve left it up to Uncle Sam; now don’t get exercised.
Nobody has to give a wham, we’ve all been subsidized!
!

Forgive me Smileyfaze for abreviating your poem, but what I've quoted makes your point.
Firstly let me say I don't know enough about welfare in the US to make an informed comment on it, but what I do know, as I read the business press, is that the cost to your country of bailing out Wall Street dwarfs total welfare payments. Millionaires and billionaires in the finance industry are gorging themselves on taxpayer dollars, just as in the UK, and that is the overiding economic issue. If welfare in the US is to generous, then sure it needs to be corrected, but the priority is to end the grand scale robbery by bankers and the like. And you better act fast, as we are seeing the beginning of the end of the US as an economic super power, as its economic arteries are sucked dry by the financial vampires of Wall street.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

You seem to have overlooked that there was a run on Northern Rock jo15d.

Which makes my point, Northern Rock having to be rescued by the government. It would have collapsed at some point anyway, as the cheap credit its business plan depended on had dried up, but the run on it's deposits confirmed that there isn't a bank in the world that can survive that.

Originally posted by Smileyfaze:

Originally posted by jo15d:

It's a start, I hope withdrawals increase..........So community action can get results, if enough people do it.

I completely agree, providing the action is properly organized, & the follow up results are displayed with vivid credibility so those that need to take notice completely understand the power behind the action(s), & the ramifications of any future ill conceived policies.

Good Luck!

They maybe doing just that in Ireland, have a look here,

Irish mortgage strike?

Irish banks, bailed out by the taxpayer, and of course allowed to keep their bonuses, are taking an unflinchingly hard line with people who are behind with mortgage payments. So, those people have organised and demanded the banks negotiate with them, or there'll be a mortgage strike. Way to go!

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Good thing the didn't originate bank transfer day, oh, wait, they did .

Listen to the Wall Street Journal Cry,

I liked this bit,

"Some bankers complain that credit unions have outgrown their status as a lender of last resort to poor and rural communities and should be forced to pay taxes just like for-profit banks.
"At a time when state and local governments are struggling with lower revenue, why should some of these credit unions be subsidized if they are not going to provide those services?" said David Locke, chief executive of McFarland State Bank in McFarland, Wis. The bank has about $500 million in assets but is having trouble competing with nearby credit unions, he added"

Apart from that it shows CU's are making an impact in your country, it is truly amazing that someone from the banking industry, which has just had the biggest subsidy in history, has the nerve to call CU's unfair competition!

Originally posted by jo15d:

Irish banks, bailed out by the taxpayer, and of course allowed to keep their bonuses, are taking an unflinchingly hard line with people who are behind with mortgage payments. So, those people have organised and demanded the banks negotiate with them, or there'll be a mortgage strike. Way to go!

I understand & agree with the principal, but wouldn't the strike---once ended---just have the arrears interest portion merely added to the tail end of the interest portion of the mortgage thus making say $3,000 of interest in arrears blow out to many thousands more than $3,000 over the remaining term of the mortgage due to compounding?

Unlike here in the USA, I believe there in the UK almost all mortgages are of the variable rate type, no?

Here in the USA 80% + of all mortgages are the fixed rate type, where a borrower of say $100,000 today who gets a rate of 7.00% over 30 years would pay $665.00 a month each & every month for 360 months....never increasing, nor decreasing for any reason whatsoever. Except for -- see below***

The banks can't raise his payments even one dollar over 30 years.

The borrower may be making 5x his salary in say 20 years, & inflation could be to the moon, but 20 years from now he'd still be paying that exact same $665.00 as from day one.

Now, this borrowers total payback figure would be 360months x $665.00 or $239,400 for that $100,000 fixed 7.00% rate loan at the end of 30 years.

Not a penny more, & he knew that from day one.

*** Now, if he missed payments along the way, the interest would be added later on, & if there are any penalties to be added too only then will the final figure of $239,400 increase to say arbitrarily to $247,000, which would all be due to how mortgage interest is compounded. The payoff time may have also increased a year or so too.

If things are the same there, & compounding interest usually is universal, I'd hope those taking on to this strike would be aware.

Be careful.

Originally posted by Muttsfan:

no comment:

Is it just me or does he look a bit like Augusto Pinochet?