Occupy Everywhere

Ubik

Matey wrote:

A real question

Has there ever been a revolution that hasn't been conducted through violence?

depends on how you define "revolution"

Topia

Enc wrote:

Topia wrote:

Can I ask a question as a semi-ignorant Canadian? Why do you dudes call it Occupy Wall Street and not Occupy White House or some such nonsense? From my POV, everything thats wrong is the governments fault. Wall Street was only doing things they're allowed to do.

I understand there have been some groups attacking the Government more, but not many from my knowledge.

Many argue that the root of our problem is that Wall Street, ie big business, now bankrolls our politicians through private campaign contributions. If Wall Mart or the Koch Brothers want someone in office, they can drop a couple tens of millions of dollars on attack ads and destroy an otherwise decent candidate that lacks corporate backing.

Exactly. This isn't Wall Streets fault, the government lets this shit happen. They allows corporate donations, don't they?

And I don't care if they did things with no regard for consequence. They WOULD HAVE failed and experienced these consequences, but again, the government said "Nope." and gave them a fuckload of their money to go on their merry way. It was a risk-reward situation, but the government decided that it was just a reward scenario.

Hunter

Topia wrote:

Can I ask a question as a semi-ignorant Canadian? Why do you dudes call it Occupy Wall Street and not Occupy White House or some such nonsense? From my POV, everything thats wrong is the governments fault. Wall Street was only doing things they're allowed to do.

I understand there have been some groups attacking the Government more, but not many from my knowledge.

People are pissed at the wall street crowd because they have lobbied the government for years and threw tons of money at congressmen, senators, and every one possible for the sole purpose of deregulation. They claimed it was to improve business and keep trade secrets safe. In reality, it just kept the light of day away from at minimum unethical and in some cases illegal activities.

The shit really hit the fan when the whole credit crunch and housing bubble thing fell apart like a house of cards. The banks and investment firm had played the system from both ends for huge profits, but when it fell down they went to the same government they told to stay the fuck out of their business with their hand out looking for a bail out. After the bail outs, they're still behaving in unethical ways, being greedy fucks, and not loaning money out that was given to them by the government to loan out to people.

Hence...people are fucking pissed.

LTM

Enc wrote:

Matey wrote:

A real question

Has there ever been a revolution that hasn't been conducted through violence?

1688 - The Glorious Revolution.

2008 - The Ron Paul rEVOLution

Ubik

i don't understand the weird lines people are drawing between protest and complaining or protest and loitering

Weaver

On the new antisemitism angle the right is attacking OWS with

http://shelf3d.com/QlFKgOvF3Lk

Enc

Topia wrote:

Enc wrote:

Topia wrote:

Can I ask a question as a semi-ignorant Canadian? Why do you dudes call it Occupy Wall Street and not Occupy White House or some such nonsense? From my POV, everything thats wrong is the governments fault. Wall Street was only doing things they're allowed to do.

I understand there have been some groups attacking the Government more, but not many from my knowledge.

Many argue that the root of our problem is that Wall Street, ie big business, now bankrolls our politicians through private campaign contributions. If Wall Mart or the Koch Brothers want someone in office, they can drop a couple tens of millions of dollars on attack ads and destroy an otherwise decent candidate that lacks corporate backing.

Exactly. This isn't Wall Streets fault, the government lets this shit happen. They allows corporate donations, don't they?

And I don't care if they did things with no regard for consequence. They WOULD HAVE failed and experienced these consequences, but again, the government said "Nope." and gave them a fuckload of their money to go on their merry way. It was a risk-reward situation, but the government decided that it was just a reward scenario.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but the logic is that our Government is, at this point, no longer functioning for the people and is owned wholesale by Wall Street. I assume the idea is to make Wall Street look so negative that the politicians with big business backings to become fearful enough that popular favor is turning against them to vote for the populous to keep their jobs.

Grey Ghost

Weaver wrote: »

On the new antisemitism angle the right is attacking OWS with

http://shelf3d.com/QlFKgOvF3Lk

The hell

Big Red Tie

Topia wrote:

Enc wrote:

Topia wrote:

Can I ask a question as a semi-ignorant Canadian? Why do you dudes call it Occupy Wall Street and not Occupy White House or some such nonsense? From my POV, everything thats wrong is the governments fault. Wall Street was only doing things they're allowed to do.

I understand there have been some groups attacking the Government more, but not many from my knowledge.

Many argue that the root of our problem is that Wall Street, ie big business, now bankrolls our politicians through private campaign contributions. If Wall Mart or the Koch Brothers want someone in office, they can drop a couple tens of millions of dollars on attack ads and destroy an otherwise decent candidate that lacks corporate backing.

Exactly. This isn't Wall Streets fault, the government lets this shit happen. They allows corporate donations, don't they?

And I don't care if they did things with no regard for consequence. They WOULD HAVE failed and experienced these consequences, but again, the government said "Nope." and gave them a fuckload of their money to go on their merry way. It was a risk-reward situation, but the government decided that it was just a reward scenario.

um, everyone would be experiencing consequences.

cause you know, economy. certainly there should be more gov regulation and less corporate influence on the gov, but uh, that doesn't mean fucking over the global economy so a few companies can "learn a lesson"

also: how is it not also wall street's fault? in a society where people have freedom, there is a degree of risk because you don't know how everyone will act. that doesn't mean everyone is allowed to be awful and avoid the blame by saying the government didn't prevent them from doing something, especially not while also lobbying for the government to stay out of they business

Enc

Ubik wrote:

i don't understand the weird lines people are drawing between protest and complaining or protest and loitering

The complaining thing probably comes from the fact that many of the anecdotal examples are pretty self detrimental combined with the fact that most folks at the rallies are young. Not really fair to the protesters, but it happens with every kind of rally.

The loitering thing comes from the fact that they really aren't doing much more than standing around. They are not blocking Wall Street functions through peaceful, non-violent protest, they are just standing next to it. Without some kind of disruption of business as usual, they are fairly ineffectual. At least, that's how I'd see it.

Ubik

Weaver wrote:

On the new antisemitism angle the right is attacking OWS with

http://shelf3d.com/QlFKgOvF3Lk

god damnit

god damnit

Matey

Enc wrote:

Matey wrote:

A real question

Has there ever been a revolution that hasn't been conducted through violence?

1688 - The Glorious Revolution.

This is a good example of a revolution that was rather clean in it's execution

But there was still a certain level of violence utilized to meet their goals in the end

Zonugal

I am just waiting for violent revolution. The poor will rise up and the 1% will hire the middle class to fight the poor.

I am waiting.

Dichotomy

wall street is just used as shorthand for the entire big business banking lighting-cigars-with-hundred-dollar-bills rich motherfucker thing

it's synecdoche, people

LTM

Dichotomy wrote:

wall street is just used as shorthand for the entire big business banking lighting-cigars-with-hundred-dollar-bills rich motherfucker thing

it's synecdoche, people

Isn't that somewhere in New Jersey?

Topia

Enc wrote:

Topia wrote:

Enc wrote:

Topia wrote:

Can I ask a question as a semi-ignorant Canadian? Why do you dudes call it Occupy Wall Street and not Occupy White House or some such nonsense? From my POV, everything thats wrong is the governments fault. Wall Street was only doing things they're allowed to do.

I understand there have been some groups attacking the Government more, but not many from my knowledge.

Many argue that the root of our problem is that Wall Street, ie big business, now bankrolls our politicians through private campaign contributions. If Wall Mart or the Koch Brothers want someone in office, they can drop a couple tens of millions of dollars on attack ads and destroy an otherwise decent candidate that lacks corporate backing.

Exactly. This isn't Wall Streets fault, the government lets this shit happen. They allows corporate donations, don't they?

And I don't care if they did things with no regard for consequence. They WOULD HAVE failed and experienced these consequences, but again, the government said "Nope." and gave them a fuckload of their money to go on their merry way. It was a risk-reward situation, but the government decided that it was just a reward scenario.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but the logic is that our Government is, at this point, no longer functioning for the people and is owned wholesale by Wall Street. I assume the idea is to make Wall Street look so negative that the politicians with big business backings to become fearful enough that popular favor is turning against them to vote for the populous to keep their jobs.

Oh okay, thanks (and Hunter!). This helps me understand why people are focusing on Wall Street.

Zonugal

Dichotomy wrote:

wall street is just used as shorthand for the entire big business banking lighting-cigars-with-hundred-dollar-bills rich motherfucker thing

it's synecdoche, people

Stale

Why did you wreck this economy Wall Street?


Because it's wreckable, that's why.

LTM

Stale wrote:

Why did you wreck this economy Wall Street?

Because it's wreckable, that's why.

Wall Street all gonna part us up and lay us off to the Mexicans, because they're dumb enough to buy us.

Enc

Michael Douglas: the face of the enemy.

Zonugal

Enc wrote:

Michael Douglas: the face of the enemy.

Know thy enemy.

MrMonroe

Weaver wrote:

So man what the shit is with all of the trying to inject a bunch of Jew-hate into OWS lately?

wait, what?

also, BoA has transferred some $75 Trillion dollars in derivatives from Merrill Investments to their public depository arm, meaning if those risks turn foul (who ever heard of a massive derivative market going foul without warning) then the FDIC will be obligated to insure them out of the pool of funds that are meant to be used to insure the bank's depositors against the risky behaviors of the bank. In other words, a program designed to protect depositors from banks' risky behaviors is being used to protect the bank from the negative consequences of their risky behaviors. It's not entirely unfeasible, either, that this could severely harm the FDIC, endangering its ability to grant similar insurance to other small depositors.

I don't know why, but that's it. I'm going to a credit union.

Weaver

MrMonroe wrote:

Weaver wrote:

So man what the shit is with all of the trying to inject a bunch of Jew-hate into OWS lately?

wait, what?

also, BoA has transferred some $75 Trillion dollars in derivatives from Merrill Investments to their public depository arm, meaning if those risks turn foul (who ever heard of a massive derivative market going foul without warning) then the FDIC will be obligated to insure them out of the pool of funds that are meant to be used to insure the bank's depositors against the risky behaviors of the bank. In other words, a program designed to protect depositors from banks' risky behaviors is being used to protect the bank from the negative consequences of their risky behaviors. It's not entirely unfeasible, either, that this could severely harm the FDIC, endangering its ability to grant similar insurance to other small depositors.

I don't know why, but that's it. I'm going to a credit union.

This is big shit news and needs more attention. I posted it in the last thread and it just got glazed over.

Romanian My Escutcheon

MrMonroe wrote:

Weaver wrote:

So man what the shit is with all of the trying to inject a bunch of Jew-hate into OWS lately?

wait, what?

Conservatives and pro-Israeli actiong groups are finding clips of anti-Semitic OWS protesters, and claiming that any government official is who supports OWS is, by association, also a fervent anti-Semite.

LTM

MrMonroe wrote:

I don't know why, but that's it. I'm going to a credit union.

See this, right here, is "action". Unless by "going to", you mean standing across the street from it everyday talking about how great it is in comparison to BofA.

Aneurhythmia

Enc wrote:

They are not blocking Wall Street functions through peaceful, non-violent protest, they are just standing next to it. Without some kind of disruption of business as usual, they are fairly ineffectual. At least, that's how I'd see it.

That's how you'd see it if you hadn't read most of the previous thread or a lot of the news?

Weaver

Citigroup Inc. agreed to pay a $285 million fine to settle civil charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission that it sold securities backed by mortgages that it simultaneously bet against.

The regulator alleged that Citigroup Global Markets structured and marketed a $500 million collateralized-debt obligation that was backed by subprime loans, and then bet against those mortgage-related assets, which it didn't disclose to investors.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204618704576640873051858568.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Yet they got a $45B bailout.

Weaver

Aneurhythmia wrote:

Enc wrote:

They are not blocking Wall Street functions through peaceful, non-violent protest, they are just standing next to it. Without some kind of disruption of business as usual, they are fairly ineffectual. At least, that's how I'd see it.

That's how you'd see it if you hadn't read most of the previous thread or a lot of the news?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111019/NEWS01/111019007/Update-Occupy-Des-Moines-activists-march-on-Wells-Fargo?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

SimBen

Matey wrote:

A real question

Has there ever been a revolution that hasn't been conducted through violence?

Oh hey, right here. Quebec freed itself of the catholic church in the 60s and it was all through completely peaceful protests.

neville

Aneurhythmia wrote:

Grey Ghost wrote:

Weaver wrote: »

Henroid wrote:

Jasconius wrote:

get a job, hippies!

They can't, the Tea Party is telling businesses to not hire anybody.

This is a true thing that is real.

a-wha

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3355873:BlogPost:1566647&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post

Resolved that: Our President, the Democrats-Socialists, most of the media, and most of those from Hollywood, have now encouraged and supported "Occupy" demonstrations in our streets, which are now being perpetrated across the globe, and which are being populated by various marxists, socialists and even communists, and are protesting against business, private property ownership and capitalism, something I thought I'd never see in my country, in my lifetime.

I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.

I really support the idea that you need to pass an intelligence test to have kids.
That entire website is why.
Too many stupid people having stupider kids.

TheStig

shit bag contractors should not be able to refer to themselves as "small business owners"

Enc

Weaver wrote:

Aneurhythmia wrote:

Enc wrote:

They are not blocking Wall Street functions through peaceful, non-violent protest, they are just standing next to it. Without some kind of disruption of business as usual, they are fairly ineffectual. At least, that's how I'd see it.

That's how you'd see it if you hadn't read most of the previous thread or a lot of the news?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111019/NEWS01/111019007/Update-Occupy-Des-Moines-activists-march-on-Wells-Fargo?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

That's exactly how I'd read it. Not doing enough to disrupt enough to get through to all of the country. Again, I'm very much in support of these guys but unless they crank it up a notch it's not going to make much of a difference. Hopefully I'm wrong in thinking this.

I doubt I am, though.

neville

Ubik wrote:

Weaver wrote:

On the new antisemitism angle the right is attacking OWS with

http://shelf3d.com/QlFKgOvF3Lk

god damnit

god damnit

Agreed.
I do love me some Olbermann.

Matey

SimBen wrote:

Matey wrote:

A real question

Has there ever been a revolution that hasn't been conducted through violence?

Oh hey, right here. Quebec freed itself of the catholic church in the 60s and it was all through completely peaceful protests.

Do you mind offering up a link on this?

I'm trying to find something on my own but not having much luck

Thanks

LTM

Enc wrote:

Weaver wrote:

Aneurhythmia wrote:

Enc wrote:

They are not blocking Wall Street functions through peaceful, non-violent protest, they are just standing next to it. Without some kind of disruption of business as usual, they are fairly ineffectual. At least, that's how I'd see it.

That's how you'd see it if you hadn't read most of the previous thread or a lot of the news?

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111019/NEWS01/111019007/Update-Occupy-Des-Moines-activists-march-on-Wells-Fargo?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

That's exactly how I'd read it. Not doing enough to disrupt enough to get through to all of the country. Again, I'm very much in support of these guys but unless they crank it up a notch it's not going to make much of a difference. Hopefully I'm wrong in thinking this.

I doubt I am, though.

Look at the scale and ferocity of the protests that follows the G8/IMF, and how much change that has caused. Then try to extrapolate back to what this might bring.

SimBen

Matey wrote:

SimBen wrote:

Matey wrote:

A real question

Has there ever been a revolution that hasn't been conducted through violence?

Oh hey, right here. Quebec freed itself of the catholic church in the 60s and it was all through completely peaceful protests.

Do you mind offering up a link on this?

I'm trying to find something on my own but not having much luck

Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_revolution

TheLawinator

TheStig wrote:

shit bag contractors should not be able to refer to themselves as "small business owners"

My dad is a contractor. Obviously we can no longer be friends.

SimBen

TheLawinator wrote:

TheStig wrote:

shit bag contractors should not be able to refer to themselves as "small business owners"

My dad is a contractor. Obviously we can no longer be friends.

Is he a shitbag though? Stig specifically said shitbags.

TheStig

SimBen wrote:

TheLawinator wrote:

TheStig wrote:

shit bag contractors should not be able to refer to themselves as "small business owners"

My dad is a contractor. Obviously we can no longer be friends.

Is he a shitbag though? Stig specifically said shitbags.

I can't believe you would call your dad a shitbag.

also: not like it matters, the rapture is on friday anyway.

MrMonroe

Weaver wrote:

On the new antisemitism angle the right is attacking OWS with

http://shelf3d.com/QlFKgOvF3Lk

Oh. Bill Kristol came up with it?

Why am I not fucking surprised at all.