Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

SEIU and Obama are behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement

and the Uber Rich hollywood elite.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Changing back quotes in violation of the Terms of Service, how clever.

You have just proven that you have absolutely no clue what this movement is about, which is not surprising. I think that none of you on the right have a clue about it.

I guess I just didn't smoke enough pot....

The key to "understanding" it being so fucked up that you can't quite decipher your own name.

This movement is happening because people are suffering, and they have identified the ability of big business to pull the strings of government as the cause of their suffering.

No, you moron. This astroturf outing is happening because Soros and SUEI are funding it. It's a power bid by the usual suspects of the extreme left.

You and these dopers on the streets are drones, doing the bidding of your masters with no real grasp of the issue at play or the power struggles you are attempting to tilt.

What they want to do is to cut those strings so that government can then act in the interests of the people, not the corporate interests, and reverse the transfer of wealth from the 99% to the 1% that's been going on for thirty years.

Nothing acts in the interest of the people quite like government, especially leftists and socialists.

USSR - 35 to 70 million citizens murdered by government
NSDAP - 9 to 14 million citizens murdered by government
PRC - 65 to 128 million citizens murdered by government
SRV (Vietnam) - 2 to 7 million citizens murdered by government
Khmer Rouge - 6 to 11 million citizens murdered by government

BUT hey, YOU HATE CAPITALISTS, as well you should because;

Microsoft - zero million citizens murdered by the corporation
Hewlett-Packard - zero million citizens murdered by the corporation
Standard Oil - zero million citizens murdered by the corporation

Yeah, you have it all figured out, trust government, give all power to government, government will care for you, Dear Leader loves you..

None of that requires a full-on socialist economy, although it most certainly does require government policies that are labor-friendly rather than capital-friendly,

Because labor has value, right?

I mean, a man in the desert digging a hole and filling it in is just as important as a researcher finding a cure for cancer. Digging a hole is hard work, it certainly is labor.

and a willingness on the part of government to regulate the banking industry, protect the environment, and support the rights of working people. If you consider that "socialism," well, there's just no talking to you I suppose until you regain some perspective and coherence.

My perspective is this, you are poorly educated with zero grasp of economics. You are driven by a desire of "Gimmeee Gimmeee Gimmeee," where you think that your needs and wants are sufficient to compel others to give you what you value, despite you offering nothing in return.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'd rather have this one question answered:

If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?

I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.

Who said do away with capitalism? There MUST be regulation (those regulations used to support capitalists from catching their tails and eating them), and these capitalists who make full use of other regulations that favor and safeguard them, who use our commons, and make full use (often greater use) of every other amenity of our government should pay their fair share of up keeping and holding the systems they take advantage of.

Who said do away with capitalism?

The useful idiots at Occupy Wall Street inbetween chanting blithering nonsense "It's good to see you all here!"

There MUST be regulation

I've never made the claim there shouldn't be SOME regulation. The question is WHERE and how MUCH regulation it should be. I err on the side of the most individual freedom and least government involvement save that which is based in non-partisan regulation of consumer and labor protection as well as preventing anti-competition tactics from any party and truth in advertising and manufacture. After that, the government needs to get the fuck out of the way and let the market take care of itself. Not only that, A regulation unenforced EQUALLY on ALL members of the market is worse than useless. It's dangerous.

and these capitalists who make full use of other regulations that favor and safeguard them

I'm all for eliminating every tax break and subsidy for businesses of all sorts. I think that the tax rate for corporations should be 10% or less of their pre-loss income from all sources with no offsets. After that, it's their money, for them to do with as they please. No more GE tax credits or Solyndra subsidies and loans.

who use our commons

Commons? The idea of the town common or even a 'national common' died in the 1700's with feudalism. If it is not owned by someone, the rights do not default to the federal government, but rather the state government if you are going to be constitutional about it. We have too much population to bother with this antiquated notion that the government is the rightful owner of all land and we as private citizens only 'borrow' or pay rent on it.

and make full use (often greater use) of every other amenity of our government should pay their fair share of up keeping and holding the systems they take advantage of.

Like?

You should beware of such obviously over-broad statements that technically have no meaning save that subjective concept you choose to put in it.

What "Amenities or government systems" do businesses overuse and abuse that are also available to private citizens?

Define fair share, and when are the poor going to pay their OWN fair share?

Who created these poor abused systems and why do we need them? Would we not be better off eliminating them, the tax burden and bureaucracy to maintain them and return that money and savings to individual citizens?

You want hope and change, right?

Hope FOR what?
Change TO what?

Please be SPECIFIC on the goals you wish to attain and the logistics on HOW you're going to attain them. A passing reference in the expected cost/benefit analysis would be nice too. Not asking much, just to know specifically what I'm getting for acquiescence.

 

[Barb]

Why am I TOTALLY reminded of my own posts about the teaparty right now?


This is what the media does to the teaparties and is now doing to the wallstreet protestors, lie about them then demonized based on the lies.

The media IS owned by rich corporate bosses, and of course they will marginalize the protestors by comparing them to the tea partiers. Meanwhile, one is grass roots, and the first was astro turf. I'm sorry, but I don't see the two as equivalent. The media is trying its damndest to tie them together, as "fringe," but is isn't so. The 99% IS 99%, and we're ALL collectively paying the freight on those who have been and would continue to be free riders at every one else's expense.

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you declare that you are the "99%"? I'm sorry but you're NOT. If you'd like to give an accurate accounting of how many people Occupy Wall Street represents then I might pay attention. I guess saying "We are the 18%!" just didn't have a great ring to it...huh?

You think all BUT 18% have money in Wall Street?

I'm sorry if I misconstrue your thought in any small way, but it wasn't presented in a very clear manner.

The top 1% is most represented (above all others) by our government tax code. They are also most likely to be Wall Street players.
Kind of like the wales at the Casinos, except our society is not supposed to BE a casino, it is SUPPOSED to be a representative republic.

 

[Dragon]

You're such a fucking liar.

Still hyperventilating, I see.

OWS has not presented any official list of demands. There is a semi-official list of grievances. That's what you linked to. A grievance is not a demand.

Right, because giving houses and property to people who have no claim to them, do not pay for them, did not build them and have no title to them - IE your first demand

As I said, there were no demands. Those are YOUR words, not those of anyone involved with OWS.

DUDE, you're a fucking Marxist promoting a Bolshevik protest. Do you REALLY think you're fooling anyone?

I am not a Marxist, probably no one alive today is a Bolshevik, and you are not going to find thousands and thousands of people in this country who believe in Marxism. If you think that the thousands of people involved in OWS are all Marxists, I'm not the one who's smoking something here.

Yeah, 99% of the country are Marxists...

Sure.

Precisely my point. With the kind of massive support that OWS has, it's quite impossible for it to be a Marxist movement. There are a few Marxists in the U.S., to be sure, but only a few. This movement is MUCH larger than that.

 

[Truthmatters]

There is no Koch brothers funing this one

How come our local boston tea party chapter has never received a check?

Hollywood elites are funding the wall-streeters, those rich elite's and their little sheeple protestors. <----it feels dirty to do that, i'm surprised you don't feel dirty repeating the lies about the teaparty as you always do.

Their checks are not for you.

their checks are for Fox and commercials to promote their agenda.

Its why people were so uninformed that they carried "keep your Government hands off my medicare".

It why 70 % of the people thought Sadam did 911 in early 2003

 

[Dragon]

The issue that some of us have with OWS is that it is the brain burp of Watermelon Man. I dislike the manipulation of decent people who have genuine, if misguided, issues.

Again, cluelessness on display. This movement is not the brain child (let alone the brain burp) of any one single person. It's huge. It's impossible for anyone to control, it has no clear leaders, and while Van Jones is certainly involved in it, as are many other prominent figures on the left, it is much larger than he is or than all of them are put together.

 

[California Girl]

I'm glad to see the OWS movement growing and that people are waking up to the fact that Bankers, not "We the People" run the country.

The problem I have is that apparently some of them want Obama installed as Dictator (Which I'd argue, Obama is already one) That's like wanting to kill Caesar then install Hitler. How would that change anything?

Of course that's what they want. The movement was created by the far left. It has jack shit to do with 'we, the People' and everything to do with 'we, the Socialists'. This is Van Jones 'October Offensive'.

You might approve of Watermelon Man and his cronies manipulating people, but I disagree.

 

[Dragon]

This astroturf outing is happening because Soros and SUEI are funding it. It's a power bid by the usual suspects of the extreme left.

More cluelessness on display. You have no idea what you're talking about. I don't even know if George Soros has contributed a penny to OWS; if he has, it gives him no control. This is a genuine, bottom-up, grass-roots movement that was built on the Internet, initially without much funding at all. In this, it's like what the Tea Party was in the beginning, only bigger and left-leaning rather than right-leaning (although it does share some goals with the TP despite that).

Mouth-breathing, hyperventilating, and obviously-spurious comparisons of an essentially democratic movement to totalitarian states of the past are signs of nothing except, again, your own cluelessness.

If you really want something historical to compare the agenda of the OWS protesters to -- although this isn't a perfect match -- try the U.S. in the Eisenhower-Kennedy-LBJ-Nixon years. Not a totalitarian state, not a socialist economy, but one in which the government was labor-friendly rather than capital-friendly, when the financial industry was regulated, and in which income gaps were much narrower and most Americans belonged to the middle class.

As for my having "zero grasp of economics," you need to stop confusing right-wing ideology with economic knowledge. I am not ignorant of economics; on the contrary, I probably know more about it than any other poster here, certainly than most of them. I disagree with you, not because I don't know things, but because I do.

 

[Big Fitz]

I'm glad to see the OWS movement growing and that people are waking up to the fact that Bankers, not "We the People" run the country.

The problem I have is that apparently some of them want Obama installed as Dictator (Which I'd argue, Obama is already one) That's like wanting to kill Caesar then install Hitler. How would that change anything?

Of course that's what they want. The movement was created by the far left. It has jack shit to do with 'we, the People' and everything to do with 'we, the Socialists'. This is Van Jones 'October Offensive'.

You might approve of Watermelon Man and his cronies manipulating people, but I disagree.

If this is their 'offensive' I'm offended it's so offensively bad and not surprised at it's failure.

 

[Dragon]

The movement was created by the far left.

I'm getting the idea that you would not know the real "far left" if it bit you.

 

[Barb]

I'd rather have this one question answered:

If we do away with capitalism, what is it to be replaced with and how will this be implemented?

I suspect the real answer is damning to the movement.

Who said do away with capitalism? There MUST be regulation (those regulations used to support capitalists from catching their tails and eating them), and these capitalists who make full use of other regulations that favor and safeguard them, who use our commons, and make full use (often greater use) of every other amenity of our government should pay their fair share of up keeping and holding the systems they take advantage of.

The useful idiots at Occupy Wall Street inbetween chanting blithering nonsense "It's good to see you all here!"


I've never made the claim there shouldn't be SOME regulation. The question is WHERE and how MUCH regulation it should be. I err on the side of the most individual freedom and least government involvement save that which is based in non-partisan regulation of consumer and labor protection as well as preventing anti-competition tactics from any party and truth in advertising and manufacture. After that, the government needs to get the fuck out of the way and let the market take care of itself. Not only that, A regulation unenforced EQUALLY on ALL members of the market is worse than useless. It's dangerous.

Absolutely! There is no "free market" where the pharmaceutical industry, the textile industry, and the oil industry does not have to compete freely with cannabis and hemp.

I'm all for eliminating every tax break and subsidy for businesses of all sorts. I think that the tax rate for corporations should be 10% or less of their pre-loss income from all sources with no offsets. After that, it's their money, for them to do with as they please. No more GE tax credits or Solyndra subsidies and loans.

you and I pay much more. Why should they get MORE of a break then we do now, and that they already do before the loopholes that reduce it, in many cases, to zero (or us paying them)?

who use our commons

Commons? The idea of the town common or even a 'national common' died in the 1700's with feudalism. If it is not owned by someone, the rights do not default to the federal government, but rather the state government if you are going to be constitutional about it. We have too much population to bother with this antiquated notion that the government is the rightful owner of all land and we as private citizens only 'borrow' or pay rent on it.

The commons isn't an "idea," it is a physical fact. At this point I must give you the benefit of the doubt. You cannot be a functional moron, so you must be a political ideologue, and hoping I am.

and make full use (often greater use) of every other amenity of our government should pay their fair share of up keeping and holding the systems they take advantage of.

Like?

Like our court system, that upholds the contracts they make and wish to hold others to, and use to avoid them being held to. The treasury system, that promises that the currency they trade in is respected worldwide, etc, ad nauseum

You should beware of such obviously over-broad statements that technically have no meaning save that subjective concept you choose to put in it.

such as?

What "Amenities or government systems" do businesses overuse and abuse that are also available to private citizens?

You're repeating yourself. But, the private citizens who comprise a corporation take advantage of all or most of them at some point in their lives.

Define fair share, and when are the poor going to pay their OWN fair share?

Just as soon as there is full employment,at a living wage, asswipe. Until then, the un and underemployed are working their asses off at poverty wages to reduce the labor overhead the companies your 401-k or other retirement plan is counting on to uphold your stock portfolio.

Who created these poor abused systems and why do we need them? Would we not be better off eliminating them, the tax burden and bureaucracy to maintain them and return that money and savings to individual citizens?

Sure. Let them eat cake.

You want hope and change, right?

Nothing so vague as any of that.

Hope FOR what?
Change TO what?

The principles our founding fathers fought a bloody war for. The same principles that a bloody war was fought against the robber barons for. The same principles the UNIONS fought a bloody war for. The SAME principles FDR put in place to end the great depression, and offer a chance for the American Dream to a MUCH wider segment of society than the elite (in the TRUE sense of the term as it was historically used, time and again, to SUPPRESS upward mobility) would wish, because it isn't a country club if EVERYDAMNEDBODY can afford to join.

Please be SPECIFIC on the goals you wish to attain and the logistics on HOW you're going to attain them. A passing reference in the expected cost/benefit analysis would be nice too. Not asking much, just to know specifically what I'm getting for acquiescence.

You know, you aren't my college professor. I'm pretty damned sure you're simply a shill for the status quo. When I'm done with my thesis, and if you're really interested, I'll send it to you. If not, more balls than what seems to be supported, but no harm, no foul. Have a very nice and subservient life.

eh

 

[Truthmatters]

The movement was created by the far left.

I'm getting the idea that you would not know the real "far left" if it bit you.

She knows next to nothing about this country and its pulse

 

[Big Fitz]

Who said do away with capitalism? There MUST be regulation (those regulations used to support capitalists from catching their tails and eating them), and these capitalists who make full use of other regulations that favor and safeguard them, who use our commons, and make full use (often greater use) of every other amenity of our government should pay their fair share of up keeping and holding the systems they take advantage of.

The useful idiots at Occupy Wall Street inbetween chanting blithering nonsense "It's good to see you all here!"


I've never made the claim there shouldn't be SOME regulation. The question is WHERE and how MUCH regulation it should be. I err on the side of the most individual freedom and least government involvement save that which is based in non-partisan regulation of consumer and labor protection as well as preventing anti-competition tactics from any party and truth in advertising and manufacture. After that, the government needs to get the fuck out of the way and let the market take care of itself. Not only that, A regulation unenforced EQUALLY on ALL members of the market is worse than useless. It's dangerous.



I'm all for eliminating every tax break and subsidy for businesses of all sorts. I think that the tax rate for corporations should be 10% or less of their pre-loss income from all sources with no offsets. After that, it's their money, for them to do with as they please. No more GE tax credits or Solyndra subsidies and loans.



Commons? The idea of the town common or even a 'national common' died in the 1700's with feudalism. If it is not owned by someone, the rights do not default to the federal government, but rather the state government if you are going to be constitutional about it. We have too much population to bother with this antiquated notion that the government is the rightful owner of all land and we as private citizens only 'borrow' or pay rent on it.





Like?



You should beware of such obviously over-broad statements that technically have no meaning save that subjective concept you choose to put in it.



What "Amenities or government systems" do businesses overuse and abuse that are also available to private citizens?



Define fair share, and when are the poor going to pay their OWN fair share?



Who created these poor abused systems and why do we need them? Would we not be better off eliminating them, the tax burden and bureaucracy to maintain them and return that money and savings to individual citizens?



You want hope and change, right?



Hope FOR what?
Change TO what?



Please be SPECIFIC on the goals you wish to attain and the logistics on HOW you're going to attain them. A passing reference in the expected cost/benefit analysis would be nice too. Not asking much, just to know specifically what I'm getting for acquiescence.

You know, you aren't my college professor. I'm pretty damned sure you're simply a shill for the status quo. When I'm done with my thesis, and if you're really interested, I'll send it to you. If not, more balls than what seems to be supported, but no harm, no foul. Have a very nice and subservient life.

eh

Quote:
You know, you aren't my college professor. I'm pretty damned sure you're simply a shill for the status quo. When I'm done with my thesis, and if you're really interested, I'll send it to you. If not, more balls than what seems to be supported, but no harm, no foul. Have a very nice and subservient life.


eh

Who, pray tell are you quoting. It's not me. Secondly, did you understand my fisking of your post or was it above your pay grade? If you're quoting Dragon, boy you are desperate for something to bail you out.

 

[California Girl]

The movement was created by the far left.

I'm getting the idea that you would not know the real "far left" if it bit you.

I know how they are. And I know what they want. You choose to ignore them. I won't. It's my country too. I'll share it with ya, but I will not allow you to trash the Constitution that founded it.

 

[Barb]

The useful idiots at Occupy Wall Street inbetween chanting blithering nonsense "It's good to see you all here!"


I've never made the claim there shouldn't be SOME regulation. The question is WHERE and how MUCH regulation it should be. I err on the side of the most individual freedom and least government involvement save that which is based in non-partisan regulation of consumer and labor protection as well as preventing anti-competition tactics from any party and truth in advertising and manufacture. After that, the government needs to get the fuck out of the way and let the market take care of itself. Not only that, A regulation unenforced EQUALLY on ALL members of the market is worse than useless. It's dangerous.



I'm all for eliminating every tax break and subsidy for businesses of all sorts. I think that the tax rate for corporations should be 10% or less of their pre-loss income from all sources with no offsets. After that, it's their money, for them to do with as they please. No more GE tax credits or Solyndra subsidies and loans.



Commons? The idea of the town common or even a 'national common' died in the 1700's with feudalism. If it is not owned by someone, the rights do not default to the federal government, but rather the state government if you are going to be constitutional about it. We have too much population to bother with this antiquated notion that the government is the rightful owner of all land and we as private citizens only 'borrow' or pay rent on it.





Like?



You should beware of such obviously over-broad statements that technically have no meaning save that subjective concept you choose to put in it.



What "Amenities or government systems" do businesses overuse and abuse that are also available to private citizens?



Define fair share, and when are the poor going to pay their OWN fair share?



Who created these poor abused systems and why do we need them? Would we not be better off eliminating them, the tax burden and bureaucracy to maintain them and return that money and savings to individual citizens?



You want hope and change, right?



Hope FOR what?
Change TO what?



Please be SPECIFIC on the goals you wish to attain and the logistics on HOW you're going to attain them. A passing reference in the expected cost/benefit analysis would be nice too. Not asking much, just to know specifically what I'm getting for acquiescence.

eh

Quote:
You know, you aren't my college professor. I'm pretty damned sure you're simply a shill for the status quo. When I'm done with my thesis, and if you're really interested, I'll send it to you. If not, more balls than what seems to be supported, but no harm, no foul. Have a very nice and subservient life.


eh

Who, pray tell are you quoting. It's not me. Secondly, did you understand my fisking of your post or was it above your pay grade? If you're quoting Dragon, boy you are desperate for something to bail you out.

Chica, I may not be expert re the format here, but every point I answered in my reply to you was yours. If you're too simple to figure out what you asked and what I answered, we're done here, as it is a simple matter of what you already said (you should remember those parts) and my reply.

 

[Dragon]

She knows next to nothing about this country and its pulse

I find that a lot of people participating in boards like this one who consider themselves conservatives, and when they use labels like "far left," are talking about the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Bernie Sanders, or even in some cases Barack Obama. Pelosi and Sanders are not "far left" of course, let alone Obama.

I've known some real far lefties. The Revolutionary Communist Party is far left. The Unabomber was far left. The Socialist Workers Party is kind of semi-far left. The Wobblies have a far-left tick to them sometimes.

I expect all of these, except the Unabomber of course, to hitch a ride with OWS and try to promote their agendas; that happens in every center-left protest. But the movement itself is populist, center-left, mainstream. You will find that a clear majority of the people will agree with most of the grievances listed.

 

[Big Fitz]

The movement was created by the far left.

I'm getting the idea that you would not know the real "far left" if it bit you.

I know how they are. And I know what they want. You choose to ignore them. I won't. It's my country too. I'll share it with ya, but I will not allow you to trash the Constitution that founded it.

Ignore? No. A member of? Yes. This boy's crazier than a clown car pulling a steam calliope with Dumbo flying air cover.

 

[California Girl]

She knows next to nothing about this country and its pulse

I find that a lot of people participating in boards like this one who consider themselves conservatives, and when they use labels like "far left," are talking about the likes of Nancy Pelosi or Bernie Sanders, or even in some cases Barack Obama. Pelosi and Sanders are not "far left" of course, let alone Obama.

I've known some real far lefties. The Revolutionary Communist Party is far left. The Unabomber was far left. The Socialist Workers Party is kind of semi-far left. The Wobblies have a far-left tick to them sometimes.

I expect all of these, except the Unabomber of course, to hitch a ride with OWS and try to promote their agendas; that happens in every center-left protest. But the movement itself is populist, center-left, mainstream. You will find that a clear majority of the people will agree with most of the grievances listed.

Yea, cuz Truthdon'tmatter is the epitome of rational thought.

Van Jones is behind your precious 'uprising'. It's the 'October Offensive' that we weren't supposed to find out about. Now, you might not be concerned about who the puppetmasters are in this scenario. But I am.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

OWS is another Downgraded Obama Astroturf Idea doomed to fail