Search forums

Forums

Export thread

So there's this Occupy Wall Street protest in Manhattan today

Limit: 500

Sep 17, 2011#1

Charlie Don't Surf

It seems pretty cool, the rich are pretty terrible and control the country, and I was all ready to support this thing and then I saw this--

n...nevermind.

http://www.occupywallst.org if you're still interested

Sep 17, 2011#2

Shegokigo

Actually I wasn't interested till I saw the pic so it's probably having the mainstream reverse effect that it had on you. Which is a good thing!

Sep 17, 2011#3

Charlie Don't Surf

I'm slightly joking, I am severely interested in this protest since I hate the rich and all that liberal bullshit. I just wanted to make fun of this terrible nerd sign/picture

I wouldn't have posted this thread if I didn't want to spread awareness of this

Sep 17, 2011#4

Shegokigo

Yeah, but that terrible nerd sign/picture is spreading the word about 400x more than you are, so not sure why you'd be against it. Interesting link none-the-less though. Thanks.

Sep 19, 2011#5

SpecialKO

...what are they actually protesting for?

Their manifesto doesn't seem to say anything specific beyond "we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore". Maybe there's more substance somewhere on that site, but on the face of it, it just sounds like a far-left Tea Party.

Sep 19, 2011#6

strawman

The top 5% of the worlds wealthiest people (middle class americans) are complaining that the top 0.05% of the world's wealthiest people are just too darn wealthy.

Story at 11.

Sep 19, 2011#7

Krisken

More the income inequality is at an obscene rate, but yeah, the top .05% have too many resources.

Sep 19, 2011#8

SpecialKO

Krisken said:
More the income inequality is at an obscene rate, but yeah, the top .05% have too many resources.

I don't disagree with that at all, I would just like to know what they're actually trying to accomplish, what their goals are. "Promoting awareness" is really only a goal when you come prepared to educate, not just carry signs with slogans.

Sep 19, 2011#9

Krisken

Oh, yeah, I have no idea what those idiots are trying to do. Just saying I understand the frustration.

Sep 19, 2011#10

Hailey Knight

SpecialKO said:
I don't disagree with that at all, I would just like to know what they're actually trying to accomplish, what their goals are. "Promoting awareness" is really only a goal when you come prepared to educate, not just carry signs with slogans.

Get elected and be shit-headed.

Like the Tea Party.

Sep 19, 2011#11

strawman

SpecialKO said:
I would just like to know what they're actually trying to accomplish

In a real revolution, the middle class switch places with the upper class by using the lower class as pawns. It's quite obvious these are middle class folks getting all uppity, but they've got no plan, so I don't see anything coming of it.

Sep 20, 2011#12

@Li3n

Relevant: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14978876

"It took about three years into the Depression before people overcame this sense of blaming themselves about their plight, before they got angry at the banks and the business community and local mayors, before they externalised their anger and made it a political issue rather than a personal one."

Oct 1, 2011#13

Vietnam

Take off your masks. No one had masks on in the 60's or 70's accept for the disgusting KKK

Oct 1, 2011#14

Charlie Don't Surf

thanks "Vietnam"

Oct 1, 2011#15

Frankie Williamson

Still 0 coverage anywhere on the current one going and the one going in LA.

Lots of arrests though.

So, awesome.

Oct 1, 2011#16

Charlie Don't Surf

Fuck the police.

And the media.

Oct 1, 2011#17

Tress

Vietnam said:
Take off your masks. No one had masks on in the 60's or 70's accept for the disgusting KKK

It's not that I disagree with you, but no one here is wearing a mask. In fact, I don't think anyone here has any direct connection to the protest whatsoever.

Oct 1, 2011#18

phil

Tress said:
It's not that I disagree with you, but no one here is wearing a mask. In fact, I don't think anyone here has any direct connection to the protest whatsoever.

I don't think he meant that to anyone here?

Oct 1, 2011#19

Tress

phil said:
I don't think he meant that to anyone here?

I dunno. I thought that's how it sounded.

Oct 1, 2011#20

Charlie Don't Surf

He was probably referring to the pic in the OP

Oct 1, 2011#21

Hailey Knight

I always wear a mask when I post here.

Oct 1, 2011#22

Charlie Don't Surf

I wear a surgical mask so I don't catch what you guys have

Oct 1, 2011#23

Tress

Charlie Don't Surf said:
I wear a surgical mask so I don't catch what you guys have

That's wise. According to makare memes are just like herpes.

Oct 2, 2011#24

Frankie Williamson

You know what's awesome about the internet? Catching this kind of bullshit.

Oct 2, 2011#25

Hailey Knight

Frankie Williamson said:
You know what's awesome about the internet? Catching this kind of bullshit.

Oh, New York Times. Weren't you satisfied being made a joke just a couple years ago?

Fuckers.

Oct 2, 2011#26

drifter

In fairness, the rest of the article is also edited to include the protesters' side.

Oct 2, 2011#27

Covar

drifter said:
In fairness, the rest of the article is also edited to include the protesters' side.

How dare you sir!

Oct 3, 2011#28

AshburnerX

Hmm... the NYPD get a 4.6 million dollar donation from the guys on Wall Street and very shortly afterward heads start getting busted and arrests were made. Interesting.

Oct 3, 2011#29

@Li3n

AshburnerX said:
Hmm... the NYPD get a 4.6 million dollar donation from the guys on Wall Street and very shortly afterward heads start getting busted and arrests were made. Interesting.

If that's true then the rich are officially retarded... people getting beaten and arrested >>>>>>>>>> people with iPhones and laptops standing around with signs.

Oct 3, 2011#30

GasBandit

Slightly disappointed this hasn't been posted yet -

Oct 3, 2011#31

SpecialKO

Sounds like fairly standard NYPD tactics to deal with protesters. Guessing it was the sergeants (the guys in white shirts). At this, and many other protests here, for some reason, it's always the sergeants who pull this sort of thing.

Oct 5, 2011#32

Frankie Williamson

http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/wnyc-news-blog/2011/oct/05/occupy-wall-street-getting-expensive-nypd/

Article about how much this is costing the NYPD.

Choice quote:

"This is costing a lot of money, at a time when we are being warned that we may face revenge attacks from al-Qaida because of our recent drone strike,” said Councilman Peter Vallone of Queens.

Oct 5, 2011#33

Krisken

Wow. That's pretty low.

Oct 5, 2011#34

Frankie Williamson

If you protest Wallstreet's near destruction of the United States' economy, you are supporting terrorism.

Oct 5, 2011#35

SpecialKO

Peter Vallone is a perfect example of the politician - he'll say anything to get the elder population of his district to re-elect him.

It's why his pet projects before now were making grafitti a mandatory jail-time felony, limiting the amount of homework that could be assigned to children, and banning common breeds of large dogs from NY public housing.

Oct 5, 2011#36

strawman

In other news, fully one half the protestors left the protest in order to stand in line for the new iPhone 4S.

Oct 5, 2011#37

Dave

I've made this point elsewhere to little or no avail so I'll make it here as well.

OWS will never work until they find their voice and consolidate their message. The "I am the 99%" is a great start as it's easy to remember and relate to, but it's also fairly new. Hopefully they are learning.

Not sure if posted elsewhere here, but the "official" release about their grievances ranged everywhere from economic inequality to the better treatment of animals.

This is long and cut-n-paste so I'm spoiling it.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited from the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.

To the people of the world,
We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.
Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

A couple days ago I was listening to NPR and they interviewed a person at the protest. He was dressed as a zombie to show how the ultra-rich are voracious and insatiable eaters of wealth. During the interview he spoke like a zombie, moaning things like moooore! and it's never enough! And by saying he talked like that for the interview I mean the whole fucking interview!! He sounded like a fucking idiot and that's how people view the protests!

People dressed in tie-dye, sleeping in the parks, wearing masks, spouting internet memes without a coherent message. That's what they are doing. They are squandering an opportunity.

The worst part, though? They are protesting in the wrong place. What Wall Street is doing is not illegal in any way! Maybe it's morally reprehensible to those on the bottom, but they didn't make the rules! Protesting at Wall Street does NOTHING!! Wall Street is taking advantage of the rules and laws set forth by Congress. If they are doing things that are illegal it's because regulatory services have been gutted. These people need to go to Congress to protest. We need Corporations to no longer be considered people. We need campaign reform. We need financial regulatory commissions who have people to investigate, teeth to be able to get things done, and the political will to be able to back these commissions up. We need to stop balancing the budget (or profess to because they just don't) on the backs of the poor. Tax the ultra rich back to the level that they used to, quit cutting social/education programs and quit shifting the blame on the poor.

OWS will never work unless they get their shit together. But I don't see it happening.

Oct 5, 2011#38

AshburnerX

Dave said:
OWS will never work unless they get their shit together. But I don't see it happening.

OWS will never work until they are ready to burn Wall Street to the ground. History has shown time and time again that the only way to make the Rich actually give in to your demands is to make them fear for their lives or their livelihood. Right now they simply have no incentive to do anything.

OWS doomed from the start.

Oct 5, 2011#39

GasBandit

Gas Bandit's rule of protests: No matter what the issue or what side of it you are on, someone carrying a sign in public during normal business hours is probably an ass.

Oct 5, 2011#40

Charlie Don't Surf

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/oct/02/occupy-wall-street-99-per-cent

Mark Ruffalo (yes, that Mark Ruffalo) wrote a nice piece about it.

Oct 5, 2011#41

kaykordeath

Dave said:
I've made this point elsewhere to little or no avail so I'll make it here as well.

OWS will never work until they find their voice and consolidate their message. The "I am the 99%" is a great start as it's easy to remember and relate to, but it's also fairly new. Hopefully they are learning.

This can not be said enough. I also heard the zombie interview and got the douche-chills just listening.

I've seen at least 2 instances of "celebrity supporters" (Susan Sarandon and former governor Patterson) both showing up and then replying afterward that they thought the message being conveyed was "still being worked on."

A friend suggested that maybe this generation needs its own Abbie Hoffman.

Oct 5, 2011#42

Dave

I'm an excellent public speaker and know what needs to be said. But I can't go to New York to protest because I have a job.

Oct 5, 2011#43

kaykordeath

Then there's this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/05/opinion/rushkoff-occupy-wall-street/

In fact, we are witnessing America's first true Internet-era movement, which -- unlike civil rights protests, labor marches, or even the Obama campaign -- does not take its cue from a charismatic leader, express itself in bumper-sticker-length goals and understand itself as having a particular endpoint.

I'd like to think I'm tuned in enough to the "Internet-era" that I GET the references...but that doesn't mean they carry any weight. This is certainly an idealistic opinion. I'd like to hope there's some merit in it, but, so far, everything that seems to be coming from OWS is insubstantial and meaningless. "We want things to change" has no real teeth on its own...

That being said, you make the trip, I got a couch with your name on it, Dave.

Oct 5, 2011#44

Dave

Would that I could, man. I can't afford to lose my job.

Oct 5, 2011#45

GasBandit

Man, with all those tightly packed bodies, Wall Street sure makes an inviting terrorism target right now. Just sayin'.

Oct 5, 2011#46

Dave

GasBandit said:
Man, with all those tightly packed bodies, Wall Street sure makes an inviting terrorism target right now. Just sayin'.

Sure, because blowing up unemployed 20 year olds is sure to get our government up in arms.

Oct 5, 2011#47

GasBandit

Dave said:
Sure, because blowing up unemployed 20 year olds is sure to get our government up in arms.

Oh, Dave, you surprise and delight me. I mean, *I* know these doofs are nothing but human detritus and would not be missed if somebody just walked down the street with a flamethrower, but to hear you acknowledge them as such also... well, it takes a chisel to a little of the cardiac permafrost.

Oct 5, 2011#48

Dave

GasBandit said:
Oh, Dave, you surprise and delight me. I mean, *I* know these doofs are nothing but human detritus and would not be missed if somebody just walked down the street with a flamethrower, but to hear you acknowledge them as such also... well, it takes a chisel to a little of the cardiac permafrost.

I don't think that they are anything of the sort. I just agree that since they are not as involved in the political/economic infrastructure as those in power, they are not viewed as being important. So keep that heart of yours frozen.

Oct 5, 2011#49

GasBandit

Dave said:
I don't think that they are anything of the sort. I just agree that since they are not as involved in the political/economic infrastructure as those in power, they are not viewed as being important. So keep that heart of yours frozen.

It doesn't matter what they are or are not involved in, it only matters that they're Americans. And to some, it only matters that they're squishy and screamy when 'sploded.

And really, if you don't think there'd be a huge national outcry of all political persuasions if someone were to publicly juice even a mere half dozen or so protesters, you're fooling yourself.

Oct 5, 2011#50

Dave

See, terrorists wouldn't want to take these guys out. Taking them out would do nothing more than to feed America's insatiable socio-military hunger. The lives themselves would be nothing more than fodder to grease the wheels of war. We wouldn't even remember their names in a couple months. Just like the 9/11 victims. Sure, the families remember them, but nobody else does unless they are special cases. In this case the terrorists would be better off infiltrating the movement and causing mayhem to incite a war between the haves and the have nots...

Oct 5, 2011#51

GasBandit

Dave said:
See, terrorists wouldn't want to take these guys out. Taking them out would do nothing more than to feed America's insatiable socio-military hunger. The lives themselves would be nothing more than fodder to grease the wheels of war.

If they thought this way, there'd be no terrorism, ever.

We wouldn't even remember their names in a couple months. Just like the 9/11 victims.

Are you saying 9/11 wasn't effective terrorism, and if given the chance they would not do it again? Of course you weren't, but it does illustrate the contradiction in what you just said.

In this case the terrorists would be better off infiltrating the movement and causing mayhem to incite a war between the haves and the have nots...

That ignores the true, underlying motivation of the terrorist footman - it's not really focused on long term societal evolution - it's focused on killing and frightening the infidels. It's what every Palestinian dancing in the street said 10 years ago - "now the americans will feel the fear and violence that we've felt all along."

Besides, it doesn't have to be a foreign terrorist, either. It could be one of these right-wing "bitter clingers" the administration's been warning us about for 3 years. What'd make a more inviting target for a guns'n'god reactionary 'murrican home grown terrorist than the largest commie-hippie sit-in in decades?

Oct 5, 2011#52

GasBandit

Chicago Board of Trade office trolls "Occupy Chicago":

"WE - ARE - THE - 1%"

Oct 5, 2011#53

Charlie Don't Surf

Our government is already using our 20 year olds as terrorist targets in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oct 5, 2011#54

Dave

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Our government is already using our 20 year olds as terrorist targets in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Only the ones who aren't born into rich families.

Oct 5, 2011#55

GasBandit

Dave said:
Only the ones who aren't born into rich families.

Didn't know we'd reinstated the draft. How could I miss that?

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Our government is already using our 20 year olds as terrorist targets in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Right on! It's absolutely unacceptable to think that soldiers who join the military voluntarily should ever be put in harm's way! There's got to be something in the constitution about the illegality of exposing soldiers to combat!

Oct 5, 2011#56

Charlie Don't Surf

Of course there's no draft exactly, but the system certainly does its part to push poor, undeducated, never-going-to-college young men and women to the army as their best case scenario.

Oct 5, 2011#57

Dave

Rich kids don't HAVE to go into the military service and precious few do. Our volunteer military is filled with people whose options were less than pleasant.

Oct 5, 2011#58

strawman

Dave said:
Only the ones who aren't born into rich families.

Charlie Don't Surf said:
poor, undeducated, never-going-to-college young men and women to the army as their best case scenario.

Dave said:
Our volunteer military is filled with people whose options were less than pleasant.

"Dear Armed Forces: You are likely in the military because you are too poor and/or stupid to have any other options in life."

Oct 5, 2011#59

Espy

You know, I don't think anyone would be terribly surprised to find that more financially less well off people take advantage of the great benefits the military gives to it's enlisted, there's probably some stats out there that show it.
Of course my personal experience is that the Armed Forces are made up of a very wide variety of people from all backgrounds but like I said, I haven't seen the stats.

Oct 5, 2011#60

Dave

It's been studied. Charlie and I are totally right.

Oct 5, 2011#61

Terrik

I just....I can't buy it. It's the military! Of course you might die! Those guns aren't just for show.

No one forces you to join the military, and if you do, why shouldn't there be incentive to do so? Should the benefits be less than stellar? Should you give less reason for the poor to join? Should it be more like "Please, go throw yourself in the meat grinder, but don't expect anything for it, because we wouldn't want you to feel compelled to join!"

Should you force the rich to join?

I honestly don't know what some of you want in regards to the military, being voluntary already as it is.

Oct 5, 2011#62

AshburnerX

When the policy makers and their class are able to influence politics and use of the military, but are not forced to share in the responsibility and sorrow of it's use, it raises questions of the ethics of their actions.

Oct 5, 2011#63

Terrik

So what, go back to the days of the King riding with his men into battle?
Added at: 10:20
I don't necessarily disagree, but what's the solution then?

Oct 5, 2011#64

Frankie Williamson

Mandatory military service, both sexes.

I'd be interested in seeing how that would turn out in a country so vast. It seems to work well for Singapore and Israel.

Oct 5, 2011#65

Charlie Don't Surf

Well, the military could be more honest and upfront with their recruiting. And offer more psychological counseling so being in the army isn't life-destroying torture.

Oct 5, 2011#66

Terrik

Both of which are very tiny countries.

Singapore only requires male as well. And has a population of 4 million~. 2 million of which are immigrants. And is a city-nation.

Oct 5, 2011#67

AshburnerX

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Well, the military could be more honest and upfront with their recruiting. And offer more psychological counseling so being in the army isn't life-destroying torture.

They'd have to stop their advancement bias against people seeking psychological help first. This, of course, will never happen.

Oct 5, 2011#68

Frankie Williamson

Terrik said:
Both of which are very tiny countries.

Singapore only requires male as well. And has a population of 4 million~. 2 million of which are immigrants. And is a city-nation.

I know that, that's why I said it would be neat to see how that would in a country so big.

Oct 5, 2011#69

strawman

Frankie Williamson said:
I know that, that's why I said it would be neat to see how that would in a country so big.

It was called the draft. There is research on it. It wasn't 100%, but it should tell you what you want to know.

Oct 6, 2011#70

Charlie Don't Surf

Also - surprise! When we actually had the draft, the rich and powerful could get out of it, too.

Oct 6, 2011#71

Frankie Williamson

I didn't mean the draft, I meant literally everyone has to spend some time in military service.

Think of it as the worst God damn camping trip ever that you get to go on for 2-3 years!

Oct 6, 2011#72

strawman

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Also - surprise! When we actually had the draft, the rich and powerful could get out of it, too.

Ah, so during that time the majority of service members were poor and stupid, with no other options in life?

Oct 6, 2011#73

AshburnerX

stienman said:
Ah, so during that time the majority of service members were poor and stupid, with no other options in life?

Of people who were drafted? Yes. Draft ages are between 18-25. One of the few things that could get you out of the draft was being enrolled in college. So yeah... it was mostly kids too poor, stupid, or poorly connected to get out of it.

Oct 6, 2011#74

DarkAudit

AshburnerX said:
Of people who were drafted? Yes. Draft ages are between 18-25. One of the few things that could get you out of the draft was being enrolled in college. So yeah... it was mostly kids too poor, stupid, or poorly connected to get out of it.

*cough*fivedefermentscheney*cough*

Oct 6, 2011#75

strawman

DarkAudit said:
*cough*fivedefermentscheney*cough*

Obama didn't even bother to defer it - he dodged it completely!

:ninja:

Oct 6, 2011#76

Dave

stienman said:
Obama didn't even bother to defer it - he dodged it completely!

[citation needed]

Oct 6, 2011#77

D

Dubyamn

Dave said:
[citation needed]

Obama was born in 1961 and Nixon abandoned the draft in 1973 and Ford abolished it in 1975. Obama "dodged" it by being 12 at the time when it was abandoned and 14 when it was fully abolished. At least I assume that was the joke Stienman was going for. Would have been funnier if our last 2 presidents hadn't been a real draft dodger and a guy who spent his service in the reserves.

Oct 6, 2011#78

Dave

Gotcha. I didn't know how old Obama was.

Oct 6, 2011#79

Shegokigo

On a slightly related note, I'm still ridiculously upset that I was turned away from two branches of the military. I wasn't "well off" financially and I'm a minority, so there goes that theory.

Oct 6, 2011#80

Dave

Why were you turned away?

Oct 6, 2011#81

Covar

Shegokigo said:
On a slightly related note, I'm still ridiculously upset that I was turned away from two branches of the military. I wasn't "well off" financially and I'm a minority, so there goes that theory.

Hey at least you got to avoid life-destroying torture.

Oct 6, 2011#82

Shegokigo

@ Dave - Health concerns with my thyroid..... mostly.

@Covar - Life-Destroying torture was the part I was looking forward to the most!

Oct 6, 2011#83

Frankie Williamson

Shegokigo said:
@ Dave - Health concerns with my thyroid..... mostly.

@Covar - Life-Destroying torture was the part I was looking forward to the most!

Oct 6, 2011#84

Charlie Don't Surf

I'm thankful Shego never got into any armed force, personally.

Oct 6, 2011#85

Necronic

Dave said:
It's been studied. Charlie and I are totally right.

Yeah, that article is....pretty poorly written (as a research/stats article). Here's the basic argument:

Poor people list economic reasons as a motivation for joining at a higher rate than wealthy people. There are no numbers for this given by the way, just racial demographics. Those demographics show that ~50% of blacks, ~40% of latinos, and ~20% of caucasians join for economic reasons.

From this, and an assumption of a strong correlation between race and income (not explicity mentioned by the way), you can say that the army is primarily from poor families. Why they didn't simply use economic data is beyond me, because this isn't a good way to make that argument at all.

Then comes the conclusion: "It is difficult for young people in settings of poverty who want further education or job training to refuse these offers."

Why? That is not the only conclusion. You could also argue that a person coming from an impovrished background sees the military as a better option than the other options available. The article touches on that slightly

"While some enter the military because they have chosen it from an array of meaningful opportunities, others enter the military because it appears as the only path available out of a setting of poverty. For these enlistees, the realities of poverty and racism make military service an option they can hardly refuse rather than something they have freely chosen. "

So they acknowledge that there are complex metrics for decision making involved, but then just tell us to ignore them because they "can hardly refuse". Really? Why can't they refuse?

The only real conclusion you can make from that data is that minorities cite economic reasons for joining in larger numbers than caucasians. Now the Why? of that is a much more complex question.

-------------

Then there's some other interesting stats that the article mentions, but refuses to follow its own logic in applying (this being the strong link between racial demographic, economic position, and enlistment).

"Hispanic enlistments are still lagging well behind their percent of the population".
This goes against the idea that race/poverty are such a primary cause of enlistment, because if it was then this number would be higher.

"African Americans are currently joining the military nearly in proportion to their percentage in the population, a sharp decline from earlier enlistment rates"

That's interesting, because African Americans are going through a pretty serious increase in poverty rates right now due to the recession. Yet their enlistment numbers are dwindling.

And here's the best one. The one that the article doesn't even include in its chart, I had to dig the numbers out myself.

Caucasians enlistment rates have increased to above their proportion of the population. In fact they are higher, relative to their civ pop, than either African Americans OR Hispanics. I find it incredibly telling that the previous graph includes the caucasian numbers but this one decides not to.

--------------

This isn't to say that I don't agree that the military appeals more to the poor in a lot of cases. I just find that article to be complete trash.

Oct 6, 2011#86

Tress

Herman Cain to Wall Street Protesters: "Blame yourself" for joblessness.

Oct 6, 2011#87

Frankie Williamson

I'll say it, what a fucking asshole.

Oct 6, 2011#88

GasBandit

Before 2008, I would have probably agreed with him, actually. It's easy to have a rough time through no fault of your own during a recession though, especially one as deep as the one we've been through (it's supposedly over now, remember?).

But until the wheels came off, outside of tragedies such as sickness or injury, the only barrier to a person's success were their own decisions. We experienced upward income mobility on an unprecedented scale.

And I guess you could still say it's true - the big causes of our current woes are the shortsighted support of "progressive" policies that attempted to use fiscal slight-of-hand to legislate people into homeownership that they had absolutely no way of affording. It's the big-spending pie-in-the-sky belief that we can legislate reality into being what we want it to be, and that we can just "decide" to eliminate all hardship and need for effort, that got us where we are today. And that's a mentality that seems to be very predominant among the "occupiers" of wall street, if their list of demands is any indication. Did they really think that 20 dollars an hour is some kind of human right? Where does it come from?

Oct 6, 2011#89

Charlie Don't Surf

outside of tragedies such as sickness or injury, the only barrier to a person's success were their own decisions.

wrong

Oct 6, 2011#90

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
wrong

wrong

Oct 6, 2011#91

Necronic

GasBandit said:
wrong

Left.

....

Also why is anything Herman Cain says news? He's about as relevant as a pet rock and has the intelligence to match. Hell I think Lyndon Larouche is a more viable candidate.

Oct 6, 2011#92

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Left.

....

Also why is anything Herman Cain says news? He's about as relevant as a pet rock and has the intelligence to match. Hell I think Lyndon Larouche is a more viable candidate.

He won the florida straw poll. By a lot. Historically, whoever wins the florida straw poll is almost always the eventual nominee.

Oct 6, 2011#93

Necronic

Yeah, except this time because there is no freaking way he'll win.

Also the fact that Florida predicts anything is frightening. Because, you know, that would imply Florida isn't one of the most disturbing places in the US.

Edit: And to be fair to Cain its not that I don't think the dude has some points, and he is clearly intelligent, but he lacks the level of political smarts to win the presidency. He has gotten *way* too many direct quotes that sound really really bad, and if he actually won the primary the flood-gates would open as people dug up all the crazy stuff he has said over the years.

Oct 6, 2011#94

Covar

Necronic said:
Left.

Right.

Oct 6, 2011#95

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Yeah, except this time because there is no freaking way he'll win.

Also the fact that Florida predicts anything is frightening. Because, you know, that would imply Florida isn't one of the most disturbing places in the US.

Edit: And to be fair to Cain its not that I don't think the dude has some points, and he is clearly intelligent, but he lacks the level of political smarts to win the presidency. He has gotten *way* too many direct quotes that sound really really bad, and if he actually won the primary the flood-gates would open as people dug up all the crazy stuff he has said over the years.

Sorry, wait, I was wrong... not "almost," turns out so far the Florida straw poll has predicted 100% of the GOP's nominees. Granted, it's only the 5th one (it was started in 1979).

Guess we'll see if it holds up. One thing is sure, however, it's suddenly made a whole lot more "political" people suddenly sit up and take him more seriously now.

Oct 6, 2011#96

Necronic

Fair enough, there's something there to pay attention to thats for sure. It reminds me of Ross Perot a bit. Businessman turned politician trying to bring a no-nonsense business approach to governance. Perhaps what its stating is that the republicans need to focus more on the economic side of their party and less on the conservative morality side of their party.

But if he wins the primary I will eat my hat (or something hat shaped that I can digest.)

Oct 6, 2011#97

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Perhaps what its stating is that the republicans need to focus more on the economic side of their party and less on the conservative morality side of their party.

In other words, become Libertarians?

Problem is, even on the fiscal side, Republicans have trouble walking the walk. They say they want to reduce government, but they never do. They don't want to reduce it, they just want their turn running it.

Oct 6, 2011#98

Krisken

Just assume I said something about Gas' crazy post and move on.

Oct 6, 2011#99

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Just assume I said something about Gas' crazy post and move on.

Done and done. This new rapport of ours is so much more efficient.

Oct 6, 2011#100

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Done and done. This new rapport of ours is so much more efficient.

My new goal in life, efficient rapport.

Oct 7, 2011#101

GasBandit

Oct 7, 2011#102

Krisken

We have to start somewhere
We have to start sometime
What better place than here
What better time than now?

-Rage Against the Machine

No, they don't have a singular goal, but they do have a singular unifying force, and that is anger about the growing income disparity.

Oct 7, 2011#103

Espy

The guy who is leading the local MN version said on NPR yesterday that their goal was the destruction of the capitalist system. He also said there was room in their movement for anyone, conservatives, liberals, tea party, etc... you know, as long as they all agree on that main point. So... you know, room for everyone.

Oct 7, 2011#104

GasBandit

Oct 7, 2011#105

Krisken

As I said, not everyone agrees on the goals.

Yeah, and this guy is the fucking Fonze.

Oct 7, 2011#106

Tress

I'll admit the protesters are a little out there, and their goals are too scattered right now to do any good. But, when you're pissing of Rep. Cantor and Mayor Bloomberg, you're probably doing something right.

Oct 7, 2011#107

GasBandit

Tress said:
I'll admit the protesters are a little out there, and their goals are too scattered right now to do any good. But, when you're pissing of Rep. Cantor and Mayor Bloomberg, you're probably doing something right.

But, from the same article, when what you're doing makes Nancy Pelosi happy, it probably isn't all that good.

Oct 7, 2011#108

Tress

GasBandit said:
But, from the same article, when what you're doing makes Nancy Pelosi happy, it probably isn't all that good.

That's a fair point. It's a wash, then.

Oct 7, 2011#109

Necronic

Krisken said:
We have to start somewhere
We have to start sometime
What better place than here
What better time than now?

-Rage Against the Machine

No, they don't have a singular goal, but they do have a singular unifying force, and that is anger about the growing income disparity.

Man, I saw an interviwe with Tom Morello sometime around the reunion show. That guy is one of the biggest hipster/anti-whatever d-bags I have ever seen. I mean, just his whole personality and view was encompassed by this constant condescending sneer towards anyone who disagreed with him.

Definitely a Californian.

Oct 7, 2011#110

Tress

Necronic said:
Definitely a Californian.

EDIT: The original comment I made accidentally came off more angry than I intended. Please ignore it.

Oct 7, 2011#111

Krisken

I always liked Zach de la Rocha better than Morello.

Oct 7, 2011#112

Espy

I like anyone who makes millions of dollars by bagging on the capitalist system that lets them making millions of dollars bagging on the capitalist system that lets them make millions of dollars.

I also like raging guitar hooks and sweet rhymes. So Rage is kind of a twofer for me.

Oct 7, 2011#113

Necronic

Always did love their music, was good stuff.

Kind of reminded me of Black Metal though. Its fun to listen to, but you kind of have to ignore the message.

Tress said:
EDIT: The original comment I made accidentally came off more angry than I intended. Please ignore it.

Nah its no problem, I would only really be surprised if a Californian chose to insult someone directly.

Man I love dogging on you guys.

Oct 7, 2011#114

Krisken

Necronic said:
Always did love their music, was good stuff.

Kind of reminded me of Black Metal though. Its fun to listen to, but you kind of have to ignore the message.

I used to feel that way too. There are other political minded bands I prefer, though. Better messages, better way of putting it.

Oct 7, 2011#115

Tress

Necronic said:
Nah its no problem, I would only really be surprised if a Californian chose to insult someone directly.

Man I love dogging on you guys.

That's what I expect coming from someone who lives in an unimportant flyover state. Amiright guys?

Guys?

Oct 7, 2011#116

Necronic

Texas owns California any day of the week. I will now summon GasBandit to prove my point.

Oct 7, 2011#117

GasBandit

Not your personal army.

Oct 7, 2011#118

Necronic

Fuck you you do what I say because you're from DFW or wherever and are inferior to Houstonians.

You are my bitch.

Edit: As an aside you can see that fiery independent streak in the Gasbandit, a trait which is a source of pride in our breeders of DFW Texans.

Oct 7, 2011#119

Tress

Necronic said:
Texas owns California any day of the week. I will now summon GasBandit to prove my point.

I may live in California now, but I spent quite a few years growing up in Texas. I'm not really the prototypical Californian you're looking for.

Oct 7, 2011#120

Necronic

damnit come on.....

ok whatever why doesn't anyone wan to play the "my X is better than your X" game?

I mean hell, this IS the politics forum.

Oct 7, 2011#121

Espy

Man, someone from Houston thinking they are better than someone from somewhere else in Texas? Never thought I'd see the day.

Oct 7, 2011#122

SpecialKO

Necronic said:
ok whatever why doesn't anyone wan to play the "my X is better than your X" game?

..you haven't met any of my Xs.

Oct 7, 2011#123

phil

SpecialKO said:
..you haven't met any of my Xs.

Surprisingly enough they all live in Texas.

Probably a stink hole like Houston.

Oct 7, 2011#124

Necronic

As my boss from my first job in a chemical plant told me once:

"That's the smell of money, learn to love it."

I thought it smelled like chicken noodle soup.

Oct 7, 2011#125

Terrik

it marks the spot.

Oct 8, 2011#126

Tress

mr_thehun said:
On a more serious note. Don't these unemployed people have companies to build from scratch?

Wow, I didn't know Herman Cain posted here.

Oct 8, 2011#127

SpecialKO

mr_thehun said:
am I being serious, I don't really know?

That's okay, neither does Herman Cain.

Oct 8, 2011#128

Charlie Don't Surf

Necronic, wanna go to Occupy Houston ?

Oct 8, 2011#129

Officer_Charon

Apparently, there's going to be an Occupy Savannah tomorrow. Might be interesting, if they can get ANY kind of organization behind it. As it is, I think it's going to be a handful of SCADlings waving some cardboard, and thus, not worthy of interest.

Oct 8, 2011#130

sixpackshaker

mr_thehun said:
I think the third world should go to occupy america

Just look at our southern border, it is happening.

Oct 8, 2011#131

Charlie Don't Surf

sixpackshaker said:
Just look at our southern border, it is happening.

lol

Oct 8, 2011#132

kaykordeath

Went down to the Trade Center memorial today, and swung by the Occupiers at Zucatti park.

And yes, it is, on the surface, a mob of disjointed people with posters and signs and fliers....but there's definitely a spirit in the air of community...and eagerness to accomplish something more than just waving their hands and being loud.

This thing could have legs...I hope it does.

Oct 10, 2011#133

Tress

The top 1% think everyone is being mean to them, and the real problem is someone else.

Oct 10, 2011#134

Espy

Tress said:
The top 1% think everyone is being mean to them, and the real problem is someone else.

Well, they are right in the fact that it's a hell of a lot more complicate then just "rich people are bad". In the end you can yell at the rich all you want but if you don't change how our government deals with banks, taxes and spending it's kind of all for naught, imo.

Oct 10, 2011#135

GasBandit

Celebrities Are Not Like Us of the Day: Kanye West and Russell Simmons stopped by Occupy Wall Street today to see how the other 99% live.
“I just walked @kanyewest thru the #occupywallstreet,” Simmons tweeted. “I love how sweet and tolerant he was to the crowd.”
Russia Today America reporter Lucy Kafanov says the two took a look around, spoke to no one, then got in a car and left.
[@unclerush / gothamist.]

Oct 10, 2011#136

Krisken

Damn it. Kanye doesn't care about poor people.

Oct 10, 2011#137

Charlie Don't Surf

Kanye fucking rules.

Oct 10, 2011#138

Mathias

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Kanye fucking rules.

Not really. In fact, that's not even joke worthy.

Oct 11, 2011#139

Necronic

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Necronic, wanna go to Occupy Houston ?

Hell no. I'm the 1%.

Also this is a pretty interesting site where people take pictures of themselves with their "99%" story: http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/. It's interesting, but to be honest it's also really telling (in a negative way). Like this quote:

"No Jobs, thousands of dollars in student loans, and a BA degree, is not what I was promised my first day of school."

So what, you need someone to tell you that a BA degree and a lot of debt isn't a good idea?

There's also this sight where people have harvested the more ridiculous ones and cracked wise on them. Be warned, the place reeks of Tea Party

http://www.michellesmirror.com/2011/10/people-of-ows-like-people-of-wal-mart.html

Edit: Found another one and I was like "buh"?

"My husband works three jobs to keep our home- close to $2,000/month for a tiny house built in 1903. We can’t pay hospital bills for our son’s birth 2 years ago"

Good lord 2k per month for a house? Were you forced into that mortgage at gunpoint?

Another girl outlines here budget. 1 k/month in rent w/ 3k/mont salary. 500$ car+ins. 650/mo college debt. Sorry but someone made some very bad choices.

Oct 11, 2011#140

sixpackshaker

Wow, that blogger needs to learn the difference between his butt and but.

Oct 11, 2011#141

GasBandit

Counterpoint: We are the 53%

Oct 11, 2011#142

Tress

I think the problem here is that people hear different things when someone mentions "the 1%." I think people on the far left immediately conjure up an image of a ridiculously-wealthy billionaire who simply inherited an empire and never worked a day. I think people on the right think of an entrepreneur who busted his ass, got an independent business up and running after some tough years, and now brings home a nice $350k. You've got stupid hippies who want a guaranteed $20/hr minimum wage and endless benefits with no concept of how economics actually works, and they're unfortunately right next to some reasonable people who feel that the growing income gap will lead to further social strife and economic collapse in the long run if left unchecked. Both sides of this debate are using strawmen to smear the other side, and neither is considering the possibility that they may have good ideas/reasons/perspectives on how to solve the problems in this country.

I'm not the 1%, but I'm hating how this section of the 99% are behaving. I hate how the media is portraying this. I hate how people on the right are just blowing them off as dirty hippies when this protest has actually tried to draw attention to a growing problem. I hate how the left are treating people with a good income as boogeymen who bathe in the blood of children because they're heartless monsters. I hate how, once again, any real discussion is being hijacked by assholes on the far left and right.

Oct 11, 2011#143

Espy

Necronic said:
Sorry but someone made some very bad choices.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I don't think you are allowed to say that.

Oct 11, 2011#144

strawman

Tress said:
...this protest has actually tried to draw attention to a growing problem.

What is the problem? Their message hasn't been coherent enough for me to understand. But it sounds like you believe there's a problem, and not only that - it's growing.

So what is your assessment of what these protests are - or should be - about, and why this problem, if left unchecked, is going to be bad?
Added at: 15:10

Espy said:
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I don't think you are allowed to say that.

No, no, it's perfectly fine to say that the government or the rich made bad choices. But the middles class and poor are exempt from financial darwinism...

Oct 11, 2011#145

GasBandit

stienman said:
What is the problem? Their message hasn't been coherent enough for me to understand. But it sounds like you believe there's a problem, and not only that - it's growing.

So what is your assessment of what these protests are - or should be - about, and why this problem, if left unchecked, is going to be bad?
Added at: 15:10

No, no, it's perfectly fine to say that the government or the rich made bad choices. But the middles class and poor are exempt from financial darwinism...

As far as I can tell, the "problem" is some people have more money than others.

Oct 11, 2011#146

Tress

stienman said:
What is the problem? Their message hasn't been coherent enough for me to understand. But it sounds like you believe there's a problem, and not only that - it's growing.

So what is your assessment of what these protests are - or should be - about, and why this problem, if left unchecked, is going to be bad?

There are three problems which add up into a greater issue. One, there is a problem with the growing income gap. I'm not a socialist by any means, but having so much wealth concentrated into the hands of such a small percentage causes problems. The industrial revolution in America is the best example. The wealthy don't need to be stripped of their money; there just need to be more opportunities for average people to make a decent wage. The wealthy having wealth is not the problem, merely the ratio and concentration. It creates stratification and social problems.

Two, the country is far too lax in restricting reckless behavior in the financial sector. Risk is great, and over regulation is bad. However, there need to be some rules to keep people from blowing up the economy. The entire meltdown in 2008 could have been prevented without hobbling Wall Street.

Three, the government (especially Congress) focuses on certain segments of the population while ignoring everyone else. This is a direct result of lobbyists and greed. There needs to be lobbying reform (ideally lobbyists would be barred from the capital) and campaign finance reform. The aforementioned problem of not enough regulation a symptom of this issue. Wall Street is able to make enormous contributions to candidates directly, thereby essentially buying off the watchdogs that are supposed to keep them from causing a financial meltdown.

And you know why you can't figure out what the protester's message is? Because they don't have one. They have over a hundred. I don't often agree with Fox news, but they got one thing right: the protest looks like every cause of the left was put into a blender. When people gather for photos, you can count anywhere from 6 to 20 different signs for unrelated causes. Some people want financial reform. Some people want policy in the Middle East changed. Some people want to abolish free trade. Some people want increased education spending. It's a bunch of people all shouting different things at the same time. How could people take any of that seriously, or possibly find a coherent message in the midst of the noise?

Oct 11, 2011#147

GasBandit

In all seriousness - the problem is everybody is trying to socialize risk while privatizing reward. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.

Oct 11, 2011#148

Tress

That's not what I'm saying at all. But you probably know that already, and decided to mischaracterize my thoughts anyway.

Oct 11, 2011#149

GasBandit

Tress said:
That's not what I'm saying at all. But you probably know that already, and decided to mischaracterize my thoughts anyway.

Uh, those were supposed to be my thoughts I was expressing, not a paraphrase of yours.

Oct 11, 2011#150

Tress

GasBandit said:
Uh, those were supposed to be my thoughts I was expressing, not a paraphrase of yours.

Oh, sorry. I've got a hair-trigger today due to some personal issue. Sorry about that.

Oct 11, 2011#151

AshburnerX

Tress said:
And you know why you can't figure out what the protester's message is? Because they don't have one. They have over a hundred. I don't often agree with Fox news, but they got one thing right: the protest looks like every cause of the left was put into a blender. When people gather for photos, you can count anywhere from 6 to 20 different signs for unrelated causes. Some people want financial reform. Some people want policy in the Middle East changed. Some people want to abolish free trade. Some people want increased education spending. It's a bunch of people all shouting different things at the same time. How could people take any of that seriously, or possibly find a coherent message in the midst of the noise?

This is a problem symptomatic of the Democratic party and Liberal groups in general: They can NOT solidify behind an issue because of how diverse the groups are. It's long been their greatest weakness and the Democrat controlled Congress being unable to do shit was a perfect example of it in practice. It's honestly amazing they can ever get anything done.

Thankfully, this is also happening to the Right thanks to the Tea Party. Without it's unified positions, it's in an even worse position than the Left.

Oct 11, 2011#152

Tress

Oct 11, 2011#153

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
As far as I can tell, the "problem" is some people have more money than others.

You jest, but that can actually be a problem. There is probably a tipping point where money consolidated into too small of a space will actually break the economy. I'm not saying we're at that tipping point, but I would argue that there is a genuine limit to what is a reasonable amount of wealth to hold.

Oct 11, 2011#154

strawman

MindDetective said:
I would argue that there is a genuine limit to what is a reasonable amount of wealth to hold.

Please do, I've seen a few people say that some people are too rich, but they can't back it up with anything. If there's some basis for the idea, it's worth discussing.

Oct 11, 2011#155

MindDetective

stienman said:
Please do, I've seen a few people say that some people are too rich, but they can't back it up with anything. If there's some basis for the idea, it's worth discussing.

It's difficult to put a true number on because we as a society don't understand fully the complexities of economics and social stability (as in lack of unrest). Part of the problem is simply having quality data available. I can offer an extreme example, though, to demonstrate the point, even though I cannot identify with certainty what the limit would be (although I think the problem is at least estimable). If the economy has 1 million units in cash and assets total with a population of 100 people, then if one person controls 999,901 units of those assets, then the other 99 people in the population will have only 1 unit apiece (on average). The richest person essentially is monopolizing the assets, which in turn will drastically slow down the liquidity of the remaining assets in the economy. People will be reluctant to let their assets go.

Wealth is a matter of collection. If people are investing successfully, they are collecting more wealth. If they are selling something everyone needs, they are collecting more wealth. And they are trying to do this at a rate faster than inflation (which just raises the ceiling on the number of assets available). If they collect enough wealth, they will reach a threshold where it is very difficult to collect any more, and the people who have what little is left will hold onto what they have. The economy slows to a crawl (among other things.) Again, I am not saying how much is too much, just that there CAN BE a "too much" such that it will harm society and, as a result, the people with so much wealth. It is in their best interests to stop collecting wealth at some point, which will then allow them to use that wealth for their personal benefit in a vibrant and productive society that caters to them. "The rich getting richer" tends to lead to a tipping point that results in a system collapse (of the network), according to some researchers that examine network dynamics (as in social, computer, neural, etc.) Buchanan's Nexus discusses this, not in terms of economics but in terms of how networks function.

Oct 11, 2011#156

strawman

In your extreme examples, at a certain point (probably related to the tipping point you propose) people start to live outside the normal economic system - usually through bartering. If I can't pay for food, I will trade for food, I will work for food, etc.

But I'm not sure your extreme model would even apply. Can we even get to that tipping point where such a model would well represent the economy? It's illustrative of your point, though.

Oct 11, 2011#157

Necronic

If you want to give them a simple couple of points to stick to here are some that I, as a member of the 10% or whatever totally agree are problems:

-Healthcare is inordinately expensive, and for being a "first world" country there are far too many people without it.

-Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals.

-Maintain federal funding for education

That's about it. The people that got a worthless college education and now complain that its paying exactly what its worth really bother me the most. The logical followthrough of their argument is either:

A) They were thoroughly mislead to such an extent that they couldn't figure out on their own that these degrees would not get them jobs, which implies that their education wasn't good enough to even figure this out.

B) They ignored all reason/advice and got a worthless education, and now feel entitled to a paycheck that they are unable to earn.

I think there really is a little of both in here. I don't know how there are SO many people from my generation that didn't realize that their education was a dead-end. I blame it on the way that the millenials were raised, around the whole "you are special" mentality.

Turns out you aren't special. Turns out you need a real/practical set of skills just like everyone else.

Oct 11, 2011#158

Espy

Necronic said:
If you want to give them a simple couple of points to stick to here are some that I, as a member of the 10% or whatever totally agree are problems:

-Healthcare is inordinately expensive, and for being a "first world" country there are far too many people without it.

-Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals.

-Maintain federal funding for education

I can get behind these 100%.

Oct 11, 2011#159

MindDetective

stienman said:
In your extreme examples, at a certain point (probably related to the tipping point you propose) people start to live outside the normal economic system - usually through bartering. If I can't pay for food, I will trade for food, I will work for food, etc.

But I'm not sure your extreme model would even apply. Can we even get to that tipping point where such a model would well represent the economy? It's illustrative of your point, though.

That's why I said "assets", since that could include barter-able items. Even if it didn't, though, the economy would certainly slow down. Bartering is a less efficient means of exchange for goods and services than using cash.

As for our ability to get to the tipping point, you would probably have to demonstrate mechanisms that actively and effectively counter extreme (even if done gradually) amassing of wealth. Is their a natural ceiling to the amount of wealth one can attain (aside from all of the wealth!)?

Oct 11, 2011#160

GasBandit

Necronic said:
I blame it on the way that the millenials were raised, around the whole "you are special" mentality.

Turns out you aren't special. Turns out you need a real/practical set of skills just like everyone else.

- Tyler Durden's long estranged cousin, Milton. Same starting point, but didn't spiral down into nihilism.

Oct 11, 2011#161

Krisken

stienman said:
In your extreme examples, at a certain point (probably related to the tipping point you propose) people start to live outside the normal economic system - usually through bartering. If I can't pay for food, I will trade for food, I will work for food, etc.

Or revolt.

Oct 11, 2011#162

GasBandit

MindDetective said:
As for our ability to get to the tipping point, you would probably have to demonstrate mechanisms that actively and effectively counter extreme (even if done gradually) amassing of wealth. Is their a natural ceiling to the amount of wealth one can attain (aside from all of the wealth!)?

Fierce Creatures said:
[about the zoo's new owner]
Rollo Lee: Starting with his father's radio stations in New Zealand, he has built up a global empire currently worth more than six billion dollars... and growing.
Adrian "Bugsy" Malone: How much does he want in the end?
Sydney Lotterby: Yeah.
Rollo Lee: What?
Adrian "Bugsy" Malone: How much bigger does he want to get?
Rollo Lee: Well, there aren't any limits. He wants growth.
Adrian "Bugsy" Malone: Presumably he's aware of Dr. E.F. Schumacher's concept of limited resources, or as Jean-Paul Sartre puts it...
Rollo Lee: [interrupting] Any *sensible* questions?

Oct 11, 2011#163

Necronic

Espy said:
I can get behind these 100%.

Who couldn't?

Taking a simple, clear stance on a few specific, generally agreed upon issues would have gone a long way for them. In business this idea is along the lines of "low hanging fruit". In marketing its simple clarity of product/branding.

The fact that they couldn't even organize a simple set of messages says something....something kind of embarrassing....

Like maybe there's a reason you're in the 99% (or whatever it is).

Oct 11, 2011#164

Tress

Did I miss something in college? No one guaranteed me shit when I graduated. I got a history degree because I wanted to teach history because that's what I love doing. I never once thought that I would walk straight out of college and into the most perfect dream job ever. No one told me that it would lead to riches and security. And I say this as an unemployed teacher desperately seeking work. I'm upset about the economy and the government slashing education spending, but I don't feel that anyone *owes* me a job.

Seriously, did anyone here get a guarantee for work when they went to college?

Oct 11, 2011#165

Necronic

A lot of people seem to be surprised that they are out of work with degrees like that.

Oct 11, 2011#166

Tress

Fuck. Back then a friend of mine (lit major) joined a facebook group called "I studied what I love in college, so now I live in a cardboard box." We knew it wasn't going to be easy. We didn't expect anything, and the school certainly never lied to us about it.

I just don't understand that complaint.

Oct 11, 2011#167

GasBandit

Bear in mind that we are dealing with people who think a $20/hr wage issued whether you are actually employed or not was actually worthy of consideration of being put on a demands list.

Oct 11, 2011#168

Charlie Don't Surf

Business school and accounting in particular let me to believe they were handing out jobs like candy once you step off the graduation stage thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley. Then I spent two years in poverty barely able to pay bills in a shitty duplex doing temp and/or seasonal work.

I might have had to move back home if not for my illegal online poker cushion.

Oct 11, 2011#169

Hailey Knight

AshburnerX said:
This is a problem symptomatic of the Democratic party and Liberal groups in general: They can NOT solidify behind an issue because of how diverse the groups are. It's long been their greatest weakness and the Democrat controlled Congress being unable to do shit was a perfect example of it in practice. It's honestly amazing they can ever get anything done.

Thankfully, this is also happening to the Right thanks to the Tea Party. Without it's unified positions, it's in an even worse position than the Left.

Probably because it's a new problem for their party--they don't know how to handle it. The Democrats/liberals expect not to be able to get along or accomplish anything.

Oct 11, 2011#170

Necronic

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Business school and accounting in particular let me to believe they were handing out jobs like candy once you step off the graduation stage thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley. Then I spent two years in poverty barely able to pay bills in a shitty duplex doing temp and/or seasonal work.

I might have had to move back home if not for my illegal online poker cushion.

Are you CPA? Because I have a REALLY hard time believing you wouldn't be able to find a job pretty easily as an accountant.

Edit: But yeah if you got a BA in BizAdmin.....well that's not a ton different from Women's Studies.

Oct 11, 2011#171

MindDetective

mr_thehun said:
I majored in Psychology and minored in Asian Studies. The majority of my professors started the semester off talking about how little money people were expected to make and that we would be better off going into the trades.

yup, sounds about right

Oct 11, 2011#172

strawman

Tress said:
Seriously, did anyone here get a guarantee for work when they went to college?

If you attended college recruitment seminars, you were likely told that you'd have a job, and they'd throw statistics at you about their graduation --> job rate.

Not too long ago there were a flurry of lawsuits about this and colleges/universities started pulling back on the language they used.

Oct 12, 2011#173

AshburnerX

Quotemander Prime said:
Probably because it's a new problem for their party--they don't know how to handle it. The Democrats/liberals expect not to be able to get along or accomplish anything.

Exactly. Democrats have a history of making out deals with each other to move forward. Republicans just expect them to side with them as a matter of course.

Oct 12, 2011#174

sixpackshaker

The Jobs Bill was defeated, I guess the protesters will pack up and go home... or get really pissed.

Oct 12, 2011#175

D

Dubyamn

stienman said:
What is the problem? Their message hasn't been coherent enough for me to understand. But it sounds like you believe there's a problem, and not only that - it's growing.

So what is your assessment of what these protests are - or should be - about, and why this problem, if left unchecked, is going to be bad?

Added at: 15:10
The problem that they have been stating is and has always been that money is having too much influence on the government. That this is leading to tax cuts for the wealthy and decreased regulation that will end up hurting America even more down the line.

And when Dodd Frank is getting the teeth torn out of it without having a chance to reform any of the rampant financial problems it was supposed to address and the banks that were deemed to big to fail have only grown bigger and no safer I'd have to say they are right.

No, no, it's perfectly fine to say that the government or the rich made bad choices. But the middles class and poor are exempt from financial darwinism...

Read "The Devils are all here" These banks lied outright to countless Americans so they could suck them dry. They ran up the price of houses so that people couldn't afford homes without huge bank loans and they made it impossible for some people to get prime mortgages forcing them instead to loans that would explode X months down the line with the lie that they can just refinance when that happens at which point they will gouge them a second time.

Oct 12, 2011#176

Charlie Don't Surf

I majored/graduated with an Accounting degree, don't have my CPA. But I have a job now.

Oct 12, 2011#177

Dei

Oct 12, 2011#178

Gryfter

Oct 13, 2011#179

Necronic

Read "The Devils are all here" These banks lied outright to countless Americans so they could suck them dry. They ran up the price of houses so that people couldn't afford homes without huge bank loans and they made it impossible for some people to get prime mortgages forcing them instead to loans that would explode X months down the line with the lie that they can just refinance when that happens at which point they will gouge them a second time.

See so there's two different ways to describe the housing bubble side of the crisis:

1) Banks played an intentional game of chicken with the economy and with each other knowing full well what their actions could lead to. They knew that the housing bubble was going to collapse and were trying to ride the wave as long as possible while taking advantage of the consumers in the process.

or

2) Banks were semi blind to the oncoming housing crash and the derivatives market had become so convoluted that they did not even know how much risk they were exposed to.

So you have [big intentional conspiracy] vs [bunch of people did stupid stuff]

With that choice I always go for the second. I guess I don't have the same respect for people that you do. I would never believe that a large group of people are capable of anything that complex.

Oct 13, 2011#180

AshburnerX

It's a lot easier to blame them all for conspiracy when everyone seemingly walked away from this without punishment. That's where a lot of it comes from.

Oct 13, 2011#181

strawman

AshburnerX said:
It's a lot easier to blame them all for conspiracy when everyone seemingly walked away from this without punishment. That's where a lot of it comes from.

That's stupid. Your sentance makes no sense. You're essentially assuming a conspiracy (ie, someone should get punished) so that you can state that since no one got punished it must be a conspiracy.

What?

It would be more correct to say, "It's a lot easier to blame them for conspiracy than to accept that we all agreed to let them operate in this manner and thus we too are culpable."

The reason people want to believe that the bankers saw it coming and could have prevented it but actively chose not to is so they can deny personal responsibility for their own actions.

As Necronic stated, "Do not ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."

They can only operate under the laws which have been provided to them. There are laws to cover all sorts of malicious acts, but the acts they committed were largely within the legal framework provided.

They may have done things that one could objectively term "immoral" but for the most part they were not illegal. Those that have been determined to have participated in illegal activities are, were, and will be prosecuted.

Oct 13, 2011#182

D

Dubyamn

Necronic said:
See so there's two different ways to describe the housing bubble side of the crisis:

1) Banks played an intentional game of chicken with the economy and with each other knowing full well what their actions could lead to. They knew that the housing bubble was going to collapse and were trying to ride the wave as long as possible while taking advantage of the consumers in the process.

or

2) Banks were semi blind to the oncoming housing crash and the derivatives market had become so convoluted that they did not even know how much risk they were exposed to.

So you have [big intentional conspiracy] vs [bunch of people did stupid stuff]

With that choice I always go for the second. I guess I don't have the same respect for people that you do. I would never believe that a large group of people are capable of anything that complex.

Where the fuck did you get that I thought they conspired to sink the economy? I said they were greedy and they created a system where they were sucking as much money as they could out of people.

They forced people into subprime mortgages because that was how they were able to suck the most amount of money out of people, they allowed those people to refinance so they could apply a steep early payment penalty and put the people even further into debt while sucking more money out of them, they then bundled those debts because they could make even more money selling off the various strips. Then they bundled up the strips they weren't able to sell bundled those together and got them rated triple A because they were able to get even more money out of them. And they leveraged themselves to the hilt in order to do this.

Is there some reason you confused my outright disgust with their piggish greed as some sort of belief that they saw what was coming? Hell no they were too busy taking advantage of the American public to look up and see what was coming down the pike.

Oct 13, 2011#183

strawman

Dubyamn said:
They forced people into subprime mortgages because

Because the legislators and voting public all decided that giving people who couldn't afford a typical mortgage the option of using a subprime mortgage would be good for people and good for the economy.

Had the market not crashed, and had the housing bubble not popped, it would still be seen as an overall positive thing. Had only one of the two occurred, it would probably not have had the impact that it did. Both problems occurring really tossed people with subprime mortgages into the raging ocean.

Yes, it sucks, and yes, some mortgage companies did not adequately inform their clients (for which they are/were prosecuted) of their contractual obligations.

Your characterization, however, is incorrect and useless, except, I suppose, to those who have no knowledge of history and have an axe to grind.

Oct 13, 2011#184

AshburnerX

stienman said:
That's stupid. Your sentance makes no sense. You're essentially assuming a conspiracy (ie, someone should get punished) so that you can state that since no one got punished it must be a conspiracy.

I think you mistook what I said as some sort of pronouncement of guilt. It's not. It was a thought into the mindset of why some people are so adamant about it being a conspiracy, not an offering of proof as to WHY it could only be a conspiracy.

Personally, I attribute the whole thing to a reckless and indiscriminate attitude towards practice on Wall Street.

Oct 13, 2011#185

Necronic

Dubyamn said:
Where the fuck did you get that I thought they conspired to sink the economy?

I guess I misunderstood your point, but even though you didn't directly say it you sure implied an intentional action. For instance:

These banks lied outright to countless Americans so they could suck them dry

Loan officers may have lied to get people into stupid mortgages. But banks didn't lie to people much more than they lied to themselves about their belief that the bubble would keep going.

They forced people into subprime mortgages because that was how they were able to suck the most amount of money out of people, they allowed those people to refinance so they could apply a steep early payment penalty and put the people even further into debt while sucking more money out of them

No. They ran the subprime stuff because they believed that the bubble wasn't a bubble and was just going to keep growing. In an ever expanding housing market a subprime loan is a great thing for all parties involved.

they then bundled those debts because they could make even more money selling off the various strips.

Be careful with your "they"s. The bundling was an group effort with lots of different players. It was the "lots of cooks" kind of situation. With one of them doing it, it might not have been so bad, but after 20 some odd groups had their turn chopping and re-merging these things the banks themselves had no idea what was in them.

Then they bundled up the strips they weren't able to sell bundled those together and got them rated triple A because they were able to get even more money out of them. And they leveraged themselves to the hilt in order to do this.

Yet again, there's "they" and then there's "they". The people that originated the mortgages were not always the ones that got the AAA ratings on the junk derivatives. There was one company (Dyneema or something like that EDIT: Its Magnatar, Dyneema is a fiber used in bulllet proof vests. Too much Jagged Alliance, derp) that was responsible for a *very* large part of the junk derivatives market. The bad mortgages may have come from banks, but the people that created the toxic assets weren't a bank in this situation. Hell, they sold this crap right back to the banks that created the bad mortgages without the banks even knowing they were in there.

forcing them instead to loans that would explode X months down the line with the lie that they can just refinance when that happens at which point they will gouge them a second time.

See this is where I think you are attributing to malice what can be better ascribed to incompetence. The banks weren't setting up these sub-prime loans expecting them to fail. The entire investment portfolio of a lot of banks was based on the assumption that the market was going to keep on churning. They said "a-ok" to these loans, not because they wanted to take the houses over (banks aren't in the real estate business), but because the shared hallucination, between lenders and lendees, was that the boom was just going to keep on going and these sub-prime loans were no risk for *either* party because they could simply resell the property in a year for a profit.

Is there some reason you confused my outright disgust with their piggish greed as some sort of belief that they saw what was coming? Hell no they were too busy taking advantage of the American public to look up and see what was coming down the pike.

The American people are complicit as well. It takes two people to sign a contract. Yes, loan officers did lie, and the ones that did, and their bosses that encouraged that, should be prosecuted. But its naive to think that the lendees were not also corrupted by greed. Why look over the details of a deal that is too good to be true?

It reminds me of something someone said to me once about the 419 scams. She didn't have much sympathy for the people who got taken by (some of) them, because their own greed over-rode their reason, which is why they ended up believing that there really was a nigerian prince.

Anyways, I don't actually disagree with you about the runaway greed and the excessive leveraging. I just think its silly to say that it was just banks doing it. It takes two to tango.

-----------------

Because the legislators and voting public all decided that giving people who couldn't afford a typical mortgage the option of using a subprime mortgage would be good for people and good for the economy.

You're talking about the Community Reinvestment Act. It's funny how many times I hear someone bring up the whole "the government made the banks give these loans" but they don't (or in some cases can't) even name the legislation in play. Not suggesting you're like that, but I've found it interesting.

Personally, from what I've read, the entire thing is a red herring. There's a pretty solid article on it here:

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html

Oct 13, 2011#186

GasBandit

stienman said:
Because the legislators and voting public all decided that giving people who couldn't afford a typical mortgage the option of using a subprime mortgage would be good for people and good for the economy.

Had the market not crashed, and had the housing bubble not popped, it would still be seen as an overall positive thing. Had only one of the two occurred, it would probably not have had the impact that it did. Both problems occurring really tossed people with subprime mortgages into the raging ocean.

Yes, it sucks, and yes, some mortgage companies did not adequately inform their clients (for which they are/were prosecuted) of their contractual obligations.

Your characterization, however, is incorrect and useless, except, I suppose, to those who have no knowledge of history and have an axe to grind.

I'd just like to add that there were also several attempts to reform the mortgage industry, but every time the subject came up, Barney Frank screamed "anyone who brings this up HATES BLACK PEOPLE and doesn't want them to ever have a house!" and the subject was stymied. The biggest travesty in all the "nobody was punished" stuff is that Barney Frank still has Chairmanship of the house financial services committee, much less a job at all.

Oct 13, 2011#187

strawman

And he was not wrong in a way.

What they should have responded with is, "If things go south, they will be worse off for having these loans than if they didn't get them in the first place."

Hindsight is 20/20.

Oct 13, 2011#188

D

Dubyamn

stienman said:
That's stupid. Your sentance makes no sense. You're essentially assuming a conspiracy (ie, someone should get punished) so that you can state that since no one got punished it must be a conspiracy.

What?

It would be more correct to say, "It's a lot easier to blame them for conspiracy than to accept that we all agreed to let them operate in this manner and thus we too are culpable."

The reason people want to believe that the bankers saw it coming and could have prevented it but actively chose not to is so they can deny personal responsibility for their own actions.

As Necronic stated, "Do not ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."

They can only operate under the laws which have been provided to them. There are laws to cover all sorts of malicious acts, but the acts they committed were largely within the legal framework provided.

They may have done things that one could objectively term "immoral" but for the most part they were not illegal. Those that have been determined to have participated in illegal activities are, were, and will be prosecuted.

Legal because they threw their weight against every attempt to regulate the securities market. Legal because they paid politicians to make it legal. Legal because they were legally able to thumb their noses at the regulators who had their teeth pulled and their arms held behind their back and were unable to investigate the fraudulent practices. Legal because they were able to convince Congress that them setting up packages for failure selling them to investors and then shorting them was legal.

So yeah Legal.

Oct 13, 2011#189

Necronic

Seriously you guys should stop trying to blame the Community Reinvestment Act. Its complete misinformation. Even banks don't blame it. There's a good quote from the head of the FDIC on this:

Point of fact: Only about one-in-four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending (2004-2006). The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.

Let me ask you: where in the CRA does it say: make loans to people who can't afford to repay? No-where!

CRA isn't perfect. But it has stayed around more than 30 years because it works. It encourages FDIC-insured banks to lend in low and moderate income (or LMI) areas, and I quote, -"consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions".
Another question: Is lending to borrowers under terms they can not afford to repay "consistent with the safe and sound operations"? No, of course not.

Just to highlight something from that last quote. The CRA has been around THIRTY YEARS. Its actually only been weakened since....hrm....oh yeah 2005. Right around when the toxic assets started showing up.

Part of the reason is that a CRA qualified bank has to undergo higher levels of scrutiny and regulation on their loans. Sub-prime and ARM loans, for instance, are actually *far* less common in CRA banks than in private commercial banks.

So, you know.....quit quoting Micheal Savage and actually learn the history.

Oct 13, 2011#190

D

Dubyamn

Necronic said:
I guess I misunderstood your point, but even though you didn't directly say it you sure implied an intentional action. For instance:

Loan officers may have lied to get people into stupid mortgages. But banks didn't lie to people much more than they lied to themselves about their belief that the bubble would keep going.

They lied to people when they said they couldn't offer them prime mortgages and they lied to people when it came time to refinance.

No. They ran the subprime stuff because they believed that the bubble wasn't a bubble and was just going to keep growing. In an ever expanding housing market a subprime loan is a great thing for all parties involved.

Subprime mortgages are shit for the home buyers and awesome for the banks that's why the banks pushed the subprime loans and denied many people who would have had no problem with a 30 year fixed rate. They did this because prime mortgages are restricted by the government while subprime mortgages allow them to be as predatory as they like.

Be careful with your "they"s. The bundling was an group effort with lots of different players. It was the "lots of cooks" kind of situation. With one of them doing it, it might not have been so bad, but after 20 some odd groups had their turn chopping and re-merging these things the banks themselves had no idea what was in them.

Exactly my point behind the piggish greed causing shortsightedness.

See this is where I think you are attributing to malice what can be better ascribed to incompetence. The banks weren't setting up these sub-prime loans expecting them to fail. The entire investment portfolio of a lot of banks was based on the assumption that the market was going to keep on churning. They said "a-ok" to these loans, not because they wanted to take the houses over (banks aren't in the real estate business), but because the shared hallucination, between lenders and lendees, was that the boom was just going to keep on going and these sub-prime loans were no risk for *either* party because they could simply resell the property in a year for a profit.

They set up countless subprime loans so that the payments would balloon 3 years down the line with the line that the person taking the loan could just refinance the loan and get another subprime loan while glossing over the prepayment penalty cost of the refinancing and all the other fees that they would tack on to the loan pushing the person further into debt. It wasn't malice it was psychotic greed and outright incompetence that I am ascribing to them.

All the different loans are set up to gouge the person borrowing the money and benefit the bank. Interest only loans, 3 year fixed rate and all the others were just ways for the lenders to tailor the loan to take the most advantage of the lendee.

The American people are complicit as well. It takes two people to sign a contract. Yes, loan officers did lie, and the ones that did, and their bosses that encouraged that, should be prosecuted. But its naive to think that the lendees were not also corrupted by greed. Why look over the details of a deal that is too good to be true?

There is evidence that many loan companies had entire offices dedicated to erasing answers given to them by the lendees and rewriting numbers after all the paperwork was done. How exactly are people supposed to read the details when the lenders change them?

Oct 13, 2011#191

Charlie Don't Surf

If you're not mad yet, look at these fun graphs and facts:

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

Oct 13, 2011#192

GasBandit

It stayed around for 30 years because we were in a 30 year boom, where 5.x% unemployment created calls of "recession!". And ONLY 1 in 4? If I took "only" 1 in 4 of your dollars out of your paycheck away from you, I bet you'd consider it a big deal. 25% is nothing to sneeze at.

But it wasn't the wording of CRA. There were constant rumblings (most notably from Andrew Cuomo, Clinton's secretary of housing and urban development) that banks "better start giving more mortgages to minorities," or else the CRA might have to be revisited and beefed up to MAKE them do it.

Another Fun Fact - in 1994, Citibank was sued for not approving enough mortgage loans to black people. Who was on the plaintiff's team of lawyers? One Barack Obama.

Oct 13, 2011#193

D

Dubyamn

stienman said:
Because the legislators and voting public all decided that giving people who couldn't afford a typical mortgage the option of using a subprime mortgage would be good for people and good for the economy.

Because the banks could make more money off the subprime they denied worthy applicants prime mortgages and instead only offered them subprime mortgages. That is what happened and that is what is meant by forced people into subprime mortgages.

Had the market not crashed, and had the housing bubble not popped, it would still be seen as an overall positive thing. Had only one of the two occurred, it would probably not have had the impact that it did. Both problems occurring really tossed people with subprime mortgages into the raging ocean.

Subprime mortgages lead directly to both of those outcomes. Banks wanted to eliminate the risks they faced from subprime mortgages while still maintaining the increased moneyflow from them.

Saying that subprime mortgages would be a positive thing if it weren't for the horrible results from them is like saying that Stalin was a great leader if you just ignore the millions dead. It's like shutting your eyes and using your imagination to navigate the world.

Your characterization, however, is incorrect and useless, except, I suppose, to those who have no knowledge of history and have an axe to grind.

It's correct. Your understanding is flawed and your arguments that are based on those are utter nonsense.

Oct 13, 2011#194

sixpackshaker

So, the government wanted loans to minorities and first time home owners. Then the banks fucked over everyone they could. YES THE GOVERNMENT IS TO BLAME.

Oct 13, 2011#195

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
So, the government wanted loans to minorities and first time home owners. Then the banks fucked over everyone they could. YES THE GOVERNMENT IS TO BLAME.

I'm astounded how many people just expected banks to just shrug and take it in the ass when the government threatens that they "better do x" when X is a ruinous business practice. Companies, including banks, only exist so long as they can make profits. For example, the new Bank of America checking account/debit card fees are a perfect example. You can thank the ruinous joke of a "finance reform" bill from last year for that.

Oct 13, 2011#196

sixpackshaker

How is making a loan that people can actually pay back, "taking it up the ass" for a bank? You loan out $100k and get back $120k+, yep getting fucked by the government.

Oct 13, 2011#197

strawman

Dubyamn said:
Subprime mortgages lead directly to both of those outcomes.

Are you honestly saying that the housing bubble, which has been building for decades, and the recent economic collapse are due to subprime mortgages?

:popcorn:

Oct 13, 2011#198

D

Dubyamn

stienman said:
Are you honestly saying that the housing bubble, which has been building for decades, and the recent economic collapse are due to subprime mortgages?

Are you saying that the housing bubble had been going on for decades? The hell you smoking?

Oct 13, 2011#199

strawman

Dubyamn said:
Are you saying that the housing bubble had been going on for decades? The hell you smoking?

I'll concede that the housing bubble hasn't been growing for decades.

Are you still saying that the recent housing bubble and the recent economic collapse are due to subprime mortgages?

Oct 13, 2011#200

D

Dubyamn

stienman said:
I'll concede that the housing bubble hasn't been growing for decades.

Are you still saying that the recent housing bubble and the recent economic collapse are due to subprime mortgages?

Yes. The crazy availability of credit caused housing prices to rapidly increase causing the housing bubble. Then the fact that banks thought this was the never ending money through blinded them to the risks and leveraged themselves to the hilt in order to maximize profits and when housing prices dropped they didn't have enough liquid reserves to remain solvent and couldn't borrow any money from the other banks because they didn't have enough money to remain solvent much less loan it out.

How on earth do you explain either the housing bubble or the economic collapse in the absence of subprime mortgages?

Oct 13, 2011#201

GasBandit

sixpackshaker said:
How is making a loan that people can actually pay back, "taking it up the ass" for a bank? You loan out $100k and get back $120k+, yep getting fucked by the government.

Except when the people you're making that loan to default with cynical predictability. There's a reason "bad risk = big interest." The whole thing with subprimes was creative accounting mathematisorcery to figure out a way to do the whole low interest, high risk thing. Obviously it didn't work, because it doesn't matter how much you massage the numbers, you won't be arithromancing the insolvent into homeownership.

Oct 13, 2011#202

Necronic

Subprime/ARM lending, in a market with low interest rates and increasing home-prices, is a win win for everyone, banks and borrowers alike.

Exactly my point behind the piggish greed causing shortsightedness.

Ah ok, I gotcha, we're one the same point I just misunderstood what you were implying. I thought you were saying that greed led to rational "screw them over", but you were saying it led to irrational "screw them over". So we both agree that the banks were being irrational.

Dubyamn said:
Subprime mortgages are shit for the home buyers and awesome for the banks that's why the banks pushed the subprime loans and denied many people who would have had no problem with a 30 year fixed rate. They did this because prime mortgages are restricted by the government while subprime mortgages allow them to be as predatory as they like.

Actually like I said above, in a boom market they're great for everyone. Until the market busts of course, which it undoubtedly will.

Also I don't know what you're talking about with the regulation on prime mortgages that doesn't exist on subprimes. The term "subprime" isn't even a legal term. It just means high risk loans.

Gasbandit said:
It stayed around for 30 years because we were in a 30 year boom, where 5.x% unemployment created calls of "recession!".

30 year boom. Really. Guess the 1980s never happened huh. I'll grant that there was a 15-20 year boom from the mid 90s to recently, but the 80s were by no means a good time for housing (with mortgage rates almost guaranteed to be in the double digits) or employment for that matter (5.x% != 9.8%)

But hey, lets just ignore the 80s. Here's the breakdown by year of how much of the mortgage market was subprime by year, starting from the mid 90s:

1994: 5%
1996: 9%
1999: 13%
2006: 20%

You can see an escalation of subprime lending that started gradually inching upwards in the 90s, but really boomed in the last 10-15 years. But for the first FIFTEEN years of the CRA, there was really no significant amount of subprime lending going on in the market, CRA or no.

Sure, you can argue that the changes in 95 are what pushed it over the top, but lets look at the next point.

And ONLY 1 in 4? If I took "only" 1 in 4 of your dollars out of your paycheck away from you, I bet you'd consider it a big deal. 25% is nothing to sneeze at.

Let me ask you something. Which is a bigger number?

75 or 25?

More bad loans were originated from firms that had ZERO regulation by the CRA than firms that did.

This means that companies with ZERO motivation from the CRA to do these high risk loans were doing them anyways, and at a faster rate than companies regulated by the CRA. Whatever the motivation to make these loans was, it clearly wasn't the CRA for the vast majority.

Another Fun Fact - in 1994, Citibank was sued for not approving enough mortgage loans to black people. Who was on the plaintiff's team of lawyers? One Barack Obama

Here's the Case Summary:

Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages

So they were sued under ECOA, The Fair Housing Act, and the Thirteenth Amendment.

I mean, I can pick and choose the letters CRA out of that (I bolded them), but other than that I don't see the CRA mentioned.

But hey, why should I expect a legal document to describe the law that the suit is being brought under. Clearly the better source is the New York Post (where this whole "connection" was identified) .

Edit: Also, since it's clear people have spent more time reading blogs about the law than actually reading the law, here's the entire CRA (it's not that long nbd)

Sec. 801.
This title may be cited as the ``Community Reinvestment Act of 1977´´.
[edit] Sec. 802.

(a) The Congress finds that—

(1) regulated financial institutions are required by law to demonstrate that their deposit facilities serve the convenience and needs of the communities in which they are chartered to do business;
(2) the convenience and needs of communities include the need for credit services as well as deposit services; and
(3) regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligation to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.

(b) It is the purpose of this title to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions.
[edit] Sec. 803.

For the purposes of this title—

(1) the term “appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency” means—

(A) the Comptroller of the Currency with respect to national banks;
(B) the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with respect to State chartered banks which are members of the Federal Reserve System and bank holding companies;
(C) the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation with respect to State chartered banks and savings banks which are not members of the Federal Reserve System and the deposits of which are insured by the Corporation; and
(D) the Federal Home Loan Bank Board with respect to institutions the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation and to savings and loan holding companies;

(2) the term “regulated financial institution” means an insured bank as defined in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or an insured institution as defined in section 401 of the National Housing Act; and
(3) the term “application for a deposit facility” means an application to the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency otherwise required under Federal law or regulations thereunder for—

(A) a charter for a national bank or Federal savings and loan association;
(B) deposit insurance in connection with a newly chartered State bank, savings bank, savings and loan association or similar institution;
(C) the establishment of a domestic branch or other facility with the ability to accept deposits of a regulated financial institution;
(D) the relocation of the home office or a branch office of a regulated financial institution;
(E) the merger or consolidation with, or the acquisition of the assets, or the assumption of the liabilities of a repulated financial institution requiring approval under section 18(c) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or under regulations issued under the authority of title IV of the National Housing Act; or
(F) the acquisition of shares in, or the assets of, a regulated financial institution requiring approval under section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 or section 408 (e) of the National Housing Act.
[edit] Sec. 804.

In connection with its examination of a financial institution, the appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall—

(1) assess the institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution; and
(2) take such record into account in its evaluation of an application for a deposit facility by such institution.
[edit] Sec. 805.

Each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency shall include in its annual report to the Congress a section outlining the actions it has taken to carry out its responsibilities under this title.
[edit] Sec. 806.

Regulations to carry out the purposes of this title shall be published by each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency, and shall take effect no later than 390 days after the date of enactment of this title.

Notice how many times the phrase "consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions." appears in the document.

Oct 13, 2011#203

GasBandit

Now you're just picking nits and arguing semantics. It's not just the CRA that is the problem, it was the entire mentality of "banks have lots of money so make them take losses so our constituents can thank me for getting them houses."

And you really believe that the phrase "consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions" actually means anything to these people?

Oct 13, 2011#204

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
And you really believe that the phrase "consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions" actually means anything to these people?

When your industry, from the moment it was started hundreds of years ago, has consistently been considered a den of thieves and scam artists, it should really say something about your line of work and the kind of people in it.

Oct 13, 2011#205

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
When your industry, from the moment it was started hundreds of years ago, has consistently been considered a den of thieves and scam artists, it should really say something about your line of work and the kind of people in it.

... congress, or banks?

Oct 13, 2011#206

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
... congress, or banks?

Oct 13, 2011#207

Covar

AshburnerX said:
When your industry, from the moment it was started hundreds of years ago, has consistently been considered a den of thieves and scam artists, it should really say something about your line of work and the kind of people in it.

And yet people still run for Congress.

[edit] awww man ninja'd

Oct 13, 2011#208

GasBandit

Thank you, tip your waitress generously, I'll be here all week.

Oct 13, 2011#209

Necronic

Heh.

Ok yeah I guess I am nitpicking a bit. The CRA did have a role in this. But it was one of many different issues:

-Fannie/Freddie Securitization of CRA loans
-Repeal of Glass/Steagal and other deregulations
-Automated Undewriting/Reduced Loan Documentation
-Speculators shift from the internet boom to the housing boom

It was a perfect storm. If you remove one of these the entire recession changes, and may not have even happened.

I guess I'm just a bit bitter about the whole thing because I sit through this class where the professor goes on and on about how it's entirely because of the CRA, and doesn't make an argument mind you, just asserts that. And doesn't allow us to discuss the topic.

Oct 13, 2011#210

D

Dubyamn

Necronic said:
Subprime/ARM lending, in a market with low interest rates and increasing home-prices, is a win win for everyone, banks and borrowers alike.

No it's a win for the banks and a lose for the borrowers. How exactly do you not see that the banks set up the system to maximize profits off the backs of the people they lended to.

Ah ok, I gotcha, we're one the same point I just misunderstood what you were implying. I thought you were saying that greed led to rational "screw them over", but you were saying it led to irrational "screw them over". So we both agree that the banks were being irrational.

They set out to screw over everybody who they lended to. They were perfectly rational when they set up the system to suck every dollar out of the people they lended to. They were completely stupid to leverage themselves so throughly or forget the #1 rule of lending but it was rational when their goal was to maximize profits.

Actually like I said above, in a boom market they're great for everyone. Until the market busts of course, which it undoubtedly will.[/quote]

They're set up to be terrible for the borrower. ARMs are set up so that when the rate increases the banks get more money and the lendee would be required to borrow more money from the bank and pay the prepayment penalty.

Also I don't know what you're talking about with the regulation on prime mortgages that doesn't exist on subprimes. The term "subprime" isn't even a legal term. It just means high risk loans.

Why do you keep on talking about the banks when you have no idea what the hell you are talking about?

Subprime mortgages are mortgages that didn't meet the Fannie and Freddie underwritting guidelines. That is the exact definition and due to them having to meet Fannie and Freddie guidelines the banks couldn't tie in all the little things they used to gouge thousands of Americans out of billions of dollars.

Oct 13, 2011#211

GasBandit

Necronic said:
Heh.

Ok yeah I guess I am nitpicking a bit. The CRA did have a role in this. But it was one of many different issues:

-Fannie/Freddie Securitization of CRA loans
-Repeal of Glass/Steagal and other deregulations
-Automated Undewriting/Reduced Loan Documentation
-Speculators shift from the internet boom to the housing boom

Ok, that sounds a little more in the realm of feasibility.

Oct 13, 2011#212

Necronic

They're set up to be terrible for the borrower. ARMs are set up so that when the rate increases the banks get more money and the lendee would be required to borrow more money from the bank and pay the prepayment penalty.

If the housing market is growing fast enough, and prime interest rates are low enough (and there is no reason to see them increase), you will never be under water on your mortgage. If you lose your job or whatever, you can resell the house and actually turn a profit on it.

In fact, with an ARM (without a prepayment penalty), if the prime interest rate decreases or stays the same then the ARM is actually a cheaper financing option that a traditional fixed rate loan.

This is why a lot of businesses operate using the commercial equivalent of ARMs. Not just in cost of capital, but cost of anything. Sometimes a company will choose to lock in a price on a commodity, like Southwest did with fuel, and it works out amazing. But that's not the only way things are done, in fact it's the exception, not the rule.

Now, what's good for a company may not be good for an individual. For individuals the security of a fixed rate loan is a good thing.

And yeah, most of the ARMs being sold were not even remotely in teh interest of the individual, but at that point they weren't in the interest of the banks either.

They're set up to be terrible for the borrower. ARMs are set up so that when the rate increases the banks get more money and the lendee would be required to borrow more money from the bank and pay the prepayment penalty.

ARMs with prepayment penalties are definitely predatory and incredibly stupid to take out (to the point that I would assume that anyone that has one doesn't understand what they have signed.) No disagreement there.

Why do you keep on talking about the banks when you have no idea what the hell you are talking about?
Subprime mortgages are mortgages that didn't meet the Fannie and Freddie underwritting guidelines. That is the exact definition and due to them having to meet Fannie and Freddie guidelines the banks couldn't tie in all the little things they used to gouge thousands of Americans out of billions of dollars.

I'll admit to being self-taught. But that is by no means a definition of it I have ever heard (in that exact sense). The way I understood it there were two uses of "subprime", the first describing any loan with interest rates above the prime rate, and the other describing the high risk loans like ARMs and 100% LTVs and whatnot.

I'll assume that your definition is the definite one though. Lets look at the statement, that subprime loans do not follow fannie and and freddie underwriting requirements, and therefore (I assume) wouldn't be securitized.

Which is funny considering the fact that Fannie/Freddie securitized billions of dollars of subprime/ARM loans from CRA (and other sources).

It's true that they won't touch ARMs with prepayment penalties though, but are all ARMs "subprime" or only the ones that have the prepayment penalties?

Oct 13, 2011#213

D

Dubyamn

Necronic said:
If the housing market is growing fast enough, and prime interest rates are low enough (and there is no reason to see them increase), you will never be under water on your mortgage. If you lose your job or whatever, you can resell the house and actually turn a profit on it.

Same exact thing with a 30 year prime loan. However with a Subprime you have to refinance every couple of years when your monthly payment jumps up.

In fact, with an ARM (without a prepayment penalty), if the prime interest rate decreases or stays the same then the ARM is actually a cheaper financing option that a traditional fixed rate loan.

ARMs only make sense when you are working to flip a home. Otherwise your monthly payments are going to balloon a couple years in forcing a refinance on their terms. Once again it's shit for home owners who are buying an asset not something they are going to flip.

This is why a lot of businesses operate using the commercial equivalent of ARMs. Not just in cost of capital, but cost of anything. Sometimes a company will choose to lock in a price on a commodity, like Southwest did with fuel, and it works out amazing. But that's not the only way things are done, in fact it's the exception, not the rule.

WTF are you even talking about? Southwest agreed to pay a rate for fuel that would remain steady no matter where the price of fuel went. If anything that deal better mimics a fixed rate loan. Not to mention how that deal wasn't a loan or anything they need to pay interest on.

Now, what's good for a company may not be good for an individual. For individuals the security of a fixed rate loan is a good thing.

And yeah, most of the ARMs being sold were not even remotely in the interest of the individual, but at that point they weren't in the interest of the banks either.

Not in the long run certainly but in both the long run and the short run they were bad for the individuals.

I'll admit to being self-taught. But that is by no means a definition of it I have ever heard (in that exact sense). The way I understood it there were two uses of "subprime", the first describing any loan with interest rates above the prime rate, and the other describing the high risk loans like ARMs and 100% LTVs and whatnot.

I'll assume that your definition is the definite one though. Lets look at the statement, that subprime loans do not follow fannie and and freddie underwriting requirements, and therefore (I assume) wouldn't be securitized.

Which is funny considering the fact that Fannie/Freddie securitized billions of dollars of subprime/ARM loans from CRA (and other sources).

Funny thing they never actually securitized the subprime loans themselves. They instead invested in securities created by others.

Incredibly stupid but they needed to preform that kind of nonsense because they couldn't actually buy and underwrite the securities themselves.

It's true that they won't touch ARMs with prepayment penalties though, but are all ARMs "subprime" or only the ones that have the prepayment penalties?

Fannie Mae and Freddie don't touch anything but 30 year fixed rate loans. Anything else is subprime by definition.

Oct 13, 2011#214

Necronic

Same exact thing with a 30 year prime loan. However with a Subprime you have to refinance every couple of years when your monthly payment jumps up.

ARMs only make sense when you are working to flip a home. Otherwise your monthly payments are going to balloon a couple years in forcing a refinance on their terms. Once again it's shit for home owners who are buying an asset not something they are going to flip.

True for both.

WTF are you even talking about? Southwest agreed to pay a rate for fuel that would remain steady no matter where the price of fuel went. If anything that deal better mimics a fixed rate loan. Not to mention how that deal wasn't a loan or anything they need to pay interest on.

Sorry, re-reading my quote I could tell it was a bit confusing. I was comparing the Southwest deal to a fixed rate loan, whereas most companies operate on a variable cost setup for commodoties, more like an ARM. Only point was that ARMs and similarish type things aren't uncommon in the slightest for commercial/corporate stuff.

Funny thing they never actually securitized the subprime loans themselves. They instead invested in securities created by others.

Incredibly stupid but they needed to preform that kind of nonsense because they couldn't actually buy and underwrite the securities themselves

So they bought the securities but did not underwrite them? Ok, that actually makes some sense. To be honest tracking down actual information on this was pretty ridiculous. Some people were saying that F&F securitized hundreds of billions in sub-prime loans. Others were saying they never securitized *any* of it. Then others were saying that they did some, but not a ton, most of what it was were the Alt-A loans, which aren't technically subprime.

To be honest I couldn't really sort it out. Probably should have stopped running headlong.

What I'm seeing a bit is a term called a "conforming" or "conventional" mortgages, which is defined by a 80% LTV for one. Maybe that's what you're defining as the prime/subprime cutoff?

Also, even if they were just purchasing, instead of underwriting the loans, that's still pretty fucking stupid. Why would you buy something you were explicitly unwilling to underwrite?

Oct 13, 2011#215

D

Dubyamn

Necronic said:
Sorry, re-reading my quote I could tell it was a bit confusing. I was comparing the Southwest deal to a fixed rate loan, whereas most companies operate on a variable cost setup for commodoties, more like an ARM. Only point was that ARMs and similarish type things aren't uncommon in the slightest for commercial/corporate stuff.

Well those also aren't really ARMs no more than me filling up my car is taking an ARM. They're paying for commodities at the market rate.

So they bought the securities but did not underwrite them? Ok, that actually makes some sense. To be honest tracking down actual information on this was pretty ridiculous. Some people were saying that F&F securitized hundreds of billions in sub-prime loans. Others were saying they never securitized *any* of it. Then others were saying that they did some, but not a ton, most of what it was were the Alt-A loans, which aren't technically subprime.

To be honest I couldn't really sort it out. Probably should have stopped running headlong.

Well this article I found to be very helpful. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/18/AR2008081802111.html

And if you want a complete overview of the financial collapse " All the Devils are Here" is a very in depth overview of the financial collapse from the birth of the securities market to the utter ruination of an economy. http://www.amazon.com/All-Devils-Ar...438X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318555760&sr=8-1

I've read it twice and how Fannie and Freddie were able to get into the subprime market still doesn't make any real sense to me. Since the subprime were a great thing for the bank since Fannie and Freddie weren't able to get into that market until they did.. right in time for the bottom to fall out of the market.

What I'm seeing a bit is a term called a "conforming" or "conventional" mortgages, which is defined by a 80% LTV for one. Maybe that's what you're defining as the prime/subprime cutoff?

I do have to admit I'm using prime and conventional interchangeably. Are they different?

Also, even if they were just purchasing, instead of underwriting the loans, that's still pretty fucking stupid. Why would you buy something you were explicitly unwilling to underwrite?

Same reason why Merrill Lynch executives refused to listen to their risk managers. If they didn't they would lose market share and would stop making money and fees hand over fist and then their investors would get angry. Greed and stupidity.

Oct 13, 2011#216

Dave

Expect a riot tomorrow. Bloomberg says he's clearing out the park. This is gonna get ugly fast.

Oct 13, 2011#217

Charlie Don't Surf

Should it be called a riot if it is the police going after non-violent protesters?

Oct 13, 2011#218

Dave

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Should it be called a riot if it is the police going after non-violent protesters?

Probably not, but it only takes one moron to escalate. So far the protesters have been amazingly restrained. I hope they stay that way in the face of enormous pressure and oppression.

Oct 14, 2011#219

Krisken

Dave said:
Probably not, but it only takes one moron to escalate. So far the protesters have been amazingly restrained. I hope they stay that way in the face of enormous pressure and oppression.

You and me both, Dave. Despite the large amount of disparity in the protesters, they've been fantastically disciplined.

Oct 14, 2011#220

AshburnerX

I'm actually hoping it escalates, if only because it means the protestors are serious in their convictions. People are going to get hurt and that's awful, but suffering seems to be the only language the authorities seem to understand if you want lasting change.

This isn't a call to violence mind you... it's more a call to let the police have their way with them. Nothing shows a clearer contrast between sides than one side abusing it's power and people getting hurt by it.

Oct 14, 2011#221

Dave

Protesters 1 - NYC 0

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/1...rs-vow-to-block-park-cleaning/?iref=allsearch

Oct 14, 2011#222

Chibibar

For the housing market I personally it is a conspiracy + stupidity

I mean these financial people want to ride the wave and earn as much as they can, but realistically how can they NOT know this is not going to last. Any basic economic class could have taught you that that economic come in waves.

Most banks was hoping to make big bucks and get out and let someone else take the falls, but the bubble burst too quickly and early.

Oct 14, 2011#223

Dave

The problem to me has nothing to do with housing and everything to do with the way that corporations have been deemed people and are now even more openly able to purchase policy decisions. There have always been backroom deals, but the level of corporate ownership of our government has not only skyrocketed but has come out of the shadows.

The housing bubble - while a terrible thing - is a smokescreen and has nothing to do with the current state of inequality.

Oct 14, 2011#224

Chibibar

Dave said:
The problem to me has nothing to do with housing and everything to do with the way that corporations have been deemed people and are now even more openly able to purchase policy decisions. There have always been backroom deals, but the level of corporate ownership of our government has not only skyrocketed but has come out of the shadows.

The housing bubble - while a terrible thing - is a smokescreen and has nothing to do with the current state of inequality.

Agree. It is just a tip of the ice berg IMO. There are so many things going wrong that is coming out of the woodwork. Unlike 20 years ago, where people can hide these things, the internet age allows us to gets new almost 10 seconds after it happen.

IMO, I think the "old business man" want business as usual, but you can't really have it like that anymore. I say let the economic wheel turn on its own instead of trying to slow it down with needless bailout (again that is my own opinion. I am no economic expert, but it it seems that everyone is trying to fight against the natural turn of events)

Oct 14, 2011#225

strawman

Oct 14, 2011#226

Krisken

I love gross generalizations.

Oct 14, 2011#227

GasBandit

Krisken said:
I love gross generalizations.

So do the 99%. Pretty much everybody does. Which, I guess, is a redundant statement.

Oct 14, 2011#228

D

Dubyamn

stienman said:

Yeah sounds about right coming from the baby boomers. Worst generation ever born.

stienman said:
I'll concede that the housing bubble hasn't been growing for decades.

Are you still saying that the recent housing bubble and the recent economic collapse are due to subprime mortgages?

Oct 15, 2011#229

Tress

Cracked had an interesting column about the protest today. I know it's a comedy site, but that list makes a lot of sense.

Oct 17, 2011#230

Necronic

AshburnerX said:
I'm actually hoping it escalates, if only because it means the protestors are serious in their convictions. People are going to get hurt and that's awful, but suffering seems to be the only language the authorities seem to understand if you want lasting change.

This isn't a call to violence mind you... it's more a call to let the police have their way with them. Nothing shows a clearer contrast between sides than one side abusing it's power and people getting hurt by it.

Good god no.

Just no in every way shape and form.

No. Non. Niet. Nein. Ne. Mo. Bo.
....actually I'll just let this site fill in the rest:

http://users.elite.net/runner/jennifers/no.htm

Oct 17, 2011#231

SpecialKO

I had heard that the protesters had moved to Liberty State Park in Jersey City over the weekend, so I went biking out there in hopes of some funny pictures. Alas, there were either long gone, or there were too few of them to raise the slightest fuss.

Oct 17, 2011#232

AshburnerX

Thirteen Observations made by Lemony Snicket while watching Occupy Wall Street from a Discreet Distance

1. If you work hard, and become successful, it does not necessarily mean you are successful because you worked hard, just as if you are tall with long hair it doesn’t mean you would be a midget if you were bald.

2. “Fortune” is a word for having a lot of money and for having a lot of luck, but that does not mean the word has two definitions.

3. Money is like a child—rarely unaccompanied. When it disappears, look to those who were supposed to be keeping an eye on it while you were at the grocery store. You might also look for someone who has a lot of extra children sitting around, with long, suspicious explanations for how they got there.

4. People who say money doesn’t matter are like people who say cake doesn’t matter—it’s probably because they’ve already had a few slices.

5. There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.

6. Nobody wants to fall into a safety net, because it means the structure in which they’ve been living is in a state of collapse and they have no choice but to tumble downwards. However, it beats the alternative.

7. Someone feeling wronged is like someone feeling thirsty. Don’t tell them they aren’t. Sit with them and have a drink.

8. Don’t ask yourself if something is fair. Ask someone else—a stranger in the street, for example.

9. People gathering in the streets feeling wronged tend to be loud, as it is difficult to make oneself heard on the other side of an impressive edifice.

10. It is not always the job of people shouting outside impressive buildings to solve problems. It is often the job of the people inside, who have paper, pens, desks, and an impressive view.

11. Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.

12. If you have a large crowd shouting outside your building, there might not be room for a safety net if you’re the one tumbling down when it collapses.

13. 99 percent is a very large percentage. For instance, easily 99 percent of people want a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and the occasional slice of cake for dessert. Surely an arrangement can be made with that niggling 1 percent who disagree.

Oct 18, 2011#233

Overflight

Damn it! I was just going to post that!

Oct 24, 2011#234

GasBandit

Oct 24, 2011#235

Krisken

Gas, I didn't know you played that much Warcraft.

Oct 24, 2011#236

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Gas, I didn't know you played that much Warcraft.

Heh, even at my peak (which would have been back in college, playing EQ), I think the most I could muster was 35 hours a week. And that was not every week, cause it really hurt my studies.

Oct 25, 2011#237

Overflight

Meh. Prefer this pic:

Oct 25, 2011#238

Espy

Heh.

Oct 25, 2011#239

AshburnerX

Apparently Occupy Oakland is getting raided RIGHT NOW. Hundreds of cops are busting heads with tear gas, flash bangs, rubber bullets, and bean bag shotguns. Lots of people getting hurt. Why the fuck isn't this on the news?

It's all over Twitter. look for yourselves. Tag is #occupyoakland

Oct 25, 2011#240

Espy

Because cops busting heads in oakland is kind of non-news?

I kid, I kid (kind of).
Added at: 08:26
According to this it was actually rather benign. No rubber bullets or shotguns or violence really.

Oct 25, 2011#241

AshburnerX

Espy said:
Because cops busting heads in oakland is kind of non-news?

I kid, I kid (kind of).
Added at: 08:26
According to this it was actually rather benign. No rubber bullets or shotguns or violence really.

Ahem... from the article.

Several police cars have arrived. The protesters are running around, throwing things at the police. Riot police with batons full riot gear have assembled on the corner of 14th and Broadway.

Police are telling the protesters via bullhorn that "chemical agents" will be used and are repeating that they are illegally camped.

Police have donned gas masks and some kind of smoke has been released.

Police tore down tents and wooden stalls that had housed medical aid and food. Garbage cans are overturned. Some police have shotguns and all have clubs out.

This wasn't mild, by any means.

Oct 25, 2011#242

Espy

AshburnerX said:
Ahem... from the article.
This wasn't mild, by any means.

Actually it sounds like the definition of mild (at least as far as any protest being cleared out by cops could go). Your own quotes, aside from them using some smoke bombs (which are not "being shot with rubber bullets and beanbag shotguns), don't actually say anything about any violence so... maybe you and I have a different definition for violence? I don't consider riot cops wearing riot gear or standing in a line to be an act of violence.

In fact from those quotes I see 1 actual act of violence. And it's not from the cops. Now if the cops attacked the protestors back thats a different story but the article doesn't say they did...

Oct 25, 2011#243

AshburnerX

Like I said, it's all over twitter. People have seen shots go off, numerous reports of injuries, and aggrevated police violence.

Looks like the second group of Occupiers (The ones at Snow Park) are getting hit now.

Here's an article that's getting updated, with images.

Oct 25, 2011#244

Espy

I'm not saying they might not be using rubber bullets, etc, just that so far it's been in several news outlets with no mention of it, only on protestors Twitter posts. I'm not saying they are lying at all, just that a little confirmation beyond twitter would be nice and so far the news doesn't seem to be backing it up. Even that article you just posted only mentions the "rubber bullets, etc" in regards to the occupiers twitter feeds. It looks like very standard riot police work from the news reports, sonic guns, smoke grenades, etc. That's not me saying they are right to clear these folks out mind you, just that I'm not going to attack these cops for doing their jobs unless they use unnecessary force.

Oct 25, 2011#245

strawman

Depends on your definition of violence. I'm sure people will complain that police overturning empty tents is a violent act. Violence that is, of course, inherent in the system.

Oct 25, 2011#246

Espy

I wonder what the legal precedence for kicking the protesters out is?

Oct 25, 2011#247

Necronic

Seriously though that's Oakland. That's like your average day on public transit.

Oct 25, 2011#248

strawman

One article pointed out that the protesters have not been able to keep the area safe (ie, inadequate sanitation, fire hazards, etc) and since the city is responsible for safety in that park, and their only plans right now are for normal usage levels, then they have to clear out the park to normal usage levels so their current safety plans are sufficient.

Of course, that is merely the convenient excuse, because if the occupy movement had brought in its own porta potties, made adequate rules for fires and kept lanes clear for emergency use then the city would have found some other convenient excuse.

Oct 25, 2011#249

AshburnerX

Espy said:
I wonder what the legal precedence for kicking the protesters out is?

Basically, the Parks and Services people denied them a permit extension for no reason. The OWS people refused to leave because they felt their rights were being violated. So the Mayor (facing a recall petition because of her inability to be tough on crime, which is a serious issue in Oakland) sent out an excessive show of force to appease the people trying to get her pulled. When the cops showed the OWS group resisted, giving the Police the reason they needed for a good ol' fashioned hippie beatdown.

The aftermath? Two ruined parks, mainly because the police went and tore everything down, and a lot of hurt people. It's also likely to bolster the efforts of OWS.

Oct 25, 2011#250

strawman

AshburnerX said:
Two ruined parks, mainly because the police went and tore everything down

The police damaged the grass and park fixtures? I'd have guessed that the overuse by the occupiers for two weeks would have done more damage than the hour of police arrests.

I suppose we'll see pictures soon enough - it's getting to be daylight there.

Oct 25, 2011#251

AshburnerX

stienman said:
The police damaged the grass and park fixtures? I'd have guessed that the overuse by the occupiers for two weeks would have done more damage than the hour of police arrests.

I suppose we'll see pictures soon enough - it's getting to be daylight there.

No, I mean the parks are IN ruins because the place demolished all the tents and the wooden buildings the protestors made to dispense food, water, and medicine. That stuff would have been packed up when the OWS left, but now it's just trash for the parks people to clean up.

Oct 25, 2011#252

strawman

AshburnerX said:
That stuff would have been packed up when the OWS left

Ha. That's funny. There was never a plan on their part to leave. They were going to occupy the park indefinitely. They had no list of demands that, once fulfilled, they would clean up, replace the sod they destroyed, and leave.

Oct 25, 2011#253

AshburnerX

stienman said:
Ha. That's funny. There was never a plan on their part to leave. They were going to occupy the park indefinitely. They had no list of demands that, once fulfilled, they would clean up, replace the sod they destroyed, and leave.

You think people would leave their own camping equipment behind? You know... stuff they payed for?

I get what your saying but eventually they would have left. There was no way those people were gonna live out there in the winter... and that's especially true in NYC, where they get stupid amounts of snow.

Oct 25, 2011#254

sixpackshaker

Espy said:
I wonder what the legal precedence for kicking the protesters out is?

For the Bonus March it was a Calvary Charge.

Oct 25, 2011#255

Espy

Necronic said:
Seriously though that's Oakland. That's like your average day on public transit.

Like a NICE day on public transit in Oakland.

Oct 25, 2011#256

Tress

There was no orgy of violence on the level you're describing. Local news cameras caught one protester shot with a beanbag, but only after he threw a glass bottle at police. The reports are showing that the vast majority of protesters are being led away in plastic cuffs with no incident.

The city had major concerns about the health of the site. The protesters were refusing to clean up the area. They were having problems of violence within the camp, public urination and defecation, and a healthy mob of rats had moved into the area. These folks were warned they needed to clean up, and did nothing. They were then warned on loudspeaker that they would be arrested an hour before the raid; some people left, most stayed. I don't give a shit what morons on twitter are claiming. This was not the evil beatdown that you want it to be.

Oct 25, 2011#257

Espy

Tress said:
There was no orgy of violence on the level you're describing. Local news cameras caught one protester shot with a beanbag, but only after he threw a glass bottle at police. The reports are showing that the vast majority of protesters are being led away in plastic cuffs with no incident.

The city had major concerns about the health of the site. The protesters were refusing to clean up the area. They were having problems of violence within the camp, public urination and defecation, and a healthy mob of rats had moved into the area. These folks were warned they needed to clean up, and did nothing. They were then warned on loudspeaker that they would be arrested an hour before the raid; some people left, most stayed. I don't give a shit what morons on twitter are claiming. This was not the evil beatdown that you want it to be.

Lovely. Stay classy folks.

Oct 26, 2011#258

Tress

Update: Protesters met in downtown Oakland and generally acted like a mob for a while. Police have been yelling at them over loudspeakers to go home and tossing a few tear gas canisters to encourage them to disperse. Most are still there, and the police look like they're just waiting for the protesters to get bored/hungry/tired.

The news showed how the city had to call in a small army of workers to clean up. Crews of three carrying pressure washers went through the park and fountain, removing the piles of crap that the protesters left behind. Other workers had to pick up hundreds of pounds of trash and junk. The final tally for crimes reported in the protester camp included one alleged rape, three alleged assaults, and numerous thefts. This was all done before the police cleared out the park this morning.

I'm disappointed. I heard the Occupy Wall Street folks cleaned up after themselves (for the most part) and have been behaving well (for the most part) in an attempt to stave off criticism. The jackasses here in Oakland were literally shitting all over the place and acting like animals. I'm actually amazed the police have been going as easy as they have so far.

Oct 26, 2011#259

Krisken

One bad city (apple) and all that.

Oct 26, 2011#260

Officer_Charon

Ash, I am honestly curious as to what you consider to be violent acts... There does not appear to be baton strikes... there does not appear to be fighting... the only chemical munitions were CS grenades... no stingball grenades, no shieldwalls, no hoses... those that resisted were reacted to, and everyone was informed well in advance to pack their trash and get out.

Oct 26, 2011#261

AshburnerX

Officer_Charon said:
Ash, I am honestly curious as to what you consider to be violent acts... There does not appear to be baton strikes... there does not appear to be fighting... the only chemical munitions were CS grenades... no stingball grenades, no shieldwalls, no hoses... those that resisted were reacted to, and everyone was informed well in advance to pack their trash and get out.

I apologize, but from what I was reading over Twitter it sounded like the Police immediately escalated to full on 60's hippie-beatdown violence once the time was up. Considering Twitter was such a good source for the Arab Spring stuff, I was ready to accept it at face value. Seeing as that's apparently not the case this time around, I retract my concerns.

Oct 26, 2011#262

strawman

AshburnerX said:
I ... accept [twitter] at face value.

Oct 26, 2011#263

Necronic

Officer_Charon said:
Ash, I am honestly curious as to what you consider to be violent acts... There does not appear to be baton strikes... there does not appear to be fighting... the only chemical munitions were CS grenades... no stingball grenades, no shieldwalls, no hoses... those that resisted were reacted to, and everyone was informed well in advance to pack their trash and get out.

In fairness (meaning I don't begrudge the cops in this situation), I would consider CS grenades violence. I would rather get punched than get exposed to that stuff.

Oct 26, 2011#264

strawman

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violent

vi·o·lent [vahy-uh-luhnt]
adjective
1. acting with or characterized by uncontrolled, strong, rough force: a violent earthquake.
2. caused by injurious or destructive force: a violent death.
3. intense in force, effect, etc.; severe; extreme: violent pain; violent cold.
4. roughly or immoderately vehement or ardent: violent passions.
5. furious in impetuosity, energy, etc.: violent haste.

The actions taken were in proportion to the resistance the occupiers presented. I honestly don't think any of those definitions fit - it wasn't uncontrolled force, it wasn't injurious or destructive, it wasn't intense or extreme force or effect, and even #4 and #5 can't easily be applied as the eviction progressed slowly, steadily, and with a great deal of warning.

At best one might be able to subjectively claim that #3 applies with the argument that CS gas was excessive - but even then can it be considered severe, extreme, violent, or intense? Especially coupled with the advance warning?

On the other hand, one's connotation of the word may radically differ from the dictionary or common usage, and it will obviously be used regardless as propoganda.

Oct 26, 2011#265

Necronic

I would consider the effects of CS gas to fall under 3, completely.

I'm not condemning the action though. I'm just saying that, after seeing what CS gas does to people. I would rather get punched in the face.

Oct 26, 2011#266

AshburnerX

stienman said:

... Fuck you? Not sure how I'm supposed to respond.

Oct 26, 2011#267

Espy

I think he's just giving you some good natured ribbing for taking twitter at face value, I doubt that kind of harsh response is necessary. It's hard to take anything with George Takei in it as a serious insult.

Oct 26, 2011#268

AshburnerX

Looks like we got video of the event.

Oct 26, 2011#269

strawman

AshburnerX said:
... Fuck you? Not sure how I'm supposed to respond.

Twitter is an unmoderated channel for people to say anything and everything. I'm chuckling that there are people who accept twitter posts at face value.

There are those who use it for propaganda, and worse there are those who want to seem part of a big event but are merely armchair speculators - only they present their speculation as though it is first hand information. "My friend told me that he saw a flash from a police shotgun during the eviction" becomes "Police are using rubber bullets. OMG WTF BBQ #occupyoaklandraid"

Sorting the real tweets from a reliable source on the ground from the chaff is difficult to do at best.

So yeah, I'm laughing at you due to your trust in twitter as an information source.

Oct 26, 2011#270

Tress

AshburnerX said:
Looks like we got video of the event.

Interesting video. By the way, local news is reporting those larger explosions were protesters throwing firecrackers. Some of the protesters even confirmed it. The police said they never threw anything other than tear gas.

Oct 26, 2011#271

Shegokigo

Here's my contribution to this very poignant converation:

I'm done.

Oct 26, 2011#272

Krisken

If I was the police, that's what I would say too. And as we all know from the New York thread, they always tell the truth.

Oct 26, 2011#273

Tress

Krisken said:
If I was the police, that's what I would say too. And as we all know from the New York thread, they always tell the truth.

That's why I make sure to say "The police claim..." or whatever. I know there's plenty of opportunities for both sides to exaggerate or lie. The only thing I've seen for myself is the awful condition of the plaza after they removed the protesters.

Oct 26, 2011#274

Krisken

And that's what I think is happening. There was undoubtedly provocation from both sides in the conflict.

Oct 26, 2011#275

GasBandit

If you ask me, we're squandering a golden opportunity to field-test the MEDUSA under perfect conditions.

Oct 26, 2011#276

AshburnerX

Here's another video of that guy who got hurt... watch as a policemen throws a can of tear gas right into the middle of the crowd trying to help him.

Oct 26, 2011#277

Charlie Don't Surf

Personally, I find people on twitter more trustworthy than most police spokespersons.

Oct 26, 2011#278

Covar

That's because you're a tool.

Oct 26, 2011#279

Charlie Don't Surf

Nah, it's because Police are bought and sold by corporations and the 1% and they have a vested interest in protecting the system against which OWS is protesting.

Oct 26, 2011#280

Shegokigo

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Nah, it's because Police are bought and sold by corporations and the 1% and they have a vested interest in protecting the system against which OWS is protesting.

Oct 26, 2011#281

SpecialKO

~~The mayor's top campaign contributors possibly, but corporations?~~

Oh, nevermind, I should know better by now.

Oct 26, 2011#282

blotsfan

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Personally, I find people on twitter more trustworthy than most police spokespersons.

You know there are black cops right?

Oct 27, 2011#283

sixpackshaker

blotsfan said:
You know there are black cops right?

And Women Cops, don't forget the misogyny angle... they must be White Knighted too.

Oct 27, 2011#284

strawman

Oct 27, 2011#285

Overflight

Oct 27, 2011#286

Dave

Oct 27, 2011#287

strawman

Oct 28, 2011#288

AshburnerX

Getting reports that the NYPD and NYFD just removed the OWS Wall Street camp's generators. Anyone have any idea behind their reasoning? Aside from getting the protestors to leave that is. I can't find a statement from the NYPD or NYFD yet.

Oct 28, 2011#289

strawman

AshburnerX said:
Getting reports that the NYPD and NYFD just removed the OWS Wall Street camp's generators. Anyone have any idea behind their reasoning?

Time for RAMPANT SPECULATION!

If the generators and electrical lines/boxes/etc are not correctly setup, correctly laid out, safely covered in traffic areas, etc, etc, etc, then even with a permit they will be disconnected and removed.

I doubt OWS has a permit, and has not had the FD inspect the power setup. That alone is reason to disconnect them, however it's likely that they may have done so for specific violations as well.

Each year at the maker faire the generators are setup a day beforehand, and the morning it opens the local fire inspector runs along every single electrical cable to make sure everything is up to snuff. If not, the faire doesn't open, so you can bet anything wrong gets fixed lickety split.

Most of the evictions over the next few weeks leading up to thanksgiving (no city wants a protest to use thanksgiving as a stage) will use public safety and health as reasons for the eviction. Due to thanksgiving they aren't likely to wait until most people leave due to the cold in the north, anyway.

This has been the latest installment of RAMPANT SPECULATION! Tune in next week to find out why Obama wears shoes that are two sizes larger than his feet!

Nov 3, 2011#290

AshburnerX

Looks like Occupy Oakland is done fucking around.

7,000 protestors marched out to the Port, where some of them went to work vandalizing buildings and setting fires. Barricades were constructed, which were then lit on fire. Protestors responded to police presence by throwing concrete, pipes, bottles, and Molotovs. Roman candles were fired at the police.

The police response was to assault the area, firing off tear gas again. Considering what was going on this time, I'd hardly call it overkill. The Port is still closed down, but no one knows for how long.

Meanwhile, Occupy Oakland called for General Strike in response to the wounding of the Vet. Something like 300 of the 2000 teachers in the local district ether called in sick or asked for the day off.

Nov 3, 2011#291

Espy

Oh Oakland. Always with the fighting and the police and the fires.

Nov 3, 2011#292

Krisken

Nov 3, 2011#293

Terrik

You know, I think these people use to have a message I could get behind, but now? Fuck that. I hear reports of rape, violence, molotov cocktails, window smahing etc, and any enthusiam I might of had for the movement has evaportaed. You know, I'd have to agree with some of the conservative pundits on this one where they say, whatever you thought about the Tea Party, you didn't hear weekly reports of violence, police raids or rape in their rallies.

Nov 3, 2011#294

Espy

Well, to be fair, a few or even a lot of bad apples doesn't automatically invalidate a message. It just means that people are assholes.

Nov 3, 2011#295

Krisken

Terrik said:
You know, I think these people use to have a message I could get behind, but now? Fuck that. I hear reports of rape, violence, molotov cocktails, window smahing etc, and any enthusiam I might of had for the movement has evaportaed. You know, I'd have to agree with some of the conservative pundits on this one where they say, whatever you thought about the Tea Party, you didn't hear weekly reports of violence, police raids or rape in their rallies.

Different people, different situation. Tea Party wasn't a group of desperate poor people. Violence begets violence, and nobody handled this one well.

Besides, the Tea Party got all the attention they wanted from their representatives and from a certain news organization. I think it is amazing that the other cities have stayed as calm as they have.

Nov 3, 2011#296

Terrik

...Yes? But it's the same kind of feeling I get here in China. Every so often when there's a spat between China and Japan, there are (some!) Chinese that go apeshit protesting Japan, blocking Japanese stores or smashing Japanese cars. Yes, I get that Japanese were horrific baby-murdering monsters in China during WW II, but once the violence starts, and, heaven forbid a Japanese national gets hurt, the message is lost to me when it's accompanied by what I consider to be unneccesary violence. OWS is no different to me in that respect. I feel a lot more sqeumish going "Woo!" in support when I hear about a lot of things that are going on.

Nov 3, 2011#297

AshburnerX

Krisken said:
Different people, different situation. Tea Party wasn't a group of desperate poor people. Violence begets violence, and nobody handled this one well.

Besides, the Tea Party got all the attention they wanted from their representatives and from a certain news organization. I think it is amazing that the other cities have stayed as calm as they have.

Basically this. The Tea Party's concerns were addressed and have in fact become central to the debate FAR too much. This is despite their rampant sexism, racism, bigotry and their constant acts of disruption and intimidation. OWS demonstrators didn't show up to debates with firearms in an attempt to coerce representatives.

I'd also like to point out that a Tea Partier wasn't thrown into a coma by the irresponsible use of force by the authorities. If they had, I assure you, it would be as bad or worse as what has already happened. As Krisken said, violence begets violence and this sort of thing was inevitable once that kid was shot.

Nov 3, 2011#298

Adammon

Krisken said:
Different people, different situation. Tea Party wasn't a group of desperate poor people. Violence begets violence, and nobody handled this one well.

Besides, the Tea Party got all the attention they wanted from their representatives and from a certain news organization. I think it is amazing that the other cities have stayed as calm as they have.

OWS isn't a group of desperate poor people either. In fact, they're trying to get rid of the desperate poor people because it reflects poorly on their message.

OWS has had plenty of media play. It's just that the Tea Party held professional events, and OWS had this guy:

Nov 3, 2011#299

strawman

Adammon said:
OWS had this guy:

And it's like he's barely trying! This is an action you have to plan for. A lot of greasy food, a little turbo-lax, and the right positioning would have had a much greater impact than a small smear near the rear quarter panel.

These OWS guys are simply not organized, and not serious about their commitment.

Nov 3, 2011#300

AshburnerX

Adammon said:
OWS has had plenty of media play. It's just that the Tea Party held professional events, and OWS had this guy:

Yes, they held "professional" events... because said events were financed by prominent members of the community, looking to exploit the movement for personal game. They also weren't denied permits left and right, nor did they have the police down their necks the moment they began protesting.

Again, completely different circumstances. There was a lot of talk against the Tea Partiers, but no one really did anything to stop them. This is in contrast to the OWS movement, which has been actively acted against since Day 1.

Nov 3, 2011#301

Krisken

Adammon said:
OWS isn't a group of desperate poor people either. In fact, they're trying to get rid of the desperate poor people because it reflects poorly on their message.

OWS has had plenty of media play. It's just that the Tea Party held professional events, and OWS had this guy:

I think it's unfair to paint the movement as this asshole, just as it's unfair to paint the tea partiers as all carrying racist signs.

But ok, if that's how you view it, I'm not going to try to change your mind. All I'm hoping is that the protests can help direct some of the conversation from the "Oh no, we spend too much on programs here" to "We need to do more".

Nov 3, 2011#302

strawman

The Misconception: People who riot and loot are scum who were just looking for an excuse to steal and be violent.
The Truth: You are are prone to losing your individuality and becoming absorbed into a hivemind under the right conditions.

Interesting lead into an article I haven't yet read: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/02/10/deindividuation/

Seems relevant.

Nov 3, 2011#303

Covar

AshburnerX said:
Yes, they held "professional" events... because said events were financed by prominent members of the community, looking to exploit the movement for personal game. They also weren't denied permits left and right, nor did they have the police down their necks the moment they began protesting.

Again, completely different circumstances. There was a lot of talk against the Tea Partiers, but no one really did anything to stop them. This is in contrast to the OWS movement, which has been actively acted against since Day 1.

Few years ago for the Fourth of July the Tea Party wanted to hold a rally in downtown Raleigh. There was a big stink in the news a few days before over the fact that the city was banning the use of the American flags. Turns out that the ban was actually on any rally/protest/gathering using large polls or boards (i.e. flagpoles) which in protests past had been used as weapons. Since the city had had no prior record of violence involved in the group the ordnance was lifted for the day.

Nov 4, 2011#304

Charlie Don't Surf

The Tea Party was bought and paid for by the corporate overlords against which OWS are protesting.

Nov 4, 2011#305

Covar

Nov 4, 2011#306

Necronic

AshburnerX said:
I'd also like to point out that a Tea Partier wasn't thrown into a coma by the irresponsible use of force by the authorities.

Why are you complaining? You got your wish and now you say you didn't want that to happen?

Nov 4, 2011#307

strawman

Necronic said:
Why are you complaining? You got your wish and now you say you didn't want that to happen?

No, no, no, he's saying he's glad he got his wish for the cause he supports, and that he's glad this positive thing didn't happen for the cause he doesn't support.

Nov 4, 2011#308

Adammon

[Occupy Wall Street]

Protesters living in Zuccotti park are dealing with a worsening security problem with reports of multiple incidents of assault, drug dealing and drug use, rape and attempted rape.In the past several weeks, the cluster of tents at the west end of the park -- the farthest section from the bustle of working groups and activity near Broadway -- has grown increasingly dangerous, many say. The sanitation team has reported finding needles in tents, and reports of crack and crystal meth use have surfaced. But the most serious concern most protesters say, is the risk of assault, especially for women and at night. Demonstrators have complained of thefts of assorted items such as , phones, and laptops. Thieves also stole $2500 of donations that were stored in a makeshift kitchen.On October 10, a "methadone-addled man freeloading off the Wall Street protest" was arrested for groping a woman.Two people were arrested at Occupy Boston for selling heroin while they had a 6 year old child living in their tent.An Occupy Denver demonstrator was arrested for groping a reporter.The police are investigating sexual assaults in Cleveland,Dallas,and Portland.At Occupy Baltimore, a pamphlet was distributed to members that victim's advocates say discourages victims of sex crimes to report them to police.

[/Occupy Wall Street]

Nov 4, 2011#309

GasBandit

Charlie Don't Surf said:
The Tea Party was bought and paid for by the corporate overlords against which OWS are protesting.

So is OWS. Just useful idiots, as they used to say.

Nov 4, 2011#310

D

Dubyamn

Adammon said:
[Occupy Wall Street]

Protesters living in Zuccotti park are dealing with a worsening security problem with reports of multiple incidents of assault, drug dealing and drug use, rape and attempted rape.In the past several weeks, the cluster of tents at the west end of the park -- the farthest section from the bustle of working groups and activity near Broadway -- has grown increasingly dangerous, many say. The sanitation team has reported finding needles in tents, and reports of crack and crystal meth use have surfaced. But the most serious concern most protesters say, is the risk of assault, especially for women and at night. Demonstrators have complained of thefts of assorted items such as , phones, and laptops. Thieves also stole $2500 of donations that were stored in a makeshift kitchen.On October 10, a "methadone-addled man freeloading off the Wall Street protest" was arrested for groping a woman.Two people were arrested at Occupy Boston for selling heroin while they had a 6 year old child living in their tent.An Occupy Denver demonstrator was arrested for groping a reporter.The police are investigating sexual assaults in Cleveland,Dallas,and Portland.At Occupy Baltimore, a pamphlet was distributed to members that victim's advocates say discourages victims of sex crimes to report them to police.

[/Occupy Wall Street]

Amazing how when the police send the most unstable people they can find to Zuccotti park and then refuse to remove them the park becomes a more dangerous place.

Cause and effect how does it work?

Nov 4, 2011#311

Adammon

Dubyamn said:
Amazing how when the police send the most unstable people they can find to Zuccotti park and then refuse to remove them the park becomes a more dangerous place.

Cause and effect how does it work?

Yeah, it's the police's fault. For the garbage. For the unsanity conditions. For the selling of heroin. For groping reporters. For discouraging victims to report to police.

Nov 4, 2011#312

D

Dubyamn

Adammon said:
Yeah, it's the police's fault. For the garbage. For the unsanity conditions. For the selling of heroin. For groping reporters. For discouraging victims to report to police.

When they send homeless people there and then refuse to remove them from the park... yes yes it is.

Nov 4, 2011#313

Adammon

Dubyamn said:
When they send homeless people there and then refuse to remove them from the park... yes yes it is.

Why should they be empowered to remove homeless people with actual need from the park when they shouldn't remove people who don't need help?

Nov 4, 2011#314

D

Dubyamn

Adammon said:
Why should they be empowered to remove homeless people with actual need from the park when they shouldn't remove people who don't need help?

You mean besides the fact that they pose a real danger to other people there in the park?

Nov 4, 2011#315

Adammon

Or more succinctly "Those homeless people are getting in the way of our anti-poverty message."

Nov 4, 2011#316

D

Dubyamn

Adammon said:
Or more succinctly "Those homeless people are getting in the way of our anti-poverty message."

More like those homeless people are causing unsanitary conditions, bringing drugs into the park and assaulting the protestors so maybe the police should do their job and protect the public.

Also can I say how seamlessly you shift your stream of bullshit? At first it was "Protestors are dirty disgusting people" Then I point out that the conditions are an easily seen outcome from the police's new tactic of sending the most unstable people into the park and then refusing to remove them despite the clear threat to the peaceful protestors you shift to "Look at those protestors looking down on the homeless people who come in and make the place a more dangerous and dirty place" and I can't say exactly where this shift took place. I look forward to your future bullshit.

Nov 4, 2011#317

strawman

Dubyamn said:
When they send homeless people there and then refuse to remove them from the park... yes yes it is.

The police normally encourage homeless people to go to shelters, etc, right? Why shouldn't they point out to the homeless that a makeshift soup kitchen has also set up in the park? Why should the police remove them? If you were an officer, what would you tell a cold, hungry homeless person two blocks from OWS right now? How would you tell the difference between the homeless and the OWS? What would you do once you figured out that there's a homeless person in the OWS - move in by yourself and attempt to eject them from the park? What if the protestors filmed you and posted it online as an example of someone being unlawfully ejected from a "peaceful" protest?

So, what would you do differently?

The homeless didn't move into OWS turf.

The OWS moved into the homeless' turf.

Nov 4, 2011#318

Adammon

The only one making a logical leap here is you.

1) It's "Only the homeless people" that are the bad ones. Apparently homeless people carry large amounts of heroin on them for resale.
2) Those homeless people are causing unsanity conditions. Because bringing together 20,000 people with no facilities isn't unsanity. But the 20 homeless people they added make it so.
3) It's the police's fault for sending unstable people into the park. From what I've read, they're not doing it out of malice; only that "Hey, there's people willing to support you in the park, maybe you should go there." I guess they thought wrong.

And finally, "Look at those protestors looking down on the homeless people." The only person looking down on the homeless people here is you, my friend.

Nov 4, 2011#319

D

Dubyamn

Adammon said:
The only one making a logical leap here is you.

1) It's "Only the homeless people" that are the bad ones. Apparently homeless people carry large amounts of heroin on them for resale.

Yeah cause unsanitary conditions, an uptick in assualts and attempted rapes is just an unthinkable outcome when you send the homeless to gather in one place.

2) Those homeless people are causing unsanity conditions. Because bringing together 20,000 people with no facilities isn't unsanity. But the 20 homeless people they added make it so.

Love how you know exactly how many homeless people there are at OWS. 20 people only 20 homeless people are at OWS.

And yeah the city agreed with the protestors only a few weeks ago that conditions were satisfactory what with the cleaning that OWS is doing and the cleaning crews that they have hired.

3) It's the police's fault for sending unstable people into the park. From what I've read, they're not doing it out of malice; only that "Hey, there's people willing to support you in the park, maybe you should go there." I guess they thought wrong.

Yeah that's why the police sent the homeless there. They had such deep respect for the OWS protestors. They never even considered that it might be a bad thing to send 20!!!! unstable people to a protest that they had been trying to shut down for weeks. No no it sounds perfectly reasonable that they thought it was a good idea to send the homeless to a place were they would be under the care of the OWS protestors and not people trained and driven to help the homeless.

And finally, "Look at those protestors looking down on the homeless people." The only person looking down on the homeless people here is you, my friend.

The homeless have my eternal pity. They are out there for numerous reasons not a single one of which is them being a bad person.

However they are unstable and in many cases dangerous so the police sending them (20!!!) into the protest to people who aren't equipped or trained to deal with them is nothing more than a complete douche move from the police. I suspect you know this and you don't give a crap because it allows you to spew your bullshit.

Nov 4, 2011#320

Adammon

Dubyamn said:
The homeless have my eternal pity.

Ah, now I understand.

Nov 4, 2011#321

SpecialKO

stienman said:
The homeless didn't move into OWS turf.

The OWS moved into the homeless' turf.

Not getting in the middle of this, really,but Zuccotti park is not "homeless' turf", it's a small publicly-accessible but privately-owned park in front of one of the larger luxury office buildings in lower Manhattan. It's not Central Park or Washington Square or Herald Square or anything even remotely like that. It's really small, and apparently now really crowded and unsanitary.

It is not an official shelter, with shelter facilities, health code ratings, medical/housing protocls, or inspection schedules (even on paper). It doesn't even have the benefit of being an actual building. It would be irresponsible and potentially quite dangerous for the NYPD to intentionally direct homeless people, who often have need of actual medical care, food, and social services, to that park as opposed to an actual shelter, or even a much larger park.

I'm honestly shocked that you think they should do that.

Nov 4, 2011#322

AshburnerX

Necronic said:
Why are you complaining? You got your wish and now you say you didn't want that to happen?

Just pointing out the cause and effect. If something similar would have happened at a Tea Party protest, they'd have taken to the streets in rage instead. It's an instigating factor: If you feel the authorities aren't taking you seriously and then they exercise force against you, you feel obligated to retaliate. It's something all Law enforcement should have learned by watching the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations.

Nov 4, 2011#323

Covar

The irony in Dubyman's post and in these stories involving the OWS and the homeless is just delicious.

Nov 4, 2011#324

D

Dubyamn

Covar said:
The irony in Dubyman's post and in these stories involving the OWS and the homeless is just delicious.

Is it ironic to want to help somebody but not want to be assualted in the process? Is that the low low bar for irony?

Nov 4, 2011#325

strawman

Just to clarify, are you saying that if the homeless were not present, then the rapes, drugs, and violence would not have occurred, and therefore the police are indirectly to blame for the rapes, drugs, and violence?

Nov 4, 2011#326

Covar

You're right it's probably more hypocrisy than irony.

Nov 4, 2011#327

strawman

SpecialKO said:
I'm honestly shocked that you think they should do that.

I'm not recommending that they do - quite frankly I'm skeptical about these reports that the police are encouraging homeless to go there. But I am saying that while I don't think they should do that, I don't see any particular problem. The shelters are full. The soup kitchens are full. The OWS protesters are setting up an encampment that can supply some - not all - of the basic needs of a population the OWS claims to be protesting for - in part.

If they're sending violent homeless, bleeding homeless, etc then they are not properly assessing their needs, or the ability for OWS to support them.

But to flat out say the police shouldn't send people who need help to a public park where other people are providing that help is silly.

"Hmmm, a homeless person who is obviously hungry. There's a public place two blocks away where they can get warm and eat, but instead I'm going to ignore their needs and not say anything - survival of the fittest, I say - or point them in the direction of the same soup kitchen they've been turned away from 20% of the time due to overcrowding. Those OWS folks shouldn't be burdened by the poor and indigent - they got their own thing going, and they should be protected from the less seemly parts of our fair city."

Is the line of logic really shocking?

Nov 4, 2011#328

D

Dubyamn

stienman said:
Just to clarify, are you saying that if the homeless were not present, then the rapes, drugs, and violence would not have occurred, and therefore the police are indirectly to blame for the rapes, drugs, and violence?

I'm saying that the deteriorating conditions in the park stem directly from the fact that the police send unstable people into the park and then refuse to police them.

So yes I believe that several to most of the cases of violence, unsanitary conditions and drugs are linked to the police.

You're right it's probably more hypocrisy than irony.

"The system really let that guy down, I hope he doesn't beat the shit out of me" is the low low bar for hypocrisy now?

Nov 4, 2011#329

Covar

Dubyamn said:
"The system really let that guy down, but he can't have any of my stuff.

FTFY.

Nov 4, 2011#330

D

Dubyamn

Covar said:
FTFY.

So that's the low low bar of hypocrisy?

Nov 4, 2011#331

strawman

Dubyamn said:
So yes I believe that several to most of the cases of violence, unsanitary conditions and drugs are linked to the police.

I'm interested in verifying this for myself. What are your sources for this assertion?

Nov 4, 2011#332

Adammon

Dubyamn said:
So that's the low low bar of hypocrisy?

That's the low low useless repetition of a trite phrase in lieu of an actual argument.

Nov 4, 2011#333

Covar

Considering that's what you're protesting/advocating against? Yes.

Nov 4, 2011#334

GasBandit

After all, aren't the homeless part of the 99% after all? So why should they be excluded from the park and the food and whatnot?

Nov 4, 2011#335

Adammon

GasBandit said:
After all, aren't the homeless part of the 99% after all? So why should they be excluded from the park and the food and whatnot?

Only the non-violent, non-stinky, non-drug dealing ones.
Added at: 11:24
http://www.metro.us/newyork/local/a...g-crime-at-occupy-wall-street-goes-unreported

“Instead of calling the police, they form a circle around the perpetrator, chastise him or her and chase (them) out into the rest of the city — to do who knows what to who knows whom,” Bloomberg said.

He called protesters who keep quiet “despicable.”

The mayor’s criticism comes after the arrest of kitchen worker Tonye Iketubosin, 26, for allegedly groping an 18-year-old protester on Oct. 25. Iketubosin is also suspected of another alleged rape in the camp, Bloomberg said.

Police Commissioner Paul Browne said protesters delay reporting crime because it is “OWS protocol not to report such incidents to the police until there were three complaints against the same individual.”

OWS Smarties!

Nov 4, 2011#336

Covar

I keep reading it as OWLS. :confused:

Nov 4, 2011#337

GasBandit

Covar said:
I keep reading it as OWLS.

Rice University students are probably not 99%ers.

Nov 4, 2011#338

Krisken

I prefer to see the rise in violence in the park as a sign of things to come, brought on by exactly what the protests are about. This is where increased income disparity leads us, and it will only get worse as people feel more and more ignored, especially by the people supposedly representing them.

Love the snark in the thread so far. Some of you should make it your thing.

Nov 4, 2011#339

GasBandit

Krisken said:
... the rise in violence ... [is] a sign of things to come ... and it will only get worse as people feel more and more ignored, especially by the people supposedly representing them.

See, when *I* start saying things like this, people start joking about my sanity. WHO'S LAUGHING NOW, BATMAN? HEE HEE HEE HA HA HA HAAAAA HA HA Haaaaa...

Nov 4, 2011#340

Krisken

GasBandit said:
See, when *I* start saying things like this, people start joking about my sanity. WHO'S LAUGHING NOW, BATMAN? HEE HEE HEE HA HA HA HAAAAA HA HA Haaaaa...

Yes, except I'm not saying it will bring about the apocalypse. I'm saying that a little violence only accentuates the point of the protesters, it doesn't contradict it. I'm also not saying that it has to be people in power who have to be hurt/removed to make change.

Nov 4, 2011#341

GasBandit

Krisken said:
Yes, except I'm not saying it will bring about the apocalypse. I'm saying that a little violence only accentuates the point of the protesters, it doesn't contradict it. I'm also not saying that it has to be people in power who have to be hurt/removed to make change.

So let me be sure I have this straight. You are saying the violence will get worse, but that it will solve the problem?

Nov 4, 2011#342

AshburnerX

Yes Gas... despite what Society says, Violence often IS the answer. We just don't like to admit it.

Nov 4, 2011#343

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
Yes Gas... despite what Society says, Violence often IS the answer. We just don't like to admit it.

Maybe you don't. I do so often and loudly

Nov 4, 2011#344

Adammon

I love this article written on Occupy Calgary:

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busine...st+things+witnessed+months/5571556/story.html

If the writer had just dialed back on her own snarkiness a little and just reported facts, I would have thought this was satire.

Nov 4, 2011#345

GasBandit

Makes me wonder if I need Eric Cartman's hippie-drill to make it through downtown Calgary.

Nov 4, 2011#346

Krisken

I'm not saying it is the answer to the problem.

Violence is the byproduct, not the tool.

And holy crap, Adammon, that is frightening. As I've always said, fringe lefties are just as weird as fringe righties.

Nov 4, 2011#347

Adammon

Krisken said:
I'm not saying it is the answer to the problem.
Violence is the byproduct, not the tool.

And holy crap, Adammon, that is frightening. As I've always said, fringe lefties are just as weird as fringe righties.

Except fringe righties are usually armed and dangerous. Fringe lefties are stoned and FAB-U-LOUS.

Nov 4, 2011#348

SpecialKO

"Hmmm, a homeless person who is obviously hungry. There's a public place two blocks away where they can get warm and eat, but instead I'm going to ignore their needs and not say anything - survival of the fittest, I say - or point them in the direction of the same soup kitchen they've been turned away from 20% of the time due to overcrowding. "

Is the line of logic really shocking?

Um, yes, sending homeless people, or any people with specific medical needs or potential social/mental problems that need to be addressed, to any public gathering on the assumption said gathering will sufficiently feed them, provide for their physical health and safety, and otherwise take care of them is a shockingly illogical, presumptuous, and irresponsible line for a police officer to walk.

You might as well tell them to hang out around hot dog stands because someone might feed them.

The only way that makes any kind of sense at all would be if the OWSers were openly advertising those services as available to anyone who needs it.

EDIT: It's just as "survival of the fittest" as not doing anything, only now you've done enough to officially not give a shit because it's someone else's problem.

Nov 4, 2011#349

Shegokigo

Violence is the ONLY answer. Obviously.

Why was that even a discussion?

Nov 4, 2011#350

Adammon

Shegokigo said:
Violence is the ONLY answer. Obviously.

Why was that even a discussion?

We're just wondering what the question is.

Nov 4, 2011#351

Tress

Adammon said:
We're just wondering what the question is.

How can I make it so that I only work 5 hours a week? Answer: violence.

Nov 4, 2011#352

Adammon

Tress said:
How can I make it so that I only work 5 hours a week? Answer: violence.

Holy shit, she was right. The answer IS always violence.

Nov 4, 2011#353

strawman

SpecialKO said:
Sending ... any people with specific medical needs or potential social/mental problems

I'm only talking about people who are merely hungry and have no place to sleep. OWS is providing a both food and housing (limited in both areas - housing may merely be an assigned spot on the ground) for anyone who claims they want to protest. This is being funded by donations to the OWS movement. If you are merely hungry and tired, someone reasonable might say, "OWS is providing food and spots to sleep to protesters. If you join them, you may find your needs met in a limited fashion."

Please cite sources of information that show that police are sending people with acute medical needs or chronic and dangerous mental problems to OWS.

Nov 4, 2011#354

Adammon

stienman said:
Please cite sources of information that show that police are sending people with acute medical needs or chronic and dangerous mental problems to OWS.

So that's the low low bar of evidence?

Nov 4, 2011#355

SpecialKO

stienman said:
Please cite sources of information that show that police are sending people with acute medical needs or chronic and dangerous mental problems to OWS.

Please cite your sources of information showing that police are vetting the people that you think they should be sending. There's a reason why you're specifically encouraged to not feed homeless people on the NYC subways but direct them to the nearest shelter or MTA official so they can direct them to nearest shelter.

Nov 4, 2011#356

GasBandit

I love how "please cite your sources" has become the "no, fuck YOU!" of the internet.

Nov 4, 2011#357

Covar

Gas if you're going to make such claims, could you please cite your sources?

Nov 4, 2011#358

Krisken

It's shit like this that only instigates the situation.

Copypasta from Cookie Monster, a commenter at the A.V. Club

Yes, there always going to be rich and poor. But we used to live in country where rich owned factory and make 30 times what factory worker make. Now we live in country where rich make money by lying about value of derivative bonds and make 3000 times what factory worker would make if factories hadn't all moved to China.

Capitalism great system. We won Cold War because people behind Iron Curtain look over wall, and see how much more plentiful and delicious cookies are in West, and how we have choice of different bakeries, not just state-owned one. It great system. It got us out of Depression, won WWII, built middle class, built country's infrastructure from highways to Hoover Dam to Oreo factory to electrifying rural South. It system that reward hard work and fair play, and everyone do fair share and everyone benefit. Rich get richer, poor get richer, everyone happy. It great system.
Then after Reagan, Republicans decide to make number one priority destroying that system. Now we have system where richest Americans ones who find ways to game system -- your friends on Wall Street -- and poorest Americans ones who thought working hard would get them American dream, when in fact it get them pink slip when job outsourced to 10-year-old in Mumbai slum. And corporations have more influence over government than people (or monsters).
It not about rich people having more money. It about how they got money. It about how they take opportunity away from rest of us, for sake of having more money. It how they willing to take risks that destroy economy -- knowing full well that what could and would happen -- putting millions out of work, while creating nothing of value, and all the while crowing that they John Galt, creating wealth for everyone.
That what the soul-searching about. When Liberals run country for 30 years following New Deal, American economy double in size, and wages double along with it. That fair. When Conservatives run country for 30 years following Reagan, American economy double again, and wages stay flat. What happen to our share of money? All of it go to richest 1%. That not "there always going to be rich people". That unfair system. That why we upset. That what Occupy Sesame Street about.

Indeed, my monster friend. Indeed.

Nov 4, 2011#359

Tress

SpecialKO said:
Please cite your sources of information showing that police are vetting the people that you think they should be sending. There's a reason why you're specifically encouraged to not feed homeless people on the NYC subways but direct them to the nearest shelter or MTA official so they can direct them to nearest shelter.

You made the original claim that the NYPD was funneling homeless with health and mental problems into the park. The onus is on you to provide evidence.

Nov 4, 2011#360

GasBandit

Covar said:
Gas if you're going to make such claims, could you please cite your sources?

Well, as you can clearly see from this chart, your shit's all retarded.

Nov 4, 2011#361

SpecialKO

Tress said:
You made the original claim that the NYPD was funneling homeless with health and mental problems into the park. The onus is on you to provide evidence.

Um, no I didn't. Steinman claimed that police should be sending homeless people to the park instead of shelters. That was the comment I originally objected to. I stayed out of it until then.

stienman said:
The police normally encourage homeless people to go to shelters, etc, right? Why shouldn't they point out to the homeless that a makeshift soup kitchen has also set up in the park? Why should the police remove them? If you were an officer, what would you tell a cold, hungry homeless person two blocks from OWS right now? How would you tell the difference between the homeless and the OWS? What would you do once you figured out that there's a homeless person in the OWS - move in by yourself and attempt to eject them from the park? What if the protestors filmed you and posted it online as an example of someone being unlawfully ejected from a "peaceful" protest?

I pointed out that the police should not funneling homeless people into the park at all because a) the park by all the accounts I have seen thus far isn't set up for it, and b) homeless people in NYC can have a lot of health and mental problems that random park protesters are particularly ill-equipped to deal with, due to a) and due to generally not knowing what the hell they're doing.

Nov 4, 2011#362

Adammon

SpecialKO said:
Um, no I didn't. Steinman claimed that police should be sending homeless people to the park instead of shelters. That was the comment I originally objected to. I stayed out of it until then.

I pointed out that the police should not funneling homeless people into the park at all because a) the park by all the accounts I have seen thus far isn't set up for it, and b) homeless people in NYC can have a lot of health and mental problems that random park protesters are particularly ill-equipped to deal with, due to a) and due to generally not knowing what the hell they're doing.

I'm going to selectively edit this quote down to "protestors are ... generally not knowing what the hell they are doing" - SpecialKO.

I totally could get a job at Fox.

Nov 4, 2011#363

strawman

SpecialKO said:
Please cite your sources of information showing that police are vetting the people that you think they should be sending. There's a reason why you're specifically encouraged to not feed homeless people on the NYC subways but direct them to the nearest shelter or MTA official so they can direct them to nearest shelter.

I don't recall claiming that the police are sending homeless to OWS. Please cite your sources that say they are.

I'm arguing your claims - if the police are directing homeless there, they may be perfectly able to do so. However they might not be doing it at all.

Nov 4, 2011#364

SpecialKO

Adammon said:
I'm going to selectively edit this quote down to "protestors are ... generally not knowing what the hell they are doing" - SpecialKO.

I totally could get a job at Fox.

~~I agree with that statement. You have my full permission.~~

I'm SpecialKO, and I approve this message.

I'm still trying to stay out of the OWS vs Tea Party stuff, but generally I have a pretty low opinion of the average "social causes" protester in NYC. The bullshit block-the-road-with-our-tents thing is just disrespectful to people trying to get to work, it's always championed by some uber-privileged hipster-types pretending to be poor and oppressed, and there's almost never a concrete goal beyond "we're mad and we're not going to take it anymore!"

Added at: 17:22

stienman said:
I don't recall claiming that the police are sending homeless to OWS. Please cite your sources that say they are.

I'm arguing your claims - if the police are directing homeless there, they may be perfectly able to do so. However they might not be doing it at all.

I never said they are, Dubyamn did. I simply said that they shouldn't be, regardless. If you think I was claiming that they are, we may have been arguing at cross-purposes.

Nov 4, 2011#365

Tress

Ah, the discussion has devolved into the "obfuscation and semantic arguments" phase of bullshit, I see. My mistake.

Nov 4, 2011#366

GasBandit

Tress said:
Ah, the discussion has devolved into the "obfuscation and semantic arguments" phase of bullshit, I see. My mistake.

Close, this is the "No, I didn't say that, that other guy said that" phase, which trips me up a lot too (on both ends, dishing and receiving). I blame flighty flibbertyjibbets who can't just pick an avatar and stick with it.

Nov 4, 2011#367

Krisken

Best I can find on the NY Police sending people to Zuccotti Park is an opinion piece from the NY Daily News (and since it's the only source I can find, it is why I haven't weighed in on the subject).

Nov 4, 2011#368

SpecialKO

Tress said:
Ah, the discussion has devolved into the "obfuscation and semantic arguments" phase of bullshit, I see. My mistake.

My exact quote:

It would be irresponsible and potentially quite dangerous for the NYPD to intentionally direct homeless people, who often have need of actual medical care, food, and social services, to that park as opposed to an actual shelter, or even a much larger park.

You can disagree with that, as steinman did, but if you can't understand it and or think itsmeaning is somehow unclear, I suggest you drink more coffee.
Added at: 17:39

Krisken said:
Best I can find on the NY Police sending people to Zuccotti Park is an opinion piece from the NY Daily News (and since it's the only source I can find, it is why I haven't weighed in on the subject).

I would not trust an Op-Ed from any NYC tabloid paper, particular the Daily News or the Post.

Nov 4, 2011#369

Covar

I'll admit to reading the Daily News. Only the sports section though, I like their Yankee coverage. Because sometimes I want to read 5 different writers reporting on the exact same game. It's like they compete with each other on who can make the punniest headline.

Nov 4, 2011#370

Krisken

SpecialKO said:
I would not trust an Op-Ed from any NYC tabloid paper, particular the Daily News or the Post.

Yeah, I really don't. There is a reason why I'm not making a stink about it.

Nov 4, 2011#371

Hailey Knight

It's too bad the people who are actually impovershed are too busy working two jobs and trying to feed their kids to come to the middle class pity party.

Nov 4, 2011#372

Krisken

Yeah, if they can find two jobs. Most are having enough trouble finding one.

Nov 5, 2011#373

AshburnerX

Another Veteran put in the hospital by Oakland PD. Looks like he told them he was injured, but they denied him treatment for 18 hours.

Whatever your position on movement, I'm sure we can all agree that the Oakland PD is not going to be lookin' pretty once this is all over.

Nov 5, 2011#374

Espy

AshburnerX said:
Whatever your position on movement, I'm sure we can all agree that the Oakland PD is not going to be lookin' pretty once this is all over.

Dude. We've been trying to tell you, this is how the Oakland PD ALWAYS looks. It's OAKLAND.

Nov 5, 2011#375

Tress

Espy said:
Dude. We've been trying to tell you, this is how the Oakland PD ALWAYS looks. It's OAKLAND.

Yeah, pretty much. I have a friend who works for OPD and he's desperate to leave because of things like this.

Nov 5, 2011#376

Espy

Tress said:
Yeah, pretty much. I have a friend who works for OPD and he's desperate to leave because of things like this.

To be fair, Oakland is just full of issues and bad people, cops and non-cops alike.

Nov 5, 2011#377

Tress

Yup. It's a shithole, and I try to avoid it at all costs.

Nov 6, 2011#378

Adammon

This clip from Friday obviously has a slant to it but check out OWS at work.

Nov 6, 2011#379

Hailey Knight

Hey, it's DC. Politics are always like that.

Nov 7, 2011#380

Frankie Williamson

AshburnerX said:
Another Veteran put in the hospital by Oakland PD. Looks like he told them he was injured, but they denied him treatment for 18 hours.

Whatever your position on movement, I'm sure we can all agree that the Oakland PD is not going to be lookin' pretty once this is all over.

Oakland is embarrassing everyone who's ever donned a uniform to serve and protect.

It's gut-wrenching to see law enforcement act like this.

Nov 7, 2011#381

Espy

Frankie Williamson said:
Oakland is embarrassing everyone who's ever donned a uniform to serve and protect.

It's gut-wrenching to see law enforcement act like this.

Not that it's ANY excuse, but the only thing I've ever heard people who live around there say in defense of the cops is that they are products of the city they live in.

Nov 7, 2011#382

Tress

Espy said:
Not that it's ANY excuse, but the only thing I've ever heard people who live around there say in defense of the cops is that they are products of the city they live in.

Pretty much. Yes, the cops can be hard-asses with little regard for the public they protect. They also have to deal with a festering sore called downtown Oakland, which really is as drug-riddled and violent as people think it is.

Nov 7, 2011#383

AshburnerX

Frankie Williamson said:
Oakland is embarrassing everyone who's ever donned a uniform to serve and protect.

It's gut-wrenching to see law enforcement act like this.

That is definitely going to lead to a lawsuit. He was clearly posing no threat, so he was ether shot to antagonize him or an officer doesn't understand what a clean shot is.

Nov 7, 2011#384

Krisken

He has a camera. Threat level "High".

Nov 7, 2011#385

Adammon

Hey, here's a great idea. Use your kids to blockade buildings...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/d-c...-shields-to-blockade-door-in-violent-scuffle/

*sigh*

Nov 7, 2011#386

Charlie Don't Surf

Fuck the police.

Nov 7, 2011#387

Tress

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Fuck the police.

I'd love to see you say that after someone breaks into your house, or robs you at knife point, or smashes into your car and drives off.

Nov 7, 2011#388

Adammon

Tress said:
I'd love to see you say that after someone breaks into your house, or robs you at knife point, or smashes into your car and drives off.

He'd blame himself for oppressing them with his opulent lifestyle.

Nov 7, 2011#389

strawman

Adammon said:
Hey, here's a great idea. Use your kids to blockade buildings...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/d-c...-shields-to-blockade-door-in-violent-scuffle/

*sigh*

Sounds like child abuse to me. Can you imagine what the children are experiencing?

Question authority. Teach your kids to question authority.

But the second - the very instant - you use your child as a shield, weapon, or bargaining chip in any conflict you lose. Whether you're using them to get back at your ex, arming them in africa and having them fight your turf wars, using them to ferry your drugs back and forth, selling them to strangers by the hour, or using them to shield you from the police doesn't matter - you can no longer be counted as their guardian. If they are no more than property to you, weapons, shields, etc, then you shouldn't be the one to raise them.

Nov 7, 2011#390

Charlie Don't Surf

Tress said:
I'd love to see you say that after someone breaks into your house, or robs you at knife point, or smashes into your car and drives off.

They would probably be too busy beating up minorities or fighting the war on drugs (or both at the same time!) to help me.

Nov 7, 2011#391

Espy

Charlie Don't Surf said:
They would probably be too busy beating up minorities or fighting the war on drugs (or both at the same time!) to help me.

Damn right.

Nov 7, 2011#392

Tress

Charlie Don't Surf said:
They would probably be too busy beating up minorities or fighting the war on drugs (or both at the same time!) to help me.

I can't believe I fell for your trolling bullshit. Shame on me.

Nov 7, 2011#393

Tiger Tsang

Tress said:
I'd love to see you say that after someone breaks into your house, or robs you at knife point, or smashes into your car and drives off.

Well, AFTER any of that has happened, all they're really good for is a report to file for insurance purposes.

Nov 7, 2011#394

Adammon

Tress said:
I can't believe I fell for your trolling bullshit. Shame on me.

A good set of general rules when having a discussion with Charlie.

Rule 1. Charlie is trolling you.
Rule 2. When in doubt, see Rule 1.

Nov 7, 2011#395

Charlie Don't Surf

If trolling is having an opinion different from the norm here, then yes, I am trolling. I'm not pretending though just to get a rise out of you. I honestly don't like or trust the police.

Nov 7, 2011#396

SpecialKO

Charlie, Halloween is over. Your Le Quack costume isn't so good that you should keep wearing it.

Nov 7, 2011#397

Thread Necromancer

Police stole my truck. True story (those of you who haven't put two and two together by now have just been given a huge clue).
That issue goes unresolved. But I have personally known law enforcement professionals who do truly treat their profession as a duty and take great pride, but unfortunately I have known many who are also on a "I have a badge" power trip.

Nov 7, 2011#398

strawman

Charlie Don't Surf said:
If trolling is having an opinion different from the norm here, then yes, I am trolling. I'm not pretending though just to get a rise out of you. I honestly don't like or trust the police.

Out of curiosity is this due to personal interactions with the police, or from the first-hand experiences of others close to you, or from stories, articles, and news from third party sources? If it's the first two, what experiences have soured you so much towards law enforcement?

My interactions with the police have been as positive as they could be, under the circumstances. I've read reports of other people's bad experiences with them, but without knowing all the details, this third-hand information, often filtered through some bias or another, isn't worth basing my future decisions on.

I've also known many people who hate the police in a "I'mma shoot the messenger way" - the police are acting in accordance with the laws, these people simply disagree with the laws, and by extension those who enforce them.

But your dislike and distrust seems to speak towards personal experiences where the police went beyond enforcing the law to your personal or close friends' detriment.

Nov 7, 2011#399

Hailey Knight

Charlie Don't Surf said:
If trolling is having an opinion different from the norm here, then yes, I am trolling. I'm not pretending though just to get a rise out of you. I honestly don't like or trust the police.

As I've said before when you've posted this kind of defense, you're full of shit. You post things in a purposely antagonizing way to get a rise out of people and turn even those who agreed with your side of things against you, killing any kind of discussion aside from "WTF is wrong with Charlie?" Like George W Bush, you are a unifier, in that you bring people together because they now have a common problem.

...that said, I didn't see this as one of those times since "fuck the police" is a meme.

Nov 7, 2011#400

Adammon

I suspect Charlie's animosity towards the police stems more from the inherent power they hold as an enforcer of laws then any particular reason, and he'll go out of his way to find examples that support his view of them as corrupt instead of what a rational person would do and look at it from both sides.

Nov 7, 2011#401

Krisken

Can we, I don't know, stop supposing what someone else's motivation is and just let them speak for themselves?

Nov 7, 2011#402

MindDetective

Hey, psychology is intuitive. It's not like it takes any special training or anything to understand how people work.

Nov 7, 2011#403

Adammon

Krisken said:
Can we, I don't know, stop supposing what someone else's motivation is and just let them speak for themselves?

No?

Nov 7, 2011#404

strawman

Krisken said:
Can we, I don't know, stop supposing what someone else's motivation is and just let them speak for themselves?

Hey now, I don't come here to be reasonable, and I'm sure no one else does either.

Nov 7, 2011#405

Krisken

stienman said:
Hey now, I don't come here to be reasonable, and I'm sure no one else does either.

Sorry, the witch hunt was getting to the point of being boring.

Nov 7, 2011#406

Charlie Don't Surf

Nah, this is fine, I'm glad to finally know what I was actually thinking from all these people that aren't me.

Nov 7, 2011#407

MindDetective

Well...to be fair, people don't understand themselves very well either.

Nov 7, 2011#408

strawman

**YAAAAWN**

I'm sorry, you were saying?

Nov 7, 2011#409

Terrik

stienman said:
Hey now, I don't come here to be reasonable, and I'm sure no one else does either.

...I do

Nov 7, 2011#410

Tress

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Nah, this is fine, I'm glad to finally know what I was actually thinking from all these people that aren't me.

I wonder if that's how police officers feel when some little punk accuses them all of being corrupt and racist?

Nov 7, 2011#411

Krisken

Tress said:
I wonder if that's how police officers feel when some little punk accuses them all of being corrupt and racist?

Now that is totally fair! (not being sarcastic here)

Nov 7, 2011#412

Chad Sexington

mr_thehun said:
these are your demands Vancouver?

http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/bc-111104-occupy-vancouver-demands.pdf

vary reasonable. None of them contradict each other.

The thing vascillates from occasionally sane (like protection for whistleblowers) to totally and patently absurd (end free trade, health care must cover naturopathy) to humorously misspelled ("end corporate funding and control of collages").

Although maybe there's a lot of corporations who have their hands in junior high art projects. I can't be sure.

Nov 7, 2011#413

Adammon

Ugh. Just ugh. Some decent ideas interspersed with hippy dippy ridiculousness.

I did get a laugh out of #41. "We demand an end to the corporate funding and control of collages and universities."

My arts and crafts group will be very disappointed

Added at: 18:58
DAMN YOU CHAD SEXINGTON! You have made an enemy this day!

Nov 7, 2011#414

strawman

Well that's... something. Just as I was thinking, "Hey, I can get behind a few of these ideas..." they hit me with a "9/11 is a conspiracy" request, and the whole thing unravels from there.

Although I did laugh at the "if we remove too many demands..." bit at the beginning though.

I hope they gain traction on at least a few things, though it's quite obvious this is merely a laundry list of existing desires of many other groups, many of which have severe issues to be resolved before they could be implemented.

Still, it's good that they are getting stuff down on paper and causing a dialogue. Especially since winter's coming, and a lot of people are going to pack up and head home for the winter.

Nov 7, 2011#415

Hailey Knight

Tress said:
I wonder if that's how police officers feel when some little punk accuses them all of being corrupt and racist?

Nice.

Nov 7, 2011#416

AshburnerX

Chicago Board of Trade pull hilarious dick move: They dumped hundreds of McDonalds applications on the Occupy Chicago camp.

As funny as that is, it really does show the utter contempt the oligarchy has for these people.

Nov 7, 2011#417

Adammon

AshburnerX said:
Chicago Board of Trade pull hilarious dick move: They dumped hundreds of McDonalds applications on the Occupy Chicago camp.

As funny as that is, it really does show the utter contempt the oligarchy has for these people.

Yeah, like McDonalds would want to hire any of these miscreants. Now they have to deal with an onrush of applicants without any prior warning

Oh..you meant the protestors....

Carry on.

Nov 7, 2011#418

strawman

AshburnerX said:
Chicago Board of Trade pull hilarious dick move: They dumped hundreds of McDonalds applications on the Occupy Chicago camp.

As funny as that is, it really does show the utter contempt the oligarchy has for these people.

The article says "several sheets" then uses the word "showered". Where do you get "hundreds" from?

traders at the Chicago Board of Trade dumped several sheets of paper on top of the heads of protesters below. Demonstrators were angered to find out they were showered with employment applications for McDonald’s

It's rude, sure, but terribly funny.

Nov 7, 2011#419

AshburnerX

stienman said:
The article says "several sheets" then uses the word "showered". Where do you get "hundreds" from?

I only saw the showered bit. It implied a lot... but thinking back, if the protest was fairly small they wouldn't need that many.

Nov 8, 2011#420

Azurephoenix

Charlie Don't Surf said:
Fuck the police.

Dude...

Anything new and interesting to say?

Nov 10, 2011#421

Adammon

Now the OWS food servers are part of the 1%
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/..._kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL#ixzz1c0UV1hEK

The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.
For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.
They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day.

Nov 10, 2011#422

strawman

This would be an excellent time for the "99%" to show what they will do once they get their demands met. And apparently it includes kicking the truly poor and homeless out of their free food just so they can continue to eat as though at a four star restaurant.

I hope those that are supporting the movement financially understand the implications of the 99% pissing on the bottom 19%. In most revolutions the middle class uses the lower class in order to switch places with the upper class. The lower class, however, continues to be the lower class under the new system.

Nov 10, 2011#423

Dave

http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2011/...-are-employed-compared-to-56-of-tea-partiers/
Discuss.
Added at: 10:39
And I know that second link includes the skewed infographic from before, but the employment rates of those in the movement I found interesting.

Nov 10, 2011#424

Adammon

Dave said:
http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2011/...-are-employed-compared-to-56-of-tea-partiers/

Discuss.

Their first infographic kills their argument around OWS being more employed than Tea Parties. Unless they believe people should work forever, retirees have earned their rest.

Adding in that 33% retiree, 89% of tea partiers are/were employed gainfully, 70% of OWS are/were employed gainfully.

Nov 10, 2011#425

strawman

Dave said:

Some additional context would have been nice:

Stop Beating Students of the Day: UC Berkeley students clashed with police this afternoon after several tents were set up outside Sproul Hall as part of an Occupy-style protest against tuition and fee hikes as well funding cuts for public education.

Officers in riot gear used their batons in an effort break through a human chain of peaceful “Occupy Cal” protesters that had formed to prevent police from tearing down the tents.

At least seven people were arrested, and the tents were eventually cleared away, but returned later on. According to reports, police plan to remove the tents again later tonight, and a second “showdown” with the remaining protesters is expected.

UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau told students earlier this week that the university supports the spirit of Occupy Wall Street, but will not allow camping on its grounds.

Nov 10, 2011#426

AshburnerX

stienman said:
Some additional context would have been nice:

Love that part at the bottom.

UC Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau told students earlier this week that the university supports the spirit of Occupy Wall Street, but will not allow camping on its grounds.

So... you don't support it at all then?

Nov 10, 2011#427

Krisken

I love defiance. I just don't want it in my yard.

Nov 10, 2011#428

MindDetective

it seems pretty clear. he said he supports the spirit of the movement, not necessarily the actions taken to promote it.

Nov 10, 2011#429

AshburnerX

MindDetective said:
it seems pretty clear. he said he supports the spirit of the movement, not necessarily the actions taken to promote it.

But he seems to perfectly in favor of police actions to stop it... including attacking the people who pay to go there.

In other news, Looks like someone was shot at Occupy Burlington. No details on what went down except that the police have pulled a body and a gun from the scene.

Nov 10, 2011#430

strawman

AshburnerX said:
attacking the people who pay to go there.

Attacking the people who camp there. Whether they pay or not is irrelevant if they don't have permission to camp.

But it's a protest. It's civil disobedience. This dance takes place each time - people resist, so force is used. The resistors claim that excessive force is being used - well duh, excessive resistance requires excessive force. What they're really saying is that they shouldn't be opposed. Similarly the police and property owners claim that protestors are performing illegal actions. Well duh, no successful protest used legal means to accomplish their goals, illegal action is necessary and warranted.

Nov 10, 2011#431

Adammon

I'm okay with Occupy Berkeley because they're protesting tuitition costs. Pretty simple. University sets the costs, protest the people setting those costs.

The rest of OWS....ehhhhh.

Nov 10, 2011#432

GasBandit

On a somewhat related tangent...

... I detect a whole lot of disillusionment coming soon in the next generation of workers (or perhaps, unemployed first worlders). Sheesh, I remember not even being allowed to make or receive personal phone calls unless it was an absolute emergency! Now more than half of fresh-outta-college brats won't consider a position that won't let them facebook on the job.

... yes, I'm aware of the irony of this all coming from me - Mister "I only post from work." But if I got offered a job with more money, and the consequence was no more posting? Well, no more posting.

Nov 10, 2011#433

Espy

GasBandit said:
On a somewhat related tangent..

... I detect a whole lot of disillusionment coming soon in the next generation of workers (or perhaps, unemployed first worlders). Sheesh, I remember not even being allowed to make or receive personal phone calls unless it was an absolute emergency! Now more than half of fresh-outta-college brats won't consider a position that won't let them facebook on the job.

... yes, I'm aware of the irony of this all coming from me - Mister "I only post from work." But if I got offered a job with more money, and the consequence was no more posting? Well, no more posting.

Maybe it's always been this way, but as someone who regularly hires people in the 18-23yr old range I've NEVER seen such a sense of entitlement. It's stunning.

Nov 10, 2011#434

Shegokigo

@GasB - Honestly? My job already says I can't social network/post on forums.

..... heh.

Nov 10, 2011#435

Adammon

Shegokigo said:
Honestly? My job already says I can't social network/post on forums.

..... heh.

Ditto x 2 for today. But I'm in marketing so technically I'm supposed to be allowed to post to Facebook, Twitter and other social media sites. For work purposes...haha.

Nov 10, 2011#436

strawman

Heh. My big interview question is whether they will have a problem with me doing personal projects on the side - outside of work! Some companies won't, or will claim rights to your outside projects since the definition of a salaried worker can include "all work done anywhere anytime."

Nov 10, 2011#437

Espy

stienman said:
Heh. My big interview question is whether they will have a problem with me doing personal projects on the side - outside of work! Some companies won't, or will claim rights to your outside projects since the definition of a salaried worker can include "all work done anywhere anytime."

I've worked at places that tried to pull that kind of stuff. No thanks.

Nov 10, 2011#438

Necronic

AshburnerX said:
Love that part at the bottom.

So... you don't support it at all then?

No he just can't afford the resources to clean up after it/police it. Unless the OWS people are planning on donating some money.

In other news, Looks like someone was shot at Occupy Burlington. No details on what went down except that the police have pulled a body and a gun from the scene.

Looks like you've gotten your wish again. Oh wait no that wasn't from the police so it's a bad thing this time.

Nov 10, 2011#439

GasBandit

Nov 10, 2011#440

Hailey Knight

GasBandit said:
On a somewhat related tangent...

... I detect a whole lot of disillusionment coming soon in the next generation of workers (or perhaps, unemployed first worlders). Sheesh, I remember not even being allowed to make or receive personal phone calls unless it was an absolute emergency! Now more than half of fresh-outta-college brats won't consider a position that won't let them facebook on the job.

... yes, I'm aware of the irony of this all coming from me - Mister "I only post from work." But if I got offered a job with more money, and the consequence was no more posting? Well, no more posting.

You know, this explains why I've seen people get hired at my job and then leave after a day. I always assumed it was because there wasn't a lot of talking going on since the job involves a lot of reading and concentration on what you're doing, but now that I've read this, it makes more sense that they quit because they're not allowed to check any sites not for work, Facebook is banned, we're not allowed to text, and phone calls have to be kept to emergencies or off-the-clock.

What a bunch of children.

Nov 10, 2011#441

Azurephoenix

People won't accept a job because it won't let them facebook at work? What a bunch of entitled morons.

Nov 10, 2011#442

AshburnerX

Necronic said:
Looks like you've gotten your wish again. Oh wait no that wasn't from the police so it's a bad thing this time.

First off, grow up. If your not willing to act like an adult, your not welcome in the Politics sub-forum.

Secondly, it looks like it was a suicide or at least that's what the witnesses are saying.

Nov 10, 2011#443

Necronic

AshburnerX said:
First off, grow up. If your not willing to act like an adult, your not welcome in the Politics sub-forum.

Secondly, it looks like it was a suicide or at least that's what the witnesses are saying.

I'm sorry what part of your previous comment did I mistunderstand Mr Adult:

I'm actually hoping it escalates, if only because it means the protestors are serious in their convictions. People are going to get hurt and that's awful, but suffering seems to be the only language the authorities seem to understand if you want lasting change.

See, I wouldn't push you on that if you ever recanted that position. But you didn't. You just kept going. Which to me says that you see nothign wrong with the kidn of people that turn peaceful protests violent. To me, it seems like you want people to get hurt.

And that's not me being a dick. That's me directly reading your statement. Feel free to change your view any time.

Nov 10, 2011#444

Krisken

Guys, no fighting in the war room.

Nov 10, 2011#445

Espy

Wait. We have to be adults now? Dammit.

Nov 10, 2011#446

Krisken

Espy said:
Wait. We have to be adults now? Dammit.

Not like supposition is something new in the politics forum.

Nov 10, 2011#447

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
If you're not willing to act like an adult, you're not welcome in the Politics sub-forum.

Whoa, whoa whoa whoa, whoa. Wait. Hold on just a second. When the hell did THAT happen?

Nov 10, 2011#448

Adammon

Krisken said:
Not like supposition is something new in the politics forum.

It figures that you'd suggest something like that, as I have no doubts you smugly sit back in your large comfy reclining chair, smugly petting your cat, and smoking a corn cob pipe...smugly.

Nov 10, 2011#449

Krisken

Adammon said:
It figures that you'd suggest something like that, as I have no doubts you smugly sit back in your large comfy reclining chair, smugly petting your cat, and smoking a corn cob pipe...smugly.

My smugness is completely unrelated to the politics forum.

Nov 10, 2011#450

Necronic

The reason I am harping on this is because you don't think this is a problem that can be solved with rational discourse, you believe it is ideological and required violence. And moreover, it's not even that you're a martyr yourself. You're just some imam sitting comfortably in his desk advocating others to be martyrs.

I've met you're kind before. You don't want democracy, you want an autocracy that aligns with your views.

Or maybe not. I dunno.

Nov 10, 2011#451

strawman

mmmmMMMMMMmmmmm... and autocracy that aligns with my views.... NOM NOM NOM NOM

Nov 10, 2011#452

AshburnerX

Necronic said:
I've met you're kind before. You don't want democracy, you want an autocracy that aligns with your views.

Or maybe not. I dunno.

No, I want the issue to be resolved, no matter which way the pieces fall. I simply don't see how that is going to happen without an event that will make the public demand lasting change, when history shows us that it is the only way it ever does... and the riots and police clashes we've been having show that the public at large is ready to do something.

Honestly, we're not going to know if the small skirmishes we've had are going to be enough until some time after the next election. Hopefully it has been... because if it's not, things are going to get a lot worse than they are now.

Nov 10, 2011#453

Adammon

This got a spit-take out of me.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_19299249

Protesters at an Occupy Oakland meeting Monday voted to deposit a $20,000 donation into a Wells Fargo account. The move comes just days after one of Wells Fargo's branches was vandalized during a massive downtown demonstration.

Nov 10, 2011#454

AshburnerX

Yeah, I laughed at that too.

Nov 10, 2011#455

SpecialKO

...this is just getting weird. :confused:

Nov 10, 2011#456

Necronic

AshburnerX said:
No, I want the issue to be resolved, no matter which way the pieces fall. I simply don't see how that is going to happen without an event that will make the public demand lasting change, when history shows us that it is the only way it ever does... and the riots and police clashes we've been having show that the public at large is ready to do something.

Honestly, we're not going to know if the small skirmishes we've had are going to be enough until some time after the next election. Hopefully it has been... because if it's not, things are going to get a lot worse than they are now.

Yeah, so you are definitely an ideological zealot looking for violence. So a simple question.

Are you even out there on the front lines or are you managing this from the safety of your computer?

I want you to really think about what you are doing. Because advocating violence in this situation only makes the problem worse. And advocating violence that you aren't willing to get involved in means that you're not just an idiot. You're also a coward.

Nov 10, 2011#457

Krisken

SpecialKO said:
...this is just getting weird.

You talking about that one post, or the thread?

Nov 10, 2011#458

SpecialKO

Krisken said:
You talking about that one post, or the thread?

That one post.

Nov 10, 2011#459

AshburnerX

Necronic said:
Yeah, so you are definitely an ideological zealot looking for violence. So a simple question.

Are you even out there on the front lines or are you managing this from the safety of your computer?

I want you to really think about what you are doing. Because advocating violence in this situation only makes the problem worse. And advocating violence that you aren't willing to get involved in means that you're not just an idiot. You're also a coward.

You know what? I honestly don't care what you think. You seem to think that I am expecting a grand revolution... that I think there will be some grand battle between the forces of good and evil. I'm not and there won't. This isn't that clear cut of an issue. The Occupy protests aren't the fucking Civil Rights marches, despite how some people seem to be reacting to them. This isn't going to be the defining moment of our generation, though I hope at least some good comes from it.

However, YOU have done nothing to understand my viewpoint. You have not tried to counter my arguments on the historical precedent for this. You have not even tried tried to appeal to the goodness in all of us that desires no man, woman, or child to suffer unjustly. It's not like I'm ignoring or even discrediting your viewpoint. It's not a terrible position and it's one a lot of people take. It's simply one that I don't believe in.

You have instead, from moment one, simply decried me because I want there to be serious consequences for serious actions, and used it as an excuse to inflate your own ego. The fact that you've reduced yourself to name calling essentially proves this. You do it because your unable or unwilling to approach the issue seriously.

So honestly? Go fuck yourself, you self righteous prick. If your not willing to accept others have different viewpoints, I really don't have the time to waste on you.

Nov 11, 2011#460

Necronic

Ok, I'll admit that my last post was a bit intense. But answer me this.

Are you even out there risking your own neck?

Edit: And let me answer a few of your points, mainly this one because it is a good point:

However, YOU have done nothing to understand my viewpoint

Your viewpoint, the one I am railing so hard against, is the belief that violence in this situation is a good thing. I understand your viewpoint. I think its wrong. And here's why.

First off:

The Occupy protests aren't the fucking Civil Rights marches, despite how some people seem to be reacting to them. This isn't going to be the defining moment of our generation, though I hope at least some good comes from it

You're absolutely right! This ISN"T the civil rights movement. This isn't the kind of contentious issue that nearly demands violence. This is a lot of unemployed lower to upper middle class. And let's talk about this movement that was so completely revolutionairy. Let's talk about the man in the center. Let's talk about MLK.

MLK preached non-violent resistance. And not in the "Oh I hope the throw down and beat us" non-violent resistance. He fundamentally felt that violence would only worsen the gaps between the opposing viewpoints. Which is true. A violent encounter polarizes an issue, with each person having to commiserate with one side or another.

That is ultimately a self-defeating result. The goal is not to divide, but to merge. People have to be brought to a shared understanding of the issues. Consider the reactions you see to the violence in OWS. Some people are saying "oh my god look at dat police brutality" and others are saying "well hey man they were asking for it"

Nothing is accomplished. No one comes to a higher understanding.

You have instead, from moment one, simply decried me because I want there to be serious consequences for serious actions

No I have decried you for calling for serious actions with serious consequences in an environment where it is not helpful.

I went on to ponder if you were even willing to be involved in these serious actions or if you were just enjoying it from the sidelines.

The fact that you've reduced yourself to name calling essentially proves this

I regret the name calling. It was out of line. In my defense I had just lost at bingo night and was pretty mad. ONE SQUARE SHORT OF THE BONANZA.

Edit2: But...actually yeah, I mean the name calling and stuff was wholly counter productive. It was the "violence" of rhetoric.

Nov 11, 2011#461

GasBandit

The 1% have written back a letter.

We are Wall Street. It's our job to make money. Whether it's a commodity, stock, bond, or some hypothetical piece of fake paper, it doesn't matter. We would trade baseball cards if it were profitable.
I didn't hear America complaining when the market was roaring to 14,000 and everyone's 401k doubled every 3 years. Just like gambling, its (sic) not a problem until you lose. I've never heard of anyone going to Gamblers Anonymous because they won too much in Vegas.
Well, now the market crapped out, & even though it has come back somewhat, the government and the average Joes are still looking for a scapegoat. God knows there has to be one for everything. Well, here we are.
Go ahead and continue to take us down, but you're only going to hurt yourselves. What's going to happen when we can't find jobs on the Street anymore? Guess what: We're going to take yours.
We get up at 5am & work till 10pm or later. We're used to not getting up to pee when we have a position. We don't take an hour or more for a lunch break. We don't demand a union. We don't retire at 50 with a pension. We eat what we kill, and when the only thing left to eat is on your dinner plates, we'll eat that.
For years teachers and other unionized labor have had us fooled. We were too busy working to notice. Do you really think that we are incapable of teaching 3rd graders and doing ladscapint? We're going to take your cushy jobs with tenure and 4 months off a year and whine just like you that we are so-o-o-o underpaid for building the youth of America. Say goodbye to your overtime and double time and a half. I'll be hitting grounders to the high school baseball team for $5k extra a summer, thank you very much.
So now that we're going to be making $85k a year without upside, Joe Mainstreet is going to have his revenge, right? Wrong! Guess what: we're going to stop buying the new 80k car, we aren't going to leave the 35 percent tip at our business dinners anymore. No more free rides on our backs. We're going to landscape our own back yards, wash our cars with a garden hose in our driveways. Our money was your money. You spent it. When our money dries up, so does yours.
The difference is, you lived off of it, we rejoiced in it. The Obama administration and the Democratic National Committee might get their way and knock us off the top of the pyramid, but it's really going to hurt like hell for them when our fat a**es land directly on the middle class of America and knock them to the bottom.
We aren't dinosaurs. We are smarter and more vicious than that, and we are going to survive. The question is, now that Obama & his administration are making Joe Mainstreet our food supply...will he? And will they?

Nov 11, 2011#462

strawman

From the article "Yesterday, a close friend -- an independent businessman himself for decades -- sent me via email the photo of a flyer, which was purportedly dropped from an office building in Chicago by the Board of Trade down upon the crowd of protesters." <-- included for the "My boyfriend's cousin's step-mother's friend sent a photo that might have come from one institution, but could easily have been written by a protester as satire, or anyone else."

Nov 11, 2011#463

MindDetective

Hahahahahahahahaha!

Nov 11, 2011#464

Necronic

I don't have a problem with hard workers on wall street making bank. If they create wealth, they earned a solid share of it.

What I have a problem with are the dudes that made financial frankensteins and cashed the checks while they wrecked havoc on the market.

Nov 11, 2011#465

Adammon

I'm hoping that letter is satire because it shows a fundamental ignorance of the interrelation traders and the companies that they're trading. Believe me when I say wall street needs main street far more than main street needs wall street.

Nov 11, 2011#466

@Li3n

OH NOES, the 1% will take away 1% of r jerbz... leaving 98% of people to benefit from the 40% more money circulating amongst them... what a nightmare scenario...

Nov 11, 2011#467

Tress

Oh good, we're bringing out the old "teachers and union workers are dumb, anyone could do their job" bullshit. Guess what, folks? You may technically be able to become teachers, but most of you would be crappy at it. And then you would quit after 3 years because you would find out its hard work, long hours, and very little pay. So let me say once again: go fuck yourself. You can't do what I do, and the world is a better place when you don't even pretend like you can.

Nov 11, 2011#468

SpecialKO

That letter *is* satire, right?

I can't tell anymore, these days.

Nov 11, 2011#469

Gared

Meanwhile, following a crackdown on OccupyCal (UC Berkeley), the captain of the UCB police force has declared that the police were justified in their use of force against the protesters, because the act of locking arms and forming a human chain is a violent act - whether people think it is or not. Therefore, I propose two separate violent protests, one to be held today and one to be held on Christmas Eve, on the UCB campus.

Today being Veteran's Day, we need to get as large a group of people as we can to go to the square at UCB with the largest American flag, lock arms, and violently sing as many patriotic songs as they can think of. Then, on Christmas Eve, we need to get the largest choir groups in the area to go to the square, lock arms, and violently sing Christmas Carols.

Nov 11, 2011#470

Tress

Gared said:
Meanwhile, following a crackdown on OccupyCal (UC Berkeley), the captain of the UCB police force has declared that the police were justified in their use of force against the protesters, because the act of locking arms and forming a human chain is a violent act - whether people think it is or not. Therefore, I propose two separate violent protests, one to be held today and one to be held on Christmas Eve, on the UCB campus.

Today being Veteran's Day, we need to get as large a group of people as we can to go to the square at UCB with the largest American flag, lock arms, and violently sing as many patriotic songs as they can think of. Then, on Christmas Eve, we need to get the largest choir groups in the area to go to the square, lock arms, and violently sing Christmas Carols.

You, sir, clearly know nothing about Berkeley. I can think of nothing that they hate more than American flags or Christmas.

Nov 11, 2011#471

Gared

Whether they hate American flags or Christmas or not, isn't really the point here, now is it? If locking arms and forming a human chain is now going to be considered a violent act, we're fucked as a nation.

Nov 11, 2011#472

Tress

Gared said:
Whether they hate American flags or Christmas or not, isn't really the point here, now is it? If locking arms and forming a human chain is now going to be considered a violent act, we're fucked as a nation.

I was just kidding. It's a good idea.

Nov 11, 2011#473

Necronic

Tress said:
Oh good, we're bringing out the old "teachers and union workers are dumb, anyone could do their job" bullshit. Guess what, folks? You may technically be able to become teachers, but most of you would be crappy at it. And then you would quit after 3 years because you would find out its hard work, long hours, and very little pay. So let me say once again: go fuck yourself. You can't do what I do, and the world is a better place when you don't even pretend like you can.

I've considered teaching on more than one occasion. But due to my anger issues (as displayed somewhat often here) I am pretty sure I would end up being one of those teachers that gets filmed giving the kid a Patrick-Sawyze-Roadhouse-Style beat down.

Nov 11, 2011#474

HCGLNS

Just to update you all; the police are dismantling the Occupy Nova Scotia camp right now. Many arrests and violence. And rain.

Nov 11, 2011#475

Covar

Damn cops, just like them to bring rain along.

Nov 11, 2011#476

Hailey Knight

Gared said:
Meanwhile, following a crackdown on OccupyCal (UC Berkeley), the captain of the UCB police force has declared that the police were justified in their use of force against the protesters, because the act of locking arms and forming a human chain is a violent act - whether people think it is or not. Therefore, I propose two separate violent protests, one to be held today and one to be held on Christmas Eve, on the UCB campus.
Today being Veteran's Day, we need to get as large a group of people as we can to go to the square at UCB with the largest American flag, lock arms, and violently sing as many patriotic songs as they can think of. Then, on Christmas Eve, we need to get the largest choir groups in the area to go to the square, lock arms, and violently sing Christmas Carols.

So much violence... so much death.
Added at: 16:40

GasBandit said:
The 1% have written back a letter.

That really made very little sense. I'm with steinman--looks Shopped.

Nov 11, 2011#477

Officer_Charon

Re: the violence at Cal:

From the video, it appeared that everything was relatively kosher until one section of the human chain surged towards the one officer. Said officer responded by utilizing the riot baton in a jabbing motion (which is not the best use of 36" of ash wood in a crowd control situation). Other officers observed the action, undoubtedly thought that a rush was starting, and took measures to prevent being swarmed. It is DAMNED hard to see around your helmet's periphery with the shield down, due to fogging, lighting, environment factors etc. From an individual officer's standpoint, I can see how this could happen.

When you're facing off against a human chain (or in this case, chain-link... there were about 3 ranks of these guys), it is DAMNED hard to halt their momentum without someone getting hurt. There isn't a way to slow it down without a concerted effort on the part of the folks making the chain, or by putting an immovable object in their path. A single line of officers without shields is NOT going to halt them, and may end up resulting in officer injury. Thus, you move to halt the inertia of the line before it gains too much momentum and steam-rolls over your officers. From a supervisory standpoint, I can see how this would happen.

For the record, I'm on my city's riot team, for those of you who don't know. My next drill session with them will be Tuesday. I have little doubt that these protests are going to feature HEAVILY on any briefings we receive, and I would like to provide some outside input from this situation. If anyone has any questions they would like answered/addressed, I could see about talking to the Lt. about it, and anything that I couldn't answer, he SHOULD.

Just, bear in mind that the Mobile Field Force is like the red-headed stepchild of my department. We only JUST got alotted a piece of the budget for new equipment - most of our stuff is last generation.

Nov 12, 2011#478

SpecialKO

Acknowledging that this is totally in hindsight rather than heat of the moment, what do you think would have been the best action the first officer could have taken?

Nov 12, 2011#479

Hailey Knight

OC, I appreciate your giving us insight on an officer's perspective with all this, no matter how many times Charlie wants to fuck you.

Nov 12, 2011#480

LordRendar

I know that I am gonna getr beaten on again in 2 weeks when I am going protesting against the Nuclear Waste Train thats going through Gorleben.A flyer got released where the police got orderd to have zero tolerance against anything.
So...just sitting on the traintracks=beating, puttung straw under your shirt so the beatings wont hurt that much= pepper spray and more beatings.
Woooo.....

Back on topic,the only thing that the Occupy Hamburg accomplished here was that there wont be a Christmas Market on the area where they are camping.Dammit...no Hot Wine and roasted pork for me. :/

Nov 12, 2011#481

Espy

Do you mind if I ask why you are protesting against a train going through your town?

Nov 12, 2011#482

Tress

Espy said:
Do you mind if I ask why you are protesting against a train going through your town?

"Not in my backyard" syndrome, I would guess.

Nov 12, 2011#483

strawman

LordRendar said:
just sitting on the traintracks=beating

It's better than being run over by the train, I suppose. Or are you suggesting that you want to commit suicide? If so, why not choose a place on the tracks and a time/day when the police aren't going to be making sure no one gets hurt by the train?

Nov 12, 2011#484

LordRendar

Tress said:
"Not in my backyard" syndrome, I would guess.

More like..."no nuclear waste in my backyrad" syndrome.

Nov 12, 2011#485

Tress

LordRendar said:
More like..."no nuclear waste in my backyrad" syndrome.

As long as it goes somewhere else and becomes someone else's problem, right?

Nov 12, 2011#486

Officer_Charon

The way I've been trained to use a riot baton is to utilize it as a shoving tool, not a jabbing one, pushing with the length of the baton, rather than piking them with the end of it - that's for emergency situations (making enough room to extricate yourselves with).

But it's kind of a catch-22, because the first protester to get struck was being pushed from behind, so if the police shoved back, he'd end up being sandwich filler. Either way, he probably would have ended up getting injured.

Nov 12, 2011#487

LordRendar

Tress said:
As long as it goes somewhere else and becomes someone else's problem, right?

I rather would have it that the nuclear waste goes back to france from where it came from.

Nov 12, 2011#488

Espy

LordRendar said:
I rather would have it that the nuclear waste goes back to france from where it came from.

Why is it coming to Germany (if I remember correctly where you are...)? Do you folks use the power from the French plants?

Nov 13, 2011#489

TommiR

Waste disposal business, I'd assume. The french pay someone in Germany or points beyond to take their nuclear waste for treatment & storage.

Nov 14, 2011#490

strawman

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/n...is-a-growing-concern.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all

I'm surprised they haven't complained that the illnesses are due to cholera laced blankets the police have been handing violent homeless folks as they sent them to OWS.

Nov 14, 2011#491

TommiR

It's not cholera, it's bubonic plague. And it wasn't because of blankets, they beamed it down from orbit from the same satellites they use to read people's minds.

Obviously.

Nov 14, 2011#492

Krisken

Well damn. I guess it was either turning into this or fizzling out. It's a shame that something with so much potential has become the left's crazy tea party.

Nov 14, 2011#493

Necronic

A team from Union Health Center in Chelsea came on Wednesday and Thursday to administer flu shots for no charge, a welcome arrival for many sniffling protesters, although some refused vaccinations, citing a government conspiracy.

Well....to be fair to these people I would totally consider a place like this to be the ideal testing grounds for my new calm inducing retroviral treatment, G-23 paxilon hydrochlorate, aka "Pax". The first attempt at the Miranda OWS didn't go so well, but I have better hopes this time.

Nov 14, 2011#494

strawman

Necronic said:
Well....to be fair to these people I would totally consider a place like this to be the ideal testing grounds for my new calm inducing retroviral treatment, G-23 paxilon hydrochlorate, aka "Pax". The first attempt at the Miranda OWS didn't go so well, but I have better hopes this time.

River will stop you. And a rag-tag team of space cowboy smugglers. Who also sing.

I'm talkin' bout them hippies.

Nov 14, 2011#495

Adammon

OWS eats its own
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45285979#.TsG4TGFXXT4

“I heard that some of the 99 percent are the 1 percent of the 99 percent,” he added, and to which some people started applauding. “We don’t need that.”

Nov 14, 2011#496

SpecialKO

Nov 15, 2011#497

Tress

Wow, it's almost as if the disorganized and chaotic movement with no leader or direction has become fractured. Golly, I never would have seen that coming.

This has become nothing more than a waste of people's time.

Nov 15, 2011#498

DarkAudit

Tress said:
Wow, it's almost as if the disorganized and chaotic movement with no leader or direction has become fractured. Golly, I never would have seen that coming.

This has become nothing more than a waste of people's time.

If so, then the NYPD would have no issue with clearing the park in full view of the public.

Instead, they do it at 2am and block media access.

(ETA: Al-Jazeera covered the crackdown live. CNN had a Piers Morgan repeat and Fox had something called "Red Eye". No MSNBC at work, so I can't speak for them, but I'm guessing US cable news went 0 for 3.)

Nov 15, 2011#499

SpecialKO

The NYPD never do anything normally when they can do it as authoritatively as possible.

Nov 15, 2011#500

Krisken

Well, if the police had the sympathy of the media, that's pretty much over now. Nothing the media dislikes more than being barred from covering a story. They overplayed their hand on this one.

Forums

Export thread

So there's this Occupy Wall Street protest in Manhattan today

Attachments