# Forum About Russia Politics  Occupy Wall Street around the world.... Your thoughts and feelings about it!

## Hanna

I really like this movement. Nice to see that people are waking up!
Has it reached Russia? Elsewhere in Europe it seems to have caught on too. I read about similar protests in Italy, Germany in Sweden today. 
It's interesting how media are portraying the demonstrators as hooligans when they are really regular people who are participating for the first time.

----------


## Marcus

> Has it reached Russia?

 No, it hasn't. At least I haven't heard of something like that.

----------


## Hanna

It'll be interesting to see how it catches on in Russia, or not.  
Not sure if it allowed to have a big spontaneous demonstration in Russia or not.... I think a permit is required in Sweden, but it's usually granted. I've read that it's not easy to get a permit to demonstrate in Russia unless it's a pro gov't demonstration.  
I guess Russians don't have quite the same experience as many in Western Europe either. Things are still improving in Russia, I think... but in Western Europe and America they are generally getting worse.  
In Sweden people are pissed off because the old welfare state that we used to have has been all but dismantled, old state companies are privatized but their service is worse and more expensive. Tax payers have to bail out the banks from the losses caused by their dare-devil and ill-advised speculation in the Baltic states et. al.  
I wonder what will come of this.... just more people messing around in Facebook groups or some real change....
After the Arabian Spring, why not a Western Autumn.

----------


## Lampada

> It's interesting how media are portraying the demonstrators as hooligans when they are really regular people who are participating for the first time.

 Not really.  Maybe just FOXNews.
See Charlie Rose - Analysis of the Occupy Wall Street Protests or "Occupy Wall Street" protests go global - CBS News

----------


## Hanna

> Not really.  Maybe just FOXNews.
> See Charlie Rose - Analysis of the Occupy Wall Street Protests or "Occupy Wall Street" protests go global - CBS News

 Thanks for the interesting link! Yes, perhaps you are right!
I really like Charlie Rose.... The CBS coverage was good too.
And it's good that the Americans are inspiring the rest of the world about this.   http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaTo.../2/eXJqj4iXg8o 
It's kind of bizarre that everyone is disillusioned with capitalism but practically none would agree if they were called communists or anarchists.  This new movement has no obvious ideology, no agenda and no plan to follow.

----------


## kidkboom

> Thanks for the interesting link! Yes, perhaps you are right!
> I really like Charlie Rose.... The CBS coverage was good too.
> And it's good that the Americans are inspiring the rest of the world about this.   http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaTo.../2/eXJqj4iXg8o

 I don't know anything about its impact in Europe, but here in the States, it's had a pretty huge effect, at least judging by what people are saying. I haven't watched the news, but hundreds of people on facebook have mentioned this, posted pictures of people with the cardboard signs, etc.  
A friend came out here from Long Island last weekend to visit, and when he returned to NYC, he posted: "Back in New York today. Something has definitely changed." 
End of last week, a friend of mine from Seattle posted information on "Occupy Seattle" with a number to text to, and he writes, "Got a phone?" It seems to be taking place all over.  
They have my complete support.   

> It's kind of bizarre that everyone is disillusioned with capitalism but practically none would agree if they were called communists or anarchists. This new movement has no obvious ideology, no agenda and no plan to follow.

 Regardless of what they're calling it, "anarchy" is not far from what I'm seeing.. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. 
Maybe it's just me, but the disillusionment with capitalism seems to be effervescing at a point in the capitalistic game where it's becoming obvious that the advantaged parties present to the disadvantaged parties a cat's game, a stalemate, an unwinnable situation. In other words, as soon as people start to realize The Banker is cheating, they lose interest in the whole Monopoly game. 
Then again.. how long was it like this, and well worse, in Greece? And, did anything change there? Ничего не знаю ... вот такие вот пироги ::

----------


## Hanna

> Then again.. how long was it like this, and well worse, in Greece? And, did anything change there? Ничего не знаю ... вот такие вот пироги

 Interesting comment from you ! With Greece, anything could happen... It's not long since they had a right wing military dictatorship there, it was a right pit, very sad. There are riots and marches every day.  
There are lots of people there who are genuine communists and with everything going on, it's possible that they will increase their numbers and strength. Not sure how strong anarchism is in Greece.  
But it's quite possible that something big of one kind or another happens there - the people are furious, everyone is finding that they lack cash and the state is suddenly dropping lots of services that people are used to.  
The EU requires member states to be democratic, and is not very favourable to anything other than countries that are conservative, christian democrats or social democrats. Anything else is considered extreme. 
But there is not a lot of love between Greece and the EU right now. 
It's a real soap opera. Anything could happen.

----------


## rockzmom



----------


## Eric C.

> After the Arabian Spring, why not a Western Autumn.

 Who's being a dictator in Western Europe? If anything ever happens, what will the "fighters" offer in return? If talk about Europe, such a suggestion is completely ridiculous and somewhat savage... Yet what can one expect from such lefty and socialist minds?

----------


## Hanna

> Who's being a dictator in Western Europe?

 Nobody formally. That's the clever aspect of this. On paper it's a democracy. But things are being done that practically nobody agrees with. The wars, the bank bailouts, the dismantling of welfare institutions, selling out of state owned companies and much more.  
In the last 15-20 years, mainstream political parties have essentially all normalized to almost identical views, similar to how it is in the USA.  
In the meantime, corporations banks and globalists are getting richer and more powerful.  
Media which for the most part is owned by corporate interests are not writing about what's going on. The only outlet for peoples concerns and unease is the internet which is free and allows everyones voice be heard. 
Quoting Thomas Jefferson a famous American president and nation builder.    

> I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our  liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow  private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by  inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow  up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until  their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers  conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored  to the people, to whom it properly belongs. Thomas Jefferson _3rd president of US  (1743 - 1826)_

 How true! A shame nobody listened!

----------


## Sala_

If their job skills are as vague as their message I'm not surprised they're unemployed..

----------


## Hanna

> If their job skills are as vague as their message I'm not surprised they're unemployed..

 I think you may have OD:d on Fox News.....

----------


## Marcus

Почему тема не в Политике?

----------


## Marcus

Если есть политическая воля, власть будет сохранена. Более того, недовольство может быть использовано в нужном направлении.

----------


## Eric C.

> Nobody formally. That's the clever aspect of this. On paper it's a democracy. But things are being done that practically nobody agrees with. The wars, the bank bailouts, the dismantling of welfare institutions, selling out of state owned companies and much more.  
> In the last 15-20 years, mainstream political parties have essentially all normalized to almost identical views, similar to how it is in the USA.  
> In the meantime, corporations banks and globalists are getting richer and more powerful.  
> Media which for the most part is owned by corporate interests are not writing about what's going on. The only outlet for peoples concerns and unease is the internet which is free and allows everyones voice be heard. 
> Quoting Thomas Jefferson a famous American president and nation builder.  
> How true! A shame nobody listened!

 Can we please stop propagating the fake Jefferson quote about "PRIVATE BANKS"? | Ron Paul 2012 | Sound Money, Peace and Liberty 
After reading the quoted text, I right away started thinking it was somewhat shady and couldn't be true, so I did a little search.

----------


## Eric C.

> If their job skills are as vague as their message I'm not surprised they're unemployed..

 Ha-ha, true.

----------


## Hanna

I did not think to check whether the quote was genuine since I have seen it in several places and am well aware of the American reverential view of these early statesmen. Would have thought it would be practically blasphemous to misquote him. 
But sure, I admit I assumed assumed he was quoted correctly. 
In fact, here are 5 legitimate pages that say the quote is genuine, including two legitimate quotation pages.  Quote Details: Thomas Jefferson: I believe that banking... - The Quotations Page Thomas Jefferson Quote/Quotation Thomas Jefferson quotes Famous Quotations on Banking 
Could it be that the neo-cons of America have departed so far from the original vision of their "founding fathers" that they have to discredit their quotes to remain credible? Who knows! Maybe he didn't say it, or maybe it hit a bit too close to home for some people. 
Either way, apparently he also said the following in his private correspondence, collected in a book called "The Letters of Thomas Jefferson".  
No I do not have the book to check for myself that he really wrote this, but assuming the source is accurate, *I think Jeffersons view on the dangers of bankers given a free reign, is quite clear. * 
With this quote I leave the controversy of what a president of another country may or may not have said two centuries ago...   

> “Everything predicted by the enemies of banks, in the beginning, is now  coming to pass. We are to be ruined now by the deluge of bank paper. It  is cruel that such revolutions in private fortunes should be at the  mercy of avaricious adventurers, who, instead of employing their  capital, if any they have, in manufactures, commerce, and other useful  pursuits, make it an instrument to burden all the interchanges of  property with their swindling profits, profits which are the price of no  useful industry of theirs.”     
>  ―       Thomas Jefferson,           _ Letters of Thomas Jefferson_

----------


## Hanna

> Ha-ha, true.

 Let's see how much you would laugh if you were unemployed, up to your ears in debt. It has happened to much smarter people than yourself, so your arrogant laughter is both pretentious and pathetic.

----------


## Eric C.

> Could it be that the neo-cons of America have departed so far from the original vision of their "founding fathers" that they have to discredit their quotes to remain credible? Who knows!

 See, some time has passed since then. Many things have changed and will never be the way they were before. Even assuming the quote is true, it says something about people having a right to issue money. Now tell me, in the nowaday world, how does government/state owned become people owned?

----------


## Eric C.

> Let's see how much you would laugh if you were unemployed, up to your ears in debt. It has happened to much smarter people than yourself, so your arrogant laughter is both pretentious and pathetic.

 Just admit, it's already happened to you, hasn't it? 
(Deleted. L.)

----------


## Romik

Trying to do such actions in Russia is quite unhealthy because Russian police is by far not so gentle as American.

----------


## Lampada

Let's keep it civil here, please.

----------


## Lampada

Occupy Chicago arrests are seen as a trial run for international summits to come next year - chicagotribune.com 
" ... Throughout Saturday evening, police remained in constant contact with organizers 
of the Occupy Chicago demonstrations, warning that anyone remaining in Grant 
Park after the 11 p.m. curfew, violating a city ordinance, risked being 
hauled off to jail, city officials said. 
Mayor Rahm 
Emanuel was kept abreast of the situation, receiving regular updates from 
police Superintendent Garry 
McCarthy, said Chris Mather, the mayor's spokeswoman. 
"The mayor made 
it clear that he wanted protesters to have ample warning that the park was 
closing as well as time to leave should they choose to do so," Mather 
said. 
Occupy Chicago organizer Kelvin Ho said about *500 protesters who 
had camped out at the park Saturday night were divided into color-coded groups — 
red for those who did not want to be arrested, yellow for those who were 
undecided and green for those who were willing to remain behind and go to 
jail.* 
At 12:45 a.m., McCarthy made the call for police to move in and 
arrest anyone remaining in the park. Shortly after 1 a.m., police began leading 
175 people away in handcuffs. 
"Demonstrators were in violation of the 
law, and it is the obligation of police to enforce the law," Mather 
said. 
Police officials determined they could not allow the more than 
2,000 protesters to spend the night in the public park because it would be 
harder to get them out in the coming days, according to a police source familiar 
with the events. 
It also would set a bad precedent for dealing with 
thousands of demonstrators expected to converge on Chicago from around the world 
during the G-8 and  NATO 
summits that will be held simultaneously in May, the source said. ..."

----------


## Ramil

I don't believe the Americans are capable of making a revolution. When it gets cold, they will all leave. Nothing will change.

----------


## mishau_

На каждого протестующего найдется свой Жемчужный Прапорщик.

----------


## Eric C.

Wait, are you saying the protesters just stood there and did nothing violent?

----------


## Romik

> На каждого протестующего найдется свой Жемчужный Прапорщик.

 Wikipedia:  

> 15 сентября на Вадима Бойко было совершено нападение, и 20 сентября он был госпитализирован с сотрясением мозга и черепно-мозговой травмой[14]. 2 ноября было совершено нападение на его первого адвоката Александра Ерошенко[15], который впоследствии отказался защищать Бойко в суде[16].

----------


## Crocodile

Интересно, где же он гулял 5 дней от момента совершения нападения и до госпитализации?

----------


## nulle

> If their job skills are as vague as their message I'm not surprised they're unemployed..

 That's right - I still don't have a clue what the hell they are protesting agaisnt?
Their own stupidity, because they took loans that they cannot pay back? http://www.cagle.com/news/WallStreet...ges/beeler.jpg http://www.cagle.com/news/WallStreet.../ramirez09.jpg  http://www.cagle.com/news/WallStreet...ges/darkow.jpg
My response: "That's not your house dumbass - that's bank's house." 
This reminds me of 1917. at that time Lenin also used uneducated dumb(m)asses to "eradicate greedy capitalists".
How that ended we all know.

----------


## Eric C.

> That's right - I still don't have a clue what the hell they are protesting agaisnt?
> Their own stupidity, because they took loans that they cannot pay back? http://www.cagle.com/news/WallStreet...ges/beeler.jpg http://www.cagle.com/news/WallStreet.../ramirez09.jpg  http://www.cagle.com/news/WallStreet...ges/darkow.jpg
> My response: "That's not your house dumbass - that's bank's house." 
> This reminds me of 1917. at that time Lenin also used uneducated dumb(m)asses to "eradicate greedy capitalists".
> How that ended we all know.

 Excellent post, nulle. Nothing to add.

----------


## kidkboom

> Excellent post, nulle. Nothing to add.

 I'm very disheartened by some of the opinions people seem to have about my country, countrymen, and apparently some lack of spirit or resolve that you perceive in us. 
What are you comparing Americans to? Which other country or group is it that, in comparison to us, has so much more resolve and dedication to riot and protest?  
Which country or group is it that even has a history of protest, prior to my own? Granted, India and respectively Gandhi qualify as having made some major mark in the arena of popular protest. 
But who else?  
Who is being served or benefitted by such cynicism? Does this cynical outlook upon things that have not yet been decided help you to have a better ratio of successful "guesses" on future outcomes? And how does talking trash on this movement actually help YOU? Are you taking numbers, bets on which side (if there's such a thing as a side, even) will come out on top? 
I don't know everything about history.. educate me. Tell me about how Russia protests - maybe we should take some hints from you guys. 
Ramil, Eric C and nulle, I can't tell if you all are non-americans who dislike america, american conservatives who dislike protesters, sociopathic accountants who dislike the threat of monetary change - , or just Eor-esque cynics.. where do you form such concrete opinions about something that's still in its malleable stages? Are you trying to say that what was done to people was right, and it should remain as it was decided? Or are you simply saying "A card laid is a card played, you can't undo it even if it was a mistake; simply feel stupid for it." ?? Are you making a statement about deservedness - that these people never deserved to have anything, and they did deserve to lose it? Or.. are you saying anything at all, besides "Harumph!!" ?? 
@ Ramil: Are you saying "nothing will change" because you don't think we have the heart to go through with it? Or, because you think change is impossible to achieve, and no matter how hard we'll try, we'll only fail and be killed by our own subversive government for being political dissenters? (deja vu) 
And, if you would be so kind, I'd really like to hear your constructive criticism.... what should people be doing _instead_? How should people bring about effective change,_ if the method we've engaged is so laughable to you_? 
BTW, Eric, if you want, you can answer my question by waiting until nulle responds, then typing "What he said" afterwards.. (You in the back can just rattle your jewelry)  _"When your cynicism overshadows your hope, go stick your head in the dirt. You're mulch, potting soil. Only purpose you can serve at that point is to feed the roots of something better than you."_

----------


## Eric C.

> I'm very disheartened by some of the opinions people seem to have about my country, countrymen, and apparently some lack of spirit or resolve that you perceive in us. 
> What are you comparing Americans to? Which other country or group is it that, in comparison to us, has so much more resolve and dedication to riot and protest?  
> Which country or group is it that even has a history of protest, prior to my own? Granted, India and respectively Gandhi qualify as having made some major mark in the arena of popular protest. 
> But who else?  
> Who is being served or benefitted by such cynicism? Does this cynical outlook upon things that have not yet been decided help you to have a better ratio of successful "guesses" on future outcomes? And how does talking trash on this movement actually help YOU? Are you taking numbers, bets on which side (if there's such a thing as a side, even) will come out on top? 
> I don't know everything about history.. educate me. Tell me about how Russia protests - maybe we should take some hints from you guys. 
> Ramil, Eric C and nulle, I can't tell if you two are non-americans who dislike america, american conservatives who dislike protesters, sociopathic accountants who dislike the threat of monetary change - , or just Eor-esque cynics.. where do you form such concrete opinions about something that's still in its malleable stages? Are you trying to say that what was done to people was right, and it should remain as it was decided? Or are you simply saying "A card laid is a card played, you can't undo it even if it was a mistake; simply feel stupid for it." ?? Are you making a statement about deservedness - that these people never deserved to have anything, and they did deserve to lose it? Or.. are you saying anything at all, besides "Harumph!!" ?? 
> @ Ramil:  Are you saying "nothing will change" because you don't think we have the heart to go through with it?  Or, because you think change is impossible to achieve, and no matter how hard we'll try, we'll only fail and be killed by our own subversive government for being political dissenters? (deja vu) 
> And, if you would be so kind, I'd really like to hear your constructive criticism.... what should people be doing _instead_? How should people bring about effective change,_ if the method we've engaged is so laughable to you_? 
> BTW, Eric, if you want, you can answer my question by waiting until nulle responds, then typing "What he said" afterwards.. (You in the back can just rattle your jewelry)

 Before I get deep into it, could you clarify how not standing for these protesters against common sense makes me anti American?

----------


## kidkboom

> Before I get deep into it, could you clarify how not standing for these protesters against common sense makes me anti American?

 Yeah, I'm not saying that at all. I'm trying to suss you out *ideologically*.. I don't have any way of knowing you are or ever were American... Coming from the stance that you DO have citizenship here, I'd narrow my questioning to whether you are a conservative who dislikes this protest, a cynic who doubts there is efficacy behind protest, or so on.... let's just take a step back here and remember that I'm trying to be civil and discuss ideology and not people. I have no intention of attacking you or anybody else. Who you are is not my topic and who I am is not your topic.. as for who I am *ideologically*, I am a liberal that borders on libertarian views, and a big supporter of change - and to address the definition of that word post-comments-by-people-who-didn't-want-obama-for-president, i'm defining "change" as ANYTHING that shakes up the current alignment of money and power in the country. That's my own personal def, not obama's. =) 
Anti-American is sloganism in phrase-coining, just like Pro-Life.. Pro-Life is understood as meaning Against Abortion, but by strict definition, if I don't shoot my cat in the face, I'm Pro-Life, aren't I?  Anybody who says their opinion is "American" could excommunicate the counterpoint opinion with the appending of a simple "Anti-" and I won't insult your intelligence by saying that.

----------


## nulle

I wish I lived as "poorly" as these "protesters" in USA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogra...rk_City#Income
And with incomes like that they are protesting??
I do not earn even half of that - which car should I burn?

----------


## kidkboom

> I wish I lived as "poorly" as these "protesters" in USA. Demographics of New York City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> And with incomes like that they are protesting??
> I do not earn even half of that - which car should I burn?

 With respect, my thoughts: If the amount of gold in a citizen's purse can decide what their political decisions will be, then we're all up the feces creek without a paddle, because the first guy who comes down the picket line handing out gold doubloons will silence all political dissent.  
Hmm.. Doesn't sound very American to me. Then again you're not talking to another cinch-voter for Romney. 
"He who would trade interminable liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither." _What's your price? Judas sold his soul for 30 pieces of silver. At what price will you sell your soul?_

----------


## Ramil

> What are you comparing Americans to? Which other country or group is it that, in comparison to us, has so much more resolve and dedication to riot and protest?

 Let me think... Egypt? LOL The problem is that resolve is not enough. See below.    

> @ Ramil: Are you saying "nothing will change" because you don't think we have the heart to go through with it? Or, because you think change is impossible to achieve, and no matter how hard we'll try, we'll only fail and be killed by our own subversive government for being political dissenters? (deja vu)

 Both, actually. But let me ask you these questions. That 'go through with it' thing - can you clarify what exactly those protesters want to go through with? Revolutions require blood and violence. That's a sad fact. Revolutions usually ruin economies completely. Those protesters' lives will be much worse if they succeed. Besides, what are their goals? What is their program? Who is their leader? Imagine those capitalists appear and surrender. What's next? Right now they're nothing more than a poorly organzied mob (well, let's hope it isn't organized). Pray it wouldn't taste blood and the police can handle it. If not - there'll be another London. There's more - such movements gain a certain magnitude and without anything happening they either explode or disappear (people will simply grow tired and leave the Wall St. for good).   

> And, if you would be so kind, I'd really like to hear your constructive criticism.... what should people be doing _instead_? How should people bring about effective change,_ if the method we've engaged is so laughable to you_?

 I know it may shock someone, but if they really want the capitalists to change something they ought to start hanging the wrong guys. I'm serious (to answer your question 'what should people be doing instead'). See above - revolutions require blood. Read Marx - he proved that. The only way the lower classes can overthrow the top is through violence. Their problem is - they're still lacking the guy who'd tell them who exactly the 'wrong guys' are.   
What these people want? To get rid of the banks? They can try that, of course, but I doubt they'll find their lives changed to good afterwards. No, I don't believe the Americans will go this far.  
P.S. Unlike many of my countrymen I respect the Americans and not as prejudiced as I may seem. My quarrel is with your government, not the people. Some of the Americans I know personally are quite nice.

----------


## kidkboom

> Let me think... Egypt? LOL The problem is that resolve is not enough. See below. 
> Both, actually. But let me ask you these questions. That 'go through with it' thing - can you clarify what exactly those protesters want to go through with? Revolutions require blood and violence. That's a sad fact. Revolutions usually ruin economies completely. Those protesters' lives will be much worse if they succeed. Besides, what are their goals? What is their program? Who is their leader? Imagine those capitalists appear and surrender. What's next? Right now they're nothing more than a poorly organzied mob (well, let's hope it isn't organized). Pray it wouldn't taste blood and the police can handle it. If not - there'll be another London. There's more - such movements gain a certain magnitude and without anything happening they either explode or disappear (people will simply grow tired and leave the Wall St. for good). 
> I know it may shock someone, but if they really want the capitalists to change something they ought to start hanging the wrong guys. I'm serious (to answer your question 'what should people be doing instead'). See above - revolutions require blood. Read Marx - he proved that. The only way the lower classes can overthrow the top is through violence. Their problem is - they're still lacking the guy who'd tell them who exactly the 'wrong guys' are.  
> What these people want? To get rid of the banks? They can try that, of course, but I doubt they'll find their lives changed to good afterwards. No, I don't believe the Americans will go this far.

 The truth of the matter is, I'm inclined to AGREE with about 99% of what you're saying Ramil.. the only part I disagree with is that I, for one, am not at all afraid of involving myself in the blood part of a revolution, and that I don't think the better choice would be to back down from the opportunity to do so, once we've hit this point - that's what the would-be-revolutionists of the 60s did (responded to gun-barrels with flowers, then they got shot..hmm), and it led to another bag of gold doubloons buying off another generation of everywhere-increasingly-in-chains individuals, 'til there was no fight left in them, 'til they became the thing they were once doing battle with.. 
I agree with you because of one tricky little thing... Most people know that they want/need change, but they don't know EXACTLY what needs changed.. *I think* the reason for this is, the EXACT things that need changed are like a set of diodes on an infinitely-complex computer chip inside an infinitely-complex machine... By the time a person knows what those things are and that they need to be changed, he's become so minutely focused that not only could he himself NOT be the leader of a movement (by definition requisite of a relatively well-balanced and far-seeing person, not a niche-educated socioeconomics specialist without the spine for the big and the vague), but that he also has effectively NO ABILITY to communicate that niche knowledge to the outer fringe, where reside those massses with the HEART for revolt. 
This is what I call a 1984 trick... There is a problem and it is malignant, but it is comprised of so many moving parts that no one person can effectively back away far enough to see it, and still be in orbit near enough TO it to make a change. 
Still... If there is going to be a revolution, it MUST be bloody, you're right... not only must it cut down the reigning kings (who would prefer this to their surrender, believe me) but ALSO the currency of the reigning kings, which for so many years has been illusory anyway - like a paper wrapper wrung around a finger, in pithy representation of what was once a wedding ring.. Only when value can be re-established from the ground up, from things which retain their intrinsic value from inalienable utility (food, transportation, livestock, shelter, weapons) can there be any hope of routing out the roaches and rats from the walls of our country, and doing something honest.   

> P.S. Unlike many of my countrymen I respect the Americans and not as prejudiced as I may seem. My quarrel is with your government, not the people. Some of the Americans I know personally are quite nice.

 Hey, Ramil, as far as I'm concerned, you've always been a good guy.. If you ever find yourself in the same town as me, I'll buy you a beer.

----------


## Eric C.

> Yeah, I'm not saying that at all. I'm trying to suss you out *ideologically*.. I don't have any way of knowing you are or ever were American... Coming from the stance that you DO have citizenship here, I'd narrow my questioning to whether you are a conservative who dislikes this protest, a cynic who doubts there is efficacy behind protest, or so on.... let's just take a step back here and remember that I'm trying to be civil and discuss ideology and not people. I have no intention of attacking you or anybody else. Who you are is not my topic and who I am is not your topic.. as for who I am *ideologically*, I am a liberal that borders on libertarian views, and a big supporter of change - and to address the definition of that word post-comments-by-people-who-didn't-want-obama-for-president, i'm defining "change" as ANYTHING that shakes up the current alignment of money and power in the country. That's my own personal def, not obama's. =) 
> Anti-American is sloganism in phrase-coining, just like Pro-Life.. Pro-Life is understood as meaning Against Abortion, but by strict definition, if I don't shoot my cat in the face, I'm Pro-Life, aren't I?  Anybody who says their opinion is "American" could excommunicate the counterpoint opinion with the appending of a simple "Anti-" and I won't insult your intelligence by saying that.

 It's not I'm a conservative or cynic, I just don't see a single reason to "shake up" the current market system. It's the standard if you will. Look at the third world and you'll see a possible alternative. Is that what you want? The truth is, for now the humanity is not physically able to build the heaven on earth as some dreaming people see it. But there are better and worse attempts, and what those shakers are up to, I think, is just get what's already been created down to a lower level. Not to mention this kind of event is always accompanied by terrible violence and bloodshed which makes it far more disgusting and inappropriate.

----------


## Eric C.

> the only part I disagree with is that I, for one, am not at all afraid of involving myself in the blood part of a revolution, and that I don't think the better choice would be to back down from the opportunity to do so

 Here it goes, how far can one go following implementation of his/her ideas, and what's meant by the "blood part"?

----------


## Sala_

> Originally Posted by Sala_   If their job skills are as vague as their message I'm not surprised they're unemployed..   I think you may have OD:d on Fox News.....

 I don't watch FOX News, but I do understand you are most likely to receive the desired solution to your protest if you provide the solution yourself.  Clearly the protesters do not have a solution either.  Wall Street does not intentionally want these people to be unemployed but the only clear message they are sending is "We are going to sit here and do nothing for as long as it takes" which is exactly how Wall Street will respond.

----------


## Crocodile

> Imagine those capitalists appear and surrender. What's next?

 +1
I don't believe in "the current situation is so unbearable that we should destroy it first and then we'll figure it out". Also, the notions like the social justice have been largely discredited throughout the 20th century. I think the protesters don't really know what they want. I would be grateful to be proved wrong.   

> but if they really want the capitalists to change something they ought to start hanging the wrong guys.

 You see, I would be very careful with that. First of all, I noticed that those who are proud of themselves they are not afraid of the bloodshed, hadn't really seen the blood of their own and their friends. And if you think that nobody would defend the "rotten bankers" or something like that, I would respectfully disagree. I would think many people would defend their current way of living as they know it, they would fight the chaos and would not believe the change would bring any real better.

----------


## fortheether

> I wish I lived as "poorly" as these "protesters" in USA. Demographics of New York City - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> And with incomes like that they are protesting??
> I do not earn even half of that - which car should I burn?

 Michael Moore's car.  Michael Moore Hates America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Scott

----------


## fortheether

> Yeah, I'm not saying that at all. I'm trying to suss you out *ideologically*.. I don't have any way of knowing you are or ever were American... Coming from the stance that you DO have citizenship here, I'd narrow my questioning to whether you are a conservative who dislikes this protest, a cynic who doubts there is efficacy behind protest, or so on.... let's just take a step back here and remember that I'm trying to be civil and discuss ideology and not people. I have no intention of attacking you or anybody else. Who you are is not my topic and who I am is not your topic.. as for who I am *ideologically*, I am a liberal that borders on libertarian views, and a big supporter of change - and to address the definition of that word post-comments-by-people-who-didn't-want-obama-for-president, i'm defining "change" as ANYTHING that shakes up the current alignment of money and power in the country. That's my own personal def, not obama's. =) 
> Anti-American is sloganism in phrase-coining, just like Pro-Life.. Pro-Life is understood as meaning Against Abortion, but by strict definition, if I don't shoot my cat in the face, I'm Pro-Life, aren't I?  Anybody who says their opinion is "American" could excommunicate the counterpoint opinion with the appending of a simple "Anti-" and I won't insult your intelligence by saying that.

  *I am a liberal that borders on libertarian views,* 
How do you do that? 
Scott

----------


## kidkboom

> *I am a liberal that borders on libertarian views,* 
> How do you do that? 
> Scott

 I have some liberal views, as pertains to WHAT government should do, if it's going to exist in the first place. And then, I have some libertarian views, about IF/WHEN government should be allowed to pry in this place or that, and what power/control they should have while they're there. 
As Steven Wright once quoted a cat as saying: "See? That's how you do that."

----------


## kidkboom

> Here it goes, how far can one go following implementation of his/her ideas, and what's meant by the "blood part"?

 Well, these are pretty heavy questions, but I respect where you're coming from. 
How far can one go in implementation of his or her own ideas?  It depends on what you believe of history, and what you feel we can draw from it.  Sun Tzu and Confucius, Caesar, Jesus, Machiavelli, Charlemagne, John the Baptist, Ghandhi, Ben Franklin, Tesla, Patton, and so on.. There are a lot of people to try to draw an answer from the records of.. "Far," is a fair but facetious answer, "but not everywhere:" . You can get a lot done on your own, but not everything. Most of the people on this list got to BE on this list not because of the solidarity of their own ideas, but because of their a) ability to communicate those ideas to others and b) the receptiveness TO those ideas found in the crowd at that time and place.  
It can be dangerous to say the right thing, if you have a), but not b).  I believe Michael Moore was more or less just that - a non-leader, who got it in his head to say the right thing [ "a)" ].. but to the wrong crowd, at the wrong time, and certainly (by choosing himself) with the wrong mouthpiece.  It's been said a good general must show that he can do all he asks his troops to do, and more.  Moore in that respect is a poor show, and even if the words appealed to the intellecutal facet of his audience, his appearance and self-respect level soured him against the INSTINCTUAL facet of his audience.  I knew from external research that he'd been pulling a lot of the right threads with his first movie.  But I didn't even need to get hit with the poison-pill campaign that followed;  after getting to know who he was, I didn't like him as a leader, and this made me intellectually struggle with listening to him, even as I knew a lot of what he was on about was dead-on. 
Beyond a certain point, I'd bet Ramil will be right, that without a decent leader (and the ACLU doesn't count as such), this movement will fizzle, like any army without a general.   
But just like the guy on the receiving end of Groucho Marx' "tutti frutti" grift, I know that we can't beat them at their own game;  we can't out-gamble a cheater with his own loaded dice.  So, as much as my moral heart might grind at the idea, SOMETIMES THE BEST WAY TO DEAL WITH A BUNCH OF CARD CHEATS IS TO THROW THE TABLE OVER, grab your money, and storm out.  Then, at least, when the table's picked back up, the guy doing the cleaning up thinks real hard about preventing such CHEATING next time a gambling outfit is set up. 
Since you can't show enough people at one time the insidiousness of the system of laws, bills, and bills-tacked-on-back-of-bills, and logrolling, and congressional/commercial/industrial hand-shaking that goes on, and still be dealing with the minds of THE MASSES instead of a handful of really bright individuals who are able to conceive so many moving parts at once, essentially you can't show everyone at the table that they're being cheated, until you get close enough to the cheater to draw the hidden aces from his sleeve.   
Sad as it is, that would require blood.  And if we had a leader capable of this sort of direction, I wouldn't be afraid to help achieve that end. 
But it's a bit of a moot point, because without a leader, we're really just as Ramil said, more of a danger than a help.  Wish it weren't so. 
Maybe a leader will come, pull the sword from the stone of wall street, and then we'll see.  It's not over until the fat lady sings.

----------


## Lampada



----------


## fortheether

From this site:  Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution 
In the section "October 15th Call to Action" 
It says in part: 
This has to stop!
We must usher in an era of democratic and economic justice.
We must change, we must evolve. 
 On October 15th the world will rise up as one and say, "We have had  enough! We are a new beginning, a global fight on on all fronts that  will usher in an era of shared prosperity, respect, mutual aid, and  dignity." 
** 
I can't help but to think that "economic justice" and "shared prosperity" means to some people that I should go to work and they should stay in their mom's basement and that I owe them something. 
Scott

----------


## Eric C.

> From this site:  Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution 
> In the section "October 15th Call to Action" 
> It says in part: 
> This has to stop!
> We must usher in an era of democratic and economic justice.
> We must change, we must evolve. 
>  On October 15th the world will rise up as one and say, "We have had  enough! We are a new beginning, a global fight on on all fronts that  will usher in an era of shared prosperity, respect, mutual aid, and  dignity." 
> ** 
> I can't help but to think that "economic justice" and "shared prosperity" means to some people that I should go to work and they should stay in their mom's basement and that I owe them something.  
> Scott

 Yeah, and this will end up in the way they'll force you to work, and watch you're not rich enough no matter how hard you work and not their "class enemy". We already have examples of such systems.

----------


## kidkboom

Frankly, I don't know what else I can say that could be constructive. The last two posts I've read were just descriptions of personal fears that were extracted from some pretty general language that certainly didn't target the concepts you two pulled out of them. 
The one thing that I can say is, through the wording, it is revealed that Scott feels he's doing okay fiscally. That's good news and I certainly won't want to detract from that. 
And given the lack of usefulness discussing political opinion in the face of what seems to be socio-psychological paranoia (basement? huh??) I'm going to save my effort on this topic for a later conversation where all parties are better informed - or, at least, less personally and emotionally tied to the issue.  
When I discuss my opinions about politics, I rarely factor my own _personal_ loss/gain into the equation - in my view, it would color my opinions and corrode my concept of what is just. I try to think more macro than this. This morning I've given a lot of thought to this... and I could conceive doing someone an emotional injury by accident, arguing politics when the recipient of my arguments is considering his personal finances. I'll stop for the sake of amicability, though I still support this movement. 
And honestly, when I hear the phrase "think that I owe them something" in a political discussion, it's a red flag for me, that the moment of debate has passed, and the moment of right-wing spitball throwing has begun. I leave this arena to Rush and friends.

----------


## fortheether

> Frankly, I don't know what else I can say that could be constructive. The last two posts I've read were just descriptions of personal fears that were extracted from some pretty general language that certainly didn't target the concepts you two pulled out of them. 
> The one thing that I can say is, through the wording, it is revealed that Scott feels he's doing okay fiscally. That's good news and I certainly won't want to detract from that. 
> And given the lack of usefulness discussing political opinion in the face of what seems to be socio-psychological paranoia (basement? huh??) I'm going to save my effort on this topic for a later conversation where all parties are better informed - or, at least, less personally and emotionally tied to the issue.  
> When I discuss my opinions about politics, I rarely factor my own _personal_ loss/gain into the equation - in my view, it would color my opinions and corrode my concept of what is just. I try to think more macro than this. This morning I've given a lot of thought to this... and I could conceive doing someone an emotional injury by accident, arguing politics when the recipient of my arguments is considering his personal finances. I'll stop for the sake of amicability, though I still support this movement. 
> And honestly, when I hear the phrase "think that I owe them something" in a political discussion, it's a red flag for me, that the moment of debate has passed, and the moment of right-wing spitball throwing has begun. I leave this arena to Rush and friends.

 Kidkboom, 
OK then can you spare your effort and explain what this movement is about?  What would have to happen for this movement to say we've accomplished our goals? 
As to your red flag the phrase "think that I owe them something" - how else do you redistribute the wealth as Barack Obama has stated he wants to do without someone owing someone else something (money) by force?   
Your comments about my finances are hilarious.  
And honestly, when I hear the phrase "I'm going to save my effort on this topic for a later conversation where  all parties are better informed - or, at least, less personally and  emotionally tied to the issue." please see me first two questions and please inform us.  
Scott

----------


## Crocodile

> And honestly, when I hear the phrase "think that I owe them something" in a political discussion, it's a red flag for me

 Please, don't take that personally, as that seemed to me being a very valid concern: Canadians &lsquo;Occupy&rsquo; Toronto, Montreal in Wall Street Protests - Businessweek   

> About 1,000 people gathered in the heart of Toronto’s financial district  beginning at 10 a.m. local time to *protest inequality and advocate  higher taxes for the wealthy*.

 One of my socially-oriented friends joined and later on said there were all kind of people there. Some of them were more sober and motivated and others just gathered to plainly smoke pot and hang around.  :: 
Also, the taxes in Toronto (a very Liberal city) are quite high, but apparently that's still not enough.  ::

----------


## fortheether

> Please, don't take that personally, as that seemed to me being a very valid concern: Canadians &lsquo;Occupy&rsquo; Toronto, Montreal in Wall Street Protests - Businessweek  
> One of my socially-oriented friends joined and later on said there were all kind of people there. Some of them were more sober and motivated and others just gathered to plainly smoke pot and hang around. 
> Also, the taxes in Toronto (a very Liberal city) are quite high, but apparently that's still not enough.

 The taxes (property tax) here in New Jersey are quite high also, but apparently that's still not enough. 
Scott

----------


## Crocodile

> The taxes (property tax) here in New Jersey are quite high also, but apparently that's still not enough. 
> Scott

 Well, it's not only the property tax, but the land transfer tax in Toronto is twice as high as anywhere else in Canada. Just for the sake of it. You can wake up the next day, just to find another $70 yearly tax because you have a car. Just something to cover their expenses with. The province of Ontario (which is Liberal) recently found that it would be very beneficial to tax *all* goods and services 13% (and it was just 5% or 8% on some goods and services before July 2010). Mostly, the new increase influenced the fuel costs, but, hey, the basement dwellers don't have to drive, do they? And so on. The Conservative federal government had been reducing their tax (from 7% down to 5%) and the Liberal provincial government is happy to cancel that positive economic effect because, hey, now people got some money available, so why not?  ::

----------


## Lampada



----------


## kidkboom

> Kidkboom, 
> OK then can you spare your effort and explain what this movement is about? What would have to happen for this movement to say we've accomplished our goals? 
> As to your red flag the phrase "think that I owe them something" - how else do you redistribute the wealth as Barack Obama has stated he wants to do without someone owing someone else something (money) by force?  
> Your comments about my finances are hilarious.  
> And honestly, when I hear the phrase "I'm going to save my effort on this topic for a later conversation where all parties are better informed - or, at least, less personally and emotionally tied to the issue." please see me first two questions and please inform us.  
> Scott

 It's clear to me that this is less about hearing what everyone has to say, and more about winning an argument, so I'll keep this concise, as i've already put three or four hours worth of work into this thread, and without much to show for it in the way of understanding each other. 
In my opinion this movement is about one purpose: to wake people up. Particularly, to wake up people who are saying things similar to what you're saying, and there are many. To respond to the occupy movement by saying: "you need to get a job and move out of mommy's bassement" seems to me to be as biased and ill-informed as telling black plantation slaves in the 1800s to "just get an education and get a real job."
I'm leery to do this again: I swore I wouldn't get in another political debate on MR.com after the last one broke down so similarly - what happens next is, I try to describe the nature of the problem by explaining the common situation a lot of these people are going through; and the token republicans respond by telling me that it doesn't fit the description of THEIR life. I explain that jobs are requisite of education, that public/free education is a joke and doesn't GET jobs, that only those with the familial money to purchase education get tracked toward those jobs; then the republican tokens tell me that they got there through a grant and really hard work. I try to explain that the entire plane of business in america is corrupted and closed-door'd, that new businesses stand literally no hope in the face of these giant corporations that have enshadowed the entire playing field - Apple and the dread pirate Jobs own the cell-tech world, ConAgra owns the lion's share of the world's DNA, DuPont and AP own the world's political and commercial opinions, and so on. Then the republicans tell me about their own small business which they started (skipping neatly over the business college education they got and how it was paid for, and the hand-shaking they had to do with the existing businesses, the unions, the city and state governments, the special interests etc) .. They paint a Joe the Plumber picture that's really an extreme minority, but because somebody stands there and says "This is Everyman" x% of the readership believe him. 
I'm saying all this to communicate to you that THERE IS A PROBLEM. Just because the problem has been sitting in one place for awhile, and hasn't moved, it doesn't make it a phantasm - it's real. The people on the OUTSIDE of wall street today don't have Roth IRAs, Harvard degrees, penthouses, pension plans, college savings for their kids and Gerber plans.. The people INSIDE of wall street do. (And it's lost 20-odd% value (oh no!) - that's nothing compared to the guy who lost 100% of his place to live in the same 'wave of recession'.)
At the end of the day, the problem is, capitalism is great, and I love the theory, but in practice - it's trumped by the injustice of a well-to-do individual munching on turkey legs while out the window, people are starving - that he wears italian sportcoats a few pockets shy of enough to hold his wallet, ipod, ipad bluetooth and blackberry; and the people outside keep their heads try with paper bags. The essence of the problem is, if there's no way toward success provided to a certain group of people, they're enslaved. And enslaved people WILL fight, and they'll be perfectly willing to die in the process, since it's often a better option to die fighting than to waste away unseen. It seems to me that if democrats would just accept the supine position of financial inferiority, and die off under the weight of their problems, that would be a fine solution for most republicans. if i had one, that would break my heart. 
Until those folks become willing to take the other half of the country on as their responsibility and comrades both, this is just going to be hatfield-and-mccoy stupidity.
For this movement to accomplish goals, I will refrain: it needs a LEADER. I would say it needs a politician willing to represent its goals, and then find that the mob moves to the voting polls in support of this individual; but we got burned last time. I've watched for 4 years as every cotton-pickin thing Obama tried to do got shut down by the Republican army, both through legitimate means, and sneaky ones. And it's a wicked pisser because the whole time I knew that at the end of the four years, this same group would look at Obama's failed attempts as defeats that HE caused, when we all know better, we all watched him battle with the other branches of government in a stalemate that amounted to "blacklist: Obama". These people are a group of moneyed american elitists who never woke up from the H3 dream of the 90s, who wore Bush's tenure as president like a mink coat to protect them against all the madness of the world around them after 9-11, like some collective Scarlett O'Hara coming down the recession stairs in a curtain. And as opposed to join with the rest of their countrymen in achieving A SOLUTION THAT'S WORKABLE FOR EVERYONE, they have spent years throwing the bodies of american youth at the fire of the middle east like some crazed religious sacrifical priests, maybe hoping all the while to dwindle the population numbers that thwart their financial success by demanding those last few coveted pennies be allotted to feeding people who need food, and such other trivial democrat-ish things. Certainly they were hoping that by falling on outdated and defunct 50s-era callbacks like "military tradition" and "family values" that they would somehow revert the messed up world we live in back to the era of riding high on fossil fuel and commandeered assets from third-world countries. Apparently the new definiton of recession is the Hamptons maintain fiscal stasis while Brooklyn starves to death - and it surprises everyone that there's dissent about this? 
But it's still a moot point.. We couldn't have a leader now - where would we get one? - unless this went from protest to riot, and then it would be silenced in one quick mortar-blast fired by the 33% of our country who serve in the military and have received military training that employs techniques picked right up out of hitler camps - the sleep deprivation, nutritional deprivation, followed by political indoctrination in a brain-stressed state - so that doesn't lead us anywhere good, either.
And if there was a gandhi in that crowd? well, you wouldn't notice him. you'd be busy assuming he lives in his parent's basement, and telling him to stop trying to get a buck off of you, and go get a haircut and a real job. 
Sigh... my sincerest apologies to Lampada for having to read through all my crud. feeling kind of guilty about that.

----------


## capecoddah

Short term profits killed the economy. The "Greed is good" mentality. 
Americans have a short term outlook and memory. Double digit profits don't happen every year and when they do, a collapse will follow (see housing). 
We used to make a lot of "things" here. Short term profit sent the manufacturing overseas. A less expensive product (then cheaper) = better profits but no one to buy the products.
Henry Ford might have been a a real SOB but he knew that paying his workers allowed them to buy his product and kept a stable an loyal workforce. 
I worked in plastics for 30 years, primarily shoes and other consumer goods. The footwear industry is gone. Not just a couple companies, all of it. A few bookkeepers, accountants and designers remain with upper management. All of the lower level production and assembly, mid level management, tooling (me) are gone and I doubt they will come back.  
I worked for years learning and developing my skills to make a quality product at a fair price. I used to make some things that can be done without like fishing lures and golf trinkets but they kept companies alive that also made packaging, printing, raw and manufacture materials.  
My resume is a graveyard of companies that were made to fail over a percentage point or two. 
See Is "Walmart Good for America?". Transcript | Is Wal-Mart Good For America? | FRONTLINE | PBS  
They did the same thing to Dr. Scholl's; one of my former clients. Collective Brands (Collective Brands, Inc.) sent all their manufacturing overseas. Not some, all. And took the profits. I could take you for a ride about an hour from my home and spend 3 hours showing you all the empty buildings where businesses once were.  
We gave it all away for cheap crap and short term profits. 
The stuff we get from China is no less expensive in terms of price but far greater in the long term. 
China is thinking long term. 
That's the root cause. Immediate gratification.

----------


## Crocodile

> I worked for years learning and developing my skills to make a quality product at a fair price. I used to make some things that can be done without like fishing lures and golf trinkets but they kept companies alive that also made packaging, printing, raw and manufacture materials.

 That is an excellent point! The totally 'unregulated' free market is fundamentally based on the idea of the 'agile workers', the ones who would move from one employment to another and acquire new skills fairly quickly. But the reality is that concept has limited applications. That's why we need some balance. We shouldn't let the extremes of either way (right or left) to rule the country. And especially we shouldn't let those who need blood for their social experiments to rule the country. Regardless of how passionate they are in their desire to hang the wrong guys. 
The "social justice" deals with the problem of slicing the pie more equally, but the Western-style capitalism deals [most of the time] with how to create a larger pie. But, there should be some limits and stoppers on that process to make it more humane.

----------


## fortheether

> It's clear to me that this is less about hearing what everyone has to say, and more about winning an argument, so I'll keep this concise, as i've already put three or four hours worth of work into this thread, and without much to show for it in the way of understanding each other. 
> In my opinion this movement is about one purpose: to wake people up. Particularly, to wake up people who are saying things similar to what you're saying, and there are many. To respond to the occupy movement by saying: "you need to get a job and move out of mommy's bassement" seems to me to be as biased and ill-informed as telling black plantation slaves in the 1800s to "just get an education and get a real job."
> I'm leery to do this again: I swore I wouldn't get in another political debate on MR.com after the last one broke down so similarly - what happens next is, I try to describe the nature of the problem by explaining the common situation a lot of these people are going through; and the token republicans respond by telling me that it doesn't fit the description of THEIR life. I explain that jobs are requisite of education, that public/free education is a joke and doesn't GET jobs, that only those with the familial money to purchase education get tracked toward those jobs; then the republican tokens tell me that they got there through a grant and really hard work. I try to explain that the entire plane of business in america is corrupted and closed-door'd, that new businesses stand literally no hope in the face of these giant corporations that have enshadowed the entire playing field - Apple and the dread pirate Jobs own the cell-tech world, ConAgra owns the lion's share of the world's DNA, DuPont and AP own the world's political and commercial opinions, and so on. Then the republicans tell me about their own small business which they started (skipping neatly over the business college education they got and how it was paid for, and the hand-shaking they had to do with the existing businesses, the unions, the city and state governments, the special interests etc) .. They paint a Joe the Plumber picture that's really an extreme minority, but because somebody stands there and says "This is Everyman" x% of the readership believe him. 
> I'm saying all this to communicate to you that THERE IS A PROBLEM. Just because the problem has been sitting in one place for awhile, and hasn't moved, it doesn't make it a phantasm - it's real. The people on the OUTSIDE of wall street today don't have Roth IRAs, Harvard degrees, penthouses, pension plans, college savings for their kids and Gerber plans.. The people INSIDE of wall street do. (And it's lost 20-odd% value (oh no!) - that's nothing compared to the guy who lost 100% of his place to live in the same 'wave of recession'.)
> At the end of the day, the problem is, capitalism is great, and I love the theory, but in practice - it's trumped by the injustice of a well-to-do individual munching on turkey legs while out the window, people are starving - that he wears italian sportcoats a few pockets shy of enough to hold his wallet, ipod, ipad bluetooth and blackberry; and the people outside keep their heads try with paper bags. The essence of the problem is, if there's no way toward success provided to a certain group of people, they're enslaved. And enslaved people WILL fight, and they'll be perfectly willing to die in the process, since it's often a better option to die fighting than to waste away unseen. It seems to me that if democrats would just accept the supine position of financial inferiority, and die off under the weight of their problems, that would be a fine solution for most republicans. if i had one, that would break my heart. 
> Until those folks become willing to take the other half of the country on as their responsibility and comrades both, this is just going to be hatfield-and-mccoy stupidity.
> For this movement to accomplish goals, I will refrain: it needs a LEADER. I would say it needs a politician willing to represent its goals, and then find that the mob moves to the voting polls in support of this individual; but we got burned last time. I've watched for 4 years as every cotton-pickin thing Obama tried to do got shut down by the Republican army, both through legitimate means, and sneaky ones. And it's a wicked pisser because the whole time I knew that at the end of the four years, this same group would look at Obama's failed attempts as defeats that HE caused, when we all know better, we all watched him battle with the other branches of government in a stalemate that amounted to "blacklist: Obama". These people are a group of moneyed american elitists who never woke up from the H3 dream of the 90s, who wore Bush's tenure as president like a mink coat to protect them against all the madness of the world around them after 9-11, like some collective Scarlett O'Hara coming down the recession stairs in a curtain. And as opposed to join with the rest of their countrymen in achieving A SOLUTION THAT'S WORKABLE FOR EVERYONE, they have spent years throwing the bodies of american youth at the fire of the middle east like some crazed religious sacrifical priests, maybe hoping all the while to dwindle the population numbers that thwart their financial success by demanding those last few coveted pennies be allotted to feeding people who need food, and such other trivial democrat-ish things. Certainly they were hoping that by falling on outdated and defunct 50s-era callbacks like "military tradition" and "family values" that they would somehow revert the messed up world we live in back to the era of riding high on fossil fuel and commandeered assets from third-world countries. Apparently the new definiton of recession is the Hamptons maintain fiscal stasis while Brooklyn starves to death - and it surprises everyone that there's dissent about this? 
> But it's still a moot point.. We couldn't have a leader now - where would we get one? - unless this went from protest to riot, and then it would be silenced in one quick mortar-blast fired by the 33% of our country who serve in the military and have received military training that employs techniques picked right up out of hitler camps - the sleep deprivation, nutritional deprivation, followed by political indoctrination in a brain-stressed state - so that doesn't lead us anywhere good, either.
> And if there was a gandhi in that crowd? well, you wouldn't notice him. you'd be busy assuming he lives in his parent's basement, and telling him to stop trying to get a buck off of you, and go get a haircut and a real job. 
> Sigh... my sincerest apologies to Lampada for having to read through all my crud. feeling kind of guilty about that.

 I don't want an argument but when you say this: 
"I've watched for 4 years as every cotton-pickin thing Obama tried to do  got shut down by the Republican army, both through legitimate means, and  sneaky ones."  
I have to reply.  BTW - I'm a registered independent.  The makeup of congress for the first 1 year and about 9 months of Obama's presidency was democratic.  Both houses.  Kind of means Obama was thorted by democrats, eh?  
From:  111th United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
Major events  January 2009: Two Senate seats were disputed when the Congress convened: An appointment dispute over the Illinois seat vacated by President Barack Obama arose following Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's alleged solicitation of bribes in exchange for an appointment to the Senate. Roland Burris (D) was appointed to the seat on December 31, 2008, his credentials were accepted on January 12, 2009, and he was sworn in to office on January 15, 2009.An election dispute over the Minnesota seat previously held by Norm Coleman (R), between Coleman and challenger Al Franken (D), was decided in late June 2009 in favor of Franken,[6] who was sworn in on July 7, 2009.[7]January 8, 2009: Joint session counted the Electoral College votes of the 2008 presidential election.[8]January 20, 2009: Inauguration of President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.September 9, 2009: President Obama addressed a joint session of Congress to promote health care reform, which Representative Joe Wilson (R) interrupted by shouting at the President.January 25, 2010: 2010 State of the Union AddressApril 20, 2010: Deepwater Horizon oil spillNovember 2, 2010: 2010 general elections, in which Republicans regained control of the House while the Democrats remained in control of the Senate. 
I'm going to read this thread's earlier posts as until recently I didn't care what the Occupiers are about.  I became interested when Obama made positive statement's about this movement.   I wonder why he made fun of the tea party but suspect the Occupiers also agree with him - yea all that less government and freedom talk. 
Kidkboom - thank's for replying and I'll do some reading about this. 
Scott

----------


## fortheether

> Well, it's not only the property tax, but the land transfer tax in Toronto is twice as high as anywhere else in Canada. Just for the sake of it. You can wake up the next day, just to find another $70 yearly tax because you have a car. Just something to cover their expenses with. The province of Ontario (which is Liberal) recently found that it would be very beneficial to tax *all* goods and services 13% (and it was just 5% or 8% on some goods and services before July 2010). Mostly, the new increase influenced the fuel costs, but, hey, the basement dwellers don't have to drive, do they? And so on. The Conservative federal government had been reducing their tax (from 7% down to 5%) and the Liberal provincial government is happy to cancel that positive economic effect because, hey, now people got some money available, so why not?

  *Mostly, the new increase influenced the fuel costs, but, hey, the basement dwellers don't have to drive, do they?*  
That's so funny ::  
Isn't it funny that some people from big cities that can use public transportation want everyone else to drive less.   
Scott

----------


## Seraph

Bill Black: #OccupyWallStreet A Counter to White-Collar Fraud | AmpedStatus.
. AmpedStatus - Knowledge Is Power.

----------


## fortheether

> It's clear to me that this is less about hearing what everyone has to say, and more about winning an argument, so I'll keep this concise, as i've already put three or four hours worth of work into this thread, and without much to show for it in the way of understanding each other. 
> In my opinion this movement is about one purpose: to wake people up. Particularly, to wake up people who are saying things similar to what you're saying, and there are many. To respond to the occupy movement by saying: "you need to get a job and move out of mommy's bassement" seems to me to be as biased and ill-informed as telling black plantation slaves in the 1800s to "just get an education and get a real job."
> I'm leery to do this again: I swore I wouldn't get in another political debate on MR.com after the last one broke down so similarly - what happens next is, I try to describe the nature of the problem by explaining the common situation a lot of these people are going through; and the token republicans respond by telling me that it doesn't fit the description of THEIR life. I explain that jobs are requisite of education, that public/free education is a joke and doesn't GET jobs, that only those with the familial money to purchase education get tracked toward those jobs; then the republican tokens tell me that they got there through a grant and really hard work. I try to explain that the entire plane of business in america is corrupted and closed-door'd, that new businesses stand literally no hope in the face of these giant corporations that have enshadowed the entire playing field - Apple and the dread pirate Jobs own the cell-tech world, ConAgra owns the lion's share of the world's DNA, DuPont and AP own the world's political and commercial opinions, and so on. Then the republicans tell me about their own small business which they started (skipping neatly over the business college education they got and how it was paid for, and the hand-shaking they had to do with the existing businesses, the unions, the city and state governments, the special interests etc) .. They paint a Joe the Plumber picture that's really an extreme minority, but because somebody stands there and says "This is Everyman" x% of the readership believe him. 
> I'm saying all this to communicate to you that THERE IS A PROBLEM. Just because the problem has been sitting in one place for awhile, and hasn't moved, it doesn't make it a phantasm - it's real. The people on the OUTSIDE of wall street today don't have Roth IRAs, Harvard degrees, penthouses, pension plans, college savings for their kids and Gerber plans.. The people INSIDE of wall street do. (And it's lost 20-odd% value (oh no!) - that's nothing compared to the guy who lost 100% of his place to live in the same 'wave of recession'.)
> At the end of the day, the problem is, capitalism is great, and I love the theory, but in practice - it's trumped by the injustice of a well-to-do individual munching on turkey legs while out the window, people are starving - that he wears italian sportcoats a few pockets shy of enough to hold his wallet, ipod, ipad bluetooth and blackberry; and the people outside keep their heads try with paper bags. The essence of the problem is, if there's no way toward success provided to a certain group of people, they're enslaved. And enslaved people WILL fight, and they'll be perfectly willing to die in the process, since it's often a better option to die fighting than to waste away unseen. It seems to me that if democrats would just accept the supine position of financial inferiority, and die off under the weight of their problems, that would be a fine solution for most republicans. if i had one, that would break my heart. 
> Until those folks become willing to take the other half of the country on as their responsibility and comrades both, this is just going to be hatfield-and-mccoy stupidity.
> For this movement to accomplish goals, I will refrain: it needs a LEADER. I would say it needs a politician willing to represent its goals, and then find that the mob moves to the voting polls in support of this individual; but we got burned last time. I've watched for 4 years as every cotton-pickin thing Obama tried to do got shut down by the Republican army, both through legitimate means, and sneaky ones. And it's a wicked pisser because the whole time I knew that at the end of the four years, this same group would look at Obama's failed attempts as defeats that HE caused, when we all know better, we all watched him battle with the other branches of government in a stalemate that amounted to "blacklist: Obama". These people are a group of moneyed american elitists who never woke up from the H3 dream of the 90s, who wore Bush's tenure as president like a mink coat to protect them against all the madness of the world around them after 9-11, like some collective Scarlett O'Hara coming down the recession stairs in a curtain. And as opposed to join with the rest of their countrymen in achieving A SOLUTION THAT'S WORKABLE FOR EVERYONE, they have spent years throwing the bodies of american youth at the fire of the middle east like some crazed religious sacrifical priests, maybe hoping all the while to dwindle the population numbers that thwart their financial success by demanding those last few coveted pennies be allotted to feeding people who need food, and such other trivial democrat-ish things. Certainly they were hoping that by falling on outdated and defunct 50s-era callbacks like "military tradition" and "family values" that they would somehow revert the messed up world we live in back to the era of riding high on fossil fuel and commandeered assets from third-world countries. Apparently the new definiton of recession is the Hamptons maintain fiscal stasis while Brooklyn starves to death - and it surprises everyone that there's dissent about this? 
> But it's still a moot point.. We couldn't have a leader now - where would we get one? - unless this went from protest to riot, and then it would be silenced in one quick mortar-blast fired by the 33% of our country who serve in the military and have received military training that employs techniques picked right up out of hitler camps - the sleep deprivation, nutritional deprivation, followed by political indoctrination in a brain-stressed state - so that doesn't lead us anywhere good, either.
> And if there was a gandhi in that crowd? well, you wouldn't notice him. you'd be busy assuming he lives in his parent's basement, and telling him to stop trying to get a buck off of you, and go get a haircut and a real job. 
> Sigh... my sincerest apologies to Lampada for having to read through all my crud. feeling kind of guilty about that.

 Let's help you find a leader.  If you ran an ad on Craig's list for a leader, what would it say?   
Scott

----------


## Crocodile

> That we should get jobs now [...]

 That's all nice, but HOW? WHO would create the jobs? The first option is - the entrepreneurs. The second option - the government.  
The first option means someone should make a profit out of those people in the mob as well as bear all the risks of dealing with them. With all the due respect, only certain part of that crowd would qualify.  
The second option means the rest of the public (i.e. not those who participate in the Wall Street gathering) should bear the risks and try to make profit (or know they would not make any profit) by doing what the private entrepreneurs consider too risky. Why would the rest of the public do that? Only to help those in need, correct? But, what fundamental difference would it make comparing with presently keeping those guys on relief? For the to-be employees that would obviously bring in more money and self-respect, but for the rest of the public that would equally be more expensive. Unless, of course, that the new enterprises would make a profit. But, what chance do have to make a profit? I'm inclined to say the chances are pretty slim. Otherwise, the private investment groups (who are constantly looking for the new ways of making money) would pick it up. A part of their job is to evaluate risks. So, that means the public is pushed forcefully into an enterprise which is likely to fail and pay more INDIRECTLY to get those people out of their basements. Speaking of the fair, is that fair?  
Clearly, the CEOs are overpaid. Sure thing. So, become a CEO would you? Oh, it's difficult? Too much competition with lots of risks? Being legally liable to just about any word or action? Not a problem, but why to make those CEOs to be responsible for all the failures? Ok, so the recent recession was due to the banks handing out money with no diligent verification of income. Sure, but someone was bought into the idea of owning a property without the real ability to pay for it. And who that was? The CEOs? No. The bankers? No. It was the general public who took on a risky enterprise and failed. So, why not to gather around a corner of Elm Street and Pine Avenue and start protesting that the owners of those homes took too much risk and/or knowingly overpaid for their properties in an auction and let the prices go loose?  ::  
Fair is fair, right?

----------


## fortheether

> Let's help you find a leader.  If you ran an ad on Craig's list for a leader, what would it say?   
> Scott

 It's seems others are not clear in the goals either:  Most Americans Uncertain About "Occupy Wall Street" Goals  
Scott

----------


## Crocodile

> It's seems others are not clear in the goals either

 Well-well, I guess the goal is pretty clear: to get the steam out of the tank. It's all about the banks conspiracy, you know...  ::

----------


## fortheether

You best get a leader and goals ASAP - I watched about 15 minutes of this:  OccupyPhiladelphia - live streaming video powered by Livestream 
and most of the speakers are about their funding for school.  Telling moment, when a Ron Paul supporter spoke and gave a time frame that a voter has to be registered in order to vote for Ron Paul.  The very next speaker said if you had a brain that you wouldn't vote for Ron Paul - there was lot's of clapping for that speaker.   Who's the name callers? 
Scott

----------


## fortheether

If they're against wall street, they support who for president?  Obama’s raised more money for Democrats from Wall Street donors than all Republican candidates combined  
Interesting, eh? 
Scott

----------


## kidkboom

> You best get a leader and goals ASAP - I watched about 15 minutes of this:  OccupyPhiladelphia - live streaming video powered by Livestream 
> and most of the speakers are about their funding for school. Telling moment, when a Ron Paul supporter spoke and gave a time frame that a voter has to be registered in order to vote for Ron Paul. The very next speaker said if you had a brain that you wouldn't vote for Ron Paul - there was lot's of clapping for that speaker. Who's the name callers? 
> Scott

 I'm not heading the movement, nor am I directly involved; I live in Arizona, about as far as you can get from NY stateside. I simply feel some sympathy and support toward the movement. That sentiment seems to be largely mixed in the world right now. 
You can direct your advice to their official website, where their leaders or whatever can be found.. Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution 
Thanks for engaging me in debate and being willing to research all this info and share it with me. I appreciate it and I wish you the very best of luck.

----------


## fortheether

> I'm not heading the movement, nor am I directly involved; I live in Arizona, about as far as you can get from NY stateside. I simply feel some sympathy and support toward the movement. That sentiment seems to be largely mixed in the world right now. 
> You can direct your advice to their official website, where their leaders or whatever can be found.. Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution 
> Thanks for engaging me in debate and being willing to research all this info and share it with me. I appreciate it and I wish you the very best of luck.

 I asked you questions because you said you support the movement.  Here's feeds of a bunch of them:  OccupyStream - All Occupy Wall Street Streams and IRC - Live Revolution 
Thank you for your information.  Enjoy and the best of luck to you too. 
Scott

----------


## Seraph



----------


## capecoddah

*Glass–Steagall Act*Glass–Steagall Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
A  good place  to start.

----------


## Seraph

"Since 1991 the CFTC has given secret exemptions from hedging regulations  to 19 major banks and market participants, allowing them to accumulate  essentially unlimited positions. [10]  These exemptions were originally given in secret, coming to light only  as the 2008 financial crisis unfolded and Congress requested information  on market participants" Commodity Futures Trading Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Hanna

So really, what everyone is saying here is that people in the USA and Western Europe who are feeling oppressed and cheated should not have the same opportunity to protest as others, just because these countries are not considered by Western media to be evil dictatorships. 
Obviously the Americans who started the protest feel seriously wronged... their living standard is bad ant they have no opportunities, all the while the Fed is supporting greedy banks and financing wars that are of no benefit to regular citizens...  
SHould they not have the right to express their views on that?
Seems to me, more people have been arrested in the US over this, than in the recent demos in Belarus, just as a comparison. Both Belarussians, Syrians, Europeans and Americans should be able to have a peaceful demonstration if they want.  
In countries like Belarus, both the US and some European countries support the opposition financially and with lots of material and leadership training.  
Imagine if China, Russia or someone else started pouring money over the Wall Street occupiers... 
I just want the little neo-con gang here (you know who you are) to have that perspective.

----------


## Basil77

Meanwhile, WWIII is closer and closer:  

> In post-Soviet Tajikistan, for example, a predominately Muslim country, *the  government says it is concerned about the threat from radical Islam. It  now has a "parenting" law that restricts the ability of young people  under the age of 18 to attend mosques. There also is a campaign against  women wearing the hijab and men growing beards*. 
> A senior State Department official says the United States is concerned. 
> "*What  we said to our friends in the (Tajik) government is that these kinds of  actions, first of all, undercut the ability of people to worship -  their freedom to worship*. But they also risk driving a lot of people underground and basically can be destabilizing," the official said.  Could Central Asia have an 'Arab Spring?' – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs 
> So basically State Department says that *there should not be barriers for people to become as radical islamic as they want*. Do you know why? *Because  the US rulers organize the creation of a large radical islamic state in  Northern Africa, Middle East & Central Asia which would start World  War 3 in the name of Allah & which would help the US to get out of  the debt crisis they are in. Again.* About the U.S. Economy During WWII | eHow.com The Post War Economy: 1945-1960

 For Libya job is done already: *New Libya to introduce 'radical Islamic law'.* http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...lamic-law.html

----------


## fortheether

> So really, what everyone is saying here is that people in the USA and Western Europe who are feeling oppressed and cheated should not have the same opportunity to protest as others, just because these countries are not considered by Western media to be evil dictatorships. 
> Obviously the Americans who started the protest feel seriously wronged... their living standard is bad ant they have no opportunities, all the while the Fed is supporting greedy banks and financing wars that are of no benefit to regular citizens...  
> SHould they not have the right to express their views on that?
> Seems to me, more people have been arrested in the US over this, than in the recent demos in Belarus, just as a comparison. Both Belarussians, Syrians, Europeans and Americans should be able to have a peaceful demonstration if they want.  
> In countries like Belarus, both the US and some European countries support the opposition financially and with lots of material and leadership training.  
> Imagine if China, Russia or someone else started pouring money over the Wall Street occupiers... 
> I just want the little neo-con gang here (you know who you are) to have that perspective.

 
I'm not clear where in this chain anyone said that the protestors cannot protest.  I live in America - I totally support their right to protest. 
Scott

----------


## Crocodile

> So basically State Department says that *there should not be barriers for people to become as radical islamic as they want*. Do you know why? *Because   the US rulers organize the creation of a large radical islamic state  in  Northern Africa, Middle East & Central Asia which would start  World  War 3 in the name of Allah & which would help the US to get  out of  the debt crisis they are in. Again.*

 That's just a thick trolling, isn't it?  ::

----------


## fortheether

*Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world 		 		*Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist 
Scott

----------


## Ramil

> *Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world                 *   Revealed – the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist 
> Scott

 An interesting quote: _"If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates."_ 
Now, when they've finally discovered it, what are they going to do about it?   _Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy. Glattfelder says we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs. Sugihara says the analysis suggests one possible solution: firms should be taxed for excess interconnectivity to discourage this risk._ 
Taxation won't help with TNCs - they simply move their assets to a more tax-friendly country. And I'm even ready to believe that: _ the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. "Such structures are common in nature," says Sugihara._ 
The question remains - the whole world's economy rotates around these 1500 companies. How can anyone de-centralize it? What must be done? Or we should all agree and accept the fact that our lives and the lives of our children will depend on this limited number of companies? Now and forever?

----------


## fortheether

*OWS in Chicago (a photo essay)*Blog: OWS in Chicago (a photo essay) 
Scott

----------


## Seraph

> _the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. "Such structures are common in nature," says Sugihara._

 In the connectivity analysis, it seems to me that the researchers have done a deductive work, that can be verified.  This is information. 
In the other conclusion, there is no support either way, nor in any way, no evidence for any conclusion about intentions, motivations, conspiracies, or anything of that sort.  It is disinformation.  Proving or disproving intention or motivation requires different types of evidence than the authors have presented.

----------


## Throbert McGee

> 

 
♪♫ "Nobody shouts or talks too loud,
Not in my castle on a cloud..." ♪♫     
Seriously, the "snapshot" of the OWS chick getting arrested has to be the most stagiest-est staged photo in the history of staged photos...  ::

----------


## Ramil

> Seriously, the "snapshot" of the OWS chick getting arrested has to be the most stagiest-est staged photo in the history of staged photos...

 +1 Though I have to admit that they've picked up a fine looking chick. The stupid cop's face in the background adds something too.  Occupy Wall Street - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
People, have care:  

> On October 6, Brookfield Office Properties, which owns Zuccotti Park, issued a statement that "Sanitation is a growing concern... Normally the park is cleaned and inspected every weeknight[, but] because the protesters refuse to cooperate ... the park has not been cleaned since Friday, September 16 and as a result, sanitary conditions have reached unacceptable levels."

 McDonald's got what it deserves  ::   

> Many protesters have taken to using the bathrooms of nearby business establishments; one nearby McDonald's restaurant "has become the movement's unofficial latrine"

 And this is rather symbolic, isn't it?  

> Demonstrators at Wall Street have complained of thefts of assorted items such as cameras, phones, and laptops. Thieves also stole $2500 of donations that were stored in a makeshift kitchen.

----------


## nulle

> Demonstrators at Wall Street have complained of thefts of assorted items  such as cameras, phones, and laptops. Thieves also stole $2500 of  donations that were stored in a makeshift kitchen.

 Which are all made by evil corporations:  ::

----------


## fortheether

Behind the curtain he's in the 1%?   OWS Supporter Michael Moore Lies on National Television About His Wealth: No I'm Not Worth Millions | NewsBusters.org 
Scott

----------


## Crocodile

I'm telling you, it's always about the conspiracy. The evil corporations wanted to get some extra steam out of the tank, so they organized these "protests" with no goal and no leader to get people tired, disillusioned, and distracted from the real fight for their rights. That was clearly masterminded by the CIA/FBI who serve the evil government sponsored by the evil corporations. The CIA/FBI had now clearly identified those who surfaced and started watching them more closely (aka the Big Brother [TM]).  ::  
PEOPLE! DON'T BE THE TEAMMATES OF THE CIA/FBI/EVIL CORPORATIONS! DON'T ATTEND THE WALL STREET GATHERINGS! STAY UNDERCOVER AND PREPARE FOR THE REAL FIGHT AGAINST THE CAPITALISM!  ::  
Here's what you can do (YES, UNITED WE CAN!): 
A war causes Revolution. Do steps that could cause a war. For example: help your local terrorists freedom fighters to organize some devastating acts of terror justice to the capitalistic system of exploitation in your local neighborhood. Let the fallen Two Towers of Evil in New York commemorate the brightest example of how a country could be pushed into a war which caused devastating effects to its economy Exploitation System. Salute the unnamed heroes who didn't go to the Wall Street puppet show, but acted! You could be one of them and make a real difference to the world history.  ::  
LIBERTY!111 EQUALITY!1111 FRATERNITY!111111 _
"Arise, you prisoners of starvation!
Arise, you wretched of the earth!
For justice thunders condemnation:
A better world's in birth!
No more tradition's chains shall bind us,
Arise you slaves, no more in thrall!
The earth shall rise on new foundations:
We have been nought, we shall be all!
  'Tis the final conflict,
  Let each stand in his place.
  The international soviet
  Shall be the human race
  'Tis the final conflict,
  Let each stand in his place.
  The international working class
  Shall be the human race"_

----------


## Ramil

Крокодил, в России тебя бы упекли по 282-й ст.  ::  
Кстати, у нас и само понятие классовой борьбы тоже уже под этой статьёй - Медвед разъяснил непонятливым. Ждём "закрытия" КПРФ. 
BTW, I googled, it appears USA still have an its own Communist party. Do they participate in OWS?

----------


## kidkboom

> Which are all made by evil corporations:

 
Ever met someone who was born without the help of branded Durable Medical Equipment? Ever met someone who's baby derriere never touched the synthetic surface of some Huggies? Ever met someone who was able to grow in their human teeth without ingesting some Gerber baby food or formula? Have you ever met someone whose family made all their own clothes, grew their own food, maintained their own home, didn't deal with landlords, taxmen, utility companies, building and territorial authorities?  
It's great that you can draw arrows to protesters to try to undermine their message.. But have you ever really met one person who didn't live in The Matrix? Mind you, you're on a computer right now; within twenty feet of you are names like Apple, Pentium, MSI, and the like. The plastic over every key you strike on your keyboard was tooled in a vacuous-vaulted factory, out of molten synthetic petroleum plastic, by a huge company with a huge name. 
I'm sorry, but do the conservatives and those who criticize this movement live entirely off-the-grid, and don't feed into these monsters themselves? 
No, of course not. The difference is, one group is standing up and trying to make it known that this is not a state (the state of corporate enslavement) that we wish to help maintain. 
The naysayers, on the other hand, offer us the following solution to our problems: 
...

----------


## Ramil

kidkboom, you misunderstand. Me at least. I do not mock these people. After all, if they are there they had some reason to be there. Even if that reason was simply to have some fun - they've a right to do so. But what they miss is the fact that if their demands are satisfied their lives would really turn to worse. USA's a very rich country. Yes, most of its wealth is concentrated in the hands of those from that 1 percent, but still even the unemployed get some allowance (and its sheer size would make a peasant in some third-world country really really happy), your police is not corrupt, well not as much as the police in my country. You have some social programs which help the poor. You have probably the lowest interest rate for loans in the world, et cetera, et cetera. Yes, America is robbing the rest of the world for profits, that's a sad fact, but these people - what will happen to them if all of the above disappears? Whould they find absolute chaos better? 
I simply cannot imagine how these protests can help anybody with anything. It's a choice between things being bad as they are now and things being far worse. This mob, forgive me saying so, is uncapable of running the country. They're even uncapable of cleaning their own shit from the park.

----------


## fortheether

> Ever met someone who was born without the help of branded Durable Medical Equipment? Ever met someone who's baby derriere never touched the synthetic surface of some Huggies? Ever met someone who was able to grow in their human teeth without ingesting some Gerber baby food or formula? Have you ever met someone whose family made all their own clothes, grew their own food, maintained their own home, didn't deal with landlords, taxmen, utility companies, building and territorial authorities?  
> It's great that you can draw arrows to protesters to try to undermine their message.. But have you ever really met one person who didn't live in The Matrix? Mind you, you're on a computer right now; within twenty feet of you are names like Apple, Pentium, MSI, and the like. The plastic over every key you strike on your keyboard was tooled in a vacuous-vaulted factory, out of molten synthetic petroleum plastic, by a huge company with a huge name. 
> I'm sorry, but do the conservatives and those who criticize this movement live entirely off-the-grid, and don't feed into these monsters themselves? 
> No, of course not. The difference is, one group is standing up and trying to make it known that this is not a state (the state of corporate enslavement) that we wish to help maintain. 
> The naysayers, on the other hand, offer us the following solution to our problems: 
> ...

 
Shouldn't you ask yourself why you too also feed into the monster "within twenty feet of you are names like Apple, Pentium, MSI, and the  like. The plastic over every key you strike on your keyboard was tooled  in a vacuous-vaulted factory, out of molten synthetic petroleum plastic,  by a huge company with a huge name." that you criticize?   
What is the Occupiers solution for not maintaining the state of corporate enslavement?  Standing in a park?  Hoping that their student loans will be excused?  
I do offer you a solution - drop out.  Get a piece of land and farm it.  OK? 
As for the USA, I think that term limits for congress (both houses) would be a big help to solve the corruption that is devastating the country.   
Scott

----------


## kidkboom

> Shouldn't you ask yourself why you too also feed into the monster "within twenty feet of you are names like Apple, Pentium, MSI, and the like. The plastic over every key you strike on your keyboard was tooled in a vacuous-vaulted factory, out of molten synthetic petroleum plastic, by a huge company with a huge name." that you criticize?  
> What is the Occupiers solution for not maintaining the state of corporate enslavement? Standing in a park? Hoping that their student loans will be excused?  
> I do offer you a solution - drop out. Get a piece of land and farm it. OK? 
> As for the USA, I think that term limits for congress (both houses) would be a big help to solve the corruption that is devastating the country.  
> Scott

 I do ask myself why I feed into the monster. I willingly step out of just about every sphere of these monsters that I can. I don't own a TV, and I've never owned a car, and I got rid of my cell phone years ago. And actually, a friend of mine and I are shopping for a bit of land right now.. though the obstacles that the authorities place in the way are numerous and staggering. 
Scott, I agree with you about the term limits, that this would be an improvement. I personally think a more drastic change needs to happen, however, if we're going to stain the paper with ink at this point in history, and not merely a mark of graphite that the next several years will wear off.  
Standing in a park, talking about change without an exact plan.. Sounds familiar. I think something like that once happened at a concert on farmland in New York in the 60s. The authorities were pissed then, too, but they didn't have the eggs to start shooting people, like they did Scott Olsen. No, back then, they just flew over in helicopters.. As Tom Robbins once said, "We used to have a crime problem in this country. Now we have a cop problem in this country."  
Of course, in the long run, the helicopters weren't enough.. internal intelligence services had to introduce foreign heroin to the domestic market in large enough amounts to poison-pill the entire generation of those we now know as "hippies".. this cleared the way for the coming of the warmongering 80s and the warpath of ronald rayguns.. 
So, how does this one end up? Instead of getting a small % of support from the general populace, we find our fellow man so jaded as to brush us off *completely*, and help to remove any _chance_ we have of making a change?  
If the occupy folks can't convince you, one average American, that they have a reason to be upset.. what chance do any of us have to change things? 
Do you really think limiting congressional terms will make tomorrow any different from yesterday? Because to me, it feels like plugging the Hoover dam with a piece of gum..

----------


## Hanna

I am in London temporarily. Here, the occupiers have taken over a square that is right outside St Paul's cathedral which is one of Anglican christianity's main churches. The reason they chose that particular space is because it is right outside the London Stock Exchange.  
This set off an interesting conflict: The church is split about what to do with the protesters. Apparently they are losing USD 35 000 per day in lost ticket sales (there is an entrance fee for this particular cathedral....) That is because they have decided they can't allow visitors to the cathedral while the protesters are outside (for "health and safety" reasons).  
The protestors have started up a regular little tent city outside St Pauls. Media and the bishops are mainly screaming for the "riff-raff" to stop blocking the cathedral for tourists and decent people. There is a media campaign to smear the protestors in every imaginable way.  
While most regular people who are aware of what the bankers have been up to.... are behind the protesters (at least people I know). 
But the question is *"What would Jesus do?"*
I am guessing from examples like Jesus throwing out the the money changers from the temple, and the things that Jesus said about rich people... that he would in fact support the protesters and be willing for them to stay outside the church! They are serving Mammon for sure - idol worship..... That's my interpretation anyway.  
One minister at St Pauls had the same opinion and quit his job because he was upset about the Church's position in this question. He felt like the Church ought to support the protestors, or at least remain neutral. 
A brave and principled man! 
This also opens the interesting question about how involved religion 
should be with politics. 
The "Russia Today"  TV channel has really good coverage of the Wall Street situation - for entertainment and some challenging ideas, check the "Keiser Report" program.

----------


## Eric C.

I just wonder how a serious grown-up woman that does have certain skills, a good job and live in welfare could say any BS like this. You know what? Take out one protester, teach him/her what you can do, recommend him/her to your boss as your replacement, then take his/her poster and leave for the various Wall Street crowds. That's quite the way to satisfy everyone, I guess.

----------


## Lampada

> I just wonder how a serious grown-up woman that does have certain skills, a good job and live in welfare could say any BS like this. You know what? Take out one protester, teach him/her what you can do, recommend him/her to your boss as your replacement, then take his/her poster and leave for the various Wall Street crowds. That's quite the way to satisfy everyone, I guess.

 Why wouldn't you let Hanna stay the way she is (fair and wonderful) and refrain from giving her unsolicited suggestions.  It seems that you just can't help but get personal.  There  is a rule against it, you know.

----------


## fortheether

> I do ask myself why I feed into the monster. I willingly step out of just about every sphere of these monsters that I can. I don't own a TV, and I've never owned a car, and I got rid of my cell phone years ago. And actually, a friend of mine and I are shopping for a bit of land right now.. though the obstacles that the authorities place in the way are numerous and staggering. 
> Scott, I agree with you about the term limits, that this would be an improvement. I personally think a more drastic change needs to happen, however, if we're going to stain the paper with ink at this point in history, and not merely a mark of graphite that the next several years will wear off.  
> Standing in a park, talking about change without an exact plan.. Sounds familiar. I think something like that once happened at a concert on farmland in New York in the 60s. The authorities were pissed then, too, but they didn't have the eggs to start shooting people, like they did Scott Olsen. No, back then, they just flew over in helicopters.. As Tom Robbins once said, "We used to have a crime problem in this country. Now we have a cop problem in this country."  
> Of course, in the long run, the helicopters weren't enough.. internal intelligence services had to introduce foreign heroin to the domestic market in large enough amounts to poison-pill the entire generation of those we now know as "hippies".. this cleared the way for the coming of the warmongering 80s and the warpath of ronald rayguns.. 
> So, how does this one end up? Instead of getting a small % of support from the general populace, we find our fellow man so jaded as to brush us off *completely*, and help to remove any _chance_ we have of making a change?  
> If the occupy folks can't convince you, one average American, that they have a reason to be upset.. what chance do any of us have to change things? 
> Do you really think limiting congressional terms will make tomorrow any different from yesterday? Because to me, it feels like plugging the Hoover dam with a piece of gum..

 Kidkboom - I applaud you for backing up your words with your actions and not feeding into the "monster".  I suspect most of the Occupiers don't "walk the walk".  Of course I see a lot of people that are upset.  What changes do you want to make though?   
I don't see that congressional term limits would make a difference right away but some of the scum that have been there for years and draining the system would be term limited out and new blood put in their place.   
Scott

----------


## Hanna

Thanks for the sweet comment, Lampada!   

> I just wonder how a serious grown-up woman that does have certain  skills, a good job and live in welfare could say any BS like this.

 @Eric, I want a fairer society that recognises the value of people in terms other than just money and what potential profit they can generate. 
If all you care about is money, profit and capital then I feel very sorry for you.  
Those are empty values and can never fulfill anyone. The more you have, the more you feel you need. 
And millions in every rich country, and billions around the world end up at the bottom with nothing but constant fear for how they will manage tomorrow.  
I totally agree with the hypocrisy of protests by people who take advantage of all the products that capitalism has to offer. 
I do myself and I am aware of the controversy.  
Can't you see that the banks are irresponsible and greedy? They produce NOTHING, all they do is speculate with money, trick consumers into irresponsible lending and and charge extorbitant fees for storing money. They have dragged the USA down in the gutter in their quest to squeeze the last penny out of regular workers there. Together with large corporations, they are the scum of the earth. 
Something similar is going on in parts of Europe. The banks should be stopped. 
Personally I would support a system with LOWER consumption - do away with fashion mania that means you have to regularly change your entire wardrobe. Do away with advertisements that trick people into thinking they need endless gadgets and the latest models of everything from car to computer. Stop irresponsible holiday habits, limit flying and car usage etc. 
I'd hope that in a fairer society people could still have some nice looking clothes, computers and enjoy a holiday and so on. One of the reasons I left the UK was actually that I felt so strongly against the wars that the UK is participating in.   

> Which are all made by evil corporations

 According to this logic, the USSR people should not have been using their USSR-produced goods when protesting in 1992! Maybe they should have come naked?  
And  what about all the Eastern Europeans who used near-free and reliable  public transport to get to the protest venues in '89.... and then went  home to sleep in their almost free state provided accomodation? 
 Come to think of it,  all the free education that they recieved, all the dirt cheap books that they could read and had time to read....that made them into thinking  and intelligent people should perhaps somehow be returned? 
Hypocrites?

----------


## E-learner

"If you buy coffee you can't protest"

----------


## Hanna

Í haven't seen this program for ages ---- but that woman thinks she's really clever to have come up with that idea, doesn't she!!?

----------


## Eric C.

> I want a fairer society that recognises the value of people in terms other than just money and what potential profit they can generate. 
> If all you care about is money, profit and capital then I feel very sorry for you.  
> Those are empty values and can never fulfill anyone. The more you have, the more you feel you need. 
> And millions in every rich country, and billions around the world end up at the bottom with nothing but constant fear for how they will manage tomorrow.  
> I totally agree with the hypocrisy of protests by people who take advantage of all the products that capitalism has to offer. 
> I do myself and I am aware of the controversy.  
> Can't you see that the banks are irresponsible and greedy? They produce NOTHING, all they do is speculate with money, trick consumers into irresponsible lending and and charge extorbitant fees for storing money. They have dragged the USA down in the gutter in their quest to squeeze the last penny out of regular workers there. Together with large corporations, they are the scum of the earth. 
> Something similar is going on in parts of Europe. The banks should be stopped. 
> Personally I would support a system with LOWER consumption - do away with fashion mania that means you have to regularly change your entire wardrobe. Do away with advertisements that trick people into thinking they need endless gadgets and the latest models of everything from car to computer. Stop irresponsible holiday habits, limit flying and car usage etc. 
> I'd hope that in a fairer society people could still have some nice looking clothes, computers and enjoy a holiday and so on. One of the reasons I left the UK was actually that I felt so strongly against the wars that the UK is participating in.

 Again you mixed up everything. First, banks pay me percent for storing my money. Then, they don't force me into loaning money, if I ever decide to do so, that will be completely my choice. Can't see a single reason why the banks should be "stopped". Then, there you go on "the evil corporations" again. Leave them alone, please. All the best humanity has for now has been made by the corporations. Basically everything. See, each small business that does not "oppress people", if it's successful, is going to turn into a large corporation sooner or later. Remember how Microsoft or Apple started, just for instance. 
Then, I personally don't want that lower consumption thing on me. I want to buy what I want to buy, right at the moment when I want that, and so on. On the other hand, if I don't, no ads are going to change my mind. As well as no ads are going to persuade me I should refrain from buying what I want for some strange unobvious reasons like I'm supporting "greedy corporations" or something. I want to live in the world where I can afford everything I can ever think of, and my budget is the only limit factor. 
You did leave the UK after all huh? Sorry, I didn't know those virtual things had affected you so much... By the way, what wars exactly are you talking about?

----------


## Ramil

> Again you mixed up everything. First, banks pay me percent for storing my money. Then, they don't force me into loaning money, if I ever decide to do so, that will be completely my choice. Can't see a single reason why the banks should be "stopped". Then, there you go on "the evil corporations" again. Leave them alone, please.

 You're right, of course. Nobody's forcing people to borrow money from banks. In theory. But there is still something that needs correcting. Those people are consumers. They've been born by consumers, they were brought up to consume, every TV-ad, every billboard has been telling them to consume since the day they were born. They borrow money to consume and then work to pay off their debts. Well, everything IS fair and right... technically.
They're wrong to protest, of course, but the system that creates brainless consumers should also be corrected somehow. 
These people can't express their thoughts, but they do feel deceived. They've been told to consume and so they did. Now they cannot and therefore - protest.

----------


## Crocodile

> These people can't express their thoughts, but they do feel deceived. They've been told to consume and so they did. Now they cannot and therefore - protest.

 +1
All they want is to be able to consume more than they do now because they compare themselves with the others who consume a WAY MORE. They _don't dare to compare_ (hm.. a new trademark?  ::  ) their financial situation with an average worker in China. But why not? Indeed, that very worker in China is _working_!! There's a JOB (!) CREATED (!) for that worker in China! And why that job pays only $12 a month? Well, it's because the _evil banks_ cooperated with the _evil corporations_  through the _evil governments_ and created the _evil situation_ in the world markets that blah-blah-blah (you know the story).  ::

----------


## kidkboom

> Again you mixed up everything. First, banks pay me percent for storing my money. Then, they don't force me into loaning money, if I ever decide to do so, that will be completely my choice. Can't see a single reason why the banks should be "stopped". Then, there you go on "the evil corporations" again. Leave them alone, please. All the best humanity has for now has been made by the corporations. Basically everything. See, each small business that does not "oppress people", if it's successful, is going to turn into a large corporation sooner or later. Remember how Microsoft or Apple started, just for instance. 
> Then, I personally don't want that lower consumption thing on me. I want to buy what I want to buy, right at the moment when I want that, and so on. On the other hand, if I don't, no ads are going to change my mind. As well as no ads are going to persuade me I should refrain from buying what I want for some strange unobvious reasons like I'm supporting "greedy corporations" or something. I want to live in the world where I can afford everything I can ever think of, and my budget is the only limit factor. 
> You did leave the UK after all huh? Sorry, I didn't know those virtual things had affected you so much... By the way, what wars exactly are you talking about?

 Eric, I personally can see quite a few reasons why the powers that banks are given, in the US especially but by dint of Hanna's words possibly abroad as well, should be clipped... Of course, I understand the Wells-Fargo/Pinkerton end of banking - that if the norm wasn't credit cards and checkings and savings accounts and direct-deposits, then burglars, bandits and thieves would be a bigger concern for you and I, the average citizen with personal holdings. 
How it is, though, that hiring a bodyguard for your wealth became not only NORMAL but indeed a BYGONE CONCLUSION ACROSS THE WORLD, I don't really understand.. nay, I do understand how it happened, but I'm not a supporter of where it's gotten to. 
Reason #1 why Banks' power (and the auxiliary groups, and their respective powers, granted to every financial market and substrate that they've hatched since coming into their own in the 1800s) should be clipped: *Madoff*. 
Reason #2 why Banks' power should be clipped: *A history of ridiculous feduciary greenlights* between private *Banks*, the *US Government* and its many limbs, and the *National Treasury* (which, on that note, should be one pink piece of paper on the floor in an empty fort knox, reading: "I.O.U. - U.S.S. Grant"). 
Reason #3 why Banks' power should be clipped: the *long explanation* given here (The Raw Story | Corrupt banking and the fake war on terror ), though I wouldn't recommend hardcore skeptics to NOT read this, just because the pursed aperture of a closed mind could make this a headache-causing read. 
As an aside... thanks to everyone who's being civil in this discussion. As long as we proceed in that manner, we can learn a lot from each other and not have a need to harbor negative sentiments.

----------


## it-ogo

> Again you mixed up everything. First, banks pay me percent for storing my money. Then, they don't force me into loaning money, if I ever decide to do so, that will be completely my choice. Can't see a single reason why the banks should be "stopped". Then, there you go on "the evil corporations" again. Leave them alone, please. All the best humanity has for now has been made by the corporations. Basically everything. See, each small business that does not "oppress people", if it's successful, is going to turn into a large corporation sooner or later. Remember how Microsoft or Apple started, just for instance.

  I am not quite sure what those "occupiers" are up to, but AFAIRemember there were slogans against evil financial corporations (i.e. Wall Street) rather then against companies of real sector. So, let us don't mix up everything. Financial corporations produce nothing, they only trade money for money and they are richest: absolute majority of richest companies are pure financial. And they can crash real sector as crisis shown: unsuccessful trading virtual money for virtual money can kill real economy. Financiers don't force you to loan money but if you don't, one day you can find that without credit history you are considered unreliable person and can not, for example, rent a car.In fact, your rights and possibilities become limited. 
Aren't those reasons enough for some protests?

----------


## Crocodile

> I am not quite sure what those "occupiers" are up to, but AFAIRemember there were slogans against evil financial corporations (i.e. Wall Street) rather then against companies of real sector. So, let us don't mix up everything. Financial corporations produce nothing, they only trade money for money and they are richest: absolute majority of richest companies are pure financial. And they can crash real sector as crisis shown: unsuccessful trading virtual money for virtual money can kill real economy. Financiers don't force you to loan money but if you don't, one day you can find that without credit history you are considered unreliable person and can not, for example, rent a car.In fact, your rights and possibilities become limited. 
> Aren't those reasons enough for some protests?

 I could partially relate to what you said, but let's consider just another aspect of it. Indeed, money is not a real product in terms that a person can't consume money. So, anyone who would trade money for money seemingly would not generate anything useful. Right? Not quite. There's a very complex problem of the resource distribution that market economy allegedly is trying to solve by means of the fluctuations around the optimal proportions at that specific time. Money becomes the means of the economical assessment. For example, what is that evil bank interest? Ultimately, that is an assessment of the prospective chances of a new enterprise producing profit. The riskier the enterprise, the greater the interest up to the point where the assessment of risks and feasibility stops being convincing to the individual or group investors. (And, yes, there's a whole science on how to become more convincing and get lower interest, but that's another story.) Similarly, the other types of 'securities' are interconnected and mutually dependent to the point the system becomes so complex that it just stops making sense to the outside auditor. And yes, this system is fault-tolerating only to the point of the first significant failure at which point the pessimism of the investors outweighs their previous optimism and the money is being pulled off the more risky enterprises and put into the less risky enterprises, which causes the enterprises to slow down their production (or shut it down completely) forcing the other waves of fluctuations collectively named a financial crisis. There are very few things you could really control as the entire system of production is ultimately based on either optimism of the investors or their pessimism both being quite subjective. So, some economists are trying to control those emotions and make predictions based on the previous history. How successful are those economists? Again, that is purely subjective. Some leaders can absolutely assure there would be no default and announce the default the very next day. And so on. As you can see, you have to really grow a thick skin to deal with that situation. 
So, now some very concerned people march their way into the Wall Street and openly declare: PEOPLE! THE SITUATION IS NOT THAT GREAT! Are they right? Of course, they are! Thanks for raising the concern as they probably were under impression everyone else was apparently in oblivion the market economy is sent to the Earth from the Heaven. B-U-T!! What do they propose? Social revolution? More control on the banks [and create more corrupted officials and more politics around that]?

----------


## fortheether

> Eric, I personally can see quite a few reasons why the powers that banks are given, in the US especially but by dint of Hanna's words possibly abroad as well, should be clipped... Of course, I understand the Wells-Fargo/Pinkerton end of banking - that if the norm wasn't credit cards and checkings and savings accounts and direct-deposits, then burglars, bandits and thieves would be a bigger concern for you and I, the average citizen with personal holdings. 
> How it is, though, that hiring a bodyguard for your wealth became not only NORMAL but indeed a BYGONE CONCLUSION ACROSS THE WORLD, I don't really understand.. nay, I do understand how it happened, but I'm not a supporter of where it's gotten to. 
> Reason #1 why Banks' power (and the auxiliary groups, and their respective powers, granted to every financial market and substrate that they've hatched since coming into their own in the 1800s) should be clipped: *Madoff*. 
> Reason #2 why Banks' power should be clipped: *A history of ridiculous feduciary greenlights* between private *Banks*, the *US Government* and its many limbs, and the *National Treasury* (which, on that note, should be one pink piece of paper on the floor in an empty fort knox, reading: "I.O.U. - U.S.S. Grant"). 
> Reason #3 why Banks' power should be clipped: the *long explanation* given here (The Raw Story | Corrupt banking and the fake war on terror ), though I wouldn't recommend hardcore skeptics to NOT read this, just because the pursed aperture of a closed mind could make this a headache-causing read. 
> As an aside... thanks to everyone who's being civil in this discussion. As long as we proceed in that manner, we can learn a lot from each other and not have a need to harbor negative sentiments.

 Kidkboom,
   Why do you mention a "civil discussion" and then say crap like this: 
"though I wouldn't recommend hardcore skeptics to NOT read this, just  because the pursed aperture of a closed mind could make this a  headache-causing read."  
?????????????? 
Scott

----------


## it-ogo

> ...There's a very complex problem of the resource distribution that market economy allegedly is trying to solve by means of the fluctuations around the optimal proportions at that specific time... 
> So, now some very concerned people march their way into the Wall Street and openly declare: PEOPLE! THE SITUATION IS NOT THAT GREAT! Are they right? Of course, they are! Thanks for raising the concern as they probably were under impression everyone else was apparently in oblivion the market economy is sent to the Earth from the Heaven. B-U-T!! What do they propose? Social revolution? More control on the banks [and create more corrupted officials and more politics around that]?

 Yep, there is a flexibility of distributing resources. And this flexibility worth some efforts. B-U-T!! Isn't the price too high? There are not only investments to real producing economy but investments to investments (so called derivatives) and even more indirect investments. And the real economy feels like Cinderella among these derivatives because overall there are much more money than real economy costs. It is like flipped-over pyramid. And you really expect stability and longevity from such a construction? This is not market economy. This is Matrix economy, Neo.  
 What they propose? What does your body propose, when you feel a pain? Social revolution? I think it propose to use brain and find a way to improve the situation. NOW!!!

----------


## Ramil

It's amazing, really how Lenin's ideas from this book: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia work even now, nearly 100 years since it'd been written.  ::  And 20 years since the collapse of USSR.

----------


## kidkboom

> Kidkboom,
> Why do you mention a "civil discussion" and then say crap like this: 
> "though I wouldn't recommend hardcore skeptics to NOT read this, just because the pursed aperture of a closed mind could make this a headache-causing read." 
> ?????????????? 
> Scott

 Oh, I see what you mean, Scott - excuse my phrasing - that's meant as just a general statement.. A lot of my own personal friends are also hard-core skeptics, and their first approach to anything tinged conspiratorial is to doubt or dismantle it... Well, for those types, this link would be a headache. 
I didn't mean it to be directed at you or at anybody in particular .. 
PS - I also noticed I let slip a double negative by mistake... I meant to say "I *would* recommend that HC skeptics *not* read..." not the "wouldn't/not" combo I passed off as proper English in my quote above, hehehe.. sorry about that.

----------


## Lampada

> ... thanks to everyone who's being civil in this discussion. As long as we proceed in that manner, we can learn a lot from each other and not have a need to harbor negative sentiments.

 +1  ::

----------


## fortheether

> Thanks for the sweet comment, Lampada!   
> @Eric, I want a fairer society that recognises the value of people in terms other than just money and what potential profit they can generate. 
> If all you care about is money, profit and capital then I feel very sorry for you.  
> Those are empty values and can never fulfill anyone. The more you have, the more you feel you need. 
> And millions in every rich country, and billions around the world end up at the bottom with nothing but constant fear for how they will manage tomorrow.  
> I totally agree with the hypocrisy of protests by people who take advantage of all the products that capitalism has to offer. 
> I do myself and I am aware of the controversy.  
> Can't you see that the banks are irresponsible and greedy? They produce NOTHING, all they do is speculate with money, trick consumers into irresponsible lending and and charge extorbitant fees for storing money. They have dragged the USA down in the gutter in their quest to squeeze the last penny out of regular workers there. Together with large corporations, they are the scum of the earth. 
> Something similar is going on in parts of Europe. The banks should be stopped. 
> ...

 Hanna,
  Can you please describe what a "fairer society" is? 
Scott

----------


## fortheether

I'm confused as to why the people clapping about the idea that the richest 400 Americans each give a million dollars, think they owe a million dollars.  Michael Moore Ignores Questions About His Wealth At Occupy Portland Event | NewsBusters.org 
Scott

----------


## Crocodile

> This is Matrix economy, Neo.

 It might be, Morpheus. And the reason seems to me that the real products do not worth that much these days. As you know, the market economy causes more goods and services to be created at the cheaper prices. So, one of the very real consequences is the overproduction of the goods and services. One of the ways around that threat is the innovation. New products create new markets and make the old markets (goods and services) obsolete. So, at some point, the chance had also become measurable in money thus becoming a very real service. That has created ForEx and other thin-air matter which some people might perceive as the Matrix.   

> What they propose? What does your body propose, when you feel a pain? Social revolution? I think it propose to use brain and find a way to improve the situation. NOW!!!

 Would they be just a bit more specific?  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> It's amazing, really how Lenin's ideas from this book: Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia work even now, nearly 100 years since it'd been written.  And 20 years since the collapse of USSR.

 You see, it's also amazing how Adam Smith's ideas work nearly 200 years since they'd been published.  :: 
I totally agree with some of Lenin's views on the capitalism. So, what's the alternative? Whatever Lenin proposed and made real looked a way uglier, if you'd allow. And the bottom line (equality-wise) was pretty much the same: a director of the factory was getting a way more goods and services than a worker in that factory. And both of them had a way less goods and services (and of lower quality) than their counterparts in the rotten capitalist West. So, what the fuss was all about?  ::

----------


## nulle

> Can you please describe what a "fairer society" is?

 Society where 4 hardworking people pay 25% of their income to support one who does not want to work but to drink all day.
And they must support him, because letting him die is "inhumane".
That's the main problem with all this "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".  

> Stop irresponsible holiday habits, limit flying and car usage etc.

 Says someone who this summer travelled across half of Europe.
While I ride to work with a bicycle and do not own a car.

----------


## Ramil

> Society where 4 hardworking people pay 25% of their income to support one who does not want to work but to drink all day.
> And they must support him, because letting him die is "inhumane".
> That's the main problem with all this "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

 Perhaps, but what if we replace the 'does not want to work' part with 'cannot work'? Does it change anything to you? 
About this part:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" 
this is a core principle of communism (not socialism) as an economic system. But what people forget when considering this phrase is that communism is built not at some empty place, but basing on socialism first. Both systems suggest a long and hard work on people, their views and ideology. According to communism theorists, it would not only be immoral not work, but considered something completely out of human nature, something people just not do. (Of course, we're talking here about these 'perfect humans' that populate a theoretical communist state).

----------


## nulle

"Cannot work" is a completely different matter.
But the problem with "welfare states" is that you can easily parasite on the system - which makes it unsustainable in the long run.
Borrowing or just printing money to pay pensions, for example, is complete insanity, yet many countries do so.

----------


## kidkboom



----------


## Crocodile

Ok, so now they're finally talking business. All those peaceful "just to raise the awareness" somehow drifted away in peace. Revolution, eh?  ::

----------


## nulle

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/u.../president.gif
Somehow reminded me of this, but anyway.
Maybe "occupiers" should stop being so vague and start to accuse real persons with real names for real crimes.
You know - not "we protest against corporate greed" or "greedy jews - pay my tuition".
But "we accuse mr. John Banker for stealing 50 millon dollars from.. well.. some real bank, organization or whatever."
or "mr. Steve Politician for taking bribe from xxx to pass some law that benefits person/company yyy"
That would make a lot more sense. 
Hanna made comparison with eastern Europe in the beginning on 1990s.
At that time protesters in Baltics had very clear goals.
Latvians wanted to:
1.) Regain independence from Soviet Union.
2.) Restore country in 1940 borders.
3.) Restore pre-war constitution
4.) Give communist stolen property back to real owners.
5.) Punish communists for their crimes.
Not just "burn commies" or "protest against bad living conditions". 
And we more or less got what we wanted.

----------


## Seraph

SORRY NO CHANGE | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

----------


## Eric C.

> Ok, so now they're finally talking business. All those peaceful "just to raise the awareness" somehow drifted away in peace. Revolution, eh?

 Something is missing on this poster, don't you think? Maybe some red color?  ::

----------


## Ramil

> Ok, so now they're finally talking business. All those peaceful "just to raise the awareness" somehow drifted away in peace. Revolution, eh?

 O'RLY? Revolution or talks about Revolution? 
A revolution is a change in power. When revolution happens you replace those who rule you with someone else (or yourself). They should start storming the Capitol and the White House if revolution is what they want. Create a government, start arming people... Does anyone of them have the balls to do that? 
The protesters can stay there and protest for years... so? These evil bankers will simply ignore them.

----------


## Crocodile

> O'RLY? Revolution or talks about Revolution? [...] The protesters can stay there and protest for years... so? These evil bankers will simply ignore them.

 Well, if I were a politician, I would say something like: "The extremist wing of the protesters is trying to ride the wave and highjack the attention by shouting their extremist slogans which do not even express the sentiment of the majority of the crowd. However, by insulting the rest of the public, the extremists provoke the public and the police to finally take some actions and contemplate to use that process to elevate the protest into a new level switch the peaceful protest into something more violent ultimately dreaming for a Revolution similarly to the recent Middle-East events."  ::  
But, since I'm not a politician, but just a simple-minded crocodile, I can only observe the change in tone of someone's posts...  ::  Getting too frustrated with the public which find comfort in their collective denial?  ::

----------


## Ramil

I predict that people will soon get tired and walk home. Their numbers will erode and so will the morale of those, more committed. These protests will cease by Christmas, I think.

----------


## Crocodile

> I predict that people will soon get tired and walk home. Their numbers will erode and so will the morale of those, more committed. These protests will cease by Christmas, I think.

 Ah, that's exactly what the evil bankers want. But no!111111111 People would stay and burn overnight fires in the snow-covered squares sitting around the fire solemnly silent dressed in shabby clothes as in a futuristic apocalyptic Hollywood movie. Of course, the countless love dramas would happen between some of the protesters and many would remember these days as the most romantic days of their lives...  ::

----------


## kidkboom

> Well, if I were a politician, I would say something like: "The extremist wing of the protesters is trying to ride the wave and highjack the attention by shouting their extremist slogans which do not even express the sentiment of the majority of the crowd. However, by insulting the rest of the public, the extremists provoke the public and the police to finally take some actions and contemplate to use that process to elevate the protest into a new level switch the peaceful protest into something more violent ultimately dreaming for a Revolution similarly to the recent Middle-East events."  
> But, since I'm not a politician, but just a simple-minded crocodile, I can only observe the change in tone of someone's posts...  Getting too frustrated with the public which find comfort in their collective denial?

 Скромные крокодилы живут дольше чем гордые политические деятели! --> So, who's *really* simple-minded, at the end of the day? =)

----------


## fortheether

> 

 It's easy to say what you're against.  What are you for?  What changes are you talking about?

----------


## Crocodile

> Скромные крокодилы живут дольше чем гордые политические деятели! --> So, who's *really* simple-minded, at the end of the day? =)

 Well, it's subjective. A galapagos tortoise in captivity lived 170 years. Do you want to change places with that turtle?  ::

----------


## Throbert McGee

This whole thread (as well as the "Tea Party" movement) makes me think of this:    
...and also this:   
It's easy to say *Жизнь была бы настолько лучше, если бы у нас (не) было...* ("Life would be so much better, if we had/didn't have...")  
But if you have absolutely no clue how to get from our current condition to the Bright New Tomorrow without making things worse (which, I think, is true of most OWS protesters and most Tea Party protesters), then you're not really doing anything useful.

----------


## kidkboom

Throbert, I couldn't respond to this in debate fashion.. I was far too busy being cracked up by your sense of humor 
Awesome

----------


## fortheether

I hear occupiers complaining about Wall Street bonuses but don't hear any complaining about this:  Solyndra Execs Reaped Bonuses Before Bankruptcy, Documents Show | Fox News 
More hypocrisy?  
Scott

----------


## kidkboom

> I hear occupiers complaining about Wall Street bonuses but don't hear any complaining about this:  Solyndra Execs Reaped Bonuses Before Bankruptcy, Documents Show | Fox News 
> More hypocrisy?  
> Scott

 Well, I guess there's some to be heard now ::

----------


## Hanna

_@nulle - I travelled by train all the way which is much more environmental than any other mode of transport.  The only exception was the ferry trip across the Baltic Sea, and a few routes where I went by coach or marshrutka. This was deliberate. I really don't like flying and avoid flying as much as I can. But I have never said that I am not part of the hypocrisy - I am , only perhaps a bit less than some people. But I am not ready to go and live in a rural eco commune or something like that._  
After returning to Sweden after a very long time away I am really sad to see that it has turned into a country like all the others in Western Europe. Privatization has ruined the previously excellent public transport. Stockholm is suffering from an accommodation shortage after the publically owned housing societies were privatized. Large corporations that are allowed to run schools for profit have sprung up. Swedish banks could not keep their fingers away from the new untapped markets in the East and did huge damage to themselves and national finances. Not to mention those people who were cheated into irresponsible lending. All the ideals that existed while I grew up are forgotten or considered outdated. No country is immune to the greed and globalisation it seems.  
Banks and a very small group of people can do what they like and the rest have to serve them in varying degree of comfort or lack thereof.  
I think the Occupy movement is right and I hope they can manage to formulate a manifesto and stick with it.  
What do you think is the reason why Occupy does not exist in Russia yet? There are many injustices in Russia and a large part of the population have are poor and have very little prospects, while the money is rolling into a fairly narrow sector in some of the larger cities.  
Would an Occupy movement be thrown out by the police or army, or would it be allowed? Do people sympathize? The RUssia Today channel gives quite sympathetic coverage to the protest, but what would it think if it took root in Russia too?

----------


## rockzmom

> But, since I'm not a politician, but just a simple-minded crocodile...

  And if anyone believes you are simple minded... I have a great bridge to sell you in Brooklyn or maybe some swamp land in Florida would be better as there are more crocs there (or are there only gators there?).  ::

----------


## Seraph

There is something that people can do at a personal level, start an employee owned company. This allows you to make something like a firewall between you and the various predatory forces in the economy.  Similar idea is a coop.  but corporation gives you more flexibility.   You can create company that has part of it's activity to provide services to members at reduced rates, by using buying power, bargaining power of bulk buying, &/or larger scale financing (lower rates).  In other words,  you can create company to do the things for your members that good government should be doing, but won't.  If you have it together, you can start your own credit union or small bank, where legislation allows it. Think laterally.

----------


## Seraph

OWS falls for the money?  A Chill Descends On Occupy Wall Street By Fritz Tucker

----------


## Eric C.

> There is something that people can do at a personal level, start an employee owned company. This allows you to make something like a firewall between you and the various predatory forces in the economy.  Similar idea is a coop.  but corporation gives you more flexibility.   You can create company that has part of it's activity to provide services to members at reduced rates, by using buying power, bargaining power of bulk buying, &/or larger scale financing (lower rates).  In other words,  you can create company to do the things for your members that good government should be doing, but won't.  If you have it together, you can start your own credit union or small bank, where legislation allows it. Think laterally.

 To do so, they'd have to bring some money into it, but they don't have any, because they are not able/don't want/haven't gotten used at all to make it. Who are you telling this to?

----------


## Seraph

I have been involved in start ups before.  The cost for do-it your self is small.  Who am I telling this to?  (To whom am I telling this?) People with initiative and drive, that are not self defeating.  Information is free.  It's up to you.

----------


## fortheether

> OWS falls for the money?  A Chill Descends On Occupy Wall Street By Fritz Tucker

 That's funny.

----------


## fortheether

> I have been involved in start ups before.  The cost for do-it your self is small.  Who am I telling this to?  (To whom am I telling this?) People with initiative and drive, that are not self defeating.  Information is free.  It's up to you.

 They can use the $500,000 that they can't decide how to divvy up  http://countercurrents.org/tucker041111.htm    
Scott

----------


## Eric C.

> They can use the $500,000 that they can't decide how to divvy up  http://countercurrents.org/tucker041111.htm    
> Scott

 Then they'll have to give it up. But is this what they really want? =)

----------


## fortheether

> Then they'll have to give it up. But is this what they really want? =)

 I have no clue what they want.  If anyone does please share it. 
Scott

----------


## Ramil

> There is something that people can do at a personal level, start an employee owned company

 This will make you a capitalist  ::  Really, you will start thinking in a completely different way. After some time you'll find out that all your employees are nothing more than a bunch of whiners who try to avoid any work. You'll start your race for higher profits. That's a sad fact. Money spoils people. No one is immune, unfortunately.

----------


## Seraph

Ramil, my experience in companies gives me a different perspective.   Companies can be started with very different founding principles.  There  is really no limitation on the founding principles, as long as they are legal.  You could even  start a company with anarchic principles included in the memorandum of  agreement.  The distinguishing feature of companies is the concept of limited liability.  It is this feature that allows for the protection of members, and this is why I said it could allow people to create something like a 'firewall' between them and predatory forces.  Corporations can be very practical solutions to problems.  No over-reaching profit motive is needed, nor mandated.  There is no requirement that corporations make any money.  Usually a company would want to make something to pay operating expenses, but companies can be carried by the principals for years without any profit at all. 
The most important things include clear decisions about what the members want the company to do, and the principles on which it is to be founded and operated, conflict resolution mechanisms, and some other things.  You can get together with other like minded people and decide, or make one with just one person. 
The real central point of a corporation is the concept of limited liability.  It is because of this that some people buy property through a self owned company, to protect other assets from possible liabilities arising from the property.  But you can make a company that does not own any significant property, and is simply used for purchasing and distribution, or just about anything you can think of, as long as it's legal.  In this regard, companies can do things that ordinary people cannot, simply because a wide range of suppliers will only deal with companies/corporate clients. 
Ceiling unlimited.

----------


## Ramil

You sound as if we're living in two different worlds. I can imagine that you've witnessed such people, committed enough to the idea of protecting people from predatory capitalism that they were willing to invest their money and efforts into something without aiming at making more money, but I've never seen such an enthusiasm.
In order to think so, one should have enough money for satisfying all his primary needs (food, shelter, clothing) and not worry about them being in place in the future. But once a person reaches this level, greed take over. Well, perhaps, in America people are more altruistic in nature, I don't know. Here, in Russia, I've never seen anything like that. Oh, I heard some talks of it, but never seen any action that was pure and didn't have any hidden goal (like tax extemptions or things like that).
Well, then again, perhaps I'm too pessimistic about humans.

----------


## Eric C.

> Ramil, my experience in companies gives me a different perspective.   Companies can be started with very different founding principles.  There  is really no limitation on the founding principles, as long as they are legal.  You could even  start a company with anarchic principles included in the memorandum of  agreement.  The distinguishing feature of companies is the concept of limited liability.  It is this feature that allows for the protection of members, and this is why I said it could allow people to create something like a 'firewall' between them and predatory forces.  Corporations can be very practical solutions to problems.  No over-reaching profit motive is needed, nor mandated.  There is no requirement that corporations make any money.  Usually a company would want to make something to pay operating expenses, but companies can be carried by the principals for years without any profit at all. 
> The most important things include clear decisions about what the members want the company to do, and the principles on which it is to be founded and operated, conflict resolution mechanisms, and some other things.  You can get together with other like minded people and decide, or make one with just one person. 
> The real central point of a corporation is the concept of limited liability.  It is because of this that some people buy property through a self owned company, to protect other assets from possible liabilities arising from the property.  But you can make a company that does not own any significant property, and is simply used for purchasing and distribution, or just about anything you can think of, as long as it's legal.  In this regard, companies can do things that ordinary people cannot, simply because a wide range of suppliers will only deal with companies/corporate clients. 
> Ceiling unlimited.

 So, how many such companies have you been running? How much have you managed to achieve so far in terms of your understanding what companies should stand for?

----------


## Eric C.

> This will make you a capitalist  Really, you will start thinking in a completely different way. After some time you'll find out that all your employees are nothing more than a bunch of whiners who try to avoid any work. You'll start your race for higher profits. That's a sad fact. Money spoils people. No one is immune, unfortunately.

 Could you please clarify how racing for profits is "spoiled"?

----------


## Eric C.

> You sound as if we're living in two different worlds. I can imagine that you've witnessed such people, committed enough to the idea of protecting people from predatory capitalism that they were willing to invest their money and efforts into something without aiming at making more money, but I've never seen such an enthusiasm.
> In order to think so, one should have enough money for satisfying all his primary needs (food, shelter, clothing) and not worry about them being in place in the future. But once a person reaches this level, greed take over. Well, perhaps, in America people are more altruistic in nature, I don't know. Here, in Russia, I've never seen anything like that. Oh, I heard some talks of it, but never seen any action that was pure and didn't have any hidden goal (like tax extemptions or things like that).
> Well, then again, perhaps I'm too pessimistic about humans.

 I'm realistic and understand no one is going to sacrifice their goals for someone else (with some very rare exceptions). It's the way we live on this planet and it's remaining this way as long as humanity exists. If you are pessimistic about it, you're gonna be pessimistic for the rest of your life.

----------


## Ramil

> Could you please clarify how racing for profits is "spoiled"?

 It can very well be this way if profits become your only goal. If the means would start justifying the ends in this race. If (rephrasing Marx) you'll be ready to commit any crime for the sake of 300% profit. This is what I call 'spoiled perception'. Money is not everything, and there are really things left in this world that money cannot buy.

----------


## Eric C.

> It can very well be this way if profits become your only goal. If the means would start justifying the ends in this race. If (rephrasing Marx) you'll be ready to commit any crime for the sake of 300% profit. This is what I call 'spoiled perception'. Money is not everything, and there are really things left in this world that money cannot buy.

 Now would you be so kind to describe what you mean by "crime"? Is that what laws consider as a crime or something else? If the former, I hope you do understand the "crime sets" by the laws are almost the same in each more or less civilized country. And my answer in this case will be no, I'm not going to commit any crime either for any profit or anything else. Again, if you mean the latter, could you explain what?

----------


## Seraph

Please read Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
. Limited liability company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 
Limited liability corporations stand for what ever the principals want them to stand for.  Start one then you will see for your self the inside of the process.  What they can be about is just about anything you can imagine, as long as it is legal.

----------


## Eric C.

> Please read Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> . Limited liability company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 
> Limited liability corporations stand for what ever the principals want them to stand for.  Start one then you will see for your self the inside of the process and what they are really about.

 I will. But for now I think I should restate my question so that you understand what I was asking, "how much have YOU achieved on your way running such companies?"

----------


## Seraph

> ... Money is not  everything, and there are really things left in this world that money  cannot buy.

 and I agree with Ramil here.  Some of the corporations I was involved with had nothing to do with profit/money.

----------


## Eric C.

> I have been satisfied with their performance.

 Ok, and how many of them have you been running?

----------


## Ramil

> Now would you be so kind to describe what you mean by "crime"? Is that what laws consider as a crime or something else? If the former, I hope you do understand the "crime sets" by the laws are almost the same in each more or less civilized country. And my answer in this case will be no, I'm not going to commit any crime either for any profit or anything else. Again, if you mean the latter, could you explain what?

 So, in a country with **perfect** laws you could be right. But no such country exists. That's what I'm talking about, by the way, about 'spoiled perception'. Many hypocrites hide behind the word 'law' to calm their concience (or nightmares) - What? I'm not violating any laws, I'm a law abiding citizen, leave me alone. I could dig up for some examples of this, but I'm really not in the mood for that. I'm sure, you can see the picture. I'm talking about the situations when technically no law gets violated, but innocents suffer as a result of your actions. 
There's more though. People do violate laws for money and the more you are rich and powerful the more chances you get to get away with it. I'm sure, you can find examples of this also. 
So, are you trying to tell me that aiming strictly for profits and profits alone is good? No, you won't succeed, so don't waste your time. Money is not a bad thing by itself, it just enables some bad people to do bad things. Greed is sin. Remeber? 
P.S. by the way, limited liability companies are the perfect instrument for avoiding liability (and quite frequently - responsibility). Yes, it works both ways - very flexible.

----------


## Seraph

> You sound as if we're living in two different worlds. I can imagine that you've witnessed such people, committed enough to the idea of protecting people from predatory capitalism that they were willing to invest their money and efforts into something without aiming at making more money, but I've never seen such an enthusiasm.
> In order to think so, one should have enough money for satisfying all his primary needs (food, shelter, clothing) and not worry about them being in place in the future. But once a person reaches this level, greed take over. Well, perhaps, in America people are more altruistic in nature, I don't know. Here, in Russia, I've never seen anything like that. Oh, I heard some talks of it, but never seen any action that was pure and didn't have any hidden goal (like tax extemptions or things like that).
> Well, then again, perhaps I'm too pessimistic about humans.

 Please read. History of the cooperative movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
. Cooperative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 
Corporations are also able to do these things, without requiring great amounts of capital.  If you get involved in these things, you'll find out where the capital drains are, and how to avoid them.  For example, self incorporation allows people to start up without lawyers fees.  And where business licenses are required and where they are not, and for what purposes.   

> ... Money is not a bad thing by itself, it just enables some bad people to do bad things. Greed is sin. Remember? 
> P.S. by the way, limited liability companies are the perfect instrument  for avoiding liability (and quite frequently - responsibility). Yes, it  works both ways - very flexible.

   No, limited liability corporations are not vehicles for avoiding responsibility.

----------


## Ramil

> Please read. History of the cooperative movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> . Cooperative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

 Your point?    

> Corporations are also able to do these things, without requiring great amounts of capital.

 My friend, there is a huge difference between _being able to_ and actually _doing_.   

> No, limited liability corporations are not vehicles for avoiding responsibility.

 orly-owl.jpg

----------


## Seraph

> Your point? My friend, there is a huge difference between _being able to_ and actually _doing_.

 I have seen it. Some of it in these things, co-ops, some in LLCs.  These were small things, nothing like the big corporations that some people are complaining about, like BP or GS and the like.

----------


## Lampada

> Ok, and how many of them have you been running?

 Could you please stop asking personal questions?

----------


## Seraph

Eugene (and Oregon) place to go for coops.  And Anarchy.
.Under 'Community'...
"In the 1970s, Eugene was packed with cooperative and community  projects. It still has small natural food stores in many neighborhoods,  some of the oldest student cooperatives in the country, and alternative  schools have been part of the school district since 1971. The old  Grower's Market, downtown near the Amtrak  depot, is the only food cooperative in the U.S. with no employees. It  is possible to see Eugene's trend-setting non-profit tendencies in much  newer projects, such as the Tango Center and the Center for Appropriate Transport. In 2006, an initiative began to create a tenant-run development process for Downtown Eugene. 
 In the fall of 2003, neighbors noticed that "an unassuming two-acre remnant orchard tucked into the Friendly Area Neighborhood"[30] had been put up for sale by its owner, a resident of New York City.[31]  Learning that a prospective buyer had plans to build several houses on  the property, they formed a non-profit organization called *Madison Meadow*[32][33] in June 2004 in order to buy the property and "preserve it as undeveloped space in perpetuity."[32] In 2007 their effort was named Third Best Community Effort by the _Eugene Weekly_,[34] and by the end of 2008 they had raised enough money to purchase the property.[30]" Continues on to 'Anarchy' ..."then-mayor Jim Torrey described the city as "the anarchist capital of the United States." 
.

----------


## fortheether

More do as I say and not as I do:  Confirmed: Occupy Oakland loves banks  
Scott

----------


## fortheether

BBQ at Mikey's house for the occupiers?  Big Hollywood  
Scott

----------


## nulle

> With approximately 5% of the world's population, the United States is responsible for approximately 25% of annual global oil consumption and according to 2008 estimates has a per-person daily consumption rate more than double that of the European Union, whose population is significantly greater.

 Maybe 99% should stop driving with SUVs to gym to run on a treadmill? 
Anyway - I think that these 99% already live too good (and above their means) - and their living standards should be lower...

----------


## fortheether

> Maybe 99% should stop driving with SUVs to gym to run on a treadmill? 
> Anyway - I think that these 99% already live too good (and above their means) - and their living standards should be lower...

 Wow - who decides how low other peoples living standards should be lowered to? 
Scott

----------


## Lampada

> Wow - who decides how low other peoples living standards should be lowered to? 
> Scott

 Лучше не "who", а "зачем".  В каменный век что ли начать возвращаться?

----------


## nulle

> Wow - who decides how low other peoples living standards should be lowered to?

 Well, people themselves should. In a controlled way - to conserve resources.
Otherwise, shortage of resources, war, famine, diseases, etc will do it for them.
And their growing debt and deficit shows that americans are living way over their means.
And for everyone in the world to live as good as average 99% american - that's simply impossible - Earth does not have that much resources.

----------


## fortheether

> Лучше не "who", а "зачем".  В каменный век что ли начать возвращаться?

 LOL!!!

----------


## fortheether

> Well, people themselves should. In a controlled way - to conserve resources.
> Otherwise, shortage of resources, war, famine, diseases, etc will do it for them.
> And their growing debt and deficit shows that americans are living way over their means.
> And for everyone in the world to live as good as average 99% american - that's simply impossible - Earth does not have that much resources.

 I'll wait for Al Gore and Michael Moore to "lead" the way by example. 
Scott

----------


## Eric C.

> Well, people themselves should. In a controlled way - to conserve resources.
> Otherwise, shortage of resources, war, famine, diseases, etc will do it for them.
> And their growing debt and deficit shows that americans are living way over their means.
> And for everyone in the world to live as good as average 99% american - that's simply impossible - Earth does not have that much resources.

 That's sad, but would anyone give up a part of their salary, for instance, because the employee on their left earns less and can't afford what they can?

----------


## Hanna

> Well, people themselves should. In a controlled way - to conserve resources.
> Otherwise, shortage of resources, war, famine, diseases, etc will do it for them.
> And their growing debt and deficit shows that americans are living way over their means.
> And for everyone in the world to live as good as average 99% american - that's simply impossible - Earth does not have that much resources.

 *Totally agree with this.* 
And there is so much corporate waste in every area.
I was forced to fly twice last week to attend meetings in the morning. If the meetings had been in the afternoon, I could have taken the train. Nobody seemed to care, even after I pointed it out, I had to do it again and I don't feel confident enough right now to refuse.  
My view at the moment is of a large corporate building. They've left all the lights on over the weekend, and I can see screens flaring. One massive and totally un-necessary waste of energy. 
Both un necessary business flights and un necessary energy waste by corporations should simply be made illegal and punishable if companies breach it.  
Two flights per employee per year is more than enough. More phone conferences, video conferences and train journeys. 
If I was forced to consume less, I probably wouldn't enjoy it at first. But I can hardly argue that it wasn't needed or in the best long term interest of myself, future generations and the earth as a whole.  
It's a very unhealthy and dangerious situation that developing countries are now aspiring to the same standards as the Western world. Sadly, the Earth as a whole cannot afford resource-wise for them to have it. Rather, it is we that should consume less.  
In terms of consumption, didn't the USSR actually have it quite right, I mean that nobody was really poor or starving, but nobody able to consume in excess either? I think that earth might be able to just about support the level of consumption that existed there.... Or am I wrong?
Another comparison would be the way that Americans lived in the 1950s.... or had things already gone overboard by then?

----------


## Eric C.

In the USSR everyone had come all the way from being poor and starving at the same time (the 1930s - 1940s) to just being poor (1950s +). While those in power had every opportunity to consume whatever much they just wished. 
If I was forced to live my life how somebody (not me) saw it (like telling me how much I should consume, that is what I should buy for my own money), I would be trying to take down those mad dictators by any means, and I believe I would have loads of supporters.

----------


## Hanna

Well, I suspect that it's probably not YOUR consumption that is out of proportions.
I am talking about corporations, their executives, people who inherited wealth or made it fast through banking, or shady affairs.  
People who have massive houses, larger than they reasonably need, in several locations. People who drive everywhere and have multiple expensive cars in one family. Who fly on lots of expensive holidays every year, who eat excessively, have walk-in closets full of clothes they'll only use once or twice and buy endless quantities of gadgets and stuff that they don't need.  
Why should you stand up for such people's right to continue to consume like greedy pigs until the earth is devoid of resources and ecologically ruined?

----------


## Eric C.

> People who have massive houses, larger than they reasonably need, in several locations. People who drive everywhere and have multiple expensive cars in one family. Who fly on lots of expensive holidays every year, who eat excessively, have walk-in closets full of clothes they'll only use once or twice and buy endless quantities of gadgets and stuff that they don't need.

 You have one life, and it's your choice to spend it on being a "greedy pig" receiving as much enjoyment from it as you can, or a boring moralist refraining from everything for somebodies you don't even know. It's ok. What I actually stand for is this choice being personal and voluntary, and not imposed on anyone.   

> Why should you stand up for such people's right to continue to consume like greedy pigs until the earth is devoid of resources and ecologically ruined?

 Are you suggesting the Earth can avoid this scenario under some conditions?

----------


## BappaBa

> In the USSR everyone had come all the way from being poor and starving at the same time (the 1930s - 1940s) to just being poor (1950s +). While those in power had every opportunity to consume whatever much they just wished. 
> If I was forced to live my life how somebody (not me) saw it (like telling me how much I should consume, that is what I should buy for my own money), I would be trying to take down those mad dictators by any means, and I believe I would have loads of supporters.

 Аж слезу выжал... t2336.gif
Лампаде понравится.

----------


## Hanna

> You have one life, and it's your choice to spend it on being a "greedy pig" receiving as much enjoyment from it as you can, or a boring moralist refraining from everything for somebodies you don't even know. It's ok. What I actually stand for is this choice being personal and voluntary, and not imposed on anyone.

 Oh dear, what has life done to you, to make you such an egoistical and totally self-centred individual?! 
Never mind people of the future, your own potential children and grandchildren.... Let them live in a polluted wasteland in the future, so that the elites of today can take a few extra trips to the Maldives, have a plasma screen in every room and five sports cars...  The ironic fact that you yourself can't afford this and probably never will, seems to have escaped you.  
Since solidarity isn't your cup of tea, do you remember the simple message of Jesus: Do unto others as you would have them do to you. 
How would you feel if previous generations had made your life a living hell through their arrogance, egoism and foolishness?    

> Are you suggesting the Earth can avoid this scenario under some conditions?

 I am certainly not saying I have a fool proof way of avoiding it, but limiting excessive consumption should be a good start. During the war, they rationed food and clothing, so that the distribution would be fair in a sparce economy. 
Something like that could be applied to activities and products that are bad for the economy. Like cars, flights and gadgets.

----------


## nulle

If americans do not want to limit fuel consumption now - then prices like 20$ per litre will do it for them later.
And then they will sell their hummers for scrap metal... 
10 years ago fuel here was 3x cheaper than it is now.
In 2000 fuel (95 gasoline) price in Latvia was about 0,60$ per litre - now - 1,80$ per litre.
And it will not get cheaper.

----------


## Crocodile

> If americans do not want to limit fuel consumption now - then prices like 20$ per litre will do it for them later.
> And then they will sell their hummers for scrap metal...
> 10 years ago fuel here was 3x cheaper than it is now.
> In 2000 fuel (95 gasoline) price in Latvia was about 0,60$ per litre - now - 1,80$ per litre.
> And it will not get cheaper.

 You see, it's not that simple. A Hummer can theoretically also run on a renewable fuel like biodiesel or use some other eco-friendly stuff like fuel cells where the electricity to split hydrogen was obtained from water/wind turbines installed in some very remote areas. I think I mentioned it a couple of times in this forum, but, there's a HUGE difference between limiting the level of consumption and a way of securing it. Let me give you a simple example. Say, some 12,000 years ago the humanity grew in numbers and, as a result of the not-very-eco-friendly way of securing food (i.e. the hunting), the amount of food shrunk considerably causing a famine. That was a first global ecological catastrophe the humanity ever knew. So, two options came alive. First, limit the amount of consuming food (i.e. somebody had ceased to live). Second, move to the agricultural civilization and go on eating and grow in numbers. Apparently, the humanity went the second way. Consequently, several other ecological disasters loomed over the millenia. Like, people could no longer burn the forests before planting their grain and move on burning other forests, but rather switch to the more settled way and just swap fields rather than constantly looking for new ones. Even in the beginning of the 20th century there was danger of famine as the land was unable to sustain that many people. So, the fertilizers were invented and used. And later on a similar problem was solved by means of the GM-food. And each and every time the humanity was faced with the request to limit consumption and yet it went on and on evading the dangers. So, now you're saying the "1,80$ per litre" would do the trick?  ::

----------


## fortheether

> *Totally agree with this.* 
> And there is so much corporate waste in every area.
> I was forced to fly twice last week to attend meetings in the morning. If the meetings had been in the afternoon, I could have taken the train. Nobody seemed to care, even after I pointed it out, I had to do it again and I don't feel confident enough right now to refuse.  
> My view at the moment is of a large corporate building. They've left all the lights on over the weekend, and I can see screens flaring. One massive and totally un-necessary waste of energy. 
> Both un necessary business flights and un necessary energy waste by corporations should simply be made illegal and punishable if companies breach it.  
> Two flights per employee per year is more than enough. More phone conferences, video conferences and train journeys. 
> If I was forced to consume less, I probably wouldn't enjoy it at first. But I can hardly argue that it wasn't needed or in the best long term interest of myself, future generations and the earth as a whole.  
> It's a very unhealthy and dangerious situation that developing countries are now aspiring to the same standards as the Western world. Sadly, the Earth as a whole cannot afford resource-wise for them to have it. Rather, it is we that should consume less.  
> In terms of consumption, didn't the USSR actually have it quite right, I mean that nobody was really poor or starving, but nobody able to consume in excess either? I think that earth might be able to just about support the level of consumption that existed there.... Or am I wrong?
> Another comparison would be the way that Americans lived in the 1950s.... or had things already gone overboard by then?

 Hanna,
Why don't you move to North Korea?  I think that they already have what you're looking for. 
Also, is your use of the term "un necessary" instead of "unnecessary" a British English thing?   
Scott

----------


## fortheether

> I really like this movement. Nice to see that people are waking up!
> Has it reached Russia? Elsewhere in Europe it seems to have caught on too. I read about similar protests in Italy, Germany in Sweden today. 
> It's interesting how media are portraying the demonstrators as hooligans when they are really regular people who are participating for the first time.

 In hindsight maybe that last sentence should be changed?

----------


## fortheether

This should be interesting:  OWS Protesters Calling For 'Day Of Action' Following Loss Of Camp In Zuccotti Park  
Scott

----------


## nulle

Interesting - how foreign corporations are operating in Russia - do they have to pay bribes too?

----------


## Marcus

> Interesting - how foreign corporations are operating in Russia - do they have to pay bribes too?

 Of course, they do.

----------


## fortheether

Throwing stuff at policemen will not win the heart and minds of most Americans:  Violence Escalates At &#39;Occupy&#39; Protests In New York City | Fox News 
Scott

----------


## Eric C.

> Throwing stuff at policemen will not win the heart and minds of most Americans:  Violence Escalates At 'Occupy' Protests In New York City | Fox News 
> Scott

  

> We wanted to shut down business as usual. I think we've done that.

 Would it be somewhat criminal if I wanted to shut _them_ down?

----------


## fortheether

Some small businessmen in the area are now protesting the occupiers:  Downtown Workers in NYC Take on 'Occupy' Protesters - Fox News Video - Fox News 
Funny sign: "Occupy a Desk!" 
Scott

----------


## fortheether

Are these the goals of the occupiers???  Blog: What does Occupy Wall Street Want? 
I found some here:  99 Percent Declaration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  Liberty Square Blueprint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
You folks that support this movement what do you think of these goals? 
Scott

----------


## Ramil

> Are these the goals of the occupiers???  Blog: What does Occupy Wall Street Want? 
> Scott

 LOLWUT? Is this some kind of a joke?  Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.Raise the minimum wage immediately to $18/hr. Create a maximum wage of $90/hr to eliminate inequality.Institute a 6 hour workday, and 6 weeks of paid vacation.Institute a moratorium on all foreclosures and layoffs immediately.Repeal racist and xenophobic English-only laws.*Open the borders to all immigrants, legal or illegal. Offer immediate, unconditional amnesty, to all undocumented residents of the US.*Create a single-payer, universal health care system.Pass stricter campaign finance reform laws. Ban all private donations. All campaigns will receive equal funding, provided by the taxpayers.Institute a *negative income tax*, and tax the very rich at rates up to 90%.Pass far stricter environmental protection and animal rights laws.Allow workers to elect their supervisors.Lower the retirement age to 55. Increase Social Security benefits.Create a 5% annual wealth tax for the very rich.*Ban the private ownership of land*.Make homeschooling illegal. Religious fanatics use it to feed their children propaganda.Reduce the age of majority to 16.Abolish the death penalty and life in prison. We call for the immediate release of all death row inmates from death row and transferred to regular prisons.Release all political prisoners immediately.Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.*Abolish the debt limit.*Ban private gun ownership.Strengthen the separation of church and state.*Immediate debt forgiveness for all.*End the 'War on Drugs'.In other words - we do not want to work, let them rich feed us. 
I thought better of these clowns. This is ridiculous!

----------


## Hanna

*
Thank you Russian tax payers* for subsidizing a TV channel that reports the reality about these demonstrations, instead of the propaganda version that they are crazy hooligans or lazy hippies.                

> In other words - we do not want to work, let them rich feed us. 
> I thought better of these clowns. This is ridiculous!

 Look at it from a different perspective: 
This is a country that can afford to start neo colonial wars on a bi-annual basis, that is pouring money and aid over corrupt dictatorships and that has filthy rich people who have never worked a day in their lives. It thinks it has a moral right to tell other countries what to do and it uses regular citizens money to save incompetent and corrupt banks and bank directors.  
Yet, in this country sick citizens are not guaranteed treatment, a decent education is a class privilege and hundreds of thousands are homeless and millions are living in poverty.  
Of course something is wrong! Yes, there are lazy free-riders in this world, but there are also greedy thieves who will stop at no amount of immoral behaviour to stuff their own pockets. Unfortunately America has a lot of such people, and unfortunately these people also have the backing of the US military, police and media.  
I think the OWS are right to protest and should continue until the elections in order to try to really make a difference.  
If regular Americans finally wake up to the sorry state they've been lead into by banks and corporations, it would be a really good thing.

----------


## Eric C.

> LOLWUT? Is this some kind of a joke?  Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.Raise the minimum wage immediately to $18/hr. Create a maximum wage of $90/hr to eliminate inequality.Institute a 6 hour workday, and 6 weeks of paid vacation.Institute a moratorium on all foreclosures and layoffs immediately.Repeal racist and xenophobic English-only laws.*Open the borders to all immigrants, legal or illegal. Offer immediate, unconditional amnesty, to all undocumented residents of the US.*Create a single-payer, universal health care system.Pass stricter campaign finance reform laws. Ban all private donations. All campaigns will receive equal funding, provided by the taxpayers.Institute a *negative income tax*, and tax the very rich at rates up to 90%.Pass far stricter environmental protection and animal rights laws.Allow workers to elect their supervisors.Lower the retirement age to 55. Increase Social Security benefits.Create a 5% annual wealth tax for the very rich.*Ban the private ownership of land*.Make homeschooling illegal. Religious fanatics use it to feed their children propaganda.Reduce the age of majority to 16.Abolish the death penalty and life in prison. We call for the immediate release of all death row inmates from death row and transferred to regular prisons.Release all political prisoners immediately.Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.*Abolish the debt limit.*Ban private gun ownership.Strengthen the separation of church and state.*Immediate debt forgiveness for all.*End the 'War on Drugs'.In other words - we do not want to work, let them rich feed us. 
> I thought better of these clowns. This is ridiculous!

 Welcome to the club bro! xD 
I'm glad your eyes are open now. 
"Let them rich feed us" - as far as I understand, the "rich" will be those with max salary of $90 an hour. LOL
Which are being planned to be taxed up to 90%. Now do simple math, and finally realize, fellow Americans, all they want is everyone making no more than $40,000 a year ($20 an hour). In fact, they want to take away (basically, steal) YOUR money and YOUR property! Would you sign up for this retarded commie manifesto?

----------


## Eric C.

> Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.

 Here we have some bolshevik ideologists...   

> Open the borders to all immigrants, legal or illegal. Offer immediate, unconditional amnesty, to all undocumented residents of the US

 And a bunch of Spanish speaking comrades. xD

----------


## Eric C.

> Ban the private ownership of land.
> Make homeschooling illegal. Religious fanatics use it to feed their children propaganda.

 LOL. Such predictable red comrades.   

> Ban private gun ownership.

 While it's not banned, try tresspassing my lands with some bad intentions and see what happens. xD

----------


## fortheether

> *
> Thank you Russian tax payers* for subsidizing a TV channel that reports the reality about these demonstrations, instead of the propaganda version that they are crazy hooligans or lazy hippies.               
> Look at it from a different perspective: 
> This is a country that can afford to start neo colonial wars on a bi-annual basis, that is pouring money and aid over corrupt dictatorships and that has filthy rich people who have never worked a day in their lives. It thinks it has a moral right to tell other countries what to do and it uses regular citizens money to save incompetent and corrupt banks and bank directors.  
> Yet, in this country sick citizens are not guaranteed treatment, a decent education is a class privilege and hundreds of thousands are homeless and millions are living in poverty.  
> Of course something is wrong! Yes, there are lazy free-riders in this world, but there are also greedy thieves who will stop at no amount of immoral behaviour to stuff their own pockets. Unfortunately America has a lot of such people, and unfortunately these people also have the backing of the US military, police and media.  
> I think the OWS are right to protest and should continue until the elections in order to try to really make a difference.  
> If regular Americans finally wake up to the sorry state they've been lead into by banks and corporations, it would be a really good thing.

 
No, America has not been lead into the sorry state it's in by banks and corporations.  It is by big government and socialist types that take money from those that earned it and give it to those that have not earned it.  They then pass along to their next generation that the government owes them a check.  They then keep voting for democrats that do not care about the country but their next election cycle.  Yes republicans do it also.  I have no problem helping the helpless, I have a problem helping the clueless:  Obama Money - Where Did it Come From? - YouTube 
Those people that are waiting for the government to pay their rent and fill up their gas tanks:  Obama Is Going To Pay For My Gas And Mortgage!!! - YouTube 
The problem is not Obama - the problem is this is now a country that a majority of people can support someone like Obama.  If regular Europeans would open their eyes and see the socialist type governments and policies crumbling all around them and realizing that it won't work - ever.  They should stop trying to have the USA follow them.  You jumped off the cliff yourself - no we don't want to follow you.  If regular Americans would wake up and see what the big government types are shoving down their throats it would be a really good thing.  America can get back to the values it had - vote out the big government types - move them out of the way, let America prosper again. 
You can go ahead and blame the banks but you'd be ignorant to ignore the government pulling the strings:  Articles: Making Homes Affordable Makes Others Poor 
You can go ahead and blame the corporations but how can GE 14 billion and not pay any taxes? The government lets them:  General Electric Paid No Federal Taxes in 2010 - ABC News 
You can go ahead and say the occupiers are peaceful and nice (I'm sure some of them are) but the reality is different:  http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/20...-sheet-so-far/   
Scott

----------


## Hanna

So you are saying that banks and corporations are innocent and the real problem is that the US is too "socialist". 
Well, I really don't know how to comment on that. You and I do not have the same worldview at all. You might as well say that the sun is blue.  
But I am intrigued to watch how much violence and censorship is used around this protest.  
Had any other country (one that the US does not like) used similar tactics against protesters, then the US would have been talking about human right abuses and unfree media.

----------


## Eric C.

> You and I do not have the same worldview at all. You might as well say that the sun is blue.

 Was it only me who found this self-centered and hypocritical?

----------


## Seraph

http://www.cleanupwashington.org/doc.../RevovDoor.pdf. Revolving door between the US Government and Industry. American Policy Center . Revolving Door: 1,447 Former Government Workers Lobbying For Wall Street | Common Dreams. Monsanto employees and government regulatory agencies employees are the same people!. Government-industry revolving door - SourceWatch. Revolving Regulators: SEC Faces Ethics Challenges with Revolving Door.
And on and on and on and more and more and more.  The amount of material about these things is so great that you could never get to the end of it...If you don't know who drives the political machine by now and runs big gov, maybe you never will.

----------


## nulle

> all they want is everyone making no more than $40,000 a year ($20 an hour)

 Well - many people in Latvia earn 20$ per day, not per hour...
minimum wage here is about 280$ per month after taxes.
So I would be really glad to be as poor as average 99% american.

----------


## fortheether

> So you are saying that banks and corporations are innocent and the real problem is that the US is too "socialist". 
> Well, I really don't know how to comment on that. You and I do not have the same worldview at all. You might as well say that the sun is blue.  
> But I am intrigued to watch how much violence and censorship is used around this protest.  
> Had any other country (one that the US does not like) used similar tactics against protesters, then the US would have been talking about human right abuses and unfree media.

 No, actually you would be saying that the sun is blue.  From your posts here is seems that you have a very left winged view.  That's fine, but I don't understand it at all.  I am a proud American conservative.  You can still believe the left wing media's misinformation about conservatives all that you want but the reality is different.  As for your questions, did you read the links?  If a bank is forced by the government to give mortgages to people that can't afford mortgages, how is it the banks fault?  The USA now has a lot of people that feel they don't have to earn a living but can live off of the government.  There is no Obama or any other politician "stash" of money - It is mine and my follow Americans that work, hard earned money.  Liberal/socialists believe they can spend my money for the benefit of their careers and I am tired of it.  I hope most of my fellow Americans agree and wipe these slime bags out of office and replace them with fiscal conservatives.  Yes like Ronald Reagan.  This in my opinion is what America needs. 
Scott

----------


## Doomer

> It is mine and my follow Americans that work, hard earned money.  Liberal/socialists believe they can spend my money for the benefit of their careers and I am tired of it.  I hope most of my fellow Americans agree and wipe these slime bags out of office and replace them with fiscal conservatives.  Yes like Ronald Reagan.  This in my opinion is what America needs.
> Scott

 Just don't forget that this may come with increased social inequality, higher criminal rate and no social protection (like pension)
Balance is the key

----------


## fortheether

> Just don't forget that this may come with increased social inequality, higher criminal rate and no social protection (like pension)
> Balance is the key

 Wiping away the slime bags will cause all that?  I don't think so. 
Scott

----------


## Doomer

> Wiping away the slime bags will cause all that?  I don't think so. 
> Scott

 Having right radicals in government will cause that

----------


## nulle

> Just don't forget that this may come with increased social inequality,  higher criminal rate and no social protection (like pension)
> Balance is the key

 So - I - working man - should pay some bum that does not want to work, otherwise he will steal my bike or rob my apartment?

----------


## Doomer

> So - I - working man - should pay some bum that does not want to work, otherwise he will steal my bike or rob my apartment?

 Don't tell me that this is a surprise for you
Don't tell me that you don't do that now - you paying 25% (min) to Latvian government as taxes and it's up to them what to do with your taxes, Latvia as not ultra right it's very liberal

----------


## kidkboom

> No, actually you would be saying that the sun is blue. From your posts here is seems that you have a very left winged view. That's fine, but I don't understand it at all. I am a proud American conservative. You can still believe the left wing media's misinformation about conservatives all that you want but the reality is different. As for your questions, did you read the links? If a bank is forced by the government to give mortgages to people that can't afford mortgages, how is it the banks fault? The USA now has a lot of people that feel they don't have to earn a living but can live off of the government. There is no Obama or any other politician "stash" of money - It is mine and my follow Americans that work, hard earned money. Liberal/socialists believe they can spend my money for the benefit of their careers and I am tired of it. I hope most of my fellow Americans agree and wipe these slime bags out of office and replace them with fiscal conservatives. Yes like Ronald Reagan. This in my opinion is what America needs. 
> Scott

 First of all, this view is so terribly warped as to permanently be a fringe view, in fact bordering on the kind of radicalism and extremism we often find at the bottom of terror-bomber's "explanation" letters, those egotistical, arrogant, self-loving, hypocritical, megalomaniacal hogwash lines that betray an obvious distortion of information somewhere between reception and cognition. "_The USA now has a lot of people that feel they don't have to earn a living but can live off of the government."_ This is not merely a poor interpretation of information - it's simply not true! I put it to you to find me a single person who believes that they never need to come across a dime of income in their lives and can live off of the government. If you do find them, it'll be among the Baby Boomers in their hoverround scooters at the back of the repub rallies.  
In addition, I'm very disturbed by your ability to associate yourself PERSONALLY with things that you should have the faculty to discuss with a safe separation between political and personal. Liberal americans are not socialists, you've gravely misunderstood that and I'd expect that any of those folks here who were experiencing real SOCIALISM while I was chilling in AZ and you were chilling in NJ, should set you straight about that.  
These liberals don't want "your" money. They want to rip up the pavement of the fast-track your whole party has paved right around the difficulties, often insurmountable, the rest of us encounter when we try to "get there" like the repubs did - "all on their own elbow grease" and all that nonsense. And that's gotta be heartbreaking to people who only made it because they were offered that inside track from the repub party. And.. you keep mentioning "left-wing" media.. Maybe you're not aware that the media is owned by the right. Right down from AP to us below-heaven folks. What is left-wing media? Apple commercials? Google ads??  
I'm just like you, Scott, a hard working american who earns his own money. But, my concern for where the money goes and what effect it has on the world goes beyond my own pocketbook, right on into the effect it has on the rest of our country. If the guy next to me was starving, I'd give him part of my paycheck to keep him alive. I wouldn't spit in his change cup and call the local constabulary to haul him off to someplace less disturbing to my eye. Sure, I could spend that money on a Kindle and designer sunglasses. But I don't feel so strongly that what's mine is mine, that I should let the guy next to me suffer, so I can live in luxury. That's not "pride." That's "hate" masked as pride. 
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY is a catch-phrase that people are using to hide the unnanounced fact that, when there's not enough to go around, the priveleged will get what they need, and the underpriveleged will be left to free-fall like sandbags off of a heavy hot air balloon. It doesn't mean "small government." It means "government that panders to the priveleged." Don't believe me? Ask me to explain. It sounds deceptively financial when it's really a call to civil war, that "fiscal" line. 
There's no harm with entertaining the idea that banks should be made aware of, and responsible for, the shapes they carve into the economy of america, by being huge money-moving entities, that cull the population based on factors they've worked out internally to mean "you can afford this" and "you can't." Give a marble to one brother, none to the other. Do this everyday. At the end of the week these brothers will be fighting over marbles. Blame the boys? Blame the marbles? No, blame the marble-bestower. Simple. Iniquity needs to represent not only the AMBITIONS of a capitalistic country but also the realistic NEEDS of one. If you have Tamiflu when the swine plague crosses over us, but your hired help doesn't, don't be surprised when they drop dead and now you have to pick up your OWN featherduster and do the job that was below you before. Honestly.. share the Tamiflu and you can keep your maids. Satisfy your republican pride by keeping the lion's share of it - YOU CAN STILL KEEP WAY MORE THAN YOU NEED!! - , but not ALL. See how that works? Compromise a little bit, and you can still spend all your energy focused on your own goals.. But keep your subjects alive. The heart of the low-wage american worker is democratic, but they can be fooled into thinking they're republican, for a few years. Religion works wonders for this. Until the real republican leaders who wear ivy league sweaters reveal that they're not looking out for these workers' interests, or even health, at all, but rather as flesh and labor resources. 
Reagan almost destroyed the planet in the name of american luxury, american security, american greed, american power. I'd rather NOT have another ronald rayguns in office, and I am one little part of the majority you're hoping will agree with you. 
I hope my fellow americans DISagree with you and wipe slime bags like Romney, Limbaugh Reagan and ilk entirely out of the running, so we're not in danger of another planet-destroying, Dubya-esque megalomaniac seeing to it that the best of everything goes to the top 1% and that the 99% are offered a rabbit on a string for dinner, forever to be yanked just out of reach as they run a track drawn out by republican chessmasters designed to keep them working to spin their wheel.

----------


## Lampada

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12004 
Dov Seidman on his book "How: Why How We Do Anything Means Everything” 
Also on Occupy...  ::  
on Monday, November 21, 2011

----------


## Crocodile

I think that, as usual, the truth is somewhere in between. I mean, on the one hand there are lots of people on a financial relief who just plain enjoy the situation and are busy making some extra untaxed cash on top of what the government (=the other people that is) is providing them with. On the other hand, though, there are lots of people who would LOVE to go on doing skilled jobs and are qualified to do it, but are plain stuck with some specific situations: like they don't have the local experience and have poor lying skills to pretend they do. Even though I'm also on the conservative side, and I think the socialism and communism are definitely not the way to go, I must admit the capitalism also has lots of embedded social issues. So, there should be some balance and, I guess, the only way to get close to it would be to allow the competition between the left and the right to make the system fluctuate around some optimal values.  
Also, kidkboom, if you allow me to make a comment, there seems to be a noticeable gap in some of the leftist logical deductions you mentioned above. You see, it is definitely humane to share what you have, and it's also socially-proven as right throughout the centuries. However, there are various ways to get there. Do you think a BUREAUCRAT would be a better person to distribute the 'extra wealth' fairly? Do you think you are not capable to make that decision yourself of how much you want to spend and to whom you want to give it? Are you aware that some very rich people find it humane to establish their own relief funds and campaign for it among their circles and in the media? I bet you are, but it seems like a tiny drop in the ocean of what needs to be done, particularly because MOST OF THE MONEY HAD ALREADY BEEN TAKEN BY THAT VERY BUREAUCRAT and spent to whatever that guy seems right. Have you ever seen how much power and influence those officers have? And they use that power to their own satisfaction. They are generally rude, speak their narrow mind with superiority and they know those who are on a relief usually don't have much choice and have to take it all. No wonder the not-so-fortunate people's perception of the government is usually formed based on their own experience with those rude officers. And you can't blame them, but in the end you have a situation with people who don't work anywhere (or work illegally constantly worrying because legally they can't make an extra dollar as they would loose all their benefits) and at the same time they hate the government and (SURPRISE!) everybody who makes more money. So, you don't spit in their change cup, but instead of giving them some change you would open your wallet to a stranger and say: "ok, ask how much the poor people in this street need, take that from my wallet and give it to them." So, after doing that you wonder why instead of the grateful "thank you" all you hear is the shouts of hatred and envy from the alcohol-n-drug impaired people in your neighborhood. Can that situation qualify as what you intended it to be?

----------


## Lampada

Uploaded by     *OccupyTVNY* on Nov 21, 2011

----------


## it-ogo

Вот хорошо разжевано. 
(Some good analysis in Russian.)

----------


## fortheether

> Uploaded by     *OccupyTVNY* on Nov 21, 2011

 I like the music in the video.  Do they have any videos of what their goals are and how to achieve them? 
Scott

----------


## Hanna

> Do they have any videos of what their goals are and how to achieve them?

 They would like to save your country for being pulled down into the gutter by greedy bankers. 
Is that good enough?
And when you look at what these cockroaches have already done towards the US I am surprised that every normal American isn't behind OWST. Greed managed to literally destroy a superpower that was really quite decent and had everything going for it at the end of WW2.  
The Roman empire took a thousand years to destroy. Corporate and banking greed did the job to the USA in only a few decades. How ironical that nukes had nothing to do with it.  
And that's compared to the other recent superpower, the USSR, which hated itself so much that it just gave up and fell apart. Unprecedented!  
And meanwhile China's star is continuing to rise.

----------


## fortheether

> They would like to save your country for being pulled down into the gutter by greedy bankers. 
> Is that good enough?
> And when you look at what these cockroaches have already done towards the US I am surprised that every normal American isn't behind OWST. Greed managed to literally destroy a superpower that was really quite decent and had everything going for it at the end of WW2.  
> The Roman empire took a thousand years to destroy. Corporate and banking greed did the job to the USA in only a few decades. How ironical that nukes had nothing to do with it.  
> And that's compared to the other recent superpower, the USSR, which hated itself so much that it just gave up and fell apart. Unprecedented!  
> And meanwhile China's star is continuing to rise.

 There's a lot more wrong with my country than greedy bankers and corporations.  I think that both houses of congress and both political parties are doing a lot more damage than anyone else.  I'm surprised that every normal American is not against OWST. 
Scott

----------


## Lampada

> ...  I'm surprised that every normal American is not against OWST.
> Scott

 Anonymous hacks cops coordinating Occupy evictions - PERF goes down - National Anonymous | Examiner.com 
People who left comments over there sound like normal Americans, don't they?

----------


## fortheether

> Anonymous hacks cops coordinating Occupy evictions - PERF goes down - National Anonymous | Examiner.com 
> People who left comments over there sound like normal Americans, don't they?

 I used the term "normal Americans" in response to Hanna's use: 
And when you look at what these cockroaches have already done towards  the US I am surprised that every normal American isn't behind OWST. 
Which implies that I'm not a normal American because I don't support OWST.    Bill O'Reilly: The Failure of the 'Occupy Wall Street' Movement - Talking Points - The O'Reilly Factor - Fox News 
I do "walk the walk" with my life though.  Recently at my work I needed some cash - I went to a Bank of America ATM - it wanted a $3 fee to get cash.  I drove away and went to Shop Rite and bought some gum and with no fee got cash.  I try to use the bank with the least amount of fees.     
Scott

----------


## fortheether

This in my opinion is part of what is wrong with the USA:  Arizona Lawmakers Say They Will Build Border Fence | Fox News 
The federal government should already be taking care of this.  Illegal immigration is very expensive to us taxpayers. 
Scott

----------


## Eric C.

> This in my opinion is part of what is wrong with the USA:  Arizona Lawmakers Say They Will Build Border Fence | Fox News 
> The federal government should already be taking care of this.  Illegal immigration is very expensive to us taxpayers. 
> Scott

  

> "A fence slows down traffic. It doesn't stop it," he says. "You need to put your money in effective resources that you know will work."

 Make it higher, and connect it to an AC line (said with no irony or sarcasm).

----------


## rockzmom

> LOLWUT? Is this some kind of a joke?
> In other words - we do not want to work, let them rich feed us. 
> I thought better of these clowns. This is ridiculous!

 Ramil... if someone already responded to you... sorry... but when I read this I too was surprised and took a look at the link. There is now this note:  

> *Admin Note: This is not an official list of demands. The user "bchang1987" who posted this speaks only for themself, not the movement. This website would never in a million years endorse a list of demands of the 1%.*

 Now... I did come across what IMHO is an interesting blog from a 1% who claims he is also a 99%  
Scott might be able to support this one...  What the Occupy Movement Should Demand - Barry Schuler's Synapsis

----------


## fortheether

> Ramil... if someone already responded to you... sorry... but when I read this I too was surprised and took a look at the link. There is now this note:  
> Now... I did come across what IMHO is an interesting blog from a 1% who claims he is also a 99%  
> Scott might be able to support this one...  What the Occupy Movement Should Demand - Barry Schuler's Synapsis

 Scott absolutely supports what was written.  It's an excellent article in my opinion. 
Thank you for posting it! 
Scott

----------


## Ramil

> Ramil... if someone already responded to you... sorry... but when I read this I too was surprised and took a look at the link. There is now this note:  
> Now... I did come across what IMHO is an interesting blog from a 1% who claims he is also a 99%  
> Scott might be able to support this one...  What the Occupy Movement Should Demand - Barry Schuler's Synapsis

 Is that what they should be asking for?   

> The answer is simple and elegant: outlaw “Blame” in the political discourse.  We should demand that our politicians only talk to us with proposals and solutions.  They should keep the finger pointing and fighting behind closed doors.  We don’t need to see the sausage making. If they can’t produce solutions. Vote them out.  Forget about party politics, vote for anyone who gets things done.

 Is that all? Just stop talking about what prevented you doing anything and talk about how to solve this problem? Is that the recipe of overall well-being for all?
No, this is not. I still cannot see what the protesters are trying to achieve there? What, Obama will come to them and say 'your debts are all forgiven'? This won't happen. They made their point already and that point has been taken as far as I could tell. What's next? America's virtually a bankrupt. All that is holding things together now is people's faith in its economy. Faith only, nothing more. These protests undermine that faith.

----------


## Hanna

For Americans who still have their heads in the sand...  (you know who you are... )
This is what your friends in the UK / BBC /say about you... and then you can imagine what the enemies say.     
Basically you've been had!!! And the Wall Street Occupiers are just trying to make people wake up and take back control from whatever shady interests are really erunning the country from behind the scenes. Drawing it deeper and deeper into irrepairable debt, while China is laughing all the way to the bank. 
Really, Americans have been had almost as badly as Russians were in the 1990s. Oh how the mighty fall...

----------


## Doomer

> Basically you've been had!!! And the Wall Street Occupiers are just trying to make people wake up and take back control from whatever shady interests are really erunning the country from behind the scenes. Drawing it deeper and deeper into irrepairable debt, while China is laughing all the way to the bank.

 There are some countries where public debt is much higher than GDP and it doesn't change much for people living there (for example Japan)
And there are some countries having public debt much lower than GDP but people living poorly there (including Russia and China) 
Also there are some countries having external debt much higher than GDP, meaning that business there is practically owned by other countries and Sweden for example is one of them (external debt of Sweden is 1.87 times higher than GDP of Sweden). Do you feel bad living in that country Hanna? 
My point is - w/o understanding the meaning of these number it is all just mass media populism

----------


## Hanna

> Also there are some countries having external debt much higher than GDP, meaning that business there is practically owned by other countries and Sweden for example is one of them (external debt of Sweden is 1.87 times higher than GDP of Sweden). Do you feel bad living in that country Hanna?

 II actually think you have the wrong figure there, because I have heard something else but I can't be fussed to look it up. Regardless, I don't feel TERRIBLY bad, there are lots worse countries to live in. But this country has been going downhill, mark my words! When I grew up we were constantly told that we lived in the best welfare state and one of the fairest and most caring countries in the world. (pride cometh before fall... lol) But it was largely true. Now, it is not really better than anywhere else in Northern Europe and some of the old welfare institutions are a hinderance rather than helping people. Tons of publically owned institutions and organisations were sold off and their services have become worse, but more expensive. Trains being the best example. There are even private schools and nursing homes that are allowed to make a profit and take the profit out of the country. Not even the UK allows that.  
Back on topic:  
As for the economic situation not being noticeable in the country affected, of course it is! 
That's why people migrate. That's why there is unemployment.  This type of thing happend in Ireland a few years ago, and also in Iceland. Young people are leaving both these countries in droves... the most resourceful people that is. They cannot get a job at home, or they do not get the level of salary that they want. London is absolutely swarmed with Irish people, and similarly Icelandic people go to Scandinavia. Something like this also happened in Latvia, and despite it being a very small country, I have run into lots of Latvians in London, in Stockholm.  
Greek people have already started migrating to Italy, the UK or anywhere really within the EU where they feel there are better opportunities for them.  
Within the EU you can move anywhere you want, as long as you can handle the language situation and get a job. Most educated people speak at least one foreign language fluently; English or the language of a large neighbouring country. So that's how people migrate.  
In the USA, I guess there is nowhere to migrate, since it is so big, there is no obvious neighbouring country to move to and people don't speak foreign languages in general. I suppose people will move to the more viable areas rather than staying in smaller cities.  
But don't be so naive to think that there will continue to be lots of well paid jobs available, cheap housing and affordable clothes and gadgets. Gradually your living standard will reduce with the currently outlook. 
Or it could take a nose dive if the dollar falls (not unlikely) or the Chinese decide to allow their currency to float.  
Take an office clerk in the US and compare it with an office clerk in China. 
Is there some built-in law of the universe that says that the Chinese person should live in a crummy small flat, riding a bike to work, while the American should live in a house and drive a car... just for starters, despite the fact that they are doing the same job and there is no difference in skill or efficiency.   
China is able to invest in infrastructure, education, hospitals etc now. They are building all the insitututions that makes a country great and influential. They are creating relationships in the third world based on trading and bartering skills for resources (as opposed to waging wars, placing military bases there, infiltration of spies and manipulation of foreign governments).  
Their country is run by a party that hand picks the elite from the top universities to form its' economic and foreign policies. 
They are not distracted by elections or undue media scrutiny (for better or worse), and they are not hugely influenced by lobbyists apart from fairly obvious practice of bribing officials - something they are trying to stamp out.  
They are running their country in a focussed way, with one goal - to get to the top, and take the people with them (at least eventually) 
Meanwhile the USA is run from behind the facade of "democracy" by bankers and large corporations that have no long term vision other than the next bonus or dividient payout. These interests don't care about the citizens, about the reputation of the country or about acting ethically in anyway. Things that it indignantly accuses its opponents of doing, it is doing itself in the open or behind the scene. It has become a hypocritical country in the extreme, whereas China as a comparison has never made any claims to being democratic or having a "human rights" focus, whatever this might mean.  
Don't get me wrong, I am not idolozing China, in fact I don't even like China. Nor am I speaking from any position of superior knowledge. 
But I think it's more honest towards the world and its own citizens about what it's about and what it's trying to achieve. 
It is run in a more focussed way that will ultimately benefit its citizens a lot more. 
In the US, the huge wealth that still exists does not benefit the majority and shortly as the dollar starts dropping, it will find its way to safer currencies , in offshore destinations where it will do absolutely no good to the Americans that generated it. 
You will be left with a huge military empire, no industry lead in any sector and a population who has lost its way. 
Perhaps a bit similar to what happened in Russia in the 1990s.  
Military might will be all that the US has left as leverage externally. And internally, the only way for the current elites to stay in power will be to restrict democracy even further, or find some excuse to stop it altogether. Since all big media in America is in the hands of these exact elites it shouldn't be hard to sell some propaganda to the people to get them to accept it.  
This is how I think things will develop in the USA unless you wake up and do something now. 
Like elect a completely new party to power, that is not corrupted by influence from lobbyists. Stop all wars immediately and focus on building up industry and improving education within the country.

----------


## Throbert McGee

> *Greed* managed to literally destroy a superpower that was really quite decent and had everything going for it at the end of WW2.

 _
[Trying to work in a little Russian practice... ]_  Именно *чья* жадность, и жадность *к чему*?! _(Namely whose greed, and greed for what?!)_ 
Do you mean the greed of a middle-class family who greedily wanted to eat steak four times a month (every Sunday), instead of having steak only once a month, and who greedily bought their made-in-China clothes at Walmart, instead of slightly more expensive made-in-Ukraine clothes from Macy's, so that they'd have some extra money for steak, and who greedily purchased an SUV because it had more cargo space so that they could save gas by going to the grocery store less often, and also because they greedily wanted to protect their children, and they believed that an SUV is more likely to survive a highway collision than a tiny economy car?

----------


## Hanna

No, I am talking about greed of the banks and corporations that are plundering your country while you (apparently) cannot afford to eat steak...

----------


## Throbert McGee

> These liberals don't want "your" money. They want to rip up the pavement of the fast-track your whole party has paved right around the difficulties, often insurmountable, the rest of us encounter when we try to "get there" like the repubs did - "all on their own elbow grease" and all that nonsense. And that's gotta be heartbreaking to people who only made it because they were offered that inside track from the repub party.

 For _some_ reason, this reminds me of:  "У соседа корова сдохла -- мелочь, а приятно" 
Kidkboom, envy and suspicion of "Repubs" who are more materially successful than you will not solve your problems.

----------


## Doomer

> As for the economic situation not being noticeable in the country affected, of course it is! 
> That's why people migrate. That's why there is unemployment.  This type of thing happend in Ireland a few years ago, and also in Iceland. Young people are leaving both these countries in droves... the most resourceful people that is. They cannot get a job at home, or they do not get the level of salary that they want. London is absolutely swarmed with Irish people, and similarly Icelandic people go to Scandinavia. Something like this also happened in Latvia, and despite it being a very small country, I have run into lots of Latvians in London, in Stockholm.

 People move to a better place
It is not a surprise for me   

> This is how I think things will develop in the USA unless you wake up and do something now. 
>  Like elect a completely new party to power, that is not corrupted by influence from lobbyists. Stop all wars immediately and focus on building up industry and improving education within the country.

 Good words
You can probably point to the money source to change all that to greater good
The bigger the economy the slower the changes
As for wars - I don't support wars but you probably know that
«Чтобы удержать революцию, нам нужна маленькая победоносная война»
Wars already become a tool to keep crowd on a leash 
I like this saying from a good movie
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
And a war "for democracy" is "good way" to keep people from asking questions about politics

----------


## nulle

> And when you look at what these cockroaches have already done towards the US

 Got average living standard higher than most of the world?
Especially exUSSR...  

> But this country has been going downhill, mark my words! When I grew up  we were constantly told that we lived in the best welfare state and one  of the fairest and most caring countries in the world.

 Maybe that's because this "welfare" was unsustainable in the long run...
I like this saying about socialism:
"Sooner or later you will run out of other people's money".

----------


## Ramil

> As for wars - I don't support wars but you probably know that
> «Чтобы удержать революцию, нам нужна маленькая победоносная война»
> Wars already become a tool to keep crowd on a leash

 The person who said this was killed shortly after that. And that little victorious war turned out to be a disaster.
My point is - wars can get out of hand sometimes.

----------


## Doomer

> My point is - wars can get out of hand sometimes.

 As I said - I don't support wars but "пипл хавает"

----------


## fortheether

The vail is starting to come off...  Cornel West: Ultimate Fight For Entitlements Will Be In "The Streets" | RealClearPolitics 
Let's work on fixing that "wealth inequality" issue by those with less wealth THAT ARE ABLE to EARN more wealth.  Not take it away from others like most likely they want to. 
Scott

----------


## Seraph

Scroll half way down:CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About... 
"When you can borrow money for nothing, and lend  it back to the government risk-free for a few percentage points, you can  COIN MONEY. And the banks are doing that. According to IRA, the "net  interest margin" made by US banks in the first six months of this year  is $211 Billion. Nice!" 
This is going on year in year out, draining the economy.  The largest expense of big banks is compensation.  They simply pay themselves large amounts. 
The largest amount of money is taken by people that do nothing for it, paracitising the economy, draining your wallet.

----------


## fortheether

> Scroll half way down:CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About... 
> "When you can borrow money for nothing, and lend  it back to the government risk-free for a few percentage points, you can  COIN MONEY. And the banks are doing that. According to IRA, the "net  interest margin" made by US banks in the first six months of this year  is $211 Billion. Nice!" 
> This is going on year in year out, draining the economy.  The largest expense of big banks is compensation.  They simply pay themselves large amounts. 
> The largest amount of money is taken by people that do nothing for it, paracitising the economy, draining your wallet.

 And who created this "loophole" that the banks are taking advantage of?  The government, no? 
I don't know where in the constitution "income inequality" is discussed.  This is America - you are free to make a boat load of money (microsoft, google, facebook, etc.) and you are also free to fail.   I personally feel that the banks and GM are not too big too fail and in my opinion they shouldn't have been bailed out.   
Thank you for the link. 
Scott

----------


## Seraph

> And who created this "loophole" that the banks are taking advantage of?  The government, no?...

 Actually this was created by the banks, and they pushed it through.  This was not created by any constitutional process, nor did citizens get a vote on it.  
Also, on the separate issue, there are regulatory activities governing banks that were routinely ignored in creating the financial crisis.  Failure to act on laws and regulations already on the books.  This has to do with accountability of elected officials, but we can't get ride of them, because the two parties are controlled from the top down by big money.

----------


## Lampada

More than 200 arrested in Occupy LA raid - Yahoo! News  *1400* полицейских!  _"Two men who constructed an elaborate tree house lashed bamboo sticks together with twine to push away any ladder police might use to evict them.Police said they would be able to remove the tree climbers."_

----------


## Seraph

...

----------


## fortheether

Occupiers are backing up their words with actions:  Occupy San Francisco Looking to Establish Credit Union | Moneyland | TIME.com 
I admire that, but I wonder, how many supporters of the occupy movement will actually put any of their money there?  Time will tell. 
Scott

----------


## kidkboom

> For _some_ reason, this reminds me of:  "У соседа корова сдохла -- мелочь, а приятно" 
> Kidkboom, envy and suspicion of "Repubs" who are more materially successful than you will not solve your problems.

 
Hmm.. Well, I like the quote, at least! 
You've misread me if you think I hold any envy for these folks and what they've hoarded through these tactics. I have no envy - I do have a disdain for unfair play. The term "repubs" I shouldn't use: it's not really accurate to my intended reference .. some of these folks are on either side of the party lines, but unfair play IS unfair play. Soon as I find a better handle for this entity, I'll use that one instead.  
I don't expect anything I say here to solve problems - "my" problems, or anyone's.. Discourse and solution are as different from each other as is Congress from a State Penitentiary. My intent was the former. In fact, the focus on the concept of "offering a solution" was applied by those who are arguing against the movement, not myself who would argue FOR it. I believe the argument was (no copyright violation intended as I know this is a tried-and-true debater's riposte) : "Sure, the Occupy guys can talk all day about the problem, but they don't offer any kind of a SOLUTION." .. A solution would be great, but I for one would not recommend that either side of this argument grab at straws to be ready with a solution, before discourse has voiced both sides and we've all looked for grounds on which to compromise. 
For another thing - I didn't develop suspicion autonomously. I developed it through observation. Whosoever is qualified to term one man's observation as accurate and another's as overly suspicious - let him be licensed to make psychiatric evaluations, or else gifted with some altogether higher authority, such that can guarantee that this judgment is accurate and not merely a retaliatory strike in a rain of discussionary blows. Suffice it to say that until such time that such a declaration has been made, my observations, be they envious or suspicious through the eyes of another, are still my own and rendered valid by this distinction alone. 
Now, here we breach the real question... How can one discuss the intent of a group that protests, without leaving the identity of the protesting group vulnerable to others' interpretations of their motives? I mean, almost ANY movement, you can say, "the challenger is ENVIOUS and SUSPICIOUS.. the incumbent is GREEDY and STUBBORN(can be subbed for CORRUPT on a case-by-case)." _"The English Crown was GREEDY and CORRUPT, and the American revolutionaries were ENVIOUS and SUSPICIOUS. The white plantation owners were GREEDY and STUBBORN, and the black slaves were ENVIOUS and SUSPICIOUS. George W.'s regime was GREEDY and CORRUPT, and Obama's regime was ENVIOUS and SUSPICIOUS."_ ...Given no other information but that one group is in a position, and the other group seeks to uproot them... what I'm really stating is my own glass-empty/full view of life, isn't it? If I tend towards reactionism, I might interpret that, in the absence of other info, the force in power is correct. Or if I tend towards radicalism, I might interpret that the force that's oppressed by the power is correct. But - in the absence of actual criteria, it's all moot, isn't it? Beyond a Rorschach I mean? 
As for the point I was originally making.. I was trying, and I'm starting to wish I wasn't the only one around here who was, to give a rough summary of the intent of the Occupy movement. I wasn't trying to bash Republicans and I wasn't trying to be Bolshevik 2.0.

----------


## kidkboom

> For Americans who still have their heads in the sand... (you know who you are... )
> This is what your friends in the UK / BBC /say about you... and then you can imagine what the enemies say.     
> Basically you've been had!!! And the Wall Street Occupiers are just trying to make people wake up and take back control from whatever shady interests are really erunning the country from behind the scenes. Drawing it deeper and deeper into irrepairable debt, while China is laughing all the way to the bank. 
> Really, Americans have been had almost as badly as Russians were in the 1990s. Oh how the mighty fall...

 Hanna, I'm a little bit leery to mention this here without a flak-jacket, as there have been some interesting things set to flight in this room recently.. 
But speaking from my own experience, this is no secret and hasn't ever been. It's simply been ignored for a very, very long time. I read a magazine over 12 years ago - I certainly won't be able to remember what but vaguely I seem to recall it was some huge publication like Time Mgz or something - that went into great detail about the ridiculous, indefatiguable, gargantuan behemoth debt that we had, that illustrated how it would be financially impossible to pay it back. This was a long time ago and in a pretty psychiatrically secure America, and the tone of the article was actually joking about the eventual time when we would somehow have to "pay the piper."  On the same topic - just remembered this --- 
My candle burns at both ends;
It will not last the night;
But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends—
It gives a lovely light! "First Fig"
from _A Few Figs from Thistles_ (1920)

----------


## kidkboom

> LOLWUT? Is this some kind of a joke? Repeal the Taft-Hartley Act. Unionize ALL workers immediately.Raise the minimum wage immediately to $18/hr. Create a maximum wage of $90/hr to eliminate inequality.Institute a 6 hour workday, and 6 weeks of paid vacation.Institute a moratorium on all foreclosures and layoffs immediately.Repeal racist and xenophobic English-only laws.*Open the borders to all immigrants, legal or illegal. Offer immediate, unconditional amnesty, to all undocumented residents of the US.*Create a single-payer, universal health care system.Pass stricter campaign finance reform laws. Ban all private donations. All campaigns will receive equal funding, provided by the taxpayers.Institute a *negative income tax*, and tax the very rich at rates up to 90%.Pass far stricter environmental protection and animal rights laws.Allow workers to elect their supervisors.Lower the retirement age to 55. Increase Social Security benefits.Create a 5% annual wealth tax for the very rich.*Ban the private ownership of land*.Make homeschooling illegal. Religious fanatics use it to feed their children propaganda.Reduce the age of majority to 16.Abolish the death penalty and life in prison. We call for the immediate release of all death row inmates from death row and transferred to regular prisons.Release all political prisoners immediately.Immediate withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.*Abolish the debt limit.*Ban private gun ownership.Strengthen the separation of church and state.*Immediate debt forgiveness for all.*End the 'War on Drugs'.In other words - we do not want to work, let them rich feed us. 
> I thought better of these clowns. This is ridiculous!

 From what I read on the website, which I had to find by clicking from the link from the other guys' "blog" about another website - this list was by no means a final, put-this-out-to-the-media-to-represent-us list.. Correct me if I'm wrong or if it's already been pointed out, but.. 
THIS WAS CLEARLY MARKED UNDER ::  *Posted 1 month ago on Oct. 23, 2011, 11:21 p.m. EST by anonymous 
This content is user submitted and not an official statement   * .. Here's the direct link, без игр: Forum Post: Proposed list of OWS Demands | OccupyWallSt.org 
Likely you'll notice on the third or fourth line, yeah, this was posted by some guy, and was not official. 
Hope the deadline on mind-closing hasn't passed yet.

----------


## Seraph

.
.
.

----------


## fortheether

One persons experience of people living off of the government:  Articles: The Ultimate Devastating Price of Government Dependency 
Scott

----------


## kidkboom

American Thinker is a conservative rag. Tom Lifson who runs the rag is an IVY LEAGUE Harvard man. His first mate on the rag is Larry Anderson, a former conservative senator, and a STOCK TRADER. 
These two individuals are the final say on what goes out to print. 
Who's going to be surprised that right-swaying thinkers are thinking swaying right?? Reading this, I feel like I'm looking into a column in Guns & Ammo for intelligent intellectual debate on gun control laws. Or reading Playboy for "unbiased" debate of pornography laws. Like asking WC Fields what he thinks about the idea of prohibition.  
The writer of this article is clearly bent on possessions and their meanings, on comparing people by terms of wealth, and even has the audacity to say that the fact that one of his cousins "made it" (I'm assuming he means that the cousin made a good enough amount of money to be considered a "success" in the $-$ glasses of the conservatives who wrote this, but who knows? maybe he meant the cousin made it because he became a man of god? or content with his life's work? (if so, why's it "remarkable" that he should make it?) ) despite being on welfare as a kid, is "remarkable." 
Wow - WOW! - I was BLOWN back by this statement: *"The Democratic Party enthusiastically embraces all who hate America. Plain and simple." * Really dude????? That's not even debate anymore - it's extremism, radical and close-minded. The only more extreme statement I can think of in this vein would be something like, "The Democrats are evil." 
Where did the right develop this mindset that hardships allowed to befall others will "teach them lessons" like "nothing in life is free"? Yet when THEY suffer hardships (that they can't fix with an ivy-league handshake, a sped-through-congress bill, and taking the lunch money of the guy next to them) and their flagships, we "must have a bailout for the sake of the country's security!!"  Know what I think?  I think that, apart from people like our Harvard man here, who flipped opinions for a dime and a rolodex full of logrolling ivy buddies (and a skull ring, who knows?) .. I think most of them are just INGRACIOUS SUFFERERS.  Their response to hard times is to attack the more vulnerable around them, and whether consciously or un-, they bend their logic (or allow it to be bent) to represent this plan.

----------


## fortheether

This throws a wingy into who the occupiers will vote for?  Moore: "Wall Street Has Their Man And His Name Is Barack Obama" | RealClearPolitics 
Probably not though. 
Scott

----------


## fortheether

> II actually think you have the wrong figure there, because I have heard something else but I can't be fussed to look it up. Regardless, I don't feel TERRIBLY bad, there are lots worse countries to live in. But this country has been going downhill, mark my words! When I grew up we were constantly told that we lived in the best welfare state and one of the fairest and most caring countries in the world. (pride cometh before fall... lol) But it was largely true. Now, it is not really better than anywhere else in Northern Europe and some of the old welfare institutions are a hinderance rather than helping people. Tons of publically owned institutions and organisations were sold off and their services have become worse, but more expensive. Trains being the best example. There are even private schools and nursing homes that are allowed to make a profit and take the profit out of the country. Not even the UK allows that.  
> Back on topic:  
> As for the economic situation not being noticeable in the country affected, of course it is! 
> That's why people migrate. That's why there is unemployment.  This type of thing happend in Ireland a few years ago, and also in Iceland. Young people are leaving both these countries in droves... the most resourceful people that is. They cannot get a job at home, or they do not get the level of salary that they want. London is absolutely swarmed with Irish people, and similarly Icelandic people go to Scandinavia. Something like this also happened in Latvia, and despite it being a very small country, I have run into lots of Latvians in London, in Stockholm.  
> Greek people have already started migrating to Italy, the UK or anywhere really within the EU where they feel there are better opportunities for them.  
> Within the EU you can move anywhere you want, as long as you can handle the language situation and get a job. Most educated people speak at least one foreign language fluently; English or the language of a large neighbouring country. So that's how people migrate.  
> In the USA, I guess there is nowhere to migrate, since it is so big, there is no obvious neighbouring country to move to and people don't speak foreign languages in general. I suppose people will move to the more viable areas rather than staying in smaller cities.  
> But don't be so naive to think that there will continue to be lots of well paid jobs available, cheap housing and affordable clothes and gadgets. Gradually your living standard will reduce with the currently outlook. 
> Or it could take a nose dive if the dollar falls (not unlikely) or the Chinese decide to allow their currency to float.  
> ...

 
China also gets to ignore pollution problems:  China&#39;s Pollution Data Shrouded In Official Fog | Fox News 
Along with the "little" human rights abuses:  World Report 2011: China | Human Rights Watch 
This country should be followed by other countries? 
Scott

----------


## fortheether

Wall Street reforms?    Obama Tells 60 Minutes 'Damaging Behavior on Wall Street' Was Legal, Wasn't Asked Who Enacted Such Laws | NewsBusters.org 
When the media doesn't even want to look into why this is happening.  At least when a democrat is president. 
Scott

----------


## Lampada

Would They Really Do That to Veterans?! | Occupied Stories

----------


## Lampada

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...t-anniversary/   
See comments

----------


## Lampada

*Occupy Oakland protesters awarded $1m over police violence during arrests* | World news | guardian.co.uk

----------

