Occupy Wall Street

[Jack Springer]

Cheap shot. If he were not fat, you would still disagree with him.

Big difference: he's not trying to fuck over the 99% - I've never heard Michael Moore wishing to bust the unions, etc. Intellectual dishonesty on your part.

*fail*

He wants $13 of your money when you go see one his movies. You can't separate him and others from the 1%.

If you really believe this 99% stuff -- he's part of the problem.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/25/m...ercent/#ooid=53MmF4MjqweAWF9nxH-nru4ly0-A1YL6

 

[Jack Springer]

The 1% is not about money. Truly it is about the people who CONTROL the economy, the government, etc. Unless Michael Moore is one of those people lobbying/buying off politicians... then no, he is not the 1%.

So, is Obama one of the 1%? He gets more money from Wall Street than any other politician. His chief-of-staff is a former Wall Street boss. He has many people on his staff and campaign staff that worked on Wall Street.

 

[chrisrobin]

So, is Obama one of the 1%? He gets more money from Wall Street than any other politician. His chief-of-staff is a former Wall Street boss. He has many people on his staff and campaign staff that worked on Wall Street.

How quaint! Yet another "I hate Obama" post! Your posts remind me of a pianist dry humping the same note on his piano continually. Please see thread title (again).

 

[zoltanspawn]

And if some shit rat wants to get kicked in the teeth before he settles down, I think that's good policing to give the client what he wants.

^I had hoped my indigestion over this comment would pass. It hasn't. So while I might not savor the image, here it is again...

 

[IokuA47]

So, is Obama one of the 1%? He gets more money from Wall Street than any other politician. His chief-of-staff is a former Wall Street boss. He has many people on his staff and campaign staff that worked on Wall Street.

In my opinion, yes he is. He doesn't care about what the people want, he just cares about money.

 

[fetaby]

So, is Obama one of the 1%? He gets more money from Wall Street than any other politician. His chief-of-staff is a former Wall Street boss. He has many people on his staff and campaign staff that worked on Wall Street.

Obama, like ALL politicians in DC, are ~employees~ of the 1%...

 

[chrisrobin]

Obama, like ALL politicians in DC, are ~employees~ of the 1%...

FDR was practically richer than God. However, he spent his entire public life working for the common man (person). Ms. Roosevelt was a pioneer in International Human Rights. Money doesn't necessarily supersede idealogy.

 

[JayHawk]

Did you bother reading the article before defending the change of what was there?

Paraphrasing doesn't change the meaning -- he did.

HMMMMMMMMMMM.................................

they reportedly haven’t worked out the specifics of what they want to do.

I wonder if not working out the specifics of what you want to do is the same as not knowing what you are doing?

In one case you don't know what you are doing

In the other you don't know exactly what your doing

“Occupy Norfolk” is struggling to find an identity

Finding ones self "Verb, 1. find oneself - accept and make use of one's personality, abilities, and situation"

“Oh, I have no idea,” one participant reportedly said while laughing, after being asked how this sect of “Occupy” will reach its goals.

It’s a work in progress, and Musselman cited other plans organizers have come up with to develop “Occupy Norfolk” through short-term plans into a respected and long-lasting occupation.

Work in progress... so they are working towards a goal that they haven't defined?

Well let me tell you the first step in problem solving is to define the problem not to define the solutions.

So Kuli DO YOU actually read the cited pieces or just throw trash at posters based on the poster?

 

[JayHawk]

http://galvestondailynews.com/ap/cc7992/ for the three below:

But tensions reached a boiling point after a sexual assault, a severe beating and a fire were reported and paramedics were denied access to the camp, according to city officials. They also cited concerns about rats, fire hazards and public urination.

Demonstrators disputed the city's claims, saying that volunteers collect garbage and recycling every six hours, that water is boiled before being used to wash dishes and that rats have long infested the park.

When riot gear-clad police moved in early Tuesday, they were pelted with rocks, bottles and utensils from people in the camp's kitchen area. They emptied the camp near city hall of people, and barricaded the plaza.

Protesters were taken away in plastic handcuffs, most of them arrested on suspicion of illegal lodging.

Demonstrators returned later in the day to march and retake the plaza. They were met by police officers in riot gear. Several small skirmishes broke out and officers cleared the area by firing tear gas.

The scene repeated itself several times just a few blocks away in front of the plaza.

Tensions would build as protesters edged ever closer to the police line and reach a breaking point with a demonstrator hurling a bottle or rock, prompting police to respond with another round of gas.

The chemical haze hung in the air for hours, new blasts clouding the air before the previous fog could dissipate.

An Iraq War veteran marching with demonstrators suffered a crack skull in the chaos between officers and protesters in Oakland further raising concern among some in the movement. Scott Olsen, a 24-year-old Marine veteran, was in critical condition Wednesday after he had been struck, said a spokesman for Highland Hospital in Oakland.

It was not clear exactly what type of exact object hit the veteran or who might have thrown it, though Guy's group said it was lodged by officers. Police did not return calls for comment ahead of late afternoon news conference.

Interesting to take in the whole story

In Atlanta,
Mayor Kasim Reed had been supportive of the protests, twice issuing an executive order allowing them to remain.

Reed said on Wednesday that he had no choice to arrest them because he believed things were headed in a direction that was no longer peaceful. He cited a man seen walking the park with an AK-47 assault rifle.

"There were some who wanted to continue along the peaceful lines, and some who thought that their path should be more radical," Reed said. "As mayor, I couldn't wait for them to finish that debate."

That article from Galveston gives multiple views and is compiled from many AP reporters across many cities. I of course quoted that which provides a counter argument because the bus here seems packed with blind support.

 

[jackoroe]

It's very sad to see people getting hurt, but I knew it would come to this. Leave when your told and take the city to court if you feel your right. Standing toe to toe with the riot squad isn't going to end well. You don't hold court on the street.

 

[JayHawk]

I will not justify any of the violence. However there is always two sides and yes if you throw bottles and rocks at police wearing riot gear after being told to disperse then there will be some injuries.

The odd thing (again) is watching people who deride the entire military for the actions of a FEW will do the same for all police and all cities and claim our democracy is falling and failing as if the things here are somehow comparable to the suffering that spawned the Arab spring. It is a ridiculous and baseless comparison.

The funny thing about it all? I agree with SOME of the OWS desires such as removing corporate influence from our political system and placing limits on the luxurious benefits the congress awards itself. The re-distribution of wealth bullshit DOES NOT WORK and never will as long as there are people around when it occurs. Since one (money) is useless without the other (people) that will occur sometime around - - - never.

So while I agree with the stated purpose in some cases, i can not support the whole while it demands useless and impossible things that will not occur in this society. I disagree that throwing rocks at police officers is peacefully assembling. I would say that shitting in a public square is a disturbance of the peace. 100 or a 1000 doing so is mayhem.

SO there we are.

 

[Kulindahr]

Michael is now fatter and richer than ever.

He's a multi-millionaire .... part of the 1%.

Actually he comes in on the 2%. Some think it should be 98%, not 99%.

http://galvestondailynews.com/ap/cc7992/ for the three below:

Interesting to take in the whole story

That article from Galveston gives multiple views and is compiled from many AP reporters across many cities. I of course quoted that which provides a counter argument because the bus here seems packed with blind support.

Various reports have indicated the demonstrators couldn't even hear the cops or what they were talking about when they could.

Beyond that, I'll just note that when the people want to exercise their first amendment rights, the mayor is fine with it, but when someone decides to exercise his second amendment right, the mayor sends in the troops.

That's close to how the American Revolution started.

 

[Just_Believe18]

It's very sad to see people getting hurt, but I knew it would come to this. Leave when your told and take the city to court if you feel your right. Standing toe to toe with the riot squad isn't going to end well. You don't hold court on the street.

Sounds like something a Tory would say.

 

[Kulindahr]

It's very sad to see people getting hurt, but I knew it would come to this. Leave when your told and take the city to court if you feel your right. Standing toe to toe with the riot squad isn't going to end well. You don't hold court on the street.

Holding court on the street is what the amendment's about.

Conservatives have happily thrown out protections including checks and balances on government power, and now want everyone to just be sheep and line up to be sheared.

I knew it would come to this because too many cops are goons and too many politicians think they're in power by divine right and don't care about citizens. Easily four-fifths of the power structure would have stood with the king in 1773 and onward.

 

[fetaby]

The funny thing about it all? I agree with SOME of the OWS desires such as removing corporate influence from our political system and placing limits on the luxurious benefits the congress awards itself. The re-distribution of wealth bullshit DOES NOT WORK and never will as long as there are people around when it occurs. Since one (money) is useless without the other (people) that will occur sometime around - - - never.

And this is where the whole damn thing fizzles...

A sizable portion of Americans want some socialism. They want to be able to get sick and not declare bankruptcy. They want to be able to get an education without having to pay back loans for three decades.

In exchange they want to become working, productive members of society. They want to drive the economy with their mass consumption.

But we have a few road blocks between here and there. 1, an economic system built upon exploitation. 2, an unsustainable ideal in regards to continuing mass consumption.

So who's going to end up paying for it? The 99% And how are they going to pay for it?

That remains to be seen. Because as it stands now, the government either makes something happen economically or the shit really does hit the fan.

 

[chrisrobin]

Way back in the 50s, if you made $3.2 million or more (a goodly sum for the 50s), you were in the 91% tax bracket. JFK lowered it to about 75%. Magic! Wealth was accrued. No class warfare. Manufacturing in the U.S. flourished, the banks extended loans. What we didn't have was a bunch of fat cats pissing and moaning about 38%, and still wanting a reduction at the expense of the other 99%. President Eisenhower was in the "upper bracket" but nobody seemed to mind. If someone had the balls to return the tax tables to pre-Reagan, we would do okay. Nobody does, therefore OWS is necessary. If anything, the "movement" will influence public opinion and who knows what else?

 

[opinterph]

… I'll just note that when the people want to exercise their first amendment rights, the mayor is fine with it, but when someone decides to exercise his second amendment right, the mayor sends in the troops.

I’m not sure to which city protest you are referring, but …

Mayor Reed says the gun was the straw that broke the camel's back.

… Now it's up to a judge to determine if Reed or protestors were correct when the men and women arrested last night have their day in court. [WGCL]

Leave when [you’re] told and take the city to court if you feel [you’re] right.

Indeed. An assault rifle has no place in a so-called “peaceful demonstration.”​

 

[JB3]

Actually he comes in on the 2%. Some think it should be 98%, not 99%.



Various reports have indicated the demonstrators couldn't even hear the cops or what they were talking about when they could.

Ignorance of the law or the orders of the police is not an excuse for defying an order.

Beyond that, I'll just note that when the people want to exercise their first amendment rights, the mayor is fine with it, but when someone decides to exercise his second amendment right, the mayor sends in the troops.

That's close to how the American Revolution started.

The moment you cross the line from being a peaceful protest to being one where an assault rifle is allowed is when the police should become involved. The gun had no place at the protest. With the way these protests have gone, the introduction of any weapon into the situation is very dangerous. It is NOT an assault on the second amendment.

 

[Kulindahr]

The re-distribution of wealth bullshit DOES NOT WORK and never will as long as there are people around when it occurs. Since one (money) is useless without the other (people) that will occur sometime around - - - never.

So while I agree with the stated purpose in some cases, i can not support the whole while it demands useless and impossible things that will not occur in this society.

As an economics professor at OSU when I was there once observed, without redistribution of wealth, there is no economy.

The kind of redistribution of wealth we've been experiencing under Republican administrations is to take it from the poor and move it upward. That process has now reached it logical conclusion, the slow dismantling of the middle class, so that if this goes on, in a generation those top five hundred households will have two-thirds of the wealth... if it takes that long.

Besides it being impossible to have an economy without redistribution of wealth, it's impossible to have government. What it boils down to is that a call for there to be no redistribution of wealth is a call for anarchy. What the call usually means, though, is that the upward movement of wealth has to be protected.

Of course what you're referring to is downward redistribution forced by the government... while ignoring the ongoing upward redistribution enforced by the government. The thing is, even there you're wrong, historically: government-forced downward redistribution has been quite effective at not just helping people but at reviving the economy.


So... try again.

 

[Kulindahr]

I’m not sure to which city protest you are referring, but …

Indeed. An assault rifle has no place in a so-called “peaceful demonstration.”​

As I understand federal firearms law, it couldn't have been an assault rifle, which means a weapon capable of single-shot, multiple-shot, and fully automatic fire. To even own such a weapon, one has to have a federal license, and as I recall, the license does NOT include being allowed to carry it around in crowds.

So if there was an assault rifle, the mayor is doubly a loser: for not investigating and checking on the weapon, and for punishing the wrong people.