Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Occupy Wall Street, London and Evereywhere Else
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 61 of 208 (643256)
12-05-2011 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Artemis Entreri
12-05-2011 5:20 PM


Are you being serious AE or troll AE right now? The picture you paint with your tea party vs OWS is one that suggests you have bought into the media hype (while at the same time decrying the media?). It is through the media that this has become a conservative/liberal thing. This is something that I don't really understand: why the divide? Why are conservatives REALLY anti-OWS (aside from Fox news telling them to be against it)? What is the real reason? What does the OWS movement stand for (facts please) that has the conservative base so upset? And please, don't say "people asking for handouts" because that is not what the movement is about....
I expect you to answer seriously since, if you are in troll mode, you can take the role of conservative and provide reasons. Or, if you're serious: we all know you are a conservative at heart and can still provide evidence. At least just answer some basic questions without silly cartoons that are exceptionally skewed.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-05-2011 5:20 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-06-2011 9:59 AM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2011 11:28 AM hooah212002 has replied
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2011 1:10 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 62 of 208 (643312)
12-06-2011 9:52 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Straggler
12-05-2011 6:39 PM


But most of the occupiers I know are educated, articulate, motivated and have busy lives including, in many cases, jobs
That's very true for Occupy Wall Street as well.
From my end, a lot of comics have taken to the protesting. I don't know why, maybe because we have free time to protest.
Here's a great video by Ted Alexandro, a comic, that really shows the true nature of the protest. Older people, young people, women, men, students, workers, and except for the gay meditation cirlce, it looks safe and it is safe. Having been down there, it's like a street festival where people are nice and friendly.
I don't see Occupy as the final answer to anything in and of itself. But you have to start somewhere.
This seems to be the overall point, as Alexandro states that there is no "End Game" right now. It's just a protest to begin what they feel will be a larger movement that changes the way politics are done.
Not that I agree with them and who they're protesting against, having they themselves voted the president that helped his friends in the financial market, but I do agree with their overall point: There needs to be a change in the way corporations influence politics in America and abroad.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Straggler, posted 12-05-2011 6:39 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 12-06-2011 10:27 AM onifre has replied
 Message 67 by Phat, posted 12-06-2011 11:24 AM onifre has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 63 of 208 (643314)
12-06-2011 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by hooah212002
12-05-2011 7:02 PM


non-serious mode of course, did you see how many responses i got. I know what the nerves are here, and how to touch them.
I personally think OWS is a joke. I think this thread is a joke, and as such I have not taken anything about this thread seriously, this is the funniest thread I have seen in at least a week or so. I'll totally let those serious about OWS (lol sorry its hard for me to think that OWS is a serious topic), chat about it, and I'll leave this thread.
I'll still lurk, mainly to laugh at the nonsense, but I'll be repsectful and not post anymore, I know there are some fools who are serious about OWS, and I'll leave them to their own discussion.
sorry about my last couple posts here, I...just...couldn't...resist.
just a parting shot.
LOL
Dr Adequate writes:
I shall say to you what I have said to the more cryptic of our creationist friends: it is no use you making oblique allusions to the world in your head, because since I do not live in it I am unable to follow your references to it.
If this was true then you would have never responded. but you did respond, why? because the truth hurts, don't it?
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by hooah212002, posted 12-05-2011 7:02 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2011 11:27 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 79 by hooah212002, posted 12-06-2011 2:54 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2011 11:24 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 64 of 208 (643326)
12-06-2011 10:27 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by onifre
12-06-2011 9:52 AM


Oni writes:
Not that I agree with them and who they're protesting against, having they themselves voted the president that helped his friends in the financial market.....
Given the nature of the protest I think it is fair to say that the protesters are pretty dissatisfied with politicians full stop. I doubt many OWSers are rampant advocates of Obama. If they ever were. But you will know better than me - Surely the protesters you know are critical of the present government and president? I find it almost unbelievable that they wouldn't be.
As for bank bailouts - What do you think should have been done? These are people's savings, pensions, college funds, trust funds etc. There is a strong case for rescuing the banking sector from collapse. But to do so without major reform, without making the public stake in the banks work to the benefit of society rather than bankers, is negligent and contemptible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by onifre, posted 12-06-2011 9:52 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by onifre, posted 12-06-2011 10:44 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 71 by Son, posted 12-06-2011 11:44 AM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 65 of 208 (643331)
12-06-2011 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Straggler
12-06-2011 10:27 AM


Surely the protesters you know are critical of the present government and president? I find it almost unbelievable that they wouldn't be.
Not so much for the president, if at all. It's mostly against the banks and their influence in politics. Not against politicians and their accepting of said influence.
As for bank bailouts - What do you think should have been done?
Not the point I'm making. The point is, the candidate who supported the bailout won the election.
NY Times: Mc Cain warns against hasty mortgage bailout
The Obama marketing campaign was stronger than McCain's, backed of course by the financial institutions. It is a CLEAR example, although I'm sure there are many more, of corporate influence in politics, both during the campaign and while elected.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 12-06-2011 10:27 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 12-06-2011 11:05 AM onifre has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 66 of 208 (643332)
12-06-2011 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by onifre
12-06-2011 10:44 AM


Oni writes:
Not so much for the president, if at all. It's mostly against the banks and their influence in politics. Not against politicians and their accepting of said influence.
Then that is different here. I would say that in the UK a large part of the protest is at the political system and politicians generally and in a way that transcends party politics to a large degree. I'm surprised that the NY protest is not directly critical of the government given the stance being taken.
Oni writes:
It's just a protest to begin what they feel will be a larger movement that changes the way politics are done.
This to me suggests that the protesters are disenchanted with politicians and the way politics is done rather than just with bankers alone. But I haven't been to the NY protest so you will know better than me.
Oni writes:
The point is, the candidate who supported the bailout won the election.
OK. But governments of various leanings supported bailouts around the world. Bailouts were arguably necessary. It is the lack of reform and ongoing support of a corrupt and failed system that is the ongoing crime here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by onifre, posted 12-06-2011 10:44 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by onifre, posted 12-06-2011 12:31 PM Straggler has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 67 of 208 (643333)
12-06-2011 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by onifre
12-06-2011 9:52 AM


Earth and its Occupants
Onifre writes:
Here's a great video by Ted Alexandro, a comic, that really shows the true nature of the protest.
Thanks for sharing...I ended up watching more of Teds videos as well. He seems to be a man in touch with his humanity. My take on all of this (OCCUPY) is that many people do not yet know exactly what the issues are and what the problems and challenges are that face this country and we citizens of an undeniable global community.
Its easy to say to pull your money out of Chase and Bank Of America, but just like the questions in Jons Consumerism thread, what would we replace our free market system with? People are frustrated, yes. What sort of long term solutions and reforms should we be thinking about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by onifre, posted 12-06-2011 9:52 AM onifre has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 68 of 208 (643334)
12-06-2011 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by Artemis Entreri
12-06-2011 9:59 AM


just a parting shot.
If your point was that the police are behaving like jerks, then your point is well-taken. Otherwise, not so much.
If this was true then you would have never responded. but you did respond, why? because the truth hurts, don't it?
Because it is true that I didn't see what your point is, therefore I responded by saying that I couldn't see what your point is.
Perhaps someone could buy you a copy of Thinking For Dummies for Christmas.
If you still don't want to say what your point is, that's quite understandable, given that it was probably gormlessly stupid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-06-2011 9:59 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 69 of 208 (643335)
12-06-2011 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by hooah212002
12-05-2011 7:02 PM


Why are conservatives REALLY anti-OWS (aside from Fox news telling them to be against it)?
Does there have to be another reason why conservatives have opinions?
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by hooah212002, posted 12-05-2011 7:02 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by hooah212002, posted 12-06-2011 11:38 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 70 of 208 (643337)
12-06-2011 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dr Adequate
12-06-2011 11:28 AM


Of course not. But, even in light of all the evidence to the contrary, I'd like to think that people who label themselves conservative actually do think for themselves and base their opinion on at least some speck of reality.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-06-2011 11:28 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Son
Member (Idle past 3829 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


(1)
Message 71 of 208 (643340)
12-06-2011 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Straggler
12-06-2011 10:27 AM


For the bailouts, they just needed the banks to go through bankruptcy, sell their assets and use those to reimbourse those who have lost their money(in short, the normal procedure). It's much less expensive this way and you get rid of the banks who put us in this mess in the first place, preventing them from pulling this same trick again. Healthy banks would have been rewarded and if more banks had been needed, you could create a public bank with the money you didn't use on the bailouts making sure the benefits from this new bank gets directly to the taxpayer(this bank would have only been for lending/depositing avoiding the mess in the markets).
Edited by Son, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 12-06-2011 10:27 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Straggler, posted 12-06-2011 1:07 PM Son has replied
 Message 101 by RAZD, posted 12-07-2011 1:16 PM Son has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 72 of 208 (643356)
12-06-2011 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Straggler
12-06-2011 11:05 AM


I'm surprised that the NY protest is not directly critical of the government given the stance being taken.
Because they still support Obama. Not to generalize but, banks represent capitalism, corporate institutions and republicanism - it seems to be the enemy.
The true enemy, IMO, is politicians who allow this too be the way government is run.
This to me suggests that the protesters are disenchanted with politicians and the way politics is done rather than just with bankers alone. But I haven't been to the NY protest so you will know better than me.
Yes, but the chants are "Lets make sure corporations don't influence our government" - rather than "Lets make sure our government doesn't get influenced by corporations."
Corporation will do what corporations do. We need to vote politicians in that, when they say Washington won't be influenced by lobbyist, they mean it. But we keep voting these corporate puppets in and blaming the corporations for being evil. It's backwards.
But governments of various leanings supported bailouts around the world. Bailouts were arguably necessary. It is the lack of reform and ongoing support of a corrupt and failed system that is the ongoing crime here.
It's the bailouts, too. It was criminal.
Oddly enough, it may be the single issue that unites OWS & The Tea Party.
quote:
Thanks to Bloomberg investigators and facts obtained through the freedom of information act it has come to light that 26 Trillion (not billion) in bailout money was given out by the Federal Reserve without any oversight or knowledge of details given to the US population that ultimately would have paid the price if anything had gone wrong. This was all accomplished by the Federal Reserve without any authorizations of Congress!
If that wasn’t bad enough this was the first time in history that the Federal Reserve played favorites and just decided to give the money to one institution over another and they also generously offered all this money at nearly a zero percent interest rate. Just to put things into perspective 26 Trillion is an amount of money which is approximately equal to all the goods and services that the entire USA produces in a year!

- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Straggler, posted 12-06-2011 11:05 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Straggler, posted 12-06-2011 1:22 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 73 of 208 (643366)
12-06-2011 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Son
12-06-2011 11:44 AM


It sounds simple. But when for decades we have been employing many of our most educated people to (rather than do anything socially useful) conceive of ever more ingenious methods of selling intertwined debt to each other things get more complicated. Simply letting failed banks go to the wall is an option. But if the result of letting a huge bank with billions of interbank liabilities fail is a domino effect of banking collapses, a complete collapse of the short-term money market and the eventual collapse of the global financial system then that isn't really a good thing for anyone.
People with money in accounts would not have been able to access it and might never have seen it again. Companies with accounts there would not have been able to pay salaries or suppliers. Conceivably a point where cash machines just stopped working would come about. Imagine the social consequences of all of this.
Complete economic paralysis and an almost overnight contraction of the entire economy would have made what actually has happened look like a walk in the park.
Now - Frankly - I am not knowledgeable enough about economics to know whether the above would have occurred or not. But the "oh just let them fail" approach seems rather simplistic.
If it were bankers citing the horror scenario above I would be more cynical on the basis that they were simply justifying the huge amounts of money used to save their asses. But left wing economists and advocates of deepseated banking (and wider political and economic) reform also paint this picture.
It seems the bailouts might well have been necessary. The failure was (and continues to be) the lack of any action to fundamentally change what caused the problem in the first place.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Son, posted 12-06-2011 11:44 AM Son has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-06-2011 1:24 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 78 by Son, posted 12-06-2011 2:40 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 74 of 208 (643369)
12-06-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by onifre
12-06-2011 12:31 PM


Oni writes:
Because they still support Obama.
They might well vote for Obama over any vaguely likely alternative. But that isn't really the same thing. I have had a look at the links Mod provided. The following doesn't sound like an endorsement of any current politician or the existing political process. The exact opposite in fact. But judge for yourself:
Link
Link writes:
This statement has been issued by the Political Action and Impact working group of Occupy Wall Street. Our purpose here is to create a general yet focused understanding of the aims of this movement. This document does not represent all the goals and concerns of all the members of OWS. We are hoping the average citizen will come to understand who we are and how our goals are in their interests. We are letting politicians know that we are here, growing stronger every day, and that what they read below is the agenda for the future.
  • To return the democratic process to the people so that our votes count more than corporate contributions or the excessive influence of the one percent.
  • To have a government that is concerned for and responsive to all its citizens and provides certain securities and supports which allow citizens to flourish and be productive. This should include improvements in healthcare, social security, education, infrastructure, etc.
  • To have a fair and proportionate tax code in which all people and businesses pay their fair share.
  • To end the idea that corporations have the same rights as people. To regulate the banking and investment industries so, that while such businesses may make profits and accrue wealth, they must act legally and be held accountable for their own actions and failings. This specifically means that corporate screw ups don’t drag down all of us. Also, that the wealth in America be more equitably distributed through more fairly balanced wages, benefits, etc.
  • To significantly reduce the defense budget, not only to reduce the deficit and use the money for more constructive purposes, but also to put an end to the imperial practices which do more harm to America than good.
  • To recognize that our planet Earth is not just a commodity to be plundered for the profits of the one percent. Human beings, and all living things, depend on the planet Earth for our very lives and we should treat the environment with the care and respect due to the sacred source of our existence. Our government should be more concerned with the maintenance of the environment than the privileges and profits of a select few.
    Do not assume that the issuance of this statement means we are seeking to engage in politics as usual. Our whole point is we will no longer tolerate politics as usual. The aforementioned goals will be pursued vigorously, both within the system and without. We will be active in the
    political arena and marching on the streets. We will debate when able and agitate if necessary. We are patient in that we will remain steadfast in our struggle; we will not be patient in the face of typical bureaucratic sloth, political shenanigans, and attempts to nullify progress on these issues.
  • Whatever you think of the stated aims it certainly doesn't come across as supportive of anyone at all currently in office.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 72 by onifre, posted 12-06-2011 12:31 PM onifre has not replied

      
    New Cat's Eye
    Inactive Member


    Message 75 of 208 (643370)
    12-06-2011 1:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 73 by Straggler
    12-06-2011 1:07 PM


    It sounds simple. But when for decades we have been employing many of our most educated people to (rather than do anything socially useful) conceive of ever more ingenious methods of selling intertwined debt to each other things get more complicated. Simply letting failed banks go to the wall is an option. But if the result of letting a huge bank with billions of interbank liabilities fail is a domino effect of banking collapses, a complete collapse of the short-term money market and the eventual collapse of the global financial system then that isn't really a good thing for anyone.
    People with money in accounts would not have been able to access it and might never have seen it again. Companies with accounts there would not have been able to pay salaries or suppliers. Conceivably a point where cash machines just stopped working would come about. Imagine the social consequences of all of this.
    I don't know what I'm talking about....
    But couldn't you just let those banks fail, and then we people weren't getting their money from their accounts, then you just bail out those people? Isn't that kinda what the whole FDIC thing is?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 73 by Straggler, posted 12-06-2011 1:07 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 76 by Straggler, posted 12-06-2011 1:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
     Message 80 by crashfrog, posted 12-06-2011 3:05 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
     Message 90 by Phat, posted 12-06-2011 6:26 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024