For Those Who Don't Understand What Occupy is REALLY About (Obviously LOTS of you)

[LadyGunSlinger]

Ahh the sheeple move in herds. Yet all of you are too stupid or too afraid to respond to any of the points. Here, let me dumb it down for ya;

1. Don't want to end capitalism. Want to end infuence of Corps, Wall St, SIG's and UNIONS on elections and policies. Your specific response to that? (See signature below folks - it's easy to predict what they will do as they can't think for themselves).
2. No more bailouts. No to banks, not to Fannie or Freddie. Your specific response to this? (as above)
3. Repeal Gramm-Leach. You know, like NEWT GINGRICH said we should do? Your response to that? (again, just see the signature below. These people can't respond to issues and they don't want to know what OWS has evolved into. They prefer to let FOX and the MindMasters think FOR them. This is why they will do as I predict below in red).

Have fun girls.

Yeah, we got it the first time you posted it. So, how does rape, rampant drug use, violence, relieving one's self in the public square, screwing in public, throwing shit at the police, demanding that one be allowed to live rent free, be fed for free, etc. fit in with the above?

It got you to notice them eh?

WTG- there's leftist logic for ya.. "So what if some women were raped, if people crapped all over the streets with maggots infested by the trash and urine soaked gutters.. it got you to notice us! " Wow.. just wow.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Ahh the sheeple move in herds. Yet all of you are too stupid or too afraid to respond to any of the points. Here, let me dumb it down for ya;

1. Don't want to end capitalism. Want to end infuence of Corps, Wall St, SIG's and UNIONS on elections and policies. Your specific response to that? (See signature below folks - it's easy to predict what they will do as they can't think for themselves).
2. No more bailouts. No to banks, not to Fannie or Freddie. Your specific response to this? (as above)
3. Repeal Gramm-Leach. You know, like NEWT GINGRICH said we should do? Your response to that? (again, just see the signature below. These people can't respond to issues and they don't want to know what OWS has evolved into. They prefer to let FOX and the MindMasters think FOR them. This is why they will do as I predict below in red).

Have fun girls.

Yeah, we got it the first time you posted it. So, how does rape, rampant drug use, violence, relieving one's self in the public square, screwing in public, throwing shit at the police, demanding that one be allowed to live rent free, be fed for free, etc. fit in with the above?

It got you to notice them eh?

Wow . . . just wow. What kind of lame-assed moronic answer is that?

 

[idb]

Yeah, we got it the first time you posted it. So, how does rape, rampant drug use, violence, relieving one's self in the public square, screwing in public, throwing shit at the police, demanding that one be allowed to live rent free, be fed for free, etc. fit in with the above?

It got you to notice them eh?

WTG- there's leftist logic for ya.. "So what if some women were raped, if people crapped all over the streets with maggots infested by the trash and urine soaked gutters.. it got you to notice us! " Wow.. just wow.

Haha!
Priceless.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Because people are people.

That may be, but the OP was false.

About the ONLY consistent message from the Shitters is their demand that capitalism is evil and needs to be abolished.

Are you saying that every member of a movement should think exactly the same way?
Your constant sweeping generalisations of Liberals suggest you do.

I'm saying that there was virtually no substance to the Shitter movement. It was a hodge-podge of Unions and anarchists who were screaming "GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEEEEE."

The ONLY consistent message to be found was "end capitalism."

There will be all sorts of opinions within the OWS, just as in the GOP.
When it comes to sitting down and writing up demands or policies though they have to be broadly attainable and reflective of the movement as a whole.

The Shitter movement is over. The Shitters are a liability to the democrats and will fade away. There were never any demands or ideas, nor will there be.

It's much more fun to pick out the extremists though...the same tactics used by some Liberals trying to discredit the Tea Party to be fair.

The Tea Party had quantifiable, substantial ideas. The Shitters never did.

Just as an exercise, assume for a moment that the OP does reflect the OWS position.
Do you see any merit in any of the statements or demands?

Mental masturbation. The OP is a partisan. He is attempting to coopt the Shitters for the party. It's a stupid move that the party has already recognized.

 

[idb]

[
Because people are people.

That may be, but the OP was false.

About the ONLY consistent message from the Shitters is their demand that capitalism is evil and needs to be abolished.

Are you saying that every member of a movement should think exactly the same way?
Your constant sweeping generalisations of Liberals suggest you do.

I'm saying that there was virtually no substance to the Shitter movement. It was a hodge-podge of Unions and anarchists who were screaming "GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEEEEE."

The ONLY consistent message to be found was "end capitalism."



The Shitter movement is over. The Shitters are a liability to the democrats and will fade away. There were never any demands or ideas, nor will there be.

It's much more fun to pick out the extremists though...the same tactics used by some Liberals trying to discredit the Tea Party to be fair.

The Tea Party had quantifiable, substantial ideas. The Shitters never did.

Just as an exercise, assume for a moment that the OP does reflect the OWS position.
Do you see any merit in any of the statements or demands?

Mental masturbation. The OP is a partisan. He is attempting to coopt the Shitters for the party. It's a stupid move that the party has already recognized.

You're too frightened to actually consider the merits of the OP.
You've labelled the OWS and you haven't got the nerve to reflect on your position.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I guess a lot of people here just believe what the MSM and Right Wing E-media
tell them. This would be the only explanation for some of the posts I've seen.
So I thought I'd help! Here is a C&P from a great OWS site. It will give you
guys a better idea of why you should support us! Here ya go:

"1. We don't want to End Capitalism, We Want to End Corporatacracy.

First, let's make it clear, This is a political movement, not an economic
revolt. We want to end the control of our government by Multi-National
Corporations. This is Issue Number One for everyone I've spoken to in Occupy
Wall Street.

Not one Occupier I know of, wants to turn us into the former Soviet Union (although just like the TP, every movement has it's fringe and the MSM loves to find them). We
don't want to end the economic system which allows people to buy the goods of
their choice. But we do want to end a corrupt political system which allows
Multi-National Corporations to buy the politicians of their choice. So the
single most important theme is Taking control of our government away from
Corporations and putting it back into the hands of We the People.

2. We won't tolerate a government that rewards corporate incompetence, greed and
fraud. No More Bank Bailouts.

The banks bought our government and then, after they lined their pockets with
the wealth of our nation, they blackmailed the government into giving them even
MORE money "In order to keep the economy from collapsing". Right. Then, instead
of making or refinancing home loans, Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo and
others spent our money on business mergers & acquisitions to benefit the 1%. Oh,
and of course, they paid themselves million dollar bonuses with our money.

We want to set a deadline for payback of existing bailouts. Any company that has
not fully repaid all monies by the deadline, should be broken up so that they
are no longer "too big to fail".

3. We want the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed immediately.
For those of you unfamiliar with it: After the Great Depression, congress passed
the Glass-Steagal act to make sure that banks would never take stupid risks or
use corrupt practices to send the country into another Depression. Then 60 years
later, the banks and companies that bought and paid for Republican Senators Bill
Gramm, Jim Leach and Tom Bliley told them that Glass-Steagal was interfering
with their ability to swindle the American Public. Their masters told these
senators to pass a bill that would NOT ONLY allow them to gamble foolishly again
with American Tax-Payer money - they wanted complete control of our Financial
System by being able OWN both stock brokerages and Insurance Companies too.
Then, once their cohorts completed the creation of what's called a "FIRE
Economy" (an economy based on Finance, Insurance & Real Estate) in America, they
would control everything.

Of course the Senators bowed to their masters and Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed
with a super-majority that was veto-proof. If it had not been passed, NOT ONE
BANK would have needed bailout money because they would have been prohibited
from investing in the Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities Market.

Some people say we should let "The Market" regulate itself. Are the Banksters
worthy of the trust that was given to them under this law? Here's an example:
Citibank is on trial right now.
While they were selling over $500 MILLION dollars worth of those
toxic mortgage securities to the 99% as a good investment, they were betting the
securities would fail by "Short-Selling" at the same time. In other words, while
they sold your parents these securities for their retirement, they made a bet
the securities would fail - and earned over $140M dollars by doing so. Citibank
is currently offering to pay back about half the money they defrauded out of
regular people as long as no one from the bank goes to jail or even loses their
job. Guess what? The government is going for it. Why? Because the 1% doesn't
have to pay for their crimes. We do. In this case, WE'RE paying their $285M fee
with the bailout money they were given. And people wonder why we're mad."

That's just a small part of the REAL message of OWS. it's a little bit different
than what the SpinDoctors of the MSM and Right Wing media talk about or allow
you to see, isn't it?

The Whole World is watching and listening to our message. Foreign stations give more accurate coverage than FOX - who still spews BS about wanting Socialism and anarchy.

Here is an example of the more accurate foreign coverage of our message:

Occupy Wall Street Exposes Enormous Corruption Between Government and Corporations - YouTube

Thats all the socialists say "we're not anti-capitalism."

Guess what? no one believes your stupidity and lies anymore.

The majority of OWS would defend Francis Fox Piven in a nanosecond...

 

[Oldstyle]

Since you speak in the first person and alledge independent logic you must presume to speak for the rabble that lurches around the parks looking for all the world like a zombie invasion. If OWS won't accept a government that tolerates "incompetence, greed and fraud" why don't you lurch over to Washington and protest the people who are responsible? You must have the mental capacity of a zombie if you think corporations are "incompetent" and the federal government is run in a competent way. The OWS rhetoric is pure bull shit. The former community agitator who found homself president whines about bonuses for corporate CEO's and yet the federal government that supervised Fannie Mae looked the other way when Obama's financial advisor Frank Raines allegedly cooked the books and walked away with 90 Million dollars in bonus money for three years work.

Don't be too hard on him... he's just a tool.. he says and does what his masters tell him. He's the laughing stock (along with TM & rdean) of USMB.

Ahh the sheeple move in herds. Yet all of you are too stupid or too afraid to respond to any of the points. Here, let me dumb it down for ya;

1. Don't want to end capitalism. Want to end infuence of Corps, Wall St, SIG's and UNIONS on elections and policies. Your specific response to that? (See signature below folks - it's easy to predict what they will do as they can't think for themselves).
2. No more bailouts. No to banks, not to Fannie or Freddie. Your specific response to this? (as above)
3. Repeal Gramm-Leach. You know, like NEWT GINGRICH said we should do? Your response to that? (again, just see the signature below. These people can't respond to issues and they don't want to know what OWS has evolved into. They prefer to let FOX and the MindMasters think FOR them. This is why they will do as I predict below in red).

Have fun girls.

You, may not want to end capitalism, Independent...but many of the OWS protester DO want to end it. I think you'd have to agree that many of your fellow OWS protesters don't really understand basic economic principles since they feel that it's "unfair" for some people to be rich while others are poor and are demanding income redistribution. That in essence IS the end of capitalism.

As for the bailouts? I believe if I'm not mistaken that the banks paid their bail-outs back long ago. GM hasn't. So why aren't your fellow protesters angry at them?

In regards to Glass Steagel? Once again...if I'm not mistaken that was something that was signed into law by Bill Clinton because international banks were killing US banks since they could invest in areas that US banks couldn't. I personally agree with Newt on this issue. In the pursuit of short term profits, US commercial banks put themselves in a vulnerable position they wouldn't have been in otherwise.

Now, since I've addressed your points did you want to address some of the "other" demands that the OWS protesters are making? Forgiveness of debt? Free college educations for whoever wants it? Open borders? A $20 an hour minimum wage? A so called "living wage" for all regardless of employment status? Getting rid of the credit agencies?

 

[Kiki Cannoli]

Such angry insecurity expressed when confronted with the concept of change.

 

[idb]

Don't be too hard on him... he's just a tool.. he says and does what his masters tell him. He's the laughing stock (along with TM & rdean) of USMB.

Ahh the sheeple move in herds. Yet all of you are too stupid or too afraid to respond to any of the points. Here, let me dumb it down for ya;

1. Don't want to end capitalism. Want to end infuence of Corps, Wall St, SIG's and UNIONS on elections and policies. Your specific response to that? (See signature below folks - it's easy to predict what they will do as they can't think for themselves).
2. No more bailouts. No to banks, not to Fannie or Freddie. Your specific response to this? (as above)
3. Repeal Gramm-Leach. You know, like NEWT GINGRICH said we should do? Your response to that? (again, just see the signature below. These people can't respond to issues and they don't want to know what OWS has evolved into. They prefer to let FOX and the MindMasters think FOR them. This is why they will do as I predict below in red).

Have fun girls.

You, may not want to end capitalism, Independent...but many of the OWS protester DO want to end it. I think you'd have to agree that many of your fellow OWS protesters don't really understand basic economic principles since they feel that it's "unfair" for some people to be rich while others are poor and are demanding income redistribution. That in essence IS the end of capitalism.

As for the bailouts? I believe if I'm not mistaken that the banks paid their bail-outs back long ago. GM hasn't. So why aren't your fellow protesters angry at them?

In regards to Glass Steagel? Once again...if I'm not mistaken that was something that was signed into law by Bill Clinton because international banks were killing US banks since they could invest in areas that US banks couldn't. I personally agree with Newt on this issue. In the pursuit of short term profits, US commercial banks put themselves in a vulnerable position they wouldn't have been in otherwise.

Now, since I've addressed your points did you want to address some of the "other" demands that the OWS protesters are making? Forgiveness of debt? Free college educations for whoever wants it? Open borders? A $20 an hour minimum wage? A so called "living wage" for all regardless of employment status? Getting rid of the credit agencies?

OK, I'm no economist so I'd like some opionions on these.

Forgiveness of Debt;
I wonder if that would be a more expensive exercise than the bank bailouts?
Just suppose a certain amount of domestic debt was taken over and covered by the government on a once-only basis.
Maybe assessed on the household debt-income ratio.
Would this have savings in welfare payouts while allowing the banks to still maintain their business from interest on the balance of the loans?

Free College Education;
Education delivers a nett benefit to the nation.
A free education to anyone is not feasible but investment from the government to allow deserving and able students to study would surely be wise (I don't know what subsidies the US government already pays into education).

Credit Agencies;
Are they really credible now?
I believe their independence is even in question.
Would an inter-governmental agency be more appropriate?

 

[Oldstyle]

Ahh the sheeple move in herds. Yet all of you are too stupid or too afraid to respond to any of the points. Here, let me dumb it down for ya;

1. Don't want to end capitalism. Want to end infuence of Corps, Wall St, SIG's and UNIONS on elections and policies. Your specific response to that? (See signature below folks - it's easy to predict what they will do as they can't think for themselves).
2. No more bailouts. No to banks, not to Fannie or Freddie. Your specific response to this? (as above)
3. Repeal Gramm-Leach. You know, like NEWT GINGRICH said we should do? Your response to that? (again, just see the signature below. These people can't respond to issues and they don't want to know what OWS has evolved into. They prefer to let FOX and the MindMasters think FOR them. This is why they will do as I predict below in red).

Have fun girls.

You, may not want to end capitalism, Independent...but many of the OWS protester DO want to end it. I think you'd have to agree that many of your fellow OWS protesters don't really understand basic economic principles since they feel that it's "unfair" for some people to be rich while others are poor and are demanding income redistribution. That in essence IS the end of capitalism.

As for the bailouts? I believe if I'm not mistaken that the banks paid their bail-outs back long ago. GM hasn't. So why aren't your fellow protesters angry at them?

In regards to Glass Steagel? Once again...if I'm not mistaken that was something that was signed into law by Bill Clinton because international banks were killing US banks since they could invest in areas that US banks couldn't. I personally agree with Newt on this issue. In the pursuit of short term profits, US commercial banks put themselves in a vulnerable position they wouldn't have been in otherwise.

Now, since I've addressed your points did you want to address some of the "other" demands that the OWS protesters are making? Forgiveness of debt? Free college educations for whoever wants it? Open borders? A $20 an hour minimum wage? A so called "living wage" for all regardless of employment status? Getting rid of the credit agencies?

OK, I'm no economist so I'd like some opionions on these.

Forgiveness of Debt;
I wonder if that would be a more expensive exercise than the bank bailouts?
Just suppose a certain amount of domestic debt was taken over and covered by the government on a once-only basis.
Maybe assessed on the household debt-income ratio.
Would this have savings in welfare payouts while allowing the banks to still maintain their business from interest on the balance of the loans?

Free College Education;
Education delivers a nett benefit to the nation.
A free education to anyone is not feasible but investment from the government to allow deserving and able students to study would surely be wise (I don't know what subsidies the US government already pays into education).

Credit Agencies;
Are they really credible now?
I believe their independence is even in question.
Would an inter-governmental agency be more appropriate?

Forgiveness of debt is just idiotic. You'd put every financial institution in the country out of business overnight.

The US will pay out about 168 billion this year to help students attend college.

Somebody has to make the call on credit worthiness? Would you like to leave it up to governments themselves? I think we both know that's a no go. And if you make it an "inter-governmental" agency then it's one more way for our government to hide what they are actually doing. The only reason we were REALLY talking about debt reduction this summer as that S&P woke everyone up by pointing out the fact that we were broke and needed to spend less money.

 

[BillyV]

Ahh the sheeple move in herds. Yet all of you are too stupid or too afraid to respond to any of the points. Here, let me dumb it down for ya;

1. Don't want to end capitalism. Want to end infuence of Corps, Wall St, SIG's and UNIONS on elections and policies. Your specific response to that? (See signature below folks - it's easy to predict what they will do as they can't think for themselves).
2. No more bailouts. No to banks, not to Fannie or Freddie. Your specific response to this? (as above)
3. Repeal Gramm-Leach. You know, like NEWT GINGRICH said we should do? Your response to that?

Corporatocracy? As far as I know, bribery is still illegal, so their main power is the ability to provide campaign support. Corporations of all sizes have been limited in their ability to finance political campaigns by, most recently (2002), the McCain-Feingold act, until 2010 when the Supreme Court decided that corporations were “persons” for purposes of their right to free speech. I doubt they have “bought” many elections yet. The ability of a corporation to lobby for influence in the process is simply the ability to convince those in Congress to see their side of an issue. However, in order to prevent “corporatocracy”, if it exists, you don’t protest the corporations; they are easy to predict, they will always do what is in their best interests. Change the law, lobby for a new law; that isn’t about the corporations, it’s all about the political system, and votes are still all that matters. Sitting in a tent in the park yelling at the corporations is useless. It’s all about convincing the elected officials or influencing future elections. OWS could learn a lot from the Tea Party (including sanitation).

Bank bailouts have become a rallying cry on both sides of the fence. But is it fair to call them “bailouts”? In fact, the government expects to profit from loaning money to the banks, and was able to thaw a frozen credit market. I believe the alternative would have been much worse. The bailouts of the automobile industry were more problematic, especially when the government decided to put unsecured creditors (read: unions) in front of bondholders. And the proposed “deadline” would have little effect on the “banksters”; most of those funds were paid back as soon as possible, so they could resume paying their executives in the way they saw fit, without limitations.

To fulfill its statutory requirement, CBO has prepared this report on transactions completed, outstanding, and anticipated under the TARP as of March 3, 2011. CBO estimates that the cost to the federal government of the TARP's transactions (also referred to as the subsidy cost), including grants for mortgage programs that have not been made yet, will amount to $19 billion. That cost stems largely from assistance to American International Group (AIG), aid to the automotive industry, and grant programs aimed at avoiding foreclosures. Other transactions with financial institutions will, taken together, yield a net gain to the federal government, in CBO's estimation.
Congressional Budget Office - Report on the Troubled Asset Relief Program

There is still much debate about whether Gramm-Leach-Bliley was a root cause of the 2008 crisis; one economist wrote the following:

“…prior to the passage of GLB in 1999, investment banks were already capable of holding and trading the very financial assets claimed to be the cause of the mortgage crisis, and were also already able to keep their books as they had…..[it was] noted that after GLB passed, most investment banks did not merge with depository commercial banks, and that in fact, the few banks that did merge weathered the crisis better than those that did not.”
“f GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass–Steagall requirements to begin with.”

Frankly, I am not an expert and probably no one here is either, but it seems unclear that the problem was created by this particular legislation. More likely that there was such a demand for these securities around the world, they had to find a way to create more and the only way was to water down the quality. Lehman, Merrill and others could do that on their own, of course with the assistance and urging of Fannie and Freddie.

I would also note that you have not mentioned one of the main goals that I have heard espoused by OWS, student loan forgiveness, but it isn’t clear to me why that should be granted. Yes, there is $1 trillion in outstanding student loans, but who forced anyone to take them out? Who guaranteed anything other than a diploma at the end? It is no more compelling an argument than homeowners who bought houses for more than they could pay should have them “forgiven” so that they could avoid foreclosure. In some cases it probably makes economic sense for the bank to provide some relief in cases where interest resets have put the mortgage payment out of reach for “good” borrowers, but it should be their call. Sorry, but foreclosure was inevitable from the beginning for many; some of these “poor” souls were able to buy homes they could never reasonably afford, cash out of them with equity lines, and then remain in them for years without paying because lawyers contend the bank can’t prove ownership. Well, if you signed a loan on your house and you haven’t been paying it, you don’t own it either. Get out and let the legal system decide which investor actually does own it; there are no squatting rights in your loan agreement.

 

[Zander]

The Feculant Flea Baggers don't have a clue what they want. They just want it to be free.

 

[Oddball]

3. We want the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed immediately.
For those of you unfamiliar with it: After the Great Depression, congress passed
the Glass-Steagal act to make sure that banks would never take stupid risks or
use corrupt practices to send the country into another Depression. Then 60 years
later, the banks and companies that bought and paid for Republican Senators Bill
Gramm, Jim Leach and Tom Bliley told them that Glass-Steagal was interfering
with their ability to swindle the American Public. Their masters told these
senators to pass a bill that would NOT ONLY allow them to gamble foolishly again
with American Tax-Payer money - they wanted complete control of our Financial
System by being able OWN both stock brokerages and Insurance Companies too.
Then, once their cohorts completed the creation of what's called a "FIRE
Economy" (an economy based on Finance, Insurance & Real Estate) in America, they
would control everything.

I'll give you big odds that 99% *snert* of the douchebaggers don't even fucking know what the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is.

 

[idb]

You, may not want to end capitalism, Independent...but many of the OWS protester DO want to end it. I think you'd have to agree that many of your fellow OWS protesters don't really understand basic economic principles since they feel that it's "unfair" for some people to be rich while others are poor and are demanding income redistribution. That in essence IS the end of capitalism.

As for the bailouts? I believe if I'm not mistaken that the banks paid their bail-outs back long ago. GM hasn't. So why aren't your fellow protesters angry at them?

In regards to Glass Steagel? Once again...if I'm not mistaken that was something that was signed into law by Bill Clinton because international banks were killing US banks since they could invest in areas that US banks couldn't. I personally agree with Newt on this issue. In the pursuit of short term profits, US commercial banks put themselves in a vulnerable position they wouldn't have been in otherwise.

Now, since I've addressed your points did you want to address some of the "other" demands that the OWS protesters are making? Forgiveness of debt? Free college educations for whoever wants it? Open borders? A $20 an hour minimum wage? A so called "living wage" for all regardless of employment status? Getting rid of the credit agencies?

OK, I'm no economist so I'd like some opionions on these.

Forgiveness of Debt;
I wonder if that would be a more expensive exercise than the bank bailouts?
Just suppose a certain amount of domestic debt was taken over and covered by the government on a once-only basis.
Maybe assessed on the household debt-income ratio.
Would this have savings in welfare payouts while allowing the banks to still maintain their business from interest on the balance of the loans?

Free College Education;
Education delivers a nett benefit to the nation.
A free education to anyone is not feasible but investment from the government to allow deserving and able students to study would surely be wise (I don't know what subsidies the US government already pays into education).

Credit Agencies;
Are they really credible now?
I believe their independence is even in question.
Would an inter-governmental agency be more appropriate?

Forgiveness of debt is just idiotic. You'd put every financial institution in the country out of business overnight.

The US will pay out about 168 billion this year to help students attend college.

Somebody has to make the call on credit worthiness? Would you like to leave it up to governments themselves? I think we both know that's a no go. And if you make it an "inter-governmental" agency then it's one more way for our government to hide what they are actually doing. The only reason we were REALLY talking about debt reduction this summer as that S&P woke everyone up by pointing out the fact that we were broke and needed to spend less money.

Forgiveness of debt is just idiotic. You'd put every financial institution in the country out of business overnight.

But it doesn't have to be all debt, just a proportion.
Make the banks take a 'haircut' as they're calling it in Europe.

What it seems to me has happened to date is that the financial institutions have been saved from their poor high-risk decisions but their customers haven't.
Where are their bail-outs?

Credit worthiness would be determined by an agency comprising a number of governments.
S&P and the others missed the disaster we were all headed for didn't they?

 

[Avatar4321]

The Feculant Flea Baggers don't have a clue what they want. They just want it to be free.

Oh. I think a bunch of them know. And alot of them are very honest about it.

It can be summed up with Cloward-Piven. Overload the system strain it till it collapses.

Or likewise the Van Jones theory - Top down, bottom up, inside out.

Just need to stir up violence on the streets, put people in place at the top. and when it gets so bad that the regular people are demanding peace. have the top come down to reveal them all being on the same side and having them seize control of government.

That was the strategy for the communist revolution in Hungary.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I guess a lot of people here just believe what the MSM and Right Wing E-media
tell them. This would be the only explanation for some of the posts I've seen.
So I thought I'd help! Here is a C&P from a great OWS site. It will give you
guys a better idea of why you should support us! Here ya go:

You consider yourself part of occupy idiocy and you want people to call you IndependntLogic?

"1. We don't want to End Capitalism, We Want to End Corporatacracy.

First, let's make it clear, This is a political movement, not an economic
revolt. We want to end the control of our government by Multi-National
Corporations. This is Issue Number One for everyone I've spoken to in Occupy
Wall Street.

Not one Occupier I know of, wants to turn us into the former Soviet Union (although just like the TP, every movement has it's fringe and the MSM loves to find them). We
don't want to end the economic system which allows people to buy the goods of
their choice. But we do want to end a corrupt political system which allows
Multi-National Corporations to buy the politicians of their choice. So the
single most important theme is Taking control of our government away from
Corporations and putting it back into the hands of We the People.

I suggest you pay more attention to your fellow occupiers.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--O0OIjhZiw&feature=player_embedded]Occupy LA- I'm a Communist - YouTube[/ame]

2. We won't tolerate a government that rewards corporate incompetence, greed and
fraud. No More Bank Bailouts.

The banks bought our government and then, after they lined their pockets with
the wealth of our nation, they blackmailed the government into giving them even
MORE money "In order to keep the economy from collapsing". Right. Then, instead
of making or refinancing home loans, Bank of America, Chase, Wells Fargo and
others spent our money on business mergers & acquisitions to benefit the 1%. Oh,
and of course, they paid themselves million dollar bonuses with our money.

We want to set a deadline for payback of existing bailouts. Any company that has
not fully repaid all monies by the deadline, should be broken up so that they
are no longer "too big to fail".

The government bought the banks, which is why they set up the bailouts.

3. We want the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed immediately.
For those of you unfamiliar with it: After the Great Depression, congress passed
the Glass-Steagal act to make sure that banks would never take stupid risks or
use corrupt practices to send the country into another Depression. Then 60 years
later, the banks and companies that bought and paid for Republican Senators Bill
Gramm, Jim Leach and Tom Bliley told them that Glass-Steagal was interfering
with their ability to swindle the American Public. Their masters told these
senators to pass a bill that would NOT ONLY allow them to gamble foolishly again
with American Tax-Payer money - they wanted complete control of our Financial
System by being able OWN both stock brokerages and Insurance Companies too.
Then, once their cohorts completed the creation of what's called a "FIRE
Economy" (an economy based on Finance, Insurance & Real Estate) in America, they
would control everything.

Of course the Senators bowed to their masters and Gramm-Leach-Bliley was passed
with a super-majority that was veto-proof. If it had not been passed, NOT ONE
BANK would have needed bailout money because they would have been prohibited
from investing in the Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities Market.

hmmm

Maybe you can answer a simple question for me. Can you explain how allowing the same holding company to won both banks and other types of financial institutions contributed in any way to the collapse of the housing bubble? If you want to know what really caused banks to get to big to fail I suggest you look up Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act. Before that it was impossible to open an account in a BoA in California and walk into a BoA in Arizona to make a withdrawal.If you really want to fix the problem of banks being to big why not call for something that actually keeps banks small? Is it because you actually have no idea what you are talking about?

Some people say we should let "The Market" regulate itself. Are the Banksters
worthy of the trust that was given to them under this law? Here's an example:
Citibank is on trial right now.
While they were selling over $500 MILLION dollars worth of those
toxic mortgage securities to the 99% as a good investment, they were betting the
securities would fail by "Short-Selling" at the same time. In other words, while
they sold your parents these securities for their retirement, they made a bet
the securities would fail - and earned over $140M dollars by doing so. Citibank
is currently offering to pay back about half the money they defrauded out of
regular people as long as no one from the bank goes to jail or even loses their
job. Guess what? The government is going for it. Why? Because the 1% doesn't
have to pay for their crimes. We do. In this case, WE'RE paying their $285M fee
with the bailout money they were given. And people wonder why we're mad."

That's just a small part of the REAL message of OWS. it's a little bit different
than what the SpinDoctors of the MSM and Right Wing media talk about or allow
you to see, isn't it?

The Whole World is watching and listening to our message. Foreign stations give more accurate coverage than FOX - who still spews BS about wanting Socialism and anarchy.

Here is an example of the more accurate foreign coverage of our message:

Occupy Wall Street Exposes Enormous Corruption Between Government and Corporations - YouTube

Occupy did not expose anything. People have been talking about crony capitalism for years. Perhaps you recall another group that was talking about reducing government support of banks and corporations a couple of years ago.

Congress planning another bank bailout :: TeaParty.org

You guys are late to the party.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks for posting this. You're right the messages in the OP are rarely reported on.

I understand the anger directed at the "1%"/corp greed group. But why no mention of "union greed"? Do they not do the same as the "1%" . . . they scratch gov'ts back while gov'ts scratches theirs?

And while it's wrong for corps/unions to buy government . . . . I find it more appalling that government takes the bribe. Corporations/unions don't work for the people, the government does. So where's the anger at those who are suppose to be looking out for us? I'm not seeing that coming out of OWS . . . perhaps I missed it.

If it is rarely reported on why do I keep seeing it in the everywhere I look?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Thanks for posting this. You're right the messages in the OP are rarely reported on.

I understand the anger directed at the "1%"/corp greed group. But why no mention of "union greed"? Do they not do the same as the "1%" . . . they scratch gov'ts back while gov'ts scratches theirs?

And while it's wrong for corps/unions to buy government . . . . I find it more appalling that government takes the bribe. Corporations/unions don't work for the people, the government does. So where's the anger at those who are suppose to be looking out for us? I'm not seeing that coming out of OWS . . . perhaps I missed it.

Wow! An intelligent reply that addresses the subject! Kudos! if you look at the Vid, you'll see it. Additionally, it's on the site. But the main point is, trying to just change the government won't work because the politicians are only lapdogs to those who get them elected. However, they ARE going after government representation and seats, soon. Next phase.
And see my reply to Willow, regarding unions. We want ALL special interests out of elections and specify Unions, the ACLU, Sierra Club or whatever as needing to take their case to The People, not the campaign trail from now on. We DO believe they should get time with Congress - just like CEO's should. But for every hour spent with a CEO or Union Leader, we want one spent with a citizen who has a legitimate concern.

What do you mean "going after government representation and seats"? Via voting? I agree with that . . . we elect them and we can give them das boot as shown in the last (2010) election. More to come in 2012. I don't care which side of aisle they're on either. Or do you mean something else?

Then why is it called "Occupy Wall Street"? No where do I see/hear anything about unions or other special interests groups being rallied against, only 'corporate greed' and 'evil bankster types'. Maybe they should have picked a better name. heh And again, I'm not hearing anything about government's role in all of this (in the reporting). The greedy corps/unions can only buy what's for sale.

Seems to me that the Tea Party and the OWS party have similar interests. They might want to consider joining together.

Yes I mean voting. The inevitble outcome of any political movement is action to seek political change.
It started as Occupy Wall St. and that caught on. That is still the primary beef of the tent occupiers. The Home Occupiers (people who support the movement but are working, emplyed, have homes, kids, dogs, whatever... Capitalists) realize that while Wall St. is the source and the masters, change will have to start with government.

You know, I see the same thing you do, regarding the Tea Party and OWS. LOTS of similarities but different social agndas and demographics. Demographically, the biggest differences are of course, that the TP is comprised mostly of older, Conservative, white people and OWS is comprised overwhelmingly of younger, Liberal mixed people - although they too have a white majority. Although that's only personal observation from the meetings and rallies of each, that I have been to.
But because of the media coverage and OWS' refusal (for now, anyway) to centralize their organization, it's difficult to people get a congruent narrative from them. And of course, you're not going to see the main message on American MSM.
This is why the next level of OWS is evolving. These are the people who were arrested and later discovered to own luxury homes in nice neighborhoods. Ours is the message that is developing and strengthening. It is simple: We want control of the government taken away from major corps, Wall St., SIGs and yes, Unions too. We are tired of a Corporatacracy and think returning to a Democratic Republic would be great.
It will be some time the movement grows from its' current embryonic phase into what is coming from it but keep in mind, this thing is only a month old and it's already got the attention of the entire planet.
The reason the more coherent and sensible messages aren't shown on the MSM, is because they are as much of the problem as anyone. And obviously, FOX has an agenda against OWS which is similar to the bias that MSNBC had against the TP.
That's fine and to be expected.
Another similarity between OWS and the TP is those opposing each movement. I fully support a great deal of the TP's meassage - especially when it comes to less government. But I don't agree with them on everything and the people who represent them politically, want a LOT more than just less taxes, less government etc... Hell, they want MORE Government and Big Government in a lot of ways. Oh well, never saw a politician I agreed with on everything.
Then there are people who are so blinded by ideology they prefer willfull ignorance to reality. I know Liberals who will never open their mind to the valid points that the Tea Party makes. I've shown them conclusive proof of these positions and they reply "That's not what they want! They want to turn us into a religious theocracy like Iran, with Michele Bachmann as supreme priestess!"
And as you've already seen in this thread, there are Conservatives who will see very valid points and rather than even consider them, attack the movement and what they want to believe about it.
All normal...

 

[skookerasbil]

Wow! An intelligent reply that addresses the subject! Kudos! if you look at the Vid, you'll see it. Additionally, it's on the site. But the main point is, trying to just change the government won't work because the politicians are only lapdogs to those who get them elected. However, they ARE going after government representation and seats, soon. Next phase.
And see my reply to Willow, regarding unions. We want ALL special interests out of elections and specify Unions, the ACLU, Sierra Club or whatever as needing to take their case to The People, not the campaign trail from now on. We DO believe they should get time with Congress - just like CEO's should. But for every hour spent with a CEO or Union Leader, we want one spent with a citizen who has a legitimate concern.

What do you mean "going after government representation and seats"? Via voting? I agree with that . . . we elect them and we can give them das boot as shown in the last (2010) election. More to come in 2012. I don't care which side of aisle they're on either. Or do you mean something else?

Then why is it called "Occupy Wall Street"? No where do I see/hear anything about unions or other special interests groups being rallied against, only 'corporate greed' and 'evil bankster types'. Maybe they should have picked a better name. heh And again, I'm not hearing anything about government's role in all of this (in the reporting). The greedy corps/unions can only buy what's for sale.

Seems to me that the Tea Party and the OWS party have similar interests. They might want to consider joining together.

Yes I mean voting. The inevitble outcome of any political movement is action to seek political change.
It started as Occupy Wall St. and that caught on. That is still the primary beef of the tent occupiers. The Home Occupiers (people who support the movement but are working, emplyed, have homes, kids, dogs, whatever... Capitalists) realize that while Wall St. is the source and the masters, change will have to start with government.

You know, I see the same thing you do, regarding the Tea Party and OWS. LOTS of similarities but different social agndas and demographics. Demographically, the biggest differences are of course, that the TP is comprised mostly of older, Conservative, white people and OWS is comprised overwhelmingly of younger, Liberal mixed people - although they too have a white majority. Although that's only personal observation from the meetings and rallies of each, that I have been to.
But because of the media coverage and OWS' refusal (for now, anyway) to centralize their organization, it's difficult to people get a congruent narrative from them. And of course, you're not going to see the main message on American MSM.
This is why the next level of OWS is evolving. These are the people who were arrested and later discovered to own luxury homes in nice neighborhoods. Ours is the message that is developing and strengthening. It is simple: We want control of the government taken away from major corps, Wall St., SIGs and yes, Unions too. We are tired of a Corporatacracy and think returning to a Democratic Republic would be great.
It will be some time the movement grows from its' current embryonic phase into what is coming from it but keep in mind, this thing is only a month old and it's already got the attention of the entire planet.
The reason the more coherent and sensible messages aren't shown on the MSM, is because they are as much of the problem as anyone. And obviously, FOX has an agenda against OWS which is similar to the bias that MSNBC had against the TP.
That's fine and to be expected.
Another similarity between OWS and the TP is those opposing each movement. I fully support a great deal of the TP's meassage - especially when it comes to less government. But I don't agree with them on everything and the people who represent them politically, want a LOT more than just less taxes, less government etc... Hell, they want MORE Government and Big Government in a lot of ways. Oh well, never saw a politician I agreed with on everything.
Then there are people who are so blinded by ideology they prefer willfull ignorance to reality. I know Liberals who will never open their mind to the valid points that the Tea Party makes. I've shown them conclusive proof of these positions and they reply "That's not what they want! They want to turn us into a religious theocracy like Iran, with Michele Bachmann as supreme priestess!"
And as you've already seen in this thread, there are Conservatives who will see very valid points and rather than even consider them, attack the movement and what they want to believe about it.
All normal...

 

[skookerasbil]

And how hysterical is it that a huge majority of Americans are cheering their asses off tonight making fun of these meatheads!!. IDK........but for me, Ive just always gotten a hoot out of seeing assholes getting pwned.. IN fact, hope to see if first hand tomorrow AM when Im in there..............