Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[The Gadfly]

Please, for the sake of those of us who actually read you, write for CLARITY first. I have no idea who KristaNacht is, so now I have to Google. Kristallnacht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Apparently, you think I hate Hebrew People, I will tell you this as a WASP, if it were not for my close Hebrew ties, my career would not be as advanced as it is at my age. I have had clients, (Jewish and others) request me specifically on their accounts because of my reputation.

I like Pelosi and Reid, but I do not get down on a rug and bow every morning like Repubs do to Austin, Texas for Rick Perry. I am a disgruntled Dem who is unhappy that President Barry Obama would consider cutting Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. This is totally unacceptable. Pelosi and Reid have stuck to their guns. While I respect that, it is REQUIRED OF DEMS as far as I am concerned.

I have not dodged a single post of yours. In fact I went back for a post you complained about because I missed it. It would appear that the entire purpose of this post has to do with Jewish people, which I have responded to - even though it is off-topic. Do you actually think about what you post, or do you just dump whatever pops into your mind at the moment?

The subject of this thread is "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​

Yes, Preius, you wouldn't mind violence, not if it serves your desired end. Of course, you'll denounce it publicly, while you relish it in private. So what if some "Wall Street types" are killed; better them than you, and they "deserve it" anyway, right? What happens when it goes to the next level? What happens if one of these loons bombs a CEO's house, and kills their family members-do they "deserve it" too? What happens, if violence breaks out in the streets? You think no innocents might be killed by stray bullets? Oh, but it can be "contained", right?

What happens, if you're wrong? What happens, if after the mob turns on the desired scapegoats, they start taking out their frustration on everyone else who happens to have more than they do? You see, there are some differences between this and Krystallnacht that go beyond scapegoating "the Jews" vs. scapegoating "the 1%". The Nazis were organized; this is a rabble. What happens, when they turn on whoever is handy? What happens, if they turn on YOU (I'm sure they'll be very moved to hear you're a "social liberal"-mobs are very amenable to reasoning, that way)?

You had better be careful what you wish for, because this is a very divided country, along a number of fronts, there are plenty of guns, and they are not all on the same side. Violence is an easy thing to start; stopping it can be another matter entirely. At best, you'll have one hell of a lot of bloodshed; at worst, you'll have neighbor against neighbor, with a lot of factions and shifting alliances. Think you can just hunker down and sit it out? Don't bet on it. Think you can buy safety for yourself and your family? Think again. If and when it all hits the fan, it will be a bloody, atrocity-filled mess. The best case scenario is that the active military can regain control, eventually, in which case the survivors will end up with a police state (and be grateful for that). If not, your only friend will be a weapon, and your only allies a defensible position, and enough combat experience to know what to do with both. Eventually, you will kill or be killed for a box of ammunition, a can of food, or a jug of water. I have been in combat, and I can tell you that you had better hope to whatever God you pray to that it never comes to that.

Clearly you are interested in hijacking this thread to share your views about folks of the Hebrew faith - go start a thread elsewhere on your own.

Disliking violence is like disliking emotion. It is a part of life, get used to it, and stop trying to change human nature. The real Tea Party, actually known as the Sons of Liberty involved John Hancock and Sam Adams with their cronies burning the homes of British tax collectors and perhaps murdering a few.

Historians have turned this into "exciting stories of a brewer, and tea merchant." America is as addicted to violence as it is to alcohol and tobacco. You can gloss over it for the kids in history books, but don't be naive yourself.

Here is my prediction if unemployment gets worse and people continue losing their homes. Some poor guy who is about to commit suicide is going to decide to take a few Wall Streeters with him or her. There will be upset when executives are sprayed with bullets, but I doubt there will be any tears.

Our military, (as France's did in 1789) will have to consider how to handle things responsibly to preserve our republic. As did the French soldiers who were told to fire on starving civilians at the Bastille, Americans will have to consider if they fire on their countrymen, or corporate executives and politicians. Now these soldiers at all levels have been underpaid for years. Many rely on food stamps, and few own their own homes. So soldiers and their families will have a stake in the outcome personally. People never seem to have a problem responding in their own self interest.

The American Revolution took place because the wealthy were unhappy with English law and taxes. We already have the Patriotic Millionaires who feel they SHOULD pay more taxes. Patriotic Millionaires Echo Occupy Wall Street (PHOTOS, VIDEOS) So, all the players are there, and the Second Amendment assures weaponry.

Do I endorse violence, no. Do I understand that violence is part of reality, and a political tool, yes. When things get close to a boil, I will invite the people I usually have over for the Academy Awards to come over for cocktails and big screen TV. I won't be at the scene of the violence, but I will write my second check to the 99%. This is going to involve a lot of lawyers when it happens. In the end, there are more working class and poor than wealthy 1%.

My comments to you Preius, had NOTHING to do with my "views of folks of the Hebrew faith", and everything to do with the implications of civil disorder for this nation! I understand violence, and its uses, quite well; some years back I engaged in quite a bit of it myself, in a little place called Vietnam. I was not some unwilling conscript; I was an officer, and a professional soldier; as such, violence was my profession, and I was very, very good at it. From what I know of those who serve in uniform today, I think I can tell you with some confidence that they are not so different from the soldiers I served with, and that if ordered, they will open fire on whoever they are ordered to open fire on. They may do so reluctantly, but they will do it. There are also a number of American veterans, many of whom are battle-hardened, who will remember the oath they took, and will also fight against any group of "revolutionaries", if necessary. The "revolution", if and when it comes, is not something you are going to watch as a spectator on your big screen TV in the comfort of your living room (unless it is put down so fast you can watch the lack of drama unfold). No, if it comes anywhere near success, the violence attendant to the process will be coming to a neighborhood near you, and sooner, rather than later. This will not be "everyone against the rich", and there is a likelihood, in any event, that those you despise will hire some forces of their own to fight against the side you favor. What you are likely to get as a result, are a number of factions fighting for control, some of them employing mercenaries fighting strictly for money, ideology, or both. What you will have in that event, is something that will make Northern Ireland look like a walk in the park, by comparison.

You are apparently relying on the assumption that most of the people will either sit out the fight, or join in on your side. That assumption is badly flawed. The whole of the 99% does not support your agenda, not even close, politically; much less are they willing to fight on your behalf. As I told you earlier, this country has a copious supply of guns, and people who know how to use them, and they are not all on the same side. That is going to make for a messy, bloody affair. Your notion of revolution is as flawed as that of those on the far right who nourish the illusion that if it comes to a fight, those on the left will be doing all the dying. There will be plenty to go around on all sides, you may be certain of that. What you apparently hope for will not be easy, cheap, quick or pretty, and when it is over, you have as good a chance as anyone else to not be around to regret it. I suggest you, and anyone else inclined to foment violent revolution and/or civil unrest, whether openly or behind the scenes, think about that, long and hard.

 

[flacaltenn]

Preius::

I am pushing psychiatry on you because I have little respect for that "science" and I wish you harm..

We SHOULD be working on those anti-capitalistic tendencies tho -- so that you might become a better spokesperson for economic and social freedom. But time is up on our session for the week. See the nurse on the way out for your next appointment..

I wish you had posted this nonsense before I wasted my time offering you serious consideration.

I marked the sarcasm with a smiley face. Obviously you refuse to see the real threats to your freedom and liberty don't lie on Wall Street. I DO think I could help you with understanding why America's hope doesn't lie in politics. Societies have OTHER avenues of making life better for the struggling class. And NONE of that involves violence or finding convienient scapegoats..

 

[mudwhistle]

Please, for the sake of those of us who actually read you, write for CLARITY first. I have no idea who KristaNacht is, so now I have to Google. Kristallnacht - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Apparently, you think I hate Hebrew People, I will tell you this as a WASP, if it were not for my close Hebrew ties, my career would not be as advanced as it is at my age. I have had clients, (Jewish and others) request me specifically on their accounts because of my reputation.

I like Pelosi and Reid, but I do not get down on a rug and bow every morning like Repubs do to Austin, Texas for Rick Perry. I am a disgruntled Dem who is unhappy that President Barry Obama would consider cutting Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. This is totally unacceptable. Pelosi and Reid have stuck to their guns. While I respect that, it is REQUIRED OF DEMS as far as I am concerned.

I have not dodged a single post of yours. In fact I went back for a post you complained about because I missed it. It would appear that the entire purpose of this post has to do with Jewish people, which I have responded to - even though it is off-topic. Do you actually think about what you post, or do you just dump whatever pops into your mind at the moment?

The subject of this thread is "Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows"​

Yes, Preius, you wouldn't mind violence, not if it serves your desired end. Of course, you'll denounce it publicly, while you relish it in private. So what if some "Wall Street types" are killed; better them than you, and they "deserve it" anyway, right? What happens when it goes to the next level? What happens if one of these loons bombs a CEO's house, and kills their family members-do they "deserve it" too? What happens, if violence breaks out in the streets? You think no innocents might be killed by stray bullets? Oh, but it can be "contained", right?

What happens, if you're wrong? What happens, if after the mob turns on the desired scapegoats, they start taking out their frustration on everyone else who happens to have more than they do? You see, there are some differences between this and Krystallnacht that go beyond scapegoating "the Jews" vs. scapegoating "the 1%". The Nazis were organized; this is a rabble. What happens, when they turn on whoever is handy? What happens, if they turn on YOU (I'm sure they'll be very moved to hear you're a "social liberal"-mobs are very amenable to reasoning, that way)?

You had better be careful what you wish for, because this is a very divided country, along a number of fronts, there are plenty of guns, and they are not all on the same side. Violence is an easy thing to start; stopping it can be another matter entirely. At best, you'll have one hell of a lot of bloodshed; at worst, you'll have neighbor against neighbor, with a lot of factions and shifting alliances. Think you can just hunker down and sit it out? Don't bet on it. Think you can buy safety for yourself and your family? Think again. If and when it all hits the fan, it will be a bloody, atrocity-filled mess. The best case scenario is that the active military can regain control, eventually, in which case the survivors will end up with a police state (and be grateful for that). If not, your only friend will be a weapon, and your only allies a defensible position, and enough combat experience to know what to do with both. Eventually, you will kill or be killed for a box of ammunition, a can of food, or a jug of water. I have been in combat, and I can tell you that you had better hope to whatever God you pray to that it never comes to that.

Clearly you are interested in hijacking this thread to share your views about folks of the Hebrew faith - go start a thread elsewhere on your own.

Disliking violence is like disliking emotion. It is a part of life, get used to it, and stop trying to change human nature. The real Tea Party, actually known as the Sons of Liberty involved John Hancock and Sam Adams with their cronies burning the homes of British tax collectors and perhaps murdering a few.

Historians have turned this into "exciting stories of a brewer, and tea merchant." America is as addicted to violence as it is to alcohol and tobacco. You can gloss over it for the kids in history books, but don't be naive yourself.

Here is my prediction if unemployment gets worse and people continue losing their homes. Some poor guy who is about to commit suicide is going to decide to take a few Wall Streeters with him or her. There will be upset when executives are sprayed with bullets, but I doubt there will be any tears.

Our military, (as France's did in 1789) will have to consider how to handle things responsibly to preserve our republic. As did the French soldiers who were told to fire on starving civilians at the Bastille, Americans will have to consider if they fire on their countrymen, or corporate executives and politicians. Now these soldiers at all levels have been underpaid for years. Many rely on food stamps, and few own their own homes. So soldiers and their families will have a stake in the outcome personally. People never seem to have a problem responding in their own self interest.

The American Revolution took place because the wealthy were unhappy with English law and taxes. We already have the Patriotic Millionaires who feel they SHOULD pay more taxes. Patriotic Millionaires Echo Occupy Wall Street (PHOTOS, VIDEOS) So, all the players are there, and the Second Amendment assures weaponry.

Do I endorse violence, no. Do I understand that violence is part of reality, and a political tool, yes. When things get close to a boil, I will invite the people I usually have over for the Academy Awards to come over for cocktails and big screen TV. I won't be at the scene of the violence, but I will write my second check to the 99%. This is going to involve a lot of lawyers when it happens. In the end, there are more working class and poor than wealthy 1%.

Maybe you should go back to jerking off.

 

[mudwhistle]

Preius::

I am pushing psychiatry on you because I have little respect for that "science" and I wish you harm..

We SHOULD be working on those anti-capitalistic tendencies tho -- so that you might become a better spokesperson for economic and social freedom. But time is up on our session for the week. See the nurse on the way out for your next appointment..

I wish you had posted this nonsense before I wasted my time offering you serious consideration.

I marked the sarcasm with a smiley face. Obviously you refuse to see the real threats to your freedom and liberty don't lie on Wall Street. I DO think I could help you with understanding why America's hope doesn't lie in politics. Societies have OTHER avenues of making life better for the struggling class. And NONE of that involves violence or finding convienient scapegoats..

Arguing with people like Preius is a total waste of time.

Some people just like being agitators. Obama was Preius at one time before he cleaned up his act and made himself socially acceptable. He learned to play the game and say the right things, (he said as much in his book) but deep down inside he's a person that gets a thrill shooting up his leg from seeing violence and destruction. They have no peace in them.

I've felt that before in my life, but I chose to control it. Hormones running wild. Some people never discover inner peace. If you wonder why people do terrible things to others this pretty much explains it. Reckless youth.

The dilemma is that these folks are able to vote. Whatever is the worst for government, and society, they support. These are the folks Obama focuses on. The angry youth in America. He remembers how he was. The kind of person he was back then. He understands them. He knows which buttons to push. It's why he supports the OWS.

 

[georgephillip]

"Defend Wall Street' is not likely to be a winning campaign slogan in 2012.

"For Republicans, this is an obvious problem.

"For President Obama and the Democrats, it’s a golden—if largely undeserved—opportunity.

"The biggest impact of the Occupy Wall Street protests has been to provide a focal point for generalized economic and political discontent.

"Frustrated voters on the left and the right may disagree on, say, immigration policy or health care reform. But they can agree on a critique of the financial sector—and, potentially, on specific measures to bring about necessary change.

"No, Wall Street shouldn’t be made the scapegoat for all the nation’s woes.

"But it was the financial Masters of the Universe whose shocking irresponsibility and unbounded greed triggered the 2008 crisis, which almost sent the global economy into the abyss.

"We’re still dealing with the resulting devastation—massive unemployment, an epidemic of foreclosures, severe fiscal strain on governments at every level."

Eugene Robinson: The Occupy Windfall - Truthdig

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Breitbart.tv » Uniformed Coast Guard Member Spat On By #OccupyBoston Protesters

 

[georgephillip]

Are you voting Wall Street in 2012?

"It is also a fact that Wall Street is a major source of campaign financing for both parties. At present, Wall Street donors are giving heavily to Romney—a money man by trade who once headed Bain Capital.

"In July, however, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that of the $35 million that had been collected this year by Obama’s top-tier fundraisers, one-third came from the financial industry. Apparently, animosity is no match for self-interest."

Eugene Robinson: The Occupy Windfall - Truthdig

 

[editec]

Pretending that some players on WALL STREET are NOT the problem makes about as much sense as PRETENDING that no DEMOCRATS were involved in the meltdown.

It may satisfy some primative tribal instinct, but it is an affront to truth.

 

[Dragon]

Ahhh.. Just another artificial waste of taxpayer money then --- Right?

I'm not in a position to evaluate that, but I doubt their intent was to bring down the economy, so the fact that something else was really at fault doesn't indicate that they were a waste.

OF COURSE those credits had a LARGE effect. Created a FRENZY in fact everytime they threatened to end them.

They may have had a lot of support, hence the frenzy, but nonetheless they were of minimal impact on the economy. Most of the mortgages that failed were not part of that program; in fact, most of them were loans on commercial property. Those are the ones that were bundled into the derivatives that failed along with them, and it was the failure of the derivatives, not of the mortgages themselves, that caused the financial meltdown.

Doesn't require naivety. A lot of people support domestic drilling for oil and gas. That lobby doesn't exist because of corporate cash.

Actually, the fact that a lot of people support domestic drilling is itself a result of corporate cash, which is spent on public relations activities as well as on lobbying Congress.

The opposition to UNIVERSAL health care doesn't stem from corporate cash.

Yes, actually, it does, because the insurance companies do the same thing. Oh, and by the way:

Another Poll Shows Majority Support for Single-Payer

While opposition to universal health care is not nonexistent, a majority of the people support a single-payer system. Yet single payer was taken off the table at the beginning of negotiations about health-care reform in 2009, at a time when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Why do you suppose that happened?

Because most Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans, and the health-insurance industry is one of their biggest donor groups. No other reason at all.

You want to set the appearance that ANY position lobbied for has no popular roots. Ethanol? Farm subsidies?

Let's put it this way. Anything that has the support of a majority of the people is something that business isn't going to spend a lot of money lobbying for, because it's likely to pass anyway. If they want it to happen, business will simply let it happen. If they don't, they'll lobby against it. What they put real effort into lobbying for, is something the people don't necessarily want. And yes, I would definitely include farm subsidies and ethanol subsidies into that category: pure corporate giveaways.

Do you want me to believe that contributions made to the 2008 campaign BEFORE the meltdown somehow were to influence a bailout?

More general than that, but basically yes. The banks might not have foreseen the need for a bailout specifically before the meltdown, but they could certainly see the value in having bought-and-paid-for elected officials. As it happened, they did need a bailout, so they got their bribed pols to provide it for them. If they had not needed a bailout, they would still have found good uses for them. If nothing else, they could have continued to forestall re-regulation of the financial industry, as indeed they are doing now.

Even when the banks didn't WANT the money -- they were intimidated into taking it.

Oh, please. You expect me to believe that there were banks that didn't want the money? Do you have any solid evidence of this? Or of pigs with wings, which is just about as likely?

Why would corporations want to continue to waste time lobbying and donating if the power spigot got turned off?

To turn it back on, of course. That's why it was turned on in the first place.

 

[Dragon]

It is now.

Not yet, although the Democratic Party would certainly like to make it one.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Even when the banks didn't WANT the money -- they were intimidated into taking it.

Oh, please. You expect me to believe that there were banks that didn't want the money? Do you have any solid evidence of this? Or of pigs with wings, which is just about as likely?

Why would corporations want to continue to waste time lobbying and donating if the power spigot got turned off?

To turn it back on, of course. That's why it was turned on in the first place.

In fact some major banks were forced to accept TARP money

Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cash - Business Insider

And when some banks wanted to repay TARP money the fucking government aka Obama wouldn't allow it

Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com

So don't be so trusting of the government, little sheep.

 

[Dragon]

The age range of the Occupy Wall Street folks is 18-40.

Mudwhistle, why do you keep posting made-up shit when you don't have a clue what you're talking about and when you're easily proven wrong? What's the point?

I've seen a photo of an old man with a walker at OWS carrying a sign that said he was a World War II vet. The lower boundary may be roughly correct, but the older one is totally wrong.

 

[Dragon]

In fact some major banks were forced to accept TARP money

Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cash - Business Insider

And when some banks wanted to repay TARP money the fucking government aka Obama wouldn't allow it

Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com

Neither of those articles supported either their headlines or your claims about them. The first led to a run-down of a persuasion session by government officials with the representatives of nine banks, but there was no coercion described. The second article actually said that the money WAS repaid by those small banks, but was making much of the fact that the administration didn't cheer the repayment. It did not say that repayment was refused.

 

[Si modo]

In fact some major banks were forced to accept TARP money

Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cash - Business Insider

And when some banks wanted to repay TARP money the fucking government aka Obama wouldn't allow it

Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com

Neither of those articles supported either their headlines or your claims about them. The first led to a run-down of a persuasion session by government officials with the representatives of nine banks, but there was no coercion described. The second article actually said that the money WAS repaid by those small banks, but was making much of the fact that the administration didn't cheer the repayment. It did not say that repayment was refused.

You're right. The second didn't say the money was refused; it said that the administration told the bank there would be "adverse consequences" if they continued to insist on paying back the money.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Mudwhistle, why do you keep posting made-up shit when you don't have a clue what you're talking about and when you're easily proven wrong? What's the point?

I've seen a photo of an old man with a walker at OWS carrying a sign that said he was a World War II vet. The lower boundary may be roughly correct, but the older one is totally wrong.

So you're saying that Alzheimer's could be just as effective in causing one to join the Shitter Revolt as drug abuse?

Makes sense....

 

[Dragon]

Uncensored, that does it. You are an obnoxious troll with, as best I can see, nothing to say beyond invective and abuse. On ignore you go.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uncensored, that does it. You are an obnoxious troll with, as best I can see, nothing to say beyond invective and abuse. On ignore you go.

Dragon, your cowardice will not stop me from ripping your tepid, Marxist posts to shreds.

 

[konradv]

Uncensored, that does it. You are an obnoxious troll with, as best I can see, nothing to say beyond invective and abuse. On ignore you go.

Dragon, your cowardice will not stop me from ripping your tepid, Marxist posts to shreds.

Like anyone gives two hoots for the opinion of the board Nazi.

 

[Skull Pilot]

In fact some major banks were forced to accept TARP money

Documents Reveal How Paulson Forced Banks To Take TARP Cash - Business Insider

And when some banks wanted to repay TARP money the fucking government aka Obama wouldn't allow it

Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com

Neither of those articles supported either their headlines or your claims about them. The first led to a run-down of a persuasion session by government officials with the representatives of nine banks, but there was no coercion described. The second article actually said that the money WAS repaid by those small banks, but was making much of the fact that the administration didn't cheer the repayment. It did not say that repayment was refused.

Poor little sheep just can't believe the government is underhanded and coercive

Business & Technology | Documents: Paulson forced 9 bank CEOs to take TARP | Seattle Times Newspaper

The chief executives of the country's nine largest banks had no choice but to accept capital infusions from the Treasury Department in October, government documents released Wednesday have confirmed.

Obtained and released by Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation, the documents revealed "talking points" used by former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the October 13 meeting between federal officials and the executives that stressed the investments would be required "in any circumstance," whether the banks found them appealing or not.

Paulson also told the bankers it would not be prudent to opt out of the program because doing so "would leave you vulnerable and exposed."

It's no secret that some of the banks had to be pressured to participate in the program, with several bank CEOs saying they had been strongly encouraged to take the funds. But the documents are the first proof of the government's insistence.

Don't be so naive to think that when bankers were called to the fucking white house that they had a choice to do anything but accept the so called offer of money.

 

[Dragon]

Poor little sheep just can't believe the government is underhanded and coercive

Why do you say silly things like this? On a thread about the Occupy Wall Street protests, why do you misrepresent them as pro-government when it couldn't be more obvious that that isn't even remotely true? Why not present your arguments without the lies? Is it really that hard?

None of the material you presented shows any coercion on the part of the government to force banks to take the TARP money. That the investments "would be required" says nothing about exactly what is requiring them. The obvious candidate would be the financial circumstances of the bank in question. When the alternative is bankruptcy, it can reasonably be stated that the bank "has no choice," or anyway no good choice, without that implying that the government is requiring the bank to take the money. That is what you need to show in order to support your contention, and you have not shown it.

The same argument applies with regard to repayment. What consequences, specifically, is the government threatening if the loans are repaid early? (I assume "early" since all loans are of course expected to be repaid.) A shortage of capital is one possibility, leading to possible consequences if other loans by the bank run into default. If that's what the government says, this is a prediction and not a demand.

All of the evidence you have presented is subject to interpretations that do not support your contentions, and as your contentions are frankly absurd, quite clear and unambiguous proof is required for them.