At least one politician is responding to OWS and the continued erosion of the middle class. She is Elizabeth Warren (D) running for senator for the state of Massachusetts. Her speech concerning "class warfare" and tax breaks for the rich has gone viral on YouTube. In just 6 weeks her campaign has raised over 3.15 million dollars, and just 1 in 20 contributions were for more than 100 dollars. If the OWS movement is looking for a leader, they have found one in Ms. Warren. Elizabeth Warren's appeal:

What a concept - the social contract which is the glue that binds together the members of all civilized societies. The Republicans want a repeal of the social contract so that the big corporations and the wealthy can grow ever richer at the expense of the middle and working class. If the conservatives had their way, the US would become little better than a third world country with the rich in their gated communities and the poor literally dying on the streets.

Warren is also correct in stating that business owners could not have made it without help from the rest of society. The Republicans would have us think that the working class are little better than scum - especially compared to the millionaire "producers." So, tell me. Who built the Hoover Dam? Who is rebuilding the WTC? Who works on what few assembly lines and production lines that the "Job Creators" haven't got around to out-sourcing yet?

American workers, that's who. Without their strong work ethic and dedication no business would ever get off the ground. A nation's, a corporation's, a community's most valuable resource is their people. WE are the 99%!

And the noise is so loud as to be heard even in Yorkshire, UK.

We have the Congress that gerrymandering wanted (don't blame the Germans). And a teaparty that loves what bean counters have done to our economies.

So, you're an Occupy protestor, the council have a law against pitching a tent in a park, and have sent in the police to remove tents. What do you do?



:lol: silly buggers. :lol:

:lol:

Awesome!

:biggrin: ingenious - pythonesque, with a touch of bennyhillity

"I see you also ignoring the real problem. When the rich get richer, then jobs are destroyed. How to destroy jobs? Enrich the rich. Reality is that simple."

I ignore nothing...again: I don't care.

I self-employ, so, let the 'rich destroy'.

If a body puts his or future in the hands of another, then he or she gets exactly what he or she deserves.

*shrug*

#

"So, if I'm hearing you right, Henry, they should just pack up and go home yes?"

Nope.

As I've said multiple times: each will (attempt to) do exactly as he or she likes (as each should).

If the 'occupants' want to set up shanty towns and live out the rest of their lives on street corners: fine by me.

And still: they've failed.


"What they are doing is expressing...anger and dismay..."

Yeah, my nephew (five years old) does the same (tantrums).

Tantrums, rarely get him (as 'occupancy' will them) what he 'wants' (though, often it gets him -- as it will them -- what he 'needs', which is usually 'time-out').


"It is serving its purpose"

Feel-good antics by and for neo-hippies (utopians and communitarians): again, fine by me.

I love neo-hippies. They're cute and cuddly.

All I ever wanted was to be a hippie: I was too young for the first round and now I'm too old for the second round.

Freakin' 80s. :mad:

I love neo-hippies. They're cute and cuddly.
 

I agree...they make good pets... ;)

You do realize that *everyone* is dependent of the hands of others, correct? Being self-employed does not rid of this.

You're an honorary hippie, infinite monkey. Peace! :flower:

Groovy, and peace! :)

"You do realize that *everyone* is dependent of the hands of others, correct? Being self-employed does not rid of this."

I shop at the grocery not because I must, but only 'cause it's convenient.

That I use conveniences is not synonymous with being 'dependent' on them.

And: I didn't say I was 'self-employed' (as in, I work for myself but still rely on the community to live); I said 'I self-employ'...I employ (use) myself (in making a living, providing for myself, taking care of 'me', etc.).

I'm ready for the Zombie Apocalypse or anything else coming down the pike, including the (unlikely) possibility 'occupancy' might actually result in 'communitarian heaven' (heaven with a politburo)... ;)

It was always a form of protest AND an assembly. What's the point of assembling for redress of grievances if it is not in protest of those grievances?

Everyone likes to think they are ready for the Zombie Apocalypse, but 99.99% of the population will succumb. What makes you think you are so special that you'll be part of the 0.01%? And why would you want to be?

[/Brains!]

I know I'll survive the zombie apocalypse. I've said before I have a comedy routine all ready. I'll have the zombies rolling around and laughing so hard, they'll make me their queen.

edit: actually, only 19 more days until the aliens take me home.

"Everyone likes to think they are ready for the Zombie Apocalypse..."

Insofar as I can tell: no one thinks they'll survive...they'd like to, would like a miracle to sweep 'em up and bed them and feed them chocolates (like any good utopian), but none believe they'll actually survive.

#

"...99.99% of the population will succumb."

Of course! Absolutely!

#

"What makes you think you are so special that you'll be part of the 0.01%?"

'Cause I'm 'me'... ;)

#

"And why would you want to be?"

Living/autonomy in Hell is preferable to the calm of the grave.

##

"I know I'll survive the zombie apocalypse..."

Yes, you will.

"actually, only 19 more days until the aliens take me home."

Well, now you're just being silly... ;)

Which is more likely, aliens or zombies?

You know it's aliens.

Or god.

You know it's aliens.

It's always aliens.

and yet...never lupus...

I hear what you're saying Henry. And to an extent, I can see something admirable about a desire not to be dependant, not to be caught in the trap that dependency can create. But, it seems a cold creed to me. An unnecessarily harsh way to meet the world.

The thing that allowed humans to survive and thrive as a species, more than any other factor, was arguably our capacity for communal organisation and complex communication. The more we have met and organised, pooled our collective imaginations and energies, the further we have got. And the less we have each needed to supply everything.

If everybody took self sufficiency and absolute independence as our goal, there would be no ipads.

Those who claim to be self sufficient will itch for their entire life. Then deny they suffer from the heartbreak of psoriasis.

So back to the dressing as a tent to mock the cops bit.

Melbourne city council decided to make it illegal to wear a tent in a public park.
They sent in the cops.
Story with video here http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-0...tester/3715344

Instead of arresting the tentee, they stripped the tent off her. Leaving her in her undies in a public park.

(1) It is highly implausible that any Australian government could make a law regulating what you wear, even more so for a city council. I assume lawyers are circling already. Can anyone say "unconstitutional"?
(2) People who break the law are supposed to be arrested, not stripped. WTF?

I would say that is well beyond argument. Division of labour, cooperation, and creation and transmission of culture (especially "knowledge") are the keys to our success.

:smack:

They should have charged her with ... loitering within tent.

*groan*

Z, pretty good... well worth a *groan*

First class pun! I approve!

More seriously:
this is what happened in Seattle when the same issue arose back in October:

Dana, Zen
 

"...to an extent, I can see something admirable about a desire not to be dependant, not to be caught in the trap that dependency can create. But, it seems a cold creed to me. An unnecessarily harsh way to meet the world."

Why 'cold'? Why 'harsh'?

It seems perfectly natural to me that I should self-direct, self-determine, self-rely. My living is not 'cold' or 'harsh'.

#

"The thing that allowed humans to survive and thrive as a species, more than any other factor, was arguably our capacity for communal organisation and complex communication. The more we have met and organised, pooled our collective imaginations and energies, the further we have got. And the less we have each needed to supply everything."

No argument with this on the face of it, but (perhaps unintentionally) embedded in the above is the notion of a universal standard of 'sociability', a uniform baseline of interaction.

As I said elsewhere: no doubt many, perhaps most, folks NEED the company, aid, support, of others...without that company, aid, support, those folks just plain 'die'.

The mistake, however, is to apply the needs of the many to the (admittedly aberrant) one.

Let's use the cockroach analogy (for every roach you see there are 100 hidden in the walls): for every 10,000, 1 million, 100 million, folks who are '*the luckiest people in the world', there is one who (by nature) only **needs him- or her-self.

There is the uncomfortable suggestion (it seems to me) that this 'one' needs 'rehabilitation' and this is a rather large problem (for every one).

As this relates to the thread ('occupancy'): those in favor rally those against (and vice a versa) and both sides scratch collected heads at one who's indifferent to the pros and cons and thinks it's all a silly attempt at envy-fulfillment.

#

"If everybody took self sufficiency and absolute independence as our goal, there would be no ipads."

And this would be a 'bad' thing?

If so, why?

##

"I would say that is well beyond argument."

Allow me, then, to etch out the beginning of a bare-bones opposition.

Some time back, in the 'New Scientist', there was ***piece about the roots of language. Some recent anthropo-/archeo-logical findings indicate language has its beginning with the individual as he or she apprehends the world (and its contents) and, through symbols, attempts to apply significance to the world, for him- or her-self.

The killer of the piece: that language promoted 'community' was incidental to its fundamental purpose as tool of the one (a refutation, perhaps, of Wittgenstein's assertion that there is no 'private language').

My point: 'community' is perhaps the tool of the one, not the creation of the 'we'.

#

"Division of labour, cooperation, and creation and transmission of culture (especially "knowledge") are the keys to our success."

No doubt, but keep in mind: the labor of, the cooperation in, the creation of, the transmission of, 'culture' begins with one doing all those things for his or her own reasons. The tendency to relegate 'one' to cog in the machine of 'many' is deplorable...and (despite my personal preference and the above cited anthropo-/archeo-logical findings) probably perfectly natural.

As I posted elsewhere: no doubt the individual is a relic or deviance...the future (and probably the past) belongs to the many, the 'we', 'the people'.

*shrug*

If this is indeed the case: then dinosaurs, cancers, and aberrations (like me) are obligated to give all of you one helluva show before each of us is buried deep and forgotten.

I'd prefer to be just 'left alone', but (especially after Mr. Obama's 'we, the people' speech) this may not be possible.









*people...people who need people...are the luckiest people...in the world!

**wanting company is not synonymous with needing company...'need' and 'want' are two very different animals.

***if I find a link for the piece, I'll post it...I don't expect any one to take my word for it.

someone needs to rehabilitate hq in the quoting function.

C-man, we had that discussion years ago. ;)

http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?t=19778&page=5

Hmmm, I always thought that song went: people who need peepholes.

Yeh, I know. I guess I was hoping he would join us in the new millennium.

people who need peepholes
 

HA!

#

"I was hoping he would join us in the new millennium"

Nope... ;)

Obama is protesting...

He is Occupying Oahu for the 18 days....

At a cost of $750,000 to the tax payer as he says we should be saving money for the little guy.

Social is good for the people, not for the socialists.

Sour grapes, you crybaby.

Who spends more time searching for irrelevant dirt? Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, or TheMercenary?

The first three rabidly want America to fail. A trend is apparent.

Honestly? I think it's too late. I had hope for America, but no longer. 101 million dollar earning CEOs don't care, and their pet sheep don't care, and you can't fight millionaire hall.

I'm completely serious here. I just wish it would happen faster, so I don't feel like the only one drowning. I can live by the train tracks with the other former members of society. We'll live in the boxes discarded by the rich. If they'll let us have them. That might seem like socialism, all that welfare.

Done. Done. Done. Let them take the country and kill us all. I can't care anymore.

:sniff:

You are what you read. You should consider avoiding the political sites you have been going to. They are not making you smarter.

It's a real phenomenon.

This is the "Jersey Shore" study that showed that people consuming stupid media content actually perform worse on tests than a control group.

In your example, you are condemning your political opposition for doing what all past presidents have done. Take a trip. It's perfectly normal and standard. 18 days may seem long, but there have been others who took longer vacations. And as we all know, the President is never really off the clock.

What Glatt said.

Meanwhile the Occupy movement continues to evolve and support for its efforts is continuing to grow. Just one example is the Occupy Our Homes protest:

Occupy is not going to go away just because the police chased them out of some parks. Time Magazine considers OWS the top story of the year. And Coloradans continue to Occupy Denver. (See? I told you we don't mind the snow!)

Here is another link to what glatt said.
I actually called Mr. Cassino, still awaiting a response to some questions I have.

Called who for what now?

?

someone crossed the streams, I believe that post by classicman relates to the man cave thread.

I've told you guys to use the urinal in front of YOU, you're not supposed cross pee into each other's urinals.

Corrected link
Would a moderator please correct. kthx

fixd

thanks. That was pretty funny actually. :)

We were watching TV, and I realized that the OWS movement is lacking one
of the things that made the movements of the 60's so successful.
Music of the OWS.

Here's a good role model from earlier days:

You're right, Lamp...here, let me get the ball rolling...
 

Monkey Vs Robot
James Kochalka


Monkey play in the jungle
Robot work in the factory
they will have a giant rumble
Monkey Versus Robot
Monkey Versus Robot

Monkey hate technology
Robot hate the monkey
they will fight eternally
Monkey Versus Robot
Monkey Versus Robot

Monkey Mate in the jungle
Robot replicate in factory
They both love their mother
why must they hate eachother

Why cant we all get along
would that be oh so wrong?
why cant we all love eachother
monkey and a robot brother

Monkey Versus Robot
Monkey Versus Robot
Monkey Versus Robot
Monkey Versus Robot

M-O-N-K-E-Y MONKEY
R-O-B-O-T ROBOT
M-O-N-K-E-Y MONKEY
R-O-B-O-T ROBOT
M-O-N-K-E-Y MONKEY
R-O-B-O-T ROBOT
M-O-N-K-E-Y MONKEY
R-O-B-O-T ROBOT

Monkey play in the jungle
Robot work in the factory
they will have a giant rumble
Monkey Versus Robot
Monkey Versus Robot

Monkey hate technology
Robot hate the monkey
they will fight eternally
Monkey Versus Robot
Monkey Versus Robot

Monkey Mate in the jungle
Robot replicate in factory
They both love their mother
why must they hate eachother

Why cant we all get along
would that be oh so wrong?
why cant we all love eachother
monkey and a robot brother

Monkey Versus Robot
Monkey Versus Robot
Monkey Versus Robot
Monkey Versus Robot

M-O-N-K-E-Y MONKEY
R-O-B-O-T ROBOT
M-O-N-K-E-Y MONKEY
R-O-B-O-T ROBOT
M-O-N-K-E-Y MONKEY
R-O-B-O-T ROBOT
M-O-N-K-E-Y MONKEY
R-O-B-O-T ROBOT

Back to the topic.

Microlending was successful by tapping new technology (ie internet) while doing the purpose of any and every business. To advance mankind. A European could loan a few hundred Euros to a small business woman in Africa. Who in turn might create a telephone kiosk based in cell phones. These resulted in massive productivity increases in that African village. It advanced mankind. Both lender and borrower prospered and therefore profited.

Then business school graduates and other Wall Street types tried to subvert it for self-serving profits. Small farmers in southern Asia were suddenly stuck with multiple microloans they could never pay. Because Wall Street and business school types ignore the purpose of that business. Their solution? Offer him another microloan. Corrupt bean counters did what they also did to American homeowners.

Wall Street and MBA types consider 'loan sharking' to be good. Believe the purpose of a business is only profit. Even insist every transaction will result in one winner and one loser. Wall Streeters, et al are no different than the mafia. They are the reason why microlending suffering so many failures.

Two types of people exist in this world. Those who learn, work for, and advance the product. Who therefore advance mankind. And who **earn** their profits. The second are mafia and business school graduates, so worshipped on Wall Street, who have no idea how the work gets done. Who cannot bother to learn. Whose only purpose in life is to enrich themselves at the expense of America and the world. Who mock the concept called "the advancement of mankind". Who gleefully created in early 2000 the recession we all suffer from. And who now deny there are only corrupt.

Of course, Wall Streeters and business school graduates could not see an innovation even if they sucked it up their nose - which is why cocaine addicts are so common on Wall Street. Which is why drug addiction is good for any mafia business.

Microlending performed by investing in something productive did so much to advance mankind; especially in emerging nations. Once the MBA smelled a profit, then microlenders were suddenly 'loan sharks'.

Every business deal must result in both sides profiting. Honest lenders make sure their borrower will profit. Perverting a successful concept – microlending – if directly traceable to those so corrupt as to say “the purpose of a business is profits - screw the product”. Same people built GM cars. And blamed the unions for some of the world’s crappiest products. Same also want to buy T-mobile to simply eliminate competition. Same also subverting internet growth in the US by enriching and protecting only two local providers (ie Verizon and Comcast).

The purpose of every corrupt organization: make profits by screwing all others. The product be damned. Corruption of microlending is simply another example of the cancer openly protected by wacko extremists and other nasty people. Who gleefully enriched the rich a decade ago and therefore destroy businesses and jobs today. Even harmed emerging populations by corrupting microlending.

wow a new word...

Looks like Obama couldn't occupy Oahu for 18 days after all, should save us a little money.

Milk Street Cafe, FiDi eatery that lost business due to Occupy Wall Street barricades, to close for good

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/milk...ticle-1.990960

Awww, the poor babies on Wall Street are losing their nearby eateries.

... and how many (thousands of) businesses closed for good because Wall Street would not lend credit when it was needed

... and how many (thousands of) homeowners lost their homes for good because those businesses closed for good

Merc, this time you're on the losing side with your attacks aimed at OWS.

No, the OWS protests failed. They cost the cities millions of taxpayer dollars and in this case closed an independent business and put people out of work. You may think it is nothing more than collateral damage on the way to some larger gain, but that larger gain by the OWS protests failed to do anything. You can bitch and whine about the larger economy but the problem is not in Wall St. It is in government. The point of the spear is pointed in the wrong direction.

In one city alone:

Mayor Calls For Budget Cuts To Offset Millions In Occupy LA Costs

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/...cupy-la-costs/

Great job! :thumb:

They must fail. Limbaugh said we must further enrich the richest to destroy even more American jobs. TheMercenary loves it.

Workers are evil - just as they were in the early 20th Century when the rich were also amassing most of the wealth. And hiring thugs to attack American workers. Eventually too mush wealth amassed by the richest contributed to the other massive recession - the great depression. Keep American workers down and in their place. After all, Limbaugh says that is good. Those most easily attached to a political agenda blindly agree.

The numbers. What Limbaugh disciples never learn. An under 35 year old in 1992 averaged a $45K income. An under 35 year old in 1999 averaged $47K (in 1992 dollars). Then we enriched the rich to create more jobs - as Limbaugh vivaciously advocated. An under 35 years old in 2007 averaged $32K (in 1992 dollars). Wacko extremists called that good for America - even after it resulted in this massive recession. And then said we want Obama and America to fail.

So let’s just blame it all on OWS protesters. And while we are at it, let's also blame them for Mission Accomplished. Oh? Limbaugh has not told us to believe that yet?

Your friend Uday can not tell the difference.

My friend Uday sees the problem clearly.