Wall Street Protests

[Griff]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not the same as occupy. Nice try.

as·sem·ble
   [uh-sem-buhl] Show IPA verb, -bled, -bling.
verb (used with object)
1.
to bring together or gather into one place, company, body, or whole.


oc·cu·py
   [ok-yuh-pahy] Show IPA verb, -pied, -py·ing.
verb (used with object)

4.
to take possession and control of (a place), as by military invasion.

So your argument is that if they called themselves the peaceable assembly movement it would be okay to hold a multi-day protest? I understand that arguing is often the point of your arguments, but you didn't pay for an argument. Maybe you want abuse, its just down the hall.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Griff

as·sem·ble
   [uh-sem-buhl] Show IPA verb, -bled, -bling.
verb (used with object)
1.
to bring together or gather into one place, company, body, or whole.


oc·cu·py
   [ok-yuh-pahy] Show IPA verb, -pied, -py·ing.
verb (used with object)

4.
to take possession and control of (a place), as by military invasion.

So your argument is that if they called themselves the peaceable assembly movement it would be okay to hold a multi-day protest? I understand that arguing is often the point of your arguments, but you didn't pay for an argument. Maybe you want abuse, its just down the hall.

No, I would argue that prolonged occupation is not the same as a simple "Right to assemble". At some point, against the letter of the law, the initial assembly becomes a form of protest and is no longer an exercise of the Right to assemble but an act of civil disobedience.

[henry quirk]

Who cares?

If Joe and Josephine Taxpayer are foolish enough to throw money down the john, flush the john, and then pat themselves on the back for their 'good citizenry', then Joe and Josephine 'deserve' to foot the bill.

If Joe and Josephine were truly concerned about 'governance' (and the corruptions of governance): they'd have stepped up (and put their collected 'foot' down) a long time back.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

-FAILFAILFAILFAIL-

Of course it is going to fail by your standards if you put such rigid restrictions on what is considered a successful movement. I'm pretty sure this article was posted somewhere else on this site (Classicman?) but really grasp what it is saying.

"I'm so scared of this anti-Wall Street effort. I'm frightened to death," said Luntz of the Occupy Wall Street protesters. "They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/r...133707949.html

[TheMercenary]

"They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."

You really believe that? You really think the nation is beginning to rethink the role of capitalism in our society?

Describe what specific changes you could see that would come directly from the protests.

[piercehawkeye45]

There doesn't have to specific changes for a movement to have an impact, especially if you consider who controls economic regulations. The Tea Party didn't solve the US debt problem but they did a good job of bringing the issue national attention. OWS has brought national attention to other issues, even without politicians representing them. That can be considered a success within itself, obviously depending on the person's standard of success.

Two grassroot movements have popped up in the past three years and both have spread like a wildfire, which says a lot of about how people are feeling about our current economic state.

[TheMercenary]

All I have heard is a bunch of anarchists, old hippies, new hippies, with a smattering of the unemployed and other more intelligent people. No coherent message. No unified message. A lot of really great lemming behavior as they repeat lines of general protest. Not much change. No great hue and cry to end our current capitalist system to an end from the majority of the nation. These people do not represent the majority of the people.

Off to the Military National Rugby Championships for the weekend. Enjoy.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

All I have heard is a bunch of anarchists, old hippies, new hippies, with a smattering of the unemployed and other more intelligent people.

In the same way that the Tea Party is just a bunch of racists with an angry white guy attitude that can conceptualize no other perspective besides their own. Or maybe that is called the media.

No great hue and cry to end our current capitalist system to an end from the majority of the nation.

This is a strawman. To have an influence does not mean causing a cry to end our current capitalist system.

Off to the Military National Rugby Championships for the weekend. Enjoy.

Good luck.

[henry quirk]

"Of course it is going to fail by your standards if you put such rigid restrictions on what is considered a successful movement."

Unless I'm mistaken, the standards I applied...


-The uber-rich becoming less so.

-The 'governors' doing something, anything, to dis-empower the uber-rich.


...are the standards set by the 'occupants'.

That is: the standards aren't mine, but theirs.

If I'm wrong, then someone (anyone) tell me what the all the fuss and muss is really all about.

#

"...a bunch of anarchists..."

Hey! Watch it, *friend!









*
I'm not your friend, buddy! I'm not your buddy, pal! I'm not your pal, guy! I'm not your guy, friend! I'm not your friend, pal! I'm not your pal, buddy! And on and on and on...

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

"They're having an impact on what the American people think of capitalism."
You really believe that? You really think the nation is beginning to rethink the role of capitalism in our society?

Yes

Describe what specific changes you could see that would come directly from the protests.

Reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act

Bloomberg

Byron L. Dorgan, a former Democratic senator from North Dakota,
says the knowledge might have helped pass legislation to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act,
which for most of the last century separated customer deposits
from the riskier practices of investment banking.

“Had people known about the hundreds of billions in loans to the biggest financial institutions,
they would have demanded Congress take much more courageous actions
to stop the practices that caused this near financial collapse,” says Dorgan, who retired in January.

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

-The uber-rich becoming less so.

-The 'governors' doing something, anything, to dis-empower the uber-rich.

We know repeatedly in history that when the uber-rich get richer, then jobs are destroyed. The rich do not create the jobs - except in soundbytes.

[henry quirk]

"We know repeatedly in history that when the uber-rich get richer, then jobs are destroyed. The rich do not create the jobs - except in soundbytes."

I don't care.

My only points in any of this 'occupancy' nonsense (this thread) are...

(1) the 'occupants' are motivated by envy (no matter how each dresses his or her envy up), and...

(2) it (the 'occupancy') ain't working 'cause the rich are still rich and the governors ain't doing jack to alter that fact.

All this pro/con, for/against 'occupancy': pffftt! That's your train to ride, not mine.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by tw

The rich do not create the jobs - except in soundbytes.

"Wealthy producers" is an oxymoron equivalent to "military intelligence." The emperor wears no clothes, and many, including the OWS contingent are beginning to see this. Tax breaks for the rich have the result of making the rich richer. That's pretty much all.

Large amounts of “business income” go to concerns like large corporate law practices, accounting firms, and wealthy people who invest in financial and real estate partnerships. These are not what most Americans think of when they hear the term “small business.” It also reflects the reality of income inequality at levels not seen in this country for decades. These are hardly reasons to extend the high-income tax cuts...

CBO [Congressional Budget Office]has explained that firms will not hire workers or make new investments unless they have — or expect to have — enough customers to justify the increased capacity. Whether a firm’s taxes modestly rise or fall matters much less in this regard than the level of demand for the firm’s products or services.

The voice of reason at last. A business can be sitting on a million gold American Eagles, but if its potential customers lack the money to buy its product, throwing more money at the business owner is NOT going to solve the problem.

If I may be excused for using an anecdotal example - one need only look at the Bates Motel where I work. Congress can give the owner a million dollars, but as long as the population in this area lack the income to pay for a room here, nothing changes. There will be no new positions for housekeeping or desk clerks. I turn away 3, 4, 5, potential customers every day because they can't afford the rates, and we are one of the least expensive motels in town.

What is it with Conservatives, anyway? They scream bloody murder at the thought of "throwing money" at some problem, but when it comes to the wealthy, there is never enough money to be thrown their way. The rich scream for more and their sycophants in congress rush to obey.

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

(1) the 'occupants' are motivated by envy (no matter how each dresses his or her envy up), and...

(2) it (the 'occupancy') ain't working 'cause the rich are still rich and the governors ain't doing jack to alter that fact.

The bonus army also did not succeed because too many ignored a real problem that the 'Army' made so obvious.

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.

Provided were numbers. Whereas an under 35 year old averaged $45,000 in 1992 and $47,000 in 1999. The same under 35 year old group earned only $32,000 in 1998 - after wacko extremists fixed the economy by enriching the richest at the expense of all others. Those facts are why Occupy Wall Street exist.

Whereas their message is distorted, not understood or vague, the facts behind that movement are obvious. Wacko extremists, who have enriched those who buy them, have also harmed America in numbers that most people do not yet appreciate.

There is no envy. But there is denial among those are told to deny. Extremists intentionally harmed this economy to enrich their elitist friends. While reducing the American standards of living. Unfortunately, many Americans with the least education were calling that good. Would even blame Occupy Wall Street for their own plight. History is full of attacks on such demonstrations because some are told how to think by their extremist propaganda machines rather then learn the problem.

#1 – when the rich get richer, then jobs are destroyed. #2 – it gets even worse when the rich buy politicians and tell the least educated among us this is good.

“Occupy xxx” can be criticize for a diluted and vague message. And for being in conflict with the wrong ‘enemy’. But reasons behind it were bluntly defined even here over ten years ago when extremists were creating these problems. Unfortunately too many people did not see back then what was obvious. What was even known from lessons provided by history.

Provided are numbers based in 1992 dollars. Damning numbers that say why Occupy Wall Street should have been obvious long ago even when the same scumbags invented the California energy crisis, MCI Worldcom, and LTCM. All were created to enrich the richest at the expense of all other Americans.

[DanaC]

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

Maybe when they get home they can bend over the kitchen table and just take the almighty buttfucking their country is delivering to them, without complaint.

Or just stock up on tinned food and opt out of the race entirely.

What they are doing is expressing the anger and dismay currently felt by millions of ordinary Americans who've seen their economy and natinal happiness broken, and left shattered on the roadside by a class who claim not to exist as such, and who see themselves as citizens of corporate entities not nation states.

They haven't an agreed message? Well, hell, stick 10 Republicans, or 10 Democrats in a room together and you'll get 15 political messages from each group. They haven't changed anything? Nothing moves fast in the basic structures of society, even with the combined weight of the political and finacnial classes, it takes years and even decades to effect real change, why would you expect a citizen protest to have provoked concrete change in the short term?

OWS is a grassroots movement borne of anger and riding a wave of events. It doesn't need a unified message. It just needs to sustain its energy and anger and draw more people into the conversation. It is serving its purpose.