Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

[LetItSnow]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

OWS defines itself as pacifist, therefore aggressors can not be a part of OWS.

That right there is funny; I don't care who ya are.

How many things run in dead solid, 100% rule followers? Sometimes, not even an individual with his own beliefs.

Tell me you believe that all 3000 Oakland campers are permanent pacifists, clean to the core... I dare you.

Regardless of whether the trouble exclusively stems from plants or bandwagoneers who just want to cause trouble (which is of course, impossible), it's an opportunity for the havoc we've seen. The method that Occupy [city] is using is flawed and failing. Even if their mission is good, their time is just a mess.

Then, there's the bit about how you can get 10 different people to tell you 10 different pursuit paths (if any), and whether they're in the right place, anyway (White House, anyone?)

Good concept, poor execution.

With that, I'm skipping out on this one; you can't debate with someone who uses Crayola absolutes.

[sicksubie]

Also don't forget the jobs that have now been lost to the OWS crowd. Milk Street Cafe just laid off a quarter of their 90 something employees due to a decrease in business because of the protests. Congratulations...


Oh, am I the only one that finds it amusing that this "under-privileged", "victim of greed" is such a horribly put on acting job? You have people camping out under 3 or 4 $20-$25 tarps instead of just buying a decent tent for $60. And they are the ones talking about financial iresponsibility, lol...

[Lookin4SVX]

Overall the protestors seem to be acting non violently.
The OWS people know that if they become violent, they risk losing everything.

Sure there are going to be a few bad apples in the bunch, that is to be expected.
Then again not everyone is protesting for the same reason, not everyone that is down there is part of OWS.

Most people are just fed up.
I mean it used to be that that you worked hard, saved money, and you could live a nice life.
Now saving money is a joke. You lose more money through inflation than you gain on in it in interest in your savings account now.
So now we all spend what we have, and take on debt to pay for things in the future. Which leads to a pretty bleak future..

The way our government spends money, it is making our dollar worth less.
So we have to spend more. So we can save less. And then when we do try and put something away as savings, the banks give you crap interest rates, meanwhile they are borrowing money from the FED at damn near 0 interest, and investing your money and your tax dollars into toxic assets losing billions then going to the FED for a bailout, and making the money in the saving account worth even less. So it feels like the banks are the one screwing them.

I wish OWS would wake up and realize that congress is problem.. they are the ones that gave the power to print the money to the FED.
They made a deal with the banksters, we gave them the power to print money, they gave congress a blank check to fund every program their hearts desire, of course with interest..

Thomas Jefferson said in 1816: “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

If only they had listened...

The solution to this is simple, abolish the Federal Reserve Act and return to sound money.
You know when the FED issues money, it comes out of nowhere.
When they write a check its not drawn out of any account, it is literally created out of thin air.
It is an instant increase into the amount of dollars, which makes every dollar out there worth less.
The idea of QE just blows my mind... how do they think printing more money will help?

Well that's my 2cents. (which is what 1 copper penny is worth now)

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

Tell me you believe that all 3000 Oakland campers are permanent pacifists, clean to the core... I dare you.

I don't like to generalize large populations of people, I do like to recognize an official agenda. I for example am not a pacifist, but I consider myself part of the Occupy movement, Anchorage in particular. Perhaps "allied with" the movement is a more precise phrase, as I have allied myself with the tenants of order which have been verbosely established through every Occupation (at least in the U.S.) when representing the movement. I believe that failure to conform to the pacifist principles is cause for exclusion from the Occupy movement, because Occupation is not a form of aggression.
Beyond that, I can not accept that the protests enable greater volatility of rogue protesting or looting sects, as the Occupy protesters are policing the areas they occupy as well, as disorderly acts are extremely detrimental to the cause, not to mention the fact the law enforcement agencies of the respective cities seem to have made a habit of converging upon the protesters.

By the way, your 3000 number may be a bit conservative (no surprise there).

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

With that, I'm skipping out on this one; you can't debate with someone who uses Crayola absolutes.

I Googled this term "crayola absolutes" and failed to find any results establishing it's definition, so I will do something better; I will condone your self exemption on the grounds that I believe you are unable to coherently support your anti-Occupy position due to lack of position-supporting facts and intellectual biases. There's no shame in acknowledging the weakness of your arguments, only in defending the indefensible. I think you are making a wise decision.

Originally Posted by sicksubie

Also don't forget the jobs that have now been lost to the OWS crowd. Milk Street Cafe just laid off a quarter of their 90 something employees due to a decrease in business because of the protests. Congratulations...

So 21 workers versus the however many millions of lives shady fiscal and lending practice have ruined or forced hardship upon... tough call, that.

From the linked article:
--- "Epstein said the biggest problem is the police barricades that have lined Wall Street since Sept. 17, making it difficult for people to see his restaurant and cross the street to get to it. Epstein has also had to contend with closed subway entrances, police checkpoints and frequent Occupy Wall Street marches, which he said have dampened the Financial District’s formerly thriving street life."

Interesting.

A quote from the business owner himself:

--- “Now, Wall Street is deserted,” Epstein said. “The only people who walk down Wall Street are people who have to walk down Wall Street. It’s transformed from a beautiful pedestrian mall to a police siege.”

Very interesting.


More:
--- Meanwhile, Occupy Wall Street released a statement Tuesday saying that the NYPD is to blame for Epstein’s demise.

“The NYPD makes the decisions on the part of police barricades,” the statement said in part.

“This is not our choice and we would never want businesses to have to deal with inconveniences that may reduce their business traffic.”

Epstein, who marched in 1987 to free oppressed Jews from the Soviet Union, said he understands protests but cannot condone the Occupiers’ tactics.

“This movement is not serious,” Epstein said. “If it was, they would not want small businesses going out of business.”

Oh, am I the only one that finds it amusing that this "under-privileged", "victim of greed" is such a horribly put on acting job? You have people camping out under 3 or 4 $20-$25 tarps instead of just buying a decent tent for $60. And they are the ones talking about financial iresponsibility, lol...

Camping (and thus tents) is illegal in most areas of protest, hence the term "occupy". Occupation is not illegal in most areas.

The humor from your statement most likely stems from its blatant absurdity.

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by Lookin4SVX

...

Most people are just fed up.
I mean it used to be that that you worked hard, saved money, and you could live a nice life.
Now saving money is a joke. You lose more money through inflation than you gain on in it in interest in your savings account now.
So now we all spend what we have, and take on debt to pay for things in the future. Which leads to a pretty bleak future..

The way our government spends money, it is making our dollar worth less.
So we have to spend more. So we can save less. And then when we do try and put something away as savings, the banks give you crap interest rates, meanwhile they are borrowing money from the FED at damn near 0 interest, and investing your money and your tax dollars into toxic assets losing billions then going to the FED for a bailout, and making the money in the saving account worth even less. So it feels like the banks are the one screwing them.

I wish OWS would wake up and realize that congress is problem.. they are the ones that gave the power to print the money to the FED.
They made a deal with the banksters, we gave them the power to print money, they gave congress a blank check to fund every program their hearts desire, of course with interest..

Thomas Jefferson said in 1816: “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

If only they had listened...

The solution to this is simple, abolish the Federal Reserve Act and return to sound money.
You know when the FED issues money, it comes out of nowhere.
When they write a check its not drawn out of any account, it is literally created out of thin air.
It is an instant increase into the amount of dollars, which makes every dollar out there worth less.
The idea of QE just blows my mind... how do they think printing more money will help?

Well that's my 2cents. (which is what 1 copper penny is worth now)

I argued with an economics degree-holding member on NASIOC on this issue. He (and I assume many others) defend devaluation citing "economic" ruin in every other economic system, especially sound money systems in which inflation is under control.

The difference between economic ruin in our system and those other system is basically the rich become wealthier in our current system regardless of anything (due to debt and magical lending), and that does have a lot to do with congressional collusion. It's the people who haven't managed to take advantage of the system who lose out, and that is just OK with a lot of people, even some people who are adversely affected by the constant downturn, which would be pretty much everyone who ever has to make an informed purchase decision.

The person I argued with stated that certain things are only possible in our economy, I imagine meaning that an immense wealth disparity of the population is necessary to do things like build huge skyscrapers, I guess.
You see, building skyscrapers and funding huge construction or space exploration projects were impossible before the 20th century simply because no private company was rich enough, it had nothing to do with the fact the technology did not exist. Greedy corporations are necessary for our way of life, for progress! Nothing is possible without them!

What sarcasm?

What it comes down to is do you care about people or do you not. Do you believe you or your family is superior to others or is altruism your motive. It's all about character. I believe our economy is a lot like eugenics. Applaud those whom are able to claim the most resources as the most competent, let those unable to keep up swim in the chlorinated gene pool.
-[edit] And to be perfectly honest, if you are OK with economic eugenics, when OWS succeeds your only choice will be to accept it or become a[n even greater] hypocrite. People with money power use that power to enhance their own finances, people without money power use people power to prevent the money power from being abused... either they are both "fair" play or they aren't. Can't be one or the other. Accept it.

[LetItSnow]

So you don't stay too far in the dark:

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

I Googled this term "crayola absolutes" and failed to find any results establishing it's definition...

Far be it for you to use some shade of deduction as to its implication. Consider the typical folk who use Crayolas, and their justification for believing in absolutes.

You'll want to know this: Much of the 99% that's not creating tent slums in their hometowns is only seeing damage, noise, and disruption being created at their expense by mostly misguided sheeple carrying senses of self-entitlement, and they're wondering when the positive outcome will arrive. Correct or not, that's your created image. Was this your mission?

Example:
<My impressions of Occupy Ottawa>

[sicksubie]

Originally Posted by NikFu S.

So 21 workers versus the however many millions of lives shady fiscal and lending practice have ruined or forced hardship upon... tough call, that.

From the linked article:
--- "Epstein said the biggest problem is the police barricades that have lined Wall Street since Sept. 17, making it difficult for people to see his restaurant and cross the street to get to it. Epstein has also had to contend with closed subway entrances, police checkpoints and frequent Occupy Wall Street marches, which he said have dampened the Financial District’s formerly thriving street life."

Interesting.

A quote from the business owner himself:

--- “Now, Wall Street is deserted,” Epstein said. “The only people who walk down Wall Street are people who have to walk down Wall Street. It’s transformed from a beautiful pedestrian mall to a police siege.”

Very interesting.


More:
--- Meanwhile, Occupy Wall Street released a statement Tuesday saying that the NYPD is to blame for Epstein’s demise.

“The NYPD makes the decisions on the part of police barricades,” the statement said in part.

“This is not our choice and we would never want businesses to have to deal with inconveniences that may reduce their business traffic.”

Epstein, who marched in 1987 to free oppressed Jews from the Soviet Union, said he understands protests but cannot condone the Occupiers’ tactics.

“This movement is not serious,” Epstein said. “If it was, they would not want small businesses going out of business.”





Camping (and thus tents) is illegal in most areas of protest, hence the term "occupy". Occupation is not illegal in most areas.

The humor from your statement most likely stems from its blatant absurdity.

The point is that their actions in only one instance cost 21 people their jobs. Nice job being sensitive to that.

Your point on the camping makes no sense. They are camping whether under a tent or a tarp. The irony is that in order to make themselves look the part of a "repressed" part of society they are spending more money than necessary.

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

So you don't stay too far in the dark:

Far be it for you to use some shade of deduction as to its implication. Consider the typical folk who use Crayolas, and their justification for believing in absolutes.

Sorry, I do not expect my personal interpretation of abstractly-cobbled phrases to offer conclusive insight of your intended meaning.
"Deduction" as you say in this case offers a greater chance for error than either speaking in simple, common terms, or preemptively defining ambiguous phrases for clarity's sake.
Even still, you neglect to offer a clear definition after 2 posts.

You'll want to know this: Much of the 99% that's not creating tent slums in their hometowns is only seeing damage, noise, and disruption being created at their expense by mostly misguided sheeple carrying senses of self-entitlement, and they're wondering when the positive outcome will arrive. Correct or not, that's your created image. Was this your mission?

Example:
<My impressions of Occupy Ottawa>

Your version appears to be somewhat deviously abridged.

"Slums" is debatable, "sheeple" is unproductive terminology, "self-entitlement" assumes motive that I am unable to verify, and "wondering" implies a lack of alacrity... "My created image" as you have defined it is your skewed interpretation of my created image, and "my" created image is simply a rehash of "the" created image as I understand it from multiple notable sources within various arms of the movement.

I'm not sure this summation is needed, or even useful.

I will admit that given the scope of the movement, and diversity of the people participating and their methods, it's difficult to speak of the movement as a whole. I think for this reason summations should remain city-specific. (This is still not to say they are not united by the same goals: social equality, economic fairness, accountability, etc.)

Originally Posted by sicksubie

The point is that their actions in only one instance cost 21 people their jobs. Nice job being sensitive to that.

I do not empathize well, hence my tendency towards violence. Luckily I balance that out with a natural social moral authority.

But more to the point, if it's OWS's fault, they should be able to undo it, right? Do you propose their right to peacefully assemble be revoked, or perhaps should the police remove their barricades? How about some reform? Everyone could just go home, then.

Your point on the camping makes no sense. They are camping whether under a tent or a tarp. The irony is that in order to make themselves look the part of a "repressed" part of society they are spending more money than necessary.

I boldy presume everyone here knows that laws can at times be very, very specific or very vague. I won't bother looking them up for any particular area, I don't think that is necessary to argue my point and I probably should not have gone in that direction,
but,
show me proof these tarps were purchased for the purpose of OWS, and not previously owned, and we may have a productive point to discuss.
It is far more likely tarps and canvas sheets were donated or previously acquired to this point. I know that my local occupation has made requests for shelter ideas. Tents, camping, "structured" shelters are not permitted, and they are even considering building an legitimate igloo...

[1986nate]

This will be my only post because I don't like discussing politics and tend not to watch the propaganda that truly is our news.
I just happened to come across Occupy Wall Street's demands. ARE THEY F@#%$N retarded????


that is all.

[TomsSVX]

Ows is not a movement that will accomplish anything. They have un realistic goals of grandure for the working class and punishment of the new wealthy. I am in the working class... i pay my taxes so these hippies can collect their unemployment checks from the government they despise. At what point will they grow up and contribute in a positive way?

[LetItSnow]

Wait, lemme get this straight...

Let's just guess that he's (18+13=)31 years old.

* Why did this guy quit his job if he had a mortgage to pay?
* Why did he "have to" drop out of college? It doesn't seem to be due to time constraints.
* If college is an essential route to his dreams, why didn't he start on that road some 13 years ago? 8 years ago? 4 years ago?
* What does his girlfriend leaving have to do with Wall Street? Maybe she split because he gave up on every ounce of momentum he had? Some gals have this thing about motivation or stability or the ability to contribute to a family... weird.
* What does his parents' divorce have to do with Wall Street?
* Isn't having quit your job and joining a protest which includes complaints regarding the difficulty of finding a job hypocrisy?

This reads like this fella has no motivation and is trying to pin all of his woes on Anybody But Me. I hope he isn't a common representative of the OWS membership, and I sure hope he doesn't think he is representing me.

Any chance we can get them to adjust that 99% statistic to a more realistic number?

[TomsSVX]

The 99% thing is a joke... they represent people who everything for nothing. Those who work hard and struggle due to heavy taxation on minimal pay i can get behind.... those who collect govt assistance for lack of income and want free money like 99%a of ows members i cannot and will not. OWS does not represent hard working honest Americans but lazy socialist leeches who will bleed this country dry.

Tom

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by 1986nate

This will be my only post because I don't like discussing politics and tend not to watch the propaganda that truly is our news.
I just happened to come across Occupy Wall Street's demands. ARE THEY F@#%$N retarded????


that is all.

1) Show your source for these "demands"

2) If they are these demands (1:41), the person who wrote this does not speak for the movement, nor do many protesters agree with him.

I agree, as you put it, ****ing retarded.

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

Ows is not a movement that will accomplish anything. They have un realistic goals of grandure for the working class and punishment of the new wealthy. I am in the working class... i pay my taxes so these hippies can collect their unemployment checks from the government they despise. At what point will they grow up and contribute in a positive way?

Former Philadelphia Police Captain Ray Lewis Joins With Occupy Wall Street Protesters

http://www.observer.com/2011/11/form...testers-video/

Former Captain Ray Lewis Charged With Three Violations After OWS Protest; More Photos Of His Arrest

http://www.observer.com/2011/11/form...of-his-arrest/

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

Wait, lemme get this straight...

Let's just guess that he's (18+13=)31 years old.

* Why did this guy quit his job if he had a mortgage to pay?

First of all, who is this guy?

Second, the way I comprehend his letter he was foreclosed upon before joining OWS. His list appears to be, and only makes sense when, read chronologically. Obviously he just wasn't making enough money to own a home and go to college, otherwise he would have to be completely retarded to just give all that up. Considering he made it into college and had a mortgage in the first place, I would not venture to assume he is not retarded.

And the rest of your argument/questions just fall apart in this light.

* What does his parents' divorce have to do with Wall Street?

Maybe he was supporting them somehow, or it could have been in the works for a long time. Straw something something camel.

* Isn't having quit your job and joining a protest which includes complaints regarding the difficulty of finding a job hypocrisy?

If he wasn't making enough money to survive then his job was meaningless, especially considering all that he's lost. The American Dream crumbled beneath him, I think not flipping burgers is a small price to pay to bring a voice to a movement of real systemic change.

Any chance we can get them to adjust that 99% statistic to a more realistic number?

More realistic than what, it's based on wealth disparity.

Where do you fall on this chart?

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by TomsSVX

The 99% thing is a joke... they represent people who everything for nothing. Those who work hard and struggle due to heavy taxation on minimal pay i can get behind.... those who collect govt assistance for lack of income and want free money like 99%a of ows members i cannot and will not. OWS does not represent hard working honest Americans but lazy socialist leeches who will bleed this country dry.

Tom

Give this woman a chance to explain something, she hates Obama and blames him for everything like I'm sure some of you guys do.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/goin...ut-the-market/

Ann Barnhardt describes herself as a an “an old-school commercial hedge broker specializing in CATTLE and GRAIN.” And she just shut down her business by delivering a passionate and chilling open letter posted on her website.

“I could no longer tell my clients that their monies and positions were safe in the futures and options markets – because they are not,” she writes. And then she unloads:...


...

And so, to the very unpleasant crux of the matter. The futures and options markets are no longer viable. It is my recommendation that ALL customers withdraw from all of the markets as soon as possible so that they have the best chance of protecting themselves and their equity. The system is no longer functioning with integrity and is suicidally risk-laden. The rule of law is non-existent, instead replaced with godless, criminal political cronyism.

(video not entirely related)

Now I hardly agree with her views on religion or climate, or regimes for that matter, but when someone so diametrically opposed to my own ideology shuts down her own business citing cronyism, **** just got more real.

IBshetookderjerbs
IBnotarealconservative
IBprobablyhatesOWSanyway

[Landshark]

Originally Posted by LetItSnow

Wait, lemme get this straight...

Why did this loser think he could afford to own a home on a minimim wage job?

Oh thats right, everyone is entitled to have a house.