# Wall Street Protests - anybody watching?



## CubaMark

_For two weeks, protests on Wall Street have taken some interesting turns. On Wednesday, this happened:_





> ...hundreds of Continental and United Airlines pilots demonstrated in New York City's financial district.
> 
> Over 700 hundred activists, represented by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) carriers, took their grievances to the streets as they protested for wages and benefits in light of a stalled merger between the airlines.
> 
> The demonstration coincided with the 11th straight day the Occupy Wall Street encampment, which has seen thousands of demonstrators descend onto downtown Manhattan - and hundreds arrested.


(UK Daily Mail)

Here's a website that is tracking the protests: www.OCCUPYWALLSTREET.org


----------



## jimbotelecom

Thumbs up!!!!:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:


----------



## BigDL

CubaMark said:


> _For two weeks, protests on Wall Street have taken some interesting turns. On Wednesday, this happened:_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (UK Daily Mail)
> 
> Here's a website that is tracking the protests: www.OCCUPYWALLSTREET.org


Good to see Trade Unionists taking to the streets especially Wall Street.


----------



## groovetube

A small glimmer of hope to the average american worker waking up to this nonsense that raising the taxes (back...) on the very rich is not class warfare. 

Can you imagine being so brainless as to protest against healthcare so that the rich can have their cake and eat it too? All you have to do is scare them into thinking lower taxes for the rich will mean more jobs.

Canadians fell for that one recently too.


----------



## Macfury

Why is the pilot's protest supposed to be more interesting than any of the others?


----------



## CubaMark

It certainly presents a more "palatable" public image to the protests than the anarchists and less-organized protesters, who the media can dismiss as a bunch of kooks and commies. But then, anyone who has followed the issue of what airline pilots make in the USA would not be surprised at their participation.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> It certainly presents a more "palatable" public image to the protests than the anarchists and less-organized protesters, who the media can dismiss as a bunch of kooks and commies. But then, anyone who has followed the issue of what airline pilots make in the USA would not be surprised at their participation.


I guess lots of pilots still want to be pilots at those low wages. Supply and demand.

Edit:

The article is misleading. Salaries rise dramatically in the second year:

Airline Pilot Central - Continental | Legacy

Here's an example where Continental pilot wages rise from $31 per hour in the first year to $180 in the second year.


----------



## CubaMark

You might want to check that article again, and the Airline Pilot Central chart.










You assume that by "pilot" we mean "captain" but "pilot" also means "First Officer" - the three columns on the right. Promotions to Captain don't happen every year nor automatically. The hourly wage is also not indicative of annual salaries.


----------



## i-rui

There's plans for an Occupy Bay Street in Toronto.

Harper may have to brush off the G20 goons.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> You assume that by "pilot" we mean "captain" but "pilot" also means "First Officer" - the three columns on the right. Promotions to Captain don't happen every year nor automatically. The hourly wage is also not indicative of annual salaries.


Even at $57 an hour, the lowest rate for second year, 20 hours a week would pull a handsome salary.


----------



## eMacMan

The protests have been going on for weeks and this is the first glimmer of coverage by the Lamestream Media.

Comes down to a lot of Big Time Wall Streeters, who deliberately created the current world wide recession and should be in jail, are collecting multi-million dollar bonuses instead. 

Good on those who have the guts to stand up and say it.


----------



## Macfury

Why protest on Wall Street? Go straight to the White House where charges against some of these Wall Street crooks need to be pressed.


----------



## groovetube

look! shiny ball! It's OBAMAS FAULT!!!!!


----------



## CubaMark

*Arrests in Boston and San Francisco As Occupy Movement Continues Growing*





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.








> A group called Occupy Boston took over Dewey Square in Boston Friday night holding a 60s-style sit in.
> 
> "It doesn’t look like the politicians are serving the people any more," said John, a protestor who would only give his first name. "They’re serving people with money."
> 
> This is part of nationwide movement that began with a large protest last week on Wall Street.
> 
> "We're talking about government reform. We’re talking about finance reform," said Nadeem Mazen, from Occupy Boston. "And we’re opening up a national dialogue as part of a really big issue that’s on so many people’s minds."
> 
> A few blocks away a group called Take Back Boston lead hundreds of people marching from Boston Common to the Financial District.


(Crooks & Liars)


----------



## CubaMark

The United Mine Workers Union has joined in.


----------



## Macfury

That UMWA press release is just their usual call for higher taxes.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> That UMWA press release is just their usual call for higher taxes.


That's a gross misrepresentation of what was written there. There's only one line that only obliquely refers to taxes as part of the point.


> It's time to hold those who caused our economic crisis accountable, to ensure they don't get away with it again, and to demand that everyone pay their fair share.


Paying their fair share is something that the US GOP, Teabaggers and the right in general seems to be opposed to. They don't mind asking for increased taxes on the middle class, by vehemently opposing payroll tax cuts for the middle class and cutting of services directed at them, but dare anyone suggest that the wealthiest pay as much tax as the other 99% and this is misrepresented as a call for higher taxes for everyone. The hypocrisy of the US right is pretty clear.


----------



## jamesB

Macfury said:


> Even at $57 an hour, the lowest rate for second year, 20 hours a week would pull a handsome salary.


13 years ago, when I retired I was making 32 dollars/hr for a 40 hr week, this was as a tradesman responsible for no ones life other then my own. 
I never thought it was that great a salary then.
Sitting up there at 40,000 ft I'd like to believe the guy in charge was happy with his job.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> That's a gross misrepresentation of what was written there. There's only one line that only obliquely refers to taxes as part of the point.
> 
> 
> Paying their fair share is something that the US GOP, Teabaggers and the right in general seems to be opposed to. They don't mind asking for increased taxes on the middle class, by vehemently opposing payroll tax cuts for the middle class and cutting of services directed at them, but dare anyone suggest that the wealthiest pay as much tax as the other 99% and this is misrepresented as a call for higher taxes for everyone. The hypocrisy of the US right is pretty clear.


Fair share would be a flat tax.

But what do these brave marchers expect Wall Street to do for them? Wall Street is not under central command.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Fair share would be a flat tax.


Very highly debatable.

But at any rate, it appears the US GOP, Teabaggers and the US right want the middle class to continue paying more than the wealthy and to even raise the middle class tax rate while stonewalling any change to the top rate. They don't seem to be in favour of a fair tax, flat tax or even tax reductions for anyone who isn't in the top percentile. They are hypocrites.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Very highly debatable.
> 
> But at any rate, it appears the US GOP, Teabaggers and the US right want the middle class to continue paying more than the wealthy and to even raise the middle class tax rate while stonewalling any change to the top rate. They don't seem to be in favour of a fair tax, flat tax or even tax reductions for anyone who isn't in the top percentile. They are hypocrites.



The middle class is the major consumer of the programs they're paying for. Pretty fair.


----------



## Dr T

CubaMark said:


> *Arrests in Boston and San Francisco As Occupy Movement Continues Growing*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Crooks & Liars)


Eventually their vile system will collapse. What concerns me is how will that affect the rest of us?


----------



## Macfury

Dr T said:


> Eventually their vile system will collapse. What concerns me is how will that affect the rest of us?


The "system" will survive these protests handily.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> The middle class is the major consumer of the programs they're paying for. Pretty fair.


perhaps they wouldn't need so many programs if there wasn't such a huge disparity in wealth, and the ability of the wealthy to control governments to protect their wealth.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> perhaps they wouldn't need so many programs if there wasn't such a huge disparity in wealth, and the ability of the wealthy to control governments to protect their wealth.


Interesting, where did you copy and paste that statement from?


----------



## groovetube

interesting response. Did someone type that out for you?

It's amazing how merely suggesting, that the wealthiest top end who benefit from the 90+% of the population incredibly be held responsible to give more back to the communities they make their wealth from, is somehow some sort of copy and paste from someone.

Really. It isn't socialism to expect responsibility. It's common sense. Unfortunately, as your comment suggests, regular citizens have been brainwashed to protect the top wealthy, and fight for them even.

People are tired of being taken for fools. We've have been force fed that it's government, this party, or that party.

But really, it's the top wealthy that -is- government. You've just really been duped into this left-right war that really only perpetuates their control over whats ours.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> interesting response. Did someone type that out for you?
> 
> It's amazing how merely suggesting, that the wealthiest top end who benefit from the 90+% of the population incredibly be held responsible to give more back to the communities they make their wealth from, is somehow some sort of copy and paste from someone.
> 
> Really. It isn't socialism to expect responsibility. It's common sense. Unfortunately, as your comment suggests, regular citizens have been brainwashed to protect the top wealthy, and fight for them even.


Sorry, I call BS. Again I ask, where did you copy and paste that statement from?


----------



## groovetube

You call bs on the wealthy controlling government to their interests?

Sorry, but you are very gullible then. No one needs to copy and paste this, it's rather obvious.


----------



## Dr T

Macfury said:


> The "system" will survive these protests handily.


Ah yes, the Thousand Year-Reich-er-System...

More seriously, have you ever looked into history?


----------



## Macfury

Dr T said:


> Ah yes, the Thousand Year-Reich-er-System...
> 
> More seriously, have you ever looked into history?


Yes. Capitalism survived the Third Reich handily.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Interesting, where did you copy and paste that statement from?


SINC, here's a copy and paste statement I like better:



> "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."


----------



## mrjimmy

groovetube said:


> You call bs on the wealthy controlling government to their interests?
> 
> Sorry, but you are very gullible then. No one needs to copy and paste this, it's rather obvious.


It seems to me that SINC is implying something about your abilities GT. I would find that surprising though considering that this type of behaviour isn't welcome here on ehMac and SINC understands this very well.


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> It seems to me that SINC is implying something about your abilities GT. I would find that surprising though considering that this type of behaviour isn't welcome here on ehMac and SINC understands this very well.


That's ok i'm a big boy I can take it  Sinc merely totally misunderstood what I was saying. It seems many conservatives, the minute you suggest there is a serious problem with the disparity in wealth, the only solution they can ever think of besides blindly supporting their masters is socialism. Have a look at the below quote from our resident pretend libertarian:



Macfury said:


> SINC, here's a copy and paste statement I like better:
> 
> "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."


See he likes it better. One can only try to guess at -why- he likes it better, but I can tell you I certainly don't. For some reason, none of them can fathom something more sane than outright thieving conservatism masked as "for the people", or the failed tired total socialist solutions. It would never even dawn on them that perhaps, there's a middle where clear thought could exist.

Which is why I responded by pointing out they seem happy to be locked in this 'us and them' loop that will continue for as long as we all allow it. It simply allows the right, and the left, to continue being really bad government. They support their governments because they were told big government is bad, and the left and their entitlements are taking all of our money.

Well just look at their choice of government. Bigger government than at any time in Canadian history, and have spent more and faster than at any time in Canadian history, and we can spend quit a long time pointing out the unbelievable stories of real entitlement! Why do you think there is crickets everytime someone posts a story like Tony Clement, who not only practically stole 50 million it appears to ensure his re-election and misled parliament about where the money went, he made sure there was little paper trail, but he is also responsible for the treasury!

So yeah that's all they got, just close their ears to the real truth that they've also been had, and blindly howl premade slogans about socialism and big government. You just have to sit back and wonder...


----------



## CubaMark

*SUCCESS? Wall St. Protesters Land Best 'NY Post' Cover Ever*



*700 arrested after protesters swarm Brooklyn Bridge*





> "I don't think we're asking for much, just to wake up every morning not worrying whether we can pay the rent, or whether our next meal will be rice and beans again," Larkins wrote in an email to The Associated Press. "No one is expecting immediate change. I think everyone is just hopeful that people will wake up a bit and realize that the more we speak up, the more the people that do have the authority to make changes in this world listen."
> 
> Occupy Wall Street demonstrators have been camped near the financial district for two weeks and clashed with police on earlier occasions. Mostly, the protests have been peaceful, and the movement has shown no signs of losing steam. Celebrities including filmmaker Michael Moore and actress Susan Sarandon even made recent stops downtown to encourage the group.


(CBC)

*And most interestingly...*


----------



## CubaMark

*Brilliant observation by journalist Eva Golinger, regarding the OccupyWallStreet protests, particularly the Brooklyn Bridge arrests:*



> @evagolinger * *Eva Golinger*
> _
> 500+ protestors arrested in NYC #OccupyWallStreet. Is this the kind of repression requiring "humanitarian intervention" like NATO in Libya?
> _20 hours ago
> 
> @evagolinger * *Eva Golinger*
> _Imaginanse si en una protesta en Venezuela se arrestaran 500 personas. La 4ta Flota llegara por La Guaira para "salvar" la democracia..._
> 20 hours ago
> 
> ***Translation of the 2nd tweet: * _"Imagine if there were a protest in Venezuela in which 500 people were arrested. The Fourth Fleet would come to port to "save" democracy..."_


----------



## CubaMark

*Interesting....*

*As Occupy Wall Street began, Chase made biggest donation in history to NYPD*





> A coincidence, I imagine, but it sure is poetic. In mid-June, just before the Occupy Wall Street movement took shape, JPMorgan Chase donated what the financial organization itself described as *"an unprecedented" $4.6 million *to the New York City Police Foundation, part of which will be used to expand and fortify surveillance systems.


(BoingBoing)


----------



## Macfury

Thanks, Chase! I don't mind these characters marching around and waving their little signs--but don't hold up traffic.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Ronald Reagan, staunch Republican demigod, hero of the free market ... outed as a .... as a ... gulp .... SOCIALIST!





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Adrian.

CubaMark said:


> *Interesting....*
> 
> *As Occupy Wall Street began, Chase made biggest donation in history to NYPD*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (BoingBoing)


Private Security for the wealthy, while the poor starve in the streets. The result of unbridled capitalism.


----------



## eMacMan

Intersting sidenote. The Pole lice assured the protestors they would not be harrassed if they crossed the bridge, then used it as a corral to do a wholesale round-up. Claimed the protestors were arrested for blocking traffic on the bridge. Had the Pole lice simply moved everyone along to the other side where they were headed anyways the bridge would have been closed for maybe half an hour. As it was the Wall Street Protection Gang had the bridge closed for many additional hours.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> That's ok i'm a big boy I can take it  Sinc merely totally misunderstood what I was saying. It seems many conservatives, the minute you suggest there is a serious problem with the disparity in wealth, the only solution they can ever think of besides blindly supporting their masters is socialism. Have a look at the below quote from our resident pretend libertarian:
> 
> 
> 
> See he likes it better. One can only try to guess at -why- he likes it better, but I can tell you I certainly don't. For some reason, none of them can fathom something more sane than outright thieving conservatism masked as "for the people", or the failed tired total socialist solutions. It would never even dawn on them that perhaps, there's a middle where clear thought could exist.
> 
> Which is why I responded by pointing out they seem happy to be locked in this 'us and them' loop that will continue for as long as we all allow it. It simply allows the right, and the left, to continue being really bad government. They support their governments because they were told big government is bad, and the left and their entitlements are taking all of our money.
> 
> Well just look at their choice of government. Bigger government than at any time in Canadian history, and have spent more and faster than at any time in Canadian history, and we can spend quit a long time pointing out the unbelievable stories of real entitlement! Why do you think there is crickets everytime someone posts a story like Tony Clement, who not only practically stole 50 million it appears to ensure his re-election and misled parliament about where the money went, he made sure there was little paper trail, but he is also responsible for the treasury!
> 
> So yeah that's all they got, just close their ears to the real truth that they've also been had, and blindly howl premade slogans about socialism and big government. You just have to sit back and wonder...


There was an extended period of time when I thought GT was incapable of making a coherent post. Thanks for proving me wrong GT.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Ronald Reagan, staunch Republican demigod, hero of the free market ... outed as a .... as a ... gulp .... SOCIALIST!


Hardly. Reagan lowered the tax rates of the rich--and everyone else--while closing loopholes. Oblabla wants to raise taxes on the rich while closing loopholes. Another case of really bad historical analysis by that organization--although it could be deliberate misrepresentation.


----------



## sammy

If you blanked out the who and where, the follow up headlines would indicate a need for regime change, a no-fly zone or Predator and Reaper drones overhead. To be clear, regime change should take place "in a matter of days, not weeks."


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Hardly. Reagan lowered the tax rates of the rich--and everyone else--while closing loopholes. Oblabla wants to raise taxes on the rich while closing loopholes. Another case of really bad historical analysis by that organization--although it could be deliberate misrepresentation.


Reagan lowered taxes in 1981......and then raised them in 1982, 1983, and 1986.

-------

found this interview that Fox News will NEVER air :





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Reagan lowered taxes in 1981......and then raised them in 1982, 1983, and 1986.


Loophole closing, largely.



i-rui said:


> ..found this interview that Fox News will NEVER air :


I wish they would air it. It would discredit the Wall Street protest gimme brigade immediately.


----------



## i-rui

Kevin O'Leary got served his lunch today on the CBC by Chris Hedges :

CBC.ca Player


----------



## Macfury

These protests are getting funnier by the day. The list of demands is basically a crazy wish list of the disaffected left, and the "movement" has already been usurped by labour unions.


----------



## bryanc

i-rui said:


> Kevin O'Leary got served his lunch today on the CBC by Chris Hedges


O'Leary is a know-nothing prick and he deserved the public humiliation he received. It's just a shame that he made the CBC look so bad.


----------



## Macfury

O'Leary is far from know-nothing, and Hedges was far from cogent--but O'Leary was simply rude to a guest.


----------



## i-rui

bryanc said:


> O'Leary is a know-nothing prick and he deserved the public humiliation he received. It's just a shame that he made the CBC look so bad.


O'Leary has a schtick that he "performs" for the camera. I don't mind it when he's on Dragons Den/Shark Tank or the Lang/O'Leary report, but he should be kept *far away *from legitimate news stories, and i agree that in this case he damages the CBC as a news organization.

Here's a great interview with Chris Hedges :





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> There was an extended period of time when I thought GT was incapable of making a coherent post. Thanks for proving me wrong GT.


The concepts are rather shocking perhaps to some. And difficult to grasp to others.

But you're free to take it on and explain why it isn't coherent.


----------



## groovetube

oh. "closing loopholes"...

When the the end result is paying more taxes, well... lol.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> That's ok i'm a big boy I can take it  Sinc merely totally misunderstood what I was saying. It seems many conservatives, the minute you suggest there is a serious problem with the disparity in wealth, the only solution they can ever think of besides blindly supporting their masters is socialism. Have a look at the below quote from our resident pretend libertarian:
> 
> 
> 
> See he likes it better. One can only try to guess at -why- he likes it better, but I can tell you I certainly don't. For some reason, none of them can fathom something more sane than outright thieving conservatism masked as "for the people", or the failed tired total socialist solutions. It would never even dawn on them that perhaps, there's a middle where clear thought could exist.
> 
> Which is why I responded by pointing out they seem happy to be locked in this 'us and them' loop that will continue for as long as we all allow it. It simply allows the right, and the left, to continue being really bad government. They support their governments because they were told big government is bad, and the left and their entitlements are taking all of our money.
> 
> Well just look at their choice of government. Bigger government than at any time in Canadian history, and have spent more and faster than at any time in Canadian history, and we can spend quit a long time pointing out the unbelievable stories of real entitlement! Why do you think there is crickets everytime someone posts a story like Tony Clement, who not only practically stole 50 million it appears to ensure his re-election and misled parliament about where the money went, he made sure there was little paper trail, but he is also responsible for the treasury!
> 
> So yeah that's all they got, just close their ears to the real truth that they've also been had, and blindly howl premade slogans about socialism and big government. You just have to sit back and wonder...





eMacMan said:


> There was an extended period of time when I thought GT was incapable of making a coherent post. Thanks for proving me wrong GT.





groovetube said:


> The concepts are rather shocking perhaps to some. And difficult to grasp to others.
> 
> But you're free to take it on and explain why it isn't coherent.


Hmm it appears that not only do we need a "sarcasm" emoticon in the arsenal but a "straight shooter" emoticon as well.

I was indeed congratulating you on a refreshingly coherent post. <insert straight shooting emoticon here>


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> Hmm it appears that not only do we need a "sarcasm" emoticon in the arsenal but a "straight shooter" emoticon as well.
> 
> I was indeed congratulating you on a refreshingly coherent post. <insert straight shooting emoticon here>


Oh. Perhaps I too have trouble reading.:yikes:


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## eMacMan

Loved this caption on a sign I saw on one of the live web feeds.

"I lost my job but found an occupation."

The official unemployment rate Stateside is just under 10%. Sadly, like the inflation rate, it has been mal-adjusted. The real US unemployment rate is either at or over 20%. Numbers comparable to the great depression. Little wonder there is this degree of unrest. Only question remaining is how long the Lamestream Media will continue to ignore it.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Another sign I saw: "Hey Bankers --- you break it, you pay for it!"

Anyone else going to attend Occupy Vancouver/Occupy Toronto on the 15th?


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Another sign I saw: "Hey Bankers --- you break it, you pay for it!"
> 
> Anyone else going to attend Occupy Vancouver/Occupy Toronto on the 15th?


No. I'm going to be working.


----------



## groovetube

Perhaps many of those who lost their jobs will attend.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> No. I'm going to be working.


Some people! Any excuse.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> No. I'm going to be working.


It's on a Saturday. Surely your boss won't make you work Saturdays. Can't you trade shifts with another one of the baristas? beejacon


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's on a Saturday. Surely your boss won't make you work Saturdays. Can't you trade shifts with another one of the baristas? beejacon


Self-directed. Cruel boss.


----------



## screature

MazterCBlazter said:


> Kevin O made a mess of the interview and *a mockery of the CBC*...


In what way? At most he made himself look like a bad host to his own show. 

Chris Hedges made extremely provocative and grossly inaccurate statements like, "They want to reverse the corporate coup that has taken place in the United Sates... and frankly if we don't break the back of corporations we're all finished anyway".... "Corporations create nothing" also citing citing Karl Marx. That is what raised O'Leary's ire and rightly so as it is vastly overblown. Later Hedges corrected his overblown statement to say *Financial* corporations on Wall Street only after O'leary called him on his overstatement....

Maybe Hedges should have done a little research about O'leary before accepting the interview... you would think a seasoned award winning journalist would do at least that before accepting an interview to know what kind of line of questioning he might face. Clearly he didn't do that if he was surprised by O'leary's comments and his line of questioning. I was not in the least bit impressed by Hedges... O'Leary was being O'leary and that Hedges obviously didn't know what to expect shows laziness on his part.


----------



## groovetube

people don't often 'research" their interviewers beforehand.

And he was right, corporations don't -create- anything, people do.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Chris Hedges made extremely provocative and grossly inaccurate statements like, "They want to reverse the corporate coup that has taken place in the United Sates... and frankly if we don't break the back of corporations we're all finished anyway".... "Corporations create nothing" also citing citing Karl Marx. That is what raised O'Leary's ire and rightly so as it is vastly overblown. Later Hedges corrected his overblown statement to say *Financial* corporations on Wall Street only after O'leary called him on his overstatement....


Absolutely. Hedges presented a torrent of leftist gobbledygook, although O'Leary could have badgered this left-winger into submission had he toned it down a little.


----------



## Adrian.

Thanks for posting that interview, i-rui. Chris Hedges is one of the brightest minds today. He sees past the smoke and mirrors and comprehends the consequences of apathy to this system.

It is as Smith said; if capitalism is left unbridled it will return to plutocratic monopoly. The revolving door between Wall Street and Washington illustrates nothing clearer than this prediction.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Absolutely. Hedges presented a torrent of leftist gobbledygook, although O'Leary could have badgered this left-winger into submission had he toned it down a little.


:lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao: I do love me some satire. :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> Thanks for posting that interview, i-rui. Chris Hedges is one of the brightest minds today. He sees past the smoke and mirrors and comprehends the consequences of apathy to this system.


If Hedges passes for one of today's brightest lefists, Wall Street has nothing to worry about.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao: I do love me some satire. :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


Dis you have a seizure? Are you alright BigDL???


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


>


Actually a valid editorial cartoon...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

In a similar vein to CM's cartoon, I'm thinking of this for one of my Occupy Vancouver sign next week:


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao: I do love me some satire. :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


he actually believes that.


----------



## Macfury

Not in Canada, 'sauce.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Not in Canada, 'sauce.


_World_ economy, this crap is global. The Occupy protests that are springing up are around the world.

And while Canada didn't have to bail out banks because of better regulations here than in the US, (and lucky Harper didn't have a chance to harmonize them with the US) we did have to spend our money on industry and infrastructure to combat the downturn caused by financial greed and stupidity. As well, even though the Canadian banks didn't do some of the stupid things in Canada that they did elsewhere, international division of CIBC, TD and (I think) Royal, got badly burned by getting involved in some of the hinky shiite that the crooks on Wall Street were selling.

Plus, it's a one-liner poster, it's impossible to make something like this completely without some generalization, without having a paragraph of text below it to qualify the statement.


----------



## Adrian.

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> _World_ economy, this crap is global. The Occupy protests that are springing up are around the world.
> 
> And while Canada didn't have to bail out banks because of better regulations here than in the US, (and lucky Harper didn't have a chance to harmonize them with the US) we did have to spend our money on industry and infrastructure to combat the downturn caused by financial greed and stupidity. As well, even though the Canadian banks didn't do some of the stupid things in Canada that they did elsewhere, international division of CIBC, TD and (I think) Royal, got badly burned by getting involved in some of the hinky shiite that the crooks on Wall Street were selling.
> 
> Plus, it's a one-liner poster, it's impossible to make something like this completely without some generalization, without having a paragraph of text below it to qualify the statement.


Macfury is going to tell you that it wasn't de-regulation that caused this in....5...4..3...2..


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> Macfury is going to tell you that it wasn't de-regulation that caused this in....5...4..3...2..


?


----------



## Adrian.

Macfury said:


> ?


Indeed.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Not in Canada, 'sauce.


the Harper Government did buy $75 billion dollars of Mortgage assists off of the banks. If we were to have a real estate crash (and many believe there still is a good possibility of that) and we have mass defaults on mortgages, then the canadian tax payer could be on the hook for billions of dollars.

I'm not saying it's the same thing as the US bailouts, as there is a huge difference between how tight Bankers have the US government wrapped around their fingers vs the canadian government, but it's also not accurate to paint Canadian banks as not having their hands firmly placed in the canadian cookie jar.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> the Harper Government did buy $75 billion dollars of Mortgage assists off of the banks. If we were to have a real estate crash (and many believe there still is a good possibility of that) and we have mass defaults on mortgages, then the canadian tax payer could be on the hook for billions of dollars.
> 
> I'm not saying it's the same thing as the US bailouts, as there is a huge difference between how tight Bankers have the US government wrapped around their fingers vs the canadian government, but it's also not accurate to paint Canadian banks as not having their hands firmly placed in the canadian cookie jar.


Agreed.


----------



## Macfury

The reason the U.S. government isn't prosecuting is because they were the prime mover in the sub-prime crisis:
* first, by setting the Prime Rate far too low.
* second, by promoting sub-prime loans as an act of social justice. 
* third, by laundering the sub-primes through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Did the sellers of sub-prime derivatives know their products were flawed? Yes, but they had the backing of the U.S. government--ultimately true. The government had distorted the market to achieve its own policy goals and then got bitten on the ass by the law of unintended consequences. If it prosecuted Wall Street publicly, it would find an ugly light cast on itself.

In the U.S., the Wall Street protests have already been co-opted by labour unions, MoveOn.org, and the George Soros wing of the Democrat Party. There's nothing spontaneous or grass-roots about them.


----------



## Macfury

williams said:


> i saw it


Ain't it the truth.


----------



## CubaMark

*Interesting NYPD tactic: Run protesters down with motorcycles...*





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> The reason the U.S. government isn't prosecuting is because they were the prime mover in the sub-prime crisis:
> * first, by setting the Prime Rate far too low.
> * second, by promoting sub-prime loans as an act of social justice.
> * third, by laundering the sub-primes through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
> 
> Did the sellers of sub-prime derivatives know their products were flawed? Yes, but they had the backing of the U.S. government--ultimately true. The government had distorted the market to achieve its own policy goals and then got bitten on the ass by the law of unintended consequences. If it prosecuted Wall Street publicly, it would find an ugly light cast on itself.


We've gone over this ground many times since the meltdown. You insist on placing the blame on the government and I think we've disagreed on this in the past. There was illegal activity and every major banking concern, in the US and outside (even some Canuck banks) was involved in this to some degree. The banks had their influence in many arms of the US regulatory stucture as well as ensuring they got the legislation they wanted through corporate political contributions (let's just call it what it is -- bribes). The banks knew the paper and casino investment products they were creating were crap, highly lucrative crap, whether they have favourable minions in government supporting it or not. There are many who should be in jail, both from Wall Street and within the US government.

If governments are now shying away from their duty to investigate and place the blame squarely where it lies, then it is up to the citizens that these governments supposedly represent to demand that they do so.



Macfury said:


> In the U.S., the Wall Street protests have already been co-opted by labour unions, MoveOn.org, and the George Soros wing of the Democrat Party. There's nothing spontaneous or grass-roots about them.


That is unsubstantiated BS. No doubt all of these groups are keen to participate, but considering your regard for, or at least defence of, the Tea Party movement, funded and created by the Koch Brothers with the help of Newscorp/Murdock/Fox News, I'd say if you want to see what an astroturf movement looks like, look there. 

Occupy Wall Street and it's rapidly growing spinoffs are not astroturf movements, nor is there any evidence that anyone has "taken over". They are everyday people who are sick of watching this financial crisis continue and deepen, while those who are responsible prosper and evade responsibility. 99% of the population is sick of carrying the load for the 1%. 

*********************

If you're sick of just bitching about it, get your body out on the street and make a loud enough noise that someone will have to start to listen. Large turnouts are why the media now can't ignore it.


----------



## Macfury

Look to ACORN as well.

If there was a real grass roots movement here at some point, 'sauce, you already missed the train.

Can media ignore these large turnouts? Nope. Will anyone in charge care? Nope.


----------



## mrjimmy

Saw this floating around today.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

mrjimmy said:


> Saw this floating around today.


+1 Excellent!



Macfury said:


> Look to ACORN as well.


Come on ... ACORN? You've been listening to far too many Limbaugh/Beck fairy tales.



Macfury said:


> If there was a real grass roots movement here at some point, 'sauce, you already missed the train.


Again, more unsubstantiated BS. You can keep SAYING that the these protests are fake, but that doesn't mean your opinion is anything other than nonsense.



Macfury said:


> Can media ignore these large turnouts? Nope. Will anyone in charge care? Nope.


It's often those on the right who like to say that protests don't matter. Unless, of course, it's something they agree with such as the Tea Party. Then it's all "average citizens taking back the country". 

Expressing one's opinion in the form of peaceful public demonstration always matters. And it's a valid part of participation in a democracy. It may not do anything to change the status quo unless enough of the public sympathizes or if representative numbers of the public participate in the protests, but at least it raises the issue for discussion. If politicians sense that protesters have broad public support, then policy will definitely change. Politicians who go against the majority too often, rarely keep power. 

The Macfurys of the 1960s probably told Dr. King that his protests didn't matter either. But even though tiny percentages of the population (many thousands) participated in the actual protests and events, it became clear that the majority agreed with what the protestors were saying. And things gradually changed.

Polls are saying that the majority believe many of the same things the Occupy protests are talking about. Whether those in charge can be made to listen or not remains to be seen. They certainly won't if everyone concedes defeat beforehand. So if you think the status quo is just peachy, listen to Macfury.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> +1 Excellent!
> Expressing one's opinion in the form of peaceful public demonstration always matters. And it's a valid part of participation in a democracy. It may not do anything to change the status quo unless enough of the public sympathizes or if representative numbers of the public participate in the protests, but at least it raises the issue for discussion. If politicians sense that protesters have broad public support, then policy will definitely change. Politicians who go against the majority too often, rarely keep power.
> 
> The Macfurys of the 1960s probably told Dr. King that his protests didn't matter either. But even though tiny percentages of the population (many thousands) participated in the actual protests and events, it became clear that the majority agreed with what the protestors were saying. And things gradually changed.
> 
> Polls are saying that the majority believe many of the same things the Occupy protests are talking about. Whether those in charge can be made to listen or not remains to be seen. They certainly won't if everyone concedes defeat beforehand. So if you think the status quo is just peachy, listen to Macfury.


Martin Luther King Jr. stood for something. These bozos? Not so much. However, I certainly support their right to kvetch before they run back to the lifestyle condo. 

Have fun doing your little dance on the streets of Vancouver!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Macfury said:


> Martin Luther King Jr. stood for something. These bozos? Not so much. However, I certainly support their right to kvetch before they run back to the lifestyle condo.
> 
> Have fun doing your little dance on the streets of Vancouver!


It's simple to spot when someone has no argument. They resort to name-calling.

I intend to have fun joining in with a group of other bozos calling for economic justice. Us bozos will do a special dance in honour of your defence of the status quo.


----------



## SINC

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's simple to spot when someone has no argument. They resort to name-calling.
> 
> I intend to have fun joining in with a group of other bozos calling for economic justice. Us bozos will do a special dance in honour of your defence of the status quo.


By all means, feel free to waste you time.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's simple to spot when someone has no argument. They resort to name-calling.
> 
> I intend to have fun joining in with a group of other bozos calling for economic justice. Us bozos will do a special dance in honour of your defence of the status quo.


I've watched the interviews with the "occupiers" for quite awhile. Having heard many of their disparate demands--anything from hurrying up an airline merger, to demands for a forgiveness of all loans. 

However, the most cogent of the complaints seems to be that they don't have the same economic opportunities their parents had. Begging Wall Street to do something about that isn't going to make it happen. Neither is turning to government, the author of much of their misfortune. Obama is already onside with the protesters--he says they want the government to pass his next "stimmilis" package. George Soros knows just what the protesters need to do--vote Democrat! Stop using credit cards. Keep your money under a pillow. Barter. Stick it to the man with a funny sign. Tweet! Whatever.

Hope they all get a nice big helping of economic justice to go with their little dance. Maybe a free tall Pike Place at Starbucks.


----------



## i-rui

i love how the right wing's narrative of the occupy wall street moment has morphed.

initially they said it was just a bunch of slackers with no message/ no cause / no agenda, and was a complete non-event.

now as the protests have gathered steam across the US and it's clear support is growing every day the narrative has changed to "the unions are behind this!! those damn unions!!"

the truth is this movement has a thousand times the legitimacy of the tea party movement. I support it fully.


----------



## mrjimmy

i-rui said:


> the truth is this movement has a thousand times the legitimacy of the tea party movement. I support it fully.


As do I. I also believe it's only the beginning... Just wait until the narrative turns to that of more intense police action. No longer will they be slackers and ne'er-do-wells, they will be reframed as rioters and a danger to public safety.

I wonder if we are witnessing the run up to the tipping point.


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> As do I. I also believe it's only the beginning... Just wait until the narrative turns to that of more intense police action. No longer will they be slackers and ne'er-do-wells, they will be reframed as rioters and a danger to public safety.
> 
> I wonder if we are witnessing the run up to the tipping point.


The right wing corporate butt schmoozers including their media slaves are desperately trying to play this one down.

I dont think they quite grasp the nature of this unrest.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> As do I. I also believe it's only the beginning... Just wait until the narrative turns to that of more intense police action. No longer will they be slackers and ne'er-do-wells, they will be reframed as rioters and a danger to public safety.
> 
> I wonder if we are witnessing the run up to the tipping point.


Slackers and ne'er-do-wells that turn violent will obviously be arrested. No surprise. 

It's funny watching the lefties slavering over this. The tipping point is when they run out of bottled water and nachos and go back home.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Slackers and ne'er-do-wells that turn violent will obviously be arrested. No surprise.
> 
> It's funny watching the lefties slavering over this. The tipping point is when they run out of bottled water and nachos and go back home.


I think you underestimate the scope of this but of course you would, the prospect of it being something substantial must frighten you to your core.

As to the original point, the slackers and ne'er-do-wells won't turn violent, the powers that be will simply frame them that way and move in. The only real defense they have against them is to discredit. I'm not sure people are going to keep buying it though.


----------



## groovetube

Atom smasher is truly upset by this. How many posts is it now to assert how this is nothing but a bunch of (fill in slam here) doing this.

Maybe, people who truly are upset with the gorging of money and taxes by the few is really making a mockery of the fake libertarians posing as concerned about personal freedoms but are really just corporate apologists. I can see how that would rattle a bit. :clap:


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> the truth is this movement has a thousand times the legitimacy of the tea party movement. I support it fully.


A thousand times you say? And which of the "movement's" goals do you support the most?


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> I think you underestimate the scope of this but of course you would, the prospect of it being something substantial must frighten you to your core.


I'm not even remotely concerned. But it has provided a bit of levity through the week. I hope the interviews with the "movement" continue being broadcast.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> I'm not even remotely concerned.


Then why doth you protest so much?


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Then why doth you protest so much?


Protesting?


----------



## groovetube

It was his dog that made all those defensive posts.


----------



## CubaMark

*Let's also remember that there are those with vested interests in the protests turning violent. We've had our share of agents-provocateurs in Canada and they appear to be present and accounted for in the US. 

Just one, so far, has been stupid enough to publicly admit it:*

*Did a right-wing agent provocateur instigate Air and Space Museum pepper-spray chaos?*



> ...evidence indicating that Patrick Howley, Assistant Editor of right-wing rag The American Spectator, acted as an agent provocateur at an anti-war protest outside the Air and Space Museum yesterday, leading to an incident in which a number of protesters were maced.





> From Howley's own report, shortly after the incident:





> I had been among those blocking major D.C. roads chanting "We're unstoppable" -- and from beneath my unshaven left-wing altar ego, I worried that we might actually be. But just as the lefties couldn't figure out how to run their assembly meeting (many process points, I'm afraid to report, were left un-twinkled), so too do they lack the nerve to confront authority. From estimates within the protest, only ten people were pepper-sprayed, and as far as I could tell I was the only one who got inside the museum...





> Other revealing portions of his first-person account have already been redacted, seemingly to minimize the perception that he was there in a Breitbart-esque role.


(BoingBoing)

*...and more on the story from the Washington Post:*



> A conservative journalist has admitted to infiltrating the group of protesters who clashed with security at the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum on Saturday — and he openly claims to have instigated the events that prompted the museum to close.
> 
> Patrick Howley, an assistant editor at the American Spectator, says that he joined the group under the pretense that he was a demonstrator.





> The American Spectator also appears to have taken down the story, which is no longer available online. I have contacted both Howley and the Spectator’s editor-in-chief for comment.


(Washington Post)


----------



## Macfury

Conspiracy! Conspiracy!


----------



## Macfury

"Pensees by "Occupy Wall Street:

Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest [CLEAN VERSION] - YouTube

I will not link the video to open here. *Warning*: *foul language, ant-semitism.*


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> Conspiracy! Conspiracy!


*Complicit Denial! Complicit Denial!*


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *Complicit Denial! Complicit Denial!*


I'm not denying it. But even if it were true, it's hardly important.


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> "Pensees by "Occupy Wall Street:
> 
> Anti-Semitism at Occupy Wall Street Protest [CLEAN VERSION] - YouTube
> 
> I will not link the video to open here. *Warning*: *foul language, ant-semitism.*


Well, FWIW, he does self-identify as "a Jew" early in the video.

Still, he's an ass, who hasn't learned (or more likely, just doesn't care) to engage civilly in critical debate.

Shall I now proceed to call up a few dozen videos of the jerks at the Tea Party rallies, or can we agree that there are people like this in all movements, and they are not representative of the protesters as a whole?


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> I'm not denying it. But even if it were true, it's hardly important.


So.... you don't believe that it is important when people (including authority figures / law enforcement) deceive the public and incite a group to illegal acts, in order to provide justification for heavy-handed tactics / repression?

Man, I just don't get Libertarianism _at all._


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Well, FWIW, he does self-identify as "a Jew" early in the video.
> 
> Still, he's an ass, who hasn't learned (or more likely, just doesn't care) to engage civilly in critical debate.
> 
> Shall I now proceed to call up a few dozen videos of the jerks at the Tea Party rallies, or can we agree that there are people like this in all movements, and they are not representative of the protesters as a whole?


You already have... over and over. That's why I posted this.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> So.... you don't believe that it is important when people (including authority figures / law enforcement) deceive the public and incite a group to illegal acts, in order to provide justification for heavy-handed tactics / repression?
> 
> Man, I just don't get Libertarianism _at all._


They chose to allow their own behaviour. It didn't just happen to them. Free will and all.


----------



## BigDL

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's simple to spot when someone has no argument. They resort to name-calling. +1 Congratulations
> 
> I intend to have fun joining in with a group of other bozos calling for economic justice. Us bozos will do a special dance in honour of your defence of the status quo.


+1 Congratulations upon exercising your democratic rights and freedoms.



SINC said:


> By all means, feel free to waste you time.


Perhaps showing up every few years to through a piece paper into a box is thought to be democracy, but our cherished democracy and freedoms involves much more than ballots and politicians. Democracy and freedoms need to exercised periodically between elections to remind the government who is working on behalf of whom.

People are entitled to do the minimum, but to castigate or belittle those who are willing to go above and beyond the minimum speaks, to me, of fear and loathing . 

Why would someone react in such a manner?


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> People are entitled to do the minimum, but to castigate or belittle those who are willing to go above and beyond the minimum speaks, to me, of fear and loathing .
> 
> Why would someone react in such a manner?


To prick a hole in self-important pretensions, I suspect. All public displays of placards are not created equal.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> A thousand times you say? And which of the "movement's" goals do you support the most?


Ending the corporate hold of the US government by tackling these legal rulings:

- corporations are *not* people
- money is *not* free speech

and then dramatically reform their campaign finance laws (which are an absolute joke) and then reform the government lobby industry.

that would be a start.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Ending the corporate hold of the US government by tackling these legal rulings:
> 
> - corporations are *not* people
> - money is *not* free speech
> 
> and then dramatically reform their campaign finance laws (which are an absolute joke) and then reform the government lobby industry.
> 
> that would be a start.


Those would be your goals, i-rui. However, the goals of the other protesters--free tuition, forgiveness of all debts, creation of anarchy, passing of $450 billion jobs bill, raise the minimum wage, etc.--are very diffuse. To achieve your goals, wouldn't occupying Washington be a better tactic?


----------



## imnothng

Macfury said:


> Those would be your goals, i-rui. However, the goals of the other protesters--free tuition, forgiveness of all debts, creation of anarchy, passing of $450 billion jobs bill, raise the minimum wage, etc.--are very diffuse. To achieve your goals, wouldn't occupying Washington be a better tactic?


Its crazy. How aren't these people all the EXACT same with all the EXACT same goals? It's really weird that these people are so different because isn't every person supposed to be the EXACT same?

It's pretty clear that something's gotta change down south, and around the world. Capitalism is not sustainable when they are allowed to openly bribe government.

The people have to take responsibility for the issues as well, but that doesn't mean that they just sit at home and pout.


----------



## Macfury

imnothng said:


> Its crazy. How aren't these people all the EXACT same with all the EXACT same goals? It's really weird that these people are so different because isn't every person supposed to be the EXACT same?
> 
> It's pretty clear that something's gotta change down south, and around the world. Capitalism is not sustainable when they are allowed to openly bribe government.


It's not that the goals aren't EXACT. It's that they're incompatible. A government given the power to grant and enforce this massive wish list will be strong enough to do anything it wants. Good luck with that conundrum! 

It isn't capitalism that bribes government--it's business, unions, other government groups, state governments, and even large non-profits. Why aren't people marching against the largesse offered to public sector union employees supported by their taxes, while they themselves are sinking? Because the unions are driving the protests now. 

The Occupy Wall Street Movement will be morphed into an Obama 2012 group before too long.


----------



## groovetube

I doubt unions get the sort of massive bailout cash payments the banks get after so blatantly mismanaging and out and out fraud.

But then, this is, rather obvious. But the real problem here is the possible support of Obama and his push to make the wealthy pay more back into the system.

Can you imagine, a government that would do such a thing?

But then you have to wonder about those that rail endlessly about unions and the spending on the public sector and then consistently supports a government known to have bloated this here in Canada more than any government in history.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> To prick a hole in self-important pretensions, I suspect. All public displays of placards are not created equal.


Sorry! it 's not like denominations of currency. Freedoms and democracy are equal and the signs (expressions) of them be it the Wall Street Movement or Tea Party signs.



Macfury said:


> Those would be your goals, i-rui. However, the goals of the other protesters--free tuition, forgiveness of all debts, creation of anarchy, passing of $450 billion jobs bill, raise the minimum wage, etc.--are very diffuse. To achieve your goals, wouldn't occupying Washington be a better tactic?





Macfury said:


> It's not that the goals aren't EXACT. It's that they're incompatible. A government given the power to grant and enforce this massive wish list will be strong enough to do anything it wants. Good luck with that conundrum!
> 
> It isn't capitalism that bribes government--it's business, unions, other government groups, state governments, and even large non-profits. Why aren't people marching against the largesse offered to public sector union employees supported by their taxes, while they themselves are sinking? Because the unions are driving the protests now.
> 
> The Occupy Wall Street Movement will be morphed into an Obama 2012 group before too long.


Most likely all scary thoughts to a self imagined rugged individualist.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Sorry! it 's not like denominations of currency. Freedoms and democracy are equal and the signs (expressions of) of them be it the Wall Street Movement or Tea Party signs.


Of course they aren't--and they will not have equal result or equal effects. If the protest has been organized in a feeble-minded fashion with diffuse goals, it will probably fail.



BigDL said:


> Most likely all scary thoughts to a self imagined rugged individualist.


Why do you always think that some goofy signs will evoke fear? Is that your natural reaction to novelty?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Panic of the Plutocrats



> What’s going on here? The answer, surely, is that Wall Street’s Masters of the Universe realize, deep down, how morally indefensible their position is. They’re not John Galt; they’re not even Steve Jobs. They’re people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.
> 
> Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Panic of the Plutocrats


Blame government for that one. Who refuses a government hand-out? Neither the people nor businesses.


----------



## groovetube

Only the truly gullible believes there's such a separation between the rich, and government.


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Panic of the Plutocrats





> *Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached.* They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.


The blame for this lies squarely at the feet of the Feds. There is no denying it or candy coating it and at the time of the bailouts that means it lies at the feet of the Obama administration... Pointing to the fact that it doesn't matter that much who is in charge, Republican or Democrat they don't have the "vagina" (quoting Betty White) to take on "Wall Street"...

The discontent extends beyond Wall Street and rightfully to the government despite Obama's reference to "Main Street" it means nothing until he/some level of government actually does something about it.

So people can be as partisan as they want about it but until some level of government actually steps up to the plate it is only so much rhetoric and hyperbole.


----------



## groovetube

while everyone is so busy pointing fingers and gleefully naming Obama, at some point in time, there are those who will suddenly figure out what I've pointed out probably several times now, the very basic, there's not really much of a separation between the rich, and government.

Let's see if this takes yet.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

Since the days of Reagan, the United States has been one of the foremost rich nations in the world at allowing as much laissez faire free market capitalism as possible. They deregulated and privatized, mainly at the urging of the right, to allow for the false theory that an unfettered free market would benefit all and trickle down the prosperity. But instead of the free market capitalism promised they got crony capitalism with both politicians and regulators being bribed and directed by massive corporate wealth. Show me a system that deregulates powerful corporate interests and I'll show you a place where these interests seek to buy as much influence and power everywhere and anywhere they can. Democracy means nothing to them if it stands in the way of increased profitability.

The government works hand in glove with the richest corporations to set regulation and enact legislation. Who can then be surprised that when the poop hits the fan, due to out of control greedy financial institutions who pressured their lackeys in government to allow regulations to be trashed, that the government issues the lifeboats to their friends and says to everyone else "sink or swim".

Indicating that this was the fault solely of government and not of wealthy and powerful corporations is simply being ignorant of how the world got here. Yes, the government allowed it to happen, the bought and paid for government working on behalf of the plutocrats. The only way to cure this is for citizen's to demand that their government works for all, not just the few.


----------



## CubaMark

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The government works hand in glove with the richest corporations to set regulation and enact legislation.


*Case in point:*

*Supercommittee rakes in corporate donations*



> A military contractor and a pharmaceutical giant are among those writing checks to protect their business interests





> Deep-pocketed corporate interest are writing big checks to members of the supercommittee, the group of 12 senators and members of Congress who have been tasked with coming up with a plan to cut over $1 trillion from the budget in the next decade.
> 
> Ten members of the committee got $83,000 from some of the biggest corporate donors in the country in the three-week period in August that is covered in the latest federal election filings





> $10,000 of the total came from the political action committee (PAC) of pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. Another $8,000 came from the military contractor Lockheed Martin. Also on the list of donors: Goldman Sachs and Comcast.


(Salon via BoingBoing)


----------



## groovetube

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Since the days of Reagan, the United States has been one of the foremost rich nations in the world at allowing as much laissez faire free market capitalism as possible. They deregulated and privatized, mainly at the urging of the right, to allow for the false theory that an unfettered free market would benefit all and trickle down the prosperity. But instead of the free market capitalism promised they got crony capitalism with both politicians and regulators being bribed and directed by massive corporate wealth. Show me a system that deregulates powerful corporate interests and I'll show you a place where these interests seek to buy as much influence and power everywhere and anywhere they can. Democracy means nothing to them if it stands in the way of increased profitability.
> 
> The government works hand in glove with the richest corporations to set regulation and enact legislation. Who can then be surprised that when the poop hits the fan, due to out of control greedy financial institutions who pressured their lackeys in government to allow regulations to be trashed, that the government issues the lifeboats to their friends and says to everyone else "sink or swim".
> 
> Indicating that this was the fault solely of government and not of wealthy and powerful corporations is simply being ignorant of how the world got here. Yes, the government allowed it to happen, the bought and paid for government working on behalf of the plutocrats. The only way to cure this is for citizen's to demand that their government works for all, not just the few.


bu bu but it's da gubinent!


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Since the days of Reagan, the United States has been one of the foremost rich nations in the world at allowing as much laissez faire free market capitalism as possible. They deregulated and privatized, mainly at the urging of the right, to allow for the false theory that an unfettered free market would benefit all and trickle down the prosperity. But instead of the free market capitalism promised they got crony capitalism with both politicians and regulators being bribed and directed by massive corporate wealth. Show me a system that deregulates powerful corporate interests and I'll show you a place where these interests seek to buy as much influence and power everywhere and anywhere they can. Democracy means nothing to them if it stands in the way of increased profitability.


Th government is simply too big and too powerful. Chop it down to size and it will no longer be able to protect the corporations it feeds on.


----------



## groovetube

Then the corporations can protect themselves far better, since there'll be nothing to stop them from doing what ever the heck they want.

Brilliant.

But unfortunately you'll never get your wish from your beloved government bloat experts.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Those would be your goals, i-rui. However, the goals of the other protesters--free tuition, forgiveness of all debts, creation of anarchy, passing of $450 billion jobs bill, raise the minimum wage, etc.--are very diffuse. *To achieve your goals, wouldn't occupying Washington be a better tactic?*


there were protests in washington as well, but the *main* protests should be on wall street.

the idea is to point the finger and disrupt the people who are pulling the strings (not the puppets), with the goal to ultimately cut those strings.


----------



## groovetube

to atom smasher, it's all Obama Obama OBAMA!

Responsibility, unless there's a democrat to howl about.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> the idea is to point the finger and disrupt the people who are pulling the strings (not the puppets), with the goal to ultimately cut those strings.


Nothing is being disrupted. Most of those people aren't even there.


----------



## groovetube

nothing to see here move along. la la la la la la...


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Since the days of Reagan, the United States has been one of the foremost rich nations in the world at allowing as much laissez faire free market capitalism as possible. They deregulated and privatized, mainly at the urging of the right, to allow for the false theory that an unfettered free market would benefit all and trickle down the prosperity. But instead of the free market capitalism promised they got crony capitalism with both politicians and regulators being bribed and directed by massive corporate wealth. Show me a system that deregulates powerful corporate interests and I'll show you a place where these interests seek to buy as much influence and power everywhere and anywhere they can. Democracy means nothing to them if it stands in the way of increased profitability.
> 
> The government works hand in glove with the richest corporations to set regulation and enact legislation. Who can then be surprised that when the poop hits the fan, due to out of control greedy financial institutions who pressured their lackeys in government to allow regulations to be trashed, that the government issues the lifeboats to their friends and says to everyone else "sink or swim".
> 
> *Indicating that this was the fault solely of government and not of wealthy and powerful corporations is simply being ignorant of how the world got here.* Yes, the government allowed it to happen, the bought and paid for government working on behalf of the plutocrats. The only way to cure this is for citizen's to demand that their government works for all, not just the few.


If you paid attention to the section I bolded you will see that I was referring to the taxpayer bailout and where the responsibility for that lies. I was in no way referring to the history of how the US got into the situation they are in and I certainly do not appreciate your use of the word ignorant as I am quite sure I am every bit as knowledgeable of the history as you are, that we may disagree as to an analysis of that history and the conclusions that are derived does not indicate ignorance.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Nothing is being disrupted. Most of those people aren't even there.


Right; BO and Bush all just decided to give the Banksters $Trillion$ at taxpayers expense, even though they could of bailed out every faltering first home mortgage at a fraction of the cost and without throwing Millions out of work. Then there's Whama Bama Care written by Insurance and Pig PHarma for the same. Or how abooot the Never-Endum War of Terror on the Taxpayer's wallet. The Shrubs "improved" Copyright Act?

Good thing O'Really has a big stock of those NeoCon blinders available, as without them it is impossible to over look the greed and corruption that rules DC.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> there were protests in washington as well, but the *main* protests should be on wall street.
> 
> the idea is to point the finger and disrupt the people who are pulling the strings (not the puppets), *with the goal to ultimately cut those strings.*


If they think civil disobedience can accomplish that I think they are dreaming in technicolor. If the strings are to be cut it will take legislation that passes in Congress and Senate and corporate donations are so ingrained in US politics that I don't ever see the kinds of limits on corporate donations that we have here in Canada getting through Congress and the Senate.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> If they think civil disobedience can accomplish that I think they are dreaming in technicolor. If the strings are to be cut it will take legislation that passes in Congress and Senate and corporate donations are so ingrained in US politics that I don't ever see the kinds of limits on corporate donations that we have here in Canada getting through Congress and the Senate.


Agreed. They need to start fielding their own candidates to make these changes. Parading around with signs may be rush, but it is little more than a spectacle. Comparing this to a Martin Luther King march is disingenuous-. Those protesters were making a single point and the very act of marching was part of the message itself--it required considerable courage to participate. 

Heading onto the streets with bottles of Vitamin Water and a Starbucks' tall Pike Place... not so much.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> If you paid attention to the section I bolded you will see that I was referring to the taxpayer bailout and where the responsibility for that lies. I was in no way referring to the history of how the US got into the situation they are in and I certainly do not appreciate your use of the word ignorant as I am quite sure I am every bit as knowledgeable of the history as you are, that we may disagree as to an analysis of that history and the conclusions that are derived does not indicate ignorance.


if you read the post a little more, you will notice that he has pointed out that the "lackeys in government", meaning, there isn't much of a separation between the government, and the rich, are responsible.

The very notion that this separation exists and we can simply blame "the government" as a separate entity, is completely misunderstanding how things work, and plays into the game they would prefer you to play.

Look shiny ball! as I like to phrase it.

Yet some, no matter how many times you point out the very obvious, just cling to this idea it's someone else's fault, (ie the government). The big solution the right has to offer, of course, is to do away with the 'middle man', (government), and just allow the corporations to do everything without any restrictions at all.

Oh yeah. Right. "free market" will restrict them... :lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Agreed. They need to start fielding their own candidates to make these changes. Parading around with signs may be rush, but it is little more than a spectacle. Comparing this to a Martin Luther King march is disingenuous-. Those protesters were making a single point and the very act of marching was part of the message itself--it required considerable courage to participate.


We are in agreement here, Macfury, especially your comment about courage. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> If they think civil disobedience can accomplish that I think they are dreaming in technicolor.


as it stands now, no. but if the protests continue to grow, and eventually include general work strikes, then yes, that would accomplish those goals.

I don't think any of the protestors think change will happen over night, but to anyone who can see the course the U.S. is on it's painfully obvious that things *must* change. That change can not occur within the political system they have in place, so it has to come from grassroots protests.



Macfury said:


> Agreed. They need to start fielding their own candidates to make these changes.


it's a 2 party system in the U.S. Independents can never win, and can only lose the election for one of the 2 parties (i.e Ralph Nader sabotaging Al Gore).

I hope Romney wins the republican nomination, and the Tea Party runs someone as an independent. You'll see how well the system works then.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> as it stands now, no. but if the protests continue to grow, and eventually include general work strikes, then yes, that would accomplish those goals.


With a high unemployment rate, I doubt you'll find much of an appetite for strikes. If I were a U.S. employer, it would just hasten my desire to use overseas or Mexican labour.



i-rui said:


> I don't think any of the protestors think change will happen over night, but to anyone who can see the course the U.S. is on it's painfully obvious that things *must* change. That change can not occur within the political system they have in place, so it has to come from grassroots protests.


So how will the protests breing change to the political system?



i-rui said:


> it's a 2 party system in the U.S. Independents can never win, and can only lose the election for one of the 2 parties (i.e Ralph Nader sabotaging Al Gore).


I don't see Nader as sabotaging the system--he simply chose to run on a platform far left of Gore. Neither do I believe Ross Perrot intended to sabotage Bush 1. However, when Republican John Anderson ran as an independent in 1980, Ronald Reagan was still elected president.




i-rui said:


> I hope Romney wins the republican nomination, and the Tea Party runs someone as an independent. You'll see how well the system works then.


Won't happen. While Tea party voters have no high regard for Romney, they will vote for him to remove Obama from office.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> as it stands now, no. but if the protests continue to grow, and eventually include general work strikes, then yes, that would accomplish those goals.
> 
> I don't think any of the protestors think change will happen over night, but to anyone who can see the course the U.S. is on it's painfully obvious that things *must* change. That change can not occur within the political system they have in place, so it has to come from grassroots protests.
> 
> 
> 
> it's a 2 party system in the U.S. Independents can never win, and can only lose the election for one of the 2 parties (i.e Ralph Nader sabotaging Al Gore).
> 
> I hope Romney wins the republican nomination, and the Tea Party runs someone as an independent. You'll see how well the system works then.


Agreed. The very notion that the average american can simply "field a candidate" is ridiculous. Clearly, having that opinion once again, completely fails to understand why they are protesting in the first place, which doesn't surprise me at all.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> as it stands now, no. but if the protests continue to grow, and eventually include general work strikes, then yes, that would accomplish those goals.
> 
> I don't think any of the protestors think change will happen over night, but to anyone who can see the course the U.S. is on it's painfully obvious that things *must* change. *That change can not occur within the political system they have in place, so it has to come from grassroots protests.*
> 
> 
> 
> it's a 2 party system in the U.S. Independents can never win, and can only lose the election for one of the 2 parties (i.e Ralph Nader sabotaging Al Gore).
> 
> I hope Romney wins the republican nomination, and the Tea Party runs someone as an independent. You'll see how well the system works then.


But it must come from the political system in place otherwise you are suggesting a coup d'etat which would most certainly fail. 

So hearts and minds need to be changed enough within the electorate and politicians themselves to create the legislation and then for there to be enough support in the House and Senate for that legislation to pass to make any real difference or create any change.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> So hearts and minds need to be changed enough within the electorate and politicians themselves to create the legislation and then for there to be enough support in the House and Senate for that legislation to pass to make any real difference or create any change.


They're paying protesters from $350 to $650 a week to occupy Wall Street, so you can't fault them for lack of effort in creating jobs.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> But it must come from the political system in place otherwise you are suggesting a coup d'etat which would most certainly fail.


the political system is simply the mechanism, but it will never be the instigating force behind change. Mass protests are needed to push that change through.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> They're paying protesters from $350 to $650 a week to occupy Wall Street, so you can't fault them for lack of effort in creating jobs.


ah. The old craigslist ad gag.

no they're not.

The stuff for the gullible.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> the political system is simply the mechanism, but it will never be the instigating force behind change. Mass protests are needed to push that change through.


you have to cut them a little slack. They're Canadian...


----------



## CubaMark

*There is a solution to poverty in the USA... television! *

*New reality TV show follows unemployed Americans*



> ...a new breed of shows are based around the flat-broke truth of a country that is dealing with hard economic times.
> 
> There are reality shows that teach people all about clipping coupons, storage-locker auctions, furniture restoration and now there will be a reality show about getting back to work during these hard economic times,





> The network A&E has a new reality show called “Job Whisperer,” and the show is about a headhunter, Stephen Viscusi, and he helps people who are not working get back into jobs. The reality show will air in the next few weeks, but only as a special. If the ratings are good, then the show could end up becoming a regular series...


(Digital Journal)


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> If you paid attention to the section I bolded you will see that I was referring to the taxpayer bailout and where the responsibility for that lies. I was in no way referring to the history of how the US got into the situation they are in and I certainly do not appreciate your use of the word ignorant as I am quite sure I am every bit as knowledgeable of the history as you are, that we may disagree as to an analysis of that history and the conclusions that are derived does not indicate ignorance.


Uuummmm ... my post was not a direct reply to your post, nor referencing anyone's post in particular, so no reason to take it personally, screature.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce




----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *There is a solution to poverty in the USA... television! *


The _Job Whisperer _is actually doing something positive to improve life for Americans--probably more than all of the protesters put together!


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Uuummmm ... my post was not a direct reply to your post, nor referencing anyone's post in particular, so no reason to take it personally, screature.


Ok then it seemed directed at my post... sorry.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> Ok then it seemed directed at my post... sorry.


No problem. I guess my post was made a couple of posts after yours and may have seemed like I was responding to it. I was bringing up this point for general discussion since it seems to have been referred to several times (most directly by MF) and reflected some of the common Tea Party response to OWS.



screature said:


> The blame for this lies squarely at the feet of the Feds. There is no denying it or candy coating it and at the time of the bailouts that means it lies at the feet of the Obama administration... Pointing to the fact that it doesn't matter that much who is in charge, Republican or Democrat they don't have the "vagina" (quoting Betty White) to take on "Wall Street"...
> 
> The discontent extends beyond Wall Street and rightfully to the government despite Obama's reference to "Main Street" it means nothing until he/some level of government actually does something about it.
> 
> So people can be as partisan as they want about it but until some level of government actually steps up to the plate it is only so much rhetoric and hyperbole.


So to respond to your post, although I'm sure the Democratic party in the US would like to co-opt OWS and use it to gain greater electoral success, just as the GOP tried to co-opt the Tea Party, I don't think that the protestors are interested in letting this happen. While it seems obvious that most OWS protestors are not right-leaning and many would have been Obama voters and supporters, it doesn't mean they are happy with his supplication to Wall Street interests or his lack of backbone in dealing with them. There has been much commentary from the protesters about specifically not letting the Democratic politicians use this movement.

I'm sure that many protesters would be pleased if these actions resulted in Democrats actually acting on their fine words about supporting Main Street over Wall Street, but I doubt if anyone is holding their breath. The point, in my opinion, is the convince the politicians of any stripe, and in many countries now, that there are enough people around who are sick of them taking their orders from Wall Street and that if they want to keep their jobs, they had better pay attention to the 99%.

Here in Canada we avoided the deregulation of banking law that caused much of the meltdown in the US. The Liberals now want to take credit for that, even though at the time they were fully prepared to cave in to the 4 major Canadian banks merging into 2, as well as other concessions. Stephen Harper's Reform party were fully in favour of this and also wanted to extend the rights for the big US banks to be able to compete here in Canada with the proposed new Canadian global-sized mega banks. Finance Minister Paul Martin was considering this deregulation and word was that he was in favour. The NDP and the Bloc were opposed. Not sure where the PCs were at. Our new Canadian banks, CIBC-TD and BMO-Royal, would have been huge and "too big to fail". Relaxed regulation would have enabled much of the same casino investments that the big US and other international mega-banks were wallowing in.

What happened was that while the Libs were considering these changes, word got out. A major public awareness campaign by the Council of Canadians was drawing attention to this as well as others. Media started reporting on the ramifications of this. Petitions happened and many letters were written. I myself remember writing and receiving replies from the PM, Paul Martin and my MP on this issue. Polls started to come out saying that Canadians were massively opposed to the mergers and other deregulation. Somehow, amazingly, even though guys like John McCallum, then a big-wig at CIBC, had a ton of insider influence with the Liberal government, the Liberals got nervous and backed off allowing the changes. And thankfully our bank regulations proved superior to the US and many other countries lack of regulation during the meltdown, so that Stephen Harper can now crow about "our prudent banking regulations". His party opposed the Liberal cave-in to public opinion in the House of Commons at the time, but that doesn't matter now because the Canadian banks national operations remained in good shape (even though some of their US and international operations got badly burned). Now McCallum has admitted that the big banks at the time were wrong. 

Ironically the 99% protected the business interests of the big Canadian banks by not letting them give in to their own stupid greed.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


>


I thought Bloomberg was supportive?


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> I thought Bloomberg was supportive?


Seriously? Man, get your head outta Faux News / National Review. Seriously.


----------



## CubaMark

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Seriously? Man, get your head outta Faux News / National Review. Seriously.





> Mayor Michael Bloomberg said on Monday that he’ll allow the Wall Street protesters to stay indefinitely, provided they abide by the law, marking his strongest statement to date on the city’s willingness to let demonstrators occupy a park in Lower Manhattan.
> 
> “The bottom line is – people want to express themselves. And as long as they obey the laws, we’ll allow them to,” said Bloomberg as he prepared to march in the Columbus Day Parade on Fifth Avenue.


Occupy Wall Street Protesters Can Stay in New York, Says Mayor Bloomberg - Metropolis - WSJ


----------



## i-rui

I'm not sure allowing citizens their legal right to assemble exactly qualifies as "supportive"


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> I'm not sure allowing citizens their legal right to assemble exactly qualifies as "supportive"


He could have swept the streets with that scraper from _Soylent Green_...


----------



## CubaMark

*As i-rui notes, "supportive" isn't exactly the right word here...*



> New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg may be ready to defend the right of Wall Street protesters to say what they want, but that does not mean he likes what he hears.
> The mayor on Tuesday castigated the "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrators, saying they are unfairly blaming "hard working" Wall Street employees for the nation's ills.





> Bloomberg remained critical, even as he empathizes with the protest's message of frustration and defends the First Amendment right of free expression.


(FoxBusiness)

*...plus, how long do you think they'll allow this to go on unchallenged, regardless of free speech rights, when:*



> In New York, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said that city has already spent nearly $2 million on police overtime for the Occupy Wall Street demonstration.


(WashingtonPost)

*...and....*



> You have to wonder whether Bloomberg's announcement that Occupy Wall Street can remain "indefinitely" is because he's started to realize it's time to change tack, in terms of tone if nothing else (especially since last week's revelation that the Mayor's domestic partner sits on the board of Zuccotti Park's owners)—before damage to his image becomes irreparable.


(In These Times)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *As i-rui notes, "supportive" isn't exactly the right word here...*


Considering he's right, I believe he's being very supportive.


----------



## groovetube

CubaMark said:


> *As i-rui notes, "supportive" isn't exactly the right word here...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (FoxBusiness)
> 
> *...plus, how long do you think they'll allow this to go on unchallenged, regardless of free speech rights, when:*
> 
> 
> 
> (WashingtonPost)
> 
> *...and....*
> 
> 
> 
> (In These Times)


bloomberg supportive?

lol. some people will believe just about, anything.


----------



## groovetube

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> No problem. I guess my post was made a couple of posts after yours and may have seemed like I was responding to it. I was bringing up this point for general discussion since it seems to have been referred to several times (most directly by MF) and reflected some of the common Tea Party response to OWS.
> 
> 
> 
> So to respond to your post, although I'm sure the Democratic party in the US would like to co-opt OWS and use it to gain greater electoral success, just as the GOP tried to co-opt the Tea Party, I don't think that the protestors are interested in letting this happen. While it seems obvious that most OWS protestors are not right-leaning and many would have been Obama voters and supporters, it doesn't mean they are happy with his supplication to Wall Street interests or his lack of backbone in dealing with them. There has been much commentary from the protesters about specifically not letting the Democratic politicians use this movement.
> 
> I'm sure that many protesters would be pleased if these actions resulted in Democrats actually acting on their fine words about supporting Main Street over Wall Street, but I doubt if anyone is holding their breath. The point, in my opinion, is the convince the politicians of any stripe, and in many countries now, that there are enough people around who are sick of them taking their orders from Wall Street and that if they want to keep their jobs, they had better pay attention to the 99%.
> 
> Here in Canada we avoided the deregulation of banking law that caused much of the meltdown in the US. The Liberals now want to take credit for that, even though at the time they were fully prepared to cave in to the 4 major Canadian banks merging into 2, as well as other concessions. Stephen Harper's Reform party were fully in favour of this and also wanted to extend the rights for the big US banks to be able to compete here in Canada with the proposed new Canadian global-sized mega banks. Finance Minister Paul Martin was considering this deregulation and word was that he was in favour. The NDP and the Bloc were opposed. Not sure where the PCs were at. Our new Canadian banks, CIBC-TD and BMO-Royal, would have been huge and "too big to fail". Relaxed regulation would have enabled much of the same casino investments that the big US and other international mega-banks were wallowing in.
> 
> What happened was that while the Libs were considering these changes, word got out. A major public awareness campaign by the Council of Canadians was drawing attention to this as well as others. Media started reporting on the ramifications of this. Petitions happened and many letters were written. I myself remember writing and receiving replies from the PM, Paul Martin and my MP on this issue. Polls started to come out saying that Canadians were massively opposed to the mergers and other deregulation. Somehow, amazingly, even though guys like John McCallum, then a big-wig at CIBC, had a ton of insider influence with the Liberal government, the Liberals got nervous and backed off allowing the changes. And thankfully our bank regulations proved superior to the US and many other countries lack of regulation during the meltdown, so that Stephen Harper can now crow about "our prudent banking regulations". His party opposed the Liberal cave-in to public opinion in the House of Commons at the time, but that doesn't matter now because the Canadian banks national operations remained in good shape (even though some of their US and international operations got badly burned). Now McCallum has admitted that the big banks at the time were wrong.
> 
> Ironically the 99% protected the business interests of the big Canadian banks by not letting them give in to their own stupid greed.


And now, we have to listen to that smarmy liar Stephen Harper repeat endlessly how he made our banks strong. Thank god he wasn't in power at that time, and thank god someone mouthed off about Paul Martin.

If the OWS protestors could affect change in politicians (of whatever stripe) then the protest is a success. I doubt though the sort of change needed will be fully realized. Unfortunately, too many people are focused just on government, which are really just the pawns serving at the pleasure of corporations, and business interests. The only thing stopping them from going too far is well, there -are- people actually going to the voting booths, so there are some restrictions. 

Corporations are not people. It seems like the most simplistic, almost patronizing statement one could imagine, but clearly, one many don't seem to fathom. People serve these corporations. I serve mine, even though, I'm the top guy in it next to my employees. Real, fundamental change needs to occur there, and in who government truly represents. I', not holding my breath on that one.

The real freedom hounds, the tea partiers, the libertarians, are really just a deluded bunch. They've all really been just recruited in a fight to serve these big business interests, simply by having all these "true patriot love" saying whispered in their ears. Oddly enough, their party choices do exactly the opposite of what they campaign for.


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> ...Here in Canada we avoided the *deregulation of banking law* that caused much of the meltdown in the US. The Liberals now want to take credit for that, even though at the time they were fully prepared to cave in to the 4 major Canadian banks merging into 2, as well as other concessions. *Stephen Harper's Reform party were fully in favour of this* and also wanted to extend the rights for the big US banks to be able to compete here in Canada with the proposed new Canadian global-sized mega banks. Finance Minister Paul Martin *was considering this deregulation* and word was that he was in favour. The NDP and the Bloc were opposed. Not sure where the PCs were at. Our new Canadian banks, CIBC-TD and BMO-Royal, would have been huge and "too big to fail". Relaxed regulation would have enabled much of the same casino investments that the big US and other international mega-banks were wallowing in.
> 
> *What happened was* that while the Libs were considering these changes, word got out. A major public awareness campaign by the Council of Canadians was drawing attention to this as well as others. Media started reporting on the ramifications of this. Petitions happened and many letters were written. I myself remember writing and receiving replies from the PM, Paul Martin and my MP on this issue. Polls started to come out saying that Canadians were massively opposed to the mergers and other deregulation. Somehow, amazingly, even though guys like John McCallum, then a big-wig at CIBC, had a ton of insider influence with the Liberal government, the Liberals got nervous and backed off allowing the changes. And thankfully our bank regulations proved superior to the US and many other countries lack of regulation during the meltdown, so that Stephen Harper can now crow about "our prudent banking regulations". His party opposed the Liberal cave-in to public opinion in the House of Commons at the time, but that doesn't matter now because the Canadian banks national operations remained in good shape (even though some of their US and international operations got badly burned). Now McCallum has admitted that the big banks at the time were wrong.
> 
> Ironically the 99% protected the business interests of the big Canadian banks by not letting them give in to their own stupid greed.


I agree with you re: the US and the Wall Street occupation. 

Regarding what happened in Canada in 1998 and the proposed bank mergers between 1. Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal and 2. CIBC with the Toronto-Dominion Bank your memory is selective and actually factually inaccurate.

First the situation was not about bank deregulation it was specifically about whether or not to allow 4 out of the big 5 to merge creating a big three instead of a big five. There was never any proposal of having deregulation in how the term is understood in the US where you have countless private banks all competing for the same customer. 

Second the merger proposals came from the banks themselves, it was not related to government policy aside from whether or not to allow the mergers to go ahead, i.e., the banks instigated the notion of the mergers and the government was involved because of the existing regulations for banking in the country. For the mergers to take place it would *not* have meant deregulating banking. 

The mergers had to be studied at several levels and numerous reports submitted before any decision could be made. The Competition Bureau studied the mergers and ultimately came to the conclusion that the proposed bank mergers would substantially lessen competition, would result in bank branches being closed, and mean that Canadians would have to pay more for less.

The Superintendent of Financial Institutions also reported to Martin indicating that if one of the merged banks were to run into trouble, the policy options for government would be severely reduced. For example, the possibility of a sale to a domestic competitor would be less, since it would result in further reducing competition. And a sale to a competitor from outside Canada would have a negative impact on Canadian ownership and control.

The House of Commons Finance Committee and the Senate Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee also tabled reports on the financial sector.

There was as well a public campaign against the mergers as you pointed out but it was far from being the deciding factor in making the decision the way you portray it being as if it was a grass roots revolt that led to Martin's decision.

Additionally you are factually incorrect in saying Stephen Harper's Reform Party was in favour of the mergers. Stephen Harper was not an MP in 1998. When the mergers were proposed he was working for the National Citizens Coalition and in fact not all reform MPs agreed with the mergers. Werner Schmidt, MP for Kelowna BC and the Critic for Industry at the time was against the mergers for the very same reasons as were the Competition Bureau and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.

Additionally the idea of allowing big banks to merge in Canada even to this day is not a dead idea because as situations change the idea can be visited again as it was in 2003 by the Standing Committee on Finance resulting in the report:

LARGE BANK MERGERS IN CANADA:SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR CANADIANS AND CANADIAN BUSINESSES
Parliament of Canada

The List of Recommendation can be found here:

LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS


----------



## Macfury

Screature, I seem to recall something about the Bank of Canada having contingency plans for the failure of up to two chartered banks, so reducing the total number would probably put too many eggs in the same baskets.


----------



## groovetube

I thought it was rather well known that Stephen Harper, along with the banks make quite the stink about favouring deregulation (and slammed Martin over it publicly), and didn't the Harper government start deregulation by allowing more foreign banks in soon after taking office?


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Screature, I seem to recall something about the Bank of Canada having contingency plans for the failure of up to two chartered banks, so *reducing the total number would probably put too many eggs in the same baskets*.


Yes that was part of the equation for sure.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> Regarding what happened in Canada in 1998 and the proposed bank mergers between 1. Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal and 2. CIBC with the Toronto-Dominion Bank your memory is selective and actually factually inaccurate.
> 
> First the situation was not about bank deregulation it was specifically about whether or not to allow 4 out of the big 5 to merge creating a big three instead of a big five. There was never any proposal of having deregulation in how the term is understood in the US where you have countless private banks all competing for the same customer.
> 
> Second the merger proposals came from the banks themselves, it was not related to government policy aside from whether or not to allow the mergers to go ahead, i.e., the banks instigated the notion of the mergers and the government was involved because of the existing regulations for banking in the country. For the mergers to take place it would not have meant deregulating banking.
> 
> The mergers had to be studied at several levels and numerous reports submitted before any decision could be made. The Competition Bureau studied the mergers and ultimately came to the conclusion that the proposed bank mergers would substantially lessen competition, would result in bank branches being closed, and mean that Canadians would have to pay more for less.


I recognize that the proposed mergers themselves were not deregulation as such. It was however widely known at the time and being openly discussed by bankers and politicians that the quid pro quo for allowing mergers, which would decrease competition in the marketplace, was to allow foreign banks direct access to compete in the Canadian marketplace. This would have been a major deregulation. Our banks in Canada operate in a special regulated sphere in that they are chartered by the government and have to fulfill certain responsibilities to carry on business. This would have thrown much of that aside.

The proposed mergers would have created 2 huge global megabanks and the bankers felt confident that they would be able to successfully compete in the worldwide marketplace and the US, so they weren't worried about the new competition at home.

Yes, the idea came from the banks themselves, but their public announcement of their intention was not made without much work behind the scenes with their contacts within the Liberal government. It is also widely known that the government was in favour of this idea and that everyone from the Liberals and all those to the right of them felt this was the way to go. At the time big US and international banks were all moving this way in the new spirit of worldwide banking deregulation. This did much to create these "too big to fail" banks that suddenly needed bailing out 10 years later.



screature said:


> The Superintendent of Financial Institutions also reported to Martin indicating that if one of the merged banks were to run into trouble, the policy options for government would be severely reduced. For example, the possibility of a sale to a domestic competitor would be less, since it would result in further reducing competition. And a sale to a competitor from outside Canada would have a negative impact on Canadian ownership and control.
> 
> The House of Commons Finance Committee and the Senate Banking, Trade and Commerce Committee also tabled reports on the financial sector.
> 
> There was as well a public campaign against the mergers as you pointed out but it was far from being the deciding factor in making the decision the way you portray it being as if it was a grass roots revolt that led to Martin's decision.


As I remember it, there was much discussion after the banks announcements on what they were planning. The conventional wisdom seemed to be saying that this was a necessity to compete globally. Until some of the opposing voices chimed in there was little heard from the other side. It may not have been the grassroots that led to Martin's decision, but before those protests started little was heard questioning this.

Editorials from the time and Hansard transcripts show that this was very much a political decision. Throughout the year as public opinion gradually turned against the idea of bank mergers, the Liberals had no choice but to disallow it. Martin and the Libs could have ignored those reports if they chose to.

(Editorials from the Toronto Star and the New York Times.)



screature said:


> Additionally you are factually incorrect in saying Stephen Harper's Reform Party was in favour of the mergers. Stephen Harper was not an MP in 1998. When the mergers were proposed he was working for the National Citizens Coalition and in fact not all reform MPs agreed with the mergers. Werner Schmidt, MP for Kelowna BC and the Critic for Industry at the time was against the mergers for the very same reasons as were the Competition Bureau and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions.


Yes Stephen Harper had gone onto to head the far right wing National Citizens coalition before this issue became a large one. It was his party still, or at least I assume that he wouldn't have suddenly adopted a set of values out of step with the party he had been so intimately involved in. Although I can't find any public statements from the NCC that they were in favour of the bank mergers, I think it would be fair to assume that this was an issue where those who consider themselves free marketeers would be in favour of -- and the NCC and Harper were nothing if not unabashed free marketeers.

Regarding Reform itself, it seems as if they flip-flopped on the issue, at first taking on concerns from small business groups worried about the merger, but then deciding to support the mergers, as long as appropriate deregulation involving allowing foreign bank competition in Canada was part of the deal. They believed the "invisible hand" of the marketplace would win out and guarantee better service.

Dick Harris Reform MP for Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC, Feb 3rd, 1998


> Mr. Speaker, the events of the last 10 days have given us the impression that it is the finance minister's billionaire buddies at the banks who are pushing the financial sector policy of this country, so we would like to let him clear the air. We are going to give him a chance.
> 
> Will the finance minister guarantee today to Canadians who are concerned about less competition that not one bank merger will take place until the government has changed the Bank Act to allow an open skies, open competition policy in the banking business in this country?


Jason Kenney speaking during Question Period, March 16, 1998:


> Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar for his comments. He suggested that the Reform Party together with others were opposed to competition in the banking sector. I would like to correct the record. The Reform Party has said that it would only approve the proposed merger of the two large chartered banks if we had a more competitive banking regime.


Monte Solberg MP for Medicine Hat, AB speaking in Parliament Apr. 20, 1998


> Mr. Speaker, the official opposition's policy on bank mergers is very clear. If there is no competition, then there is no merger. On the other hand the Minister of Finance does not seem to have a policy. Why does he not admit that he is using his task force to cover up the lack of a policy? Why does he not admit that he is perfectly happy to let our big banks write the banking policy for this country? That is what he is doing.





screature said:


> Additionally the idea of allowing big banks to merge in Canada even to this day is not a dead idea because as situations change the idea can be visited again as it was in 2003 by the Standing Committee on Finance resulting in the report:
> 
> LARGE BANK MERGERS IN CANADA:SAFEGUARDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR CANADIANS AND CANADIAN BUSINESSES
> Parliament of Canada
> 
> The List of Recommendation can be found here:
> 
> LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS


It's a dead issue as long as Canadians are not in favour of it. It certainly is even deader since the financial meltdown. The banks hope is that our memory will fade with time.


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I *recognize that the proposed mergers themselves were not deregulation as such....*


Great! Then we agree. 

The rest of your post I will address when I have the time.... not to diminish your effort, I just don't have the time right now to go into detail. 

Cheers have a good night GA.


----------



## CubaMark

Someone at the Globe & Mail is itching to be fired... or they were hacked. Check out the Celebrity Photos of the Week.

I captured a bunch of 'em... here's an example of what's online as of 9:49pm Central Standard Time, Wednesday, 12 Oct. 2011:


----------



## Macfury

Why would they be fired? They should get some sort of prize.


----------



## groovetube

CubaMark said:


> Someone at the Globe & Mail is itching to be fired... or they were hacked. Check out the Celebrity Photos of the Week.
> 
> I captured a bunch of 'em... here's an example of what's online as of 9:49pm Central Standard Time, Wednesday, 12 Oct. 2011:


Yowza. Someone's havin a hoot.

Maybe the 'hoot' isn't so apparent to all...


----------



## Macfury

I really laughed at the other ones. Heaven help them for treading on the delicate sensibilities of Wall Street protesters.


----------



## Max

I'm not surprised by that caption at all. If you read 'em regularly you'll recognize the barbed wit is quite normal. Considering it's about fashion, it's practically _de rigueur._


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> I'm not surprised by that caption at all. If you read 'em regularly you'll recognize the barbed wit is quite normal. Considering it's about fashion, it's practically _de rigueur._


Yep. I can't figure out what it was that CM thought might be a fire-able offense. 

Hacked indeed!


----------



## groovetube

Max said:


> I'm not surprised by that caption at all. If you read 'em regularly you'll recognize the barbed wit is quite normal. Considering it's about fashion, it's practically _de rigueur._


atom smasher thinks it's all about the wall street protestors.

Of course. One track mind that boy.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> atom smasher thinks it's all about the wall street protestors.
> 
> Of course. One track mind that boy.


Halifax artist Classified apparently knows of atom smasher or people with his mindset for he wrote an recorded this little ditty....



Classifed said:


> One track mind, focused on important $h!t
> Eyes on the prize, one track mind
> One track mind, focused on important $h!t
> Eyes on the prize, one track mind
> 
> Ye-yeah, you got a
> Haha, yeah
> Yo, I got a little story for ya


...and for your listening pleasure, the rest of the story, Warning there is the inclusion of the word " $h!t"




+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube

ha ha. I know Joel, great song writer.


----------



## Macfury

Well, BigDL, with a powerhouse like Classified on their side, how could anyone possibly fail?


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I recognize that the proposed mergers themselves were not deregulation as such. It was however widely...


I don't know why you seem to think I need a history lesson on this subject. I was working on the Hill at the time and was intimately involved with what was going on. It is pure speculation to say that the mergers would have led to deregulation as it would have meant significant changes to the Bank Act and that would have been a whole other kettle of fish. And again no not everyone on the right felt it was the way to go as I already pointed out to you.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> As I remember it, there was much discussion after the banks announcements on what they were planning. The conventional wisdom seemed to be saying that this was a necessity to compete globally. *Until some of the opposing voices chimed in there was little heard from the other side.* It may not have been the grassroots that led to Martin's decision, but before those protests started little was heard questioning this.


Again what you seem to be ignoring is that there were many components to the decision and it was far from being purely political as both the Competition Bureau and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions wrote reports warning and advising against the mergers and they don't make recommendations based on public opinion. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's a dead issue as long as Canadians are not in favour of it. It certainly is even deader since the financial meltdown. The banks hope is that our memory will fade with time.


I think you place too much value in popular opinion when it comes to such decisions, if the Competition Bureau and the the Superintendent of Financial Institutions were in favour of the mergers the outcome could have and I think would have been very different.

Whether or not mega mergers will be on the table any time soon I certainly agree it is very unlikely, but the matter can certainly be revisited and it still wouldn't mean banking would be deregulated in this country.

Probably enough thread derailment for now....


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Well, BigDL, with a powerhouse like Classified on their side, how could anyone possibly fail?


on "their" side?

lol. Dl I think it sailed...


----------



## groovetube

Was The Globe hacked? 'Rogue' celeb caption writer speaks out - The Globe and Mail



> Now, The Hot Button generally frowns on navel-gazing, but The Globe and Mail’s quietly caustic “Caption Writing Person” caused an international maelstrom last night when he sprinkled his Celebrity Photos of the Week gallery with Occupy Wall Street photos, *skewering celebs for their conspicuous displays of wealth* as protesters hunker down all over the world bemoaning corporate greed.


Seems someone, was a little too quick to want to hand out awards.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

Ha! The donuts are made using machinery developed by the 1 per cent.


----------



## groovetube

no they weren't. They paid the 99% peanuts to make them for them.

Like everything else. But we didn't need -this- sort of capitalism in the past to develop such ingenuity.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Ha! The donuts are made using machinery developed by the 1 per cent.


The ultra wealthy rarely obtain their wealth by inventing something, or through other creative contributions to the enterprise. They usually start out with a lot of money, and use that money to buy other things that make more money. Those who are successful are the ones who find ways to concentrate more and more capital under their control, not those who find novel ways of creating wealth.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc I admire your patience.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> The ultra wealthy rarely obtain their wealth by inventing something, or through other creative contributions to the enterprise. They usually start out with a lot of money, and use that money to buy other things that make more money. Those who are successful are the ones who find ways to concentrate more and more capital under their control, not those who find novel ways of creating wealth.


Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Kevin O'Leary, Mark Zuckerberg, etc., etc... all the richest of the rich all without a lot of money to start with who have created, very, very much...

Your view of wealth and the reasons for it is just so 19th century....


----------



## groovetube

I think this may be why he used the word "rarely".


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Kevin O'Leary, Mark Zuckerberg, etc., etc... all the richest of the rich all without a lot of money to start with who have created, very, very much...
> 
> Your view of wealth and the reasons for it is just so 19th century....


Agreed. How _Das Kapital_!


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Kevin O'Leary, Mark Zuckerberg, etc., etc... all the richest of the rich all without a lot of money to start with who have created, very, very much.


There are always exceptions to the rule. Even most of these guys weren't the developers of the products that generated their wealth. For most of his time at Microsoft, Gates had essentially nothing to do with creating software, and the stories about how Steve Jobs took advantage of Steve Wosniak's creativity during the early years of Apple are famous.

But my point is that stock traders (especially modern stock traders using high-speed trading systems), bankers, hedge fund managers, etc. who make millions aren't creating any wealth; they're parasites.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> The ultra wealthy rarely obtain their wealth by inventing something, or through other creative contributions to the enterprise. They usually start out with a lot of money, and use that money to buy other things that make more money. Those who are successful are the ones who find ways to concentrate more and more capital under their control, not those who find novel ways of creating wealth.


You said it better than I could have. The rich guy either bought the patent or given the opportunity stole it outright, leaving the inventor unable to pay the electric bill.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> You said it better than I could have. The rich guy either bought the patent or given the opportunity stole it outright, leaving the inventor unable to pay the electric bill.


What a bunch of BS...


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> *There are always exceptions to the rule.* Even most of these guys weren't the developers of the products that generated their wealth. For most of his time at Microsoft, Gates had essentially nothing to do with creating software, and the stories about how Steve Jobs took advantage of Steve Wosniak's creativity during the early years of Apple are famous.
> 
> But my point is that stock traders (especially modern stock traders using high-speed trading systems), bankers, hedge fund managers, etc. who make millions aren't creating any wealth; they're parasites.


Really... I thought science could rationally explain the exceptions to the rule if it really were a rule and if there is an exception to the "rule" then it really isn't a rule now is it...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

In the US and to a lesser extent Canada we subscribe to the idea that we live in a meritocracy and that if someone is wealthy, it is because they worked hard and made that money through their smarts and sweat. The underlying belief is that the wealthy are made up of mostly rags to riches stories.

While these stories can and do occur, the vast majority of all wealth, in the USA and around the world is inherited. Those in the 1% are to a great degree the lucky recipients of a fortunate birth.

The funny thing is that even though they probably know otherwise many in the 1% like to repeat and reinforce the rags to riches story, even if they themselves are sitting upon generations of inheritances and never had to work a day in their lives if they chose not to. The fact that many in the 1% see themselves as morally superior to those who did not have their degree of luck is really quite odious.

And in many of these rags to riches stories we all tend to downplay the element of good luck involved in these stories. There was no guarantee that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would have succeeded as they did. No doubt they are very talented and driven people who would have done well and their interest in computers during the time of rapid change and development meant that something good probably would have come their way. But there are many turns in their stories where if they made different decisions at key moments they might not have started the empires they did.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

screature said:


> I don't know why you seem to think I need a history lesson on this subject. I was working on the Hill at the time and was intimately involved with what was going on. It is pure speculation to say that the mergers would have led to deregulation as it would have meant significant changes to the Bank Act and that would have been a whole other kettle of fish. And again no not everyone on the right felt it was the way to go as I already pointed out to you.


History ultimately depends on one's frame of reference. You are obviously choosing to emphasize different things than I based on yours. There was much said in public by politicians, bankers, economists and others about how the reduction in competition that the mergers would bring, meant that opening up to foreign banks would be needed and desired if the mergers were to go through. The Reform party made it a condition of support for the mergers. So it is not pure speculation that changing regulation was a possibility. Changing the Bank Act could be done with ease if the majority Libs thought they could do so politically.



screature said:


> Again what you seem to be ignoring is that there were many components to the decision and it was far from being purely political as both the Competition Bureau and the Superintendent of Financial Institutions wrote reports warning and advising against the mergers and they don't make recommendations based on public opinion.





screature said:


> I think you place too much value in popular opinion when it comes to such decisions, if the Competition Bureau and the the Superintendent of Financial Institutions were in favour of the mergers the outcome could have and I think would have been very different.


And again you are ignoring that these agencies rulings did not bind the hands of what Parliament and the Government could do if they desired. Martin saw that the mergers were not going to fly politically and used the rulings to back up his decision.



screature said:


> Probably enough thread derailment for now….


Agreed


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> You said it better than I could have. The rich guy either bought the patent or given the opportunity stole it outright, leaving the inventor unable to pay the electric bill.


revisionists shout!

The story of dos comes to mind...


----------



## hayesk

screature said:


> Really... I thought science could rationally explain the exceptions to the rule if it really were a rule and if there is an exception to the "rule" then it really isn't a rule now is it...


Speaking of BS...


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> Speaking of BS...


Screature is absolutely right.


----------



## groovetube

what, that gates created his software?

Sure. I'm sure he'd like that.


----------



## screature

hayesk said:


> Speaking of BS...


Please explain... since you are so sure of yourself, I am all ears....


----------



## MacDoc

Bout time the ditzes claiming market uber alle got a whack aside the head.....the protesters know it's a rigged game.....nothing new there.

Great read and bang on IMNSHO

Economics has met the enemy, and it is economics - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Bout time the ditzes claiming market uber alle got a whack aside the head.....the protesters know it's a rigged game.....nothing new there.
> 
> Great read and bang on IMNSHO


It's "uber alles" and it's not bang-on at all. _The market_ whacked the world upside the head, not the economist. And largely because government skewed the playing field so heavily that bankers did exactly what was rational--sold government backed mortgage derivatives simply because the government backed them. And with the full expectation that the government would bail them out-which it did.

Your constant call for even more government regulation would just create a different market landscape and other unintended consequences.

The "protesters" collectively know nothing. Otherwise they'd be demanding that government stop playing games with the markets by setting idiotic policy goals like greater levels of home ownership when it is irrational, zero-interest prime rates, and favouring the success of one business over another.


----------



## groovetube

I would consider those who try to insinuate that there is a separation between banks/corporations and government as those who "know nothing".

Get a clue. If you think that then you're simply part of the sheep.


----------



## Max

It's called shooting the messenger, Groove.

I think these demos are very interesting for their size and scope - they don't seem to be made up of the usual demographic; something else is afoot. But I also think we're all figures dotting an unpredictable landscape. Interesting times.


----------



## groovetube

right.

It is interesting times. Watching both the democrats and the republicans feverishly trying to figure out how to own this movement.


----------



## Max

Kind of, eh? A feverish spin-fest with different sets of factors, influences, and different targets/blame-takers. Almost a jolly little spectator sport, were it not so surreal and somehow ominous a series of developments.


----------



## eMacMan

Talk about spin, the wife was watching the live feed when the protestors were arrested at Citibank.

According to the feed they went in and asked to close out their accounts. Citibank security guards locked them in, then had them arrested, claiming they would not leave when asked. Lamestream of course left out the bits about them being legitimate customers and about them locked in.


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> In the US and to a lesser extent Canada we subscribe to the idea that we live in a meritocracy and that if someone is wealthy, it is because they worked hard and made that money through their smarts and sweat. The underlying belief is that the wealthy are made up of mostly rags to riches stories.
> 
> *While these stories can and do occur, the vast majority of all wealth, in the USA and around the world is inherited.* Those in the 1% are to a great degree the lucky recipients of a fortunate birth.
> 
> The funny thing is that even though they probably know otherwise many in the 1% like to repeat and reinforce the rags to riches story, even if they themselves are sitting upon generations of inheritances and never had to work a day in their lives if they chose not to. The fact that many in the 1% see themselves as morally superior to those who did not have their degree of luck is really quite odious.
> 
> *And in many of these rags to riches stories we all tend to downplay the element of good luck involved in these stories.* There was no guarantee that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would have succeeded as they did. No doubt they are very talented and driven people who would have done well and their interest in computers during the time of rapid change and development meant that something good probably would have come their way. But there are many turns in their stories where if they made different decisions at key moments they might not have started the empires they did.


Link? Among those that do inherit their wealth it is also easily squandered if subsequent generations don't work hard to maintain it, and how were those fortunes made in the first place? Aside from royalty and the aristocracy fortunes were generally made from hard work and ingenuity. Now of course even among the captains of industry there was exploitation and back room dealings with governments to allow them to gain and maintain their dominant positions, but nonetheless the fortunes were made form creating things, like roads, railways, buildings, appliances, clothing, cars, oil and mineral exploration, heavy industry etc. etc. To try and say that these fortunes were somehow magically created and simply handed to the next generation is to ignore their origins created by hardworking intelligent people and not through some birthright.

Most of what we have or don't have in life comes down to luck starting from whether or not we were born with the luck of having good genes bestowing us with good health and intelligence and the drive and desire to not squander those natural born gifts and actually make and do something with them so I fail to see your point.

As for your statement that the rich see themselves as being morally superior to the rest of us, you don't need to be rich to have a sense of entitlement and superiority, so again I fail to see the point.


----------



## screature

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> History ultimately depends on one's frame of reference. You are obviously choosing to emphasize different things than I based on yours. *There was much said in public by politicians, bankers, economists and others about how the reduction in competition that the mergers would bring, meant that opening up to foreign banks would be needed and desired if the mergers were to go through*. The Reform party made it a condition of support for the mergers. So it is not pure speculation that changing regulation was a possibility. Changing the Bank Act could be done with ease if the majority Libs thought they could do so politically.


Yes I am emphasizing certain aspects of the history but only because you chose to ignore them all together and paint a picture as being all one sided which was far from the case. Your statements above are some of the reasons why the Competition Bureau and the Superintendent for Financial Institutions advised against the mergers. 

A certain degree of deregulation may very well have followed on the heels of the mergers but what the amendments to the Banking Act would have looked like *is* a matter of speculation. It seems that you believe the baby would have been thrown out with the bath water and that may or may not have been the case... we will never know.

At any rate we will have to agree to disagree as to what the primary motivations were to rule against the mergers, but at least now there has been a more fulsome discussion of the history relative to your initial post indicating that it was solely public pressure that led to the banks not merging.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> And again *you are ignoring that these agencies rulings did not bind the hands of what Parliament and the Government could do* if they desired. *Martin saw that the mergers were not going to fly politically and used the rulings to back up his decision.*


I most certainly am not and never indicated anything of the kind. You can put it that way if you choose it doesn't make it so. I doubt you were in Martin's head or of those close to him to know the reasons and the weighting of those reasons for why he decided against the mergers. I choose not to be so presumptuous, but would rather merely portray an accurate and fulsome picture of all the variables involved as opposed to a one sided story that meshes with my personal political proclivities.


----------



## mrjimmy

Perhaps this is peppered with a bit of conspiratorial paranoia, but it seems to me that one of the reasons the G20 was held in Toronto was an exercise in crowd control. An experience that can be studied by other large cities.

This is legitimized by the large purchase made by the police of the tools of crowd control. Sound cannons and the like.

Seems they may be expecting more of this kind of thing to happen... The citizens are not getting any happier it seems.


----------



## eMacMan

mrjimmy said:


> Perhaps this is peppered with a bit of conspiratorial paranoia, but it seems to me that one of the reasons the G20 was held in Toronto was an exercise in crowd control. An experience that can be studied by other large cities.
> 
> This is legitimized by the large purchase made by the police of the tools of crowd control. Sound cannons and the like.
> 
> Seems they may be expecting more of this kind of thing to happen... The citizens are not getting any happier it seems.


The real unemployment rate Stateside is close to 20% and and a sizeable portion of that 20% lost homes to the banksters thanks to the Wall Street manipulators. To add insult to injury the Bush babies then handed the Banksters huge taxpayer funded bailouts which were then used to give the crash creators huge bonuses. You can bet this is just the beginning.


----------



## Macfury

I visited the pitiful small encampment of "Occupy Bay Street" this morning--a tiny accumulation of tents with a bunch of signs lying on the ground. I suspect most of the people who once held them aloft had long gone home. Pretty polite bunch, though. Of course they were camped nowhere near Bay Street due to a marathon sponsored by Scotiabank.


----------



## BigDL

"From acorns mighty oaks grow."


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> I visited the pitiful small encampment of "Occupy Bay Street" this morning


Were you down there in disguise just in case one of them spotted you? I'm sure your public face simply oozes 1%.


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> Were you down there in disguise just in case one of them spotted you? *I'm sure your public face simply oozes 1%.*


Really..? How would you know..? What a combative post. What does your face ooze?

Yes MF's post was also needlessly combative but you don't have to follow suit...


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I visited *the pitiful small encampment* of "Occupy Bay Street" this morning--a tiny accumulation of tents with a bunch of signs lying on the ground. I suspect most of the people who once held them aloft had long gone home. Pretty polite bunch, though. Of course they were camped nowhere near Bay Street due to a marathon sponsored by Scotiabank.


No need for that MF... We aren't going to get anywhere with that kind of dialogue...

It seems something is in the "air"... maybe it is just the change of seasons (no pun intended) but I think it would do us all well to tone down the rhetoric of partisanship and judgment and just speak plainly without needless adjectives or hyperbole...

We've been there and done that to no real avail so why not let us try something different... like just being polite and respectfully posting our differences.

It need not become boring, but it doesn't need to be the Jerry Springer show either.


----------



## mrjimmy

screature said:


> Really..? How would you know..? What a combative post. What does your face ooze?
> 
> Yes MF's post was also needlessly combative but you don't have to follow suit...


Quit being a wannabe moderator, would you?


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> Quit being a wannabe moderator, would you?


ha ha. Yeah. Anyway.

I'm not surprised the numbers were pitiful this morning. The protest -was- yesterday afterall.


----------



## screature

mrjimmy said:


> Quit being a wannabe moderator, would you?


It was just a comment sorry that you took offence.... I make no rules and have no power. Just like the protesters so why do you want to shut me and my comments down?

I didn't try and shut you down now did I? I merely expressed that I thought your post was combative and that you didn't have to follow MF's lead.


----------



## groovetube

nice turnaround. It seems you wanted to do some 'shutting down'. Just saying.


----------



## MacDoc

Ultimate irony - he's blaming the protesters for the state of affairs.....

snip



> But for Leppert, who’s running to replace Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), that allegation may just produce a round of laughter from the occupied streets of New York all the way to his home in Dallas, Texas, given his history. Leppert was one of the last chairmen of Washington Mutual’s audit committee, right before the company earned the title of largest bank failure in U.S. history, fleecing shareholders of $63 billion.
> 
> Before it went down, WaMu was cited as one of the worst offenders in offering the junk loans that inflated the housing bubble. When that bubble popped, WaMu was seized by government regulators, then sold to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 billion. Chase shortly thereafter received a $25 billion bailout financed by U.S. taxpayers, which it has since paid back.
> 
> Luckily for Leppert, he didn’t have to manage that morass, finding himself in a new job just before the crisis hit: Mayor of Dallas, an office he held from 2007-2011.
> 
> As a candidate for U.S. Senate, some of Leppert’s largest campaign contributors are in the finance, insurance and real estate sectors. They include the financial services and advisory firm Ernst & Young, which was sued in 2010, and again in 2011, for allegedly helping Lehman Bros. cover up its failing finances ahead of their complete collapse, which was one of main triggers that launched the global financial crisis. Ernest & Young gave Leppert $23,000, according to OpenSecrets.org.



Failed banker-turned Senate candidate funds ‘End the Occupation’ website | The Raw Story


----------



## groovetube

The funniest is watching the geniuses go from these are pathetic numbers nothing to see here to, oh well they're all socialist commie bums who are on welfare etc.

The trouble with these right wing sheeps is that they tend to forget that the unemployed, the people who were working and want to work, those numbers are huge now after all the financial meltdowns. These aren't "socilaist bums" w're talking about anymore. And as these numbers continue to grow and get more and more frustrated, we'll see this movement getting larger.

Perhaps many of those who were flag bearers for the rich in those tea party rallies are beginning to wake up. Well, many of them anyway...


----------



## groovetube

Cain's 9-9-9 Plan Would Cost Average Americans More | The Onion - America's Finest News Source | American Voices

Maybe macfury can avail himself as the 4th commenter on this news item.


----------



## CubaMark

It's global, and it's getting bigger every day... here's a photo from yesterday - some 60-thousand marching in in Santiago, Chile:










And here's a roundup of the global protest news...


----------



## groovetube

man. Look at all those unemployed commie bums.


----------



## Macfury

Nobody's quaking in their boots. They should take their complaints to government for bailing out those banks.


----------



## groovetube

nothing to see here! Please! Everybody! It's N O T H I N G!!!!!!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

I haven't had time to post here for a few days, but I just wanted to report that I was at the Occupy Vancouver event on Saturday and it was very encouraging. Numbers reported to be from 5 - 7000 people at the peak and it was a great success. Lots of people there that had never been to anything like this before and just felt like they've had enough. Certainly issues of economic justice are on the table around the world in a big way. I hope we can all keep the message going.

Anyone else here at some of the other Occupy Canada events?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

CubaMark said:


> It's global, and it's getting bigger every day... here's a photo from yesterday - some 60-thousand marching in in Santiago, Chile:
> 
> And here's a roundup of the global protest news...


... and a great gallery of photos from some of the huge Occupy events around the world: Occupy Wall Street Spreads Worldwide - Alan Taylor - In Focus - The Atlantic


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Anyone else here at some of the other Occupy Canada events?


Yes. I said I had visited the little encampment in Toronto.


----------



## MacGuiver

Its ironic we have a tribute at the top of this thread to a capitalist posterboy CEO that hoarded 7 billion in personal wealth, ran a company that exploited poor workers in foreign lands while selling overpriced gadgets to the masses accumulating close to $100 billion in cash. When's the protest in Cupertino?

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver said:


> Its ironic we have a tribute at the top of this thread to a capitalist posterboy CEO that hoarded 7 billion in personal wealth, ran a company that exploited poor workers in foreign lands while selling overpriced gadgets to the masses accumulating close to $100 billion in cash. When's the protest in Cupertino?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


The protest only involves CEOs who do not support "progressive" politics while hoarding wealth.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The protest only involves CEOs who do not support "progressive" politics while hoarding wealth.


Exactly. I don't think anyone here has a problem with capitalism if it's properly regulated and functioning to generate products and services that make the world a better place. What people object to is rampant, unfettered capitalism that leads to economic ruin as exemplified by the Wall Street banks.

Jobs was smart enough to recognize that the policies of the Republicans were damaging to society, and vigorously supported the Democrats. "Progressive" policies sustain the middle class, which is the market for the products Apple produces.


----------



## Dr T

*Indignados in Cupertino? An implausible scenario.*



MacGuiver said:


> Its ironic we have a tribute at the top of this thread to a capitalist posterboy CEO that hoarded 7 billion in personal wealth, ran a company that exploited poor workers in foreign lands while selling overpriced gadgets to the masses accumulating close to $100 billion in cash. When's the protest in Cupertino?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


That is the wrong question to be asking.

Banksters and stock market and currency speculators amass huge fortunes while producing absolutely nothing of value; their fortunes are accumulated though piling debt onto consumers and taxpayers, and emptying the value of people's savings and investments. The worldwide protests, led off by the Indignados in Spain back in May, are aimed at these fraudsters.

Apple, on the other hand, has produced goods and services of value, and has built its wealth based on sales of those useful items. What is there to protest in Cupertino?


----------



## Lawrence

They should have organized it better,
They could have named it "The Stockwood Festival" 
(A kind of reverse play on words for the famed Woodstock)

They could have had live bands, Free giveaways, Camping....


----------



## bryanc

Dr T said:


> Banksters and stock market and currency speculators amass huge fortunes while producing absolutely nothing of value; their fortunes are accumulated though piling debt onto consumers and taxpayers, and emptying the value of people's savings and investments. The worldwide protests, led off by the Indignados in Spain back in May, are aimed at these fraudsters.
> 
> Apple, on the other hand, has produced goods and services of value, and has built its wealth based on sales of those useful items. What is there to protest in Cupertino?


:clap:

This is the distinction the right-wingnuts have a hard time with. Rich is rich as far as they're concerned. They don't care how you get the money, and they're willing to promise you "freedom" if you'll support their cause.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> :clap:
> 
> This is the distinction the right-wingnuts have a hard time with. Rich is rich as far as they're concerned. *They don't care how you get the money*, and they're willing to promise you "freedom" if you'll support their cause.


Really? What a load of hogwash, if that were the case there would be no laws or regulations that have to be followed in any form of business and then it would include the proceeds of crime.

Comments like that only make you and others who utter them look like zealots and "left-wingnuts".


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Exactly. I don't think anyone here has a problem with capitalism if it's properly regulated and functioning to generate products and services that make the world a better place. What people object to is rampant, unfettered capitalism that leads to economic ruin as exemplified by the Wall Street banks.
> 
> Jobs was smart enough to recognize that the policies of the Republicans were damaging to society, and vigorously supported the Democrats. "Progressive" policies sustain the middle class, which is the market for the products Apple produces.


So essentially, its just a judgement call as to whether you value the person or their products, regardless of whether they're "money hoarders." Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## MacGuiver

Dr T said:


> That is the wrong question to be asking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Banksters and stock market and currency speculators amass huge fortunes while producing absolutely nothing of value;
> 
> 
> 
> If having the ability to buy yourself a home, a car or build yourself a nest egg for retirement is of absolutely no value, I'll agree. If generating capital for growing businesses that end up giving people jobs is of no value then I'll agree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> their fortunes are accumulated though piling debt onto consumers and taxpayers, and emptying the value of people's savings and investments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about you but nobody at the bank forced me to buy a new house or car and stuck me with the payments. Any debt I've acquired in my life was of my own choosing. If you want to grip about taxpayer debt, your target should be Washington and Ottawa. They're the knobs that sent your money to bail out failing businesses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apple, on the other hand, has produced goods and services of value, and has built its wealth based on sales of those useful items. What is there to protest in Cupertino?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently if your in that wealthy 1%, there is lots to protest.
> I don't think its fair charging you through the nose for products while exploiting people of the 3rd world for cheap labor. Did Steve Jobs really need 7 billion in personal wealth? I'm sure he could have lived in extreme comfort on 1/1000 of that. Imagine how many people Apple could have employed in the US to produce their products if they were not so greedy? Does Apple really need to hold 100 billion in cash while never once offering its share holders a dime in dividends? Talk about corporate greed.
> 
> It seems this movement gives a pass to grossly wealthy people with lefty sympathies.
> 
> After saying all this I do think their are legitimate beefs with Corporate and political culture. 100 million dollar golden parachutes for failed CEOs comes to mind. Its the hypocrisy of the movement that makes me sick.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver
Click to expand...


----------



## MacDoc

The usual right wing blinkers.....

Jobs et al do not have gov sanction for multiplying their capital the way banks do in fractional lending. Entrepreneurs must produce value for their shareholders and for their customers.

That said, the speculation on shares of majors is funded by the financial industries ability to lend on margin.....the margin of deposits and their capital.

Without speculative control we'll just go around this block time and again....be it tulips or houses in Vancouver.

*Banks and insurance companies have federal charters *- they have abused that to no end and deserve to go under but are being bailed out. Unacceptable and the protesters understand this even if you do not.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> The usual right wing blinkers.....
> 
> Jobs et al do not have gov sanction for multiplying their capital the way banks do in fractional lending. Entrepreneurs must produce value for their shareholders and for their customers.
> 
> That said, the speculation on shares of majors is funded by the financial industries ability to lend on margin.....the margin of deposits and their capital.
> 
> Without speculative control we'll just go around this block time and again....be it tulips or houses in Vancouver.
> 
> *Banks and insurance companies have federal charters *- they have abused that to no end and deserve to go under but are being bailed out. Unacceptable and the protesters understand this even if you do not.


MacDoc, that's nonsense. You could become a fractional lender yourself on a personal level. There's nothing special about banks.

On this we agree--the government is responsible for bailing out the banks. So why are the protesters picketing the people who received the money? In the U.S., the government even forced loans onto banks who declined to accept them initially.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> MacDoc, that's nonsense. You could become a fractional lender yourself on a personal level. There's nothing special about banks.
> 
> On this we agree--the government is responsible for bailing out the banks. So why are the protesters picketing the people who received the money? In the U.S., the government even forced loans onto banks who declined to accept them initially.


Mainly because, with very few exceptions the Banksters own your local Congressman.


----------



## groovetube

this is something atom smasher has never come to grips with. The minute the realization that government and banks/corporations are pretty much the same you might wanna get out of the way...


----------



## Adrian.

Macfury said:


> MacDoc, that's nonsense. You could become a fractional lender yourself on a personal level. There's nothing special about banks.
> 
> On this we agree--the government is responsible for bailing out the banks. So why are the protesters picketing the people who received the money? In the U.S., the government even forced loans onto banks who declined to accept them initially.


Let's take a second to look at who the "government is" 

1.








*Hank Paulson*- Secretary of Treasury, ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs 

2.








*Chair of the Fed*, brokered the Merrill Lynch acquisition by BofA Group, probably one of the greatest instances of fraud in the financial sector in the last 50 years. 


These two criminals are both the government and the bank. They hold such high-powered position in US government and on Wall Street, you cannot divide them into one or the other. They are one in the same. US Economic and Financial Policy was taken from the people and given to bank investors on Wall Street.

These two are the just the public faces. Start pulling up Lawrence Summers and the members of the Presidential economic advisor councils and you might as well paint the Whitehouse navy blue with pin-stripes and a gold pinky ring.


----------



## groovetube

Adrian. said:


> Let's take a second to look at who the "government is"
> 
> 1.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hank Paulson*- Secretary of Treasury, ex-CEO of Goldman Sachs
> 
> 2.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Chair of the Fed*, brokered the Merrill Lynch acquisition by BofA Group, probably one of the greatest instances of fraud in the financial sector in the last 50 years.
> 
> 
> These two criminals are both the government and the bank. They hold such high-powered position in US government and on Wall Street, you cannot divide them into one or the other. They are one in the same. US Economic and Financial Policy was taken from the people and given to bank investors on Wall Street.
> 
> These two are the just the public faces. Start pulling up Lawrence Summers and the members of the Presidential economic advisor councils and you might as well paint the Whitehouse navy blue with pin-stripes and a gold pinky ring.




cue waving of the hands and total head in the sand routine....

No taxes! Shiny ball!


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> Let's take a second to look at who the "government is"


Having people with financial expertise will naturally require some of them to have emerged from the financial sector. However, blame government for handing out that cash. The banks would no more turn it down than would people turn down their government cheques.


----------



## eMacMan

And who wrote the Shrub speech that was designed to crash the market, give the Banksters $Trillion$, and give them $Trillion$ more in short sales? Yep twas indeed a Bankster on orders from bigger Banksters.

Same speech made millions jobless so the banksters could also make them homeless, something they needed to do to hide the fact that the banksters were selling the same mortgage dozens of times over? Hence the term "Toxic Asset"


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> What a load of hogwash, if that were the case there would be no laws or regulations that have to be followed in any form of business


As I said, this is the position of the extreme right; government should get out of the way, stop regulating corporations, and let the market decide. Not everyone right of centre is so extreme, but the primary philosophical flaw on the right is the presumption that, left to their own devices, corporations will make the world a better place... or that somehow the market would prevent catastrophes from occurring if corporations were free from the big bad government.

What has been amply demonstrated is that without regulation, corporations will rape and pillage to the maximum extent they are able to. And ask for bail outs if they get burned in the process. One point on which MF and I agree is that, in a perfect world, the banks would not have received any bail out. However, I'm not sure that just letting them all fail all at once wouldn't have caused such social chaos that the justice wouldn't have come at too high a price.

What is also becoming amply clear is that corporations have become so powerful that even governments are no longer able to regulate them. And wresting some of that power away from massive corporations and back into the hands of the people (or their duly elected representatives) is the primary theme of the OWS movement.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> As I said, this is the position of the extreme right; government should get out of the way, stop regulating corporations, and let the market decide. Not everyone right of centre is so extreme, but the primary philosophical flaw on the right is the presumption that, left to their own devices, corporations will make the world a better place... or that somehow the market would prevent catastrophes from occurring if corporations were free from the big bad government.


That's simply a nonsensical precis. Corporations would be better able to make decisions freed from government, but you pay little attention to the other side of the equations. The corporations would be much more careful if they couldn't count on governments to save their asses or to create sweetheart deals from the--banks, General Motors, Chrysler, all the telecoms. Few believe all corporations will make the world a better place--or even expect them to--just as few humans wind up making the world a better place. They simply do their thing and disappear.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> That's simply a nonsensical precis. Corporations would be better able to make decisions freed from government, but you pay little attention to the other side of the equations. The corporations would be much more careful if they couldn't count on governments to save their asses or to create sweetheart deals from the--banks, General Motors, Chrysler, all the telecoms. Few believe all corporations will make the world a better place--or even expect them to--just as few humans wind up making the world a better place. They simply do their thing and disappear.


And of course the reason bloated corps can count on Congress for bailouts is that they spend ~$40,000/hour (24/7) lobbying their selected representatives.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> And of course the reason bloated corps can count on *Congress* for bailouts is that they spend ~$40,000/hour (24/7) lobbying *our selected representatives*.


I don't know about you but I am not an American.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> I don't know about you but I am not an American.


Posting Edited now reads:

And of course the reason bloated corps can count on Congress for bailouts is that they spend ~$40,000/hour (24/7) lobbying their selected representatives.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> As *I said, this is the position of the extreme right*; government should get out of the way, stop regulating corporations, and let the market decide. Not everyone right of centre is so extreme, but the primary philosophical flaw on the right is the presumption that, *left to their own devices, corporations will make the world a better place... or that somehow the market would prevent catastrophes from occurring if corporations were free from the big bad government.*
> 
> What has been amply demonstrated is that without regulation, corporations will rape and pillage to the maximum extent they are able to. And ask for bail outs if they get burned in the process. One point on which MF and I agree is that, in a perfect world, the banks would not have received any bail out. However, I'm not sure that just letting them all fail all at once wouldn't have caused such social chaos that the justice wouldn't have come at too high a price.
> 
> What is also becoming amply clear is that corporations have become so powerful that even governments are no longer able to regulate them. And wresting some of that power away from massive corporations and back into the hands of the people (or their duly elected representatives) is the primary theme of the OWS movement.


You said right wing-nuts not those on the extreme right, to me it sounded like you were saying anyone on the right was a wing-nut, if that is not what you meant then fine.

I don't agree that it is a fundamental belief on the right that there should be no regulations, it is the view of some most definitely, but I would say most simply want less red tape and keep regulation to a minimum i.e. that which is required to protect the public from ne'erdowell business practices.

I don't know where you get the evidence to say that "what has been amply demonstrated is that without regulation, corporations will rape and pillage to the maximum extent they are able to." Again some do, but far from all or even the majority, just as some individuals will rape and kill.

Also I think your statement "What is also becoming amply clear is that corporations have become so powerful that even governments are no longer able to regulate them." is true in particular jurisdictions such as the US and some of Asia, but much less so in parts of Europe and in Canada.


----------



## Adrian.

Macfury said:


> That's simply a nonsensical precis. Corporations would be better able to make decisions freed from government, but you pay little attention to the other side of the equations. T*he corporations would be much more careful if they couldn't count on governments to save their asses or to create sweetheart deals from the*--banks, General Motors, Chrysler, all the telecoms. Few believe all corporations will make the world a better place--or even expect them to--just as few humans wind up making the world a better place. They simply do their thing and disappear.




Ok, well here is an idea. Those with conflicts of interest that are so great, they pose a threat to the economic stability of the world are not allowed to enter offices where they can bail themselves and their buddies out of the ponzi schemes and fraudulent financial products that bring down the rest of the economy?


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> Ok, well here is an idea. Those with conflicts of interest that are so great, they pose a threat to the economic stability of the world are not allowed to enter offices where they can bail themselves and their buddies out of the ponzi schemes and fraudulent financial products that bring down the rest of the economy?


I would simply draft an amendment to the relevant laws simply stating that bail-outs may not occur.


----------



## groovetube

well since government is made up of the wealthy, this will never, ever occur.

But good luck with your rainbows and unicorns.


----------



## groovetube

this will go right over a few heads....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1FkTTGCBVw


----------



## Adrian.

Macfury said:


> I would simply draft an amendment to the relevant laws simply stating that bail-outs may not occur.


Moral hazard goes out the window when the consequences of enforcing the doctrine is the world economy collapsing.


----------



## groovetube

Adrian. said:


> Moral hazard goes out the window when the consequences of enforcing the doctrine is the world economy collapsing.


he isn't going to listen Adrian. We've been there before. He fights to the bitter end supporting the republicans, because well, apparently "the other guy spent more", or, quote, "woulda spent more", announces that all banks and major corporations should be just allowed to fail. No attention paid to the consequences that would have had on the citizens of our countries, and least of all, zero attention on the government full of insiders who allowed this to happen. When cornered on his support, he runs under the skirt of libertarianism.

The focus here is that it's simply the socia... er, democrats fault. That's pretty much it, in a nutshell. It doesn't really get more in-depth than that I'm afraid.


----------



## Adrian.

groovetube said:


> he isn't going to listen Adrian. We've been there before. He fights to the bitter end supporting the republicans, because well, apparently "the other guy spent more", or, quote, "woulda spent more", announces that all banks and major corporations should be just allowed to fail. No attention paid to the consequences that would have had on the citizens of our countries, and least of all, zero attention on the government full of insiders who allowed this to happen. When cornered on his support, he runs under the skirt of libertarianism.
> 
> The focus here is that it's simply the socia... er, democrats fault. That's pretty much it, in a nutshell. It doesn't really get more in-depth than that I'm afraid.


It's not for him. I could less about him. It's so that his ignorant drivel doesn't go unchecked on a public forum.


----------



## Macfury

If you don't want my "drivel" to go unchecked--why don't you attempt to check it? Clearly you bought into the farce that the world economy would have collapsed if the US government hadn't transferred personal wealth to the banks.


----------



## groovetube

I think he thinks that's a comeback.

Sorry macfury, the obvious half truths are far too easy. When you stop running around under the skirt of pseudo libertarianism, perhaps it could be taken somewhat seriously. Both you and screature pretend not to be full on conservative supporters, but your posts are too obvious.


----------



## Adrian.

Macfury said:


> If you don't want my "drivel" to go unchecked--why don't you attempt to check it? Clearly you bought into the farce that the world economy would have collapsed if the US government hadn't transferred personal wealth to the banks.


Macfury is human.
Humans are mortal.
Therefore, Macfury is mortal. 

:lmao:


----------



## screature

Adrian. said:


> *Macfury is human.*
> Humans are mortal.
> Therefore, Macfury is mortal.
> 
> :lmao:


Are you sure? Maybe Macfury is bot deployed by the Libertarian League of Canada to drive all ehMac leftists insane... unhh? Ever think about that?


----------



## groovetube

well that would at least make sense.


----------



## bryanc

Lets enter MF in the Turing contest!


----------



## Adrian.

screature said:


> Are you sure? Maybe Macfury is bot deployed by the Libertarian League of Canada to drive all ehMac leftists insane... unhh? Ever think about that?


Socratic jousting. 

I am not a leftist. I do however think intelligibly of matters. That is to say, without the blinding mirage of ideology.


----------



## groovetube

I'm more partisan than thou!


----------



## Adrian.

groovetube said:


> I'm more partisan than thou!


As long as you're on the civilised end of things.


----------



## screature

Adrian. said:


> Socratic jousting.
> 
> I am not a leftist. I do however think intelligibly of matters. That is to say, *without the blinding mirage of ideology.*


Based on your posts I *highly* doubt that is true. That being said who isn't ideologically driven?

The criticism against the Harper government is that its legislation is ideologically driven....

Would it be any different with the NDP in power.... was it with the Liberals? Clearly not.

Government largely uses the policy of the party to make legislation. That is the way it works...

Look at party policy... it is all based in a certain ideology... of course it is a heuristic thing and as such is always in flux, but the policy directives of any given party is the fundamental basis (or should be) of any legitimate political party. That is how our system works...

The Cons thus far have been in their election promises and subsequent legislation (albeit not in some details of other activity) very clear. Thus far they are following through (in albeit too fast a fashion for my liking in terms of diplomacy... just based on respect for the House, i.e. too many debate closures in too short a period of time) on everything they said they would do and not doing anything they said the wouldn't ... so in terms of integrity based on what they said they would do during the election and what they have done thus far, I give them full marks.

Whether or not you agree with what they are doing... well... an election was held and based on our system of our democracy the Cons won a majority in the House and so they basically have an unfettered ability to do as however they choose....

This is what the Chretien Liberals were used to for 13 years......


----------



## screature

Adrian. said:


> As long as you're on the civilised end of things.


_Civilized_ is a heuristic notion as well... it is in flux and it depends on your perspective... ideological, cultural, religious and historical. It is far from being a definitive or objective term.


----------



## MacDoc

Having slaves is oh so civilized....hmmm wrong century or two


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Having slaves is oh so civilized....hmmm wrong century or two


That was his point...


----------



## groovetube

Brilliant.

macdoc you couldn't have planned this better.


----------



## Adrian.

screature said:


> Based on your posts I *highly* doubt that is true. That being said who isn't ideologically driven?
> 
> The criticism against the Harper government is that its legislation is ideologically driven....
> 
> Would it be any different with the NDP in power.... was it with the Liberals? Clearly not.
> 
> ....


You should have heard me during Chretien and the Rae Days.

I am critical of all, always. Some more than others, as they come. 

Everyone is influenced by ideas. I do not subscribe a pretext of doctrine however.


----------



## MacDoc

Clearly not?? ....not.

didn't see the Libs dismantle a Wheat Board that the farmers want maintained....that's as ideological as it comes.
Harper's a patsy for corporate interests - particularly in the US - the fighter jet mess is another as is the Wheat Board.



> “If the wheat board isn’t such an advantage to Prairie farmers why is the American agrifood business so eager to kill it and the big question is why is the government willing to do their dirty work for them?”


Opposition blasts ‘ideological crusade’ against wheat board - The Globe and Mail

Some kudos for the handling of the ship building exercise but few other bright spots in this dismal right wing agenda.....prisons, more prisons....tptptptp

When Harper stops playing politics and starts governing maybe he'll earn some respect. So far there is very little ....voted in due to a flawed political system and in direct conflict with 60% of the nation - perhaps he should show some respect.....or he'll end Muloonied.
Good riddance.....to both.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> When Harper stops playing politics and starts governing maybe he'll earn some respect. So far there is very little ....voted in due to a flawed political system and in direct conflict with 60% of the nation - perhaps he should show some respect.....or he'll end Muloonied.
> Good riddance.....to both.


He is governing to do what he promised to do--not what you wish him to do. Funny how some people bill every decision they disagree with as "playing politics." Even funnier how a PM going against his election promises would be considered to be "governing." 

The _opposition_ blasts the Wheat Board decision? They would blast it even if they supported it.

This is the interesting thing about our democracy, MacDoc--when your party loses, it no longer has the right to implement its agenda.


----------



## groovetube

Adrian. said:


> You should have heard me during Chretien and the Rae Days.
> 
> I am critical of all, always. Some more than others, as they come.
> 
> Everyone is influenced by ideas. I do not subscribe a pretext of doctrine however.


I'm sure I've said this already. But it's hilarious how all those conservatives are suddenly silent and defensive about all the crap Harper is pulling. Just some meek justifications is about all I hear.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> He is governing to do what he promised to do--not what you wish him to do. Funny how some people bill every decision they disagree with as "playing politics." Even funnier how a PM going against his election promises would be considered to be "governing."
> 
> The _opposition_ blasts the Wheat Board decision? They would blast it even if they supported it.
> 
> This is the interesting thing about our democracy, MacDoc--when your party loses, it no longer has the right to implement its agenda.


let me summarize this post.

Nyah nyah na nyah nyaaaaaaah.

:baby::baby::baby:


----------



## Adrian.

I support the dismantling of the wheat board. I support the dismantling of all government subsidised agriculture, particularly in economically advanced countries. European subsidies, the CAIRNE Group, US Agricultural Subsidies and so on are one of the biggest reasons why farmers in the rest of the world can barely make ends meet.

I had hoped that the last talks in Doha would have produced some effect on these monopolistic practices, but they did not.

I believe Harper is dismantling it for the wrong reasons, and he is doing it in a way that will hurt Canadian farmers. It needs to be a concerted mandate by all the OECD countries.


----------



## screature

MacDoc said:


> Clearly not?? ....not.
> 
> didn't see the Libs dismantle a Wheat Board that the farmers want maintained.....


Grain Growers calls for calm in rising storm of rhetoric



> ...The Federal Government has put forward a transition plan within Bill C-18,
> allowing the Board to transition to the open market by continuing as a voluntary
> marketing organization.
> 
> “On behalf of farmers, the Grain Growers of Canada are asking everyone to tone
> down the rhetoric and work together over the coming months,” says Vandervalk.
> “It is time now for the elected CWB directors to accept the fact that change is
> coming and work with Government to make sure we have a smooth transition
> into the open market for the benefit of western Canadian farmers.”
> 
> “Agriculture should not be a political game because adversarial attitudes and
> activities are all wasting valuable time and making dialogue more difficult,” says
> Vandervalk. “This hurts farmers’ interests, the Canadian Wheat Board as an
> organization and damages our valuable international reputation with our trading
> partners.”
> 
> The CWB has a respected world-wide brand, a huge rolodex of sales contacts,
> experienced people in both rail and ocean freight, front line staff who work with
> farmers every day, and now with the five year guarantees the Government is
> offering, the Canadian Wheat Board has the opportunity to be successful.
> 
> Many things have changed since the Board’s inception. Progress in technology
> and science has changed the face of agriculture. Farmers are now able to
> market and lock in prices for their grain from the seats of their tractors...
> 
> But at the end of the day, farmers who want to market their own wheat and barley
> need to have the freedom to do so – as they do in all other parts of Canada,” says
> Vandervalk. “That is why we support this legislation.”


----------



## Kosh

There is no way the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board is good for farmers. The CWB gave the farmers a common voice and selling power. Now their gonna lose it and they will never get it back because under NAFTA Canada can not recreate it. The farmers get screwed yet again. 

I even saw an article where Harper's Agriculture minister tried to claim the CWB was holding back businesses like the new pasta factory in Regina. Is he an idiot. The CWB hasn't been holding back businesses like that. They just buy they're grain from CWB like everyone else.


----------



## Macfury

Kosh said:


> There is no way the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board is good for farmers. The CWB gave the farmers a common voice and selling power. Now their gonna lose it and they will never get it back because under NAFTA Canada can not recreate it. The farmers get screwed yet again.


So you support people being forced to sell their product through a single entity--whether they want to or not--because it is "good for them"? How is that fair?


----------



## MacGuiver

I'm not a farmer so I'm certainly no voice of authority on the issue.
I'm wondering if the wheat board is so critical, why are eastern Canadian farmers not part of it or clamouring for something similar? My brother in-law is a farmer and deals directly with buyers for his wheat, soybeans and corn. He does quite well for himself and has no middle man taking a cut off the top. 
As I understand it, there is no reason the wheat board could not continue in the free market. Especially if they have the majority of farmers on board. They would still have a lot of market clout to negotiate fair prices.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Kosh

Macfury said:


> So you support people being forced to sell their product through a single entity--whether they want to or not--because it is "good for them"? How is that fair?


Most farmers voted to keep it. 

But apparently Harper's government knows better than the farmers themselves.

As well, there seems to be some misunderstanding that the CWB subsidizes grain. It doesn't. It pays the farmers the current rate for the price of grain, should the price of grain rise and the CWB sell it at the higher rate, the farmers get a cheque for the increase. Which according to my mom (who was a farmer's wife in the 50s to 70s) was always appreciated.

The government does have income stabilization programs for farmers, though: 
AgriStability - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
AgriInvest - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)


----------



## Macfury

Kosh said:


> Most farmers voted to keep it.
> 
> But apparently Harper's government knows better than the farmers themselves.


The farmers can still choose to sell through a central pool. How is denying people choice in where they can sell the product of their labour a good thing?


----------



## Kosh

MacGuiver said:


> I'm not a farmer so I'm certainly no voice of authority on the issue.
> I'm wondering if the wheat board is so critical, why are eastern Canadian farmers not part of it or clamouring for something similar?
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Because the east produces an insignificant amount of wheat. 

Most of Canada's wheat is produced in 3 provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, with Saskatchewan (which has wheat in it's provincial flag) being the biggest producer.


----------



## Macfury

Kosh said:


> Because the east produces an insignificant amount of wheat.
> 
> Most of Canada's wheat is produced in 3 provinces, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, with Saskatchewan (which has wheat in it's provincial flag) being the biggest producer.


So, being insignificant, why don't they beg for the strength offered by the Canadian Wheat Board?


----------



## Adrian.

Kosh said:


> There is no way the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board is good for farmers. The CWB gave the farmers a common voice and selling power. Now their gonna lose it and they will never get it back because under NAFTA Canada can not recreate it. The farmers get screwed yet again.
> 
> I even saw an article where Harper's Agriculture minister tried to claim the CWB was holding back businesses like the new pasta factory in Regina. Is he an idiot. The CWB hasn't been holding back businesses like that. They just buy they're grain from CWB like everyone else.


Maybe some Canadian farmers. But not for most of the farmers around the world it is not.


----------



## Kosh

Adrian. said:


> Maybe some Canadian farmers. But not for most of the farmers around the world it is not.


You mean all those other countries that SUBSIDIZE their grain, unlike Canada?



Adrian. said:


> So, being insignificant, why don't they beg for the strength offered by the Canadian Wheat Board?


For several reasons. 1) They have less to market. 2) They're closer to various markets 3) They have smaller farms (less to pay for) 4) They think the grass is greener on their side 5) They don't have to follow rules and quality restraints of CWB

Not to offend, but coming from the other angle, why would the CWB want the east farmers?


----------



## Kosh

And Adrian, you'll never convince me that the world will never stop subsidizing farming, because:

1) farming is a declining business - less people are farming every year
2) farming is an inconsistent business (and businesses and humans love consistency or routine)
3) farming is an underpaid business - it's a lot of hard work for little pay


----------



## Macfury

Kosh said:


> farming is an underpaid business - it's a lot of hard work for little pay


If it is underpaid, they should stop producing and the price of produce will rise. They shouldn't be subsidized to continue in a subsistence business.


----------



## Adrian.

Macfury said:


> If it is underpaid, they should stop producing and the price of produce will rise. They shouldn't be subsidized to continue in a subsistence business.


Exactly.

Although I believe in the inefficiency of markets, I also believe in their efficiencies. Farmers in wealthy countries have their production subsidised to absolutely ridiculous extents through a variety of mechanisms (France, Canada and US in particular). 

This has several consequences:

1. Extreme economic inefficiency - tax money is being dumped into subsidizing an industry where the same product is produced much more economically efficiently elsewhere. Those who are able to produce more efficiently are being penalised because of these subsidies. The problem of undocumented immigration into the US from Mexico would be a fraction of what it is if the US would cut its grain subsidies. The second NAFTA went into effect 6 million Mexican farmers became instantly bankrupt because they could not compete with US farmers who were dumping their harvests (mostly corn) at below market prices. 

2. It prevents balancing of markets. If the cost of living and production is sufficiently high in Canada that farming is no longer a viable industry, then those involved in farming should shift their activities elsewhere. If the government wants to invest in transition and re-training programs, then so be it.


What really pisses me off about the OECD countries is that they have created two types of capitalism: the one that benefits them and the one that is written in textbooks and is loaded onto developing countries. The Americans spent 60 years defending textbook capitalism and defeating communism to subsidize grain to the point that the US dumps billions of metric tonnes of grain onto the world market (mostly in the form of "aid").


See the world. Gain some perspective.


----------



## screature

Kosh said:


> *Most farmers voted to keep it. *
> 
> But apparently Harper's government knows better than the farmers themselves.
> 
> As well, there seems to be some misunderstanding that the CWB subsidizes grain. It doesn't. It pays the farmers the current rate for the price of grain, should the price of grain rise and the CWB sell it at the higher rate, the farmers get a cheque for the increase. Which according to my mom (who was a farmer's wife in the 50s to 70s) was always appreciated.
> 
> The government does have income stabilization programs for farmers, though:
> AgriStability - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
> AgriInvest - Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)


That isn't true at all... A significant amount (in the order of 40-50%, I can't remember right now) CWB members didn't even vote...

The numbers are skewed toward supporters of the CWA as the dissenters out of pure revulsion and contempt would not have participated in a CWA poll... not politically so smart I know....

There is a greater "power of Parliament/Government" issue at play here that is not being covered by the press as to why the government will not conduct a plebiscite and agree to the Liberal and to a lesser extent NDP demands for one... You need to watch the after QP "Points of Privilege" to catch the greater picture... It is readily available every day.

I am finished for the day and tired of doing other people's research for them, but based on those clues if you decide to do your own research and not just read and listen to the media you may get a sense of the bigger picture....


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> That isn't true at all... A significant amount (in the order of 40-50%, I can't remember right now) CWB members didn't even vote...


Most people didn't vote for the Harper Government, yet they still have a majority....

But the *REAL* issue here is that according to the Wheat Board act and by *LAW*, the CWB monopoly can only be abolished with a vote by the farmers.

The disturbing thing is the Harper government doesn't care about the letter of the law and will do it anyways.

I'm not a farmer, so i cant comment on the good or bad points of the CWB, but surely they have the right to decide their own fate.

P.S. - what does this have to do with the Wall Street protests?


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> Most people didn't vote for the Harper Government, yet they still have a majority....
> 
> But the *REAL* issue here is that according to the Wheat Board act and by *LAW*, the CWB monopoly can only be abolished with a vote by the farmers.
> 
> The disturbing thing is the Harper government doesn't care about the letter of the law and will do it anyways.
> 
> I'm not a farmer, so i cant comment on the good or bad points of the CWB, but surely they have the right to decide their own fate.
> 
> P.S. - *what does this have to do with the Wall Street protests?*


You' re getting warmer... and as for the letter of the law... it all depends upon which law you view as "supreme"... if the Libs or the NDP* don't* take it to the Supreme Court it means they realize what is at stake... if anyone does it will be the NDP as they have never been in power, I highly doubt the Libs they will go there....

Time will tell....

P.S. Nothing... the thread has completely gone of the rails and has been for some time now.


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> ...the tread has completely gone of the rails and has been for some time now.


Agreed. Would posters please take anything non-Wall Street protest over to the Canadian Political Thread or wherever else it may be relevant..


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> Agreed. Would posters please take anything non-Wall Street protest over to the Canadian Political Thread or wherever else it may be relevant..


Is the protest still on?


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> Agreed. Would posters please take anything non-Wall Street protest over to the Canadian Political Thread or wherever else it may be relevant..


Well done... I congratulate you...


----------



## CubaMark

_Geez_, dude. I said _please_....


----------



## groovetube

don't worry I think he's smarting from people telling him to back off after playing moderator himself.


----------



## SINC

CubaMark said:


> _Geez_, dude. I said _please_....


I dunno CM, I kinda like the look of that badge. Makes ya look Earpish or sumptin.

Just kiddin', but I hear ya.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> _Geez_, dude. I said _please_....





SINC said:


> I dunno CM, I kinda like the look of that badge. Makes ya look Earpish or sumptin.
> 
> Just kiddin', but I hear ya.


It wasn't meant to be derogatory as I have had the appellation bestowed upon me a few times here by a a couple of members who shall remain nameless but they know who they are...

Quite frankly I wear the badge with honour and that is how I meant it in all seriousness...

There is nothing wrong in standing up for yourself and others even if you might have no "power" or official "authority"... 

I thought you would understand...

Never mind... Sorry that you took offence as none was intended, it was meant ironically not satirically.


----------



## groovetube

then my apologies then too if that was what was meant.

if we're all very sorry, then maybe we can get on with the wall street protests, which despite some who think it's over cause they live in a shoe, are still going on.


----------



## eMacMan

After their performance at Symphony Space last night Pete Seeger, Arlo Guthrie, the rest of the entertainers, and their audience walked from the theatre to Columbus Circle. Caught it on the live feed. Must say the NYPD blues were on their best behaviour, though the whites seemed a bit on edge. 

Took just over an hour and 92 year old Pete with aid of two canes walked the entire distance.

Good on ya Pete and company.

Seeger, Guthrie join Occupy Wall Street rally - CBS News


----------



## groovetube

Jon Stewart really nails the shrieking cons on fox news pretty well here.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Adrian.

Why is Jon always so on the ball!


----------



## groovetube

yeah not too many comments from the peanut gallery after that lol....


----------



## Macfury

Pretty funny seeing the zombie walk intersecting the Occupy Toronto march yesterday. Hard to tell them all apart!


----------



## groovetube

shhh. apparently to those living under a rock, these protests are only in Toronto.

Well at least maybe they're hoping so...


----------



## CubaMark

screature said:


> Sorry that you took offence as none was intended, it was meant ironically not satirically.


Offense? Nonsense! I downloaded the badge graphic - holding it in reserve for one day when I'll need it...


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Pretty funny seeing the zombie walk intersecting the Occupy Toronto march yesterday. Hard to tell them all apart!


I'm here all week!

Welcome to Instant Rimshot


----------



## kps

Man, I've been holding back posting this figuring someone here would have done so already, but nothing...LOL

Pay close attention...especially to some of her signs: :lmao:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube

a friend who is a cameraman for a major network. He hates working these because his producers specifically give him crap for not finding the freaks.

Guess it sells.


----------



## kps

groovetube said:


> a friend who is a cameraman for a major network. He hates working these because his producers specifically give him crap for not finding the freaks.
> 
> Guess it sells.


I think it's a set up....an Occupy Wall Street Troll if you will.


----------



## mrjimmy

kps said:


> I think it's a set up....an Occupy Wall Street Troll if you will.


Absolutely.

She must be a comedienne because she's very funny.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> Offense? Nonsense! I downloaded the badge graphic - holding it in reserve for one day when I'll need it...


Ok. Great...


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> I think it's a set up....an Occupy Wall Street Troll if you will.


these things always attracts the nutbars. That same friend I think was covering a protest over the garbage pileups in TO here, and one of the residents he was filming attacked him with a shoe and attacked the network vehicle. I mean he was there to help their cause when you think about it. That news station played that clip over, and over, and ver again. Not sure if anyone actually got what the issue was all about. But it made for great tv for that, er, demographic


----------



## bryanc

kps said:


> I think it's a set up....an Occupy Wall Street Troll if you will.


Clearly... it's the same heavy-set woman in the black top with the stupid signs, chanting the stupid slogans, etc. in each scene. I think it's meant to be funny... but it isn't very clever.


----------



## bryanc

*Architecture of the international ownership network*

Perhaps this belongs in it's own thread, but I thought it apropos to the OWS protests so I'm posting it here.

There's an interesting paper that has just been published analyzing the architecture of the international ownership network. I have long suspected there existed a very small cabal of powerful multinational corporations that wield unchecked power over the global economy, but I did not have much evidence to support this, nor did I suspect how small or how powerful that group really is. It turns out that about 150 companies control the majority of the global financial system.

These companies are obviously as powerful as governments of large economically powerful nations, but they are not responsible to anyone but their shareholders. Thus, our world has become a plutocracy, with government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

(here's the core of the power network for anyone who's interested):


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Perhaps this belongs in it's own thread, but I thought it apropos to the OWS protests so I'm posting it here.
> 
> There's an interesting paper that has just been published analyzing the architecture of the international ownership network. I have long suspected there existed a very small cabal of powerful multinational corporations that wield unchecked power over the global economy, but I did not have much evidence to support this, nor did I suspect how small or how powerful that group really is. It turns out that about 150 companies control the majority of the global financial system.
> 
> These companies are obviously as powerful as governments of large economically powerful nations, but they are not responsible to anyone but their shareholders. Thus, our world has become a plutocracy, with government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.


So buy shares.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> So buy shares.


I would if I could. And from a pragmatic POV, I recognize that this is nothing new; the rich have always run the world at the expense of the poor. But I'm philosophically opposed to the idea that the rich should so effectively control our society, because their interests are so often at odds with the interests of the majority of us.

I hope that OWS and the emerging skepticism of our society towards the political and economic elite will help erode some of this concentration of power in the hands of an unaccountable few.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I would if I could. And from a pragmatic POV, I recognize that this is nothing new; the rich have always run the world at the expense of the poor. .


Not at their expense. Probably in spite of them. However, the ability of ordinary people to make a difference in their own life and to empower themselves is a hundred times greater than it was a century ago.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> However, the ability of ordinary people to make a difference in their own life and to empower themselves is a hundred times greater than it was a century ago.


Not sure about your quantification, but taken as a figure of speech, I agree. That being said, I think the current plutocracy of transnational corporate entities serves more to limit the potential of most people than it does to enable it.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Not sure about your quantification, but taken as a figure of speech, I agree. That being said, I think the current plutocracy of transnational corporate entities serves more to limit the potential of most people than it does to enable it.


Perhaps, but I would not think that this is done by design. Rather, it's more of a side-effect. The plutocracy, such as it is, is indifferent to most people in the pursuit of its own ends.


----------



## bryanc

Sonal said:


> Perhaps, but I would not think that this is done by design. Rather, it's more of a side-effect. The plutocracy, such as it is, is indifferent to most people in the pursuit of its own ends.


Probably, at least initially. However, I'm increasingly convinced that 'class warfare' is real, in that the ultra wealthy are starting to recognize that 'the natives are restless', and are taking various action to ensure the security of their positions at the top.


----------



## Sonal

bryanc said:


> Probably, at least initially. However, I'm increasingly convinced that 'class warfare' is real, in that the ultra wealthy are starting to recognize that 'the natives are restless', and are taking various action to ensure the security of their positions at the top.


I don't think it's so much a concern about the natives being restless as it is that the motivation as always been to secure and maintain security of their positions at the top...

'Class warfare' makes it sound so much more personal than it is.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> I would if I could. And from a pragmatic POV, I recognize that this is nothing new; the rich have always run the world at the expense of the poor. But *I'm philosophically opposed to the idea that the rich should so effectively control our society, because their interests are so often at odds with the interests of the majority of us*.
> 
> I hope that OWS and the emerging skepticism of our society towards the political and economic elite will help erode some of this concentration of power in the hands of an unaccountable few.


Are we not animals? Do not the fittest survive? Darwin? 

Why would we be any different...? Because we have the power of rational thought? All the more reason... we compete not so much physically anymore but intellectually. Are you telling me you haven't *profited* from the luck of your "genetic gene pool" or from "the gifts of god" as some would express it?


----------



## Max

Screature: the fittest and the richest are not necessarily the same thing.

I despair when I hear Darwinian arguments being expressed; they tend to be used for some fairly nauseating causes.


----------



## groovetube

Max said:


> Screature: the fittest and the richest are not necessarily the same thing.
> 
> I despair when I hear Darwinian arguments being expressed; they tend to be used for some fairly nauseating causes.


agreed. It sounds to me like a very ill thought out defence.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> Screature: *the fittest and the richest are* not necessarily *the same thing.*
> 
> I despair when I hear Darwinian arguments being expressed; they tend to be used for some fairly nauseating causes.


Where did I say that? Tell me where? If you can show me where I said that then your post is relevant, if not, it is not. 

Take a different tack and then we can move forward otherrwise you missed my point and we have nothing to talk about... take offence if you wish.. that was your interpretation of my statements not what I said in response to byranc and his line of argument.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


>


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is what very confused and conflicted people produce and pass off as deep thought.


----------



## MacGuiver




----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> This is what very confused and conflicted people produce and pass off as deep thought.


atom smasher simply waves his hand and makes it so.

So mote it be.


----------



## i-rui

MacGuiver said:


>


i realize this is *supposed* to be funny, but it (as usual with these things) misses the point.

the occupy wall street protest isn't about tearing down capitalism and corporations, it's about reigning them in so they work in the confines of our government & society instead of our society & government working to benefit *them*.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> i realize this is *supposed* to be funny, but it (as usual with these things) misses the point.
> 
> the occupy wall street protest isn't about tearing down capitalism and corporations, it's about reigning them in so they work in the confines of our government & society instead of our society & government working to benefit *them*.


The extreme right can't fathom that. The only thing they can understand is, if you don't let corporations rape and pillage society, then you're a socialist (or nazi take your pick) running screaming that you want everyone to get the same amount of money and remove capitalism altogether.

Suggesting something more sane will just fry their brain cells, so that's why you see cartoons like this. It makes them feel better.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> i realize this is *supposed* to be funny, but it (as usual with these things) misses the point.
> 
> *the occupy wall street protest isn't about tearing down capitalism and corporations*, it's about reigning them in so they work in the confines of our government & society instead of our society & government working to benefit *them*.


It is according to Chis Hedges in what he said in the Kevin O'leary interview you poasted early on in this thread:


> Chris Hedges made extremely provocative and grossly inaccurate statements like, *"They want to reverse the corporate coup that has taken place in the United Sates... and frankly if we don't break the back of corporations we're all finished anyway".... "Corporations create nothing"*


----------



## groovetube

Yet you still, completely misunderstand what Chris hedges has said. Didn't we already go through this? Why is it this same circle dancing once again?

There needs to be understanding of the difference between, "breaking the backs of corporations", and tearing down capitalism and corporations.

Major difference. And yes, corporations create nothing.


----------



## i-rui

nice cherry pick of the Hedges quote screature. 

he elaborated further to say *financial* corporations create nothing. good of you to leave that part out. 

I recall reading that the 2 biggest industries in the US now are financial & legal. explains why that country has been driven into the ground over the past few decades.


----------



## BigDL

i-rui said:


> nice cherry pick of the Hedges quote screature.
> 
> he elaborated further to say *financial* corporations create nothing. good of you to leave that part out.
> 
> I recall reading that the 2 biggest industries in the US now are financial & legal. explains why that country has been driven into the ground over the past few decades.


Some people hold compulsive gambling addicts in high esteem. Their choice? Each to their own.

I have to exception to Mr. Hedges proposition, financial corporation created a mess and have done an extraordinary job of destroying that country's housing market.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> I recall reading that the 2 biggest industries in the US now are financial & legal. explains why that country has been driven into the ground over the past few decades.


That's a very ill-informed statement. These are largely what has replaced the uncompetitive manufacturing sector--and they should be grateful that they have. What's wrong with having a large financial sector? It's what's helped saved Canada's ass, next to our large resource sector.


----------



## Adrian.

groovetube said:


> The extreme right can't fathom that. The only thing they can understand is, if you don't let corporations rape and pillage society, then you're a socialist (or nazi take your pick) running screaming that you want everyone to get the same amount of money and remove capitalism altogether.
> 
> Suggesting something more sane will just fry their brain cells, so that's why you see cartoons like this. It makes them feel better.


Society needs to take a step back and look at who the "right" is. Who funds it? Who are the spokespeople? 

In nearly ever instance, and particularly in the US, they are financed and facilitated by the owners of or by the corporations themselves. Just look at the donations to the tea party. It isn't regular joes that are pumped 50 million into it.


----------



## MacGuiver

i-rui said:


> i realize this is *supposed* to be funny, but it (as usual with these things) misses the point.
> 
> the occupy wall street protest isn't about tearing down capitalism and corporations, it's about reigning them in so they work in the confines of our government & society instead of our society & government working to benefit *them*.


That depends which protestor you ask. Its about everything from greedy bankers to legalizing pot and everything in between.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> That depends which protestor you ask. Its about everything from greedy bankers to legalizing pot and everything in between.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


well given pot was criminalized originally to benefit a corporation, and wasting insane amounts of tax payers money enforcing it, it hardly surprises me.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> That's a very ill-informed statement. These are largely what has replaced the uncompetitive manufacturing sector--and they should be grateful that they have. What's wrong with having a large financial sector? It's what's helped saved Canada's ass, next to our large resource sector.


the problem is those 2 industries are service industries. They don't create or make anything. 

That in of itself isn't a problem, but if those 2 services are the biggest in the country it becomes one. Legal and financial services aren't exactly exports. Someone has to pay for it.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> well given pot was criminalized originally to benefit a corporation, and wasting insane amounts of tax payers money enforcing it, it hardly surprises me.


Really? Which corporation?


----------



## MacGuiver

CubaMark said:


>


So CubaMark, what do you think of Steve Jobs and him personally hoarding $7 billion or Apple hanging on to close to $100 billion?


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Really? Which corporation?


google is your friend..


----------



## CubaMark

I know that a lot of people were making digs at Jobs for not having any known charitable activities... I only saw one article which bothered to say that he might be giving to charities anonymously, but even that isn't the point.

There is no reason for any person to have an income that is so ridiculously out of proportion with the rest of the population. Until the poorest are brought up to a dignified minimum, the richest should have their incomes capped or taxed-back. 

My beef, however, doesn't lie with companies like Apple who are sitting on hoards of cash - though that cash should be reinvested productively into the national economy. Capitalism doesn't work well when everyone takes their cut without concern for the health of the wider market.

Blame for the economic meltdown / instability lies with those financial investment companies, banks, and governments who allow them to play fast and loose with other people's money. International currency speculation, for example, should not just be taxed - it should be banned. Vulture Capitalists (those who buy up third-world nation's debt for pennies and ruthlessly act to collect) should be nailed up and left to actual vultures. 

I do realize the hypocrisy in my fanatical following of a U.S. corporation and its products vis-a-vis my decidedly left-leaning political and economic views. But we have only the tools of the empire with which to fight back, no?


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> google is your friend..


You could have actually given a name and typed less than you did to tell me to go look for it. I took your advice however and I couldn't find the name of a specific corporation behind it as you suggested. It looks like alcoholic beverage companies and pharmaceuticals in general are getting most of the blame and apparently paying big dollars to governments to keep marijuana illegal. Sounds like a conspiracy man.
Because everyone knows we'd smoke a big dooby over a cold pint or a glass of wine if we had the chance and that the magical properties of marijuana can cure just about anything that ails ya, putting drug companies out of business.
Racism and attacks on free speech where also sited as reasons. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> google is your friend..


As usual, smoke and mirrors. Name it or STHU.


----------



## groovetube

shut the hell up?

I'm sorry but any half wit can google it. Dupont. Everyone knows about it. Some even valiantly defend it, bury it. But there's one corporation who had much to gain from banning it.

The sheer lunacy of the campaigns to demonize as best they could is reason enough to see someone really wanted it banned.


----------



## mrjimmy

groovetube said:


> shut the hell up?


Heck. I believe it's heck.

(Said like Rain man)


----------



## whatiwant

mrjimmy said:


> Heck. I believe it's heck.
> 
> (Said like Rain man)


Heck. d-d-definitely heck.


----------



## groovetube

phew.

Now cue outrage over the suggestion that dupont was interested in benefiting from this.


----------



## MacGuiver

groovetube said:


> phew.
> 
> Now cue outrage over the suggestion that dupont was interested in benefiting from this.


Legalizing hemp isn't something I loose sleep over so I'll have to claim ignorance on its legal history. There certainly is a conspiracy theory concerning DUPONT and HEARST but there are also Hemp advocates that claim BS on this theory. 
Here is a link I found that refutes the whole idea of a corporate conspiracy but sites racism and a cultural war as the true motive.
Debunking the Hemp Conspiracy Theory | Drugs | AlterNet
I won't say your wrong Groove, I don't know that much about hemp history to have an informed opinion but I won't say your right either since even hemp activists say the theory is bogus. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury

MacGuiver, some people simply have a vast experience with drugs, and you should just defer to their intimate knowledge.


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Legalizing hemp isn't something I loose sleep over so I'll have to claim ignorance on its legal history. There certainly is a conspiracy theory concerning DUPONT and HEARST but there are also Hemp advocates that claim BS on this theory.
> Here is a link I found that refutes the whole idea of a corporate conspiracy but sites racism and a cultural war as the true motive.
> Debunking the Hemp Conspiracy Theory | Drugs | AlterNet
> I won't say your wrong Groove, I don't know that much about hemp history to have an informed opinion but I won't say your right either since even hemp activists say the theory is bogus.
> 
> Cheers
> MacGuiver


Well it seems no one has much more proof than what seems quite obvious. Of course it can be debated but it seems clear to me what went down. What is amazing to me is that such nonsense has been allowed to continue costing us massive amounts of tax payers money.


----------



## screature

Excellent Article. Bang On.

A phony class war
Andrew Coyne on why the Occupy Wall Street movement has it wrong
Macleans



> Was there ever a more ersatz political movement than that which purported to “occupy” Canadian cities over the last week? The Occupy Wall Street protest on which it was modelled may betray the same cartoonish understanding of the world, but it at least reflects the genuine despair felt by many people in a country with a number of deep and serious problems: a housing collapse that left millions with homes worth less than their mortgages; a financial sector that, having lent the money to buy these homes to people who couldn’t afford them, then resold the bad loans via opaquely bundled securities to others—then had to be bailed out when the whole house of cards collapsed; high and seemingly intractable levels of unemployment, poverty at a 17-year record, declining social mobility, and a general stalling in income growth. The reasons for these may be debated, but if you lived in the United States, you would have good reason to be ticked.
> 
> By contrast, well, let’s just run down the list, shall we? Canada did not have a housing bubble, hence had no housing collapse, nor the resulting epidemic of mortgage failures. Our banks did not get overextended, did not have to be bailed out, and are lending, again unlike the U.S. banks, at a good clip. Unemployment is not rising in Canada, but has been falling steadily for more than two years: at 7.1 per cent, it is still above its pre-recession lows, but remains lower than at virtually any other time since the 1960s. Ditto for poverty: even when measured against a moving target like Statistics Canada’s low income cut-off, it is just off its 40-year low, at 9.6 per cent, from a peak of 15 per cent in the mid 1990s....





> ...The one and only point on which the Canadian protesters could conceivably share a grievance with their U.S. counterparts is indeed the issue that seemed most to exercise both groups: the runaway growth in incomes in recent decades among those at the very top of the heap, the fabled “one per cent,” otherwise known as the “super-rich.” In Canada, that means anyone earning more than about $170,000 in 2007 (not counting capital gains), versus about $400,000 in the U.S.
> 
> There is no doubt this is occurring, though again the phenomenon is rather less pronounced in Canada than in the U.S. South of the border, the share of all income going to the top one per cent climbed from about 8.5 per cent in 1980 to a peak of 23 per cent in 2007, dropping back to 20 per cent in the recession. Here, the top one per cent’s share rose from eight per cent in 1980 to 14 per cent in 2007, and 11 per cent in 2009—about where it was in 1945...





> The question is what this means. The figures are repeated over and over in tones of escalating indignation, as if it were self-evident what an outrage it is that people should be making so much money—so much more money, that is, than others. But it isn’t self-evident. What exactly is the harm to others if a few people get obscenely rich?
> 
> Aren’t we obliged to ask, at a minimum, how they got the money? If executives of public corporations are taking advantage of lax oversight by boards of directors to feather their own nests, that’s one thing. Similarly, it would be fair to object if they were bailed out, or subsidized, or otherwise enjoyed the undue favour of the state. But if shareholders willingly choose to pay their employees so handsomely out of their own money, what business is it of ours?
> 
> Likewise, before we condemn people for accepting such exorbitant salaries, should we not also inquire as to what they do with the money? Suppose, like Bill Gates, they give most of it away to charity. Or suppose they invest it in companies that make useful products, creating good jobs in the bargain. Does that not put things in rather different a light than if they spent it all on themselves?
> 
> Likewise, before we condemn people for accepting such exorbitant salaries, should we not also inquire as to what they do with the money? Suppose, like Bill Gates, they give most of it away to charity. Or suppose they invest it in companies that make useful products, creating good jobs in the bargain. Does that not put things in rather different a light than if they spent it all on themselves?
> 
> Inequality is a legitimate concern in its own right, of course, quite apart from the costs of government. A society without a middle class, but only rich and poor staring at each other across an unbridgeable divide, is ripe for conflict, among other ills. But that is not in fact what is happening.
> 
> Statisticians looking at these questions typically divide the population up into quintiles—the top 20 per cent, next 20 per cent, and so on. Over the last 30 years, to be sure, the share going to the top quintile has increased: from about 45 per cent in the late 1970s, it rose to about 52 per cent by the end of the last decade, where it has remained. That’s pre-tax income, note: factor in the effects of taxes and transfers, and the growth in the top quintile’s share is tempered, from 41 per cent to 44 per cent. The system has indeed become more redistributive over time. Thirty years ago those in the top quintile earned on average 33 times what the bottom quintile did, before tax—a ratio that has since widened to 44. Yet after taxes and transfers the gap between top and bottom quintiles is about the same now as it was then: a multiple of 9.1, versus 8.3...





> Drill further, as the economist Mike Veall of McMaster University has done, and the results are even more striking. Even among the top one per cent, the lion’s share of the gains are concentrated in the top 0.1 per cent, those earning more than about $620,000. Their share of total income climbed from about two per cent in 1980 to roughly 5.5 per cent, while those below them among the top one per cent saw little increase in their share. Same if you drill into that top 0.1 per cent: the gains go mostly to those in the top 0.01 per cent, those earning more than about $1.8 million. We’re not talking about a broad stratification of society into rich and poor, in other words. We are talking about a few hundred people earning exceptionally high incomes.
> 
> Who are these people? Bankers and chief executives, certainly. But also people at the top end of a good many occupations, from medicine to entertainment to sports: in Canada a number of them would be hockey players. The phenomenon is hardly unique to the U.S., or Canada. The same pattern, of rising income shares at the very top after many decades in which they were stable or falling, has been observed in a great number of developed economies, with vastly different social and economic policies: from Singapore to Spain to Sweden.
> 
> *Why this is happening is not well understood, but one thing it does not appear to be about is “casino capitalism.” To be sure, a rising stock market (when stocks were rising) has fuelled some of the growth in incomes among the very rich. But for the most part what’s driving it, at least in Canada, is increases in salaries. That’s new. In the Canada of 60 or 70 years ago, Veall’s figures show, the richest of the rich derived the bulk of their income from owning capital. Today more than 70 per cent of it comes from salary.*
> 
> A further clue to what might be going on is found in another of Veall’s findings. Salaries among francophone Canadians have not increased nearly as rapidly as among anglophones. Indeed, the escalation in top salaries is most pronounced in the English-speaking countries generally, whose shared language makes for a high degree of mobility between them. Could it be that what is bidding up top salaries is simply the worldwide competition for talent—and that the fiercest competition of all is in the United States, always the magnet for top talent in every field? *Could it be, in other words, that what is behind all this is what we all profess to want: meritocracy?*...





> If inequality is our concern, I suggest we’d do better to look in the other direction. The gap that ought to trouble us is not between the top one per cent and the other 99 per cent, but between the bottom 10 per cent and the rest of us. Whatever harm may be imagined to arise from people being too rich, there is ample research on the harm that comes from being too poor, especially to children: poor, not only as a matter of absolute privation, but of relative inequality.
> 
> Across a wide range of development measures—health, behaviour, math and reading ability, participation in sports and other activities—the evidence shows consistently worse outcomes among children from poor families than others. And part of the reason appears to be a sense of being marginalized from mainstream society, from the ordinary expectations of what life has to offer. *So yes, inequality matters: but inequality relative to the norm, not to the super-rich. What concerns a single mother on welfare isn’t that she can’t afford a yacht. It’s that she can’t send her kids on school field trips, or buy them a basketball, or a hundred other everyday things.*


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> nice cherry pick of the Hedges quote screature.
> 
> he elaborated further to say *financial* corporations create nothing. good of you to leave that part out.
> 
> I recall reading that the 2 biggest industries in the US now are financial & legal. explains why that country has been driven into the ground over the past few decades.


He only recanted when called on it by O'leary so I felt no need to quote his clarification as his original statement speaks volumes about his political mindset.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> I know that a lot of people were making digs at Jobs for not having any known charitable activities... I only saw one article which bothered to say that he might be giving to charities anonymously, but even that isn't the point.
> 
> There is no reason for any person to have an income that is so ridiculously out of proportion with the rest of the population. * Until the poorest are brought up to a dignified minimum, the richest should have their incomes capped or taxed-back.
> *
> My beef, however, doesn't lie with companies like Apple who are sitting on hoards of cash - though that cash should be reinvested productively into the national economy. Capitalism doesn't work well when everyone takes their cut without concern for the health of the wider market.
> 
> Blame for the economic meltdown / instability lies with those financial investment companies, banks, and governments who allow them to play fast and loose with other people's money. International currency speculation, for example, should not just be taxed - it should be banned. Vulture Capitalists (those who buy up third-world nation's debt for pennies and ruthlessly act to collect) should be nailed up and left to actual vultures.
> 
> I do realize the hypocrisy in my fanatical following of a U.S. corporation and its products vis-a-vis my decidedly left-leaning political and economic views. But we have only the tools of the empire with which to fight back, no?


Pure unadulterated rubbish in terms of public policy as it would not even remotely begin to addresses the issues and reasons for poverty. It would amount to a simple minded and feeble attempt to fix a broken leg with a bandage.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Pure unadulterated rubbish in terms of public policy as it would not even remotely begin to addresses the issues and reasons for poverty. It would amount to a simple minded and feeble attempt to fix a broken leg with a bandage.


Exact;y. This is just small-minded, arbitrary punishment designed to make society's unfulfilled feel better about themselves.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> He only recanted when called on it by O'leary so I felt no need to quote his clarification as his original statement speaks volumes about his political mindset.


It was a live interview. People can not go back and countlessly edit what they said to get it perfect like on a forum (as some are known to do).

You cherry picked the quote.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> It was a live interview. People can not go back and countlessly edit what they said to get it perfect like on a forum (as some are known to do).
> 
> You cherry picked the quote.


Call me guilty... his mindset was and is obvious.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> his mindset was and is obvious.


as is yours.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> as is yours.


And yours.


----------



## i-rui

Sure, but i'm not going around cherry picking quotes out of context to back up my own beliefs.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> Sure, but i'm not going around cherry picking quotes out of context to back up my own beliefs.


Get over it...


----------



## i-rui

lol

nothing to get over.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> lol
> 
> nothing to get over.


Exactly.


----------



## SINC

This about sums it all up for me:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube

it completely misses the point. It seems the right wing sheep believe that you must fully remove yourself from society altogether to have any credibility.

Only an idiot would believe such nonsense. Period.


----------



## groovetube

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.




after seeing some of the carefully edited videos presented by ezra levant, someone posted the unedited version. Interesting bit.


----------



## Macfury

Good one, SINC! That will raise the ire of the slope-browed protesters.


----------



## SINC

And furthermore:


----------



## Macfury

That's sticking it to The Man!


----------



## eMacMan

Nope sadly 'tis the man sticking it to them.



> An Iraq war veteran has a fractured skull and brain swelling after allegedly being hit by a police projectile.
> 
> Scott Olsen is in a "critical condition" in Highland hospital in Oakland, a hospital spokesman confirmed.
> 
> Olsen, 24, suffered the head injury during protests in Oakland on Tuesday evening. More than 15 people were arrested after a crowd gathered to demonstrate against the police operation to clear two Occupy Oakland camps in the early hours of Tuesday morning.
> 
> Jay Finneburgh, a photographer who was covering the protest, published pictures of Olsen lying on the ground.
> 
> "This poor guy was right behind me when he was hit in the head with a police projectile. He went down hard and did not get up," Finneburgh wrote.
> 
> Olsen was taken to Highland by fellow protesters.
> 
> The Guardian spoke to people with Olsen at the hospital. Adele Carpenter, who knows Olsen through his involvement with anti-war groups, said she arrived at the hospital at 11pm on Tuesday night.
> 
> Carpenter said she was told by a doctor at the hospital that Olsen had a skull fracture and was in a "serious but stable" condition. She said he had been sedated and was unconscious.
> 
> "I'm just absolutely devastated that someone who did two tours of Iraq and came home safely is now lying in a US hospital because of the domestic police force," Carpenter said.


From this article:
Occupy Oakland: Iraq war veteran in critical condition after police clashes | World news | guardian.co.uk


----------



## SINC

And more here:

PJTV - Three and a Half Days - Bill Whittle


----------



## groovetube

the right is desperate to try and discredit this. Sitting in their armchairs hunting down google links to placate their terror that this could continue.

Make yourself feel better. It's ok


----------



## bryanc

The fact that more and more people are recognizing that the economy is not serving society is very good news indeed.

It is not necessary that the protests against this fact be coherent or that they rally behind one proposed solution at this stage; just establishing the fact that the economy has been perverted to serve a very tiny fraction of society at the expense of everyone else in the public consciousness is a major victory.

What will have to come next is some political will to change it, but the groundswell of public dissatisfaction with the status quo will attract politicians who hope to ride this tide into power.

I'm hopeful that the next several years will see the implementation of some creative approaches to reversing the relationship between our global economic system and the needs of society and our planet.


----------



## Dr.G.

bryanc said:


> The fact that more and more people are recognizing that the economy is not serving society is very good news indeed.
> 
> It is not necessary that the protests against this fact be coherent or that they rally behind one proposed solution at this stage; just establishing the fact that the economy has been perverted to serve a very tiny fraction of society at the expense of everyone else in the public consciousness is a major victory.
> 
> What will have to come next is some political will to change it, but the groundswell of public dissatisfaction with the status quo will attract politicians who hope to ride this tide into power.
> 
> I'm hopeful that the next several years will see the implementation of some creative approaches to reversing the relationship between our global economic system and the needs of society and our planet.


Now this is a reasonable and intelligent posting, bryanc. Kudos on presenting a balanced and realistic point of view. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The fact that more and more people are recognizing that the economy is not serving society is very good news indeed.


The Greeks believe that government is designed to serve them--and they're breaking down into utter chaos. Businesses are not founded to serve you either, unless you're a customer. Your sense of entitlement is alarming.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Your sense of entitlement is alarming.


I certainly don't think the economy exists to serve *me*. But money is a completely abstract concept, invented by humans, to facilitate mutually advantageous interactions between each other. From the implementation of this concept emerged 'the economy.' The economy has served humanity fairly well for the past few millennia, but over the past 50 years or so, it has been co-opted by parasites who have drastically impaired its function. These parasites, as well exemplified by Wall St. stock traders, need to be brought under control, so that the economy can return to its primary function of facilitating human development.


----------



## BigDL

bryanc said:


> The fact that more and more people are recognizing that the economy is not serving society is very good news indeed.
> 
> It is not necessary that the protests against this fact be coherent or that they rally behind one proposed solution at this stage; just establishing the fact that the economy has been perverted to serve a very tiny fraction of society at the expense of everyone else in the public consciousness is a major victory.
> 
> What will have to come next is some political will to change it, but the groundswell of public dissatisfaction with the status quo will attract politicians who hope to ride this tide into power.
> 
> I'm hopeful that the next several years will see the implementation of some creative approaches to reversing the relationship between our global economic system and the needs of society and our planet.


Very keen insights indeed.

This cycle of the accumulation of wealth and the belief of unfettered entitlement to acquire more and more by the fewer and fewer is not a new phenomenon.

This little video should set off a supposed rugged individualist.

As noted here the fat cats feel entitled to their entitlements and buy parties of politicians to supply them with an easy living.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqpFm7zAK90


----------



## groovetube

I think rugged individualists everywhere are panicking because suddenly people have shifted focus from Obama, whom they despise and wish to vilify, to the real villains in this saga.


----------



## Macfury

Mouseland is about the saddest misunderstanding of how the economy works I have ever seen. Even in high school, I was astounded by its naivete.


----------



## groovetube

well I think we can be pretty guaranteed that if you think it's naive, it's likely on the right track.


----------



## Adrian.

groovetube said:


> well I think we can be pretty guaranteed that if you think it's naive, it's likely on the right track.


Agreed.


----------



## Macfury

It is a children's fable, aimed at people who are temperamentally suited to be mice.


----------



## BigDL

*The Pursuit of Gross National Happiness*

Perhaps this Nova Scotian led initiative could be one the goals of the Occupy the Streets Movement: The Pursuit of Gross National Happiness

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CLJwYW6-Ao


----------



## Macfury

No, I don't think so.


----------



## Adrian.

Macfury said:


> It is a children's fable, aimed at people who are temperamentally suited to be mice.


Replace "temperamentally suited" with "cognitively equivalent" and that sounds a lot like the tea party.


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> Replace "temperamentally suited" with "cognitively equivalent" and that sounds a lot like the tea party.


They are not identifying with mice Adrian.--it's the "Progressives" who created that cartoon and tract.


----------



## bryanc

BigDL said:


> Perhaps this Nova Scotian led initiative could be one the goals of the Occupy the Streets Movement: The Pursuit of Gross National Happiness


Wow. That was well worth watching. I was only vaguely aware of the exceptional progress being made in Bhutan. I now really want to go there to see for myself.

I have long been aware, and a strong proponent of, using Genuine Progress Indicators, rather than GDP as a measure of economic success. By these measures, Canada has not been doing very well (although not nearly as badly as the US and many other countries). The fact that GPI so closely mirrors the perceptions of most citizens regarding how their country is doing is good evidence that it is a better and more meaningful measurement of the success of government policy.


----------



## Macfury

Interesting comments on the host YouTube page:


> "Words" are delightful, yet "pics" show people NOT looking particularly joyful. They appear unhealthy (see old man with bad teeth & old woman with beads). People seem unhappy (see child in window ) except Kings, of course. Even dwellings seem dilapidated . I'm bothered by drug empahsis to obtain happiness & penis emphasis indicates women are so NOT valued (an Oriental attitude that devalues females). National happiness is admirable, yet﻿ "words" in lieu of "works" equal cheap substitute.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> No, I don't think so.


Some can't relate to an allegory of the powerful, sponsoring political parties to arrange laws, rules, and regulation to make it easier for the well healed fat cats not to work too hard and "dine out" at the expense and on the misfortunes of the itinerant and working people. 

Some would rail at the very idea that these people form any sort of collective, be it a trade union, guild, credit union or co-operative to fight the power of the well financed rugged individualist and their cronies or toadies.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Some can't relate to an allegory of the powerful, sponsoring political parties to arrange laws, rules, and regulation to make it easier for the well healed fat cats not to work too hard and "dine out" at the expense and on the misfortunes of the itinerant and working people.
> 
> Some would rail at the very idea that these people form any sort of collective, be it a trade union, guild, credit union or co-operative to fight the power of the well financed rugged individualist and their cronies or toadies.


I don't mind weak people forming collectives, provided they are given no special powers as collectives--and that they don't attempt to bully others to join them.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> I don't mind weak people forming collectives, provided they are given no special powers as collectives--and that they don't attempt to bully others to join them.


As long as the Corporations are free to bully the individual and groups alike is it?


----------



## groovetube

Ha ha ha.

Zing!


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> As long as the Corporations are free to bully the individual and groups alike is it?


Yes--provided that corporation receives no special monopolistic powers from the state.


----------



## BigDL

There you have it, no playing monopoly but corporation are free to bully and intimidate individuals and groups.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> I don't mind weak people forming collectives, provided they are given no special powers as collectives--and that they don't attempt to bully others to join them.


Your trolling is priceless! 

It is, if nothing else, entertaining!

_Around and around and around and....._


----------



## Max

Come on now, mrJimmy. MF is being very generous in his attitude toward weak people. He doesn't have to care, you know! And yet, he does. Such is his immense generosity of spirit.


----------



## groovetube

yes you certainly want absolute control over your participation in the human race.

Individualism you know. Why they don't live up in the middle of nowhere in order to rely on anyone or anything is beyond me.


----------



## Dr.G.

Max said:


> Come on now, mrJimmy. MF is being very generous in his attitude toward weak people. He doesn't have to care, you know! And yet, he does. Such is his immense generosity of spirit.


Shame on you, Max. Is Macfury his brother's keeper? Of course not. 

Survival of the fittest and keep a stiff upper lip. That's what made this country strong. Rugged individualism advocates the importance of the individual and the virtue of self-reliance and personal independence.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Come on now, mrJimmy. MF is being very generous in his attitude toward weak people. He doesn't have to care, you know! And yet, he does. Such is his immense generosity of spirit.


This is what I like about you, Max-o-la! You recognize the immensity of my generous spirit.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> This is what I like about you, Max-o-la! You recognize the immensity of my generous spirit.


Witness even greater generosity of spirit!


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> This is what I like about you, Max-o-la! You recognize the immensity of my generous spirit.





Sonal said:


> Witness even greater generosity of spirit!


True, but "to whom much is given much is expected". Remember, Macfury, "heavy is the head that wears the crown." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

well before calling it a night, here's a true gift for the rugged individualist to get real hepped on.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube

guess the rugged individualist(s) didn't like. heh.

Warren Buffet is at it again...



> Warren Buffett, "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all
> sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th
> amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months
> & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in
> 1971...before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to
> the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the
> land...all because of public pressure.
> 
> Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to a minimum of
> twenty people on their address list; in turn ask each of those to do
> likewise.
> In three days, most people in The United States of America will have the
> message. This is one idea that really should be passed around.
> 
> *Congressional Reform Act of 2011*
> 
> 1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office
> and receives no pay when they are out of office.
> 
> 2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All
> funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security
> system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system,
> and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for
> any other purpose.
> 
> 3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans
> do.
> 
> 4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay
> will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
> 
> 5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the
> same health care system as the American people.
> 
> 6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American
> people.
> 
> 7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.
> The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen
> made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor,
> not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours
> should serve their term's), then go home and back to work.
> 
> If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will only take
> three days for most people (in the U.S.) to receive the message. Maybe it is
> time.
> 
> THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!!!!! If you agree with the above, pass it on.


I think this may have worked had this been in place before Bush etc. spent their faces off going to an illegal war for a number of very powerful interests and slashing the rich's taxes on top...


----------



## Sonal

Only part of that is Warren Buffet. Most of that is not.

snopes.com: Warren Buffett on Fixing Congress

A friend of mine dug somewhat deeper, and most of what is proposed here is apparently somewhat needless since it already exists.


----------



## bryanc

groovetube said:


> Warren Buffet is at it again...


The typos and grammatical errors in that make me suspicious that it's not really coming from Warren Buffet.

[edit: beaten to it by Sonal]


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Only part of that is Warren Buffet. Most of that is not.
> 
> A friend of mine dug somewhat deeper, and most of what is proposed here is apparently somewhat needless since it already exists.


Yep. An old saw. And one that is pretty meaningless in that even the 3% idea could mean a grotesque rise in taxes, with no control in spending on anything. The Congresspeople would merely return to their constituents and say they had followed the letter of the law.


----------



## groovetube

Sonal said:


> Only part of that is Warren Buffet. Most of that is not.
> 
> snopes.com: Warren Buffett on Fixing Congress
> 
> A friend of mine dug somewhat deeper, and most of what is proposed here is apparently somewhat needless since it already exists.


I wondered why googling it to find a source wasn't successful.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

Congress _is_ the problem. They are directly responsible for both the housing crisis and the bail-outs. The banks may have been short sighted, but they can't transfer money out of government accounts.


----------



## groovetube

free market baby. Corporations are merely doing what they were designed to do. Maximize their benefits and if that means sending in minions to congress to get their way and benefit business, so be it.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Congress _is_ the problem. They are directly responsible for both the housing crisis and the bail-outs. The banks may have been short sighted, but they can't transfer money out of government accounts.


Keep repeating the same line often enough and long enough it will become true...for you.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Keep repeating the same line often enough and long enough it will become true...for you.


Explain to me how corporations can extract money from the government without their permission. You're missing this part of the equation in your critical thinking.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Explain to me how corporations can extract money from the government without their permission. You're missing this part of the equation in your critical thinking.


what you're missing is that through lobbyists & political donations corporations control government.

the problem isn' the government, the problem is money influencing the government.


----------



## groovetube

macfury said:


> explain to me how corporations can extract money from the government without their permission. You're missing this part of the equation in your critical thinking.


omg.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Congress _is_ the problem. They are directly responsible for both the housing crisis and the bail-outs. The banks may have been short sighted, but they can't transfer money out of government accounts.


I completely agree with MF on this. The problem is ultimately that governments are not behaving responsibly with respect to their constitutional obligations to the citizenry. However, to ignore the historical context which has given rise to a situation where multinational corporations have suborned and effectively taken control of governments is naive.

People can protest governments all they want and it won't change anything because whoever is elected is subject to the same constraints and control by corporations. We therefore need a fundamental change in how governments operate and keep corporations in check (which has become their primary function in society).

OWS may foster some movement in that direction.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> I completely agree with MF on this. The problem is ultimately that governments are not behaving responsibly with respect to their constitutional obligations to the citizenry. However, to ignore the historical context which has given rise to a situation where multinational corporations have suborned and effectively taken control of governments is naive.
> 
> People can protest governments all they want and it won't change anything because whoever is elected is subject to the same constraints and control by corporations. We therefore need a fundamental change in how governments operate and keep corporations in check (which has become their primary function in society).
> 
> OWS may foster some movement in that direction.


This is something that's been said multiple times. But MF simply wears blinders and blames the government. Well, Obama, to be specific.

The problem is, the right, has fought valiantly to make this a freedom vs socialism issue, left vs right. It isn't. It makes no difference who is making up congress or occupies the oval office it seems, and all the tea party's whispering sweet tax cut nothings in the ears of those who pine for the days of 200 years ago, isn't going to do a damn thing other than maintain the control big business has on our government and our money.


----------



## CubaMark

A very interesting bit of U.S. history that I knew nothing about.... *The Bonus Army*. World War I veterans, promised a $1,000 "bonus" for their service by the U.S. government, try to collect that cash at the height of the depression. The result? Something similar to the OccupyWallStreet protests, but in this case the government sent in MacArthur, troops and tanks. :yikes:

Here's a video from The Rachel Maddow Show with film footage of the protest, the crackdown and background (QT Video Link)

*More info:*



> Many of the war veterans had been out of work since the beginning of the Great Depression. The World War Adjusted Compensation Act of 1924 had awarded them bonuses in the form of certificates they could not redeem until 1945. Each service certificate, issued to a qualified veteran soldier, bore a face value equal to the soldier's promised payment plus compound interest. The principal demand of the Bonus Army was the immediate cash payment of their certificates. (Wikipedia)





> Conspicuously led by MacArthur, Army troops (including Major George S. Patton, Jr.) formed infantry cordons and began pushing the veterans out, destroying their makeshift camps as they went. Although no weapons were fired, cavalry advanced with swords drawn, and some blood was shed. By nightfall, hundreds had been injured by gas (including a baby who died), bricks, clubs, bayonets, and sabers. (PBS: American Experience)





> ...the troops were massed on Pennsylvania Ave. below the Capitol. Thousands of Civil Service employees spilled out of work and lined the streets to watch. The veterans, assuming the military display was in their honor, cheered. Suddenly Patton's troopers turned and charged. "Shame, Shame" the spectators cried. Soldiers with fixed bayonets followed, hurling tear gas into the crowd.
> 
> By nightfall the BEF had retreated across the Anacostia River where Hoover ordered MacArthur to stop. Ignoring the command, the general led his infantry to the main camp. By early morning the 10,000 inhabitants were routed and the camp in flames. Two babies died and nearby hospitals overwhelmed with casualties. Eisenhower later wrote, "the whole scene was pitiful. The veterans were ragged, ill-fed, and felt themselves badly abused. To suddenly see the whole encampment going up in flames just added to the pity." (Eyewitness to History)


----------



## Macfury

Remembering that the promises of a bonus were made _after_ WWI, and that it wasn't simply a matter of not paying the veterans--the bonds were issued with a 1945 maturity date simply because the government could not afford to pay out $3 billion all at once. 

I have no idea what this has to do with Occupy Wall Street.


----------



## Adrian.

Macfury said:


> Remembering that the promises of a bonus were made _after_ WWI, and that it wasn't simply a matter of not paying the veterans--the bonds were issued with a 1945 maturity date simply because the government could not afford to pay out $3 billion all at once.
> 
> I have no idea what this has to do with Occupy Wall Street.



But they had the money to pay the defence contractors right? Sounds familiar.


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> But they had the money to pay the defence contractors right? Sounds familiar.


People were not paid for service during WWI. It was considered a patriotic duty. When they decided to pay them retroactively with a decision made in the 1920s, it was through a bond that would come due in 1945. The bond was not being paid late--they demanded it be paid early.


----------



## bryanc

Back on the OWS topic, a friend of mine just forwarded me a link to this, which I found somewhat amusing.


----------



## Macfury

That's pretty feeble. The hand of the market will slap you around even in a Communist state. The danger is in pretending it doesn't exist--that was the beauty of Adam Smith's analysis.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The danger is in pretending [the market] doesn't exist


That's certainly one danger. I think any reasonable person would also agree that pretending the market inherently serves the interests of society is as great a danger. The market serves those with the power to manipulate it, which is currently the 1%. In principle, and historically, the market was also manipulated by governments in the interests of society (e.g. FDR's New Deal). Since the 1980's, "leaders" like Thatcher and Reagan have convinced many that government should "let the market decide" (except for things like massive government military spending, subsidies for oil companies, and other forms of corporate welfare), and we've seen a dramatic regression in the prosperity of our societies by any reasonable measure.

Hence, it seems time for a change in the political tide. I don't think we can ever go back, but the modern political leadership is going to have to shake off corporate control, and regulate the market in ways that support social development (education, health care, environmental protection, etc.).


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> That's certainly one danger. I think any reasonable person would also agree that pretending the market inherently serves the interests of society is as great a danger.


Smith argued it was efficient, not that it deliberately served the interests of society:



> By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.


What one does with the wealth created is a matter of public policy, but in terms of generation of wealth, Smith was correct,


----------



## i-rui

Charts & Graphs :

It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> Charts & Graphs :
> 
> It's the Inequality, Stupid | Mother Jones


This is largely the result of a single problem: other countries can now do the work of poorly educated Americans who charge twice or three times as much for doing it. Once developing nations created such infrastructure as reliable electricity, roads, airports and seaports, they became contenders for these jobs. Although the concentration of some wealth in the upper one per cent is real, what is even more demonstrable is that the ill-educated are no longer able to command jobs that garner high wages in growth industries. For the top 20 per cent of educated American workers with College degrees, there is no demonstrable recession.


----------



## groovetube

apparently macfury doesn't quite grasp the difference between the top 1% and the middle class.

I doubt graphs will illuminate.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> apparently macfury doesn't quite grasp the difference between the top 1% and the middle class.
> 
> I doubt graphs will illuminate.


Seems to me it's protesters themselves who 'don't quite grasp why they are even there'. See if you can last the short 1:23 this runs:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


>


The complexity of the movement--as a whole--_is_ chaos. It's focusless and disorganized... philosophically brain-damaged. Most of its goals are unattainable, and certainly mutually exclusive. 

Nice try, lady.

Love the name of the website: burlapnbeads! "Whoa, man... I'm gettin' a flashback!"


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Seems to me it's protesters themselves who 'don't quite grasp why they are even there'. See if you can last the short 1:23 this runs:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


seems the cameramen who work for networks aren't unlike the ones I know here who are told specifically to find the crazies.

The government and corporate apologists seems exasperated that this thing still has legs. 

It'll be interesting what happens in spring weather when the economy still shows no signs of improving, and more regular joes lose their jobs after all those "job creating" corporate tax cuts.

I read that the budget may take longer to balance so that promise of tax cuts for the regular people when they do can be recycled once again for the next election. Seems the conservatives have taken a page from the liberal playbook. Good to see real change!


----------



## MacGuiver




----------



## groovetube

Guess he didn't say that to one who occupied Iraq.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> This is largely the result of a single problem: other countries can now do the work of poorly educated Americans who charge twice or three times as much for doing it. Once developing nations created such infrastructure as reliable electricity, roads, airports and seaports, they became contenders for these jobs. Although the concentration of some wealth in the upper one per cent is real, what is even more demonstrable is that the ill-educated are no longer able to command jobs that garner high wages in growth industries. For the top 20 per cent of educated American workers with College degrees, there is no demonstrable recession.


I certainly know a few highly educated Americans working well below their educational abilities.

I know of one computer programmer who is currently pulling in $10/hour as a bank teller. Given the $100,000 in student loans she has outstanding, those are poverty wages.

BTW $60,000 of that $100,000 is rob from the poor give to rich "gouge fees". Set her loan at the $40,000 she borrowed and she could repay it.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> This is largely the result of a single problem: other countries can now do the work


That is part of the problem. Another part is that the cost of shipping manufactured goods back to North American markets is artificially subsidized by tax write-offs and externalization of costs. Another part is that a significant fraction of the 'wealth' the financial sector has generated is illusory; making a bundle by purchasing a stock one day and selling it the next does not create any wealth, even if the fluctuations in the market result in the stock trader getting rich. Another part is that most of what is truly valuable is not represented in the economy. And there are many other aspects to this problem.

So, as the OWS protesters have been saying, our economic system is fundamentally broken. It does not serve the society that created it, and it needs to be dramatically changed. What the new economy will look like, and how we get there from here are big problems that need the attention of the brightest minds. And for any of the bright ideas to be implemented, we need our politicians to be aware that this sort of change is what the people of the western democracies want.


----------



## eMacMan

bryanc said:


> That is part of the problem. Another part is that the cost of shipping manufactured goods back to North American markets is artificially subsidized by tax write-offs and externalization of costs. Another part is that a significant fraction of the 'wealth' the financial sector has generated is illusory; making a bundle by purchasing a stock one day and selling it the next does not create any wealth, even if the fluctuations in the market result in the stock trader getting rich. Another part is that most of what is truly valuable is not represented in the economy. And there are many other aspects to this problem.
> 
> So, as the OWS protesters have been saying, our economic system is fundamentally broken. It does not serve the society that created it, and it needs to be dramatically changed. What the new economy will look like, and how we get there from here are big problems that need the attention of the brightest minds. And for any of the bright ideas to be implemented, we need our politicians to be aware that this sort of change is what the people of the western democracies want.


Well put. What the OWS protesters are trying to do is shine a spotlight on the problem. The first step towards fixing a problem is defining it, and that is what the protests are about.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> That is part of the problem. Another part is that the cost of shipping manufactured goods back to North American markets is artificially subsidized by tax write-offs and externalization of costs.


Nonsense. All write-offs are "artificial" by that definition--including those for green energy.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> So, as the OWS protesters have been saying, our economic system is fundamentally broken. It does not serve the society that created it, and it needs to be dramatically changed. What the new economy will look like, and how we get there from here are big problems that need the attention of the brightest minds. And for any of the bright ideas to be implemented, we need our politicians to be aware that this sort of change is what the people of the western democracies want.



The economic system is not fundamentally broken. People of lower skill levels are becoming fundamentally unvalued. The New Economy will look like it would whether or not the protesters sit in tents and text each other.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Nonsense. All write-offs are "artificial" by that definition--including those for green energy.


:clap: Absolutely correct. And, as I've been saying, I can see why we should support nascent, unprofitable (but potentially very profitable), high tech, and environmentally sustainable industries. But why does our government artificially support mature, established, obscenely profitable, and environmentally catastrophic industries with these subsidies?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> People of lower skill levels are becoming fundamentally unvalued.


Tell that to all the un/underemployed Ph.D.s

What has become undervalued is real wealth (health, a clean environment, water, air, wilderness, healthy food & the time to prepare and enjoy it, music, curiosity and the knowledge it leads to, respect, literature, safety, art, creativity, etc.).


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> :clap: Absolutely correct. And, as I've been saying, I can see why we should support nascent, unprofitable (but potentially very profitable), high tech, and environmentally sustainable industries. But why does our government artificially support mature, established, obscenely profitable, and environmentally catastrophic industries with these subsidies?


Businesses artificially support government.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Tell that to all the un/underemployed Ph.D.s
> 
> What has become undervalued is real wealth (health, a clean environment, water, air, wilderness, healthy food & the time to prepare and enjoy it, music, curiosity and the knowledge it leads to, respect, literature, safety, art, creativity, etc.).


These are your responsibility, not society's. What a Lotus Eater!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> These are your responsibility, not society's.


Unfortunately, no amount of effort on my part can prevent you or an unscrupulous business from polluting the air I breathe or water I drink. This is why we have governments, which make laws, and provide enforcement of those laws...


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Unfortunately, no amount of effort on my part can prevent you or an unscrupulous business from polluting the air I breathe or water I drink. This is why we have governments, which make laws, and provide enforcement of those laws...


Referring specifically to:


> healthy food & the time to prepare and enjoy it, music, curiosity and the knowledge it leads to, respect, literature, safety, art, creativity, etc.)


The protection of the commons is a concept a thousand years old.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Tell that to all the un/underemployed Ph.D.s
> 
> What has become undervalued is real wealth (health, a clean environment, water, air, wilderness, healthy food & the time to prepare and enjoy it, music, curiosity and the knowledge it leads to, respect, literature, safety, art, creativity, etc.).


This just isn't something on the radar it seems. Your question about why we shouldn't invest in something potentially very profitable and of course sustainable, when we subsidize heavily already extremely profitable energy, is bang on. It really couldn't get any simpler. I couldn't help but chuckle at the "reach around" response.

Simplistic cartoon, but very true:


----------



## i-rui

interesting (but long) article on economic science :

Economics has met the enemy, and it is economics - The Globe and Mail


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Unfortunately, no amount of effort on my part can prevent you or an unscrupulous business from polluting the air I breathe or water I drink. *This is why we have governments, which make laws, and provide enforcement of those laws*...


Do your really think government is your sole protector...?

I can cite numerous examples where governments have failed to "protect" us regardless of political affiliation or leaning and private concerns have done an equally effective or better job.

Seriously. Your response seems a little naive/ignorant or at least not fully informed.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> interesting (but long) article on economic science :
> 
> Economics has met the enemy, and it is economics - The Globe and Mail


Second time for that link. First time was two weeks ago when it was new. It only speaks to people's inability to understand the market after government policy has significantly altered it.


----------



## Max

screature said:


> Do your really think government is your sole protector...?
> 
> I can cite numerous examples where governments have failed to "protect" us regardless of political affiliation or leaning and private concerns have done an equally effective or better job./QUOTE]
> 
> While I agree Screature, I suspect that many times private concerns have done an equally ineffective or worse job than government.
> 
> The private sector is very capable of blundering and abusing the public trust - it's roughly equal to good old gubbmint that way.


----------



## screature

Max said:


> screature said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do your really think government is your sole protector...?
> 
> I can cite numerous examples where governments have failed to "protect" us regardless of political affiliation or leaning and private concerns have done an equally effective or better job./QUOTE]
> 
> While I agree Screature, *I suspect that many times private concerns have done an equally ineffective or worse job than government.
> 
> The private sector is very capable of blundering and abusing the public trust - it's roughly equal to good old gubbmint that way.*
> 
> 
> 
> On that front we are in total agreement...
> 
> Public or private, neither are a panacea, as some on either side of the fence would try and portray. Both can be capable or incapable as humans are involved in either scenario and thus both are fallible...
> 
> That is the only point I am trying to make.
Click to expand...


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Second time for that link. First time was two weeks ago when it was new. It only speaks to people's inability to understand the market after government policy has significantly altered it.


it speaks to people's inability to understand the market *period*. 

The point of the article is that economics isn't some math formula that is gospel.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Do your really think government is your sole protector...?


Of course not. Ideally, people behave reasonably and rationally, and no protection is needed. The enlightened self-interest of others is the best protection, but it is not always adequate. The more people there are (welcome to a world with > 7 billion, BTW), the more freedoms we will all have to give up in order to minimize our impact on each other.

Governments are only one of many types of protection, and they're not very good at dealing with many types of problems. However the systematic abuse of the commons by corporations is one problem for which government regulation seems to be the only solution we have found.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> it speaks to people's inability to understand the market *period*.
> 
> The point of the article is that economics isn't some math formula that is gospel.


Agreed that it is not some math formula.


----------



## groovetube

Max said:


> screature said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do your really think government is your sole protector...?
> 
> I can cite numerous examples where governments have failed to "protect" us regardless of political affiliation or leaning and private concerns have done an equally effective or better job./QUOTE]
> 
> While I agree Screature, I suspect that many times private concerns have done an equally ineffective or worse job than government.
> 
> The private sector is very capable of blundering and abusing the public trust - it's roughly equal to good old gubbmint that way.
> 
> 
> 
> That would be the understatement. While there are plenty of examples of the 'gubbmint' not doing such a good job of things, it seems to me the the nasty -private interests" is what what screws things up just about every time even in government.
Click to expand...


----------



## Adrian.

Hey MF,

Do you like Smith? Does he wet your whistle?


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> Hey MF,
> 
> Do you like Smith?


Smith was instrumental in bringing about a more thorough study of economics. I enjoy reading him, but also philosophers such as Claude Frédéric Bastiat.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Of course not. Ideally, people behave reasonably and rationally, and no protection is needed. *The enlightened self-interest of others is the best protection, but it is not always adequate. * The more people there are (welcome to a world with > 7 billion, BTW), the more freedoms we will all have to give up in order to minimize our impact on each other.
> 
> Governments are only one of many types of protection, and they're not very good at dealing with many types of problems. However the systematic abuse of the commons by corporations* is one problem for which government regulation seems to be the only solution we have found.*


You do realise the pomposity of this statement? What is and who decides what constitutes "enlightened" self-interest. Time and again you seem to want to posit some degree of the notion that we would all be better off with philosopher kings running the world.

Solution? Hardly. At best government regulations enforce what are often coercive band-aids, governments rarely if ever, provide solutions for anything.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> he more people there are (welcome to a world with > 7 billion, BTW), the more freedoms we will all have to give up in order to minimize our impact on each other.


Nope. The more people there are, the more it will be realized that trying to intimately regulate each of their lives will be impossible. It isn't even desirable.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Nope. The more people there are, the more it will be realized that trying to intimately regulate each of their lives will be impossible. It isn't even desirable.


Except when it's in the best interest of powerful interests. Then regulating things is desirable. It's also commonly referred to as the 'public good'.

That's the reality.


----------



## Adrian.

Macfury said:


> Smith was instrumental in bringing about a more thorough study of economics. I enjoy reading him, but also philosophers such as Claude Frédéric Bastiat.


Yes, the french.

Have you read LeBlanc?


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

That's nonsense. Never liked FDR. Fascism can only occur when government grows stronger than the private sector.


----------



## groovetube

Government stronger than the private sector?

You still don't get it do you.


----------



## Max

Fascism can occur when:

the private sector buys the government and the people are stupid enough to buy _that._


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Fascism can occur when:
> 
> the private sector buys the government and the people are stupid enough to buy _that._


Italy? Germany?


----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


>


:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Very true, which is why I fear the Koch brothers and their strong support of elements within the Tea Party.


----------



## Macfury

I hate to resort to Wikipedia folks, but:



> Fascists advocate: a state-directed, regulated economy that is dedicated to the nation; the use and primacy of regulated private property and private enterprise contingent upon service to the nation or state; the use of state enterprise where private enterprise is failing or is inefficient. They are hostile to finance capitalism, plutocracy, the "power of money", and internationalist economics.


Which capitalistic business elements are pushing for a state-directed economy in which capitalism is shat upon and they are directed to produce goods on behalf of the state, again?


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> I hate to resort to Wikipedia folks, but:
> 
> 
> 
> Which capitalistic business elements are pushing for a state-directed economy in which capitalism is shat upon and they are directed to produce goods on behalf of the state, again?


I'll take China for $500 Alex!


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I'll take China for $500 Alex!


No, China is creating the businesses under government control, not the reverse.


----------



## Max

I know you always want to give the private sector a free pass, and regardless of your moment of Wiki-weakness, the fact remains that private sector can still unduly influence government and mess it up in all manner of ways. The government is not magically immune to the wanton predations of private businesses and their tycoon minders.


----------



## eMacMan

Roughly $10,000,000/ day is spent lobbying Congress. The Mega Corps would not spend that sort of cash and expect nothing in return.

You can be pretty sure that; as with the $Trillion$ spent on the Great Bankster Heist, none of the results of that lobbying are in any way beneficial to the taxpaying citizens of the US.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> I know you always want to give the private sector a free pass, and regardless of your moment of Wiki-weakness, the fact remains that private sector can still unduly influence government and mess it up in all manner of ways. The government is not magically immune to the wanton predations of private businesses and their tycoon minders.


The government is not magically immune. That's why the government should not be given too much power IMHO. Many of the very most powerful corporations were given their monopolies and oligopolies through government fiat.

However, there is a difference between powerful corporations influencing government and Fascism--the original premise I'm addressing.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> I hate to resort to Wikipedia folks, but:
> 
> 
> 
> Which capitalistic business elements are pushing for a state-directed economy in which capitalism is shat upon and they are directed to produce goods on behalf of the state, again?


Ok Alex how's about Venezuela for $2000.


----------



## BigDL

Of course the a rugged individualist takes the cafeteria approach to a discussion of fascists. Take what you want and leave the rest.

Many of us have ideas of fascists and many of us would be wrong in our ideas. Fascism is not a single concept or idea. Fascism and fascists seem to be really on a spectrum. A person can call 'em as they see 'em... well except for the few who will claim they have definitive word on the matter.

With no trepidation I looked at Wikipedia and found this definition:



Wikipedia Article "Fascism" said:


> Historians, political scientists and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism.[31] Each form of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions too wide or narrow.[32][33] Since the 1990s, scholars including Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell, Roger Griffin and Robert O. Paxton have been gathering a rough consensus on the ideology's core tenets.
> For Griffin, fascism is "a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism" built on a complex range of theoretical and cultural influences. He distinguishes an inter-war period in which it manifested itself in elite-led but populist "armed party" politics opposing socialism and liberalism and promising radical politics to rescue the nation from decadence.[34]
> Paxton sees fascism as "a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."[35]
> One common definition of fascism focuses on three groups of ideas: the Fascist Negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism; nationalist, authoritarian goals for the creation of a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; a political aesthetic using romantic symbolism, mass mobilisation, a positive view of violence, promotion of masculinity and youth and charismatic leadership.[36][37][38]


The article is here for your reading pleasure


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Ok Alex how's about Venezuela for $2000.


No. The government is far more powerful than industry and continues to nationalize industries against the will of the industries themselves. This is a form of socialism but not what FDR is describing.


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> The government is not magically immune. That's why the government should not be given too much power IMHO. Many of the very most powerful corporations were given their monopolies and oligopolies through government fiat.


But without the presence of strong government, powerful corporations themselves accrue too much power for the good of the citizenry. Without checks and balances provided by government oversight, corporate titans themselves can resemble de facto a government entity.

Again, I don't buy into the notion that laissez-faire attitudes toward the private sector benefits society. Private corporate entities offer no intrinsic panacea - they are no more noble nor moral than government entities.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> But without the presence of strong government, powerful corporations themselves accrue too much power for the good of the citizenry. Without checks and balances provided by government oversight, corporate titans themselves can resemble de facto a government entity.
> 
> Again, I don't buy into the notion that laissez-faire attitudes toward the private sector benefits society. Private corporate entities offer no intrinsic panacea - they are no more noble nor moral than government entities.


Which are the most powerful corporations created without the assistance of government?


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> No. The government is far more powerful than industry and continues to nationalize industries against the will of the industries themselves. This is a form of socialism but not what FDR is describing.


Yes but the National Socialist Party in Germany, before the first half of last century, were socialists but not as FDR was describing also.

So what is the point of the reply.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Yes but the National Socialist Party in Germany, before the first half of last century, were socialists but not as FDR was describing also.
> 
> So what is the point of the reply.



FDR says that Fascism occurs when the private sector is stronger than government. In all of these cases, government was stronger than the private sector.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Which are the most powerful corporations created without the assistance of government?


Silly redundant question. Corporation could not exist with the legislation of governments that allowed them to be recognised in law.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Silly redundant question. Corporation could not exist with the legislation of governments that allowed them to be recognised in law.


Then that ends the argument, right? If government created corporations, then the problem started with government.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> FDR says that Fascism occurs when the private sector is stronger than government. In all of these cases, government was stronger than the private sector.


As I stated earlier fascism is on a spectrum and one guy's view is as good as another guy's view. It how much weight a person wants to attach to views that matters to an individual.

So I gather Macfury is duly impressed with FDR.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> As I stated earlier fascism is on a spectrum and one guy's view is as good as another guy's view. It how much weight a person wants to attach to views that matters to an individual.
> 
> So I gather Macfury is duly impressed with FDR.



Unimpressed. In all of these cases, the Fascism was the result of a government with too much power--not a private sector with too much power.


----------



## groovetube

since both the private sector, and government are populated by the same sort of species, it seems a lose lose in either case.

doesn't it.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Then that ends the argument, right? If government created corporations, then the problem started with government.


No! Governments didn't create corporations. Nice twist though.

We gott'a think. Now why would governments come up with the concept of a corporation? Maybe a better question should be asked though. 

Did governments come up with the concept of the corporation or did private interests insist on the concept of corporations in a "quid pro quo" scheme for public works?


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> No! Governments didn't create corporations. Nice twist though.
> 
> We gott'a think. Now why would governments come up with the concept of a corporation? Maybe a better question should be asked though.
> 
> Did governments come up with the concept of the corporation or did private interests insist on the concept of corporations in a "quid pro quo" scheme for public works?


Backtrack from:



BigDL said:


> Silly redundant question. Corporation could not exist with the legislation of governments that allowed them to be recognised in law.


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> Which are the most powerful corporations created without the assistance of government?


I don't know, since we have both government and corporations. It's not _either/or_. Both entities are entirely capable of malfeasance as well as acts beneficial to society. Nor are the two easily separable; many a corporate lawyer has gone into politics, and many politicos find new employment in various corporate bodies, for instance. Lots of interplay, overlap and influence there. A symbiotic relationship.

In my view, a corporation is as trustworthy as the church. Or the gubbmint!


----------



## groovetube

Max I think I've hinted at this oh so very obvious thing. I don't know if being a rugged individualist makes you immune to such blasphemy, but there must be an explanation for such a miscalculation. Surely.

Interesting tidbit in the news. Fed-up clients ditch banks for 'Transfer Day' - World - CBC News

It seems, the regular folk, have found a away to truly voice opinions, perhaps a little effectively than protesting downtown in OWS. Now the media has done a bang up job miscounting the numbers at these OWS protests, capitalizing on the "bonehead factor" by singling out the stragglers who apparently speak for the other hundreds of thousands around them in these protests. But 4 and half billion yanked out of one bank, well, if this begins something larger, that'll be tougher to ignore and pass off as a handful of nose pierced squatters in some park.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> Max I think I've hinted at this oh so very obvious thing. I don't know if being a rugged individualist makes you immune to such blasphemy, but there must be an explanation for such a miscalculation. Surely.
> 
> Interesting tidbit in the news. Fed-up clients ditch banks for 'Transfer Day' - World - CBC News
> 
> It seems, the regular folk, have found a away to truly voice opinions, perhaps a little effectively than protesting downtown in OWS. Now the media has done a bang up job miscounting the numbers at these OWS protests, capitalizing on the "bonehead factor" by singling out the stragglers who apparently speak for the other hundreds of thousands around them in these protests. But 4 and half billion yanked out of one bank, well, if this begins something larger, that'll be tougher to ignore and pass off as a handful of nose pierced squatters in some park.


Did that quite a while ago. Never looked back. One small credit union with about 30,000 members has had about 1000 new members sign up in the past month.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Backtrack from:


...a difference between an addict and an enabler...


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> Max I think I've hinted at this oh so very obvious thing. I don't know if being a rugged individualist makes you immune to such blasphemy, but there must be an explanation for such a miscalculation. Surely.
> 
> Interesting tidbit in the news. Fed-up clients ditch banks for 'Transfer Day' - World - CBC News
> 
> It seems, the regular folk, have found a away to truly voice opinions, perhaps a little effectively than protesting downtown in OWS. Now the media has done a bang up job miscounting the numbers at these OWS protests, capitalizing on the "bonehead factor" by singling out the stragglers who apparently speak for the other hundreds of thousands around them in these protests. But 4 and half billion yanked out of one bank, well, if this begins something larger, that'll be tougher to ignore and pass off as a handful of nose pierced squatters in some park.


I started "buying" Credit Union saving stamps as a boy in grade one.

Have been a member of my Credit Union and my CO-Op since moving to Moncton in 1983.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> I don't know, since we have both government and corporations. It's not _either/or_. Both entities are entirely capable of malfeasance as well as acts beneficial to society. Nor are the two easily separable; many a corporate lawyer has gone into politics, and many politicos find new employment in various corporate bodies, for instance. Lots of interplay, overlap and influence there. A symbiotic relationship.
> 
> In my view, a corporation is as trustworthy as the church. Or the gubbmint!


Translation: You don't know.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I started "buying" Credit Union saving stamps as a boy in grade one.
> 
> Have been a member of my Credit Union and my CO-Op since moving to Moncton in 1983.


Who'd be dopey enough to deal with a bank when a Credit Union offers a better deal? I'm shocked it took the Occupiers this long to figure it out.


----------



## groovetube

priceless.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> Who'd be dopey enough to deal with a bank when a Credit Union offers a better deal? I'm shocked it took the Occupiers this long to figure it out.


Let's see the lamestream media now admits that there may be as many as 1000 people involved with various occupations nationwide. 650,000 of them have moved their accounts to credit unions. Lord your math is weak. This goes way beyond just the occupiers.


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> Translation: You don't know.



Get your translator fixed, bud. It's on the fritz and you're sounding fracked.


----------



## Macfury

Not much of a translation:



Max said:


> I don't know...


----------



## Max

You still aren't speaking to whether or not you really think private interests are unassailable, or even whether they are even remotely better than government on the record of avoiding epic mismanagement, misappropriation of funds, graft, publicity gaffes, arrogance or even sheer stupidity. Let me know when your noggin has processed that and spat out another pseudo-answer, O smasheroo.


----------



## Macfury

Simply put, it doesn't matter if private sector interests waste money. I can avoid those companies if I choose. When government fails it draw me into its failure--so it's a far more serious matter.


----------



## Max

Yet government fails constantly. How do you even sleep at night?

You say you can avoid any companies if you choose. You can also choose to avoid government - that is, ignore its strictures, pay no taxes, go underground. Isn't that the true libertarian way?

You _always_ have a choice. It's a question of how much you're willing to sacrifice in order to live your philosophy.


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Yet government fails constantly. How do you even sleep at night?
> 
> You say you can avoid any companies if you choose. You can also choose to avoid government - that is, ignore its strictures, pay no taxes, go underground. Isn't that the true libertarian way?
> 
> You _always_ have a choice. It's a question of how much you're willing to sacrifice in order to live your philosophy.


I'm not arrested and jailed for failing to buy a GM vehicle. Suggesting the choices have equal heft is weak sauce indeed. 

However, your question was not whether I was willing to be jailed. It was which I considered worse, public or private mismanagement.

I don't suppose there is only on Libertarian way. Mine is to slowly work toward dismantling big government and to ensure people understand my views.


----------



## Max

Actually, all you can do is ensure that you state your views as often as you wish. You can't ensure that people grok them. You can always hope that a few will be on side - in spirit if not in agreement with all the particulars. The rest of the people will dismiss you, just as you are won't to dismiss them. Such is life.

As for your slightly more ambitious goal of dismantling big government, good luck with that. I hope you live a long life; you'll need it for the big job you've set out for yourself.

I must admit that the more I hear of so-called libertarianism, the less I understand it and the more enigmatic yet strangely doctrinaire it gets. I am starting to think of it as a cult - complete with an approved set of incantations and fables.

What do I have in my own world view to balance that out, to put up in relief against the stark faith that one's ideology is best? Nothing crystal-clear, no great overriding structure to of principles and concepts to hang my hat on.

Oh well.


----------



## Macfury

I don't suspect that some people can ever understand my views, but many do. I'm happy with that. Many people have dependence built into their DNA. Who can convince them that freedom is better? 

I'm quite happy with the role I've played in undermining various government initiatives. I never expected to undo all the damage in a single lifetime.

Libertarianism has no cult and no fables. Just a sense of right and wrong. Just be happy that part of the belief system involves an unwillingness to impose those beliefs on others.



Max said:


> Actually, all you can do is ensure that you state your views as often as you wish. You can't ensure that people grok them. You can always hope that a few will be on side - in spirit if not in agreement with all the particulars. The rest of the people will dismiss you, just as you are won't to dismiss them. Such is life.
> 
> As for your slightly more ambitious goal of dismantling big government, good luck with that. I hope you live a long life; you'll need it for the big job you've set out for yourself.
> 
> I must admit that the more I hear of so-called libertarianism, the less I understand it and the more enigmatic yet strangely doctrinaire it gets. I am starting to think of it as a cult - complete with an approved set of incantations and fables.
> 
> What do I have in my own world view to balance that out, to put up in relief against the stark faith that one's ideology is best? Nothing crystal-clear, no great overriding structure to of principles and concepts to hang my hat on.
> 
> Oh well.


----------



## Max

Bully for you that you imagine you could even impose your beliefs on me. In my world, that assumption implies delusional thinking. You could always _try_ to impose your beliefs, I suppose - in fact, in these very threads you do just that. But at the end of the day we walk away separate, different, with different ideas of both what the world is and what it should be.

And were you to actually attempt to forcibly convert me and anyone else who doesn't have your idea of proper DNA - well, I'd be resisting with everything I have. I doubt we'll get that far anyway. But you never know. History is full of strange developments. One day you're trying to have a conversation, the next you're trying to ram a bayonet through a stranger's guts.

So libertarianism has a sense of right and wrong? Fine. So does pretty much every stream of political and philosophical thought. Not good enough. Hey, it _sounds _good - on an utterly superficial level. A feel-good moment for the converted to nod their heads and smile or murmur their agreeable assent.

Lastly, this nonsense about many people having dependence built into their DNA: that's more of that fabled cultish stuff I'm talking about. It's very simplistic and arrogant. But hey - you're free to come off that way! Next you'll be claiming that the shapes of people's heads determine what kind of moral character they have.

I'm done here for now, smasher. Time to hit the hay and curl up with a book.


----------



## Macfury

Enjoy your muzzy worldview, Maxie!

The DNA part was figurative. But seriously, once people become dependent, it's pretty hard to get them off that track. Once you start worshiping Vol, you tend to stay on that path forever.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> once people become dependent, it's pretty hard to get them off that track. *Once you start worshiping Vol*, you tend to stay on that path forever.


Or once you start worshipping, say, Libertarianism...



> Mine is to slowly work toward dismantling big government and to ensure people *understand* my views.





> Just be happy that part of the belief system involves an unwillingness to *impose* those beliefs on others.


There is a fine line between _'understand' _and _'impose'_ Mr. Jones.

If you really were unwilling to impose your ideology you wouldn't be 'dismantling' anything. Let the common people (which you have expressed such disdain for) continue in their worship and you go and forge new ground with like minded people in a compound somewhere.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Or once you start worshipping, say, Libertarianism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a fine line between _'understand' _and _'impose'_ Mr. Jones.
> 
> If you really were unwilling to impose your ideology you wouldn't be 'dismantling' anything. Let the common people (which you have expressed such disdain for) continue in their worship and you go and forge new ground with like minded people in a compound somewhere.


This is the way it's done in a democracy. The statists and dependents try to petition government to build ever more cumbersome security blankets, while I petition them to remove those blankets and shred them up. However, that crew is free to continue pooling its OWN resources to mend that blanket.

I have no disdain for common people. I'm one myself. Equating that group with the dependent class is wrong headed.


----------



## groovetube

ah there we have it. "the dependant class". mrjimmy you were spot on in your pointing out the true disdain for the common people, as that line truly highlights.

DOes anyone find it hilarious that such a 'champion of freedom' chooses to support political parties with the worst track records of -infringing- on our freedoms?


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> This is the way it's done in a democracy. The statists and dependents try to petition government to build ever more cumbersome security blankets, while I petition them to remove those blankets and shred them up. However, that crew is free to continue pooling its OWN resources to mend that blanket.
> 
> I have no disdain for common people. I'm one myself. Equating that group with the dependent class is wrong headed.


What of the culture of defeat? The dependent class do these folks have a culture of defeat?


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> What of the culture of defeat? The dependent class do these folks have a culture of defeat?


A culture of dependence. However, many of them no longer recognize the strength and resilience inside of them.


----------



## BigDL

groovetube said:


> ah there we have it. "the dependant class". mrjimmy you were spot on in your pointing out the true disdain for the common people, as that line truly highlights.
> 
> DOes anyone find it hilarious that such a 'champion of freedom' chooses to support political parties with the worst track records of -infringing- on our freedoms?


I find it funny that someone would think a group would always inhibit the individual.

What is a corporation if not a group? What is a CEO of a corporation if not a group leader? Why aren't CEO's on the list of usual suspects as dependants of groups?


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> I find it funny that someone would think a group would always inhibit the individual.
> 
> What is a corporation if not a group? What is a CEO of a corporation if not a group leader? Why aren't CEO's on the list of usual suspects as dependants of groups?


funnier still he steps on the pompous soapbox exhorting those weak poor weak minded souls that they need to "recognize the strength and resilience inside of them", and after all the protests against the rich and powerful and recent actions like pulling 4.5 billion out of a major bank in protest, who is the number one individual waving their dismissive hand?

yep.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I find it funny that someone would think a group would always inhibit the individual.
> 
> What is a corporation if not a group? What is a CEO of a corporation if not a group leader? Why aren't CEO's on the list of usual suspects as dependants of groups?


A group is unlikely to inhibit the individual if the association is voluntary and if the association does not merely offer a dependent relationship at its core. For example, forming a group in which the group agrees to collectively finance the leisure activities of any members would likely be a negative experience for that group as membership swells on the leisure side.


----------



## BigDL

The one get to assign all motivation to the group. 

No one must be a member of any group in this country, that I know of, save and except being Canadian when one is a citizen.


----------



## mrjimmy

groovetube said:


> ah there we have it. "the dependant class". mrjimmy you were spot on in your pointing out the true disdain for the common people, as that line truly highlights.
> 
> DOes anyone find it hilarious that such a 'champion of freedom' chooses to support political parties with the worst track records of -infringing- on our freedoms?


I enjoy the vague distinction attempting to be made between common and dependent. As though 'common' somehow represents like minded worshipers of _Lib_ and dependent, well you know, anyone who disagrees with him.

MF, until you set up shop in that compound or cave, your are as dependent as the rest us sad sacks, liberally taking advantage of as much healthcare and highways as you can lay your little hands on.

The fear of being average must be great in you as witnessed by your posts. Drink the Kool Aid, you'll be better. Or is it you who's pouring?


----------



## Max

Macfury said:


> Enjoy your muzzy worldview, Maxie!
> 
> The DNA part was figurative. But seriously, once people become dependent, it's pretty hard to get them off that track. Once you start worshiping Vol, you tend to stay on that path forever.


Good morning, smash.

If worldview is "muzzy," it follows that yours is bleak, unidimensional. Like I'm reading an abandoned Ayn Rand novel, with its unrelenting reel of heroes and villains, with regular folks nowhere to be seen. And your self-directed task on figuring out who you can mechanically slot into either the "dependent" or "independent" category is itself a dependency. What do you do about _that,_ I wonder?

Vol be damned. I've concluded you're an impossible idealist, a romantic. A lofty loner's gig. But there's a psychology behind it - a good reason for why you are who you are, with your glossy assumed identity and lofty proclaimed tasks... a certain set of conditions you'd been incubated within. Something that happened a long time ago, or perhaps even something which failed to happen. Am I close?

Sure, you're going to dissemble and dodge and offer us more encomiums on what your theoretical libertarian would do. Dazzle us with your word shield - we'll never get past it. _Safe again!_

Oh yeah. We were supposed to be talking about Wall St. protestors. I should excuse myself at this point.


----------



## groovetube

a group that collectively finances the leisure activities of others? Hmmm. This sounds remarkably similar to the recent corporate tax cuts.

edit: anyone see CNN's big headline today regarding Rick Perry's "mission from God"?
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/...ney-culminates-in-presidential-run/?hpt=hp_c1

Wow. I'm sure rights and freedoms are at the top of his list...


----------



## groovetube

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






"who needs the government, when you have jesus".


----------



## SINC

Occupy Vancouver death dooms protest camp


----------



## Macfury

Max said:


> Good morning, smash.
> 
> If worldview is "muzzy," it follows that yours is bleak, unidimensional. Like I'm reading an abandoned Ayn Rand novel, with its unrelenting reel of heroes and villains, with regular folks nowhere to be seen. And your self-directed task on figuring out who you can mechanically slot into either the "dependent" or "independent" category is itself a dependency. What do you do about _that,_ I wonder?


Ayn Rand is an Objectivist. What does her novel have to do with me?



Max said:


> Vol be damned. I've concluded you're an impossible idealist, a romantic. A lofty loner's gig. But there's a psychology behind it - a good reason for why you are who you are, with your glossy assumed identity and lofty proclaimed tasks... a certain set of conditions you'd been incubated within. Something that happened a long time ago, or perhaps even something which failed to happen. Am I close?


Not an idealist because my expectations are not high. Started off as muzzy as everyone else and then watched colossal failure after progressive failure to change my mind.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Occupy Vancouver death dooms protest camp


looks like the mayor has a good excuse to look good as a result of an apparent drug overdose.

Can you imagine, a drug overdose occurring in downtown Vancouver?


----------



## i-rui

i heard someone drove home intoxicated from a bar last night.

better shut down every establishment that serves alcohol.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






Definitely relevant to some of the discussion in this thread of late. The Citizen's United case in the US which legitimized unchecked corporate influence and money in elections and the warped idea of "corporate personhood" there is starting to receive some attention. There is a proposed constitutional amendment that would end this.

It's easy for the right to blame government, but when corporations and the wealthy can purchase the government they want and restrict access to political participation by denying the needed massive funding required to play, how is this the fault of government? Other than the fault of individual politicians to not stand up to money. The rules need to be made crystal clear.


----------



## i-rui

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


:clap::clap::clap:


----------



## groovetube

the push for blaming the government is for the sheeple. It sure became popular amongst the far right once Obama took office.


----------



## Macfury

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Definitely relevant to some of the discussion in this thread of late. The Citizen's United case in the US which legitimized unchecked corporate influence and money in elections and the warped idea of "corporate personhood" there is starting to receive some attention. There is a proposed constitutional amendment that would end this.


Thanks for showing me the left's version of FOX News! If the corporate spending is anonymous, how does RT know how to quantify it in a graph? The guy's not worried so much about corporations spending money, as he is that "Republicans win big."

This notion of "corporate personhood" is a sweet image to hang complaints on. However, the Supreme Court in the U.S. made no such decision regarding personhood when it moved to allow corporations to spend money on politically-motivated campaigns. It struck down the part of McCain-Feingold that allowed Congress to suppress the printing of books and airing of programs containing any opinion on an upcoming election. Tis is the result of the very specific case that the Supreme Court was asked to rule on.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's easy for the right to blame government, but when corporations and the wealthy can purchase the government they want and restrict access to political participation by denying the needed massive funding required to play, how is this the fault of government? Other than the fault of individual politicians to not stand up to money. The rules need to be made crystal clear.


The corporations don't restrict access to "massive funding required to play." Funding is available to federal candidates through the Federal Election Commission system:

Public Funding of Presidential Elections Brochure

But look at the massive number of small anonymous donations that funded the Obama machine in 2008, many of them from overseas. It's easy to work around any rules when it's politically expedient.

However, if governments could buy elections through corporate donations, certainly the Republicans would not have allowed Obama to take the White House in 2008. Surely Obama would not have allowed the Republicans to take the House of Representatives in 2010?

In the same breath you express concern both that corporations are influencing elections, and that politicians are taking bribes. These are not the same issue.

It has always been illegal for politicians to take bribes. If you believe that corporations should have no say in elections, as the "collective" interest of its members, then why?


----------



## groovetube

It's hard to fathom that anyone would be so light headed as to actually believe that corporations exist the serve the collective interest of it's members. And further, to actually believe that governments should truly take a hands off approach and throw away regulation, believing that since corporations must serve this collective interest, that all will be well, the real enemy, is government.

I think people need to understand the difference between what is good for a corporation, and what is for human beings in general. It seems that this distinction, is something the rugged individualists can't seem to figure out.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Fascism can only occur when government grows stronger than the private sector.





Benito Mussolini said:


> Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.





Macfury said:


> I don't suspect that some people can ever understand my views, but many do. I'm happy with that. Many people have dependence built into their DNA.


As a species, our ability to depend on each other is our primary evolutionary innovation. We are a social species, and it is through this that we have gained power over our environment. No human is independent of other humans, wether they would choose to be or not.


----------



## groovetube

you're not suggesting that human's are naturally (GASP!) socialists???


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> As a species, our ability to depend on each other is our primary evolutionary innovation. We are a social species, and it is through this that we have gained power over our environment. No human is independent of other humans, wether they would choose to be or not.


Our ability to work independently is our primary innovation--even coyotes and jackals work together.

Regarding the Mussolini quote, we were discussing FDR's notion of fascism--that was the issue under discussion.

However, Mussolini was referring specifically to the doctrine of _corporatism_, not corporations:

"When brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State."

This would transform the country into a form of socialism in which workers and owner bring their concerns to the state so the state can more accurately recognize their needs. Sort of the system that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are hankering for.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Our ability to work independently is our primary innovation--even coyotes and jackals work together.


On the contrary, all species are capable of working independently. Coyotes, jackals, lions, orca whales, etc. and other highly-advanced social species are unusual in their ability to work together. **** sapiens is on the extreme end of this spectrum, and is an organism that is essentially helpless as an individual, but unarguably the most powerful species on earth when working collaboratively.



> This would transform the country into a form of socialism in which workers and owner bring their concerns to the state so the state can more accurately recognize their needs. Sort of the system that the Occupy Wall Street protesters are hankering for.


I don't think any reasonable person could object to a system in which the state protects the interests of its citizens while facilitating the profitability of corporations (within the constraints of sustainability). Both FDR and Mussolini clearly understood that fascism represented the combination of corporate and state interests, at the expense of the citizens.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> On the contrary, all species are capable of working independently. Coyotes, jackals, lions, orca whales, etc. and other highly-advanced social species are unusual in their ability to work together. **** sapiens is on the extreme end of this spectrum, and is an organism that is essentially helpless as an individual, but unarguably the most powerful species on earth when working collaboratively.


I find this rather hard to believe bryanc, it's not at all unusual. I submit that most animals work as collaboratively as we humans. Consider flocks of birds, herds of animals, pods of whales, packs of wolves, etc. Most animals including insects (ants, termites, bees, etc.) live in a social structures of some kind and exhibit teamwork as part of their very lifestyles. Almost all of this is of course a part of a survival instinct, such as massive herds providing protection for wildebeests/zebras etc..


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I don't think any reasonable person could object to a system in which the state protects the interests of its citizens while facilitating the profitability of corporations (within the constraints of sustainability).


Welcome to 1937 Italy!



bryanc said:


> Both FDR and Mussolini clearly understood that fascism represented the combination of corporate and state interests, at the expense of the citizens.


That wasn't the issue. the question was whether fascism occurs when business is stronger than government or government stronger than business. Mussolini again showed that government needed to be stronger than business to bring about this sad state of affairs.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> I find this rather hard to believe bryanc, it's not at all unusual. I submit that most animals work as collaboratively as we humans. Consider flocks of birds, herds of animals, pods of whales, packs of wolves, etc. Most animals including insects (ants, termites, bees, etc.) live in a social structures of some kind and exhibit teamwork as part of their very lifestyles. Almost all of this is of course a part of a survival instinct, such as massive herds providing protection for wildebeests/zebras etc..


Your surprise is understandable. And it's a manifestation of a common blind-spot people have about biology. If you ask people to name "animals" the list they come up with is dominated by mammals... we're prone to be aware of and pay attention to animals most closely related to us, regardless of their relative abundance in the animal kingdom. So examples like a whale pod or pack of wolves hunting co-operatively _are_ good examples of non-human animals working collaboratively, but they are also very exceptional examples and they are animals that are very closely related to us with similar social structures. For every example of an animal species that is able to co-operate, it is easy to find a thousand examples of species that don't. We just don't think much about brittle stars, copepods, tube worms, tunicates, stick insects, flounders, amoeba, rotifers, sea anemones, frogs, tape worms, trypanosomes, nematodes, etc. etc. etc.

While flocking/hearding/schooling behaviour is mutually beneficial, it's not generally considered co-operative by behavioural biologists, but you're also correct that there are some good examples of genuine co-operative behaviours in invertebrates (social insects, and some cephalopods, for example). But again, these are extremely rare exceptions, and they are also examples of species' who's success has largely resulted from their ability to do this exceptional thing: to co-operate effectively.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Welcome to 1937 Italy!


Yes, this is exactly what has motivated the OWS protests; our governments are serving the corporations rather than the citizens, and the people are unhappy about it.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Yes, this is exactly what has motivated the OWS protests; our governments are serving the corporations rather than the citizens, and the people are unhappy about it.


The system OWS advocates--as much as the disparate group can advocate anything--mirrors Fascist Italy.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The system OWS advocates--as much as the disparate group can advocate anything--mirrors Fascist Italy.


Only to someone who can't understand the difference between citizens and corporations.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> Only to someone who can't understand the difference between citizens and corporations.


+1
precisely.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Only to someone who can't understand the difference between citizens and corporations.


Not at all. The Fascist system of Mussolini made both citizens and corporations answerable to a government powerful enough to dominate both.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> The Fascist system of Mussolini made both citizens and corporations answerable to a government powerful enough to dominate both.


As opposed to the current situation, which, as FDR warned, is one where corporations dominate government.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> As opposed to the current situation, which, as FDR warned, is one where corporations dominate government.


They don't of course. The federal government is more powerful than the corporations. However, given human frailty, it is abusing that power to assist those corporations. Making it still more powerful will only see the government finding new ways to abuse that power and enrich its members.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> Your surprise is understandable. And it's a manifestation of a common blind-spot people have about biology. If you ask people to name "animals" the list they come up with is dominated by mammals... we're prone to be aware of and pay attention to animals most closely related to us, regardless of their relative abundance in the animal kingdom. So examples like a whale pod or pack of wolves hunting co-operatively _are_ good examples of non-human animals working collaboratively, but they are also very exceptional examples and they are animals that are very closely related to us with similar social structures. For every example of an animal species that is able to co-operate, it is easy to find a thousand examples of species that don't. We just don't think much about brittle stars, copepods, tube worms, tunicates, stick insects, flounders, amoeba, rotifers, sea anemones, frogs, tape worms, trypanosomes, nematodes, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> While flocking/hearding/schooling behaviour is mutually beneficial, it's not generally considered co-operative by behavioural biologists, but you're also correct that there are some good examples of genuine co-operative behaviours in invertebrates (social insects, and some cephalopods, for example). But again, these are extremely rare exceptions, and they are also examples of species' who's success has largely resulted from their ability to do this exceptional thing: to co-operate effectively.


Thanks for the heads up bryanc, that's what I love about this place, you can learn something every day. I did indeed overlook all those you mention, but then again, I'm no biologist.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Thanks for the heads up bryanc, that's what I love about this place, you can learn something every day. I did indeed overlook all those you mention, but then again, I'm no biologist.


You're very welcome. And even among biologists, this is not uncommon. It's what one of my colleagues describes as our fixation on "charismatic megafauna."


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> They don't of course. The federal government is more powerful than the corporations. However, given human frailty, it is abusing that power to assist those corporations. Making it still more powerful will only see the government finding new ways to abuse that power and enrich its members.


Since corporations have successfully infiltrated and manipulated government to their benefit for some time now, this is total nonsense.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You're very welcome. And even among biologists, this is not uncommon. It's what one of my colleagues describes as our fixation on "charismatic megafauna."


Babies with big eyes!


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> The system OWS advocates--as much as the disparate group can advocate anything--mirrors Fascist Italy.


Hey Everyone! The definitive pronouncement has been made. Might as well listen to radio, watch TV, or go YouTubing.

The OWS or any other Taking it to the Streets Protest (TittSP) could one day become fascists, the same could be said of the TeaParty. 

Some rugged individualist will say the TeaParty could never be fascist. Never mind the Kochs involvement.

Then again some rugged individualists can't understand how one can be a libertarian within a group. I suspect many of the OWS/TittSP are very much libertarians and this could be the reason for holding onto many grievances as the bases for protest.


----------



## groovetube

it's pretty funny stuff isn't it. One has to wonder why the obsessive waving of the hands.


----------



## BigDL

*Sadly on Remembrance Day! Violation of Rights and Freedoms*

The Halifax Police broke up and tore down the Occupy Halifax site after protesters moved form the Grand Parade to aid in the Remembrance Day activities.

The suppression of the freedoms of Speech, Assembly and Protest especially on Remembrance Day, a day to remember and recognize the sacrifices made to protect our cherished rights and freedoms.

Story Here


----------



## Macfury

They have the right to protest--not to go camping in the middle of town.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> They have the right to protest--not to go camping in the middle of town.


Who gave the one, the authority to determine the style and the form of message being protested?

I was under the impression the *individual* had the clear right to freely express, and associate during a protest as long as it is peaceful.

 Shockingly who wants to suppress the *individual's* rights?


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Who gave the one, the authority to determine the style and the form of message being protested?
> 
> I was under the impression the *individual* had the clear right to freely express, and associate during a protest as long as it is peaceful.
> 
> Shockingly who wants to suppress the *individual's* rights?


It's not a right to camp out in the park. They may protest, but not live there.



> Brian Crouse, one of the demonstrators, said they knew they were breaking municipal bylaws on Day 1.


----------



## Sonal

Well, in Toronto, the park is co-own by St James Cathedral, who supports letting them stay. (And provides them with use of the kitchen and electricity.)

See column on left:
Welcome


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Well, in Toronto, the park is co-own by St James Cathedral, who supports letting them stay. (And provides them with use of the kitchen and electricity.)
> 
> See column on left:
> Welcome



Yes, that's why I have no problem with the Toronto encampment. I brought hot soup there the other day.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> Yes, that's why I have no problem with the Toronto encampment. I brought hot soup there the other day.


Apparently, Toronto is being shown among the Occupy communities as an example of doing it right.

Overall, it seems pretty peaceful over there.


----------



## Dr.G.

Sonal said:


> Apparently, Toronto is being shown among the Occupy communities as an example of doing it right.
> 
> Overall, it seems pretty peaceful over there.


Same here in St.John's. The Occupy Community is right across the street from our War Memorial, so those in the camp took down all their signs and helped clean up the area around the War Memorial for today's service.


----------



## groovetube

Dr.G. said:


> Same here in St.John's. The Occupy Community is right across the street from our War Memorial, so those in the camp took down all their signs and helped clean up the area around the War Memorial for today's service.


that's excellent. I read about that. The truth is, any of these protests are going to attract the ones who will always detract from the real intent, regardless of which side or what the message is to be. The media loves the crazy or or violent one, or just plain dumb ones, (and often instruct those in the field to specifically look for the lunatic fringe). Meanwhile, the other side will howl about the lunatics.

It certainly is a good diversion from the actual intention of whatever protest it happens to be.


----------



## BigDL

All's well on the western (of the most easterly provinces) front



CBCNews said:


> While there is conflict between protesters and police at Occupy Nova Scotia, in Frederiction protesters say their relationship with city officials is going smoothly.


 ...and in New Brunswick the story is...


----------



## Dr.G.

Things are going quite well here in St.John's. No problems so far with those who are here down by harborside.


----------



## Kosh

Macfury said:


> They have the right to protest--not to go camping in the middle of town.


Yeah, I hope most of these get kicked out of the parks they're in. They're just making a mess of the parks. It's one thing to protest every day (without staying overnight), it's another thing to squat in a park without permits to be in that city park. Getting in the way of city workers, killing the grass, etc.


----------



## eMacMan

Kosh said:


> Yeah, I hope most of these get kicked out of the parks they're in. They're just making a mess of the parks. It's one thing to protest every day (without staying overnight), it's another thing to squat in a park without permits to be in that city park. Getting in the way of city workers, killing the grass, etc.


Not only that but the drug dealers really want their turf back and are putting a ton of pressure on various city halls to drive out the interlopers.


----------



## SINC

This sums up the protesters pretty good:



> Call it an occupational hazard, but I can’t look at the Occupy Wall Street protesters without thinking, “Who parented these people?”
> 
> As a culture columnist, I’ve commented on the social and political ramifications of the “movement” - now known as “OWS” - whose fairyland agenda can be summarized by one of their placards: “Everything for everybody.”
> 
> Thanks to their pipe-dream platform, it’s clear there are people with serious designs on “transformational” change in America who are using the protesters like bedsprings in a brothel.


And further:



> • A protest is not a party. On Saturday in New York, while making a mad dash from my cab to the door of my hotel to avoid you, I saw what isn’t evident in the newsreel footage of your demonstrations: Most of you are doing this only for attention and fun. Serious people in a sober pursuit of social and political change don’t dance jigs down Sixth Avenue like attendees of a Renaissance festival. You look foolish, you smell gross, you are clearly high and you don’t seem to realize that all around you are people who deem you irrelevant.
> 
> • There are reasons you haven’t found jobs. The truth? Your tattooed necks, gauged ears, facial piercings and dirty dreadlocks are off-putting. Nonconformity for the sake of nonconformity isn’t a virtue. Occupy reality: Only 4 percent of college graduates are out of work. If you are among that 4 percent, find a mirror and face the problem. It’s not them. It’s you.


HICKS: Some belated parental advice to protesters - Washington Times


----------



## groovetube

city tv poll shows 95% of polled torontonians say leave them alone.
CP24 - Poll Results

That's not just a 1000 people in that poll either...


----------



## hayesk

SINC said:


> This sums up the protesters pretty good:


It's all too easy to paint them all with a broad brush. I'm not saying that description isn't accurate for a good many of them, but to belittle the cause because of that does a disservice to everyone.

Anyone who thinks the OWS movement is simply a bunch of people playing hippie and mad because they're not rich is full of sh*t, to be honest. The fat remains that there are systems in place to protect the rich at the expense of the taxpayer.

The biggest problem with OWS is they can't come together and clearly articulate their message, just like the G8 protests.


----------



## bryanc

hayesk said:


> The biggest problem with OWS is they can't come together and clearly articulate their message, just like the G8 protests.


This is not surprising, given that there are many things wrong with society, and many different people with many different ideas about how to address these problems. The fact that some of the individuals associating with this 'movement' have little to contribute does not take away from the seriousness or value of the movement.

The fact that conservative status quo supporters don't get it is laughably predictable.


----------



## groovetube

well it's understandable after the general population went, "wait a minute..." after being duped by those tea party rallies. Well most of them anyway.


----------



## eMacMan

The NYC Storm Troopers have reclaimed the park.

Kickbacks from dealers and hookers are expected to be back to pre-occupation levels in very short order.

While the Cities finest were thus pre-occupied Banksters were allegedly planning a raid on the Police Union Pension Fund.


----------



## MacGuiver

bryanc said:


> The fact that conservative status quo supporters don't get it is laughably predictable.


Well at least Michael Moore gets it...

Moore condemning the 1%









Moore living like the 1%... in his second house.


----------



## screature

^^^ Michael Moore is a hypocrite and has been shown to be so time and again... he has gotten rich off a niche film making market and is part of the 1% and given the opportunity probably 99% of the 99% would be happy to become part of the 1% as well.


----------



## Sonal

Comments from businesses around St James Park in Toronto. Some are bothered by Occupy, some are not. I live in the area--I think this is a fairly accurate assessment of what's going on. (Well, so far as I can see anyway.)

Who’s afraid of the Occupation? | NOW Magazine


----------



## Macfury

I drove my son past the camp the other day and he started laughing when I explained to him that these people thought they were making a point by living in tents. "Don't they have homes," he asked. I explained that they did, but that they were running back and forth between their real homes and their tents. He was shaking his head by that point and just hoped the people living there weren't as filthy as their tents.


----------



## hayesk

screature said:


> ^^^ Michael Moore is a hypocrite and has been shown to be so time and again... he has gotten rich off a niche film making market and is part of the 1% and given the opportunity probably 99% of the 99% would be happy to become part of the 1% as well.


How many times does it have to be explained that the OWS movement is not simply poor people upset at the rich? OWS is upset about the rich screwing themselves and then using taxpayers' money and unjust, yet government-supported systems to bail themselves out at the expense of the poor and middle class.

Moore got rich because lots of people voluntarily paid money to see his films. There's nothing hypocritical with that.


----------



## groovetube

hayesk said:


> How many times does it have to be explained that the OWS movement is not simply poor people upset at the rich? OWS is upset about the rich screwing themselves and then using taxpayers' money and unjust, yet government-supported systems to bail themselves out at the expense of the poor and middle class.
> 
> Moore got rich because lots of people voluntarily paid money to see his films. There's nothing hypocritical with that.


I'm not sure that the obvious will be accepted. Unfortunately, it often comes down to left vs right. It's unfortunate it often tends to boil down to that, but there it is. The argument invariably swings to, government bad, corporations well, they are practically the source of life, the manna that falls from heaven. The idea that corporations are pretty much the government (in a simplistic sort of view but true...) just would never occur to them.

Your comment about Moore is quite true.


----------



## screature

hayesk said:


> How many times does it have to be explained that the OWS movement is not simply poor people upset at the rich? OWS is upset about the rich screwing themselves and then using taxpayers' money and unjust, yet government-supported systems to bail themselves out at the expense of the poor and middle class.
> 
> *Moore got rich because lots of people voluntarily paid money to see his films. There's nothing hypocritical with that.*


Really? You honestly think that the rules and motivation for Moore are different that for the rest of the rich? That is indeed rich... It is about self interest... are you really that gullible.

And someone put a gun to the head of those who took on bad mortgages and over extended themselves..? Give me a break... they all willingly got themselves into trouble just like the greedy bankers... now they are all in the same sinking boat, all of their own volition.


----------



## groovetube

It seems kind of a tough pill for right wingers to swallow, that after years of total control of everything by the republicans, that the US went into one of the worst meltdowns in it's history. It's the democrats fault they howl. Even though, for most of both of Bush's term the republicans were in control and had it within their power to change things.

Then, we just blame the poor sobs who took these mortgages. It's their fault they scream! Offering a mortgage on a house believing they can handle it since it was a growing investment, well those stupid idiots! It's always someone else's fault. Sound familiar? It should, since it's a similar refrain we hear from our conservatives right here in Canada. It's the liberals fault. And, it always will be!

And for all those howling the US financial meltdown is the democrats fault, I've always thought that eventually, tidbits of truth may start trickling through, even though it's rather obvious, who had all the control. (dem libys made me do it!)

Could Newt’s ‘Historian’ Fib Make Him History? | TPM 2012

Interesting.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> And someone put a gun to the head of those who took on bad mortgages and over extended themselves..? Give me a break... they all willingly got themselves into trouble just like the greedy bankers... now they are all in the same sinking boat, all of their own volition.


Exactly. In many cases, the complaints I've heard from the sitter-downers hearken back not to greedy corporate fat-cats, but to government programs and regulations that caused unexpected consequences. Why not blame the US federal government for bank bail-outs or for the Greenwash of billions of dollars through Solyndra?

I can understand the frustration of citizens with the current state of the economy, but it's hard to see how having a Camp-o-ree addresses this. It's also difficult to sympathize with them when their understanding of the issues is so compromised that all they can do is lash out at business.


----------



## groovetube

no it wasn't, because if the republicans actually intervened to put an end to the beginning mess it would have stopped it. But it didn't hurt to have good ol' Newt in your corner helping insure the government stood back for you.

So, the complete opposite was true. Sorry.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Why not blame the US federal government for bank bail-outs


I, and many OWS supporters do. 



> It's also difficult to sympathize with them when their understanding of the issues is so compromised that all they can do is lash out at business.


It's a large and heterogeneous group of people. Some of them understand some of the issues very well, some of them no so much. I don't think anyone understands all of the issues perfectly.

But the reason it is reasonable to 'lash out' at business is that it has become abundantly clear that corporations _*are*_ the government. Elected officials serve corporations much more than they serve the citizens, which is now being recognized as a big part of the problem. While there are many issues, one of the big ones is getting corporations out of our democracy.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> But the reason it is reasonable to 'lash out' at business is that it has become abundantly clear that corporations _*are*_ the government. Elected officials serve corporations much more than they serve the citizens, which is now being recognized as a big part of the problem. While there are many issues, one of the big ones is getting corporations out of our democracy.


I think I've tried to make this point to a few here and it just falls on deaf ears. Perhaps it's easier and more palatable for them to believe that government and corporations are completely separate, allowing them to focus on the government, particularly if it is even perceived as left.


----------



## bryanc

*"Just because it's your fault, doesn't mean someone else can't suffer for you."*

Nice take on the continuing financial meltdown here.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Nice take on the continuing financial meltdown here.


I agree. Austerity is the answer.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I, and many OWS supporters do.


Are you an economist? No, you are a biologist. Next?


----------



## groovetube

I see. SO you need a degree in economics to be qualified to protest.

Boy we're really scraping here aren't we.


----------



## mrjimmy

groovetube said:


> I think I've tried to make this point to a few here and it just falls on deaf ears. Perhaps it's easier and more palatable for them to believe that government and corporations are completely separate, allowing them to focus on the government, particularly if it is even perceived as left.


Take for example this little absurd tidbit brought to you by the frozen food lobby. 

AFP: US lawmakers: Pizza sauce is a vegetable


----------



## mrjimmy

groovetube said:


> I see. SO you need a degree in economics to be qualified to protest.
> 
> Boy we're really scraping here aren't we.


Many here apparently have a degree in Googleology from GU.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Take for example this little absurd tidbit brought to you by the frozen food lobby.


The government of the U.S. has made itself responsible for such things. Remember the Christmas tree tax of a few weeks ago? Government needs to get out of this business.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> The government of the U.S. has made itself responsible for such things. Remember the Christmas tree tax of a few weeks ago? Government needs to get out of this business.


Responsible for kowtowing to corporate lobbyists?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Are you an economist? No, you are a biologist. Next?


You should slow down... I was _agreeing_ with you.


----------



## Adrian.

Macfury said:


> Are you an economist? No, you are a biologist. Next?



Ma. Economics, London School of Economics 
Ph.D Economics, New York University
Post Doctoral Fellowship, Sciences Po; Paris, France

You never even show a inkling of respect for my thoughts on economics. Next? 

I guess two decades of studying monetary and fiscal policy hasn't really taught me anything. :-(


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> Responsible for kowtowing to corporate lobbyists?


come now, we all know that corporations have all our best interests in mind regarding our health and well being when it comes to food, and that the government just really gets in their damn way. Damn. Government...

Can you imagine how uch better food products could be if the damn government wasn't in their way with their pesky regulations!!! We'd have beef MS products too damn the mad cow torpedoes! ( snopes.com: Mechanically Separated Chicken )





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## mrjimmy

groovetube said:


> come now, we all know that corporations have all our best interests in mind regarding our health and well being when it comes to food, and that the government just really gets in their damn way. Damn. Government...
> 
> Can you imagine how uch better food products could be if the damn government wasn't in their way with their pesky regulations!!! We'd have beef MS products too damn the mad cow torpedoes! ( snopes.com: Mechanically Separated Chicken )


That's crazy talk GT. 

You'll excuse me, it's lunchtime and I need to go out and get a slice of vegetables.


----------



## BigDL

Adrian. said:


> Ma. Economics, London School of Economics
> Ph.D Economics, New York University
> Post Doctoral Fellowship, Sciences Po; Paris, France
> 
> You never even show a inkling of respect for my thoughts on economics. Next?
> 
> I guess two decades of studying monetary and fiscal policy hasn't really taught me anything. :-(


Com'on Adrian, people can use facts to prove anything. Don't start trying to dilute emotional gut reactions or dogmatic ideology with well researched mamby pamby facts.

A mere virtual wave of the hand destroys all facts. 

Education! Education is for academics and has no place in a discussion with a Harpocrite or a follower of Our Glorious Leader if you will. They don't need no stinking education to regurgitate the party line.


----------



## mrjimmy

BigDL said:


> They don't need no stinking education to regurgitate the party line.


Nor do they want it. A keen critical faculty makes a citizen _dangerous._


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> Nor do they want it. A keen critical faculty makes a citizen _dangerous._


hear hear! And so...


----------



## bryanc

mrjimmy said:


> Nor do they want it. A keen critical faculty makes a citizen _dangerous._


This explains the Harper administration's slashing of research budgets, and evisceration of the NRC.


----------



## mrjimmy

bryanc said:


> This explains the Harper administration's slashing of research budgets, and evisceration of the NRC.


... and their promotion of the mind numbing Quebecor offerings.

Feed the ignorant and starve the experts.


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> ... and their promotion of the mind numbing Quebecor offerings.
> 
> Feed the ignorant and starve the experts.


a big sshhhh on the pile of cash thrown their way (half a billion, maybe more?) but screech(er) every chance you get about the money sent to the evil ceeBeeCee.


----------



## BigDL

mrjimmy said:


> Nor do they want it. A keen critical faculty makes a citizen _dangerous._


Exactly why Our Glorious Leader's lead committees have cut off the facts by experts when invited to appear before the committees and have limited debate in Parliament.

It doesn't agree with the Party line.

Now what agrees with the Party line is getting the bankers and other financial managers a crack at the future pension funds of Canadians, nickel and dimeing their funds to a tidy profit. Them cats gotta have an easy time dinning out on the unfortunate that have no other means of building pensions.


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> Ma. Economics, London School of Economics
> Ph.D Economics, New York University
> Post Doctoral Fellowship, Sciences Po; Paris, France
> 
> You never even show a inkling of respect for my thoughts on economics. Next?
> 
> I guess two decades of studying monetary and fiscal policy hasn't really taught me anything. :-(


My comment referred to bryanc's dogmatic statement that only experts in each field were entitled an opinion on matters involving that field. I disagreed with him, although his statements certainly limit _him_ from discussing economics.


----------



## mrjimmy

groovetube said:


> a big sshhhh on the pile of cash thrown their way (half a billion, maybe more?) but screech(er) every chance you get about the money sent to the evil ceeBeeCee.


Now that the evil Cheebeechee has picked up Harper's favourite show, _The Murdoch Mysteries_, how could he possibly show them ill will?

Funny that a victorian era series is Harper's favourite. Perhaps he longs for the class distinctions, workhouses and perceived Government omnipotence of the days of yore.


----------



## i-rui

i think it's Harper's favourite show because they still used coal back then.


----------



## BigDL

Our old pal Bruce MacKinnon, has an interesting take on the over reaction of Mayors, especially Mayor Peter Kelly of Halifax.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> My comment referred to bryanc's dogmatic statement that only experts in each field were entitled an opinion on matters involving that field.


I defy you to find any example of me making or defending such a statement. I have said over and over that everyone is entitled to their opinions.

What you may be confused about is the point that I have also made regarding the relative merit and consideration one should give to the opinions of experts in their fields, especially when an overwhelming consensus among experts exists.



> his statements certainly limit _him_ from discussing economics.


It is unfortunate that you limit yourself to such binary logic. It would certainly be reasonable to give Adrian's opinions on economics more serious considerations than mine, but that does not mean mine are worthless (especially when they are in congruence with Adrian's). Were Adrian and I to disagree on some issue of economics, it's more likely (but not necessarily) the case that his position will be correct. If we disagree about biochemistry, I've probably got the upper hand. On some other topics, we may both be considered lay people, who's opinions are just those of interested intelligent adults with no special expertise.

You don't seem to understand the value of special expertise, which makes me wonder about your professional background. I suppose there are many careers where decades of training are neither necessary nor even valuable. But that is not to say that there are not topics about which one can develop expertise that makes their opinions on a subject more valuable than those without that education.

I find it difficult to understand why some people cannot grasp this simple idea.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I find it difficult to understand why some people cannot grasp this simple idea.


I understand your simple idea--it just happens to be wrong.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> I defy you to find any example of me making or defending such a statement. I have said over and over that everyone is entitled to their opinions.
> 
> What you may be confused about is the point that I have also made regarding the relative merit and consideration one should give to the opinions of experts in their fields, especially when an overwhelming consensus among experts exists.
> 
> 
> 
> It is unfortunate that you limit yourself to such binary logic. It would certainly be reasonable to give Adrian's opinions on economics more serious considerations than mine, but that does not mean mine are worthless (especially when they are in congruence with Adrian's). Were Adrian and I to disagree on some issue of economics, it's more likely (but not necessarily) the case that his position will be correct. If we disagree about biochemistry, I've probably got the upper hand. On some other topics, we may both be considered lay people, who's opinions are just those of interested intelligent adults with no special expertise.
> 
> You don't seem to understand the value of special expertise, which makes me wonder about your professional background. I suppose there are many careers where decades of training are neither necessary nor even valuable. But that is not to say that there are not topics about which one can develop expertise that makes their opinions on a subject more valuable than those without that education.
> 
> I find it difficult to understand why some people cannot grasp this simple idea.


perfectly reasonable post bryanc. :clap:

Despite this, the response is, unfortunately predictable.


----------



## BigDL

bryanc said:


> I defy you to find any example of me making or defending such a statement. I have said over and over that everyone is entitled to their opinions.
> 
> What you may be confused about is the point that I have also made regarding the relative merit and consideration one should give to the opinions of experts in their fields, especially when an overwhelming consensus among experts exists.
> 
> 
> 
> It is unfortunate that you limit yourself to such binary logic. It would certainly be reasonable to give Adrian's opinions on economics more serious considerations than mine, but that does not mean mine are worthless (especially when they are in congruence with Adrian's). Were Adrian and I to disagree on some issue of economics, it's more likely (but not necessarily) the case that his position will be correct. If we disagree about biochemistry, I've probably got the upper hand. On some other topics, we may both be considered lay people, who's opinions are just those of interested intelligent adults with no special expertise.
> 
> You don't seem to understand the value of special expertise, which makes me wonder about your professional background. I suppose there are many careers where decades of training are neither necessary nor even valuable. But that is not to say that there are not topics about which one can develop expertise that makes their opinions on a subject more valuable than those without that education.
> 
> I find it difficult to understand why some people cannot grasp this simple idea.





Macfury said:


> I understand your simple idea--it just happens to be wrong.


...OR it doesn't fit their world view on their marching orders. The Right, is always right, RIGHT!


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> I understand your simple idea--it just happens to be wrong.


what is wrong about it? Are you suggesting sick people should put just as much faith in their grandma's opinion as their doctors when it comes to diagnosing and treating their ailment?


----------



## eMacMan

Was just watching the Lame-stream media claiming that the Wall Street protests had turned violent. Only violence anyone could cite were Storm Troopers assaulting clearly identified reporters, stealing camera gear and taking down pedestrians who committed the dastardly crime of stepping or being jostled off the curb. I believe two NYC council members were among those arrested. The Banksters and their fraudulent taxpayer funded bonuses are perfectly intact.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> what is wrong about it? Are you suggesting sick people should put just as much faith in their grandma's opinion as their doctors when it comes to diagnosing and treating their ailment?


No. You're positing something ridiculous here.


----------



## groovetube

the hand waving is getting furious now. heh.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> No. You're positing something ridiculous here.


Why is it ridiculous MacFury? Enlighten us. This is a forum after all.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Why is it ridiculous MacFury? Enlighten us. This is a forum after all.


My old granny may be right about some medical matters, but I will likely defer to my doctor. However, my doctor is not always right either. Despite his education, I have been able to poke holes in his diagnosis--and that of other doctors as well.


----------



## groovetube

visions of macfury standing from afar barking criticisms of a doctor performing complex surgery.

I suppose you could say that is indeed a true rugged individualist. They don't need, nor likely trust doctors at all.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> My old granny may be right about some medical matters, but I will likely defer to my doctor. However, my doctor is not always right either. Despite his education, I have been able to poke holes in his diagnosis--and that of other doctors as well.


the point is you attribute more weight to the doctor's opinion over your granny's. which i believe is the point bryanc was making.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I will likely defer to my doctor.


Why? If everyone's opinion is equal, why should you consider your doctor's opinion any differently than your grannies, or that of some guy on the internet?

Furthermore, with respect to economics, you probably wouldn't defer to your doctor (unless you had some reason to believe she also had special expertise in that subject). 

Of course even experts are sometimes wrong, but it is so trivially obvious that experts have more credibility on their subjects of expertise that it boggles me that this is even a topic for discussion.

So when there is a consensus of experts on some complex subject that is within their domain of expertise, and which is outside one's own domain of expertise, the only reason do dispute the expert consensus is dogmatic/ideological in nature. This is why Christian fundamentalists dispute evolution, and why global warming deniers dispute AGW. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Why? If everyone's opinion is equal, why should you consider your doctor's opinion any differently than your grannies, or that of some guy on the internet?
> 
> Furthermore, with respect to economics, you probably wouldn't defer to your doctor (unless you had some reason to believe she also had special expertise in that subject).
> 
> Of course even experts are sometimes wrong, but it is so trivially obvious that experts have more credibility on their subjects of expertise that it boggles me that this is even a topic for discussion.
> 
> So when there is a consensus of experts on some complex subject that is within their domain of expertise, and which is outside one's own domain of expertise, the only reason do dispute the expert consensus is dogmatic/ideological in nature. This is why Christian fundamentalists dispute evolution, and why global warming deniers dispute AGW. It's as simple as that.



You've switched gears once again. Your original premise was that people outside of those fields could not understand them well enough to make a worthwhile comment about them. Ergo, someone who is not an economist will have nothing worthwhile to say about the economy because he/she does not understand it. That's you bryanc! 

Please stop switching your premise. This doesn't speak well of your ability to apply a disciplined regimen to your train of thought.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Your original premise was that people outside of those fields could not understand them well enough to make a worthwhile comment about them.


That's a difficult sentence to parse, but if I understand it correctly, it's not what I said or what I meant.

What I have said is that, with respect to complex topics, people lacking training in the appropriate discipline are likely to be unable to use the appropriate conceptual tools (like mathematics, or knowledge of the limitations of the empirical techniques employed to get the data) to correctly interpret the specialized information, and are therefore more likely to draw incorrect inferences (or fail to draw correct inferences), than experts. Thus, an expert opinion is worth *more* than and inexpert opinion. Furthermore, a consensus of expert opinions is grounds for confidence in the opinions of those experts.



> Ergo, someone who is not an economist will have nothing worthwhile to say about the economy because he/she does not understand it.


No! What is so hard to understand about "more" and "less"?!? Someone who is not an economist will be less likely to make important and correct inferences about economic data than someone who is a trained economist. This is in no way related to "have nothing worthwhile to say."



> This doesn't speak well of your ability to apply a disciplined regimen to your train of thought.


You've just broken my irony meter. We've been going on about this trivial distinction between the differing confidences one ought to have in the opinions of experts vs. lay people for months, and you still don't get it. And now you express doubt about _my_ abilities to maintain a disciplined train of thought.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> You've just broken my irony meter. We've been going on about this trivial distinction between the differing confidences one ought to have in the opinions of experts vs. lay people for months, and you still don't get it. And now you express doubt about _my_ abilities to maintain a disciplined train of thought.


Adjust your irony meter--and turn it on yourself.


----------



## groovetube

I'm not quite sure how it got to no one can have anything 'worthwhile' to say about something if they aren't a trained expert.

Seems a pretty simple concept to me.



Macfury said:


> Adjust your irony meter--and turn it on yourself.


Well. I suppose being ignored is a badge of honour here then. :lmao:


----------



## Macfury

What I like best about the ignore feature on EhMac is that you don't even have to look at the avatar anymore. It's all gone!


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> What I like best about the ignore feature on EhMac is that you don't even have to look at the avatar anymore. It's all gone!


Pro tip: telling someone you're ignoring them is not the same thing as actually ignoring them.


----------



## groovetube

shhh.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Pro tip: telling someone you're ignoring them is not the same thing as actually ignoring them.


Huh? I was just playing with the feature to see how it works. I'm not ignoring anyone. I'll start a new thread about the Ignore feature.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I was just playing with the feature to see how it works.


Ah... I see. Well, since that now makes you an expert on the subject, I'll consider your opinion on that particular topic more seriously.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Ah... I see. Well, since that now makes you an expert on the subject, I'll consider your opinion on that particular topic more seriously.


Eve better--try to duplicate my experiment and you can check my conclusions.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Eve better--try to duplicate my experiment and you can check my conclusions.


Indeed, that is better. And WRT this particular issue neither difficult nor expensive. However, it's also an issue regarding which I have negligible interest, and about which your claims are neither contentious nor extraordinary, making the little effort it would take to reproduce your observations more effort than it is worth.

Just as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", ordinary claims require only ordinary evidence, so I'm perfectly happy to accept your word unless and until I receive some conflicting evidence.

The same logic can apply to cases where we may be much more skeptical of the claim, for example that the average global temperature has increased significantly over the past century, but the difficulty of finding out for ourselves wether this is true compels most people to accept the consensus of experts in climatology. However, for those who are unwilling to accept this consensus, the options are (as I have always said), either spend the decades necessary to become sufficiently sophisticated in the subject matter to become an expert yourself, or withhold judgement.


----------



## BigDL

For most topics, for most people, the usually accepted threshold of proof on the civil matters in court, or indeed elsewhere is "On the balance of probabilities" that is to say something likely happened for the reasons offered.

For some topics, for most people, the usually accepted threshold of proof as on criminal matters in court is "beyond a reasonable."

Then for some topics, for some people, no amount of proof will satisfy them.

My question, bryanc, is at what rigour do scientific conclusion have to have to be widely believed as (A) the accepted hypothesis or (B) indeed a scientific law with the relevance to (1) "on the balance of probabilities" or (2) beyond a reasonable doubt?"


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> For most topics, for most people, the usually accepted threshold of proof on the civil matters in court, or indeed elsewhere is "On the balance of probabilities" that is to say something likely happened for the reasons offered.
> 
> For some topics, for most people, the usually accepted threshold of proof as on criminal matters in court is "beyond a reasonable."
> 
> Then for some topics, for some people, no amount of proof will satisfy them.
> 
> My question, bryanc, is at what rigour do scientific conclusion have to have to be widely believed as (A) the accepted hypothesis or (B) indeed a scientific law with the relevance to (1) "on the balance of probabilities" or (2) *beyond a reasonable doubt*?"


This is a human convention for judicial expediency... in science, *everything* is subject to "reasonable doubt", including being able to surpass the speed of light... In case you haven't been keeping up with the latest news...


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> This is a human convention for judicial expediency... in science, *everything* is subject to "reasonable doubt", including being able to surpass the speed of light... In case you haven't been keeping up with the latest news...


yeah them pesky neutrinos


----------



## eMacMan

Did not see it on the Lame-stream media, but some one managed to do projections onto the Verizon Building as 10,000+ crossed the Brooklyn Bridge pedestrian walkway. The 10,000 estimate was pulled from the Police scanners. Lame-stream called it a couple of hundred.

This interview explains the nuts and bolts.

Interview with creator of Occupy Wall Street "bat-signal" projections during Brooklyn Bridge #N17 march - Boing Boing


----------



## Macfury

That's funny to hear them talk about projecting a light on a building as some sort of high-tech miracle! I wonder if they've got a look at television yet--pulls pitchers out of the air!


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> That's funny to hear them talk about projecting a light on a building as some sort of high-tech miracle! I wonder if they've got a look at television yet--pulls pitchers out of the air!


Really! Do televisions haves vases, (you know pitchers without handles) video and sound ? I heard telly's have penguins on top that explode thought.


----------



## MacDoc

This is NOT going away......



> *November 17: Historic Day of Action for the 99%*
> 
> Posted 21 hours ago on Nov. 18, 2011, 1:11 a.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
> 
> November 17 Day of Action:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Over 30,000 People Rally in New York City (*NYPD estimated 32,500)*, including organized contingents of workers, students, and other members of “the 99%”
> * Actions in at least 30 cities across the country and around the world
> * Commemoration of 2-Months Since Birth of the 99% Movement, Festival of Lights on Brooklyn Bridge
> * Blockade of all Entry-Points to NYSE; hundreds participate in nonviolence civil disobedience
> * Sense that a powerful and diverse civic movement for social justice is on the ascent
> 
> Tens of thousands took action Thursday, November 17 to demand that our political system serve all of us — not just the wealthy and powerful. The NYPD estimated tonight’s crowd at 32,500 people, at the culmination of the day of action. Thousands more also mobilized in at least 30 cities across the United States. Demonstrations were also held in cities around the world.
> 
> "Our political system should serve all of us — not just the very rich and powerful. Right now Wall Street owns Washington," said participant Beka Economopoulos. "We are the 99% and we are here to reclaim our democracy."
> 
> New York led the charge in this energizing day for the emerging movement. In the wake of billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s predawn raid of Occupy Wall Street at Liberty Square, 1:00am Tuesday morning, thousands of people throughout the five boroughs and the greater region converged to take peaceful action. Following Bloomberg’s action, the slogan “You can’t evict an idea whose time has come” became the new meme of the 99% movement overnight. The mobilization today proved that the movement is on the ascent and is capable of navigating obstacles.
> 
> The day started at 7am with a convergence of a few thousand people on Wall Street. All entry points to the New York Stock Exchange were blockaded. 'People's mics' broke out at barricades, with participants sharing stories of struggling in a dismal and unfair economy.
> 
> Through the course of the day, at least 200 people were arrested for peaceful assembly and nonviolent civil disobedience, included City Council Member Melissa Mark Viverito, City Council Member Jumaane Williams, Workers United International Vice President Wilfredo Larancuent, SEIU International President Mary Kay Henry, SEIU 1199 President George Gresham, CWA Vice President Chris Shelton, CWA Vice President , Fr. Luis Barrios of the Interreligious Foundation for Community Organization-IFCO, retired Philadelphia Police Captain Ray Lewis, and many others.


more

November 17: Historic Day of Action for the 99% | OccupyWallSt.org

and in the Stupid Cop of the Day awards - the winner is.....

FreakOutNation » Police Slam Supreme Court Judge Against a Wall at #OWS


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## Macfury

It will be going away soon.


----------



## John Clay

Macfury said:


> It will be going away soon.


With any luck.


----------



## Macfury

John Clay said:


> With any luck.


It's inspiring less than 1 % with an incoherent message. Those casually interested on the sidelines are projecting their stillborn dreams onto it--environmentalism, anarchy, unionism, free tuition--whatever. All revved up, with no place to go.


----------



## John Clay

Macfury said:


> It's inspiring less than 1 % with an incoherent message. Those casually interested on the sidelines are projecting their stillborn dreams onto it--environmentalism, anarchy, unionism, free tuition--whatever. All revved up, with no place to go.


Agreed. The real 99% are working, earning an income, and actually doing something with their lives. These loafers are just wasting all our time and tax dollars.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> It's inspiring less than 1 % with an incoherent message. Those casually interested on the sidelines are projecting their stillborn dreams onto it--environmentalism, anarchy, unionism, free tuition--whatever. All revved up, with no place to go.





John Clay said:


> Agreed. The real 99% are working, earning an income, and actually doing something with their lives. These loafers are just wasting all our time and tax dollars.


...and in the 60's the shout out would be cut your hair and get a job...and well a fist shaking in the air.

I'm pleased all protesters fit in small world view for some. :clap:


----------



## groovetube

the reall 99% -want- to work. Many of them are out of work, having been downsized, or, are working and have had their duties nearly doubled because their office/work team has been sliced down to save costs/maximize profits. But it's really really important for the far right to constantly shriek these protestors are unwashed lazy pagans wearing goat leggings and don't want to work. It makes them feel better I suppose.

It may be somewhat, an incoherent message to some, and is partially true. But I bet the big corporations take this seriously, as there was a nice blip on the screen recently that had a big US national bank having to curtail account closures after a social media organized protest saw 4.5 billion dollars withdrawn in protest in a very short time.

It may be a little scattered to some degree, but I don't know that the smasher's furious waving of the dismissive hands can erase what's happening here. this isn't a tea party sort of corporate backed nonsense. This is not, going away. It may slow during the winter months, and I'm sure the big corporations are praying this will put a stop to it, but I think come spring, this will grow bigger than before.

When you have a large percentage of the American people, out of work, losing everything, and the republicans aren't able to offer any change, (certainly to the American people they were the ones that were in power when this all happened), what does any rational thinking person -think-, is going to happen???


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> ...and in the 60's the shout out would be cut your hair and get a job...and well a fist shaking in the air.
> 
> I'm pleased all protesters fit in small world view for some. :clap:


Yeah and most of those in 60's who were growing their hair, spouting free love, dropping acid and smoking pot now make-up the status quo and many are among the 1%... same as it ever was....


----------



## screature

john clay said:


> agreed. The real 99% are working, earning an income, and actually doing something with their lives. These loafers are just wasting all our time and tax dollars.


+1 And if they could would join the 1% in a heart beat.


----------



## groovetube

what have we learned here. Let's see.

The hippies are ALL now multi billionaire corporations hoarding all the cash.

riiiiiiight.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Yeah and most of those in 60's who were growing their hair, spouting free love, dropping acid and smoking pot now make-up the status quo and many are among the 1%... same as it ever was....


I could at least admire the single-mindedness of some of the protests of the past: "Get out of VietNam," "Lower the Voting Age" or "Pass the ERA." This muzzy headed mob doesn't have a collective clue of what it is trying to do. I suppose some of them would leave if you paid off the tuition debts they incurred, and others would leave if you flipped the switch that turns off capitalism...


----------



## groovetube

the furious dismissive waving continues from the right.

They would like you to know, that anyone who dares confront the issue of corporate greed and total control on government are nothing but hippy student debt heavy bunch of thugs. Please everyone, nothing to see here.

pretty please.


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> I could at least admire the single-mindedness of some of the protests of the past: "Get out of VietNam," "Lower the Voting Age" or "Pass the ERA." This muzzy headed mob doesn't have a collective clue of what it is trying to do. I suppose some of them would leave if you paid off the tuition debts they incurred, and others would leave if you flipped the switch that turns off capitalism...


Uhm... You just mentioned three things. If this were the 60s, you'd use those three examples to support your claim that "they don't have a clue what they're trying to do" like you are with the OWS messages today.

The fact is there are a couple of messages that the OWS that detractors have not addressed, presumably because they don't have a solid argument against them, so instead they misdirect by pretending it's about silly things like jealousy of the rich or a mishmash of minor messages with no direction.

The OWS movement has expressed their dissatisfaction with banks lobbying for reduced regulation, but when they get themselves in a jam, expect public tax money to bail them out. What do you think about that?
The OWS movement has expressed dissatisfaction with white collar crime robbing billions from pensions of regular people with very little punishment, yet harsh prison sentences for relatively minor crimes like petty theft and drug possession. What do you think of that?
The OWS movement has expressed dissatisfaction with giving corporations tax cuts that result in moving jobs overseas and executive bonuses, instead of the increased jobs that was the expressed reason for the tax cuts. What do you think of that?

More of what the OWS is about is explained well here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...all-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025

The fact is that the OWS is crystal clear for anyone who is willing to listen. The OWS movement is about the rich getting richer unfairly at the expense of the poor and the middle class. It's that simple. The fact that a few people argue for free tuition is irrelevant. Many hippies in the 60s couldn't articulate why the US should have pulled out of Vietnam either, but that didn't detract from the entire movement.

If you can't figure that out, and you have convinced yourself that it's just jealous poor people, then you've done the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears while yelling "la la la la!" , i.e. you aren't willing to listen. The reason for this is:
- you are an idiot, which I don't think is true for anyone here
- you simply don't have an argument against it, which is apparent for many OWS detractors here who are more concerned with labeling them as hippies without a cause than actually debating the issues
- you are comfortable with your lifestyle and feel threatened by the OWS movement, which could be true for some here, but I can't say for sure


----------



## Macfury

Reading the Rolling Stone article just conform my beliefs: They're protesting Wall Street "corruption" (taking money offered to them by the federal government) when they should be protesting against Washington corruption. They haven't got a clue.


----------



## i-rui

hayesk said:


> More of what the OWS is about is explained well here:
> Wall Street Isn't Winning It's Cheating | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone


nice. Matt Taibbi is a great writer.


----------



## hayesk

Don't pretend to misunderstand of the point of the article. MF, who do you think the laws regarding banking policy were written for and paid by?

The last paragraph of the article sums it up perfectly. The detractors will do everything they can to avoid addressing that point, and will misdirect as much as they can to keep everyone else from realizing it.


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> Don't pretend to misunderstand of the point of the article. MF, who do you think the laws regarding banking policy were written for and paid by?
> 
> The last paragraph of the article sums it up perfectly. The detractors will do everything they can to avoid addressing that point, and will misdirect as much as they can to keep everyone else from realizing it.


A government powerful enough to look after you from cradle to grave is powerful enough to do whatever it wants. If it can write legislation handing taxpayer money to banks, it is already too powerful. Giving it greater power will solve this how?


----------



## screature

hayesk said:


> Uhm... You just mentioned three things. If this were the 60s, you'd use those three examples to support your claim that "they don't have a clue what they're trying to do" like you are with the OWS messages today.
> 
> The fact is there are a couple of messages that the OWS that detractors have not addressed, presumably because they don't have a solid argument against them, so instead they misdirect by pretending it's about silly things like jealousy of the rich or a mishmash of minor messages with no direction.
> 
> The OWS movement has expressed their dissatisfaction with banks lobbying for reduced regulation, but when they get themselves in a jam, expect public tax money to bail them out. What do you think about that?
> The OWS movement has expressed dissatisfaction with white collar crime robbing billions from pensions of regular people with very little punishment, yet harsh prison sentences for relatively minor crimes like petty theft and drug possession. What do you think of that?
> The OWS movement has expressed dissatisfaction with giving corporations tax cuts that result in moving jobs overseas and executive bonuses, instead of the increased jobs that was the expressed reason for the tax cuts. What do you think of that?
> 
> More of what the OWS is about is explained well here:
> Wall Street Isn't Winning It's Cheating | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone
> 
> *The fact is that the OWS is crystal clear* for anyone who is willing to listen. The OWS movement is about the rich getting richer unfairly at the expense of the poor and the middle class. It's that simple. The fact that a few people argue for free tuition is irrelevant. Many hippies in the 60s couldn't articulate why the US should have pulled out of Vietnam either, but that didn't detract from the entire movement.
> 
> If you can't figure that out, and you have convinced yourself that it's just jealous poor people, then you've done the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears while yelling "la la la la!" , i.e. you aren't willing to listen. The reason for this is:
> - you are an idiot, which I don't think is true for anyone here
> - you simply don't have an argument against it, which is apparent for many OWS detractors here who are more concerned with labeling them as hippies without a cause than actually debating the issues
> - *you are comfortable with your lifestyle and feel threatened by the OWS movement*, which could be true for some here, but I can't say for sure


The fact is the OWS "movement" is far from being "crystal clear" in their intent or ambitions as your post *clearly* illustrates... it is a rag tag bunch with gripes ranging from general dissatisfaction with the status quo to those with more focused intent... mostly they are a bunch of band wagon joiners who don't have anything better and more productive to do, so they see a bunch of people gathering to "protest"... it doesn't matter what, they see a crowd gathering to protest something so they are all in...

With the Arab Spring there was focus and a specific intent... this bunch don't have any direction or collective focused purpose even if it were only a dozen issues... it is most likely doomed to failure other than getting some media coverage. What could they reasonably expect to be concrete change? Collectively they don't even know and they would disagree among themselves as to what real change would look like as they are so fractured.

And seriously even if 50,000 people were to occupy Wall Street have you done the math to figure out how samll a fraction of the 99% they represent? I mean really, this whole "movement" has been largely been generated and supported by big media becuase by reporting on it keeps the $$ flowing... they know that... it is surprising that others seem to not realize it. 

But by all means keep filling the streets and keep big media in business... Oh the irony...


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> Reading the Rolling Stone article just conform my beliefs: They're protesting Wall Street "corruption" (taking money offered to them by the federal government) when they should be protesting against Washington corruption. They haven't got a clue.


You just don't get that the government is full of orporate interests, do you. I suppose you probably have buried deeply the news of newts being paid millions by Fannie prior to the whole meltdown as well.

That would understandable.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> The fact is the OWS "movement" is far from being "crystal clear" in their intent or ambitions as your post *clearly* illustrates... it is a rag tag bunch with gripes ranging from general dissatisfaction with the status quo to those with more focused intent... mostly they are a bunch of band wagon joiners who don't have anything better and more productive to do, so they see a bunch of people gathering to "protest"... it doesn't matter what, they see a crowd gathering to protest something so they are all in...
> 
> With the Arab Spring there was focus and a specific intent... this bunch don't have any direction or collective focused purpose even if it were only a dozen issues... it is doomed to failure other than getting some media coverage. What could they reasonably expect to be concrete change? Collectively they don't even know and they would disagree among themselves as to what real change would look like as they are so fractured.
> 
> And seriously even if 50,000 people were to occupy Wall Street have you done the math to figure out how samll a fraction of the 99% they represent? I mean really, this whole "movement" has been largely been generated and supported by big media becuase by reporting on it keeps the $$ flowing... they know that... it is surprising that others seem to not realize it.
> 
> But by all means keep filling the streets and keep big media in business... Oh the irony...


It's interesting that 'big media' have done their best to downplay or belittle the protests from day one. Plenty of sheep to buy in to all too I bet!


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> The fact is the OWS "movement" is far from being "crystal clear" in their intent or ambitions as your post *clearly* illustrates... it is a rag tag bunch with gripes ranging from general dissatisfaction with the status quo to those with more focused intent... mostly they are a bunch of band wagon joiners who don't have anything better and more productive to do, so they see a bunch of people gathering to "protest"... it doesn't matter what, they see a crowd gathering to protest something so they are all in...
> 
> With the Arab Spring there was focus and a specific intent... this bunch don't have any direction or collective focused purpose even if it were only a dozen issues... it is doomed to failure other than getting some media coverage. What could they reasonably expect to be concrete change? Collectively they don't even know and they would disagree among themselves as to what real change would look like as they are so fractured.
> 
> And seriously even if 50,000 people were to occupy Wall Street have you done the math to figure out how samll a fraction of the 99% they represent? I mean really, this whole "movement" has been largely been generated and supported by big media becuase by reporting on it keeps the $$ flowing... they know that... it is surprising that others seem to not realize it.
> 
> But by all means keep filling the streets and keep big media in business... Oh the irony...


I agree, screature. I also understand that there is genuine frustration with the way the U.S. system is operating. None of the dancing and defecating and weenie-roasting is addressing any of it. I can truly understand that the OWS (Occupy Wallstreet Starbucks) caught up in the media eye think they're achieving something because they're on TV--as you note, falling into a trap they can't even begin to fathom.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> I agree, screature. *I also understand that there is genuine frustration with the way the U.S. system is operating.* None of the dancing and defecating and weenie-roasting is addressing any of it. I can truly understand that the OWS (Occupy Wallstreet Starbucks) caught up in the media eye think they're achieving something because they're on TV--as you note, falling into a trap they can't even begin to fathom.


Agreed. But the OWS "movement" is all media hype. There are and have been literally hundreds and maybe even thousands of interest groups lobbying the White House for decades for their specific cause. But at least with them they are focused and organized. Plus they have leaders, something the OWS bunch would reject fundamentally. But the fact is you need leaders to create focus, if the OWS could actually organize and form a political party with a leader they may be on to something that could actually generate change... but that will IMO never come to pass. 

It has been a curios time with the OWS jumping onto the Arab Spring energy but it will only be a very brief and ultimately small entry into Wikipedia.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> It has been a curios time with the OWS jumping onto the Arab Spring energy but it will only be a very brief and ultimately small entry into Wikipedia.


Hands Across America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Agreed. But the OWS "movement" is all media hype.


lol.

yes, thats why the media ignored it for the first month.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> lol.
> 
> yes, thats why the media ignored it for the first month.


It certainly didn't ignore it. It just became more interested when the camps became filthier and the protesters began to rape each other. Camping alone doesn't rate big exposure.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> lol.
> 
> yes, thats why the media ignored it for the first month.


:lmao: At yourself. Notice what OWS was before and after big media started following them... it is to laugh. You clearly don't or choose not to get it...

Carry on...


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> lol.
> 
> yes, thats why the media ignored it for the first month.


the sheep just don't get it. They'll continue talking to each other as if it makes any sense.

Interesting that one admits, the OWS somehow magically "became' something else after the media begrudgingly started covering it. I wonder, why, and to whom...

and here comes more of...

I agree!

No -I- agree!

I couldn't agree any more!

No sir! I agree more!

LOL...


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> Yeah and most of those in 60's who were growing their hair, spouting free love, dropping acid and smoking pot now make-up the status quo and many are among the 1%... same as it ever was....


Nope, I will suggest it was just only 1% of the youth of the 60's that made it out of the 99%. Think for a second how many Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or indeed Ivy League graduates there were when to all of the other kid born after WW II to be the post war baby boom. 



screature said:


> +1 And if they could would join the 1% in a heart beat.


I for one have no interest to join the 1% and would suggest given the lives people I know they (had) haven't any interest in filthy rich.

There's an old saying "if want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people He gave it to."


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Nope, I will suggest it was just only 1% of the youth of the 60's that made it out of the 99%. Think for a second how many Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or indeed Ivy League graduates there were when to all of the other kid born after WW II to be the post war baby boom.
> 
> I for one have no interest to join the 1% and would suggest given the lives people I know they (had) haven't any interest in filthy rich.
> 
> There's an old saying "if want to know what God thinks of money, just look at the people He gave it to."


Hmmm....


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> A government powerful enough to look after you from cradle to grave is powerful enough to do whatever it wants. If it can write legislation handing taxpayer money to banks, it is already too powerful. Giving it greater power will solve this how?


A government of the people and by the people just might be the goal, once again, to have a government that represents the majority of the 99% 

not a government of the 1%, bought and paid for.



Macfury said:


> Reading the Rolling Stone article just conform my beliefs: They're protesting Wall Street "corruption" (taking money offered to them by the federal government) when they should be protesting against Washington corruption. They haven't got a clue.


Could be the scary thought this time this generation the youth's revolution might achieve real change.



screature said:


> Agreed. But the OWS "movement" is all media hype. There are and have been literally hundreds and maybe even thousands of interest groups lobbying the White House for decades for their specific cause. But at least with them they are focused and organized. Plus they have leaders, something the OWS bunch would reject fundamentally. But the fact is you need leaders to create focus, if the OWS could actually organize and form a political party with a leader they may be on to something that could actually generate change... but that will IMO never come to pass.
> 
> It has been a curios time with the OWS jumping onto the Arab Spring energy but it will only be a very brief and ultimately small entry into Wikipedia.


Think about it for second "There are and have been literally hundreds and maybe even thousands of interest groups lobbying the White House for decades for their specific cause." well it seems a fruitless venture perhaps a fools errand, when in short order, corporate interests can manage to have pizza declared a vegetable to be sold in schools so the corporate need to be on the government tit is satisfied.


----------



## groovetube

looks like a pair of rugged individualists right there. Yep.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Could be the scary thought this time this generation the youth's revolution might achieve real change.


Not scary at all, given what I've seen.


----------



## groovetube

There's already one national bank that'll beg to differ. This could get interesting.


----------



## MacDoc

Typical the right wing fossils hire "consulting firms" to counter honesty.



> Memo Reveals How Seriously Powerful Interests Take OWS
> George Zornick on November 19, 2011 - 2:21pm ET
> 
> This morning, Up With Chris Hayes unveiled a major scoop: the show obtained a written pitch to the American Bankers Association from a prominent Washington lobbying firm, proposing a $850,000 smear campaign against Occupy Wall Street.
> 
> The memo, issued by Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford, described the danger presented by the burgeoning movement, saying that if Democrats embraced Occupy, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street.… It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.” Furthermore, it notes that “the bigger concern…should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies.”


Memo Reveals How Seriously Powerful Interests Take OWS | The Nation

John Boehner?s Lobbyists Plan A Massive Hit Job On Occupy Wall Street



> In fact, we’ve seen similar efforts already. Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS has blanketed Massachusetts airwaves with commercials depicting Occupy protestors as crazed radicals, and hitting Elizabeth Warren for embracing them. The ad campaign has essentially the same goal as the CLGC memo: the ads are trying to scare Warren away from supporting the protests.
> 
> These episodes belie any conservative claims that Occupy Wall Street (1) doesn’t have a clear purpose, or (2) won’t be effective. Rove has wondered in the past “what are these people for? To the degree that they’re for anything it’s left wing nuttiness.” Grover Norquist tweeted the other day that he hopes Occupy DC “keep(s) this up” because “Hippies elected Nixon. OWS will beat Obama.” Fox News is full of similar dismissals of Occupiers as dangerous, confused folks.
> 
> But if Rove thinks Occupy doesn’t present a clear message, why is he spending millions of dollars to attack them? Similarly, CLGC staffers are political professionals with many Wall Street clients, and the memo shows how seriously they consider the threat presented to powerful financial firms by the Occupy protests.


more
Memo Reveals How Seriously Powerful Interests Take OWS | The Nation

This IS getting interesting...... and long overdue to bring financial institutions chartered by the people to heel


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Typical the right wing fossils hire "consulting firms" to counter honesty.


Easy there big fella. This is just _a pitch_ by a lobbying company offering the bankers a smear campaign for $850,000. Of course they're positioning their sales pitch that way. What do you expect? 

It's not an indication of how serious the bankers are about OWS. It's an indication of how serious lobbying groups are about selling their services. The real indicator of how serious the bankers are taking OWS _is that they turned the lobbyists down_.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> It's not an indication of how serious the bankers are about OWS. It's an indication of how serious lobbying groups are about selling their services. The real indicator of how serious the bankers are taking OWS _is that they turned the lobbyists down_.


they turned *that* group down. are you sure that was the *only* proposal they received? maybe they accepted a more expensive one with a better pitch?

or i guess they could just let fox news and other corporate media do it for free....


----------



## SINC

City by city, they continue to be shut down:

Occupy Edmonton receives eviction notice - Edmonton - CBC News


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> City by city, they continue to be shut down:
> 
> Occupy Edmonton receives eviction notice - Edmonton - CBC News


You can lock up a mouse or a man but can't lock up an idea...Tommy Douglas.


----------



## SINC

Very true BigDL, but it's obvious to all but them that their rag tag campgrounds set up in city centres do them more harm than good in the arena of public opinion. If they used different tactics, they could help their cause much more than their current methods.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> You can lock up a mouse or a man but can't lock up an idea...Tommy Douglas.


True--bad ideas die on their own. Locking them up is a waste of time.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> they turned *that* group down. are you sure that was the *only* proposal they received? maybe they accepted a more expensive one with a better pitch?
> 
> or i guess they could just let fox news and other corporate media do it for free....


Are you sure of anything you have absolutely no information about? The point being made by MaccyD was that the banks were so frightened by the park-poopers that they were spending a million to have them humiliated. Didn't happen.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> True--bad ideas die on their own. Locking them up is a waste of time.


The bad idea of smashing atoms has not gone away, Iran presently threatens the world with their version of a device to use this technology.


----------



## Adrian.

This an entirely non-partisan comment (at least as non-partisan as is possible, seriously):

History has proven that the best way to evaluate social movements is to level them with their own goals and objectives. The OWS movement's objectives are, broadly to reduce crony-democracy (plutocracy) where corporate money has saturated US (and many other to different extents) government. It is this phenomenon that has led to the extreme increase of wealth among the wealthiest people. You do not have to agree with this, but from my observations this is their agenda and objective. 

Is it reasonable to expect that this sort of change would happen in months? Change of this magnitude and depth happens over decades. Suffrage, slavery, democracy, capitalism itself took hundreds of years to change. Whether or not this movement has their tents pulled down by over-zealous cops does not demonstrate the failure of the movement. It demonstrates their success. They have succeeded in getting every major news outlet discussing their agenda - whether in negative or positive light. The public conversation has moved from austerity (cutting public funding) to pursuing bankers for their massive liquidation of wealth.


----------



## groovetube

MacDoc said:


> Typical the right wing fossils hire "consulting firms" to counter honesty.
> 
> 
> Memo Reveals How Seriously Powerful Interests Take OWS | The Nation
> 
> John Boehner?s Lobbyists Plan A Massive Hit Job On Occupy Wall Street
> 
> 
> 
> more
> Memo Reveals How Seriously Powerful Interests Take OWS | The Nation
> 
> This IS getting interesting...... and long overdue to bring financial institutions chartered by the people to heel


atom smasher is still waving his hands furiously. It must be quite the let down after the pitiful attempt by government and big business to dupe the American public into those ill fated "tea parties". Despite what the media reports (who are also funny enough, owned by big corporations) it's interesting when you see some of the reports and images from those actually at some of these protests around the world. 

What some just will never either accept, or understand, is that these protests are directed to both big business/banks, -and- government, because they have become one and the same.


----------



## groovetube

Adrian. said:


> This an entirely non-partisan comment (at least as non-partisan as is possible, seriously):
> 
> History has proven that the best way to evaluate social movements is to level them with their own goals and objectives. The OWS movement's objectives are, broadly to reduce crony-democracy (plutocracy) where corporate money has saturated US (and many other to different extents) government. It is this phenomenon that has led to the extreme increase of wealth among the wealthiest people. You do not have to agree with this, but from my observations this is their agenda and objective.
> 
> Is it reasonable to expect that this sort of change would happen in months? Change of this magnitude and depth happens over decades. Suffrage, slavery, democracy, capitalism itself took hundreds of years to change. Whether or not this movement has their tents pulled down by over-zealous cops does not demonstrate the failure of the movement. It demonstrates their success. They have succeeded in getting every major news outlet discussing their agenda - whether in negative or positive light. The public conversation has moved from austerity (cutting public funding) to pursuing bankers for their massive liquidation of wealth.


you are right. Further to that, generally this sort of large reaction by the general public often occurs when a large number are very, uncomfortable. After the big corporations have greedily soaked up their tax cuts, profits, bailouts, etc., a very large number of people have lost their jobs, their houses, and have nothing to lose. This is the sort of thing that almost always results in a large reaction. Why people never understand this concept is beyond me. 

It isn't a different concept to say, stuffing huge numbers of people into a tiny refugee camp like area for decades and giving them nothing to live for. It will almost always result in severe violence and war. And then people stand by and wonder why we have such evil deranged people in this world.

Yeah.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Very true BigDL, but it's obvious to all but them that their rag tag campgrounds set up in city centres do them more harm than good in the arena of public opinion. If they used different tactics, they could help their cause much more than their current methods.


I don't disagree. The media now has their story.


----------



## SINC

Yes, the media has reacted and the story is out, but public perception of them in those cluttered camps is not good. That's where the dirty, druggie, hippy images the public has of them are born. They do have some legitimate goals, but until they hit the showers, shave, take out the piercings and get haircuts, their cause will suffer. A clean, neat appearance adds instant credibility with the vast majority of the public, whether they like it admit it or not.


----------



## groovetube

it still doesn't stop the media from desperately trying to discredit said camp protests though, so whose fault is the discrediting of this is it? hmmm.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Adrian.

SINC said:


> Yes, the media has reacted and the story is out, but public perception of them in those cluttered camps is not good. That's where the dirty, druggie, hippy images the public has of them are born. They do have some legitimate goals, but until they hit the showers, shave, take out the piercings and get haircuts, their cause will suffer. A clean, neat appearance adds instant credibility with the vast majority of the public, whether they like it admit it or not.


Indeed it does. That is why the media shows you images of dirty, drugged-out hippies who cling onto any protest they can find. They do not, however, show you the thousands of middle-aged, seniors, young university educated people who cannot get jobs, recent immigrants with high-levels of professional education who are barred from practicing by monopolistic professional associations. In Toronto, a great number of people protesting have been retired people because their retirement investments were cut in half in the last years because of total disregard for responsibility by the banks and investment managers. This is the strength of the occupy movements, it cuts across society.

You should know, media shows you what they want to show you.


----------



## groovetube

Adrian. said:


> Indeed it does. That is why the media shows you images of dirty, drugged-out hippies who cling onto any protest they can find. They do not, however, show you the thousands of middle-aged, seniors, young university educated people who cannot get jobs, recent immigrants with high-levels of professional education who are barred from practicing by monopolistic professional associations. In Toronto, a great number of people protesting have been retired people because their retirement investments were cut in half in the last years because of total disregard for responsibility by the banks and investment managers. This is the strength of the occupy movements, it cuts across society.
> 
> You should know, media shows you what they want to show you.


people just believe as gospel.


----------



## Macfury

Are those the goals of OWC, Adrian.? Those may be the goals of some of them, but if they hated crony capitalism why was there no march in Washington over the Solyndra scandal--something very current. I think you're mapping your own feelings onto that hodgepodge.

By failing to set a rational goal in a specific time frame, OWS has squandered its opportunity to achieve even a sampling of its melting pot of goals. The conversation has not been turned to the OWS "agenda," except to the degree that the agenda is contradictory and very confused. What the protests have succeeded in doing is turning the spotlight on the protesters who are now branded as spoiled, i-Phone toting wannabes with a penchant for Starbucks. That may not be true, but that's how they are perceived by those who did not support them in the first place.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> Think about it for second "There are and have been literally hundreds and maybe even thousands of interest groups lobbying the White House for decades for their specific cause." well it seems a fruitless venture perhaps a fools errand, when in short order, corporate interests can manage to have pizza declared a vegetable to be sold in schools so the corporate need to be on the government tit is satisfied.


You obviously have no idea of the breadth and sway of lobbyists, if this is all that comes to mind...


----------



## SINC

Adrian. said:


> Indeed it does. That is why the media shows you images of dirty, drugged-out hippies who cling onto any protest they can find. They do not, however, show you the thousands of middle-aged, seniors, young university educated people who cannot get jobs, recent immigrants with high-levels of professional education who are barred from practicing by monopolistic professional associations. In Toronto, a great number of people protesting have been retired people because their retirement investments were cut in half in the last years because of total disregard for responsibility by the banks and investment managers. This is the strength of the occupy movements, it cuts across society.
> 
> You should know, media shows you what they want to show you.


So then, who really is to blame for their image? Your observations are solid, but if so many members are such solid, stand up individuals, where are they? While I would be the first to admit the media can and does pick and choose what they cover, (or don't in the case of the CBC), every spokesperson I have seen look like hippy bums. Again I repeat, they are their own worst enemies.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> So then, who really is to blame for their image? Your observations are solid, but if so many members are such solid, stand up individuals, where are they? While I would be the first to admit the media can and does pick and choose what they cover, (or don't in the case of the CBC), every spokesperson I have seen look like hippy bums. Again I repeat, they are their own worst enemies.


I walked through the camp in Toronto and saw no seniors at all. Maybe one guy in his '50s.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> You obviously have no idea of the breadth and sway of lobbyists, if this is all that comes to mind...


I think someone needs to reread the post...

So quick to loudly beat one's own chest.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I walked through the camp in Toronto and saw no seniors at all. Maybe one guy in his '50s.


oh yes and Toronto represents the entire OWS protest movement around the world.


----------



## Russel

I am a senior and support them- their concerns are viable but its sorta like laying down on the track to stop the train- could be painfull.
I would rather talk to the conductor if possible or put grease on the tracks. Besides its cold out there and I did my stint in anti vietman war vigils and actions.
We are in a big and dangerous time flux world wide I think and the manipulative financial corporates and complacent government beurocracy cannot hide their greedy agenda.
Gerald Clement? Trends Research got really burned for 6 figures
r


----------



## Adrian.

Macfury said:


> I walked through the camp in Toronto and saw no seniors at all. Maybe one guy in his '50s.


Were you wearing your Fox News issued goggles again?


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> Were you wearing your Fox News issued goggles again?


Nope--and neither was my lefty friend who accompanied me. Though I will admit, he was so embarrassed for the campers that he wanted to move on far more quickly than I did.


----------



## screature

Adrian. said:


> This an entirely non-partisan comment (at least as non-partisan as is possible, seriously):
> 
> History has proven that the best way to evaluate social movements is to level them with their own goals and objectives. The OWS movement's objectives are, broadly to reduce crony-democracy (plutocracy) where corporate money has saturated US (and many other to different extents) government. It is this phenomenon that has led to the extreme increase of wealth among the wealthiest people. You do not have to agree with this, but from my observations this is their agenda and objective.
> 
> Is it reasonable to expect that this sort of change would happen in months? Change of this magnitude and depth happens over decades. Suffrage, slavery, democracy, capitalism itself took hundreds of years to change.* Whether or not this movement has their tents pulled down by over-zealous cops does not demonstrate the failure of the movement. It demonstrates their success. They have succeeded in getting every major news outlet discussing their agenda - whether in negative or positive light.* The public conversation has moved from austerity (cutting public funding) to pursuing bankers for their massive liquidation of wealth.


Change can be slow but it is far from always being the case, sometimes it is swift indeed.

As a movement that is supposed to be about change, having big media make money off of you and being in the public eye does not equal success unless you are a publicist or a marketing communications firm. Success for a movement looking for social/economic/political change is if change is realized, if not it is a failure.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Success for a movement looking for social/economic/political change is if change is realized, if not it is a failure.


Saul Alinsky could have helped these folks out. He pointed out that movements such as this need definable goals and objective measures of success. Without these, the participants will eventually grow tired and despondent and the public will perceive the movement as bumbling and ineffective. This is what's happening now.


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> Saul Alinsky could have helped these folks out. He pointed out that* movements such as this need definable goals and objective measures of success. *Without these, the participants will eventually grow tired and despondent and the public will perceive the movement as bumbling and ineffective. This is what's happening now.


+1 Agreed.


----------



## Sonal

Perhaps someone needs to donate a few copies of "Rules for Radicals" to the Occupy Toronto library....


----------



## Adrian.

screature said:


> Change can be slow but it is far from always being the case, sometimes it is swift indeed.
> 
> As a movement that is supposed to be about change, having big media make money off of you and being in the public eye does not equal success unless you are a publicist or a marketing communications firm. Success for a movement looking for social/economic/political change is if change is realized, if not it is a failure.


Define "success". Let's take an extreme example. It took Hitler about 10 years to come to power. In terms of social movements and political/social change, this is extremely fast. He was arrested in Munich in 1923 for the Beer Hall Putsch, by 1933 he was elected and the Enabling Act was passed which allowed him to pass law executively. By 1935 the NSDAP was largely purged of any dissent, the one party system was created and the Reichstag was entirely controlled by Hitler. The Nazi dictatorship was formed. 

Declaring the success of a movement within a few months of its inception is poorly sustained, largely because we cannot yet understand the consequences. Just as the Germans who elected Hitler (interestingly, most women voted for Hitler despite his public chauvinism), the consequences were not widely understood until 8 months later.


----------



## screature

Sonal said:


> Perhaps someone needs to donate a few copies of "Rules for Radicals" to the Occupy Toronto library....


:lmao:


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> Define "success". Let's take an extreme example. It took Hitler about 10 years to come to power. In terms of social movements and political/social change, this is extremely fast. He was arrested in Munich in 1923 for the Beer Hall Putsch, by 1933 he was elected and the Enabling Act was passed which allowed him to pass law executively. By 1935 the NSDAP was largely purged of any dissent, the one party system was created and the Reichstag was entirely controlled by Hitler. The Nazi dictatorship was formed.
> 
> Declaring the success of a movement within a few months of its inception is poorly sustained, largely because we cannot yet understand the consequences. Just as the Germans who elected Hitler (interestingly, most women voted for Hitler despite his public chauvinism), the consequences were not widely understood until 8 months later.


Poor example. The Beer Hall Putsch was a failure and many of his supporters turned against him. Hitler took a new tack in 1925 using democratic institutions and definable goals to further his plans--a complete break from his initial failure.


----------



## screature

Adrian. said:


> *Define "success".* Let's take an extreme example. It took Hitler about 10 years to come to power. In terms of social movements and political/social change, this is extremely fast. He was arrested in Munich in 1923 for the Beer Hall Putsch, by 1933 he was elected and the Enabling Act was passed which allowed him to pass law executively. By 1935 the NSDAP was largely purged of any dissent, the one party system was created and the Reichstag was entirely controlled by Hitler. The Nazi dictatorship was formed.
> 
> Declaring the success of a movement within a few months of its inception is poorly sustained, largely because we cannot yet understand the consequences. Just as the Germans who elected Hitler (interestingly, most women voted for Hitler despite his public chauvinism), the consequences were not widely understood until 8 months later.


Seeing as you asked, here you go:



> noun
> the *accomplishment* of an aim or purpose : the president had some success in restoring confidence.
> • the attainment of popularity or profit : the success of his play.
> • a person or thing that *achieves desired aims* or attains prosperity : I must make a success of my business.
> • archaic the outcome of an undertaking, specified as achieving or failing to achieve its aims : the good or ill success of their maritime enterprises.


I'm not saying the OWS is a failure at this point as it is too early to tell and yes time is needed to tell. However, the point you make with Hilter points to why the OWS is likely to fail. Without a charismatic leader to guide and sustain them I feel it is quite safe to say that they will fail. Is such a leader or leaders present themselves and they can coalesce the movements hodge podge of ideas and goals into a coherent, well defined platform then they may stand a chance of realizing some level of success.

Can you think of any movement that succeeded without significant leadership and clearly and well defined goals. Even the trade union movement had its leaders and they also were armed with very specific goals by which to measure and guide their success.


----------



## i-rui

oh ffs the movement is 2 months old. specific goals and agenda will eventually be worked out, but at this point it's about mobilizing support and raising awareness about the myriad of problems deep rooted in the current global economic and political system.

kind of hard to roll back decades upon decades of ingrained corruption in a few weeks don't 'cha think?


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> oh ffs the movement is 2 months old. specific goals and agenda will eventually be worked out, but at this point it's about mobilizing support and raising awareness about the myriad of problems deep rooted in the current global economic and political system.
> 
> kind of hard to roll back decades upon decades of ingrained corruption in a few weeks don't 'cha think?


the lunacy is laughable. Clearly, the need to discredit this is desperate. They're just mad that the tea party movement fizzled because it was really, just "Obama bad!", and big money behind it. It had little to do with government spending and more to do with protecting big business interests in government.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> oh ffs the movement is 2 months old. *specific goals and agenda will eventually be worked out.*.


Exactly--that's the problem,


----------



## Adrian.

screature said:


> *Can you think of any movement that succeeded without significant leadership and clearly and well defined goals.* Even the trade union movement had its leaders and they also were armed with very specific goals by which to measure and guide their success.


1848 happened. The French Revolution was largely leaderless until after the Jacobins took power. More recently, Lybia, Tunisia, Egypt and soon Syria are all ground swell movements with no clearly defined leader or organisation. 

My point is simply that the media (all different flavours of conservative) are quick to paint the OWS movement in a negative light and and celebrate their failure. It is a poor position to take both analytically and logically. One with any cursory knowledge of history can quickly identify their claims as reductionist and motivated by partisan intent. 

MF, I disagree with your interpretation of Hitler's "change of tactics" as democratic. The NSDAP very openly used force against other political parties and dissidents after 1925. In fact, that looks quite similar to what is happening right now. Use force to silence dissidence. I guess the elite do learn from history!


----------



## groovetube

atom smasher will settle for nothing less than a perfectly defined protest from the get go.


----------



## screature

Adrian. said:


> 1848 happened. The French Revolution was largely leaderless until after the Jacobins took power. *More recently, Lybia, Tunisia, Egypt and soon Syria are all ground swell movements with no clearly defined leader or organisation.*
> 
> My point is simply that the media (all different flavours of conservative) *are quick to paint the OWS movement in a negative light and and celebrate their failure. It is a poor position to take both analytically and logically. One with any cursory knowledge of history can quickly identify their claims as reductionist and motivated by partisan intent. *
> 
> MF, I disagree with your interpretation of Hitler's "change of tactics" as democratic. The NSDAP very openly used force against other political parties and dissidents after 1925. In fact, that looks quite similar to what is happening right now. Use force to silence dissidence. I guess the elite do learn from history!


There were and are leaders and they all had a clear goal to overthrow a dictator... the success of all these movements is still to be determined with the exception of ousting tyrants. 

And the media on the left is just the opposite side of the same coin claiming "victory" where there is little to no evidence to support the claim with obvious partisan intent.

The fact remains that the OWS claim to speak for the 99% with chants like "I am the 99%." when the fact is they speak for themselves and have some sympathetic support within the rest of the 99% but they hardly speak for all or I would dare say a even significant percentage of the 99%.


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> 1848 happened. The French Revolution was largely leaderless until after the Jacobins took power. More recently, Lybia, Tunisia, Egypt and soon Syria are all ground swell movements with no clearly defined leader or organisation.
> 
> My point is simply that the media (all different flavours of conservative) are quick to paint the OWS movement in a negative light and and celebrate their failure. It is a poor position to take both analytically and logically. One with any cursory knowledge of history can quickly identify their claims as reductionist and motivated by partisan intent.
> 
> MF, I disagree with your interpretation of Hitler's "change of tactics" as democratic. The NSDAP very openly used force against other political parties and dissidents after 1925. In fact, that looks quite similar to what is happening right now. Use force to silence dissidence. I guess the elite do learn from history!



The countries you mention merely saw mobs working on ousting the current government. That was the immediate goal.

Hitler's change of tactic was to claim to work within the democratic system through a political party. At that point, his campaign became goal-oriented and obviously he used violence to achieve those goals.


----------



## fjnmusic

From an article by Rex Murphy in The National Post.



> *Capitalism's spoiled children*
> 
> The Occupy movement does not represent "the 99%," as its defenders like to claim. They are not a cadre speaking up for the vast proportion of the population against the tyranny or greed of an imagined "1%." Judging from the speakers I have seen and heard, either on news broadcasts or the multiple sites offering live-broadcast or YouTube coverage, the people in the various Occupy camps represent a petty sub-sample of the hard left; i.e., a range of angry students, homeless and their advocates, and - not insignificantly - some just outright strange people. Like the guy who asked for a moment of silence in "solidarity" with the man who earlier in the week fired shots at the White House and is now charged with trying to assassinate President Obama. The real 99% are surely not looking for solidarity with a potential assassin.
> 
> Nor are the real 99% looking for representation from self-selected tribunes who, almost by design, appear surly, wilful, unexposed to the complexities of life or politics, and who are almost as unbearably righteous as some of their predecessors in the anti-globalization movement. Charm is not a big property with the Occupy bunch. They bristle with contempt for those outside their precious circles, and enjoy a morbid, almost innate hatred for capitalism in so far as they may be said to understand it. Which is a lot less than the degree to which they are, in all their pseudo-rebellion, both its beneficiaries and offspring. What other system can you think of that offers "camping out" as a form of quasi-permissible political protest?


Capitalism’s spoiled children | Full Comment | National Post


----------



## SINC

I don't always agree with Rex, but he has it spot on with most OWS members.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> The fact remains that the OWS claim to speak for the 99% with chants like "I am the 99%." when the fact is they speak for themselves and have some sympathetic support within the rest of the 99% but they hardly speak for all or I would dare say a even significant percentage of the 99%.


no, they don't speak for anyone but themselves. the point of "we are the 99%" is to point out that government policy is shaped by the 1% to primarily benefit the 1%, not the rest of the population (the 99%).

you are, of course, free to ignore the empirical data that backs this up.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> no, they don't speak for anyone but themselves. the point of "we are the 99%" is to point out that government policy is shaped by the 1% to primarily benefit the 1%, not the rest of the population (the 99%).
> 
> you are, of course, free to ignore the empirical data that backs this up.


The empirical data does not back you up. Look at the budgets of the many social programs and infrastructure programs in Canada and the U.S. and you can see that far more then the 1% benefit from government policy.


----------



## SINC

.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> The empirical data does not back you up. Look at the budgets of the many social programs and infrastructure programs in Canada and the U.S. and you can see that far more then the 1% benefit from government policy.


i'm talking about the gains in wealth, and the growing gap between the richest 1% vs the rest. there's been countless data backing that up (already posted many times in this thread).


----------



## fjnmusic

From the FB page of George Takei.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> i'm talking about the gains in wealth, and the growing gap between the richest 1% vs the rest. there's been countless data backing that up (already posted many times in this thread).


losing your job, your house, everything putting you practically on the street needing some sort of assistance is a benefit i-rui!!!! Huge BENEFITS!! 

Just wave your hands in the air like you know who, and it'll be so!

Sorry to be so sarcastic, but man, the lunacy I read is just beyond belief.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> *no, they don't speak for anyone but themselves*. the point of "we are the 99%" is to point out that government policy is shaped by the 1% to primarily benefit the 1%, not the rest of the population (the 99%).
> 
> you are, of course, free to ignore the empirical data that backs this up.


Ok then if they don't represent the 99% then based the numbers they present by occupation they are a very small minority of the population no different from any other small lobby group so why then why all the hype and attention... "you are, of course, free to ignore the empirical data that backs this up."

Maybe because it makes for a good story... whether they realize it or not, and I think not, they have been co-opted by big media... once again... oh the irony.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> From an article by Rex Murphy in The National Post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism's spoiled children
> 
> The Occupy movement does not represent "the 99%," as its defenders like to claim. They are not a cadre speaking up for the vast proportion of the population against the tyranny or greed of an imagined "1%." Judging from the speakers I have seen and heard, either on news broadcasts or the multiple sites offering live-broadcast or YouTube coverage, the people in the various Occupy camps represent a petty sub-sample of the hard left; i.e., a range of angry students, homeless and their advocates, and - not insignificantly - some just outright strange people. Like the guy who asked for a moment of silence in "solidarity" with the man who earlier in the week fired shots at the White House and is now charged with trying to assassinate President Obama. The real 99% are surely not looking for solidarity with a potential assassin.
> 
> Nor are the real 99% looking for representation from self-selected tribunes who, almost by design, appear surly, wilful, unexposed to the complexities of life or politics, and who are almost as unbearably righteous as some of their predecessors in the anti-globalization movement. Charm is not a big property with the Occupy bunch. They bristle with contempt for those outside their precious circles, and enjoy a morbid, almost innate hatred for capitalism in so far as they may be said to understand it. Which is a lot less than the degree to which they are, in all their pseudo-rebellion, both its beneficiaries and offspring. What other system can you think of that offers "camping out" as a form of quasi-permissible political protest?
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism’s spoiled children | Full Comment | National Post
Click to expand...

Great quote...


----------



## Adrian.

screature said:


> Ok then if they don't represent the 99% then based the numbers they present by occupation they are a very small minority of the population no different from any other small lobby group so why then why all the hype and attention... "you are, of course, free to ignore the empirical data that backs this up."
> 
> Maybe because it makes for a good story... whether they realize it or not, and I think not, they have been co-opted by big media... once again... oh the irony.


Not all the French participated in the French Revolution. Not all British overthrew the Danes etc. etc. etc.


----------



## fjnmusic

Adrian. said:


> Not all the French participated in the French Revolution. Not all British overthrew the Danes etc. etc. etc.


And not everyone camping out on the street lost their job due to corporate greed. I'll bet 99% of the protesters just had nothing better to do, man.


----------



## screature

Adrian. said:


> Not all the French participated in the French Revolution. Not all British overthrew the Danes etc. etc. etc.


Who said anything about all... all I said was a significant percentage... when you look at the numbers of the OWS protesters they are significantly less than 1% of the population of the US. Let's be really generous and say despite the numbers who have turned out they represent 10- 15% of the population... they still represent a small faction.

But no, there is no overblown media hype here... none at all.


----------



## screature

fjnmusic said:


> *And not everyone camping out on the street lost their job due to corporate greed*. I'll bet 99% of the protesters just had nothing better to do, man.


Probably an insignificant number actually did... personally I did lose a job due to US corporate greed, even living in Canada, and I would not be living in the camps if I lived in the US... I have a family to feed and have enough common sense to know that my time is infinitely better spent trying to increase my well being elsewhere... as do 99% of the 99%.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> From an article by Rex Murphy in The National Post.
> 
> 
> 
> Capitalism’s spoiled children | Full Comment | National Post


Rex Murphy, like many of the others I've listened to, obviously hasn't looked very far into this protest movement. He, I guess like others, are content to limit his view to the media reports, the ones that cut and paste quotes from selected protestors, and shape the protest as merely the select bunch they've chosen to cover in the camps.

I think it's fairly obvious to those who are at least honest, this protest was far, far more than this. Of course, writing for the national post, he's merely preaching to the choir. Good on you Rex! A slap on the back for just confirming what those who don't want to see what is actually occurring, and want you to believe.

And the few, clap their hands with glee, 'good on ya Rex!' and continue to pontificate about nonsense as of they know anything.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> Probably an insignificant number actually did... personally I did lose a job due to US corporate greed, even living in Canada, and I would not be living in the camps if I lived in the US... I have a family to feed and have enough common sense to know that my time is infinitely better spent trying to increase my well being elsewhere... as do 99% of the 99%.


Exactly. If they were unemployed, they'd be looking for work. They're mostly people looking to create a modern day Woodstock atmosphere, by the looks of it. And they refuse to accept that the party was finished over a month ago. Freedom of assembly means you make your point and go home. It doesn't mean you get to squat indefinitely.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Probably an insignificant number actually did... personally I did lose a job due to US corporate greed, even living in Canada, and I would not be living in the camps if I lived in the US... I have a family to feed and have enough common sense to know that my time is infinitely better spent trying to increase my well being elsewhere... as do 99% of the 99%.


what a pompous bunch of nonsense. I suppose living in fat cat Ottawa (believe me having lived there for 5 years I know what it's like) insulates you from the rest of the world. 

Try saying that in person to all the ones especially in the US who have lost everything, their job, their homes, their lives, and have very little hope of anything, whatsoever. And to hear such pomposity, 'well I like everybody else have better things to do'... Really.

It's this kind of nose up in the air nonsense that's irritating. The constant attempts at reducing this to a bunch of ne'er do wells who have little else to do than protest. 

This is, an interesting movement. Yes, it appears not to have a unified voice. Yes, the media has successfully been able to portray this as just hippies in a camp. But there is far more to this movement, that much is obvious. It seems to me, the right is just a little uncomfortable with this, because they think this is simply a 'leftie' movement. 

Well, guess what. Mr. Hope and change stateside, while having seemingly good intentions, had a congress of "lefties' who continued to support bailouts, and the upper right's tax cuts. People are peed off now.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Exactly. If they were unemployed, they'd be looking for work. They're mostly people looking to create a modern day Woodstock atmosphere, by the looks of it. And they refuse to accept that the party was finished over a month ago. Freedom of assembly means you make your point and go home. It doesn't mean you get to squat indefinitely.


what happens, when there is, no work?


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Who said anything about all... all I said was a significant percentage... when you look at the numbers of the OWS protesters they are significantly less than 1% of the population of the US. Let's be really generous and say despite the numbers who have turned out they represent 10- 15% of the population... they still represent a small faction.
> 
> But no, there is no overblown media hype here... none at all.


the last poll i saw measured public support @ 35%. But i don't think these #'s mean too much at the beginning of this movement. if there was 99% support behind them then the change needed would be near instant. the first step is to show there is significant problems and that many are willing to sacrifice their time and put their lives on hold for a cause they beleive in.



screature said:


> Probably an insignificant number actually did... personally I did lose a job due to US corporate greed, even living in Canada, and I would not be living in the camps if I lived in the US... I have a family to feed and have enough common sense to know that my time is infinitely better spent trying to increase my well being elsewhere... as do 99% of the 99%.


that's fine. i'm not down there camping either, but what i can't for the life on me understand are those who begrudge the people who are. 

the idea that this is some slumber party/camping trip is laughable. these protesters are living in great discomfort. any inconvenience they cause pales in comparison to which they are subjecting themselves to. And of course the icing on the cake is those who complain the loudest have no need or want to use these parks but instead oppose the movement simply for ideological reasons. if this movement is so silly let it die because it has no merit. instead of tearing it down under the guise of public protection.


----------



## groovetube

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> the last poll i saw measured public support @ 35%.


However, support is dropping and outright opposition is increasing:



> “What the downturn in Occupy Wall Street’s image suggest is that voters are seeing the movement as more about ‘Occupy’ than ‘Wall Street.’ The controversy over the protests is starting to drown out the actual message,” wrote Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling.
> 
> In the latest survey, 33 percent voiced support for Occupy Wall Street, down from 35 percent in a previous poll, while opposition to the movement climbed from 36 percent to 45 percent. Twenty-two percent were unsure.


Support for Occupy Wall Street drops in poll | Strange Bedfellows — Politics News - seattlepi.com


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> *the last poll i saw measured public support @ 35%*. But i don't think these #'s mean too much at the beginning of this movement. if there was 99% support behind them then the change needed would be near instant. the first step is to show there is significant problems and that many are willing to sacrifice their time and put their lives on hold for a cause they beleive in.
> 
> 
> 
> that's fine. i'm not down there camping either, but what i can't for the life on me understand are those who begrudge the people who are.
> 
> the idea that this is some slumber party/camping trip is laughable. *these protesters are living in great discomfort*. any inconvenience they cause pales in comparison to which they are subjecting themselves to. And of course the icing on the cake is those who complain the loudest have no need or want to use these parks but instead oppose the movement simply for ideological reasons.* if this movement is so silly let it die because it has no merit. instead of tearing it down under the guise of public protection.*


Link please...

Civil disobedience obviously has it's limits especially when it comes to public health and sanity (i.e. cleanliness not mental)... 

Relatively speaking who knows... do you have any facts to back up your claim?

Like those who lived under the Rideau St. overpass in Ottawa? They created a great disturbance to the general population but if they were left to their own devices they would never have left... such an idea makes for very bad public policy ripe for abuse... squatting does not amount to ownership in a civilized society.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Civil disobedience obviously has it's limits especially when it comes to public health and sanity (i.e. cleanliness not mental)...


It must be _civil_. Martin Luther King's message would have been lost if he had been seen defecating in a park, or bathing in public.


----------



## groovetube

so now the OWS protestors are defecating and/or bathing in public.

Speaking of civility, I suppose atom smasher has no news feed and hasn't heard about the pepper spraying of peaceful protestors in California.

Or of the poet, who had earlier written that he didn't believe the reports of police violence, only to go to it to see and he and his wife were beat up.

The furious hand waving and the made up facts continues.


----------



## Russel

SINC said:


> .


' wall street'
ha ha 
priceless


----------



## fjnmusic

I tend toward the left myself, love of all things Apple aside, and I support a good protest now and then. I protested the cuts to education at the legislature in Edmonton with about 10,000 others back in 1997. One afternoon, plenty of coverage. I simply have no idea what the park-dwellers today are protesting against or what they hope to achieve by the end of this campaign (if there is one). From what I can tell, 99% of the Occupy movement's actions have about as much to do with the economy as the Vancouver riots had to do with hockey.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I tend toward the left myself, love of all things Apple aside, and I support a good protest now and then. I protested the cuts to education at the legislature in Edmonton with about 10,000 others back in 1997. One afternoon, plenty of coverage. I simply have no idea what the park-dwellers today are protesting against or what they hope to achieve by the end of this campaign (if there is one). From what I can tell, 99% of the Occupy movement's actions have about as much to do with the economy as the Vancouver riots had to do with hockey.


That may be, because you watch a little too much tv


----------



## jamesB

groovetube said:


> so now the OWS protestors are defecating and/or bathing in public.


Hence the need to powerwash the site and everything in it once the protesters vacate.


----------



## Macfury

jamesB said:


> Hence the need to powerwash the site and everything in it once the protesters vacate.


They also had to powerwash this police car after this OWS protester decided to empty his bowels on it:


----------



## jamesB

Macfury said:


> They also had to powerwash this police car after this OWS protester decided to empty his bowels on it:


Maybe I should have said "evacuate" rather then vacate?
It appears even the good-ole-USA flag isn't immune.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> They also had to powerwash this police car after this OWS protester decided to empty his bowels on it:


Now that's what it's like when someone really gives a *****.


----------



## SINC

Yeah, they're a classy bunch, those Occupy nut jobs.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> It must be _civil_. Martin Luther King's message would have been lost if he had been seen defecating in a park, or bathing in public.





Macfury said:


> They also had to powerwash this police car after this OWS protester decided to empty his bowels on it:


See, this is why people mock you macfury. You get mad, and pretend to ignore me, only because I'm likely a little less sugary about my responses to your nonsense. Or you actually think you, contribute more than I. LOL. I've seen poster after poster, get frustrated and resort to mocking you, and it's because of this kind of stupidity. Really. Equating a handful of idiots pulling ridiculous stunts, to Martin Luther King? Oh, that's not really what you're doing. I know, you think you had some kind of point in there, some higher meaning you think I've missed.

No, I don't I or others have missed anything. That shows what little credibility your ideas have, and this kind of nonsense just proves it. Any half wit knows there is always a handful of morons who show up to ruin things. We saw it with the G20 where your pals spent a billion bucks on things like assaulting and arresting peaceful innocent people. All because of a few dressed in black that broke some windows and lit a few cop cars (that were mysteriously left unattended...) on fire. Did you really think this sort of thing would be different?

I don't think anyone thinks these guys should get away with these sorts of acts. Of course, they should be arrested, charged and tossed into a jail cell where, maybe bubba will defecate on them. But how you would equate these idiots with the meaning of the protests, much less Martin Luther King, well, I salute you, for most idiotic post of the thread.

Hands down.


----------



## groovetube

we have a few lunatics in the hundreds of thousands of protestors pulling these stunts.

Meanwhile, we also have this sort of thing occurring.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






The only thing I could agree with, would be that the message has become muddled in the melee. But I don't think this will be over by a long shot. I think it will slow (naturally) over the winter months. But come the spring, I think the protests will larger, than before. That's my prediction.


----------



## eMacMan

Real nut jobs indeed. They want Participatory Democracy.

Meanwhile rumour has it that the NYPD has changed its motto to:
"To serve and protect the Super Elite. All others will be squashed like bugs."


----------



## John Clay

Finally, a victory for area residents and businesses:
Toronto News: City can dismantle Occupy camp, judge rules - thestar.com


----------



## SINC

John Clay said:


> Finally, a victory for area residents and businesses:
> Toronto News: City can dismantle Occupy camp, judge rules - thestar.com


:clap::clap: Now if only Edmonton would have the courage to oust them too.


----------



## groovetube

meanwhile, while people are focused on a couple lunatics crapping in a park like they're told to...

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Yahoo! News


----------



## i-rui

> Retired Philadelphia Police Captain, Ray Lewis, being arrested on November 17th, 2011 at the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in New York City.
> 
> Emotionally intense images of retired Philadelphia police captain Ray Lewis - who has joined the #OccupyWallStreet protests - being arrested by the NYPD.
> 
> Captain Lewis has been outspoken against the NYPD’s wrongful use of violence against peaceful protesters.
> 
> From what I have seen, Ray Lewis’ conduct defines honor, bravery, and dignity.
> 
> There is a media blackout on images of his participation in the protest, and on his arrest:
> 
> 
> It’s proved impossible for me to get this shot of former Philadelphia Police Cpt. Ray Lewis being arrested, published anywhere. I was adamantly rebuffed by the Philadelphia Inquirer, NYT, local NY papers, and Newsweek, before even looking at the photograph.


----------



## bryanc

i-rui said:


> It’s proved impossible for me to get this shot of former Philadelphia Police Cpt. Ray Lewis being arrested, published anywhere. I was adamantly rebuffed by the Philadelphia Inquirer, NYT, local NY papers, and Newsweek, before even looking at the photograph.


Media frenzy indeed


----------



## Adrian.

Reporters are being fired for supporting OWS:

Caitlin Curran The Takeaway: Public Radio Freelancer Fired for Occupy Wall Street demonstration

Several were fired yesterday from the NYT as well. 

What about free speech? That only counts when you yell from the right, I forgot!


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


>


wow. I hadn't seen this. All I saw were photos of the few idiots crapping somewhere.


----------



## groovetube

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






I know it's not an image or video of some idiot taking a crap somewhere so this may not titillate a few here.


----------



## jamesB

groovetube said:


> wow. I hadn't seen this. All I saw were photos of the few idiots crapping somewhere.


It's like one of your earlier posts, "there is always a handful of morons who show up to ruin things".


----------



## groovetube

jamesB said:


> It's like one of your earlier posts, "there is always a handful of morons who show up to ruin things".


how so?


----------



## jamesB

groovetube said:


> how so?


A retired police chief from the 2'nd most corrupt police force in the USA doesn't lend much to the cause, in my opinion.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


>





bryanc said:


> Media frenzy indeed


Gee no media opportunity generated here at all... 

A retired cop dresses up in his old fatigues and he expects solely on that basis that somehow he should be treated differently... but not really. I suspect that he knew exactly what he was doing and that he wasn't treated differently is a testament to the impartiality of those who arrested him.

What if he shot a couple of folks and decided to disappear into the crowd looking like one of the other enforcement officers... how would the headlines read then...

The fact is he was effectively impersonating an officer.. he got what he deserved.


----------



## Macfury

The Philly ex-cop story was picked up by Associated Press and other news outlets across the continent. Sucks to be a photographer who can't sell his photos--but it has nothing to do with keeping the story under wraps.


----------



## Macfury

Adrian. said:


> Reporters are being fired for supporting OWS:
> 
> Caitlin Curran The Takeaway: Public Radio Freelancer Fired for Occupy Wall Street demonstration


You can't fire a freelancer. They are not the outlet's employees.


----------



## groovetube

jamesB said:


> A retired police chief from the 2'nd most corrupt police force in the USA doesn't lend much to the cause, in my opinion.


is this police officer corrupt? And btw this isn't, a police chief, he was a captain.


----------



## groovetube

screature said:


> Gee no media opportunity generated here at all...
> 
> A retired cop dresses up in his old fatigues and he expects solely on that basis that somehow he should be treated differently... but not really. I suspect that he knew exactly what he was doing and that he wasn't treated differently is a testament to the impartiality of those who arrested him.
> 
> What if he shot a couple of folks and decided to disappear into the crowd looking like one of the other enforcement officers... how would the headlines read then...
> 
> The fact is he was effectively impersonating an officer.. he got what he deserved.


what a pile of nonsense. First, you failed to notice the bit about the media 'blackout' on this, and then you go off on some ridiculous tangent of what if he shot someone? Or impersonating a policeman? 

PULleeeease. Could it be, anymore ridiculous? He knew what he was doing, and likely was well aware he could be arrested. 

The right is furious that he did this, so now we've had everything from he's corrupt, to what if he shot someone, and I won't even bother with the nonsense spewed my atom smasher.

It is what it is. Sorry it wasn't some fool crapping on a cop car. Of course the associated press picked it up, it's like wild fire on social media.

Damn that social media. Blowing a hole in these nonsensical what ifs...


----------



## jamesB

groovetube said:


> is this police officer corrupt? And btw this isn't, a police chief, he was a captain.


Yes a Captain, my mistake-your bonus, something else to nitpick about.
Actually a Captain is even closer to the rank and file, so if he's not corrupt then he must be stupid. You can't do that job for the years it takes, and not be aware of what's going on.


----------



## groovetube

jamesB said:


> Yes a Captain, my mistake-your bonus, something else to nitpick about.
> Actually a Captain is even closer to the rank and file, so if he's not corrupt then he must be stupid. You can't do that job for the years it takes, and not be aware of what's going on.


I see, well if he isn't corrupt, well then he must be stupid. Something oh my god there must be something!!!!!

Well good that you're making a whole lot of sense, though I can see how something like this would upset you enough to make these sorts of baseless accusations.


----------



## SINC

jamesB said:


> Yes a Captain, my mistake-your bonus, something else to nitpick about.


All one has to do is look at the post count in this thread to see exactly who the nit pickers are JamesB.


----------



## groovetube

I suppose you missed the part where he called the retired cop corrupt, and then stupid. Without any real reason.

I'd be surprised Sinc that you would suddenly, be ok with this. This is why I was sarcastic in return. Disagree with his opinion and his joining the protest. But that's just ridiculous.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> I suppose you missed the part where he called the retired cop corrupt, and then stupid. Without any real reason.
> 
> I'd be surprised Sinc that you would suddenly, be ok with this. This is why I was sarcastic in return. Disagree with his opinion and his joining the protest. But that's just ridiculous.


I'm not OK with it, but I said my piece and now I will just STHU. People here now know where I stand and I suspect they know where you stand too. Repetition is so boring.


----------



## i-rui

jamesB said:


> Yes a Captain, my mistake-your bonus, something else to nitpick about.
> Actually a Captain is even closer to the rank and file, so if he's not corrupt then he must be stupid. You can't do that job for the years it takes, and not be aware of what's going on.


i think he's more aware of "what's going on" than most people.

i'd really love to hear you articulate what he did wrong that makes you attack him for being "corrupt" or "stupid"? I don't see anything that supports those suppositions.

(besides him punching a hole in the narrative that every protestor is a drugged out hippie who defecates in public thats been presented by the majority of the main stream media)


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> I'm not OK with it, but I said my piece and now I will just STHU. People here now know where I stand and I suspect they know where you stand too. Repetition is so boring.


I know. You're right about the repetition. I knew you wouldn't be ok with it. It irked me enough to take him to task over it.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> i think he's more aware of "what's going on" than most people.
> 
> i'd really love to hear you articulate what he did wrong that makes you attack him for being "corrupt" or "stupid"? I don't see anything that supports those suppositions.
> 
> *(besides him punching a hole in the narrative that every protestor is a drugged out hippie who defecates in public thats been presented by the majority of the main stream media)*


I think that may be the problem


----------



## mrjimmy

Open Channel - Lobbying firm's memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street



> A well-known Washington lobbying firm with links to the financial industry has proposed an $850,000 plan to take on Occupy Wall Street and politicians who might express sympathy for the protests, according to a memo obtained by the MSNBC program “Up w/ Chris Hayes.”
> 
> The proposal was written on the letterhead of the lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford and addressed to one of CLGC’s clients, the American Bankers Association.
> 
> CLGC’s memo proposes that the ABA pay CLGC $850,000 to conduct “opposition research” on Occupy Wall Street in order to construct “negative narratives” about the protests and allied politicians.
> 
> The memo also asserts that Democratic victories in 2012 would be detrimental for Wall Street and targets specific races in which it says Wall Street would benefit by electing Republicans instead.
> 
> According to the memo, if Democrats embrace OWS, “This would mean more than just short-term political discomfort for Wall Street. … It has the potential to have very long-lasting political, policy and financial impacts on the companies in the center of the bullseye.”
> 
> The memo also suggests that Democratic victories in 2012 should not be the ABA’s biggest concern. “… (T)he bigger concern,” the memo says, “should be that Republicans will no longer defend Wall Street companies.”


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Open Channel - Lobbying firm's memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street


Don't you read the threads mrjimmy? This pathetic "scoop" has already been dealt with days ago here.


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> Open Channel - Lobbying firm's memo spells out plan to undermine Occupy Wall Street


yes mr jimmy do try to keep up and for the love of all things sacred, don't repeat anything we don't want to hear about. We're trying desperately to keep this under wraps and remind people this is OBAMAS FAULT.

:baby:


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Don't you read the threads mrjimmy? This pathetic "scoop" has already been dealt with days ago here.


Sorry MF. The predictable posts prevent me from preview.

I think Max has the right idea...


----------



## groovetube

yes I believe he does. The brain freeze here is numbing.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> Sorry MF. The predictable posts prevent me from preview.
> 
> I think Max has the right idea...


Your predictable post didn't prevent me from reading it. If you intend to participate, do others the courtesy of reading along.


----------



## groovetube

priceless.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> Your predictable post didn't prevent me from reading it.


You obviously have a lot of free time.


----------



## Macfury

mrjimmy said:


> You obviously have a lot of free time.


No. But I read the threads I post in--or I refrain from posting.


----------



## mrjimmy

Macfury said:


> No. But I read the threads I post in--or I refrain from posting.


Obviously you don't have to read _your_ posts .


----------



## groovetube

mrjimmy said:


> You obviously have a lot of free time.


there -are- rulz you know.


----------



## ehMax

Tea Party "Organic Movement" vs OWS, and selective focus by some media. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVJgBb3-z8w

Please feel free to comment after watching entire video. There may be a few words NSFW.


----------



## SINC

There is little doubt that Fox News has an agenda most folks are well awareof here in Canada. The U.S. is quite another matter, but I knew that long before that lengthy video.

The problem for OWS is their public image. I just watched the noon TV news and all the usual suspects were being interviewed at Occupy Edmonton. That included a local big mouth Greenpeace lawbreaker for multiple trespassing stunts and his rag tag collection of spaced out, pierced, unshaven misfits. Until OWS cleans up its act, they will be a very long time gaining any credibility in this area.


----------



## jimbotelecom

SINC said:


> I just watched the noon TV news and all the usual suspects were being interviewed at Occupy Edmonton. That included a local big mouth Greenpeace lawbreaker for multiple trespassing stunts and his rag tag collection of spaced out, pierced, unshaven misfits.


So how do you really feel these people?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> There is little doubt that Fox News has an agenda most folks are well awareof here in Canada. The U.S. is quite another matter, but I knew that long before that lengthy video.
> 
> The problem for OWS is their public image. I just watched the noon TV news and all the usual suspects were being interviewed at Occupy Edmonton. That included a local big mouth Greenpeace lawbreaker for multiple trespassing stunts and his rag tag collection of spaced out, pierced, unshaven misfits. Until OWS cleans up its act, they will be a very long time gaining any credibility in this area.


Well there are far, far more sane people available for comment, but the media simply isn't interested in them. They're instructed to go after what makes news, there are audiences that need to be titillated!


----------



## SINC

jimbotelecom said:


> So how do you really feel these people?


I really feel they have a great cause, but they have chosen the wrong way to gain respect for their position. If they want things to change, clean up and make a good showing when they present their case. they are their own worst enemies.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Well there are far, far more sane people available for comment, but the media simply isn't interested in them. They're instructed to go after what makes news, there are audiences that need to be titillated!


Nonsense in this case. These people are the self-appointed spokespersons by the OWS group who deal with the media, the mayor, the Melcor CEO on whose property they are squatting and the police chief. The media is addressing those appointed spokespersons at Occupy Edmonton's request and no one else. I've yet to see a local interview with any other member of the group. So, whose fault is the rag tag look again? Hmmmm?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Nonsense in this case. These people are the self-appointed spokespersons by the OWS group who deal with the media, the mayor, the Melcor CEO on whose property they are squatting and the police chief. The media is addressing those appointed spokespersons at Occupy Edmonton's request and no one else. I've yet to see a local interview with any other member of the group. So, whose fault is the rag tag look again? Hmmmm?


not nonsense. I have good friends who go out in the field with cameras and this is what they tell me. The videos posted by Ezra Levant, next to the unedited versions that was posted, should make it very clear to anyone that it's true.

It's well known Sinc. Well known.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> not nonsense. I have good friends who go out in the field with cameras and this is what they tell me. The videos posted by Ezra Levant, next to the unedited versions that was posted, should make it very clear to anyone that it's true.
> 
> It's well known Sinc. Well known.


So now you know all about Edmonton too, do you gt? That's horse pucky.

I told you that the media has religiously spoken to none other than the three spokespersons Occupy Edmonton appointed. Same thing on Global, CBC and CTV as well as the press. Odd that eh?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> So now you know all about Edmonton too, do you gt? That's horse pucky.
> 
> I told you that the media has religiously spoken to none other than the three spokespersons Occupy Edmonton appointed. Same thing on Global, CBC and CTV as well as the press. Odd that eh?


it's kinda well, all over Sinc. Clearly when the tea party protests were going on, they were doing a lot of the same things. And yes, I have friends who do camera work all of those networks. As I said, you don't need to know anyone involved to see something this obvious.

No one wants to hear a sane person speak, news is idiots shouting, and police pepper spraying. Isn't this kinda obvious? no?

I would have thought so?


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> it's kinda well, all over Sinc. Clearly when the tea party protests were going on, they were doing a lot of the same things. And yes, I have friends who do camera work all of those networks. As I said, you don't need to know anyone involved to see something this obvious.
> 
> No one wants to hear a sane person speak, news is idiots shouting, and police pepper spraying. Isn't this kinda obvious? no?
> 
> I would have thought so?


Again I repeat, the only news reports I have seen in a month are from the same three spokesperson for Occupy Edmonton, two guys and a girl. But you know better because you know someone who works for someone who told you it was so? Dream on. That is NOT the situation in Edmonton and I speak specifically of Edmonton. I am growing tired of listening to those three.


----------



## groovetube

whatever Sinc. I don't exactly what's happening in Edmonton, but in general, this is what happens. Man bites dog right?


----------



## i-rui

groovetube said:


> No one wants to hear a sane person speak, news is idiots shouting, and police pepper spraying. Isn't this kinda obvious? no?


so true. most news stations now treat news like entertainment instead of information.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> so true. most news stations now treat news like entertainment instead of information.


I would have thought this pretty common knowledge by now, it is after all, 2011.


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> so true. most news stations now treat news like entertainment instead of information.


Most? Highly doubtful.

There are still plenty of newsrooms with integrity across the country. I suspect this is more common in smaller markets, but Edmonton has at least two TV news stations and one newspaper that meets that challenge. The news head honcho at those types of operations keep things even and objective. Toronto, Montreal, and maybe Vancouver are perhaps suspect, but to paint the entire country's newsrooms with a term like 'most now treat news like entertainment instead of information' is an uneducated generalization. There is not much a news organization, be it radio, TV or print in Canadian cities of 50,000 or less (I dare say the majority of newsrooms) can get away with. Too many folks know the truth (and their neighbours) before it ever hits the airwaves or print.


----------



## mrjimmy

SINC said:


> Most? Highly doubtful.
> 
> There are still plenty of newsrooms with integrity across the country. I suspect this is more common in smaller markets, but Edmonton has at least two TV news stations and one newspaper that meets that challenge. The news head honcho at those types of operations keep things even and objective. Toronto, Montreal, and maybe Vancouver are perhaps suspect, but to paint the entire country's newsrooms with a term like 'most now treat news like entertainment instead of information' is an uneducated generalization. There is not much a news organization, be it radio, TV or print in Canadian cities of 50,000 or less (I dare say the majority of newsrooms) can get away with. Too many folks know the truth (and their neighbours) before it ever hits the airwaves or print.


SINC, do you know who owns these stations and paper? It seems less about local decisions and more about corporate mandate these days.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> ...rag tag collection of spaced out, pierced, unshaven misfits. Until OWS cleans up its act, they will be a very long time gaining any credibility in this area.


We all have our biases. In my line of work, if you show up wearing a suit and tie, you're likely to be perceived more skeptically than 'pierced, unshaven misfits.' But regardless, one should judge someone by what they say and do, rather than how they look. Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> We all have our biases. In my line of work, if you show up wearing a suit and tie, you're likely to be perceived more skeptically than 'pierced, unshaven misfits.' But regardless, one should judge someone by what they say and do, rather than how they look. Wouldn't you agree?


bryanc, both you and I are well enough grounded to see past the 'garb'. My point is that the vast majority of TV viewers who see these people write them off as 'kooks'. I stand by that just from hearing from my readers and from comments made in social situations around this city for sure. They swim against the stream in both appearance and viewpoint and wonder why people reject them.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> bryanc, both you and I are well enough grounded to see past the 'garb'. My point is that the vast majority of TV viewers who see these people write them off as 'kooks'. I stand by that just from hearing from my readers and from comments made in social situations around this city for sure. They swim against the stream in both appearance and viewpoint and wonder why people reject them.


yes I agree, most people would write them off as kooks. That's why camera guys are told to find these kooks. No one wants to see some boring guy say some sane things, we wanna see freaks mouthing off!

Honestly I couldn't know what happens in Edmonton. I'm sure there are exceptions to what seems to be the norm.


----------



## SINC

mrjimmy said:


> SINC, do you know who owns these stations and paper? It seems less about local decisions and more about corporate mandate these days.


Yes. I know who owns them. I know the publisher of the Journal, a Postmedia publication, personally and have for 20 years. I know the news director of Global Vancouver from his days here in Edmonton. CTV Edmonton's news director is a pillar in this community and he is very well respected.

But more to the point, most newsrooms in small town Canada are honest beyond reproach. As I mentioned, if they are not, small communities smell a rat very quickly. That is why the company I worked for, and oversaw the acquisition of hundreds of Canadian weeklies, left editorial autonomy to the local management. Since they were all purchased by Quebecor, the newsrooms developed into corporate dictated carbon copies in the past dozen years.

Happily, that pendulum is swinging once again and start-up operations of independently owned papers, mostly staffed by rejects from Quebecor's brutal budget cuts in those very communities, are enjoying unprecedented advertiser and reader support as the Quebecor owned publications are dying.


----------



## SINC

Well folks, finally we have the Occupy Edmonton demands in writing. You tell me just how balanced and realistic this letter to authorities issued today really is. My opinion is 'what the hell are they smoking'? Talk about 'looney tunes'. Once again I submit they are their own worst enemies. These demands and making them a condition of dispersal are just soooo faaaarrr out that they look like kooks all over again.

Can anyone defend this kind of claptrap?

FYI: Mr. Young is CEO of Melcor, the owner of the land the OWS group have squatted upon.



> OCCUPY EDMONTON: The reason we occupy and what we want.
> 
> Dear Ralph Young,
> 
> We regret that you have chosen not to accept our offer of mediation and that you are no longer open to dialogue. Instead you are choosing to push us towards a forceful eviction and are threatening to personally sue individuals for costs.
> 
> We wanted to take this moment to explain to you, and everyone watching, some of the reasons why we began this Occupation in the first place, and what actions we would like to see take place so that it can come to a voluntarily end.
> 
> We began the Occupation on October 15th because the call that was and is being heard around the world resonated with us - a call not just for minor tweaks, but a call big enough to fill our hearts and dreams.
> 
> This call was born from the inequities of systems that continue to benefit the richest few at the expense of the rest of us.
> 
> The crimes occurring against regular people weren't just happening in New York or across America, but in countries and cities all over the world, including Edmonton.
> 
> The themes of corporate control of political institutions and growing inequity and environment destruction, rang true here, just as they do in New York.
> 
> Corporations have taken over our world, but by supporting each other and working in cities across the planet, we are hoping to take it back.
> 
> The Occupy movement is not just another protest, or stunt - it is a process to push for a new, more just world, that prioritizes the health of people and environments over profits and a desire for infinite growth.
> 
> The Occupation itself is part of it. It is a light of hope to many here in Edmonton, and all over the world.
> 
> The Occupation is also a constant reminder of the systemic imbalances we face, of the inequities and injustices caused by systems that increase the gap between the rich and poor, disenfranchising more and more voices and are pushing us closer to environmental collapse.
> 
> That is why it is difficult for us to simply end the occupation: to do so would signal that things are okay, and they most certainly aren't. In fact they aren't even close.
> 
> That is why we need to continue. We will peacefully resist this latest eviction attempt because we need to be that reminder and we must continue pushing for the world that we - and people all over the world - want and need.
> 
> We hope you know that being out in -25 degree weather isn't fun.
> 
> We aren't doing this because we are bored, or because we just like to complain; we are doing it because we believe the world can and must get better.
> 
> It's clear that you want us to leave on our own, voluntarily. We are prepared to do that but first we need to see a few things happen.
> 
> Below is a brief though not a complete list. We know that you aren't able to enact these things yourself but you could help.
> 
> It's safe to say that if these things were to change, the occupation could come to a peaceful and voluntary end.
> 
> We would happily pack up our bags, go back to our homes, and jobs, and continue on with our lives, because we would know that the changes we need had begun.
> 
> *8 things we need to see in order for us to leave willingly:
> 
> 1. We want to see our government officials actually come and participate in general assemblies and the occupation. We want to see them interact with our movement rather than try to ignore, disregard or actively try to undermine it.
> 
> 2. If the City of Edmonton can give over $100 million in subsidies to a billionaire conglomerate, we should also be able to invest in City services, not cut them. We would like to see the $10.5 million in City service cuts eliminated and the property-tax hike apply not only to Edmontonians, but to the Katz group as well.
> 
> 3. We want to see an end to the corporate influence over our democratic process. In Alberta this means ending the cozy relationship the government has with the oil industry. We want independent monitoring, a fair royalty regime, and an end to the open-door policy that the government has with oil representatives. We want a government, not a public relations firm.
> 
> 4. We want to see wages, pensions, employment insurance, social assistance, workers compensation, AISH and disability benefits at minimum indexed to the average increases in salary and bonuses for the top ten CEOs in this country. We also want to see the gap between the richest 100 Canadian CEO salaries ($6.6 million in 2009) and the minimum wage decrease.
> 
> 5. We want to see fully funded public health care and pharmacare programs.
> 
> 6. We want to see free post-secondary education. Education is a right and anyone that has the desire to better themselves by going to college or University should be able to do so regardless of income and without being saddled with a huge student debt.
> 
> 7. We want to see all Free Trade agreements adhere to the country with the most stringent environmental and labour laws, not the worst. (For example, NAFTA's Chapter 11, giving corporations in one country the right to sue a foreign government over 'potential loss of profits', regardless of the environmental consequences, should be abolished.)
> 
> 8. Canada signed the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; now we want our government to implement it by giving our First Peoples all the rights contained within it, including the right to Free, Prior and Informed Consent on all energy developments on Indigenous Territory.
> *
> This is not a comprehensive list of what we want, or what we need, but it is a start. It is a few steps further along the road we need to travel.
> 
> When you look at this list you may think we are idealists. That may be so, but we think that maybe the world needs a little more idealism, not a little less.
> 
> In your correspondence to us, you frequently mention, "respect for private property."
> 
> We would agree that had we chosen to camp on a front lawn of someone's house, this might be disrespectful.
> 
> Regardless of what Melcor Park's ownership status is, in practice and social norms it operates like a public space.
> 
> The question is, should a rigid "respect" for the status of a tiny patch of land override and silence voices at a time when we have so many social and environmental crises to deal with?
> 
> One of the local concerns expressed by many occupiers is the ineffectualness of our economy in developing the downtown core in a way that builds community and is fair and equitable to taxpayers. Land stands empty, either creating foreboding spaces at night, or which must be developed with huge public subsidies to developers.
> 
> As noted recently by at least one journalist, Melcor park at this time of year is "usually just an eyesore".
> 
> We ask you to look at our occupation through this lens and again consider the possibility that rather than making Melcor Park more dangerous we have made it safer, more lively, and community-oriented in a way that it is not when the park stands empty.
> 
> We do not deny that there are difficulties with the public transformation of a space undertaken by citizens. Yet is it also undeniable that we are building the infrastructure needed to make the park a safe place to raise concerns, while harming no one.
> 
> Between an empty space and a safe, lively, community space in the downtown core, we think Edmontonians would prefer the latter.
> 
> If you do choose to forcibly remove us we hope that rather than throwing away the food that's been donated by the warm Edmonton community, you will give it to local homeless shelters.
> 
> We hope that rather than trying to extinguish the light, and forcibly removing peaceful people pushing only for a better world for all of us, that you'd join us; we ask that you add your voice to ours, because together we are stronger, we are wiser and we could realize our dreams a little faster.
> 
> The choice is yours Ralph.
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Occupy Edmonton


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Yes. I know who owns them. I know the publisher of the Journal, a Postmedia publication, personally and have for 20 years. I know the news director of Global Vancouver from his days here in Edmonton. CTV Edmonton's news director is a pillar in this community and he is very well respected.
> 
> But more to the point, most newsrooms in small town Canada are honest beyond reproach. As I mentioned, if they are not, small communities smell a rat very quickly. That is why the company I worked for, and oversaw the acquisition of hundreds of Canadian weeklies, left editorial autonomy to the local management. Since they were all purchased by Quebecor, the newsrooms developed into corporate dictated carbon copies in the past dozen years.
> 
> Happily, that pendulum is swinging once again and start-up operations of independently owned papers, mostly staffed by rejects from Quebecor's brutal budget cuts in those very communities, are enjoying unprecedented advertiser and reader support as the Quebecor owned publications are dying.


That's all well and fine. But really Sinc, what I'm suggesting, isn't exactly lying, it's simply selective reporting.

You can't tell me this doesn't occur even at the infallible local level.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> That's all well and fine. But really Sinc, what I'm suggesting, isn't exactly lying, it's simply selective reporting.
> 
> You can't tell me this doesn't occur even at the infallible local level.


If you have never lived in a community of 5,000 - 10,000 or even up to 30,000 people, you have no idea of what I refer to as far as everyone knowing what goes on and how tough it is for any media to try and snow the locals. The locals expose and discredit the media in a heartbeat if they make a wrong move.


----------



## groovetube

I grew up in a town of 4,500. So yes, I do actually. Don't always assume Sinc.

Moved to downtown Toronto when I left the homestead.


----------



## fjnmusic

i-rui said:


> so true. most news stations now treat news like entertainment instead of information.


Now? Actually, it's always been this way. Today it may be just a bit more obvious,


----------



## fjnmusic

SINC said:


> Well folks, finally we have the Occupy Edmonton demands in writing. You tell me just how balanced and realistic this letter to authorities issued today really is. My opinion is 'what the hell are they smoking'? Talk about 'looney tunes'. Once again I submit they are their own worst enemies. These demands and making them a condition of dispersal are just soooo faaaarrr out that they look like kooks all over again.
> 
> Can anyone defend this kind of claptrap?
> 
> FYI: Mr. Young is CEO of Melcor, the owner of the land the OWS group have squatted upon.


So if their demands are not met, then what...they'll hold their breath?


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> I grew up in a town of 4,500. So yes, I do actually. Don't always assume Sinc.
> 
> Moved to downtown Toronto when I left the homestead.


Then why would you even question the fact that small town Canada is a different place where the media is held accountable by the residents and not the other way around? Perhaps you left before you realized the difference?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Well folks, finally we have the Occupy Edmonton demands in writing. You tell me just how balanced and realistic this letter to authorities issued today really is. My opinion is 'what the hell are they smoking'? Talk about 'looney tunes'. Once again I submit they are their own worst enemies. These demands and making them a condition of dispersal are just soooo faaaarrr out that they look like kooks all over again.
> 
> Can anyone defend this kind of claptrap?
> 
> FYI: Mr. Young is CEO of Melcor, the owner of the land the OWS group have squatted upon.


actually the eight point aren't at all crazy at all.

Well put.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Then why would you even question the fact that small town Canada is a different place where the media is held accountable by the residents and not the other way around? Perhaps you left before you realized the difference?


I know very well the difference. I also call bullcrap on this notion that small town news isn't guilty of selective reporting.

Bull. And that's my opinion.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> I know very well the difference. I also call bullcrap on this notion that small town news isn't guilty of selective reporting.
> 
> Bull. And that's my opinion.


Well, you just confirmed you left too early to understand the term community.


----------



## groovetube

oh Sinc come on now. That's just getting ridiculous. I'm afraid that's my opinion, having grown up in a small town, and being in a city with many communities and small community rags.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> oh Sinc come on now. That's just getting ridiculous. I'm afraid that's my opinion, having grown up in a small town, and being in a city with many communities and small community rags.


It's all right gt, I know you just can't grasp it. It's OK, really.

Just how old were you when you left that small town again?


----------



## groovetube

I was an adult. Does that help?

Jesus Christ on a cracker. That's my opinion. It appears we've beaten it to death.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> I was an adult. Does that help?
> 
> Jesus Christ on a cracker. That's my opinion. It appears we've beaten it to death.


Ah, now we revert to crackers.

I’d like to lay to rest once and for all your supposed expertise on small town Canada. Let me begin by asking you some questions:

Ever been president of a small town service club?

Ever been a scoutmaster in a small town?

Ever coached baseball in a small community?

Ever been president of the local Legion?

Ever been appointed by the local council to sit on a tribunal with decision powers to adjudicate disputes?

Ever served for three years on a small town centennial planning committee?

Ever been publisher of five different small town newspapers?

Ever served on the police commission of a small town?

Ever been commissioned to head up a commemorative publication to celebrate an small town’s history?

Ever been the president of the Chamber of Commerce or the Tourist Bureau of a small town?

Ever been a member of the board of directors of a national newspaper organization representing your small town?

Ever been selected as an outstanding citizen of the year in a small town?

I have done every one of these things and more, so don’t tell me how well you know small town Canada. It just doesn’t fly with me.


----------



## MacDoc

Time to put the invisible hand into visible handcuffs.......the Occupy protests know this.....deregulation is an abject failure.....



> *When it comes to productivity, the ‘invisible hand’ lacks visible success*
> 
> Moe Doiron/The Globe and Mail
> 
> Opinion
> On productivity, the ‘invisible hand’ lacks visible success
> jim stanford
> Globe and Mail Update
> Published Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011 6:52PM EST
> Last updated Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011 7:59PM EST
> 
> When it comes to Canada’s lousy record in productivity and innovation, the standard prescription of economists is both clear and predictable. They believe unregulated markets are the best way to allocate resources and determine the composition of output. Therefore, to improve efficiency and innovation, simply improve markets: Eliminate “distorting” taxes. Eliminate regulations. Sign more free-trade agreements. Cut “red tape.” That will unleash the full potential of the private sector to innovate and optimize, and Canada will become a northern tiger.
> 
> Canadian economic and social policy has been generally following this advice for a quarter-century. Taxes are lower, globalization is embraced, labour markets are unforgiving, business is freer (and more profitable) than any time in our history. Ironically, however, the more vigorously we pursue the holy grail of self-adjusting markets, the worse our productivity and innovation has been.
> 
> Over the last decade, Canada ranked 30th out of the 34 countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development in annual labour productivity growth. Relative to our neighbour and biggest trading partner, our record has been even worse. Since 1984 (when the Macdonald Commission recommended comprehensive free trade with the U.S., precisely to boost our productivity to their levels), productivity in Canada has faded from 90 per cent of U.S. levels to 70 per cent. The promise of free trade, tax cuts, and deregulation to spur productivity (and deliver trickle-down benefits to the rest of us) has been utterly broken.
> 
> This seeming contradiction between Canada’s business-friendly policy environment and the failure of the resulting empowered private sector to deliver innovation and productivity growth puzzles economists who advocate market-driven approaches. They search for some remaining imperfections or residual market impediments to explain the failure of Canadian productivity and innovation to take off.
> 
> But what if the starting assumption of their model – namely, that unconstrained private market forces always produce the most efficient, innovative economy – is not justified? What if, in fact, markets work more productively and creatively when they are guided, supported, and constrained, rather than simply being unleashed? What if the best approach is to challenge and direct markets to more productive and innovative outcomes?
> 
> International experience reinforces my skepticism of market-driven policy. The successful state-led industrialization experience of several Asian and Latin American economies in recent decades, where policy was proactive and interventionist, suggests that innovative, productivity-enhancing growth does not occur spontaneously as a result of market forces. Instead, the “visible hand” of government intervention, manifested in a wide range of forms, is more strongly associated with qualitative and quantitative economic progress. Targeted subsidies, strategic trade interventions, active industrial strategies in high-tech industries, domestic procurement strategies, and even public ownership of key firms have all been more effective in promoting innovation and export success than Canada’s hands-off approach.
> 
> Canada’s poor performance, from this viewpoint, is a consequence of our liberalization – not a paradox. Of course, large government by itself is no more a guarantee of productivity success than small government: Interventions must be smart, efficient and disciplined. But experience shows clearly that market forces on their own cannot be relied on to guide the economy to its innovative, efficient potential.
> 
> To meaningfully address and reverse the continuing failure of Canadian innovation and productivity, therefore, we need to adopt a more open-minded approach to economic policy. We must set aside our knee-jerk assumption that private-market forces produce optimal, innovative outcomes. Instead, we should view effective public interventions and leadership as a key asset in nurturing investment and growth in the most desirable industries of the future.
> 
> This approach has been derided as “picking winners” by a generation of market-worshipping economists, who believe that only the private sector can pick winners. (In fact, the private sector cannot pick winners … as any mutual fund investor can attest!) But we cannot continue to wait for the forces of unregulated private competition to develop Canada’s economy in a sustainable, diversified manner. If we want to maximize Canadians’ potential for innovation and productivity, we will have to collectively step into the fray and make it happen.


On productivity, the ‘invisible hand’ lacks visible success - The Globe and Mail

:clap:

not only handcuffed, but accountable.....



> *Federal Regulators Sue Big Banks Over Mortgages*


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/03/business/bank-suits-over-mortgages-are-filed.html

The Occupy movement has a strong case for those visible handcuffs being needed.....and strengthened.....time for change


----------



## groovetube

Ok Sinc. 20 paces. That should settle it.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> Ok Sinc. 20 paces. That should settle it.


Yep, resort to violence when you suffer defeat, good plan.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Time to put the invisible hand into visible handcuffs.......the Occupy protests know this.....deregulation is an abject failure.....
> 
> On productivity, the ;invisible hand lacks visible success - The Globe and Mail


_Moe Doiron is currently a staff photographer at The Globe and Mail_



> Federal Regulators Sue Big Banks Over Mortgages


This will backfire big time on Fannie Mae.


----------



## groovetube

Well so much for some humor to diffuse a deadlock. I'm done for the night.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> _Moe Doiron is currently a staff photographer at The Globe and Mail_
> 
> 
> 
> This will backfire big time on Fannie Mae.


Oh one last one.

Not to worry, their good buddy and well paid protector (and possible the next president) good ol newt will come to the rescue as he has throughout the decade leading to the meltdown.

Nighty.


----------



## BigDL

Here's an interesting Article to explain the OWS phenomenon and considering Ehmac is a technology inspired meeting place it may be helpful to the viewers here.



Alexis Madrigal The Atlantic said:


> This idea crystallized for me yesterday when Jonathan Glick, a long-time digital journalist, tweeted, "I think #OWS was working better as an API than a destination site anyway." If you get the idea, go ahead and skip ahead to the documentation below. If you don't get, let me explain why it might be the most useful way of thinking about #Occupy...
> 
> ...A key feature of APIs is that they require structure on both sides of a request. You can't just ask Twitter's API for some tweets. You must ask in a specific way and you will receive a discrete package of 20 statuses. We decided that breaking down the inputs and outputs of Occupy Wall Street in this way might actually be useful. The metaphor turns out to reveal a useful way of thinking about the components that have gone into the protest. Obviously, many of these tactics owe a debt of gratitude both to traditional organizing training (e.g. consensus decision-making processes) as well as more recent protest movements in North Africa and Europe (e.g. taking the square, distributed leadership). Nonetheless, it is Occupy Wall Street that pushed many of these ideas out across this country.


----------



## Lawrence

Occupy Toronto Live Stream for those interested in what is going on in St. James Park right now.

Occupy Toronto - live streaming video powered by Livestream


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Here's an interesting Article to explain the OWS phenomenon and considering Ehmac is a technology inspired meeting place it may be helpful to the viewers here.


This merely explains away the lack of focus. It does not address it.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

The businessman is correct. Even that sentence printed on the sign is not a coherent demand. This is convincing stuff only to those who are mapping their own dreams onto the incoherent OWS efforts.


----------



## SINC

Not to mention the sign's grammar. Return back???


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Not to mention the sign's grammar. Return back???


I think the artist is striving for a little verité in the illustration.


----------



## fjnmusic

Lawrence said:


> Occupy Toronto Live Stream for those interested in what is going on in St. James Park right now.
> 
> Occupy Toronto - live streaming video powered by Livestream


Power to the people, eh.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Not to mention the sign's grammar. Return back???


I think the cartoonist wrote that.

Ask him.


----------



## MazterCBlazter

.


----------



## screature

MazterCBlazter said:


> Lifelong hard working active in the community!
> 
> AAA+


I will add to that triple A rating... AAAA+...

All politics is local... those who don't get that are ultimately doomed to failure... at least in our form of democracy.

There are exceptions of course like Charlie Angus and Peter Stoffer but in the end it may come to bite them in the ass... when it comes to Stoffer I would not be so inclined to cheer the outcome, but regarding Angus I would be more than happy.

He should go back to making music... because as an MP he is an ass who only draws on the media for his TPs... actually as most of the NDP do... he is just much more smug and snide... a skill in it's own right I suppose... For those who support him it is a gift, for everyone else... well I have stated my case.

At this point I think the Libs make a much more an effective opposition than do the NDP despite the numbers in the House.


----------



## kps

The real reason for the occupations:


----------



## groovetube

oh kps. What are we going to do with you.


----------



## Macfury

The OWSers must have leaves of absences from their workplace so they can camp out... oh wait...


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> The OWSers must have leaves of absences from their workplace so they can camp out... oh wait...


Perhaps they don't have work to go to because their jobs were outsourced overseas while their bosses collected bonuses paid for by corporate tax cuts?


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> The businessman is correct. Even that sentence printed on the sign is not a coherent demand. This is convincing stuff only to those who are mapping their own dreams onto the incoherent OWS efforts.


What is not coherent? The government favors corporation needs over the greater need of its citizens. They want that practice stopped. Even my four year old can figure that out. Why can't you?


----------



## groovetube

hayesk said:


> Perhaps they don't have work to go to because their jobs were outsourced overseas while their bosses collected bonuses paid for by corporate tax cuts?


I think it's been attempted no less than 20 times to explain this, but apparently he thinks we haven't had any serious job losses.


----------



## fjnmusic

hayesk said:


> Perhaps they don't have work to go to because their jobs were outsourced overseas while their bosses collected bonuses paid for by corporate tax cuts?


What I would like to communicate to the protesters: there are always jobs. Maybe not the particular kind of jobs _these _guys are looking for, but jobs nonetheless. When the economy shifts, you learn to be flexible. Start a business. Retrain. Move. Do what you have to. But for gosh sakes, _stop whining_. Two months into the protest, people's sympathy will wear out. In Edmonton, the protesters issued their list of demands, including all-paid universal health care. Yup, that's going to happen. Are they going to hold their breath til they turn blue if these demands are not met?


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> What is not coherent? The government favors corporation needs over the greater need of its citizens. They want that practice stopped. Even my four year old can figure that out. Why can't you?


Some of the protesters want that. Some want free tuition. Some want anarchy. Some want forgiveness of ALL debt. Which practices should end? Which programs? How? Has your four-year-old identified the means to that end? 

Neither have the protesters.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> *Some of the protesters want that*. Some want free tuition. Some want anarchy. Some want forgiveness of ALL debt. Which practices should end? Which programs? How? Has your four-year-old identified the means to that end?
> 
> Neither have the protesters.


i'd say they *all* want that. others may be protesting other issues as well, but that would be the core issue.


----------



## fjnmusic

i-rui said:


> i'd say they *all* want that. others may be protesting other issues as well, but that would be the core issue.


And also big chocolate fountains in the middle of Churchill Square. Open year round. For free. Don't ask me how they'd do it, but that's what I want.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> And also big chocolate fountains in the middle of Churchill Square. Open year round. For free. Don't ask me how they'd do it, but that's what I want.


yes, we all know wanting governments to stop favoring corporate interests over it's citizens is about the same as chocolate fountains.

With tangerine trees and marmalade skies.

Go easy there fellah. 

I get a chuckle out of atom smasher furiously trying to connect the dots with protestors and all kinds of shiny balls. It's probably why, he misses the main message.


----------



## BigDL

fjnmusic said:


> What I would like to communicate to the protesters: there are always jobs. Maybe not the particular kind of jobs _these _guys are looking for, but jobs nonetheless. When the economy shifts, you learn to be flexible. Start a business. Retrain. Move. Do what you have to. But for gosh sakes, _stop whining_. Two months into the protest, people's sympathy will wear out. In Edmonton, the protesters issued their list of demands, including all-paid universal health care. Yup, that's going to happen. Are they going to hold their breath til they turn blue if these demands are not met?





Macfury said:


> Some of the protesters want that. Some want free tuition. Some want anarchy. Some want forgiveness of ALL debt. Which practices should end? Which programs? How? Has your four-year-old identified the means to that end?
> 
> Neither have the protesters.





i-rui said:


> i'd say they *all* want that. others may be protesting other issues as well, but that would be the core issue.





fjnmusic said:


> And also big chocolate fountains in the middle of Churchill Square. Open year round. For free. Don't ask me how they'd do it, but that's what I want.


How's about ending child poverty. It was unanimously agreed by the House of Corporations ...err...  Commons to end child poverty by the year 2000.


----------



## groovetube

BigDL said:


> How's about ending child poverty. It was unanimously agreed by the House of Corporations ...err...  Commons to end child poverty by the year 2000.


oh come on you might as well go for the chocolate fountain. No one cares about the hungry kids.

better put a smiley there...


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> oh come on you might as well go for the chocolate fountain. No one cares about the hungry kids.
> 
> better put a smiley there...


Or you could feed the chocolate fountain to the hungry kids. But first you'd have to find a way to bus them there. A modest proposal, to say the least.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> How's about ending child poverty. It was unanimously agreed by the House of Corporations ...err...  Commons to end child poverty by the year 2000.


How about World Peace? All of the beauty pageant contestants agree on that one.


----------



## kps

Macfury said:


> How about World Peace? *All of the beauty pageant contestants agree on that one*.


Bhaaa,ha,ha, major guffaw.:lmao:


----------



## Kosh

fjnmusic said:


> What I would like to communicate to the protesters: there are always jobs. Maybe not the particular kind of jobs _these _guys are looking for, but jobs nonetheless. When the economy shifts, you learn to be flexible. Start a business. Retrain. Move. Do what you have to. But for gosh sakes, _stop whining_. Two months into the protest, people's sympathy will wear out. In Edmonton, the protesters issued their list of demands, including all-paid universal health care. Yup, that's going to happen. Are they going to hold their breath til they turn blue if these demands are not met?


Your talking to the wrong bunch. All these protesters want is a free ride. They want everything for free. They don't want to work for it. They don't want to pay tax or contribute to society. They want to be taken care of.

Go get a college or University education in something that is relevant and pays, and get a job.


----------



## SINC

Kosh said:


> Your talking to the wrong bunch. All these protesters want is a free ride. They want everything for free. They don't want to work for it. They don't want to pay tax or contribute to society. They want to be taken care of.


This pretty much sums it up:





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## kps

Sure does, right down to the clean up and costly return of the occupied parks to their previous states. Wonder what the union costs will be for St.James Park in TO. 

Occupy, sh*t all over the place, destroy and then let other's clean it up at the local tax payers expense. 

Especially those tax payers who had lost the use of the park, feared walking around the area, lived close and put up with the inconvenience and noise, the tax paying businesses which lost customers due to the disruption, etc. I think it was time to think about these people's rights. The protesters had their time. Move on...


----------



## Kosh

:clap::clap:

.... and I'll give that a +10


----------



## SINC

Yep kps, they need to stop being against everything and start being for something.


----------



## BigDL

SINC said:


> Yep kps, they need to stop being against everything and start being for something.


You mean like "you have to believe in something, I believe I'll have a beer."

For better or worse, some folks, have publicly expressed that particular ethos.


----------



## CubaMark

Kosh said:


> Your talking to the wrong bunch. All these protesters want is a free ride. They want everything for free. They don't want to work for it. They don't want to pay tax or contribute to society. They want to be taken care of.


That statement is about as accurate as the left saying that all demonstrators at the Tea Party rallies are white, racist, gun-owning, ignorant southern incestuous mountain folk.



Kosh said:


> Go get a college or University education in something that is relevant and pays, and get a job.


Gee. I have a Broadcasting diploma. A dual-honour's bachelor's in Sociology and Development Studies. A Masters in Development Studies. A PhD in Development Studies. I have extensive international education, cross-cultural, communication and research experience. I've managed large-budget projects.

And I'm unemployed. Sure, my circumstances are unique, but there are many folks in Canada with education and skill sets that should be employable, who have no real prospects for working in (or near) their field. 

The whole "get a job" attitude is unfortunate, as it indicates an unwillingness to even attempt to understand the economic, social and political barriers that many people face when trying to make a go of it.


----------



## Dr.G.

CubaMark said:


> That statement is about as accurate as the left saying that all demonstrators at the Tea Party rallies are white, racist, gun-owning, ignorant southern incestuous mountain folk.
> 
> 
> 
> Gee. I have a Broadcasting diploma. A dual-honour's bachelor's in Sociology and Development Studies. A Masters in Development Studies. A PhD in Development Studies. I have extensive international education, cross-cultural, communication and research experience. I've managed large-budget projects.
> 
> And I'm unemployed. Sure, my circumstances are unique, but there are many folks in Canada with education and skill sets that should be employable, who have no real prospects for working in (or near) their field.
> 
> The whole "get a job" attitude is unfortunate, as it indicates an unwillingness to even attempt to understand the economic, social and political barriers that many people face when trying to make a go of it.


Even those with jobs are finding things getting a bit tight. At least the earnings of the top executives are going down ............. I think. 

"Canadian workers are failing to keep up with the rising cost of living as real wages continue to fall dramatically, new data from Statistics Canada shows.

The agency reported Thursday that average weekly earnings for non-farm payrolls fell 0.3 per cent in nominal terms in September to $872.75.

When the 3.2 per cent inflation rate for the month is taken into consideration, the drop in real wages was more dramatic."

Canadian wages plummet - Business - CBC News


----------



## eMacMan

I recall somewhere in my educational background two SF novels which somehow became mandatory reads.

One was of course Orwell's 1984, which I now view as slightly belated dejá vue. But if you look into the man's bio he had the background to make those eerily accurate predictions.

The other that has stuck in my head was Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, where the job of Firefighters was to destroy books and the homes of any who dared to read them. Also eerily prescient as this article by Will Scott should indicate.



> At about 2:30 am on November 15, the People’s Library was destroyed by the NYPD, acting on the authority of Mayor Michael Bloomberg. With no advance notice, an army of police in riot gear raided the park, seized everything in it and threw it all into garbage trucks and dumpsters. Despite Mayor Bloomberg’s Twitter promise that the library was safely stored and could be retrieved, only about 1,100 books were recovered, and some of those are in unreadable condition. Four library laptops were also destroyed, as well as all the bookshelves, storage bins, stamps and cataloging supplies and the large tent that housed the library.
> 
> For the past six weeks I have been living and working as a librarian in the People’s Library, camping out on the ground next to it. I’m an English professor at the University of Pittsburgh, and I’ve chosen to spend my sabbatical at Occupy Wall Street to participate in the movement and to build and maintain the collection of books at the People’s Library. I love books—reading them, writing in them, arranging them, holding them, even smelling them. I also love having access to books for free. I love libraries and everything they represent. To see an entire collection of donated books, including many titles I would have liked to read, thoughtlessly ransacked and destroyed by the forces of law and order was one of the most disturbing experiences of my life. My students in Pittsburgh struggle to afford to buy the books they need for their courses. Our extensive collection of scholarly books and journals alone would have sufficed to provide reading materials for dozens of college classrooms. With public libraries around the country fighting to survive in the face of budget cuts, layoffs and closings, the People’s Library has served as a model of what a public library can be: operated for the people and by the people.
> 
> During the raid, Stephen Boyer, a poet, friend and OWS librarian, read poems from the Occupy Wall Street Poetry Anthology (see peopleslibrary.wordpress.com) aloud directly into the faces of riot police. As they pushed us away from the park with shields, fists, billy clubs and tear gas, I stood next to Stephen and watched while he yelled poetry at the top of his lungs into the oncoming army of riot police. Then, something incredible happened. Several of the police leaned in closer to hear the poetry. They lifted their helmet shields slightly to catch the words Stephen was shouting out to them, even while their fellow cops continued to stampede us. The next day, an officer who was guarding the entrance to Zuccotti Park told Stephen how touched he was by the poetry, how moved he was to see that we cared enough about words and books that we would risk violent treatment and arrest just to defend our love of books and the wisdom they contain.


Entire article here:THE 1% WILL NOT OCCUPY OUR MINDS! « Desertpeace


----------



## Kosh

CubaMark said:


> The whole "get a job" attitude is unfortunate, as it indicates an unwillingness to even attempt to understand the economic, social and political barriers that many people face when trying to make a go of it.


Oh don't give me that BS. That may be true in the US, but not here. We have people from the US coming to Canada to get jobs. If they can find jobs here, anyone can.

Yet protesters seem to have the time to camp in tents doing nothing, rather than working or looking for jobs.


----------



## groovetube

Kosh said:


> Oh don't give me that BS. That may be true in the US, but not here. We have people from the US coming to Canada to get jobs. If they can find jobs here, anyone can.
> 
> Yet protesters seem to have the time to camp in tents doing nothing, rather than working or looking for jobs.


Speaking of BS, I suppose you haven't heard of the large job losses here too. It isn't quite as bad as the states, but that would explain likely, why the protests are way waaay bigger down there than here.

However, the same problems exist here, and with this conservative government in power, (and the liberal government in Ontario) it seems it is worsening.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> The other that has stuck in my head was Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, where the job of Firefighters was to destroy books and the homes of any who dared to read them. Also eerily prescient as this article by Will Scott should indicate.


The "People's Library"? Please! They dumped the protesters flea-infested stack of books in the dumpster. How is this in any way like the censorship of _Fahrenheit 451_?


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> The "People's Library"? Please! They dumped the protesters flea-infested stack of books in the dumpster. How is this in any way like the censorship of _Fahrenheit 451_?


Councillor Pasternak asked on Twitter if the dismantling of the library yurt was considered a branch closure....


----------



## groovetube

cheeky ba...


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Councillor Pasternak asked on Twitter if the dismantling of the library yurt was considered a branch closure....


I like the idea of the library yurt. These should replace some of the more expensive library branches in TO! Two yurts for every branch closed!


----------



## Adrian.

CubaMark said:


> Gee. I have a Broadcasting diploma. A dual-honour's bachelor's in Sociology and Development Studies. A Masters in Development Studies. A PhD in Development Studies. I have extensive international education, cross-cultural, communication and research experience. I've managed large-budget projects.
> 
> And I'm unemployed. Sure, my circumstances are unique, but there are many folks in Canada with education and skill sets that should be employable, who have no real prospects for working in (or near) their field.
> 
> The whole "get a job" attitude is unfortunate, as it indicates an unwillingness to even attempt to understand the economic, social and political barriers that many people face when trying to make a go of it.


CM,

You should have studied business or finance or have been an intellectual property right lawyer or some other discipline that pays really well but develops no critical faculties for which one can evaluate any social system.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> I like the idea of the library yurt. These should replace some of the more expensive library branches in TO! Two yurts for every branch closed!


They can put one in every park.


----------



## kps

Macfury said:


> I like the idea of the library yurt. These should replace some of the more expensive library branches in TO! Two yurts for every branch closed!


Do we get any yaks with that? I mean what is a yurt without some yaks...


----------



## screature

kps said:


> Do we get any yaks with that? I mean what is a yurt without some yaks...


How about a yuck yuck... does that count?


----------



## kps

screature said:


> How about a yuck yuck... does that count?


Yes, as that may be the scatological remnants of all the yaks...


----------



## hayesk

Kosh said:


> Your talking to the wrong bunch. All these protesters want is a free ride. They want everything for free. They don't want to work for it. They don't want to pay tax or contribute to society. They want to be taken care of.


Every generation says that about the next. It's always been a BS stereotype. But if convincing yourself that helps you sleep at night, go ahead. But don't expect the rest of us to buy the crap you shilling.


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> Has your four-year-old identified the means to that end?
> 
> Neither have the protesters.


I'm sure a lot of the protestors have good ideas to make the government more responsible to its citizens. They just don't fit on a sign. That doesn't make identifying the problem any less valid.

I don't know how to fix my furnace, but I'm damn sure I'll call someone who does know how, so they can come fix it. I don't have people calling me a lazy idiot for not fixing it myself.

So why are you calling these people lazy idiots for identifying a problem that needs to be fixed? Don't tell me they haven't done a good job identifying it. You just guessed part of it yourself.


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> I'm sure a lot of the protestors have good ideas to make the government more responsible to its citizens. They just don't fit on a sign. That doesn't make identifying the problem any less valid.
> 
> I don't know how to fix my furnace, but I'm damn sure I'll call someone who does know how, so they can come fix it. I don't have people calling me a lazy idiot for not fixing it myself.
> 
> So why are you calling these people lazy idiots for identifying a problem that needs to be fixed? Don't tell me they haven't done a good job identifying it. You just guessed part of it yourself.


They're not doing a good job at all. And your furnace analogy? I wouldn't expect you to fix it yourself--but an OWS protester would be calling on the government to fix it for him.


----------



## groovetube

I think the problem here is the protests aren't targeting atom's real target, Obama.


----------



## kps

groovetube said:


> I think the problem here is the protests aren't targeting atom's real target, Obama.


That's because those that'll end up paying...and paying...and paying for Obama's mistakes are too young to be out after dark or haven't even been born yet.


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> That's because those that'll end up paying...and paying...and paying for Obama's mistakes are too young to be out after dark or haven't even been born yet.


Interesting that you lay that, at the foot of Obama, with no mention of the regime that pretty much engineered the financial collapse.


----------



## hayesk

Macfury said:


> They're not doing a good job at all. And your furnace analogy? I wouldn't expect you to fix it yourself--but an OWS protester would be calling on the government to fix it for him.


Uhm... That's the idea. The government and Wall Street are the repair people. They're the only ones in a position to fix it. Hence, they're being protested.


----------



## kps

groovetube said:


> Interesting that you lay that, at the foot of Obama, with no mention of the regime that pretty much engineered the financial collapse.


I don't say it in defence of the previous moron, but reality is he's in power, he can fix it....he's choosing not to. Same as what you continually keep reiterating about the Cons vs. Liberals and current vs past spending.


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> I don't say it in defence of the previous moron, but reality is he's in power, he can fix it....he's choosing not to. Same as what you continually keep reiterating about the Cons vs. Liberals and current vs past spending.


What's the alternative, vote in the other one, who drove it into the ditch? The problem in the US is that unlike here in Canada, they don't really have the option of voting in a minority stripping absolute power, other than the either or nonsense they currently have of us and them, in the white house and congress.

Somehow we're told this is called checks and balances. There's joke in there I'm sure.


----------



## Macfury

hayesk said:


> Uhm... That's the idea. The government and Wall Street are the repair people. They're the only ones in a position to fix it. Hence, they're being protested.


There's their mistake. They're not the repair people at all. He needs too reduce the power of government to confiscate his wealth so he can afford to fix the furnace. Focusing on Wall Street instead of Washington is a fatal flaw in the protest.

If someone in the schoolyard steals my kid's pocket money and gives it to a third kid, I go after the student who stole it first. I don't beg the thief to beat up on the person he gave my kid's money to.


----------



## groovetube

for the probably the hundredth time, the government IS wall street. You continue with this fabled idea that somehow, there's some kind of separation here.

The sooner you catch on, the better for you I guess.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> for the probably the hundredth time, the government IS wall street. You continue with this fabled idea that somehow, there's some kind of separation here.
> 
> The sooner you catch on, the better for you I guess.


Supply a source or link for that illusional deduction would you please?


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Supply a source or link for that illusional deduction would you?


SINC: when you see yourself as a child or helpless victim, _everyone_ is "The Man."


----------



## SINC

Macfury said:


> SINC: when you see yourself as a child or helpless victim, _everyone_ is "The Man."


That or when you can't tell the difference between government and the stock market. One can influence the other without doubt, but one cannot BE the other.


----------



## groovetube

so let's get this straight.

Both of you, aren't aware that government is made up of corporate interests? Really?

Astounding. I may not agree with both of you, but that's actually a little hard to believe. But, that certainly would explain some of your posts.

I'm sorry macfury, but your constant mewling about anyone who dares speak of the obvious as just against 'the man' is incredibly er, simplistic.


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> That or when you can't tell the difference between government and the stock market. One can influence the other without doubt, but one cannot BE the other.


man is this the dark ages? At what point, did you boil this down to, "the stock market"???

I'm beginning to see why a number have disappeared from these threads.


----------



## BigDL

kps said:


> Do we get any yaks with that? I mean what is a yurt without some yaks...


Some of the post here make me want to yack, so watch your step. 

Will your desires be thereby be abated?


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> man is this the dark ages? At what point, did you boil this down to, "the stock market"???
> 
> I'm beginning to see why a number have disappeared from these threads.


Wall Street = Stock Market = Corporations

Government = none of the above.

Separate entities all.


----------



## groovetube

ha ha ha. Yeah there aren't any corporate interests in government at all. Macfury thinks that too. 

I think we'll just leave it there for the night. It doesn't get much funnier than this.


----------



## fjnmusic

BigDL said:


> Some of the post here make me want to yack, so watch your step.
> 
> Will your _desires be thereby be abated?_


Be careful; this last part can lead to blindness.


----------



## kps

groovetube said:


> What's the alternative, vote in the other one, who drove it into the ditch? The problem in the US is that unlike here in Canada, they don't really have the option of voting in a minority stripping absolute power, other than the either or nonsense they currently have of us and them, in the white house and congress.
> 
> Somehow we're told this is called checks and balances. There's joke in there I'm sure.


We all know the alternative** Groove...problem is we do not get it regardless of who is in government.

**Less (smaller) government--more accountability--less or no borrowing--spend on necessities and not on whimsy.


----------



## groovetube

kps said:


> We all know the alternative** Groove...problem is we do not get it regardless of who is in government.
> 
> **Less (smaller) government--more accountability--less or no borrowing--spend on necessities and not on whimsy.


I can appreciate what you're saying, but really, the problems go far further than merely spending. There's no question that spending is out of control, sure. But people seem to have blinders on and merely chant this over and over as if there is some kind of great nirvana if the spending just gets reduced.


----------



## kps

Okay, but what is this thread about but money, spending and banks...

Jefferson got it 300 years ago and he was no frigging socialist or "occupier"



> I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.


---*Thomas Jefferson*


----------



## groovetube

perhaps on a surface level kps. But the problem has been identified as something far deeper. Witness the few here that actually believe that corporate interests and government are completely separate! In any of the parties who have taken power, this is probably the most unbelievably blind view I have ever heard! But they're desperate, to simply blame government.


----------



## kps

I'd say there's a great deal of influence depending on who got elected, who got lobbied successfully and by whom. There are great number of variables and I don't think we can use a blanket statement to cover it all. When the government owes billions or trillions to foreign banks and institutions you better believe there's influence. 

In years past, let's think back to who were the ones peddling the influence? How times have changed, eh?


----------



## MacDoc

> *Op-Ed Contributor*
> 
> *We Are the 99.9%*
> 
> *By PAUL KRUGMAN*
> 
> *Published: November 24, 2011*
> 
> “We are the 99 percent” is a great slogan. It correctly defines the issue as being the middle class versus the elite (as opposed to the middle class versus the poor). And it also gets past the common but wrong establishment notion that rising inequality is mainly about the well educated doing better than the less educated; the big winners in this new Gilded Age have been a handful of very wealthy people, not college graduates in general.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Krugman
> 
> If anything, however, the 99 percent slogan aims too low. A large fraction of the top 1 percent’s gains have actually gone to an even smaller group, the top 0.1 percent — the richest one-thousandth of the population.
> 
> And while Democrats, by and large, want that super-elite to make at least some contribution to long-term deficit reduction, Republicans want to cut the super-elite’s taxes even as they slash Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the name of fiscal discipline.
> Before I get to those policy disputes, here are a few numbers.
> 
> The recent Congressional Budget Office report on inequality didn’t look inside the top 1 percent, but an earlier report, which only went up to 2005, did. According to that report, between 1979 and 2005 the inflation-adjusted, after-tax income of Americans in the middle of the income distribution rose 21 percent. The equivalent number for the richest 0.1 percent rose 400 percent.
> 
> For the most part, these huge gains reflected a dramatic rise in the super-elite’s share of pretax income. But there were also large tax cuts favoring the wealthy. In particular, taxes on capital gains are much lower than they were in 1979 — and the richest one-thousandth of Americans account for half of all income from capital gains.
> Given this history, why do Republicans advocate further tax cuts for the very rich even as they warn about deficits and demand drastic cuts in social insurance programs?
> Well, aside from shouts of “class warfare!” whenever such questions are raised, the usual answer is that the super-elite are “job creators” — that is, that they make a special contribution to the economy. So what you need to know is that this is bad economics. In fact, it would be bad economics even if America had the idealized, perfect market economy of conservative fantasies.
> 
> After all, in an idealized market economy each worker would be paid exactly what he or she contributes to the economy by choosing to work, no more and no less. And this would be equally true for workers making $30,000 a year and executives making $30 million a year. There would be no reason to consider the contributions of the $30 million folks as deserving of special treatment.
> But, you say, the rich pay taxes! Indeed, they do. And they could — and should, from the point of view of the 99.9 percent — be paying substantially more in taxes, not offered even more tax breaks, despite the alleged budget crisis, because of the wonderful things they supposedly do.
> 
> Still, don’t some of the very rich get that way by producing innovations that are worth far more to the world than the income they receive? Sure, but if you look at who really makes up the 0.1 percent, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that, by and large, the members of the super-elite are overpaid, not underpaid, for what they do.
> 
> For who are the 0.1 percent? Very few of them are Steve Jobs-type innovators; most of them are corporate bigwigs and financial wheeler-dealers. One recent analysis found that 43 percent of the super-elite are executives at nonfinancial companies,* 18 percent are in finance and another 12 percent are lawyers or in real estate.* *And these are not, to put it mildly, professions in which there is a clear relationship between someone’s income and his economic contribution.
> *
> Executive pay, which has skyrocketed over the past generation, is famously set by boards of directors appointed by the very people whose pay they determine; poorly performing C.E.O.’s still get lavish paychecks, and even failed and fired executives often receive millions as they go out the door.
> 
> Meanwhile, the economic crisis showed that much of the apparent value created by modern finance was a mirage. As the Bank of England’s director for financial stability recently put it, seemingly high returns before the crisis simply reflected increased risk-taking — risk that was mostly borne not by the wheeler-dealers themselves but either by naïve investors or by taxpayers, who ended up holding the bag when it all went wrong. And as he waspishly noted, “If risk-making were a value-adding activity, Russian roulette players would contribute disproportionately to global welfare.”
> So should the 99.9 percent hate the 0.1 percent? No, not at all.
> 
> But they should ignore all the propaganda about “job creators” and demand that the super-elite pay substantially more in taxes.


:clap:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/opinion/we-are-the-99-9.html?_r=1


----------



## Macfury

This is because you're still stuck in the old fashioned notion that people need to be assembling stuff in factories. As a re-seller of Macintosh equipment, what do you contribute MacDoc? 

You:

1. Sell equipment made elsewhere by hardworking people who earn peanut wages. Equipment that could be bought anywhere else or online.
2. Offer people advice about the equipment they buy--advice like a lawyer offers, maybe? What is your contribution to the economy?

MacDoc, you are among the elites who contribute nothing to the economy by Krugman's own definition.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> MacDoc, you are among the elites who contribute nothing to the economy by Krugman's own definition.


Maybe he is, but somehow I doubt that he's making millions of dollars per year and avoiding paying taxes on it. But if so, who can blame him. And more power too him for manning up and, like Warren Buffet who _is_ a member of the super-elite, calling for systemic changes that would end this egregious example of how the deregulated market fails to serve society.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a classic Ad hominem attack. Rather than cast aspersions on MacDoc, why don't you try addressing his point?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Maybe he is, but somehow I doubt that he's making millions of dollars per year and avoiding paying taxes on it. But if so, who can blame him. And more power too him for manning up and, like Warren Buffet who _is_ a member of the super-elite, calling for systemic changes that would end this egregious example of how the deregulated market fails to serve society.
> 
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is a classic Ad hominem attack. Rather than cast aspersions on MacDoc, why don't you try addressing his point?


I'm asking MacDoc to address it, in terms of his own business--part of a huge sector of "non-productive" activity that makes up the Canadian economy. Or is the mark of an elite running a business that produces nothing under fire only when it is too successful?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I'm asking MacDoc to address it, in terms of his own business


No, you're trying to imply that small consulting/retailing businesses are somehow comparable to Wall Street bankers diddling the economy out of trillions. And furthermore, you're trying to discredit MacDoc's position by implying that he's part of the problem, as if, even if he _were_ part of the problem, his position regarding this problem would be less valid.

So, in a nutshell, you're wrong both about him being part of the problem, and about his position being invalid. Wrong^2.


----------



## eMacMan




----------



## SINC

Dum, dum, dum, and another one bites the dust . . . 

Police dismantle Montreal, Edmonton Occupy camps | CTV News


----------



## groovetube

these are just the camps. The protests will continue.

I actually think it's a good thing to some degree that the media won't be focused on these camps and rather let the protests happen. But apparently -that- wasn't news, even though those protests we by far, way larger.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Dum, dum, dum, and another one bites the dust . . .
> 
> Police dismantle Montreal, Edmonton Occupy camps | CTV News


Why don't these bozos buy or rent some property to build their filthy encampments? 

Answered my own question: the taxpayer is not on the hook for it, so it's of no interest to them.


----------



## Sonal

> 18 percent are in finance and another 12 percent are lawyers or in real estate. And these are not, to put it mildly, professions in which there is a clear relationship between someone’s income and his economic contribution.


The one percent make their money in real estate, eh? At one point does a small time landlord/developer get to say that they are in the 1% vs the 99%? 

Just curious.


----------



## eMacMan

Sonal said:


> The one percent make their money in real estate, eh? At one point does a small time landlord/developer get to say that they are in the 1% vs the 99%?
> 
> Just curious.


When you have more than you can ever possibly need and would murder your own brother, sister or mother to acquire more, then shall you truly be a member of the super elite.

Driving millions from their jobs and homes, manipulating nations into false wars, gleefully stealing trillions of taxpayer dollars, then paying your self hundreds of millions in bonuses, would make you a member of the super duper elite.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> The one percent make their money in real estate, eh? At one point does a small time landlord/developer get to say that they are in the 1% vs the 99%?
> 
> Just curious.


You may not be in the super elite, but according to MacDoc, you are unproductive.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> When you have more than you can ever possibly need and would murder your own brother, sister or mother to acquire more, then shall you truly be a member of the super elite.
> 
> Driving millions from their jobs and homes, manipulating nations into false wars, gleefully stealing trillions of taxpayer dollars, then paying your self hundreds of millions in bonuses, would make you a member of the super duper elite.


Just a little over the top eh... you're welcome to feel that way but without any supporting evidence of which your post contains none it is just so much online noise.

As an aside, just wondering if anyone here has been subject to the extremes of the ultra elite and how it has directly affected their lives and I mean directly... like loosing a job, being thrown out on the street etc...

I lost a job due to the greed of a US Corp back in 2006 and had to use up all my RSPs in order to keep afloat until I found a new job, but you know what... such is life... I got over it and kept moving forward because what other choice do you have... when the world gives you lemons you make lemon aid... or at least those with any spine and sense of self worth do.... 

And while I certainly don't have any affection for that Corp I am not about to blame them for the ills of the world either, becuase I don't feel entitled, like they owed me anything beyond paying me for the job I did for them. I took the job of my own free accord and then when they consolidated the Canadian operations back to the US that was of their own free and rightful will. Again such is life...

To the OWS and their supporters... suck it up princess, life isn't fair and hasn't been since the dawn of time, either adapt or go extinct.


----------



## groovetube

I don't anyone, is saying a corporation necessarily 'owes' them something. Is it really too much to ask that they not be so incredibly greedy?

Why is it people have to twist things around so it fits their beliefs?

And I think if you look further you will find a growing number of people who no longer have RSPs, or a home or any options left. We just have to apparently blame it all on government spending, but that's merely only part, of the problem.


----------



## kps

Only in Toronto:

*You bad old corporate pigs, don't you dare spill any of my Starbucks...you hear?*


----------



## groovetube

oh come on now, it's a christmas starbucks.


----------



## kps

groovetube said:


> oh come on now, it's a christmas starbucks.


Even more irony....


----------



## fjnmusic

Sonal said:


> The one percent make their money in real estate, eh? At one point does a small time landlord/developer get to say that they are in the 1% vs the 99%?
> 
> Just curious.


I'd like to be in the top 2% income bracket. That way I could live the life of Riley but no one would accuse me of being greedy like the top 1%. If you're in the top 2%, then you're actually still part of the 99% you see. :greedy:


----------



## groovetube

fine, I'll up the ante then.

damn. it wont let me upload jpgs for some reason.


----------



## groovetube

not sure which thread to plop this, but this seems as good as any.

For the sheeple that believe there is a complete separation of government and big corporations.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

I love that cheap sloganeering and thoe invalid comparisons! Hope these crappola images are kept in an Internet archive somewhere to see how badly the OWSers blew it.


----------



## groovetube

yeah the tea party rallies were incredibly effective!


----------



## eMacMan

Had to post this one, even though not the greatest job of Photoshopping:


----------



## kps

CubaMark said:


>


Hmmmm, let's see:










Hundreds of thousands of Tea Partiers and unlike the "Ocuppiers" ...No overdoses, no public defecations, no violence, no child abuse, etc. etc, etc.

Nice list of the Occupier actions here:

» *UPDATED* #OccupyWallStreet: The Rap Sheet, So Far - Big Government


----------



## CubaMark

*The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy*



> The New York Times reported that "New York cops have arrested, punched, whacked, shoved to the ground and tossed a barrier at reporters and photographers" covering protests. Reporters were asked by NYPD to raise their hands to prove they had credentials: when many dutifully did so, they were taken, upon threat of arrest, away from the story they were covering, and penned far from the site in which the news was unfolding. Other reporters wearing press passes were arrested and roughed up by cops, after being – falsely – informed by police that "It is illegal to take pictures on the sidewalk."
> 
> In New York, a state supreme court justice and a New York City council member were beaten up; in Berkeley, California, one of our greatest national poets, Robert Hass, was beaten with batons. The picture darkened still further when Wonkette and Washingtonsblog.com reported that the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on "how to suppress" Occupy protests.





> ...when you connect the dots, properly understood, what happened this week is the first battle in a civil war; a civil war in which, for now, only one side is choosing violence. It is a battle in which members of Congress, with the collusion of the American president, sent violent, organised suppression against the people they are supposed to represent. Occupy has touched the third rail: personal congressional profits streams. Even though they are, as yet, unaware of what the implications of their movement are, those threatened by the stirrings of their dreams of reform are not.
> 
> Sadly, Americans this week have come one step closer to being true brothers and sisters of the protesters in Tahrir Square. Like them, our own national leaders, who likely see their own personal wealth under threat from transparency and reform, are now making war upon us.


(Guardian UK)


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> *The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy*


it will all be forgotten in a few weeks.


----------



## kps

They'll have their own to worry about...

Prepare for riots in euro collapse, Foreign Office warns - Telegraph


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> *The shocking truth about the crackdown on Occupy*
> 
> 
> 
> (Guardian UK)


Naomi Wolf is the author, among other books, of The Beauty Myth and *Give Me Liberty: A Handbook for American Revolutionaries*. She is a graduate of Yale University and New College, Oxford


----------



## groovetube

Stephen Harper wrote about building a firewall around Alberta.

Does bringing up past writings only matter when it suits?


----------



## Macfury

kps said:


> Hmmmm, let's see.


It's amazing what you can achieve by using a toilet instead of taking a dump in front of the general public. Seems a higher percentage of Tea Party members have used the lessons they learned in kindy-garten to put a better public face on their demonstrations than OWSers who need to "act out."


----------



## groovetube

higher percentage? Since the OWS is likely far larger than any tea party rallies ever were, I have my doubts on that assertion.

Of course threatening gun violence is A OK in America's apparently. I bet this protestor wasn't arrested.

Could you just imagine if an OWS protestor carried such a sign? The screams would be defeaning, and the sign carrier would be face smashed into the ground and rammed into a prison cell for at least 10 years.


----------



## groovetube

Discussing Occupy Wall Street, Coulter Says: "It Just Took A Few Shootings At Kent State To Shut That Down" | Media Matters for America


> Discussing Occupy Wall Street, Coulter Says: "It Just Took A Few Shootings At Kent State To Shut That Down"


It's funny (NOT) how the right always thinks the solution to anything they dislike, is a "browning", or just start shooting people.


----------



## SINC

Why would anyone read Ann Coulter? She's not the right, she's a wing nut.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Why would anyone read Ann Coulter? She's not the right, she's a wing nut.


Exactly. Just another person in the Howard Stern camp who makes money by being shocking.

The comment she made that I thought was funny was that the OWSers show up because they believed that Occupy Wall Street was a show of support for business.


----------



## groovetube

oooh. She's not the right.

2 facts, she is indeed right wing, not only that but a much celebrated right wing spokesperson on many right wing networks and publications, and you are right, she is a wing nut. But a huge number of right wingers listen her every word.

ah the backtracking. Love it.


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> oooh. She's not the right.
> 
> 2 facts, she is indeed right wing, not only that but a much celebrated right wing spokesperson on many right wing networks and publications, and you are right, she is a wing nut. But a huge number of right wingers listen her every word.
> 
> ah the backtracking. Love it.


Backtracking? Man you love to try and make something out of nothing. What I meant by saying she's not the right, is that her radical views are not indicative of the average person who could be described as being right wing. She's over the top and like I noted, a wing nut.


----------



## groovetube

Really? It seems she well represents many right wing people down south. I also recall the upset when she came to speak here in Canada when the 'left' dared protest her appearance, and the ensuing cries of the attack on free speech.

I don't think she's considered quite the lunatic as you make out.


----------



## groovetube

Occupy Protesters Mobilize for Obama's Visit - NYTimes.com

that should -someone- a little happier.


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Backtracking? Man you love to try and make something out of nothing. What I meant by saying she's not the right, is that her radical views are not indicative of the average person who could be described as being right wing. She's over the top and like I noted, a wing nut.


Round and round she goes, eh SINC? It must be refreshing to live a life free of the burden of previously made statements... or any context for that matter.


----------



## groovetube

oh come on passive aggressive man, that's the best you have is whispering behind someone's skirt?

Puh-lease.


----------



## fjnmusic

:d


----------



## MacDoc

The slime at the top.....nothing new....just more....



> Salutin:* Mr. 1 Per Cent meets his match*
> Published On Thu Dec 01 2011Email Print
> 
> Happy is the person whose hour has struck. Tom Naylor’s hour has struck. It is the hour of the 1 per cent.
> 
> Naylor’s day job is as an economist at McGill University in Montreal. But his secret identity — about as secret as any superhero’s — is Muckraker, a heroic figure reaching back to crusading journalists during the robber baron age in the U.S. Their Canadian avatar was Gustavus Myers, also an American, with his acidic A History of Canadian Wealth (1914). Naylor rakes Canadian and global muck joyously yet assiduously — not a contradiction if you’re happy in your work.
> 
> Thirty-six years ago he wrote a History of Canadian Business during its formative phase, arguing it acquired its fatal habits of subservience to foreign money from the start. Lately he’s written on organized crime, calling it mostly disorganized, and debunking the myths of the Mafia. What really riles him is the criminal (or should be) activities of high international finance today. The robber barons at least produced real things that people used. Today’s banksters and hedgies produce only “instruments” and “derivatives.” They’re the scammiest.
> 
> His new book, the one that chimes with the times, is called Crass Struggle. It’s based on “a quantum leap in sheer numbers of those loaded with loot. The emergence of this band of socially insecure parvenus vying for status with an established überclass dramatically intensifies the traditional competition for ‘bragging rights’ that propels the market for collectibles (and other luxuries) forward.” That’s an example of the vigour of his writing. The appalling esthetics and detestable ethics of the 1 per cent seem to energize, not deplete him.
> 
> It’s a brilliant strategy: focusing not on their depredations, but their pretensions: the cant of high income conmen full of their own superiority who try to prove it with their haute tastes and styles, like “the 25-year-old financial whiz kid waxing eloquent over the bouquet of a 1945 Mouton-Rothschild or a 1947 Cheval Blanc in a glass he waved under a nose whose septum had been burned out by cocaine.” Or like an epicure I know who proudly serves you “the third most expensive Chablis in the world.” Feel free to add your own version of the archetype, based on personal experience. Dwelling on affectations rather than their (almost never prosecuted) felonies, is a delicious form of revenge.
> 
> There’s nothing puritanical or ascetic in this. In fact Naylor sounds like a bit of a sybarite himself, who’d enjoy a good wine, cigar or work of art, all of which he writes chapters on. It’s the monetization, posturing and often sheer fakery or fraud concerning these goods (think about the word) that make him heave. As often with a relentless exposer and scourger, a romantic idealist lurks under the surface. What really bothers him in the art scams, for instance, is the waste and disparagement of true creativity and beauty that genuine artists can reveal.
> 
> If he didn’t write these books he’d probably self-combust with rage and despair: over the fact that billionaires increased in number by 25 per cent in the year after the crisis of 2008, or all five $2.67 million Bugattis sold out at the 2010 Paris Motor Show. Chronicling this stuff with attitude is like a tonic for what ails him. In person he comes across as a basically happy guy who seems to enjoy life.
> 
> He loves the details. Ages ago, I occasionally edited magazine pieces he wrote; once in a while I’d suggest he might have overstated his case. He’d immediately drown me in specifics that he hadn’t wanted to bore anyone with but which proved he had, if anything, undersold his point. The relatively spare footnotes make up about a fifth of the text in Crass Struggle.
> 
> He apologizes for leaving out chapters on spoliation of precious hardwoods (teak, rosewood, mahogany) or fake high-end antiques (Stradivarius violins, suckers). There wasn’t time but he’ll get to them. Muckraker’s work is never done.
> 
> I present this as an early suggestion for a Christmas present, in the tradition of jumping the gun on the season and in the rapacious spirit that motivates Naylor (to write, not accumulate). It’s an appropriate gift to any of the 99 per cent. Merry Onepercentmas.


Salutin: Mr. 1 Per Cent meets his match - thestar.com


----------



## Macfury

Naylor who?


----------



## fjnmusic

I just want to be in the _top 2 percent_ of all incomes. That way I could still be filthy stinking rich and yet escape the wrath of all the Occupiers, since I'd still be counted as part of the 99%. Everybody happy.


----------



## MacDoc

Nother heavy weight supports Occupy

Branson: Occupy movement 'a good start' - The Washington Post

valid reasons....indeed....


----------



## SINC

Branson's point that it is up to business to respond is well taken.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Nother heavy weight supports Occupy


A heavyweight weighs in with a cutline underneath a photo. Man, are you getting desperate MaccyD. Who will be next? Ringo Starr?


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> A heavyweight weighs in with a cutline underneath a photo.


Um... it's a video dude; listen to what the man has to say. The point is that many of the 1%s agree that the economic system is broken. They've figured out how to game it and have profited immensely by doing so, but that does not prevent anyone from saying the system needs to be improved.

I've lived a very privileged life, and I strongly favour sociological changes that probably would've taken away some of the advantages I enjoyed, because I'd rather live in a fairer, more egalitarian society than one where only a few have good opportunities for things like advanced educations (even if I'm one of those few).

There's nothing hypocritical about pointing out flaws in a system even while taking advantage of those flaws.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Um... it's a video dude; listen to what the man has to say. The point is that many of the 1%s agree that the economic system is broken. They've figured out how to game it and have profited immensely by doing so, but that does not prevent anyone from saying the system needs to be improved.
> 
> I've lived a very privileged life, and I strongly favour sociological changes that probably would've taken away some of the advantages I enjoyed, because I'd rather live in a fairer, more egalitarian society than one where only a few have good opportunities for things like advanced educations (even if I'm one of those few).
> 
> There's nothing hypocritical about pointing out flaws in a system even while taking advantage of those flaws.


I didn't say he was a hypocrite. I said he wasn't a heavyweight. Why should his guilty conscience be reflected in public policy?

However, there's nothing preventing you now from making society egalitarian by divesting yourself of your possessions and wealth. Don't expect everyone else to jump off that cliff with you before you make the big move. Start today!


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> There's nothing hypocritical about pointing out flaws in a system even while taking advantage of those flaws.


The big flaw is the belief that only the top 1% are corrupting the system.


----------



## bryanc

fjnmusic said:


> The big flaw is the belief that only the top 1% are corrupting the system.


I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. I think it's important to remember that the whole 99% vs 1% thing is sort of symbolic. The problem is the global economic system has been perverted such that it serves the interests of a very few people with a very large amount of capital, at the expense of the vast majority (not to mention the environment and other values).

The fact that any one individual, wether they may be a member of the überwealthy or not, takes advantage of one or more of the myriad flaws in the global economic system for their personal gain is of no bearing on the merit of that person arguing that these are problems that need to be solved.


----------



## groovetube

bryanc said:


> I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. I think it's important to remember that the whole 99% vs 1% thing is sort of symbolic. The problem is the global economic system has been perverted such that it serves the interests of a very few people with a very large amount of capital, at the expense of the vast majority (not to mention the environment and other values).
> 
> The fact that any one individual, wether they may be a member of the überwealthy or not, takes advantage of one or more of the myriad flaws in the global economic system for their personal gain is of no bearing on the merit of that person arguing that these are problems that need to be solved.


I'm afraid that might make just a little too much sense


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I said he wasn't a heavyweight.





Macfury said:


> A heavyweight weighs in with a cutline underneath a photo.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


>


Ironicon.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Ironicon.


The point was that you _did_ say he [Branson] was a "heavyweight". You also apparently thought the link was to a photo with a 'cutline', rather than to a video excerpt from an interview in which Branson (the multi-billionaire CEO, and hence representative of the "1%") says that he agrees with the OWS protests, and that this is a start in what he sees as a good direction.

Hence MacDoc's "Another heavyweight supports Occupy" and hence my confusion about your posts.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> The point was that you _did_ say he [Branson] was a "heavyweight". You also apparently thought the link was to a photo with a 'cutline', rather than to a video excerpt from an interview in which Branson (the multi-billionaire CEO, and hence representative of the "1%") says that he agrees with the OWS protests, and that this is a start in what he sees as a good direction.
> 
> Hence MacDoc's "Another heavyweight supports Occupy" and hence my confusion about your posts.



No. MacDoc's link was not to the YouTube video, but to the photo and cutline. I knew these were two different things. And no the fact that someone with a socialist bent who would not suffer from effects of the type of prescriptions he proposes does not give his statements any more weight.


----------



## SINC

bryanc said:


> The point was that you _did_ say he [Branson] was a "heavyweight". You also apparently thought the link was to a photo with a 'cutline', rather than to a video excerpt from an interview in which Branson (the multi-billionaire CEO, and hence representative of the "1%") says that he agrees with the OWS protests, and that this is a start in what he sees as a good direction.
> 
> Hence MacDoc's "Another heavyweight supports Occupy" and hence my confusion about your posts.


Perhaps I can help clear this up. As evidenced from this screen capture, the link appears at first glance to be just a photo. It does take the video a good while to load on my DSL connection and a quick glance, then a comment could easily make the assumption it was only a picture and cause the confusion in understanding. As you can see, there is no evidence it is a video:


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> the link appears at first glance to be just a photo. It does take the video a good while to load on my DSL connection and a quick glance, then a comment could easily make the assumption it was only a picture and cause the confusion


Right. Which is why I pointed out to MF that it's a video, so his comment about photo and a cutline was due to his not having let the video load.

[edit to add:] I think what's really ironic here is that, while it can't really be argued that Sir Richard isn't a "heavyweight" with regard to the economics of global businesses, MF initially tries to deflect by implying the 'cutline' didn't convey Branson's position accurately, then later by saying he's not a "heavyweight", and finally, by trying to paint the CEO of the Virgin group of over 400 companies as a "socialist" 

One cannot help but wonder if MF is some kind of Bot, set loose on the net to infiltrate forums to spread FUD in any discussion of alternatives to the socio/political status quo.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Right. Which is why I pointed out to MF that it's a video, so his comment about photo and a cutline was due to his not having let the video load.
> 
> [edit to add:] I think what's really ironic here is that, while it can't really be argued that Sir Richard isn't a "heavyweight" with regard to the economics of global businesses, MF initially tries to deflect by implying the 'cutline' didn't convey Branson's position accurately, then later by saying he's not a "heavyweight", and finally, by trying to paint the CEO of the Virgin group of over 400 companies as a "socialist"
> 
> One cannot help but wonder if MF is some kind of Bot, set loose on the net to infiltrate forums to spread FUD in any discussion of alternatives to the socio/political status quo.


I let the link sit there for a good three or four minutes and nothing loaded on a cable connection. However, I realized that there was also a YouTube video available.

I certainly didn't have any problem with the cutline conveying Branson's position accurately. I was pointing out that it was just a cutline.

However, there are plenty of socialists who make a crap load of money, then go into full socialist mode when they have made so much money that they can be protected fully from what they espouse.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> However, there are plenty of socialists who make a crap load of money, then go into full socialist mode when they have made so much money that they can be protected fully from what they espouse.


There are also plenty of socialists who recognize that the system is flawed and that they need to deal with the realities of that flawed system, so they work within it even while trying to get it fixed.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> There are also plenty of socialists who recognize that the system is flawed and that they need to deal with the realities of that flawed system, so they work within it even while trying to get it fixed.


Bringing it closer to socialism will not fix it. The European model is an abject failure--the entire EC is on the verge of collapse. The U.S. continues to fail the more it embraces the Euro-model.


----------



## groovetube

The US model of right wing policies have also proven to be a complete failure. To suggest that the US has moved to socialism is a total lie.

Clearly, sitting on the sidelines and moaning about socialism as the root of all evils is merely the rantings of a deluded individual.


----------



## bryanc

One thing that may be worth considering is that all models will ultimately fail. But it is also very important to remember that economics is an entirely virtual construct of human behaviour. If it fails, it does not need to mean that people or life on earth must suffer, just that we have to find new ways of organizing our communal behaviour.

Personally, I think the idea that a small number of people should have access to the vast majority of resources on account of their having convinced the majority of the rest of us that they "own" this stuff is absurd. But I do recognize the importance of respecting the rules of society such that we can all live together in relative security, and that the concept of "ownership" is important in this social contract. So we have to, as a society, decide where and when these ideas are not serving the general needs of society. It seems pretty clear that a few people have far more than they need, and many people have far less, and that this disparity is not due to consistent or fundamental differences in the respective capabilities or efforts of the individuals concerned, which leads me to the conclusion that the current social structure for the division of resources among people on earth is not functioning effectively.

I do not claim to have a solution to this problem, but I agree with the many who see the status quo as unacceptable. I therefore support efforts to change or at least re-examine the current economic system.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> It seems pretty clear that a few people have far more than they need, and many people have far less, and that this disparity is not due to consistent or fundamental differences in the respective capabilities or efforts of the individuals concerned, which leads me to the conclusion that the current social structure for the division of resources among people on earth is not functioning effectively.


I don't reach the same conclusion.


----------



## groovetube

of course you don't.


----------



## MacDoc

Common weal does not exist in libby lexicon. That's why there are no libby societies.


----------



## Macfury

MacDoc said:


> Common weal does not exist in libby lexicon. That's why there are no libby societies.


Actually, you're wrong on the first point. However, it does not become society's god--the axe that cuts through all other rights and enslaves creators, doers and producers to work harder and harder for those who choose not to produce.

As to the second, there aren't enough people with a sense of independence and self-respect to permanently establish such a society. Sooner or later the recessive gene shows itself and the hand begins to extend, palm up, demanding the fruit of someone else's labour.


----------



## fjnmusic

bryanc said:


> I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. I think it's important to remember that the whole 99% vs 1% thing is sort of symbolic. The problem is the global economic system has been perverted such that it serves the interests of a very few people with a very large amount of capital, at the expense of the vast majority (not to mention the environment and other values).
> 
> The fact that any one individual, wether they may be a member of the überwealthy or not, takes advantage of one or more of the myriad flaws in the global economic system for their personal gain is of no bearing on the merit of that person arguing that these are problems that need to be solved.


My point, which I tried to underscore with my top 2% comment and Ferengi graphic, is that you, like many others, are preaching to the choir on this one. It is a very liberal-minded socialist notion that people should share the wealth and not be greedy, a view which I personally happen to share. 

However, the big bad world we live in, especially in the Western hemisphere is not really designed for this. The capitalist mentality is built in and has been with us for a very long time, and it is not easy to effect a paradigm shift to a more global world view. It goes against everything we're taught in this market economy. And rather than target the top 1% for being too greedy (implying the 99% could somehow stage a coup over the 1%), I would suggest that the 99% is just as greedy, but they are jealous because they're not in the top 1%. And why not target the top 10% or 25% or 50%? I'll tell you why: it makes your base of support sound bigger than it really is if you say 99%. It's a BS arbitrary number and another way of perpetuating this us vs. them myth. Fact is, it takes the cooperation of all of us, the 100%, to be a complete community. Do you really think you can create change without the "top 1%" of wage earners buying in? What incentive is there if they're just going to be blamed for all of the problems?

This would be the main reason I think the Occupy movement have painted themselves into a corner. Instead of showing leadership as social reformers, they have become whiners instead. And there are many people in this country and other Western nations, certainly far more than 1% of the population, who have a very strong desire to become rich moreso than share the wealth. Unless their motivation is changed, nothing else will change. Guilt ain't going to do it. Tax write offs maybe.


----------



## Macfury

+1. There will always be a top 1% of earners that can be attacked in some sort of artificial class warfare. This is hjust as ridiculous as me suggesting that the bottom 10% need to be more industrious. Ain't gonna happen! 

If anything, what's amazing is the vast amount of total wealth that a market economy has created. However, go back to to the Middle Ages and you can see the disparity brought about by the pre-capitalist system. Want to crunch the numbers in 1215 folks? How about flattening incomes and visiting Russia in the or Albania in the 1970s? Pure paradise.


----------



## groovetube

suggesting that we're merely 'jealous' is astronomically ridiculous. It's the thing corporate greed defenders turn to pretty much everytime.

Believing that the extreme disparity of wealth needs to be better balanced and in ending a total control of governments by corporations, has nothing to do, with jealousy whatsoever.


----------



## groovetube

right on cue. Extreme corporate greed defender right on it!


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> +1. There will always be a top 1% of earners that can be attacked in some sort of artificial class warfare. This is hjust as ridiculous as me suggesting that the bottom 10% need to be more industrious. Ain't gonna happen!
> 
> If anything, what's amazing is the vast amount of total wealth that a market economy has created. However, go back to to the Middle Ages and you can see the disparity brought about by the pre-capitalist system. Want to crunch the numbers in 1215 folks? How about flattening incomes and visiting Russia in the or Albania in the 1970s? Pure paradise.


+ 1% Zicackly, as Obelisk used to say.


----------



## Lawrence

Maybe they should just...





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> + 1% Zicackly, as Obelisk used to say.


what the rugged individualist, and you apparently aren't getting, is that the majority of OWS protestors aren't against capitalism, nor want communism. But atom smasher can only argue in these terms, because if he were stop insisting opposing opinions in extremes, his position would simply vaporize.

Pretty simple concept really, but he'll never grasp this. For good reason.

It's actually kind of astounding that someone who believes so strongly in personal freedoms would stand by and let large interests trump the individuals. Believing that corporations would have your best interests at heart, gullible isn't a strong enough word...


----------



## i-rui

groovetube said:


> what the rugged individualist, and you apparently aren't getting, is that the majority of OWS protestors aren't against capitalism, nor want communism.


+1.

it's about making the system fair & accountable. People can still makes oodles of money, but they have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and these rules should be tailored for the majority of the people and not crafted by a handful to benefit their own interests.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> +1.
> 
> it's about making the system fair & accountable. People can still makes oodles of money, but they have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and these rules should be tailored for the majority of the people and not crafted by a handful to benefit their own interests.


Flat income tax would be playing by the same rules. Nobody from OWS calling for that.


----------



## groovetube

now he tries to reduce this down to simply an issue of income tax.

Read up atom smasher and then come back.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Flat income tax would be playing by the same rules. Nobody from OWS calling for that.


i guess you missed this part :



> and these rules should be tailored for the majority of the people and not crafted by a handful to benefit their own interests.


----------



## Macfury

> and these rules should be tailored for the majority of the people and not crafted by a handful to benefit their own interests.


In other words: "Not equal."


----------



## i-rui

no, in other words :



i-rui said:


> it's about making the system fair & accountable. People can still makes oodles of money, but they have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and these rules should be tailored for the majority of the people and not crafted by a handful to benefit their own interests.


quit trying to shove your square peg flat tax fantasy into every round hole you see.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> no, in other words :
> 
> 
> 
> quit trying to shove your square peg flat tax fantasy into every round hole you see.


it's too much work to actually think this one through. I guess.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> no, in other words :
> 
> 
> 
> quit trying to shove your square peg flat tax fantasy into every round hole you see.


You just want to see another unfair system tilted toward yourself.


----------



## groovetube

one has to wonder why the constant need to wave the hands and declare some made up nonsense without actually listening.

we've seen now, that we're just jealous, desire full out communism, smash capitalism, no being allowed to make lots of money, and now just to tilt in our favor. All nonsense of course.

These conversations often resemble trying to have a conversation with a belligerent hard of hearing person, who merely hollers random pronouncements that have little do with what is said.

Or often when someone knows they haven't much credibility in their position they resort to this kind of thing. Brilliant stuff!


----------



## hayesk

GT, I had to stop participating in this thread. A certain participant is only interested in trolling. He evades away from any question asked of him, and will misdirect when a point is made that he can not refute. He clearly isn't interested in even understanding the other side's point of view, much less agreeing with it. He won't even offer his point of view so that we may attempt understand his side. It's simply not worth the effort. I wish I understood that long ago.


----------



## groovetube

I may stop as well. I know a couple others have left all together for similar reasons. I have often resorted to similar mockery, because using reason is futile. That isn't good either.

Unfortunately we have a government that seems to enjoy using similar tactics, and spouting half truths and lies to cover their nonsense. It seems like someone should counter it at least.


----------



## fjnmusic

Honestly, do you really think the bulk of people in the third world, where the REAL poverty exists, have any sympathy for the 99% of the population of developed countries who are not as well off as the top 1%? To the rest of the world, North Americans and Europeans ARE the top 1% off the total world population. Rather than bemoan that the super-rich in your country are so well off, are you prepared to take the little that you do have and share it with the rest of the world? I didn't think so.


----------



## eMacMan

fjnmusic said:


> Honestly, do you really think the bulk of people in the third world, where the REAL poverty exists, have any sympathy for the 99% of the population of developed countries who are not as well off as the top 1%? To the rest of the world, North Americans and Europeans ARE the top 1% off the total world population. Rather than bemoan that the super-rich in your country are so well off, are you prepared to take the little that you do have and share it with the rest of the world? I didn't think so.


Actually GT, MD and Bryanc have all expressed a desire to sacrifice everything they own. Sadly half will go to Al Gore's Church of Climatology and the other half to the Banksters via a Carbon Tax. Chances of any trickling down to the extremely poor of the world? About equal to a Rothchild handing a nickel to a bum on the street.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Honestly, do you really think the bulk of people in the third world, where the REAL poverty exists, have any sympathy for the 99% of the population of developed countries who are not as well off as the top 1%? To the rest of the world, North Americans and Europeans ARE the top 1% off the total world population. Rather than bemoan that the super-rich in your country are so well off, are you prepared to take the little that you do have and share it with the rest of the world? I didn't think so.


Exactly. My position has always been for a flat tax, but if people are so upset with the current system I wan to hear a specific proposal, not just a bratty expression of outrage that the richest 1% exist. So what constitutes the new fair system? And no more BS about the diverse views of the OWS cadre. Not having a plan or being able to identify one does not magically coalesce into a plan.


----------



## groovetube

Perhaps you were too busy trolling and hollering nonsense at people and now they're not interested in your demands for explanations. You didn't listen to them before and merely trolled why would we expect anything different now?


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> not just a bratty expression of outrage that the richest 1% exist.


once again you misunderstand. No one has a problem with the top 1% *existing*. The problem is policy should not be crafted by them to serve their interests above everyone else.

-----

Another great article by Matt Taibbi :

Federal Judge Pimp-Slaps the SEC Over Citigroup Settlement | Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

really shows just how "in bed" federal regulators are with wall street.


----------



## groovetube

I think that's been explained at least 10 times now but it's just trolling now.


----------



## fjnmusic

Why is it always the other guy who's doing the trolling? Did you ever ask yourself that?


----------



## SINC

fjnmusic said:


> Why is it always the other guy who's doing the trolling? Did you ever ask yourself that?


Some don't troll fjn, some just have a burning need to post snipes at every post in the thread with little real content or meaning as long as they have the final word.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> once again you misunderstand. No one has a problem with the top 1% *existing*. The problem is policy should not be crafted by them to serve their interests above everyone else.


Right, so protest the federal government, not Wall Street.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> Why is it always the other guy who's doing the trolling? Did you ever ask yourself that?


if you follow things, you'll notice that the troll doesn't read what the others post, but merely posts ridiculous fabrications of what those he disagrees with had posted. You'll also notice that some have left because of it, and I'm not the only one who has pointed it out.

And my snipes are generally in response to one. Though sometimes the sniper will pretend they didn't.


----------



## Lawrence

Interesting point, But, I could never leave this place no matter what someone did or said,
Besides, I belong to message boards all over the planet, This is just a pit stop on my way to Australia.


----------



## BigDL

*Controlling the Message in Halifax Regional Municipality?*

Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) is a regional municipality in Nova Scotia is larger than PEI with a larger population. HRM includes the former Cities of Halifax and Dartmouth, the former Town of Bedford and the former County of Halifax. HRM Wiki

Is a regional councillor (Barry Dalrymple) stifling free speech, exchange of ideas and assembly? Dalrymple also sits on a volunteer board running a community centre. 



CBCNews said:


> A community discussion group is looking for a new meeting place after being chastised for inviting someone from Occupy Nova Scotia to speak at their old spot.
> 
> The municipal councillor for the area, Barry Dalrymple, doesn't want anyone from Occupy NS speaking at the LWF Community Hall in Fall River, where Sheila Barling and her group have been meeting for two years.
> 
> Barling said the councillor is limiting free speech, but the group has agreed to find a new meeting place.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/12/05/ns-occupy-discussion-group evicted

Dalrymple sat on Halifax City (HRM) Council that approved the attack by police on the Occupy Halifax group on Remembrance Day.


----------



## Macfury

Not enough information in this article for me to cast an opinion.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Not enough information in this article for me to cast an opinion.


Did you listen to the radio interview link in the story?


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Did you listen to the radio interview link in the story?


I thought the written part was the transcript.

It didn't seem as though there was an official policy for use of the room, therefore I'm not sure that any policy has been violated.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> I'm not sure that any policy has been violated.


Do we need to have a "policy" that politicians should not use their power to stifle free speech and the exchange of ideas in public?!?


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Do we need to have a "policy" that politicians should not use their power to stifle free speech and the exchange of ideas in public?!?


Free speech has not been stifled--it has merely moved to private property. 
There's a policy for the use of that room, but it isn't yet clear, so I will reserve judgement. 

I wouldn't invite OWS people to any property I owned for fear that they would start pitching tents. Their past behaviour suggests this is their instinct--to burrow in the nests of other animals and then to foul those nests.


----------



## groovetube

looks like atom smasher is pretty upset by OWS.


----------



## eMacMan

groovetube said:


> looks like atom smasher is pretty upset by OWS.


Yep participatory democracy is indeed a scary concept, especially if you genuinely believe the banksters deserve the multi trillions of dollars which they stole from taxpaying citizens. Even more scary if you believe your local MP or Congressman should be owned by Goldman Sachs.


----------



## groovetube

It seems really important, at least to a certain brand of libertarians anyway, that one never hints at the idea that what's wrong with government is that it is pretty made up of these corporate interests. 

After such an obsession with what is wrong with Obama, we may be looking at electing someone who lobbied for fannie/freddie during the years preceeding the meltdown.

oh but deny deny deny.


----------



## MacDoc

Government sanctioned predation writ large....










a must see .....then tell me after the WSP has not grounds for revolution...
well explained and shocking even tho I understood most upfront the sheer arrogance of the banking community and it's patron academics is breathtaking :..

97% rating on RT speaks well of the film....



> Disheartening but essential viewing, Charles Ferguson's documentary explores the 2008 Global Financial Crisis with exemplary rigor.


----------



## Dr.G.

"Canada's big five banks made a record combined profit of $6.1 billion in the three months ended in November, with the full-year earning at $22.4 billion, a sharp rise over the previous year." 

Big banks made $22.4B in 2011 - Business - CBC News 

It's about time that the federal government and the Bank of Canada realize that our banks need some help. Maybe a bailout ............ maybe even a telethon to help our "Big Six" Canadian banks get over these lean years in terms of profits??? We shall see.


----------



## Lawrence

Dr.G. said:


> "Canada's big five banks made a record combined profit of $6.1 billion in the three months ended in November, with the full-year earning at $22.4 billion, a sharp rise over the previous year."
> 
> Big banks made $22.4B in 2011 - Business - CBC News
> 
> It's about time that the federal government and the Bank of Canada realize that our banks need some help. Maybe a bailout ............ maybe even a telethon to help our "Big Six" Canadian banks get over these lean years in terms of profits??? We shall see.


...


----------



## Macfury

Join a credit union. It isn't illegal.


----------



## groovetube

yes Lawrence come on. Get off the corporate greedy SOBs backs will ya?

Libertarians fully support the total control of governments forcing policy. Who cares about the citizens.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> Join a credit union. It isn't illegal.


We need to support our banks, Macfury, not some commie collectives. To paraphrase Pres. Calvin Coolidge, "The business of Canada is business", and the banking system is the foundation of our business community.


----------



## fjnmusic

Dr.G. said:


> We need to support our banks, Macfury, not some commie collectives. To paraphrase Pres. Calvin Coolidge, "The business of Canada is business", and the banking system is the foundation of our business community.


I could agree with this if the banks were inclined to share the wealth. I have a big mortgage and I'm definitely doing my part to support the Canadian economy and banking industry. But with all the service charges for the privilege of letting the bank hold on to my money and invest it in ways that benefit the CEO and to a lesser extent the bank's shareholders, any money that I "invest" in savings or RRSP's yields such a low rate of return that I'm better off to not save at all. Indeed, the only thing that's given me a decent rate of return in the last fifteen years is my first house. Sold it for triple what I paid for it. Not a lot of incentive to invest in anything else these days. Now if the bank CEO's were more inclined to share the wealth with the customers...


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I could agree with this if the banks were inclined to share the wealth. I have a big mortgage and I'm definitely doing my part to support the Canadian economy and banking industry. But with all the service charges for the privilege of letting the bank hold on to my money and invest it in ways that benefit the CEO and to a lesser extent the bank's shareholders, any money that I "invest" in savings or RRSP's yields such a low rate of return that I'm better off to not save at all. Indeed, the only thing that's given me a decent rate of return in the last fifteen years is my first house. Sold it for triple what I paid for it. Not a lot of incentive to invest in anything else these days. Now if the bank CEO's were more inclined to share the wealth with the customers...


same as my situation. best thing I did was buy that fix me upper in the late 90s, gutted and redo it mostly myself, and got a nice downpayment so I can get an even bigger mortgage for a downtown house.

For rrsps I guess you gotta really get aggressive and risk losing.


----------



## Dr.G.

fjnmusic said:


> I could agree with this if the banks were inclined to share the wealth. I have a big mortgage and I'm definitely doing my part to support the Canadian economy and banking industry. But with all the service charges for the privilege of letting the bank hold on to my money and invest it in ways that benefit the CEO and to a lesser extent the bank's shareholders, any money that I "invest" in savings or RRSP's yields such a low rate of return that I'm better off to not save at all. Indeed, the only thing that's given me a decent rate of return in the last fifteen years is my first house. Sold it for triple what I paid for it. Not a lot of incentive to invest in anything else these days. Now if the bank CEO's were more inclined to share the wealth with the customers...


No way should a bank CEO ........... or any other CEO have to "share the wealth" with you or any one of us. Latest figures have CEOs making just 110 times the average wage of their workers. For all they do to help their companies make money and to enrich their workers with wages, and their shareholders with capital gains and dividends, they should be earning in the 500 times the average wage range.


----------



## screature

Dr.G. said:


> No way should a bank CEO ........... or any other CEO have to "share the wealth" with you or any one of us. Latest figures have CEOs making just 110 times the average wage of their workers. For all they do to help their companies make money and to enrich their workers with wages, and their shareholders with capital gains and dividends, they should be earning in the 500 times the average wage range.


My you have been on a sarcastic tear of late Dr.G., not quite sure why, but it has been entertaining...

But to address the serious nature of your post... CEO's get paid what they can negotiate with a given company's BOD. So if you want to blame someone... blame them... Remember a CEO is only an employee... not the owner of the company except in exceptional or small enterprise situations.

IMO one of Steve Jobs most significant acts in being CEO of Apple (for the second time) was to negotiate a contract where he received no salary but stock options... It was a brave move that was in keeping with his nature... He effectively agreed to "If I don't perform I don't get paid"... If only many other BOD of corporations took this on as a paradigm for *hiring *CEOs this whole discussion would be moot.


----------



## groovetube

yes G, see you should have blamed the BOD! You see, the CEO is just some poor sap who deserves a break, and is just given whatever he can get.

Those damn BOD...


----------



## fjnmusic

A one dollar a year salary certainly gives a CEO a lot of motivation to get the products selling. Too many CEO's, upper admin, and rich people in general seem to feel they're entitled to the profits, and so many of the other 99% seem to feel the same way.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> A one dollar a year salary certainly gives a CEO a lot of motivation to get the products selling. Too many CEO's, upper admin, and rich people in general seem to feel they're entitled to the profits, *and so many of the other 99% seem to feel the same way.*


where do you think the profit should go?


----------



## fjnmusic

groovetube said:


> where do you think the profit should go?


I worked for Safeway for six years. If the manager kept the man hours under a certain number, he would get a bonus. We'd have to work extra hard so that he would get paid more money. Didn't take long to figure out that if we slacked a little but not too much, we could screw up his bonus but still get the job done. This is often what happens if you don't like your boss. If there was something in the bonus for the rest of us, if he were inclined to "share some of the wealth", we might have been more enthused about working harder. There is an old Soviet saying: they pretend to pay and we pretend to work.

Now you know darn well that when there's genuine competition, companies will offer all kinds of incentives to attract customers. Many give away "free" iPads, for example. It costs the company a little up front, but they make up for it in sales. If only the CEO keeps all the profits, the shareholders' and customers' patience and loyalty is tested. If the shareholders and customers get a taste of the profits, through dividends, better prices, cash back, higher quality, or whatever, then they will continue to buy into the system. Apple does not pay a dividend (yet) and apparently doesn't need to (yet), because people can make money just by buying and selling stocks if they time it right. Customers will pay far more for an iPad than a similar tablet from a competitor because they perceive they're getting more value for their money. Both of these situations could change, of course, which would then mean the company would need a different strategy.

So to answer question, I think the bulk of the profit should go to the company, both CEO and shareholders as they can afford it, and some should be given back to the customers in the form of special deals, upgrades, etcetera. Without the customer, there is no business after all. 

As for charitable contributions, I don't believe that's a company responsibility. Individuals can donate to the charity of their choice with their own earnings. Or not. Taxes already exist for this purpose.


----------



## groovetube

fjnmusic said:


> I worked for Safeway for six years. If the manager kept the man hours under a certain number, he would get a bonus. We'd have to work extra hard so that he would get paid more money. Didn't take long to figure out that if we slacked a little but not too much, we could screw up his bonus but still get the job done. This is often what happens if you don't like your boss. If there was something in the bonus for the rest of us, if he were inclined to "share some of the wealth", we might have been more enthused about working harder. There is an old Soviet saying: they pretend to pay and we pretend to work.
> 
> Now you know darn well that when there's genuine competition, companies will offer all kinds of incentives to attract customers. Many give away "free" iPads, for example. It costs the company a little up front, but they make up for it in sales. If only the CEO keeps all the profits, the shareholders' and customers' patience and loyalty is tested. If the shareholders and customers get a taste of the profits, through dividends, better prices, cash back, higher quality, or whatever, then they will continue to buy into the system. Apple does not pay a dividend (yet) and apparently doesn't need to (yet), because people can make money just by buying and selling stocks if they time it right. Customers will pay far more for an iPad than a similar tablet from a competitor because they perceive they're getting more value for their money. Both of these situations could change, of course, which would then mean the company would need a different strategy.
> 
> So to answer question, I think the bulk of the profit should go to the company, both CEO and shareholders as they can afford it, and some should be given back to the customers in the form of special deals, upgrades, etcetera. Without the customer, there is no business after all.
> 
> As for charitable contributions, I don't believe that's a company responsibility. Individuals can donate to the charity of their choice with their own earnings. Or not. Taxes already exist for this purpose.


I found it interesting, after the 'to answer your question', no mention was made up of the vast numbers of individuals who make those profits happen. Besides the ceo, shareholders, and the board.


----------



## BigDL

fjnmusic said:


> A one dollar a year salary certainly gives a CEO a lot of motivation to get the products selling. Too many CEO's, upper admin, and rich people in general seem to feel they're entitled to the profits, and so many of the other 99% seem to feel the same way.


It's not that feel entitled to profits, they're hooked on profits.

Just like junkies, what gave them their "high" last quarter just won't do it this quarter, unless they get a bigger hit of their substance of abuse.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> It's not that feel entitled to profits, they're hooked on profits.
> 
> Just like junkies what gave them their "high" last quarter just won't do it this quarter, unless they get a bigger hit of their substance of abuse.


Looks like the general populace is also "addicted" to salary increases.


----------



## BigDL

So far average citizens aren't even keeping up with the cost of living let alone those with a need for greed.


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> So far average citizens aren't even keeping up with the cost of living let alone those with a need for greed.


Their complaints are just withdrawal symptoms from their addiction.


----------



## BigDL

I recall someone being upset with Autoworkers who maintained their real wages by way of the Cost Of Living Allowance COLA Clause. This protected the real earnings of workers. 

When workers protect their real wages some will wail something unmercifully. A CEO, however, is welcome to as much as they can bargain according to some. 

Now why is one worker welcome to bargain for as much as they are able, and another worker is not?


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I recall someone being upset with Autoworkers who maintained their real wages by way of the Cost Of Living Allowance COLA Clause. This protected the real earnings of workers.


Who is upset. They doomed themselves with the COLA. Most of those cars are being manufactured elsewhere now.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> Who is upset. They doomed themselves with the COLA. Most of those cars are being manufactured elsewhere now.


I 've read posting complaining about Union members and especially Autoworkers wages.

Which car of "those cars" are you talking about?


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> I 've read posting complaining about Union members and especially Autoworkers wages.
> 
> Which car of "those cars" are you talking about?


These:


----------



## groovetube

what, you think that because the right wing decided it was a good idea to allow big corporations to make even bigger profits by utilizing slave labor that that, somehow makes your case?

HA!


----------



## SINC

groovetube said:


> what you think because the right wing decided it was a good idea to allow big corporations to make even bigger profits by utilizing slave labor that somehow makes your case?
> 
> HA!


Perhaps you had better read what you wrote again. That non-sentence and nonsensical on top of it, makes no sense whatsoever. HA!


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> These:


Car produced around the world very good. Would you like a cookie?


----------



## groovetube

SINC said:


> Perhaps you had better read what you wrote again. That non-sentence and nonsensical on top of it, makes no sense whatsoever. HA!


sorry, added two commas and two 'thats'.

i'm no writer, but an iphone makes it worse.

Though, I had to read your post twice as well


----------



## BigDL

I guess "that's obvious in most situations involving this type of nit-picking" people can't attack ideas or the subject matter they can attack individuals.

All the while believing that's holding the high ground on the right, I suppose.


----------



## groovetube

this is interesting:
Finally, Higher Taxes for the 1% ? Is Occupy Behind Governors' Moves to Make the Wealthy Pay Their Share? | | AlterNet


----------



## Macfury

BigDL said:


> Car produced around the world very good. Would you like a cookie?


Those are cars that used to be produced by people with COLA clauses in their contracts. Next?


----------



## SINC

BigDL said:


> I guess "that's obvious in most situations involving this type of nit-picking" people can't attack ideas or the subject matter they can attack individuals.
> 
> All the while believing that's holding the high ground on the right, I suppose.


Nope, wrong again. There was no attack on gt in any way. His sentence structure and grammar was questioned, sure, but not him as an individual. Get it right or, well, you know . . .


----------



## Macfury

SINC said:


> Nope, wrong again. There was no attack on gt in any way. His sentence structure and grammar was questioned, sure, but not him as an individual. Get it right or, well, you know . . .


Agreed, SINC. You have every reason to question a non-cogent post.


----------



## groovetube

oh come now macfury. You have made an art form of some of the most unreadable disasters of thought around here. Enough that some good posters have fled.


----------



## Macfury

These OWS protests are really fizzling out.


----------



## groovetube

I know, the article was upsetting wasn't it.


----------



## fjnmusic

Macfury said:


> These OWS protests are really fizzling out.


Which is exactly why Steve Jobs should be man of the year rather than "the Occupiers." What have these folks really contributed to the world that is of lasting value? The banks are greedy---like we didn't already know that.


----------



## groovetube

yeah so let's just shut up about it and let them.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Which is exactly why Steve Jobs should be man of the year rather than "the Occupiers." What have these folks really contributed to the world that is of lasting value? The banks are greedy---like we didn't already know that.


"The Occupiers" are chosen because they reflect the non-values of the management at TIME. There was a really sad hope that this would be the political force to equal that of the TEA Party. 

It wasn't.

Stick a fork in 'em. They're done. The Occupiers have squandered their potential for change by failing to establish goal markers.


----------



## groovetube

only because you say so. YOU would like to stick a fork. Be my guest!

It appears even the link I posted is laughing at you. 

It really, truly, upsets you to no end how lame the tea party protests were in comparison. The protests will slow over the winter months, but we both know it'll go nuts in spring.

Must be a terrifying thought!


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Those are cars that used to be produced by people with COLA clauses in their contracts. Next?


not that i want to sidetrack this thread into the automotive industry, but what you said isn't accurate. the biggest piece of that pie you posted is china. almost half of the cars they produce are chinese owned companies. the others are foreign companies, but the vast majority of those cars are not for export. by in large, china makes cars for chinese people. you can say this for most countries. north american workers never really made cars for these emerging markets (at least not to any significant scale).



Macfury said:


> There was a really sad hope that this would be the political force to equal that of the TEA Party.


globally the OWS movement dwarfs the tea party as a political force. I guess in the US you *might* have a case that the Tea Party has more political clout, but that's only because they have corporate dollars running their agenda.

which is kind of the whole point behind OWS and something they are not interested in. plus OWS is merely months old. In time it will grow and evolve.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> not that i want to sidetrack this thread into the automotive industry, but what you said isn't accurate. the biggest piece of that pie you posted is china. almost half of the cars they produce are chinese owned companies. the others are foreign companies, but the vast majority of those cars are not for export. by in large, china makes cars for chinese people. you can say this for most countries. north american workers never really made cars for these emerging markets (at least not to any significant scale).
> 
> 
> 
> globally the OWS movement dwarfs the tea party as a political force. I guess in the US you *might* have a case that the Tea Party has more political clout, but that's only because they have corporate dollars running their agenda.
> 
> which is kind of the whole point behind OWS and something they are not interested in. plus OWS is merely months old. *In time it will grow and evolve*.


Or not.. it may fizzle and die... time will tell.


----------



## BigDL

Macfury said:


> "The Occupiers" are chosen because they reflect the non-values of the management at TIME. There was a really sad hope that this would be the political force to equal that of the TEA Party.
> 
> It wasn't.
> 
> Stick a fork in 'em. They're done. The Occupiers have squandered their potential for change by failing to establish goal markers.


If "The Occupy Movement" is nothing, has fizzled out or is done, why do you and others spend so much time in this thread?

Who are you trying to convince? Maybe it's time spent trying to calm and reassure ones self.

Is it that scary to contemplate this movement will fundamentally change the world?


----------



## eMacMan

i-rui said:


> globally the OWS movement dwarfs the tea party as a political force. I guess in the US you *might* have a case that the Tea Party has more political clout, but that's only because they have corporate dollars running their agenda.
> ....
> 
> which is kind of the whole point behind OWS and something they are not interested in. plus OWS is merely months old. In time it will grow and evolve.





screature said:


> Or not.. it may fizzle and die... time will tell.


Seems far more likely to grow. The puppet masters are betting that coming policies will cause huge amounts of unrest. That's real reason behind shredding the Bill of Rights and the Fourth Amendment. 

The only post 9/11, US soil terrorist attack was the crotch bomber who was escorted around airport security with no passport. NO-Boom but three days later and one of the mega corps is happily pedaling hundreds of naked body scanners. Scanners that just one week earlier it could not give away. The US Government is not afraid of terrorists, it is afraid of all those victims of its "Trickle Up" economic plan.


----------



## screature

BigDL said:


> *If "The Occupy Movement" is nothing, has fizzled out or is done, why do you and others spend so much time in this thread?*
> 
> Who are you trying to convince? Maybe it's time spent trying to calm and reassure ones self.
> 
> Is it that scary to contemplate this movement will fundamentally change the world?


Because many people will always continue to flog a dead horse.... Not saying that it is the case here but just as a response to the bolded section/question of your post above.


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> Seems far more likely to grow. The puppet masters are betting that coming policies will cause huge amounts of unrest. That's real reason behind shredding the Bill of Rights and the Fourth Amendment.
> 
> *The only post 9/11, US soil terrorist attack* was the crotch bomber who was escorted around airport security with no passport. NO-Boom but three days later and one of the mega corps is happily pedaling hundreds of naked body scanners. Scanners that just one week earlier it could not give away. *The US Government is not afraid of terrorists, it is afraid of all those victims of its "Trickle Up" economic plan.*


Why is US soil the only important terrorist (Al-Qaeda) target, of which there have been many since 9/11? Al-Qaeda is waging a war on the West not only the US.

Did you ever stop to consider that the reason why there have been no more Al-Qaeda attacks on the US since 9/11 is *because* of the US government's policies, practices and procedures... In which case if this were true your post only serves as testament to the efficacy of said policies, practices and procedures.

Pure bunk. I don't even know where to begin....


----------



## fjnmusic

The Occupy movement is flawed from its very basic premises in that "Occupy" does not mean the same thing as "regain" or "take back." To occupy is by definition a temporary state of affairs, like Palestinians occupying sections of Israel (or vice-versa) or the US occupying Iraq. It is ultimately a futile gesture unless the original landowners are minimized or wiped out, like when Europeans came to occupy North America, with tokens of land reserved for the original First Nations inhabitants. Today's OWS movement is semantically more like "annoy" or "irritate." They function like a disgruntled opposition party who can complain about the government, but who so far has offered nothing better to replace the existing system.

Don't get me wrong. The existing system is f-ed. It is corrupt and untenable for much longer. But a better option has not yet been presented, at least not one that the whole population, the 100%, will buy into. To be a visionary and a leader, you must first have a vision. Martin Luther King, Jr. , for example, had a vision. So did Ghandi. So did Jim Henson. The OWS group so far strike me as a large group of whiners. What is their proposal?


----------



## BigDL

screature said:


> Why is US soil the only important terrorist (Al-Qaeda) target, of which there have been many since 9/11? Al-Qaeda is waging a war on the West not only the US.
> 
> Did you ever stop to consider that the reason why there have been no more Al-Qaeda attacks on the US since 9/11 is *because* of the US government's policies, practices and procedures... In which case if this were true your post only serves as testament to the efficacy of said policies, practices and procedures.
> 
> Pure bunk. I don't even know where to begin....


What are you saying? We should not have entered into the so called "greatest deal since Free Trade" on boarder security?


----------



## fjnmusic

Boarder security means making sure the people who rent from you can afford the rent and in return won't have their power shut off in the middle of the winter.


----------



## eMacMan

screature said:


> Why is US soil the only important terrorist (Al-Qaeda) target, of which there have been many since 9/11? Al-Qaeda is waging a war on the West not only the US.
> 
> Did you ever stop to consider that the reason why there have been no more Al-Qaeda attacks on the US since 9/11 is *because* of the US government's policies, practices and procedures... In which case if this were true your post only serves as testament to the efficacy of said policies, practices and procedures.
> 
> Pure bunk. I don't even know where to begin....


I have no real desire to plan or carry out a terrorist attack and can easily come up with a dozen easy ways a single individual or a handful of individuals could wreak havoc here in North America. Therefore I would have to suggest that terrorists are the modern day equivalent of Jews in 1930s Germany. Same reasons and so far eerily similar results. Any idiot can lead by pounding the drums of fear and hatred. The true test of leadership is avoiding that trap and the inevitable disastrous consequences.

OTH why bother launching a terror attack over here when our Glorious Leaders are quite capably and systematically destroying the very foundations of our respective nations and blaming terrorists for their misdeeds.


----------



## groovetube

eMacMan said:


> I have no real desire to plan or carry out a terrorist attack and can easily come up with a dozen easy ways a single individual or a handful of individuals could wreak havoc here in North America. Therefore I would have to suggest that terrorists are the modern day equivalent of Jews in 1930s Germany. Same reasons and so far eerily similar results. Any idiot can lead by pounding the drums of fear and hatred. The true test of leadership is avoiding that trap and the inevitable disastrous consequences.
> 
> *OTH why bother launching a terror attack over here when our Glorious Leaders are quite capably and systematically destroying the very foundations of our respective nations and blaming terrorists for their misdeeds.*


bingo.


----------



## i-rui

Richest CEOs will earn your 2012 salary by noon - Business - CBC News



> The highest paid CEOs have gained more ground in Canada, and are now making nearly 200 times the average Canadian wage, according to a new report.
> 
> The 100 highest paid chief executives whose companies are listed on the S&P/TSX composite index made an average of $8.38 million in 2010, according to figures pulled from circulars by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, a left-leaning think-tank.
> 
> That's 189 times higher than the $44,366 an average Canadian made working full time in 2010, the report says. And it's a 27 per cent raise from the $6.6 million average compensation for the top 100 CEOs in 2009.
> 
> Most Canadians, on the other hand, have seen their wages stagnate over the past few years. In 2010, after adjusting for inflation, average wages actually fell.
> 
> "The gap between Canada's CEO elite 100 and the rest of us is growing at a fast and steady pace, with no signs of letting up," says economist Hugh Mackenzie, who authored the report.
> 
> "The extraordinarily high pay of chief executive officers is more than a curiosity. It actually is a reflection of a troubling redistribution of society's resources in Canada and the United States, and in most of Western Europe," he said in an interview.
> 
> Stock options for bonuses
> He points out that in 1998, the top 100 CEOs were paid 105 times the average wage. Since then, the ratio has generally climbed. In 2008, it was 174, dropping back to 155 during the recession in 2009. The high-water mark was 2007, when it peaked above 190.
> 
> It means that by noon on Jan. 3, the average top executive will have already made as much money as the average Canadian worker makes in a year.
> 
> The driving forces behind the inequality gap are complex, and lie in the structure of executive compensation packages, Mackenzie says.
> 
> Consultants giving advice to corporate boards on how much to pay their CEOs only compare to other CEOs, perpetually driving up the average in the race to be above-average, he explains.
> 
> And many companies use stock options for a large part of their executives' bonuses, a practice that not only drives up pay packages but also ties compensation to share price rather than company performance, Mackenzie notes.


----------



## eMacMan

To be fair most of those super execs earned the big bucks by outsourcing Canadian jobs to China, thereby increasing corporate profits which made bigger bonuses possible.tptptptp


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> Richest CEOs will earn your 2012 salary by noon - Business - CBC News


So...? I didn't earn less because of their salaries and I dare say you didn't either. 

What about the top actors, personalities, recording artists sports stars etc. why aren't they subject to such scrutiny as well?


----------



## screature

eMacMan said:


> To be fair most of those super execs earned the big bucks by outsourcing Canadian jobs to China, thereby increasing corporate profits which made bigger bonuses possible.tptptptp


Yeah like you know that for a fact.


----------



## fjnmusic

screature said:


> So...? I didn't earn less because of their salaries and I dare say you didn't either.
> 
> What about the top actors, personalities, recording artists sports stars etc. why aren't they subject to such scrutiny as well?


Because they tend to be more leftist / liberal / democrat in their political views. Well, maybe not sports stars as much, but still. You make a good point.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> What about the top actors, personalities, recording artists sports stars etc. why aren't they subject to such scrutiny as well?


they're actually taxed for the entirety of what they earn. top CEOs earn much of their pay as stock options which are taxed as capital gains. they can also choose when they want to exercise those options for maximum value and tax benefit.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Because they tend to be more leftist / liberal / democrat in their political views. Well, maybe not sports stars as much, but still. You make a good point.


This reminds me of the people who kvetch about company loyalty to employees as they flit from job to job in search of better compensation.

Me--I'm grateful to be living in a country where people can earn as much as those CEOs.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac

I don't have a problem with large salaries. When CEOs control billions of dollars of revenues and have 100,000 employees you can't expect to pay them in peanuts.

what busts my chaps, well, if I owned chaps it would bust them is CEOs / bank presidents, etc. who drove companies into the ground and still received million dollar bonuses to keep them. WHAT? They cost you millions of dollars, why keep them?

Someone out there is willing to work, so why keep someone around when they have lost millions of dollars.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> What about the top actors, personalities, recording artists sports stars etc. why aren't they subject to such scrutiny as well?


Well, there has certainly been some discussion of the obscene amounts of money being paid to professional athletes. I certainly think this is a comparable issue. And people do start to squawk when Luongo can't stop a beach ball and the Sedins don't score for several games in a row. I think there'd be rioting in the streets if those players contracts were continuously enriched while the team did worse and worse. Can you imagine what would happen if the players were given golden parachutes when they were sent down to the minors?

I'm not so sure about recording artists or movie stars; if you don't think they're worth that much, don't buy their music/go to their films. Unlike cars/computers/bank accounts, music and movies aren't things you need in order to be a functional member of society.

But more broadly, I think the ridiculous amounts of money paid to top entertainers is indicative of one of the significant maladies afflicting our society. We, as a civilization, are so bereft of purpose that we'll pay almost anything to be distracted, however briefly, from our meaningless existence. I really do think that if more people had really compelling things to do with their time, a lot fewer people would be watching sports or the latest Hollywood dreck, so, while those things would still exist, the entertainers creating these spectacles would make a lot less money.

But this is a different issue than that of the outrageous compensation of CEOs.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> Well, there has certainly been some discussion of the obscene amounts of money being paid to professional athletes. I certainly think this is a comparable issue. And people do start to squawk when Luongo can't stop a beach ball and the Sedins don't score for several games in a row. I think there'd be rioting in the streets if those players contracts were continuously enriched while the team did worse and worse. Can you imagine what would happen if the players were given golden parachutes when they were sent down to the minors?
> 
> I'm not so sure about recording artists or movie stars; if you don't think they're worth that much, don't buy their music/go to their films. Unlike cars/computers/bank accounts, music and movies aren't things you need in order to be a functional member of society.
> 
> But more broadly, I think the ridiculous amounts of money paid to top entertainers is indicative of one of the significant maladies afflicting our society. We, as a civilization, are so bereft of purpose that we'll pay almost anything to be distracted, however briefly, from our meaningless existence. I really do think that if more people had really compelling things to do with their time, a lot fewer people would be watching sports or the latest Hollywood dreck, so, while those things would still exist, the entertainers creating these spectacles would make a lot less money.
> 
> *But this is a different issue than that of the outrageous compensation of CEOs.*


It isn't at all really, it is all about people getting paid what the market will bear, whatever market that may be...


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> they're actually taxed for the entirety of what they earn. top CEOs earn much of their pay as stock options which are taxed as capital gains. they can also choose when they want to exercise those options for maximum value and tax benefit.


So? And then they can invest that money in real estate or the markets or whatever means they choose to then also have income that is taxed as capital gains... so what?


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> So? And then they can invest that money in real estate or the markets or whatever means they choose to then also have income that is taxed as capital gains... so what?


yes, they can *INVEST* that money and face capital gains on those *INVESTMENTS*.

what you (still) fail to recognize is that those athletes/actors/recording artists etc.... are still paying their fair tax rate. They haven't been able to lobby & rig the system to defer their salary in ways to legally cheat the system the way these CEOs have.

the "so what?" response isn't at all surprising since it comes from a Harper supporter, under who's watch the CEO pay increase/tax rate decrease has really taken off. CEO's can have the majority of their salary taxed at 20 odd%, while servers have to declare 10% of their salary as "tips" and be taxed for that at their full corresponding tax rate.

but "so what".


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> yes, they can *INVEST* that money and face capital gains on those *INVESTMENTS*.
> 
> *what you (still) fail to recognize is that those athletes/actors/recording artists etc.... are still paying their fair tax rate.* They haven't been able to lobby & rig the system to defer their salary in ways to legally cheat the system the way these CEOs have.
> 
> the "so what?" response isn't at all surprising since it comes from a Harper supporter, under who's watch the CEO pay increase/tax rate decrease has really taken off. CEO's can have the majority of their salary taxed at 20 odd%, while servers have to declare 10% of their salary as "tips" and be taxed for that at their full corresponding tax rate.
> 
> but "so what".


And so are the CEOs until the laws change... LOL re lobby and rigging the system... every one is free to lobby and there is no legal cheating, it is either within the rules or it isn't.

Seems it only care irks you if people get rich when they are corporate execs and everyone else gets a pass, you may want to rethink the inconsistencies of that position.

As for the rest of your post it is completely beside the point and irrelevant, nice attempt at a dodge.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> they're actually taxed for the entirety of what they earn. top CEOs earn much of their pay as stock options which are taxed as capital gains. they can also choose when they want to exercise those options for maximum value and tax benefit.


Did you hear about one of the republican candidates proposals to eliminate capital gains?

Yeah. And so it continues. In other news, I don't see many 'regular folk' lobbying government besides the ows protesters but we're not supposed to take them seriously eh.


----------



## CubaMark




----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


>


Bernie Madoff is in jail. Luxury taxes on tobacco, alcohol, jewelry and high-end automobiles are still common.

Gag fail.


----------



## i-rui

the taxes on tobacco & alcohol are luxury taxes?

lol


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> the taxes on tobacco & alcohol are luxury taxes?


You're showing a distinct lack of historical perspective here. The definition of "luxury" in luxury tax means "non-essential."


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> You're showing a distinct lack of historical perspective here. The definition of "luxury" in luxury tax means "non-essential."


Defining what would constitute a luxury in today's society would decidedly cause a raucous debate.


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> Defining what would constitute a luxury in today's society would decidedly cause a raucous debate.


Yep. iPod? IPad? Online movies?


----------



## i-rui

tobacco & alcohol have sin taxes.

but please, feel free to run it through your reality altering spin machine to fit your narrative.

it's always good for a laugh.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Defining what would constitute a luxury in today's society would decidedly cause a raucous debate.


But an interesting one. I'd definitely agree that iPhones/iPods/iAnythings are luxuries. But access to communications and the internet are not.

Cars are probably not luxuries for most people in Canada, but cars over $25k probably are. Furthermore, I'd support a tax on fossil fuels, the revenue from which could be distributed among public transit subsidies, support for bike-lanes/self-propelled transit infrastructure, and renewable energy projects.

Depending on where you live, houses over $200k could be luxuries, but in some places a $700k house is quite modest. Perhaps luxury taxes should kick in at 2 sigmas above the median house price for any given region?

I'd argue an internet connection is not a luxury, but cable TV is.

Education and health care are not luxuries, but entertainment and some food (all meat) are.

Candy, meat, tobacco, alcohol and marijuana, should all be treated as similar luxuries/unhealthy indulgences (which is to say that all of these are things that in moderation are enjoyable and relatively harmless, but none are necessary, and all are damaging in excess). So I'd be okay with a moderate tax on these sufficient to cover the social costs of the detrimental health effects.

Clean water, air, and solitude are not luxuries, but they are in scarce supply and need to be protected much more vigorously. Perhaps by taxes on luxuries that impact these essential resources.

Thanks for the thought-provoking post, screature.


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> But an interesting one. I'd definitely agree that iPhones/iPods/iAnythings are luxuries. But access to communications and the internet are not.
> 
> Cars are probably not luxuries for most people in Canada, but cars over $25k probably are. Furthermore, I'd support a tax on fossil fuels, the revenue from which could be distributed among public transit subsidies, support for bike-lanes/self-propelled transit infrastructure, and renewable energy projects.
> 
> Depending on where you live, houses over $200k could be luxuries, but in some places a $700k house is quite modest. Perhaps luxury taxes should kick in at 2 sigmas above the median house price for any given region?
> 
> I'd argue an internet connection is not a luxury, but cable TV is.
> 
> Education and health care are not luxuries, but entertainment and some food (all meat) are.
> 
> Candy, meat, tobacco, alcohol and marijuana, should all be treated as similar luxuries/unhealthy indulgences (which is to say that all of these are things that in moderation are enjoyable and relatively harmless, but none are necessary, and all are damaging in excess). So I'd be okay with a moderate tax on these sufficient to cover the social costs of the detrimental health effects.
> 
> Clean water, air, and solitude are not luxuries, but they are in scarce supply and need to be protected much more vigorously. Perhaps by taxes on luxuries that impact these essential resources.
> 
> Thanks for the thought-provoking post, screature.


Your list begs many questions (and thus why I said it would cause a raucous debate)....

In you list of essentials you list cars, but they are very high priced items.

In your list of luxuries you list candy and meat but they are relatively low priced items.

So you are suggesting a luxury would mean something not necessary to make a living or perhaps sustain a certain standard of living but all these things differ depending on where you live and how you make your living or sustain a certain standard of living.

By way of example, connection to the internet is not a necessity (or even possible) to many people depending on where and how they live despite you saying the internet is not a luxury ergo a necessity. But my in-laws, for example, live very happily without any connection to the internet so they provide an example that in fact it is not necessary for everyone.

So it would seem what constitutes a luxury and a necessity is relative to different and sometimes perhaps even divergent criteria.

Another example, some would say, is for addicts (as the Supreme Court recently decided is a necessity) access to a safe place with clean needles to inject intravenous drugs is a social necessity. Even though the law says that possession of such substances is illegal in the first place...

I hope you are beginning to see where I am coming from... the definition of what constitutes a luxury is far from being simple let alone determining under what circumstances such a tax would be applied depending on who you are, your means of income, your current standard of living, (and what it takes to maintain it) where you live etc.

Then if such a tax were to be implemented it would need a bureaucracy to oversee/manage and implement it all at great expense. My suspicion is that such a tax would be untenable at best and highly subjective (who decides and adjudicates what is a luxury and what is necessary) and at worst a complete social and economic disaster.

I can't see how that it would be any thing other than bad public policy. Those that can afford expensive (perhaps luxury items) already pay a tax premium based on the associated sales tax (PST/GST/HST) the more you spend on an item the more the total in tax you pay.


----------



## groovetube

CubaMark said:


>


Not such a 'gag fail' as the image sparked some spirited posts.

I've seen quite a range of different circumstances in the last little while, I think there's quite a range of opinion in regards to what one would consider, luxury, or essential. I don't think anyone can claim to be an authority on that subject.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> Your list begs many questions (and thus why I said it would cause a raucous debate)


Well, I don't think it needs to be raucous, but it's certainly an interesting topic to discuss.



> In you list of essentials you list cars, but they are very high priced items.


Yes. I don't think absolute cost is what makes something a luxury. I'll also certainly agree that cars aren't "essential" in the way that food, water, air, shelter, etc. are essential, but I think it's pretty easy to argue that for most people in Canada (except those living in urban centres with good public transportation) need a car of some sort frequently enough that renting or sharing isn't an option.



> So you are suggesting a luxury would mean something not necessary to make a living or perhaps sustain a certain standard of living but all these things differ depending on where you live and how you make your living or sustain a certain standard of living.


Pretty much. I'd also consider things that are necessary to be an engaged/informed citizen (e.g. education and internet access), healthy (e.g. access to clean water, healthy food, personal security, and medical services), who makes an effort to live a sustainable lifestyle (e.g. bike lanes, walking trails, recycling services, etc.), as non-luxury items/services.



> connection to the internet is not a necessity (or even possible) to many people depending on where and how they live despite you saying the internet is not a luxury ergo a necessity. But my in-laws, for example, live very happily without any connection to the internet so they provide an example that in fact it is not necessary for everyone.


It's easy to think of exceptions to most general principles. But I was really just "thinking out loud" about what I consider luxuries and would support a luxury tax on. I think a good case can be made that internet connectivity is not a luxury for modern citizens (despite the existence of exceptions to that rule).



> Another example, some would say, is for addicts (as the Supreme Court recently decided is a necessity) access to a safe place with clean needles to inject intravenous drugs is a social necessity. Even though the law says that possession of such substances is illegal in the first place.


Interesting point. Upon consideration, I agree that for addicts, these are necessities. For non-addicts they would be luxuries. One of the things I think could be accomplished by the legalization of drugs (and their taxation as luxuries) is that the costs to society of addiction could be mitigated.



> I hope you are beginning to see where I am coming from... the definition of what constitutes a luxury is far from being simple


I agree completely and never meant to imply otherwise. Indeed the point of my posting was to stimulate discussion on the idea of luxury and what can reasonably be taxed as such.



> My suspicion is that such a tax would be untenable at best


Maybe. It would certainly be challenging to establish a system that correctly identified *all* luxuries for all people all the time. However, I think we could quite easily identify many items and services that are consistently viewed as luxuries (pedicures, alcohol, marijuana, sports cars, private jets, yachts, recreational properties, big screen TVs, eyelash extensions, tanning salons, landscaping services, etc.) and could therefore safely be subject to luxury taxes. Other more arguable products and services could be added later if deemed prudent.



> Those that can afford expensive (perhaps luxury items) already pay a tax premium based on the associated sales tax (PST/GST/HST) the more you spend on an item the more the total in tax you pay.


This is certainly not the case for things like marijuana, which are currently illegal and therefore sold (at outlandish profit) by criminals who use the money to buy guns and politicians.


----------



## fjnmusic

So whatever happened to that whole Occupy movement? Get bored? They seemed so into it just a couple months ago...


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> So whatever happened to that whole Occupy movement? Get bored? They seemed so into it just a couple months ago...


It's just getting bigger and bigger like a giant progressive snowball, cuz society is broke and they are gonna fix it. Seems just yesterday that the likes of bryanc and BigDL were dreaming with stars in their eyes about the new order that was going to replace the old one.

Just wait until next summer when it gets warmer!!!


----------



## screature

Macfury said:


> It's just getting bigger and bigger like a giant progressive snowball, cuz society is broke and they are gonna fix it. Seems just yesterday that the likes of bryanc and BigDL were dreaming with stars in their eyes about the new order that was going to replace the old one.
> 
> *Just wait until next summer when it gets warmer*!!!


It needed a cooling off period anyway.


----------



## Macfury

By February 29th, Occupy Portland will have disbanded all corporations through the power of dance and music and poetry, I hear.


----------



## Macfury

They're still making the news--every time their unbathed asses are kicked out of one squat or another. Buffalo, NY just evicted their lot.


----------



## i-rui

lol at anyone doubting the impact of the occupy movement. they have become so relevant that their politics have even entered the bubble that is republican primaries.

does anyone think Romney would be under attack for his paltry tax rate or his venture capitalism without occupy calling attention to the rigged system earlier in the year?


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> does anyone think Romney would be under attack for his paltry tax rate or his venture capitalism without occupy calling attention to the rigged system earlier in the year?


Yes.


----------



## bryanc

i-rui said:


> ..does anyone think Romney would be under attack for his paltry tax rate or his venture capitalism without occupy calling attention to the rigged system earlier in the year?





Macfury said:


> Yes.


See, no mater how reasonable the position, you can always find someone who'll disagree.


----------



## Macfury

The position is not reasonable. These questions are being thrown by Republican candidates at each other by each other.


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> These questions are being thrown by Republican candidates at each other by each other.


And these are questions that never would've been raised if it weren't for the OWS protests last year.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> And these are questions that never would've been raised if it weren't for the OWS protests last year.


Not at all. The demand for release of IRS forms is standard operating procedure when the fighting gets rough.


----------



## i-rui

gotta love the conservative bubble from reality.


----------



## Sonal

I've got to agree with MacFury about Romney and calling for his tax returns, etc., having nothing to do with Occupy. I remember when Obama's tax returns were released prior to his being elected--that was well before OWS.

EDIT TO ADD: Here. Proof. Book Sales Lifted Obamas’ Income in 2007 to a Total of $4.2 Million - New York Times


----------



## eMacMan

Sonal said:


> I've got to agree with MacFury about Romney and calling for his tax returns, etc., having nothing to do with Occupy. I remember when Obama's tax returns were released prior to his being elected--that was well before OWS.
> 
> EDIT TO ADD: Here. Proof. Book Sales Lifted Obamas’ Income in 2007 to a Total of $4.2 Million - New York Times



'Course at that time no one believed he would stay the Neo-Con course as faithfully as he has.


----------



## i-rui

Sonal said:


> I've got to agree with MacFury about Romney and calling for his tax returns, etc., having nothing to do with Occupy. I remember when Obama's tax returns were released prior to his being elected--that was well before OWS.
> 
> EDIT TO ADD: Here. Proof. Book Sales Lifted Obamas’ Income in 2007 to a Total of $4.2 Million - New York Times


all nominees will release their tax returns, that's standard.

What's unprecedented is Romney being attacked for paying a paltry *tax rate*. (Obama was criticized for his increased charitable contributions)

And even more strange is venture capitalism being under attack by people part of the *republican* party (where it was once espoused as god's work).


----------



## Sonal

i-rui said:


> all nominees will release their tax returns, that's standard.
> 
> What's unprecedented is Romney being attacked for paying a paltry *tax rate*. (Obama was criticized for his increased charitable contributions)
> 
> And even more strange is venture capitalism being under attack by people part of the *republican* party (where it was once espoused as god's work).


Unprecedented, perhaps. But in the context of debating whether or not the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy should be extended or allowed to expire, not so odd.


----------



## i-rui

Sonal said:


> Unprecedented, perhaps. But in the context of debating whether or not the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy should be extended or allowed to expire, not so odd.


Romney wants to permanently extend the bush tax cuts. 

The irony with Gingrich is he's attacking Romney for paying a 15% tax rate, yet his own tax plan calls for the capital gains tax to be eliminated (so Romney would almost pay nothing).

Just goes to show how ass backwards the republican candidates are.


----------



## screature

Going back to when Ross Perot was self financing his run at the presidency he was criticized for his billionaire status as not being in touch with grass root Americans. 

The Occupy movement has zero do with the rich vs. middle class/poor divide when it comes to potential leaders in American politics. i-rui's "observation" is long on wishful thinking but short on historical and factual perspective.


----------



## Sonal

i-rui said:


> Romney wants to permanently extend the bush tax cuts.
> 
> The irony with Gingrich is he's attacking Romney for paying a 15% tax rate, yet his own tax plan calls for the capital gains tax to be eliminated (so Romney would almost pay nothing).
> 
> Just goes to show how ass backwards the republican candidates are.


Go look up Grover Norquist.... finding out about him explained a lot to me about why Republican politics are screwy these days. (Huntsman was the only Republican hopeful not to sign his pledge.)

I have heard the theory that the A-list Republican candidates are not coming out this election, because they've determined their chances of taking out Obama are a bit iffy. So we have a lot of B-listers...


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> I have heard the theory that the A-list Republican candidates are not coming out this election, because they've determined their chances of taking out Obama are a bit iffy. So we have a lot of B-listers...


Not entirely accurate IMHO. The presidency is not the greatest prize and a guy like Romney is being touted because he has the greatest chance of delivering the Senate to the Republicans. They want to control the purse strings more than they want the figurehead.


----------



## Dr.G.

This just in ............

Washington (CNN) - Donald Trump will endorse Mitt Romney for president, the real estate mogul told reporters Thursday. He will make the announcement, news of which CNN broke, in Las Vegas, two days before the Nevada caucuses.

Looks like The Donald might want to be Sect. of the Treasury someday. We shall see.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> Going back to when Ross Perot was self financing his run at the presidency he was criticized for his billionaire status as not being in touch with grass root Americans.
> 
> The Occupy movement has zero do with the rich vs. middle class/poor divide when it comes to potential leaders in American politics. i-rui's "observation" is long on wishful thinking but short on historical and factual perspective.


lol. the occupy movement is predominately about the rich vs poor divide. The historical and factual perspective is this is playing out in the *REPUBLICAN* primaries, which most definitely is unprecedented.



Sonal said:


> Go look up Grover Norquist.... finding out about him explained a lot to me about why Republican politics are screwy these days. (Huntsman was the only Republican hopeful not to sign his pledge.)
> 
> I have heard the theory that the A-list Republican candidates are not coming out this election, because they've determined their chances of taking out Obama are a bit iffy. So we have a lot of B-listers...


i'm familiar with Grover Norquist and the pledge to not raise taxes. Even more disturbing is he considers closing tax loopholes as "raising taxes". The republican party is an absolute mess.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> lol. the occupy movement is predominately about the rich vs poor divide. The historical and factual perspective is this is playing out in the *REPUBLICAN* primaries, which most definitely is unprecedented...


You completely missed the point... carry on...


----------



## Macfury

screature said:


> You completely missed the point... carry on...


Exactly. It isn't unprecedented at all. No Republican is out to win the votes of the few Occupiers still occupying.


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Exactly. It isn't unprecedented at all. No Republican is out to win the votes of the few Occupiers still occupying.


of course not, because occupiers won't vote for republicans.

the point which *you 2* have entirely missed is that these 2 issues (a paltry tax rate and the ramifications of venture capitalism) have suddenly entered *REPUBLICAN* debates. This is a party that espouses the virtue of greed, and yet suddenly many of it's members are vilifying a candidate that has simply been practicing what the party has been preaching for decades.

ultimately Romney will win the nomination and it will be business as usual, but for anyone to simply gloss over what is happening here means they have their head in the sand. 

*The talking points from occupy wall street have entered the republican debate where in the past they would never have been discussed*


----------



## Sonal

i-rui said:


> of course not, because occupiers won't vote for republicans.
> 
> the point which *you 2* have entirely missed is that these 2 issues (a paltry tax rate and the ramifications of venture capitalism) have suddenly entered *REPUBLICAN* debates. This is a party that espouses the virtue of greed, and yet suddenly many of it's members are vilifying a candidate that has simply been practicing what the party has been preaching for decades.
> 
> ultimately Romney will win the nomination and it will be business as usual, but for anyone to simply gloss over what is happening here means they have their head in the sand.
> 
> *The talking points from occupy wall street have entered the republican debate where in the past they would never have been discussed*


How is that so revolutionary?

True Republicans don't espouse greed. They espouse low taxes and (as a consequence) low government spending. Financial and economic issues are always important. 

Newt isn't vilifying Romney because he cares about his tax rate. He's vilifying him because he's his opponent and this is ammo. Romney's weak spot is that his tax rates plays badly to middle-class America--so Newt's going after that.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> of course not, because occupiers won't vote for republicans.
> 
> the point which *you 2* have entirely missed is that these 2 issues (a paltry tax rate and the ramifications of venture capitalism) have suddenly entered *REPUBLICAN* debates. This is a party that espouses the virtue of greed, and yet suddenly many of it's members are vilifying a candidate that has simply been practicing what the party has been preaching for decades.
> 
> ultimately Romney will win the nomination and it will be business as usual, but for anyone to simply gloss over what is happening here means they have their head in the sand.
> 
> *The talking points from occupy wall street have entered the republican debate where in the past they would never have been discussed*


Don't you see that your post in fact points to the illogic of your argument...

You state "occupiers won't vote for republicans." yet for some reason you think "tps from occupy wall street have entered the republican debate where in the past they would never have been discussed".

Based on your own statement why would any republican care about the tps of the occupy members when they wouldn't vote for them anyway? Hmm???

Case closed.


----------



## bryanc

screature said:


> You state "ccupiers won't vote for republicans." yet for some reason you think "tps from occupy wall street have entered the republican debate where in the past they would never have been discussed".
> 
> Based on your own statement why would any republican care about the tps of the occupy members when they wouldn't vote for them anyway? Hmm???
> 
> Case closed.


I agree with your logic, but no one thinks the republicans are courting the hard core OWS vote. It's the "main street american" that's being targeted, and the talking points of OWS have definitely resonated with main street America. To suggest that the Republicans are so tone deaf that they would ignore the most significant shift in public sentiment since Viet Nam is absurd.


----------



## i-rui

Sonal said:


> Newt isn't vilifying Romney because he cares about his tax rate. He's vilifying him because he's his opponent and this is ammo. Romney's weak spot is that his tax rates plays badly to middle-class America--so Newt's going after that.


I agree that Gingrich is disingenuous in his attacks. I've already pointed out that his proposed tax plan would actually have Romney paying much less in income tax. I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say "Romney's weak spot is that his tax rates plays badly to middle-class America", and IMO a large reason it has that effect is because the Occupy movement brought the issue it to the forefront of american consciousness. Ditto for the ramifications of venture capitalism as it's been conducted by Romney and the like.

Gingrich doesn't care about either of those things, but he's calling attention to it because he knows that the public now does (certainly more then in the past).



screature said:


> Don't you see that your post in fact points to the illogic of your argument...
> 
> You state "ccupiers won't vote for republicans." yet for some reason you think "tps from occupy wall street have entered the republican debate where in the past they would never have been discussed".
> 
> Based on your own statement why would any republican care about the tps of the occupy members when they wouldn't vote for them anyway? Hmm???
> .


see above. the republicans know they won't get Occupy protestor votes, but their message has seeped in to the american consciousness. Middle-class america is now more aware of the wealth gap and how the system is rigged for the wealthy. 

that's why we're seeing these issues enter the republican debate.



screature said:


> Case closed.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> the republicans know they won't get Occupy protestor votes, but their message has seeped in to the american consciousness. Middle-class america is now more aware of the wealth gap and how the system is rigged for the wealthy.


They're talking about it not because of the "occupiers" but because Obama has been ragging on it. Occupy is simply a mouthpiece for Democrat party talking points, and not really relevant here,


----------



## Sonal

i-rui said:


> I agree that Gingrich is disingenuous in his attacks. I've already pointed out that his proposed tax plan would actually have Romney paying much less in income tax. I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say "Romney's weak spot is that his tax rates plays badly to middle-class America", and IMO a large reason it has that effect is because the Occupy movement brought the issue it to the forefront of american consciousness. Ditto for the ramifications of venture capitalism as it's been conducted by Romney and the like.
> 
> Gingrich doesn't care about either of those things, but he's calling attention to it because he knows that the public now does (certainly more then in the past).
> 
> 
> 
> see above. the republicans know they won't get Occupy protestor votes, but their message has seeped in to the american consciousness. Middle-class america is now more aware of the wealth gap and how the system is rigged for the wealthy.
> 
> that's why we're seeing these issues enter the republican debate.


The issue of low taxes for the wealthy came to a head in late 2010, which was before Occupy. The issue of how the system is rigged for the wealthy has been around for a while, but there was quite a lot of talk and anger about it in fall 2008 when the markets crashed and the bailouts occurred. It's been on the American consciousness and discussed in middle class America for a quite a while now... that's what helped inspired Occupy. You might have your carts are horses backwards on this one.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> ...see above. the republicans know they won't get Occupy protestor votes, *but their message has seeped in to the american consciousness. *Middle-class america is now more aware of the wealth gap and how the system is rigged for the wealthy.
> 
> that's why we're seeing these issues enter the republican debate.


What the hell is that ??? Drugged out OWS protesters puking??? 

And that is again wishful thinking on your part with absolutely zero to back it up... other than your own rhetoric... but keep posting your self contradictory flawed logic posts by all means... they are really all too much fun... 

The divide between the rich and the poor has been part of even the Republican/right American leadership candidates consciousness for a long time now... give it up, your argument has no legs to stand on no matter how much you would like to believe it does...

Your logic has been shown to be flawed based on your own arguments...


----------



## screature

bryanc said:


> I agree with your logic, but no one thinks the republicans are courting the hard core OWS vote. It's the "main street american" that's being targeted, and the talking points of OWS have definitely resonated with main street America. To suggest that the Republicans are so tone deaf that they would ignore the most significant shift in public sentiment since Viet Nam is absurd.


Meh... Again wishful thinking with zero to back it up, not even history....


----------



## groovetube

It'll be interesting come this spring/summer/fall if the OWS picks up where it left off, what if anything that will figure in the election campaigns. My guess is some polarized opinions here. 

My guess is that the whole OWS thing, is just getting stared. If it goes where I think it may, I can't see it not being a significant factor.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> The divide between the rich and the poor has been part of even the Republican/right American leadership candidates consciousness for a long time now... give it up, your argument has no legs to stand on no matter how much you would like to believe it does...
> .


link?

why don't you post a link to a previous republican debate where a low tax rate and venture capitalism was under attack? why don't you back it up with some historical fact?


----------



## i-rui

Sonal said:


> The issue of low taxes for the wealthy came to a head in late 2010, which was before Occupy. The issue of how the system is rigged for the wealthy has been around for a while, but there was quite a lot of talk and anger about it in fall 2008 when the markets crashed and the bailouts occurred. It's been on the American consciousness and discussed in middle class America for a quite a while now... that's what helped inspired Occupy. You might have your carts are horses backwards on this one.


I'm not suggesting Occupy was created in a vacuum. I acknowledge that some of these issues have come up in the past.

But i think you'd have to be blind to not realize that the movement brought the issues to the attention of a great more many people and that it is now a serious part of the political discussion.


----------



## SINC

i-rui said:


> I'm not suggesting Occupy was created in a vacuum. I acknowledge that some of these issues have come up in the past.
> 
> But i think you'd have to be blind to not realize that the movement brought the issues to the attention of a great more many people and that it is now a serious part of the political discussion.


The most common question asked in public places that I have overheard about Occupy is, "Who are these bums and why don't they get a job?"


----------



## i-rui

fascinating. I've overheard people mention how important it is as a movement.

we should have a showdown of anecdotal evidence to see who's right.


----------



## SINC

We obviously travel in different social circles. Mine consists pretty much of average folks who can only shake their heads when they see these 'occupier' types on TV. They have no affinity with them whatsoever.


----------



## groovetube

some people around me saying who are these bums etc. isn't going to cut it . The media tried very hard to downplay this movement, even though in the US, it was HUGE. It was HUGE in other countries, people were blind to the large turnouts. 

If I'm right, there is a large concern this could, et out of hand, and I'd bet there is a lot of plans to make sure it doesn't. Social media campaigns organizing to affect a major US bank may have caught the attention of more than a few I bet, and likely didn't want to draw a whole lot of attention to it, given the consequences if you stop and think about it for just a minute.


----------



## SINC

Perhaps I should expand somewhat on who those average folks are so others can understand who I refer to with that type of opinion on the Occupy movement.

The subject came up with the crowd in our neighbourhood pub a few short days ago. (10 in all including myself). The consensus was unanimous, by the way.

The players:

- A 40-something fitness instructor at a private health club

- A 50-something owner of a large plumbing firm

- A 20-something landscaper-labourer

- A late 30-something Bay store manager

- A 50-something parts manager for Cummings Canada

- A late 40-something immigrant in a food warehouse

- A just turned 30 female bartender

- A 30-something long-term nurse/care-giver 

- A 60-something retired RCMP member

These are the types of average folks who think the Occupy movement deserves zero attention. Pack your tents and go home is the prevailing opinion.


----------



## Macfury

I hear it's big on Twitter...


----------



## Sonal

i-rui said:


> I'm not suggesting Occupy was created in a vacuum. I acknowledge that some of these issues have come up in the past.
> 
> But i think you'd have to be blind to not realize that the movement brought the issues to the attention of a great more many people and that it is now a serious part of the political discussion.


Call me blind then, since I'm not sure a) which of these issues were not part of the political discussion prior to Occupy, or b) which people didn't realize that these were issues before Occupy.

I'm not against the movement, and I think groovetube has a point that we haven't seen where this is going yet. But at this point, I'm not convinced that we've seen any appreciable effect of OWS.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I hear it's big on Twitter...


you could ask the many many thousands at the protests.

It'd be a start.

But I heard the tea party was a smash hit!


----------



## groovetube

Sonal said:


> Call me blind then, since I'm not sure a) which of these issues were not part of the political discussion prior to Occupy, or b) which people didn't realize that these were issues before Occupy.
> 
> I'm not against the movement, and I think groovetube has a point that we haven't seen where this is going yet. But at this point, I'm not convinced that we've seen any appreciable effect of OWS.


True. Appreciable effect, is a good way to put it. It was large, had some worrisome possibilities, and was tried to be downplayed.

Anyone's guess here where it goes, in particular because we're headed into a US election.


----------



## eMacMan

Just ask Bank of America execs how little impact the OWS movement has had. 

BOA has a lot fewer customers today thanks to OWS.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> link?
> 
> why don't you post a link to a previous republican debate where a low tax rate and venture capitalism was under attack? why don't you back it up with some historical fact?


I already cited my reference... and others are available... I am busy getting ready to go on a well earned vacation... do your own homework...

The specifics of your reference are a deflection of the fact that even among the right in the US rich vs. grass roots candidates matter and it is not something unique generated by the OWS movement despite your vacuous claims without a shred of supporting evidence...

You made the initial claim so defend it with evidence... if you have none... you know the rest.


----------



## groovetube

If I may be so bold, you often ask for links, references etc. When someone else asks, it's "do your own homework for once.

Do we need this song and dance? Really?


----------



## Sonal

eMacMan said:


> Just ask Bank of America execs how little impact the OWS movement has had.
> 
> BOA has a lot fewer customers today thanks to OWS.


Bank of America hasn't published its 2011 annual report yet, but according to their 2010 annual report, they had about 57 million consumer and small business relationships.

That's got to be a heck of a lot of customers leaving due to Occupy to make an noticeable difference. (And that's just one arm of their business.) A million people could leave, and that's just 1.7% of their consumer business.

Assuming of course, they all left due to Occupy and not due to BoA having high fees and terrible service...


----------



## groovetube

Sonal said:


> Bank of America hasn't published its 2011 annual report yet, but according to their 2010 annual report, they had about 57 million consumer and small business relationships.
> 
> That's got to be a heck of a lot of customers leaving due to Occupy to make an noticeable difference. (And that's just one arm of their business.) A million people could leave, and that's just 1.7% of their consumer business.
> 
> Assuming of course, they all left due to Occupy and not due to BoA having high fees and terrible service...


It likely isn't a huge effect. But, I think the important thing here is, I can't recall such an organized protest against a big bank via social media. The effect may have been small, but my opinion is, they did take notice.

It happened during the height of OWS, it was peripheral for sure, but, the possibilities for something much larger might prompt the need for larger controls, on... the internet... say.


----------



## i-rui

screature said:


> I already cited my reference... and others are available... I am busy getting ready to go on a well earned vacation... do your own homework...


your reference was Ross Perot.... who ran as an independent not as a republican. ergo your reference simply does not apply.

I stand by my statement that these issues have never previously entered into Republican primaries. As I can not prove a negative, the onus is on a doubter to uncover that evidence.

case closed.


----------



## i-rui

groovetube said:


> If I may be so bold, you often ask for links, references etc. When someone else asks, it's "do your own homework for once.
> 
> Do we need this song and dance? Really?


lol


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> your reference was Ross Perot.... who ran as an independent not as a republican. ergo your reference simply does not apply.
> 
> I stand by my statement that these issues have never entered into Republican primaries. As I can not prove a negative, the onus is on a doubter to uncover that evidence.
> 
> case closed.


Ross Perot was a right of centre candidate, my argument stands... Your argument is specious to say the least... it is up to you to prove it in the affirmative... that the OWS movement has influenced the Republican Presidential candidacy race, as that is your claim... good luck with that. 

Until you have solid evidence to back up your rather ludicrous claim I am done arguing this point as I have far more pressing things to do...

Good night and hasta la vista baby until mid February....


----------



## Macfury

It seems that the supports of OWS here see it as some sort of delicate flower slowly unwrapping its petals to reveal its many gifts--instead of the stink bomb most people see it as. How long are you going to talk about its _potential_ to achieve lasting, positive change? Two years? Five? Or does it get a free pass entirely?


----------



## i-rui

because a movement that started in sept of last year is going to undo more than a century of political corruption at the hands of corporations...... in less than 5 months.

maybe your expectations are a little unrealistic?


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> because a movement that started in sept of last year is going to undo more than a century of political corruption at the hands of corporations...... in less than 5 months.
> 
> maybe your expectations are a little unrealistic?


I have about as much expectation of this as I did Hands Across America... none at all. Just wondering how long its proponents were going to give CPR to this corpse before they declare it dead?


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> because a movement that started in sept of last year is going to undo more than a century of political corruption at the hands of corporations...... in less than 5 months.
> 
> maybe your expectations are a little unrealistic?


maybe? Ha ha. It's amazing when I hear people complain that OWS hasn't completely dismantled life as we know it. Especially when their hopes were so up on the tea party rallies. What a disappointment eh.


----------



## bryanc

SINC said:


> Perhaps I should expand somewhat on who those average folks are so others can understand who I refer to with that type of opinion on the Occupy movement.
> 
> The subject came up with the crowd in our neighbourhood pub a few short days ago. (10 in all including myself). The consensus was unanimous, by the way.
> 
> The players:
> ...{list of average joe's deleted}...


SINC, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

The OWS movement has clearly had a profound effect on the focus of political discussion in the US and around the world. If it accomplishes nothing else, it has already been an unmitigated success. Furthermore, as popular movement, it will be difficult to clearly describe or document its effects for quite some time. I predict there will be books and Ph.D. theses in sociology and other fields written on OWS and it's ramifications for decades to come, and no clear consensus will emerge for at least 10 years.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> SINC, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
> 
> The OWS movement has clearly had a profound effect on the focus of political discussion in the US and around the world. If it accomplishes nothing else, it has already been an unmitigated success. Furthermore, as popular movement, it will be difficult to clearly describe or document its effects for quite some time. I predict there will be books and Ph.D. theses in sociology and other fields written on OWS and it's ramifications for decades to come, and no clear consensus will emerge for at least 10 years.


Translation: They got nothin'...


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> Translation: They got nothin'...


Only for someone too thick to deal with the complexity of social issues.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> Only for someone too thick to deal with the complexity of social issues.


I'm sure many papers will be written about it in academic circles. Many glasses will be raised to toast the professors who published them. Tenure awaits!!


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I'm sure many papers will be written about it in academic circles. Many glasses will be raised to toast the professors who published them. Tenure awaits!!


As they say, "Publish or perish". Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube

I'm amused at the insistence of the failure of ows. 

The studies and published papers is really only part of the results. 

Too bad the tea party protests have long been forgotten about. Even the republican party seems to have forgotten or, at least, wants to, to some degree.


----------



## i-rui

*Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs*

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/o...ng-goldman-sachs.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all



> These days, the most common question I get from junior analysts about derivatives is, “How much money did we make off the client?” It bothers me every time I hear it, because it is a clear reflection of what they are observing from their leaders about the way they should behave. Now project 10 years into the future: You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the junior analyst sitting quietly in the corner of the room hearing about “muppets,” “ripping eyeballs out” and “getting paid” doesn’t exactly turn into a model citizen.


----------



## Macfury

The Nostalgia Thread!


----------



## MacDoc

Nothing much has changed












> Editorial Reviews
> From Booklist
> Weiss, a business journalist, tells the fascinating story of Louis Pasciuto, a man "born to steal," who grew up in the Wall Street Mafia, was caught by law enforcement at age 25, and then turned against his former accomplices. With engrossing detail, we learn about the degraded life of Pasciuto as he moved from a gas station attendant to a Wall Street stockbroker in 1992. With lies and schemes that bilked naive investors of untold sums, he worked for chop shops (which looked like brokerages and were registered but sold usually worthless stocks) and bucket shops (which pretended to sell stocks), and in turn was bullied by gangsters who wanted their share. This description of the Mafia's infiltration of Wall Street is a tale of thievery in the 1990s on a scale never before seen. When caught by federal agents, he joined their efforts against the "Guys" in exchange for the government's Witness Protection Program. This story clearly illustrates that truth is better than fiction. Mary Whaley
> Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
> Review
> "...a remarkable glimpse into the essentially lawless, virtually unregulated turf of easily manipulated penny stocks...and...broker strategies..." -- St. Petersburg Times, 7/14/03
> 
> "...an instructive and hilarious portrait of the twisted contemporary convergence of business, entertainment and crime...thoroughly engaging and original..." -- James Toback, screenwriter of the Academy-Award winning “Bugsy” and director of “The Pick-up Artist”
> 
> "Few authors have captured the dark side of American capitalism as entertainingly as Weiss...a knockout." -- T.J. English, author of THE WESTIES and BORN TO KILL
> 
> "Think ‘Wiseguy’ meets ‘Wall Street,’ or ‘The Sopranos’...a rip-roaring read..." -- John Rothchild – co-author of ONE UP ON WALL STREET


I enjoyed it....not surprised by it and seems some here think there is no basis for change....
not surprised at that either....


----------



## MacDoc

Another one sickened by the culture

Why I gave up my six-figure salary and quit Bay Street - The Globe and Mail


----------



## eMacMan

The OWS has clearly scared more than a few of the nations politicians ball-less. Otherwise they would never have passed HR 347, nor would BO have signed it.

Outlawing the Occupy Movement: H.R. 347 Makes Free Speech A Felony - Salem-News.Com

Yes I know it's designed to protect the likes of Dick Cheney from free speech. Thing is the Prez can give anyone Secret Service protection with the blink of an eye. Which means any protest, however peaceful can be instantly transformed into a criminal activity. Even bums like Cheney, Gingrich and Santorum currently enjoy that elite status.

Unconstitutional: Absolutely, but clearly that has not been a consideration South of 49 in the past 10-20 years.


----------



## groovetube

bu-but furious hand wavers said this protest was a big nothing.

How can this be?


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> The OWS has clearly scared more than a few of the nations politicians ball-less. Otherwise they would never have passed HR 347, nor would BO have signed it.
> 
> Outlawing the Occupy Movement: H.R. 347 Makes Free Speech A Felony - Salem-News.Com
> 
> Yes I know it's designed to protect the likes of Dick Cheney from free speech. Thing is the Prez can give anyone Secret Service protection with the blink of an eye. Which means any protest, however peaceful can be instantly transformed into a criminal activity. Even bums like Cheney, Gingrich and Santorum currently enjoy that elite status.
> 
> Unconstitutional: Absolutely, but clearly that has not been a consideration South of 49 in the past 10-20 years.


It was designed to protect President Obama during the election cycle. Since the Occupiers area an arm of the Democrat party, they will largely be allowed to roam at will--whoever is left--provided they don't turn on Obama as well.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> It was designed to protect President Obama during the election cycle. Since the Occupiers area an arm of the Democrat party, they will largely be allowed to roam at will--whoever is left--provided they don't turn on Obama as well.


Nope introduced via the Republirat dominated House of Representatives. As I pointed out all of the GOP candidates (except Ron Paul) enjoy the super-elite SS protected status.

Any sane Supreme Court Judge would vote to overturn this bill in a heartbeat. Sadly the Puppet Masters have had Bush and BO stack the court with those that will say it's OK as it does not impinge on the rights of the Super-elite.


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Nope introduced via the Republirat dominated House of Representatives. As I pointed out all of the GOP candidates (except Ron Paul) enjoy the super-elite SS protected status.


It originated as a Senate Bill, sponsored by Democrat Dick Blumenthal of Connecticut.

I agree that both sides like the Bill, but I believe its original intention is to keep protesters away from Mr. Obama during the election.


----------



## BigDL

eMM how dare you introduce facts into this discussion. 

Opinions are what really matter. Facts can be used to prove anything.


----------



## eMacMan

Macfury said:


> It originated as a Senate Bill, sponsored by Democrat Dick Blumenthal of Connecticut.
> 
> I agree that both sides like the Bill, but I believe its original intention is to keep protesters away from Mr. Obama during the election.


Prez only controls who gets the Super elite SS protection not how the bill is enforced. 

The Republirats, the self proclaimed defenders of the Constitution, made sure the Bill had overwhelming Senate support. It is more than logical to conclude that Herr Cheney, a man terrified of relatively polite Canadian protesters, was tired of protesters dogging his every move. Those "Cheney is a Dick" signs were obviously getting to his Dick Schtick.


----------



## groovetube

obama obama OBAMA!


----------



## Macfury

eMacMan said:


> Prez only controls who gets the Super elite SS protection not how the bill is enforced.
> 
> The Republirats, the self proclaimed defenders of the Constitution, made sure the Bill had overwhelming Senate support. It is more than logical to conclude that Herr Cheney, a man terrified of relatively polite Canadian protesters, was tired of protesters dogging his every move. Those "Cheney is a Dick" signs were obviously getting to his Dick Schtick.


You can't blame its passage in the Senate on the Republicans. While I agree they supported it in the House, this Bill was originated by Democrats.


----------



## CubaMark

*Montreal on Friday...*



Related story: Quebec student leaders vow to escalate pressure tactics


----------



## Macfury

Why is the above post in this topic? This is students trying to avoid tuition hikes.


----------



## Macfury

I have received this OCCUPY e-mail a few times in recent weeks:



> Dear Anonymous,
> 
> The purpose of this message is to inform you about the Revolution:
> 
> OCCUPY HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT IN LONDON ON NOVEMBER 5, 2012.
> OCCUPY CONGRESS IN WASHINGTON D.C. ON NOVEMBER 11, 2012.
> 
> STOP WAR.
> CANCEL ALL DEBT.
> REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH.
> 
> Please, watch the "Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect" movie to find out why, how, and to have sound arguments to persuade others. The movie can be easily found with a search engine.
> 
> Please, print the flyers at xxxxxxx.info and distribute them.
> 
> Please, spread this message and the movie to everyone you know.
> 
> -Anonymous


----------



## fjnmusic

Occupy is so last year in the same way Kony 2012 is so last month.


----------



## Macfury

fjnmusic said:


> Occupy is so last year in the same way Kony 2012 is so last month.


It surely is passé. There were some EhMacers who thought it was going to be really big though. They even had aerial shots!

It's interesting to see how far the enthusiasm has fallen.


----------



## Dr.G.

Macfury said:


> I have received this OCCUPY e-mail a few times in recent weeks:


Very strange ..............  I did not take you for one of "them". Strange bedfellows, indeed. Still, your Libertarian views here in ehMacLand are the perfect cover stories for your true colors. Very interesting ............... You sure fooled me. 

Paix, mon ami ............... or should I say "comrade"?


----------



## Dr.G.

The St.John's Occupy Movement has been asked to shut down by May 1st, and they have agreed. They have not been harmful to the area that they occupy, and have actually helped out in various ways (e.g., shoveling snow for seniors who live downtown and acted as tour guides for people coming to that area of St.John's).


----------



## Macfury

Yesterday was the World Day of Action. How did EhMacers celebrate?


----------



## CubaMark

*An interesting turn of events for Occupy in Germany:*













> _From Occupy Frankfurt. May 19, 2012._
> 
> The German police took off their helmets and marched with the protest clearing the way for them.





> German police officers escort an anti-capitalism protest march with some 20,000 people in Frankfurt, Germany, Saturday, May 19, 2012. Protesters peacefully filled the city center of continental Europe's biggest financial hub in their protest against the dominance of banks and what they perceive to be untamed capitalism, Frankfurt police spokesman Ruediger Regis said.





> The police coming over to serve and protect the people... Blockupy Frankfurt. Police are escorting, not participating. Reports of an estimated 20,000+ protesters. Nice to see their faces.... and their humanity coming through...


(from OccupyCanada's Facebook page)


----------



## i-rui

this couldn't have possibly happened. 

MacFury announced the movement dead months ago!


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> this couldn't have possibly happened.
> 
> MacFury announced the movement dead months ago!


I didn't say that people wouldn't continue to engage in occasional violent protest--however, the movement as a driving force of change is dead. I hear that Occupy Wall Street T-shirts are now available in nostalgia shops.


----------



## Macfury

_Memmmmmmmmories,
Like the corners of my mind
Misty water-colored memories
Of the way we were
_
I'm too lazy to create a slide show of the best of Occupy Wall Street images. Maybe someone in the media yurt could upload something for me.


----------



## kps

Macfury said:


> _Memmmmmmmmories,
> Like the corners of my mind
> Misty water-colored memories
> Of the way we were
> _
> I'm too lazy to create a slide show of the best of Occupy Wall Street images. Maybe someone in the media yurt could upload something for me.


This should help...only if temporarly....


----------



## groovetube

the media doesn't really show the images of the huge protests.

I thought this was well known. Maybe not?


----------



## Macfury

Wall Street Protests - anybody watching? 




_Please?_


----------



## groovetube

the media doesn't really report on them. Do your own research!


----------



## CubaMark

*Occupy protesters were right, says Bank of England official*












> The anti-capitalist protesters who occupied St Paul’s Cathedral were both morally and intellectually right, a senior Bank of England official said last night.





> “Occupy has been successful in its efforts to popularise the problems of the global financial system for one very simple reason; they are right,” Mr Haldane said last night. Mr Haldane, the Bank’s executive director for financial stability, was speaking to Occupy Economics, an offshoot of the Occupy movement, at an event in central London.
> In a speech entitled Socially Useful Banking, he said the protesters had helped bring about a “reformation” in financial services and the way they are regulated.
> Partly because of the protests, he suggested, both bank executives and policymakers were persuaded that banks must behave in a more moral way, and take greater account of inequality in wider society.


(TelegraphUK)


----------



## Macfury

Oddly enough, I guess they were right after all—I've recently noticed that both bank executives and policymakers are behaving in a more moral way, and are taking greater account of inequality in wider society.

(And if you buy that...)


----------



## Kosh

Macfury said:


> Wall Street Protests - anybody watching?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Please?_


Translation: Anybody, please, please , PLEASE, start a conversation so I have something to do.

:lmao: Lol. I thought I would never see the day when Macfury would beg for someone to say something so that he can criticize and play devil's advocate! beejacon


----------



## Macfury

Kosh said:


> Translation: Anybody, please, please , PLEASE, start a conversation so I have something to do.
> 
> :lmao: Lol. I thought I would never see the day when Macfury would beg for someone to say something so that he can criticize and play devil's advocate! beejacon


I'm bringing it up to serve a nice plate of crow to the EhMacers who thought they were seeing the second coming of Woodstock.


----------



## bryanc

It would seem to me that the fact that these ideas have become mainstream (such that even bank officials can no longer dispute their legitimacy) would indicate that the movement was largely successful.

Change is happening. Slowly, and more protests will probably happen here and there; but the public's awareness of the systemic problems of western economies has fundamentally changed. So what's next? It would seem that the next battle feild will be in the political arena, between politicians who represent the status quo and politicians who represent fundamental changes to the corporatocracy and global financial hegemony that gave us the economic chaos of the past several years.


----------



## Rps

Wow! bryanc, what have you been smoking????? I would suspect the contrite nature of the British bankers would be due to the recent banking frauds and this token to a populace movement is just that. Fore the most part the Occupy Movement is fractured and I don't think has the Karma to evolve into something other than warm weather protests..... could be wrong here, but with the split agendas I've been seeing they only make the media on a slow news day.....probably financed by Murdoch and Fox News...


----------



## i-rui

Macfury said:


> Oddly enough, I guess they were right after all—I've recently noticed that both bank executives and policymakers are behaving in a more moral way, and are taking greater account of inequality in wider society.
> 
> (And if you buy that...)


so you agree that bank managers & policymakers are (for the most part) not behaving in a moral way?


----------



## screature

Rps said:


> Wow! bryanc, what have you been smoking????? I would suspect the contrite nature of the British bankers would be due to the recent banking frauds and this token to a populace movement is just that. Fore the most part the Occupy Movement is fractured and I don't think has the Karma to evolve into something other than warm weather protests..... could be wrong here, but with the split agendas I've been seeing they only make the media on a slow news day.....probably financed by Murdoch and Fox News...


+1 Exactly!... Hope springs eternal for the self deluded, those with a sense of entitlement and those with a sense of self importance... 

"Woe is me. I am entitled to my entitlements just because I exist"... A perversion of Cartesian logic, "I think therefore I am". Ergo, since I am, I am entitled to have everyone else pay for my continued existence.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> so you agree that bank managers & policymakers are (for the most part) not behaving in a moral way?


You clearly didn't get the facetious nature of MF's post...


----------



## i-rui

ofcourse i did. but he said :



> (And if you buy that...)


meaning he *doesn't* think anything really has changed (and for the most part i would agree. any changes have been minor).

and when he says "And if you buy that..." it also implies that MF is acknowledging that the banking system is still not acting in a moral way.

so to a certain degree he actually agrees with the crux of the OWS movement. The differences are in what we do to resolve the problem.

My belief is that some action (even imperfect ones) is better than apathy.


----------



## screature

i-rui said:


> ofcourse i did. but he said :
> 
> meaning he *doesn't* think anything really has changed (and for the most part i would agree. any changes have been minor).
> 
> and when he says "And if you buy that..." it also implies that MF is acknowledging that the banking system is still not acting in a moral way.
> 
> so to a certain degree he actually agrees with the crux of the OWS movement. The differences are in what we do to resolve the problem.
> 
> *My belief is that some action (even imperfect ones) is better than apathy.*


No action is often better than misguided action... e.g. I have an infection in my toe... I have no antibiotics therefore I should cut off my toe to prevent gangrene, when just doing nothing may well be the best course of action and let my immune system take care of it.


----------



## i-rui

to draw out your metaphor the financial system has been infected for decades and the system is rotting.

so now "no action" and apathy is the bigger danger than protests in the street that at worst do no real ham, but at best may wake up the populace to the inherent problems in the system.


----------



## bryanc

i-rui said:


> apathy is the bigger danger than protests in the street that at worst do no real ham, but at best may wake up the populace to the inherent problems in the system.


And this is my point; OWS succeeded in doing this. The problems are now widely and well understood and the "movement" has moved on (in many different directions) to trying to solve the problems. Anyone who thought or hoped that OWS protests in the streets would persist for a long time is either ridiculously naive or actively opposing the objectives of the movement; street protests don't accomplish much other than getting people worked up... having accomplished that, the people must now try to make changes, and that takes time.


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> ofcourse i did. but he said :
> 
> 
> 
> meaning he *doesn't* think anything really has changed (and for the most part i would agree. any changes have been minor).
> 
> and when he says "And if you buy that..." it also implies that MF is acknowledging that the banking system is still not acting in a moral way.
> 
> so to a certain degree he actually agrees with the crux of the OWS movement. The differences are in what we do to resolve the problem.
> 
> My belief is that some action (even imperfect ones) is better than apathy.


I imply nothing other than that banking was unaffected by OWS.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> And this is my point; OWS succeeded in doing this. The problems are now widely and well understood and the "movement" has moved on (in many different directions) to trying to solve the problems. Anyone who thought or hoped that OWS protests in the streets would persist for a long time is either ridiculously naive or actively opposing the objectives of the movement; street protests don't accomplish much other than getting people worked up... having accomplished that, the people must now try to make changes, and that takes time.


It has succeeded in occupying the titillating part of the evening news broadcast for a brief span of time. It is now dead. RIP OWS.


----------



## bryanc

I disagree. The concepts of the "99%" vs the "1%" and the reckless greed of the global financial industry are now well established in the common social discourse. This was not the case a few years ago.

It's not like these issues are new; the "Liberal Elites" and academics have been trying to draw society's attention to these problems for decades, without success. OWS succeeded.

I would agree that OWS is "over" but it's not dead in that it has become part of the background of our society; the systemic problems of the global economic system are now things people think and talk about in the same way that we have been talking about climate change or ethnic cleansing. People are now aware of the problems and are generally supportive of efforts to fix them. Of course, the hard part is yet to come; but establishing the social support (and therefore some political capital) is the first step.


----------



## Rps

bryanc, I don't see it happening. If anything, what I call the corporate monarchy is more entrenched. Let's look at some history here. After the Fall in 29, FDR put in very draconian laws to protect the public from the banking sector. If I have any complaint about Obama and how he handled the current situation is his less than stringent application of common sense law revisions to the U.S. banking sector....an Occupy concern if I'm not mistaken. Look at where the Dow is today..... has anything really changed. I would have more faith in the OWS movement if they encamped on the White House lawn and stayed there until laws with teeth, and punishments for transgressors were enacted...... but they didn't, they weren't and we are where we are.......


----------



## Macfury

We do have a few people talking in an uniformed way about the 1% and the 99%. We also have the countervailing image of filthy protesters crapping on cars, and living in squalour, who represent another kind of 1%.


----------



## bryanc

Rps said:


> I would have more faith in the OWS movement if they encamped on the White House lawn and stayed there until laws with teeth, and punishments for transgressors were enacted...... but they didn't, they weren't and we are where we are.......


I think we are in complete agreement; our only difference is in what we view as a definition of success for the OWS movement. Major social changes take decades or centuries to occur, and, while I'm sure many in the OWS protests were hoping that radical change would occur rapidly and/or by government action, I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. I see the fact that these issues, which academics have been wringing their hands over for decades, are now part of the public discourse as a great success for OWS. 

Getting the public to recognize a complicated problem as being something worth discussing and considering changes over is not a trivial task. It took environmentalists decades to get people to start thinking seriously about recycling or protecting endangered species. And when corporate power structures are set against it, even unequivocal science and warnings of dire consequences are clearly not always able to sway public opinion. So for a new social issue to spring up so quickly suggests to me that A) the protests were very effective, and B) society is primed to accept relatively rapid change. I predict that politicians over the next few decades will be trying to find the middle ground between courting the money and courting the voters who want to see better regulation of the financial industry; in 30 or 40 years we may actually be able to perceive a difference.


----------



## Rps

bryanc +1


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I think we are in complete agreement; our only difference is in what we view as a definition of success for the OWS movement. Major social changes take decades or centuries to occur, and, while I'm sure many in the OWS protests were hoping that radical change would occur rapidly and/or by government action, I don't think that's a reasonable expectation. I see the fact that these issues, which academics have been wringing their hands over for decades, are now part of the public discourse as a great success for OWS.
> 
> Getting the public to recognize a complicated problem as being something worth discussing and considering changes over is not a trivial task. It took environmentalists decades to get people to start thinking seriously about recycling or protecting endangered species. And when corporate power structures are set against it, even unequivocal science and warnings of dire consequences are clearly not always able to sway public opinion. So for a new social issue to spring up so quickly suggests to me that A) the protests were very effective, and B) society is primed to accept relatively rapid change. I predict that politicians over the next few decades will be trying to find the middle ground between courting the money and courting the voters who want to see better regulation of the financial industry; in 30 or 40 years we may actually be able to perceive a difference.


It's possible, but I see little hope of corporations becoming more "moral" if the government has their back with billions of dollars to proper them up. Lying down with government dogs gives the banks fleas. Letting those banks go south would have been the best way to put the fear back in them


----------



## bryanc

Macfury said:


> It's possible, but I see little hope of corporations becoming more "moral" if the government has their back with billions of dollars to proper them up.


I agree. Along with limiting human population growth and preventing ecological degradation, this is among the biggest challenges facing our civilization. As long as the government acts in the interests of corporations rather than citizens, our economy will generally serve to make things worse, rather than better. People need to realize that their economic choices are political choices; buying something at Wall-Mart because it's a couple dollars cheaper is the reason the jobs for skilled workers are all gone.

I think most people would be happier if they bought less junk, and paid more for fewer better quality goods. I don't think we necessarily have to buy "made in Canada" stuff, but becoming aware of how corporations produce the goods and services they provide, and deciding if you want to support that business on the basis of their socio-economic/ecological impact as well as the cost of the product would make for a different cost-benefit analysis than most consumers seem to engage in when they go shopping.

Corporations will not, and cannot ever become moral. But they can and do change their behaviour. If it becomes profitable to produce a product or provide a service in a way that is ecologically sustainable and beneficial to the community, corporations will do it, and the free market will select for the corporations that do it the best. But the free market is very much like an ecology... and the decisions the consumers make are the selective forces at play. So when you're making a purchasing decision, think not only about wether you're getting the "the best deal" think about how your money is affecting the world. How we spend our money matters far more than how we vote.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> I agree. Along with limiting human population growth and preventing ecological degradation, this is among the biggest challenges facing our civilization. As long as the government acts in the interests of corporations rather than citizens, our economy will generally serve to make things worse, rather than better. People need to realize that their economic choices are political choices; buying something at Wall-Mart because it's a couple dollars cheaper is the reason the jobs for skilled workers are all gone.
> 
> I think most people would be happier if they bought less junk, and paid more for fewer better quality goods. I don't think we necessarily have to buy "made in Canada" stuff, but becoming aware of how corporations produce the goods and services they provide, and deciding if you want to support that business on the basis of their socio-economic/ecological impact as well as the cost of the product would make for a different cost-benefit analysis than most consumers seem to engage in when they go shopping.
> 
> Corporations will not, and cannot ever become moral. But they can and do change their behaviour. If it becomes profitable to produce a product or provide a service in a way that is ecologically sustainable and beneficial to the community, corporations will do it, and the free market will select for the corporations that do it the best. But the free market is very much like an ecology... and the decisions the consumers make are the selective forces at play. So when you're making a purchasing decision, think not only about wether you're getting the "the best deal" think about how your money is affecting the world. How we spend our money matters far more than how we vote.


I am a pretty poor consumer, probably not making near the number of impulse purchases I'm expected to. While I don't support taking away normal business deductions such as transportation, I do support having no government money support any business, including either oil OR alternative energy. I'm not keen on supporting R&D but the money is better spent there than being given to companies to build factories, etc.


----------



## eMacMan

Somehow typical of the lamestream that this got lost in the shuffle. From a November 1st article. Remember at the time this was written the Red Cross had pretty much restricted themselves to trying to figure out what to do and giving out hot chocolate.



> Occupy Wall Street is now occupied with helping Hurricane Sandy victims.
> 
> 
> The demonstrators who rallied in Zuccotti Park have taken to the streets to assist Brooklynites suffering after the catastrophic storm by setting up volunteer hubs in hard-hit Red Hook and Sunset Park where do-gooders can deliver donations, organize food drives, and aid with cleanup.
> 
> 
> For a group often criticized as aimless, these activists say they were quick to act.
> 
> 
> 
> “When the hurricane started to hit, we mobilized our networks and were already starting to canvass to determine what the needs were,” said Occupy organizer Justin Wedes.
> 
> 
> 
> Occupy members say they have dispatched between 8,000 and 10,000 volunteers to 15 outposts across the city — with about half of those do-gooders helping out in Brooklyn.
> And their efforts in Red Hook came before more-established aid organizations, such as the Red Cross, have even arrived in the neighborhood.
> 
> 
> “We have existing activist and community leaders in the neighborhoods,” said Wedes, who claims that the movement’s grassroots nature and lack of bureaucracy allow Occupy to move faster than other relief groups. “We didn’t come from the outside. This is Occupy emerging from within these communities.”
> 
> 
> Red Cross spokesman Chris Osborne said his organization is still working to get its bearings in the city.
> 
> 
> “This is widespread and there are all kinds of pockets of communities that we are still learning about and still trying to serve,” said Osborne. “We ask for patience.”
> 
> 
> Red Hook residents are ecstatic that the protest movement has transformed into a relief effort.
> “It’s the meet-and-greet you hope to never have to have, but when you do, it’s great to know that your neighbors are looking out for you,” said Blee George, who has been getting hot meals and supplies daily with her four-month-old daughter at the Red Hook Initiative — where many Occupiers lend their support.
> 
> 
> The Red Hook Initiative, which is usually a youth community center with an after-school program, emerged as a de facto hub for neighborhood volunteerism because Hurricane Sandy spared the building during the storm.
> 
> 
> “We are right across the street from Red Hook Houses and we had no water damage,” said Red Hook Initiative operations coordinator Sandy Brockwell. “It was a place for people to come in and get out of the cold, and then people started showing up and volunteering.”
> 
> 
> Since Tuesday, the community center has organized hundreds of do-gooders, including many Occupy folks, who are tasked with cooking or delivering hot meals, bringing batteries and other non-perishables to neighbors without power, and helping residents clean up water-logged homes.
> 
> 
> 
> Hurricane relief seems like a far jump from protesting the big banks, but Ronny Nunez — one of the leaders behind the Occupy branch operating out of St. Jacobi Church in Sunset Park — says the departure needed to happen.
> 
> 
> “We had to set up an ad hoc operation,” he said. “Places were devastated and weren’t getting any help.”


Occupy Wall Street preoccupied with Sandy relief • The Brooklyn Paper


----------



## Macfury

They were selling Pedulla Ceramic tile to the victims?


----------



## CubaMark

*Occupy Activists Buy, "Liberate" Bad Debt - The Rolling Jubilee project is seeking donations*



> Occupy Wall Street campaigners have a new target: distressed debt. A project called Rolling Jubillee is soliciting donations to buy up bad debts at bargain prices and cancel them, the Telegraph reports. So far they've only bought $14,000 in debt for $500, but they want to refill their coffers and expand nationwide. The debts they cancel include housing, outstanding medical bills, and student loans


(Newser)


----------



## groovetube

This kind of isn't quite what people are being spoodfed to believe about the occupy protestors.


----------



## MacGuiver

Great idea. Maybe they could start by liberatng the debts and financial burdens they imposed on the cities and their tax payers for policing, vandalism and cleanup costs for their dragged out protests. That would be a great place to start.


----------



## John Clay

macguiver said:


> great idea. Maybe they could start by liberate the debts and financial burdens they imposed on the cities and their tax payers for policing, vandalism and cleanup costs for their dragged out protests. That would be a great place to start.


Agreed...


----------



## groovetube

MacGuiver said:


> Great idea. Maybe they could start by liberatng the debts and financial burdens they imposed on the cities and their tax payers for policing, vandalism and cleanup costs for their dragged out protests. That would be a great place to start.


here's just one example: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Clean Zuccotti Park In Preparation For Evacuation


----------



## John Clay

groovetube said:


> here's just one example: Occupy Wall Street Protesters Clean Zuccotti Park In Preparation For Evacuation


They definitely didn't do that here. The City was left to pick up the tab for their stupidity, though I think a landscaping company donated the sod and labour.


----------



## Macfury

John Clay said:


> They definitely didn't do that here. The City was left to pick up the tab for their stupidity, though I think a landscaping company donated the sod and labour.


I suppose in the world of OWS, cleaning up _some_ of your mess is considered a great achievement, and raising $500 in real money instead of asking for it is an act of heroism.


----------



## Sonal

John Clay said:


> They definitely didn't do that here. The City was left to pick up the tab for their stupidity, though I think a landscaping company donated the sod and labour.


Toronto's St. James Park to get free post-Occupy makeover - The Globe and Mail

It doesn't sound like the City had much tab left to pick up after donations....


----------



## groovetube

It's interesting how little the occupy haters actually know, about the occupy movement, beyond what is fed from the media.


----------



## groovetube

Macfury said:


> I suppose in the world of OWS, cleaning up _some_ of your mess is considered a great achievement, and raising $500 in real money instead of asking for it is an act of heroism.


How did we get to 'acts of heroism'? I don't believe anyone has called it that. Do I detect a hint of bitterness?

It is what it is.


----------



## Macfury

Sonal said:


> Toronto's St. James Park to get free post-Occupy makeover - The Globe and Mail
> 
> It doesn't sound like the City had much tab left to pick up after donations....


It's lucky that others offered to fix up their mess. All that is irretrievable now is use of a decent park by working citizens for months at a time.


----------



## i-rui

immoral, unethical, and illegal practices from the financial sector siphons trillions of dollars from the world economy = mild malaise

thousands of dollars spent on clean up of park after concerned individuals exercise their charter or constitutional rights to protest the above = OUTRAGE!!


----------



## Macfury

i-rui said:


> immoral, unethical, and illegal practices from the financial sector siphons trillions of dollars from the world economy = mild malaise
> 
> thousands of dollars spent on clean up of park after concerned individuals exercise their charter or constitutional rights to protest the above = OUTRAGE!!


No outrage. Just pointing out their irrelevance.


----------



## Sonal

Macfury said:


> It's lucky that others offered to fix up their mess. All that is irretrievable now is use of a decent park by working citizens for months at a time.


Er, weeks. 39 days (see earlier article) to be exact.


----------



## groovetube

i-rui said:


> immoral, unethical, and illegal practices from the financial sector siphons trillions of dollars from the world economy = mild malaise
> 
> thousands of dollars spent on clean up of park after concerned individuals exercise their charter or constitutional rights to protest the above = outrage!!


+1


----------



## groovetube

https://www.wepay.com/donations/492..."4970290183522":"og.likes"}&action_ref_map=[]

Wild. What's truly ironic about this, is this is donations, voluntarily made by private people, not the government.


----------



## groovetube

Occupy Wall Street's 'Rolling Jubilee' Raises Enough To Abolish $5 Million In Debt | ThinkProgress

Guessing no further snark after this either.

Quick, find a pic of some lowlife crapping on a police cruiser to make things better.


----------



## Macfury

How about those protests? This could turn into something big I hear!


----------



## bryanc

It did; the financial sector has been under extreme scrutiny for the past couple of years, financial-services are now viewed with suspicion (to the extent that bankers are showing up as bad-guys in TV shows and movies), and it is now widely accepted that the wealth disparity between the 99% and the 1% is a major societal problem. Solving these problems will take decades, but the Wall Street protests of 2011 will be viewed [incorrectly, IMO] as the 'beginning' of that change.


----------



## Macfury

bryanc said:


> It did; the financial sector has been under extreme scrutiny for the past couple of years, financial-services are now viewed with suspicion (to the extent that bankers are showing up as bad-guys in TV shows and movies), and it is now widely accepted that the wealth disparity between the 99% and the 1% is a major societal problem. Solving these problems will take decades, but the Wall Street protests of 2011 will be viewed [incorrectly, IMO] as the 'beginning' of that change.


Yes, I can see that--this is why the stock market is soaring while the economy tanks. Even the old 99% schtick has worn out its welcome.


----------



## Macfury

A post mortem on the failure of Occupy Wall Street:

Two Years Later, Where Is Occupy's Internet? | Motherboard


----------



## CubaMark

*Judge orders FBI to explain withholding records of alleged Occupy Houston assassination plot*












> A federal judge has ordered the FBI to explain why it withheld some information requested by a graduate student for his research on a plot to assassinate Occupy Houston protest leaders.





> Shapiro said in his complaint that the existence of an assassination plot against Occupy Houston's leaders became known through the FBI's earlier release of information in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.
> 
> "According to one of the released records, ... [REDACTED] planned to gather intelligence against the leaders of the protest groups and obtain photographs, then formulate a plan to kill the leadership via suppressed sniper rifles...," Shapiro stated in his complaint.
> 
> Shapiro requested additional information from the FBI in January 2013.
> 
> "There is presently a vigorous and extraordinarily important debate in the United States about the authority of the government to conduct extrajudicial killings on American soil," the complaint stated.
> 
> "The records sought by plaintiff would likely be an invaluable contribution to the public discourse on this issue," Shapiro's complaint said. "It would also be a significant controversy if it was revealed that the FBI deliberately failed to act to prevent a plot to assassinate American protest leaders."


(Houston Chronicle)


----------



## CubaMark

Macfury said:


> A post mortem on the failure of Occupy Wall Street:
> 
> Two Years Later, Where Is Occupy's Internet? | Motherboard


From the article you linked:

_*Could something like Occupy ever happen again? *

Could, should, probably will. Pressure valve. I've maintained contact with a lot of folks from Occupy, and I continue to meet new ones. The solidarity is still there. The real, meaningful long term projects are still active, and growing. We will be better equipped, better trained, and better informed next time._​


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> From the article you linked:
> 
> _*Could something like Occupy ever happen again? *
> 
> Could, should, probably will. Pressure valve. I've maintained contact with a lot of folks from Occupy, and I continue to meet new ones. The solidarity is still there. The real, meaningful long term projects are still active, and growing. We will be better equipped, better trained, and better informed next time._​


As I said, nada. It fizzled out.


----------



## Macfury

Macfury said:


> As I said, nada. It fizzled out.





CubaMark said:


> *Judge orders FBI to explain withholding records of alleged Occupy Houston assassination plot*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like the FBI was trying to protect those bozos. What's the problem?


----------



## CubaMark

*Well, now... what was this all about yesterday in Montreal...?*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFrIUmBRlbc


----------



## Macfury

It's a continuation of the aptly named ASSE protest.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> *Well, now... what was this all about yesterday in Montreal...?*
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFrIUmBRlbc


You are really going to post an almost 3 hour video without any real commentary?

So what happened in Montreal... In your opinion?

But on first blush this seems to be quite tame compared to the Richard Riot.

Have you ever lived in Quebec?

Do you really think this kind of thing is out of the ordinary in Quebec?

Quebecers of all stripes are passionate people.

History has shown it to be true time and again.

Just because there is a rally for this or that cause doesn't mean that they are correct.

It just means that they are motivated for their cause...

Right or wrong.

Cripes, I could suspect that in Quebec there could be a mob formed over whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow.


----------



## CubaMark

I have no idea. That's why I'm asking. The video showed up in my FB feed as a protest in Montreal - but I haven't had time to investigate what's up. Thought some of you folks might know.


----------



## screature

CubaMark said:


> I have no idea. That's why I'm asking. The video showed up in my FB feed as a protest in Montreal - but I haven't had time to investigate what's up. Thought some of you folks might know.


C'mon that is disingenuous. You put your comment in bold.

You weren't simply asking a question. You were being provocative. All that one has to do to know that is true is to look at the thread title to know you consciously posted that video to this particular thread with intent and not out of curiosity.

You could have just as easily posted it to the Canadian Political thread if you were "just asking a question" but you didn't.


----------



## Macfury

CubaMark said:


> I have no idea. That's why I'm asking. The video showed up in my FB feed as a protest in Montreal - but I haven't had time to investigate what's up. Thought some of you folks might know.


Don't be a lazy ass. You had time to post this, but no time to perform a 2-second news search?

Montreal student protest against austerity ends in 6 arrests - Montreal - CBC News

And why post it in the Occupy Wall Street thread?


----------



## Macfury

This has been a pretty vigorous movement.


----------



## Macfury

Gaining momentum, like a snowball rolling downhill. Although summer is not generally kind to snowballs.


----------



## Macfury

I've got to admit, this occupying of Wall Street has been an unmatched spectacle.


----------



## SINC

It sure has, notice how the 1% have virtually disappeared now?


----------



## CubaMark

This was addressed years ago....

*The Triumph of Occupy Wall Street*
_The movement that began in Zuccotti Park didn't disappear—it just splintered and regrouped around a variety of focused causes._


----------



## Macfury

Pay no attention to that failure behind the curtain... 



CubaMark said:


> This was addressed years ago....
> 
> *The Triumph of Occupy Wall Street*
> _The movement that began in Zuccotti Park didn't disappear—it just splintered and regrouped around a variety of focused causes._


----------



## Macfury

Watch that tent on the sidewalk...


----------



## Macfury

Yurts R Us. Send tofu.


----------

