# Do you support the "Occupy" movement?



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 21, 2011)

Simple yes or no poll.
Feel free to express reasons if you like as comments.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 21, 2011)

"Could care less either way" implies that you could actually careless about a topic and therefore you do actually care so it says you could care either way. Now couldnt care less is something entirely different 

Sorry it is a pet peeve of mine


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 21, 2011)

Yes and No  I support the right to protest I dont support the methods (camping out, destroying property, making a general mess, blocking others rights to free passage, blocking stores and streets hurting small Businesses)


----------



## Steve (Nov 21, 2011)

Personally, I couldn't care more... or... wait.  I could care less.  I... I'm confused.


----------



## Carol (Nov 21, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> Yes and No  I support the right to protest I dont support the methods (camping out, destroying property, making a general mess, blocking others rights to free passage, blocking stores and streets hurting small Businesses)



largely echoes my thoughts :asian:


----------



## MaxiMe (Nov 21, 2011)

Carol said:


> largely echoes my thoughts :asian:


I'll vote 3rd for that.


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 21, 2011)

Boy with only a total of 12 votes I would like to see 500 votes on this to get an idea of what our demographics are on this site.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 21, 2011)

As a 'movement' I don't think it's going to affect much in the way of changes and nearly all the views I'm catching from the subset of American opinion, that MT represents, seems to support that pessimism.  But my impression is that it's an ill-informed and somewhat misplaced first step to try and undo over a century of fiscal insanity, so I can't really say I am against them for trying.

In the end the present system has to go to be replaced by something that has a chance of being sustainable and founded on practical wealth rather than illusory, debt-based, money that demands infinite growth from a finite system just to stand still.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 21, 2011)

What is the Occupy movement about?  Seriously.  What change are they trying to bring about?  Can you find 3 who agree on what change they want?

Until they get it together that far, they're throwing a tantrum.  I'm not a fan of the monster banks that we've got.  I don't like our current 1 1/2 party system, which is hugely influenced by money and the desire to get reelected.  (Do you know when the next election campaign starts for a Congress member?  The day after Election Day.  Not a joke.  And an incumbent enjoys huge advantages through the franking privilege alone.)  Rather than simply complaining -- offer a solution.  One that doesn't simply give them a handout from my pocket.


----------



## granfire (Nov 21, 2011)

Master Dan said:


> Boy with only a total of 12 votes I would like to see 500 votes on this to get an idea of what our demographics are on this site.



what, didn't have the nerve to read through the pepper spray thread?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 22, 2011)

I think the movement is a complete waste of time.


----------



## Master Dan (Nov 22, 2011)

granfire said:


> what, didn't have the nerve to read through the pepper spray thread?


 not sure what you mean? but why do no votes get a blue color and the yes votes get Pink???? I see only 19 votes out of 100 views could it be the yes's don't want to be listed as Pink??


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 22, 2011)

Software picks the colors, I don't.


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 22, 2011)

I find it interesting that people in other countries are encouraged to demonstrate often quite violently against their governments but the minute it happens on home soil there's uproar. In Libya, Egypt and Syria all encouragement is given by our countries to the people to rise up and take to the barricades but here oh no, one mustn't protest in anything other than a loud whisper.
I know it can be argued that the governments of the above countries are deemed 'bad' by us but we feel free to egg on their citizens to take action often violent and damaging to people and property but will clamp down on any home grown protestors who perhaps feel the same about the governments here. Do we have the right to be quite so hypocritical about demonstrators?


----------



## granfire (Nov 22, 2011)

Master Dan said:


> not sure what you mean? but why do no votes get a blue color and the yes votes get Pink???? I see only 19 votes out of 100 views could it be the yes's don't want to be listed as Pink??



the pepper spray thread makes the demographic pretty clear.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Nov 22, 2011)

I voted "yes" because I supported the OWS movement in the form it started out in....semi-organized, peacable, and with a clear mission that I agreed with.  Wall-Streets ****ed up, and Wall Street isn't the group who's eating the consequences of the economic irresponsibility.  However, I don't really like what OWS became after a few months, and I'm certainly appalled at how easily others dismissed them as cluess, lazy hippies.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 22, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I voted "yes" because I supported the OWS movement in the form it started out in....semi-organized, peacable, and with a clear mission that I agreed with.


OK then, give us 50 words or less for 3 or more planks of their platform that you agreed with, please.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 22, 2011)

I voted "no" (big surprise, right?) in part, because criminal activity and mobs neither impress me or intimidate me.


----------



## billc (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm sorry, but the OWS remind me way too much of this scene from a famous political debate in Britain.  When the United States is even close to being the repressive country that the OWS imagines it is, as compared to how Libya and Syria and the others actually are, I will whole heartedly support any level of demonstration that helps overthrow the repressive government.  When these guys are quietly, and politely asked to just move off of the sidewalk, repeatedly, and then they refuse, and then are informed if they continue to block the sidewalk, they will be arrested, and they still refuse to leave peacefully, well, no sympathy from me.  They are acting like jerks, not political freedom fighters.  

The famous political discussion from Britain...the level of outrage by the OWS reminds me of Dennis in the following video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI

Also, in the United States, and I believe Britain, as well, we have something called the "Ballot Box," and "Elections" that actually count.  Our  OWS protestors, here and their counter parts in Britain are too lazy to put the work in to create change through the ballot box


----------



## Tez3 (Nov 23, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I'm sorry, but the OWS remind me way too much of this scene from a famous political debate in Britain. When the United States is even close to being the repressive country that the OWS imagines it is, as compared to how Libya and Syria and the others actually are, I will whole heartedly support any level of demonstration that helps overthrow the repressive government. When these guys are quietly, and politely asked to just move off of the sidewalk, repeatedly, and then they refuse, and then are informed if they continue to block the sidewalk, they will be arrested, and they still refuse to leave peacefully, well, no sympathy from me. They are acting like jerks, not political freedom fighters.
> 
> The famous political discussion from Britain...the level of outrage by the OWS reminds me of Dennis in the following video...
> 
> ...





I think, again, you don't actually know who is protesting in the UK. We certainly haven't had the violence from either side you have. The only demonstration we have here has been at St. Pauls. You don't know that they haven't voted either, the way our systme works it doesn't necessarily mean that voting doe any good. In my area our local MP is William Hague the Foreign Secretary, more people here collectively voted against him than for him but he still gets in because those votes were given for different people. Here the Labour candidate can get 1000 votes, the Liberal 1000 votes, the Independant 1000 and the Conservative 10001. The Conservative will get in despite only 10001 people voting for him and 3000 not wanting him so yes voting and the ballot box is very fair... not. 
I'd keep to comments about your side of the pond if I were you.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 23, 2011)

So far the 99%ers are only hitting 27%.  Now, I'm no math wiz, but......

Poll ends on the 28th so time will tell.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 23, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Here the Labour candidate can get 1000 votes, the Liberal 1000 votes, the Independant 1000 and the Conservative 10001. The Conservative will get in despite only 10001 people voting for him and 3000 not wanting him so yes voting and the ballot box is very fair... not.
> I'd keep to comments about your side of the pond if I were you.


How is that not fair? 10001 is greater then 3000


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 23, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> How is that not fair? 10001 is greater then 3000


I think theres a typo. Think she meant 1001 not 10,001.

Hell, that's how Lincoln won.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 23, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I think theres a typo. Think she meant 1001 not 10,001.
> 
> Hell, that's how Lincoln won.



 Ok I got it now.  I though math was different over there or something.


----------



## billc (Nov 23, 2011)

How do they count that high over there, they only have 10 fingers and 10 toes?:angel:


----------



## jron (Nov 23, 2011)

They have some very good points, they have the potential to tank the cause the same way the PETA has, and they have been villified by right wight turds in an election year. The same turds that supported the bankers that could have tanked the economy.


----------



## granfire (Nov 23, 2011)

jron said:


> The same turds that supported the bankers that *have* tanked the economy.


there, fixed.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 23, 2011)

jron said:


> The same turds that *regulated* the bankers* and strong armed them into making bad loans*  have tanked the economy.


Fixed it for you and Gran


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 23, 2011)

That's really not the case, Don, is it?  I know it's the story that's been hitting this forum since about 2008 when the crisis started but it's not the economic truth.  

Incentivised greed without proper adult supervision is more like it, with a housing bubble over-pricing assets, boosted by the connivance of the loan-givers, who acted as if the ride would never end as they profit-took with both hands.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 23, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> That's really not the case, Don, is it? I know it's the story that's been hitting this forum since about 2008 when the crisis started but it's not the economic truth.
> 
> Incentivised greed without proper adult supervision is more like it, with a housing bubble over-pricing assets, boosted by the connivance of the loan-givers, who acted as if the ride would never end as they profit-took with both hands.


I can tell you from 1st hand knowledge thats what happened.  My sister is a dirt bag, 3 kids 3 different drug dealing fathers, works for a few weeks then gets high and forgets to work and get fired, lives off my parents, and the Govt.  She was living in Section 8 housing when they had a meeting with Govt officals I believe they were from HUD telling her and others they "Deserved" to buy a home.  Now granted when she does work its minium wage jobs so she cant afford a home.  She filled out the paper work and bam next thing you know she was prequalified with a loan from a bank for $145,000 home loan.  Heres the Kick in the butt she only had to pay $200 a month for her house payment the GOVT paid the rest.  Then to top it off she recieved a grant for an additional 30,000 to buy furniture and appliances.  She lived there for about a year until she could no longer make her $200 a month home payment.  She should have NEVER been allowed to borrow money in the first place.  Now the house sits vacant, forclosed on, and she never needs to pay back a dime of the $145,000 or the $30,000 grant.  She sold off all the appliances and funriture for dope and a car.  So Ive seen it happen.


----------



## billc (Nov 23, 2011)

Or, the federal government threatening the banking industry with federal action if they didn't increase home loan rates to under served groups, that is people who couldn't afford the homes in the first place, and since they weren't going to sit there and absorb the government enforced defaults, they unloaded the debt.  Blame Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, his boyfriend, and Chris Dodd.

Ballen, I don't understand how this practice keeps getting left out of the equation when people discuss the mortgage melt down as if the government didn't cause the problem.

Good posts all around Ballen.

This book names the names of the guilty in the mortgage crisis and economic mess...


----------



## Big Don (Nov 23, 2011)

Sukerkin said:


> That's really not the case, Don, is it?  I know it's the story that's been hitting this forum since about 2008 when the crisis started but it's not the economic truth.


Except, that it is exactly the case, Mark. There is even a term for it: Ninja Loan


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 24, 2011)

I'll have to re-read the post again, Don but I thought that, rather than Ninja loans, it was saying that somehow the Democrats were at fault?

If so, in America, the lenders were literally forced by law to lend?  That is not what I have read or heard discussed by those with more economic clout than I have. If it's true then that re-colours my interpretation of how the sub-prime crisis grew.

When I talk of "incentivised greed", what I mean is that conditions were such that the lenders kept on lending despite knowing there was no guarantee that the bubble would inflate forever and so someone would be left holding the baby. The onus is always on the lender when it comes to financial transactions and, in such cases as Ballen describes, even with the tempting cheese of 'free money' from the government, the banks should have kept the cash box closed because they knew that the 'asset' was not going to be worth the 'price' once the bubble burst.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 24, 2011)

What happened, Mark, was a number of politicians decided everyone should own homes and that the reason that poorer people didn't was because banks were unjustly prejudiced against them. The banks were RIGHT to be prejudiced against people who cannot/will not pay their mortgages, that is, btw, how banks make money.


----------



## aedrasteia (Nov 24, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> She should have NEVER been allowed to borrow money in the first place.  Now the house sits vacant, forclosed on, and she never needs to pay back a dime of the $145,000 or the $30,000 grant.  She sold off all the appliances and funriture for dope and a car.  So Ive seen it happen.



Yep. The Morgenstern book is great - and here is the best summary of all.  THE GIANT POOL OF MONEY

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money

suggested to me by friend - *conservative* financial planner, accountant. 

" Davidson and Blumberg take you, the listener, along on their reporting journey where you meet (and in some cases may even like) the people who did the borrowing, the bundling, the loaning, the deceiving, and the profiting  until it becomes clear that everyone involved is culpable."What makes this story interesting is that it's not a simple case of some bad actors, some criminals victimizing people," said Davidson, who began working with Blumberg on the story in February. "Sure, there were criminals at every step of the chain. But the core of this story is that almost everyonefrom borrowers, to brokers, to bankers and wall street investorseffectively worked together: deceiving themselves and each other into believing that they could create massive wealth with little risk. Almost everyone involved was a victim and a victimizer at the same time."
The benefit of having two smart narrators is that they interrupt one another if something sounds puzzling, then explain it to listeners in a conversational style as if they were sitting together in a coffee shop.
They also masterfully translate economic gobbledy gook.
To explain why a $70 trillion (yes, trillion) global pool of money shunned investing in the safe U.S. government and went instead into risky mortgages, Davidson and Blumberg played a clip from former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan that would go over the heads of most of us. They even apologize for quoting the inscrutable Greenspan.
Then Davidson translates. What Greenspan is really saying is, Davidson tell us, is: "Hey global pool of money, screw you. You are not going to make any money on U.S. Treasury bonds for a very long time. Go somewhere else!"
My friend said this series was the absolute best he'd heard and he substantiated every major point. 
He's an old-fashioned guy. old school values. He said that almost every contact person at the financial institutions/banks 
he worked with was urging him to join in during 1996 - 2007.  they each made HUGE commissions off of every transaction. 
The transactions were bundled and resold as 'mortgage securities' - and MORE HUGE commissions were made 
as these 'phantom' financial instruments got passed around and up the line - with 'insurance' attached to guarantee
the viability.

I asked him what was at the root???  He's a very old school conservative man: he said - 
the loose regulations that allowed the creation of 'securitized' financial instruments - fake things.
Time was, a mortgage was 'held' by a local or (at most) regional bank. If it tanked, local people/banks 
felt the hit. But new regulations (pushed by banks etc) let them bundle the mortgages, sell the bundle 
as a 'security' and let people buy and sell shares, betting on the repayment of the loan.
Why do this?? Because every person in the chain made HUGE commissions at every step.

He's really an old values person and has a clear-eyed view of people - no idealist. Says greed is behind 
every part of this and all the barriers that ought to be in place were wiped out by the industries who paid 
their lobbyists to 'de-regulate' and somehow the market would keep the greed restricted. So thats whats happening
now. But the cost is horrific and paid mostly by the people at the bottom of the pyramid or ordinary people
not connected with the institutions caught as the rest of the economy tumbles.

He's right - this series made sense of this mess and his assessment was something I could trust.


----------



## billc (Nov 24, 2011)

A timeline of the mortgage meltdown...

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html



> > *June 1995*
> >
> > Republicans had won control of Congress and planned CRA reforms. The Clinton Administration, however, allied with Rep. Frank, Sen. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Waters (D-California), did an end-around by directing HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to inject GSEs into the subprime mortgage market.
> >
> ...





> *
> 1980s*
> 
> With CRA came increased oversight of lending institutions to ensure they were giving credit to low- and moderate-income communities. Regulators expressed that CRA was not designed to compel credit allocation, nor did it require risky lending practices. Moreover, ECOA (Equal Credit Opportunity Act) and FHA, not CRA, were in place to address discrimination in lending. But community organization groups like the radical ACORN began efforts to reshape CRA into government-imposition, in accord with what "affirmative obligation" might suggest. They began pressing the semantic open door and stretching the "discrimination" provision to complain about enforcement of the regulations as lending institutions resisted bad lending practices in poor minority communities.





> *1990s*
> 
> With the mechanisms in place, the community organizing groups began developing directed strategies to exert more and more pressure on the lending industry in the cloak of complicity with CRA. Community organizer Barack Obama worked closely with ACORN activists. Employing the radical Alinsky intimidation tactics Obama had learned and was teaching -- "direct action" -- activists crowded bank lobbies, blocked drive-up teller lanes and demonstrated at the homes of bankers to browbeat risky lending in poor and minority communities. Those who resisted were accused of racism to the media and government officials.
> 
> ...





> *1992*
> 
> Enforcement of CRA was "sporadic," as the Washington Times notes, until a Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study asserted that there were "substantially higher denial rates for black and Hispanic applicants than for white applicants." Co-author Lynn Browne was approached by co-author Alicia Munnell to do the study because "community activists were complaining that mortgage loans were not being made in minority communities."
> 
> According to the Times, however, "the study had mishandled statistics on minority default rates. When the errors were accounted for, the same study showed no evidence that nonwhite mortgage applicants were being discriminated against."


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 24, 2011)

I support the OWS movement and have take part on several occasions.  The movement is leaderless and fractured, but they agree that financial/corporate control of the government has got to end.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 24, 2011)

So they support consumers paying their fair share? or just the "rich"?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 24, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> So they support consumers paying their fair share? or just the "rich"?



There are a fair amount of socialists amongst the group and there are also a fair amount of Ron Paul Libertarians.  It's better the classify the movement on what is agreed upon rather then their differences...as the corporate pressitutes would have everyone do.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 24, 2011)

presstitutes. lol


----------



## Carol (Nov 24, 2011)

A few weeks ago I met some folks involved with Occupy NH.  The gathering was exactly what I expected.  A requisite bunch of our (unpaid) state legislatures using their "off time" to press the flesh and gathers signatures for petitions.  A requisite bunch of hopefuls trying to get on the ballot next year.  And people holding signs. (God hates signs...)   Admittedly, I did not stay for very long, I was on my way up to the mountains and didn't spend care to spend the day talking politics.  Shortly thereafter, I read in my local paper that a woman new to NH had been arrested for pimping out a teenage girl at Occupy, she had moved up from New York and didn't exactly have a clean record if ya know what I mean.  While I don't strictly fault Occupy for that...I can't help but be a wee bit concerned if the movement attracts more than just people that wanna hate "teh deadlies" corporations.

On a day trip to New York, I was walking to a telecom service provider's site in Lower Manhattan and I see what looks like pocket of OWS protesters.  I see a few curiously familiar people wearing Verizon patches on their jacket, one of them yells "Hey, is that Carol?"  They are two guys I know from Mass -- both union techs with Verizon that were "loaned" to New York for a project. I'm not sure if their project was just to be part of OWS, or if they were there to do actual telecom work.  The entire block was covered with Verizon guys...at least from what I could see.  Considering they approached me with talk about how corporate greed is so horrible, I can't help but think the former is at least a possibility.  The curious political junkie side of me wanted to see if more of OWS were similar voices.  The claustrophobic side of me wanted to hightail it out of there so I could get to the airport in time to catch my plane back home.  The claustrophobic side won.

On my way down to my friends house in Mass., I drove through Boston, making a quick diversion to South Station where I've heard that Occupy Boston was organized.  The area was full of people and traffic was not worth navigating.  I turned around and continued on my way.  On the way home driving back through Boston, I saw a large lighted sign for a carpenter's union on the Southeast Expressway stating "WE ARE THE 99%"

Some Occupy folks in NH like to repeatedly say this is "unorganized."  Really?  I'm not seeing it.  I've been part of libertarian groups since I moved to NH in 2008. We haven't received anything more than a passing "that guy" moment in the news when William Kostric was noticed for his [legal] open-carry the day the President was in town.  Its taken the Tea Party a couple of years and a couple of billionaires to make the jump from fringe group to partisan insider. Occupy literally sprung up overnight and spread across the country like wildfire. Take a look at OccupyBoston's schedule....there are _entire towns_ in New England that are not this organized. This doesn't even include the related-but-unscheduled mayhem, such as Anonymous (allegedly) hacking in to the BPD. Unorganized?  Really?  

Good things can happen when people get together. They aren't always obvious; some of my fellow libertarian friends are pooling our resources together for a project that will help us launch our respective side businesses. That effort absolutely isn't making the paper.  I bet there are good things happening with the Occupy movement too.  Perhaps people are sharing ideas and finding ways to make them work.  Perhaps younger and/or unemployed folks are furthering their organizational and leadership skills by working with the movement.  Perhaps the movement is sparking fresh conversation among non-Occupy folks that can spurn new ideas to address the economic issues the country is facing. 

I suppose whether one likes or dislikes the Occupy movement has to do with personal tastes and personal politics.  In general it doesn't matter much to me if someone supports the movement -- at least the not-hurting-people part of the movement.  But the whole "unorganized" mantra?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 25, 2011)

I stay on the fence as far as the Occupy movement goes. I want to see whether it becomes truly revolutionary or not. So far it is hit or miss, and I have not found much positive to say about either their hits or their misses.


----------



## Sukerkin (Nov 25, 2011)

When it comes to such public 'outcry', unless the powers that be actually want to change things, or aren't bothered one way or the other, protests have to be prolonged and usually violent before there is movement in the offocial position.

Look at CND, for example.  HUGE support, including prominent political figures and still nothing happened until it became politically and economically expedient to do so (about 30 years later).  

Working within the system is by far the most effective way of going about encouraging change but the problem, as has been pointed out before, is that the system is now so corrupted, by those holding most of the chips and the cards in the game, because the 'dealers' (i.e. the poilitcal parties) are not there for the benefit of the people.  They are there to give the illusion of democracy and so keep the peasantry quiet.

It's a depressing picture I know but it is one that will only endure as long as the money holds out.  When the West has been leeched to it's knees and the East has been empowered to fill the vacuum then we might get something like effective democracy back.  I'm not holding my breath tho'.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2011)

America is going to get the "IMF treatment" like Argentina if Occupy isn't successful.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Nov 25, 2011)

I tend to stay away form thing OWS beyond occasionally walking past the tents they have in a park near my office and to be honest I am not sure what to make of them. In part I hope they are successful at what I am starting to see as an overall goal but they lost me locally yesterday. They decided to stop protesting government and went and protested at Wal-Mart about buying locally. 

I honestly do not feel that helped their cause in any wayit only made them look more decentralized and confused but hat is just my opinion. 

I am still however watching it on a nation al basis and do hope they succeed at what I think they are trying to do


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 25, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> America is going to get the "IMF treatment" like Argentina if Occupy isn't successful.



Or the Tea party, or the Coffee party. Actually, I'm backing the Pizza Party.
Because unlike the other 3, the Pizza Party has no corporate backers, is completely independent of any other party, and just tastes better.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2011)

For all of those people who are sitting back and watching and hoping OWS will be successful, what would convince you to get involved?

I'm not bothered by the unclear message of this thing, part of that is propaganda blown out of proportion by the presstitutes and part is a real misunderstanding of the problems.  However, taking the step to GET INVOLVED is the most important step.  People can always learn on the journey.  You can't learn anything if you never take the first step though.

What's holding you back?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Or the Tea party, or the Coffee party. Actually, I'm backing the Pizza Party.
> Because unlike the other 3, the Pizza Party has no corporate backers, is completely independent of any other party, and just tastes better.



Occupy Pizza!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 25, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Occupy Pizza!



Now that, I can sink my teeth into. 

Pizza Party Platform:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/192991314108005/permalink/203316403075496/
There's also the formation of the Department of Pizzaology charged with making good pizza affordable and available across the US.
I think it's in the health care overhaul bit. 

Seriously though, you'll find that some of that platform is in alignment with the Occupy desires. Some of them. It avoids the unsustainable and unfair socialist aspects as well as many of the unconstitutional aspects currently being shoved down our throats.


----------



## granfire (Nov 25, 2011)

Isn't that blasphemy as self confessed pastafarian?

I mean, after all, pizza and pasta are closely related!


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2011)

Since the pepper spray thread was locked I am posting this video clip of the UC jerks here.  I thought that the protestors had simply blocked the side walk and that if someone was interested they could just walk around them.  From this video clip, it looks like they linked arms all the way across the sidewalk, and also blocked the grass on either side.  The video also shows the LT. speaking to each of the protestors, informing them what they were doing was illegal and that they were exposing themselves to  a certain amount of force to remove them.  He apparently spoke to each of the protestors before spraying them.. .

http://www.breitbart.tv/video-proof-uc-davis-protesters-were-warned-before-pepper-spray-incident/

Hmmm...if another student had walked forward and tried to walk through the seated protesters, would they have allowed them to pass peacefully, or would they have kept them from walking through the line.  In that case, what would the supporters of these jerks believe was the appropriate response?


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 25, 2011)

That's quite a bit astray of the topic.  If you wish to attempt to continue discussing that incident, you may want to start a new thread.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Since the pepper spray thread was locked I am posting this video clip of the UC jerks here.  I thought that the protestors had simply blocked the side walk and that if someone was interested they could just walk around them.  From this video clip, it looks like they linked arms all the way across the sidewalk, and also blocked the grass on either side.  The video also shows the LT. speaking to each of the protestors, informing them what they were doing was illegal and that they were exposing themselves to  a certain amount of force to remove them.  He apparently spoke to each of the protestors before spraying them.. .
> 
> http://www.breitbart.tv/video-proof-uc-davis-protesters-were-warned-before-pepper-spray-incident/
> 
> Hmmm...if another student had walked forward and tried to walk through the seated protesters, would they have allowed them to pass peacefully, or would they have kept them from walking through the line.  In that case, what would the supporters of these jerks believe was the appropriate response?



Bill, it doesn't matter if the police officer goes up and gives each of the protesters a hug and kiss before he pepper sprays them.  The point is that these students are protesting against massive government corruption/collusion and this police officer is acting as a representative of this corrupt system.  Sure, we're not Egypt, where the stormtroopers would simply open fire on people doing this, but then again, the protests haven't put millions in the streets yet and put the system to the test.  This thing is in its infancy and it will grow as the US spirals down the prescribed bankster plan into debt and receivership.  Then we'll see a variation on the IMF Riot and pepper spray will be replaced with bullets.

The cops are on the wrong side.  At some point, they are going to have to make a tough decision that is going to challenge their very identity.  A lot of folks will just go along with it though, even while their wealth is confiscated and they are getting the shaft by their masters, because they don't have the self-knowledge that it takes to evaluate what they really believe in.

And a lot of folks are going to sitting on the sidelines trying and failing to explain this, because of a sad clinging to old partisan propaganda that no longer applies.

So, yeah, support your local OWS.  Get involved or get what's coming.  We've known for a long time that it was unsustainable, now the karma bill is coming.


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2011)

Makalakumu,  what you fail to see is that the jerks in the OWS movement are not the solution to the problems you see.  For example, the Tea Party sees the same problems you do.  The government is taking money from good people, and either keeping it for themselves or dolling it out to their friends and supporters.  For you, it is the evil corporations behind this activity, for the Tea Party, it doesn't matter who is doing the taking, they just realize that no matter how much the politicians get in taxes, wherever and from whoever they get it, they are only going to use it to enrich themselves and their friends.  The tea party, therefore, wants low taxes, huge cuts in spending and more control over the politicians, through the election process or some form of term limits to limit their power.  The OWS guys hate the fact that the corporations get rich by manipulating greedy politicians, but here is the problem...

The OWS movement doesn't want to limit the power of government, or reduce the amount of money they receive, the OWS movement just wants to change the recipient of that money to themselves.  They want the greedy politicians to take money from the greedy corporations and give it to the greedy members of the OWS movement.  The cycle will continue and your heroes will turn into the very evil monsters they have turned into throughout history, in Russia, Germany, Cambodia, China and all the other "Peoples Paradises," that fill up mass graves.  

This is the very reason they have studiously avoided going to the one place where they might actually annoy the right people, members of congress and president Obama.  Congress and Obama are their Santa Claus.  The government goodies come from the very greedy politicians who have made the financial mess a reality.  The OWS can't go after those folks because they know, deep down, that the goody train will end for them if they go after the actual politicians who caused the mortgage meltdown, and who recieve the corporate greed handouts.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2011)

Bill, I've gone to the big Tea Party rallies on Oahu. I've gone to the OWS rallies here. You've got a good Fox News breakdown of what is going on, but let me tell you from experience that this isn't an accurate picture. Both groups have plenty of people who gave impassioned speeches about how they can use government to fix problems that government caused. It's the fundamental flaw in both movements IMO. That's not something people are truly ready to deal with yet though.

And in both groups you have a huge amount of people who see the collusion of financial power and government for what it is, a serious threat to the stability of this country. We've got to connect these people in order to make any difference at all, and that means ignoring the presstitute media and their spin. It also means that we need to take personal responsibility for the information we get about the movements and act accordingly. Ultimately, I've found good and bad in both movements, bit people use the latter as an excuse to not do anything.

Sad isn't it.

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk


----------



## billc (Nov 25, 2011)

Makalakumu, why aren't the OWS people occupying the offices of members of congress or marching on the lawn of the white house?  I mean, if they are serious about what they see as the problem that is.


----------



## jks9199 (Nov 25, 2011)

A hint wasn't enough.  Under ordinary circumstances, the Staff here refrains from active moderation of threads that they're involved in.  I'm making an exception.

Posts regarding the use of pepper spray at UC-Davis are off topic.  They will be strictly moderated.

*Attention All Users:

Please return to the original topic.

jks9199
Super Moderator
*


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Makalakumu, why aren't the OWS people occupying the offices of members of congress or marching on the lawn of the white house?  I mean, if they are serious about what they see as the problem that is.



Honestly?  That's probably going to get you killed.  

This movement is about Occupying Attention.  I see it as a way of designing a message and networking and educating people who aren't paying attention.  I didn't go out to the park to protest the financial oligarchs here.  I went to talk to people and get a message out.  It's grassroots politics really.

One of my messages, RON PAUL 2012.  See, I don't totally think working within the system is worthless...


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 26, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> That's quite a bit astray of the topic.  If you wish to attempt to continue discussing that incident, you may want to start a new thread.



I have to disagree. Whereas the UCD thread was about a specific incident, this is about OWS in general, and the OP allowed us to talk about our various resons. This would qualify as a reason not to support it. It is a reason I don't.  "If you let them go, we will let you leave" was a blatant threat to the police there. The OWS movement may be nonviolent so far, but they are certainly not peaceful.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 26, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Bill, it doesn't matter if the police officer goes up and gives each of the protesters a hug and kiss before he pepper sprays them.  The point is that these students are protesting against massive government corruption/collusion and this police officer is acting as a representative of this corrupt system.  Sure, we're not Egypt, where the stormtroopers would simply open fire on people doing this, but then again, the protests haven't put millions in the streets yet and put the system to the test.  This thing is in its infancy and it will grow as the US spirals down the prescribed bankster plan into debt and receivership.  Then we'll see a variation on the IMF Riot and pepper spray will be replaced with bullets.
> 
> The cops are on the wrong side.  At some point, they are going to have to make a tough decision that is going to challenge their very identity.  A lot of folks will just go along with it though, even while their wealth is confiscated and they are getting the shaft by their masters, because they don't have the self-knowledge that it takes to evaluate what they really believe in.
> 
> ...



Frankly, that last sentence sounds like a threat.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 26, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Bill, I've gone to the big Tea Party rallies on Oahu. I've gone to the OWS rallies here. You've got a good Fox News breakdown of what is going on, but let me tell you from experience that this isn't an accurate picture. Both groups have plenty of people who gave impassioned speeches about how they can use government to fix problems that government caused. It's the fundamental flaw in both movements IMO. That's not something people are truly ready to deal with yet though.
> 
> And in both groups you have a huge amount of people who see the collusion of financial power and government for what it is, a serious threat to the stability of this country. We've got to connect these people in order to make any difference at all, and that means ignoring the presstitute media and their spin. It also means that we need to take personal responsibility for the information we get about the movements and act accordingly. Ultimately, I've found good and bad in both movements, bit people use the latter as an excuse to not do anything.
> 
> ...



Do you honestly think that the Tea Party and Occupy movements you have been to in _Hawaii_ are accutate representations of either movement as a whole?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 26, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> I have to disagree. Whereas the UCD thread was about a specific incident, this is about OWS in general, and the OP allowed us to talk about our various resons. This would qualify as a reason not to support it. It is a reason I don't.  "If you let them go, we will let you leave" was a blatant threat to the police there. The OWS movement may be nonviolent so far, but they are certainly not peaceful.



As long as this doesn't turn in to the mess the other thread became, we're ok with things. Any focused discussion should be rolled out though as this is a general not specific discussion. (IE if it's going to be a deep discussion of the OCD issue, that's a separate topic, but touching on it's fine as ong as it isn't dominating the discussion which is intended to cover the entire movement, not just 1 small part) (hope that makes sense.)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 26, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> Do you honestly think that the Tea Party and Occupy movements you have been to in _Hawaii_ are accutate representations of either movement as a whole?



His experiences in Hawaii, are like mine in WNY.  Favorable.  I've said a few times the WNY group's so far been peaceful.  But WNY has maybe 30-40 people involved. Dunno how many in Hawaii. NYC however is a thousand+, and as such much different dynamics.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 26, 2011)

Thank you, Mr. Hubbard, you just illustrated my point.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 26, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> As long as this doesn't turn in to the mess the other thread became, we're ok with things. Any focused discussion should be rolled out though as this is a general not specific discussion. (IE if it's going to be a deep discussion of the OCD issue, that's a separate topic, but touching on it's fine as ong as it isn't dominating the discussion which is intended to cover the entire movement, not just 1 small part) (hope that makes sense.)



Perfect sense.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## billc (Nov 26, 2011)

I have to say, how unhappy can the OWS people be when they are protesting in Hawaii.  I mean it's "Hawaii."  How hard is it to maintain good behavior with surf and sand and beautiful sunsets as the norm.  It would be like protesting about how ordinary people look when you live in the "Top Model," house.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 26, 2011)

Bill, If I was going to protest, in December, Hawaii would be -much- nicer than NY.   The more comfortable climate would possibly act as a calming influence since I wouldn't be irritated by my bongos having frozen off.  Plus, protest messages are much clearer when not done through chattering teeth.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 26, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> Frankly, that last sentence sounds like a threat.



Frankly, it is a threat.  It's a *real *threat to our way of life.  This corrupt system will only get worse if you don't act.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 26, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> Do you honestly think that the Tea Party and Occupy movements you have been to in _Hawaii_ are accurate representations of either movement as a whole?



Yes and no, there are some major cultural differences in Hawaii, however, my point is that I've had *real *positive experiences at both and I'm not just forming my opinion through media.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 26, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> NYC however is a thousand+, and as such much different dynamics.



I'd like to go check it out to see with my own eyes.  The media portrayal has been so slanted, I don't trust their reporting.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 26, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I have to say, how unhappy can the OWS people be when they are protesting in Hawaii.  I mean it's "Hawaii."  How hard is it to maintain good behavior with surf and sand and beautiful sunsets as the norm.  It would be like protesting about how ordinary people look when you live in the "Top Model," house.



Believe it or not, we have real problems here.    And they don't include intermittent waves.  I believe I shared the Superferry issue before and have talked about our broken school system.  On a microscale, we have a political elite here in Hawaii that are pretty damn corrupt and this "tradition" stretches back generations.  

And the surfing does make it easier.  I brought a board down to one of the gatherings.  The surf off of Queen's is rad.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Nov 27, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> Yes and no, there are some major cultural differences in Hawaii, however, my point is that I've had *real *positive experiences at both and I'm not just forming my opinion through media.



But to really see the similarity and differences in the occupy movements, you'd have to go outside of Hawaii. Have you done that?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2011)

Josh Oakley said:


> But to really see the similarity and differences in the occupy movements, you'd have to go outside of Hawaii. Have you done that?



People who have been part of the Occupy movement in other places, come here and check out what's going on in ours.  Since the protest has taken place in major tourist centers, it gets noticed.  I've met OWS people from a number of states and talked with them.  Other then that, no, I haven't gone to any event outside of Hawaii.


----------



## Monroe (Nov 27, 2011)

OWS in Toronto has been pretty good. Police removed them last week but the protestors and police were joking with each other. It's a bit more confusing here. I understand the American OWS, but Canadian banks didn't screw up and big business isn't a huge problem in our political process. Corporations aren't innocent here, but it seems to me voters have a bigger impact here than them. 

I think OWS won't do anything because they haven't moved into politics. They need their own politicians.


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 27, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> People who have been part of the Occupy movement in other places, come here and check out what's going on in ours.  Since the protest has taken place in major tourist centers, it gets noticed.  I've met OWS people from a number of states and talked with them.  Other then that, no, I haven't gone to any event outside of Hawaii.


So Protesters claim to be opressed by the corupt govt and banks and can find jobs, homes, fair wages, ect yet they can afford to go to Hawaii for vacation?  Maybe I need to join a protest


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 27, 2011)

ballen0351 said:


> So Protesters claim to be oppressed by the corrupt govt and banks and can find jobs, homes, fair wages, ect yet they can afford to go to Hawaii for vacation?  Maybe I need to join a protest.



It's lots of young kids riding around on their baby boomer parents dime.  It won't last.


----------



## Big Don (Nov 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> It's lots of young kids riding around on their baby boomer parents dime.  It won't last.





Could well be a motto for OWS...


----------



## ballen0351 (Nov 28, 2011)

Makalakumu said:


> It's lots of young kids riding around on their baby boomer parents dime.  It won't last.


I twas just a joke anyway


----------

