Support NeoGAF

[minus_273]

I'm sure private insurance corporations will be fine with profits instead of recrod profits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html

if they are public companies, they would be punished by the owners if they didnt try to maximize profits. Shareholder lawsuits are not fun things.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I'm sure private insurance corporations will be fine with profits instead of recrod profits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/14/business/14health.html

I was referring to a government system.

He achieved exactly two things here -
he keep bumping this thread, making sure it's on the front page.

Which shows you can't support yourself on your own.

the quality of his arguments makes those who oppose OWS look sillier than they need to be.

To yourself, not to others. OWS supporters and their own arguments and statements do a great job on their own. The ratcheting up of the demands and more radical message along with statements supporting more militant action speaks far louder than anything I can ever say.

I personally don't see how either of those is a bad thing.

Neither do I

 

[dave is ok]

To yourself, not to others. OWS supporters and their own arguments and statements do a great job on their own. The ratcheting up of the demands and more radical message along with statements supporting more militant action speaks far louder than anything I can ever say.

You've been predicting broken windows and citizens attacking police since a month before this occupation even started. How much time needs to pass before you just admit you were wrong?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

You've been predicting broken windows and citizens attacking police since a month before this occupation even started. How much time needs to pass before you just admit you were wrong?

Oakland is only the beginning.

 

[Dude Abides]

if they are public companies, they would be punished by the owners if they didnt try to maximize profits. Shareholder lawsuits are not fun things.

No, they wouldn't be. "Your EBITDA was 300 million when it could have been 310" would not succeed as a breach of fi-du theory in any jurisdiction in the country. Ever heard of the business judgment rule?

 

[Something Wicked]

Your claim was that the federal deficit was in significant part the result of pension liabilities. It's nonsense, and no amount of hand-waving will change that.

Let me highlight exactly what I said in its context:

The recession will not just magically end, since it's driven by very real structural problems. Companies are not going to hire en masse when there is so much uncertainty in future tax rates, due to the high state and federal deficits. Much of such deficits are caused by the public union pension funds. Therefore, until public union pension funds become more sustainable, the recession- either as a technical one or more general economic stagnation- will continue to occur. The pensions and the recession are... dun dun dun- interrelated.

State AND federal deficits. And guess what? As I just said before, if states cannot fund their pension programs, the federal government will or may do so. This is exactly what occurred with the 2009 federal stimulus funds- they didn't go all of massive infrastructure projects initially proposed, but to state union pension funds. And the states all had to make cuts anyway the very next year. State and federal government budgets are- interrelated.

The value of all outstanding residential mortgages, owed by U.S. households to purchase residences housing at most four families, was US$9.9 trillion as of year-end 2006, and US$10.6 trillion as of midyear 2008

I said very specifically "sub-prime mortgages."

 

[dave is ok]

Oakland is only the beginning.

So you're predicting more police brutality?

 

[Wazzim]

Oakland is only the beginning.

I hope so, there is no other option if all the big players keep on laughing and securing their position even more.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

So you're predicting more police brutality?

I'm predicting more situations like that and guess what, eventually the squatters are going to be the ones to blame for it. It won't be the Oakland PD, it won't involve an injured solider. Even now it's not entirely possible to blame the Oakland PD for creating the situation in the first place. People could have left, they could have decided to no try and toss back tear gears, they choose not too.

I hope so, there is no other option if all the big players keep on laughing and securing their position even more.

You realize that eventually people will tire of the Occupy People causing violence and wasting taxpayer money. It's already happening with cities starting to look to evict squatters.

That said your statement goes to proving my own earlier point.

 

[Dude Abides]

Let me highlight exactly what I said in its context:



State AND federal deficits. And guess what? As I just said before, if states cannot fund their pension programs, the federal government will or may do so. This is exactly what occurred with the 2009 federal stimulus funds- they didn't go all of massive infrastructure projects initially proposed, but to state union pension funds. And the states all had to make cuts anyway the very next year. State and federal government budgets are- interrelated.

The federal goverment will or may do a lot of things, at any time. There isn't any special uncertainty now.

In any event, your entire narrative of state pension funds bankrupting everyone is simplistic and unfounded.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/06/109649/why-employee-pensions-arent-bankrupting.html

 

[Arde5643]

I'm predicting more situations like that and guess what, eventually the squatters are going to be the ones to blame for it.

When in history has the majority of people/masses ever side with the machine compared to the underdogs going against the machine?

 

[empty vessel]

Unemployment doesn't provide that much, you do know that right? Saying oh they'll have unemployment insurance is just as dumb as those painting the welfare queen stereotype.

The problem with this conversation that I am having is that you are not genuinely concerned about anybody's well-being. Unemployment insurance is fine. It's there for a reason. If some people get laid off from the transition to national health insurance, they will find other jobs. After all, it's not like nationalizing health insurance sends good jobs overseas. People will get new jobs with better pay, and they will have unemployment insurance and health care in the meantime.

Incidentally, you did oppose those free trade agreements that were recently enacted, right? I can only assume you did given your line of argument. Unless you're being insincere. You tell me.

Having some minimal health care won't increase bargaining power when private health care can give better service and options. It also won't likely deal with other bills and needs even with unemployment insurance.

I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't think you understand what you're talking about. I am talking about employee bargaining power vis-a-vis employers. Do you know much about negotiation and bargaining power? And how if one person needs something more than the other person, a disparity in bargaining power arises which allows one side to obtain a better bargain than he otherwise would absent the disparity? Pretend I have 1000 bottles of water, and you are dying of thirst and need one. You also have $1000 in your wallet, and you do not believe you will be able to survive to reach another person who might have a bottle of water. How much do you think I could sell that bottle of water to you for? Contrast that to a situation where I have 1000 bottles of water but am in desperate need of food and you are thirsty and still have $1000, but there are many other options from which you can procure a bottle of water nearby. What might be the price of the water bottle in that exchange?

The relative situations in which employee and employer find themselves dictate the price at which labor is sold. Any decrease in the employee's need to sell his or her labor (which a guarantee of health care certainly is) will translate to an increase in the price he can extract for his labor. This is what employers fear about nationalizing health insurance. Indeed, maintaining as high an advantage in bargaining power over labor explains most of what the business class does politically, because that is from where profits (and executive compensation) are drawn. That's also what anti-unionism is all about.

So what if I have private insurance and I'm happy with it and I don't want to pay for a public option? Who says the cost will actually be cheaper too or the quality and access?

I'm not talking about a public option. I am talking about the government being the sole insurer of all basic health care. Insurance is not something that somebody is "happy" with. It isn't that kind of service. It's a middleman that manages risk, and that is what the government is in fact best at.

I don't know if you have never gotten informed about health care issues. Your questions suggest that you haven't, because if had you would probably already know that countries with nationalized health insurance--or its inefficient equivalent of a network of heavily regulated, non-profit insurance providers--obtain as good or better results for half the cost as in the US. And that this is effectively across the board. The data are indisputable. Indeed, Britain, which nationalized the entire health care provider industry (for basic health care services) performs equally as well.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

When in history has the majority of people/masses ever side with the machine compared to the underdogs going against the machine?

When they don't view the message as meaningful, the people aren't underdogs, the methods they use, and they just want to go on with their lives.

 

[Kosmo]

It's a middleman that manages risk, and that is what the government is in fact best at.

Really, now? How well did Fannie and Freddie manage risk?

 

[empty vessel]

Really, now? How well did Fannie and Freddie manage risk?

Those are private, for-profit corporations, mate.

 

[Arde5643]

When they don't view the message as meaningful, the people aren't underdogs, the methods they use, and they just want to go on with their lives.

If you don't think these people are the underdogs, especially after the Oakland thing, then you might have a different viewpoint than the majority of Americans.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Health care doesn't pay the bills or give you food.

Healthcare gives me a peace of mind, and that is priceless.

 

[Chichikov]

Really, now? How well did Fannie and Freddie manage risk?

Dude, really?
I don't want to get into the whole Fannie and Freddie debate again (you do realize they're for profit corporations, right?) but saying that the government can manage risk best, doesn't mean that everything the government does is an awesome risk management tool.

Now, you can try to argue that the private sector can manage risk better, I think you'll have an uphill battle there, but you'll need to do better than pointing at Fannie and Freddie.

 

[Fusebox]

Oakland is only the beginning.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/10/27/violence-gone-viral-and-the-lessons-of-occupy-oakland/


I sure hope the end result of the Oakland mayor showing support is only the beginning for other cities.

 

[Kosmo]

Those are private, for-profit corporations, mate.

Government sponsored enterprise, pretty much at the whim of Congress. Call it private if you want.

 

[empty vessel]

Government sponsored enterprise, pretty much at the whim of Congress. Call it private if you want.

Actually, you're right, I shouldn't call them private. They were created by and are extensions of government power. Just like every other corporation in the US. All corporations are "government sponsored enterprises."

Of course, when I talk about "government," I'm talking about that aspect of it that isn't run like a for-profit business. The democratic side.

 

[Jangocube]

So you're predicting more police brutality?

Everyone keeps feeding the troll. Surprised more people don't have him on ignore from his last attempt to derail the thread on this topic and then swore to never talk about it again.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Healthcare gives me a peace of mind, and that is priceless.

Cool let me know when it can be used to pay for bills or when your care is limited in terms of who you can see and the quality.

I sure hope the end result of the Oakland mayor showing support is only the beginning for other cities.?

Damage control is to be expected, but it will be short term at best. It's only because of the Marine, that's why.

 

[Arde5643]

Cool let me know when it can be used to pay for bills or when your care is limited in terms of who you can see and the quality.


Damage control is to be expected, but it will be short term at best. It's only because of the Marine, that's why.

Is this the infamous moving goalpost from the gaming side applied in OT?

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Is this the infamous moving goalpost from the gaming side applied in OT?

No, it's to be expected considering the person most notably injured.

 

[ViperVisor]

Nazi is to Socialism as Superman 64 is to video games.

One particular swindle perpetrated by Hitler on the German workers deserves passing mention. This had to do with the Volkswagen (the "People's Car")-- a brainstorm of the Fuehrer himself. Every German, or at least every German workman, he said, should own an automobile, just as in the United States. Heretofore in this country where there was only one motorcar for every fifty persons (compared to one for every five in America) the workman had used a bicycle or public transportation to get about. Now Hitler decreed that a car should be built for him to sell for only 990 marks-- $396 at the official rate of exchange. He himself, it was said, took a hand in the actual designing of the car, which was done under the supervision of the Austrian automobile engineer Dr. Ferdinand Porshe.

The Labor Front advanced fifty million marks in capital. But that was not the main financing. Dr. Ley's ingenious plan was that the workers themselves should furnish the capital by means of what became known as a "pay before you get it" installment plan-- five marks a week, or if a worker thought he could afford it, ten or fifteen marks a week. When 750 marks had been paid in, the buyer received an order number entitling him to a car as soon as it could be turned out. Alas for the worker, not a single car was ever turned out for any customer during the Third Reich. Tens of millions of marks were paid in by the German wage earners, not a pfennig of which was ever refunded.

 

[SpectreFire]

You know what makes the Occupy Movement so useless and stupid?

The inclusiveness. Their refusal to reject certain people or to maintain a certain level of admission is what's making their own protest absolutely meaningless.

For every 9/11 nut, nutjob and shit-disturber that joins the Occupy movement's ranks and doesn't get tossed out, they lose respect in the public's eyes. Their message is being heavily diluted heavily by all the nutjobs they refuse to kick out and distance themselves first.

From the very beginning, they should've established a clear and SHORT set of demands and goals, and kick out anyone who's trying to come in and promote other issues.

 

[Celsior]

free rides for unemployed on the MTA......................how does that even work.

Such stupid ideas some of these people have.

 

[maharg]

You know what makes the Occupy Movement so useless and stupid?

The inclusiveness. Their refusal to reject certain people or to maintain a certain level of admission is what's making their own protest absolutely meaningless.

For every 9/11 nut, nutjob and shit-disturber that joins the Occupy movement's ranks and doesn't get tossed out, they lose respect in the public's eyes. Their message is being heavily diluted heavily by all the nutjobs they refuse to kick out and distance themselves first.

From the very beginning, they should've established a clear and SHORT set of demands and goals, and kick out anyone who's trying to come in and promote other issues.

It's worth noting that there is a sort of passive-aggressive mechanism in place for 'kicking out' people who don't fit in with the goals of a particular Occupy. The General Assembly, where decisions are made, is consensus driven. One thing about such systems is that they'll tend to frustrate people who can't get on board with the things everyone else agrees with.

So the expectation is, I think, that people who can't get on board will just leave eventually.

(of course, it can also result in no real decisions ever being made because no one wants to have a decision go to non-consensus)

 

[Something Wicked]

The federal goverment will or may do a lot of things, at any time. There isn't any special uncertainty now.

In any event, your entire narrative of state pension funds bankrupting everyone is simplistic and unfounded.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/03/0...nkrupting.html

From that article:

The most recent Public Fund Survey by the National Association of State Retirement Administrators showed that, on average, state and local pensions were 78.9 percent funded, with about $688 billion in unfunded promises to pensioners. Critics suggest that the real number is at least $1 trillion or higher, using less-optimistic market assumptions.

Whether it is close to $700 billion, $1 trillion, or $3 trillion, the amount unfunded is still extremely high.


Now, the retort within the article:

The unfunded liabilities would be a problem if all state and local retirees went into retirement at once, but they won't. Nor will state governments go out of business and hand underfunded pension plans over to a federal regulator, as happens in the private sector. State and local governments are ongoing enterprises.

A) While not all state employees going into retirement this year or for many years, a large percentage is going into retirement nonetheless, so a solid percentage of that $700 billion - 3 trillion will need to be dealt with soon. The percentage is just going to grow over time making future pension funding even more bleak. Also, using averages or total national sums of pension funds can be misleading as well, since some states are doing far better than others in this area. Those current unfunded billions/trillions are concentrated to some previously and perhaps currently very poorly-run states. Not surprisingly, most tend to be those "blue states."

B) Much of previous paid pensions funds by the states came from profits of the real-estate bubble. The pensions went up and were paid for by a false economy, which many in this thread are protesting its causes and effects. Unless pension fund managers want to gamble in some other asset bubble, pensions are not going to magically re-sustain themselves to pre-2008 levels (which much of the NASRA statistics that article uses come from).

C) Saying "state or local can't technically go out of business, so who cares" is moronic. The federal government, while indirectly, has already bailed out states' pensions in 2009 and into 2010, and will likely continue to do so depending how this administration and Congress word their bills.

 

[empty vessel]

A) While not all state employees going into retirement this year or for many years, a large percentage is going into retirement nonetheless, so a solid percentage of that $700 billion - 3 trillion will need to be dealt with soon. The percentage is just going to grow over time making future pension funding even more bleak. Also, using averages or total national sums of pension funds can be misleading as well, since some states are doing far better than others in this area. Those current unfunded billions/trillions are concentrated to some previously and perhaps currently very poorly-run states. Not surprisingly, most tend to be those "blue states."

B) Much of previous paid pensions funds by the states came from profits of the real-estate bubble. The pensions went up and were paid for by a false economy, which many in this thread are protesting its causes and effects. Unless pension fund managers want to gamble in some other asset bubble, pensions are not going to magically re-sustain themselves to pre-2008 levels (which much of the NASRA statistics that article uses come from).

C) Saying "state or local can't technically go out of business, so who cares" is moronic. The federal government, while indirectly, has already bailed out states' pensions in 2009 and into 2010, and will likely continue to do so depending how this administration and Congress word their bills.

My plan would be to extract compensation from Wall Street. What say you? After all, who is more deserving? People who did respectable work all their lives or people who crashed our economy with reckless bets?

 

[SpectreFire]

It's worth noting that there is a sort of passive-aggressive mechanism in place for 'kicking out' people who don't fit in with the goals of a particular Occupy. The General Assembly, where decisions are made, is consensus driven. One thing about such systems is that they'll tend to frustrate people who can't get on board with the things everyone else agrees with.

So the expectation is, I think, that people who can't get on board will just leave eventually.

(of course, it can also result in no real decisions ever being made because no one wants to have a decision go to non-consensus)

But then you risk the problem of the normal people leaving while the crazies remain, which is what I think is happening now.

 

[Kosmo]

My plan would be to extract compensation from Wall Street. What say you? After all, who is more deserving? People who did respectable work all their lives or people who crashed our economy with reckless bets?

...and immediately change all public pension funds from define benefit to defined contribution...

 

[empty vessel]

...and immediately change all public pension funds from define benefit to defined contribution...

That doesn't actually make any difference. If it is defined contribution, then that just means the payments will come earlier. Pensions are just deferred payment. Defined benefits are actually more responsible.

 

[Riddick]

Oakland is only the beginning.

Oakland was the opposite you delusional psycho. Stop posting, between this thread and the Bruce Lee crap you posted I have had enough bullshit for one month.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Oakland was the opposite you delusional psycho. Stop posting, between this thread and the Bruce Lee crap you posted I have had enough bullshit for one month.

Oh please I missremembered something about Bruce Lee and corrected it within ten minutes.

You're wrong about Oakland though, it will radicalize OWS people further and push more members to more violent reactions.

 

[kame-sennin]

From the Harvard Business Review, of all places:

Occupy Wall Street: What Businesses Need to Know

With the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations spreading from New York to other U.S. cities this week, business leaders beyond the stock exchanges are wondering what exactly is going on: Is this truly the American version of the Arab spring? What do the demonstrators want? What outcome can be expected? Should businesses respond to the Wall Street protests, and if so, how?

While some of the organizers see their movement as being connected to the uprisings in the Middle East, Occupy Wall Street is less an explosion of rage against an authoritarian and oppressive government than an expression of frustration that a democratic economic system isn't living up to its potential.

In that respect, Occupy Wall Street has a lot more in common with India's anti-corruption movement than with the Arab spring. A glance at what's happening in India shows both the potential power of Occupy Wall Street and its potential weaknesses. Such a comparison also reveals the need for businesses to address the issues raised by the Wall Street protesters before it's too late.

The anti-corruption sentiment had been smoldering for decades until it burst into flame with the jailing last August of Anna Hazare, widely regarded as a trustworthy, honest, and humble social activist. Despite longstanding complaints about bribery and cronyism, the vehemence of the subsequent demonstrations took government officials and others by surprise. In some respects, there are parallels with Occupy Wall Street: The U.S. movement draws its greatest media attention when protesters are arrested, and despite longstanding complaints about the financial industry's role in the recession and worldwide downturn, industry leaders were blindsided by the tenacity of the demonstrators in lower Manhattan.

But what has made the anti-corruption movement in India so effective is its organization — including a clear division of labor — and its focus. While Hazare was fasting in protest and grabbing headlines, other members of the movement's highly professional and experienced team answered media questions, coordinated demonstrations, methodically galvanized the support that spontaneously erupted across India, and drew attention to a specific piece of anti-corruption legislation known as the Lokpal bill.

In order to maintain focus and singularity of purpose, organizers barred politicians from speaking at the main protest site or joining the demonstrators. Several businesses in India realized that it was in their interest to support the anti-corruption movement and readily supported it.

Occupy Wall Street remains essentially leaderless — a point of pride for many demonstrators — and it's open to everyone, from students to unions to politicians. Perhaps as a consequence, the movement's message has remained diffuse. It's unclear whether the protesters would be able to leverage their support to further a specific goal. If the movement doesn't consolidate quickly, it risks becoming anarchistic, a term already used by some police in describing the demonstrations.

So if Occupy Wall Street is leaderless and unfocused, why isn't it going away? The persistence of the "occupations" is a signal that there is authentic, deep-seated unhappiness with the failings of the U.S. economic system. It's an indicator that economic inequality is perceived as an important issue — one requiring business's immediate attention.

The demonstrators are asserting that they are stakeholders in American business, and they're correct — they are stakeholders, as consumers, as employees, and as citizens affected by the financial system in general. Businesses would do well to accept that fact and engage with the protesters, rather than trying to demonize or dismiss them. Failure to engage now might eventually weaken business's position later: The Indian government tried to dismiss the anti-corruption movement, but public opinion was strongly in favor of it. Consequently, the government later found it difficult to negotiate the details of the legislation, because any proposed modifications were seen by the public as support for corruption.

Here are a couple of things corporate America can do: First, businesses need to address the protesters' key points — that a very low percentage of Americans possess a disproportionately large slice of wealth and that there's a high ratio of average CEO pay to average employee pay in the U.S., compared with other countries. This assertion that economic inequality is persistent and rising is on target, as both academics and unions have shown.

Businesses should look at whether existing models of compensation are contributing to this inequality. They need to find ways to reward performance without increasing pay disparities. Developing new models of compensation and governance is not easy and can only be possible through a long-term and sincere engagement with a wide set of stakeholders, such as regulators, academics, and representatives of workers.

Second, businesses should find ways of empathizing with protesters' frustrations on points of genuine concern. This empathy could be expressed by individual business leaders (as Laurence Fink of BlackRock did) or by the business as a whole (as Ben & Jerry's did). Companies like Google that have a history of contributing to social causes or billionaires with established records of giving such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are best positioned to lead the engagement from the side of business. That should not, however, be a reason for other business leaders and businesses to remain on the sidelines of the conversation started by the protesters. Any open and sincere engagement by businesses will show that the commercial world is not content being seen as part of the problem and is keen to be part of the solution. Even if businesses entirely disagree with the demonstrators' viewpoints, they need to approach the protesters as equals in public discourse. Business leaders' views will be better received if they are presented with humility.

Regardless of whether the protest movement sputters out or continues to acquire strength, the underlying economic inequality issues it points to are not likely to go away anytime soon. Businesses should therefore approach the events that are occurring in the streets outside their offices as a learning opportunity, with an eye on managing the growth of long-term anti-business sentiment in public discourse.

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_what_business.html

For all the accusations of ineffectiveness from conservative pundits, actual business people are already feeling the pressure and discussing ways to give the protesters what they want.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

You're wrong about Oakland though, it will radicalize OWS people further and push more members to more violent reactions.

You hope.

 

[eznark]

From the Harvard Business Review, of all places:

Occupy Wall Street: What Businesses Need to Know



http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_what_business.html

For all the accusations of ineffectiveness from conservative pundits, actual business people are already feeling the pressure and discussing ways to give the protesters what they want.

Neither of the authors is a business person

 

[Arde5643]

Oh please I missremembered something about Bruce Lee and corrected it within ten minutes.

You're wrong about Oakland though, it will radicalize OWS people further and push more members to more violent reactions.

If you mean more violent reactions from the machine and the right, then I agree since it seems something your ilk wants to do these OWS people.

 

[Door2Dawn]

Neither of the authors is a business person

Ok?

 

[eznark]

Ok?

So, the article he used to illustrate his point that "actual business people are discussing ways to give protesters what they want" doesn't in fact illustrate that point.

 

[Chuck (Old)]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGRXCgMdz9A

 

[empty vessel]

So, the article he used to illustrate his point that "actual business people are discussing ways to give protesters what they want" doesn't in fact illustrate that point.

Except that it is published by a business journal.

 

[Fusebox]

Neither of the authors is a business person

That's your rebuttal?

 

[MilesWebber]

Here's a Scott Olson analyzation with different footage spliced together. Very well done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I61_f6iS9j0

 

[eznark]

Except that it is published by a business journal.

No it's not, it's published on their blog. The HBR blog is, sadly, fairly non-selective (though this is an excellent and valuable entry).

That's your rebuttal?

Rebuttal to what? The professors make some great points, however claiming that they are business people to somehow bolster a point is simply untrue.

 

[Biff]

No it's not, it's published on their blog. The HBR blog is, sadly, fairly non-selective (though this is an excellent and valuable entry).


Rebuttal to what? The professors make some great points, however claiming that they are business people to somehow bolster a point is simply untrue.

Who are you?? Why are you trying to point out fallacies in the OWS movement??? ARE YOU THE 1%? YOU ARE. GET OUT OF HERE. LEAVE THE 99% ALONE HAVEN'T YOU TAKEN ENOUGH?!?!?

 

[kevm3]

Im glad that people are getting up and showing some form of protest, but is there any real objective to occupy wall street than just standing around? Is anyone having a round table to identify the problem and propose solutions?

 

[bill gonorrhea]

meh if old, but what a troll

Here's a Scott Olson analyzation with different footage spliced together. Very well done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I61_f6iS9j0

what a misleading video title. Like a police officer deliberately aimed for his head and shot him with a teargas canister....