Support NeoGAF

[Zabka]

You can't eat at TGI Friday's if you don't believe in God

 

[LuchaShaq]

I actually will defend the driver.

If just one guy? I'd backup and try to move, or worst case get out and handle it physically 1 v 1.

With hundreds of other protesters around? Did you see what happened in Vancouver when people tried to defend their cars? They were beaten and had their cars set on fire. I'll take an injured/dead asshole than risk myself 1% in a 1 v 100 situation.

 

[JohnnyPhatsaqs]

Going to Occupy for about 3-4 hours tomorrow evening. I've occupied collectively for a couple hours total, but only in 20-30 minute spurts.

Then afterwards, to TGI Fridays nearby to get drunk and celebrate a job well done.

If anyone wants to meet up with my friend(s) and I, do not hesitate to PM me.

lolololololololololololollololololo

 

[balladofwindfishes]

anything on FOX doubling-down with ACORN? they really love those guys.

Wow, it's getting really sad. It's almost like an Onion article at this point

 

[Mortrialus]

Wow, it's getting really sad. It's almost like an Onion article at this point

Conservative media has been operating at Onion levels for a while now.

 

[Myansie]

An Occupy Boston protester/mother of 3 was caught selling Xanax to undercover cops.

It's too bad, as she seems like a real classy lady and a great representative of the cause.

Cleaning the streets of anti panic and anxiety drugs. These guys really need to take a step back and have a think. If people are taking drugs to chill out then they will be more passive and peaceful. Common sense, just let it go. The mentality is mind boggling.

If they start taking amphetamines or drinking alcohol you have a problem. If it weren't for the law the best thing you could do would be to hand out joints. The worst thing that's going to happen is people eating too much junk food and falling asleep.

 

[maharg]

I actually will defend the driver.

If just one guy? I'd backup and try to move, or worst case get out and handle it physically 1 v 1.

With hundreds of other protesters around? Did you see what happened in Vancouver when people tried to defend their cars? They were beaten and had their cars set on fire. I'll take an injured/dead asshole than risk myself 1% in a 1 v 100 situation.

You know what's got good odds of turning a mob of weaponless people against you? Gunning your engine and running one of them down.

 

[Chichikov]

It's bread queues and borscht for us.

Speak bad of borscht and I will cut you.
Unless it's Polish borscht.
Fuck that shit.

 

[aronnov reborn]

lolololololololololololollololololo

i'll have to admit... the going and wasting money at TGI Friday's made me chuckle as well.

 

[IrishNinja]

Wow, it's getting really sad. It's almost like an Onion article at this point

true, but is there an easy refutation of this, beyond that? drive-by dismissals are annoying.

 

[badcrumble]

If you think the dude who got run over deserved it or that what happened to him was funny you are literally a sociopath and should get therapy immediately.

 

[akira28]

Would this be the same movement that features swathes of the unbathed using iPads, iPhones and Macbook Pros at their media station? Way to stick it to the corporate man, hipsters!

Seems you don't get the point at all, chief. iPad didn't ruin the economy. Macbook Pro didn't slash the rules for WallStreet, didn't ask for it to be done, didn't have the media put a nice sparkle on everything either. These computers are their tools of liberation and if you don't understand that then shut the fuck up. Using a goddamn computer is not a disqualifier, and if you think it is, you're an idiot. Plain and simple.


edit: irony would be if he got drunk at TGIF first.

 

[badcrumble]

HMM IF HATE CAPITALISM SO MUCH

WHY DEPOSIT PAYCHECK

 

[Bloodbeard]

HMM IF HATE CAPITALISM SO MUCH

WHY DEPOSIT PAYCHECK

huh huh, good one!

 

[Deku]

Was the hit and run related to the riots in downtown Oakland?

I heard about the port being blockaded but only learned of riots when I watched the news tonight.

 

[cooljeanius]

Was the hit and run related to the riots in downtown Oakland?

I heard about the port being blockaded but only learned of riots when I watched the news tonight.

The riots and the port being blockaded were two completely separate events. The riots were instigated by the Black Bloc Anarchists and have been largely condemned by the Occupy Movement.

 

[sangreal]

Seems you don't get the point at all, chief. iPad didn't ruin the economy. Macbook Pro didn't slash the rules for WallStreet, didn't ask for it to be done, didn't have the media put a nice sparkle on everything either. These computers are their tools of liberation and if you don't understand that then shut the fuck up. Using a goddamn computer is not a disqualifier, and if you think it is, you're an idiot. Plain and simple.


edit: irony would be if he got drunk at TGIF first.

Apple hording $80B while the workers making their products earn pennies and kill themselves is certainly part of the problem. They could employ Americans instead and still earn a healthy profit. Nobody needs an iPad, it is a luxury good and those people chose to give Apple that money.

Also, pretty sure Spartacus did not buy weapons from Rome, even if he used Roman weapons.

edit: Also, wasting $500 on an iPad isn't likely to help you elevate yourself out of the "99%"

 

[Deku]

The riots and the port being blockaded were two completely separate events. The riots were instigated by the Black Bloc Anarchists and have been largely condemned by the Occupy Movement.

ok, so the hit and run was from the port blockade.

 

[empty vessel]

Apple hording $80B while the workers making their products earn pennies and kill themselves is certainly part of the problem. They could employ Americans instead and still earn a healthy profit. Nobody needs an iPad, it is a luxury good and those people chose to give Apple that money.

This isn't an anti-globalization protest. It's not about protesting corporations' exploitation of foreign labor. It's about corporate (and especially corporate financial) influence over the American government and inequitable distributions of the gains of the American economy. While many of us aren't happy about how foreign workers are treated, that isn't what's being complained about here. That's how right-wing these protests are! Remarkable, isn't it! So feel free to join.

 

[cooljeanius]

This isn't an anti-globalization protest.

Um OccupyDC marched on the IMF one day (ran into that one while walking back from class one day)

 

[empty vessel]

Um OccupyDC marched on the IMF one day (ran into that one while walking back from class one day)

I'm not sure what the relevance of that is. The movement is based on how the highest 1% of income earners have expropriated the income of the nation and perniciously influenced the government. It acts in solidarity with a lot of other movements.

 

[akira28]

Apple hording $80B while the workers making their products earn pennies and kill themselves is certainly part of the problem. They could employ Americans instead and still earn a healthy profit. Nobody needs an iPad, it is a luxury good and those people chose to give Apple that money.

Also, pretty sure Spartacus did not buy weapons from Rome, even if he used Roman weapons.

Hey d.a. what part of Apple isn't the enemy do you not understand? They could shore up their practices and be more pro-American in their hiring but those Chinese people were starving before so I'm not going to get on their case before I get on the case of predatory lenders and rule breakers on Wall Street and in finance. Those are the biggest dangers and they remain unchecked. This not some unfocused anti-Corporate rage party, no matter what you heard on TV. So get up to speed or take the crap elsewhere.

edit:
unchecked globalization run by these dickheads would be a national disaster, obviously. They'd sell American workers out for a Chinese meat pie. So we're going after the problems within the system. Globalized trade is not inherently wrong. Neither is corporatized business. It's when amoral assholes and sociopaths rise to the top and start cutting everyone else off at the knees, that's when you have a problem. And we have a problem.

 

[Deku]

I'm not sure what the relevance of that is. The movement is based on how the highest 1% of income earners have expropriated the income of the nation and perniciously influenced the government. It acts in solidarity with a lot of other movements.

What does IMF have to do with it?

You're safe here, it's not like admitting that maybe, parts of the movement want to freelance is going to sink your standing.

For someone as radical as you, you sure are eager to keep people on message and disavow the movement's anti-capitalist and anti-global constituency.

 

[empty vessel]

What does IMF have to do with it?

You're safe here, it's not like admitting that maybe, parts of the movement want to freelance is going to sink your standing.

For someone as radical as you, you sure are eager to keep people on message and disavow the movement's anti-capitalist and anti-global constituency.

The movement isn't radical. As a radical, that would be a critique of it that I have. But I'm only radical relative to current political circumstances. The reality is that I'm actually quite moderate, as I'm not at all militant about abolishing capitalism. I spend most of my time here, in fact, making suggestions for improving capitalism rather than overturning it.

 

[akira28]

Democracy has lots of issues. All these people are standing up and stating what they believe in, but the overarching message of the Occupy Wall Street movement has been one in reaction to the actions of etc etc etc you know what the hell this is about but I'm taking the time to go down the line.

Just because the different supporters around the country have also mentioned what they think are contributing factors to the problem, that doesn't displace the original intent. Nor is it out of the realm of possibility that some people would like to see this become another anti "concept" movement, to "take on" all "corporations", and bite off more than should be chewed in one mouthful. That won't happen here. Wall Street is the first target and the focus is corporate interference into politics.

Nothing says we have to stop there, but first things first.

 

[Deku]

The movement isn't radical. As a radical, that would be a critique of it that I have. But I'm only radical relative to current political circumstances. The reality is that I'm actually quite moderate, as I'm not at all militant about abolishing capitalism. I spend most of my time here, in fact, making suggestions for improving capitalism rather than overturning it.

I'm not saying the movement is radical, only that you, as a socialist, have actively wanted to define it as having nothing to do with the more radical anti-global elements that protested post Seattle '99

There's certainly a paradox at the core of your position of what the movement is. The movement have actively sought to escape co-option by being vague, yet, you're saying they're certainly not anti-global or anti-capitalist when most of us know there's quite a bit of overlap here.

I don't think it would be an issue to admit it on this forum, forcefully dismissing it out of hand, just seems odd to me and actually draws more attention to it.

 

[fortified_concept]

What does IMF have to do with it?

You're safe here, it's not like admitting that maybe, parts of the movement want to freelance is going to sink your standing.

For someone as radical as you, you sure are eager to keep people on message and disavow the movement's anti-capitalist and anti-global constituency.

IMF "promotes" corporatism in other nations through debt extortion. Like empty vessel said this was an act for solidarity.

And btw the word radical is relative. In Europe for example you're definitely the radical not others.

 

[Myansie]

Apple hording $80B while the workers making their products earn pennies and kill themselves is certainly part of the problem. They could employ Americans instead and still earn a healthy profit. Nobody needs an iPad, it is a luxury good and those people chose to give Apple that money.

Also, pretty sure Spartacus did not buy weapons from Rome, even if he used Roman weapons.

So the GFC was a blip? Inequality exaggerated? The melding of private enterprise and government not a problem? Massive bailouts to the people who can afford it, the banks, is ok? If these problems aren't solved than luxury items like iPads will be the things of dreams. In an equal society you can have your iPad. You can have a lot more than that. The line gets drawn when we start talking about the 6 Leer Jets Goldman & Sachs own. $100 million yachts, $100 million homes for a single family. Excess of the top 1% is on a whole other level.

Your piece of the pie is smaller than you deserve my friend.

 

[Deku]

So the GFC was a blip? Inequality exaggerated? The melding of private enterprise and government not a problem? Massive bailouts to the people who can afford it, the banks, is ok? If these problems aren't solved than luxury items like iPads will be the things of dreams. In an equal society you can have your iPad. You can have a lot more than that. The line gets drawn when we start talking about the 6 Leer Jets Goldman & Sachs own. $100 million yachts, $100 million homes for a single family. Excess of the top 1% is on a whole other level.

Your piece of the pie is smaller than you deserve my friend.

I don't think it's really as simple as that.

I don't want to go there, but I recall and can probably find the 2009 bailout thread when there was strong consensus that the bailouts needed to happen. I could be mistaken, but it may have been conservative-gaf who were opposed to it. But it was likely cast as a reactionary anti-Obama thing or whatever.

There would be a stronger and better argument to say, let us collectively bail everyone out and not just the banks. Rather than casting it as an either / or issue.

There's certainly going to be an appearance of being disingenuous as well, if you consider that you can safely rag on bank bailouts now that the economy has been saved and there is no imminent threat of financial Armageddon.

 

[bluemax]

Going to Occupy for about 3-4 hours tomorrow evening. I've occupied collectively for a couple hours total, but only in 20-30 minute spurts.

Then afterwards, to TGI Fridays nearby to get drunk and celebrate a job well done.

If anyone wants to meet up with my friend(s) and I, do not hesitate to PM me.

Nothing screams revolution like getting drunk at a tacky chain restaurant. Make sure you drink a Budweiswer.

 

[empty vessel]

Nothing screams revolution like getting drunk at a tacky chain restaurant. Make sure you drink a Budweiswer.

That might be truer than you think...

 

[Myansie]

I don't think it's really as simple as that.

I don't want to go there, but I recall and can probably find the 2009 bailout thread when there was strong consensus that the bailouts needed to happen. I could be mistaken, but it may have been conservative-gaf who were opposed to it. But it was likely cast as a reactionary anti-Obama thing or whatever.

There would be a stronger and better argument to say, let us collectively bail everyone out and not just the banks. Rather than casting it as an either / or issue.

There's certainly going to be an appearance of being disingenuous as well, if you consider that you can safely rag on bank bailouts now that the economy has been saved and there is no imminent threat of financial Armageddon.

The problem I have with the bailouts is they were designed to save one group, the rich. The people in the banks made billions, whilst millions lost their homes. Irresponsible home mortgagees, perhaps, but I think it would be a much better outcome if they'd been placed before the banks.

It's not like the alternative hadn't already been proven to work by Sweden. From the Wiki...

During 1991 and 1992, a housing bubble in Sweden deflated, resulting in a severe credit crunch and widespread bank insolvency. The causes were similar to those of the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007-2008. In response, the government took the following actions:[1]

The government announced the state would guarantee all bank deposits and creditors of the nation’s 114 banks.
Sweden's government assumed bad bank debts, but banks had to write down losses and issue an ownership interest (common stock) to the government. Shareholders at the remaining large banks were diluted by private recapitalizations (meaning that they sold equity to new investors). Bondholders at all banks were protected.
Nordbanken and Götabanken were granted financial support and nationalized at a cost of 64 billion kronor.[2] The firms' bad debts were transferred to the asset-management companies Securum and Retriva which sold off the assets, mainly real estate, that the banks held as collateral for these debts.
When distressed assets were later sold, the proceeds flowed to the state, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the nationalized banks in public offerings.
Sweden formed the Bank Support Authority[3] to supervise institutions that needed recapitalization.

This bailout initially cost about 4% of Sweden's GDP, later lowered to between 0-2% of GDP depending on various assumptions due to the value of stock later sold when the nationalized banks were privatized.

The economists Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman have proposed the Swedish experiment as a model for what should be done to solve the economic crisis currently affecting the United States.[4] Swedish leaders who played a role in devising the Swedish solution and have spoken about the implications for other countries include Urban Bäckström and Bo Lundgren.

 

[XMonkey]

I would have bailed out the banks, then attached some heavy strings to that money and probably nationalized them temporarily so I could break them up. "Too big to fail" turned into "Make them even bigger", which is complete horseshit.

 

[remnant]

If you're going to call someone a liar you need to back it up. It's so rude to call someone that especially when they've actually provided a reference. You've been pulled up for making false claims before in this thread and by a mod no less. So I'm not prepared to take your word for it.

Okay before I debunk the bullshit Karma stated and "referenced", wtf at this shit? When have i ever not defended what i have said in this thread? Most of this thread is a bunch of jackasses freezeframing youtube clips trying to figure out how much of an asshole a certain cop or "occupier" is or repeating mantra, anecdotes and catchphrases with barely any "precious references" to back up any of the crap they say, and then freak out when they are called on their bullshit. im not even going to touch the graphs...

A combination of police crackdowns and bad weather are testing the young Occupy movement. But rumors of its demise are premature, to say the least. Although numbers are hard to come by, anecdotal evidence suggests the movement is growing.

As importantly, the movement has already changed the public debate in America.

Uhh bullshit. before OWS anything the white house was trying to push a surtax on millionaires in the country. The argument for it being word for word the same argument OWS are using today. The wealthy don't pay taxes, their fair share, they run everything, blah blah blah

Consider, for example, last week’s Congressional Budget Office report on widening disparities of income in America. It was hardly news – it’s already well known that the top 1 percent now gets 20 percent of the nation’s income, up from 9 percent in the late 1970s.

But it’s the first time such news made the front page of the nation’s major newspapers.

What? Income inequality has been "news" for years. Nobels have been won researching it. How they hell can anyone say no one talked about it.

Why? Because for the first time in more than half a century, a broad cross-section of the American public is talking about the concentration of income, wealth and political power at the top.

Even more startling is the change in public opinion. Not since the 1930s has a majority of Americans called for redistribution of income or wealth. But according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, an astounding 66 percent of Americans said the nation’s wealth should be more evenly distributed.

Not since the 1930's? So the war on poverty was what, teatime in the lillies?

Income inequality has been the driving force for every single welfare, anti-poverty policy taken in America since the Lyndon B Johnson's Great Society. Our tax code has practically excused half the country from federal taxes in the name of fighting poverty.To say it income inequality and poverty haven't been discussed in America since FDR is a fucking lie. A bold faced lie that can be argued with a highschool textbook

Fact, income inequality has been discussed in this country all the fucking time. It may not be "front page" news whatever the fuck that means but to say that now the situation has changed is also a lie. Look at the gini coefficient,

if you track the income through the census, individual income inequality has barely changed in the past 20 years. So why has inequality rose on a larger scale? Because income inequality is calculated in a bullshit way.

Income is calculated on an individual level, (obviously since companies employ one person, not the whole family) however inequality, as it is being pitched now is calculated by family and household. By assortive mating, the rich marry the rich and poor marry the poor, increasing the gap in wealth of a family. Take that into account with more high skilled, higher paying jobs jobs eliminating lower skilled, lower paying jobs, less trade barriers, more technology eliminating lower paying jobs, more single parent/ divorced homes with drastically lessened income and more free flowing labor markets growing, no shit this happens.

Oh and look at that list. Families being broken, trade barriers, technology replacing jobs, lower skilled jobs leaving the country, less unions, more freedom to exercise independent labor. Looks like a list of issues that haven been big policy points for every presidential and midterm election in recent history. Yup we never talk about these things in America. Never, never ever ever.

 

[akira28]

Part of the problem is that the "discussion" has all been about the promotion of less unions and the promotion of sending manufacturing jobs overseas, and the promotion of much of what caused the problem. Yes people have had income inequality on the docket, particularly since the 1980s when Reagan took power, its certainly been a major topic of discussion. Tax cuts for the rich would help the poor, and other cockamamie scams the Republicans foisted upon the trusting public with the help of the handfed media. It was all they could talk about. It got passed, it went through, and here we are today. The people are a bit more wary now.

The differences now are who's doing the talking, and what's being said about what they plan to do about it.

To you it's all magic and social Darwinism, but these people aren't buying that.

 

[kurtrussell]

The 1% actually got there by going to school and studying and stuff, yanno, things that I didn't actually do in my 20s because I was mostly high.

Seems a shame that these people don't invest all that energy into trying to elevate themselves into the 1%, rather than trying to drag everyone down to their levels of mediocrity.

Who knows? If enough people actually worked at life rather than crying in tents, the 1% may become a ....gasp.... 2%!

 

[XMonkey]

Don't feed him, folks.

 

[Sh1ner]

The 1% actually got there by going to school and studying and stuff, yanno, things that I didn't actually do in my 20s because I was mostly high.

Seems a shame that these people don't invest all that energy into trying to elevate themselves into the 1%, rather than trying to drag everyone down to their levels of mediocrity.

Who knows? If enough people actually worked at life rather than crying in tents, the 1% may become a ....gasp.... 2%!

My cousin goes to the second best school in the UK, it looks like a harry potter castle. She is an A* student, and studies constantly, pretty much a genius. The rest of her class and her year are rich kids who have millionaire parents who pay for the kids multiple tutors, servants, etc. The stories she tells me are unbelievable such as they consider her to be poor even though she is middle class. One of the kids doesn't like touching or washing her hair because she has somebody to wash and sort it for her.

Also I am hoping your being sarcastic.

 

[state-of-the-art]

The 1% actually got there by going to school and studying and stuff, yanno, things that I didn't actually do in my 20s because I was mostly high.

Seems a shame that these people don't invest all that energy into trying to elevate themselves into the 1%, rather than trying to drag everyone down to their levels of mediocrity.

Who knows? If enough people actually worked at life rather than crying in tents, the 1% may become a ....gasp.... 2%!

Don't stop now. We need you to apply your plain, common sense solutions to the rest of society's ills.

 

[Myansie]

Ok then, sorry to bring you into this Maharg.

On Wiki it says Canada just deregulated their Natural Gas Industry, hardly the banking sector.

"On wiki" really? Canada has one of the freest banking systems in the world. "The candaian five"

Toronto Dominion Bank
Royal Bank of Canada
Bank of Nova Scotia
Bank of Montreal
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

are bigger banks, more globalized banks than any American counterpart, and banks in Canada have the freedom to acquire other banks, depositors, insurance and mortgage companies just like the Wild Wild West of the United States

Say what? The Canadian banking system is heavily regulated. They may have freedom to acquire foreign banking institutions, but at home they play at the government's leisure. They also aren't regular corporations, but are chartered separately and thus ultimately under the government's thumb. They also have ownership requirements (must be widely owned and mostly owned by Canadians) that would tend to prevent a lot of takeover activity that you might see in a fully deregulated industry.

Remnant your post is #4856 if you want to go back and reference it. It took me 10 minutes to find it, so yeah, stop being a douche and calling people liars.

 

[kurtrussell]

Don't feed him, folks.

Wha? No, I'm not trolling. Stating what I genuinely believe.

I didn't put much effort into my life until my late 20s, and I believe I've attained the position I earned. I'm not going to get all butthurt because there are people in this life much better off than me - they made sacrifices and didn't get to do most of the fun stuff I spent ten years doing.

Also, whilst I acknowledge that banking staff have profited off the Global Financial Crisis I think there are many factors in play, and I think a lot of issues could have been solved by governments not borrowing more money than they had. People should be just as pissed off at the government as the "1%".

In fact, if all these people genuinely want to make the world a better place, why don't they start a little closer to home and go visit the little old lady on their street who is probably about to die of hypothermia in the cold snap. There's an entirely productive use of their energy. But they won't, because it's not trendy, cool and a big "happening" to tell their grandchildren they were a part of.

 

[Slavik81]

I would have bailed out the banks, then attached some heavy strings to that money and probably nationalized them temporarily so I could break them up. "Too big to fail" turned into "Make them even bigger", which is complete horseshit.

Systemically important banks and other financial institutions are going to have different regulations on them than others. The regulations will be more stringent, as they would be harder to break up. In addition to trying to make failure less likely, part of the goal is to force the firms to pay for their implicit government backing. Or, even, to discourage firms from growing to be systemically important (so they can avoid those costs).

 

[XMonkey]

Wha? No, I'm not trolling. Stating what I genuinely believe.

You're terribly naive then.

You also don't seem to understand what these protests are about. They aren't about people simply whining they're not in the 1%, and they're not about people wanting jobs given to them for nothing. A large amount of people protesting did get college degrees. If you're going to make broad generalizations, at least put some effort into understanding what this movement is about.

 

[kurtrussell]

You're terribly naive then.

You also don't seem to understand what these protests are about. They aren't about people simply whining they're not in the 1%, and they're not about people wanting jobs given to them for nothing. A large amount of people protesting did get college degrees. If you're going to make broad generalizations, at least put some effort into understanding what this movement is about.

So you don't think I made a valid point that there are more worthwhile short term things to help other people that these people could be doing? Why do you think that they choose not to do these things?

 

[Dead Man]

Might have been posted already, but I thought this was a pretty good opinion piece:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111191022862285.html

There's one question that pundits and politicians keep posing to the Occupy gatherings around the country: What are your demands?

I have a suggestion for a response: We demand that you stop demanding a list of demands.

The demand for demands is an attempt to shoehorn the Occupy gatherings into conventional politics, to force the energy of these gatherings into a form that people in power recognise, so that they can roll out strategies to divert, co-opt, buy off, or - if those tactics fail - squash any challenge to business as usual.

Rather than listing demands, we critics of concentrated wealth and power in the US can dig in and deepen our analysis of the systems that produce that unjust distribution of wealth and power. This is a time for action, but there also is a need for analysis.

Rallying around a common concern about economic injustice is a beginning; understanding the structures and institutions of illegitimate authority is the next step.

We need to recognise that the crises we face are not simply the result of greedy corporate executives or corrupt politicians, but rather of failed systems. The problem is not the specific people who control most of the wealth of the country, or those in government who serve them, but the systems that create those roles.

Most chart the beginning of the external US empire-building phase with the 1898 Spanish-American War and the conquest of the Philippines that continued for some years after. That project went forward in the early 20th century, most notably in Central America, where regular US military incursions made countries safe for investment. If we could get rid of the current gang of thieves and thugs but left the systems in place, we will find that the new boss is going to be the same as the old boss.

My contribution to this process of sharpening analysis comes in lists of three, with lots of alliteration. Whether or not you find my analysis of the key questions compelling, at least it will be easy to remember: Empire, economics, ecology.

Empire: Immoral, illegal, ineffective

The United States is the current (though fading) imperial power in the world, and empires are bad things. We have to let go of self-indulgent notions of American exceptionalism - the idea that the US is a unique engine of freedom and democracy in the world and therefore is a responsible and benevolent empire. Empires throughout history have used coercion and violence to acquire a disproportionate share of the world's resources, and the US empire is no different.

Much more at the link.

 

[daycru]

The 1% actually got there by going to school and studying and stuff, yanno, things that I didn't actually do in my 20s because I was mostly high.

Seems a shame that these people don't invest all that energy into trying to elevate themselves into the 1%, rather than trying to drag everyone down to their levels of mediocrity.

Who knows? If enough people actually worked at life rather than crying in tents, the 1% may become a ....gasp.... 2%!

Good Lord. No one is saying that some guy working at the deli at the grocery store should be a millionaire. But it'd be cool if my buddy wasn't a mid 20's corpse because some hedge fund manager's money lasting through fifty generations is more important than its citizens being able to see a doctor. This is the world superpower, right? But yeah, something something choices, something something bad decisions.

 

[Slavik81]

My cousin goes to the second best school in the UK, it looks like a harry potter castle. She is an A* student, and studies constantly, pretty much a genius. The rest of her class and her year are rich kids who have millionaire parents who pay for the kids multiple tutors, servants, etc. The stories she tells me are unbelievable such as they consider her to be poor even though she is middle class. One of the kids doesn't like touching or washing her hair because she has somebody to wash and sort it for her.

Also I am hoping your being sarcastic.

As someone who went to school with a lot of millionaires, that sounds pretty fantastical. Of the people I knew, a lot of them were the sons or daughters of oil industry executives, doctors, engineers, and other well-paid professionals. They hired nannies because both parents worked long hours, and probably had a bi-weekly maid service help with cleaning, or other such stuff. And, yeah, they could afford a tutor if needed. So, they had a leg up in the world... But I never met anyone like you describe. Everyone was pretty down-to-earth.

If I had to guess, your stories are about people several orders of magnitude richer, having travelled internationally to go to school there. People who are big fish even in the big pond.

 

[kurtrussell]

Rather than listing demands, we critics of concentrated wealth and power in the US can dig in and deepen our analysis of the systems that produce that unjust distribution of wealth and power.

Or: "We haven't really decided what we want yet, other than to sit around in tents for a few months and get on TV."

Empires throughout history have used coercion and violence to acquire a disproportionate share of the world's resources, and the US empire is no different.

Oh, come on! The white middle class protesters are in the fortunate position they are exactly for this reason! In fact, they and their families are one of the main beneficiaries of the US economic growth over the last 200 years.

Regardless of what they say, this process isn't about equality of the "failed system". How do I know this? Because where are the genuinely deprived and needy? Are they protesting? Nope, they are exactly the same place they were before the protests started: Living in rundown trailers, on the streets and below the breadline. This protest is about a group of entitled middle-class oiks who spent all their social security money on weed, hemp beer, iPhone apps and Che Guevara t-shirts and are pissed off that without getting a job, they have no means of laying their hands on any more money.

Le sigh!

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

Or: "We haven't really decided what we want yet, other than to sit around in tents for a few months and get on TV."



Oh, come on! The white middle class protesters are in the fortunate position they are exactly for this reason! In fact, they and their families are one of the main beneficiaries of the US economic growth over the last 200 years.

Regardless of what they say, this process isn't about equality of the "failed system". How do I know this? Because where are the genuinely deprived and needy? Are they protesting? Nope, they are exactly the same place they were before the protests started: Living in rundown trailers, on the streets and below the breadline. This protest is about a group of entitled middle-class oiks who spent all their social security money on weed, hemp beer, iPhone apps and Che Guevara t-shirts and are pissed off that without getting a job, they have no means of laying their hands on any more money.

Le sigh!

Well, if you're out to prove that you didn't spend your twenties getting an education or bettering yourself, as previously stated, you're doing a pretty good job with all these posts. There's also something about the way you've chosen to generalize the people participating in the occupy movement that has the faint ring of self loathing to it.

 

[remnant]

Ok then, sorry to bring you into this Maharg.








Remnant your post is #4856 if you want to go back and reference it. It took me 10 minutes to find it, so yeah, stop being a douche and calling people liars.

oh wow fuck me for having a life and not spending all my time refreshing this thread. I forgot about that argument that happened what 2 weeks ago? maybe if i was camping outside Bank of America i would have remembered, but alas i have more important things to do.

Yes Canada is under "charter" and they have obligations that American banks don't have. That said they can still do pretty much everything American banks can do and more, all while insured by the Canadian tax payer. i really don't see how this is important at all. Because they have some state ownership the Canadian bank is highly regulated? How is that any different from America? Banks in the U.S. also operate under the "leisure" of the United States government.