Support NeoGAF

[Atrus]

Basically, you just did what people typically do when they simply can't acquiesce to a simple request. In this case, it was to outline clearly identifiable goals using an established metric for getting shit done.

"But the government! The corporations! The economic inequality! Don't actually look to the fact that I don't really have an action plan!"

OWS is nothing because the moment this tripe devolves into anarchism it will begin to oppose the vast majority of the people that you may have wanted to represent but have not taken to your movement.

For some of you, you believe or may want to believe you sit at some type of crossroads or turning point. I don't sense this. In fact, I sense weakness. You lack will, conviction, and more importantly clearly identified benchmarks for achievement. That is a recipe for failure and as the movement expanded outwards from wall street it will collapse back in on itself.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Yup. But I think their position is more nuanced than you think it is. The people who have organized the general assembly and came up with the concept of a "horizontal" power structure (leaderless, anti-authoritarian) are anarchists. But I think that term has been misrepresented in this thread. We typically think of anarchy in terms of the black bloc - chaos and violence. But in political terms, most anarchists use a different definition. According to wikipedia:
What this means is that people govern by consensus. It doesn't necessarily mean destroying the government (violence isn't an option) or even completely changing the electoral process. You'd have to ask an anarchist for a more in-depth explanation though.

I dunno, to me that sounds...well like a bad idea, like libertarians, on crystal meth.

What do you mean by "even completely chaining the electoral process"' what would they change? I mean this is the problem, you cant even explain the political underpinnings of the GA (and I don't mean that as an insult, but as a major example of the problems they have). I mean who the hell even picked the initial GA leaders?

The short answer is that oligarchy can only occur when corporate power and government are married. Divorcing the two powers and bringing both under the heel of the people, by regulating the former and reforming the later, is all that's needed to overthrow it.

Why not use the terms regulation and reform? You have to admit those are far less loaded terms than the others.

The other question is what happens if there is not enough support for legislative Reg and Ref, or that people genuinely do not want it?

 

[kame-sennin]

I dunno, to me that sounds...well like a bad idea, like libertarians, on crystal meth.

What do you mean by "even completely chaining the electoral process"' what would they change? I mean this is the problem, you cant even explain the political underpinnings of the GA (and I don't mean that as an insult, but as a major example of the problems they have). I mean who the hell even picked the initial GA leaders?

1) I'm not an anarchist, so I'm doing a disservice to the concept by trying to debate it with you.

2) There are no GA leaders. A bunch of people sit around and they make decisions by consensus.

3) The current political system can adopt elements of rule by consensus through the use of town halls. This only really works at the local level, but as I said, people aren't looking to overhaul the whole system.

Why not use the terms regulation and reform? You have to admit those are far less loaded terms than the others.

Eh, I was fired up when I wrote the post.

The other question is what happens if there is not enough support for legislative Reg and Ref, or that people genuinely do not want it?

Well, I'm pretty sure public opinion is in favor of it. As for legislative support, that's the point of having a movement like this. The people will tell the legislature what to do. And if they don't, they will not be allowed to remain in power. That's the other reason I used the word 'revolution'. Once the military and the police have abandoned the wealthy elite, their power disintegrates. That leaves them only the option of governing according to the will of the people or being nonviolently displaced.

 

[Mercury Fred]

Is anyone else getting more and more worried about the rights of corporations being violated? I don't mind citizens being roughed up by the cops or seeing them have their first amendment rights being trampled, but I'm truly horrified by corporations being asked to pay their fair share of taxes or to follow the rule of law. And my heart goes out to Wall Street execs especially this time of year-- even the suggestion that they not receive record breaking bonuses let alone asking them to be held accountable isnt just cruel, It's un-American

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

Is anyone else getting more and more worried about the rights of corporations being violated? I don't mind citizens being roughed up by the cops or seeing them have their first amendment rights being trampled, but I'm truly horrified by corporations being asked to pay their fair share of taxes or to follow the rule of law. And my heart goes out to Wall Street execs especially this time of year-- even the suggestion that they not receive record breaking bonuses let alone asking them to be held accountable isnt just cruel, It's un-American

Your sarcasm is tearing this country apart. Fair warning, I just reported this post to the NSA.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Is anyone else getting more and more worried about the rights of corporations being violated? I don't mind citizens being roughed up by the cops or seeing them have their first amendment rights being trampled, but I'm truly horrified by corporations being asked to pay their fair share of taxes or to follow the rule of law. And my heart goes out to Wall Street execs especially this time of year-- even the suggestion that they not receive record breaking bonuses let alone asking them to be held accountable isnt just cruel, It's un-American

Did you ever admit you were wrong about the OWS library?

Kame you deserve and will get a more detailed response tomorrow, I appreciate you answering them. Thanks

 

[Mercury Fred]

Your sarcasm is tearing this country apart. Fair warning, I just reported this post to the NSA.

I'm sorry, but anarchists like me obviously just want to overthrow the government. You should know that by now.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I'm sorry, but anarchists like me obviously just want to overthrow the government. You should know that by now.

 

[travisbickle]

Did you ever admit you were wrong about the OWS library?

There were over 6000 books in the "people's library", I wouldn't jump the gun about them all being there. I think they could have taken a wider angle shot to show there's more than 100 books.

 

[Mercury Fred]

There were over 6000 books in the "people's library", I wouldn't jump the gun about them all being there. I think they could have taken a wider angle shot to show there's more than 100 books.

Oh god, is Manos still going on about that? Lol

 

[MC Safety]

There were over 6000 books in the "people's library", I wouldn't jump the gun about them all being there. I think they could have taken a wider angle shot to show there's more than 100 books.

I think the authorities kept the Jacqueline Susann novels for themselves.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Oh god, is Manos still going on about that? Lol

Well it looks like someone doesn't wont to admit they were wrong when they said all the books were destroyed.

There were over 6000 books in the "people's library", I wouldn't jump the gun about them all being there. I think they could have taken a wider angle shot to show there's more than 100 books.

The point is Bennet claimed that all the books were destroyed. Clearly that wasn't the case.

I think the authorities kept the Jacqueline Susann novels for themselves.

I've always heard that the homicide division is a real sucker for Richard Bachman era King.

 

[Dude Abides]

Do you have any evidence to question the methodology of the survey or that the results were rigged or in any way undermines it. I'm not asking for you to try and prove a negative, but I'm asking for reasons, besides it was published in the WSJ, relating to issues about the survey.

What is the margin of error? The article doesn't say. I don't think you can poll a bunch of people one day at one particular protest and say it's representative of everyone involved in a month-long protest with branches in several cities. You'll notice he says it's a "systematic" poll, not a scientific one. It's also an opinion piece, not straight news. Straight news would of course mention the margin of error.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

What is the margin of error? The article doesn't say. I don't think you can poll a bunch of people one day at one particular protest and say it's representative of everyone involved in a month-long protest with branches in several cities. You'll notice he says it's a "systematic" poll, not a scientific one. It's also an opinion piece, not straight news. Straight news would of course mention the margin of error.

That doesn't invalidate all of what the data suggests though. Like I said its the only time that the question as asked. I'm bothered that no other polling, done by anyone, have sought to either refute or backup the claim. So for now it's the best, even if imperfect, to work with,

Besides NY is the core and it is OWS (and anyway each branch is autonomous) as say opposed to Philly. Occupy Philly is really only known for shitting all over Dilworth Plaza and screwing up the evening commute.

The point is there is some evidence to support the suggestion that a significant number of OWS supports endorse the use of violence, which is a disturbing proposition considering the recent escalations by some protestors.

 

[rohlfinator]

So is do you support OWS, but it's been asked and cited to by people.

Okay? Not really a comparable situation -- nobody is using "do you support OWS" to ascribe violent/illegal tendencies to a massive group of people in an attempt to discredit them.

For how long though and by how many?

Who knows? I guess we should all just assume that they're all about to snap and go postal because it suits your narrative, despite almost zero evidence to that effect besides a vague survey.

 

[Ripclawe]

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11...-children-try-to-go-to-school-on-wall-street/

OWS Protesters Chant ‘Follow Those Kids!’ As Small Children Try To Go To School On Wall Street
Tiny Tots, Some As Young As 4, Overwhelmed By Hostility, Crush Of Humanity

Good PR move..

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Okay? Not really a comparable situation -- nobody is using "do you support OWS" to ascribe violent/illegal tendencies to a massive group of people in an attempt to discredit them.

It's being used to claim popular support for them, so I guess it's only acceptable if it's a positive reflection of OWS in the data, correct?

Who knows? I guess we should all just assume that they're all about to snap and go postal because it suits your narrative, despite almost zero evidence to that effect besides a vague survey.[/QUOTE]
Except the glass stabbing attack today or the dousing of a vinegar based agent on officers and a truck being found that the NLG claimed only had blankets, but was full of locks and chains.

 

[kame-sennin]

That doesn't invalidate all of what the data suggests though. Like I said its the only time that the question as asked. I'm bothered that no other polling, done by anyone, have sought to either refute or backup the claim. So for now it's the best, even if imperfect, to work with,

Besides NY is the core and it is OWS (and anyway each branch is autonomous) as say opposed to Philly. Occupy Philly is really only known for shitting all over Dilworth Plaza and screwing up the evening commute.

The point is there is some evidence to support the suggestion that a significant number of OWS supports endorse the use of violence, which is a disturbing proposition considering the recent escalations by some protestors.

If anything, it's the police who have escalated the level of violence since Monday morning.

Except the glass stabbing attack today or the dousing of a vinegar based agent on officers and a truck being found that the NLG claimed only had blankets, but was full of locks and chains.

The officer wasn't stabbed. His hand was cut when he deflected a piece of glass thrown in his direction. That comes direct from Bloomberg and Kelly's press conference. The locks and chains were for chaining themselves to buildings, a non-violent act of civil disobedience.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

If anything, it's the police who have escalated the level of violence since Monday morning.

the police have been responding with exceptional care and restraint to the criminal activities and behavior of these protestors.

The officer wasn't stabbed. His hand was cut when he deflected a piece of glass thrown in his direction. That comes direct from Bloomberg and Kelly's press conference.

a piece of glass was thrown at him with the intention to cause gee ilia injury. The fact he deflected it meant it was aimed at his face or chest. Thats a pretty damn serious thing to do. You also forget the agents thrown at officers faces

The locks and chains were for chaining themselves to buildings, a non-violent act of civil disobedience.

a dramatic escalation in tactics and criminality, and there is no proof it would be used as a weapon on some trying to prevent a criminal act or removal there criminal trespass. It also shows an intention to commit economic guerilla warfare by denying access to of people to banks and their works, and even possibly holding them against their will by preventing exit from the building,

I should add the an action like that in the state of PA would be an extremely unadvisable idea for them to do.

 

[kame-sennin]

The 80-something year old woman who was pepper sprayed talks to Keith Olberman:

http://current.com/shows/countdown/...ayed-by-seattle-police-importance-of-activism

Really good video. This woman knows her shit, and the whole video really calls into question our use of pepper spray.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

The 80-something year old woman who was pepper sprayed talks to Keith Olberman:

http://current.com/shows/countdown/...ayed-by-seattle-police-importance-of-activism

Really good video. This woman knows her shit, and the whole video really calls into question our use of pepper spray.

Keith Olberman an got relegated to the Al Gore channel? Jeez I know he got a crappy dismissal from MSNBC, but I didn't realize he had it that bad. Poor guy.

 

[epmode]

If the idea here is to drown the thread by endlessly cataloging the bullshit minutia that surrounds EVERY PROTEST EVER, mission accomplished. This thread makes me want to put my head in an oven.

 

[CrocMother]

So does that mean the movement is really irrelevant?

Now you get it. It's not about the movement at all. Every single Occupy camp in the country can be torn down or driven out by the cold, it doesn't matter.

The movement is just a symptom of our sick system. Push down this movement and it is just going to pop up somewhere else in another form. Same thing with the Tea Party.

 

[Dude Abides]

That doesn't invalidate all of what the data suggests though. Like I said its the only time that the question as asked. I'm bothered that no other polling, done by anyone, have sought to either refute or backup the claim. So for now it's the best, even if imperfect, to work with,

Besides NY is the core and it is OWS (and anyway each branch is autonomous) as say opposed to Philly. Occupy Philly is really only known for shitting all over Dilworth Plaza and screwing up the evening commute.

The point is there is some evidence to support the suggestion that a significant number of OWS supports endorse the use of violence, which is a disturbing proposition considering the recent escalations by some protestors.

There is some evidence. Some extremely poor and unreliable evidence collected and presented by someone seeking to further a point of view about the subject of the evidence. Not evidence any serious person would put any stock in.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

There is some evidence. Some extremely poor and unreliable evidence collected and presented by someone seeking to further a point of view about the subject of the evidence. Not evidence any serious person would put any stock in.

But enough to warrant a better sampling to test the hypothesis, correct?

 

[Dude Abides]

But enough to warrant a better sampling to test the hypothesis, correct?

Sure. Go ahead and commission an actual poll.

 

[kame-sennin]

the police have been responding with exceptional care and restraint to the criminal activities and behavior of these protestors.

I disagree. A few weeks ago we saw video of police wading into crowds swinging their batons like swords. To me that seems like reckless aggressive behavior. Further, the police have a heavy burden of restraint because it is their job to serve the public. This is especially the case when people are expressing political speech.

a piece of glass was thrown at him with the intention to cause gee ilia injury. The fact he deflected it meant it was aimed at his face or chest. Thats a pretty damn serious thing to do. You also forget the agents thrown at officers faces

I didn't forget about the vinegar, I simply did not defend it. I didn't defend the glass throwing either, for the record. I merely noted that the glass was thrown rather than slashed or stabbed. The glass may have been thrown at the officer, but we have no way of knowing what the hurler's intent was or where he was aiming.

a dramatic escalation in tactics and criminality, and there is no proof it would be used as a weapon on some trying to prevent a criminal act or removal there criminal trespass. It also shows an intention to commit economic guerilla warfare by denying access to of people to banks and their works, and even possibly holding them against their will by preventing exit from the building,

I should add the an action like that in the state of PA would be an extremely unadvisable idea for them to do.

It's a valid act of civil disobedience. If the operation of an organization, like a bank on Wall Street, is detrimental to the well being of the American people, it is necessary for the people to 'throw their bodies upon the gears' and disrupt that organization.

 

[makingmusic476]

Did we ever find out just how many people were around the bridge? On the stream multiple people said the NYPD estimated around 36,000 people, but Yahoo is saying only several thousand were there.

I know the group the stream team were with was around 3-4k, then they met with other groups at Foley Square, where around 1k were already gathered, so I figured that was around 10k, with the rest of the numbers showing up after work or something. Then I read that Yahoo article.

 

[sangreal]

http://a.yfrog.com/img863/3982/dr7nd.jpg

But Twitter told me...

 

[Karma Kramer]

Looking at the actual actions of the OWS protestors so far, I don't understand why you would hypothesize almost a third of the protestors are violent people.

one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

As someone else mentioned, the whole concept of "would" is very broad. Manos you are a gun owner, would it be fair to assume you would use the gun to protect yourself from an uprising, civil war, invasion, zombies? Also related question: Would you support violence to advance your agenda, in the mist of war?

Do you understand how vague this survey is and how when you go around making broad generalizations that the protestors "like" violence, you are spreading baseless agenda focused information.

Unless you have a lot more evidence to support this poll, saying this:

It's a group of people who like committing trespass, acts of violence, and who can't even agree on any real issues or things to want.

just makes you look like a fool.

 

[sangreal]

There were over 6000 books in the "people's library", I wouldn't jump the gun about them all being there. I think they could have taken a wider angle shot to show there's more than 100 books.

Well, there may only be 100 books in that photo (25 or so boxes allegedly recovered, according to the library), but that is more evidence than I see for this 6000 books claim. In fact, the library themselves only claim to have 2,000-4,000 books and that is based solely on "we'll know it when we see it"

Also, this is what they mean by creased destroyed:

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

Looking at the actual actions of the OWS protestors so far, I don't understand why you would hypothesize almost a third of the protestors are violent people.

Violence against police officers, squatting, and criminal trespass seem to give good reason.

As someone else mentioned, the whole concept of "would" is very broad. Manos you are a gun owner, would it be fair to assume you would use the gun to protect yourself from an uprising, civil war, invasion, zombies?
Also related question: Would you support violence to advance your agenda, in the mist of war?

No, I'd use it in self defense, if need be. It wouldn't be to advance an agenda though.

Do you understand how vague this survey is and how when you go around making broad generalizations that the protestors "like" violence, you are spreading baseless agenda focused information.

Actions today seems to indicate they enjoy violence and give credence to the poll.

Unless you have a lot more evidence to support this poll, saying this:

just makes you look like a fool.

No defending the violence and criminality of the protestors is far more foolish. I understand why you need to hide the becoming more apparent violent tendencies of the OWS crowd, but it doesn't meant it's not true.

 

[kame-sennin]

"Occupy Oakland: Dan Siegel on why he resigned from his post as advisor to Oakland Mayor Jean Quan "

http://current.com/shows/countdown/...resigns-as-advisor-to-oakland-mayor-jean-quan

Violence against police officers, squatting, and criminal trespass seem to give good reason.

Actions today seems to indicate they enjoy violence and give credence to the poll.

That's a fraction of a percent of the protesters, too small a group to use to characterize the mood of the entire movement.

 

[sangreal]

That's a fraction of a percent of the protesters, too small a group to use to characterize the mood of the entire movement.

That's true, however the protesters as a whole gloss over this violence (and other acts) and either pretend it doesn't exist or claim it is perpetrated by unaffiliated "infiltrators"

 

[Karma Kramer]

That's true, however the protesters as a whole gloss over this violence (and other acts) and either pretend it doesn't exist or claim it is perpetrated by unaffiliated "infiltrators"

I'm pretty confident the goal is to remain non-violent. At least I haven't heard any reports about general assembly hearings calling for violence. They are trying to be peaceful but disruptive. That isn't supporting violence or glossy over it. Its pretty clearly denouncing that tactic.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

That's a fraction of a percent of the protesters, too small a group to use to characterize the mood of the entire movement.

You're are forgetting the destruction of the barriers by protestors, which was clearly violent behavior more in line with the criminal behavior after a win or loss in a sports title game.

 

[sangreal]

I'm pretty confident the goal is to remain non-violent. At least I haven't heard any reports about general assembly hearings calling for violence. They are trying to be peaceful but disruptive. That isn't supporting violence or glossy over it. Its pretty clearly denouncing that tactic.

I know, that's my point? I don't disagree that the overall goal is to remain non-violent. I'm trying to point out that supporters choose to pretend bad elements don't exist, or that they are conveniently not part of the group rather than denounce them. It's not just violence either. On any Occupy blog that posts a video of a police confrontation they claim that the protesters were just sitting around singing/chanting which is demonstrably false (not in every case, but many). Even when non-violent they were provoking the police (not arguing whether that justifies the police response).

 

[kame-sennin]

That's true, however the protesters as a whole gloss over this violence (and other acts) and either pretend it doesn't exist or claim it is perpetrated by unaffiliated "infiltrators"

I haven't heard any of the protesters deny that violence has taken place. Although they may have rightly pointed out that the overwhelming majority of violence has been perpetrated by the police against the protesters through the use of batons, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and tear gas.

As far as infiltrators go, we have no idea what is or isn't going on, and we won't get an official story for years, if not decades. But it has happened before.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I haven't heard any of the protesters deny that violence has taken place. Although they may have rightly pointed out that the overwhelming majority of violence has been perpetrated by the police against the protesters through the use of batons, pepper spray, rubber bullets, and tear gas.
.[/URL]

Except they were often responsible for it occurring due to their criminal behavior or trying to provoke the police.

 

[kame-sennin]

You're are forgetting the destruction of the barriers by protestors, which was clearly violent behavior more in line with the criminal behavior after a win or loss in a sports title game.

I don't think disassembling a portable fence can be viewed as an act of violence.

Except they were often responsible for it occurring due to their criminal behavior or trying to provoke the police.

The use of the word "except" isn't really appropriate. It doesn't modify my post in any real way. The police have perpetrated the majority of the violence. If the police react to a non-violent protest with violence, the blame lies with them.

 

[CrocMother]

stop feeding the troll.

What do you guys think about student debt forgiveness?

I know there was a student rally at Union Square today where they established it as their primary agenda.

Personally, I think it is unfair to people who paid for college out of pocket.

 

[kame-sennin]

stop feeding the troll.

What do you guys think about student debt forgiveness?

I know there was a student rally at Union Square today where they established it as their primary agenda.

Personally, I think it is unfair to people who paid for college out of pocket.

I don't think it's unfair for people who paid out of pocket. People are being abused by an unfair system. Ending that abuse is not in any way a punishment of those who were abused prior to a remedy being put in place.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I don't think disassembling a portable fence can be viewed as an act of violence.

Waving it around in the air is though.

The use of the word "except" isn't really appropriate. It doesn't modify my post in any real way. The police have perpetrated the majority of the violence. If the police react to a non-violent protest with violence, the blame lies with them.

Not when provoked by people wanting escalation or refusing lawful orders to move. The fault soley rests with the protestors. The NYPD has done a great job under the circumstances.

I don't think it's unfair for people who paid out of pocket. People are being abused by an unfair system. Ending that abuse is not in any way a punishment of those who were abused prior to a remedy being put in place.

Sounds like a lot of gimmie gimmie. People need to actually learn responsibility for their actions. No way will I ever want to pay taxes to forgive people's stupidity. Only type I support is the public service forgiveness.

 

[Chichikov]

stop feeding the troll.

What do you guys think about student debt forgiveness?

I know there was a student rally at Union Square today where they established it as their primary agenda.

Personally, I think it is unfair to people who paid for college out of pocket.

I think reducing consumer debt is going to have a very positive effect on our economy.
But across the board student debt forgiveness seems kinda broad to me, plus I'm not sure it's our number one priority at this point (and when I say I'm not sure I mean it, I have not studied that subject extensively).

And I don't worry all that much about fairness, an unfair measure that benefit the majority of the people is preferable to me than a fair one that hurt them, especially in an inherently unfair system like the on we're having.

(I'm trying to avoid a semantic discussion here, but if I was honest, I would've put quotes around "fair" in this post).

 

[CrocMother]

I don't think it's unfair for people who paid out of pocket. People are being abused by an unfair system. Ending that abuse is not in any way a punishment of those who were abused prior to a remedy being put in place.

People who have paid for college fully or (more likely) partially with cash will have spent a lot of money , while someone who didn't spend a dime will all of a sudden retroactively go to college for free.

That just isn't fair any way you spin it.

We have been telling families to be responsible and save money for college. How fucking frustrating would it be if you could have sent your kid to school for free if you had been irresponsible and had them take it all out in student loans?

If stimulating the economy is the main motivation, why don't we just give a fixed amount of money to ALL college graduates regardless of what they paid for college?

We would be teaching young people that if you get too deep into debt, the government will just bail you out. Isn't that hypocritical, given our feelings about the banks?

 

[kame-sennin]

Waving it around in the air is though.

Which takes us back to the beginning of this sub-discussion. That's a fraction of a percent of the protesters. I also think most of the people holding the barriers over their heads were simply carrying them and moving them out of the way. It's civil disobedience, which I know you don't agree with. But it's not violence.

Not when provoked by people wanting escalation or refusing lawful orders to move. The fault soley rests with the protestors.

Yea, this is just a fundamental disagreement we have on the nature of the police and what their role should be in society. The police are here to protect and serve. If their orders are being ignored, they do not have the right to use excessive force. Handcuffing people is one thing (an infringement on free speech) but assaulting them with batons and pepper spray is wholly inappropriate. Using violence to obtain compliance is not within the purview of "protect and serve". Your position seems to be that the authority of the police supersedes the will of the people when in fact, it is the will of the people that grant police their authority.

 

[kame-sennin]

People who have paid for college fully or (more likely) partially with cash will have spent a lot of money , while someone who didn't spend a dime will all of a sudden retroactively go to college for free.

That just isn't fair any way you spin it.

We have been telling families to be responsible and save money for college. How fucking frustrating would it be if you could have sent your kid to school for free if you had been irresponsible and had them take it all out in student loans?

My parents paid for my education out of pocket. They wouldn't be upset to see other people lifted out of debt and neither would I. You seem to be pushing the 'crabs in a bucket' mentality. We can't go back in time and tell my parents not to put me through college. What's done is done. But if we can lift others out of debt slavery, we should.

If stimulating the economy is the main motivation, why don't we just give a fixed amount of money to ALL college graduates regardless of what they paid for college?

We would be teaching young people that if you get too deep into debt, the government will just bail you out. Isn't that hypocritical, given our feelings about the banks?

I don't think that's the lesson young people would take from this. I think they would learn that oppressive systems can and should be challenged, and that the collective strength of the people can correct those unjust systems.

As far as the bailouts go, I'm not against them in principle. What I don't approve of is the deregulated climate that lead to the financial crisis, and the lack of meaningful regulation or prosecutions that took place after.

Sounds like a lot of gimmie gimmie. People need to actually learn responsibility for their actions. No way will I ever want to pay taxes to forgive people's stupidity. Only type I support is the public service forgiveness.

I don't think it's "gimme gimme". I think these are earned benefits that come from paying taxes and contributing to the economy (although that's not so easy to do these days).

 

[CrocMother]

I don't think that's the lesson young people would take from this. I think they would learn that oppressive systems can and should be challenged, and that the collective strength of the people can correct those unjust systems.

In your dreams. I routinely see people spending their student loan money on PS3s and Bonnaroo tickets.

Liberating people from student debt does no good if they are just going to get themselves into credit card debt (which many people get into even before they graduate college).

What do you think about removing the use of credit spending on moderate consumer goods?

What about stricter conditions on car loans?

These are the things we need in place so that the upcoming generation doesn't make the same mistakes as their parents. I mean, who have they learned from? If anything, from my observation my generation is even worse with money. (I am 22)

 

[PhoenixDark]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrNbAe7dOGA

I wonder how liberal sites/blogs/media would react if someone with the slightest Tea Party ties shot at the WH, and later a gathering of tea partiers (no matter how small) held a moment of silence for him.

 

[Karma Kramer]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrNbAe7dOGA

I wonder how liberal sites/blogs/media would react if someone with the slightest Tea Party ties shot at the WH, and later a gathering of tea partiers (no matter how small) held a moment of silence for him.

That guy honestly sounded drunk... he said have a moment for the white house and the guy who shot at the white house?

Not defending this, clearly anyone who supports such a crime is a terrible human being.