"OCCUPY WALL STREET"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hey how's the protest going? Cure corporatist greed yet?

400247133.jpg


Shock and awe!
 
The biggest problem with protests like these is that the large majority of protesters have absolutely no idea what they're talking about and most of their ideas are completely reactionary rather than having any rational or logistical basis (See: Tea Party). Maybe this one will be different though.
 
So much corporate sympathy in all matters here at GAF.

"What's wrong, little Billy?"

"*sniff* I... I'm afraid... all my favorite companies are going to make less profit this fiscal year due to tax refoooorm spurred by those hippiiiieeesss :( :( :("

"Well Billy, they do have the right to gather"

"But they're standing for a.. *sniff* a cause! Why don't they just go back to playing cornhole!!"
 
Well that sucks. I was hoping for a better turn out. :(

Maybe someone will try to break a window with one of their hemp flip flops. :|
 
That photo's taken about a 10-minute walk away from Wall St, btw. Unless they're renaming this to "Occupy Battery Park" there are probably more crowds located further uptown.
 
Utako said:
That photo's taken about a 10-minute walk away from Wall St, btw. Unless they're renaming this to "Occupy Battery Park" there are probably more crowds located further uptown.

Doubtful, they'd want to get their message around the Bull, the Street itself isn't quite as recognizable.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Sure....more like it makes it easier to fortify positions to maximize disruption on Monday.
Dude, give it up. Your not making any valid points, just crapping on these people.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Their aim is to "squat" and deny access to people in the area to the jobs.

That's still not squatting, unless you also think homeless people or the students at K-Ville are squatters.
 
pompidu said:
Dude, give it up. Your not making any valid points, just crapping on these people.

Actually I just made a very valid point, so nice try.

SolKane said:
That's still not squatting, unless you also think homeless people or the students at K-Ville are squatters.
Homeless people actually moved when they are asked too...and generally smell better.
 
Tamanon said:
Doubtful, they'd want to get their message around the Bull, the Street itself isn't quite as recognizable.
Federal Hall isn't recognizable?

In any case, most New Yorkers haven't even woken up yet. You don't even start to get serious about going out until 9PM.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Actually I just made a very valid point, so nice try.


Homeless people actually moved when they are asked too...and generally smell better.
They are not squatting and most businesses are closed today. Still waiting for your valid points. Il wait.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Sure....more like it makes it easier to fortify positions to maximize disruption on Monday.

LoL. I hope you're kidding... This protest is a joke. Nobody's going to be fortifying anything.
 
pompidu said:
They are not squatting and most businesses are closed today. Still waiting for your valid points. Il wait.
They waiting for Monday (since they want to "Occupy Wall Street") They know that otherwise NY Commuters will push and step over their asses if they try to setup on Monday.

Dude Abides said:
LoL. I hope you're kidding... This protest is a joke. Nobody's going to be fortifying anything.
I'm saying that's their thinking, not that they'll pull it off or have any real numbers.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
They waiting for Monday (since they want to "Occupy Wall Street") They know that otherwise NY Commuters will push and step over their asses if they try to setup on Monday.
There peacefully protesting. 100% legal. If it becomes disruptive they will be asked to move. Absolutely nothing wrong here. Still don't see why you have a problem.
 
pompidu said:
There peacefully protesting. 100% legal. If it becomes disruptive they will be asked to move. Absolutely nothing wrong here. Still don't see why you have a problem.
If they state there goal is to "Occupy Wall Street" it suggests strongly encouraging illegal activities. It didn't say "Protest"
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
If they state there goal is to "Occupy Wall Street" it suggests strongly encouraging illegal activities. It didn't say "Protest"

They actually stated their goal is to have the President create a commission that will separate money from politics. The "occupation" in other words is a protest designed to bring about that goal. I haven't seen anything that explicitly states they will prevent people from getting to work other than possibly inconveniencing commuters (which is what any protest in a public place inevitably does).
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
If they state there goal is to "Occupy Wall Street" it suggests strongly encouraging illegal activities. It didn't say "Protest"
I see no illegal activities happening or read anything illegal about what's happening during this protest. You are wrong. Show me proof and a source that shows illegal activity happening. If not were done here.
 
pompidu said:
I see no illegal activities happening or read anything illegal about what's happening during this protest. You are wrong. Show me proof and a source that shows illegal activity happening. If not were done here.

I have provided evidence, you just choice to ignore it. So you are right we are done here.

bill gonorrhea said:
more police than protesters? Sad.. pathetic actually
Guys they couldn't manage to get up before noon today. lol
 
I don't know want I think about this, but more people should read "A Brief History of Neoliberalism" by David Harvey. Interesting stuff, and I'm not saying to be taken in completely by Harvey's ideas, but they're interesting to contemplate. You can see some of the stuff he's talking about happening in this thread.
 
pompidu said:
Serious stuff. People against protesting just boggles my mind.
I'm not against protesting, I just don't support ignorance fueled, Tea Party-like protests. Like I said, maybe this one is different but I doubt it since I've seen protests on Wall Street before when I used to live there (for undergrad, I'm not an evil banker. As previously mentioned most bankers do not live anywhere close to Wall St.).

I agree that the financial policies of this country are in need of a major tweaking. However, despite still living in Manhattan, I will not attend this protest because I realize I do not have a strong enough background in the subject to argue for what I think should be done. And I have work to do.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
I have provided evidence, you just choice to ignore it. So you are right we are done here.


Guys they couldn't manage to get up before noon today. lol
Yep zero evidence, just ignorant opnions on what you think will happen on Monday. Done arguing with someone who spits out opnions as truth. Peace out.
 
SuperBonk said:
I'm not against protesting, I just don't support ignorance fueled, Tea Party-like protests. Like I said, maybe this one is different but I doubt it since I've seen protests on Wall Street before when I used to live there (for undergrad, I'm not an evil banker. As previously mentioned most bankers do not live anywhere close to Wall St.).

I agree that the financial policies of this country are in need of a major tweaking. However, despite still living in Manhattan, I will not attend this protest because I realize I do not have a strong enough background in the subject to argue for what I think should be done. And I have work to do.
Well said. Agreeing or disagreeing with these people are fine. Doing research about the topic does help in being educated on why their protesting. People are screaming illegal shennigans about what could happen on Monday, they are some fairy tale soothsayers
 
pompidu said:
Well said. Agreeing or disagreeing with these people are fine. Doing research about the topic does help in being educated on why their protesting. People are screaming illegal shennigans about what could happen on Monday, they are some fairy tale soothsayers
Coming from a person whose supplied no evidence, that's kind of rich.


pompidu said:
I don't have to. I'm not the one shouting illegal activities. You are.
Nice, I'm not saying disprove a negative, I'm saying evidence to support your viewpoint that the squatters aren't intending to promote illegal activities.
 
Chichikov said:
About time.

I don't get the people rooting for it to fail, unless they work for Wall Street.
This. The thing is peaceful protest is doomed to failure. So is violent protest. Burning cars or whatever is a minor inconvenience to the mega-rich.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Coming from a person whose supplied no evidence, that's kind of rich.



Nice, I'm not saying disprove a negative, I'm saying evidence to support your viewpoint that the squatters aren't intending to promote illegal activities.
There's 8 people there. I see no guns, gas, knives or anything that would promote violent illegal activities. I can't see the future and nor can you. Your assuming shit is gonna get real there. You can't. You are making shit up about what you think might happen. And that is why you are wrong. Unless you want to restate your position with a more proper and intellectual view than ill listen otherwise I'm going to continue to browse gaf.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
They waiting for Monday (since they want to "Occupy Wall Street") They know that otherwise NY Commuters will push and step over their asses if they try to setup on Monday.


I'm saying that's their thinking, not that they'll pull it off or have any real numbers.

I doubt their thinking is all that focused, united, or militant. You seem to be taking hyperbolic sloganeering at face value to a degree that is rather humorous.
 
pompidu said:
There's 8 people there. I see no guns, gas, knives or anything that would promote violent illegal activities. I can't see the future and nor can you. Your assuming shit is gonna get real there. You can't. You are making shit up about what you think might happen. And that is why you are wrong. Unless you want to restate your position with a more proper and intellectual view than ill listen otherwise I'm going to continue to browse gaf.

I thought you said your weren't responding anymore?

I guess since they couldn't get that numbers they wanted (common sense prevailing is always nice) than this will be a nothing.

Dude Abides said:
I doubt their thinking is all that focused, united, or militant. You seem to be taking hyperbolic sloganeering at face value to a degree that is rather humorous.

Better safe than sorry, also seems to be the NYPDs approach too. I'll admit based on what appears to be no real support or numbers, that yes, this looks like it's going to be nothing, but you never know when a situation can quickly change.
 
pompidu said:
There's 8 people there. I see no guns, gas, knives or anything that would promote violent illegal activities. I can't see the future and nor can you. Your assuming shit is gonna get real there. You can't. You are making shit up about what you think might happen. And that is why you are wrong. Unless you want to restate your position with a more proper and intellectual view than ill listen otherwise I'm going to continue to browse gaf.

You don't have to be violent to be illegal.
 
Morn said:
You don't have to be violent to be illegal.
I agree, meant to put an "or" in there. On my phone so typing is a pain. Just gets me riled up when people make stuff about what's legal and what's not. And then pretend to see the future. Eerks me.
 
Not that I simpatise with them, but this thread shows with stunning clarity why America won't get real change anytime soon.

If ony feudal masters had known how to keep their serfs this loyal.
 
Serious question. If you went up to any random person in that crowd would they have specific example of a statute, regulation, or practice that needs to change, and could could they say what it should be changed to?
 
brucewaynegretzky said:
Serious question. If you went up to any random person in that crowd would they have specific example of a statute, regulation, or practice that needs to change, and could could they say what it should be changed to?

I bet there are probably four, maybe five people who could do that.
 
brucewaynegretzky said:
Serious question. If you went up to any random person in that crowd would they have specific example of a statute, regulation, or practice that needs to change, and could could they say what it should be changed to?
I wouldn't be surprised if they did, although whether their stance is well thought out or even accurate at all is anyone's guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom