Occupy Wall Street - Page 168

On November 18 2011 07:51 Ungrateful wrote:



You do realize you sound laughable right now...the whole nation is laughing at you. If you dont like capitalism gtfo. There are many socialistic countries that fit what you are looking for. (BTW they are all bankrupt)

On November 18 2011 07:45 Expurgate wrote:


Just like how all those Negroes back in the '60s lost my respect by blocking upstanding White Folk's access to their Woolworth's lunch counter.

...Perspective?

On November 18 2011 07:47 AttackZerg wrote:
Making sure that Wall st and National banks die is my prerogative. If you support their system its your problem that we are killing something you have allegiance too.

On November 18 2011 07:56 FryktSkyene wrote:
Do they bang those drums all night long? Because it's really annoying to listen to it on a stream nad I have the volume on low so I can only imagine being there it must be so loud.

On November 18 2011 07:59 Pertinacious wrote:You are the one who needs perspective. This is not altruism. Protesters can crow all they like that they are "doing this for us," but I do not see it.

BTW, I would not patronize an establishment that refused to serve certain individuals based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. However, I fully support the right for any man or woman to deny service to whomever they wish, so long as their business is private and not subsidized by taxpayer dollars.

That is a non sequitur. I've seen many individuals attempt to drape this movement in the colors of racial equality or woman's suffrage, but that is a farce. What is the "equality" being sought by preventing me from conducting business at my bank? Preventing me from driving down a public street?

On November 18 2011 07:45 Expurgate wrote:


Just like how all those Negroes back in the '60s lost my respect by blocking upstanding White Folk's access to their Woolworth's lunch counter.

...Perspective?

On November 18 2011 07:45 Expurgate wrote:


Just like how all those Negroes back in the '60s lost my respect by blocking upstanding White Folk's access to their Woolworth's lunch counter.

...Perspective?

On November 18 2011 08:03 semantics wrote:

Well there is a small issue with ows their message isn't strong enough well condensed enough people who don't pay attention much just pay attention to their actions. Which thankfully have been kept by the overall as non violent. Personally there are many things i look for out of ows and that's probably the issue we want so much change that we aren't getting as much attention, although ows did change the discourse to talking about the issues they aren't dominating the talking points instead the same old politicians are. Just off the top of my head the things i think are good is, rework how the fed works, we need centralized banking but we need it to be owned by the public and controlled by the government, bernanke handing out tarp money without demanding any reform in return was proof of that conflict on interest of the banks owning the fed. We need political finance reform personally i'm in favor of a voucher system. Those who help cased the finical crisis need to held accountable and do jail time, if you ever followed the fight that Eliot Spitzer waged against them you know how fucked up the current system works and how clear the criminal activity that has been committed over the years in wall street, where clear conflicts of interest had them doing shit with peoples money becuase they can collect on fees. We need the will to invest in education, infrastructure and science which we have been de investing for a long time. Look at California before prop 13 California was i think 3rd in the nation on k-12 education now California is what 48th and the regents in the UC system want to privatize the cost of a public school. CEO compensation needs to be fitting labor laws need to be buffed, at the top i think it was 507x avg worker pay now it's around 350 currently, why are they payed so much? Well the people who sit on boards about compensation are the same people who get hired as ceo's, conflict of interest in saying that you need to pay alot for the best people, when in 40 years we doubled profits yet the avg worker has not seen those profits when adjusted for inflation so apparently managers did all the work? What are the workers deficient is this relationship the same as a husband that beats his wife and the wife blames herself because she feels that she isn't good enough, clearly that's fucked up logic and a lie. Well the point is there are so many wrongs to right and it needs to start somewhere, although a leader can help this i don't think ows needs one just a small group with the will to push say 3 issues to the top.

On November 18 2011 08:03 Expurgate wrote:


Right, you don't see it because you believe the current system is fair and reasonable. Just like the white folks who didn't hate black people, but thought segregation was acceptable.



See: income inequality.

On November 18 2011 08:05 Parnage wrote:


Did you really just try to make a comparison between the civil rights movement a struggle about equal rights between black americans and white americans to occupy wallstreet? A movement that so far has been full of people who have been violent, publicly defacing and destroying other peoples property all the while having undertones of both antisemitizam and communism over the matters that some corrupt people haven't been arrested(I am being kind here, that's what the smart ones are saying) so they are protesting the banks and the market itself instead of I don't know..the Department of Justice all while making comments that they have no money(yet can stream it from iphones and laptops) because they cant' pay mortgages and loans that they agreed to pay but for some reason don't feel they should because they think people who worked hard and made money should pay for them or just give them stuff.

That's not only an insult to any rational persons intelligence but completely degrading to the people who did march in the streets over -real- issues of inequality. How can I take this seriously? I've tried to, because I do believe that we have problems with cronyism of government and private companies but the fact that instead of demanding trials and investigations as one should this entire movement seems to be about just outright playing mob justice and saying take everything they own and kill the bank is disturbing.

But you know what the real irony is? More then likely we agree on many of the same problems, cronyism, mortgages and loans being given out to people who have no way to pay them, lack of jobs, hardships of higher education. But the methods, the methods being used here will only push the voice to the fringe and further make talk of these issues the ground of perceived(in some cases rightly so) radicals.

On November 18 2011 08:07 Pertinacious wrote:
Segregation was created and enforced by the government, not by private businesses.

What about income inequality?

On November 18 2011 08:07 Pertinacious wrote:


I do not think that the current system is fair and reasonable. I also do not support the actions recently undertaken by the Occupy movement. Segregation was created and enforced by the government, not by private businesses.

What about income inequality?

On November 18 2011 08:07 Pertinacious wrote:


I do not think that the current system is fair and reasonable. I also do not support the actions recently undertaken by the Occupy movement. Segregation was created and enforced by the government, not by private businesses.

What about income inequality?

On November 18 2011 08:11 Expurgate wrote:


Segregation was enforced by private businesses as well. Even a cursory knowledge of the civil rights movement would have confirmed that for you.

On November 18 2011 08:11 Expurgate wrote:
Reducing income inequality, as one of the primary demands of OWS, means that unless you are very, very wealthy, their demands include increased economic equality and opportunity for you.

Fighting the monetization of politics, as another primary demand, means that unless you are spending your business' dollars on buying legislation favorable to you, protesters are fighting for your right to political speech, as defined in the U.S. Constitution.

EDIT: fixed typo.

On November 18 2011 08:15 AttackZerg wrote:


Dramatic action is much better than your internet criticism. Occupy is the result of the fact that courage is contagious and now that a group with teeth is waging open war against our communal demons you just talk and fail to go out, and make the occupation work for you. That is the idea, anybody can show up, write proposals, and sway the direction of the group if consensus is agreed. If you don't like how or what we are doing, than COME OUT TO A GENERAL ASSEMBLY and provide your plan.

(Each General Assembly has slightly differing procedures, make sure to go to your local occupy website to find them out ahead of time so your time can be spent constructively!)

On November 18 2011 08:18 Pertinacious wrote:


I've already stated that I have no problem with private businesses denying services to whomever they wish.

I suppose that I should have specified that I meant segregation by force of law. That is the type of segregation at stake in a number of significant court cases, such as Brown v. Board of Education.

On November 18 2011 08:15 AttackZerg wrote:


Dramatic action is much better than your internet criticism. Occupy is the result of the fact that courage is contagious and now that a group with teeth is waging open war against our communal demons you just talk and fail to go out, and make the occupation work for you. That is the idea, anybody can show up, write proposals, and sway the direction of the group if consensus is agreed. If you don't like how or what we are doing, than COME OUT TO A GENERAL ASSEMBLY and provide your plan.

(Each General Assembly has slightly differing procedures, make sure to go to your local occupy website to find them out ahead of time so your time can be spent constructively!)

On November 18 2011 08:21 ZestyPickle wrote:


Please tell me what you do with your life outside of sitting on a street? Im curious how much you actually know about "our communal demons"

On November 18 2011 08:17 Talin wrote:


Really? And here I thought segregation was the direct consequence of this particular form of private entrepreneurship called slavery. Private businesses also neither challenged nor opposed segregation as far as I'm aware.