EPTthere's been incredible coverage of this event by TYT Network.
Occupy Wall Street - Page 70
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Keldrath
United States449 Posts
there's been incredible coverage of this event by TYT Network. | ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
I don't see how this movement can achieve anything. They are going to reform the election laws so a third political party is possible and then start one? First thing I would do is get Obama to step down. As long as he is in power there is no hope. Maybe you can impeach him for assassinating Americans to get rid of him that way. If either one of the parties is going to field someone that shares the position of the protesters, it's the democrats. But with Obama, maybe the most pro Wall Street president in US history, how is this going to make any progress? Really, if I was an American I would be forced to vote for a Rick Perry vs Obama. The tea party is in fact a big ally, no matter how deluded they are. In the end the ideal situation would be that both the democrat and republican party get outlawed. They aren't going to do this themselves and a lot of force will be used before the people can force this to happen. Americans need to face the reality that in a revolution you pay with lives. And considering the size of the US, it is going to be a lot of lives lost before any progress can be made. And it is going to happen sooner or later. The US is already among third world counties in many statistics. The longer this goes on, the further the US will descent into chaos. And civil unrest has long been a guarantee. It really surprises me it took so long for a movement like OWS to emerge. I don't see any good way out right now. Right now there are still many confused, pro status quo and indifferent people. But when this goes mainstream, which will happen at some point, I don't see how the elite will cave in. I don't see how the republicans or the democrats can reform or appease the mainstream then. The US is a very violent country. And when too much damage to society has been done when the revolution starts and there is a full revolution, it will take a really long time before things will improve. Back in the '20 in the US the society narrowly evaded collapse when the elite realized how much to the edge they had pushed society. I don't at all get the idea that something similar will happen today. I don't think they realize how explosive a situation they could potentially create. Hopefully I am wrong. In fact it seems that few people among this so called 99 realize it as well. You can say all day long that the US is no Egypt. But in some statistics it is worse than Egypt. If you look at the statistics and how they develop it is really scary. The US is not a magical country. When stats reach a certain level, you will get social unrest, revolution or civil war no matter with what name you label the country. | ||
|
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
On October 13 2011 03:25 XerrolAvengerII wrote: If people ask what the actual difference between the teaparty and the OWS movements are? teaparty wants to blame the government for the economic situation, (i.e. governments fault because of wasteful spending, and national debt... and govt made economic crisis WORSE because they implemented the bailout) meanwhile, the OWS want to blame the actual banks and large corporations: (since they were the ones selling subprime mortgages as "safe" investment securities, then using the stock market and investment sector to bet AGAINST their own assets to gain money... Not to mention, the newly evolved PART 2 of OWS is that lobbies tend to have HUGE political influence...) Teaparty says: blame government OWS says: blame banking criminals take your pick... its that simple... the extra radicalism doesn't matter / has no impact... I don't really know what the tea party focused on, they seemed to be a big movement of people that are tired of big government and banking system. I can tell you that the OWS doesn't have a clear message, and the message shouldn't just be on the bankers. In 1977 the Community Reinvestment Act was introduced as a means to encourage banks to help meet the needs of all borrowers. In 1995 as part of the regulatory reform the banks were forced to give home loans to people that they considered high risk loans. Because of the risk factor in these loans the banks increased the interest rates and used a "balloon" paymenet method to afford these high risk loans. It is primarily because of the "Everybody deserves a house" mentality that increased the governments power and led to the housing bubble that popped in 2008. I say blame government and repremand the bankers. The 2008/2009 bailout were needed to keep our currency afloat, but the implementation was horrible. I think that the bailouts of the car companies was unwarranted and they would have been left to reform if it wasn't for the unions. One of the side effects of filing chapter 11 is to release all affiliations that the company has and that would essentially remove the legacy tax that these companies were dying for. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 13 2011 09:31 Cytokinesis wrote: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10 Interesting read, gives insight to those who really don't understand 'what' the OWS is doing. those bank behavior charts really speak volumes about the limitations of a pure rational agency model. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On October 13 2011 10:54 Doppelganger wrote: Voting does not help if all the representatives get bought. Especially in that two party system it won't work. You can't buy Jimmy McMillan. On top of that, he's a karate expert, so attempts at physical coercion will also be useless. | ||
|
Traeon
Austria366 Posts
On October 13 2011 09:31 Cytokinesis wrote: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10 Interesting read, gives insight to those who really don't understand 'what' the OWS is doing. Incredible link, thanks. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On October 13 2011 11:44 Suisen wrote: If the Americans want a revolution they need to rout the cops and burn down Wall Street. And even that's no guarantee for success. Look at Egypt. They defeated the cops in pitch battle, then the thugs, burned down the NDP building and looted internal security offices. But now they have to face down the military and they can't because it's too strong because of the US support. I don't see how this movement can achieve anything. They are going to reform the election laws so a third political party is possible and then start one? First thing I would do is get Obama to step down. As long as he is in power there is no hope. Maybe you can impeach him for assassinating Americans to get rid of him that way. If either one of the parties is going to field someone that shares the position of the protesters, it's the democrats. But with Obama, maybe the most pro Wall Street president in US history, how is this going to make any progress? Really, if I was an American I would be forced to vote for a Rick Perry vs Obama. The tea party is in fact a big ally, no matter how deluded they are. In the end the ideal situation would be that both the democrat and republican party get outlawed. They aren't going to do this themselves and a lot of force will be used before the people can force this to happen. Americans need to face the reality that in a revolution you pay with lives. And considering the size of the US, it is going to be a lot of lives lost before any progress can be made. And it is going to happen sooner or later. The US is already among third world counties in many statistics. The longer this goes on, the further the US will descent into chaos. And civil unrest has long been a guarantee. It really surprises me it took so long for a movement like OWS to emerge. I don't see any good way out right now. Right now there are still many confused, pro status quo and indifferent people. But when this goes mainstream, which will happen at some point, I don't see how the elite will cave in. I don't see how the republicans or the democrats can reform or appease the mainstream then. The US is a very violent country. And when too much damage to society has been done when the revolution starts and there is a full revolution, it will take a really long time before things will improve. Back in the '20 in the US the society narrowly evaded collapse when the elite realized how much to the edge they had pushed society. I don't at all get the idea that something similar will happen today. I don't think they realize how explosive a situation they could potentially create. Hopefully I am wrong. In fact it seems that few people among this so called 99 realize it as well. You can say all day long that the US is no Egypt. But in some statistics it is worse than Egypt. If you look at the statistics and how they develop it is really scary. The US is not a magical country. When stats reach a certain level, you will get social unrest, revolution or civil war no matter with what name you label the country. Mass murder, outlawing political groups. Who knows why people haven't bought into your plan yet, it's really a mystery. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On October 13 2011 18:32 zalz wrote: Mass murder, outlawing political groups. Who knows why people haven't bought into your plan yet, it's really a mystery. I imagine it will be more of a spontaneous but inevitable consequence than a plan set in motion. I'm not sure about all the specifics in his post obviously, but in general it sounds about right to me. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On October 13 2011 18:35 Talin wrote: I imagine it will be more of a spontaneous but inevitable consequence than a plan set in motion. I'm not sure about all the specifics in his post obviously, but in general it sounds about right to me. America being a 3rd world country? Mass murder? Outlawing political groups? Any of that sounds "about right" to you? He is simply one of very many people who get off on the prospect of violently "getting even" for what they feel the world has denied them. They blame bankers, politicians, whoever they feel is in charge. When it's between people like him and bankers ill gladly side with the bankers. Atleast they don't want to kill the protesters and outlaw political groups. Nothing he said is even remotely right nor should it sound remotely appealing. He essentially painted a picture where all these protesters suddenly decide to decapitate a million+ people and install a totalitarian government that will decide what political groups are permitted and wich one are not. Is that realistic? No. Is that desireable? No. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On October 13 2011 18:42 zalz wrote: Nothing he said is even remotely right nor should it sound remotely appealing. He essentially painted a picture where all these protesters suddenly decide to decapitate a million+ people and install a totalitarian government that will decide what political groups are permitted and wich one are not. I don't understand your objection here. I didn't say it was appealing. On October 13 2011 18:42 zalz wrote: Is that realistic? No. I would say that history disagrees with you. Critical mass of people not happy --> everything burns. Obviously the question is how many people are unhappy and to what extent - but at whatever point we are now, I don't see it improving within the limits of the current system. So at this point it seems more like a matter of time than anything. It's amusing how people think that just because they live in the relative comfort of a western country in the last 40 or 50 years that they are above and beyond the fundamental rules of society and that when things go bad the consequences won't be the same. | ||
|
jacosajh
2919 Posts
People are going to argue down the nitty gritty details -- this caused this and that caused that -- and get nowhere. I'm not going to do that. I'm working on my 2nd post-graduate economics/finance degree, so I like to think I have a good understanding of how things work. My point is just that... It's ironic (since I'm trying to qualify myself by saying I should have a good understanding of how things work), but it still amazes me that the American people don't see how their own individual choices affected the grand scheme of things. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On October 13 2011 18:51 Talin wrote: I don't understand your objection here. I didn't say it was appealing. I would say that history disagrees with you. Critical mass of people not happy --> everything burns. Obviously the question is how many people are unhappy and to what extent - but at whatever point we are now, I don't see it improving within the limits of the current system. So at this point it seems more like a matter of time than anything. It's amusing how people think that just because they live in the relative comfort of a western country in the last 40 or 50 years that they are above and beyond the fundamental rules of society and that when things go bad the consequences won't be the same. You could say that history disagrees with me but you need a pretty flawed understanding of history to make such a statement. Suddenly it's criticall mass, this protest isn't nearly that. What? Last civil war started because we couldn't decide wether we could or could not own human beings as cattle and the 2nd one is gonna start over a 10% unemployment? You all want to be in the middle of history so bad that every little protest is made out to be the start of some world wide uprising. It's like christians that want to live in the end times and think every earthquake is a sign. Greater protests have ammounted to nothing (Tiananmen square) and greater protests have changed the world (March on Washington for jobs and freedom). Nobody ever said that western society is immune to having a 90% unemployment rate. Rather the point has always been that your reading of this protest is ridiculously overestimated. To suggest in any way that this is going to lead to a bloody revolution or that there is even any desire in America for such an act is ludicrous. There is a democracy and a free press. Change can happen in America without having to decapitate anybody just because they made more money then you did. If you dislike how they did it get the rules changed, to instantly demand their blood while they just played by the broken rules is telling of a sick mind. Now don't take the cheap way out by pretending that America is not a democracy. There are allready to many TL people that think lizard men rule the world. | ||
|
Saji
Netherlands262 Posts
On October 13 2011 12:04 Signet wrote: You can't buy Jimmy McMillan. On top of that, he's a karate expert, so attempts at physical coercion will also be useless. Word! | ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
On October 13 2011 18:32 zalz wrote: Mass murder, outlawing political groups. Who knows why people haven't bought into your plan yet, it's really a mystery. Ignoring people dying in a revolution being called 'mass murder', it all happened in Egypt. It all happens in other revolutions. Freedom isn't won without bloodshed. The freedoms we have in the west right now were paid for with blood by our forefathers. Governments and elites don't give out civil liberties for free. The ruling class is already ridiculing this movement. You really think Obama is going to be "Ok ok, I got it all wrong. Tell me what to do and I will carry it out. And yes now I will also magically get it through congress."? If this movement dies out another one will emerge when the country is even worse off. What is you alternative scenario? The military is going to step in with a coup? Both parties magically disappear tomorrow? The natural state of humans is chaos. Western civilization and a peaceful society are the exception. Their existence needs an explanation. When people take to the streets in large numbers mob mentality can easily take over. If you look at the statistics enough people for a revolution are seriously hurting right now. And it looks like it will only get worse. The US doesn't have a functioning democracy or a functioning press. There has been a huge gap between government policy and public opinion in the US for a long time. And all the major media are corporate owned and serve corporate interests. There is free speech, but that is not enough. I think Bolivia is more democratic than the US. The US presidential elections must be one of the most broken in the world. You vote for two candidates that are both rich older male members of the governing elite and that have basically the same views on all major issues and that will serve the private sector no matter what. And the one who wins is determined about how marketable a candidate is and how much money there is to market. Real politics never ever enter the picture. In In fact, candidates have a billion dollars to spend to deliberately try and make sure that the voters don't even know the positions of the candidates on certain issues. It's better to only market an image. That way the voter can just project his or her own views on the candidate. Bush and the Kyoto protocol was a good example. People thought Kyoto was a good idea. People thought Bush was a nice guy. Nice guys have good ideas. So they all assumed Bush was in favour of Kyoto. They couldn't conceive of that Bush would be against such a sensible plan. This is true against the board. And even if you elected a president that wants to carry out the will of the common people, the unelected bureaucrats make this near impossible. The president is as much a slave of the system as everyone else is. Obama can't even carry out the minor promises he made. He just doesn't have the power to do so. Presidents can only start to do good things when they are out of office. Look at Carter, Clinton and both the Bushes. Also, you are an immoral person for dishonestly projecting on me what I warn against and then attacking me personally. Shameful person. | ||
|
HappyChris
1534 Posts
I dont live in US but I do follow US politics alot. And I never could understand how you could make you country better if all you politicians is bought by lobbyist and 3rd party´s. Thats not a democracy. If the little guy down on the street dont get heard. Its really corrupt to the core and im very happy that the good working class of the american people has started to wake up. Get rid of the parties get money out of politics. Democracts and republicans have all been bought by mega corporations. You actually got a great statesman atm running for the republican party. his name is Buddy Roemer and is a former guvernor and congressman but he dont get heard becuase he refuse to take money from wallstreet so they trying to shut him up. He is not alowed in the debates etc. This is a truly great statesman and he needs you support | ||
|
hummingbird23
Norway359 Posts
| ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
Well worth the read. Especially if you disagree with the protests, don't know where they are coming from or don't know what they want. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
Ignoring people dying in a revolution being called 'mass murder', it all happened in Egypt. It all happens in other revolutions. Freedom isn't won without bloodshed. The freedoms we have in the west right now were paid for with blood by our forefathers. Governments and elites don't give out civil liberties for free. Freedom has allready been won in the west. Violent revolution has it's place against violent dictators that will not leave in any other way. The west can change without violence, that's the whole point. Government has given out plenty of freedom. Nobody had to get killed for segretation to get fixed. That was democracy in action. Don't pretend to demand freedom when you allready voiced your desire to see political parties that you don't agree with banned. You also have no respect for the democratic process considering time and time again you preach a love for violence to alter what takes too long for your whims. Whatever it is you think you believe in, it is neither democratic nor pro-freedom. The ruling class is already ridiculing this movement. You really think Obama is going to be "Ok ok, I got it all wrong. Tell me what to do and I will carry it out. And yes now I will also magically get it through congress."? Ridiculing this movement? There are plenty of people who laugh at this protest, there are plenty of people who laugh at the tea party, there are plenty of people that laugh at communists and plenty of people that laugh at nazi's. People laugh at people they disagree with. What is your point? Everyone ridicules the other side. But because "the ruling class" does this they need to be murdered? If this movement dies out another one will emerge when the country is even worse off. Speculation. What is you alternative scenario? The military is going to step in with a coup? Both parties magically disappear tomorrow? I won't pretend to be a prophet like you but the more realistic scenario is that the current administration will continue to do what it believes is the proper approach to this economic crisis. Maybe it will work maybe it won't. America itself will probably recover over the course of about 5 years or so. Then it will likely be business as usual. The natural state of humans is chaos. Western civilization and a peaceful society are the exception. Their existence needs an explanation. When people take to the streets in large numbers mob mentality can easily take over. If you look at the statistics enough people for a revolution are seriously hurting right now. And it looks like it will only get worse. The natural state of humans is chaos. This is one of those 1-liners that sounds great when you throw it out to your friends who nod and don't question but let's actually take a look at that false statement. Well that's odd, with the exception of Somalia the entire world is under structured human government. Huh, who knew for a race who is supposedly chaotic. Keep those 1-liners for your friends, they serve no purpose against people that question their hollow logic. As for the statistics, no 10% unemployment is no valid reason to go and mass murder a bunch of politicians and destroy the democratic process by banning political parties. The US doesn't have a functioning democracy or a functioning press. There has been a huge gap between government policy and public opinion in the US for a long time. And all the major media are corporate owned and serve corporate interests. There is free speech, but that is not enough. The US does have a functioning democracy and a functioning free press. Democracy requires input from the people, you can get things changed but you need to put some work in. Most people just prefer to pretend there is no democracy because somehow the government didn't read their mind and did exactly as they wanted. You could go gather signatures and get things changed on a local scale or gather a vast ammount and change things on a national scale by demonstrating there is a desire for a certain change, a voter base that can be won by giving in to those demands. But that requires work. How much work does it require to feel like an intellectual by pretending there is no democracy? I recon a whole lot less. As for free press, corporate owned press and them being slaves to corporations...well it's getting tiresome but again, you make a ridiculous point. Ofcourse all media is run by a corporation. How do you want to run multi billion dollar operations? You want to put up a sign sheet on times square and everyone can write their name in for when they want to use the studio and maybe everyone chip in a dollar in the dollar jar? But ofcourse when all the mass media stations where destroying BP for the oil leak they were serving their corporate masters. I think Bolivia is more democratic than the US. The US presidential elections must be one of the most broken in the world. You vote for two candidates that are both rich older male members of the governing elite and that have basically the same views on all major issues and that will serve the private sector no matter what. And the one who wins is determined about how marketable a candidate is and how much money there is to market. Real politics never ever enter the picture. In In fact, candidates have a billion dollars to spend to deliberately try and make sure that the voters don't even know the positions of the candidates on certain issues. It's better to only market an image. That way the voter can just project his or her own views on the candidate. Bush and the Kyoto protocol was a good example. People thought Kyoto was a good idea. People thought Bush was a nice guy. Nice guys have good ideas. So they all assumed Bush was in favour of Kyoto. They couldn't conceive of that Bush would be against such a sensible plan. This is true against the board. It takes a while to climb up the political ladder. What a suprise the candidates are old before they are in a position to be president. If you ever start a carreer you might realise that before you reach the top you are going to be a lot of years older. After that you drift from one thing to the other trying to hit a million subjcts at once, not really coherent at any point. And even if you elected a president that wants to carry out the will of the common people, the unelected bureaucrats make this near impossible. The president is as much a slave of the system as everyone else is. Obama can't even carry out the minor promises he made. He just doesn't have the power to do so. Presidents can only start to do good things when they are out of office. Look at Carter, Clinton and both the Bushes. Yeah that's kind of the case since the US president is not a supreme totalitarian dictator that swaps seats every 4 years. The president can't change everything he wants because that's not how the system was ever designed. To instill such power in the president would be to make the entire state elections pointless. Politics is a give and take. That's how it's always been. Feel free to suggest improvements but let me spoiler you by telling you that mass murder of politicians and banning 2 political parties is not infact a solution. Also, you are an immoral person for dishonestly projecting on me what I warn against and then attacking me personally. Shameful person. Bad move, you shouldn't be trying to invoke morality into this discussion, that's not a discussion you want to have considering you are preaching murder. If you preach murder as you do you should avoid ever mentioning morality. | ||
|
DrainX
Sweden3187 Posts
The Morning Plum By Greg Sargent * Americans favor Occupy Wall Street far more than Tea Party: Despite nonstop GOP and conservative disparagement of the Wall Street protests, the most detailed polling yet on Occupy Wall Street suggests that the public holds a broadly favorable view of the movement — and, crucially, the positions it holds. Time released a new poll this morning finding that 54 percent view the Wall Street protests favorably, versus only 23 percent who think the opposite. Interestingly, only 23 percent say they don’t have an opinion, suggesting the protests have succeeded in punching through to the mainstream. Also: The most populist positions espoused by Occupy Wall Street — that the gap between rich and poor has grown too large; that taxes should be raised on the rich; that execs responsible for the meltdown should be prosecuted — all have strong support. Meanwhile, the poll found that only 27 percent have a favorable view of the Tea Party. My handy Plum Line calculator tells me that this amounts to half the number of those who view Occupy Wall Street favorably. In fairness, the Tea Party has been in existence since before the 2010 elections, and even has had a seat at the governing table during the debt ceiling and government shutdown debacles, which clearly took their toll on the Tea Party’s image. Occupy Wall Street is just getting started. But it does seem clear that a confluence of events — the protests, Obama’s jobs push, Elizabeth Warren’s Senate candidacy, and the national backlash from the right all these things have provoked — are pushing populist issues such as fair taxation and income inequality to the forefront of the national conversation. It turns out we don’t live in Tea Party Nation, after all. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/the-morning-plum/2011/10/13/gIQAULRHhL_blog.html | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On October 13 2011 21:30 Suisen wrote: Ignoring people dying in a revolution being called 'mass murder', it all happened in Egypt. It all happens in other revolutions. Freedom isn't won without bloodshed. The freedoms we have in the west right now were paid for with blood by our forefathers. Governments and elites don't give out civil liberties for free. The ruling class is already ridiculing this movement. You really think Obama is going to be "Ok ok, I got it all wrong. Tell me what to do and I will carry it out. And yes now I will also magically get it through congress."? If this movement dies out another one will emerge when the country is even worse off. What is you alternative scenario? The military is going to step in with a coup? Both parties magically disappear tomorrow? The natural state of humans is chaos. Western civilization and a peaceful society are the exception. Their existence needs an explanation. When people take to the streets in large numbers mob mentality can easily take over. If you look at the statistics enough people for a revolution are seriously hurting right now. And it looks like it will only get worse. The US doesn't have a functioning democracy or a functioning press. There has been a huge gap between government policy and public opinion in the US for a long time. And all the major media are corporate owned and serve corporate interests. There is free speech, but that is not enough. I think Bolivia is more democratic than the US. The US presidential elections must be one of the most broken in the world. You vote for two candidates that are both rich older male members of the governing elite and that have basically the same views on all major issues and that will serve the private sector no matter what. And the one who wins is determined about how marketable a candidate is and how much money there is to market. Real politics never ever enter the picture. In In fact, candidates have a billion dollars to spend to deliberately try and make sure that the voters don't even know the positions of the candidates on certain issues. It's better to only market an image. That way the voter can just project his or her own views on the candidate. Bush and the Kyoto protocol was a good example. People thought Kyoto was a good idea. People thought Bush was a nice guy. Nice guys have good ideas. So they all assumed Bush was in favour of Kyoto. They couldn't conceive of that Bush would be against such a sensible plan. This is true against the board. And even if you elected a president that wants to carry out the will of the common people, the unelected bureaucrats make this near impossible. The president is as much a slave of the system as everyone else is. Obama can't even carry out the minor promises he made. He just doesn't have the power to do so. Presidents can only start to do good things when they are out of office. Look at Carter, Clinton and both the Bushes. Also, you are an immoral person for dishonestly projecting on me what I warn against and then attacking me personally. Shameful person. For all of those wondering why I and other people have said that the OWS movement is dangerous, I present you Exhibit A. There are a lot of OWS protesters that think like this guy. It's a movement that is prone to being derailed and co-opted by far left extremists. This crap is not the solution to America's problems. | ||
| ||
