View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 19th, 2014, 7:24 pm



Reply to topic  [ 329 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 22  Next
 Occupy Wall Street 
Author Message
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
These idiots have really pissed me off now:

Image

_________________
Image


October 16th, 2011, 12:10 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Offense
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3012
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
Sly, Take a look at the flag, it's not the real one. They can't even get that right.

I believe the Communist in charge is enjoying the environment he's created.

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


October 16th, 2011, 8:55 am
Profile
Pro Bowl Player

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pm
Posts: 2564
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
Watch this interview with Marc Faber:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/marc-fabe ... ore-lower-


October 16th, 2011, 12:19 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Offense
User avatar

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pm
Posts: 3012
Location: Elkhart, In.
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
Blue,

I've often thought that if we were suddenly put into a position of 1940's today, we would not make it as a nation. We've become too selfish as a society and would not, give up the extra vehicles, reduce the speed limits, gas rationing, food rationing, recycling drives, war bonds and so on, as they did then.

We have become a society that expects everything to be given to us, and we have nothing to earn. Those of us who wish to continue to earn our way are being phased out. It's so much easier to go with the flow, then to fight for your right to make your own way.

Government pays for:

1. food (wic, foodstamps, etc.)
2. housing (government subsidized housing)
3. utilities (government sub. utility checks)
4. EIC ( cash for kids)
5. cell phones (free cell phones and minutes)
6. health care (obama care/medicaid)

Since everything is being provided, those coming up, or currently involved are going to overwhelm those of us who don't want to nurse off the government teet. Welcome to the age of entitlement, and it makes me SICK!

_________________
2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."


October 16th, 2011, 11:30 pm
Profile
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
Wags, what bothers me is, you've stated an articulate position that is genuous (corporations/lobbyists having too much influence and power), but I don't think more than 20% of the people protesting could actually say what they're upset about. "Forgiving all debt" as if money is free? I mean, c' mon, most of the things that they grovel about are just ridiculous. And, they want to take power from "corporations" and hand it over to the govt. (who is notoriously worse at spending money/controling our lives). If they were on a "take the power back" sort of mission, and they didn't stand for idiotic things like forgiving student loans that THEY willingly took (don't get me wrong, I owe about $100k, I'd love to have it go away, but that doesn't mean that it should) then they would have a lot more legitimacy.


October 17th, 2011, 4:53 pm
League MVP
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3634
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Wags, what bothers me is, you've stated an articulate position that is genuous (corporations/lobbyists having too much influence and power), but I don't think more than 20% of the people protesting could actually say what they're upset about. "Forgiving all debt" as if money is free? I mean, c' mon, most of the things that they grovel about are just ridiculous. And, they want to take power from "corporations" and hand it over to the govt. (who is notoriously worse at spending money/controling our lives). If they were on a "take the power back" sort of mission, and they didn't stand for idiotic things like forgiving student loans that THEY willingly took (don't get me wrong, I owe about $100k, I'd love to have it go away, but that doesn't mean that it should) then they would have a lot more legitimacy.


Here Here! I said in the beginng that unless they come out with a more specific agenda, sugest specific changes needed to specific problems, they may as well all be wearing tinfoil hats. So far they have yet to prove me wrong. Their whole rhetoric reminds me of 70's drum circles where everyone was crying "down with the man" but never really got around to doing ANYTHING useful.

I am all for people gathering to cry out, "enough is enough." But there has to be a real message, a realistic expectation of some sort of conclusion. This is pointless white noise thats more akin to group bitching, than actually doing anything.


October 17th, 2011, 7:04 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11825
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Wags, what bothers me is, you've stated an articulate position that is genuous (corporations/lobbyists having too much influence and power), but I don't think more than 20% of the people protesting could actually say what they're upset about. "Forgiving all debt" as if money is free? I mean, c' mon, most of the things that they grovel about are just ridiculous. And, they want to take power from "corporations" and hand it over to the govt. (who is notoriously worse at spending money/controling our lives). If they were on a "take the power back" sort of mission, and they didn't stand for idiotic things like forgiving student loans that THEY willingly took (don't get me wrong, I owe about $100k, I'd love to have it go away, but that doesn't mean that it should) then they would have a lot more legitimacy.
Being as this 'movement' (if you will) is in its infancy, it can and likely will take time to gain some traction and to formulate a more articulate path forward. I'm sure the same could've been said about the initial Tea party protests. Patience grasshopper.

regularjoe12 wrote:
Here Here! I said in the beginng that unless they come out with a more specific agenda, sugest specific changes needed to specific problems, they may as well all be wearing tinfoil hats. So far they have yet to prove me wrong. Their whole rhetoric reminds me of 70's drum circles where everyone was crying "down with the man" but never really got around to doing ANYTHING useful.

I am all for people gathering to cry out, "enough is enough." But there has to be a real message, a realistic expectation of some sort of conclusion. This is pointless white noise thats more akin to group bitching, than actually doing anything.

While I understand and appreciate what you're saying here, we all have to remember ANY movement/process/etc has to start SOMEWHERE. Who's to say that these protests, etc won't be the catalyst to starting something? Not that I'm trying to compare these to the 'Arab spring,' but some of them have been protesting for months before anything happened. Some things take time.

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


October 17th, 2011, 7:37 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2713
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
When the communist and socialist parties start backing something, you can tell the agenda. Its the same organizations that have been behind this from the beginning that have been pushing the far left and demonizing the tea parties. And if you don't believe they've been behind it for awhile, just look up the early pictures and look for the code pink posters. The same people who organized the violent flotilla to Gaza, were involved when the violence took place in Egypt, and now the violence in NY and DC.

I think its kind of telling when the tea party showed up and most placed ended up cleaner then when they left, and this movement is all about causing disturbance and breaking the law. They've made the message as vague as possible for a reason.


October 18th, 2011, 12:07 am
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2713
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
I think this sums it up pretty well...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... print.html

Quote:
What the Occupy protests tell us about the limits of democracy
By Anne Applebaum, Published: October 17

On paper, it isn’t easy to reproduce the oddity of the Occupy the London Stock Exchange rally that took place on the steps of St. Paul’s Cathedral last weekend. It’s all very British — people are cooking pots of porridge on the sidewalk — yet reverent homage is being paid to the original Occupy Wall Street protests, too. The London demonstrators have even adopted the “human mic” used in New York’s Zuccotti Park — the crowd in front repeats whatever the speaker says, so that the crowd in back can hear — despite the fact that megaphones and microphones have not been banned in London. The effect, as can be heard on a Guardian online video, was something like this:

“We need to have a process.” (We need to have a process!)

“This meeting was called for a reason!” (This meeting was called for a reason!)

“We know that you are there!” (We know that you are there!)

“And we have solidarity with you.” (We have solidarity with you!)

Unintentionally, it sounds a lot like a scene from the Monty Python movie “Life of Brian,” the one in which Brian, who has been mistaken for the Messiah, shouts out at the crowd, “You are all individuals!” The crowd shouts back: “We are all individuals!”

To my American ear, the resemblance is reinforced by the fact that the speakers are British and thus sound as if they belong in a Monty Python movie anyway. But this isn’t unusual: Inevitably, the Occupy movements — also known in Europe as the indignados, after Spanish protests that started last spring — have taken on different national flavors in different places. The Occupy Tokyo marchers shouted slogans about nuclear power. The Occupy Sydney protests fizzled out because, as a spokesman regretfully admitted, “we don’t have the depth of crisis here in Australia.” In Rome, where radical politics has historically had a violent fringe, marches have already turned into riots and caused millions of euros worth of damage.

Of course these international protests do have a few things in common, both with one another and with the anti-globalization movement that preceded them. They are similar in their lack of focus, in their inchoate nature, and above all in their refusal to engage with existing democratic institutions. In New York, marchers chanted, “This is what democracy looks like,” but actually, this isn’t what democracy looks like. This is what freedom of speech looks like. Democracy looks a lot more boring. Democracy requires institutions, elections, political parties, rules, laws, a judiciary and many unglamorous, time-consuming activities, none of which are nearly as much fun as camping out in front of St. Paul’s Cathedral or chanting slogans on the Rue Saint-Martin in Paris.

Yet in one sense, the international Occupy movement’s failure to produce sound legislative proposals is understandable: Both the sources of the global economic crisis and the solutions to it lie, by definition, outside the competence of local and national politicians. As I wrote at the time of the first Greek riots a few years ago, nobody much admires powerless leaders. Nobody much sees the point in voting for people who can’t stop another wave of economic pain rolling in from Beijing, Brussels or New York. If you’re upset about the austerity program being imposed on your country by indebted banks on the other side of the world, it doesn’t seem logical to complain to the mayor of Seville.

The emergence of an international protest movement without a coherent program is therefore not an accident: It reflects a deeper crisis, one without an obvious solution. Democracy is based on the rule of law. Democracy works only within distinct borders and among people who feel themselves to be part of the same nation. A “global community” cannot be a national democracy. And a national democracy cannot command the allegiance of a billion-dollar global hedge fund, with its headquarters in a tax haven and its employees scattered around the world.

Unlike the Egyptians in Tahrir Square, to whom the London and New York protesters openly (and ridiculously) compare themselves, we have democratic institutions in the Western world. They are designed to reflect, at least crudely, the desire for political change within a given nation. But they cannot cope with the desire for global political change, nor can they control things that happen outside their borders. Although I still believe in globalization’s economic and spiritual benefits — along with open borders, freedom of movement and free trade — globalization has clearly begun to undermine the legitimacy of Western democracies.

“Global” activists, if they are not careful, will accelerate that decline. Protesters in London shout,“We need to have a process!” Well, they already have a process: It’s called the British political system. And if they don’t figure out how to use it, they’ll simply weaken it further.

applebaumletters@washpost.com


October 18th, 2011, 12:35 am
Profile
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Wags, what bothers me is, you've stated an articulate position that is genuous (corporations/lobbyists having too much influence and power), but I don't think more than 20% of the people protesting could actually say what they're upset about. "Forgiving all debt" as if money is free? I mean, c' mon, most of the things that they grovel about are just ridiculous. And, they want to take power from "corporations" and hand it over to the govt. (who is notoriously worse at spending money/controling our lives). If they were on a "take the power back" sort of mission, and they didn't stand for idiotic things like forgiving student loans that THEY willingly took (don't get me wrong, I owe about $100k, I'd love to have it go away, but that doesn't mean that it should) then they would have a lot more legitimacy.
Being as this 'movement' (if you will) is in its infancy, it can and likely will take time to gain some traction and to formulate a more articulate path forward. I'm sure the same could've been said about the initial Tea party protests. Patience grasshopper.

regularjoe12 wrote:
Here Here! I said in the beginng that unless they come out with a more specific agenda, sugest specific changes needed to specific problems, they may as well all be wearing tinfoil hats. So far they have yet to prove me wrong. Their whole rhetoric reminds me of 70's drum circles where everyone was crying "down with the man" but never really got around to doing ANYTHING useful.

I am all for people gathering to cry out, "enough is enough." But there has to be a real message, a realistic expectation of some sort of conclusion. This is pointless white noise thats more akin to group bitching, than actually doing anything.

While I understand and appreciate what you're saying here, we all have to remember ANY movement/process/etc has to start SOMEWHERE. Who's to say that these protests, etc won't be the catalyst to starting something? Not that I'm trying to compare these to the 'Arab spring,' but some of them have been protesting for months before anything happened. Some things take time.



I agree, but acting like dirty hippies, defecating on cop cars, sleeping in parks, etc. doesn't help their cause. Regardless of the maturity of the movement, the maturity level of the people perpetuating the movement is grossly lacking and de-legitimizes anything that they may stand for. I'm not saying that the movement can't over-come this, and I'm not saying that it can't turn into a legitimate something, but what they've done so far has done nothing but turn people off and make them think that they're cooky...


October 18th, 2011, 10:42 am
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11825
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
As a refresher, check out what some of the initial interpretations of the Tea Party was:






And even as recently as Oct 9:

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


October 18th, 2011, 11:34 am
Profile
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
TheRealWags wrote:
As a refresher, check out what some of the initial interpretations of the Tea Party was:






And even as recently as Oct 9:


I get it, but most of that, IMO, were attacks by the left-wing media trying to thwart the movement before it began, hence the coined "tea-bagger" term. The Tea Party was more spawn out of Sara Palin, high ranking "Conservatives" and small, tasteful gatherings and discussions.


October 18th, 2011, 11:55 am
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11825
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
As a refresher, check out what some of the initial interpretations of the Tea Party was:






And even as recently as Oct 9:


I get it, but most of that, IMO, were attacks by the left-wing media trying to thwart the movement before it began, hence the coined "tea-bagger" term. The Tea Party was more spawn out of Sara Palin, high ranking "Conservatives" and small, tasteful gatherings and discussions.

I'm not going to disagree with you, but who's to say that 'right-wing' peeps aren't responsible for some of the derogatory remarks about the Occupy movement? Just saying that it more than likely goes both ways and as with most 'reports' there's truth and fallacy mixed throughout, its up to us to determine which is which.

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


October 18th, 2011, 12:02 pm
Profile
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11825
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
TheAtlantic wrote:
Why Is Occupy Wall Street Going Global?
By Christopher Alessi

Oct 18 2011, 9:19 AM ET

The Occupy Wall Street protests that began in New York City a month ago gained worldwide momentum over the weekend, as hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in nine hundred cities protested corporate greed and wealth inequality. Protesters from London to Sydney echoed the anti-capitalist, populist rhetoric of the Occupy movement in what was deemed a "global day of protest".

The unrest comes amid a mounting European sovereign debt crisis, which has contributed to ongoing market volatility and fears of another global economic recession. Governments around the world--particularly in the indebted eurozone periphery--have implemented harsh austerity programs, making economic growth all but impossible. In the United States, anger at Wall Street bankers seen as responsible for the global financial crisis--and at the government, for bailing out the banks with taxpayer money--is exacerbated by a persistently dismal job market.

In the United States, the unemployment rate has remained stubbornly above 9 percent; in the United Kingdom, it has risen to above 8 percent; and in the eurozone, it continues to hover around 10 percent. Protesters question why bankers and financial heavyweights--what the protesters call the "1 percent"--are earning more money than ever, while average workers--the "other 99 percent"--are struggling to make a living wage.

Critics of the Occupy protesters say they are naïve and incoherent; others accuse them of being anything from Communists to anarchists. However, many proponents see the Occupy movement as a nascent populist counterweight to the Tea Party movement. The Occupy protesters "represent a genuine spark of grassroots political action--a chance, finally, to redeem the promise of Obama's 2008 campaign," write John B. Judis and Jonathan Cohn in the New Republic. However, Cornell University professor Sidney Tarrow cautions against seeing the Occupy movement through the lens of the Tea Party: The former has few policy plans and is comprised of a "shifting configuration of supporters".

Still, President Barack Obama--who received sizable campaign contributions from Wall Street in 2008--sought to tap into the movement's energy this weekend, gently lending it credence (Bloomberg)."The unemployed worker," he said, "can rightly challenge the excesses of Wall Street without demonizing all who work there."

European leaders were more unequivocal in their support of the weekend protesters, openly sympathizing with widespread anger at the continent's big banks. German finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble said he was taking the protests "very seriously," while incoming European Central Bank President Mario Draghi said, "The young people have a right to be furious." In the UK, Foreign Minister William Hague acknowledged, "in the banking system a lot has gone wrong." The protests in Europe have an even greater sense of urgency than in the United States, as policymakers call for recapitalizing European banks to avoid sovereign debt contagion from Greece.

While the Occupy protesters and their offshoots may not articulate a clear set of policy objectives, "their mere existence shows that people are determined to think globally about routes out of this crisis," argues the BBC's Paul Mason. Writing in the Daily Beast, Peter Beinart comments that the movement is gaining strength as a result of its "global nature." While that doesn't mean the protesters have a "clear critique of unregulated capitalism yet, let alone a concrete agenda for reform," it signals that the left "finally is forcing those questions onto the public agenda."

By contrast, Will Marshall argues in the New Republic, that the Occupy protesters will only exacerbate ideological tensions and partisanship in American political life. Marshall says the protests are being hijacked by the "usual congeries of lefty fringe groups," which undermine the important message that the United States is becoming increasingly economically unequal. Meanwhile, the Weekly Standard's Daniel Halper dismisses the protesters as "hooligans" and "criminals," lumping together a minority of violent opportunists with the majority of peaceable demonstrators.

However, as the Occupy movement becomes more global, its supporters are becoming more politically diverse. As Erik Tarloff writes in the Atlantic, the lack of political cohesion is perhaps irrelevant. "What does matter is that popular refusal to tolerate the current state of affairs appears to be reaching a tipping point."

This article originally appeared at CFR.org, an Atlantic partner site.

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


October 18th, 2011, 12:15 pm
Profile
Post Re: Occupy Wall Street
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
As a refresher, check out what some of the initial interpretations of the Tea Party was:






And even as recently as Oct 9:


I get it, but most of that, IMO, were attacks by the left-wing media trying to thwart the movement before it began, hence the coined "tea-bagger" term. The Tea Party was more spawn out of Sara Palin, high ranking "Conservatives" and small, tasteful gatherings and discussions.

I'm not going to disagree with you, but who's to say that 'right-wing' peeps aren't responsible for some of the derogatory remarks about the Occupy movement? Just saying that it more than likely goes both ways and as with most 'reports' there's truth and fallacy mixed throughout, its up to us to determine which is which.


I agree that the right has bashed the "occupiers," but C'mon, they're living in a damn park, not showering, and crapping on cop cars... What's sickening is the disparity in the media's coverage of the Tea-party, vs this movement. They acted like Occupy Wall St. was some overwhelming, highly popular movement spreading across the Nation, and that was when it was in its infancy, totally glossed over what they were doing, who they were assocaited with, who was funding it, etc., and all of the nasty crap that they were doing, while demonizing the Tea-party, calling them right-wing, racist, crazies that want to bring down the Nation.


October 18th, 2011, 12:44 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 329 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 22  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.