Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Jay-Z confused by Occupy Wall Street, 'What are you fighting for?'   ( nydailynews.com) divider line
    More: Amusing, Occupy Wall Street, Jay Z, Russell Simmons, fixed rate mortgage, Zuccotti Park, demonization  
•       •       •

15656 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Sep 2012 at 5:59 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



431 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-09-09 04:36:56 PM  
"It's all about the Benjamins."
 
2012-09-09 04:41:47 PM  
I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.
 
2012-09-09 04:42:13 PM  
In other news, the "occupy" movement? What's that, some sort of real estate thing?

Oh, THAT old thing.... That's still around? What? It isn't? Oh....
 
2012-09-09 04:46:03 PM  
$99 Trillion problems?
 
2012-09-09 04:47:11 PM  
So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin i105.photobucket.com subby.
 
2012-09-09 04:50:15 PM  
He's got 99 problems but capitalism ain't one.
 
2012-09-09 04:52:06 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.


We get it He's black.
 
2012-09-09 04:54:43 PM  
Area Man Reaping Benefits Of Contorted Economic System Confused By Critics Of System
 
2012-09-09 05:03:49 PM  

FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.


To be fair, not all millionaires are part of the 1%. Thats who OWS is fighting against.
 
2012-09-09 05:09:48 PM  

cman: Thats who OWS is fighting against.


I have to agree with Jay-Z. What is your goal? What have you accomplished?

How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?

When 'The Man' cleared you out, you all just gave up? Why?

I'm all for organizing and protesting against a cause. But OWS just seems like misguided rage. Or even guided, ADHD rage that moved on to something else.
 
2012-09-09 05:19:13 PM  

joshiz: cman: Thats who OWS is fighting against.

I have to agree with Jay-Z. What is your goal? What have you accomplished?

How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?

When 'The Man' cleared you out, you all just gave up? Why?

I'm all for organizing and protesting against a cause. But OWS just seems like misguided rage. Or even guided, ADHD rage that moved on to something else.


OWS folk had good intentions when they started out. They had a clear goal, to make the Wallstreet bankers pay for all the misery that OWS perceived that the bankers brought. Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.
 
2012-09-09 05:21:25 PM  
Tom_the_Dancing_Bug_"Economic_Injustice".jpg
 
2012-09-09 05:24:29 PM  

joshiz: cman: Thats who OWS is fighting against.

I have to agree with Jay-Z. What is your goal? What have you accomplished?

How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?



OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

When the ref calls out a player for cheating, the ref is not raging against the sport.
 
2012-09-09 05:33:31 PM  

cman: Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.


I'll take that.

FloydA: OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.


Ok, fair enough. Then answer Jay-Z's question: What are you fighting for?
 
2012-09-09 05:40:21 PM  

joshiz: Ok, fair enough. Then answer Jay-Z's question: What are you fighting for?


We have a system whereby if the corporation is large enough, it enjoys private profit and public risk. OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.
 
2012-09-09 05:42:27 PM  

FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.


Admins got you down? Can't get anything greenlit, so you come in whining over the submissions of others? Well that's ahh something
 
2012-09-09 05:44:37 PM  

jim32rr: FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.

Admins got you down? Can't get anything greenlit, so you come in whining over the submissions of others? Well that's ahh something


There's a big difference between whining about greenlights and disagreeing with the premise of the headline.
 
2012-09-09 05:45:14 PM  

doyner: OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.


How's that working out for you?

I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.
 
2012-09-09 06:02:52 PM  

joshiz: cman: Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.

I'll take that.

FloydA: OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

Ok, fair enough. Then answer Jay-Z's question: What are you fighting for?


Me? I'm not part of OWS. (I'm mainly fighting to get my students to avoid TXTSPEEK in their term papers, and it's a losing battle.)

OWS? They are fighting for regulations that would decentralize the concentration of power and influence from the banks and a few corporations to the broader population of citizens. They have a number of specific grievances, but they all boil down to the fact that, due to an extreme concentration of wealth, the boards of directors of a few banks and multinational corporations exert influence over the political, judicial, and regulatory systems in this country (and elsewhere) that is far in excess of their numbers, and in doing so, they subvert the democratic process.

For the past year, the corporate media have been repeating the claim that OWS doesn't have a coherent message, and now Jay-Z is repeating the same line, but that claim has never been accurate. They've been quite clear what the movement is about.

(There are, of course, other people who show up wanting to advocate for other issues. At any protest of sufficient size, there are going to be people who jump in and try to get their pet causes attached to a larger movement. But those hangers on do not alter the central message of the movement.)
 
2012-09-09 06:03:16 PM  

jim32rr: FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.

Admins got you down? Can't get anything greenlit, so you come in whining over the submissions of others? Well that's ahh something


Welp, at least FloydA isn't an ignorant, cumstained farktard. Not that I'm calling anyone else in this thread an ignorant, cumstained farktard. I'm just saying that FloydA isn't one.
 
2012-09-09 06:03:16 PM  

joshiz: doyner: OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.

How's that working out for you?

I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.


It remains to be seen how it is working out for US. Sure, they were disorganized, but that isn't the same as being wrong.
 
2012-09-09 06:03:16 PM  
treygivens.com
 
2012-09-09 06:05:12 PM  

joshiz: I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.


You're the type of person who'd support the Empire over the Rebels in Star Wars because the Empire delivers their paychecks on time... aren't you?
 
2012-09-09 06:05:38 PM  
Because People in power are Stupid:

Continue to bite the hand that feeds you and eventually you're gonna get slapped. Simple as that.
 
2012-09-09 06:06:33 PM  
Maybe he thought it was just a fashion statement?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-09 06:11:34 PM  
Is that guy unable to grow facial hair?
 
2012-09-09 06:12:27 PM  

KingoftheCheese: Because People in power are Stupid:

Continue to bite the hand that feeds you and eventually you're gonna get slapped. Simple as that.


Continue to treat the vast majority of the planet's citizens as subhuman debt batteries and eventually you're going to get dragged screaming from your home and flogged in the public square peacefully protested against.

Sigh. Gotta start somewhere.
 
2012-09-09 06:12:36 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]


Public out of the way park versus obstructive New York presence. Does that make any sense to you?

/Tea party sucks worse than OWS but not by much
 
2012-09-09 06:12:41 PM  
I don't know what a "Jay-Z" is, but I'ma guess the Occupiers are fighting against it.
 
2012-09-09 06:13:28 PM  

James F. Campbell: jim32rr: FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.

Admins got you down? Can't get anything greenlit, so you come in whining over the submissions of others? Well that's ahh something

Welp, at least FloydA isn't an ignorant, cumstained farktard. Not that I'm calling anyone else in this thread an ignorant, cumstained farktard. I'm just saying that FloydA isn't one.


I've got no idea who this guy is; he apparently went straight into my iggy list because I have no recollection of him whatsoever. He seems to be under the impression that my ego is vested in the number of greenlights I've had. It's amusing to me because, in the 9 years I've been on Fark, I have only submitted two links. He might just as well try to insult me for the fact that I don't have any CMT country music awards and I've never won a Pokemon championship.
 
2012-09-09 06:13:48 PM  

FloydA: For the past year, the corporate media have been repeating the claim that OWS doesn't have a coherent message, and now Jay-Z is repeating the same line, but that claim has never been accurate. They've been quite clear what the movement is about.


James F. Campbell: You're the type of person who'd support the Empire over the Rebels in Star Wars because the Empire delivers their paychecks on time... aren't you?


doyner: I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.


I actually agree with reigning in corporate influence and prosecuting bankers for their crimes/regulating the banking system - alas most of the tenants of OWS. I'm just critiquing their methods. Whether they did not accurately get their message out (and I don't buy blaming it on the corporate media), let other interests derail their goals, or give up in the face of opposition it just doesn't seem like OWS had a clear strategy.
 
2012-09-09 06:14:13 PM  

One Bad Apple: We get it He's black a rapper.


FTFY, no charge.
 
2012-09-09 06:14:34 PM  

cman: To be fair, not all millionaires are part of the 1%. Thats who OWS is fighting against.


I'm part of the 99.9999% of Americans who didn't occupy anything, and would prefer that others didn't claim to speak for us.
 
2012-09-09 06:14:44 PM  

the_chief: Is that guy unable to grow facial hair?


1 down... 98 more to go

 
2012-09-09 06:15:53 PM  
He's really come a long way from Hawaiian Sophie.
 
2012-09-09 06:16:54 PM  
i.cdn.turner.com
 
2012-09-09 06:18:10 PM  
He could just go down and ask them.
 
2012-09-09 06:18:23 PM  
assets.amuniversal.com
 
2012-09-09 06:19:43 PM  
Because People in power are Stupid:
treygivens.com

-Not on or near Wall St. militarized zone.
-Had permits.
 
2012-09-09 06:20:23 PM  
Oh and...

media.fukung.net
 
2012-09-09 06:23:00 PM  
FloydA:
OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

When the ref calls out a player for cheating, the ref is not raging against the sport.

A large number of the protesters, when interviewed, claimed they DID want to end capitalism.

But, much of OWS was co-opted by the Democrats. "We hate banks, re-elect Obama" treads that fine line between simple stupidity and organic brain damage. OWS becoming a leisure service of the Re-Elect Obama campaign makes EXACTLY as much sense as the KKK demanding that Obama be re-elected because they want a white man back in the White House.


3.bp.blogspot.com

 
2012-09-09 06:24:38 PM  
Mr Carter is correct, poor/unfocused messaging was its downfall
 
2012-09-09 06:24:39 PM  
Jay-Z not understanding something is news? Also, didn't he buyout an entire floor of the hospital where his kid was born and make it difficult for the peons who had the gall to give birth at the same time as Queen Beyonce? No surprise he doesn't care about ordinary people. Douche.
 
2012-09-09 06:26:24 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]


Ooh, ooh, I know the answer....

What is, the Tea Partiers weren't breaking any laws, Alex?
 
2012-09-09 06:26:34 PM  

joshiz:

I actually agree with reigning in corporate influence and prosecuting bankers for their crimes/regulating the banking system - alas most of the tenants of OWS.


Most people do once they hear about them.


I'm just critiquing their methods. Whether they did not accurately get their message out (and I don't buy blaming it on the corporate media),

Considering many of the major media corporations are some of the corporations that OWS people think have undue influence, it's really not in the media's best interest to provide accurate reports of OWS's goals and aims.

That's not to say that "there is some big media conspiracy" or anything silly like that. Rather, it's a reminder that it's hard to get someone to understand a concept when his paycheck depends on him not understanding it. If I worked for Company X, they would be making it possible for me to pay my mortgage and buy booze. It would be difficult to get me to understand that Company X treats other people like crap- that story would conflict with my personal experience, so I wouldn't really understand it.


let other interests derail their goals, or give up in the face of opposition it just doesn't seem like OWS had a clear strategy.


That's certainly the way the story has been presented.
 
2012-09-09 06:27:41 PM  

joshiz: doyner: OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.

How's that working out for you?

I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.


The strategy was fine, OWS just forgot who was going to be the ones showing them in whatever light they chose on television.
Nothing will ever change and the 1% will rule us until the end of days.
 
2012-09-09 06:28:17 PM  
The question isn't "who are you fighting for?" It's who you're fighting against.

It's those "job creators," who haven't created shiat, and those whiners that don't pay for the freeways, ports, and International Airports they need to "create." A bunch of entited dicks without the responsibility they claim is "someone else"'s fault.

Cowards and weaklings. Filth.
 
2012-09-09 06:28:35 PM  

Apos: He's got 99 problems but capitalism ain't one.


This.
 
2012-09-09 06:29:45 PM  
IDK why this was submitted. Or why it was greenlit. This is dumb as fark.
 
2012-09-09 06:30:23 PM  

rappy: IDK why this was submitted. Or why it was greenlit.


rappy: This is dumb as fark.


You answered your own question.
 
2012-09-09 06:31:59 PM  
FloydA:
OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

Well, that flies in the face of the statements of one of the major organizers of OWS, Harrison Schultz --- Listen to him yourself...

Audio Only Interview
 
2012-09-09 06:32:07 PM  

joshiz: How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?


Huh? Thats like saying I can't put any objections in writing using pen and paper due to using "byproducts of that system"

Shall I make clicking noises and use smoke signals and drum beats then?
 
2012-09-09 06:32:21 PM  
three step process to make this country work better

all the numbers are napkin math so substitute whatever smart people thing is right, the idea is the important part

1. ~10-15% duty on all currency leaving the country, no duty on goods.
2. abolish all federal income taxes including corporate and payroll taxes
3. create a national property tax equal to somewhere between 1-2% of the value of the goods calculated monthly and paid annually. Property would include all real property such as land, buildings, and equipment. It would also include all intellectual property including copyrights, patents, and trademarks which are enforced by the government. And it would also include investment vehicles such as stocks, bonds, tbills etc.

It is possible to calculate this national property tax to be revenue neutral with the current tax system, the only change will be in who pays. There would be no distinction between corporate owned property and individually owned property. There would be no loopholes because ownership of anything of real value is generally easy to trace. There would be no difference between foreign owned property and citizen owned property. If the property has the protection of the government then the tax is paid.

This tax is fair in that the number one function of government is to enforce property rights. Those who own more property use this function more therefore should spend more to finance the government in absolute terms. But everybody except the very poor use this function to some extent so everyone pays for it.

The one issue I can think of is the land value of farms is much greater than the value of the food produced on them. I don't know a good solution to that. Maybe a deferment where property tax is accumulated but not collected until the land is transferred to a non-relative or until the land use is transferred to something other than food production.
 
2012-09-09 06:33:04 PM  
They farked up the presentation. Like it or not, you're not going to be taken seriously today if you gather a bunch of your unwashed friends and illegally take over a public park. The story will understandably become about your tactics rather than your message. Dial back the anarchist elements and you might get somewhere.
 
2012-09-09 06:34:02 PM  

GeneralJim: FloydA: OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

When the ref calls out a player for cheating, the ref is not raging against the sport.
A large number of the protesters, when interviewed, claimed they DID want to end capitalism.

But, much of OWS was co-opted by the Democrats. "We hate banks, re-elect Obama" treads that fine line between simple stupidity and organic brain damage. OWS becoming a leisure service of the Re-Elect Obama campaign makes EXACTLY as much sense as the KKK demanding that Obama be re-elected because they want a white man back in the White House.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x400]


There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?
 
2012-09-09 06:34:38 PM  

cman: GeneralJim: FloydA: OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

When the ref calls out a player for cheating, the ref is not raging against the sport.
A large number of the protesters, when interviewed, claimed they DID want to end capitalism.

But, much of OWS was co-opted by the Democrats. "We hate banks, re-elect Obama" treads that fine line between simple stupidity and organic brain damage. OWS becoming a leisure service of the Re-Elect Obama campaign makes EXACTLY as much sense as the KKK demanding that Obama be re-elected because they want a white man back in the White House.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 400x400]

There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists represent OWS, right?


Fixt for clarity.
 
2012-09-09 06:34:44 PM  
FTFA: He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American.

Says the crack dealer turned rapper and then multimillionaire (while still dealing with drugs, don't give me shiat about it being music made money only).
 
2012-09-09 06:35:06 PM  
OWS = pretentious entitled freeloaders. What is not to understand?
 
2012-09-09 06:35:56 PM  

FloydA: That's certainly the way the story has been presented.


Sorry, I just don't buy that - not that that didn't happen because it did. But I don't think OWS managed their message well - especially in light of their use of social media.

Which brings us to:
 
2012-09-09 06:36:07 PM  

cman: OWS folk had good intentions when they started out. They had a clear goal, to make the Wallstreet bankers pay for all the misery that OWS perceived that the bankers brought. Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.



They lost the war when the police came and cleared them out. They learnt the same lesson that their parents leant in Chicago in 1968 - The Man will always kick your ass. That's why he's the man.
 
2012-09-09 06:36:10 PM  

FloydA: He seems to be under the impression that my ego is vested in the number of greenlights I've had.


I agree with you on this. I actively avoid submitting links or saying anything too important on Fark, because anything you submit or post on Fark becomes their property to do with as they wish. fark that shiat. I will be paid for my work.
 
2012-09-09 06:37:21 PM  

chrisr64: Huh? Thats like saying I can't put any objections in writing using pen and paper due to using "byproducts of that system"


If your argument was against writing, then using pen and paper would be stupid. That's what I am saying.

"I'm against picketing -- I just don't know how to show it." --Mitch Hedberg
 
2012-09-09 06:38:09 PM  

James F. Campbell: FloydA: He seems to be under the impression that my ego is vested in the number of greenlights I've had.

I agree with you on this. I actively avoid submitting links or saying anything too important on Fark, because anything you submit or post on Fark becomes their property to do with as they wish. fark that shiat. I will be paid for my work.


Dude, you'd be like... a job creator... if that were so.
 
2012-09-09 06:38:52 PM  
FloydA:
I've never won a Pokemon championship.

Well, then, mister, you've got a lot of nerve posting in the Politics thread... 

www.annarbor.com
You don't have to WIN, but you need to TRY.

 
2012-09-09 06:38:56 PM  
He'll still vote for Obama.
 
2012-09-09 06:39:10 PM  
 
2012-09-09 06:39:16 PM  

joshiz: How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?


That's a weak ass excuse.

Capitalism produces tomatoes. Am I going to stop eating tomatoes because of it?

And now that we're at it, Capitalism doesn't "produce" these things. People do. It's a fallacy to say capitalism is responsible for that. It could have been done the same under a different system. For example, Soviet Union had a space program and those guys were communists.

Also, capitalism has produced abject poverty and environmental abuse all over the world, so you wanna attach it to the system too?
 
2012-09-09 06:39:58 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]


"weaponized" tear gas, because it's normally not used as a weapon
 
2012-09-09 06:41:07 PM  

SweetSaws: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

"weaponized" tear gas, because it's normally not used as a weapon


Sounds more dramatic that way...

WEAPONIZED GUN

WEAPONIZED OC SPRAY

WEAPONIZED BATON

WEAPONIZED WEAPON

WEAPONIZED KITTEN

See, makes everything 10X more scary.
 
2012-09-09 06:45:30 PM  
Hey guys OWS was at least a partial success. I mean, absurd and lifelong indenturing college costs were mentioned, so the feds decided to raise interest rates on student loans. See everything is better now!
 
2012-09-09 06:46:08 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.


But a biatch ain't one.

Why does it surprise people someone that worked hard to get his money doesn't get what they are protesting?

The 99% are still under the impression a college degree instantly means Mega salary once you graduate, adapt to get ahead, that may mean you have to bust your ass to get where you want to be.
 
2012-09-09 06:47:39 PM  
I bet Jay-Z would be surprised to hear that he's probably not part of the 1%. As Shaq famously said, there's a difference between "rich" and "wealthy".

/Oh and Jay's "co-ownership" of the Nets is about one half of one percent more than the rest of us have
 
2012-09-09 06:47:48 PM  

Silly Jesus: SweetSaws: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

"weaponized" tear gas, because it's normally not used as a weapon

Sounds more dramatic that way...

WEAPONIZED GUN

WEAPONIZED OC SPRAY

WEAPONIZED BATON

WEAPONIZED WEAPON

WEAPONIZED KITTEN

See, makes everything 10X more scary.


Now I won't be able to sleep. THANKS A LOT!
 
2012-09-09 06:48:50 PM  
While I agree the occupy movement has so far failed at creating a political movement that has fielded candidates, any of the so called 1% who asks 'what are they fighting for' are being intentionally obtuse. Perhaps to assuage themselves. Historically we have some of the highest income disparity, a financial crisis that devastated the wealth of the middle class, and higher education and health care costs that have far surpassed the rate of inflation. And yet some are surprised when people say capitalism has failed to raise the bulk of the population in this country?
 
2012-09-09 06:49:13 PM  
FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.
 
2012-09-09 06:49:40 PM  

cman: There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?



And here are plenty of racists in OWS.
 
2012-09-09 06:52:28 PM  

rocky_howard: Capitalism produces tomatoes. Am I going to stop eating tomatoes because of it?


The earth produced tomatoes long before there was capitalism.
 
2012-09-09 06:52:42 PM  

SweetSaws: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

"weaponized" tear gas, because it's normally not used as a weapon


There is a big difference between civilian and military grade "tear gas." Most people who use "weaponized" to describe the difference between the two are drawing attention to the fact that police are using a much, much, much more potent weapon than something you could buy over the counter.
 
2012-09-09 06:53:05 PM  
Don't ask me I don't give a damn.
Next stop if Vietnam.
 
2012-09-09 06:53:40 PM  
joshiz: How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?

This caught my attention and I just had to say something (though I'm sure this has been pounced on throughout the thread):

you don't know what OWS is, do you?
 
2012-09-09 06:54:12 PM  

joshiz: FloydA: That's certainly the way the story has been presented.

Sorry, I just don't buy that - not that that didn't happen because it did. But I don't think OWS managed their message well - especially in light of their use of social media.


I don't disagree with that point at all. Insofar as OWS was critical of corporate power, they were naive to rely on corporate owned media to spread their message, so yeah, very bad message management indeed. But the social media are still comparatively small media and it's difficult to contact a mass audience using what are, for practical purposes, narrowcast media.

Still, Occupy is not even a year old, so I don't know if we can really say what kind of influence they will eventually have. The GOP was founded in 1854 and didn't elect a president for another 6 years. I'm willing to give OWS at least that long until I decide that they have failed.
 
2012-09-09 06:55:02 PM  
cman:
There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?

Don't they? The TEA Party was organized to combat what was seen as over-taxing and over-spending of government. Now, if Karl Denninger, founder of the TEA Party, gave an interview in which he stated that the purpose of the TEA Party was to "purify the races in America," or some similar shiat, I would believe him. Why would I not? As it is, however, there are a couple of morons who show up at PUBLIC rallies for the TEA Party with racist signs, who are are politely asked to fark themselves, and get that shiat out of the rally -- but, of course, not before every photographer within 20 miles has taken a picture of the offensive sign.

Above, I link to an interview with the organizer of OWS, who clearly states the goal of replacing capitalism in the United States. Again, why would I not believe his stated goals?
 
2012-09-09 06:55:25 PM  

RembrandtQEinstein: create a national property tax equal to somewhere between 1-2% of the value of the goods calculated monthly and paid annually. Property would include all real property such as land, buildings, and equipment. It would also include all intellectual property including copyrights, patents, and trademarks which are enforced by the government. And it would also include investment vehicles such as stocks, bonds, tbills etc.


The enforcement cost of that would be staggering, and it would be even more of a clusterfark than the epic clusterfark we have now.

cman: There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?


Yes, they are both represented by those things which a large amount of their members believe. (In my opinion, they both have a healthy share of both things.)

rewind2846: No one is 'demonizing' the rich.


There's 2-3 threads on Fark that do just that.
 
2012-09-09 06:55:31 PM  

ScreamingHangover: cman: There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?


And here are plenty of racists in OWS.


I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is anti-capitalist movement then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist.
 
2012-09-09 06:56:32 PM  
Occupy Wall Street never really had an ultimate goal defined or strategy to obtain it, everyone had different ideas and different means on which to achieve them. Does it suck that a small fraction of the population controls most of the money... kind of, I think it depends a lot more on how they are getting it and what they are doing with it. I highly doubt any of the OWS people were pissed at Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg, you need to be more clear on what exactly you dislike being done by the 1%. Almost as crazy as the Tea Party protesting taxes, yeah they suck but what is your alternative? You can't really maintain a government, military, police/fire/mail... without a means of paying for them.
 
2012-09-09 06:57:07 PM  

cman: ScreamingHangover: cman: There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?


And here are plenty of racists in OWS.

I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is an anti-capitalist movement because they have a lot of anti-capitalists then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist because the Tea Party has a lot of racists.


Fixt and elaborated.
 
2012-09-09 06:58:11 PM  

rocky_howard: And now that we're at it, Capitalism doesn't "produce" these things. People do. It's a fallacy to say capitalism is responsible for that.


You are getting it twisted. I'm saying it's hypocritical to protest against corporate profits using your MacBook Pro or Twitter - without the system you are railing against, those things would not be possible.
 
2012-09-09 06:58:29 PM  
James F. Campbell:
I actively avoid submitting links or saying anything too important on Fark, because anything you submit or post on Fark becomes their property to do with as they wish. fark that shiat. I will be paid for my work.

That's simply BRILLIANT. The best of it is that such a careful plan to husband your resources is completely indistinguishable from you not having anything to say. Sheer genius.
 
2012-09-09 06:59:03 PM  
www.thenation.com
 
2012-09-09 06:59:11 PM  

ultraholland: you don't know what OWS is, do you?


Apparently I don't. And that's the problem.
 
2012-09-09 07:00:24 PM  

James F. Campbell: FloydA: He seems to be under the impression that my ego is vested in the number of greenlights I've had.

I agree with you on this. I actively avoid submitting links or saying anything too important on Fark, because anything you submit or post on Fark becomes their property to do with as they wish. fark that shiat. I will be paid for my work.


Damned straight! I'm here to have fun. You want work out of me? As Pauly said:

i105.photobucket.com

;-)
 
2012-09-09 07:00:33 PM  

rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.


Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. If you're out there supposedly "getting out the message" and nobody knows what you're doing, don't get mad with everyone else. Don't blame their ignorance, don't blame the "corporate media', blame yourself. You have failed.

This is not to say that your intentions weren't honorable, or even that your position was wrong. It's just that your strategy and tactics have been horrible and you've managed to alienate the very people you were supposed to be recruiting to your side.

Welcome to the real world, you little snowflakes. This crap happens all the time, and in the end, there will be no "participant" medals passed out to anyone who showed up.
 
2012-09-09 07:02:13 PM  

FloydA: Still, Occupy is not even a year old, so I don't know if we can really say what kind of influence they will eventually have. The GOP was founded in 1854 and didn't elect a president for another 6 years. I'm willing to give OWS at least that long until I decide that they have failed.


I respect your optimism.
 
2012-09-09 07:02:38 PM  

ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. If you're out there supposedly "getting out the message" and nobody knows what you're doing, don't get mad with everyone else. Don't blame their ignorance, don't blame the "corporate media', blame yourself. You have failed.

This is not to say that your intentions weren't honorable, or even that your position was wrong. It's just that your strategy and tactics have been horrible and you've managed to alienate the very people you were supposed to be recruiting to your side.

Welcome to the real world, you little snowflakes. This crap happens all the time, and in the end, there will be no "participant" medals passed out to anyone who showed up.


Awesome post. Enjoy
 
2012-09-09 07:03:40 PM  

Xenomech: [www.thenation.com image 550x506]


amkon.net
 
2012-09-09 07:04:01 PM  
rocky_howard:
Capitalism produces tomatoes. Am I going to stop eating tomatoes because of it?

And now that we're at it, Capitalism doesn't "produce" these things. People do. It's a fallacy to say capitalism is responsible for that. It could have been done the same under a different system. For example, Soviet Union had a space program and those guys were communists.

Also, capitalism has produced abject poverty and environmental abuse all over the world, so you wanna attach it to the system too?

I note that the Soviet system DID get into space -- but failed to reliably produce tomatoes, and other foods.

I also note that if you compare the TWO countries which were split, and one half went capitalist, and the other was a command economy, you will note that both Korea and Germany showed that socialism is MUCH more efficient at producing abject poverty and environmental abuse.

So, you're saying that you PREFER a system that is MUCH more efficient at producing abject poverty and environmental abuse, and MUCH less efficient at producing consumer goods and food? Interesting choice.
 
2012-09-09 07:04:15 PM  

ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. If you're out there supposedly "getting out the message" and nobody knows what you're doing, don't get mad with everyone else. Don't blame their ignorance, don't blame the "corporate media', blame yourself. You have failed.

This is not to say that your intentions weren't honorable, or even that your position was wrong. It's just that your strategy and tactics have been horrible and you've managed to alienate the very people you were supposed to be recruiting to your side.

Welcome to the real world, you little snowflakes. This crap happens all the time, and in the end, there will be no "participant" medals passed out to anyone who showed up.


bears bears bears bears bears bears...
 
2012-09-09 07:04:51 PM  

ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. .



or he is just a really really stupid monkey
 
2012-09-09 07:06:14 PM  
probably they want real democracy, and fair representation
 
2012-09-09 07:06:18 PM  

joshiz:
I respect your optimism.


I'm an archaeologist, so I tend to take a long view of historical events. We'll see, eventually, what effect they have, if any. It might be a while however.
 
2012-09-09 07:06:23 PM  

Mr. Carpenter: SweetSaws: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

"weaponized" tear gas, because it's normally not used as a weapon

There is a big difference between civilian and military grade "tear gas." Most people who use "weaponized" to describe the difference between the two are drawing attention to the fact that police are using a much, much, much more potent weapon than something you could buy over the counter.


Maybe call it "prescription strength"?
 
2012-09-09 07:06:44 PM  

cman: Awesome post. Enjoy


Mahalo!
 
2012-09-09 07:07:01 PM  

joshiz: rocky_howard: And now that we're at it, Capitalism doesn't "produce" these things. People do. It's a fallacy to say capitalism is responsible for that.

You are getting it twisted. I'm saying it's hypocritical to protest against corporate profits using your MacBook Pro or Twitter - without the system you are railing against, those things would not be possible.


And that's where you're flat wrong. You're missing the forest for the trees. Humankind can produce things without capitalism, y'know?


Also, saying they shouldn't use things made by capitalism to protest is a weak argument considering they live in a capitalist society. So they should renounce to the mediums available just because it doesn't comply with your fictional moral quandary? What? America shouldn't have used the rocketry and scientist taken from Nazi Germany?

Tools are neutral and they exist to be used. Not the protesters problem Capitalism made them.
 
2012-09-09 07:07:12 PM  

ScreamingHangover: Welcome to the real world, you little snowflakes. This crap happens all the time, and in the end, there will be no "participant" medals passed out to anyone who showed up.


We get it, you're angry because your wife wont sleep with you and you're too low rent to have a secretary on the side. Deal with your issues on your own time.

/At least as relevant as your comment.
//At least as well sourced.
///Far more likely to actually be part of reality.
 
2012-09-09 07:08:00 PM  

joshiz: rocky_howard: Capitalism produces tomatoes. Am I going to stop eating tomatoes because of it?

The earth produced tomatoes
silicon
long before there was capitalism.


or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

/take your pick
 
2012-09-09 07:08:06 PM  
i'm educated, but i don't really know what its about either.
 
2012-09-09 07:08:47 PM  

beer4breakfast: And yet some are surprised when people say capitalism has failed to raise the bulk of the population in this country?


The 1% don't want the "rising tide to lift all boats", they just want that tide to lift their yachts.
With enough money, singularly or in groups, that tide can be controlled.
This is what OWS is against... too few people controlling way too much of that water.
 
2012-09-09 07:11:08 PM  

FreetardoRivera: ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. .


or he is just a really really stupid monkey


Wow, dude.

Go fark yourself
 
2012-09-09 07:12:06 PM  

rewind2846: beer4breakfast: And yet some are surprised when people say capitalism has failed to raise the bulk of the population in this country?

The 1% don't want the "rising tide to lift all boats", they just want that tide to lift their yachts.
With enough money, singularly or in groups, that tide can be controlled.
This is what OWS is against... too few people controlling way too much of that water.


Do they have a viable solution...or are they just against it?
 
2012-09-09 07:12:52 PM  
cman:
ScreamingHangover: cman: There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?


And here are plenty of racists in OWS.

I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is anti-capitalist movement then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist.

Nope. False equivalency is false, on several different levels at once. I understand you're trying to make a point with VERY shaky evidence, but, please, do try harder.
 
2012-09-09 07:14:10 PM  

RembrandtQEinstein: three step process to make this country work better

all the numbers are napkin math so substitute whatever smart people thing is right, the idea is the important part

1. ~10-15% duty on all currency leaving the country, no duty on goods.
2. abolish all federal income taxes including corporate and payroll taxes
3. create a national property tax equal to somewhere between 1-2% of the value of the goods calculated monthly and paid annually. Property would include all real property such as land, buildings, and equipment. It would also include all intellectual property including copyrights, patents, and trademarks which are enforced by the government. And it would also include investment vehicles such as stocks, bonds, tbills etc.

It is possible to calculate this national property tax to be revenue neutral with the current tax system, the only change will be in who pays. There would be no distinction between corporate owned property and individually owned property. There would be no loopholes because ownership of anything of real value is generally easy to trace. There would be no difference between foreign owned property and citizen owned property. If the property has the protection of the government then the tax is paid.

This tax is fair in that the number one function of government is to enforce property rights. Those who own more property use this function more therefore should spend more to finance the government in absolute terms. But everybody except the very poor use this function to some extent so everyone pays for it.

The one issue I can think of is the land value of farms is much greater than the value of the food produced on them. I don't know a good solution to that. Maybe a deferment where property tax is accumulated but not collected until the land is transferred to a non-relative or until the land use is transferred to something other than food production.


Its indirect taxation...I like this. As far as the farmers go, the solution would likely use a value as if it were not being used for farming. My question to you on this is how to handle depreciation.
 
2012-09-09 07:14:44 PM  

GeneralJim: cman: ScreamingHangover: cman: There are a lot of racists in the tea party. Surely they do not represent the Tea Party like these anti-capitalists do, right?


And here are plenty of racists in OWS.

I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is anti-capitalist movement then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist.
Nope. False equivalency is false, on several different levels at once. I understand you're trying to make a point with VERY shaky evidence, but, please, do try harder.


THis is why I wish fark had an edit button.

I quoted myself and elaborated on what I said


I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is an anti-capitalist movement because they have a lot of anti-capitalists then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist because the Tea Party has a lot of racists.
 
2012-09-09 07:17:28 PM  

RembrandtQEinstein: three step process to make this country work better

all the numbers are napkin math so substitute whatever smart people thing is right, the idea is the important part

1. ~10-15% duty on all currency leaving the country, no duty on goods.


If that means I don't have to read any more comments on Amazon that "You can get it cheaper from Amazon UK", then I'm all for it.
 
2012-09-09 07:18:58 PM  

GeneralJim: So, you're saying that you PREFER a system that is MUCH more efficient at producing abject poverty and environmental abuse, and MUCH less efficient at producing consumer goods and food? Interesting choice.


Nope. Never said that. Award yourself no points. Plus the "Communism competing directly against Capitalism" is another whole different discussion. The Soviet Union was farked right from the start. It was an un-winnable battle. Capitalism had the two biggest advantages: (1) It could produce much more resources at a faster rate and (2) the capitalism PR is much easier to accept once you start enjoying the fruits of the system (like eating a Big Mac whenever you want and having air conditioner). Comfort begets complacence, as any rags to riches person can attest. Heck, we're in a thread about one of them.

I don't know if I'm a capitalist if capitalism is what's presented by the WallStreeters.

I believe in free enterprise. I also believe in big government, at least for key areas like education and health.
I believe in people having paid jobs. I also believe in companies sharing the benefits with the workers beyond the simple salary, not just the owner keeping everything (granted, the owner/founder still should get the bigger part due to his initial investment)
I don't believe in the stock market and I think it's the single largest scam in history.
I believe in scaled taxes where the more you earn, the higher rate you pay.
I believe in other things too.
 
2012-09-09 07:19:26 PM  

rewind2846: beer4breakfast: And yet some are surprised when people say capitalism has failed to raise the bulk of the population in this country?

The 1% don't want the "rising tide to lift all boats", they just want that tide to lift their yachts.
With enough money, singularly or in groups, that tide can be controlled.
This is what OWS is against... too few people controlling way too much of that water.


Shouldn't that mean global warming is a good thing, creating more water for regular people? Lex Luthor should be a hero, he was going to give the low income families million dollar homes with a nice waterfront view in Superman.
 
2012-09-09 07:22:29 PM  

cman: FreetardoRivera: ScreamingHangover: rewind2846: FTA: "He said Occupy Wall Street's blanket demonization of the rich is un-American."

While he knows how to make money (most crack dealers do), he should really take some time to read a few newspapers from say 2000 onwards.
No one is 'demonizing' the rich. Plenty of rich people out there who don't catch flack because they are not greedy amoral assholes. Plenty of poor amoral assholes out there as well, but the rich ones do more damage.

Here's a hint Jay-Z - take some time and sit down with your friend and fellow businessman Russell Simmons, and let him explain all this to you. It may take awhile, but it may also break you out of the bubble you seem to be in. Remember how it was when you were hustling the streets, and you will remember how the 99% feels now.

Here's a hint OWS: if you can't get someone who grew up in the projects to understand what you're doing, the problem is with you, not the other guy. .


or he is just a really really stupid monkey

Wow, dude.

Go fark yourself


then why did you just send me a private message saying "lol he is a monkey" ?
 
2012-09-09 07:24:25 PM  
If he asked me what I was fighting for, I'd answer him - in broken english.
 
2012-09-09 07:26:51 PM  

rocky_howard: The Soviet Union was farked right from the start. It was an un-winnable battle. Capitalism had the two biggest advantages: (1) It could produce much more resources at a faster rate and (2) the capitalism PR is much easier to accept once you start enjoying the fruits of the system (like eating a Big Mac whenever you want and having air conditioner).


Yes, that was the point.

I also believe in companies sharing the benefits with the workers beyond the simple salary, not just the owner keeping everything

I take that to imply that you are against freedom of contract?

I don't believe in the stock market and I think it's the single largest scam in history.

You sound like a creationist. Not that you'll understand why.

I believe in other things too.

That wasn't a complete list?
 
2012-09-09 07:27:10 PM  

BMFPitt:
rewind2846: No one is 'demonizing' the rich.

There's 2-3 threads on Fark that do just that.


Go back and read the threads (I'm assuming that at least one of them is the Australian millionaire pig thread). She and those like her are not being "demonized" because they are rich. They are catching flack because they're assholes. Rich assholes can do more damage to others than poor assholes.

Most folks like me don't care how much money you have, what car you drive (or have driven for you), where you live or how many russian fish eggs you eat every day with your eggs. None of that affects me in the slightest, unless I'm in the business of selling you cars, houses, bank accounts or caviar. It's when you decide to be all assholey with that money that I become concerned, the Koch brothers being one of the more egregious examples these days.

If all this was about "demonizing the rich", then what about all those rich people like Ellison and Gates and Branson and Soros and Buffett and Zuckerberg and Ballmer who don't catch flack, and the Walton(s), Adelson, Kochs, and others like the Australian PigB*tch who do? Seeing a pattern here?

If you're rich, be thankful for what you have. If you were given that money and didn't earn it, be even more so.
Don't sh*t on those who don't have what you do, help them get where you are.
 
2012-09-09 07:29:32 PM  

rocky_howard: Tools are neutral and they exist to be used.


Technology in and of itself is neutral but the specific tools are not.

rocky_howard: You're missing the forest for the trees. Humankind can produce things without capitalism, y'know?


Yes, we have and we do.

But not the specific things I mentioned. OWS would simply not have existed as it did without social media. Social media would not have existed without capitalism. See my example above regarding writing.

Another example: when I was in college, a group was protesting cutting trees by putting up thousands of posters all over campus. That is inherently hypocritical.

rocky_howard: saying they shouldn't use things made by capitalism to protest is a weak argument considering they live in a capitalist society.


You've just made my point. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that I can't help you.
 
2012-09-09 07:31:05 PM  

joshiz: doyner: OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.

How's that working out for you?

I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.


If they're smart, they will try again with a more substantial agenda. It's a learning experience as all the ones with heavy protest experience are working for the very companies being protested against.
 
2012-09-09 07:31:10 PM  
cman:
I never said that there weren't. The point I was trying to convey to Jim was that if OWS is an anti-capitalist movement because they have a lot of anti-capitalists then surely he would have to admit that the Tea Party movement is racist because the Tea Party has a lot of racists.

And, once more, you miss the point. The OWS movement is NOT anti-capitalist because some of the people attached to it are anti-capitalist, it is anti-capitalist (and pro-Marxist) because the founders of the movement made it that way.
 
2012-09-09 07:32:50 PM  

Silly Jesus: rewind2846: beer4breakfast: And yet some are surprised when people say capitalism has failed to raise the bulk of the population in this country?

The 1% don't want the "rising tide to lift all boats", they just want that tide to lift their yachts.
With enough money, singularly or in groups, that tide can be controlled.
This is what OWS is against... too few people controlling way too much of that water.

Do they have a viable solution...or are they just against it?


ridiculous question, if the people were represented effectively the tide would "lift all boats." Do you have a viable solution to the tide, or are you just against it?
 
2012-09-09 07:34:29 PM  

joshiz: rocky_howard: Tools are neutral and they exist to be used.

Technology in and of itself is neutral but the specific tools are not.

rocky_howard: You're missing the forest for the trees. Humankind can produce things without capitalism, y'know?

Yes, we have and we do.

But not the specific things I mentioned. OWS would simply not have existed as it did without social media. Social media would not have existed without capitalism. See my example above regarding writing.

Another example: when I was in college, a group was protesting cutting trees by putting up thousands of posters all over campus. That is inherently hypocritical.

rocky_howard: saying they shouldn't use things made by capitalism to protest is a weak argument considering they live in a capitalist society.

You've just made my point. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that I can't help you.


Maybe they were protesting certain aspects of capitalism, like the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and not the entirety of capitalism. I know, it's hard to imagine for some people who like to make up stupid shiat to discredit others.

Having a problem with some aspects of capitalism doesn't equal "GIVE UP ALL THE PRODUCTS MADE BY CAPITALISM!!".
 
2012-09-09 07:36:21 PM  
He understood a fast buck when he made the Occupy All Streets t-shirts he was hawking during the New York protests. I believe he applied for a copyright on the term.

/lying asshell.
 
2012-09-09 07:37:00 PM  

fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.


Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.
 
2012-09-09 07:39:22 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Maybe they were protesting certain aspects of capitalism, like the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and not the entirety of capitalism. I know, it's hard to imagine for some people who like to make up stupid shiat to discredit others.


The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. Poverty is a mental illness. Not flaming, not trolling, I seriously believe that. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out. I've had friends who've gotten out and I've had friends who haven't. There are some pretty stark contrasts in what I an others like me have done to get out and what those still there have done and continue to do. And what I have done isn't anything that would be considered immoral / greedy etc.
 
2012-09-09 07:41:54 PM  

joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.


1.bp.blogspot.com

I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.
 
2012-09-09 07:42:14 PM  

BMFPitt:
I take that to imply that you are against freedom of contract?


You seem to love to imply stuff on the things people say. Bad habit. That has little to nothing to do with "freedom of contract".
Wanting more benefits for the workers is being against "freedom of contract"? I love how you try to attach the word freedom to your argument as a way to instantly paint yourself as the good guy. Because, how can anyone be against FREEDOM!!?!?!?!

You sound like a creationist. Not that you'll understand why.

Don't worry, you sound like a sycophant cocksucker, and you'll understand why (since you have experience with how a sycophantic cocksucker sounds like)

That wasn't a complete list?

Nope, why?
 
2012-09-09 07:43:03 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Maybe they were protesting certain aspects of capitalism, like the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and not the entirety of capitalism. I know, it's hard to imagine for some people who like to make up stupid shiat to discredit others.

Having a problem with some aspects of capitalism doesn't equal "GIVE UP ALL THE PRODUCTS MADE BY CAPITALISM!!".


I agree. I have a problem with some aspects of capitalism. I don't disagree with the main points of OWS. They just didn't go about it in a way that had any chance of affecting positive change.
 
2012-09-09 07:43:41 PM  

Silly Jesus: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

Ooh, ooh, I know the answer....

What is, the Tea Partiers weren't breaking any laws, Alex?


Also, the Tea Partiers weren't crapping in buckets and throwing it in the streets. (As someone who has to walk to work, that scores high on my list.)
 
2012-09-09 07:45:37 PM  

joshiz:

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.



As I mentioned earlier, OWS is not an "anti capitalism" movement, they are anti-abuse of power and opposed to the centralization of wealth and influence.

Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.
 
2012-09-09 07:45:38 PM  

Beaver Knievel: Silly Jesus: Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]

Ooh, ooh, I know the answer....

What is, the Tea Partiers weren't breaking any laws, Alex?

Also, the Tea Partiers weren't crapping in buckets and throwing it in the streets. (As someone who has to walk to work, that scores high on my list.)


You mean that doesn't build credibility?
 
2012-09-09 07:46:06 PM  

Silly Jesus: but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.


You said it a lot better than I did.
 
2012-09-09 07:46:32 PM  

BeSerious: joshiz: doyner: OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.

How's that working out for you?

I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there.

The strategy was fine, OWS just forgot who was going to be the ones showing them in whatever light they chose on television.
Nothing will ever change and the 1% will rule us until the end of days.


Yes blame the media! Bc the vast majority of reporters & editors aren't as broke & screwed over as the homeless people in OWS!

A lot of reporters would be down there with you fighting for equality if it wasn't a conflict of interest.

/get a clue
 
2012-09-09 07:48:11 PM  

FloydA: Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.


That I can get down with. Unfortunately, that point was not made very clearly during the time of the OWS protests.
 
2012-09-09 07:48:44 PM  

FloydA: joshiz:

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

As I mentioned earlier, OWS is not an "anti capitalism" movement, they are anti-abuse of power and opposed to the centralization of wealth and influence.

Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.


Have they presented any viable solutions or is the extent of their goals to draw attention to the existence of said problems?
 
2012-09-09 07:49:20 PM  
Thanks for the lively discussion all...one of the best ones I have had on TF/Fark. I gotta run...
 
2012-09-09 07:50:06 PM  

FloydA: joshiz: cman: Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.

I'll take that.

FloydA: OWS is not a protest against capitalism, so your critique doesn't have quite the strength that it might.

Ok, fair enough. Then answer Jay-Z's question: What are you fighting for?

Me? I'm not part of OWS. (I'm mainly fighting to get my students to avoid TXTSPEEK in their term papers, and it's a losing battle.)

OWS? They are fighting for regulations that would decentralize the concentration of power and influence from the banks and a few corporations to the broader population of citizens. They have a number of specific grievances, but they all boil down to the fact that, due to an extreme concentration of wealth, the boards of directors of a few banks and multinational corporations exert influence over the political, judicial, and regulatory systems in this country (and elsewhere) that is far in excess of their numbers, and in doing so, they subvert the democratic process.

For the past year, the corporate media have been repeating the claim that OWS doesn't have a coherent message, and now Jay-Z is repeating the same line, but that claim has never been accurate. They've been quite clear what the movement is about.

(There are, of course, other people who show up wanting to advocate for other issues. At any protest of sufficient size, there are going to be people who jump in and try to get their pet causes attached to a larger movement. But those hangers on do not alter the central message of the movement.)


Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.
 
2012-09-09 07:50:47 PM  

cman: OWS folk had good intentions when they started out. They had a clear goal, to make the Wallstreet bankers pay for all the misery that OWS perceived that the bankers brought. Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.


So much THIS.

I walked by the Occupy people up in Portland, OR months ago, and it looked like a bunch of transients, punks, and hippies just hanging out ( and dirtying up) a park to me. No organization and no focus.

/ contrast OWS to the Jacobins of the French Revolution
// IIRC , the Jacobins started out as a group of wealthy and influential men
 
2012-09-09 07:52:03 PM  

joshiz:
Technology in and of itself is neutral but the specific tools are not.


Uh, yes they are. Cops use guns. Criminals use guns. Nazis uses guns. Allied used guns. Guns don't kill people, people do.

But not the specific things I mentioned. OWS would simply not have existed as it did without social media. Social media would not have existed without capitalism. See my example above regarding writing.

Social media could have existed without capitalism. Monetizing is the only reason people create stuff? No. (Not that monetizing is bad.)
Torrents exist without capitalism.

Another example: when I was in college, a group was protesting cutting trees by putting up thousands of posters all over campus. That is inherently hypocritical.

Ok. And? It's not a comparable situation. Also, you mean hypocritical because they were using paper? Were they protesting cutting trees at all, or a specific set of trees?

You've just made my point. If you don't see the hypocrisy in that I can't help you.

So they shouldn't do anything? That's a nice way for capitalism to ensure its eternal permanency on Earth. "Hey, don't do shiat against me since I created the tools you use to destroy me."

Also, what kind of values do you have that you put a perceived technical hypocrisy above the well being of the population? What's your stance on fighting a war to achieve peace? Do you find that hypocritical too?
 
2012-09-09 07:52:28 PM  
The OWS protests have strong correlations to the Earth First! protests of the 90s.
 
2012-09-09 07:53:43 PM  

dustman81: Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.


Ding! Ding! Ding!
 
2012-09-09 07:56:02 PM  

FloydA: joshiz:

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

As I mentioned earlier, OWS is not an "anti capitalism" movement, they are anti-abuse of power and opposed to the centralization of wealth and influence.

Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism, and neither is abuse of power. It is possible to criticize abuse of the financial system without criticizing the existence of that system.

It is not at all hypocritical to use the products of capitalism to critique abuse and inequality.


Exactly. This is the core point. The "job creators" equate centralization and abuse of power as inherent to capitalism as a way to shield themselves from criticism.

They also tend to believe socioeconomical inequality is the natural state of things and that we shouldn't do anything to mitigate its effects.
 
2012-09-09 07:57:58 PM  
Everyone says what occupy was for is really what they were saying what they wanted occupy to be for. A lot of them are good ideas, but seriously, there was nobody who spoke for the movement. There was nobody to truly help advocate their positions. It was truly just rage. Very legitimate rage, but just unfocused. It really boils down to having nobody in the political system to advocate for them. A true failing of the two party system.
 
2012-09-09 08:01:02 PM  

ScreamingHangover:
Welcome to the real world, you little snowflakes. This crap happens all the time, and in the end, there will be no "participant" medals passed out to anyone who showed up.


Being intentionally obtuse is not a good thing, whether you're from the projects or from a gated neighborhood. Someone's "presentation" should have nothing to do with their intent or their message, for anyone who is smart enough to actually listen, think, then listen again. The corporate media, whose job it was NOT to understand, didn't help much in this regard... but as the words of a popular song go, "when you own the information, you can bend it all you want".

BTW, there were a lot of people not only protesting but supporting OWS who are long past the "snowflake" euphemism you chose to use. They are people with homes, families and jobs, but they (unlike you) seem to have awakened to the fact that a very small group of people is f*cking them with a very big dick made of thousand dollar bills.

You'll get it once your prostate ruptures. Enjoy the push.
 
2012-09-09 08:02:17 PM  
Just like the Tea Party, the individuals involved probably had a relatively diverse view of what they were protesting. Some were protesting all corporations (and were probably fairly hypocritical in doing so, as some have pointed out), others would have been protesting the specific financial practices which lead to the big bust and public bailouts. A lot of Tea Party supporters demand smaller government and less interventionist policy, but would oppose any actions which actually had negative consequences for their own communities (ie their state should not cop a loss of federal funding, just everyone else's).

Here in Australia, we had a very conservative government from 1996 to 2007. I was actively opposed to it. But they did some good things I must acknowledge. One of these was some relatively minor regulation of the banking sector, by establishing an independent financial services regulator. Australia's banks survived the crash much better than most, although our investment banks went backwards like everyone else's. Combine that with some well-targeted stimulus measures and our unemployment is lower than most of the developed world, and although just like everyone else we're feeling some pain, it's not as marked as in most countries.

The Obama government should have a good look at Australia's financial regulation system. It seems to have held up better than most systems in recent times, and was introduced by a government well to Obama's right, so he could presumably sell it with a good rebuttal for the inevitable "socialist" criticisms.
 
2012-09-09 08:05:22 PM  

dustman81:

Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.


You've asked them all? Impressive.
 
2012-09-09 08:07:38 PM  

FloydA: dustman81:

Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.

You've asked them all? Impressive.


Nope, didn't have time. I was working and being productive.
 
2012-09-09 08:07:57 PM  

Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 560x376]

I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.


If you drive a car, you better never complain about the gas prices. Not even under your breath. It would be hypocritical. Cause lord knows, if you use a product, you are in complete agreement with all of the practices involved with with said corporation.

/When was the message to destroy all corporations and live like cavemen?
 
2012-09-09 08:09:46 PM  

rewind2846: Go back and read the threads (I'm assuming that at least one of them is the Australian millionaire pig thread). She and those like her are not being "demonized" because they are rich. They are catching flack because they're assholes. Rich assholes can do more damage to others than poor assholes.


Me and some other people pointed out that she's an asshat. But still more people insisted that basically all rich people are just like her.

It's when you decide to be all assholey with that money that I become concerned, the Koch brothers being one of the more egregious examples these days.

Examples, please?

If all this was about "demonizing the rich", then what about all those rich people like Ellison and Gates and Branson and Soros and Buffett and Zuckerberg and Ballmer who don't catch flack, and the Walton(s), Adelson, Kochs, and others like the Australian PigB*tch who do? Seeing a pattern here?

Yeah, that you'll ignore any problems with people who agree with you politically when they do the same things as those you disagree with.

rocky_howard: You seem to love to imply stuff on the things people say. Bad habit. That has little to nothing to do with "freedom of contract".

..

I say that because I can find no other interpretation of your statement. Do you have one?

Wanting more benefits for the workers is being against "freedom of contract"?

If you want to make it illegal for them to have jobs without those benefits, then yes.

I love how you try to attach the word freedom to your argument as a way to instantly paint yourself as the good guy. Because, how can anyone be against FREEDOM!!?!?!?!

I use the word because it is accurate.

Don't worry, you sound like a sycophant cocksucker, and you'll understand why (since you have experience with how a sycophantic cocksucker sounds like)

Because I'm talking to one?

Nope, why?

Because it seemed like a pretty odd thing to say.
 
2012-09-09 08:13:07 PM  

rocky_howard: Centralization of wealth is not a necessary feature of capitalism


Well there is no economic system for large numbers of humans that lacks that feature, so I am curious on how you intend to separate it out?
 
2012-09-09 08:13:07 PM  

dustman81: FloydA: dustman81:

Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.

You've asked them all? Impressive.

Nope, didn't have time. I was working and being productive.


Glad to hear it. Those burgers ain't gonna flip themselves, after all.
 
2012-09-09 08:14:13 PM  

rocky_howard: Also, what kind of values do you have that you put a perceived technical hypocrisy above the well being of the population? What's your stance on fighting a war to achieve peace? Do you find that hypocritical too?


That's not exactly the same. If you were espousing a position of non-violence but were using violence to achieve your goals, yes.

My point is not that they shouldn't use technology - they should! But at least admit it is a bit hypocritical IF you are protesting against the whole structure of capitalism.

On the other hand, like others have said here, that they only have issues with certain parts of capitalism (and it is there where we agree), then that was not expressed clearly enough. Yes, the corporate media distorted their agenda, but to not know the opponent they were going up against shows a lack of strategy. I don't think their message was clear - at least not to me.

I agree that if they could have expressed their goals better we probably wouldn't be discussing this point. I plead ignorance regarding what the goals of OWS were. There have been a few different answers in this thread so I am still not totally sure.

I would probably be down for the cause, if only I knew what it was.
 
2012-09-09 08:17:32 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.


Except how much money he has and the woman he comes home to.
 
2012-09-09 08:19:05 PM  
I think everyone who answered this is wrong.

treygivens.com

OWS wasn't about fighting the police which is what an armed insurrection would be. They were about fighting people like Richard Fuld.

upload.wikimedia.org

-------------------------------------------

As far Jay-Z's opposition to OWS -consider that the Anonymous mass protest against Scientology was a preliminary to OWS.... and Jay-Z is a scientologist clam. Hail Xenu!
 
2012-09-09 08:21:14 PM  

dustman81: I was working and being productive.


Says the guy posting on Fark.
 
2012-09-09 08:22:55 PM  

steveo1983: The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.

Except how much money he has and the woman he comes home to.


I imagine she confuses him quite a bit, actually. He didn't even consider how the language he uses could be harmful to women until after she bore his daughter, for chrissakes.
 
2012-09-09 08:24:03 PM  

One Bad Apple: The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.

We get it He's black.


Well done.
 
2012-09-09 08:25:31 PM  
Dear Mr. Carter (aka Jay-Z):

OWS is--or was--in favor of radical economic reform, including a more equitable distribution of wealth, and a less interventionist foreign policy. If OWS takes power--don't hold your breath--they'll probably take some of your money away.

Hope that clears things up.
 
2012-09-09 08:25:36 PM  
They were actually rallying together to figure who the fark Jay-Z is.

/heh
 
2012-09-09 08:26:29 PM  

rocky_howard: They also tend to believe socioeconomical inequality is the natural state of things and that we shouldn't do anything to mitigate its effects.


Do you think that everyone being socioeconomically equal is the natural state of things?
 
2012-09-09 08:26:31 PM  

FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.


Are you saying that Michael Moore or Oprah or 0bama or Soros or any of the Hollywood elite don't understand it either since they are multi-millionaires?
 
2012-09-09 08:26:41 PM  

BMFPitt: If you want to make it illegal for them to have jobs without those benefits, then yes.


No, it's not and you're outright lying.

Right now there are several rules that make a contract job illegal if you don't comply with them. So according to your own statements we don't have "freedom of contract."

Also, the "freedom of contract" has been defended by the employers, not the employees. I wonder why... Oh right, it's because it ends up meaning less benefits for the workers.

I use the word because it is accurate.

Nah, it's not accurate in the slightest. Manipulating language is an old trick :P

Because I'm talking to one?

Nope, because you listen to yourself talk every day.

Because it seemed like a pretty odd thing to say.

Only if you're trying to be intentionally obtuse.
 
2012-09-09 08:28:28 PM  

tirob: Dear Mr. Carter (aka Jay-Z):

OWS is--or was--in favor of radical economic reform, including a more equitable distribution of wealth, and a less interventionist foreign policy. If OWS takes power--don't hold your breath--they'll probably take some of your money away.

Hope that clears things up.


Really? They want to redistribute wealth more equitably? That is good to know that they are that radical. Who will determine who should get how much wealth? How will that work?
 
2012-09-09 08:28:36 PM  

Silly Jesus: rocky_howard: They also tend to believe socioeconomical inequality is the natural state of things and that we shouldn't do anything to mitigate its effects.

Do you think that everyone being socioeconomically equal is the natural state of things?


Considering socioeconomics are not a natural phenomenon, clearly not :P
Also, the important part is: mitigating the effects of inequality. Are you against that?
 
2012-09-09 08:28:45 PM  

rewind2846: Someone's "presentation" should have nothing to do with their intent or their message, for anyone who is smart enough to actually listen, think, then listen again.


So transients shiatting in a park and chanting is just as valid as any other way of communicating a message and if the message doesn't get conveyed it's the fault of the receiver?
 
2012-09-09 08:29:06 PM  

FloydA: So a millionaire doesn't like the Occupy movement and doesn't understand what they want? Wow; farkin [i105.photobucket.com image 54x11] subby.


He "liked" it and "knew" enough about it, to try and profit off of it. Until tons of backlash and he quit making it.

i265.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-09 08:29:53 PM  

tirob: OWS is--or was--in favor of radical economic reform, including a more equitable distribution of wealth


They can't even manage an equitable distribution of supplies at their camps, how the fark do they think they can redistribute the wealth of the country?
 
2012-09-09 08:31:08 PM  
Think of it like this: The Occupy movement is like the Nets, and money is like wins. Except there is a slight chance that some of those people may one day get lucky and get money.
 
2012-09-09 08:32:45 PM  

joshiz: doyner: OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.

How's that working out for you?

I'm really not trying to be snarky but to my point above, it doesn't seem like there was ever a clear strategy on how to get there


And, once you're There, how do you control human greed.? There is nothing more amusing to and greedy man than ramming it up high and breaking it off short to some dim-witted "idealist" with a 'degree' in socialism.



I realize that OWS wants everyone except themselves to return to the woods and forage on nut and berries.

OWS is, after all, the spectacularly intellectual Ubermench who can do better than anyone else with Pure Marxism.

Those stupid Russians, Cubans, North Koreans? Too stupid

A sophmore from Yale can do it MUCH better, as long as daddy, the investment banker, keeps sending the checks...

 

I prefer another Eugenic Solution. Announce a huge protest at Camp Perry, Ohio. Shoot, shovel, shut up.. The national IQ will jump up, and we might even get some of the slower Democrats...

 
2012-09-09 08:34:59 PM  

joshiz: But at least admit it is a bit hypocritical IF you are protesting against the whole structure of capitalism.


I still don't see how exactly it's hypocritical or even better, why does it matter?

Do you think if we change of economic model computers are going to stop existing? Or that computers would have never existed sans capitalism?
 
2012-09-09 08:35:11 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: tirob: Dear Mr. Carter (aka Jay-Z):

OWS is--or was--in favor of radical economic reform, including a more equitable distribution of wealth, and a less interventionist foreign policy. If OWS takes power--don't hold your breath--they'll probably take some of your money away.

Hope that clears things up.

Really? They want to redistribute wealth more equitably? That is good to know that they are that radical. Who will determine who should get how much wealth? How will that work?


I confess that I myself am a bit vague on how the mechanics of the grand plan will work, and I do not sense that OWS ever came to a consensus on this issue. Perhaps someone with a better insight than I into the inner workings of OWS could clear this up.
 
2012-09-09 08:35:46 PM  

Mixolydian Master: Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 560x376]

I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.

If you drive a car, you better never complain about the gas prices. Not even under your breath. It would be hypocritical. Cause lord knows, if you use a product, you are in complete agreement with all of the practices involved with with said corporation.

/When was the message to destroy all corporations and live like cavemen?


If I'm saying that Ford is evil while driving a Ford, yes, that would be hypocritical.

Not all of the OWS folks were anti-corporation...but a good many of them were, from what I saw / heard.

And I get what you're saying. If I eat a Chick-fil-a sandwich then I must be anti-gay ....that would get absurd quickly as it's impossible to know where all of the money from all of the parent companies of every product that you buy, goes. "You just bought a candy bar...the parent company of the sub-contractor of the candy bar distributor's supplier donates money to the KKK." Yeah, it'd get absurd quickly....

But, if you're standing in the street and actively shouting that capitalism (as a whole) is evil and that corporations are worthless and evil etc. while holding your Starbucks and taping it all on your Canon, and uploading it on your Apple, then you might just look like a bit of a hypocrite / jackass.

There's a difference between what we're talking about and the Chick-fil-a example.
 
2012-09-09 08:37:39 PM  

Silly Jesus: rewind2846: Someone's "presentation" should have nothing to do with their intent or their message, for anyone who is smart enough to actually listen, think, then listen again.

So transients shiatting in a park and chanting is just as valid as any other way of communicating a message and if the message doesn't get conveyed it's the fault of the receiver?


As I said upthread, there were plenty of protesters and protester supporters who would not qualify as the "transients" FoxNoise tells you that OWS was composed of. They had homes, jobs, families, and all that, but they also realized that a system which purposely rewards the sh*t that went on in the concrete canyons, mahogany paneled boardrooms and corner offices of Wall Street is not only unsustainable, but inherently dangerous to what capitalism really is - a fair and equitable exchange of goods and services between two parties.

What has happened on Wall Street over the past decade was not capitalism.

The point is that those who didn't get it didn't want to get it. They wanted their paradigms to remain intact, and ignoring the real message in favor of "smelly hippy" rants soothed their troubled little psyches against the realization that not only was there something wrong with the system, but that they might be willing participants in that wrong.
 
2012-09-09 08:39:06 PM  
Jump, you f@#kers.

Occupy Wall Street didn't "accomplish" anything because you don't undo 30 years of bullshiat built on top of a regressive and conservative system in one day. You don't even have a platform in the beginning - you just know that something is wrong and want to do something about it. That's what happened, on a mass scale.

And on an aside, reintroducing the language of class (99% vs 1%) back into mainstream political dialogue is a pretty big deal.
 
2012-09-09 08:41:52 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: tirob: Dear Mr. Carter (aka Jay-Z):

OWS is--or was--in favor of radical economic reform, including a more equitable distribution of wealth, and a less interventionist foreign policy. If OWS takes power--don't hold your breath--they'll probably take some of your money away.

Hope that clears things up.

Really? They want to redistribute wealth more equitably? That is good to know that they are that radical. Who will determine who should get how much wealth? How will that work?


www.bolender.com

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
 
2012-09-09 08:43:11 PM  

rocky_howard: Silly Jesus: rocky_howard: They also tend to believe socioeconomical inequality is the natural state of things and that we shouldn't do anything to mitigate its effects.

Do you think that everyone being socioeconomically equal is the natural state of things?

Considering socioeconomics are not a natural phenomenon, clearly not :P
Also, the important part is: mitigating the effects of inequality. Are you against that?


Depends on what you mean by mitigate. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" type of mitigating...no thanks. Also, not a huge fan of entitlements. So yeah, it depends on what you're proposing.
 
2012-09-09 08:43:40 PM  
Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.


I know that the words I'm writing now, those that you've written, and quite often those that you read out in the real world, are black displayed on a white background. This does not mean that the world at large is black and white. Occupy is not anti-corporation, it is pro-human.
 
2012-09-09 08:45:46 PM  
I

FloydA: dustman81:

Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.

You've asked them all? Impressive.


I haven't, But while the OWS was going on I asked about a dozen friends and co-workers on what their opinion was on it and I got the same near identical response every time: "I don't know if I should be for or against them. They don't have a coherent message so I'm really not paying much attention to the whole thing."

/csb
 
2012-09-09 08:46:53 PM  

Silly Jesus: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."


I'm all for social justice but I never was a big fan of Marx solutions. The guy had a preternatural understanding of the foils of Capitalism to the point of describing it perfectly, but he really couldn't come up with a feasible alternative.

That quote turns humans into automatons. The big majority of inventions in human history happened because someone wanted it. The "want" is the single best motivator in the universe. This "according to his need" proposition is unfeasible in real life. We just need to figure out how to put a limit to the "want" so it doesn't become excessive like it has turned to in American society.
 
2012-09-09 08:50:12 PM  

rewind2846: Silly Jesus: rewind2846: Someone's "presentation" should have nothing to do with their intent or their message, for anyone who is smart enough to actually listen, think, then listen again.

So transients shiatting in a park and chanting is just as valid as any other way of communicating a message and if the message doesn't get conveyed it's the fault of the receiver?

As I said upthread, there were plenty of protesters and protester supporters who would not qualify as the "transients" FoxNoise tells you that OWS was composed of. They had homes, jobs, families, and all that, but they also realized that a system which purposely rewards the sh*t that went on in the concrete canyons, mahogany paneled boardrooms and corner offices of Wall Street is not only unsustainable, but inherently dangerous to what capitalism really is - a fair and equitable exchange of goods and services between two parties.

What has happened on Wall Street over the past decade was not capitalism.

The point is that those who didn't get it didn't want to get it. They wanted their paradigms to remain intact, and ignoring the real message in favor of "smelly hippy" rants soothed their troubled little psyches against the realization that not only was there something wrong with the system, but that they might be willing participants in that wrong.


I'm leaning heavily toward agreeing with you...but I just think that there was a bit too much of the "let's be cool and camp here and break the law and show the man how serious we are" nonsense for the media to really ignore it. It took over any other message that existed. You see this is some sort of conspiracy in the media because they are the problem and they know it etc. I see it as them reporting how they always do...on the sensational. You shiat in a bucket and throw it in the street while a group of Nobel prize winners is speaking nearby and all of the cameras will rush to show you the idiot shiatting in the bucket. That's not some conspiracy on the part of the media to not let the message of the smart guys get out...it's the media working for their audience, the ignorant masses.

So, yeah, maybe the media is to blame for some of the failure to get out the message, but I don't use a conspiracy theory of sorts to explain it. They simply showed the circus because they knew that's what the people wanted to see.
 
2012-09-09 08:50:17 PM  

Silly Jesus: Depends on what you mean by mitigate. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" type of mitigating...no thanks. Also, not a huge fan of entitlements. So yeah, it depends on what you're proposing.


Heh, just posted something against that Marxist principle.

Anyway, this is not the forum nor the time to propose a full solution, so don't expect one.

I think things like socialized healthcare are good ways of mitigating inequalities. Not having to worry about going into bankruptcy due to a disease you can't cover is a very big deal. It's also a humane thing to do.

Not talking about everybody getting a jacuzzi, mind you :P
 
2012-09-09 08:51:03 PM  

rocky_howard: Do you think if we change of economic model computers are going to stop existing? Or that computers would have never existed sans capitalism?


No not at all. But then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
 
2012-09-09 08:51:48 PM  

fark'emfeed'emfish: Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.

I know that the words I'm writing now, those that you've written, and quite often those that you read out in the real world, are black displayed on a white background. This does not mean that the world at large is black and white. Occupy is not anti-corporation, it is pro-human.


That's a bit vague....and as such, meaningless.
 
2012-09-09 08:52:31 PM  
Are these OWS people still active?

Aren't they aware that they are just hypocritical as the Tea Partiers who have the audacity to protest government spending while using government roads? Clearly they haven't gotten the memo that they can only protest injustices if and only if they satisfy the consistency requirement of arbitrary netizens.
 
2012-09-09 08:52:56 PM  

fark'emfeed'emfish: Occupy is not anti-corporation, it is pro-human.


I'm glad that's settled then.
 
2012-09-09 08:53:36 PM  

rocky_howard: Silly Jesus: Depends on what you mean by mitigate. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" type of mitigating...no thanks. Also, not a huge fan of entitlements. So yeah, it depends on what you're proposing.

Heh, just posted something against that Marxist principle.

Anyway, this is not the forum nor the time to propose a full solution, so don't expect one.

I think things like socialized healthcare are good ways of mitigating inequalities. Not having to worry about going into bankruptcy due to a disease you can't cover is a very big deal. It's also a humane thing to do.

Not talking about everybody getting a jacuzzi, mind you :P


Fair enough.
 
2012-09-09 08:58:41 PM  

WMittensRomney: Jump, you f@#kers.

Occupy Wall Street didn't "accomplish" anything because you don't undo 30 years of bullshiat built on top of a regressive and conservative system in one day. You don't even have a platform in the beginning - you just know that something is wrong and want to do something about it. That's what happened, on a mass scale.

And on an aside, reintroducing the language of class (99% vs 1%) back into mainstream political dialogue is a pretty big deal.


got it. so what they accomplished was class warfare. anything else?
 
2012-09-09 09:00:21 PM  

fark'emfeed'emfish: I know that the words I'm writing now, those that you've written, and quite often those that you read out in the real world, are black displayed on a white background. This does not mean that the world at large is black and white. Occupy is not anti-corporation, it is pro-human.


well, if they are pro-human and that is their focus, shouldn't they be out protesting against SkyNet?
 
2012-09-09 09:01:56 PM  

super_grass: Are these OWS people still active?

Aren't they aware that they are just hypocritical as the Tea Partiers who have the audacity to protest government spending while using government roads?


Oh not this again.
Oh look a strawman!

Protesting out of control Government Spending != protesting any Government Spending.
 
2012-09-09 09:06:10 PM  
Silly Jesus:
The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. Poverty is a mental illness. Not flaming, not trolling, I seriously believe that. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out. I've had friends who've gotten out and I've had friends who haven't. There are some pretty stark contrasts in what I an others like me have done to get out and what those still there have done and continue to do. And what I have done isn't anything that would be considered immoral / greedy etc.

Very nicely phrased. Have you a newsletter to which I might subscribe?
 
2012-09-09 09:07:08 PM  

Mixolydian Master: Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 560x376]

I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.

If you drive a car, you better never complain about the gas prices. Not even under your breath. It would be hypocritical. Cause lord knows, if you use a product, you are in complete agreement with all of the practices involved with with said corporation.

/When was the message to destroy all corporations and live like cavemen?


I think never. But it's a lot easier to dismiss that irrational argument than actually addressing the deeply rooted problems with our society.
 
2012-09-09 09:11:13 PM  
OWS is a failed movement. There are 66 people in Congress affiliated with the Tea Party while OWS has ZERO. OWS failed because they fought for vague and varied ideas. They should have had one simple demand - put the white-collar crooks in jail.
 
2012-09-09 09:14:11 PM  

RembrandtQEinstein: 1. ~10-15% duty on all currency leaving the country, no duty on goods.
2. abolish all federal income taxes including corporate and payroll taxes
3. create a national property tax equal to somewhere between 1-2% of the value of the goods calculated monthly and paid annually. Property would include all real property such as land, buildings, and equipment. It would also include all intellectual property including copyrights, patents, and trademarks which are enforced by the government. And it would also include investment vehicles such as stocks, bonds, tbills etc.


Actually doesn't sound too bad. The only things that jump out at me are that you're having to reassess the value of everyone's shiat twelve times a year, which sounds like it would be a lot of work. Also, how do you assign a monetary value to copyrights, patents and trademarks (separate from the actual money you've earned in royalties)? Lastly, I don't like the idea of repeatedly taxing money that's parked in investments. As long as it's just numbers in a ledger, leave it alone - tax it when it gets turned back into something spendable.
 
2012-09-09 09:16:41 PM  
Never heard of jay z but to me he seems right about this one. The occupy protests were nothing more than bunch of undirected hooliganism. They had no clear goals or platform. I would love to have heard one law or policy that they wanted enacted, alas they did nothing but blather.
 
2012-09-09 09:16:50 PM  

NeedleGuy: IFloydA: dustman81:

Ask OWS protesters what they are protesting. Each one will give you a different answer.

You've asked them all? Impressive.

I haven't, But while the OWS was going on I asked about a dozen friends and co-workers on what their opinion was on it and I got the same near identical response every time: "I don't know if I should be for or against them. They don't have a coherent message so I'm really not paying much attention to the whole thing."

/csb


That's the funny thing I keep hearing from people. People seem to be saying "I'm not paying attention to what they say" AND "they don't have a coherent message."

Not "I haven't heard a coherent message," but "they don't have one." And people are somehow arriving at this conclusion without actually paying attention to what the OWS people say.

When I see that type of doublethink, I automatically become curious and start to suspect that there is something more than just "bad message control" going on.

YMMV I'm not a member of the Occupy movement, I'm just an anthropologist trying to understand people's behavior.
 
2012-09-09 09:17:40 PM  
He doesn't sound confused. He sounds like he thinks some people deserve to be WAAAAAAY richer than others and that as long as they do it ethically it is okay.

On the other hand he completely contradicts his 'what are you fighting for' when he makes the statement that he doesn't think it is okay for rich people to beat up on poor people. I am pretty sure you know exactly what they are fighting for you state that you are against it too...
 
2012-09-09 09:19:35 PM  
It is possible to be anti-greed and anti-corruption and not be anti-capitalist. Wall Street and the Banks farked everyone. Hard. I'm guessing if a lot of you thought for yourselves for a couple of seconds instead of parroting Fox News bullshiat you'd realize that their goals are probably pretty similar to your even if you don't like the tactics or their clothes/hair.
i.imgur.com
 
2012-09-09 09:24:03 PM  
He's right. The OWS need a coherent message along the lines of
1. Something Glass-Steagall something something.
2. Roll back some Bush cuts.
3. Something mortgage, something education debt.
4. Soon if not now.
 
2012-09-09 09:25:13 PM  
What Jay-Z says in the article "Yeah, the 1 percent that's robbing people, and deceiving people, these fixed mortgages and all these things, and then taking their home away from them, that's criminal, that's bad."

It sounds like he agrees 100% with the OWS protesters...
 
2012-09-09 09:25:13 PM  

rewind2846: Silly Jesus: rewind2846: Someone's "presentation" should have nothing to do with their intent or their message, for anyone who is smart enough to actually listen, think, then listen again.

So transients shiatting in a park and chanting is just as valid as any other way of communicating a message and if the message doesn't get conveyed it's the fault of the receiver?

As I said upthread, there were plenty of protesters and protester supporters who would not qualify as the "transients" FoxNoise tells you that OWS was composed of. They had homes, jobs, families, and all that, but they also realized that a system which purposely rewards the sh*t that went on in the concrete canyons, mahogany paneled boardrooms and corner offices of Wall Street is not only unsustainable, but inherently dangerous to what capitalism really is - a fair and equitable exchange of goods and services between two parties.

What has happened on Wall Street over the past decade was not capitalism.

The point is that those who didn't get it didn't want to get it. They wanted their paradigms to remain intact, and ignoring the real message in favor of "smelly hippy" rants soothed their troubled little psyches against the realization that not only was there something wrong with the system, but that they might be willing participants in that wrong.


I remember hearing snippets of Mike Savage shows during the OWS time, and the man was absolutely sickening in his attacks on them. To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to), freeloaders on society, a threat to capitalism and the American way of life, filth of the lowest level of society, etc. And he spend 90% of his time talking about OWS with his voice raised to his trademark near-screaming level of manufactured outrage. The other conservative mouthpieces were doing the demonizing routine too, but Savage was just... wow. I'm surprised that man hasn't died from an anyeurism caused by excessive blood pressure yet.
 
2012-09-09 09:25:59 PM  
Aussie_As:
The Obama government should have a good look at Australia's financial regulation system. It seems to have held up better than most systems in recent times, and was introduced by a government well to Obama's right, so he could presumably sell it with a good rebuttal for the inevitable "socialist" criticisms.

I'm fine with a regulated financial market. I'm also fine with an UNREGULATED financial market. I even believe that the two could live side-by-side productively and efficiently.

In a regulated market, the government can, for institutions which follow government rules, insure the money in the fund. People who invest in unregulated markets are on their own. None of this is bad, and people can select the type of risk and personal management of fincances with which they are comfortable.

But, what you CANNOT do is take the regulation off of the financial industry, and continue to back up their losses with public money. That's seriously pants-on-head retarded. For example, look at it as a casino. In a regulated fund, the ONLY way to deal with a casino would be via ownership -- stock, or whatever. But, if someone wants to go into the casino, and drop a grand on 17 on the roulette wheel, why on Earth should they expect the taxpayers to pony up when they lose? In a nutshell, that's what we did. Why would I NOT bet, as much as I could, at a casino, if I knew I could keep my winnings, and someone else would pick up the losses? Answer: There is NO reason not to bet it all every time, and let it ride any time I win. To say that such policy encourages risky behavior is an understatement to the point of idiocy. ... and U.S. government policy -- but I repeat myself.
 
2012-09-09 09:27:14 PM  

Billy Bathsalt: He's right. The OWS need a coherent message along the lines of
1. Something Glass-Steagall something something.
2. Roll back some Bush cuts.
3. Something mortgage, something education debt.
4. Soon if not now.


The cause of the lack of direction is a direct result of not wanting the movement hijacked by third parties. It's good for organizations to support Occupy but when they starting dragging their agenda it can cause division and Fox News will just saying shiat like Occupy is ACORN. Wait, they did that the second it started.
 
2012-09-09 09:29:17 PM  
The ironic thing is that OWS would have made some significant headway had they hired a lobbying firm to push their agenda.

There was actually quite a bit of momentum last year with the economy in the dumps and the banks getting bailed out. But they eschewed using the existing power structures and methods in favor of sitting in parks and drumming and chanting, and they were all but forgotten.
 
2012-09-09 09:29:34 PM  
OWS lost a lot of support in NYC when its members attempted to shut down the subways in lower Manhattan last fall.

farking idiots.
 
2012-09-09 09:30:33 PM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: I remember hearing snippets of Mike Savage shows during the OWS time, and the man was absolutely sickening in his attacks on them. To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to), freeloaders on society, a threat to capitalism and the American way of life, filth of the lowest level of society, etc. And he spend 90% of his time talking about OWS with his voice raised to his trademark near-screaming level of manufactured outrage. The other conservative mouthpieces were doing the demonizing routine too, but Savage was just... wow. I'm surprised that man hasn't died from an anyeurism caused by excessive blood pressure yet.


To be fair to Savage, though, that's how he refers to everyone.
 
2012-09-09 09:33:46 PM  
Silly Jesus: The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor keep getting poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. Poverty is a mental illness. Not flaming, not trolling, I seriously believe that. I've been in poverty and I've gotten out. I've had friends who've gotten out and I've had friends who haven't. There are some pretty stark contrasts in what I an others like me have done to get out and what those still there have done and continue to do. And what I have done isn't anything that would be considered immoral / greedy etc.

Nice load of psychobabble and "my personal experience is how it happens everywhere" malarky there. All you needed to do was compare poverty as a "mental illness" to homosexuality as a "mental illness" and it would have been beautiful.
 
2012-09-09 09:36:07 PM  

GeneralJim: Aussie_As: ...

I'm fine with a regulated financial market. I'm also fine with an UNREGULATED financial market. I even believe that the two could live side-by-side productively and efficiently.

In a regulated market, the government can, for institutions which follow government rules, insure the money in the fund. People who invest in unregulated markets are on their own. None of this is bad, and people can select the type of risk and personal management of fincances with which they are comfortable.

But, what you CANNOT do is take the regulation off of the financial industry, and continue to back up their losses with public money. That's seriously pants-on-head retarded. For example, look at it as a casino. In a regulated fund, the ONLY way to deal with a casino would be via ownership -- stock, or whatever. But, if someone wants to go into the casino, and drop a grand on 17 on the roulette wheel, why on Earth should they expect the taxpayers to pony up when they lose? In a nutshell, that's what we did. Why would I NOT bet, as much as I could, at a casino, if I knew I could keep my winnings, and someone else would pick up the losses? Answer: There is NO reason not to bet it all every time, and let it ride any time I win. To say that such policy encourages risky behavior is an understatement to the point of idiocy. ... and U.S. government policy -- but I repeat myself.


I agree. The financial regulation I'm describing is more about ensuring transparency (particularly as it applies to investor risk) rather than restricting certain types of investment, although I wouldn't rule that out entirely. I believe a lot of the bubble which occurred in the global economy occurred because investors were not aware of just how exposed they were to financial products which amounted to little more than Ponzi schemes. As long as there is transparency for investors, the risk should be on their head.
 
2012-09-09 09:37:36 PM  
Wow, if you were to add the entire publicity the Occumopes got in the last three months with what they got from something called "Jay Z" you'd be ahead of the games.
 
2012-09-09 09:38:43 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: I remember hearing snippets of Mike Savage shows during the OWS time, and the man was absolutely sickening in his attacks on them. To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to), freeloaders on society, a threat to capitalism and the American way of life, filth of the lowest level of society, etc. And he spend 90% of his time talking about OWS with his voice raised to his trademark near-screaming level of manufactured outrage. The other conservative mouthpieces were doing the demonizing routine too, but Savage was just... wow. I'm surprised that man hasn't died from an anyeurism caused by excessive blood pressure yet.

To be fair to Savage, though, that's how he refers to everyone.


He's certainly fueled by hate and anger, that's for sure. He can't go 60 seconds without insulting someone or raising his voise, and when someone calls in to debate or refute him he goes ballistic. I can only imagine the medicals bills he has, probably filled with tranquilizers and blood pressure meds.

He's also obsessed with wanting America to return to being what it was when he was a kid. How old is he?
 
2012-09-09 09:41:07 PM  

Turd_Ferguson: One Bad Apple: The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.

We get it He's black.

Well done.


Well, at least he's earning his place on my ignore list.
 
2012-09-09 09:47:21 PM  

Silly Jesus: Xenomech: [www.thenation.com image 550x506]

[amkon.net image 504x356]


What does drinking coffee have to do with being pissed off about corporate bailouts?

Was starbucks bailed out?
 
2012-09-09 09:53:21 PM  

joshiz: I actually agree with reigning in corporate influence and prosecuting bankers for their crimes/regulating the banking system - alas most of the tenants of OWS. I'm just critiquing their methods. Whether they did not accurately get their message out (and I don't buy blaming it on the corporate media), let other interests derail their goals, or give up in the face of opposition it just doesn't seem like OWS had a clear strategy.



Well then you're an idiot. The OWS movement had very clear goals, but the mainstream media kept running interviews with retarded kids over and over who had absolutely no idea why they were there, or whom were unable to properly vocalize their opinions under questioning. I participated both in person and online at varying points in time, and talked to countless intelligent people with very valid arguments. I never once saw any of these caliber of people in the media coverage. OWS got rebranded as hippy communism by the powers that be, and thats the smear campaign they ran... and it worked.

I dont blame you though. The fact that you hold these opinions just goes to show how successful the misinformation effort was. It saddens me though that this is how most people see what truly was a righteous cause.

OWS was against profiteering, not capitalism.
 
2012-09-09 09:53:32 PM  
flamingboard speaks the truth
 
2012-09-09 09:58:51 PM  

flamingboard: Billy Bathsalt: He's right. The OWS need a coherent message along the lines of
1. Something Glass-Steagall something something.
2. Roll back some Bush cuts.
3. Something mortgage, something education debt.
4. Soon if not now.

The cause of the lack of direction is a direct result of not wanting the movement hijacked by third parties. It's good for organizations to support Occupy but when they starting dragging their agenda it can cause division and Fox News will just saying shiat like Occupy is ACORN. Wait, they did that the second it started.


Luckily for OWS, the ISO has stepped in to take over leadership. Now, at least they'll have a cohesive message.
 
2012-09-09 10:00:59 PM  
Occupy is confused by Occupy.
 
2012-09-09 10:02:13 PM  
The other problem OWS had was that a lot of the serious issues people were trying to bring up are vastly complicated... its hard to explain to people whats wrong with the banking system in a 5 second sound bite... which is how most of the population is used to receiving their political information.
 
2012-09-09 10:03:08 PM  

rocky_howard: No, it's not and you're outright lying.


Keep telling yourself that.

Right now there are several rules that make a contract job illegal if you don't comply with them. So according to your own statements we don't have "freedom of contract."

That is correct.

Also, the "freedom of contract" has been defended by the employers, not the employees.

False. I'm an employee.

I wonder why... Oh right, it's because it ends up meaning less benefits for the workers.

You would rather someone be unemployed than have a job under terms you disagree with. I find that position to be horrible.

Nah, it's not accurate in the slightest. Manipulating language is an old trick :P

Please elaborate on what you find inaccurate about it.
 
2012-09-09 10:04:33 PM  

cman: joshiz: cman: Thats who OWS is fighting against.

I have to agree with Jay-Z. What is your goal? What have you accomplished?

How can you reconcile raging against capitalism using the byproducts of that system (computers, social media)?

When 'The Man' cleared you out, you all just gave up? Why?

I'm all for organizing and protesting against a cause. But OWS just seems like misguided rage. Or even guided, ADHD rage that moved on to something else.

OWS folk had good intentions when they started out. They had a clear goal, to make the Wallstreet bankers pay for all the misery that OWS perceived that the bankers brought. Problem is is that others took this movement and piled on their own causes instead of just sticking with the original idea. Thats where OWS lost the war.


^ this shizz....church!
 
2012-09-09 10:07:05 PM  

joshiz: chrisr64: Huh? Thats like saying I can't put any objections in writing using pen and paper due to using "byproducts of that system"

If your argument was against writing, then using pen and paper would be stupid. That's what I am saying.

"I'm against picketing -- I just don't know how to show it." --Mitch Hedberg


Well, how are they supposed to get their message out in 2012 without some sort of electrical telecommunication devices that dominate a high percentage of the form a great deal of the populace gets their information from? "i invented it, it's mine if you don't fall lockstep with my beliefs"?
 
2012-09-09 10:14:53 PM  
Because People in power are Stupid:

Law-abiding people acting civilly, peacefully and with common consideration for others exercising their rights while not being a disruptive, mess of an expense to the taxpayer... vs. well, not.
 
2012-09-09 10:15:17 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: The ironic thing is that OWS would have made some significant headway had they hired a lobbying firm to push their agenda.


Since when does anyone need a "lobbying firm" to tell people the truth?
 
2012-09-09 10:15:39 PM  

Silly Jesus: fark'emfeed'emfish: Silly Jesus: joshiz: fark'emfeed'emfish: or... germans made computers in 1936, long before capitalism had a go at it.

Then use non-capitalistic computers do your family-owned social media organizing. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

You can't just use the tools that are most convenient even though they came about as a result of what you are protesting against.

Say what you want about the efficacy of the hippies, but when they advocated 'dropping out' of society, they meant it and did it. You have to live by example, otherwise no one will take you seriously.

I understand that it's a little impractical for them to try to get their message out in today's world without using a corporate camera etc., but at the same time it does take away from the message a little bit. The hypocrisy can't be completely ignored.

I know that the words I'm writing now, those that you've written, and quite often those that you read out in the real world, are black displayed on a white background. This does not mean that the world at large is black and white. Occupy is not anti-corporation, it is pro-human.

That's a bit vague....and as such, meaningless.


bullshiat, that's as clear as can be. while you and yours may not want to understand we don't all have to play stupid.
 
2012-09-09 10:17:24 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: fark'emfeed'emfish: I know that the words I'm writing now, those that you've written, and quite often those that you read out in the real world, are black displayed on a white background. This does not mean that the world at large is black and white. Occupy is not anti-corporation, it is pro-human.

well, if they are pro-human and that is their focus, shouldn't they be out protesting against SkyNet?


I'm pretty sure anonymous is on that.
 
2012-09-09 10:18:06 PM  

rewind2846: AverageAmericanGuy: The ironic thing is that OWS would have made some significant headway had they hired a lobbying firm to push their agenda.

Since when does anyone need a "lobbying firm" to tell people the truth?


you don't. But if you want the government to actually do something about it a lobbying firm helps.
 
2012-09-09 10:18:13 PM  

Alonjar: The other problem OWS had was that a lot of the serious issues people were trying to bring up are vastly complicated... its hard to explain to people whats wrong with the banking system in a 5 second sound bite... which is how most of the population is used to receiving their political information making their investment decisions.


FTFY
 
2012-09-09 10:19:15 PM  

doyner: joshiz: Ok, fair enough. Then answer Jay-Z's question: What are you fighting for?

We have a system whereby if the corporation is large enough, it enjoys private profit and public risk. OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.


Like GM and Solyndra?
 
2012-09-09 10:23:31 PM  

surfrider: Law-abiding people acting civilly, peacefully and with common consideration for others exercising their rights while not being a disruptive, mess of an expense to the taxpayer... vs. well, not.


upload.wikimedia.org

"Gentlemen, I believe we have a Tory in our midst."
 
2012-09-09 10:23:57 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Keizer_Ghidorah: I remember hearing snippets of Mike Savage shows during the OWS time, and the man was absolutely sickening in his attacks on them. To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to), freeloaders on society, a threat to capitalism and the American way of life, filth of the lowest level of society, etc. And he spend 90% of his time talking about OWS with his voice raised to his trademark near-screaming level of manufactured outrage. The other conservative mouthpieces were doing the demonizing routine too, but Savage was just... wow. I'm surprised that man hasn't died from an anyeurism caused by excessive blood pressure yet.

To be fair to Savage, though, that's how he refers to everyone.


Why would you want to be fair to that piece of shiat?
 
2012-09-09 10:25:24 PM  
Start sentencing white collar crime as severe as it should be. The hypocrisy that someone (poor, colored) who robs a store of $20 will spend more time in prison than someone (upper class, wears a suit) who uses the system to steal hundreds of millions.
And none of this club fed, regular prison, general population.
Enjoy your nutraloaf.
 
2012-09-09 10:26:17 PM  
This just in "If you can't put your diverse group of free thinkers into a simple powerpoint presentation of your goals then you don't get recognized as a legitimate organization or movement"

Kind of how we used to claim certain people couldn't vote, while claiming every person has the right to vote, by claiming that those people just weren't people. easy.

They were mad at the system written by the powerful and wealthy to the benefit of the powerful and wealthy, and to the detriment of everyone else. They were mad that the rich and powerful people who were in charge of our largest financial institutions used our money for their benefit in a risky way and when the risk finally caught up with them, we were the ones stuck with the bill, while they kept all the profits. They were mad at all the lies they had been told growing up, that opportunity was there for the taking regardless of where you come from if you just work hard. But it isn't.

That's as close as I can get.

People who succeed see their success as earned.
People who don't succeed see success as arbitrary at best, or as the direct result of advantage.

I think the real answer is somewhere in between. The way life works, the only real success is survival and propagation, everything else is secondary.
 
2012-09-09 10:29:17 PM  

Rip Dashrock: Start sentencing white collar crime as severe as it should be. The hypocrisy that someone (poor, colored) who robs a store of $20 will spend more time in prison than someone (upper class, wears a suit) who uses the system to steal hundreds of millions.
And none of this club fed, regular prison, general population.
Enjoy your nutraloaf.


Trouble us, bankers can afford to bribe their way out of trouble. The guy who steals $20, not so much.
 
2012-09-09 10:31:17 PM  
Most people want to blame OTHERS for THEIR problems. I feel bad for people that are evicted from their homes. However it is truly not their home unless the mortgage is paid off. No one forced you to sign a sheet of paper to borrow money for 15 or 30 years. You made a choice. And sometimes bad things happen. Did they put away money? Did they have an emergency fund?

Okay, maybe they didn't have a good paying job and they didn't have a lot of money. Why didn't they work on building better/more valuable skills instead of being on facebook and playing xbox?

People feel entitled to too many things. If you didn't earn it, then you don't deserve it. It is really that simple.
 
2012-09-09 10:36:37 PM  
Silly Jesus
The story will understandably become about your tactics rather than your message.

The medium is the message. The camps were prefigurative examples of a different way of organizing society. The fact that they lasted so long that the government felt compelled to crush them, when they were probably expected to collapse on their own after a few days, should be the real story here.
 
2012-09-09 10:37:34 PM  
Did Fark get a history tab?

Occupy? How retro.
 
2012-09-09 10:39:26 PM  
static.neatoshop.com 
OT: What is that? I don't get it.
 
2012-09-09 10:40:09 PM  

rewind2846: ScreamingHangover:
Welcome to the real world, you little snowflakes. This crap happens all the time, and in the end, there will be no "participant" medals passed out to anyone who showed up.

Being intentionally obtuse is not a good thing, whether you're from the projects or from a gated neighborhood. Someone's "presentation" should have nothing to do with their intent or their message, for anyone who is smart enough to actually listen, think, then listen again. The corporate media, whose job it was NOT to understand, didn't help much in this regard... but as the words of a popular song go, "when you own the information, you can bend it all you want".

BTW, there were a lot of people not only protesting but supporting OWS who are long past the "snowflake" euphemism you chose to use. They are people with homes, families and jobs, but they (unlike you) seem to have awakened to the fact that a very small group of people is f*cking them with a very big dick made of thousand dollar bills.

You'll get it once your prostate ruptures. Enjoy the push.


See: this is a perfect example of why the OWS movement failed from the get go: "for anyone who is smart enough to listen", "presentation should have nothing to do with their intent or their message"

How the message is delivered is everything and if you're unable to communicate it to your target audience the fault is your own. To claim that presentation is irrelevant and "anyone smart enough to listen" will get it: do you realize how much of a pompous twit you come off as?

I'd imagine the goal of the movement was to recruit more people into it: their effort should have been to educate and enlist. Instead it was full of a bunch of pretentious douchebags who were more concerned about preaching to the choir than actually recruiting.

The first mistake was acting confrontation ally with the police. They were having their pensions and medical benefits cut. OWS should have been actively making a positive impression on them: hell, they should have been recruitment target number one. I'm not saying you gotta make them your new best friend, but intentionally antagonizing them from the start was a huge mistake. The cops are getting screwed over just like everyone else. Why make their lives more miserable? Or were they not smart enough to listen?

Then there's the non-white non-middle class. If you had spread the message to folks in Marcy Projects. They've been getting screwed over for decades. Why was done to recruit from the bottom of the barrel? The ones who've been getting shafted for generations? Or were they not smart enough to listen?

I understand Jay Z completely about the OWS: remember where he's from. He grew up in a world where the idea of taking a few months off to camp out and hole up signs and bang drums is ridiculous. To someone from March Projects, you're just a bunch of whiny rich white kids complaining because other rich white kids have more stuff than you. If you think they should see it as anything else, then it's your fault they don't.
 
2012-09-09 10:40:47 PM  

RanDomino: Silly Jesus
The story will understandably become about your tactics rather than your message.

The medium is the message. The camps were prefigurative examples of a different way of organizing society. The fact that they lasted so long that the government felt compelled to crush them, when they were probably expected to collapse on their own after a few days, should be the real story here.


Lulz. Who "crushed" the camp in Chicago?

Oh yeah "WINTER."

And the douchebags forgot to emerge from hibernation.

No it wuz de govmint ut cwushed dem! Shut up
 
2012-09-09 10:42:37 PM  
rocky_howard:
Also, the important part is: mitigating the effects of inequality. Are you against that?

I don't know about the person to whom you addressed this, but *I* certainly AM against mitigating the effects of inequality.

Are you NOT? Are you saying that I should be able to be on a professional basketball team in the NBA, and make huge sums of money, irrespective of how well I play basketball? To be fair, if I were paid millions a year, I would bust my ass to do as good a job as I could, but, somehow, I think those with a larger quantity of natural talent would kick my ass all over the court. So, it would be a good thing that positions would be awarded by lottery, to make sure that those with more talent did not have an advantage in the NBA.

And, I'm sure that millions of people would tune in to watch a bunch of random jerkweeds, like you and me, play B-ball in the big leagues. And sponsors would gladly pay the huge sums that allow them access to all those millions of fans, even if the players had an assortment of liabilities and even outright handicaps. Seriously, people can get VERY fired up over wheelchair basketball, so a mixed league should do okay.

Oh, and I've always wanted to be an airline pilot. I mean, I've not had any flight classes, but it would be unfair to discriminate based upon my training and abilities, wouldn't it? Again, if I had the job, I would try my best to get everyone to the (correct, hopefully) destination safely. I know you would wish for (and perhaps pray for) the best possible outcome for my work efforts -- ESPECIALLY if you were on the plane I was flying.

Oh, and surgeons make a lot of money, too. Do you want a surgeon who got the job as part of some Jobs Act after high school? Or a financial adviser with no skill but a lot of enthusiasm, and gratitude for his job?

Do you really live in such a fantasy world? I'm betting you don't, because in even a fantasy world, people would want the best at activity X to be doing activity X. The economy advances by people doing well in business, yes, but a VITAL part of that is that the people who go into business only to make stupid decisions use up their money, and their investors' money, doing stupid things, and go out of business, offering "going out of business" discounts on their equipment and inventory for others to benefit from their loss.

Capitalism is a brutal, Darwinian system, and it sucks, massively. It just sucks LESS than every other system we have ever tried. Every single time people, with the best of intentions, screw with it, the efficiency of the whole system suffers, and abject poverty increases.
 
2012-09-09 10:43:24 PM  

BMFPitt: Keep telling yourself that.


I will. Thank you.

That is correct.

Okay, then, keep it that way.

False. I'm an employee.

No, you're what they call a useful idiot since you're arguing against your own benefits.

You would rather someone be unemployed than have a job under terms you disagree with. I find that position to be horrible.

Who said they'd be unemployed? Irrelevant scenario is irrelevant.

Please elaborate on what you find inaccurate about it.

Because freedom of contract is a sophism harnessed by employers who want to give their workers less benefits.
It's loaded language used to misguide people into thinking it's good because they have choice!!!!
when in reality, it'll only be used to give them LESS freedom of everything else.
 
2012-09-09 10:49:51 PM  

kg2095: KingoftheCheese: Because People in power are Stupid:

Continue to bite the hand that feeds you and eventually you're gonna get slapped. Simple as that.

Wow. Nice country you have there, where you can get 'slapped' by the rich and powerful for speaking out against greed and corruption. Whatever happened to America?


It's not that you spoke out about injustice- it's how you went about it that you get slapped. Not by the rich but by the laws which define how we all act in society.

I know- not fair that rich people can afford a bed while bums get rolled for sleeping under bridges. Oddly enough, although not part of that 1%, I drive around in complete disregard to speeding laws as I don't speed. They only discriminate against those who speed. I'm sure the same rules are out there about how you share your views on how oppressed you are by the 1%. You break them, you get slapped.
 
2012-09-09 10:51:57 PM  

rocky_howard: No, you're what they call a useful idiot since you're arguing against your own benefits.


What benefits are those?

Who said they'd be unemployed? Irrelevant scenario is irrelevant.

Both logic and empirical evidence.

Because freedom of contract is a sophism harnessed by employers who want to give their workers less benefits.
It's loaded language used to misguide people into thinking it's good because they have choice!!!!
when in reality, it'll only be used to give them LESS freedom of everything else.


So in other words, you've got nothing.
 
2012-09-09 10:52:39 PM  

rocky_howard: BMFPitt: Keep telling yourself that.

I will. Thank you.

That is correct.

Okay, then, keep it that way.

False. I'm an employee.

No, you're what they call a useful idiot since you're arguing against your own benefits.

You would rather someone be unemployed than have a job under terms you disagree with. I find that position to be horrible.

Who said they'd be unemployed? Irrelevant scenario is irrelevant.

Please elaborate on what you find inaccurate about it.

Because freedom of contract is a sophism harnessed by employers who want to give their workers less benefits.
It's loaded language used to misguide people into thinking it's good because they have choice!!!!
when in reality, it'll only be used to give them LESS freedom of everything else.


Do you think you can help the poor by raising the cost of doing business?

Cost of business raises the cost of the end product which really helps us all doesn't it?
 
2012-09-09 10:56:28 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Turd_Ferguson: One Bad Apple: The My Little Pony Killer: I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.

We get it He's black.

Well done.

Well, at least he's earning his place on my ignore list.


Actually, he has enough money to be categorized as an old white man. Just like Oprah.
 
2012-09-09 10:57:16 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: [treygivens.com image 497x327]


So, give the police reason to fear you?
 
2012-09-09 11:03:39 PM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to),

Really? And where was "what he really wanted to [say]" published? I missed that. If you ask me, the LAST criticism you should levy against Savage is that he pussy-foots around an issue.
 
2012-09-09 11:05:21 PM  

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to),
Really? And where was "what he really wanted to [say]" published? I missed that. If you ask me, the LAST criticism you should levy against Savage is that he pussy-foots around an issue.


It's about feelings, not actual words. Why do you want to limit the conversation to just things people say and do? You sound like a farking right-winger.
 
2012-09-09 11:05:43 PM  

jaybeezey: doyner: joshiz: Ok, fair enough. Then answer Jay-Z's question: What are you fighting for?

We have a system whereby if the corporation is large enough, it enjoys private profit and public risk. OWS wanted that paradigm to be dismantled.

Like GM and Solyndra?


I'll give Solyndra for Goldman Sachs any day.
 
2012-09-09 11:06:15 PM  

GeneralJim: rocky_howard: Also, the important part is: mitigating the effects of inequality. Are you against that?
I don't know about the person to whom you addressed this, but *I* certainly AM against mitigating the effects of inequality.

With those sophism you presented? No wonder.

Read again: socioeconomic inequality. WTF does athletic ability to play NBA level has to do with it?

Regarding the pilot/doctor scenarios. How about we make sure no one, have they the talent and/or dedication, can be a pilot and doctor regardless of their socioeconomic situation? Isn't that something we should aspire too? Try to minimize it as much as we can?

In the future, try to address the arguments presented instead of fabricating your own.

Capitalism is a brutal, Darwinian system, and it sucks, massively. It just sucks LESS than every other system we have ever tried.

Nope. That's a lie repeated a myriad of times. Do you really think Capitalism is the upper echelon of socioeconomic systems? That we can do no better than we are right now? That this is it? Do you really believe the tripe Fukuyama said in the 90s about the end of history because this is it?

Every single time people, with the best of intentions, screw with it, the efficiency of the whole system suffers, and abject poverty increases.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, his New Deal and the prosperity America reached in the mid-20th century that was a direct effect of his economic policies disagree with you.

Also, do you think Medicare increased poverty or diminished it?

I'm willing to give Capitalism the benefit of doubt because I like several of its precepts/effects, but if what we've been seeing with the war profiteering and the banking crisis is what this is about, then we need something new. And no, it's not Communism. Something that shares those things we like about Capitalism, because they are good. I'm gonna give it and call what the 1% does Abject Capitalism.

I also like to go back to something I said to another person, the language misdirection. The establishment has tried for a long time to equate Democracy with Capitalism, obviously as a mean to deter people from even thinking about any other option. The "Why you hate America?" conundrum. Is it possible to have Democracy without Capitalism? I think so. Is it possible to have Democracy without Abject Capitalism? I want it so.

I don't know if Social Democracy is what this is, but that sounds like a good option to try.

Maybe come up with something new and better. But what we have right now is obviously not working out for the very high majority and sorry, this is not the Feudal Era anymore, a handful of people shouldn't be owners of almost everything and enjoy almost all the benefits.

 
2012-09-09 11:07:32 PM  
GeneralJim:I don't know about the person to whom you addressed this, but *I* certainly AM against mitigating the effects of inequality.

With those sophism you presented? No wonder.

Read again: socioeconomic inequality. WTF does athletic ability to play NBA level has to do with it?

Regarding the pilot/doctor scenarios. How about we make sure no one, have they the talent and/or dedication, can be a pilot and doctor regardless of their socioeconomic situation? Isn't that something we should aspire too? Try to minimize it as much as we can?

In the future, try to address the arguments presented instead of fabricating your own.

Capitalism is a brutal, Darwinian system, and it sucks, massively. It just sucks LESS than every other system we have ever tried.

Nope. That's a lie repeated a myriad of times. Do you really think Capitalism is the upper echelon of socioeconomic systems? That we can do no better than we are right now? That this is it? Do you really believe the tripe Fukuyama said in the 90s about the end of history because this is it?

Every single time people, with the best of intentions, screw with it, the efficiency of the whole system suffers, and abject poverty increases.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, his New Deal and the prosperity America reached in the mid-20th century that was a direct effect of his economic policies disagree with you.

Also, do you think Medicare increased poverty or diminished it?

I'm willing to give Capitalism the benefit of doubt because I like several of its precepts/effects, but if what we've been seeing with the war profiteering and the banking crisis is what this is about, then we need something new. And no, it's not Communism. Something that shares those things we like about Capitalism, because they are good. I'm gonna give it and call what the 1% does Abject Capitalism.

I also like to go back to something I said to another person, the language misdirection. The establishment has tried for a long time to equate Democracy with Capitalism, obviously as a mean to deter people from even thinking about any other option. The "Why you hate America?" conundrum. Is it possible to have Democracy without Capitalism? I think so. Is it possible to have Democracy without Abject Capitalism? I want it so.

I don't know if Social Democracy is what this is, but that sounds like a good option to try.

Maybe come up with something new and better. But what we have right now is obviously not working out for the very high majority and sorry, this is not the Feudal Era anymore, a handful of people shouldn't be owners of almost everything and en
 
2012-09-09 11:09:51 PM  

BMFPitt: What benefits are those?


Go back and read them, I explained some of them already :)

Both logic and empirical evidence.

Prove it.

So in other words, you've got nothing.

Translation: *BMFPitt covers his ears and shouts* NANANANANANANANA!!!
 
2012-09-09 11:10:39 PM  
Keizer_Ghidorah:
He's certainly fueled by hate and anger, that's for sure. He can't go 60 seconds without insulting someone or raising his voise, and when someone calls in to debate or refute him he goes ballistic. I can only imagine the medicals bills he has, probably filled with tranquilizers and blood pressure meds.

While you're trying to imagine his medical bills, how about trying to imagine that he is a radio performer with an act that attracts people and makes him a good deal of money. His "rage" could easily be simply part of his job description, and he doesn't get any more worked up over it than he does his lunch bill.

Of course, I do not know the man, so this is all conjecture. The point is, it is conjecture for YOU, as well. I'm willing to bet you know Savage about as well as I do... and that being having listened to part of his show a couple times. You're talking with total assurance about a subject of which you cannot have first-hand knowledge. I claim you would appear smarter if you quit.
 
2012-09-09 11:12:35 PM  

clowncar on fire: Do you think you can help the poor by raising the cost of doing business?

Cost of business raises the cost of the end product which really helps us all doesn't it?


How is the company sharing the profits with the workers raising the cost of doing business? Operation budget is not affected.
Instead of the owner pocketing everything, he just pockets a bit less and the workers receive some of those profits.

It's not a fantastical situation either. For example, Siemens did it in the 80s by making the workers stockholders too.
 
2012-09-09 11:12:46 PM  

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to),
Really? And where was "what he really wanted to [say]" published? I missed that. If you ask me, the LAST criticism you should levy against Savage is that he pussy-foots around an issue.


I'm pretty sure he has at least a little intelligence, enough to not outright say that American citizens should be killed en masse because he doesn't like them and what they think. It's really obvious that's what he meant, considering his was shiatting himself in self-generated rage every time he mentioned OWS.
 
2012-09-09 11:14:30 PM  
It is confusing when people are asking for more regulations on the most heavily regulated industry in our country. It is confusing when they are asking for more regulations period. Without the government regulations and the government stepping in and bailing these 1% and their companies out they would have went bankrupt.

Jay-Z is right. The message was confusing and misguided. Maybe someone should tell the OWS and the Tea Party that they are fighting two legs of the same beast and then we can all move on together ?
 
2012-09-09 11:16:05 PM  

jasnotron: It is confusing when people are asking for more regulations on the most heavily regulated industry in our country. It is confusing when they are asking for more regulations period. Without the government regulations and the government stepping in and bailing these 1% and their companies out they would have went bankrupt.

Jay-Z is right. The message was confusing and misguided. Maybe someone should tell the OWS and the Tea Party that they are fighting two legs of the same beast and then we can all move on together ?


Yes, because the number, not the content, of regulations is what counts.
 
2012-09-09 11:18:18 PM  

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: He's certainly fueled by hate and anger, that's for sure. He can't go 60 seconds without insulting someone or raising his voise, and when someone calls in to debate or refute him he goes ballistic. I can only imagine the medicals bills he has, probably filled with tranquilizers and blood pressure meds.
While you're trying to imagine his medical bills, how about trying to imagine that he is a radio performer with an act that attracts people and makes him a good deal of money. His "rage" could easily be simply part of his job description, and he doesn't get any more worked up over it than he does his lunch bill.

Of course, I do not know the man, so this is all conjecture. The point is, it is conjecture for YOU, as well. I'm willing to bet you know Savage about as well as I do... and that being having listened to part of his show a couple times. You're talking with total assurance about a subject of which you cannot have first-hand knowledge. I claim you would appear smarter if you quit.


Hey, he chose to be an "actor" (funny that Rush also calls himself this in between telling people to wage war to take back America while preaching fear and hate) that specializes in venomously attacking and demonizing his fellow Americans. I chose to see him as a piece of worthless shiat that offers nothing to the world. Maybe he's a wonderful family man, maybe he personally bottle-feeds puppies at the local shelter. He's the one who decided to be a radio star by being a complete bug-farking dick towards the world, so I think he's trash. Simple as that.

And stop trying to be holier than me, Jim, you're really bad at it.
 
2012-09-09 11:24:10 PM  
AverageAmericanGuy:
GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: To him, they were vermin, scum, people who needed to be rounded up and gotten rid of (at least he controlled himself enough to not say what he really wanted to),

Really? And where was "what he really wanted to [say]" published? I missed that. If you ask me, the LAST criticism you should levy against Savage is that he pussy-foots around an issue.

It's about feelings, not actual words. Why do you want to limit the conversation to just things people say and do? You sound like a farking right-winger.

"It's about feelings, not actual words?" Okay, so you're doubling down. I get it. You not only know the WORDS he doesn't say, you can see what it is he is FEELING, even if he never says or writes it, or puts it into words, even in his own mind. FABULOUS! You sound like a brain-dead leftist.

Seriously, WTF is this shiat? What is it with leftists pretending to be mind readers, and arguing against what they would have liked people on the right to have said? It really does look like a cognitive abnormality.
 
2012-09-09 11:25:27 PM  
Your rage shouldn't be against the corporations or the bankers but at the politicians who crawl in bed with them. In the absence of a politician who writes favorable legislation, creates barriers to entry in the market or directs public funds or insures the bets of a private company, a corporation or a bank can only offer you a job you're not forced to take or a product you're not forced to buy. When government is constrained by its constitutional limits, there's no point in a bank buying a congressman to write favorable mortgage regulations because "ensuring everyone can afford to own a home" is not a function of congress and there's nothing the congressman can do

Sure the banks got greedy. They only did so when the government decided it would shoulder the burden of the losses on the public. When you remove the penalty of failure from any entity you get reckless decision-making.

it is far easier and more lucrative to loot than it is to diligently toil
 
2012-09-09 11:27:28 PM  

rocky_howard: Go back and read them, I explained some of them already


No you didn't.

Prove it.

It would help if you had actually elaborated on what you want, but when the cost of things goes up, you get less of them. Do you also think supply and demand is a myth?

Translation: *BMFPitt covers his ears and shouts* NANANANANANANANA!!!

No, that was a facepalm after reading you try to explain how freedom reduces freedom.
 
2012-09-09 11:28:27 PM  

doyner: Yes, because the number, not the content, of regulations is what counts.


What counts is that the regulations are made to enable and maintain monopolies. Why else do former executives of said industries write the regulations ?
 
2012-09-09 11:34:28 PM  

jasnotron: It is confusing when people are asking for more regulations on the most heavily regulated industry in our country. It is confusing when they are asking for more regulations period. Without the government regulations and the government stepping in and bailing these 1% and their companies out they would have went bankrupt.

Jay-Z is right. The message was confusing and misguided. Maybe someone should tell the OWS and the Tea Party that they are fighting two legs of the same beast and then we can all move on together ?


"The most heavily regulated industry in our country." I've no idea if this is true, but how does it possibly explain the incredible amount of money being lent out in low doc loans which burst the housing bubble and caused the whole show to go to shiat? How does it explain the ratings agencies overrating vast numbers of investment schemes which turned out to be useless? As an Australian, living in a country with reasonable financial regulation (introduced by a arguably the most right-wing federal government in post WW2 era) which is focused on ensuring transparency, our banking sector far out-performed most of the rest of the world's financial sectors during the meltdown. Regulation can take many forms - it's not just about banning certain types of investment or restricting practices, it's about ensuring that the principles of capitalism are best met by working towards the sorts of 'perfect markets' which have been discussed since the days of Adam Smith.
 
2012-09-09 11:34:44 PM  

jasnotron: doyner: Yes, because the number, not the content, of regulations is what counts.

What counts is that the regulations are made to enable and maintain monopolies. Why else do former executives of said industries write the regulations ?


I completely agree. I apparently mistook the context of your previous post.
 
2012-09-09 11:35:08 PM  

BMFPitt: No you didn't.


Yes, I did. Your inability to do a simple search is not my problem.

It would help if you had actually elaborated on what you want, but when the cost of things goes up, you get less of them. Do you also think supply and demand is a myth?

Cost isn't going up. But keep spreading fallacies :)

No, that was a facepalm after reading you try to explain how freedom reduces freedom.

It's not that hard of a concept. For example, freedom of having slaves reduces the freedom of the people who end up being slaves.
Since slavery is now illegal, people have more freedoms.
 
2012-09-09 11:39:14 PM  
He highlights the biggest problem with the group - they have no clearly defined message. They are expressing discontent and a desire for change, but they can't pin down what exactly they are upset with and how exactly they think it should be changed. I tried to figure it out back when the group was mildly relevant and couldn't do it.
 
2012-09-09 11:39:42 PM  

Aussie_As: how does it possibly explain the incredible amount of money being lent out in low doc loans which burst the housing bubble and caused the whole show to go to shiat? How does it explain the ratings agencies overrating vast numbers of investment schemes which turned out to be useless? As an Australian, living in a country with reasonable financial regulation (introduced by a arguably the most right-wing federal government in post WW2 era) which is focused on ensuring transparency, our banking sector far out-performed most of the rest of the world's financial sectors during the meltdown. Regulation can take many forms - it's not just about banning certain types of investment or restricting practices, it's about ensuring that the principles of capitalism are best met by working towards the sorts of 'perfect markets' which have been discussed since the days of Adam Smith.

The two biggest lenders in our country are government run agencies. Fannie May and Freddie Mac. As they lend so does the rest of the industry. So when they decide to lend to sub-prime lenders and give out interest only ARM's then so does everyone else. The problems followed when the financial industry devised ways to bundle these risky loans to "spread out" the risk.

I am by no means saying we shouldn't have smart meaningful regulations in place to ensure we are protected from pollution, corruption, theft, etc. I'm saying that in this case the OWS were not really sure what they wanted and "more regulations" isn't the answer.
 
2012-09-09 11:42:33 PM  

rocky_howard: Yes, I did. Your inability to do a simple search is not my problem.


Saying "benefits" a few dozen times doesn't actually tell anyone what you want.

Cost isn't going up. But keep spreading fallacies

So all these undefined benefits are free, then?

It's not that hard of a concept. For example, freedom of having slaves reduces the freedom of the people who end up being slaves.
Since slavery is now illegal, people have more freedoms.


You think slave-owning is freedom?