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 91
    More: Amusing, Occupy Wall Street, Jay Z, Russell Simmons, fixed rate mortgage, Zuccotti Park, demonization  
•       •       •

15635 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Sep 2012 at 5:59 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-09-09 06:02:52 PM
10 votes:

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 04:41:47 PM
9 votes:
I imagine Jay-Z feels confused about a lot of things.
2012-09-09 05:24:29 PM
7 votes:

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 06:03:16 PM
5 votes:
treygivens.com
2012-09-09 05:40:21 PM
5 votes:

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 05:09:48 PM
5 votes:

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 04:54:43 PM
5 votes:
Area Man Reaping Benefits Of Contorted Economic System Confused By Critics Of System
2012-09-09 05:19:13 PM
4 votes:

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 04:47:11 PM
4 votes:
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 07:31:10 PM
3 votes:
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 07:00:33 PM
3 votes:

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 06:34:44 PM
3 votes:
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 06:26:24 PM
3 votes:

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 06:24:39 PM
3 votes:
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 06:05:12 PM
3 votes:

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 04:50:15 PM
3 votes:
He's got 99 problems but capitalism ain't one.
2012-09-09 09:53:21 PM
2 votes:

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 09:25:59 PM
2 votes:
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 09:19:35 PM
2 votes:
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 08:37:39 PM
2 votes:

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 07:45:37 PM
2 votes:

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 07:39:22 PM
2 votes:

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 07:08:47 PM
2 votes:

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 07:04:01 PM
2 votes:
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 06:39:16 PM
2 votes:

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 06:38:56 PM
2 votes:
He'll still vote for Obama.
2012-09-09 06:32:07 PM
2 votes:

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 06:28:17 PM
2 votes:
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 06:12:27 PM
2 votes:

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 05:44:37 PM
2 votes:

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.
2012-09-11 10:32:45 PM
1 votes:

GeneralJim: Keizer_Ghidorah: Sorry, Charlie, but there's a big difference between an actress in a fictional movie and a talk radio host in real life. I know the actress is acting when she's pretending to be someone form the 1800's, or pretending to ride atop a dragon while she shoots magic bolts at ogres.
What a naif! No, Bucko, that is YOU not being able to see the fact that people talking on the radio are PERFORMERS, just like movie actors. I suppose if they got all riled up in an attack on the same stuff, while pretending to be Ben Franklin, THAT would be enough to clue you in.

I get it: the concept of radio performance is beyond you.


You're sure doing a lot of white-knighting for people who have proclaimed time and time again that their listeners need to start a war to take back America while outright attacking and slandering people they disagree with. If you're convinced they'll sleep with you in gratitude, knock yourself out. I'll continue to hold them as the evil filth they are.

You might also want to try responding to one post with one post, you're looking a lot like I drunk what.
2012-09-10 03:46:32 PM
1 votes:

o5iiawah: Z-clipped: You want billions of dollars because you "came up with something:"? Who do you think you are? You didn't manufacture the millions (or billions) of units of your magic product that enriched so many people's lives. You didn't drive the product to their houses. You didn't design the advertizing that informed them that your miracle widget exists. You didn't create the infrastructure that allowed your business to exist at all. Hell, you probably didn't even do all of the design work by yourself, or create the media channels for your advertizing to run on in the first place. I'll bet you didn't even provide the money that paid for the prototype of your world-changing gadget... you probably had investors to do that for you.

The guy who manufactures the ipad didn't engineer it, market it for have the wherewithal to identify that there were a large group of people who wanted one. His skill is to assemble it, ususally following some diagram that a higher-paid engineer developed so that just about anyone could put one together.

The guy who drives the product to the customer's doorstep didn't engineer the product, forsee its demand or market it, he's there to deliver it and just as easily as he delivers the ipad, he could deliver a load of oranges or a load of trees to be made into decking.

The guy who designs the advertising for the product is paid well by the guy who designs the product since making the market aware of the product is critical to its success. I'm willing to bet a company like Apple has some very highly paid and talented individuals on staff.

You're one of those "you didn't build that" crowd and thats fine. Let's be honest in saying that an industrialist with a brilliant idea is probably not going to be on the assembly line, packing the product, driving the truck, delivering the product and drawing up marketing sketches to be submitted to media all at once. He hires people to do that for him since his time is spent coming up with ideas that e ...


No man is an island, we're all in it together, and everything we do is interconnected with each other in this society created by many.

Why are people like you so angry about the truth? You may have had an idea, but others helped you realize that idea. Without infrastructure, you couldn't get people to your location to help build your buildings and bring you the materials and transport out the finished product. Without others, you couldn't manufacture your product. Without others, you couldn't advertise your product. And without customers, you can't sell your products.

The arrogance and selfishness of humans never ceases to amaze and sadden me.
2012-09-10 09:41:27 AM
1 votes:

GeneralJim: Ah, yes, Gandhi... The father of non-violent crapping on police cars and park rape. A true pioneer.


I have to wonder, were you gullible enough to be brainwashed by the media into this stupid sensationalist misrepresentation of the entire Occupy movement, or did you just latch onto it like a pitbull because they were spoon-feeding you the excuse you were already looking for to dismiss Occupy's real message?

I suppose you could also be trolling... I just can't tell if the obnoxious green font is a put on, or if you just really think your comments are special somehow.
2012-09-10 01:01:12 AM
1 votes:

ScreamingHangover: DataShade: Really? You're expecting the first major attempt at a protest flashmob to be as effective as state-sponsored paramilitary police forces with hundreds of years of institutional refinements to procedure?

Reframe it in your mind: a bunch of bored hipster kids and homeless people who can't focus long enough to get a bath, let alone a job, were able - largely for free and with no leadership - to organize well enough and stay together long enough that The Man *had* to respond or risk losing control.

And they didn't even have a common goal or a united sense of purpose. That's either the first step in the evolution of a social system where government is actually responsive to the needs and wants of its citizens or a recipe for (at least) one generation of social unrest.

So obviously you don't have to approve but it behooves you to understand instead of dismiss.

The first? Don't take this the wrong way, but this type of stuff has been going on a long time. I remember my "radical" friends back in the 80's doing stuff like this all the time: complete with the tents and rambling signs and even the same slogans. Except then it was about Reagan and his breaking up unions and No Nukes and US involvement in Nicaragua and education and public housing and homelessness and corporations...

...Pretty much what OWS is doing now. And I remember my dad saying it looks like the same thing in the 60's.
Only then you couldn't upload pictures and videos to the internet. I think that's another reason OWS has failed: it's the same thing that didn't work last time just repackaged for a new generation. Unfortunately, they keep making the same mistakes.


Yeah, he was a farking moran.
www.mahatmagandhionline.com
2012-09-10 12:19:29 AM
1 votes:

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.



Really? You're expecting the first major attempt at a protest flashmob to be as effective as state-sponsored paramilitary police forces with hundreds of years of institutional refinements to procedure?

Reframe it in your mind: a bunch of bored hipster kids and homeless people who can't focus long enough to get a bath, let alone a job, were able - largely for free and with no leadership - to organize well enough and stay together long enough that The Man *had* to respond or risk losing control.

And they didn't even have a common goal or a united sense of purpose. That's either the first step in the evolution of a social system where government is actually responsive to the needs and wants of its citizens or a recipe for (at least) one generation of social unrest.

So obviously you don't have to approve but it behooves you to understand instead of dismiss.
2012-09-10 12:15:28 AM
1 votes:
rocky_howard:
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?

You claim this is a lie. You know not whereof you speak. We may come up with a better way to allocate resources than capitalism -- I hope we do. So far, we have not. If you think otherwise, explain the system that did better, and show why it's better.


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.

Oh, I see. You know nothing of economics. FDR's plan turned a normal, slightly-less-than-a-year recession into a decade-long depression. Twice in the history of the United States, a simple recession has been dealt with by government bailouts and increases in spending. Every other time, government has tried to back out of some of it's heaviest controls, loosen money a bit, reduce taxes, and let the market solve its own problems. So far, with the exception of those two "heavy-handed" responses, AND Jimmy Carter, the economy recovers in less than a year, and things get back to normal. Those two "heavy-handed" responses? FDR's, and Obama's. Similar approaches, similar responses, similar economic disaster.


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

Increased. It increased the poverty of those paying for it, and decreased the poverty of those receiving it. That's how insurance works. Except for the fact that Congress steals from the Medicare budget, it's like insurance. Those who need it come out ahead, those that don't, lose money. But, if Medicare is like OTHER government agencies, to deliver $1 in health care to covered individuals, $8 must be collected. The moving of the $1 doesn't really have a net effect on poverty, but the burning of $7 in bureaucratic BS DOES increase poverty by lowering the amount of money available.

Note that the increased spending for Medicare is at least partially offset by Medicare dictating what will be paid to doctors and other health care companies for specific procedures. This can give the ILLUSION that Medicare is cheaper. There are two problems with that view. First, the cost "savings" are made by simply only paying part of a bill. Private insurance does not have that option. Additionally, this partial-payment approach means that many doctors are not taking new Medicare patients, and medical care will be reduced.

The second problem with looking at Medicare as "cheaper" is that they only count money INTO the program, not the cost of collecting that money. Private insurance simply stops if the patient does not pay premiums, so the cost of getting $1 into a private insurance company is almost exactly $1. On the other hand, the U.S. government collects the money before it goes to Medicare, obviously, so the costs of collecting the money should be counted as an addition to the money given to the program. The cost of collecting a Medicare dollar are probably less than the overall rate of $8/$1 of general revenue, but I'm not going to look it up. Use that figure for a rough calculation, or find out the actual number for that program yourself.
2012-09-09 11:51:16 PM
1 votes:
It's really amazing how many people have Dow Jones' cock in their ass while they fellate the Fed. They can't seem to get enough of both.
2012-09-09 11:25:27 PM
1 votes:
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 10:26:17 PM
1 votes:
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 10:15:17 PM
1 votes:

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 09:33:46 PM
1 votes:
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 09:24:03 PM
1 votes:
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 09:17:40 PM
1 votes:
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 09:06:10 PM
1 votes:
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 08:58:41 PM
1 votes:

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 08:51:48 PM
1 votes:

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 08:43:40 PM
1 votes:
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 08:39:06 PM
1 votes:
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 08:35:46 PM
1 votes:

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 08:32:45 PM
1 votes:

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 08:29:06 PM
1 votes:

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 08:28:45 PM
1 votes:

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 08:28:28 PM
1 votes:

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 07:57:58 PM
1 votes:
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 07:52:28 PM
1 votes:
The OWS protests have strong correlations to the Earth First! protests of the 90s.
2012-09-09 07:36:21 PM
1 votes:
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 07:12:52 PM
1 votes:
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 07:12:06 PM
1 votes:

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 07:06:18 PM
1 votes:

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 06:59:03 PM
1 votes:
www.thenation.com
2012-09-09 06:54:12 PM
1 votes:

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 06:53:40 PM
1 votes:
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 06:53:05 PM
1 votes:
Don't ask me I don't give a damn.
Next stop if Vietnam.
2012-09-09 06:52:42 PM
1 votes:

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 06:48:50 PM
1 votes:
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 06:47:39 PM
1 votes:
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 06:36:10 PM
1 votes:

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 06:36:07 PM
1 votes:

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 06:35:06 PM
1 votes:
OWS = pretentious entitled freeloaders. What is not to understand?
2012-09-09 06:34:38 PM
1 votes:

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 06:33:04 PM
1 votes:
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 06:32:21 PM
1 votes:
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 06:31:59 PM
1 votes:
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 06:27:41 PM
1 votes:

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 06:26:34 PM
1 votes:

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 06:24:38 PM
1 votes:
Mr Carter is correct, poor/unfocused messaging was its downfall
2012-09-09 06:23:00 PM
1 votes:
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 06:19:43 PM
1 votes:
Because People in power are Stupid:
treygivens.com

-Not on or near Wall St. militarized zone.
-Had permits.
2012-09-09 06:18:10 PM
1 votes:
He could just go down and ask them.
2012-09-09 06:15:53 PM
1 votes:
He's really come a long way from Hawaiian Sophie.
2012-09-09 06:14:34 PM
1 votes:

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 06:12:41 PM
1 votes:
I don't know what a "Jay-Z" is, but I'ma guess the Occupiers are fighting against it.
2012-09-09 06:12:36 PM
1 votes:

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 06:06:33 PM
1 votes:
Maybe he thought it was just a fashion statement?

i.imgur.com
2012-09-09 06:03:16 PM
1 votes:

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
1 votes:

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 05:45:14 PM
1 votes:

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 05:33:31 PM
1 votes:

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 05:21:25 PM
1 votes:
Tom_the_Dancing_Bug_"Economic_Injustice".jpg
2012-09-09 04:46:03 PM
1 votes:
$99 Trillion problems?
2012-09-09 04:36:56 PM
1 votes:
"It's all about the Benjamins."
 
Displayed 91 of 91 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report