Occupy Wall Street

[kajabla]

It is well documented that the Vietnam war protests were, for the most part, funded and organized by the KGB. It's called internal subversion and is a very old tactic/weapon.

Also mingo, the modern impression of the Vietnam era, from movies/media, is of the entire populace being against it and the government disregarding the populace. In fact it was minority that were anti-Vietnam war. They were just very vocal and with a willing media/press they looked bigger than they really were.

Desert Storm: Many say this was the 1st Bush's war for oil and in some respects that is correct. Saddam's actions was making Saudi Arabia (OIL Kings) extremely nervous so we pretty much acted on their behalf. However, Saddam didn't make the Saudis as nervous as Iran which is why we left Saddam in power at the end of the first Gulf war; to keep Iran in check. I was in high school during this time and the majority of my peers supported the war, except for a handful dirty hippies.

This would come as a surprise to me. Can you link to any of this documentation? Also, what do you mean by "funded"? It's not like they were corporations. I'm not being rhetorical; this is just the first I've heard of your point.

Back to chunky, when you made your list of points. Why isn't ignorance of the warning an excuse? To a protester in the middle of a march (or a mob, if you say, though the only difference is a permit), there is no difference between being unaware of an announcement and no announcement being made. Those who were ignorant of the warning and were arrested would have had the same state of ignorance regardless of whether a warning was issued to a different (front) portion of the crowd or was not issued at all. Their ignorance was not their fault; it was the fault of the police, who didn't give warning to all the people they arrested. "The mob" was not warned; a small portion of the mob was warned. Only the front runners "willingly ignored and broke the law." The rest broke it unwittingly, not willfully (I assume you mean "willfully").

This same argument can apply to the issue of a permit. Do you agree that when people go to protests/marches/demonstrations, they don't usually check that a permit has been issued? What kind of person would actually contact the leaders of the protest before showing up to make sure of the existence of a permit? In real-life situations, most attendees of a demonstration are ignorant of whether a permit has been issued. They simply assume that one exists. Yes, as you say, assumption is not a safe or a reliable practice, but in this situation it's a normal one. Most protests have permits, and for the average OWS attendee it would have been pretty reasonable to assume that one had been issued.

This argument still does not apply to those who were warned, or to those who were aware that no permit existed, and who broke the law anyway.

It doesn't matter what the intent of the police were as they walked over the bridge ahead of the protesters. They could have been establishing intent to break the law; they could have been leading a conga line. What matters is that to the uninformed part of the crowd, it appeared as though the police were not stopping them from proceeding. This was, in effect, another lack of warning. The police could simply have blocked off the bridge with their own hands. If the protesters resisted them, then they would have had ample grounds to make arrests.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Im not sure what the overall point is
Were they following the police while protesting?
Were they protesting the police?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, tho it can play a role in the outcome.

If youre near the fire, sometimes you get burned, which is unfortunate to some, regardless of intent, if they inadvertently broke the law, but it happens.
Im sure amongst this crowd, there were some thinking getting arrested was like wearing a badge. Im also sure that is the exact opposite of what some wanted to happen, and to those, when it happened to them, only put more onus on sticking it to the "man", as the "man" was only showing his true colors, and again, this falls in favor of the zealot.

Making things work, as well as people is a finely created thing, where supply and demand comes into play, regardless of what people think.
Its an essential in capitalism, and just because youre trained/schooled into a certain profession, if the economy has no current use for more of a few or many professions, those thatre schooled/trained remain unhired.
Alternatives are doing things youre not schooled trained in, which could be hard labor, to other menial jobs.
Its always a wonder to me, that the media always pick out many well known peoples, successful individuals, and go thru their job history for entertainment/astonishment, where we find them doing many jobs, menial, physical etc or not.
The thing that seperates these people from the understanding of many thatre protesting here is, they did it, went out, took the initiative, and just did it, worked hard, and eventually achieved their potential, which is always available to anyone with any gumption

 

[kajabla]

I see, I see. This is interesting stuff, and I'll explore it further. I'm not sure that merits "funded and organized by the KGB," though. KPSS does not equal KGB, just as GOP does not equal CIA.
Anyway.

 

[knarl]

Somehow I think your trying to tar and feather the guy for something he hasn't done.

Even if one weren't to believe that Obama outright supports Occupy Wallstreet (although it's pretty clear to me that he does), according to his administration they are going to use the event politically to attack the GOP before the upcoming elections.


“We intend to make it one of the central elements of the campaign next year,” Obama senior adviser David Plouffe said in an interview. “One of the main elements of the contrast will be that the president passed Wall Street reform and our opponent and the other party want to repeal it.”

“I’m pretty confident 12 months from now, as people make the decision about who to go vote for, the gut check is going to be about, ‘Who would make decisions more about helping my life than Wall Street?’ ” Plouffe added.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-plans-to-turn-anti-wall-street-anger-on-mitt-romney-republicans/2011/10/14/gIQAZfiwkL.html

 

[chunkymonster]

Back to chunky, when you made your list of points. Why isn't ignorance of the warning an excuse? To a protester in the middle of a march (or a mob, if you say, though the only difference is a permit), there is no difference between being unaware of an announcement and no announcement being made. Those who were ignorant of the warning and were arrested would have had the same state of ignorance regardless of whether a warning was issued to a different (front) portion of the crowd or was not issued at all. Their ignorance was not their fault; it was the fault of the police, who didn't give warning to all the people they arrested. "The mob" was not warned; a small portion of the mob was warned. Only the front runners "willingly ignored and broke the law." The rest broke it unwittingly, not willfully (I assume you mean "willfully").

The article states that prior to reaching the bridge, the mob was walking on the sidewalk and not in the roadway. It seems to me that up until reaching the bridge the mob was mindful of the law. Regardless of whether parts of the mob heard the police announcement or not, what is it about reaching the bridge that suddenly made walking in the roadway permissible? What about reaching the bridge changed the mob to ignore the law? Whether you choose to accept it or not, the fact is ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Heck, ignorance is no excuse for anything!

This same argument can apply to the issue of a permit. Do you agree that when people go to protests/marches/demonstrations, they don't usually check that a permit has been issued? What kind of person would actually contact the leaders of the protest before showing up to make sure of the existence of a permit? In real-life situations, most attendees of a demonstration are ignorant of whether a permit has been issued. They simply assume that one exists. Yes, as you say, assumption is not a safe or a reliable practice, but in this situation it's a normal one. Most protests have permits, and for the average OWS attendee it would have been pretty reasonable to assume that one had been issued.

Sorry, but ignorance of jaw walking laws can not be equated to participants knowing if permits have been issued. I agree with you that a participant can assume a permit has been issued. They are participants, not organizers. It is the responsibility and ownership of the protest organizers to ensure that proper permits have been secured.

It doesn't matter what the intent of the police were as they walked over the bridge ahead of the protesters. They could have been establishing intent to break the law; they could have been leading a conga line. What matters is that to the uninformed part of the crowd, it appeared as though the police were not stopping them from proceeding. This was, in effect, another lack of warning. The police could simply have blocked off the bridge with their own hands. If the protesters resisted them, then they would have had ample grounds to make arrests.

Oh boy! You need to stop. Seriously, just stop. Locking hands?! I don't know if you're being facetious or actually trying to make a point.

Look here kajabla, you're obviously a pretty bright young man. I give you credit for standing up for your friends and what the OWS is trying to do. In all honesty, I support the intent and ideas behind the OWS. But on this bridge thing, you are just off base. You may not agree with me, you may not understand why I think you are off base, but trust me, you are off base. The people walking in the roadway to cross the Brooklyn Bridge paid for their assumptions and ignorance. I have no sympathy for anyone who complains because they are a victim of their own assumptions and ignorance.

I see, I see. This is interesting stuff, and I'll explore it further. I'm not sure that merits "funded and organized by the KGB," though. KPSS does not equal KGB, just as GOP does not equal CIA.
Anyway.

I urge you to do your own research, but ultimately it will conclude that the KGB and the former Soviet Union spent BILLIONS of dollars worldwide on anti-capitalist and anti-America "peace protests".

 

[kajabla]

No facetiousness here. I think I'm just not expressing what I mean clearly enough.
Another try!
1. The police gave the appearance of leading the protesters onto the roadway to all but those in the front who could hear their statements.
2. Other, permitted protests/marches often use NYC roadways. In those cases, the jaywalking laws don't apply.
3. Most of the OWS marchers didn't know if a permit existed, so they didn't know whether or not it was, at that time, legal to use the roadway.
4. The protesters' above ignorance of whether the roadway was usable seemed to be answered by the police's leading of the crowd; in effect, the police told the mass of the crowd that it was OK to use the roadway, despite the ironic fact that they were announcing the opposite to those in front. If they had given a physical message, or one otherwise detectable to those not in the front, then the mass arrests might have been warranted.

The article states that prior to reaching the bridge, the mob was walking on the sidewalk and not in the roadway. It seems to me that up until reaching the bridge the mob was mindful of the law. Regardless of whether parts of the mob heard the police announcement or not, what is it about reaching the bridge that suddenly made walking in the roadway permissible? What about reaching the bridge changed the mob to ignore the law?

As to why the roadway-blocking law was only broken at the bridge, check out the Manhattan side on Google Maps. There's a large plaza and two broad sidewalks in the area that funnels into the bridge, but only a small two-lane walkway on the bridge itself. I agree that under normal circumstances this still would have been an obvious breach of the law, but this was just the first situation in which the reasons that I (attempt to) explain above came into play.

 

[amdfangirl]

On saturday I went to the occupy Sydney.

Had a sign which said "Boycott Micro$oft; make gov't Linux distro".

I felt so special to confuse everyone around me.

 

[jsc]

 

[chunkymonster]

As to why the roadway-blocking law was only broken at the bridge, check out the Manhattan side on Google Maps. There's a large plaza and two broad sidewalks in the area that funnels into the bridge, but only a small two-lane walkway on the bridge itself. I agree that under normal circumstances this still would have been an obvious breach of the law, but this was just the first situation in which the reasons that I (attempt to) explain above came into play.

This is very simple, once the mob left the protest area, they were no longer protesters but just a very large group, a mob, of individuals walking through NYC. On a daily basis, hundreds of thousands of people somehow manage to walk peaceably throughout Manhattan Borough, on the sidewalk and not in the roadway, without causing a ruckus and without getting arrested. Approaching the Brooklyn Bridge has no bearing on how the mob should have peaceably continued to walk through NYC or crossed the Brooklyn Bridge.

You falsely assume that the mob, after leaving the protest area, was still part of the protest and not a group of individual citizens walking the streets of NYC.

If you were one of the 700 who got arrested, please admit it. At least then I could better understand your passion for defending the mob. Otherwise, your defense is being misplaced on a group of people who are indefensible.

 

[chunkymonster]

Marxist ideology pervades the OWS mob. Whether you agree with it or not, the article and video at the end are worth reading and watching.

From American Thinker, The Revolutionaries' Revenge

OWS are the Proletariat, the Marxist "useful idiots".

The Bolsheviks can't be too far behind.

 

[wanamingo]

Well if I may point something out that Toms Forums shares in common with the OWS protests.

Lots of people have really intelligent things to say about corporate greed or the plight of the working man but more often then not those voices are drowned out with

"SCREW CORPORATIONS MAN!" "LEGALIZE IT!" etc

The voices of the loudest suppress those talking. Even if you dont agree with every single person there, there are still people with very valid points.

 

[kajabla]

^agreed, wana.

This is very simple, once the mob left the protest area, they were no longer protesters but just a very large group, a mob, of individuals walking through NYC. On a daily basis, hundreds of thousands of people somehow manage to walk peaceably throughout Manhattan Borough, on the sidewalk and not in the roadway, without causing a ruckus and without getting arrested. Approaching the Brooklyn Bridge has no bearing on how the mob should have peaceably continued to walk through NYC or crossed the Brooklyn Bridge.

You falsely assume that the mob, after leaving the protest area, was still part of the protest and not a group of individual citizens walking the streets of NYC.

If you were one of the 700 who got arrested, please admit it. At least then I could better understand your passion for defending the mob. Otherwise, your defense is being misplaced on a group of people who are indefensible.

"No longer protesters"? What would have changed between Zuccotti Park and the bridge that would have made them stop being protesters? Please explain. They were individual citizens acting as a group; the two states aren't exclusive.
That would be an issue because most of the time, in non-march situations, those hundreds of thousands of people are not connected.

 

[dogman_1234]

How are they marxists?

 

[dogman_1234]

where does 1% of most of our economy go? Answer that to me, and all the OWS questions will be answered.

NOTICE: I did not say who is the 1% of the economy, WHAT IS the 1% of the economy?

Hint: The US economy is rated at 14.6 trillion dollars.

 

[knarl]

Some commentary from Bill Whittle at PajamasMedia on the Occupy Wall Street protests. Excellent IMO.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=6158

Excellent video. Too bad there is no way to make every American have to watch that at least once, before they make a decision on how they feel about the protests.

 

[kajabla]

That video has its points - maybe we're just not entitled to whine - but it doesn't change the numbers that the OWS people keep pointing at, the huge inequality that exists in our country. There are certainly entitled, relatively rich kids in the crowds, but there are homeless ones too, ones that have actually, to some degree, screwed by the system. There are certainly many well-off people in this country, but there are also ones that genuinely don't have enough to eat, and that's a large part of what's being protested. His prosperity curve does not finish its rise until it applies to everyone, and that's the problem, not that everyone doesn't have a six-figure job.

 

[kajabla]

...yes there is? You can regulate corporations, which they're attempting to do. The whole point of the demonstrations is to do something about it. Your point is a description of a purely capitalistic society, which is not what the US is.

Incidentally, I find it pretty funny that his description of awful life in the woods is how I have fun in my summers 😀

 

[kajabla]

Can you edit that last sentence? I don't know what you mean yet. ("Who do are they")
Also, as I continue to watch this video, I'd like to point out that the executives with the seven-figure salaries, the ones being protested, certainly don't do any "ugly, bloody, unpleasant things" at all. They sit at their desks and make deals and get enormous amounts of money for it. Nobody's protesting the blue-collar workers; they're protesting those workers' big bosses. I think this guy's taking the wrong angle.

One way to fix the issues people have with giant food corporations is to buy food FROM farmers, not from corporations that take cuts of their profits and are paid by the US government, which subsidizes the cost of corn until it's below the actual cost of production. Food corporations are not, I think, generally worthy of thanking. I highly recommend "The Omnivore's Dilemma" as another text that many people should read and know about.

 

[knarl]

There are certainly entitled, relatively rich kids in the crowds, but there are homeless ones too.

I work on the front lines, in retail grocery located in a poorer section of town. I know I have talked about this in the past, but it doesn't hurt to bring it up again in reference to this discussion.


I walk out of my apt each day, and no matter what time of day/nite week day or weekend, it seems about 1/3 to 1/2 of the tenants living there are lounging around outside... sitting in chairs or talking on cellphones. I am one of the few chumps that gets up early and actually heads off to do some real work.

Then I get to sit at a register all day, and see upwards of 25-35% of our customers come through with either Foodstamps or WIC or a combination of both. Perhaps once a day, I will see someone that appears to be a little down on their luck, being pretty frugal with their food purchase - and you can tell from their clothes and such that they truly need the helping hand. The MASSIVE majority of people that come thru the checkouts using gov't assistance, have all sugary junk foods and pre-prepared meals that require no effort to cook, are spending cash on tobacco and alcohol (often spending more on that than they did on the food), have designer clothes/handbags with freshly done hair and nails at the salon, and are talking on their smartphones the entire order (avg $50-80 a month for data service??) while they finish and walk over to the Redbox and rent a bunch of movies.

Me and many of my co-workers have quite a few pictures snapped of things like someone buying an entire cart of groceries on Foodstamps, and then the screen shows them still having $3000+ left in their account. No one ever seems to want to explain why someone AFTER already buying groceries should have more assistance money left than the regular working joe has in their checking acct while having to slave away for 8-10 hrs a day.



This I think is part of the point that is brought up in that video. You can't change a person's DNA, and you can't inject ambition into people that don't have it. Because of this fact, there are always going to be some people that start from the bottom in poverty, and then somehow pull themselves up by the bootstraps and become very successful/rich. And there are always going to be some people that have no ambition in life and muck around in the bottom % of income earners. The entrepreneurial types that run businesses are going to create jobs that even people with little ambition might choose to take, and those 2nd 3rd generation welfare sponges contribute nothing at all to the system... they are just pure parasites.

It's pretty disgusting that so many coddled entitlement turds are abusing the system, mixed in there with a much smaller percentage of people that are truly needy and SHOULD receive the help of a wealthy generous nation. But the fact is, between HUD assistance and WIC and Foodstamps and unemployment checks, none of those people are starving and living uncomfortable... that's a huge myth. The smaller population of people that might be homeless and not fed as well have more to do with barriers caused by antisocialism and Mental Disorder.


I think these silver-spoon entitlement kiddies at these protests need to be sat down for a seminar and taught some common sense. Let them work out for themselves on calculators how even if you taxed the rich 100% of their income, how short a time it would stem the tide of our current troubles, and then ask them to explain how it works if they bring down every ambitious entrepreneur job-creating "rich" person... where will all the money for their free-ride entitlement programs come from? You can't have 100% of Americans sitting around all day living the high-life off others with no cares or concerns, waiting for that gov't check in the mail that will now no longer come... so maybe instead of sitting around in a park protesting they should get off their arses and either do an honest day's work or find some of that ambitious spirit themselves and be one of those job creators that would actually be a productive member of society - instead of being a leech.

 

[kajabla]

You make some sense with your description of true welfare leeches, but I'd like to respond to a couple of your points.
-"free-ride entitlement programs"? Are you referring to food stamps?
-The "entitlement kiddies" are not looking to live on welfare. The protesters are not the same people as the leeches you describe.
-It's quite difficult for them to GET jobs. That's one of the issues, that jobs are scarce. They're not protesting because they don't feel like working, but because they find themselves unable to work. Everyone can't be an entrepreneur.

 

[dogman_1234]

I see this like a suicide. Those who need help, do not seek it. Those who do not need the help cause the biggest drama and get all the attention.

 

[knarl]

1) Referring to the entire enchilada of gov't assistance. The true abusers of these programs are often on every conceivable assistance, living on the dole and playing the "game". Housing, food, welfare... and popping out more and more kids even after they already knew they couldn't afford to raise one, solely to obtain higher benefits (I'm sorry, but if you already had one child while on Foodstamps and then you continue to have more, then you are nothing but a scum leech. This country needs a lesson in personal responsibilty... I want kids, but I had to put that off because I couldn't afford it - but I have to take a couple hundred out of my paycheck in taxes, to be sent to you TO HELP RAISE YOURS? wtf...)
2) There ARE jobs out there... they could be looking down their noses thinking that some jobs are beneath them (who the eff are you that makes you better than another human who you'd expect to do that menial job?) and then sitting for weeks in some park protesting, or they could be out doing an honest day's labor.
http://www.americanparchment.com/video/2011/oct/ows_fund_baby.html
3) One in 10 of them could be an ambitious entrepreneur, start up a new business that fills a niche or some current demand, and then that one could hire 9 of the less ambitious ones and get them outta the damn park.

The point is, to quit being part of the continuing problem, and get out there and do your part and at the same time be part of a solution. Don't be mad at people like Herman Cain for building a business based on what people want and will buy, eventually becoming a millionaire in the process. Start up a business yourself, funnel off some of his profits by moving in on that demand, or find a different need you can fulfill. Or quit acting like you are somehow better than anyone else on this planet, and go work an honest job even if to get thru the bad times you have to do something a little more menial than you might hope.

Just do something to contribute, anything... as long as it's not more leeching. We spend more on the poor and entitlements than ever before, and it's NEVER enough and they only get needier and needier each year.

As was once well said, and is worth a partial re-quote of the original piece:

"Not only have you not tried, you now hold me in contempt for not giving more, you blame me for your poor choices, you want me to keep giving more, you think you have the right to take whatever I have at the point of a gun because “you self-proclaimed that you are entitled to it”.

I the taxpayer have carried your burden all my life, and now you laugh at me for doing so.
You are no longer worth my efforts you have given up on yourself, so now I wish to give up on you.
The country is bankrupt a large part of it is, the government borrowing money it did not have to give to you.

There will have to be choices made in the near future on where the remaining money has to be spent to reset the country back on sound fiscal standing before the world.
You the poor are not a good investment; no money spent on you produces anything positive. You take my money and scream for more there is “never enough” money to satisfy your thirst.
I do not wish to give you any more of my money.
I vote NO on you.
You will be on your own.

I have done my part, you were given a fortune, and you wasted it.
I hoped for a better life for you
It is YOU, who have let ME down

John Q Taxpayer "

 

[chunkymonster]

How are they marxists?

I don't think the OWS protesters are inherently Marxist but based on the videos, articles, interviews, and propaganda sheets coming from OWS, it is not very hard to recognize the Marxist ideology that pervades their mantras.

We must destroy capitalism
State ownership of the means of production
Economic justice and equitable distribution of wealth
We need a new democracy where everyone has an equal share of power
Capitalism is based on slavery and genocide
Capitalism enslaves people to gather resources
Capitalism forces the people to become the bourgeoisie
The standard of living for all must be reduced to ensure fairness and equity among the people

The above are quotes taken directly from OWS protesters. If they are not Marxist themselves then they have been mislead and duped into promoting a Marxist agenda.

 

[dogman_1234]

Seems like another Red Scare. are we done with Socialism then?

 

[dogman_1234]

So, Bushie jr. and O'mama shouldn't of dine anything?