Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[NinjaBoot]

OMG WEZ NEED TO QUIT DERAILING TOPIC, HURRRR!

OWS sucks, 'n stuff.. ya know? 

And WTF is this?

Me being stupid? 

[NinjaBoot]

Now, I am not sure if this was mention in the thread (I did a search of Obama Wall Street and nothing hit that was relevant, just some anti-fox news shenanigans).

So, uh.. dunno if this was posted elsewhere in the forum, but yeah, this is somewhat topic related! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Occupy_Wall_Street

"Although President Barack Obama claims to support the Occupy Wall St. movement, in 2011 it was reported that he had raised more money from Wall St. than any other candidate during the last 20 years.[12] In addition, as a Senator he voted in favor of the $700 billion Wall St. bailout.[13] Also, in October 2011, Obama hired Broderick Johnson, a longtime Wall St. lobbyist, to be his new senior campaign adviser. Johnson had worked as a lobbyist for JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Fannie Mae, Comcast, Microsoft, and the oil industry.[14]"

Anybody else remember the whole media explosion aside from Faux Nooz?

[SalmonGod]

I'm an Occupy supporter, and no Obama fan.  I'm well aware that he's just another corporate candidate.  Out of laziness, I'll just go ahead and re-post what I had to say about Obama in the Election Megathread.  Warning:  some stuff out of context.

He betrayed us by signing an extension of the patriot act for even longer than the republicans suggested extending it for.  Explicity promoting the most absurd levels of government secrecy since the cold war, while promising unprecedented transparency (he personally denied freedom of information requests for details on ACTA because he claimed it a threat to national security, for instance).  Escalating the incredibly reckless military drone program.  Implicitly supporting the crackdown on journalism, whistleblowers, and dissenting social movements that has led to the U.S. dropping 27 ranks in the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index this year.  And ACTA, which I believe to be a bigger deal than you.

I'm not saying that everything he's done is bad, and I don't blame him for not being able to do more in the face of a great deal of opposition.  I blame him for the things he has done that continue or even escalate the oppressive elements of the old administration, set the stage for greater abuses by further administrations, and criminalizes vocal opposition to these trends.

Also, you say he's blocked unsafe mining and drilling, yet he approved 27 offshore drilling operations in the aftermath of the BP oil spill.

Anyway, I'm not quite sure what your post has to do with the thread.  If you're trying to gauge the Occupy movement's political stance on the guy, you're going to find it's incredibly varied.  There isn't any united support or opposition to him.  My interactions both online and offline have found only a small minority of occupiers who truly believe in the guy.  A larger minority are like me and will be abstaining from voting or voting third party.  A majority don't like him, but are too afraid of the Republicans, who are openly corrupt and/or theocratic, not to vote for him.

But from what I've seen of your behavior on the forums so far, I think it's far more likely that you're just fishing for an excuse to go on a shallow rant about how much you hate Obama, based on either incredibly petty nitpicks or stuff that's not even his fault.  I don't mean to insult you.  I'm just trying to be direct and save everyone headaches.  I don't like Obama either, but the way you complain about him has had me headdesking frequently.  If you're going to drop any comments about how he failed to pass a budget or any of the other same things you've hounded on over and over again, just don't.  It's been done to death already.

[NinjaBoot]

Anyway, I'm not quite sure what your post has to do with the thread.  If you're trying to gauge the Occupy movement's political stance on the guy, you're going to find it's incredibly varied.  There isn't any united support or opposition to him.  My interactions both online and offline have found only a small minority of occupiers who truly believe in the guy.  A larger minority are like me and will be abstaining from voting or voting third party.  A majority don't like him, but are too afraid of the Republicans, who are openly corrupt and/or theocratic, not to vote for him.

I was more looking to see what people would say to this (I wasn't here for the whole first portion). 

Those who are pro-Obama and give him a free pass because of this?  It would irk me, yes. 

Those who seem to think Republicans are the party of corruption?  That is what I was hoping to get at, because, honestly.. how is that? 

How does this related to OWS?  Well, for one thing, if everybody knows of government corruption, then why are they not Occupying Washington and demanding government be held accountable for their actions?  Government can easily stop all of these shenanigans if they actually bothered to pass the laws banning such clear conflicts of interest and acceptance of political contributions directly from companies or known beneficiaries of government subsidies! 

But from what I've seen of your behavior on the forums so far, I think it's far more likely that you're just fishing for an excuse to go on a shallow rant about how much you hate Obama, based on either incredibly petty nitpicks or stuff that's not even his fault.

I just think Obama is more of a tool than Bush, but whatever.  And, well.. how is knowingly accepting political contributions from Wall Street not his fault?  Therein lies the whole debate about the slant given to him. 

I don't mean to insult you.  I'm just trying to be direct and save everyone headaches.  I don't like Obama either, but the way you complain about him has had me headdesking frequently.  If you're going to drop any comments about how he failed to pass a budget or any of the other same things you've hounded on over and over again, just don't.  It's been done to death already.

I don't see it as an insult, so its all good! 

The only reason I keep harping on it over and over is because people would rather seem apt to ignore all that Obama and his Administration has done and still focus on the Republicans being the only party of evil corrupt plutocrats. 

The corruption runs down both sides of the isle.  The only party within the last couple of years to actually have an impact on national politics is the Tea Party, and yet it seems to me people think rather negatively of it.  The only reason people dislike the Tea Party or the Republicans doesn't stem from anything corruption related, but moreso from the fact that they just do not agree with the general political ideologies of the forum. 

[MadocComadrin]

IIRC, because she was involved in a hit and run, and assuming that hit and run caused injury or extensive property damage, she could have been fleeing from a felony, which does allow the use of lethal force if necessary. The officer was in his bounds if there was any injury in any of the 3 hit and runs.

[Nadaka]

all your points have already been raised and answered in this thread already.

[MadocComadrin]

Just saw this

No.  Altering the law to force everyone to live according to the beliefs of one religion is not fair. 

Do note that I said right and fair, not just fair. These people are doing these things (the ones that sincerely believe it, that is) because they think it's right. Demonizing them really isn't going to do anything.

That much is not subjective.

Worth is subjective, therefore fairness is subjective.

Religious people being able to live according to their beliefs to the extent that it does not infringe on those who do not share their beliefs is fair.  This is pretty damn basic.  I promote tolerance of religion all the damn time against people who are highly resentful towards it.  However, there is a line.  Tolerance of religion does not necessitate living according to religious doctrines.  They may believe they are doing what is right, and I accept that.  I will not concede that they are being fair and responsible.

Because you are arguing from your own stance. This is natural, but not objective. Remember as well that many of these people consider themselves under some form of religious oppression--that their own freedoms are being repressed.

Yes, there is a lot of common anger, but there are still incredibly divisive social issues that the parties successfully play off of.  The whole thing is based on getting votes from people who hate their own party, but hate the other party more.

IIRC, the distribution of constituents along a political spectrum tends to be normal, so while there are divisive issues, there is quite the majority who aren't as divided as half of what the two-party-politics would lead you to believe--AND are more prone to compromise than either party as well.

[SalmonGod]

Those who seem to think Republicans are the party of corruption?  That is what I was hoping to get at, because, honestly.. how is that?

I don't even know where to begin.  It will be a few hours before I'd even have time to do this justice.  Perhaps someone else would like to give it a shot?

All I'll say for now, is that I don't think they're THE party of corruption.  I just think they exhibit more universal and blatant corruption.  Their abuse of the revolving doors between government and business tend to be much more flagrant.  They love war for profit.  The one thing they do that Democrats do not is push relentlessly for theocratic law (while justifying war on Islam based on their use of theocratic laws.......)

How does this related to OWS?  Well, for one thing, if everybody knows of government corruption, then why are they not Occupying Washington and demanding government be held accountable for their actions?  Government can easily stop all of these shenanigans if they actually bothered to pass the laws banning such clear conflicts of interest and acceptance of political contributions directly from companies or known beneficiaries of government subsidies!

I can tell you haven't been paying much attention...

There's been an Occupy chapter in D.C. just like every other major city.  There was also an event labeled "Occupy Congress" that drew everyone from around the country with the means to attend to D.C. on Jan 17th.

Besides that, the primary focus of the movement from its very beginning has been the corrupt relationship between business and government.  It has criticized both sides of that relationship as thoroughly as possible, and continues to operate everywhere, globally, because the problem exists everywhere.  Not everyone responsible is in D.C., and being focused in one place just makes the thing seem narrower in scope and easier to shut down anyway.

[NinjaBoot]

Those who seem to think Republicans are the party of corruption?  That is what I was hoping to get at, because, honestly.. how is that?

I don't even know where to begin.  It will be a few hours before I'd even have time to do this justice.  Perhaps someone else would like to give it a shot?

All I'll say for now, is that I don't think they're THE party of corruption.  I just think they exhibit more universal and blatant corruption.  Their abuse of the revolving doors between government and business tend to be much more flagrant.  They love war for profit.  The one thing they do that Democrats do not is push relentlessly for theocratic law (while justifying war on Islam based on their use of theocratic laws.......)

Right, well I'll munch on this at work so I'll offer a reply in around 7-8 hours! 

How does this related to OWS?  Well, for one thing, if everybody knows of government corruption, then why are they not Occupying Washington and demanding government be held accountable for their actions?  Government can easily stop all of these shenanigans if they actually bothered to pass the laws banning such clear conflicts of interest and acceptance of political contributions directly from companies or known beneficiaries of government subsidies!

I can tell you haven't been paying much attention...

There's been an Occupy chapter in D.C. just like every other major city.  There was also an event labeled "Occupy Congress" that drew everyone from around the country with the means to attend to D.C. on Jan 17th.

Besides that, the primary focus of the movement from its very beginning has been the corrupt relationship between business and government.  It has criticized both sides of that relationship as thoroughly as possible, and continues to operate everywhere, globally, because the problem exists everywhere.  Not everyone responsible is in D.C., and being focused in one place just makes the thing seem narrower in scope and easier to shut down anyway.

So why the need to illegally occupy public and private property around the country?  And let us not forget, the OWS started in October, and they finally got around to protesting what you say they are originally for, the better part of 4 months later? 

I would like to debate these topics with you if that is the case! :O

But, work now :*(

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You can't illegally occupy a public space. It's right there in the first amendment that all the peoples of the United States have a right to assembly. As public space is collectively owned by everyone, everyone has a right to be assembled there as much as they like.

[Chaoswizkid]

How does this related to OWS?  Well, for one thing, if everybody knows of government corruption, then why are they not Occupying Washington and demanding government be held accountable for their actions?  Government can easily stop all of these shenanigans if they actually bothered to pass the laws banning such clear conflicts of interest and acceptance of political contributions directly from companies or known beneficiaries of government subsidies!

I can tell you haven't been paying much attention...

Quoted For Truth.

There's been a lot of discourse about the connection between government and business, about how if our government is in any way going to pretend it isn't a bundle of hypocrisy it should hold bankers accountable, etc. I'm honestly surprised you haven't seen any of it, even if it is correct to assume you haven't looked too deep into the movement. Not only that, conversations about opinions of the government are automatic within the OWS. Due to its foundation, OWS is not politically affiliated as a whole, but its members (and supporters) have a wide variety of political beliefs (including no political affiliation themselves). The only thing that's certain is that members of the OWS are not happy with the current situation and believe Wall Street is to blame (at least in large part) for the economic state the citizens of the country are currently in. Due to America's prevalence in the world economy, this can be extrapolated to cover the economic state of other countries as well.

However, simply acknowledging that should also lead one to conclude that if Wall Street is to blame, then were was a major failing on the part of the government to not protect the citizenry; such a failing may or may not be forgiven, but if the government does not place new restrictions or takes measures to prevent such action in the future or does not hold accountable those at fault, then opinion of the government will probably be much worse.

The corruption runs down both sides of the isle.  The only party within the last couple of years to actually have an impact on national politics is the Tea Party, and yet it seems to me people think rather negatively of it.  The only reason people dislike the Tea Party or the Republicans doesn't stem from anything corruption related, but moreso from the fact that they just do not agree with the general political ideologies of the forum.

After thinking about it, I can't really say that I dislike the Tea Party due to corruption. However, I notice in your second sentence you stick "Republicans" in there like a bad earmark on a budget reformation bill. If you seriously think no one believes that the Republican party is corrupt, you should really do your research better.

So why the need to illegally occupy public

Wasn't illegal when they started doing it. Public officials began using reactionary methods to deal with them.

and private property

This was done once protesters were ousted from public property. I can only recall certain situations where the property was actually 'private' property, as in for all intents and purposes the property functions as public land, it is just owned privately and not by the city.

around the country?

...   I'm not even sure how to address that. Are you ignoring logistics, the lack of a central base of power for the OWS, the need to be public with the protests, etc.?

And let us not forget, the OWS started in October, and they finally got around to protesting what you say they are originally for, the better part of 4 months later? 

And let us not forget, the OWS, since it started, protested continuously about exactly what SalmonGod stated. Occupy Congress was an event that was held when it seemed that such a gathering might be feasible.

You should seriously do your homework on this before making such claims.

[MadocComadrin]

Wasn't illegal when they started doing it. Public officials began using reactionary methods to deal with them.

I don't recall them getting a permit and going through the proper channels to hold a gathering on public property. That, and such an extended stay violates the rights of others in the area.

[Nilik]

Boy this thread is moving fast.

Criptfiend, please read what I wrote again. I said that the baton was the only available "less-lethal" option before pepper spray and tasers existed. And I put less-lethal in quotes because I would consider it far more dangerous than either pepper spray or a taser, but considerably less so than a gun.

[Nadaka]

IIRC, because she was involved in a hit and run, and assuming that hit and run caused injury or extensive property damage, she could have been fleeing from a felony, which does allow the use of lethal force if necessary. The officer was in his bounds if there was any injury in any of the 3 hit and runs.

This is completely false. You may only escalate to potentially lethal force if there is an immediate threat of harm. There are no other cases where it is allowed. Period.

[SalmonGod]

Just saw this

No.  Altering the law to force everyone to live according to the beliefs of one religion is not fair. 

Do note that I said right and fair, not just fair. These people are doing these things (the ones that sincerely believe it, that is) because they think it's right. Demonizing them really isn't going to do anything.

I do my best not to demonize.  I have a personal policy about keeping any unflattering comments about any person or group of people to factual content only.  I may fail that at times, but I never demonize.

That much is not subjective.

Worth is subjective, therefore fairness is subjective.

I don't see how fairness is tied to worth.

Religious people being able to live according to their beliefs to the extent that it does not infringe on those who do not share their beliefs is fair.  This is pretty damn basic.  I promote tolerance of religion all the damn time against people who are highly resentful towards it.  However, there is a line.  Tolerance of religion does not necessitate living according to religious doctrines.  They may believe they are doing what is right, and I accept that.  I will not concede that they are being fair and responsible.

Because you are arguing from your own stance. This is natural, but not objective. Remember as well that many of these people consider themselves under some form of religious oppression--that their own freedoms are being repressed.

This is actually the main difference between a theocrat and a non-theocrat.  A non-theocrat organizes their life on the principle that their beliefs could be wrong, and thus it is wrong to force one's beliefs onto others.  A person who tries to force others to live according to their beliefs does so under the objective assumption that only their personal beliefs are infallible.  This is an irresponsible attitude and it is unfair that others must defend themselves against it.

And this is not a rant against religion.  Plenty of religious people are not theocrats.

IIRC, the distribution of constituents along a political spectrum tends to be normal, so while there are divisive issues, there is quite the majority who aren't as divided as half of what the two-party-politics would lead you to believe--AND are more prone to compromise than either party as well.

And yet civil rights issues (gender, racial, and lgbt equality, abortion, contraceptives, etc) for which compromise is literally impossible (you either have them or you don't) continue to be main talking points at election times that prove quite capable of dividing the country roughly in half.  I know quite a few Republican voters, and I can't think of a single one who doesn't base their decision primarily on these issues.  Most of the people I know who vote Democrat would prefer to vote third party, but are too afraid of giving power to Republicans because of these issues. 

Anecdote, I know, but any other measure of political climate is an abstraction, which isn't much better.

So why the need to illegally occupy public and private property around the country?

I don't recall them getting a permit and going through the proper channels to hold a gathering on public property. That, and such an extended stay violates the rights of others in the area.

Google:  "occupy camp permit" <--  Here you go.  Thousands of articles describing the Occupy's movements legal efforts.  Every location has made every effort possible to be respectful and legal.  Major cities even have teams of dozens of lawyers on hand experienced in activism and civil rights.

Plus

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Besides, I think it's unreasonable to nitpick the Occupy movement over legal technicalities, when they are in the process of protesting the institutions responsible for designing and enforcing the law for abusing their positions.  Of-fucking-course those legal technicalities are going to be stacked against them.

The whole point of this thing is to call out those in power because they are supposed to be responsible for upholding the law, and they are using their positions instead to get away with breaking the law or altering it in their favor.  What this means is legal channels cannot be counted on as useful for effecting change under these circumstances.  If this is unacceptable to either of you, then that's fine.  We just won't have anything more to say to each other.

Seriously... I'm happy to answer questions, but accusations that can be debunked with a 5-second Google search are just offensive.

And let us not forget, the OWS started in October, and they finally got around to protesting what you say they are originally for, the better part of 4 months later? 

Like I said, there has been a D.C. chapter of the Occupy movement from very early on.  I'm not sure what you expect here.

If you're saying that it took too long for them to draw people nationwide for an event in D.C., then my response is that you're being unrealistic.  Occupy began with only a couple hundred people taking initiative based on a suggestion posited on a single page of a Canadian magazine targeted at a very niche audience.  In just a few months, it's grown to support millions of supporters internationally.  This is an incredibly remarkable phenomenon already.  It's unprecedented in human history if you think about it, enabled by widespread international availability of mass communications technology that's only been operating at this level of capability for a few years.  The world's only been moving at Mach 1 for a little while, and you're already demanding the speed of light.

And like I already said, the problem of corrupt relationships between business and government does not exist only in D.C..  It would make no sense to focus the entire movement in that one spot.