Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

My Attempt to Understand OccupyWallStreet

Recs

14

October 07, 2011 – Comments (22)

OccupyWallStreet has made the news, as they should. Since then all kinds of opinions on what they are saying and doing and who they are and what they should do have been opined.

And we are used to that, we see and do it every day. David in Qatar will quote you one half of one sentence Paul Krugman said and call him names and insult him and tell you what you should think of what Krugman said. TMFBane linked to OWS preliminary list of demands, and mocked them for copying a description Glass-Steagall from wikipedia, and then told us what to think about what they said. BillyTg followed suit in the replies. Every politicy issue raised is accompanied by a partial quote of something someone said and followed by a sometimes very longwinded diatribe of what you should think.

Here is a not longwinded example. http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/the-hypocrisy-of-barack-obama/651514 

Sometimes we even say that people are sheep easily led, and I suppose, mislead.

OccupyWallStreet does things a little differently.

When someone speaks, they just repeat exactly what she said for other listeners. They do not edit, they do not opine, they do not label it communist or free, keynesian or corrupt, they simply repeat it.

It would be like David in Qatar reposting a Paul Krugman column without any comment at all. And then his readers would have to think about Krugmans ideas on their own, without DIQ's influence or guidance.

In the first reply, I am going to post OWS's proposed list of demands for you to read, without comment or influence from me. Just like OWS does I will only repeat what they posted, for you to consider.

22 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 07, 2011 at 11:20 PM, devoish (98.62) wrote:

Posted Sept. 28, 2011, 6:54 p.m. EST (9 days ago) by GandhiKingMindset

(Please click on this link if you haven't yet read the introduction called "OUR TURN": https://occupywallst.org/forum/our-turn/ . Feel free to share this link with anyone you like).

TACTICS FOR "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS"

We should make the demands below very publicly at a press conference a few days after arriving in DC. When doing so, we should give a clear deadline of 3 days for a firm written commitment with signatures from at least 60% of members of House and 60% of the members of the Senate to pass these bills by the end of the year. If this commitment on the full slate of demands is not met by midnight on the 3rd day (which it won't be) we should be prepared to non-violently block access to all or part of the Capitol complex the next morning by traditional proven non-violent tactics. The purpose is to bring the leaders of the House and Senate to the negotiating table.

NOTE: There are always entrances because there is always a point where people who work there have to leave the public street and enter secure space. We should focus our non-violent direct action and civil disobedience on those entrances no matter where they move them because these are, by definition, always accessible.

LIST OF PROPOSED "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS"

CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Repeal .

USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.

CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.

CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.

CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.

CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control.

ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuUzmqBewg . Fast-forward to 2:20. It'll blow your mind. The 14th amendment was supposed to give equal rights to African Americans. It said you "can't deprive a person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". Corporation lawyers wanted corporations to have more power so they basically said "corporations are people." Amazingly, between 1890 and 1910 there were 307 cases brought before the court under the 14th amendment. 288 of these brought by corporations and only 19 by African Americans. 600,000 people were killed to get rights for people and then judges applied those rights to capital and property while stripping them from people. It's time to set this straight.

NOTE 1: This is from Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "Letter from the Birmingham Jail":

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood."

"The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation."

Here's the entire "Letter from the Birmingham Jail": http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html . It's a treasure and is as timely as ever.

NOTE 2: Here's a short video from BBC to inspire you. It gets pretty extraordinary about halfway through: http://youtu.be/lqN3amj6AcE

NOTE 3: If you haven't seen these 3 award winning documentaries -- INSIDE JOB, THE CORPORATION, and WHY WE FIGHT -- I highly recommend them.

NOTE 4: There needs to be a very well researched and concise addendum that contains a list of the top 50 corporate crimes / harmful actions during the past 15 years. This ought to really blow people away and will help increase support both on the ground in DC and in living rooms across America as the story unfolds. We can't assume everyone knows why these demands are necessary. We must demonstrate.

486 Comments

Report this comment
#2) On October 08, 2011 at 9:41 AM, BroadwayDan (97.41) wrote:

Great post and a very fair criticism of the intellectual intolerance and vitriolic disrespectful tone of much of the libertarian viewpoints expressed these days. 

Report this comment
#3) On October 08, 2011 at 9:55 AM, TMFBane (45.38) wrote:

Devoish,

I just wanted to clarify something. I wasn't mocking them at all when I said, "quick, someone Google...".

That joke (which clearly misfired) was intended to convey what people at home would be thinking if someone mentioned Glass Steagall. My only point was that most of us don't know what that means right off the top of our head.

If you read my remarks in another post, you'll see that I'm quite respectful of the protesters:

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/should-we-be-listening-to/650103

Anyway, I'm not a huge fan of mocking anyone, so I wanted to explain my lame joke!

Best,

John Reeves 

Report this comment
#4) On October 08, 2011 at 11:01 AM, wolfman225 (62.56) wrote:

Sounds like it was written by a working group of ignorant pre-teens.

...we should give a clear deadline of 3 days for a firm written commitment with signatures from at least 60% of members of House and 60% of the members of the Senate to pass these bills by the end of the year.

We want our way and we want it NOW!  Or else......

If this commitment on the full slate of demands is not met by midnight on the 3rd day (which it won't be) we should be prepared to non-violently block access to all or part of the Capitol complex the next morning by traditional proven non-violent tactics.

If they willfully interfere with people going about their business these people should be arrested, just as anyone who blocked access to any public building or place of business would be. As for being "non-violent", check out some of the latest confrontations with police.  The violence will only escalate with the addition of union thugs and money.

Okay, on with the specifics:

CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" ......separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks.

Actually, I don't have any problem with this one.  The two types of banks have very different purposes and should never have been allowed to intermix.  Thank you, Mr. Clinton.

USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS

Again, no problem here.  If the activity was actually criminal (as opposed to simply unethical, a fine--but important--distinction), it should always be fully prosecuted.  However, I would also add in the investigation of members of Congress who either willfully assisted in, or turned a blind eye to, the developing crisis.  Hello, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.  As well as the actions of the GSE's Fannie and Freddie, where some of the directors actively manipulated the data in order to pay themselves large bonuses.  Hello, Franklin Raines.

CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections.

Don't forget that the same decision allowed spending by Unions, also (did you know that the big unions are tax-exempt?  All of the millions of dollars they bring in from the membership and they pay zero taxes. Huh.  I'm sure it's simply an oversight by the people who write the tax code and will be corrected soon).  Aside from that, the courts (especially the Supreme Court) were created to be non-political and protected from influence by the winds of political or public opinion.  Giving any political body the power to overturn or influence the court is a direct route to tyranny and disaster.  Justice is supposed to be blind, ruled only by the application of law.

CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE

Even WB has partially recanted the "Buffett Rule".  The argument that "the rich" don't pay a fair share of taxes has been widely discredited.  The top 1% pay appx 40% of total federal taxes, the top 10% pay nearly 75% of total federal taxes, while the bottom 50% pay zero.  Eliminate the tax loopholes, by all means, but please, lets get rid of the false class-warfare claim that the rich don't pay enough of their income in taxes.

CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating.

I had to quote the whole thing here.  This is incredibly naive.  Let me guess, the "proven professionals" would be drawn from the ranks of college economics professors and others with an anti-business, -capitalist bias (please see the CFPB's Elizabeth Warren's comments about business).  The last thing the country needs is another "well-funded" government agency.

CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS

Don't we already have laws to limit lobbying?  The fact the current laws aren't enforced adequately is no reason to pass even more laws (that, in turn, won't be enforced).  As far as lobbyists writing legislation, you should take that up with your congressperson.  After all, they are the ones who are permitting it to happen, right?

CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED

No problem here.  The conflict of interest should be obvious to all. Again, let's also include politicians in the ban.  There are a large number of lobbyists who began as members of Congressional committees.

ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS

I don't have a grounding education in applicable law but  my gut reaction is that this is itself a knee-jerk, unwarranted attack in response to perceived crimes and an assumption that corporate profits are universally ill-gotten gains.  I don't have any problem with businesses and corporations being given standing to petition government concerning potential actions that stand to impact them.  If you believe that business money corrupts the political process, then you have to believe the same of union money.  The better solution is to elect morally strong representatives who will not be swayed by the blandishments of corporate donors or lobbyists.

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

I hope this didn't take up too much space, Steven.  But you did ask for our consideration.  I very much fear that these demonstrators are akin to Stalin's "useful idiots" and are being used by outside forces to tear down the United States system.  I think our country is balanced on the brink of an impossibly long drop, waiting for the final grain of sand to land on the scales.  If these children get what they think they want, they will quickly discover that it isn't what they were led to believe.  By that time, it will be too late.  For all of us.

Report this comment
#5) On October 08, 2011 at 11:58 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

I actually sent an email out to friends the other day expressing my interest in talking and exchanging ideas with the OWS crowd.

I think they have more in common with the original Tea Party protestors than they do with the Establishment of either party.

And I think they should be concerned that the Establishment Left is trying to hijack their movement.  I think it's ok to be pro-Labor and hate big Union bosses.  Just like I think it's ok to be pro-Business and hate crony capilitalist CEOs of the MIC or the Koch brothers.

Anyway, I hope they don't get hijacked like the TP did.

David

Report this comment
#6) On October 08, 2011 at 12:07 PM, wolfman225 (62.56) wrote:

"And I think they should be concerned that the Establishment Left is trying to hijack their movement.  I think it's ok to be pro-Labor and hate big Union bosses.  Just like I think it's ok to be pro-Business and hate crony capilitalist CEOs....."

Ditto.  I'm also afraid that the influx of union money and muscle (not to mention endorsement by the political left) is going to quickly create a very dangerous situation. 

"Anyway, I hope they don't get hijacked like the TP did."

I don't think the Tea Party has been hijacked.  Some in the establishment have tried to co-opt the movement for their own purposes, surely, but I don't think they have been all that successfull in the attempt. 

Report this comment
#7) On October 08, 2011 at 12:54 PM, caterpillar10 wrote:

the 60s 'movement' pulled together a very broad array of splinter groups - one rally for instance is where i met and heard libertarians for the 1st time.....the CENTER OF GRAVITY was Viet Nam and ending the war there the ONLY thing I can think of that all agreed on..........gotta run but start w/gravity...

Report this comment
#8) On October 08, 2011 at 3:39 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

David

Report this comment
#9) On October 08, 2011 at 7:58 PM, blake303 (29.19) wrote:

I work on WS (you can tell by my CAPS rating). I love most of the OWS movement. The media will always quote the idiot who likes Obama because he is "cool" to dumb down the organization, but this crowd seems pretty well informed on average. Protests always draw the lowest-common-denominator troublemakers, whether the sentiment is right or left of mainstream, but that does not indicate that the general demands are not valid or even necessary. I was told to get a job and pay my taxes when I asked reasonable questions at a tea party protest. I was on my lunch break. The original Tea Party has little in common with the OWS crowd other than anger, despite what David in Denial proclaims. 

Report this comment
#10) On October 08, 2011 at 8:19 PM, devoish (98.62) wrote:

 The MiracleDJR,

Thank you.

TMFBane,

I understand. Sometimes humor does not come across in print.

Wolfmann,

All of your criticisms could be expressed without the first sentence which is insulting the authors of the demands not a critique of those demands. It sets the tone for your entire reply and made me role my eyes upward and think you missed the point.

Your criticism of the three day deadline also suggests you did not gain an understanding of the purpose of the three day deadline. as described in the proposed demands.

While criticism is wonderful, a suggestion of why not to set a deadline or what longer deadline to set would show genuine interest and thought and give us(Fools) something substantial to think about it. Once again that goes to the point of my post. Listening and thinking for oneself and escaping the need to issue the insults of your first sentence.

David,

As I have expressed before, from reading your posts I came to believe that the Tea Party was not hijacked but is the welcome result of Libertarian political tactics. Personally i do not beleve your expressed policys of low taxes and low services, deregulate, set you apart from the Republicans or Conservatives who have expressed the same policys and now find you accusing them of being corrupted. Libertarians have succesfully misdirected anger in the past, with identical results. To repeat; Personally I do not beleve your expressed policys of low taxes and low services set you apart from the Republicans or Conservatives who have expressed desire for the same policys in the past.

I also think I pretty well understand the expected results of Libertarians such as yourself when in order to gain freedom in a money dominated society the majority of the people in that society are consistently expected to first surrender the tools (unions, social programs, taxpayer funded education, etc)that create a flow of a share of that money into their hands, while simultaneously leaving the existing advantages of the wealthy in place. Seems to me that your policys created and exacerbated the current status quo of of wealthy people with money corrupting Government to the detriment of the vast majority.

But this was a discussion of the last two years for us, which turned pretty ugly. I do not believe you want to talk if talking includes your listening.  I believe you want to hijack OWS for your own just as you accuse the left of doing. I believe you are a politician of the worst type. I believe you are the problem you preach against, but I think we both know what I have come to believe.

The people down at OWS, have had years of listening to the policys you express and have not joined you. The people inside the buildings on Wall St, sound like you.

It seems to me they have also rejected the "establishment left" or they could have joined with them. They have heard many voices in their lives and seem willing to support their own choices and pick and choose for themselves what ideas they will consider valid. 

Your video is interesting. Good luck talking to them, they seem to listen politely.

Thank you all for the recs. Based upon the replies from David and Wolfmann, and mine to them, I feel now that I should have cautioned everyone who was interested in the content of the demands to take time to consider them on their own before reading replys and being influenced by ou tone. The point is not to supress our thoughts or opinions but to consider your own first.

For example, when Wolfman replied concerning his support for legislation HR1489 concerning reinstating some portion of Glass Steagall, he felt the need to say "thank you Bill Clinton" suggesting that President Clinton is responsibe for repealing it (I think so but I'd have to check) as if that matters. It doesn't. The only thing that matters is whethter or not reinstating the portion of Glass Steagall that HR1489 reinstates is worth being the top ten demands. I'm guessing that none of us actually knows what is contained within HR1489  and are trusting our preferred economists and lawyers that it is a good bill. I am with Wolfmann on supporting that demand.  

But mentioning Bill Clinton is a good example of how we are distracted by todays politics. Believing as I do that GlassSteagall regulations seperated investment and s&l banks and helped reduce corruption, what am I to make of considering that Bill Clinton repealed it? That the "left" is bad? That a "left" that supported deregulating banks is really the "right"? I do not need a distraction designed to trigger a left vs right response in my thinking.

The question is do I support HR1489 in its effort to reinstate some portion of GlassSteagall.

My answer is yes. wolfmanns answer is yes. So on this issue we are both Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, Green Party or whatever label that doesn't actually matter.

What matters is that Wolfmann and I both call our Congressman and assure them that we are reelecting them based upon their history of support for our top five most important issues.

Best wishes

Steven

Report this comment
#11) On October 08, 2011 at 8:23 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Ok Blake and Steven, why don't I just go ahead and ignore you then, since neither one of you seem interested in talking to me.

But thanks for bringing my name up, trying once agin to drag it through the mud, and for hurling the insult or two, even when I come here open minded and offering to talk about issues.

Well done, you two.

David

Report this comment
#12) On October 08, 2011 at 9:44 PM, wolfman225 (62.56) wrote:

I think that this time it is YOU who missed MY point, Steven.  My opening remarks were a direct response to the intro to the list of "demands", specifically that a full 60% of both Houses of Congress respond, in their favor, within 3 days.  This "pre-demand" does nothing to make me inclined to see these children as anything other than just that.  Children throwing a temper tantrum.  Hell, it'd take more than that long just to have the clerks draw up the outline for the legislation, much less have a full debate, consideration of proposed amendments, and a final vote.  As for the purpose of the deadline, as far as I can see there is no purpose.  Other than to use it as an excuse for further occupation and disruption.

As I pointed out in my response (and you noted in your reply to me) I don't necessarily disagree with some of their points.  However, to demand that the entire list be agreed to is nothing more than the typical demand of a 5 or 6 year old that if they don't get what they want they'll "hold their breath till they turn blue!".

BTW, remember an earlier post where I responded that violence was coming?  It seems to be showing up.  Check the news reports of a couple of hundred protesters attempting to storm the Air & Space Museum in Washington, D.C.  They pinned one of the security guards against the wall and the guard had to be rescued by another guard wielding pepper spray on the crowd to drive them back.  It's started, and it's only likely to get worse with the influx of the professionals (Unions, MoveOn.org, assorted Socialist activist groups, etc).

I also completely disagree that the OWS crowd is in anyway comparable to the Tea Party.  There have been several hundred arrests for disruption already, in only 3 weeks (as I predicted, the incidents of confrontation began to increase when they decided they weren't getting the coverage or the response they wanted) and the seriousness of the confrontations with authorities seems to be escalating. 

In contrast, after several hundred events, held over a span of a couple of years, there have been zero arrests made at any Tea Party rallies.  In fact, those few fringe elements that have shown up with inappropriate signs or behaviors were quickly shut down by the other participants and forced to leave.  Contrast that with the behavior of the young man confronting the older Jewish gentleman in the street.  A crowd of onlookers did nothing to reign in the anti-semitic abuse.

I know you and I don't see eye-to-eye politically or philosophically, but can you really support a movement that has a large contingent of people who want to "tear down the Capitalist system"?  What do they propose to replace it with?  If we don't have capitalists willing to take risks to create businesses and bring new products to market, where are the future iPhones, iPads, iPods, etc, etc, going to come from?

I find it more than ironic (more like moronic) that these kids are out protesting in the street the evils of corporations while the whole movement owes it's growth and organization to corporations such as Apple, Facebook, Twitter and to the electronic devices created by "evil corporations" that have built the very platforms they are standing on.  I guess these kids simply assume that all of the goodies of modern life they enjoy will somehow magically stay in place, only now they'll be free for all, thanks to the beneficence of government.

While you're thinking things over, perhaps you could take the time to read my entire post (I realize it's lengthy, I tend to verbosity) and point out your reasoning behind the points I made which you disagree with.  Just because we disagree, it doesn't mean that we can't possibly learn something from a different point of view.  I seldom agree with Alyce, but that doesn't mean I won't read her articles and at least consider her points.

Report this comment
#13) On October 08, 2011 at 10:03 PM, kirkydu (93.64) wrote:

Here is my short hand of Occupy Wall Street:

They know that the root of the problems in not only America, but also the world, started in the finance and were tacitly allowed, and probably supported by politicians who are either stupid or corrupt or both.  They are not entirely sure what all of the solutions are, as none of us do either. 

The fact that they are looking in the generally right direction is terribly bothersome to a class that has made a lot of money at the expense of others all without adding to the vast economic pie for over a decade now.    

 

Report this comment
#14) On October 09, 2011 at 10:52 AM, devoish (98.62) wrote:

Kirkydu,

I think that is fair.

Wolfmann,

I understood your point was to distract from the content of the proposed demands, and demean the protestors by comparing them to spoiled children.

I read that the 3 day deadline was a proposed strategy to be followed by non-violently blocking access to the Capitol in order to bring the House and Senate to the negotiating table. If you think they should give the Senate 3 more years just say that, without the demeaning content.

We do not need to fight each other on an emotional level in order to support the proposed ideals we agree on.

It takes alot of courage to stand against those who bear weapons without one. And much less courage for those with weapons to use them against the unarmed.

Patrick Howley went to the protest against the use of drones in combat at the Air & Space museum in washington with the intention of discrediting the protestors. He said so. He found himself confonting guards inside the museum alone. He said so.

I am sure we will all know what actually happened in a few days or so. Those who rush to judgement probably are trying to get a political message out quickly, and probably aren't waiting for facts or evidence to guide them and may be trying to get ahead of facts or evidence.

It has been the standard operating procedure of Libertarians and the Tea Party for two years.

Watch it unfold for yourself.

Right now the facts I know about the Washington DC protest are these. 1) there was a protest. 2) there was a confrontation. 3) American Spectator Patrick Howley was there to discredit the protest - his own words. 4) Patrick Howley was right in the middle of that confrontation - his own words.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#15) On October 09, 2011 at 11:35 AM, wolfman225 (62.56) wrote:

You missed again.  I did nothing to distract from the content of their demands.  I addressed each point by point.  I also maintain that it is unlawful for them to occupy any area and to prevent people from accessing their place of work or to block access to any public space and that the 3 day deadline was never a serious consideration (as they admit) and was simply an attempt to justify further action that had already been planned.

"We do not need to fight each other on an emotional level in order to support the proposed ideals we agree on."

I never argue (I prefer debate) based on emotion.  That's a pointless exercise.  People feel the way they feel.  Reasoned argument won't change their emotions, but it may get them to consider another point of view.  You say that I am attempting th "demean" the protestors, I say I am merely making a valid analogy.

I"t takes alot of courage to stand against those who bear weapons without one."

Not really.  Not when you are protesting in a country of laws based on the concept of personal rights to free expression.  None of these protestors are risking a great deal.  In fact, many of them want to be arrested.  It makes news and gets them the exposure they crave.  If you want courage, look to the Buddhist monks Burma.  Even the Arab Spring.  They were knowingly risking their lives to make a difference.  Many of them lost their lives in the process. They had no "right" to protest; no "right" to free speech.  In contrast, the OWS people have no coherent messsage and they are risking nothing.  This isn't the '60's deep south with Bull Connor, this isn't Tahir Square, this isn't Tiannamen Square.  No one risks being shot/killed for their actions.  Don't tell me how "courageous" these people are. 

My opinion: Spoiled children doing everything they can in an attempt to force others to continue to provide for their wants with little or no effort on their part.  And they are now being used by other, more organized forces with a much darker agenda.

Report this comment
#16) On October 09, 2011 at 7:54 PM, devoish (98.62) wrote:

wolfman,

Burma monks had no right to protest or free speech, you say OWS has no right to crowd wall street if people can't walk by. Any justification will do.

But its not over yet, OWS's protestors have been pepper sprayed and beaten with clubs. There is more to come, you know it, and your 'no right to block people from work' will be the justification.

Thank you for your opinion, and you are correct, the protestors who lost their lives showed alot of courage. Just as Americans fighting for unions, decent pay, child labor laws, womens rights and civil rights who only won those things by utilizing the tactics you have declare violations of law and punishable by law. It is early still and in the early days of all the fights I just reminded you of, no-one was getting beaten or killed either, but eventually they did.

If they are just spoiled kids how would you handle the protesters now that they are not being ignored?

Would you support their demands that you agree with and if after the last ten years of working within the law you do not getting what you believe is needed what do you do then?

Certainly not give up I hope.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#17) On October 09, 2011 at 11:08 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

This is really too easy.

Devoish on Tea Party:

I came to believe that the Tea Party was not hijacked

Ralph Nader on the Tea Party:

The Tea Party has been hijacked by the Establishment Republican Party

Devoish on Ralph Nader:

Take your chances with my boy Ralph Nader

LOL, maybe you should take a chance on him, Steven.

More fun. In the Nader clip above, he shouts out Ron Paul's name in support at the end.  Nader LOVES Ron Paul.  

Devo loves Nader, or so he says.  But I really don't think he knows anything about Nader. Or anything else for that matter.

David

Report this comment
#18) On October 09, 2011 at 11:38 PM, devoish (98.62) wrote:

As I have expressed before, from reading your posts I came to believe that the Tea Party was not hijacked but is the welcome result of Libertarian political tactics. - me

c u tomorrow and of course,

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#19) On October 09, 2011 at 11:43 PM, devoish (98.62) wrote:

And as you know I told you two years ago Libertarians (cut taxes, cut services, deregulate) were nothing more than rebranded conservatives (cut taxes, cut services, deregulate) who were rebranded republicans (cut taxes, cut services, deregulate).

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#20) On October 10, 2011 at 1:54 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

 As I have expressed before, from reading your posts I came to believe that the Tea Party was not hijacked but is the welcome result of Libertarian political tactics. - you

Yeah, and Nader totally disagrees with you.  Nader supports Ron Paul, sees the difference between the original TP and its manifestation, and understands the difference between corporatism of the Establishment and capitalism of the libertarian.

Why do you think Ralph Nader is wrong and you are right?  How can you continue to profess support for Ralph Nader when he is clearly a supporter of the most prominent libertarian in America?

David

Report this comment
#21) On October 10, 2011 at 9:21 AM, devoish (98.62) wrote:

Seriously? Good luck with selling OWS on that idea.

I don't think Ralph Nader is wrong to agree with Ron Paul concerning the Patriot Acts assault on civil liberties or the misuse of the US military in the middle east.

I think you personally are cheating Ron Paul. You are misusing Libertarian idealism to keep entrenched Government corruption in place. You speak against renewable subsidies when you attack subsidies. Ron paul and Ralph Nader agree and speak against oil subsidies, then disagree when Nader supports renewables.

You keep coming to my blog like you want to convince me with words. Your words are broken. You riled up the Tea Party to attack renewables subsidies like you were an oil industry shill.

So convince me you are not some shill. The oil industry has had thirty years of Government subsidy, and you attack the fledging renewables. Rile up that Tea Party against the entrenched interests of oil. End their support first. Show the courage Nader and Paul have. Don't pretend the Tea Party was some accident. Do that first, because for my support, Libertarian mouthpieces need to prove they are different than Republicans and Conservatives with courage and results.

I think Ron Paul has integrity for Libertarian ideals that you sorely lack. More sadly I have watched Ron Paul and I think his mind is aging, and therein lies your interest in him.

Support for Ron Paul is not the same as support for Ralph \Nader.

Unless you are telling me that Ron Paul agrees with Ralph Nader that the Constitution allows for government using Federal tax policy to guide consumer choices and redistribute wealth?

Because then we could ask why Libertarians don't support Ralph Nader

I will.

Nader/Gonzalez proposes a straightforward carbon tax—set to annual benchmarks to bring, with the expansion of solar energy, US emissions to at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

A phased in initial price of $50 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions would harness $300 billion annually—money that would be put back in the pockets of American taxpayers, and money that would finance a green industrial revolution, providing a boon of 10 million new green collar jobs (in efficiency retrofits, cogeneration, geothermal, solar energy generation, and green grid enhancements) in the first five years.

You are telling me that Ron Paul agrees with Ralph Nader on a securities speculation tax?

I do.

Nader/Gonzalez favor a securities speculation tax.

Securities speculation — buying and selling blocks of derivatives to profit from rapid fluctuations in price — is one cause of the escalation in oil prices at the pump, the mortgage industry meltdown, and the dot.com bust.

You are telling me that Ron Paul supports a single payer health care system modeled after Canada?

I do.

Nader/Gonzalez favors a Canadian-style, private delivery, free choice of hospital and doctor, public health insurance system.

Right now, the United States spends $7,129 per capita on health care—more than twice as much per capita as the rest of the industrialized world

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#22) On October 10, 2011 at 11:01 AM, kirkydu (93.64) wrote:

"I think they should be concerned that the Establishment Left is trying to hijack their movement.  I think it's ok to be pro-Labor and hate big Union bosses.  Just like I think it's ok to be pro-Business and hate crony capilitalist CEOs of the MIC or the Koch brothers.

Anyway, I hope they don't get hijacked like the TP did."

Very nice DiQ.  I agree.

DiQ (or DiC if you are in Cali now), Devo is very right about the corrupt relationship between the financial and oil industries with gov'ment.  I don't think you disagree with that necessarily, butt it's tough to tell sometimes.  

Subsidy to oil (and nat gas and coal) needs to be eliminated before anybody else's ox is gored.  The bonus preserving safety net of the financial industry also needs to be long gone.  The safety net ought to be for citizens affected by bad banking, not for the bad bankers.

And there actually might be the core of both the OWS and TP grass root level angst.  We have all chipped in a lot to save two industries that have really screwed us all for a long time and neither has changed much at all.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement