Has anyone been following (or participating in) the protests in NYC?

https://www.occupywallst.org

I think anyone participating in those protests would be too stoned to even type.

nope, couldn't care less if the entire island fell into the sea. they're a bunch of anti-tobacco whack-jobs.

I haven't heard of this previously although I heard about the stuff in SF. I can think of a number of reasons why this is a great idea. I hope those are their motives for protesting.

I just got back from being at the occupation for a couple of days. I'm very glad I went, and look forward to helping mobilize a similar occupation where I live!

I think the basic demands of the occupiers are: End the wars, tax the rich, and get the corporations out of our political system.

I need to find out more about these occupiers. If indeed those are the demands of the protesters, then their political point of view matches my own exactly.

Only heard about the police actions

My thoughts on the matter (from a FB post):

"I get what the Occupy Wall Street people are doing...I really do. But sooner or later, folks are gonna have to come to understand that if they want to see change, they're going to have to stop waving snarky/witty signs and committing petty crimes to draw attention to themselves, and get out there and GET INVOLVED in the things they don't like. You don't like wall street? Get a degree and go work for the Fed to make it better. You don't like the current government? Run for office! More action, less lip service....PLEASE!"

The thing is that to get to the positions to enact change on the scale needed to reform political culture in Washington you need to be in bed with the money. I don't think many people will people able to pull off that act for 20 years, get into congress, and still have the energy to lead and push through change, having to do an about face and bite all the hands that have fed them along the way.

The way to begin solving this is to legislate and cap monetary contributions to the political process. Whether it is towards election advertising or politicians - cap it. Canada did it (although the current Prime Minister, the best US president Canada has ever had, wants to turn the place into a replica of the US) and it has worked fine. It creates a different culture.

Mind you, with all the backroom and insider dealings among the top players in the US they would probably find a way to evade the new rules.

I'm not one for ethics so maybe they just need to start burning all the properties of the big criminals. They are too entrenched in power so there's no way to change their attitudes through simple rules. Chase em out with pitchforks.

Not true at all oats - every day people can make change happen, even from the lowest level of an organization. It may take time, patience, dedication, and a willingness to take many small victories (and a few defeats) instead of one big one, but it CAN be done - history has proven that time and again.

Granted, having any of the above is sure helpful....but I think that overall that philosophy is just one big cop out for folks who find it much easier and more comfortable to sit back and fluff about the status quo instead of doing something about it.

Either way, sitting there waving some snarky sign at someone who could give a fluff less what you think isn't the answer to the problem.

did they all jump off the Brooklyn Bridge yet? read something about it, but the page didn't load correctly on my PSP.

You must be one of the people protesting on Wall Street (unimaginable ignorance run amok there) if you've never heard of :
http://en.wikipedia.org/...ral_Election_Campaign_Act

Fact checking would have cut into witty/snarky slogan think tank sessions and sign making work shops.

It also should be noted that advertising caps were in place until the Citizens United case ruled them unconstitutional, so that is off the table.

I'm through sitting around while others make history. I'm helping to Occupy DC! http://www.occupydc.org

it's about time the power goes back to all the people instead of just the ones with $$$

What is off the table?

I said that monetary contributions to the political process need to be controlled and capped. You called me unimaginably ignorant and then followed up by referring to a 2010 court decision that removed caps to monetary input to the political process.

I'm not a lawyer familiar with the ins and outs of the US election system. Nor do I know the technicalities of the relevant vernacular. But I'm not oblivious to the obvious ballooning of election related spending, whatever the source, that has been occurring in the US during the past 4 years I have paid attention. I don't even have a television nor do I live in the US and I notice this.

Caps on advertising are off the table because the Supreme Court has ruled them unconstitutional. Unless the make up of the Court changes (won't be happening any time soon), additional legislation in this area won't stand.

As far as campaign money goes, corporations cannot make direct contributions. They can form a political action committee and donate, but there are limits on how much they can give (typically 5000 per candidate). Despite the conventional wisdom that elections are bought and paid for by corporations, the overwhelming majority of campaign money comes from individual donations (something like 90%+).

Maybe you're good at typing stoned? :P

spell check rulez

where did you get the money to be able to afford to sit around all day?
bah, this is probably some kind of corporate gimmick to increase fast food sales in certain areas. don't stare directly at the advertisements and cover your ears.

Serious question for the anti-corporation protesters. Your goal, it sounds like, is the end of the corporation. Corporations provide tens of millions of jobs and the majority of our gross domestic product. How are you going to replace that? Where do you see yourself working after the corporation is ended? Keep in mind you are also advocating for the persecution of the wealthy, so few people will see an incentive to starting up new companies and hiring you.

Where do you get that from? I don't see any post in this thread which supports that idea. I don't even see anything in the articles linked to by this thread which supports that idea.

Could you please point out where anything is written in this thread which "sounds like" anyone's goal is "the end of the corporation"?

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

ahh, man. they showed up in Philly. i'll probably need a good walking stick to beat them off with. oh, wait, i bought a couple of Fushigi Magic Gravity Balls. that should keep them occuppied long enough for me to escape unmolested. look. bright shiny.

I guess I just assumed that. Micahbales posted what he thinks they stand for, but if that's the case, why is it occupy wall street? Why aren't they occupying the capital?

This is a good solid recommendation about how to fix things. The problem is, the government has had it's way for far too long in creating a dumbed down, US Population, thus ensuring the government's longevity in a state that does not honor the real people who make it all work ( The Middle Class ).

The real root of change will happen when people realize that the gevernment is out of control and that the PEOPLE need to take the POWER away from the STATE and put it back where it belongs in the hands of the PEOPLE.

Thomas Jefferson had some thoughts on this and wrote them down in some very important documents. People would be wise to read them and think on this.

The next election should have the motto "Throw the Bums Out"
4

think i'll just start calling it "The Gluttons vs The Greedy".

Problem is, if you throw the bums out you're just left with the rats....

hmm, i didn't see any protesters at City Hall in Philly today. did they switch locations to go tail gate game 5?

It would be pointless to participate in thsee protests, unless they lead to an overreaction by the government that has overtones of the Boston Massacre.

No amount of protesting will sway the oligarchs that control Wall Street. The only solution for their greed, will be another Revolution to put things right again and get the big money out of the Government and return power to the people.

Generally, I agree with your viewpoints, NOW3P, however, this time I would like you to cite some empirical evidence of the little guy making a difference with his single vote and effort to make changes.

I don't think anything but a major conflagration will be able to change the way our political machine works.

You're right though, idiot's standing around, waving stupid signs will not result in any change, especially when the powers that be couldn't care less about them, or their ideas. The only thing they are worried about is that the gravy train keep on going so they can continue to ride it.

Thus, if you really want to make a change, you have to do it old school and blow up the tracks that the gravy train runs on. THEN, you'll get attention.

Folks have been saying that one person is too insignificant to make a difference in the world around them for centuries. So far as empirical data goes, I think a short list of people who would disagree with that ideal is probably about as compelling of evidence as you can ask for....

Gandhi

Mother Theresa

Martin Luther King Jr.

Booker T. Washington

Nelson Mandela

Bob Geldoff

Save 1, all have had their affect on the world in the last 50 years. None of them came from significant means or used monetary persuasion/funding as their primary means of achieving their goals. None were supported by corporate funding. All found a way to make a significant difference in the world around them and gain support of others through grass roots efforts. Bob Geldoff may be the one exception to that rule, as he was significantly wealthy by the time he began his philanthropic efforts...but profits from his efforts go directly to charities, and in many cases artists donate their services in lieu of being paid.

Truth be told, I think we've just grown complacent and lazy, and most folks find it easier to wave a sign than actually take action or come up with a viable alternative.

You write off those sign waving people as if they did nothing. This is quite false. Those people sparked the conversation in this thread, and I am betting other places where people with a great deal more power to make change discuss issues.

Many of those in power do care enough to modify policy to prevent open revolt. If their greed should overcome their sense of preservation, then the masses will have their way. Money does not make anyone bulletproof.

bah. if they resort to violence and looting, then they ain't much better than a pack of wild dogs. i'm allowed to shoot wild dogs. not that i have anything worth looting, but they probably won't take the time to remember that. Who Let The Dogs Out?!?

Blatant disregard for law through white collared crime is no worse than disregard for law through violence, in my opinion.

The truth is that the people who are causing upheaval and breaking the law through white collar crime are relying on inaction and non-violence by the masses.

Property damage, without hurting people, might be an effective way to force big money and government to do things lawfully. How ironic.

first order of business should be to get the money completely out of politics

use violence in front of me, and i'm allowed to kill every damn one of ya, throw ya on the BBQ and eat ya for dinner.

I have not seen any significant result from these protests yet. No policy reviews, no Congressional inquiries, no changes in approach.

I am fine with raising public awareness and sparking conversation - I just don't think they're helping their cause by tooting their horns that they've accomplished anything more than that. The only ones that will gain any respect from me are the ones that move forward from this point to affect the change - not just talk about it needing to happen or waving another sign around.

So far, I haven't seen anyone do that.

is it possible to vote for somebody who isn't influenced by money or power?

it's bullfluff anyway. people are pissed that the economy tanked and are looking for scapegoats to hang. same as they always do.

I might agree with this more than just about anything you've ever posted Dibs.

The shiesty ethics of Wall St. are only an issue now that things are bad. Nobody batted an eye in the 50 years prior when they created untold wealth and prosperity.

just blame the jew bankers. it almost worked for the Nazis. it'd be a shame if you actually acheived conciousness and found out you've been wasting your money on sports, actors, musicians and video games. would kinda make it your fault, now wouldn't it?

http://imgur.com/1RuuC.jpg

scary..

Well then, as soon as the folks on Wall street manage to increase my wages enough to counteract the 200% increase in fuel prices over the last 15 years, and allow me enough a pay raise that my annual salary keeps up with inflation, then I will consider them to have done their jobs and I won't complain about them.

For those who like trickle down economics, I need it to trickle a little more. My standard of living is dropping year by year, and the resources available to do my job effectively are being cut which makes my job harder. Meanwhile, multinational oil companies are squeezing the life out of our entire economy and reporting record profits.

I'm not saying this is unfair. They have the power to do this and people like me are not angry enough yet to stop them, but if it keeps on like this that may change, it will be equally fair for the masses to use the power given to them by numbers to kick a** and fix this crap.

The problem with the trickle down theory and Wall St. is that it isn't the responsibility of folks on Wall St. to increase your, or anyone else's wages.

Wall St. consists of privately held companies/conglomerates/organizations/funds/trusts/etc who have one guiding purpose - They are there to make money, and make no qualms about it. They will work every angle the system allows them to - ethical or not, and they go out out of their way to accumulate as much wealth as possible. They want the opposite of trickle down, and will do everything they can to let as little trickle down as possible.

They're not working on Wall St. to help people - if they had wanted to do that, they would have gone somewhere else.

This is why I'm so annoyed by a bunch of people waving signs. The folks on Wall St. don't care what they think - especially when they show up in their Nike shoes, Tommy Hilfiger jeans, Honda Prius', and wave signs made by Owens-Corning or 3M - and even if they did begin to show an inkling of care, still wouldn't stop doing what makes them the most money. They're making hand over fist off of economic turmoil, and until regulatory bodies do something to stop it, they have no intention of stopping any time soon. The signs are being waved in the wrong place, and with the wrong purpose...

oh noes! not another massive attack of the mutant brain eating zombies. quick, somebody turn on Sponge Bob Square Pants. it'll mesmerize them into complacency. don't forget the Ben and Jerry's ice cream.

btw, how much do you think i owe you simply because you exist? find something useful to do besides eating, drinking, peeing and pooping.

If you are suggesting NOW3P that they should be communicating with their elected officials who would then change policy, you should note that they are. It isn't enough for a person to write a letter to their congressperson and stop with that when the Wall Street folks have enough money to get policy makers to favor them. It is coming to the point that those on Wall Street need to start caring how their greed affects the rest of society.

This protest is the peaceful precursor to more radical actions that may result if the peaceful demonstration is ignored. It reminds me of the apocryphal story of Marie Antoinette when she said, "Let them eat cake." after being told the peasants had no bread. The common people are not starving yet, and perhaps it won't come to that, but there are definitely people dying because they can't afford proper health insurance, and that is definitely a problem with the distribution of wealth in the United States.

that's a problem with finding affordable healthcare. along with people suffering from the delusion that everyone can get more out of health insurance than they put into it. it's not sustainable if everyone is taking out.

and not that i really want anybody to die, but how much money is being spent on the old retired farts who haven't kicked the bucket yet? did they put enough aside to pay for their retirement? or did they gamble it all away on Wall Street?

It kinda sounds like you are a little out of touch Dibs. Most people are terrible at saving money. Many have pension plans that are managed by their employers. Only a few have money to invest in the stock market. The notion that a typical person might "gamble it all away on Wall Street" fits your name rather well. It's ludicrous given that the historic yearly growth of the DOW has been about 10%. Stocks are not win/lose in general although it is possible to lose. The question is whether you had any money to put there in the first place.

That's the issue. The middle class is disappearing. Fewer and fewer people have anything extra to invest. I know I'm backsliding year by year. In another 10 years I'll be a peasant serving my Wall Street lords.