ThePhranc wrote:Cone_Junky wrote: In those 5 pages was an article where a Conservative journalist admitted intentionally starting the "riot" like behavior at the Smithsonian.Those poor idiots just couldn't help them selves could they? They just had to riot. Personal responsibility and self control were just too hard for them.
Actually... they could. That guy was surprised that none of the other people followed his lead in forcing his way past guards and into the museum.
Salanis wrote:ThePhranc wrote:Actually... they could. That guy was surprised that none of the other people followed his lead in forcing his way past guards and into the museum.Cone_Junky wrote: In those 5 pages was an article where a Conservative journalist admitted intentionally starting the "riot" like behavior at the Smithsonian.Those poor idiots just couldn't help them selves could they? They just had to riot. Personal responsibility and self control were just too hard for them.
I think the pepperspray and guards physically keeping them out had more to do with it then self control. Of course they could have always not rush the museum to begin with.
Hmmm. Looks like the protest in Dallas may be shut down by the cops this weekend. Who would have thought that these guys couldn't afford liability insurance. 
http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2011/oct/11/occupy-dallas-protesters-permit-camp-pioneer-plaza/
Those 53% people sure are some whiny bastards.
Well, finally, someone's called for something reasonable - a boycott of Bank of America.
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/113658/bank-transfer-day-mainstreet?mod=bb-budgeting
Given how incompetent BoA has been acting recently, that's one idea I can get behind. There have been a lot of cases of BoA in the news lately where not only did they start off with making a weird mistake (such as attempting to foreclose on a home that didn't even have a mortgage with them) but they failed to acknowledge their mistake and apologize, sometimes going to ridiculous levels (such as the time one family had to physically show up at a BoA branch with the sheriff, and tell them they were hauling off their desks, computers, and chairs as punishment for failure to pay a judgement against them in order to get them to pay for a lawsuit they lost).
I've only got a credit card with BoA that's paid off and hasn't been used in about two or three years, but I'm thinking of calling in and canceling it before they find some way to try making money off it by charging inactivity fees or something. I don't know how successful this call for a boycott will be, but I won't have much sympathy for BoA if it does give them significant losses.
I've been boycotting them since 2001 when they decided they were going to charge me $5 each to cash my BOA-issued work study payroll checks at the on-campus BOA branch. Most weeks this amounted to about 10% of my earnings. I won't even use their ATMs, and I've been a very happy credit union customer ever since.
Snowdoggie wrote: Hmmm. Looks like the protest in Dallas may be shut down by the cops this weekend. Who would have thought that these guys couldn't afford liability insurance.
I don't remember the part about insurance in the first amendment. Barring them from protesting over insurance is irony.
Nothing is broken, everything is fine. 
Getting back OT, I don't think drones have machine guns. Missiles and cameras sure, but not machine guns.
Tom Heath wrote:Snowdoggie wrote: Hmmm. Looks like the protest in Dallas may be shut down by the cops this weekend. Who would have thought that these guys couldn't afford liability insurance.I don't remember the part about insurance in the first amendment. Barring them from protesting over insurance is irony. Nothing is broken, everything is fine.
You would need a fairly large insurance carrier to cover this event, so basically, the City of Dallas is saying that you have to pay a big corporation to protest big corporations.
This sounds like a Monty Python skit. 
Datsun1500 wrote: They are not barring them from protesting. They are barring them from camping in a public park. Protest all you want, legally. Who is paying for the extra police and clean up? That's right the taxpayers.
..which the 99% are tax payers. But hey, this is a straw man argument. I disagree with other things that I could call out for wasting my taxpayer dollars simply because I disagree with the action. But instead I move on and get over it because as citizens of a nation we pay taxes which are spent in ways that we often don't agree with. I understand this and don't complain about it often.
All this blame being thrown around reminds me of this quote:
Also, now we're hearing politicians realize that Occupy is mainstream. See them all run before the wave they're trying to stay in front of? Check out Romney's comments on a strong middle class in the last election. Also reference Cantor backing off his "mob" comments from earlier in the week. This is big. Time for politics to readjust as the people are speaking and they will not shut up. When the police are called out on people stating a political position - you're doing something right. Talk about poop all you want, we are in for significant and positive change. The 99% deserve government representation as much as corporate and moneyed interests.
An interestting article I read today with factoids about Occupy.
MadScientistMatt wrote: Well, finally, someone's called for something reasonable - a boycott of Bank of America. http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/113658/bank-transfer-day-mainstreet?mod=bb-budgeting Given how incompetent BoA has been acting recently, that's one idea I can get behind. There have been a lot of cases of BoA in the news lately where not only did they start off with making a weird mistake (such as attempting to foreclose on a home that didn't even have a mortgage with them) but they failed to acknowledge their mistake and apologize, sometimes going to ridiculous levels (such as the time one family had to physically show up at a BoA branch with the sheriff, and tell them they were hauling off their desks, computers, and chairs as punishment for failure to pay a judgement against them in order to get them to pay for a lawsuit they lost). I've only got a credit card with BoA that's paid off and hasn't been used in about two or three years, but I'm thinking of calling in and canceling it before they find some way to try making money off it by charging inactivity fees or something. I don't know how successful this call for a boycott will be, but I won't have much sympathy for BoA if it does give them significant losses.
Left BoA for a local credit union a few years ago and couldn't be happier. As a bonus, the credit union seems to hire elusively 18-30 year old hot chicks as tellers.
The Six Demands of Occupy Wall Street (finally)- http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/12-6#.Tpboj0C8wfk.facebook
-"Making these reforms will not be easy. After all, Wall Street is clearly the most powerful lobbying force on Capitol Hill. From 1998 through 2008, the financial sector spent over $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to deregulate Wall Street. More recently, they spent hundreds of millions more to make the Dodd-Frank bill as weak as possible, and after its passage, hundreds of millions more to roll back or diluter the stronger provisions in that legislation. "
Cone_Junky wrote: The Six Demands of Occupy Wall Street (finally)- http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/10/12-6#.Tpboj0C8wfk.facebook -"Making these reforms will not be easy. After all, Wall Street is clearly the most powerful lobbying force on Capitol Hill. From 1998 through 2008, the financial sector spent over $5 billion in lobbying and campaign contributions to deregulate Wall Street. More recently, they spent hundreds of millions more to make the Dodd-Frank bill as weak as possible, and after its passage, hundreds of millions more to roll back or diluter the stronger provisions in that legislation. "
That's all silly 'fix the symptom' stuff. End the Fed forever and for always, and you fix half of those things. You can't cherry pick certain things to not be traded or anything, though, that doesn't work (and it's been tried in the past).
Datsun1500 wrote: Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Ask Bernie Madoff.
Datsun1500 wrote:Tom Heath wrote: I don't remember the part about insurance in the first amendment. Barring them from protesting over insurance is irony.They are not barring them from protesting. They are barring them from camping in a public park. Protest all you want, legally. Who is paying for the extra police and clean up? That's right the taxpayers.
Actually if you read the permit carefully it just talks about an event. There is nothing on the permit that actually allows them to camp or sleep overnight.
Datsun1500 wrote: Some people think I owe them the privilege of standing on third with me even though I did all of the work and training to be able to hit the training while they did nothing to help themselves. Everyone has the ability to make themselves better, some work for the wealthy and some work to become wealthy, your choice. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
I think fewer people are angry that someone else is rich and they're not. I think a lot more people are angry over being in financial hurt because a bunch of people acted very irresponsibly with money that probably wasn't even theirs, and that these people got rich, got bailed out, or suffered no consequence at all for their actions.
I think most of these people just want to be able to live happy, comfortable lives. They're pissed because other people have done things that they see as having limited their ability to do so.
I don't care if someone drives a Ferrari on the track and I can only afford a Miata. But I'll get pissed at him if he drives it irresponsibly and does something that forces the track to raise prices on track days beyond what I can afford.
Salanis wrote: I think fewer people are angry that someone else is rich and they're not. I think a lot more people are angry over being in financial hurt because a bunch of people acted very irresponsibly with money that probably wasn't even theirs, and that these people got rich, got bailed out, or suffered no consequence at all for their actions. I think most of these people just want to be able to live happy, comfortable lives. They're pissed because other people have done things that they see as having limited their ability to do so. I don't care if someone drives a Ferrari on the track and I can only afford a Miata. But I'll get pissed at him if he drives it irresponsibly and does something that forces the track to raise prices on track days beyond what I can afford.
All good points.
But, why in the hell focus solely on the corporations who influenced, i.e. bribed, the politicians who colluded with Wall Street, et al?
People have the right to be pissed, the right to right protest and the right to be ignorant. The "occupiers" seem to be exerting all those rights.
oldsaw wrote: But, why in the hell focus solely on the corporations who influenced, i.e. bribed, the politicians who colluded with Wall Street, et al?
Because they're angry. Anger and reason tend to have little to do with each other.
In reply to Xceler8x:
The 99% can't all be tax payers because that % is only 53.
In reply to Xceler8x:
The 99% can't all be tax payers because that % is only 53.
ThePhranc wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: The 99% can't all be tax payers because that % is only 53.
Depends what taxes you're talking about. Maybe not income tax, but most people pay sales tax, property tax (even if they rent property that is taxed), social security, tax on fuel, etc.
ThePhranc wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: The 99% can't all be tax payers because that % is only 53.
Got some non-biased links to back up that claim? Non-biased means no Fox news, conservative blogs, etc. I'd like to read them.
Once you post those links check out Salanis's response above.
After you read all that, sit back, deep breath, and remember we're all friends here. While we disagree I respect you and your opinions. Disagreeing does not equal a moral failure on your part or mine.
So basically if you work hard, go to a cheap state college and hold down three jobs, then you get a job on Wall Street, work even harder and work your way to a position of trust, then rob your clients and your employer blind and force the taxpayers to bail out the mess, then you get a pass as long as you worked long hours on your scams and your dad didn't pay for your degree?
Xceler8x wrote:ThePhranc wrote: In reply to Xceler8x: The 99% can't all be tax payers because that % is only 53.Got some non-biased links to back up that claim? Non-biased means no Fox news, conservative blogs, etc. I'd like to read them.
Warren Buffet says he pays less percentage than his secretary, if I remember properly. This is a big difference. Not that I excuse that, though, a flat percentage across all income levels with no tax breaks makes more sense to me. These folks want an extremely progressive tax structure. This is pretty impossible, because we have one now that obviously doesn't do that. All it does is allow people with the ability to hire legal teams to hide their earnings to, well, hide their earnings, while the middle class, who get a paycheck that's easily traceable and have no other income, pay all of the bills. The issue isn't that the tax rates are too low, it's that they are too confounding.
You'll need to log in to post.
