Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[respect]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

Where? In Mexico? I know you're not talking about the U.S.

I read them the other day and don't recall every detail, but seem to recall that they mentioned a sting operation in the states among other things.

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

I want any investigation at all into who knew what, not just "oops", settle and admit no wrongdoing, never hear about it again (til they do it again).

How do you know there wasn't any? I didn't look into this, but after reading that bozo's Rolling Stone article I looked into the lack of indictments about the Lehman Brothers and their Repo 105 accounting scheme. He had conveniently failed to mention that there had been several extensive investigations into it, but authorities believed that they would be unable to get any convictions.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure that there is plenty of banking fraud, in fact, I would be shocked if there was no banking fraud, but suspecting it and getting a conviction is two different things. The very nature of such crimes makes them very difficult to prove. And prosecuting cases that prosecutors know will lose would be extremely wasteful of taxpayer money.

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

I'd be satisfied with indictments for now.

I wouldn't. If prosecutors were knowingly wasting my tax money to inconvenience people they suspect of crimes that they knew they couldn't prove I would expect that they lose their jobs.

[Beat]

Originally Posted by Neally

Okay, do support these claims. Show me where the consensus of the protests throughout the US is about "using money as speech" and how the "corporations = evil therefore eliminate corporations" is not a dominate meme pervading the protests.

Okay.

Quote:

When a locally based activist group came up with the idea of occupying Wall Street to protest corporate influence on democracy, it wasn’t thinking about setting up camp on the Vancouver street that runs alongside the railway tracks.

Read more: http://www.vancourier.com/Adbusters+...#ixzz1aXPtEYJD

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...or-months.html

Quote:

Dubbed “#OccupyWallStreet,” the goal of the protest is to get President Barack Obama to establish a commission to end “the influence money has over our representatives in Washington,”

There are many more, but hopefully you should get it now.
Did you really think it wasn't about corporate influence in democracy? Why didn't you investigate yourself?

Like I said, I'm sure there are people who are there because they want all corporations to be dissolved, but that does not take away from what started it, and if you read my posts carefully, I did not say these people don't exist, in fact I acknowledged them.
Focusing more on the thread topic; the protest does remain to be hijacked by a political party or some other group.
In fact:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/democ...ry?id=14701337
The funny thing is that Democratic party members also take lobby money from corporations. Oh, the irony.

[leftysergeant]

Whether the occupiers brand themselves with a single label, or present a single objective other than to cripple the corporate ogre matters not. They exist as a warning to all that the corporate power brokers and financial prestidigitators have screwed us all regardless of ideologies.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Neally

Well then do provide a sampling of all the outrage they have for BO, because in the media I've seen it is conspicuously absent. Indeed, I doubt Peliosi would be voicing her support if there was a significant message coming from them that was against BO.

You seem very keen to hammer these events into a Republican verses Democrat hole. Why would that be?

The outrage is against the entire corrupt political system, of which "Change You Can Believe In" fraud Obama is a clone.

Which media are talking about here? Where do you get your information?

Re Peliosi: Power always attempts to co-opt rebellion.

Quote:

Nor apparently anyone else without explaining exactly what "take our country back" means and how they propose to do that. Sitting around in drum circles certainly won't cut it.

Relying on silly, stereotyping cartoons may be limiting your understanding


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~

Originally Posted by respect

Interesting, although not that relevant to what I said. It should be noted that your articles mention borrower fraud as well, which is also a big problem, and oddly enough, discuss people getting arrested for mortgage fraud despite the complaint earlier in the thread about how no one ever gets in trouble for this stuff.

I'm not sure what point your making here. The complaint is that the people who sell and profit from liar loans haven't been arrested, not their victims/customers.

"Liar loans", BTW, is how these loans were referred within the finance industry.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~

Originally Posted by Stout

JANE !!! Put down the weirdness, just drop it at your feet and gently kick it in my direction.

Reported

Quote:

We both know I have a loaded dictionary definition here and if I need to, I'll post it. I know what you're thinking, you're thinking "you don't have the guts to post the definition" Well, Jane, I'll give you a few moments to check my posting history, you'll see I've posted a lot of dictionary definitions, in fact once in religion and philosophy, I posted a dictionary definition just to watch my post count go up.

What's stopping you speaking out for some other percentage? How have these demonstrations usurped your power to speak? What power did you have before they started demonstrating that you don't have now?

Quote:

Don't worry, we'll get through this together, take my hand. Comfy ? want a nice cup of tea ? Here you go ? I'll put this as gently as possible. I'll even whisper it.

Reported

Quote:

I read the thread, including all the links as well as a few other threads and a whole bunch of stuff that hasn't been posted on here, I even visit a progressive forum on a daily basis so I have a pretty good idea of what's going on.

What, then, is the reason for your continued incomprehension and apparent belief that the destructive and corrupting power of corporations can be reigned in simply by altering people's shopping habits?

Quote:

Ah so it's American empire building then. Well that's one of the demands..USA out of ( insert country here )

"End the Empire"

Quote:

Excellent! that's the spirit ! Demand locally produced goods and hopefully, if enough people do it the marketing departments of various corporations will realize that the people want locally produced goods and are willing to pay to keep jobs at home.

Influencing what corporations sell won't stop their predatory, anti-human, anti-planet, monopolizing, anti-democratic, corrupting practices.

[Virus]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Influencing what corporations sell won't stop their predatory, anti-human, anti-planet, monopolizing, anti-democratic, corrupting practices.

If you don't want them to exist then you need a viable alternative. Because if the alternative is eating rats, then most people would prefer predatory, anti-human, anti-planet, monopolizing, anti-democratic, corrupting corporations.

[JihadJane]

'Fox News Poll on Occupy Wall Street Backfires'

When asked: Do "Occupy Wall Street" protestors represent your views about the nation's economic problems?

69.19% (so far) ticked: Yes, these folks are right about corporate greed and what's happening to the little guy.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Beat

I don't think you understand what the protest is about. People are not angry about the corporations being merely being wealthy. They are angry that corporations use that money to lobby their interest over people's interests.
So, in the light of what the movement is actually about, yes, my example does make sense -- and also because it's almost inevitable that people are going to own devices like phones with video capture capabilities, computers, etc.
Why should regular people have to sacrifice for something that is not their fault? That is shifting the responsibility to them.

That's your interpretation of the "one demand"

If it's about power and how the corporations use it they, why pray tell, are they on about 1% of the population controlling %40 of the wealth, and why are the protesters targeting millionaires homes. ?

It's a sacrifice to live without a smart phone ? a computer ? Have you ever been to a developing nation and seen the standard9S) of living there. Maybe someplace close to home, like Nicaragua, where some of those cheap goods North American consumers gobble up and discard the moment they go out of fashion, where cooking dinner means collecting wood, building a fire and cooking up a pot of rice and beans ? Let's keep this in perspective.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Virus

If you don't want them to exist then you need a viable alternative. Because if the alternative is eating rats, then most people would prefer predatory, anti-human, anti-planet, monopolizing, anti-democratic, corrupting corporations.

False dichotomy. Sweden doesn't have this problem, last I heard. They have capitalists there, too, but they are kept on a short leash.

Of course, our worhtless investor class has gone so totally feral it will probably tsake a few years on a shock collar to retrain the mutts. Time to start.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

The outrage is against the entire corrupt political system, of which "Change You Can Believe In" fraud Obama is a clone.

Yet there is damn little evidence of any specific anti-Obama sentiment as you claim and you haven't supplied any evidence to support your claim.

Quote:

Which media are talking about here? Where do you get your information?

Samples from various online sources.

Quote:

Re Peliosi: Power always attempts to co-opt rebellion.

Sure she tries to latch on to the publicity, but she wouldn't even try if there was a hint of anti-Obama sentiment.

Quote:

Relying on silly, stereotyping cartoons may be limiting your understanding

Occupy L.A. Speaker: Violence will be Necessary to Achieve Our Goals

[Stout]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

False dichotomy. Sweden doesn't have this problem, last I heard. They have capitalists there, too, but they are kept on a short leash.

Of course, our worhtless investor class has gone so totally feral it will probably tsake a few years on a shock collar to retrain the mutts. Time to start.

Excellent, then that can be the one demand then, increase taxation level to match that of Sweden.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Neally

Yet there is damn little evidence of any specific anti-Obama sentiment as you claim and you haven't supplied any evidence to support your claim.

I didn't claim any specific anti-Obama sentiment.

I said :

"If you are saying that Obama's politics are not discussed by the protestors, then you are wrong."

and that their outrage was at the corrupt system of which Obama is part (therefore not specifically anti-Obama).

Quote:

Samples from various online sources.

Details please.

Quote:

Sure she tries to latch on to the publicity, but she wouldn't even try if there was a hint of anti-Obama sentiment.

Why not? Politicians will support sworn enemies if it perceived to be to their advantage

Quote:

Occupy L.A. Speaker: Violence will be Necessary to Achieve Our Goals

One unidentified man expressing an opinion somewhere and about a dozen people ("the crowd") applauding him.

What's that got to do with your "sitting around in drum circles" cartoon?

[Fishstick]

Originally Posted by Stout

Excellent, then that can be the one demand then, increase taxation level to match that of Sweden.

Works for me, though I would've gone with Norway over Sweden.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I didn't claim any specific anti-Obama sentiment.

I said :

"If you are saying that Obama's politics are not discussed by the protestors, then you are wrong."

and that their outrage was at the corrupt system of which Obama is part (therefore not specifically anti-Obama).

And we are back to the start, where I said that BO has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of Wall Street, yet criticism of him is remarkably absent from the protests. Showing essentially that this protest is essentially left leaning with many of the participants simply there to be part of the scene rather than for any cogent political statement.

Quote:

Why not? Politicians will support sworn enemies if it perceived to be to their advantage

They're much more likely to latch onto sympathetic causes. There's no significant anti-BO message coming from the protesters.

Quote:

One unidentified man expressing an opinion somewhere and about a dozen people ("the crowd") applauding him.

What's that got to do with your "sitting around in drum circles" cartoon?

One more example of the participant retards.

[Beat]

Originally Posted by Stout

That's your interpretation of the "one demand"

If it's about power and how the corporations use it they, why pray tell, are they on about 1% of the population controlling %40 of the wealth, and why are the protesters targeting millionaires homes. ?

It's a sacrifice to live without a smart phone ? a computer ? Have you ever been to a developing nation and seen the standard9S) of living there. Maybe someplace close to home, like Nicaragua, where some of those cheap goods North American consumers gobble up and discard the moment they go out of fashion, where cooking dinner means collecting wood, building a fire and cooking up a pot of rice and beans ? Let's keep this in perspective.

So what if some people targeted millionaire homes? It still does not subtract from the original cause. At least they got media attention, which was probably the goal. Dealing with corporations is tricky, because they are not living people; they don't have homes, they don't have any of the needs that a person does, they have no human motivations, you cannot speak with them, etc. What you can do is speak with their shareholders. To say that this all of a sudden shifts the purpose of the protest to a class war is to misunderstand what is happening -- or pettifog.

If these people want to own some electronics, they can do so. Corporate corruption is not their fault. Owning a phone, computer, etc. in no way disqualifies them from criticizing or even being angry about corporate influence in politics. Yes, throwing away their beloved luxuries would be an unnecessary sacrifice, even if it does sound petty. Regarding the protests, this is irrelevant.
Anyway, if you are living in America, the lifestyle here almost demands some of these products -- at least a computer. Right now, college would be very difficult without a computer.

EDIT: Also, if you read my previous posts, you would see that I said I think the main problem is that they do not really have a solid demand. It seems like they are just angry about corporate corruption without a way to fix the problem. If they do not have a solid goal, then they won't accomplish much.

[respect]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I'm not sure what point your making here. The complaint is that the people who sell and profit from liar loans haven't been arrested, not their victims/customers.

"Liar loans", BTW, is how these loans were referred within the finance industry.

Again, there needs to be evidence of a crime.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by respect

Again, there needs to be evidence of a crime.

The FBI identified an epidemic of fraud. I'm not sure why that isn't good enough for you. William K. Black, who sent hundreds of fraudulent banksters to jail during the Savings and Loan crisis , describes how a criminogenic environment created by perverse regulations and control fraud produces this epidemic. In fact, the entire finance industry is criminal and parasitic at birth. Its only function is to enrich itself, regardless of the consequences:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

VIDEO description:

"The Money Masters [ three and a half hours long] is a non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned "central" bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers."

Originally Posted by Neally

And we are back to the start, where I said that BO has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of Wall Street, yet criticism of him is remarkably absent from the protests. Showing essentially that this protest is essentially left leaning with many of the participants simply there to be part of the scene rather than for any cogent political statement.

Your logic is flawed, as I have explained above, an explanation that appears to be invisible to you.

Where would you prefer the protests to lean and what would they gain from it?

Quote:

They're much more likely to latch onto sympathetic causes. There's no significant anti-BO message coming from the protesters.

I have explained why in my previous comments. I'm not going to bother doing it again.

Quote:

One more example of the participant retards.

What a sad and pathetic comment. My apologies for mistaking you for someone who wished to pursue reasoned, rational debate.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Illinois state pensions are $85 billion underfunded right now, and that number is going up. We're already borrowing money to pay current retirees, even after huge tax increases.

Still, entirely lacking in sources or detail. $85 billion per year? $85 billion over the next 60 years?

Originally Posted by WildCat

The amounts really don't matter. What matters is that workers aren't paying enough to cover the cost, nor is the state. This leaves everyone else to make up the difference.

The amounts do matter. If you're paying an average pension to 1% of the state workforce after they retire, that's a very flimsy premise for blaming all of your economic woes on trade unions.

Originally Posted by WildCat

It was the political influence of unions that got the state to make deals they couldn;t keep. They knew it, the unions knew it. But they figure (probably correcty) that it will be Illinois taxpayers paying for their pensions. And frankly, the unions don't give a damn about how many elderly are thrown out of nursing homes to keep their pensions and health care coming, so why should anyone give a damn about them?

Eh, I still need more details. If half of the trade union retirees are on $80k a year, that's serious business. If there are 3-4 examples of ex-leaders on $150k a year and then everyone else is on $8k a year, it's much harder to get angry about.

Originally Posted by WildCat

This is the USA politics section. And damn near every single public pension in the USA is underfunded. They certainly are in Illinois.

Fair enough - though the examples I give show that when properly managed, and in the presence of often better organised and stronger trade unions elsewhere in the world, public pension funds are perfectly plausible. The similar claims of underfunding in the UK are partly the result of the current government making joining the public pension scheme far less attractive than it used to be, and as a result fewer people are paying into a system that relies on having a certain ratio of people paying in to those being paid out to. If you were having similar problems in the states it might explain the issues, but you're not giving much detail, you're just saying it's underfunded, everywhere else is underfunded, no time frame, no context, just a few examples of corruption sprinkled on top.

Originally Posted by WildCat

“A 33 percent daily absentee rate has put the city in the position that it’s making choices between services it need not make. . . . That’s unacceptable to the city,” Emanuel said then.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/7...ion-crews.html

Here's a link to the Chicago Inspector General's report on garbage collection: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/...on_10.7.08.pdf
Sample quote: "...during the entire ten weeks of observations, the investigators did not see a single laborer doing a full day's work".

I'll admit, that's pretty disgusting.

Originally Posted by WildCat

What are you talking about? They're not saving money, they're sucking us dry. I know of no health care plan except for state employees who are 100% covered from the day they retire until the day they die.

I thought that Medicare would have covered them anyway?

Originally Posted by WildCat

We pay them to work 20 years, then they retire early and collect pensions and health care benefits for the next 30-40 years. Oh, and if they suck up to their boss or political patron maybe they get a fat raise the last week on the job, then guess what happens... their pension is based on the pay from that last raise! Never mind that they made no pension contributions based on that last raise. I think we have 3 retired state workers for every one working.

If you really do have 3 retired workers for every one working, thats a serious problem. And if the practice of giving workers pay rises just before retiring so that they get bigger pensions is a common one, that's a problem too. But all I have is your word at present.

[respect]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

The FBI identified an epidemic of fraud. I'm not sure why that isn't good enough for you. William K. Black, who sent hundreds of fraudulent banksters to jail during the Savings and Loan crisis , describes how a criminogenic environment created by perverse regulations and control fraud produces this epidemic. In fact, the entire finance industry is criminal and parasitic at birth. Its only function is to enrich itself, regardless of the consequences:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

VIDEO description:

"The Money Masters [ three and a half hours long] is a non-fiction, historical documentary that traces the origins of the political power structure. The modern political power structure has its roots in the hidden manipulation and accumulation of gold and other forms of money. The development of fractional reserve banking practices in the 17th century brought to a cunning sophistication the secret techniques initially used by goldsmiths fraudulently to accumulate wealth. With the formation of the privately-owned Bank of England in 1694, the yoke of economic slavery to a privately-owned "central" bank was first forced upon the backs of an entire nation, not removed but only made heavier with the passing of the three centuries to our day. Nation after nation has fallen prey to this cabal of international central bankers."

Honestly, I don't see what is so confusing about this. Your articles about the FBI saying there was an epidemic of fraud gave examples of lax underwriting allowing borrowers to make fraudulent claims. Good luck proving that the underwriters committed crimes and were not just incompetent. It doesn't matter if you think they deliberately aided borrowers in committing fraud or not, it has to be proven to get a conviction. Farther, you guys have alleged they sold loans under fraudulent premises. This definitely requires more information. If they were simply advertising investments under inaccurate high ratings from third parties you would have to prove that they bribed the ratings agencies to give poor investments AAA ratings to get a conviction for fraud. Essentially all of the allegations you guys are making could also be explained by incompetence, which makes prosecution very difficult. Prosecutors would have to demonstrate that the participants were not incompetent and were deliberately committing fraud to get convictions. The very nature of such crimes makes them difficult to prove.

And come on, seriously? On a skeptics forum you use a ridiculous conspiracy theory video as evidence? Are you going to cite Alex Jones next?

[Neally]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Where would you prefer the protests to lean and what would they gain from it?

Again with the "what do you want..." I don't care where they lean as long as they act rationally. They have not. Blaming Wall Street without blaming one of the biggest recipient of Wall Street money shows that it's not about a rational political statement but simply a left leaning bunch of whining retards.

Quote:

What a sad and pathetic comment.

Sorry if the truth hurts.

Quote:

My apologies for mistaking you for someone who wished to pursue reasoned, rational debate.

Rational debate ended with your continued blind eye to the convoluted message that the protesters are delivering and your repeated apology for them. Oh, and trying to use the well know conspiracy crap video "Money Masters"

[rustypouch]

Originally Posted by respect

Honestly, I don't see what is so confusing about this. Your articles about the FBI saying there was an epidemic of fraud gave examples of lax underwriting allowing borrowers to make fraudulent claims. Good luck proving that the underwriters committed crimes and were not just incompetent. It doesn't matter if you think they deliberately aided borrowers in committing fraud or not, it has to be proven to get a conviction. Farther, you guys have alleged they sold loans under fraudulent premises. This definitely requires more information. If they were simply advertising investments under inaccurate high ratings from third parties you would have to prove that they bribed the ratings agencies to give poor investments AAA ratings to get a conviction for fraud. Essentially all of the allegations you guys are making could also be explained by incompetence, which makes prosecution very difficult. Prosecutors would have to demonstrate that the participants were not incompetent and were deliberately committing fraud to get convictions. The very nature of such crimes makes them difficult to prove.

And come on, seriously? On a skeptics forum you use a ridiculous conspiracy theory video as evidence? Are you going to cite Alex Jones next?

For fraud, a few seconds on the googles found this.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...83022-676.html

[respect]

Originally Posted by rustypouch

For fraud, a few seconds on the googles found this.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...83022-676.html

This has already been discussed in this thread. There are investigations going on with this crap, but fraudulent acts were largely committed by third parties which provides a degree of protection to the bank employees that posters in this thread want locked up.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

'Fox News Poll on Occupy Wall Street Backfires'

When asked: Do "Occupy Wall Street" protestors represent your views about the nation's economic problems?

69.19% (so far) ticked: Yes, these folks are right about corporate greed and what's happening to the little guy.

That was probably 4chan.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Neally

Again with the "what do you want..." I don't care where they lean as long as they act rationally. They have not.

In some cases it goes far beyond just not being rational:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This guy is explicitly advocating a violent revolution.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

In some cases it goes far beyond just not being rational:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This guy is explicitly advocating a violent revolution.

That happens, sometimes, when people lose hope of changing things peacefully.

I hope they start by burning down the factories that make electronic voting machines and the warehouses where the state elections officials store them.
It might eliminate the need for much else.

You push people far enough, they will either break or turn around and break your face.

The monied power brokers had better realize this.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

That happens, sometimes, when people lose hope of changing things peacefully.

Dude. The guy held up the French Revolution as a model. You know, the whole Reign of Terror thing? He hasn't turned to violence because he's given up hope. Rather, what he hopes for IS violence.

Quote:

I hope they start by burning down the factories that make electronic voting machines

Of course you do. You're a fan of violence too. Given what else you're into, this sort of thing is almost the least of it.

Quote:

You push people far enough, they will either break or turn around and break your face.

Evidently, not getting your way counts as being pushed too far.

Quote:

The monied power brokers had better realize this.

Or what? You'll kill them?

Yes, my little Stalin, that's what it always comes down to for you, isn't it? Death to your political opponents.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Dude. The guy held up the French Revolution as a model. You know, the whole Reign of Terror thing? He hasn't turned to violence because he's given up hope. Rather, what he hopes for IS violence.

And people are not going to follow him as long as there is hope.

Quote:

Of course you do. You're a fan of violence too. Given what else you're into, this sort of thing is almost the least of it.

Taking the voting system out of corproate hands and making paper ballots the only legitimate ballots would dstroy a lot of the power that the corporate thugs have now.

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Taking the voting system out of corproate hands and making paper ballots the only legitimate ballots would dstroy a lot of the power that the corporate thugs have now.

No, it wouldn't. They really didn't rig the last series of elections.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

And people are not going to follow him as long as there is hope.

The point is that he is advocating violent revolution now, not if there is no more hope, but NOW.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

And people are not going to follow him as long as there is hope.

So are you conceding that what he said was reprehensible? Come now, don't be coy.

Quote:

Taking the voting system out of corproate hands and making paper ballots the only legitimate ballots would dstroy a lot of the power that the corporate thugs have now.

And the best way to accomplish that, of course, is by committing crimes. Your willingness to commit crimes just proves your dedication to social justice. Or something.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by WildCat

No, it wouldn't. They really didn't rig the last series of elections.

<lefty mode>
But that just proves how powerful they are: they've so brainwashed the sheeple that they don't even have to!
</lefty mode>

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Neally

Again with the "what do you want..." I don't care where they lean as long as they act rationally. They have not. Blaming Wall Street without blaming one of the biggest recipient of Wall Street money shows that it's not about a rational political statement but simply a left leaning bunch of whining retards.

I have explained why you don't see protestors carrying around big anti-Obama posters (though there are some) but you have completely ignored my explanantion in favor spouting of childish phrases like "Whining retards". This suggests to me that you are not interested is reasoned, serious analysis or debate.

Quote:

Sorry if the truth hurts.

What has the truth got to do childishly calling people "retards"?

Quote:

Rational debate ended with your continued blind eye to the convoluted message that the protesters are delivering and your repeated apology for them.

Why not give an articulate, reasoned response to my argument rather than a vague insult?

Quote:

Oh, and trying to use the well know conspiracy crap video "Money Masters"

Did you ever watch it (or any of it) before making your judgement? What about it makes you refer to it as "conspiracy crap" (another meaningless, cheap insult)?

Originally Posted by respect

Honestly, I don't see what is so confusing about this. Your articles about the FBI saying there was an epidemic of fraud gave examples of lax underwriting allowing borrowers to make fraudulent claims. Good luck proving that the underwriters committed crimes and were not just incompetent. It doesn't matter if you think they deliberately aided borrowers in committing fraud or not, it has to be proven to get a conviction. Farther, you guys have alleged they sold loans under fraudulent premises. This definitely requires more information. If they were simply advertising investments under inaccurate high ratings from third parties you would have to prove that they bribed the ratings agencies to give poor investments AAA ratings to get a conviction for fraud. Essentially all of the allegations you guys are making could also be explained by incompetence, which makes prosecution very difficult. Prosecutors would have to demonstrate that the participants were not incompetent and were deliberately committing fraud to get convictions. The very nature of such crimes makes them difficult to prove.

And come on, seriously? On a skeptics forum you use a ridiculous conspiracy theory video as evidence? Are you going to cite Alex Jones next?

What does you phrase "Control Fraud" mean to you?

Please explain and justify your "ridiculous conspiracy theory video" insult. Depending on Alex Jones insults suggests a weak argument.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

In some cases it goes far beyond just not being rational:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This guy is explicitly advocating a violent revolution.

That's only one case.

An unidentified man expresses his opinion. About a dozen people applaud him. So what?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Dude. The guy held up the French Revolution as a model. You know, the whole Reign of Terror thing? He hasn't turned to violence because he's given up hope. Rather, what he hopes for IS violence.

Do you know who "the guy" or his tiny band of applauders are? Do you care how how representative are his opinions are?

He's very popular with rightwingers.

Quote:

Of course you do. You're a fan of violence too. Given what else you're into, this sort of thing is almost the least of it.

As you are obviously a fan of personalizing arguments, are you a pacifist, Ziggurat?

Quote:

Or what? You'll kill them?

Listening to too much Glenn Beck again?

Quote:

Yes, my little Stalin, that's what it always comes down to for you, isn't it? Death to your political opponents.

You read a lot into one man spouting forth under a tree. Careful that you don't fall prey to conspiracy theories.

[Neally]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I have explained why you don't see protestors carrying around big anti-Obama posters (though there are some) but you have completely ignored my explanantion in favor spouting of childish phrases like "Whining retards".

Your "explanation" included the fact that their goal is "rebellion" and protesting against the entire system. Ergo that makes them whining retards, but hopefully they continue to show their idiocy. From 1965 through 1968, the left found its voice and style in consciousness-raising demonstrations and disruptions. In 1968 Republicans won the presidential election and went on to win four of the next five presidential elections.

Quote:

Did you ever watch it (or any of it) before making your judgement? What about it makes you refer to it as "conspiracy crap" (another meaningless, cheap insult)?

Yes, and the "debate via Youtube" is usually confined to the conspiracy thread, so pull the relevant points out and post them for comment.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Do you know who "the guy" or his tiny band of applauders are?

Nope.

Quote:

Do you care how how representative are his opinions are?

Sure. I don't know how representative he is, nor did I claim to know. The only people I know are nuts are him and the people who applauded him. And, of course, the people like lefty who try to excuse his calls for violence.

So, Jane, are you going to demonstrate that he's not representative by condemning him? Or are you going to take lefty's approach of prevarication and excuse?

Quote:

You read a lot into one man spouting forth under a tree.

No, Jane. The comments I directed at lefty come from pages and pages pages of posts by lefty. Just like when I say that you consistently side with terrorists against the US, that isn't because of what that guy said, it's because of what you regularly say.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Neally

Your "explanation" included the fact that their goal is "rebellion" and protesting against the entire system. Ergo that makes them whining retards, but hopefully they continue to show their idiocy. From 1965 through 1968, the left found its voice and style in consciousness-raising demonstrations and disruptions. In 1968 Republicans won the presidential election and went on to win four of the next five presidential elections.

No relevant content to respond to

Quote:

Yes, and the "debate via Youtube" is usually confined to the conspiracy thread, so pull the relevant points out and post them for comment.

Please give your specific reasons for calling this in-depth documentary "conspiracy crap".


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Nope.

Quote:

Sure.

From your comments, it is not evident that you care.

Quote:

I don't know how representative he is, nor did I claim to know. The only people I know are nuts are him and the people who applauded him. And, of course, the people like lefty who try to excuse his calls for violence.

I asked if you cared how representative he is, not whether he was or wasn't. Are you a pacifist?

Quote:

So, Jane,

It's sweet that, despite our political differences, you want to call me Jane, if a little weird. What would you like me to call you?

Quote:

are you going to demonstrate that he's not representative by condemning him?

No. Is that why you posted the youtube video? So you could play "Condemn Him!" games? How is that relevant to the OP?

Quote:

Or are you going to take lefty's approach of prevarication and excuse?

No, I'm going to sit back and enjoy your manufactured outrage.

Quote:

No, Jane.

Or are you flirting?

Quote:

The comments I directed at lefty come from pages and pages pages of posts by lefty. Just like when I say that you consistently side with terrorists against the US, that isn't because of what that guy said, it's because of what you regularly say.

So, you are mistaken about Lefty, too.

Perhaps, in future, you could PM your private conversations.

Are you a pacifist?

[WildCat]

OWS "observer" pretends to get run over by a speeding scooter, screams like a little girl:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

No doubt he ordered the unmanly beer afterwards.

Possibly related: "Browne said one person "who claimed his foot had been run over by a scooter later ran after he was handcuffed and tried to escape," but was recaptured."

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by WildCat

OWS "observer" pretends to get run over by a speeding scooter, screams like a little girl:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

lol! Reminds me of this:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Neally]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Please give your specific reasons for calling this in-depth documentary "conspiracy crap".

I guess you still don't get it. The conspiracy nuts love to debate by linking to a video and exclaiming "this proves it's all a conspiracy" with the expectation that people sit through an hour or more, pull out the nonsense, document a response, to which they simply ignore and throw out another video. If you think there is something relevant in the video, pull out the quote and we can discuss. I'm not spending time sitting through it again and pull out all the conspiracy claims.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Neally

I guess you still don't get it. The conspiracy nuts love to debate by linking to a video and exclaiming "this proves it's all a conspiracy" with the expectation that people sit through an hour or more, pull out the nonsense, document a response, to which they simply ignore and throw out another video. If you think there is something relevant in the video, pull out the quote and we can discuss. I'm not spending time sitting through it again and pull out all the conspiracy claims.

I don't care about your preoccupation with "nuts" and "retards".

The video describes the history of money and those who control it. The description I reproduced already contains ample material for discussion. If anyone is interested in educating themselves and exploring the topic further they can watch the documentary.

You have already watched it and passed and shared your judgement of it in this thread. If you you unable to justify calling the documentary "conspiracy crap" I suggest you temper your language in future or, at least, stick to insults that you are prepared to back up.

[JihadJane]

'Occupy Wall Street' -- It's Not What They're for, But What They're Against

"Critics of the growing Occupy Wall Street movement complain that the protesters don’t have a policy agenda and, therefore, don’t stand for anything. They're wrong. The key isn’t what protesters are for but rather what they’re against -- the gaping inequality that has poisoned our economy, our politics and our nation."



http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...y-wall-street/