Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[respect]

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

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/foreclosure-mess-isn-t-going-away-20110404-083022-676.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]

'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]

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:



This guy is explicitly advocating a violent revolution.

 

[leftysergeant]

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



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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

Sorry if the truth hurts.

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

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?

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)?

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.

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



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?

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.

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?

Or what? You'll kill them?

Listening to too much Glenn Beck again?

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]

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.

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]

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

Nope.

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?

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]

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

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".


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Nope.

Sure.

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

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?

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?

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?

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.

No, Jane.

Or are you flirting?

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:



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]

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

 

[WildCat]

lol! Reminds me of this:

 

[Neally]

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]

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/2011/10/14/understanding-occupy-wall-street/