Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

Status
Not open for further replies.
Segnosaur said:
The claim of "freedom of speech" was from the movie Inside Job.
Click to expand...
Right off the bat that makes the documentary less reliable to me because I cannot imagine a ratings agency would think that would be a valid defense.
To me the ratings are a lot like an auditors report.
 
 
Last edited:
eeyore1954 said:
Show me the facts instead of saying Matt Taibbi, John Stewart and other have shown it to be fact.
Click to expand...
I don't know how to make you see what you won't look at.

I do know that so far aside from a few smaller cases there have been no charges filed yet.
Click to expand...
Because those in power don't want there to be any charges filed. Records were destroyed. After they finish their work at the SEC these investigators go on to work for the investment firms. Can you get an inkling for why no charges have been filed yet?

Taibbi on SEC’s Records Destruction Reveals How Deeply Entrenched Official Corrpution Is

Of course there were some who warned of it before.
Click to expand...
This wasn't simply a guess. This was a specific prediction with the exact template for why. It explained that the derivatives were intentionally complex and obviously didn't foreclose their nature to hide the bad assets. Would YOU buy them now? Really eeyore, you really haven't watched the news? The facts have been documented by Taibbi. He doesn't just make up stuff. And BTW, this wasn't Sylvia Browne or John Edwards. This was Warren F'ng Bucket. Jeez. Is there any way to get you to at least admit that there might, just might, be something worth looking into?

Did you read what I said?
Click to expand...
Did you read what I wrote? I debunked that. By your logic Bernie Madoff should not be in prison. His purchasers should have done due diligence. You either accept your logic or not. Do you think Bernie Madoff should be in jail or not? Do you really think it's okay to get away with something because you can? Really?

If the facts are so obvious that fraud was involved why hasn't the current administration pushed to have more charges yet.
Click to expand...
Argument from ignorance? If there are no charges no law has been broken? Really? No one has ever been indicted for Jon Benet Ramsey's murder. By your logic there has not been a crime.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Hundreds of "anecdotal" signs later, you find one you agree with and suddenly it's not anecdotal?
Click to expand...
I've seen lot's of signs that paint the protestors in a good light. So what? I'm not drawing conclusions about all of the protestors the way you and others are using anecdotes to dismiss them wholesale. BIG F'NG difference.

Dude, you're on the same side of the fence as JJ. That doesn't cause little alarm bells to go off in your head?
Click to expand...
Spare me. I've been fair to both Tea Party protestors and willing to admit the crime and problems of OWS. I don't claim they are all perfect or that there aren't problems so don't give me your nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Neally said:
Sometimes father really does know best:
Click to expand...
Summer of Love, Woodstock, hell, I know that nothing was perfect. You are SOOOOOOO missing the point. My farther simply dismissed them as you are doing. Many had legitimate grievances and many changed things for the better. Regardless they exercised free speech and sought redress. Often they practiced civil disobedience, an act we were founded on.

No, father was right about some things but he couldn't see the forest for the trees. I know because I was my father. Hated hippies and was damn critical of them. I now live an examined life and don't see the world through ideological goggles.

That's what my father lacked. An inability to think skeptically about his own views due to a religious like adherence to political dogma. The religous like adherence to political dogma is what I lack.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Right off the bat that makes the documentary less reliable to me because I cannot imagine a ratings agency would think that would be a valid defense.
To me the ratings are a lot like an auditors report.
Click to expand...

To you, maybe, but to the law?

It seems to me that an auditor's report is expected to be, is intended to be, and follows widely-accepted procedures (GAAP, for example) necessary to be a statement of fact.

If, on the other hand, the ratings agency's report is expected to be, and intended to be, a statement of opinion, even professional or expert opinion, then that's entirely different.

If I'm selling statements of fact that are not actually factual, then I'm committing fraud. Free speech doesn't even enter into it.

But if I'm selling statements of opinion, then regardless of the quality of my opinions, I would expect that questions of free speech should at least be considered.
 
eeyore1954 said:
The claim of "freedom of speech" was from the movie Inside Job.
Click to expand...
Right off the bat that makes the documentary less reliable to me because I cannot imagine a ratings agency would think that would be a valid defense.
To me the ratings are a lot like an auditors report.
Click to expand...
Well, according to the article referenced by Brainster, they did indeed use the 'Free Speech' defense.

That doesn't mean using that defense would actually work, but that's what they tried. (And I believe the movie was made before the court case that shot down the 'free speech' argument)
 
Here's an update on Occupy Portland:
Sanitary & mental health concerns top 'Occupy' police calls
Police said Tuesday reports of violence, drugs and unsanitary conditions and "overwhelming mental health" concerns were growing at the two camps of 'Occupy Portland' downtown.

From Monday into early morning Tuesday, police logged several fights, two attempted officer assaults, several intoxicated people and port-a-potties overflowing onto the street.

Raw sewage was reported to be running down the sidewalk toward Southwest 3rd Avenue. Parks officials told police "they were aware" of the situation.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
To you, maybe, but to the law?

It seems to me that an auditor's report is expected to be, is intended to be, and follows widely-accepted procedures (GAAP, for example) necessary to be a statement of fact.

If, on the other hand, the ratings agency's report is expected to be, and intended to be, a statement of opinion, even professional or expert opinion, then that's entirely different.

If I'm selling statements of fact that are not actually factual, then I'm committing fraud. Free speech doesn't even enter into it.

But I'm selling statements of opinion, then regardless of the quality of my opinions, I would expect that questions of free speech should at least be considered.
Click to expand...
an audit statement is an opinion.
 
First business relocation due to the disruption:

The Zuccotti Park Greenmarket, which has sold fresh produce and baked goods for years from the park where hundreds of protesters now sleep, will have to move up to West Broadway between Barclay Street and Park Place starting Tuesday, GrowNYC announced Monday.

Ken Migliorelli, whose Dutchess County Migliorelli Farm had a stand in Zuccotti Park, said sales of fresh fruits and vegetables dropped by 50 percent since the protesters set up camp in the park Sept. 17.
Click to expand...
 
Segnosaur said:
Well, according to the article referenced by Brainster, they did indeed use the 'Free Speech' defense.

That doesn't mean using that defense would actually work, but that's what they tried. (And I believe the movie was made before the court case that shot down the 'free speech' argument)
Click to expand...
Seems as if they did try that. Thank you
Although it says that is never a defense in the case of fraud.
 
eeyore1954 said:
Have you read them? I will read them closer.
Click to expand...
Yes, not all of them all the way through. I've been reading about these claims since the whole thing went to hell. It's really not controversial. It really, really isn't. We know what happened. The loans should not have been made. To further this activity these poisionous assets should not have been bundled with other investments that just created a house of cards.

BTW: The Great Depression isn't a great mystery. It happened because the economy can only grow so fast. At some point even the rich have to be patient. But they don't want to so they find creative way to suck money out of an over extended system. But you can't suck the money out forever. Bubbles will always burst. There are no new laws of economics. When you drive the perceived value ever higher a crash is eminent. What we need are corrections so the govt implemented regulations to protect us. Sadly congress listened to the swan song that the economy would be better if we just got rid of those regulations.

Canada didn't have a crash. Canada isn't going to have a crash. Why? They have strict regulations on investments. These kinds of derivatives and conflicts of interests between insurance companies, brokerage firms, investment firms and banks are just as illegal there as they used to be in the US.

Please read: Taibbi on SEC’s Records Destruction Reveals How Deeply Entrenched Official Corrpution Is
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom