Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[Clayton Moore]

She might be insulted, since the implication is that she looks like a guy.

That wasn't a guy?

 

[JihadJane]

Don't bother, as I have said before, anyone can be a member of Occupy <Insert Blank>. Once they embarrass Occupy <Insert Blank>, not only are they no longer a member of Occupy <Insert Blank>, they were never a member to begin with.

Isn't Ministry of Truth fun...

Grow up.

We were never at war with the 1%.
We have always been at war with the 1%.

The "1%" is at war with the "99%" and they are better armed.

 

[Neally]

The US State smashes things up all over the world, with incredible violence, willy nilly. Should it be dissolved forthwith?

Grow up.

 

[000063]

The "1%" is at war with the "99%" and they are better armed.

Isn't it amazing how someone employed by the 1% is de facto part of the 1%?

No, wait, that includes most of America, which means they can't have been the 99%.

Sarcasm aside, the cops are part of the 99% too. You can't keep Scotsmaning them out of it. I find it interesting that you would do so right after you tell Graham to "grow up" for saying that people do that. It's almost as if you're lacking in awareness of what you're saying.

Of course, I find the claims of representing most people to be suspect, considering that a good portion of America is Republican, yet the 99% are mostly left-leaning.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

That post was Central Scrutinizer being facetious. Maybe you missed the humor; maybe not. The sad fact is that there are a few genuine anti-semites on this board. One NWO / 9/11 truther / holocaust denier, Clayton Moore, is posting in this very thread. That's what I meant by the paranoid, anti-Semitic right. They have used the word "bankster" for years. Folks like Lew Rockwell, the LaRouche people, etc.

I haven't seen anyone accuse OWS of being anti-Semitic because they are against the banking system or whatever.

Well, I have seen threads on JREF where posters who betray no anti-semitism, yet who want to talk about the Fed, or Fractional reserve banking elicit, 'the joos' comment or something similar. It seems to me that this is not a coincidence of merely facetious posting, but rather an attempt to lump the poster in with anti-semitism. Also, facetiousness does not rule out any other intent the comments may have.

Agreed, there are Anti-Semites on JREF and yes the groups you mentioned have used the word 'bankster'. What I would ask you is why is it 'interesting' that OWS is using that word? Interesting from a linguistic perspective?

 

[Brainster]

Well, I have seen threads on JREF where posters who betray no anti-semitism, yet who want to talk about the Fed, or Fractional reserve banking elicit, 'the joos' comment or something similar. It seems to me that this is not a coincidence of merely facetious posting, but rather an attempt to lump the poster in with anti-semitism. Also, facetiousness does not rule out any other intent the comments may have.

Agreed, there are Anti-Semites on JREF and yes the groups you mentioned have used the word 'bankster'. What I would ask you is why is it 'interesting' that OWS is using that word? Interesting from a linguistic perspective?

People who oppose fractional reserve banking are, quite simply, nuts. Fractional reserve quite simply means that banks cannot take all of their depositors' money and lend it out; they are required to reserve a fraction of that money. Let's assume for a second that fractional reserve banking is eliminated, and the banks cannot lend out any of their depositors' money. What would happen? Well, you know all those fees that you hate that the bank charges you every month? They'd go through the roof, because now instead of the interest on bank loans paying salaries for all the tellers and those nice bank buildings, instead you'd be paying for it.

So when we hear railing about fractional reserve banking, we know the person is insane. And people who are insane about the banks usually bring the Jews into it pretty quickly, because for many centuries Jews were the bankers of Europe due to the Christian strictures against usury (the charging of interest).

 

[Robrob]

The "1%" is at war with the "99%" and they are better armed.

It's hyperbole like that which give the RWnuts fodder.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So they can't get it together enough to fix the things you claim the GOP screwed up, even when they control the WH, Senate, and House. Pretty lame.

Just admit that you don't have the evidence that the GOP filibustered the Dems specific legislation restricting/repealing the creation of derivatives and the investment in them, rather than floundering around and throwing out stuff, hoping to save face.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/04/26/republicans-and-ben-nelson-filibuster-wall-street-reform/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/27/gop-filibusters-wall-stre_n_554438.html

The problem with Conservatives is that the facts seem to gum up their premises.

 

[thaiboxerken]

wow...

You see, by stating that she's attractive, that means you are objectifying her. Only because that stretch of logic makes them feel more justified when they judge a person's entire personality and work-ethic based on looks.

By them, I mean those who you are bantering with about this.

 

[bikerdruid]

You see, by stating that she's attractive, that means you are objectifying her. Only because that stretch of logic makes them feel more justified when they judge a person's entire personality and work-ethic based on looks.

By them, I mean those who you are bantering with about this.

egg-zacktly.

 

[Virus]

Fights and brawls a constant problem at Occupy LA:

 

[JihadJane]

Isn't it amazing how someone employed by the 1% is de facto part of the 1%?

No, wait, that includes most of America, which means they can't have been the 99%.

Sarcasm aside, the cops are part of the 99% too. You can't keep Scotsmaning them out of it.

I haven't.

I find it interesting that you would do so right after you tell Graham to "grow up" for saying that people do that. It's almost as if you're lacking in awareness of what you're saying.

I regard simplistic black-and-white thinking as immature.

Of course, I find the claims of representing most people to be suspect, considering that a good portion of America is Republican, yet the 99% are mostly left-leaning.

'CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...'

It's hyperbole like that which give the RWnuts fodder.

More fool us if we manicure reality for their benefit in the hope that they will then see the light!

"It's like a derivative of actual pepper. It's a food product, essentially." - Megyn Kelly.

'The Global Class War: How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future - and What It Will Take to Win It Back'

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

'Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas'

"Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society."


Meanwhile: 'European Banks Can’t Unload Trillions in Toxic Assets'

 

[000063]

I haven't.

The "1%" is at war with the "99%" and they are better armed.

I regard simplistic black-and-white thinking as immature.

How is it "black and white thinking" to point out that OWS is Unperson-ing parts of their movement? The 99% rhetoric itself encourages listeners to think in terms of Us vs Them, White Knight vs Black Knight, but when someone points out the flaws in it, it's "immature"?

Actually, I've noticed this before. You have a habit of denouncing troublesome posts out of hand without actually bothering to explain why they are unworthy of your Highness' consideration. You still haven't actually responded to Graham's post, just stuck it in the nearest box and hoped everyone would take your word on it.

'CHARTS: Here's What The Wall Street Protesters Are So Angry About...'

That's nice. It also has nothing to do with my claim about the political makeup of OWS being left-leaning. And I'm loathe to take as impartial any journalist who thinks sticking pictures in the middle of the charts lends credibility. Or maybe he's just doing it for the emotional impact.

http://www.businessinsider.com/c/4e948ac669beddc512000018
TAX EQUALITY
People scream about the taxpayer money bailing out banks and totally ignore that the people who paid the most in taxes toward that bailout were the bankers themselves. Thats right, the 1% pays the most taxes. How can the people who contributed the least to the bailout gripe about it the most?

The most telling slid Henry put up is slide #26. Pleas notice that the only demographic paying a higher % of the countries taxes than they represent of the countries wealth are the top 1%. Everyone else has more wealth than they pay. The rich don't pay their fair share? Spare me. They pay the biggest and most disproportionately large share of anyone.

In other words, the rich pay a disproportionate amount of taxes, yet one of Occupy's pillars--this week--seems to be that the rich pay less taxes than others, proportionately. Or is it that they're making more money than everyone else, and that's doubleplus ungood? I'm not strawmanning; that's exactly what several responses to that comment are arguing.

More fool us if we manicure reality for their benefit in the hope that they will then see the light!

Pop quiz; how many accounts of Occupiers facing "police brutality" have you read? And how many of them even acknowledged the possibility the Occupiers were breaking the law, or mentioned whether they were told to disperse? I'm betting the number is less than 10%. And these are far from the only examples of biased reporting.

"It's like a derivative of actual pepper. It's a food product, essentially." - Megyn Kelly.

Who then went on to describe it as "abrasive and intrusive...several people went to the hospital". She was referring to "product" in the sense of "derived from a food", not something you'd put on your tacos. I love how everyone keeps putting a full stop after "essentially" as if it were a full sentence instead of a fragment.

Quote-mining? Taking things out of context? That's something I'd expect from Fox News.

'The Global Class War: How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future - and What It Will Take to Win It Back'

Relevance?

'Minority Rules: Scientists Discover Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas'

"Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society."

I thought Occupy was the 99%, not the 10%.

And remember, a popular belief is not always a correct one. There are plenty of people who would not vote Republican or Democrat with a gun to their head.

The article mentions that all of the majority were given open minds, which simply is not true of real life, and the minority were "true believers" who would never, ever change their minds, meaning they were entirely unreceptive to counter-influence by the majority. You forgot to mention that.

Meanwhile: 'European Banks Can’t Unload Trillions in Toxic Assets'

Yes, the economy sucks, we know.

 

[carlitos]

Well, I have seen threads on JREF where posters who betray no anti-semitism, yet who want to talk about the Fed, or Fractional reserve banking elicit, 'the joos' comment or something similar. It seems to me that this is not a coincidence of merely facetious posting, but rather an attempt to lump the poster in with anti-semitism. Also, facetiousness does not rule out any other intent the comments may have.

Agreed, there are Anti-Semites on JREF and yes the groups you mentioned have used the word 'bankster'. What I would ask you is why is it 'interesting' that OWS is using that word? Interesting from a linguistic perspective?

Brainster echoes my thoughts on your first paragraph.

As for the second, yes, it's interesting to me from a linguistic perspective as well as a general interest in the epistemology of conspiracy theorists. I'm interested in where the paranoid right and the paranoid left overlap.

A left-leaning poster used a word - bankster - that derives from the paranoid right. The term has been used time after time as a proxy for "jews" by anti Semites. That's "interesting" to me.

I still have never seen anyone accusing the OWS crowd of anti-Semitism, and since you have declined my offer to provide any evidence of such, I'll carry on in that belief.

 

[stokes234]

Occupy London have given out a statement saying what it is they're for and against. It's still quite sweeping, but better than nothing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/28/occupy-london-policy-vision-corporations

 

[Neally]

The problem with Conservatives is that the facts seem to gum up their premises.

You're still floundering. The GOP introduced a better bill which would have helped curb the bailouts while also restricting derivatives.

The 20-page GOP alternative would prohibit the use of taxpayer funds to bail out failing financial giants of the future and impose federal regulation on many but not all trades of complex investments known as derivatives.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You're still floundering. The GOP introduced a better bill which would have helped curb the bailouts while also restricting derivatives.

I doubt it. But I proved that the GOP filibustered reform.

 

[stilicho]

Occupy London have given out a statement saying what it is they're for and against. It's still quite sweeping, but better than nothing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/nov/28/occupy-london-policy-vision-corporations

Where did they get the idea that a corporate executive who commits a crime cannot be prosecuted now? The financial news is full of people being sent to prison for breaking the law.

So that one's already done and it was accomplished under our current laws.

The report doesn't explain exactly what their definitions of 'tax havens' and 'tax avoidance' are. Do you know?

 

[stilicho]

People who oppose fractional reserve banking are, quite simply, nuts. Fractional reserve quite simply means that banks cannot take all of their depositors' money and lend it out; they are required to reserve a fraction of that money. Let's assume for a second that fractional reserve banking is eliminated, and the banks cannot lend out any of their depositors' money. What would happen? Well, you know all those fees that you hate that the bank charges you every month? They'd go through the roof, because now instead of the interest on bank loans paying salaries for all the tellers and those nice bank buildings, instead you'd be paying for it.

So when we hear railing about fractional reserve banking, we know the person is insane. And people who are insane about the banks usually bring the Jews into it pretty quickly, because for many centuries Jews were the bankers of Europe due to the Christian strictures against usury (the charging of interest).

The biggest problem with raising the reserve limits (which is all that 100% reserve banking really means in an accounting or economic sense) is not fees as such but instead various restrictions and probably fees for withdrawing your deposits and a much higher debt-to-equity ratio for banks than under the current scheme.

The libertarian types who oppose fractional reserve banking surprisingly argue that the financial sector is one which needs much more government intervention while all other sectors require little or none. Somehow they think that financial service professionals need an ominous state apparatus to control their activities but nobody else does.

The JihadJane types are simply Eustace Mullins copycats who use the code words "capitalist", "banker", and "American" to mean Jews.

 

[WildCat]

I doubt it. But I proved that the GOP filibustered reform.

If you define "reform" as an unconstitutional bill.