The Infest ... er, Occupy Movement -- an idea whose time should never have come is now going

Recent news updates from Occupy protests read like a crime blotter: A man shot near the encampment in Oakland. A homeless person dead in Salt Lake City. A suicide in Vermont. Two drug overdoses and a molotov cocktail in downtown Portland, Ore. A sexual assault in Philadelphia. Hypothermia in Denver ... and a 53-year-old man unnoticed in his tent in New Orleans, dead for at least two days.

Even more prevalent are city concerns about sanitation. Thousands of protesters have lived outdoors with few toilets and no showers for the better part of two months.

Protesters in Chicago violated a noise ordinance; a protester in New York defecated on a police car. In Oakland, when police officers forcibly cleared protesters from Frank Ogawa Plaza this week, in part to deal with a rat infestation, cleaning crews hauled away more than 100 tents, dozens of molded mattresses and 27.8 tons of trash.

And now, as The Washington Post reports, cities are finally clearing out these cesspools in public parks. A group of some hundreds of New Yorkers protested the protesters earlier in the week, telling them to clear out. And the movement, which is calling for more fiscal responsibility, is costing the cities it's occupying millions of dollars.

With the clearing of New York's Zuccotti Park, the movement's birthplace, cities are finally taking back their citizens' public spaces. The true 99 percent is finally speaking up.

Alan,I appreciate the

Alan,

I appreciate the response, as always. If there was ever some one I would turn to help me with the rampant Wild Turkey problem in my yard, it is indeed you that springs to mind. But, it's my yard, I have no neighbors, so I'm just going to shoot them all winter and eat them. I hope they are not endangered, cause they look really plump and tasty.

First thing we need to do here though is agree that there is another way to do politics. OWS believes there is, but it is not writing the answer. OWS is this conversation, to keep it simple. They caused upheaval with their tactics until a good portion of people around the world were forced to say WTF are these people doing? Why?

Is there a problem of corporate financing corrupting politics, or not? If yes, then the answer to that is to be found at the end of a long national debate, probably by making it an election issue. Canada's debate about campaign finance reform started in 1970 and reform was enacted in 2003. Corporate money was banned as a conflict of interest. Union money was banned as a conflict of interest. Only voters can donate, which is tax deductible. In addition (though this is about to change) every vote received provided counted for $1.50 to each political party to strengthen party politics, messaging and recruiting. As I said previously, this is still playing out. It's a slow process.

We are very different types of people you and I, but we can still talk. This is fundamental and really important right now. I have traveled a lot. I tried to sneak into Libya in the 1980's fer chrissakes, got to listen to a 4 hour Gaddafi speech on the radio (frightening). I also got busted in East Berlin for late night boozing and had to do the walk of shame at check point charlie at 6am, and all those years I was not a productive member of society, just a traveler, even a miscreant, but I learned a boatload about people, places and politics. Even though, at the time, I had no idea at all. I was actually just having fun.So sue me if I defend the idealistic young people who, it seems to me, have a pretty good idea that things are going very wrong. And not solely because of Obama, you fixated red neck.

To be clear to you, one of the reasons I am willing to waste time here is the lack of balanced perspective on events, including OWS. It's all treated as a partisan scrap with no grey area, and that is ridiculous. So, if you are going to listen to your employees, I hope you do so with more of an open mind than you do here. I'm sure that you do. .

 

quote, Brendan: We are very

quote, Brendan:

We are very different types of people you and I...

You're right.  I'm a great man, and you're a putz.  (Sorry.  Couldn't resist.)

 

... he says as he clumsily

... he says as he clumsily double posts that. Irony.

Nice comeback.  Glad to see

Nice comeback.  Glad to see you have a sense of humor.

deleted double post

deleted double post

Okay.  Finally a reasonable

Okay.  Finally a reasonable proposal to solve a specific problem.  Maybe you ought to run for OWS PR Rep.

I could support a system to curb corporate donations.  However, I don't think, based on recent Supreme Court rulings, it would be possible to implement those Canadian rules here.  There might be some way around it, but it seems the Supreme Court has pretty much made it clear that money given to a candidate is protected as free speech, whether given by an individual, or group of individuals (corporation).  That giving money to a person, because of the message he espouses, is a way to express your own beliefs.  We, in the US, may all think the President sucks, or Congressmen suck, or Senators suck, but no one in this country thinks the Supreme Court is not the last and final word on what is law.  You can't get around that. 

But, at least you have proposed a reasonable starting point.  You have.  OWS has not.  Their crap is all over the map, and off in LaLaLand.

As I said, I would not oppose your system of campaign reform (although I don't think it would get past Supreme Court rulings).  I would like to see (and this has been seriously discussed a number of times) term limits for legislators.  I was listening to an interview with some Senator the other day, and he said something about "learning politics from his mother when she ran for Congress."  I  mean, WTF?  The guy has been nothing but a politician his entire life.  He comes from a family of politicians.  And these ass-munches are supposed to know how to help an average Joe find a job and feed a family.  I've said it before, on this site, my rule of thumb to classify someone as a dictator is "anything over one decade."  I cannot believe any Congressman or Senator needs to be in office past ten or twelve years, max.

I appreciate your attempt to converse in a civil manner, and express a specific solution to a specific problem.  I was beginning to wonder if either you or Momo were capable of it.  (My money was on you, by the way.  Momo appears to support OWS just because they rail against the machine, without knowing any specifics, and doesn't give a crap if the railing makes sense or not.)

Does the US need to reform campaign finance?  Probably.  Could elected officials better represent the wishes of those who put them in office?  Most assuredly.  Is there a way to write legislation that could pass Supreme Court muster?  Maybe.  But, then, what the hell...  When we throw out the Constitution, abolish the current American system of government, and implement Gebyatt's expert government instead, none of this discussion will matter anyway, will it?

By the way, wild turkey is damn good.  If you need some recipes, let me know.

Alan,OK, so we have a "maybe"

Alan,

OK, so we have a "maybe" from you on the need to reform politics in regards to the corrupting influence of money. There is certainly some legal discussion to solve that problem, but as I mentioned it has been done here and therefore there is no limits upon the US from eventually reforming as well, to whatever degree possible under the constitution. Great. Just be aware that the corporations are entrenched, they like controlling things and social upheaval is required for such a paradigm shift.

I have been repeating that OWS is about that discussion, about ideas that could lead, eventually, to reform that makes things better in the world. I have pointed out the Canadian example of how we cleaned up some of the obvious corruption and conflict of interest in our politics, I will leave that subject at that. How the United States of America goes about the task will be a made in America approach.

I hope you had time to read that Rolling Stone article by Matt Tiabi. It's important that everyone understand how the financial crisis came about nad what happened in that event. So if you read anything I link to, please read that. It's long, but it's as entertaining as anything you have ever read. Wall street bankers have gorged themselves without accountability and that is the main issue here. Without their wrong doings there would never be an Occupy movement, that is certain. That brings me to core issue number 2 of OWS. Properly regulating the financial sector and re-instituting Glass-Steagall.

You claim that goverment regulations are burdensome, but things really don't function without them. Good regulation is an evolutionary process, no regulation is madness, so I'm going to assume that you support good legislation and good regulations. In banking we have, in Canada, a defined separation between investment banks and commercial (regular) banks. You may be aware that the US did too after a collapse happened in 1933. The Act was repealed in 1999, a very bad move.

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, bankers and brokers were sometimes indistinguishable. Then, in the Great Depression after 1929, Congress examined the mixing of the "commercial" and "investment" banking industries that occurred in the 1920s. Hearings revealed conflicts of interest and fraud in some banking institutions' securities activities. A formidable barrier to the mixing of these activities was then set up by the Glass–Steagall Act.[8]

So, the next question I have for you is, given that these banks caved in your economy in 2008 and no new measures have been taken to regulate them (basically a repeat of 1933) don't you think that this should be addressed? This is what OWS is saying.

Remember, in Canada we have the strongest banking system in the world now, it is fully regulated our banks and investment firms are kept separate, our deposit insurance much more demanding. Our housing market never took a hit. The only issue we have is a global downturn caused by you buffoons.

So, step 2. Do you agree that the banks need better regulation and oversight?

Putz

Putz

“I appreciate your attempt to

I appreciate your attempt to converse in a civil manner

Right. You could say that to me too, because I am conversing much more civilly with you than you with me.

Right. You could say that to

Right. You could say that to me too...

Nah.  You just screech in opposition to position taken by me, Jay, Henry, or Mike, without putting any thought into it.

 

Odd that you want to speak

Odd that you want to speak for the four of you. So far I have seen differences, mainly in your ethics. I am not sure if you remember, but there were times when the immense political differences here were bridged by a sense of mutual human respect. It was what kept the forum alive and I am surprised and disappointed that you don’t want that anymore. This is not about positions as you say.

Alan has my vote for

Alan has my vote for spokesman and dog catcher.  And if this is not about positions, feel free to leave and don't forget to have Henry to validate your parking.

“Momo appears to support OWS

Momo appears to support OWS just because they rail against the machine, without knowing any specifics, and doesn't give a crap if the railing makes sense or not

Specifics of the American Occupy don’t particularly interest me. I’ve read a few articles and I’ve watched some videos and that was that. Here we have got a Euro to keep us, er, occupied, and for the same reason. I suspect I know more specifics than you however.

I note that we are making some tiny progress: although you still refuse to explain why care to vilify a movement  that you know little about, you now at least tell us what you want changed.

Right, politicians should get to know life before they can stand for an office, and I don’t want to see them there more than a few years. That much we agree.

As to funds for campaigning: I don’t think your Supreme Court would rule in the same way again, because <sigh> New and old questions are being asked and the taboos of 30 years of neoliberalism (on top of the older anticommunism) are questioned and discarded. This changes the discourse. The idea that a corporation was the same as a person will be completely outdated and outrageous. Such a court ruling will be unconceivable very soon.

Specifics of the American

Specifics of the American Occupy don’t particularly interest me. I’ve read a few articles and I’ve watched some videos and that was that.

Momo,

That is a very good start for you.  You just need to think a little deeper about the admission you've made with that post.  It is an admission of the suspicion I had when I wrote, "Momo appears to support OWS just because they rail against the machine..."  By stating, "Specifics...don't...interest me.  ...and that was that."  You have finally agreed, when it comes to what OWS stands for, or specific goals and proposals OWS advocates, you don't know your left nut from a wedge of hard cheese.  (I know that's not anatomically correct, but you get my drift.)

So, all those times I posted, "That still does not tell me what they are, what they want, how they propose to change anything" an honest answer from you should/would have been, "Beats me."  Instead, you gave your usual, knee-jerk support to any idiot with a sign who appears to resent authority, without actually trying to decide if they had a stand worthy of support. 

I have listened to interviews with OWS protestors on radio, television, read interviews in newspapers and magazines, and have still found no coherent message.  I can't support or oppose something that does not exist.  Now that you've admitted you know nothing about them either, I suggest you rethink your undying support.

You've finally admitted supporting something you know nothing about.  Take the next step.  Think before you type.

As to funds for campaigning: I don’t think your Supreme Court would rule in the same way again...

The Supreme Court bases rulings on two things, the Constitution, and previous rulings.  They do not base their rulings on popular opinion.  That is why they are appointed for life.  They don't have to answer to anyone.  They don't run for re-election.  (Which I wholeheartedly support, even though I have the "ten-year-dictator" rule.  The judiciary should anser only to the law.  Every other branch needs to answer to the people.)

Such a court ruling will be unconceivable very soon.

You obviously have no concept of how the Supreme Court arrives at decisions.  Prior rulings and case law plays into decisions way, way, waaay beyond chanting crowds.  It is rare, and a real shock, when the Supreme Court completely overturns prior rulings.  It almost never happens.  Not saying it can't.  But the court prides itself on ignoring any outside pressures and making their own rulings, based on how they interpret the Constitution.

You must train your reading

You must train your reading skills, Alan. Urgently. It’s not the first time that you get only a small part of what I said.

I said specifics that apply only to your country don’t interest me. The worldwide occupy movement does, so don’t say I was as ignorant as you, will you?

Take the Glass Steagall act for instance: you are aware that the specifics of this safeguard needn’t interest me although they interest the US American occupy movement immensely, aren’t you? You on the other hand needn’t worry about Article 123.  There are more specifics that only apply to some countries, but most points are common to the entire occupy movement: we are celebrating the intellectual bankruptcy of neoliberalism (even though neoliberals are still in power) and the apotheosis of plurality.

So, all those times you posted, "That still does not tell me what they are, what they want, how they propose to change anything", I have answered that you can inform yourself on your own. In more precise terms: a consumer’s attitude “someone has the duty to tell me what this is about” is the last thing that is apposite here.

The Supreme Court bases rulings on two things, the Constitution, and previous rulings.  They do not base their rulings on popular opinion

That’s not true for any court, because the interpretation of constitutions and laws always is a social act.

Oh, no.  And you had made

Oh, no.  And you had made such a promising start.  And now you're backsliding. 

I had asked a simple question of the defenders of OWS.  Why do you support them?  What positions, of theirs, make you to champion their cause?  Because, in all of the stuff I had seen, heard, or read, I could not find a coherent message anywhere.  Brendan at least took a stab at it.  And I thought you had finally admitted you were clueless, and only supporting them, regardless of the lack of a message, because they were protesting against "the man".  (Although, maybe I was not clear that I was referring to the protests here.)  I still have nothing to make me believe, from any of your posts, that you just support protests against "the man" without putting any thought into it.

As for our Supreme Court, I stand by my earlier comments.  Although I am not surprised you would disagree.  After all, I made a statement, so you have no choice but to oppose it.  It's your personality.

“I had asked a simple

“I had asked a simple question of the defenders of OWS.  Why do you support them?”

I support OWS as part of the worldwide occupy movement because they all demand a society that serves human needs instead of a society that serves only the 1% to the detriment of all others. Occupy’s message IS coherent.

And I thought you had finally admitted you were clueless, and only supporting them, regardless of the lack of a message, because they were protesting against "the man

You have often claimed I was naïve and I had no clue of what I say and you conclude that you needn’t respect me. I am taking you to be utterly wrong, but I don’t take you to be stupid or naïve. Quite a difference in personality between us, indeed.

“(I have my own ideas, but I

“(I have my own ideas, but I want to hear your ideas first.  Just like I do with my employees

We aren’t your employees.

 “I hate politics.  That's why, most times, I joke about shit on this site”

Nevertheless, you are here. To destroy debate or to participate?

I have never used a day of annual leave.”

That’s your decision. Don’t whine.

But I'll be damned if I know what they are (other than the nebulous, stupid, "banks and businesses are bad, politicians are corrupt, the world should live in peace and harmony" bullshit that is on a par with Miss America responses

That’s not what they are.

You want the OWS to have an impact on the US?”

No. I don’t care particularly.

Fine.  Give me one specific problem, and one realistic solution, and I will listen.  Just like I do with my employees

You don’t care either, obviously.

We aren’t your

We aren’t your employees. 

 

Good for you.  Good for me.  

 

Nevertheless, you are here. To destroy debate or to participate?   

 

To kill time on slow days.    

 

That’s your decision. Don’t whine.   

 

You obviously don't know me.  I never whine.  I'm the most upbeat, optimistic person I know.  I can't believe I get paid to do the things I do.  I used to pay good money to do what I do for a living.  I should be paying them. 

 

That’s not what they are.

 

That still does not tell me what they are. 

 

No. I don’t care particularly. 

 

Then why are you here? 

 

You don’t care either, obviously.  

 

That still does not tell me what they are, what they want, how they propose to change anything.  In an instance such as that, I have nothing to care about.  

“That still does not tell me

“That still does not tell me what they are, what they want, how they propose to change anything.  In an instance such as that, I have nothing to care about.”

You feel the need to sort them into boxes and to vilify them. Why, if you don't care?

You feel the need to sort

You feel the need to sort them into boxes and to vilify them. Why, if you don't care?

That still does not tell me what they are, what they want, how they propose to change anything.  In an instance such as that, I have nothing to care about.

You can find out for yourself

You can find out for yourself or be content to be ignorant. Instead you feel the need to sort them into boxes and you are careful to vilify them. Why?

You can find out for yourself

You can find out for yourself or be content to be ignorant. Instead you feel the need to sort them into boxes and you are careful to vilify them. Why?

That still does not tell me what they are, what they want, how they propose to change anything.  In an instance such as that, I have nothing to care about.

“In an instance such as that,

In an instance such as that, I have nothing to care about

Are you telling me that you vilify humans just for fun?

Yes. Even your position has

Yes. Even your position has been marginalised by the neoliberal tyranny. I have to grin whenever one of them calls you a leftist.

Actually the main aim of occupy! is to restore a political spectrum and the respective discourse in a political spectrum (for instance about your outrageous ideas on VAT…). The 99% of left, centre, and even those right-wingers who are not completely destructive and murderous, in short.

  Actually the main aim of

 

Actually the main aim of occupy! is to restore a political spectrum and the respective discourse in a political spectrum...

I suppose that is supposed to mean something, but I'll be buggered if it makes sense to me.  What specific legislation needs to be passed to restore respective discourse in a political spectrum?  Has anyone introduced a bill yet?  HB6969, perhaps?  I'd like to read it.  Or is it just throwing a handful of shelled corn at a target?

You are right, it is supposed

You are right, it is supposed to mean something and I am very sorry that you don’t get it. I should have reckoned with that.

Apparently you can’t imagine so un-authoritative ways, but I am not talking about legislation (yet). I mean discourse when I say discourse. And if you had informed yourself about occupy, you would have noticed the discussions there. New and old questions are being asked and the taboos of 30 years of neoliberalism (on top of the older anticommunism) are questioned and discarded.

It’s a growing number of people who question your dogmas, and not only the people who actually take part in the occupations. It is a development that started a few years ago and that is now gaining momentum. Scary for the neoliberals and their apologists, of course. We see that in the reporting about occupy. We can see the reaction on these boards too. The uneasiness with the debate. The attempts to drown debate in all sorts of insults. If that doesn’t work, in silliness. (Btw., I am amazed that you don’t notice how bizarre your loud demands are to find humour where you happen to see it)

The discourse is there, Alan. It is clear that neoliberalism has failed. It is not clear where we are going to. It’s what the discourse is about.

If all they want is

If all they want is discourse, they can pack up and go home.  They have had the right to open discourse for over two hundred years.  It's assured by the Constitution.  Propose any idea they wish, as long as it is in a peaceful, lawful manner.  No one is stopping them from offering up ideas.  But, stupid ideas are subject to ridicule.  Just like with Gebyat's "expert government" ideas.  You can toss out any idea you want to, but there is nothing in freedom of speech that promises all ideas must be treated equally.  If you can't convince others your ideas are valid, you might as well save your breath.

"New and old questions..." Yep.  No doubt.  But you're short changing the age of the ideas when you say "30 years."  Most of these silly, old ideas were discarded in the early to mid-70s (except in a couple old hippie communes).  So it's probably closer to 35-40.

"Anticommunism is being discarded"?  In your world, maybe.  Only the tiniest of a sliver of a minority in this country would think converting the US to a communist state would be anything but the scheme of a nitwit.

"Uneasiness with debate..."  Are you serious?  Look, just because we take a hippie revival as nothing but a laugh-riot joke, does not mean we are shivering in our boots that the new-found communist revival is about to take over the banks, businesses, and homes and pass them out to the hippies.

As for my bizarre demands...  I figure they're a good deal less bizzare than demanding the world dismantle capitalism and hand all the loot over to the liberal arts majors.

Now you've gone and made me post another semi-serious post.  Dammit.

"Anticommunism is being

"Anticommunism is being discarded"?  In your world, maybe.  Only the tiniest of a sliver of a minority in this country would think converting the US to a communist state would be anything but the scheme of a nitwit

Who is talking about “converting the US to a communist state? Is it just sloppiness, or is it another attempt at malignant misrepresentation from you? I said that the taboo to discuss anything else than unfettered power of corporations is losing strength: your reaction is no longer the uncontroversial norm. The political sphere is back and it is re-sorting itself.

By the way, the ideas under discussion among the majority of the occupy movement oscillate between ordoliberalism and Keynesianism, not communism. If you weren’t content with pidgeon holing you could have noticed that. 

old hippie communes” … “scheme of a nitwit” “new-found communist revival

Alan, why are you doing that? Can you give a reason for this behaviour of yours that is not contemptible?

"Uneasiness with debate..."  Are you serious?

Yes. Personal and group-focused vilifications instead of arguments: this is what you do. It’s what the media you get your world view from do, so it’s no surprise that your uneasiness finds an expression in exactly this behaviour.

You never argue. Your worldview is static. You try to destroy debate, because with your lack of arguments you feel uneasy.

If all they want is discourse,…”

Of course it’s not all.

Even your position has been

Even your position has been marginalised by the neoliberal tyranny. I have to grin whenever one of them calls you a leftist.

I completely agree. Only by some extra ordinary contortions can my views be pigeon holed as 'leftist'. I argue vehemently with genuine leftists all the time. Even though there are some objectives we may both find desirable, the ways and means of achieving those same objectives are a world apart.

I do think of myself as a progressive person however, and I think that may be where some confusion arises.

Sure thing Alan, I'd be glad

Sure thing Alan, I'd be glad to answer that question. It's the first time any one of you naysayers have taken a moment to ask what the hell is actually going on, rather than regurgitating the corporate media sound bites.

There is a long explanation and a short one. I'll leave you with the short answer first as I was already going to post something to HH at some point that I hope might dispel some of the confusion and focus the discussion on what is important.

I'll have to answer Jason later, but my hatred of that simpleton Ayn Rand has much to do with my Tea Party aversion. That, and for a time it looked more like a Lynch Obama party than a reform movement.

While I cut the relevant short form for you over here, have a read of this article that came out yesterday if you have the time or inclination.

Okay.  I read your article. 

Okay.  I read your article.  Two points jumped out at me.

1.  "While Fed officials say that almost all the loans were repaid without losses..."   Sounds to me like it may not be as bad a deal as some want to make it seem.  I mean, what the heck?  The Fed didn't lose any money.  The banks didn't go belly up.  The loans were repaid.  Where's the problem?

2.  Some banks made a profit. Okay.  Which would you rather have, a bank with cash reserves,  or a bank that's belly up?  If I have my money in a bank, I'd like to think it can hand me a wad of cash when I need a new lawnmower.  Or, if I want to start a new business, or buy a home, which bank is most likely to loan me the money, the one with a large cash reserve, or the one that's belly up?  I kinda think it is a good thing to have healthy, profitable banks, with lots of cash on hand.  Seems like they might be a little more amenable to loaning money to hard working, average schmucks like me.  Or am I missing something?  Oh yeah, the "secrecy" part.  Let's see...  What was a common occurrence in the Great Depression?  Bank runs.  The mere suspicion that a bank might be in trouble would lead to a run on the bank, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.  I know there are people who think keeping anything secret must mean the secret is covering some evil misdeeds.  I disagree.  Sometimes it's best to shut the fuck up.

Okay.  So you hate Ayn Rand.  That's your prerogative.  Seems like a lot of her fears of "socializing America" are coming true though.  Like her or not.

 

Alan,Nothing backs the Fed

Alan,

Nothing backs the Fed when it does those transactions. Nothing. Your dollar is a worthless piece of shit, not worth the paper it is printed on. Garbage. Do you understand now? This is the biggest confidence game ever.

 

The Dow jumped almost 500

The Dow jumped almost 500 points today on news that the Fed was going to make it easier for Europeans to get their hands on dollars.  Apparently, others don't share your pessimism.

Hi Alan,The Fed did not do

Hi Alan,

The Fed did not do that alone, it was in concert with every other central bank in the western world. It's simply pooling our tax payer risk and exposure to your US fiat currency to increase temporary liquidity in the markets. Why would a positive market reaction be an indication that something good is going on? There's a struggle for the status quo, sure. There is now an increased exposure to the rest of the world from your printing of funny money.

Turns out that Iran was correct, that US dollars are not appropriate for international trade in oil. So now the US and Britain (Actually, most likely the City of London Corporation) are going to start a war to protect that same status quo. It won't work though, and this is why we need the conversation offered by the OWS.

A more detailed post has been in the works, but time is limited at the moment. The snow is coming soon and I am re-flashing the roof to stop the ice from causing water damage.

Just finished a similar

Just finished a similar project myself Brendan (the reflashing, not a long, potentially boring and sure to be mostly wrong-headed post). Take caution in your efforts, we don't want a bad fall (in either effort).

You need to take caution,

You need to take caution, Brendan: You're beginning to sound as bitter, soulless, joyless and repugnant as our resident misanthrope.

I responded from my phone, so

I responded from my phone, so I had to be brief, but seriously, that money comes from where exactly? It's great that Alan prefers that his bank has some money to lend rather than none, but is that a serious attempt to understand the dynamics and scope of the problem? Also, the banks did not start lending when this money was doled out, at least not as expected. They rolled it back into guaranteed payouts and swindled huge profits.

I get a little short when people overlook GIANT holes in their logic, and perhaps their world view.

EDIT: Er, whoops, I linked to the wrong article there. That's a good one explaining how American Finance has become a corrupt oligarchy, but this is the scam you need to read about,

Brendan,I am with Alan here. 

Brendan,

I am with Alan here.  You were leading the criticism in this forum against the "Teabaggers", deriding the movement as nothing than a throng of racist fascists.  The Tea Party movement was lampooned in the press just like the Occupy spectacle, but with a little digging you could find out that the Tea Party was most concerned with spiraling American debt and the impact it could have on America's future.  At the end of the day, it was a quiet, well-organized campaign that managed to galvanize enough support to actually elect some new leaders to Congress and change the course of American politics at the moment.

Occupy appears to have no such potential.  It is noisy and unorganized, and with a power-to-the-people ethos that causes them to resist any leadership or spokesmen.  They themselves did not even know why they were occupying.  They started drafting their policy statements AFTER they had been in Zuccoti for some period of time.  There is still no agreement on that, hence no plan of action, and no course for change.

Now Brendan, this movement is getting its well-deserved backlash.  These are rebels without a cause, and it is hurting the Democratic Party.  I can't think of anything in recent memory that better exemplifies the difference on the ground between the left and the right.  Unlike Europe, the American people will not tolerate violence in political demonstrations.  Go out into the streets and "raise our awareness" if you like, but when you start fighting with the police you lose all credibility.

Mark my words, this movement is having the exact opposite effect on American politics that the Tea Party had, which is to weaken the political support for the candidates that could help you.

But, if I am wrong and you have some secret agenda that Adbusters forwarded to you as a fellow Canadian, then please let me know where I am wrong.

  The Tea Party was lampooned

 


 

The Tea Party was lampooned in the press...

The tea party was lampooned by some in the press, but it was largely a creation of FOX. Go have a look at some video that compares the fawning prime time personalities who LOVED the tea party and promoted it. Look at the vitriolic hatred they smear the OWS with now. The hypocrisy is amazing. I would argue that Teabagging was given its momentum by the cheer leading efforts of FOX and that the 43 percent of Americans who agree with Newt G are mostly the simpletons who watch FOX to form their opinions. And they are probably also Republican. I'll let you make the inference.

This is not surprising. Corporate media serves corporate interests, just as the tea party does at the end of the day. OWS has no mouth piece, its tactics offend conservative Americans, but even with those disadvantages it is an opening for discussions about possible reforms, in the US,  but also in a global market of ideas. Are they having any effect? We are just about to find out. It largely depends on it being a global movement that is able to move forward from these tactics to others and use the attention to drive issues and politics.

The Tea Party as a movement has also run it's course now. That was it, it has delivered it's message about debt, thanks. From here forward it becomes an anchor that the Repugnican party will wear into 2012.

 ...the rather clear and

 

...the rather clear and concise OWS message...

You mean the, "Get the rich guy to pay the pizza delivery boy" message, or the "Eliminate all private property and have the people work in harmony for the people" message?

You gentlemen drop me a line

You gentlemen drop me a line when this 'merican circle jerk has ended. At that point in time, perhaps, I can point out how you are all seemingly unable to differentiate OWS tactics from the rather clear and concise OWS message, which is indeed resonating quite broadly.

You know, enough people out there seem to believe that 2012 means "change" and that constant meme may be enough to instigate something when the next crisis emerges. Europe seems ready to provide one, don't you think?

I'm not making any predictions here, but I am watching with some interest.

Gingrich Tells Protesters to

Gingrich Tells Protesters to Take A Bath, Get A Job: 43% Agree

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Rising Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich made news recently when he suggested that the Occupy Wall Street protesters should stop protesting and get jobs after taking a bath.  Voters are evenly divided over whether that’s a good idea.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters agree with the former House speaker and think the protesters should take baths and get jobs. But an identical number (43%) disagree, and 14% more are undecided.

Interesting split.  Would have been nice to see how this stacks up with party affiliation.

“Interesting split.  Would

“Interesting split.  Would have been nice to see how this stacks up with party affiliation”

What do you expect? It would be more interesting to know how agreement with that statement correlates with additives in the water supply.

The statement is stupid. That

The statement is stupid. That some one commissioned a poll with such a question is dumb. That 43% agreed with Newt, well, I guess that's one way of finding out what percentage of Americans are simpletons.

No, Brendan, it’s not

No, Brendan, it’s not stupidity. It’s a propaganda tool in order to prevent the occupy movement being heard.

The main tool for preventing

The main tool for preventing the occupy movement from being heard is giving them plenty of media exposure. They demonstrate how empty, irresponsible and self-centered the movement truly is.  When the entertainment value wears off, it's time to break out the fire hoses and sweep away the refuse.  Nothing to see here...time to move along.

OWS's worst enemy is OWS.

This from the only individual

This from the only individual here posting outright falsehoods about OWS. At least the others only poke good natured fun, you stoop to outright lies. Get stuffed sociopath.

There's no need to tell lies

There's no need to tell lies about OWS.  The truth is sufficiently damning.  No matter what international flavor of OWS, they reveal themselves as outrageously empty of any coherent message....probably because they are busy crapping on police cars, destroying private property, harassing innocents, physically and sexually assaulting each other, spreading disease, etc. etc. etc.   All of which has NEVER been part of any Tea Party protest.  To loosely quote Forest Gump, "A sociopath is, as a sociopath does."  And I'd say that applies to Canadian activist organizations that inspire them and George Soros who funds them.

double post

double post