Thanks Classic.

Did I get the right link? You seemed to have a httphttp in yours so I looked it up.
The other link I posted is pretty darn good too. Give it a listen.

first of all; none of you are here. So please do not try to understand the situation. You do not. I have been to many protests over this issue. I have gone days w/o sleeping/bathing. YOu know nothing!!!
I AM that 99.9 percent! I have gone hungry. I have slept in the park. And now you fall victim to the media?? As my country struggles?? You are not here/ you do not know.

Pam.

:eyebrow:

Awesome, thanks for the link.

Yes, very awesome, Classic. thanks again.

I would love to get the transcripts for both of those shows. They articulate so many of the pertinent issues that the OWS brings up.

Foremost is that so many of us were waiting for this kind of protest. Wanting it, hoping for it, but never believing it would happen. I feel like they are walking on a tightrope now. I hope they stay on.

As the weather changes I think they will dwindle in numbers.
When the spring comes around, it will be interesting to see what happens.
you're both welcome.

Well now I understand better...

http://youtu.be/oveDmWpeBBg

Ummmm.... I never said that, those are your words. Or maybe you support that dumbassed VP who repeatedly states that more women will be raped if we don't pass President Zero's Jobs Bill? Or are you clueless or worse ignorant about the issue?

Actually, no, I think welfare is a necessary evil of all civil societies, ours just happens to bread generations who learn to game the system.

We are breading generations of gamers. Yeph. You first read it here.

Cry me a GD river, Merc. :eyebrow:

And deep frying, of course.

Oh, don't cry for me. :p: I am more worried about my kids future if Obama gets re-elected.:D

This was especially good. Peter Schiff makes his point clearly and this seems like a typical protester.

Here is the whole interview if anyone cares.

What has the OWS movement accomplished ?

OK, so they did not make their decision because of BofA.

What they saw as their option was a gathering of Occupy Cleveland ! :D

The news media is headlining arrests of OWS protestors in various cities.
Occupy Oregon is being named in the headlines.
Here is the tone of arrests in our city:

Cops, Occupy Protesters Clash in Denver; Portland Demonstrators Defy City Leaders
ABC News
By ERIN McLAUGHLIN
Oct. 30, 2011

Good.

Lets just see them try to arrest Linus!

ENews Park Forest
Occupy Portland: Update on Jamison Square Sit-In

And from Occupy Denver:

I don't know which side is right on this or if they both are, but I HAVE been in downtown Denver on a Saturday night. It can get pretty wild around closing time and then throw in a bunch of protesters and good luck EVER figuring out who was who. :eyebrow:

the perspective of a Giant Anteater
 

Essentially, this is the way things are...

Occupying monkeys fling poop at rich monkeys 'cause the rich monkeys have more bananas.

Envy, they name is 'occupant'.

Perhaps if the occupying monkeys were brighter, more innovative, more robust, they too might be rich monkeys with loads and loads of bananas.

Alas, no: the occupying monkeys are dumb, dull, and lazy...they belong to the 'think outside the box' generation and yet not a single one 'can' (think outside the box, or the cage).

Each believes, simply because he or she 'is' a monkey, other monkeys owe him or her bananas.

Insanity, thy name is 'occupant'.

The rich monkeys have the bulk of the bananas...how they got the bananas (*legally, illegally; morally, immorally) is irrelevant...they HAVE the bananas and the envious, occupying, monkeys' do not.

This will not change.

*shrug*








*absurd fictions that change with the seasons

How do you know it won't change? The level of wealth and lifestyle disparity is not a constant.

No its not. You can't generalize all of OWS as that, not even close.

"The level of wealth and lifestyle disparity is not a constant"
 

Sure: the monkey who 'has' today may be the monkey who 'has not' tomorrow.

What, however, 'is' constant is disparity, inequity...some monkey will always have more bananas than another, and -- in most cases -- the one who has less will envy the one who has more.

##

"No its not."

Yes, it is.

#

"You can't generalize all of OWS as that, not even close."

Yes, I can.

I said the levels weren't constant. The fact of inequality may be a constant. The level of wealth and lifestyle disparity is not. The gap is not consistent across history.

But if one MONKEY is beating up other monkeys and taking their bananas,
there will eventually come a way for the multitudes of monkeys to stop the MONKEY.
That's not called redistribution of wealth.

It's called: "Look out, MONKEY, we 99% monkeys know where you live".

On behalf of monkeys, I'm offended by your characterization.

Can't they be, like, ferrets? Will the ferrets get offended? I don't care. Fuck the ferrets. :lol:

Lamp...
 

If one monkey has access to, say, 400 million bananas, I'm thinking he can afford to give the finger to all those impoverished, occupant, monkeys...after all, 20 million bananas buys a helluva lot of gorillas, each more than capable of dealing with anything the occupants monkeys can foist up.

Yes, Virginia: it really does come down to 'might makes the right'.

As I say up-thread, 'how they (the banana-having monkeys) got the bananas (legally, illegally; morally, immorally) is irrelevant.'

Why irrelevant?

'Cause 'morality' and 'just' are fictions.

In the same way: the envy of the banana-less monkeys is morally neutral (amoral).

I don't decry the occupants for envy, only for their *dishonesty.

They dress up 'envy' in pretty clothes and call it 'right' and 'moral'.

Just pony up with the truth, for a change, that being, 'we want your bananas!'









*Also irrelevant...I'm just sayin'... ;)

Dana
 

"I said the levels weren't constant."

So you did...irrelevant to my point, that being: the occupiers are driven by envy.

Whether for ten bananas, or, ten billion bananas: envy is envy is envy.

Infinite Monkey
 

"On behalf of monkeys, I'm offended by your characterization."

Your moniker aside: I think you're a swan...a lovely (cranky) swan...HA!

#

"Fuck the ferrets"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Swans are mean! :)

Oh yeah, I can be kind of mean.

OK, back to your debate...

HA! ;)

Frankly, I don't care how many bananas the monkey's have, or don't have. I can't stand bananas.

What I have a problem with is redistricting the jungle so all of the banana trees end up on plots belonging to 1% of the monkeys. Then they try to sell their bananas to the monkeys without any for exhorbitant fees and then claim the hungry monkeys are hungry because they're lazy and stupid.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing!

Ahh, the old reductio ad absurdum argument with a nod to class welfare thrown in without actually using the c w words. Then, just in case, you seal your argument with the statement that
" 'morality' and 'just'" are fictions and therefore, irrelevant.

I don't know if you actually believe this or if you are just applying that statement to monkeys. But either way, it allows you to never bother yourself with any thoughts deeper than the depth of that mirage out on the desert horizon.

I may be hopelessly optimistic, but I believe that the majority of Americans can find a little morality within themselves if they dig deep enough, and a few are even interested in what actions can be honestly claimed to be just.

The culture in which "morality" and "just" have no revelance is the corporate culture. The corporate culture has imposed its own amoral pursuit of profit and power on its minions on both sides of the aisle in Congress.

Thanks to the high cost of getting elected in the modern era, Congress has become a millionaire's club. Worse yet, they have to do what their major contributors want or else no money for the next round of elections.

It is both immoral and unjust to use taxpayer money to bail out institutions that were collapsing thanks to the criminal activities of their own CEO's. It is immoral and unjust to not only retain the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy and large corps, but to actively pursue even deeper cuts in taxes for this group. Meanwhile the gap between rich and poor continues to widen, and those Americans in poverty, the American Working Class, and the American Middle Class are asked to shoulder the burden of reducing the deficit through the curtailment of educational opportunities for their children, a crumbling national infra-structure, etc.,etc.

These reductions so that the rich can get richer have hit the states and public workers as hard as anything else. Imagine how much even worse 9/11 would have been without those brave fellow citizens - the fire fighters, the police, the port authority - these middle class Americans rushed to the scene and many gave up their lives in the attempt to save as many victims as possible.

What if the state and city of New York had been engaged in austerity measures at the time, and only half the normal amount of police, fire, etc. had been available to respond? This is the road our country is going down now, and I am not optimistic about the eventual outcome.

And since when did the term "social contract" become a dirty word? Since the corporations declared class warfare about 25 years ago. And Since when has it become unAmerican to feel compassion and act upon it? And since when has our government stopped helping the little guy in favor of getting payoffs from corporate bullies? Since when has "promote the general welfare" turn into a greed driven rape of our American land? Since when have profits for shareholders become more important than the air our children must breathe?

Since around the time of Reagan - that's when. Ronnie was little more than a cat's paw for big business and it went downhill from there to the reign of King W who blatantly favored his old oil and business cronies and ushered in the era of war for petroleum, obscene defense contracts for Halliburton (linked inextricably to VP Dick Cheney), tax cuts for the wealthy, granting "person" status to corporations, and disappearing all sorts of Constitutional freedoms use the guise of the "Patriot" Act.

While the Republicans are the in your face party of the rich, the Democrats have responded feebly, caving in at every turn and showing the most lackluster leadership ever from Obama on down. Now, why should that be. Check out who's starting to fill Democrat war chest, and even a 4 year old could see what's going on.

These things are indeed immoral and injust. American citizens have not only a right to assemble to protest these things, they have a DUTY to.

You sir, Mr. Quick, show a tendency towards arrogance and, worse yet, an indifference to the plight of your own country. I sentence you to a life among real chimpanzees in a real jungle. Chimps travel in family groups led by an alpha male. The male will sometimes steal food from a weaker chimp, but, in general, chimp society has evolved to further the survival of the group and the passing on of its genome. That alpha male would make quick work of YOU, Mr. Quick. Social Darwinism at its finest - something you seem to admire. Have a banana. :blunt:

"What I have a problem with is redistricting the jungle so all of the banana trees end up on plots belonging to 1% of the monkeys. Then they try to sell their bananas to the monkeys without any for exhorbitant fees and then claim the hungry monkeys are hungry because they're lazy and stupid."


HA!

All: irrelevant.

I get that's what irks you (and many others): so what?

The banana-holders HAVE the bananas...if the non-holders were too stupid, too slow, or too trusting to stop them, then that's on THEM.

What's embedded in your post, Storm: the banana-holding monkeys are liars, greedy, manipulative, and zealous.

A good assessment, but: so what?

Righteous indignation is well and good but foundationless as morality is a fiction with no more 'umph' to it than the one or ones promulgating it can muster up (mustering up 'force', 'power', 'might', the fist, the stick, the knife, the gun, the bomb, etc.).

If Joe the monkey lies, cheats, steals, manipulates to get his bananas AND he has the craftiness to see his lies and theft are not only sanctioned by *'law' but largely applauded by the majority, then that IS the way it IS.

Arguing with Joe (or sitting on his doorstep, crying) will net the occupying monkey exactly what he or she already has: nada.

The lesson: if you want the banana-holder's goods then you will have to take them by way of a superior 'might', or though a more cleverly implemented lesser 'might'.

Now: the moral argument CAN work if understood AS an expression of might...in this case: the moral argument is meant to persuade (as in: cajole, confuse, manipulate, lie, cheat, etc.). The non-holder works to direct other non-holders to form an 'army' so that this 'army' can storm the tree and take the bananas...the manipulator will wax poetic and be oh-so charismatic and lay out a case for fairness and justice and whatever, but the argument is just the method, not the actual drive, which -- again -- is envy.

My point: your distaste is driven by envy...envy for bananas...envy for the quickness, and slyness of the banana-holder.

Your mistake is assuming your 'morality' is 'real' and shared ultimately by everyone...it's not.


As for "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing!” no, not by a longshot.









*codified morality...equally absurd...another fiction...only as 'good' as the enforcement.

This is an amoral world and utopia is a (crack)pipe dream.

Funny. I agree with almost everything you said on a philosophical level but your application of it is pretty overly cynical. I agree that there is no such thing as economic justice no matter what. Economic status comes from an extremely complicated mix of external and internal factors which are not independent of each other (if you grew up in a hard working family you will most likely be hardworking, etc).

Yet, it makes no sense to state the lack of economic justice and then just assume that OWS is just about the 'much dumber than Quirk sheeple' complaining about an unjust system. You could twist everyone's arguments into making it seem like they're being envious, but that would be just as successful and practical as trying to convince every white person that they are racist.

Many people, including myself (while I don't associate with OWS) believe that a socioeconomic system that heavily favors the rich is bad for the country on multiple levels. I don't disagree with socioeconomic systems favoring the rich, that is reality, but there is a limit to where it hurts the country as a whole. I believe we are at/past that limit and our country is hurting because of the actions of a few (even though I do have an understanding where their actions come from).

That is not envy. That is practicality. Jump off the philosophical train and into reality.

Not at all.

"amoral pursuit of profit and power"
 

In its widest sense: you just described 'living' for any individual of any species, past or present, you care to name.

Those who own and run corporations just do 'it' better (in a very narrow context) than you...*shrug*.

The rest of your post: unfounded assessments (of me)...a tactic used by one who can't dredge up a cogent, opposing, argument.

You, therefore, are dismissed... ;)


To everyone else: From where does 'morality' come? What is the source of morality? What makes this behavior 'right' or 'good' and another 'wrong' or 'evil'?

"Not at all"
 

If you're an occupant: of course not!

Looking to justify actions founded in *envy (to him- or her-self, and others) is at least half the work of an occupying monkey. So: the 'reasons' the occupant foists are very relevant (to him or her, as justification).

On the wider scale (beyond the subjective and personal), however: everything is irrelevant.









*Envy, of course, needs no justification...wanting something is not 'good' or 'bad'...it just 'is'.

The only reason you feel her post is irrelevant is because it shows your perspective is incorrect. dismiss this.

"Jump off the philosophical train and into reality"
 

I'm not cynical: just realistic.

Reality is amoral...implement 'fairness' as you can and like...I see the practicality of it (and the trap!)...I'm not, however, believing 'fairness' is anything other than another model that only works to the extent it's enforced.

As of today: 'fairness' has a less than stellar track record as model (useful fiction, but still fiction).

*shrug*

#

"dismiss this."

Done, and done.

What I get from your posts, HQ, are the following three things:

* That someone (not you and not me), has the power and the money. We can't do anything about it, nor should we want or try to, so we might as well bend over and spread 'em.

* As well as...justice and fairness have no place in business (society?). Lying, cheating, stealing, and any other means of obtaining what you want are perfectly fine. Again, he who has the money has the power and those without need to STFU and get over it.

And lastly,

* Who cares? Everything is irrelevant and pointless anyway.

Haha, you really do not know how to read do you? I never said anything about fairness.

~~~

You are not the first person to discover cynicism. It's a great cloak for the "You're stupid, and I'm right" crowd.

So what?

I'll tell you what. You are the winner of Sam's

:blah: Poster Not Worth Seriously Replying To Award.:blah:

This prestigious award has been won by only two other posters in Internet history - Urbane Guerrilla and a poster on another board who shall remain anonymous. Congratulations! If you wish an actual paper depiction of your Award, embossed and with gilt edges, please e-mail a SASE complete with small barking dog to AynRandAnonymous.com. A link to your Face Book page is optional.

And don't worry. Everyone else around here will probably continue to humor you. And Merc is gonna cream his pants when he reads your shit er stuff.

"That someone (not you and not me), has the power and the money. We can't do anything about it, nor should we want or try to, so we might as well bend over and spread 'em."


There will always be hurricanes...certainly no one with a clear head believes sitting on the coast and whining will deter a hurricane, yes?

The 'rich' aren't a hurricane, but they always 'are'...navigate them as you can, depend on them as little as you can, destroy them as you can (and if you like), but don't pretend the 'rich' will move and give and sympathize because occupants sit on the stoop and whine.

Like every one: the rich are self-interested...again: within a very narrow context they are simply more successful at satisfying self-interest (in whatever fashion that self-interest expresses itself in any given individual).

#

"As well as...justice and fairness have no place in business (society?). Lying, cheating, stealing, and any other means of obtaining what you want are perfectly fine. Again, he who has the money has the power and those without need to STFU and get over it."


Fictions can be useful and have whatever place you make for them...just keep in mind the other guy may not share your sentiment.

As for STFU: perhaps instead of 'talking', the occupants should 'do'.

#

"Who cares? Everything is irrelevant and pointless anyway."


What's important to you 'is' important to you...again: be aware the other guy may not share your sentiments.

Each and every one will order and discharge his or her life as he or she chooses (according to personal preference and inherent inclination).

This includes the each of the 'rich' and the 'poor'.

##

"I never said anything about fairness."


Not directly, no, but you did speak about the dangers of exceeding "a limit to where it hurts the country as a whole", the limit being a part of "socioeconomic systems favoring the rich"

Unless I'm mistaken, Like Dana, you point out the increasing disparity between 'rich' and 'poor', yes? A disparity that is "bad for the country” because "the actions of a few" hurt many...from this I infer inequity or 'unfairness' with the obvious solution (though you never pin one down) being a restoration of some kind of 'fairness'.

Did I read too much into your post?

If so: I apologize.

##

"If you wish an actual paper depiction of your Award..."


No thanks. Considering it's 'your' award, it probably wouldn't even make very good toilet paper, which is about the only use such a thing has.

An Open Letter to the Citizens of Oakland from the Oakland Police Officers’ Association
This has got to be a first.
Link via Occupy Philadelphia.

Don't make it a "skirmish line", then.

Quan gave a crappy order, but police excitement about breaking out the fun weapons and playing war exacerbated it.

meh - we can't paint the whole dept by the actions of one or at most, a few.

Life can be confusing, can't it. :3_eyes:

The point...

These protests started with everyone shouting their own message. What Bruce just posted is, I think, the message that most seem to agree with, and is becoming distilled as "the" message of OWS.


DOWN WITH PLUTOCRACY!

and buying is only one letter away from burying...

The "open letter" is ostensibly from the whole department, and they used the "skirmish line" war terminology there.

I don't think it was "a few" who armed the cops with tear gas and flashbang grenades against a peaceful protest. I think it's a general problem across the country (and the world), where all sorts of cool "non-lethal" weapons and black paramilitary outfits are given to cops with very loose regulation. It might only be "a few" who actually hope for a riot to occur to justify the use of that equipment, but dressing everyone as stormtroopers and giving them grenades all but guarantees they'll get their wish.

Yeh I'm sure thats what they were thinking - NOT.
I'm rather sure they'd prefer to be home with the wives/husbands/families.
Instead, they are all working ridiculous overtime standing for hours at a time
day after day after day... Looking for a fight? nope. There may have been a few.

For example - The ONE guy that threw the flashbang into the group helping the fallen protester should be dealt with legally.
On the other hand the protesters were repeatedly warned to clear the area. They refused. They knew what was going to happen if they didn't. IF they had, perhaps he wouldn't have been hit as no tear gas would have been necessary.

What does the Constitution say about the right to assembly and the right to free speech? What does a "right" mean? Do the cops get to decide when we have rights and when we don't?

In one of my links to Occupy Portland, the article included a paragraph
about the "trainers" telling the group that if they were arrested,
to plead "Not Guilty", and they would be freed at their court hearing.

They said the City did not want to go to trial on the City's "curfew" Ordinances
because they feared they would be ruled unconstitutional.

So far in PDX, it seems to have worked out that way

Wasn't there a curfew or something?

ETA - Lamp posted same time.