• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Any of you hippies protest at Wall Street?

Page 24 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,148
1
76
Here in California, it's the Unions who own our representatives, yet nobody seems to be protesting them.
They can. You stand a better chance of getting a union rep that is on your side than a senator.

Still, it is just another example of abuse of power.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,299
1,230
136
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/occupywallst-poster-boy-trust-fund-baby-attempted-stowaway-jfk

Ha ha! He's a grad from Columbia University with a TRUST FUND!

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/16/video-ows-meltdown-star-a-columbia-grad-student-with-a-trust-fund/

Yeah, I know, you’re shocked, shocked to discover that one of the viral-video stars of the Occupy Movement is a dilettante with a trust fund. Tina couldn’t decide whether Edward T. Hall III (no, not kidding about the name) was a master satirist or just completely insane, but after Larry O’Connor and Breitbart TV’s investigation, I’m willing to concede that Hall III isn’t going to challenge Jonathan Swift in the near future:
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/occupywallst-poster-boy-trust-fund-baby-attempted-stowaway-jfk

What’s a trust-fund baby doing on a luggage carousel, trying to stow away on a flight at JFK? Probably the same as a trust-fund baby protesting Wall Street while money managers look after his finances. You expected consistency and logic from this crowd? Hall III has to take care not to get arrested at the OWS demonstration, though, because he’s on a “conditional release” after his hijinks at JFK, which means that he can end up back in jail on the original charge if he causes any trouble.

Biggest laugh moment: the New York Times reporter trying to keep a straight face while interviewing Hall III. It looks like Corey Kilgannon was looking for a baggage carousel himself to take him away from the cliché-spouting subject, who tries to impress the reporter with how deeeeep the Occupy Movement is. Are Columbia graduates really this clueless, shallow, and prone to sloganeering? Oh, wait …

Meanwhile, non-trust-fund-baby Steven Crowder went to Occupy Dallas to get some interviews and find out what the demonstrators want from their protests. Unfortunately, Occupy Dallas was on a lunch break when he arrived. Yes, the entire demonstration was on lunch break. Fortunately, Steven got a chance to talk with an End the Fed-9/11 Truther who took the job a little more seriously. Oh, who are we kidding — a lot more seriously. Steven breaks down the key aspects of the Occupy Movement, none of which include “coherency”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e84L-Xsrxmg
 

dwell

pics?
Oct 9, 1999
5,189
2
0
Support my theory that a large percentage of these "99%'ers" are weekend revolutionists rebelling against their rich daddies.

I remember that video. That kids is either on some serious drugs or crazy as fuck.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,148
1
76
Does that change what was said?

Again, if Hitler said killing babies was wrong, would that mean killing babies was right?
 

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
That's the most relevant picture:



You can see it unfolding in this thread and all over the internet/news/"infotainment" spheres.

The folks at these protests represent a very diverse cross section of the population, both in terms of common demographics, but also in terms of their specific understanding of the legal and business machinations that have evolved over the last 30+ years to put us where we are. But they are collectively smart enough to recognize there is something very wrong, even if most do not know how to fix it. That's okay. It will take people like this to get the political ball rolling and to overcome the carefully targeted, dogmatic and self interested delegitimization tactics aimed at taking the movement down.

Eventually though, the group will need a focused voice - and it does need to be drafted by folks who work in the industries and in government who understand what's wrong. I posted a starter kit list of actual U.S. legislation and USSC decisions that need to be revisited to make the functional changes to our economy to repair it without destroying it. One of the toughest lessons for either side to grasp is that true competition - not the dogmatic corporate welfare/oligarchy/cronyism/multinational mess we have now - is actually a perfectly sound vehicle for efficiency. It's not a moral compass, or a moral decision maker, but when you have lots of smaller competitors battling for the consumer, the Consumer (aka the 99%) has the power, which is what makes the system work. When the market share leaders begin using monopolistic, anti-competitive tactics to force competitors out and put up massive barriers to entry, and when they buy out the government and enact favorable legislation to preserve their oligarchy, the power in the system reverts over to the elite of the capitalists (aka the 1%), and the system stops working for the people and instead works for this corporate aristocracy.

I've sometimes used sports analogies to try to explain the concept of a modified capitalist system to folks, since sports are so popular. Which American sports league is the best and why? Most would say the NFL, and although the game itself is popular, the NFL is in its golden age because they figured out the formula for the greatest level of competition. The playing field is extremely level from a rules and constraints basis (in particular, I am discussing salary caps, etc) ensuring an equal footing from which the best prevail, before it ultimately gets reset (via draft/free agency), the next year. It's not a perfect analogy, but it contains enough similar concepts that perhaps you can envision how we can have a regulated economy that is ultimately competitive and therefore beneficial to the consumer, which is who it needs to serve, not the 1%.

And yes, that is the defining argument here. The so called "anti-capitalist" (but not anti-competition) argument. An economy that serves the 1%, very rarely serves the 99%, and that cannot, as a practical matter, continue. It is a completely self defeating, unstable proposition, and it’s becoming apparent that the ivory tower folks are starting to realize they collectively, through greed and hubris, pushed things a little too far, and it might come back at them.

Which is not to say that I support communism, or any other-ism. The knee jerk 180 isn't what's needed here, but it has happened before in history, and to disastrous effect - world wars, genocide, etc. All the truly nasty stuff that humanity has committed against itself.

In America, there are a few legislative changes we could make that would have an enormous, though gradual and not immediate (this is a good thing) effect to fix the system and give it back to the populace. I have mentioned them before. They were ignored. I guess this time, I'm due for laughing/derision. That's okay. And, BTW, this is just a start:

1) Money is not "free speech" - it's buying government/doing an end run around democracy, or even a republic. It's banana republic at best. Revisit the Buckley v Valeo and Citizens United USSC decisions. End the doctrine. No more massive campaign donations by corps or special interests. 1 vote should equal 1 vote, and the mandate should remain, and not shift immediately upon installment into office, with the politician scurrying to pay back all those people who bought his/her office.

2) Revisit/throw out most of Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, thereby re-instating most of the Glass Steagall act. This will be the start of putting the handcuffs on most of the ridiculous investment banking practices that destroyed the economy.

3) repeal most of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act - this is the act that deregulated international futures markets. Why does this matter to you? It's the act that allowed a few fast rich guys in Wall Street (aka "speculators) to artificially drive up oil contracts prices and in the process of leeching billions of dollars from that revenue stream, add absolutely no value to the process or humanity anywhere. At the level of analysis and control that these guys have, it is literally a no lose situation for them. It is possible for the futures to devalue, but these folks make money then too. they completely manipulate the markets thanks to the lack of regulation. And as a result, not only are you paying $4/gallon for gas, you're also paying an extra $1 or so for a gallon of milk, and extra for everything else you buy. All of those extra pennies for every purchase are being siphoned off the revenue stream by these folks in this process - they are essentially taxing all of us. Why is it a tax? Because their activities return exactly 0 value to the system. Zero. This is not small time business man trying to provide a service at an honest profit - these are fat guys in suits hacking the economy - they're not but a tie and a fancy haircut and an MBA removed from a PC hacker.

4) Severely limit the access of lobbyists to DC. There is no law on the books for this, so nothing to repeal. The fact that most of the legislation approved by congress today is being written, word for word, by lobbyists and then handed to a rep to introduce on th house or senate floor, should alarm every American, regardless of your religious, political/social or economic beliefs. That is NOT democracy. In 2007, there were a record 15,137 lobbyists in Washington. That was more than 28 for every congressman in Washington. most of them represent corporations or industries. That is not democracy.

I could go on. These things are not secrets. And they aren't communism. They're the missteps we have taken from democracy, competition and a political and economic system that serves the people, not the ruling 1% aristocracy.

So go ahead, laugh. Deride. Take the next step.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
1) Citizens United was about free speech and the court ruled on the side of The Constitution. The government simply cannot tell me I cannot air or print material about election candidates. You lost me right there as this means you don't hold or believe in our Constitution or free speech.

4) Constitution allows me to petition the government, you can't stop lobbying, it's specifically allowed. If you want to get involved then donate to political action committees that advance your position.

It's about time an army of Tea Party Patriots swarm these communists with The Constitution to smack them down.

Oh, and I'm pretty close to the 1% and have plenty of friends that are. I don't have some personal congress critter at my beck and call. Me thinks you're just falling for the class warfare being rambled on by this administration. Focus your anger on this president, that's where it belongs. Your entire post screams of far left talking points which is what the folks protesting are.
 
Last edited:

FM2n

Senior member
Aug 10, 2005
563
0
0
One thing I haven't heard anyone mention is that the bailout was the government basically scratching Warren Buffet's back as he did them a favor in 2001.

"In 2001, Warren Buffet reported buying up 129.7 million ounces of silver. His demand for physical delivery caused chaos in the market." Why? Because despite JP Morgan (and other silver holders) claim to be the largest holder of silver, doesn't mean that they actually have it. To demand physicals would collapse the silver market, sending a ripple effect towards the US dollar and Gold. The government stepped in and reasoned with Warren where he agreed to retracted his request to have the physicals delivered.

When these enterprises fail, Berkshire Hathaway (owned by Warren Buffet) is their insurer, which means had the government not stepped in, it would fall on Berkshire Hathaway to step in. So the government bailed these companies out with taxpayer's dollars to protect their interest with Warren Buffet.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,501
1
81

dwell

pics?
Oct 9, 1999
5,189
2
0
Most of the people I know who are involved with Occupy are not rich but far from it. Please inform me how how having a rich person support OWS negates what everyone else involved is doing and saying.
A lot of the OWS guys are full of shit in some way or the other. Like this sob story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZZ710w6GXI

Turns out this guy's parent's $500k home is not being foreclosed and he's yet another trust fund baby / weekend revolutionist.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/09/26/video-liberal-protestor-chokes-on-silver-spoon/

Bottom line is that in 20 years when most of these dudes grow up they will become everything they are allegedly fighting against now. The same way the hippies of the 60 and 70s are who run capitalist America today.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
105,937
20,885
136
1) Citizens United was about free speech and the court ruled on the side of The Constitution. The government simply cannot tell me I cannot air or print material about election candidates. You lost me right there as this means you don't hold or believe in our Constitution or free speech.
Citizens United allowed your airing or printing of speech to be kept secret, amidst a murky torrent of shell companies with empty offices.

It's a speech-laundering decision, and it has nothing to do with the Constitution.

You have every right to say what you want--those who are supposed to listen have every right to know who is paying you to say that. Citizens United denies that right.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,299
1,230
136
Most of the people I know who are involved with Occupy are not rich but far from it. Please inform me how how having a rich person support OWS negates what everyone else involved is doing and saying.
It's what they're saying that's ridiculous. Most are saying the same nonsense as this guy. What he said is pretty fucking stupid and ridiculous. What he *is* only made it funnier.

Most OWS protesters are saying the same things as that guy.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Citizens United allowed your airing or printing of speech to be kept secret, amidst a murky torrent of shell companies with empty offices.

It's a speech-laundering decision, and it has nothing to do with the Constitution.

You have every right to say what you want--those who are supposed to listen have every right to know who is paying you to say that. Citizens United denies that right.
Negative. The FEC banned them from running ads for their documentary or even showing it, it had nothing to do with transparency. That's why they sued because that is HIGHLY unconstitutional.
 

artvscommerce

Golden Member
Jul 27, 2010
1,143
17
81
Bottom line is that in 20 years when most of these dudes grow up they will become everything they are allegedly fighting against now. The same way the hippies of the 60 and 70s are who run capitalist America today.
It's like they say, if you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.
 

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
Good ole Spidey07. I've read enough of your highly partisan/ideologue posts in P&N. Please don't cloud this thread with your usual rhetoric. This is a thread about pragmatism.

1) In Citizens United vs Federal Elections committee, the USSC ruled that the 1st amendment protects corporate and union funding of election campaigns. inherent in that ruling is the Corporation is a person fiction (funny how they are people when it comes to their "rights" but not their accountability). The decision struck down the best parts of the McCain-Feingold act, and thereby effectively disenfranchised the voting populace / bypassed democracy and literally put congressional seats up for sale to the highest bidder from the affluent. The unions benefitted from this ruling as well, though they do not have quite the warchests or clout of the investment banks and multinationals.

The constitution was put in place to protect the common man and ensure his voice counted by giving him the right to vote. The Buckley v Valeo decision and later Citizens United decisions make an absolute mockery of democracy.

4) I do not have any problem with an individuals right to PETITION government. I also don't have a real problem with companies or organizations doing it. However, petition does not mean right to purchase, and that's exactly what's going on these days. Also, petition does not mean author legislation either. And on that account, I collectively blame our politicians, who are not only in the back pockets of their campaign fianncers, but are also, by and large, too lazy to even read the bills they are handed before they do so on the floor. That's a a breach of the fidicuiary duty of the office on 2 levels.

Now, run along to your tea party rally and leave the real issues to the grownups, Spidey.
 
Last edited:

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,299
1,230
136
A lot of the OWS guys are full of shit in some way or the other. Like this sob story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZZ710w6GXI

Turns out this guy's parent's $500k home is not being foreclosed and he's yet another trust fund baby / weekend revolutionist.

http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2011/09/26/video-liberal-protestor-chokes-on-silver-spoon/

Bottom line is that in 20 years when most of these dudes grow up they will become everything they are allegedly fighting against now. The same way the hippies of the 60 and 70s are who run capitalist America today.
Wow. Another one?!

Apparently, the media is just a tool to these theatrical bullshitters.
 

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
It's like they say, if you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.
yay empty platitudes. boo critical thinking and real understanding. Welcome to modern amuhr'ika.
 
Last edited:

TheAdvocate

Platinum Member
Mar 7, 2005
2,561
7
81
* looks at thread title

Where did you get THAT idea?
It's my intent to redirect the thread from the typical rhetorical bashing and selective sniping and engage in real pragramtic discussion. I know that concept will be vigrously opposed by some.

The thing that kills me is that most of the people who fight against this are rooting against their own self interests. I'm not student of sociology, but the concept is both fascinating and frightening in its pervasiveness.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
It's my intent to redirect the thread from the typical rhetorical bashing and selective sniping and engage in real pragramtic discussion. I know that concept will be vigrously opposed by some.

The thing that kills me is that most of the people who fight against this are rooting against their own self interests. I'm not student of sociology, but the concept is both fascinating and frightening in its pervasiveness.
How do you figure? Most of the signs and things I see are all along the lines of "life isn't fair, forgive my debt, banks R bad". Well guess who they want to pay for all of their "free" stuff? Me. So damn straight I'm going to fight against it, it's in my best interests to do so. You're "pragmatism" sound exactly like the spittle that comes out of Michael Moore's mouth. It's very far left/socialist talking points. That would be TERRIBLE for our country to go down that path.

It is nice to see proven that this is a far left fringe "movement". You can tell by the points people that support them espouse.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY