Conquer Club

Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose? (OWS vs. Nativity)

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

O.W.S.

 
Total votes : 0

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby Baron Von PWN on Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:43 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:While I am skeptical to their effectiveness, I am somewhat supportive of their general message. Which is a sort-off generalized disenchantment from our economic system. Is it really reasonable that 1% of society take in nearly a quarter of its wages? Does it seem right that the top 10% of earners have seen their wages increase dramatically while the rest's wages have remained stagnant? This is despite the significant economic growth in the past few decades, when is the wealth going to trickle down? So far it seems to mostly be vacuumed up.


Be careful with using statistical categories and median incomes to describe reality.

Even individuals within the 10% lose vast amounts of money during an economic downturn, while those below the 10% can earn more. It works both ways, but the statistical categories don't capture individual mobility.


Regarding averages, think of them this way: "Nearly all humans on average have one testicle."

Median income has been decreasing for males since the 1970s (or maybe 1960s), but for women, it's been on the rise. So again, the median of all incomes fails to describe what's going.

Besides, median income is just average income, which doesn't calculate purchasing power as measured in labor-hours.


I wasn't talking about a statistical median, but rather the top 1% of income earners. Image

What does it matter if PP as measured in labor-hours has improved? How does it excuse the top pocketing increasing amounts from the bottom? The stop are still siphoning off the lionshare of the wealth while evryone elses is expected to make do with the same amounts as before.

As for the women, going from zero to something is great, but all that is going on is they are playing catch up to the men (in terms of wages). That they were getting a raw deal before and are getting a slightly better deal now, doesn't mean its a good deal.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Baron Von PWN
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Capital region ,Canada

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby Night Strike on Sat Oct 22, 2011 3:44 pm

Image
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:24 pm

Image
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby Baron Von PWN on Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:46 pm

Phatscotty wrote:Image


Because he has no chance of winning?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Baron Von PWN
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Capital region ,Canada

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby Baron Von PWN on Sat Oct 22, 2011 5:46 pm

Phatscotty wrote:Image


Because he has no chance of winning?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Baron Von PWN
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Capital region ,Canada

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Oct 22, 2011 6:31 pm

Baron Von PWN wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Image


Because he has no chance of winning?


They do not support Ron Paul because it's not in their corrupted special interests.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:11 pm

Image
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street vs Tea Party

Postby notyou2 on Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:23 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
AndyDufresne wrote:
Night Strike wrote:I have nothing wrong against the color red. I do have something against using the government to take money from one group and give it to another group (while taking their own large skim off the top), especially when the latter doesn't want to actually work to do earn that money.


Image

I'd like to start bringing in the National Guard to stamp-out the poor and the lazies and hippies and hoodlums and the immigrants who don't want to work, and just want to ride the coat tails of the Job Creators.


--Andy


Look! It's a fatcat with a sign! GET HIM!


He looks more like a tax lawyer client to me.
Image
User avatar
Captain notyou2
 
Posts: 6447
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 10:09 am
Location: In the here and now

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby Symmetry on Sat Oct 22, 2011 11:59 pm

I liked Lemony Snicket's points:

Thirteen Observations made by Lemony Snicket while watching Occupy Wall Street from a Discreet Distance

1. If you work hard, and become successful, it does not necessarily mean you are successful because you worked hard, just as if you are tall with long hair it doesn’t mean you would be a midget if you were bald.

2. “Fortune” is a word for having a lot of money and for having a lot of luck, but that does not mean the word has two definitions.

3. Money is like a child—rarely unaccompanied. When it disappears, look to those who were supposed to be keeping an eye on it while you were at the grocery store. You might also look for someone who has a lot of extra children sitting around, with long, suspicious explanations for how they got there.

4. People who say money doesn’t matter are like people who say cake doesn’t matter—it’s probably because they’ve already had a few slices.

5. There may not be a reason to share your cake. It is, after all, yours. You probably baked it yourself, in an oven of your own construction with ingredients you harvested yourself. It may be possible to keep your entire cake while explaining to any nearby hungry people just how reasonable you are.

6. Nobody wants to fall into a safety net, because it means the structure in which they’ve been living is in a state of collapse and they have no choice but to tumble downwards. However, it beats the alternative.

7. Someone feeling wronged is like someone feeling thirsty. Don’t tell them they aren’t. Sit with them and have a drink.

8. Don’t ask yourself if something is fair. Ask someone else—a stranger in the street, for example.

9. People gathering in the streets feeling wronged tend to be loud, as it is difficult to make oneself heard on the other side of an impressive edifice.

10. It is not always the job of people shouting outside impressive buildings to solve problems. It is often the job of the people inside, who have paper, pens, desks, and an impressive view.

11. Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending.

12. If you have a large crowd shouting outside your building, there might not be room for a safety net if you’re the one tumbling down when it collapses.

13. 99 percent is a very large percentage. For instance, easily 99 percent of people want a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and the occasional slice of cake for dessert. Surely an arrangement can be made with that niggling 1 percent who disagree.


LINKY LINKY
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby natty dread on Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:36 am

Phatscotty wrote:Image


EWWWWWWWWWWW comic sans
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class natty dread
 
Posts: 12877
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:58 pm
Location: just plain fucked

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby patrickaa317 on Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:57 am

Phatscotty wrote:Image


Best cartoon I've seen in a while.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sun Oct 23, 2011 3:09 pm

Baron Von PWN wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:While I am skeptical to their effectiveness, I am somewhat supportive of their general message. Which is a sort-off generalized disenchantment from our economic system. Is it really reasonable that 1% of society take in nearly a quarter of its wages? Does it seem right that the top 10% of earners have seen their wages increase dramatically while the rest's wages have remained stagnant? This is despite the significant economic growth in the past few decades, when is the wealth going to trickle down? So far it seems to mostly be vacuumed up.


Be careful with using statistical categories and median incomes to describe reality.

Even individuals within the 10% lose vast amounts of money during an economic downturn, while those below the 10% can earn more. It works both ways, but the statistical categories don't capture individual mobility.


Regarding averages, think of them this way: "Nearly all humans on average have one testicle."

Median income has been decreasing for males since the 1970s (or maybe 1960s), but for women, it's been on the rise. So again, the median of all incomes fails to describe what's going.

Besides, median income is just average income, which doesn't calculate purchasing power as measured in labor-hours.


I wasn't talking about a statistical median, but rather the top 1% of income earners. Image

What does it matter if PP as measured in labor-hours has improved? How does it excuse the top pocketing increasing amounts from the bottom? The stop are still siphoning off the lionshare of the wealth while evryone elses is expected to make do with the same amounts as before.

As for the women, going from zero to something is great, but all that is going on is they are playing catch up to the men (in terms of wages). That they were getting a raw deal before and are getting a slightly better deal now, doesn't mean its a good deal.


You're still focusing on these statistical brackets, yet you're overlooking the mobility of individuals between them. If we lived in a country like Nicaragua circa 1970s, then the huge disparity in wealth between the 1% and the 99% would be a problem. It simply isn't in the US--as much as it's perceived to be a problem.

The problem lies elsewhere--beyond this end result of wealth accumulation. People aren't holding politicians responsible for these unintended consequences (like the housing bubble), but what's funny is that many uninformed people ignorantly shouted that it's unfair that poor people don't own homes. Whatever that rhetoric entails, it can't be denied that many nonpolitical actors were at fault--as are many of the politicians.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby Phatscotty on Sun Oct 23, 2011 3:20 pm

Another large part of the problem lies in the president and the media shouting from every rooftop on a continuous loop that the disparity is an emergency problem, mobility be damned. Another way they do the same thing over and over again, is like how they say a Plumber pays more taxes than a millionaire.

Plumber pays about 10-20,000 in taxes per year
Millionaire pays about 250-4000,000 per year

Oh of course they are talking about the RATE right? Why would they even bother with the rate when the millionaire pays 80,000% more than the plumber? Because they know most people can't think for themselves, and most of those just take what they are given and run with it. (This isn't about you Baron, as you have proved your worth time and time again.) It's about the large majority, and yes it goes for both sides.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby Aradhus on Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:30 am

Hehe

Some Scottish twat tried to stage his own occupy protest, and he got mugged for his troubles.

news article

:mrgreen:
User avatar
Major Aradhus
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:14 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby Baron Von PWN on Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:48 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:While I am skeptical to their effectiveness, I am somewhat supportive of their general message. Which is a sort-off generalized disenchantment from our economic system. Is it really reasonable that 1% of society take in nearly a quarter of its wages? Does it seem right that the top 10% of earners have seen their wages increase dramatically while the rest's wages have remained stagnant? This is despite the significant economic growth in the past few decades, when is the wealth going to trickle down? So far it seems to mostly be vacuumed up.


Be careful with using statistical categories and median incomes to describe reality.

Even individuals within the 10% lose vast amounts of money during an economic downturn, while those below the 10% can earn more. It works both ways, but the statistical categories don't capture individual mobility.


Regarding averages, think of them this way: "Nearly all humans on average have one testicle."

Median income has been decreasing for males since the 1970s (or maybe 1960s), but for women, it's been on the rise. So again, the median of all incomes fails to describe what's going.

Besides, median income is just average income, which doesn't calculate purchasing power as measured in labor-hours.


I wasn't talking about a statistical median, but rather the top 1% of income earners. Image

What does it matter if PP as measured in labor-hours has improved? How does it excuse the top pocketing increasing amounts from the bottom? The stop are still siphoning off the lionshare of the wealth while evryone elses is expected to make do with the same amounts as before.

As for the women, going from zero to something is great, but all that is going on is they are playing catch up to the men (in terms of wages). That they were getting a raw deal before and are getting a slightly better deal now, doesn't mean its a good deal.


You're still focusing on these statistical brackets, yet you're overlooking the mobility of individuals between them. If we lived in a country like Nicaragua circa 1970s, then the huge disparity in wealth between the 1% and the 99% would be a problem. It simply isn't in the US--as much as it's perceived to be a problem.

The problem lies elsewhere--beyond this end result of wealth accumulation. People aren't holding politicians responsible for these unintended consequences (like the housing bubble), but what's funny is that many uninformed people ignorantly shouted that it's unfair that poor people don't own homes. Whatever that rhetoric entails, it can't be denied that many nonpolitical actors were at fault--as are many of the politicians.

I'm not sure why mobility should matter. So people can move between groups, it doesn't change the enormous disparity, it doesn't somehow make "ok" that the top get a 170% raise while the bottom get 9%. They were already the top income earners and yet they receive the largest growth of income.

but lets talk about mobility anyways. People rarely make it to the top, and even more rarely do they fall out . Everyone in the middle just play musical chairs shuffling around sometimes moving towards the top sometimes towards the bottom. The bottom have a ladder with only half the rungs, sometimes they're distributed in a manner that allows them to climb out, more often than not they aren't or the ladder simply falls apart on the way up.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Baron Von PWN
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Capital region ,Canada

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:02 pm

Mobility matters because it highlights the fact that people move across the categories.

Focusing on only the categories and the disparity rates tends to fix individuals within these categories. I agree that it is problematic if people can't move across the brackets, but that isn't the case, so I find the concern over disparity rates to be mistaken. Fixating on only the income categories also overlooks the long-term, gradual movement away from poverty.

Instead of going over books trying to pinpoint the exact data from which I'm making these claims, I found and viewed this 3-minute video by Steven Horwitz who emphasizes my points and makes additional ones in a clearer and more concise manner http://www.learnliberty.org/content/are-poor-getting-poorer.

(Additionally, there's guys like Thomas Sowell and his Intellectuals and Society, in which he aggregates other data which concludes similarly to Horwitz's. The "Learn More" section in the video provides more concrete evidence if you're interesting in learning more.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Occupy Wall Street vs Tea Party

Postby jay_a2j on Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:45 pm

Night Strike wrote:Hard to come to an agreement with people who want to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism.




QFT
THE DEBATE IS OVER...
PLAYER57832 wrote:Too many of those who claim they don't believe global warming are really "end-timer" Christians.

JESUS SAVES!!!
User avatar
Lieutenant jay_a2j
 
Posts: 4293
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:22 am
Location: In the center of the R3VOJUTION!

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby Lootifer on Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:00 pm

Again, BBS, it's only one small piece of the puzzle: [quotes]

- Two thirds of those who were children in 1968 reported more income than their parents, but only half of them exceeded their parents economic standing by moving up one or more quintiles. Although one third of the nation is moving up quintiles, another third is downwardly mobile — experiencing a decrease in income and economic standing compared to their parents.
- 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile compared to 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile
- Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%
- By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income
countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:16 pm

Lootifer wrote:Again, BBS, it's only one small piece of the puzzle: [quotes]

- Two thirds of those who were children in 1968 reported more income than their parents, but only half of them exceeded their parents economic standing by moving up one or more quintiles. Although one third of the nation is moving up quintiles, another third is downwardly mobile — experiencing a decrease in income and economic standing compared to their parents.
- 42% of children born in the bottom quintile are most likely to stay there, and another 42% move up to the second and middle quintile compared to 39% of those who were born into the top quintile as children in 1968 are likely to stay there, and 23% end up in the fourth quintile
- Children previously from lower-income families had only a 1% chance of having an income that ranks in the top 5%. On the other hand, the children of wealthy families have a 22% chance of reaching the top 5%
- By international standards, the United States has an unusually low level of intergenerational mobility: our parents’ income is highly predictive of our incomes as adults. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is lower than in France, Germany, Sweden, Canada, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Among high-income
countries for which comparable estimates are available, only the United Kingdom had a lower rate of mobility than the United States.


Looks delicious; where's the sauce?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby Lootifer on Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:20 pm

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/ ... ations.pdf

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... alysis.pdf

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/ ... Report.pdf

Bear in mind im a google researcher. Sorry if these aren't reputable, but after all, this is an internet argument, srs bznz.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

Re: Occupy Wall Street vs Tea Party

Postby radiojake on Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:22 pm

jay_a2j wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Hard to come to an agreement with people who want to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism.




QFT


Just so you know, not everyone who wants to change the structural flaws of capitalism wants to revert to socialism -
-- share what ya got --
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class radiojake
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:29 pm
Location: Adelaidian living in Melbourne

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby spurgistan on Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:25 pm

Dude, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. Have you learned nothing?
Mr_Adams wrote:You, sir, are an idiot.


Timminz wrote:By that logic, you eat babies.
Sergeant spurgistan
 
Posts: 1868
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:30 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street vs Tea Party

Postby Night Strike on Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:09 pm

radiojake wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Hard to come to an agreement with people who want to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism.




QFT


Just so you know, not everyone who wants to change the structural flaws of capitalism wants to revert to socialism -


Except the vast majority of the current structural flaws of capitalism are directly due to an ever-expanding government.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose?

Postby Night Strike on Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:14 pm

I thought the Tea Partiers were astroturf while the Occupiers were grassroots. Looks like that couldn't be further from the truth (not that anyone is really that surprised).

The former New York office for ACORN, the disbanded community activist group, is playing a key role in the self-proclaimed “leaderless” Occupy Wall Street movement, organizing “guerrilla” protest events and hiring door-to-door canvassers to collect money under the banner of various causes while spending it on protest-related activities, sources tell FoxNews.com.

The former director of New York ACORN, Jon Kest, and his top aides are now busy working at protest events for New York Communities for Change (NYCC). That organization was created in late 2009 when some ACORN offices disbanded and reorganized under new names after undercover video exposes prompted Congress to cut off federal funds.

NYCC’s connection to ACORN isn’t a tenuous one: It works from the former ACORN offices in Brooklyn, uses old ACORN office stationery, employs much of the old ACORN staff and, according to several sources, engages in some of the old organization’s controversial techniques to raise money, interest and awareness for the protests.

Sources said NYCC has hired about 100 former ACORN-affiliated staff members from other cities – paying some of them $100 a day - to attend and support Occupy Wall Street. Dozens of New York homeless people recruited from shelters are also being paid to support the protests, at the rate of $10 an hour, the sources said.

At least some of those hired are being used as door-to-door canvassers to collect money that’s used to support the protests.

Sources said cash donations collected by NYCC on behalf of some unions and various causes are being pooled and spent on Occupy Wall Street. The money is used to buy supplies, pay staff and cover travel expenses for the ex-ACORN members brought to New York for the protests.

In one such case, sources said, NYCC staff members collected cash donations for what they were told was a United Federation of Teachers fundraising drive, but the money was diverted to the protests.

Sources who participated in the teachers union campaign said NYCC supervisors gave them the addresses of union members and told them to go knock on their doors and ask for contributions—and did not mention that the money would go toward Occupy Wall Street expenses. One source said the campaign raked in about $5,000.

Current staff members at NYCC told FoxNews.com the union fundraising drive was called off abruptly last week, and they were told NYCC should not have been raising money for the union at all.

Sources said staff members also collected door-to-door for NYCC’s PCB campaign — which aims to test schools for deadly toxins —but then pooled that money together with cash raised for the teachers union and other campaigns to fund Occupy Wall Street.

“We go to Freeport, Central Islip, Park Slope, everywhere, and we say we’re collecting money for PCBs testing in schools. But the money isn’t going to the campaign," one source said.

"It’s going to Occupy Wall Street, and we’re not using that money to get schools tested for deadly chemicals or to make their kids safer. It’s just going to the protests, and that’s just so terrible.”

A spokesman for the United Federation of Teachers told FoxNews.com, "The UFT is not involved in any NYCC fundraising on the PCB issue.”

Multiple sources said NYCC is also using cash donations through canvassing efforts in New York’s Harlem and Washington Heights neighborhoods for union-backed campaigns to fund the Wall Street protests.

“All the money collected from canvasses is pooled together back at the office, and everything we’ve been working on for the last year is going to the protests, against big banks and to pay people’s salaries—and those people on salary are, of course, being paid to go to the protests every day,” one NYCC staff member told FoxNews.com.

Those who contribute don't know the money is going to fund the protests, the source said.

“They give contributions because we say if they do we can fix things - whatever specific problem they’re having in their area, housing, schools, whatever ... then we spend the contributions paying staff to be at the protests all day, every day. That’s where these contributions - the community’s money – is going,” the source said.

“They’re doing the same stuff now that got ACORN in trouble to begin with. And yes, we’re still ACORN, there is a still a national ACORN.”

Another source, who said she was hired from a homeless shelter, said she was first sent to the protests before being deployed to Central Islip, Long Island, to canvass for a campaign against home foreclosures.

“I went to the protests every day for two weeks and made $10 an hour. They made me carry NYCC signs and big orange banners that say NYCC in white letters. About 50 others were hired around my time to go to the protests. We went to protests in and around Zuccotti Park, then to the big Times Square protest,” she said.

“But now they have me canvassing on Long Island for money, so I get the money and then the money is being used for Occupy Wall Street—to pay for all of it, for supplies, food, transportation, salaries, for everything ... all that money is going to pay for the protests downtown and that’s just messed up. It’s just wrong.”

Neither Kest, NYCC executive director, nor his communications director returned repeated email and telephone requests for comment, nor did his communications director. A Fox News producer who visited the Brooklyn office on Tuesday was told, "The best people to speak to who are involved with Occupy Wall Street aren't available."

In a phone interview on Tuesday, Harrison Schultz, an Occupy Wall Street spokesman, said he knew nothing about NYCC’s involvement in the Occupy movement.
“Haven’t seen them, couldn’t tell you,” he said.

He said he couldn’t comment on the Occupy the Boardroom website’s relationship to the movement and to NYCC.

“It’s a horizontal organization, a leaderless organization, it’s difficult to explain it,” Schultz said, “difficult to explain it to people who haven’t worked in this, who haven’t been part of it.”

Kest publicly threw his organization’s support behind the movement in a Sept. 30 opinion piece on HuffingtonPost.com. But top ex-ACORN staff members and current NYCC officials have been planning events like the Occupy Wall Street protests since February, a source within the group told FoxNews.com.

That’s when planning began for May 12 protests against Chase bank foreclosures, which were followed by the formation of the Beyond May 12 campaign, targeting Wall Street and big banks. That campaign was rolled out by a coalition of community groups and unions and led by the revamped former ACORN group.

“What people don’t understand is that ACORN is behind this — and that this, what’s happening now, is all part of the May 12 and Beyond May 12 plans to go after the banks, Chase in particular,” a source said.

Sources said NYCC was a key player behind a series of recent Occupy Wall Street events, including the Oct. 11 Millionaires March, which brought protests and union and community groups on walking tours of Upper East Side homes of wealthy New Yorkers; and the launch of the “Occupy the Boardroom” website, registered to Kest, which encouraged protesters to contact high-profile bankers, among others.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/26/exclusive-acorn-playing-behind-scenes-role-in-occupy-movement/#ixzz1bvdMN7mb
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Occupy Wall Street vs Tea Party

Postby Lootifer on Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:28 pm

Night Strike wrote:
radiojake wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
Night Strike wrote:Hard to come to an agreement with people who want to destroy capitalism and replace it with socialism.




QFT


Just so you know, not everyone who wants to change the structural flaws of capitalism wants to revert to socialism -


Except the vast majority of the current structural flaws of capitalism are directly due to an ever-expanding government.

I don't think we've actually observed the structural flaws of capitalism outside of specific case studies. The flaws you speak of have nothing to do with the change in size of the government; but everything to do with the government making poor decisions.

Along with your free market, a smart government could also have prevented these "flaws" or mistakes.
User avatar
Lieutenant Lootifer
 
Posts: 1084
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:30 pm
Location: Competing

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users