FAKE: Occupy Wallstreet is bought by Gates,Soros,Rockefeller and others for $3.6m

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


You're welcome. I call 'em like I see 'em, and that rarely wins any popularity contests. I'd rather have an opponent I can respect than one I can't. Where's the challenge in THAT?

It might interest you to know that I got involved in a series of conversations here at ATS with an avowed communist called AdAbsurdum, and we reached a consensus as to how both his philosophy and mine could coexist within the same nation. How's that for the lion lying down with the lamb? the end result was a tentative theory. It's rough around the edges, but with some tweaks could, I believe, be made workable. If you're interested, the resulting thread is here:

First Look at Unifying Theory

It may or may not interest you, but it allows for a fairly wide spectrum of political systems within the same over polity.

As far as the trigger lock goes, that's not quite the same thing as a safety mechanism, but I suppose it is "a" safety mechanism. They passed that law here, and I routinely ignore it. A locked gun is of no use to me. I lock the weapons I leave at home up when I go out, but that's mostly for looks. I pull the bolts out, too, and keep them with me. That's the REAL insurance against misuse. I've ignored the trigger lock laws when I'm at home ever since I had a guy break in my back door one night, and I had to fumble the lock off of a shotgun in the dark.

Like I said, a locked gun is of no use when one needs a functional gun, and needs it RIGHT NOW.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


I wish you knew what you were talking about. All of the psycho conservatives make wild stories about this movement.

How many of you even know where the movement started?
Pop quiz. Without looking, where did this movement start?

reply to post by muzzleflash


OWS doesn't want more government..
OWS is a small part of Occupy btw.

The movement wasn't started as OWS that was just the first placed occupied in the US.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


My mind is just constantly blown by the people against OWS.

You guys think Soros bought and paid for Obama, now you think he is paying for a protest DURING the Obama campaign. Protests in the street does not look good for Obama, not matter how he tries to spin it. It means he didn't do his job. It would have been more effective to start the protests if he was taken out of office.

You guys are seriously insane. You have been reading too many conspiracy theories.
The world doesn't work how you think. Not every move is a shadow move.

lmfao at the irony.. ows pawned by the very people they're protesting against.

sad thing is the poor deluded buggers at ows will ignore having been pawned and continue to play wannabe revolutionaries..

reply to post by Expat888


Except OP is a hoax that hasn't been hoax binned yet.
All of you that know nothing about the movement yet have so many unfounded complaints are truly the deluded ones.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
Oh, okay. The women living in shacks under armed guard in the Phillipines, signed into eternal debt by factory owners who charge the workers for the string they use isn't slavery because they weren't outright bought? Okay. Exploitation in slave-like conditions. Better?

I'm not familiar with that particular situation enough to comment much on it other than to say that if they are being held against their will, and being forced to work, then yes it's "slave labor". We have no business enforcing Phillipino law, though. If, as you imply, it's American companies doing this, then the company executives should be charged here, under our laws, as an American company. The "theft" involved is the theft of their liberty to leave that situation, but I believe charges of slave trading or the modern equivalent of "human trafficking" would be more appropriate and effective.

I have a friend who is half Phillipino, and neither he, nor his mother (who still lives there) nor anyone else in that family have ever mentioned this to me. i can tell you they've no love for the Japanese, though.

Company A fights for and wins legislation that loosens the restrictions set under the EPA. They can now discharge more toxic effluent into the local water supply. This lowers the quality of that water, possibly to dangerous levels. They make money, essentially, by damaging our property. Theft. There's a phrase for this, "Privatizing the profits, socializing the cost." Basically they get dinner and we get the bill.

Not a convincing argument for theft. Pollution, property damage , yes. theft, no. I can think of no way to even stretch that situation into a theft. The burden of restitution for damages and cleanup would be on the offending company, as their responsibility.

Directly impact the funding of public projects. it removes money from the treasury - not just at a federal level, but all the way down to the municipal level as well. it has the net effect of taking money out of our collective pocket in the same way deregulation does - if your school can no longer supply current textbooks because Corporateco Inc needed that big ol' tax break, well, your community is being robbed. Especially given that these tax breaks come as a result of intensive lobbying from the very people receiving them. It's essentially voting money out of the treasury for themselves.

Nope, not seeing theft there, either. There was nothing there to begin with to be stolen. I'm not in favor of tax breaks on anyone at all unless everyone gets the same breaks, but it's not theft. Nothing is stolen.

...
Now. if I were to make YOU poorer, simply to enrich myself... what do you call that? Moreso if I'm doing just fine financially. Or if my action actually brings you to financial ruin?

I'd call that foolishness on my part for relying that heavily on your income. It's not theft - you haven't stolen anything that was mine by removing a job that was yours to begin with.

Oddly, perhaps, I was caught in one of those "mass layoffs" several years ago, due to the company having to "downsize" to remain within the regulatory guidelines for a small business, when the federal government arbitrarily changed the regulations involved. Nothing was stolen from me, nor was the company failing due to overhead costs. Business was booming.

I would add the acceptance of bailout money for private institutions from public coffers is theft as well, as far as I'm concerned. There's no such thing as "too big to fail", and it doesn't matter if Bush says there is, or if it's Obama saying it. Both are dead wrong.

We have no argument there. One thing though, I would allow subsidies for developing industries. But established ones... well, if Big Oil still needs government payouts, a hundred and fifty years on? Something's wrong there.

Absolutely. Once it's able to breath on it's own, no further life support for that company is warranted. I'm not willing to go quite so far as subsidies, but a loan program seems doable - but only for startups. I wouildn't give even loans from public funds to established companies. next time, after a failure, maybe they'll tweak their business model and get it right.

if we each existed in a total vacuum, each man a total island unto himself, with absolutely nothing between... Maybe so. But we don't live in an Ayn Rand dystopia (yet) - we live in a civilized nation, a society organized by democratic means, with the understood ideal that people should not be starving in the streets while others die of overeating. Maybe some posters here favor the dystopia, but American voters tend not to.

It's a far cry between not getting what you consider to be your share of "stuff" and starvation. I see no reason to allow government to interfere in what people can do. That only fosters a dependence on government, which is one of the roots of the problems we are seeing now. Too much dependence on government to look out for folks, and not enough of folks looking out for themselves. "Why worry about loans? They've got laws to protect people from abusive lenders, right?" So America maxed out all they could, without thought to the potential consequences.

Taking from you to give to me is theft. What you give of your own accord is not, but by stealing what you have to give to others, government also robs you of the ability to help where you see help is needed - again relying on government to decide for youwhere your help is needed. Government doesn't always make the best decisions in that arena. Government decided, for example, that your help was needed to bail out Wall Street and insure that those CEOs got their "golden parachutes", now didn't they?

Personally, I'm acquainted with some folks in my neighborhood who would have appreciated me giving my part of that bailout to them than they appreciated the government giving it to GM. I don't know how things are in your neighborhood. maybe everyone is OK there, and I sincerely hope they are. I still help when I can here, but my ability to help has been diminished by the government's insistence on "helping" elsewhere, with my money. I'm not talking the United Way here - I'm talking about the neighbor who needs formula for the baby, I'm talking about the homelss vet living in a shelter who sweeps the barber shop floor on the next block over to get a pack of cigarettes because his VA pension from a Desert Storm head wound that left him not quite able to fend for himself just don't stretch far enough, and that sort of thing.

There's a lot of help needed on my main street, and they're stealing from us to give to someone else.

One theft does not justify another. Just because I get robbed by the guy at one end if the block it doesn't automatically follow that I will be OK with getting robbed by the guy at the other end of the block, too.

When you try to equivocate the two, you just end up making a liar of yourself.

Did you mean "equate"? I'm not seeing any equivocation there. It seems a fairly decisive statement to me.

reply to post by nenothtu


I owe you an apology for the vehemence of that post. It's embarrassing to lack the restraint to reign in one's own tongue. A friend once told me ... "Only an idiot calls someone else an idiot" ... I should probably have that tattooed somewhere as a reminder : / My apologies for my rudeness.

And my thx to undo for saying something to me.


As for refuting your statements regarding motives.. I'd offer my own. And others I know who feel like me. Money and material thing have never motivated me.. nor need for power. What's pissed a lot of people off and what motivates them are the lies... and corruption. A society where government no longer represents it's people... or the corporations that control those politicians thru special interest lobbyists and flat out bribery or a judicial system that is looked on as corrupt as the others... doesn't bode well for our future.

An end to the deceptions is what motivates me. An end to the lies. Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining... I get angry. it motivates me. There are more people who feel that way than perhaps you're aware of.
Seems pretty altruistic to me as well.

Yes there are unsavory things about OWS,... there are also good things.. And not everyone there is motivated by selfish reasons.

Slainte

Originally posted by Resinveins
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I owe you an apology for the vehemence of that post. It's embarrassing to lack the restraint to reign in one's own tongue. A friend once told me ... "Only an idiot calls someone else an idiot" ... I should probably have that tattooed somewhere as a reminder : / My apologies for my rudeness.

And my thx to undo for saying something to me.

Apology accepted, and any offense taken forgotten. We all have bad days when something gets under our skin for one reason or another, me probably more than most. I'm a grouchy old fart. It passes.

As for refuting your statements regarding motives.. I'd offer my own. And others I know who feel like me. Money and material thing have never motivated me.. nor need for power. What's pissed a lot of people off and what motivates them are the lies... and corruption. A society where government no longer represents it's people... or the corporations that control those politicians thru special interest lobbyists and flat out bribery or a judicial system that is looked on as corrupt as the others... doesn't bode well for our future.

An end to the deceptions is what motivates me. An end to the lies. Don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining... I get angry. it motivates me. There are more people who feel that way than perhaps you're aware of.
Seems pretty altruistic to me as well.

Yes there are unsavory things about OWS,... there are also good things.. And not everyone there is motivated by selfish reasons.

Those are your own personal motivations, and I accept that. It's not my place to tell you what moves you, for you know that better than I. I was speaking of the movement in general, and basing that opinion off of the list of gripes. Your own motivation is not purely altruistic, either, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. You will share in whatever gains you win for the rest, so you do have a personal stake in the matter, as do we all, whichever end we approach it from, and however we grasp the horns.

Greed? I'd say in your case, no. Not for remuneration or "stuff", at any rate. For others, it's not so clear cut. I see others threatening war, death, and destruction, all so they can get what they consider their share of the pie - and that would not be necessary unless they believe that someone else has what's theirs.

I personally don't care who has what. All I want is to be left alone in peace, me and mine. I don't care if your rich, and I don't care if you're poor. Folks treat me right, I return it, and if they don't, I return that as well. Makes no difference to me at all what they have or have not. If they're in need and I can help, I do. I don't make any distinction in my treatment of the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless. Those distinctions don't mean much to me. What does mean something is how they treat their neighbors.

If those people will kill Clyde and take off HIS head to get what he's got, how long will it be before it's my turn at their guillotine? How long before they decide that I have somehow wound up with their "birthright"? Or my son, or daughter, or mother?

I'm just not a big fan of dragging other folks down to my level so that we are all the "same". I prefer to just take them as they are, and take umbrage if they won't reciprocate. Of course, that's easy for me to say - I've got nothing they want anyhow!

Slainte

Ah. I see you're Irish then. That explains a lot. I took a lot of whippings at the hands of my ma over stuff that I could never really figure out what it was she was mad about. I always just chalked it up to her red hair.

Slainte!

for all its efforts to do good, socialism in the usa, has basically turned the country from a prosperous, self-employed, mom and pop, charitable and peaceful group of people, into a swarming mass of misery on the edge of perpetual violence, and it did so by beating every drum that would help usher it in.

reply to post by nenothtu


The Unifying Theory I was on board with until I read the part of trimming and clipping Govt. That can't be sustainable.

I guess the whole world is now being payed to protest

You need to stop reading the obvious psy ops going on at other low brow websites. OWS is a grass roots movement voicing displeasure for the entanglement of the banking, government, and corporate entities of this country. This movement, while lacking focus, is enherently good for america. It is our duty to voice this type of displeasure.

TPTB are scared right now of the movement. This is why they alway provided false information about it, attempt to provoke them into violence, and are using any means to break up the movement. If you look close enough it is clear.

If these guys meant business and wanted to get what they wanted they would stop camping and start disrupting trade routes and supply lines. I mean this in a non harmful way, for instance, parking tractor trailers rental trucks etc on the freeways and train tracks repeatedly. Hell after traffic is stopped if you had a pickup ahead full of nails you could set those loose. Take a while to clean those up.

OWS is a big joke to me, I can't stand it but at least if they did some of the above I would respect them for being ballsy. 10,000 unemployed people protesting in 100 cities of a million or more with 10% unemployment means nothing. If you really hate the elite that much then you need to grind the system to halt at your own risk as it is probably an act of domestic terrorism.

I wouldn't do it myself nor do I encourage what I have said. I was just making a point is all.

reply to post by TheRemedial


Thats a pretty damn good idea.

reply to post by yoyoma15


Yes well to be even more effective and not cause so much problem domestically you would aim your protests at all ports. The reason being for choosing port roads to blockade is because ships take a long time to bring in and unload or load up and go. I would think this the most reasonable method considering much of what is coming in, is coming in from China for Christmas.

Disable their ability to make/receive delivery and you get attention. Probably good that they (OWS) don't have brains enough to pull off tactics that work. One could argue if the people stood up to China and foreign countries importing goods for cheap because of currency manipulations and cheap labour then the US would become forced to start producing domestically to meet demands.

Moral of the story, waving signs at people moving monies via the Internet from secure buildings does nothing to stop them from making money. Stopping trade from taking place does. Just imagine ports telling ships to wait a week or turn back because they have no room to take shipment.



***I assure you if they attempted this the national guard would be there clearing the areas within 24hrs***

reply to post by TheRemedial


Your right, it would get harry if those tactics were used. Do you have any thoughts on how to passively disrupt banking functions? Such as stock trading, mortgage payments etc. I thought the back transfer was a good idea. We need more thoughts in that direction. You can IM me if you would like.

Ahh. Saw this coming!

Great post OP.

Personally I think OWS worked/will work more for the government than against 'em.
As some have already said obviously one point is that massive protests are great opportunities for governments to take all sorts of "precautionary measures" and get police out in loads, eventually leading to the good old police state.

Another things is that OWS will come to an end, and when it does, government can easily PRETEND to respond to it, to be acknowledging the wants of the people and in the process of fulfilling them, when in actual fact it's just an easy way to put rest to these issues for a very long time. After OWS I bet there'll be loads of ignorant people feeling successful and acknowledges when in actual fact they've just given govt an excuse to pretend it'll get sorted out, and once the issue is "being sorted out", anyone denying that or continuing to fight will seem like a lunatic, whereas govt will seem like receptive true democrats listening to the needs of their people?

Crazy.
I am wondering what practical measures we're actually left with to defeat 'em after all this.
The powers that be are certainly doing a very good job of screwing us over as well as in very creative ways.
What a ploy.

"The very rich are the only ones capable of making history. History always has a for sale sign on it. Ordinary income people cannot afford to make history, and history is always up for the highest bidder. Ordinary income or economically challenged people only participate in attempts to make historical change when they are getting paid to do so, or when they are ignorant enough to get tricked into it without getting paid (tragic). They don't have the social intelligence to recognize what historical progress means or requires ($), and to organize their own protest without it being coopted by those that do satisfy the requirements for historical bidding ($).
You must assume that (not question whether) an Occupy protest was coopted before it began. (You must assume, with unqualified, imprecise, illogical thought, without reasoning!)
or You must jump to the conclusion that a protest was successfully coopted by the very rich because donations were made by the very rich...You must assume only the very rich made donations...
If a social movement happens, it is because the very rich are either making it or faking it for their own political purposes.
It woudn't be happening, if they would not be making it or faking it.
So, it is happening because the very rich did it!"

That line of reasoning makes no logical sense. It suffers from much fallacy including 'causal oversimplication,' (look it up), and circular reasoning. Very much like what I am seeing in these anti-protest posts.

If you fall into that illogical trap you prove to be self-defeating, and tragically fallacious.

Perhaps you would like the same idea for presidential elections as well, since it would be more effective, and making it illegal to buy politicians via the media funding?

Originally posted by nenothtu

It would be more effective to go door to door and one-on-one. They apparently have the numbers to reach a far wider audience,and those numbers are wasted gathering into one big crowded targetable ball, which apparently has no voice - or, as many claim, whose voice is being drowned out by the MSM.

Speaking one-on-one eliminates the middle man, and the potential to have the middle man "re-translate" what you are trying to say.

Don't complain about how the MSM reports on you when you are standing there begging them to report on you.