Occupy Rants, Flames, and NSFW

[Mardur]

Tadzi more like Tardzi amirite

[Tadzi]

Originally Posted by Mardur [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you agree the protest is pointless then. You proved my point brilliantly.

Ahh well some people don't think that the OWS's points are valid. The problem is obvious, but some people fail to acknowledge it. Thus the reason for pointing out an obvious problem.

[Tadzi]

Originally Posted by Mardur [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Tadzi more like Tardzi amirite

Funny but I perfer Badzi if we're going to make satirical versions of my name.

[Pico]

if u guys wanna know something reaaaallly scary its that im actually a teacher

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by purest [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There was a movement last year during the negotiations for the Dodd-Frank bill to break up these "too big to fail" companies, and that got 33 votes in the Senate. If there was enough popular support out there, if there was a show of force the same way there was a show of force in the Tea Party on the other side for the spending issue, then I think they might actually get something like that.

33 votes might as well be zero. Passing something to break up the banks would require a supermajority to avoid filibuster. In an actual contested vote, you'd be lucky to find 10 Senators actually willing to vote 'yes' on such a bill. In a vote that's essentially meaningless (since it will obviously go one way or the other), you get a lot of votes that kowtow to constituents. You'll get a guy to vote 'yes' to breaking up the big banks so he can turn around and tell his constituency 'hey, look -- I voted to break them up.' But if it ever came down to it, even the majority of those 33 would not vote to break up the banks.

And that's only a small portion of the battle. Even if it was passed by both houses of Congress, that kind of ruling would be taken to the courts to rule on its legality. There'd be an army of the best lawyers in the country pushing that kind of ruling back and getting it revoked.

[Aadill]

So you identify with having a defeatist attitude? Call it realist, if you'd like (to nip that statement in the bud), but this is exactly why people are protesting... the majority of the population of this country has no one looking out for them. Those that feel that they have succeeded and that "everyone else should get off their damn asses and do something," have completely misunderstood the entire movement because they are too wrapped up in caring about themselves than their fellow Americans.

Not that the protest itself is limited only to the United States. In fact, it's a pretty damn global thing.

OWS is about getting people to engage in dialogue. Not everyone is capable of coming up with a solution and not everyone is a leader. THAT is why we have a representative democracy. The only problem is that the representatives do not represent the majority of the population but instead listen to those with the money to sway their opinion. OWS wants people to be aware of that and to discuss why it is wrong.

Beyond that there are so many social issues that people feel need to be voiced which are not directly related to the OWS movement but symbolizes the need for great financial AND social reform. We're all humans... start acting like your neighbors are, too.

[Harrison]

Sorry, I have work to attend to and can't take time off from work to defecate in a park in large numbers to "send a message" that no one knows.

[Tadzi]

Originally Posted by Harrison [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry, I have work to attend to and can't take time off from work to defecate in a park in large numbers to "send a message" that no one knows.

Good news for you then, as there's lots of people doing it for you [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Aadill]

Logistics problems are for city planners, not untrained citizens. Not to claim that the city should have accommodated but just the opposite; it was a poor choice to not have anything setup in advance whether by the city or by its constituents. Even then, some areas where things were setup, porta-potties and the like were not getting emptied. Of course the media will latch onto the results of that. Frankly I want to smack anyone that thought it was a good idea to not plan for those sort of things but popular movements tend to grow out of control before anyone can get a handle on them. The one in Raleigh was recently broken up because too many supplies were being kept.

The reason so many supplies were being kept was to help keep the protesters warm and fed when there were massive fluctuations in numbers and to service the homeless that frequented the area due to a new-found accepting, albeit naive community.

[Daldolma]

Originally Posted by Aadill [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you identify with having a defeatist attitude? Call it realist, if you'd like (to nip that statement in the bud), but this is exactly why people are protesting... the majority of the population of this country has no one looking out for them. Those that feel that they have succeeded and that "everyone else should get off their damn asses and do something," have completely misunderstood the entire movement because they are too wrapped up in caring about themselves than their fellow Americans.

Not that the protest itself is limited only to the United States. In fact, it's a pretty damn global thing.

OWS is about getting people to engage in dialogue. Not everyone is capable of coming up with a solution and not everyone is a leader. THAT is why we have a representative democracy. The only problem is that the representatives do not represent the majority of the population but instead listen to those with the money to sway their opinion. OWS wants people to be aware of that and to discuss why it is wrong.

Beyond that there are so many social issues that people feel need to be voiced which are not directly related to the OWS movement but symbolizes the need for great financial AND social reform. We're all humans... start acting like your neighbors are, too.

Is that directed at me? My opinion is not defeatist in the least. Why would you presume I want the banks broken up in the first place? As far as you know, I work for Morgan Stanley.

I am speaking in purely realist terms, independent of any subjective opinion on the matter. Realistically, a break-up of the banks would require the kind of governmental-unanimity that doesn't currently exist for essentially anything, let alone something that would alienate some of the most prominent campaign donors.