Individuals cannot possibly have enough information to make that plan an effective way to get corporations to stop doing the awful things they do. Hell, most of you can't even see it when an industry is damned by the entire scientific community. And you think masses of people would/could take it a step further and boycott a low-price alternative? You're living in crazyville.

Raging against greed to the point where sleeping in a park for a month seems reasonable, yet continuing to hand money for discretionary items to the ones you hate strikes me as crazyville.

Both the Tea Party and Occupy groups are protesting. But the Tea Party planned rallies, got together, sang the National Anthem, listened to speeches and then went on home. And voted come election day. This group does not have a clear path. No real plan. They are demostrating until..... what? What will have to happen in order for them to go home and feel like they accomplished something? They set themselves up for failure because there is nothing that can happen to make them feel good enough to say "Yes, we won! We can go home now!".

"sang the national anthem" lol

Both the Tea Party and Occupy groups are protesting. But the Tea Party planned rallies, got together, sang the National Anthem, listened to speeches and then went on home. And voted come election day. This group does not have a clear path. No real plan. They are demostrating until..... what? What will have to happen in order for them to go home and feel like they accomplished something? They set themselves up for failure because there is nothing that can happen to make them feel good enough to say "Yes, we won! We can go home now!".

Do you mean that they invaded with no exit stradegy? Sounds familiar, doesn't it? :-D

Occupational goals

Occupy OKC demands change for the greater good.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-13284-occupational-goals.html

Both the Tea Party and Occupy groups are protesting. But the Tea Party planned rallies, got together, sang the National Anthem, listened to speeches and then went on home. And voted come election day. This group does not have a clear path. No real plan. They are demostrating until..... what? What will have to happen in order for them to go home and feel like they accomplished something? They set themselves up for failure because there is nothing that can happen to make them feel good enough to say "Yes, we won! We can go home now!".

So unless the participants wrap themselves in flags and sing familiar anthems, you're going to write them off as unpatriotic? Who do you think our founders would identify with more? A bunch of old farts who schedule a meeting on the capital steps, sing some songs, say a lot of non-controversial things, then go home, versus protesters who leave their comfortable lives and refuse to go home until their demands are met? Which group more resembles the founding fathers, one of which said that the tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots?

Now, I think we've evolved beyond armed rebellion at this point, but if our democratic institutions as they are are worth keeping, something has to give here.

Occupational goals

Occupy OKC demands change for the greater good.

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-13284-occupational-goals.html

I didn't see any organized educated thought in this article. NO clear demand or need. They blame the banks for trying to run a business. Most businesses don't renegotiate contracts have way through the contract. A mortgage is a contract that the homeowner signed to pay at certain rate. You can renegotiate the contract if you want, but the bank has no obligation to change the contract.

The banks were not given the money. They were loaned the money and most paid the money back with interest.

Also, they say they can't call their congressman and list the Koch Brothers as having some secret Batman phone that reaches every legislator. Obviously they have never attended a town hall meeting or even tried to call a senator or congressman. I have called them numerous times and emailed them. They are receptive and available.

So unless the participants wrap themselves in flags and sing familiar anthems, you're going to write them off as unpatriotic? Who do you think our founders would identify with more? A bunch of old farts who schedule a meeting on the capital steps, sing some songs, say a lot of non-controversial things, then go home, versus protesters who leave their comfortable lives and refuse to go home until their demands are met? Which group more resembles the founding fathers, one of which said that the tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots?

Now, I think we've evolved beyond armed rebellion at this point, but if our democratic institutions as they are are worth keeping, something has to give here.

Midtown! WHAT ARE THEIR DEMANDS! THEY DON"T HAVE ANY REAL DEMANDS! THEY JUST BLAME PEOPLE MAKING OVER $250,000 A YEAR FOR EVERYTHING!

This group does not have a clear path. No real plan. They are demostrating until..... what? What will have to happen in order for them to go home and feel like they accomplished something? They set themselves up for failure because there is nothing that can happen to make them feel good enough to say "Yes, we won! We can go home now!". I think they've already accomplished the first step of what they were hoping for. They've made people aware and have gotten them talking about the conditions which led to this. Heck, we've got two discussions about it going on right now on this board!

I didn't see any organized educated thought in this article. NO clear demand or need.

Does that make it more or less authentic? Astroturf movements like the Tea Party had a clear message because there was money and a profit and power driven agenda behind it.


They blame the banks for trying to run a business. Most businesses don't renegotiate contracts have way through the contract. A mortgage is a contract that the homeowner signed to pay at certain rate. You can renegotiate the contract if you want, but the bank has no obligation to change the contract.

They blame the government for not protecting us from businesses run amuck. It is the government's job to regulate things to uphold the principle that someone's right to swing their fist ends at my nose. Now, granted, credit going out of control and artificially stimulated housing prices due to huge amounts of credit injected into the market and poorly supervised by those doing the injecting isn't quite as clear, but the ultimate outcome was that those business practices hurt a lot of innocent people who never got liar loans or wrote bad mortgages. This sort of behavior needs to be regulated, the government needs to make sure it won't happen again, and the government is doing nothing because the banks who are profiting from this have more influence than the millions of people whose financial lives the banks are indirectly wrecking.


The banks were not given the money. They were loaned the money and most paid the money back with interest.

That's probably very comforting to the responsible homeowners who bought $300K houses in Arizona which are now worth less than half that.


Also, they say they can't call their congressman and list the Koch Brothers as having some secret Batman phone that reaches every legislator. Obviously they have never attended a town hall meeting or even tried to call a senator or congressman. I have called them numerous times and emailed them. They are receptive and available.

You don't think the Koch Bros. have a lot of influence? Maybe even an inordinate amount of influence? Do you think a congressman will be more apt to listen to lasomeday, someone who might donate $50 to a political campaign or someone who already has a super-PAC which can bankroll millions of dollars in supporting commercials for your political campaign? Who do you think gets the ear of the congressman?

I think they've already accomplished the first step of what they were hoping for. They've made people aware and have gotten them talking about the conditions which led to this. Heck, we've got two discussions about it going on right now on this board!

Respectfully, I beg to differ. Most of these issues have been talked about for years. So often, when any hint of criticism of this administration or its policies - or cronyism - have been mentioned, it has been angrily dismissed by the left as partisan attacks rather than a legitimate issue of concern. The only real difference I can see between what they are asking and the issues of the right (other than often being on the other side of the fence) - has been the student loan problem. Issues of buy outs, class warfare, TARP, "too big to fail," and lobbyists have been front row center on the right, as I said, for years - and met with fury by the left at any hint of criticism. Part of it is that the groups see the problems from different angles and come to different conclusions, but "getting people to finally talk about it" is putting on airs, if you ask me. We've been talking about it and instead of attempting a rational dialogue, the left has dismissed the independents and conservatives expressing alarm and dismay as haters. "Not talking about it," is not the same thing as "agreeing about how to fix a problem."

Midtown! WHAT ARE THEIR DEMANDS! THEY DON"T HAVE ANY REAL DEMANDS! THEY JUST BLAME PEOPLE MAKING OVER $250,000 A YEAR FOR EVERYTHING!

They have started a conversation about serious issues of influence and what the government's role in our lives is, which would never have happened otherwise. The movement's goals will likely evolve organically. I'm not really worried about it at this point. That political leaders are actually paying attention to the fact that there are a lot of people upset with the status quo is a good thing.

Does that make it more or less authentic? Astroturf movements like the Tea Party had a clear message because there was money and a profit and power driven agenda behind it.



They blame the government for not protecting us from businesses run amuck. It is the government's job to regulate things to uphold the principle that someone's right to swing their fist ends at my nose. Now, granted, credit going out of control and artificially stimulated housing prices due to huge amounts of credit injected into the market and poorly supervised by those doing the injecting isn't quite as clear, but the ultimate outcome was that those business practices hurt a lot of innocent people who never got liar loans or wrote bad mortgages. This sort of behavior needs to be regulated, the government needs to make sure it won't happen again, and the government is doing nothing because the banks who are profiting from this have more influence than the millions of people whose financial lives the banks are indirectly wrecking.



That's probably very comforting to the responsible homeowners who bought $300K houses in Arizona which are now worth less than half that.



You don't think the Koch Bros. have a lot of influence? Maybe even an inordinate amount of influence? Do you think a congressman will be more apt to listen to lasomeday, someone who might donate $50 to a political campaign or someone who already has a super-PAC which can bankroll millions of dollars in supporting commercials for your political campaign? Who do you think gets the ear of the congressman?

Midtowner, You don't think liberal billionaires aren't pushing their agendas as well? Who do you think is making the most money from these protests? Hmmm could it be Warren Buffet and George Soros. Buffet makes money when the economy is bad. I have a letter that proves it. And George Soros hedges against the US and has brought down many currencies including the UK. So, if you are naive enough to think that it is just the banks and oil companies running the government then you are wrong.

Also, I have sympathy for people losing their houses. But you can't blame the bank when someone making 45K a year buys a $300,000 house. If you think you are responsible enough to buy a house, you should know what your budget is.

And have you not seen all of the regulations that have come out on banks? I find it amusing that these protests happen years after the bailouts and a year after the banks were put in handcuffs. These people need to wake up and realize that its the government that is limiting the economy and not corporations. The government has put in place regulations and policies that make companies and banks not want/able to invest. It is safer and more economical for them to hold on to the money or invest abroad.

Midtowner, You don't think liberal billionaires aren't pushing their agendas as well? Who do you think is making the most money from these protests? Hmmm could it be Warren Buffet and George Soros. Buffet makes money when the economy is bad. I have a letter that proves it. And George Soros hedges against the US and has brought down many currencies including the UK. So, if you are naive enough to think that it is just the banks and oil companies running the government then you are wrong.

Lots of people hedge against a weak economy. Heck.. have you bought gold? If you have, you now have an interest in the economy going straight to hell. At any rate, you are playing that little guilt by association game when you can't actually prove an association and you can't actually prove that that association is a motivating force here. You can only make very weak inferences. The Tea Party is different. It is backed and controlled by organizations directly controlled by billionaires, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, Tea Party Express, etc.

As an aside, I saw in another thread that OWS was being ridiculed because some folks have shown up to sell t-shirts. How does that compare to the Tea Party Nation which sponsored a national convention with a $549 ticket price?


Also, I have sympathy for people losing their houses. But you can't blame the bank when someone making 45K a year buys a $300,000 house. If you think you are responsible enough to buy a house, you should know what your budget is.

Sure you can. You can blame the bank for loaning that person $300,000. What on Earth were they thinking? And the banks did that sort of thing on such a wide scale that the folks making $175K/year who bought the $300K house they could afford now have an asset worth half or less than half of what they paid for it, through absolutely no fault of their own. Sure, there's risk in any investment, but there hasn't been another time within memory where the value of real estate plummeted like this. Such a happening was definitely foreseeable to the hedge fund gurus who saw this coming a mile away, but for Joe homeowner, who thought he was being responsible by tying up his savings in his home, he lost a lot of what he had, not to mention just about anyone with any sort of stock-based portfolio, who thought he was investing in growth stocks only to have the life sucked out of those stocks by the incidental effects of a real-estate collapse.


And have you not seen all of the regulations that have come out on banks? I find it amusing that these protests happen years after the bailouts and a year after the banks were put in handcuffs. These people need to wake up and realize that its the government that is limiting the economy and not corporations. The government has put in place regulations and policies that make companies and banks not want/able to invest. It is safer and more economical for them to hold on to the money or invest abroad.

Handcuffs? Praytell, what are you talking about? The watered down consumer protection agency which the Republicans are fighting tooth and nail for its very existence? They *really* don't want consumers to be protected from deceptive or fraudulent banksters. States attorneys general are highly in favor of this because this is something which the states are not really able to supervise because so much of the wrongdoing is happening on a national scale.

A good read on the demands:

http://www.conservativeactionalerts.com/2011/10/the-occupiers-sponges-are-wannabee-thieves-of-your-money/

Now the “Occupiers” demand everything in exchange for the “promise” of peace.

What do they want?

1. All student loans forgiven. They get a education (obviously a very bad one) with the poor and middle class picking up the $500 billion debt they racked up.

2. They want ALL mortgages to be forgiven. If this happened, all banks would be closed within 24 hours—and NO loans for homes or businesses would be available. These economic illiterates want no responsibility, just benefits.

3. They want a minimum wage of $20 per hour. That translates into $40,000 per year. Great, do they know that the unemployed and those on welfare get more than $56,000 per year, without paying taxes or working? Oh, do you really think McDonalds or your neighborhood grocery store could afford those wages, plus benefits? Instant Depression, with stores closing faster than Obama could give us another lie.

4. Congressman Jesse Jackson wants the Feds to pay $40,000 a year to the 15 million unemployed? That would cost over $800 billion a year—where does that money come from? Plus the benefits, another $200 billion. What would these folks do? Why get an honest job when you can get $40,000 per year plus benefits and do nothing? This, also, would throw us into a Depression within moments of signing such a law.

5. They want world peace by having the United States end all efforts against terrorism—they believe if the US turned Israel over to the Shariah folks, we would be left alone. What nutcases. We would be next, with no one to protect us—since they want to cut the military by 90%. The good news is that tens of millions of Americans have guns.

"conservativeactionalerts" is probably not a reliable spokesperson for the OWS movement. Just sayin'

Lots of people hedge against a weak economy. Heck.. have you bought gold? If you have, you now have an interest in the economy going straight to hell. At any rate, you are playing that little guilt by association game when you can't actually prove an association and you can't actually prove that that association is a motivating force here. You can only make very weak inferences. The Tea Party is different. It is backed and controlled by organizations directly controlled by billionaires, Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, Tea Party Express, etc.

As an aside, I saw in another thread that OWS was being ridiculed because some folks have shown up to sell t-shirts. How does that compare to the Tea Party Nation which sponsored a national convention with a $549 ticket price?



Sure you can. You can blame the bank for loaning that person $300,000. What on Earth were they thinking? And the banks did that sort of thing on such a wide scale that the folks making $175K/year who bought the $300K house they could afford now have an asset worth half or less than half of what they paid for it, through absolutely no fault of their own. Sure, there's risk in any investment, but there hasn't been another time within memory where the value of real estate plummeted like this. Such a happening was definitely foreseeable to the hedge fund gurus who saw this coming a mile away, but for Joe homeowner, who thought he was being responsible by tying up his savings in his home, he lost a lot of what he had, not to mention just about anyone with any sort of stock-based portfolio, who thought he was investing in growth stocks only to have the life sucked out of those stocks by the incidental effects of a real-estate collapse.



Handcuffs? Praytell, what are you talking about? The watered down consumer protection agency which the Republicans are fighting tooth and nail for its very existence? They *really* don't want consumers to be protected from deceptive or fraudulent banksters. States attorneys general are highly in favor of this because this is something which the states are not really able to supervise because so much of the wrongdoing is happening on a national scale.

Why do you compare the Tea Party to the OWS. The Tea Party is not anti business? The Tea Party has a clear voice and jobs. The Tea Party is for capitalism. Big difference. You need to figure out what you are trying to argue because you are losing your case on trying to compare the Tea Party to the OWS. The Tea Party is not controlled by anyone. You may think it is because you have only read what the liberal media is feeding you.

So, you believe that people that manipulate the media and the markets are justified because they make money? You are such a hypocrite!!!

I have not bought gold.

You can try to blame the banks all you want, but the problem is the government. Keep trying to make a stance. I just find it funny that no one was out two years ago when the Democrate led House and Senate handed out Tarp money. It is also funny that now most of the money is paid back the liberals are protesting.

"conservativeactionalerts" is probably not a reliable spokesperson for the OWS movement. Just sayin'

Doesn't change what their ridiculous demands are. Just sayin'

Why do you compare the Tea Party to the OWS.

I think "contrast" is a more apt description. Think organic vs. planned.


The Tea Party is not anti business? The Tea Party has a clear voice and jobs. The Tea Party is for capitalism. Big difference.

OWS isn't anti-business? Where on Earth did you get that? Is it about profits being favored over people? Yeah, there's some of that. The Tea Party is a bull**** movement which is in favor of whatever FreedomWorks or whatever controlling entity tells it to be. Matt Taibbi wrote this: "I've concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They're full of ****. ... [T]he Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits ... The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse is key to understanding what this movement is all about ... "This, then, is the future of the Republican Party: Angry white voters hovering over their cash-stuffed mattresses with their kerosene lanterns, peering through the blinds at the oncoming hordes of suburban soccer moms they've mistaken for death-panel bureaucrats bent on exterminating anyone who isn't an illegal alien or a Kenyan anti-colonialist."


You need to figure out what you are trying to argue because you are losing your case on trying to compare the Tea Party to the OWS. The Tea Party is not controlled by anyone. You may think it is because you have only read what the liberal media is feeding you.

Ah, so I should listen exclusively to the voices on the right because they have no agenda whatsoever and never lie. Gotcha.


So, you believe that people that manipulate the media and the markets are justified because they make money? You are such a hypocrite!!!

You need to work on your reading comp there, bud. I was comparing the ability to avoid risk with respect to Joe homeowner, a responsible homeowner who bought a house he could afford, but lost half its value anyhow in the crash versus a billionaire hedge fund manager. Your party line is that everyone who lost their house or lost value in their house (hint: If you are a homeowner, you have probably lost a significant amount of equity because of these rockstar hedge fund managers) is responsible for their own poor decisions. That is simply not the case. Anyone who owns real estate in the U.S., 'cept for maybe in North Dakota and other remote but booming parts, has been affected negatively here. The responsible and irresponsible alike have taken a big hit to our portfolios and bankers walked away with ridiculous amounts of money, for the most part with no personal consequences. When we've seen consequences, those have come in the form of fines against the relevant financial institutions. Despite those fines, those institutions have continued to pay higher-still bonuses and again the innocent, the stockholders, have been the folks taking the bath by taking a hit to their dividend checks.

The Tea Party has fought tooth and nail to keep the status quo on Wall Street. Sure, OWS is wanting change.

To call that change "anti-business" is unsupportable though. The sort of change we're talking about is requiring bonuses to be paid in the form of stock, which isn't redeemable for a period of years. You know, smart ideas to ensure that companies act in their own long term best interests rather than on short and often temporary gains.


You can try to blame the banks all you want, but the problem is the government. Keep trying to make a stance. I just find it funny that no one was out two years ago when the Democrate led House and Senate handed out Tarp money. It is also funny that now most of the money is paid back the liberals are protesting.

TARP was under Bush. The complicity was purely bipartisan.

He signed that baby into law and it was probably a good move. Definitely not fair. Folks should have gone to prison over that. A collapse of the banking system would have been even worse than what has happened though.

Doesn't change what their ridiculous demands are. Just sayin'

The fact is that the group as a whole has done no such thing. The story is unadulterated bullcrap.

From the left:

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/do_we_know_what_ows_wants_yet/

"Do we know what OWS wants yet"?

Short answer: No.

So unless the participants wrap themselves in flags and sing familiar anthems, you're going to write them off as unpatriotic? Who do you think our founders would identify with more? A bunch of old farts who schedule a meeting on the capital steps, sing some songs, say a lot of non-controversial things, then go home, versus protesters who leave their comfortable lives and refuse to go home until their demands are met? Which group more resembles the founding fathers, one of which said that the tree of liberty must from time to time be watered with the blood of patriots?

Now, I think we've evolved beyond armed rebellion at this point, but if our democratic institutions as they are are worth keeping, something has to give here.


Did I say anything about being unpatrotic? I'm saying they painted themselves into a corner. What do they do now?

I think they've already accomplished the first step of what they were hoping for. They've made people aware and have gotten them talking about the conditions which led to this. Heck, we've got two discussions about it going on right now on this board!


Sure they accomplished that. But what now? Is there anything that can happen that will make them say "Oh we won, now we can go home?" The one guy that made the joke about the exit stratgy was close to what I'm saying. They are there. They say they will stay until......what?

The exit strategy in Denver was that it got cold. There are only about 20 of them left here.

"sang the national anthem" lol


I've reread this several times and I'm not sure why that was funny. Did I spell something wrong? I was merely pointing out how one protest group had rallies that were planned out. First we do this, then we do that. Sing this song, listen to this speaker, sing another song. Listen to this other speaker. Go home. Not sure where the humor was in my observation.

I've already posted this video clip in another thread, but I'll post it again here. At the 10/18/2011 council meeting, local Occupy OKC proponents asked that the city waive or reduce the $55 daily permit fee, in this instance, for Kerr Park. Oklahoma Citian Mark Faulk (http://www.facebook.com/faulkingtruth) was the most articulate, and presentable, of those advocates and his part begins around 7:00 of the 16 minute video clip, below.

At about 9:30 of the clip, Faulk said that the local movement consists of disabled, unemployed, single mothers, all races, all types. He said, "This is a fully inclusive organization that we hope that we open a dialog with our city and with our state that will be an ongoing dialog and well give a voice with the rest of the people who honestly have bot been represented in our government." Notwithstanding that several posts in this thread seem to dwell on forgiving student loans, that group/matter wasn't mentioned in Faulk's or others' remarks as to the local Occupy Okc movement.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMc8drcAwqY&feature=player_profilepage

Their request was not granted. But, see the discussion beginning around 10:58. At about 13:50, Shadid remarked, "... there does seem to be a coalescing around one message, that we need to get money out of politics, that many politicians are bought ... does that [coalescing] seem to be happening ... ." At around 21:40, Shadid offered to meet with Faulk immediately after the meeting to assist in finding funding solutions for the daily permit fee.

As for me, I found Faulk's statements to be rational, reasonable, politely and civilly put, and, at their core, not dissimilar with council member Ed Shadid's viewpoints about plutocracy, to which I also subscribe.

Have we already forgotten the experience with the Committee for Oklahoma City Momentum in City Council elections earlier this year? A more than ample basis and justification exists locally, certainly nationally, for this expression of speech, in my opinion.

Did I say anything about being unpatrotic? I'm saying they painted themselves into a corner. What do they do now?

They stay put.

I've reread this several times and I'm not sure why that was funny. Did I spell something wrong? I was merely pointing out how one protest group had rallies that were planned out. First we do this, then we do that. Sing this song, listen to this speaker, sing another song. Listen to this other speaker. Go home. Not sure where the humor was in my observation.

Because it's just so cheesy and ridiculous. It's like they designed their rallies to only impress children, the mentally ill and the elderly.

Because it's just so cheesy and ridiculous. It's like they designed their rallies to only impress children, the mentally ill and the elderly.


So singing patrotic songs is cheesy?

So singing patrotic songs is cheesy?
Obviously, your grievances only matter if you are disorganized and incoherent. Good organization and a clear message are signs that you are cheesy and aren't mad enough.

So singing patrotic songs is cheesy?

Yes. It really, really is.

because it's just so cheesy and ridiculous. They designed their rallies to only impress children, the mentally ill and the elderly.

fify

Yes. It really, really is.

Well, I guess that is your opinion. I happen to like them and I think most Americans like patriotic things.

fify

I was giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Well, I guess that is your opinion. I happen to like them and I think most Americans like patriotic things.

Yes, most Americans are susceptible to such influences. Thats why the corporations who pull the strings on the Tea Party use them. There's a difference in liking patriotic things and recognizing an obvious emotional appeal to nationalism standing in the place of reasonable goals.

Yes. It really, really is.

Now I understand why you feel and think the way you day.

I really doubt that.

Yes, most Americans are susceptible to such influences. Thats why the corporations who pull the strings on the Tea Party use them. There's a difference in liking patriotic things and recognizing an obvious emotional appeal to nationalism standing in the place of reasonable goals.


There's also a difference in disliking it because you think its cheap manipulation and disliking it because you think its cheesy.

I really doubt that.

Don't, it's that obvious. I'll say an extra one for you tomorrow morning.

There's also a difference in disliking it because you think its cheap manipulation and disliking it because you think its cheesy.
"Cheap manipulation" and "cheesy" are not mutually exclusive. I didn't say I dislike all shows of patriotism. Its mostly the ones put on by people who are just encouraging the masses to vote against their own interests that bother me. People in coal country voting to increase local cancer deaths, for instance...

also I think it is funny that these big stars and celebrity types are coming out and supporting OWS and all the protestors are embracing them with open arms. Hell Lady Gaga made 65 million in 2010 alone. Kanye West, 42 million. Russell Simmons's net worth is over 500 million. we don't hear a single protest directed at any of the big celebrities or stars. Yet they go after the big corporations that actually employ and support families......

If you view that as hypocrisy then you do not realize what they are upset about or would see changed in the world.

There's actually a petition up that's asking them to apologize to the community at large, each other, and the people who left, and actually the Occupy Wall Street movement in general, because of problems with creating a peaceful environment for nightly meetings and the safety and health of their own kitchen volunteers, among other things:

[Press release (http://www.free-press-release.com/news-occupy-wall-street-participants-in-oklahoma-city-and-community-at-large-call-for-public-apology-from-occupy-okc-1319674912.html)] [Petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/petition-for-redress-of-community-grievances-and-demand-for-apology-from-occupy-okc)]

Occupy OKC gets soggy (with exclusive video)!
http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-13411-occupy-okc-gets-soggy.html

also I think it is funny that these big stars and celebrity types are coming out and supporting OWS and all the protestors are embracing them with open arms. Hell Lady Gaga made 65 million in 2010 alone. Kanye West, 42 million. Russell Simmons's net worth is over 500 million. we don't hear a single protest directed at any of the big celebrities or stars. Yet they go after the big corporations that actually employ and support families......

Compared to the record companies [which produce nothing], those artists look like chumps.

Journalist Bill Moyers at OCU: 1 percent exemplifies nation’s greediness

http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-13412-moyers-1-percent-exemplifies-nation’s-greediness.html

Hahahaha, you mean Matt Taibbi, the marxist? The one affiliated with the Democratic Socialist of America, Democracy Now!' and The Nation. All good moderate organizations for sure!

Matt Taibbi
2011 Boston DSA award

The 2011 Debs-Thomas-Bernstein Awards, sponsored by Boston Democratic Socialists of America, took place June 11, 56 Perkins Street, Jamaica Plain. The reception honored a long-time advocate for low wage workers and community empowerment along with a best-selling author — Rocio Saenz and Matt Taibbi. Co-Chairs were Lisa Clauson, Co-Director of Community Labor United and Chuck Collins of the Institute for Policy Studies.[4]

Hahahaha, you mean Matt Taibbi, the marxist?

So afraid of someone's well reasoned/argued point that you have to apply scary labels you probably don't even really understand? Neato frito.

They are doing it wrong...

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/OWSvsTEAPARTY.jpg

This seems fitting...

YDPayWN9elk

3.5 Days is all he needs.

OAOrT0OcHh0

Frisky: Thanks for the reminder of how great "The Rockford Files" was.
(Cliché Insertion: "The more things 'change' the more they stay the 'same'" =)

Why . . . It even made up for The Validation of The Mayans [Bummer] Graph posted elsewhere. =)

Plus wasn't James Bumgarner actually from Norman, OK?
Or at least a rural suburb thereof?

The only "problem" with the theme of the second clip is that the "Talking [Half Torso]" (paraphrase, c/o Midtowner)
never, personally, did any of the stuff he is suggesting would round out an education.

Unlike you or me.

(But I've been wrong before.)

Is that five and a half minutes of building a straw man? The video's basic premise is that the protesters have been born into such a successful and wealthy society that their expectations are off.

Fine.. let's look at that. Why can't they get an education for as little as their parents paid? Why can't they get that job that lets their wife stay home with the children like their parents may have been able to do? Think those multinational corporations have anything to do with that? How about their influence in Congress? How is it that the 1% have seen their income increase 300% faster than everyone else in society?

Frisky: Thanks for the reminder of how great "The Rockford Files" was.
(Cliche Insertion: "The more things 'change' the more they stay the 'same'" =)

It made up for The Validation of The Mayans Graph posted elsewhere. =)

Plus wasn't James Bumgarner actually from Norman, OK?
Or at least a rural suburb thereof?Yes, Garner is from Norman Oklahoma. I thought that was appropriate for this thread.

It was very perceptive of you to find the correlation between the Mayan's calendar and the chart in that article. I laughed and wondered how many others would get it.

That Rockford clip is some funny stuff.....kind of exposes the thought process a bit .....

Frisky (instead of doing the new-fangled "nesting quotes" thing . . . =)

Apparently, some lawyers are still too busy scoffing at a once-in-a-lifetime lawsuit opportunity regarding The Limits of Diversity--regardless of frequency or geography--than to take on the burden of proof that could possibly pay off their Student Loans dating back to the mid-60's or possibly 90's.

No matter where they live.
(a slightly redundant phrase, if you think about it =)

I don't require External Validation,
yet I'm glad you got the . . . joke? =)
Apparently, you were "schooled"
in an area that had actual "Animal House" frats.
On campus.

BTW/FYI: "Straw Man" is an outdated term.
"Wicker Man" is the new version.
(Except for in "Virtual Ivory Towers" =)

So . . . Was your, Frisky, "Major" History, Political Science, Economics, Sociology, Anthropology or Football?
Acceptable Answer: G: All of the Above. G(ee) is always good for Self-Esteem Building. =)

So is Shop Class.

That Rockford clip is some funny stuff.....kind of exposes the thought process a bit .....

Yup.
Sorta adds a Historical Perspective to "the debate" . . .
Well . . . Don't it? =)

I'm just here to learn. I try (mostly) to keep my ears open and mouth shut until I can use the knowledge gained for the benefit of all mankind.

Is that five and a half minutes of building a straw man? The video's basic premise is that the protesters have been born into such a successful and wealthy society that their expectations are off.

Fine.. let's look at that. Why can't they get an education for as little as their parents paid? Why can't they get that job that lets their wife stay home with the children like their parents may have been able to do? Think those multinational corporations have anything to do with that? How about their influence in Congress? How is it that the 1% have seen their income increase 300% faster than everyone else in society?

You want the reason why it takes two to make a living, now? When women started working out of the home not only did they put men out of work, families suddenly had far more discretionary income that resulted in people spending money like there is no tomorrow - typically for gum. In no time flat, the standard of living went from one person working and living simply (but everyone was the same way so no one thought anything of it) to thinking that we "had" to eat out, take vacations, buy big houses, send the kids to expensive summer camp, blah, blah, blah.

The people you insist are such victims should try living like the ones you say had it so good for awhile before they blame corporations and Congress. Think about it:

No eating out, no vacations, no new car - certainly not two cars, a small house with one bathroom, a single car garage, a push mower, hand me down furniture, no cell, one telephone, no internet or cable, no movies except for special occasions, no soft drinks or chips except for special occasions, simple Christmases, one or two presents per child for Christmas and birthdays, one pair of dress shoes, one pair of hand me down shoes. Most younger kids got hand me down clothes. Stay at home mom's frequently sewed their family's clothes and made curtains/slip covers. Entertainment was usually along the lines of having the neighbors over for potluck. You fixed your own car, changed your own oil, colored your own hair, repaired your tires and replaced them with used ones. You cut your own hair, didn't pay for child care. If you were able to have children, at all, chances are you had 3 - 6 and most shared a room - often they shared a bed. Even the non Catholics. Dogs and cats (the babies of today), got a rabies shot to get their dog license but people didn't spend much money to feed them or take them to the vet. Kids didn't go to the doctor unless they had a broken arm or were on fire. Home remedies were the norm for just about everything else - turpentine played a large role. Weddings were simple church events or at the Justice of the Peace and the reception consisted of mints, cake and punch. The honeymoon was usually simple. For the average person, it was a long weekend - often camping. You gave a young couple towels or a toaster to help them get started - nothing extravagant. Child support for childdren not living in the home existed but it wasn't common as it is, today.

I could go on and on. I am not saying those were better days. I am saying that it is irrational to think we can have all the stuff we have, today, and expect our expenses to allow us to continue to be able to live on one income. People, today, who lived as simply as people did back in the day would be considered weird. Before it became commonplace for women to work, you'd have been considered either a spendthrift or you were upper middle class with spoiled kids if you had the expenses I just listed.

Moreover, the corporations you want to blame have nothing to do with the explosion of divorce and single moms, child support being paid or prevalence of non Catholic private schools.

This just in from time capsule discovered during mininimal, not-intrusive excavations near the former site of Stage Center:

[Partial Transcript Excerpt.
"The People's Park"(1968)/"Occupy"(2012) Trials.
(Provinance Undocumented)]

Speaker:
(Attorney For Both Sides, Not John Adams)
(Undocumented, yet fairly close, despite the anachronisms.)

Ladies and Gentlemen of The Jury . . .

Would it be rude of me to ask you to request that close the cover on your Kindle--or other cyber-reader . . ?
No? Okay . . . How about turning off your cell phones--don't fake it, really turn them off, baliff, did you get that?--and pay attention.
Did I forget to request turning down the volume on your iPod? No. Of course not. That goes without saying.

(Transcriptionist Note, Unofficial: Winsome smile reflecting appreciation of compliance.)

Y'a know . . . In fact all of You Know . . .
That I would have asked "Your Honor"--that person over there in the robes in the high chair--to make the request, but I didn't want to involve third parties because, right now, this is all about just you and me. Together. Here in this courtroom.

My learned and esteemed collegue from Midtown asks: "Is that five and a half minutes of building a straw man?"
Now I know, first-hand . . . Just the same as you do . . . How boring it is to attempt to answer "Rhetorical Questions" . . .
Especially those framed only to increase billing hours . . . Yet, just maybe I can change your mind about that.

And, as I have already and previouly addressed the epistomological anachronism of using the phrase "straw men" in terms of salient and meaningful reference points for antique and outdated metaphors regarding topics under discussion with a hope of justified resolution, I will allow that so-called question from my esteemed collegue to slide (as they say) . . .Yet don't forget for a even a New York or Okie Rural "minute" that time is now measured in nano-seconds . .

So, with your permission . . . that's "con su permiso" if you prefer . . . I will move onto the weightier aspects of my valued collegue's arguement (with an e for the Brits in the name of Diversity and Common Law) for or against something or other.

He does, after all, have a Liberal Arts education and is apparently not dependant upon The Largesse of The Masses nor does he rely on The Minority of Parents.

(Editor's Note: DownHome Aside to The Jury):
Heck . . . Just look at the suit: If it ain't Armani it's at least corrected and refined by a local tailor who understands quality.
Sorta like a Sportscaster Clothier I've heard tell of . . . Who shall remain nameless.

He--that is, my partner in legislating, defining, prosecuting and defending a so-called "crime" allegedly committed in the out of doors within the confines of this courtroom--claims that
"The video's basic premise is that the protesters have been born into such a successful and wealthy society that their expectations are off."

On the contrary, Dear Jurors and Peers . . .
The problem is not that their expectations are "off" . . .
The problem is what their expectations are "on".

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury:
I'm not sure whether it was too much Scooby-Doo or too little Teletubbies in the formative years that placed this person in the park leading to the dock, today but once thing I know for sure:
It Ain't His or Her Fault! It's MINE!!! And, by extension, It's YOURS!!!! (Wiping away the tears . . .)

Your Honor . . .
Could we declare a recess while I reorganize my yellow legal pads and look for an ink cartridge before moving onto the allegations of cost percentages leading to success and being divorced from reality and stuff like that?
Thank you.


P.S. to Frisky: To Learn. Is there a better goal?
I taught a version of "Shop Class" for over ten years.
I learned at least as much from the students as they learned from me.
Plus, all of them left better educated and with all their fingers.
My slogan was: Let L=2T (listen twice as much as you talk).
There is a lot to listen to in here. It's easy to keep the balance. =)

No eating out, no vacations, no new car - certainly not two cars, a small house with one bathroom, a single car garage, a push mower, hand me down furniture, no cell, one telephone, no internet or cable, no movies except for special occasions, no soft drinks or chips except for special occasions, simple Christmases, one or two presents per child for Christmas and birthdays, one pair of dress shoes, one pair of hand me down shoes. Most younger kids got hand me down clothes. Stay at home mom's frequently sewed their family's clothes and made curtains/slip covers. Entertainment was usually along the lines of having the neighbors over for potluck. You fixed your own car, changed your own oil, colored your own hair, repaired your tires and replaced them with used ones. You cut your own hair, didn't pay for child care. If you were able to have children, at all, chances are you had 3 - 6 and most shared a room - often they shared a bed. Even the non Catholics. Dogs and cats (the babies of today), got a rabies shot to get their dog license but people didn't spend much money to feed them or take them to the vet. Kids didn't go to the doctor unless they had a broken arm or were on fire. Home remedies were the norm for just about everything else - turpentine played a large role. Weddings were simple church events or at the Justice of the Peace and the reception consisted of mints, cake and punch. The honeymoon was usually simple. For the average person, it was a long weekend - often camping. You gave a young couple towels or a toaster to help them get started - nothing extravagant. Child support for childdren not living in the home existed but it wasn't common as it is, today.

Hmmm...that's pretty much my lifestyle with two incomes...although we do have cell phones, internet, and cable, plus our house has a bath and a half and a 2-car garage (but it's the exception on our street). Everything else is what we do today...used cars, modest Christmas, no movies, cut my own hair, etc... What you're leaving out is that, these days, we don't have new cars for $2000, $.30/gal gas, homes for $25,000 or less, $.05 hamburgers (should you choose to go out to eat), $1/carload nights at the drive-in movies. Those are the type of things that made it possible to cut corners and get by on a single income.