Stand With The Wall Street Protesters

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Hey I just read the local newspaper on "Occupy Raffles Place". Raffles Place is the heart of Singapore's financial district. Apparently the protest was supposed to be held yesterday.

About 20 protesters showed up. They left after a few hours when it became evident that nobody was interested in them.

As I said, Raffles Place is a ghost town on weekends. They're lucky if they can get a burger after 5 pm, LOL.

How embarrassing for them. Surely they would have known no one would show in a place no one goes on the weekends?

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Apparently there was an attempt to organise a similar event in my country (Singapore) too.

At first I thought it was a bit silly because the area they planned to occupy is so crowded on weekdays that it looks perpetually "occupied" anyway.

Then it appeared that the organisers realised it too. So they changed their plans and said that they would do the occupation on a Saturday instead.

The problem is that the same area becomes a ghost town on Saturdays and Sundays and no one will be there to pay any attention to the protest except the protestors themselves.

[...]

About 20 protesters showed up. They left after a few hours when it became evident that nobody was interested in them.

As I said, Raffles Place is a ghost town on weekends. They're lucky if they can get a burger after 5 pm, LOL.

I have to admit, although I lean towards support of the movement, the visual of this gave me a chuckle.

A somewhat similar (non-)event happened around my area, in Orange County, California. As a bastion of conservatism, you'd think protesters would be here in force, but, unfortunately for them, there simply is no place to congregate.

The did promote an gathering in the "financial district" of Irvine, but, the term "financial district" is quite a misnomer, since there's only one fairly small thrift located in that area. Since it is so conservative, pretty much the whole county is a "financial district" anyway.

Nonetheless, about 20 or so people did gather to "occupy" a parking lot in which a friend of mine worked (for an engineering firm). We couldn't help but laugh as he described the scene from an office window, with the one "We Are the 99%" sign being waved energetically.

What they didn't know, of course, is that my friend and I are activists, ourselves (though somewhat retired from that activity), and that in our day, we burned the U.N. flag. We've long understood and voiced similar concerns as these younger folk, and we both found it rather humorous that they should be waving flags at building full of people that are really 99-percenters, themselves.

People are fed up, I know. But, it never strikes me as anything less than comical, those few who jump on the bandwagon, not having any idea what bandwagon they're even jumping on.

[garentee]

I think it is very interesting that the people who are belly aching about this movement are people who wrap themselves in the flag and pontificate about the constitution. This is the first amendment at work... people who are voicing their opinion. Freedom of speech.. Weather or not this accomplishes anything is a different story, but I would far sooner have someone voicing their opinions about an injustice then sitting on their hands and silently suffering at the hands of an injustice. That is what victims of abuse do who do not speak up about their experiences.

[desertrat]

On occupying a place that gets no attention , I was reminded of a George Carlon joke . What if they declared a war and nobody showed up .I also remember a skit on Monty Python , people just walked by . desert rat

[Acting Like Godot]

Now there is a new one in my country which seems to be getting a lot of attention on Facebook. It's called "Occupy Bishan MRT". Bishan MRT is a subway train interchange.

People are posting photos of the station being jam-packed with protestors. However, this is a spoof.

The reality is that the station is always jam-packed at peak hours anyway. People are just taking photos of themselves (as the ordinary commuters) at the train station (on an ordinary day) and posting the photos on Facebook and making it out to be "Occupied".

The slogan is "No Need to Join Us. We're Here at 8 am Every Day Anyway."

Yet although it is a joke, it is also a protest - against the crowded public transport conditions (which was one of the big issues in the recent elections).

[rawxstasy]

Originally Posted by garentee

Weather or not this accomplishes anything is a different story, but I would far sooner have someone voicing their opinions about an injustice then sitting on their hands and silently suffering at the hands of an injustice. That is what victims of abuse do who do not speak up about their experiences.

I totally agree. I am really happy that there are protests. Even if nothing changes, at least people are making their voices heard, rather than sitting around and just taking all the crap.

It's funny how some people on the other wall street thread thought it was just a bunch of loonies and the protests weren't going anywhere. Now look what it has become.

Found this article interesting.
It seems that restaurants and businesses all over are sending donations of food to the protesters.

Feeding the masses, fueling a movement - US news - Life - msnbc.com

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by rawxstasy

I totally agree. I am really happy that there are protests. Even if nothing changes, at least people are making their voices heard, rather than sitting around and just taking all the crap.

It's funny how some people on the other wall street thread thought it was just a bunch of loonies and the protests weren't going anywhere. Now look what it has become.

Found this article interesting.
It seems that restaurants and businesses all over are sending donations of food to the protesters.

Feeding the masses, fueling a movement - US news - Life - msnbc.com

I still think they are a bunch of loonies, and the protests aren't going anywhere.

Instead of sitting around doing nothing at home, they are sitting around, doing nothing in tents on the street. What's the difference? To really make a change, you go out and MAKE a change. Not sit around protesting what you don't want.

[Brutha]

There are, for instance, some very large businesses which are NOT publicly listed. Trafigura, Vitoil, Glencore, Koch Industries, Deutsche Bahn are some examples.

Deutsche Bahn is a government owned company and therefore not really a good example of what people mean with big business.

Trafigura is a freedom of expression fighting company that probably killed ten of thousands of African's through poisining them carelessly.
The amount of lobbying that Koch Industries does has created a lot of harmful effects in the political culture of the US.
I don't know about the other two but I don't think your list is a good argument for the big corporations act the same way as small corporations story.

Yet although it is a joke, it is also a protest - against the crowded public transport conditions (which was one of the big issues in the recent elections).

Why don't you just put more trains on the railways?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Why don't you just put more trains on the railways?

Actually we had a massive population increase over the past 10 years, essentially as a result of throwing our doors wide open to foreigners. Right now, 40% of the people in the country are not citizens.

Among other things, the transport infrastructure is now strained. Of course, things are being done - eg we have built new subway lines in a hurry. But not all of them are ready yet.

Ironically, Bishan MRT became super-crowded because of a new subway line. It is now the intersection of two subway lines, and is the place where many people stop, to switch over to the other line.

[Peterw]

I have a situation now where friends of mine are protesting in the London ones.

What happens if I pass them on my way to work in my suit?

[russianrocket]

Advice From Abraham Lincoln

"Labor was prior to capital but property is the fruit of labor.
Property is desirable and is a positive good to the world.
That some should be rich shows that others may become
rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.

Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another
but let him work diligently and build one for himself"

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Advice From Abraham Lincoln

"Labor was prior to capital but property is the fruit of labor.
Property is desirable and is a positive good to the world.
That some should be rich shows that others may become
rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.

Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another
but let him work diligently and build one for himself"

This is a very good quote

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Advice From Abraham Lincoln

"Labor was prior to capital but property is the fruit of labor.
Property is desirable and is a positive good to the world.
That some should be rich shows that others may become
rich and hence is just encouragement to industry and enterprise.

Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another
but let him work diligently and build one for himself"

Property is the source of slavery and much conflict, death and war in the world. Industry and enterprise are actively destroying our health and our environment the way they're operating. Great advice.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Property is the source of slavery and much conflict, death and war in the world. Industry and enterprise are actively destroying our health and our environment the way they're operating. Great advice.

A company or enterprise is USELESS without everyone else buying and using those products. No no, lets blame the companies tho....

Without property, you have nothing. You have no effort being put in by people to get property. You create lazyiness and stagnation. You take away reasons for people to put in their time, skills, and effort. Property is then owned by the people in charge, and giving out to others at their whim. Soviet Era Russia shows this quite clearly, where we were not able to own anything, and our property was still always the governments, where they could do with as they please. We are always confined to "owning" only as much as they felt we were justified. Everything else was taking away from us, and giving to those who didn't have as much as us. So to your take from the rich and give to the poor philosophy, I say shove it.

[MariconesUnited]

I won't be the one to say anything to the mods. But I don't think that's acceptable language on here. The concept of property existed in Soviet Russia too by the way.

EDIT: I like your philosophy much better. Take from the poor. As much as you can get away with. Great.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I won't be the one to say anything to the mods. But I don't think that's acceptable language on here. The concept of property existed in Soviet Russia too by the way.

EDIT: I like your philosophy much better. Take from the poor. As much as you can get away with. Great.

There, I reported myself to the mods. How's that?


Your philosophy is to take from the rich and give to the poor. My philosophy is for everyone to earn their own way. Great.

But if you enjoy putting words in my mouth, feel free to do so because everyone else on here can clearly see that my concept wasn't about taking from the poor.

[MariconesUnited]

If that is truly your philosophy you should be protesting. Opportunities are being gradually taken away for everyone. You can't build a business if you're unhealthy, and you can't be healthy if you can't afford it. You can't move on up if you're not educated and you can't get educated without amassing a debt that is much larger than the value of your education. Corporations now have every single legal right individuals do, even though a corporation isn't an actual person. They're allowed to donate however much money they want to a candidate now. They have incentives to eliminate their competition and keep the small players small.

Next time you want to insult someone, maybe it would be a good idea to go for a walk and turn that iPhone off instead. There's advantages to not being directly in front of the people you're talking to. Use them!

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

If that is truly your philosophy you should be protesting. Opportunities are being gradually taken away for everyone. You can't build a business if you're unhealthy, and you can't be healthy if you can't afford it. You can't move on up if you're not educated and you can't get educated without amassing a debt that is much larger than the value of your education. Corporations now have every single legal right individuals do, even though a corporation isn't an actual person. They're allowed to donate however much money they want to a candidate now. They have incentives to eliminate their competition and keep the small players small.

Next time you want to insult someone, maybe it would be a good idea to go for a walk and turn that iPhone off instead. There's advantages to not being directly in front of the people you're talking to. Use them!

wow.

You can get educated for FREE. My brothers both have degrees, and they worked minimum wage jobs. If that was truly the problem, then these people would be protesting their COLLEGES, for charging so much money to go there. But they aren't. You can get an education for free, by using the internet or going to the library. Working with people to get experience. Experience pays more then education. How many of these protesters have liberal arts degrees, and how many have actual USEFUL degrees that they can use in business? I took one semester in college. I wasn't born into a rich family. We came here from Russia with NOTHING. My dad worked hard as hell, making $4 an hour, raising a family of 5, with my bedridden mother dying. HE made it just fine. Anything else is an excuse.

People can build a business if they are unhealthy. People build business' with cancer, missing legs, what ever. You are making excuses for people.

I'd never protest out there. I create my own reality. I don't need to accuse anyone of anything. I'm not going to be sleeping in a tent on the street for the sake of protest. I will build up my business and my life.

Blame the government for corporations getting those rights. It's the people who voted them in.

You claim I insulted you by telling you to shove it? You can't be insulted by something unless you let it insult you. I'm on a computer by the way, WHILE I'M WORKING on my website. I'll tell you every single one of these things to your face, so implying that I'm gutless or something while in person, can be seen as an insult to others. But guess what, I don't let people insult me.

[MariconesUnited]

Your personal success has nothing to do with any of this. It's about all of us. I'm pretty sure telling someone to ''shove it'' is meant as an insult. It's not about how I'm taking it it's about intent. What I was saying, and you misread (you're very prone to this by the way), is that there's no need to act on impulse and insult people when they're not in your face.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Your personal success has nothing to do with any of this. It's about all of us. I'm pretty sure telling someone to ''shove it'' is meant as an insult. It's not about how I'm taking it it's about intent. What I was saying, and you misread (you're very prone to this by the way), is that there's no need to act on impulse and insult people when they're not in your face.

First, I didn't tell YOU to shove it. I said it to your take from the rich give to the poor philosophy. Unless YOU are your comment, then you can't be insulted by it. You can't read intent on the internet, nor do you know me enough to know my intent. Actions matter more then intent, because you can see action, while intent is usually in the mind of the "intender". I guess we will see how the mods feel about my comment. Who knows, maybe they'll find it insulting to, or maybe they won't.

And you telling me that I'm prone to misread, doesn't make it so.

My personal success, has a lot to do with it. If my personal success has nothing to do with it, then everyone elses personal "unsuccessfulness" also has nothing to do with it either. I'm clearly showing that you can come from nothing and no education, and a poor family, and still make it. How does that not have anything to do with this conversation?

If you came to me and told me about your idea of taking from the rich and giving to the poor, and described it just the way you are here, I'd say it to yourself too. It's not on impulse. I clearly disagree with you, always have, and always will. No impulse about it. I don't agree with distribution of wealth, period.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

And you telling me that I'm prone to misread, doesn't make it so.

Nor does someone else confirming that you are prone to misreading, but that two people would suggest this to you might help you understand an issue that you might have.

Just sayin'.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Solipsist

Nor does someone else confirming that you are prone to misreading, but that two people would suggest this to you might help you understand an issue that you might have.

Just sayin'.

I've had a few people mention it. You being one of them. I'll stick with assuming that it's on THEM, and they way they wrote it, vs the way I read it. Or to go even further, it's you misreading what I wrote about what you wrote.

As I said, the post that YOU claimed I was misreading you in, and you neg repping me, also had people positive repping me. So, clearly it's not just me misreading you.

carry on.

[MariconesUnited]

That's fine man. You could use different words to express yourself. If you care about the level of discourse that is.

You would be making a point if I was saying it was impossible to move on up, which I am not. Are you suggesting that all these people start their own businesses instead of protesting? There's about 40 million people in the US who are unemployed or underemployed. And there's less money circulating right now. It's simply not a realistic solution for all of them. Besides, who's to say some of them are not working on their own businesses simultaneously?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

That's fine man. You could use different words to express yourself. If you care about the level of discourse that is.

You would be making a point if I was saying it was impossible to move on up, which I am not. Are you suggesting that all these people start their own businesses instead of protesting? There's about 40 million people in the US who are unemployed or underemployed. And there's less money circulating right now. It's simply not a realistic solution for all of them. Besides, who's to say some of them are not working on their own businesses simultaneously?

No, I'm' not suggesting that. But getting off your ass, so you can go protest, on your ass, doesn't accomplish anything. It creates more and more hate, and more and more cultural clash. People protesting against what they don't want. What people should be doing is creating unity and getting people together to CREATE, not to DESTROY. These people who are leading these things can create foundations, charities, technical schools, and companies to employee these protesters. But no, instead they are out protesting the system. Which is where you are putting the blame on. You say I put words in your mouth, but who are you blaming things on? Obviously not the people. There isn't a solution for all of them. There is never a solution for everything. No one here is trying to claim that. But, 40,000,000 people, and non of them can do anything? All the people protesting, and non of them can actually accomplish anything on their own? There aren't any Steve Pavillans out there? The leaders of the protests, aren't capable of doing something better then protesting?


Bunker Roy: Learning from a barefoot movement | Video on TED.com

Look at that guy. THAT is a leader. Not these wanabee leaders on the streets. Getting people to actually create things out of nothing. No excuses. No education from most of the people. Barely any money. Yet, some how THEY manage to do it, but Westerners, with access to almost anything, can't?


Now that Obama is trying to take hold of the groups, we will see what happens.

[MariconesUnited]

To answer your question, I'm not blaming anyone. Doesn't make sense to do so when the problem is systemic. I suppose one could look to the founders of the system if blame absolutely needs to be found. But I don't think it does. I think finding solutions is more important. It seems to me protesting excludes anyone from finding solutions or working to making a better future for themselves in your mind. But reality is different.

Look, the reality is that the middle and poor classes are being drained at the expense of the rich. It's been going on for 30 years. Standing up and peacefully calling attention to that fact is an exercise of the 1st amendment, for very good reason. You think it's not going to lead to anything. I disagree. Life goes on.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

To answer your question, I'm not blaming anyone. Doesn't make sense to do so when the problem is systemic. I suppose one could look to the founders of the system if blame absolutely needs to be found. But I don't think it does. I think finding solutions is more important. It seems to me protesting excludes anyone from finding solutions or working to making a better future for themselves in your mind. But reality is different.

Look, the reality is that the middle and poor classes are being drained at the expense of the rich. It's been going on for 30 years. Standing up and peacefully calling attention to that fact is an exercise of the 1st amendment, for very good reason. You think it's not going to lead to anything. I disagree. Life goes on.

Peacefully? The Tea Party was peaceful. The people of this movement, have specifically said that they need to mess with police, so that they could get arrested and make a point. These are not peaceful protesters. They are taking up PRIVATE park land, and threatening to sue, and shitting on cop cars, and just making a big mess out of everything. They are breaking laws, not just peacefully exercising their 1st amendment right. These protests will end in violence, you mark my word.

The protestors have demands. They aren't looking for solutions. They picked what they don't want, and they are fighting against that. That is, the ones that actually know what the hell they are there for.

The mother Teresa quote seems to always come in handy, even if over used.

I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I will never do that, but as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there.
Mother Teresa

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Property is the source of slavery and much conflict, death and war in the world.

Look, this is a very grandiose-sounding but very empty statement and you know it.

Property is not the source of slavery. The source of slavery is whites going to Afrixa, forcibly capturing blacks and bringing them back to America to work on their cotton fields. I understand that was abolished quite align time back, so what is this talk of slavery all about exactly. I'm sitting right now in my luxurious private property surrounded by assets but I don't see any slaves around.

Property is not the cause of death in the world (unless you are thinking of your own cigarettes when you say "property"). The causes of death vary according to whether it's developed or developing countries we're talking about, but principally the leading causes of death are heart disease, COPD, cancer, HIV complications. Not property.

As for war, in fact the world is a very peaceful place. There are 196 countries in the world, of which, according to Wikipedia, there are only 3 countries with an ongoing military conflict (Sudan, Libya, Syria). So far, the total number of deaths in these three conflicts is about the same average number of Americans who die in car accidents per year. Tragic, but at the same time do note that none of these 3 countries are known to be capitalist or consumerist.

[russianrocket]

Gotta correct you on one point. Whites did not go to Africa and capture blacks. They went to Africa, and bought slaves from BLACK slave traders. Traders that were slave trading long before us Americans went over there. The supply was already there before we came with demand . Blacks need to go over to Africa and demand reputations from their brothers, instead of us white devils.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Look, this is a very grandiose-sounding but very empty statement and you know it.

Property is not the source of slavery. The source of slavery is whites going to Afrixa, forcibly capturing blacks and bringing them back to America to work on their cotton fields. I understand that was abolished quite align time back, so what is this talk of slavery all about exactly. I'm sitting right now in my luxurious private property surrounded by assets but I don't see any slaves around.

Property is not the cause of death in the world (unless you are thinking of your own cigarettes when you say "property"). The causes of death vary according to whether it's developed or developing countries we're talking about, but principally the leading causes of death are heart disease, COPD, cancer, HIV complications. Not property.

As for war, in fact the world is a very peaceful place. There are 196 countries in the world, of which, according to Wikipedia, there are only 3 countries with an ongoing military conflict (Sudan, Libya, Syria). So far, the total number of deaths in these three conflicts is about the same average number of Americans who die in car accidents per year. Tragic, but at the same time do note that none of these 3 countries are known to be capitalist or consumerist.

i guess Iraq and Afghanistan do not count as places that have an onging military conflict?

[garentee]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Gotta correct you on one point. Whites did not go to Africa and capture blacks. They went to Africa, and bought slaves from BLACK slave traders. Traders that were slave trading long before us Americans went over there. The supply was already there before we came with demand . Blacks need to go over to Africa and demand reputations from their brothers, instead of us white devils.

Source?