 Author
|
Topic: The Occupy Movement and Tea Party (Read 6720 times)
|
|
paulkinzelman
|
OWS protesters seem to want to blame all of "Wall Street," despite the fact that the majority of folks who work in finance are no more corrupt than any random sample of Americans, and to totally ignore the fraud committed by the Feds. I think that's shorthand for holding the appropriate people accountable including the Feds, at least that's what it means for me. The fact is (last I heard, anyway) that the majority of fraudulent loans were Fannie or Freddie loans. That's *not* what I heard. That sounds like part of the propaganda attempting to blame it all on the Dems. Uninformed people are always a problem. That's the nature of a large group of people. At least some are demonstrating so that DC is taking notice. We are. Of course, we've been up in arms about that stuff for years Good! We're in violent agreement! (hopefully you won't think that snarky :-). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
OWS protesters seem to want to blame all of "Wall Street," despite the fact that the majority of folks who work in finance are no more corrupt than any random sample of Americans, and to totally ignore the fraud committed by the Feds. I think that's shorthand for holding the appropriate people accountable including the Feds, at least that's what it means for me. That doesn't seem to be what it means for the majority of OWS. I've not heard any real calls for the Feds to be held accountable. Your own posts have centered on "bankers" and generally attempted to minimize the involvement of the Feds. The fact is (last I heard, anyway) that the majority of fraudulent loans were Fannie or Freddie loans. That's *not* what I heard. That sounds like part of the propaganda attempting to blame it all on the Dems. That has nothing to do with "the Dems." I don't consider there to be any practical difference between the Demoblicans and the Republicrats. They put forth identical policies, just using different rhetoric. I think you need to do some more digging. Fannie and Freddie have been involved in some of the worst corruption in the whole mortgage crisis. Even the private-sector fraud would not have been able to reach the levels it did without the direct help of the Feds. We are. Of course, we've been up in arms about that stuff for years Good! We're in violent agreement! (hopefully you won't think that snarky :-). Maybe. I seem to recall you wanting those same violent cops to go around attacking bankers and locking them in cages with "Bubba" (which is generally an allusion to prison rape). I wouldn't want to see that happen to anyone. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
paulkinzelman
|
That doesn't seem to be what it means for the majority of OWS. I've not heard any real calls for the Feds to be held accountable. Your own posts have centered on "bankers" and generally attempted to minimize the involvement of the Feds. Go after the bankers first, and see what happens during the trials about the feds, then go after them. That has nothing to do with "the Dems." I don't consider there to be any practical difference between the Demoblicans and the Republicrats. They put forth identical policies, just using different rhetoric. That may be true for you, but some people who read this stuff (and there are writings that are more pointed and mention only Dems, no Repubs) might be convinced to vote for Repubs because the blame in these pieces are generally one-sided, the stuff I've seen anyway. Maybe. I seem to recall you wanting those same violent cops to go around attacking bankers and locking them in cages with "Bubba" (which is generally an allusion to prison rape). I wouldn't want to see that happen to anyone. I didn't think anybody would take that as literally a valid policy. What I *do* want is to see the criminals indicted and if convicted, be sent to a *real* jail, not a country club like some rich criminals get. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
That doesn't seem to be what it means for the majority of OWS. I've not heard any real calls for the Feds to be held accountable. Your own posts have centered on "bankers" and generally attempted to minimize the involvement of the Feds. Go after the bankers first, and see what happens during the trials about the feds, then go after them. Why go after a whole group, most of whom are innocent? Sounds like McCarthyism. That has nothing to do with "the Dems." I don't consider there to be any practical difference between the Demoblicans and the Republicrats. They put forth identical policies, just using different rhetoric. That may be true for you, but some people who read this stuff (and there are writings that are more pointed and mention only Dems, no Repubs) might be convinced to vote for Repubs because the blame in these pieces are generally one-sided, the stuff I've seen anyway. And most of the OWS folks who express an opinion on the matter are rabidly supporting the Democrats. What's your point? Maybe. I seem to recall you wanting those same violent cops to go around attacking bankers and locking them in cages with "Bubba" (which is generally an allusion to prison rape). I wouldn't want to see that happen to anyone. I didn't think anybody would take that as literally a valid policy. What I *do* want is to see the criminals indicted and if convicted, be sent to a *real* jail, not a country club like some rich criminals get. Still violent. Hiring a cop to do your violence for you doesn't make you nonviolent. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
WendellBerry
|
just because organizations like Bank of America should be entirely dissolved because they pretty much live on fraud, does not mean that all of "Wall Street" - or even just all banks - should be painted with the same brush. if BofA is too big to fail, then it is too big. not one single word about rent-seeking? the whole stinking system from borrower, to lenders, to unregulated derivatives, to rating agencies |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paulkinzelman
|
Why go after a whole group, most of whom are innocent? Sounds like McCarthyism. I didn't think I had to spell everything out in such detail. I thought it'd be obvious not to put all bankers in jail, but to go after the ones who did the fraud. And most of the OWS folks who express an opinion on the matter are rabidly supporting the Democrats. What's your point? You'd have to ask them, but it's probably because most of the Repubs have sold out, along with most of the Dems. There are exceptions in both parties of course. I ignore party affiliation. Still violent. Hiring a cop to do your violence for you doesn't make you nonviolent. So what about indicting, convicting, and putting criminals in a *real* jail (instead of a country club) and requiring restitution is violent? It sounds to me you're just trying to be contrary. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
not one single word about rent-seeking? Uh, that's been discussed in-depth. Privilege, and all that. Why go after a whole group, most of whom are innocent? Sounds like McCarthyism. I didn't think I had to spell everything out in such detail. I thought it'd be obvious not to put all bankers in jail, but to go after the ones who did the fraud. Again, that might be what it means to you, but that's not what the general "voice" of OWS is putting forth. Mostly, we're hearing that banking, itself, is supposedly evil, and all banks should be abolished and replaced with socialist equivalents. I'm not talking about what i]you[/i] might want, but what is being heard from the protesters, and what we'd be linked to by association, if we chose to associate with them. And most of the OWS folks who express an opinion on the matter are rabidly supporting the Democrats. What's your point? You'd have to ask them, but it's probably because most of the Repubs have sold out, along with most of the Dems. There are exceptions in both parties of course. I ignore party affiliation. Why would they rabidly support either party, if they think both parties have sold out? Wouldn't they support neither, then? You may know better, but most of them seem to just be shills for the Demoblicans. Still violent. Hiring a cop to do your violence for you doesn't make you nonviolent. So what about indicting, convicting, and putting criminals in a *real* jail (instead of a country club) and requiring restitution is violent? It sounds to me you're just trying to be contrary. No, I'm being a libertarian. Cops don't ask you nicely. Cops are violent. "Pardon me, sir, but would you mind terribly sitting in this cage for the next few years? If that's too much trouble, no problem..." ...that ain't how it works. They show up, and tell you what to do, "or else." Obey or die. There are times when that's appropriate, like when some carjacker tried to pull a gun on me. But I want no part of your violent revolution. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
paulkinzelman
|
Again, that might be what it means to you, but that's not what the general "voice" of OWS is putting forth. Mostly, we're hearing that banking, itself, is supposedly evil, and all banks should be abolished and replaced with socialist equivalents. Is that *really* from the protesters directly, or from the talking heads? I've not heard that nor do I support that from any of the interviews with actual participants myself. Maybe a few talk this way, but not in general. Why would they rabidly support either party, if they think both parties have sold out? Wouldn't they support neither, then? You may know better, but most of them seem to just be shills for the Demoblicans. I've heard the opposite (preventing either party from coopting OWS) from the *direct* OWS interviews I've heard, again, is this from participants or from interpretation by the talking heads? I rabidly DON'T support either party. Besides, this (rabidly Democratic) seems to conflict with your first contention of what OWS wants (abolish banks) because the Dems don't want to abolish banks AFAIK. No, I'm being a libertarian. Cops don't ask you nicely. Cops are violent. I don't understand what this has to do with anything previously written. The violent-for-no-reason cops should not be cops. I hope the ones that have been doing this get canned after the investigation. They give the good cops (probably the majority) a bad name, just like some of the demonstrators give OWS in general a bad name. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
Again, that might be what it means to you, but that's not what the general "voice" of OWS is putting forth. Mostly, we're hearing that banking, itself, is supposedly evil, and all banks should be abolished and replaced with socialist equivalents. Is that *really* from the protesters directly, or from the talking heads? I've not heard that nor do I support that from any of the interviews with actual participants myself. Maybe a few talk this way, but not in general. My knowledge of OWS is almost exclusively from actual OWS folks. I don't watch, listen to, or read any news from the "mainstream" sources. Why would they rabidly support either party, if they think both parties have sold out? Wouldn't they support neither, then? You may know better, but most of them seem to just be shills for the Demoblicans. I've heard the opposite (preventing either party from coopting OWS) from the *direct* OWS interviews I've heard, again, is this from participants or from interpretation by the talking heads? I rabidly DON'T support either party. Besides, this (rabidly Democratic) seems to conflict with your first contention of what OWS wants (abolish banks) because the Dems don't want to abolish banks AFAIK. That's the whole "rabid" part. "I'll support Obama, even though he doesn't actually offer what I want, just because there's a 'D' next to his name!" If they were supporting some party out of some sort of actual principle, because that party actually represented them, it wouldn't be "rabid" support. There have been a number of opinion polls done of the participants, but legitimate polling firms. No, I'm being a libertarian. Cops don't ask you nicely. Cops are violent. I don't understand what this has to do with anything previously written. The violent-for-no-reason cops should not be cops. I hope the ones that have been doing this get canned after the investigation. They give the good cops (probably the majority) a bad name, just like some of the demonstrators give OWS in general a bad name. All cops - good, bad, or indifferent - are violent. They don't ask; they tell, and they have the weapons and backup to make their threats very credible. When there's a violent problem (someone attempting to mug you, or whatever), a violent solution may be the most appropriate. When there's a problem that does not involve physical violence, calling in the cops is just an escalation. I want no part of your violent revolution. If you want to have a peaceable revolution, we may have something to talk about. But this violence you propose is not something I can endorse. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
paulkinzelman
|
That's the whole "rabid" part. "I'll support Obama, even though he doesn't actually offer what I want, just because there's a 'D' next to his name!" I don't personally know anybody like that nor do I think that's a very intelligent way to vote. I've already said I ignore parties and vote for the person. But this violence you propose is not something I can endorse. What is violent about my desire to prosecute fraud? That necessarily involves the police if they arrest somebody. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
That's the whole "rabid" part. "I'll support Obama, even though he doesn't actually offer what I want, just because there's a 'D' next to his name!" I don't personally know anybody like that nor do I think that's a very intelligent way to vote. I've already said I ignore parties and vote for the person. But we're not talking about you. We're talking about the movement, as a whole. Many of them are apolitical or anti-political. But of those who are proposing a political solution, they overwhelmingly offer blind support to the Demoblicans. But this violence you propose is not something I can endorse. What is violent about my desire to prosecute fraud? That necessarily involves the police if they arrest somebody. And if it involves the police, it is, by definition, violent. How can you imagine that calling in armed men to solve problems is anything but violent? We can discuss whether violence is justified in a particular situation, but trying to say that armed men physically assaulting people isn't violent... well, I don't think we can have much of a dialog, if you believe that such behavior is nonviolent. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
paulkinzelman
|
We're talking about the movement, as a whole. I've not heard that from *anywhere* in any of the interviews or people I've talked with and I'd be very surprised if the movement were about this. You didn't get this from Rush, did you? And if it involves the police, it is, by definition, violent. Wow, this is a unique definition that I've never heard before. Not much I can say to this if you really believe this. from aways back... But which loans were fraudulent, other than the ones that were required by law? I'm sure there were individual instances of fraud (as in any industry), but the only widespread fraud I'm aware of was the fraud that was legally-mandated. This is quite a statement (the law requiring fraudulent loans to be made), again, a remarkable opinion, quite a different cause of the crisis than I've heard anywhere else. It basically ignores a whole lot else going on that caused the crisis reported on by a whole lot of different sources. You might want to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Crisis_Inquiry_Commission Also Matt Taibbi, I think he does a good job of covering the topic of responsibility for the crisis. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
We're talking about the movement, as a whole. I've not heard that from *anywhere* in any of the interviews or people I've talked with and I'd be very surprised if the movement were about this. You didn't get this from Rush, did you? I've not heard their take on OWS. Have they weighed in? I do like their music, regardless of what opinion they may or may not have expressed on OWS... And if it involves the police, it is, by definition, violent. Wow, this is a unique definition that I've never heard before. Not much I can say to this if you really believe this. That's not a "unique definition" - that's an accurate definition. Police are violent. Or was that a non-violent act, when that cop pepper-sprayed those protesters sitting on the sidewalk at UC Davis, a few days ago? If that's your definition of "non-violent," I think you aren't living in the real world... But which loans were fraudulent, other than the ones that were required by law? I'm sure there were individual instances of fraud (as in any industry), but the only widespread fraud I'm aware of was the fraud that was legally-mandated. This is quite a statement (the law requiring fraudulent loans to be made), again, a remarkable opinion, quite a different cause of the crisis than I've heard anywhere else. It basically ignores a whole lot else going on that caused the crisis reported on by a whole lot of different sources. You might want to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Crisis_Inquiry_Commission Also Matt Taibbi, I think he does a good job of covering the topic of responsibility for the crisis. The Federal government found that the Federal government was not responsible? Why, I'm sure that was an amazingly-unbiased report, eh? The fact that you find things which are common knowledge to be "remarkable" or "unique" doesn't impress me. I think you've done very little research on any of these topics. I think that's relatively common among OWS, and is another good reason not to associate ourselves with them. I don't want to be associated with folks who just repeat verbatim whatever their favorite propagandist had to say. Folks who have positions based upon research and critical thought make much better allies. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
paulkinzelman
|
That's not a "unique definition" - that's an accurate definition. Police are violent. Stop being absurd. Nobody is inherently violent or non-violent. I think you've done very little research on any of these topics. While I haven't much *direct* research into *primary* sources (like reading original bills and time-consuming research), I have done a lot of reading from many places and I go by what I regard as credible sources. I really don't see that there's a lot to be gained by either of us continuing this discussion because we can't agree on 'facts' like you seem to attribute a whole lot more importance on the legislation to incent the granting of mortgages of poor people than most people I've seen. From my reading, there are a whole plethora of reasons for the crash. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
MaineShark
|
That's not a "unique definition" - that's an accurate definition. Police are violent. Stop being absurd. Nobody is inherently violent or non-violent. There's no such thing as non-violent policing. They might not be inherently violent, before they start the job, but the first day, they're certain to engage in some sort of violence. I note that you skip right over the pepper-spraying of protesters. No response to that? I think you've done very little research on any of these topics. While I haven't much *direct* research into *primary* sources (like reading original bills and time-consuming research), I have done a lot of reading from many places and I go by what I regard as credible sources. Except you only seem to view sources as "credible" if they agree with your preconceived notions, from what I've been able to tell. I really don't see that there's a lot to be gained by either of us continuing this discussion because we can't agree on 'facts' like you seem to attribute a whole lot more importance on the legislation to incent the granting of mortgages of poor people than most people I've seen. Perhaps you need to spend time with a more-diverse group of individuals, then, eh? From my reading, there are a whole plethora of reasons for the crash. There were. Almost all of them directly or indirectly related to governmental meddling. Take out even 10% of the government meddling, and the bubble would never have gotten as big as it did, nor the crash be as bad as it has been. Just as with the Great Depression, which the Feds have finally, publicly admitted that they caused, this current depression was caused by the government. Private individuals may have played a part, but only as a result of the government's actions; they never would have been in a position to do what they did, if the government hadn't stacked the deck in their favor. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"An armed society is a polite society" - this does not mean that we are polite because we fear each other.
We are not civilized because we are armed; we are armed because we are civilized..
|
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
