#occupy<insertlocalehere>

[flamesfan6]

Here in victoria they occupy movement is tagging onto the christmas parade after santa...

http://www.timescolonist.com/life/Oc...051/story.html

this is just going to turn people off what they are trying to do... ruining a family event...

[CaptainCrunch]

Hopefully people boo the crap out of them and throw their candy back in their faces, so they'll finally get the hint

[Puppet Guy]

Originally Posted by flamesfan6

Here in victoria they occupy movement is tagging onto the christmas parade after santa...

http://www.timescolonist.com/life/Oc...051/story.html

this is just going to turn people off what they are trying to do... ruining a family event...

best line from the comments section:

"At least , the kids will get a real sense of what reindeer smell like."

[moncton golden flames]

Originally Posted by OffsideSpecialist

#occupyChristmas?



Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Ne...#ixzz1eURjWfV7

occupy movement financially backed by Adbusters. Adbusters are financially supported by the Tides Centre, which gets their money from the Open Society Foundation, that is directly funded by George Soros. look into the history of Soros and what he has been a part of in eastern europe and russia. it's not hard to predict where occupy wall street is taking their actions...

[CaptainCrunch]

Interesting story as a New York Times reporter is not just covering the OWS but actively participating

http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2011/10/...cupy-protests/

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Itse

That's a completely different argument, and irrelevant to the original claim. I admit that there migh not have been a pregnancy, but it's different from claiming that if she was pregnant she was somehow to blame.

Rushed the police line? Reference please, where have the demonstrators done this?

Liquids on their face? oo-kay... But please reference, preferably in that particular demonstration?

Something to back this up? I know a woman fell down the stairs, but was someone charged or is there a video that shows what happened? Or are you perhaps just assuming, when we might just as well be talking about an accident?

Give me some examples?

Even if you don't, you have to remember that there have been a lot of people in a lot of places for a long time. A few crimes happening in that time frame in the some places is completely irrelevant to the movement in whole.

Your argument seems basicly to be that if a student stabs someone in a school, it's okay for the police to rush the school in riot gear and pepper gas anyone who protests.

A few days late here, but all your requests for examples can be found by simply reading the news. It seems willful ignorance is a calling card of this movement.

[Muta]

A bit off topic, but related to the protests nonetheless:

http://rt.com/usa/news/fed-trillion-...e-bailout-401/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...lion-this-time

Stories like these are why the OWS movement is happening. And if these stories are true, rightfully they should be.

[CaptainCrunch]

Maybe Muta, but it does show how mis targeted the Occupy movement is. Instead of occupying Wall Street or crying about the 1% and class warfare, shouldn't they be occupying the White house and the Senate and Congress instead?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Maybe Muta, but it does show how mis targeted the Occupy movement is. Instead of occupying Wall Street or crying about the 1% and class warfare, shouldn't they be occupying the White house and the Senate and Congress instead?

Yes, and I've made that point all along. But again, Wall Street is a very symbolic location for protesting, whether it's the most logical location or not. As well, the banks themselves are not without blood on their hands either - lobbying for non-reforms, betting on mortgages, etc... what they were doing might have been within the realm of American banking laws (as shoddy as the laws were), but that still doesn't mean it's right to do it. There is some merit as to protesting on Wall Street.

[metallicat]

1400 cops used to clear out Occupy LA. The LAPD or state of California should sue someone to get the money back it cost to use 1400 cops. I don't know who, just someone.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...ccupy-la-camp/

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

occupy movement financially backed by Adbusters. Adbusters are financially supported by the Tides Centre, which gets their money from the Open Society Foundation, that is directly funded by George Soros. look into the history of Soros and what he has been a part of in eastern europe and russia. it's not hard to predict where occupy wall street is taking their actions...

Yeah, good ol' Soros. Didn't he help the Nazi's round up other jews in Hungary?

He funds a number of foundations and "think tanks". He loves to talk about world governance etc.

He is also a big supporter of moveon.org, which is fully behind Obama.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Maybe Muta, but it does show how mis targeted the Occupy movement is. Instead of occupying Wall Street or crying about the 1% and class warfare, shouldn't they be occupying the White house and the Senate and Congress instead?

I don't think it matters.

The White House and Congress are basically business partners with the likes of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America etc.

The class warfare message that is coming from the occupy movement is a form of co-opting in my opinion. I don't believe most of the protestors are marxists.

[c.t.ner]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Maybe Muta, but it does show how mis targeted the Occupy movement is. Instead of occupying Wall Street or crying about the 1% and class warfare, shouldn't they be occupying the White house and the Senate and Congress instead?

They are. There are two camps in DC. OccupyDc in McPherson Square and the more radical group of anti-war protestors at Freedom Plaza.

http://occupydc.org/

They've held quite a few protests directed straight at Congress and the other elements in DC. There are marches every couple of days directed at the White House, Senate and Congress Buildings.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/...eiu-protesters

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Muta

A bit off topic, but related to the protests nonetheless:

http://rt.com/usa/news/fed-trillion-...e-bailout-401/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/econom...lion-this-time

Stories like these are why the OWS movement is happening. And if these stories are true, rightfully they should be.

First of all that $8 Trillion number is misleading.

Say I lent you a dollar and asked that you pay it back a day later. You follow through and pay me back a dollar the next day. Then say you come back a couple of days later and borrow another dollar and promptly pay it back the next day. The way that $8 Trillion is calculated it would imply I lent you two dollars, but in reality at no time did you owe me more than one dollar. Extrapolate my example to the largest banking institutions and the number of days in the time period measured and I can assure you that the amount of money owed to the Federal Reserve at any given time by these banks never appraoched $8 Trillion.

Second of all, by all means the Fed acted as lender of last resort when there was a liquidity crunch. This is actually what the Fed was created to do after the guilded age and the panics of 1907 and further reinforeced in the 1930s. Doing away with the Fed and it's job as lender of last resort is actually removing a safeguard on the financial system.

Third of all is that the reason for the secrecy of these transactions is that if the market knew on any given day how much a bank was tapping the Fed for or even that the bank needed to tap the fed there would be a run on said bank and it would likely go under right then and there defeating the purpose of being a lender of last resort.

[Muta]

But is the Fed just creating money out of thin air to finance these loans? An audit on this institution would be amazing to see.

As well, the amount of transactions leading up to $8 trillion is sort of irrelevant. $8 trillion in bailouts is $8 trillion dollars in bailouts, no matter how you spin it. They were all used for the same purpose.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

But is the Fed just creating money out of thin air to finance these loans? An audit on this institution would be amazing to see.

As well, the amount of transactions leading up to $8 trillion is sort of irrelevant. $8 trillion in bailouts is $8 trillion dollars in bailouts, no matter how you spin it. They were all used for the same purpose.

The amount going out really doesn't matter, you have to look at what goes out as well as what comes back in. $8 trillion going out is a huge number, but if $9 trillion came back in what's the problem?

It seems that the typical approach when discussing anything around this issue is to latch onto one small piece of a massive puzzle and pretend like that's the entire story.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by valo403

The amount going out really doesn't matter, you have to look at what goes out as well as what comes back in. $8 trillion going out is a huge number, but if $9 trillion came back in what's the problem?

It seems that the typical approach when discussing anything around this issue is to latch onto one small piece of a massive puzzle and pretend like that's the entire story.

Where is that $9 trillion figure coming from?

Also, does the Federal Reserve just create money from nothing for the purposes of lending? Or is there a standard to base the money supply against?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

Where is that $9 trillion figure coming from?

Also, does the Federal Reserve just create money from nothing for the purposes of lending? Or is there a standard to base the money supply against?

I was just using it as an example, no idea what the figures are. My point is that you can't just latch on to part of the story, which is what that article does.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Muta

But is the Fed just creating money out of thin air to finance these loans? An audit on this institution would be amazing to see.

As well, the amount of transactions leading up to $8 trillion is sort of irrelevant. $8 trillion in bailouts is $8 trillion dollars in bailouts, no matter how you spin it. They were all used for the same purpose.

1. There are a number of ways these loans are financed. Sometimes, yes they do create money 'out of thin air.' It's actually their mandate to regulate the money supply as inflation/economy sees fit. They have created 'money out of thin air' twice since 2008 through a process called 'Quantitative Easing.' You might recall the acronyms 'QE' or 'QE2' in the news.

2. If acting as a lender of last resort is evil then by all means we should go back to the guilded age where bank panics and lost savings were actually more common. You're viewpoint on the Fed not being able to serve as a lender of last resort is more in line with tea partiers who protest Fiat currency vs. the gold standard than OWS protesters.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Muta

Where is that $9 trillion figure coming from?

Also, does the Federal Reserve just create money from nothing for the purposes of lending? Or is there a standard to base the money supply against?

we have a fiat economy, which means money is worth what the goverment says it is and no there is no standard to base it on, this is why we are in so much trouble but, conversely, also why we are so well off.