Wall Street Protests and the Media Blackout - Page 2

Yeah - a bunch of 22 year old trainees plugging numbers in excel spreadsheets for their traders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diva 

Play spot Diva in the crowd! (Hint: I can be see at 1:13)

 

The folks at The Daily Show told me to hold up their sign, and then I popped up a little past the three minute mark.
 

Are you holding the panini sign?

Oops, more like, around 2:48.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sirius-xms-opie-confronted-with-alinsky-like-tactics-at-occupy-wall-street/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Shaver 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/sirius-xms-opie-confronted-with-alinsky-like-tactics-at-occupy-wall-street/

FYI-
"the blaze" is a site started by Glen (buy gold) Beck

so.....why the fuck should anyone trust anything it reports on? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan 

 

FYI-"the blaze" is a site started by Glen (buy gold) Beck

 

so.....why the fuck should anyone trust anything it reports on? 

 

Because you're an idiot.

OWS goes pop culture

And of course, the best for last:

Quote:

Originally Posted by VTRan 

 

FYI-"the blaze" is a site started by Glen (buy gold) Beck

 

so.....why the fuck should anyone trust anything it reports on? 

 

I know he started the site. I was interested in what people thought of the videos.

Relevant:

Hasn't been relevant for awhile:

Senor Burns es El Diablo!

Back on topic: Police brutality hit a new high this weekend and none of the local papers are reporting on it. I'm especially surprised The New York Times is silent. This shit needs to go national!

White shirt cop punches protestor in the face!

Cop runs over protestor

A few more videos:

Guy has a "I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore" moment.

A really powerful video juxtaposing the US administration's stance on foreign countries' violence against their own people with the attacks by NYPD on the Occupy Wallstreet protestors.

I posted the Dylan Ratigan video in The Economy Oops thread but its great if anyone hasn't seen it.

I love Occupy Wall St. sfm.  I've been to the LA protest and have been following the others on the internet and Keith Olbermann--who has been covering the hell out of it. 

That quote credited to Mohandas Gandhi really seems to apply here.  We've seen every reaction--ridicule, marginalization, smearing, lying, fake "viral" stories and pictures, etc.  Yet it seems to only be growing.

The thing that Fox News can't contain or control is the fact that everyone knows something is wrong.  What the OWS people are saying resonates with totally non-political people because it hits home.  It touches on a part of contemporary life that has been completely ignored by the media and politicians for too long.  The people I know that watch Fox are not going to understand what's going on until their friends on Fox tell them, and that will never happen.  I don't think they'll ever admit there's even anything wrong unless they come right up against it, like get denied insurance coverage when something catastrophic happens, etc.  And even then, probably not.

But I can't help but feeling the tide of history in this movement.  I mean, it's already succeeded where so many have failed in getting the idiots on TV to actually talk about widespread fraud and corruption in the financial sector and corporate greed in general.  I h

If Obama were smart, he'd grab his board & try to ride this wave of mass rage back into the White House next year. In 2008, his campaign was buoyed on "Hope". In 2012, it could be reignited by "Anger".

I watched MSNBC tonight and Barny Frank was all but discrediting the protests, saying that it doesn't do any good unless these people do something politically. Is he actually trying to pretend like the first two years of the Obama administration didn't happen? All we got was Dodd/Frank and it was stripped of any real purpose. I know he's frustrated by that, but to go on TV and pretend like the only problem with our political and financial institutions is that people aren't voting is beyond ridiculous. I love the guy, but people just aren't that fucking naive. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/44935992#44935992

Anyone who stands against these guys specifically Bill Black is a fraud loving gangster.

Bill Black prosecuted the Savings and Loan disaster. He is an expert in White Collar crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_K._Black

He has been asked in this forum to be an attorney general?

Anyone disagree?

Let me say this about the left right para dime. It has no place when discussing the rule of law and prosecutions of such.

Principles have nothing to do with Republican or Democrat.

The Occupy Wall Street movement has nothing to do with Socialism, Communism blah blah blah.

It has to do with holding the 1% accountable who commited criminal fraud.

Ending corporate welfare and seizing on criminal massive banks.

Does anyone here think these guppies are the only ones?

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/SF-Bankers-Become-First-TARP-Recipients-To-Be-Charged-With-Fraud-131590348.html

Systemic economic failure.

The Federal Reserve is run by banks it is privately owned. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAp3GgFHsiY

Interest rates, printing money non stop thus inflating the dollar more and more. Whats someone's government Social Security check or any govt check worth if the dollar is worth nothing or less and less because of inflation? How is that not in itself a ponzi scheme? No I am not trying to be Rick Perry fuck that guy what i'm saying is if Grandma can't afford to live more and more each year because of inflation what does that mean about our economic principles and our Federal Reserve?

Again Matt Taibbi, Bill Black, Dylan Ratigan any many others what are they saying? Give the super congress the reins? No. Letting political parties co opt this movement? No. Look carefully.

Rule of law. The political parties have sold out and have done it for years they blame one another but who pays?

Mozzilo of Countrywide should be behind bars as should many of these Wall Street figures. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQow0Fhua1A

What say you?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blo....

Why Occupy Wall Street is Bigger Than Left vs. Right
by Matt Taibbi

POSTED: October 17, 9:46 AM ET

I was surprised, amused and annoyed all at once when I found out yesterday that some moron-provocateur linked to notorious right-wing cybergoon Andrew Breitbart had infiltrated
a series of private e-mail lists – including one that I have been participating in – and was using them to run an exposé on the supposed behind-the-scenes marionetting of the OWS movement by the liberal media.

According to various web reports, what happened was that a private "cyber-security researcher" named Thomas Ryan somehow accessed a series of email threads between various individuals and dumped them all on BigGovernment.com, Breitbart's site. Gawker is also reporting that Ryan forwarded some of these emails to the FBI and the NYPD.

I have no idea whether those email exchanges are the same as the ones I was involved with. But what is clear is that some private email exchanges between myself and a number of other people – mostly financial journalists and activists who know each other from having covered the crisis from the same angle in the last three years, people like Barry Ritholz, Dylan Ratigan, former regulator William Black, Glenn Greenwald and myself – ended up being made public.

There is nothing terribly interesting in any of these exchanges. Most all of the things written were things all of us ended up saying publicly in our various media forums. In my case, what I wrote was almost an exact copy of my Rolling Stone article last week, suggesting a list of demands for the movement. I said I thought having demands was a good idea and listed a few things I thought demonstrators could focus on. Others disagreed, and there was a friendly back-and-forth.

So I was amazed to wake up this morning and find that various right-wing sites had used these exchanges to build a story about a conspiracy of left-wing journalists. "Busted. Emails Show Liberal Media & Far Left Cranks Conspired With #OWS Protesters to Craft Message," wrote one.

Breitbart's site, BigGovernment.com, went further, saying that the Occupy Washington D.C. movement is "working with well-known media members to craft its demands and messaging while these media members report on the movement."

The list, the site wrote, include:

...well known names such as MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan, Rolling Stone’s Matt Tiabbi [sic] who both are actively participating; involvement from other listers such as Bill Moyers and Glenn Greenwald plus well-known radicals like Noam Chomsky, remains unclear.

Aside from the appalling fact of these *******s stealing private emails and bragging about it in public, the whole story is completely absurd. None of the people on the list, as far as I know, are actually organizers of OWS -- I know I'm not one, anyway.

In fact, I was surprised by the entire characterization of this list as being some kind of official wing of OWS. I thought it was just a bunch of emails from friends of mine, talking about what advice we would give protesters, if any of them asked, which in my case anyway they definitely did not.

This whole episode to me underscores an unpleasant development for OWS. There is going to be a fusillade of attempts from many different corners to force these demonstrations into the liberal-conservative blue-red narrative.

This will be an effort to transform OWS from a populist and wholly non-partisan protest against bailouts, theft, insider trading, self-dealing, regulatory capture and the market-perverting effect of the Too-Big-To-Fail banks into something a little more familiar and less threatening, i.e. a captive "liberal" uprising that the right will use to whip up support and the Democrats will try to turn into electoral energy for 2012.

Tactically, what we'll see here will be a) people firmly on the traditional Democratic side claiming to speak for OWS, and b) people on the right-Republican side attempting to portray OWS as a puppet of well-known liberals and other Democratic interests.

On the Democratic side, we've already seen a lot of this behavior, particularly in the last week or so. Glenn Greenwald wrote about this a lot last week, talking about how Obama has already made it clear that he is "on the same side as the Wall Street protesters" and that the Democratic Party, through the DCCC (its House fundraising arm), has jumped into the fray by circulating a petition seeking 100,000 party supporters to affirm that “I stand with the Occupy Wall Street protests.”(I wonder how firmly the DCCC was standing with OWS sentiment back when it was pushing for the bailouts and the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act).

We've similarly heard about MoveOn.org jumping into the demonstrations and attempting, seemingly, to assume leadership roles in the movement.

All of this is the flip side of the coin that has people like Breitbart trying to frame OWS as a socialist uprising and a liberal media conspiracy. The aim here is to redraw the protests along familiar battle lines.

The Rush Limbaughs of the world are very comfortable with a narrative that has Noam Chomsky, MoveOn and Barack Obama on one side, and the Tea Party and Republican leaders on the other. The rest of the traditional media won't mind that narrative either, if it can get enough "facts" to back it up. They know how to do that story and most of our political media is based upon that Crossfire paradigm of left-vs-right commentary shows and NFL Today-style team-vs-team campaign reporting.

What nobody is comfortable with is a movement in which virtually the entire spectrum of middle class and poor Americans is on the same page, railing against incestuous political and financial corruption on Wall Street and in Washington. The reality is that Occupy Wall Street and the millions of middle Americans who make up the Tea Party are natural allies and should be on the same page about most of the key issues, and that's a story our media won't want to or know how to handle.

Take, for instance, the matter of the Too-Big-To-Fail banks, which people like me and Barry Ritholz have focused on as something that could be a key issue for OWS. These gigantic institutions have put millions of ordinary people out of their homes thanks to a massive fraud scheme for which they were not punished, owing to their enormous influence with government and their capture of the regulators.

This is an issue for the traditional "left" because it's a classic instance of overweening corporate power -- but it's an issue for the traditional "right" because these same institutions are also the biggest welfare bums of all time, de facto wards of the state who sucked trillions of dollars of public treasure from the pockets of patriotic taxpayers from coast to coast.

Both traditional constituencies want these companies off the public teat and back swimming on their own in the cruel seas of the free market, where they will inevitably be drowned in their corruption and greed, if they don't reform immediately. This is a major implicit complaint of the OWS protests and it should absolutely strike a nerve with Tea Partiers, many of whom were talking about some of the same things when they burst onto the scene a few years ago.

The banks know this. They know they have no "natural" constituency among voters, which is why they spend such fantastic amounts of energy courting the mainstream press and such huge sums lobbying politicians on both sides of the aisle.

The only way the Goldmans and Citis and Bank of Americas can survive is if they can suck up popular political support indirectly, either by latching onto such vague right-populist concepts as "limited government" and "free-market capitalism" (ironic, because none of them would survive ten minutes without the federal government's bailouts and other protections) or, alternatively, by presenting themselves as society's bulwark against communism, lefty extremism, Noam Chomsky, etc.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying one thing: beware of provocateurs on both sides of the aisle. This movement is going to attract many Breitbarts, of both the left and right variety. They're going to try to identify fake leaders, draw phony battle lines, and then herd everybody back into the same left-right cage matches of old. Whenever that happens, we just have to remember not to fall for the trap. When someone says this or that person speaks for OWS, don't believe it. This thing is bigger than one or two or a few people, and it isn't part of the same old story.

I agree with this.  The problem that Mr. Taibbi and his ilk fail to recognize is that the Tea Party anger was directed at the correct target, Washington.  The OWS movement is mad at capitalism and wants, via their own demands list, a quasi Marxist-Fascist economy-state.  This is where the movement will and already is being tripped up.

History goes further back than Dodd-Frank to the federal guarantee and propping up of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.  The reality OWS cannot face is that Wall Street just played(gamed?) the system that a corrupt Washington set up by backing up, with the full faith and credit of the United States, sub-prime mortgages.  Mortgages that were NOT made to people at the point of a gun as the left would have you assume.  They were made under the auspices of, even further back in history, the Community Reinvestment Act to people who were almost assuredly not going to be able to pay them back.

Maybe the underlying thoughts behind OWS mesh well with the Tea Party but suppose they join forces and accomplish their goals of ending corruption on the Hill and on the Street; where would we be then ideologically?  Right back where we are now except even worse as you have the fringe elements fighting even more openly for either a Marxist state or a more pure Capitalist state.

And to think that this isn't an astro-turf movement, Soros instead of Koch, just because it aligns with your already preconceived political notions then you have lost the first big battle for mindspace and are almost certain to lose the war.

*EDIT*  None of this is to say that I am in favor of crony capitalism, of which Obama is an exceptional purveyor of; rather I believe quite a bit of money needs to be removed from our political system.

You know I'm going to be bluntly honest. If in ten years time I find myself in some Stalinost reeducation/death/torture/bad camp as a result of these OWC protesters creating a terrifying Marxist-Fascist state? Well I'll get down on my knees and aplogize for ever doubting you types.

But until then? I'll just kinda continue having an inkling that this view is full of shit, and that I can actively get behind almost any movement that kinda hates rich people.

Then you don't know your history.  Fascism is an economic ideology that was co-opted by dictators and woven into something altogether different.  I never posited "reeducation/death/torture/bad camp"('s) as an outcome.  Economically the ideas of Marxism and Fascism are just as bad to me as the co-opted re-writing of history you have chosen to believe.

Go get a job from a poor person and live out your class warfare ideology.

Oh I wouldn't be seeking a job anyway though! I'm just waiting for the day when class warfare errupts into full on violence and I can go door to door laughing manically as I take everything somebody's worked SO HARD to get while walking through puddles of their blood!

Tzu, do you honestly not see a difference between the current system and "capitalism" in general? Speaking for myself, I'm all for a true capitalist free market, which can easily exist alongside a somewhat socialist system, as it did for years. We don't have a true free market anymore, because of corporations and the wealthy gaming the system. If I'm angry about that and want the reformation of the rules in a way that "bleeds" corporations, which is to say returns them to the levels of tax-paying and limitation that we enjoyed for decades, does that make me a radical Marxist? I don't think so.

And saying that Washington is the "correct" target sort of ignores how many of the problems in Washington stem from politicians on both side of the aisle being in the pocket of the 1%.

I'll never understand how frantic some people who aren't directly benefiting from this system can be to deflect criticism from the wealthy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Tzu, do you honestly not see a difference between the current system and "capitalism" in general? Speaking for myself, I'm all for a true capitalist free market, which can easily exist alongside a somewhat socialist system, as it did for years. We don't have a true free market anymore, because of corporations and the wealthy gaming the system. If I'm angry about that and want the reformation of the rules in a way that "bleeds" corporations, which is to say returns them to the levels of tax-paying and limitation that we enjoyed for decades, does that make me a radical Marxist? I don't think so.

 

And saying that Washington is the "correct" target sort of ignores how many of the problems in Washington stem from politicians on both side of the aisle being in the pocket of the 1%.

 

I'll never understand how frantic some people who aren't directly benefiting from this system can be to deflect criticism from the wealthy.

+1 .....but there would be a few clarifications. 

"capitalism" is fine....unregulated capitalism is where things start to go to shit.

also, IMO, it's not so much that people that are 'wealthy' (or want to be wealthy), it's the individuals that are (seemingly) infected with avarice that are at the root of many of the current economic dilemma.

I think the tipping point is the "Citizens United" SCOTUS decision....this decision blatantly wedged open the door for a full blown, no-apologies plutocratic government here in the US.

How much money is really needed to live a 'comfortable' life? ......$100,000.....$500,000.....a million....a billion?

I realize that fundamentally, this is a moral question.....one that, IMO, needs to be confronted just as much as 'real' problems affecting this country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

Tzu, do you honestly not see a difference between the current system and "capitalism" in general? Speaking for myself, I'm all for a true capitalist free market, which can easily exist alongside a somewhat socialist system, as it did for years. We don't have a true free market anymore, because of corporations and the wealthy gaming the system. If I'm angry about that and want the reformation of the rules in a way that "bleeds" corporations, which is to say returns them to the levels of tax-paying and limitation that we enjoyed for decades, does that make me a radical Marxist? I don't think so.

 

And saying that Washington is the "correct" target sort of ignores how many of the problems in Washington stem from politicians on both side of the aisle being in the pocket of the 1%.

 

I'll never understand how frantic some people who aren't directly benefiting from this system can be to deflect criticism from the wealthy.

I believe we are in nearly complete agreement if you look a few posts above the one I think you are responding too.

As to the "correct" target, a lot of the OWS movement wants to know why the "perpetrators" on WS haven't been arrested for their "crimes"; Well maybe it's because much of what they did weren't crimes once(and in many cases before) the government forced them to accept TARP money or else.

Are the two sides comingled to an unhealthy degree?  Yes they are.  Is Wall Street the correct avenue for change?  No, I do not believe it is.  The ballot box is.  Politicians who aren't bought and paid for, that will reform the system, who will repeal repugnant legislation or stand up to questionable SCOTUS decisions.  Elect these people.

Our divergence of opinion(I believe) is one that is being trumpeted by the left and the protestors, more government.  I don't believe that more intervention is the answer.  I believe Too Big to Fail is un-American.

But voters don't have a chance to vote for representatives who aren't bought and paid for because they can't even get on the ballot box due to being outspent in campaigns.

Disrupting the financial sector isn't going to bring about changes to McCain-Feingold nor CU.

So true. Sadly. Without an actionable goal, this ruckus is about as effective as hitting your TV to change the channel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TzuDohNihm 

I believe we are in nearly complete agreement if you look a few posts above the one I think you are responding too.

I don't think we are, at least, not in our analysis of the situation. You claimed the protestors are Marxists and used the phrase "Class Warfare", which suggests you have a particularly skewed viewpoint on the subject. Much like someone claiming that the Tea Party were a bunch of budding Nazis who got together due to fear of a black president is reductive. Criticism is one thing, but don't spew talking points and buzzwords. The Taibbi article more or less warns against the very rhetorical traps you immediately fell into.

And were you saying "the proper place for this is the ballot box" when the Tea Party started marching? The ballot box is ONE form of democracy. Peaceful assembly and activism is another, crucial one, and it's something we need more of, frankly. Far too many people have been voting and then sitting on their hands for the last decade or two, when popular pressure can play a much bigger role in getting things done than political machinations (though they can play a big role in that, as well, as the Tea Party demonstrated last year). Obama essentially said this in his victory speech--he encouraged the people to make their desires known so that he could act on it, a message the Tea Party picked up on.

We complain about corrupt, feckless, and weak-willed politicians, but the fact is, if there's popular pressure, it steers their behaviour. A politician who wants to be re-elected is going to go where the wind is blowing. It's why Nixon ran on a platform of ending the Vietnam war. If Americans forgot this, it's because we had eight years of the Bush administration, a group who honestly didn't seem to care what the people wanted, but (and call me a cockeyed optimist) most politicians aren't like that. Not because they're good-hearted visionaries but because they want popular support. If the people are demanding the repeal of Glass-Steagall or changes to McCain-Feingold or whatever, the politicians who stand in the way of that are suddenly going to get nervous and rethink their policies. Again, we've gotten used to a certain group trying to push through pro-corporate policies and then spin it after the fact, with a portion of the population eating up the demagoguery with a spoon and everyone else bending over and taking it. If this puts the brakes on this process and starts to provide an alternative narrative, then that alone is a great justification for all this.

As for "the correct target"...how is this NOT aimed at Washington? I'm pretty sure most of the OWS protestors know that Wall St. isn't a democracy. And then you complain about how their solution is "more government", when I call it "getting the government to do its fucking job".

Yeah but Prank doesn't Tzu already see taxation as governments robbing their own citizenry? I get the feeling his idea of 'government doing its job' is for it to be non-fucking-existent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

So true. Sadly. Without an actionable goal, this ruckus is about as effective as hitting your TV to change the channel.

There are plenty of goals put forth. The purpose of the protests is to get people with power to understand that people will not go away until they are implemented.

Unless their main website changed recently, I thought it was corporate money out of politics.

Doesnt seem that outlandish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diva 

There are plenty of goals put forth. The purpose of the protests is to get people with power to understand that people will not go away until they are implemented.

 

...and for people without power being educated about who's taken it from them.

Government is us.  If we get distracted and let big business take it over so that it serves only them and hurts the rest of us, we have to share the blame for letting it happen.  Tzu, big money corrupts any system of government if those in charge of monitoring it take their eye off the ball and those determined to corrupt it NEVER take their eye off the ball, which is what happened.  Destroy government and big money will corrupt any hinkey system you put in its place.  I think we have a great system of laws.  I believe in the Constitution.  What I don't believe in are several Supreme Court decisionwhich gave corporations the rights of personhood without any of the responsibilities, frailties or consequences of wrongdoing (like imprisonment and being put to death).

The truth is, Occupy Wall Street has it much more right than the Tea Party, which started as one thing and was immediately coopted by the greedy, nihilistic Koch brothers crowd. 

I understand YT, those protestors whom you agree with have a right to protest but those you don't, don't have that right. It makes sense... Thanks for letting us know what the communist left thinks. ;)

Fortunatly we live in the real America where both have the right to protest and rally... for now. Hopefully YT doesn't get any power ;)

Mark Ruffalo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQl-newdycU

Marine Vet at OWS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aaTGsGdp4c

Rapper Lupe Fiasco at OWS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rCxIjd0Wtc

What A True American Hero looks like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_yy8NSvnlQ

Marc Faber says Americans need to tighten their belts, save more and work more for lower salaries

http://www.bi-me.com/main.php?id=54864&t=1&cg=4

Obama's Attempt To Use %OWS As A Diversionary Smoke Screen Fails: 56% Believe Washington To Blame For Crisis And Recession

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/obamas-attempt-use-ows-diversionary-smoke-screen-fails-56-believe-washington-blame-crisis-and-r

Zero Hedge is the last to cut Wall Street, with its rampant criminality, conflicts of interest, and corruption, any slack - in fact we are often the first to expose it. That said, we have long found it surprising that popular anger is focused on this particular group of individuals, instead of targeting the just as, if not far more, culpable for the current economic collapse enabling focal point known as Washington D.C. As has been discussed previously, it is no surprise that none other than the president has been quick to embrace the Occupy Wall Street movement and its offshoots as his own: after all it cleanly and efficiently deflects attention from his own near-3 year performance as president.

Surely Obama is neither the first (nor last) to recognize that the scapegoating of a "minority" group (as the Wall Street "1%" clearly is) and use it as a catalyst for class warfare, is a historically very successful tactic. Well, while thousands of people may express their displeasure with their plight openly before the traditional symbols of Wall Street, it would appear that Obama is failing in his attempt at global diversion from the place where popular anger should truly lie: Congress, Senate, and of course, the White House, without whose (and by 'whose' here we clearly envision Tim Geithner, Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke) blessings Wall Street would not exist in its current form. Yet it does, and many have figured that out.

According to a brand new poll by The Hill, "in the minds of likely voters, Washington, not Wall Street, is primarily to blame for the financial crisis and the subsequent recession. The movement appears to have struck a chord with progressive voters, but it does not seem to represent the feelings of the wider public. The Hill poll found that only one in three likely voters blames Wall Street for the country’s financial troubles, whereas more than half — 56 percent — blame Washington. Moreover, when it comes to the political consequences of the protest, voters tend to believe that there are more perils than positives for Obama and the Democrats." Sorry Obama, your attempt to demonize bankers (who richly deserve the public pariah status they have achieved, not least of due to the in vitro world they occupy, where anything less than $1 million is pocket change) has failed, and the people recognize that real social change, one that must and will impact Wall Street, has to begin with the commodity most often purchased  by Wall Street: politicians... such as yourself.

From The Hill:

 

 

A plurality believe that the Occupy Wall Street movement will hurt Democrats and Obama in the 2012 election. Even those whose sympathies lie on the left of center seem unsure about the likely political repercussions. Just half of all liberal likely voters — the group most likely to blame Wall Street for the recession — and fewer than half of all Democrats believe the protests will help their side next year.

 

The split on the question of apportioning blame for the nation’s economic travails corresponds closely with voters’ political ideologies: More than 7 in 10 conservatives blamed Washington for the recession, while more than 5 in 10 liberals blamed Wall Street.

 

But self-identified centrists, importantly, appear to be siding with the right on economic issues, with nearly half blaming Washington for the recession.

 

The difference also reflected voters’ views of Obama: Among those who “strongly” or “somewhat” approve of the president, most blamed Wall Street, while those who “strongly” or “somewhat” disapprove of the president blamed Washington.

 

Interestingly, those who described themselves as “not sure” about Obama nonetheless blamed Wall Street over Washington by a more than two-to-one margin, 55 percent to 23 percent.

The poll was based on the responses of 1,000 people and has a +/-3% margin of error. The full poll results are below.

More Dylan Ratigan saying wait a minute to people co-opting the movement.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#44950642

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq-CYRKt5mU

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

 

I don't think we are, at least, not in our analysis of the situation. You claimed the protestors are Marxists and used the phrase "Class Warfare", which suggests you have a particularly skewed viewpoint on the subject. Much like someone claiming that the Tea Party were a bunch of budding Nazis who got together due to fear of a black president is reductive. Criticism is one thing, but don't spew talking points and buzzwords. The Taibbi article more or less warns against the very rhetorical traps you immediately fell into.

 

And were you saying "the proper place for this is the ballot box" when the Tea Party started marching? The ballot box is ONE form of democracy. Peaceful assembly and activism is another, crucial one, and it's something we need more of, frankly. Far too many people have been voting and then sitting on their hands for the last decade or two, when popular pressure can play a much bigger role in getting things done than political machinations (though they can play a big role in that, as well, as the Tea Party demonstrated last year). Obama essentially said this in his victory speech--he encouraged the people to make their desires known so that he could act on it, a message the Tea Party picked up on.

 

We complain about corrupt, feckless, and weak-willed politicians, but the fact is, if there's popular pressure, it steers their behaviour. A politician who wants to be re-elected is going to go where the wind is blowing. It's why Nixon ran on a platform of ending the Vietnam war. If Americans forgot this, it's because we had eight years of the Bush administration, a group who honestly didn't seem to care what the people wanted, but (and call me a cockeyed optimist) most politicians aren't like that. Not because they're good-hearted visionaries but because they want popular support. If the people are demanding the repeal of Glass-Steagall or changes to McCain-Feingold or whatever, the politicians who stand in the way of that are suddenly going to get nervous and rethink their policies. Again, we've gotten used to a certain group trying to push through pro-corporate policies and then spin it after the fact, with a portion of the population eating up the demagoguery with a spoon and everyone else bending over and taking it. If this puts the brakes on this process and starts to provide an alternative narrative, then that alone is a great justification for all this.

 

As for "the correct target"...how is this NOT aimed at Washington? I'm pretty sure most of the OWS protestors know that Wall St. isn't a democracy. And then you complain about how their solution is "more government", when I call it "getting the government to do its fucking job".

Most of the thoughts echoing from individual protestors are skewing toward extreme leftist ideals.  And for you to repeatedly talk of democracy speaks even more to the point of mob rule that these people are interested in.  Taibbi is trying to spin the protests away from this by telling people not to label it.  Of course if you don't label it then it can achieve it's rather un-American goals perhaps a little bit easier.  Shine a light on darkness...

WRT to the Tea Party and the ballot box there was no need to say the "proper place for this" the Tea Party directed its anger at Washington and mobilized to utilize the ballot box and did so effectively.  I have nothing against protesting but I do against banging your head against the wall.  OWS is in the wrong place unless you consider that they specifically want to be where they are not to affect political change for the 99% but to cripple the nation by disrupting it's financial system; Cloward-Piven, etc.  The effect that the OWS movement is having on the ballot box is actually looking, for all intents and purposes, to be the opposite of what they want achieved.  They have suckered Obama into backing them up which has only begun to elicit reduced donations from Wall St who effectively put him in office to begin with and which will probably be an albatross around his neck in 2012.

As to politicians listening to their constituencies under pressure I don't agree.  I believe the system, as rightfully objected to by OWS, is locked into a lip-service routine that only makes it appear they are heeding the call of the masses.  I believe, as the Tea Party has and hopefully will demonstrate again, that the only way to make the changes that both the TP and OWS want is to throw the bums out and get new bums that will begin to rectify a lot of this shit.  Term limits would go a long way towards ending political dynasty and K Street influence I'd wager.

Getting the government to do its job?  What job is that?  Protecting you cradle to grave from stupid decisions?  Buying a $300K house when you reasonably couldn't afford more than a $125K house?  Wall St, right or wrong, played a system that was set up by the government and the government needs to change the fact that it backs up all these mortgages whether they fail or not.  The government shouldn't be in the business of buying your house because you made a stupid decision to overextend your budget.  The culture of debt in this country needs to change as well but then that would take an educational system that isn't invested in keeping a "just-dumb-enough-to-not-riot" population in check.

There are so many changes that need to occur but some of the ridiculous thoughts emanating from these protests are not what this country needs unless you simply want to see this country fail.  And in many instances I believe that a good many of them do.

And, YT, you are so delusionally leftist I don't know why I bother.  You carefully couch your words to not bring up Citizens United but I bet you haven't the slightest idea, or you conveniently overlook it, that since that decision just as much money pumped into the system from Unions who benefited just as much from CU as your dreaded corporations.  The fact of the matter is that "corporations" that benefit the most from CU are the small business groups that band together to form larger voices to help offset some of the bigger money influences.

I love that Tzu has become an activist for widespread institutional change right this second when the Democrats just happen to be in power.

Bullshit.  I've been a Ron Paul-type Libertarian since I have been able to vote.  I would have identified as Southern Democrat prior to that, that is to say socially liberal, fiscally conservative.

*EDIT*  Even further back in 8th grade I was a staunch supporter of Dukakis.

And yet strangely I doubt you were this vocal about you displeasure for government during the eight years the right were in power. I'd go back and check your posts, but I'm too busy not washing and hoping America fails.

Bullshit yet again, Merriweather. 

I never cottoned to Bush's domestic spending yet I did agree with most of his foreign policy.  If I recall correctly I don't think I voted for Bush either time and in one election year even abstained from the presidential election because the Libertarian candidate was even too much of a whacko for me.  But you keep right on generalizing me.  For what must be the fourth time on this page alone I will say yet again that I agree with OWS in that change needs to occur yet I don't believe they are shouting at the right people nor do I like the direction they would like to take the country if they got that change.

I will keep right on generalising you, thanks. Given that you only ever seem to get worked up when the dreaded Left get organised I have no qualms questioning your intellectual honesty, and the fact that you view OWS as an Un-American threat whilst in the same breath promote the Tea Party as a worthy tool for change suggests to me that I'm right to do so.

Keep skipping over the part where I said OWS can protest all they want, they just ought to change their focus.  But since they most likely aren't interested in change but in crippling the financial engine of this economy then that will never happen.  I'll just go back to ignoring you like I had successfully done for several months.

This is where you become a condescending twat again. You seriously believe that these people want to cripple the economy. Hey, what if they do want to do that as a legitimate form of protest? Could you possibly be saying that Wall Street should be considered.....Too Big To Fail? How UnAmerican!

And the Tea Party, that was concise political activism, right? I mean, just to be clear here.

After witnessing an incident of police brutality, a Marine, supposedly fresh from 2 tours in Iraq , steps up & tells the cops what's what:

I have my doubts whether the guy is actually a Marine or not because they wouldn't wear an unbuttoned shirt like he does. Still, it's interesting video.

Was it this guy?